The Resurrection File (50 page)

“The evidence will show that Dr. Reichstad mysteriously turned up in possession of 7QA immediately following the deaths of Dr. Hunter and Mr. Azid, both of whom previously had had possession of 7QA,” Will stated. “Therefore, Angus MacCameron told the truth when he said that Reichstad was somehow ‘connected' to their deaths.”

Will continued. “Of course all of us—myself included—fear and distrust the forthright tellers of truth. We shrink back from those who dare to tell us
all
of the truth, because it may strike too close—it may mirror to us a sight we do not wish to see. So if you wish to throw stones at the prophet of truth—then have at my client. He is right here. And he makes an easy target. Or, you can do something else. You can realize your extraordinary opportunity to do a great and noble thing. You can do something quite rare in this unfair world. You can shed the light. You can do justice. You can let your verdict speak the truth.”

The instant that Will ended his opening statement, attorney Sherman leaped to his feet and asked for a “side-bar” conference with the judge. Judge Kaye looked at his watch, and decided to release the jury for the day.

After the last jury member filed out of the courtroom, the judge entertained Sherman's argument.

“Mr. Chambers seems to have confused an opening statement—which is only to include a summary of the evidence that will be presented—with closing argument,” Sherman snarled. “His so-called ‘opening statement' was replete with argument, Your Honor. I move that his entire opening statement be stricken, and that the jury be admonished to disregard every word of his opening.”

Judge Kaye turned to Will for his response.

“Your Honor, if Mr. Sherman had an objection, he should have raised it
during
the opening statement, at the exact moment when it occurred. Instead, Mr. Sherman hedged his bets and waited until I finished my entire opening statement to lodge his objection. By waiting, he waived his objection.”

J-Fox Sherman jumped to his feet to respond, but the judge motioned to him to sit down.

“I don't need to hear any more. This isn't rocket science. Mr. Chambers' opening clearly had some improper argument, although I think it was somewhat responsive to some of the improper argument
you
, Mr. Sherman, included in
your
opening. But regardless, Mr. Sherman, you waited too long
to object. Your objection and motion are denied. Gentlemen, I will see you tomorrow morning.”

Sherman, unruffled, gave Will a confident smile as both sides packed up for the day. His motion had simply been a minor skirmish. Tomorrow, the ground war at Omaha Beach would begin.

60

T
HE FOLLOWING MORNING
, W
ILL PULLED INTO
the courthouse, tired but confident. He had worked on the case until three
A.M
., poring over his cross-examination notes, and reviewing the points made by Sherman in his opening statement. Much like a military conflict, a trial takes on a fluid, ever-changing topography. Despite exacting preparation, and voluminous discovery, and disclosure of facts by both sides, the real face of the battle never becomes evident until the trial itself. Will Chambers knew that the visage of a case—its character and essence—only becomes clear when the background and personality of the jury is known, and the opening strategy of the opponent is disclosed. With that information now in hand, Will had begun his usual exhausting routine of resurveying the prospective battleground of the case, all over again, in preparation for each day.

At the start of the second day, Sherman's first witness was Dr. Kurt Jorgenson, an associate in Reichstad's research center. Jorgenson was an expert in ancient papyrus fragments, especially those of Middle Eastern origin.

Under Sherman's friendly, casual questioning, the scientist gave a lively but highly detailed description of what papyrus was, producing several large diagrams and photographs as he talked.

Jorgenson described papyrus as a plant found in Egypt, parts of Ethiopia, and—notably—in the Jordan River valley in Israel. In ancient times the plant was used to create a form of writing paper; this was done by slicing it into thin layers, and then placing other layers of material crosswise over it. These strips were then moistened, pressed, and stretched out to dry, Finally, the sheets were scraped to a smooth finish with a sharp object, and fashioned into rolls. He then gave a long history of the different uses of papyrus by ancient peoples, including the Egyptians, the Romans, the Greeks, and the first-century Jews in “ancient Palestine,” his nomenclature
for the regions of the Middle East, and particularly that region centering at Jerusalem.

Most juries find such technical testimony—particularly at the very opening of the case—to be dry, dull, and occasionally confusing. In this case, however, Will noticed that every member of the jury was attentive, and some members were even transfixed during Jorgenson's testimony.

Then Jorgenson moved into his involvement in the 7QA analysis. He described how, at Dr. Reichstad's request, he had become part of the team of experts to evaluate the tiny papyrus fragment.

Sherman had anticipated Will Chamber's main theory of defense, and had decided to meet it head on.

“Now, you were aware that the 7QA fragment had an irregular shape?”

“Yes, that was very obvious during my examination.”

“Is that unusual when it comes to fragments of documents two thousand years old?”

“Oh, not at all,” Jorgenson noted confidently. “In fact, almost all such fragments tend to be partially destroyed, frayed, disintegrated, torn, water-stained, you name it and they come that way. Our job is to reconstruct, in a scientifically valid way, what the fragment looked like, and what it said, in its original form. In this case, it was obvious that 7QA was torn along the edges. That was not unique. That happens very often.”

“So the fact that 7QA was ripped or torn—how would that have affected Dr. Reichstad's ability to reach conclusive findings about it?”

“It would have no effect. Let me make a comparison,” Jorgenson offered, with a smile. “When the boy comes in to school and says ‘Teacher, I finished my paper, and it was wonderful and I deserve an A-plus, but I can't show it to you because my dog ate it,' we all view that very suspiciously. But in the study of ancient papyrus writings—sometimes parts of a fragment
really have been eaten by dogs.
Why, I can even tell you stories about ancient fragments that were chewed up by wild hyenas!”

The jury smiled at this, and a few members laughed along with Dr. Jorgenson.

Sherman then had his expert witness recount the process of matching 7QA with 7QB, and Jorgenson described his confidence that they were, originally, part of the same piece of papyrus. Finally the scholar addressed the big issue in the case.

“I believe, unequivocally, that the quality of the 7QA and 7QB fragments are outstanding. Further, that they spell out, in the Koine Greek language, the facts surrounding the burial of a male individual known as Jesus of Nazareth, together with the fact that this particular corpse was not
removed from the tomb—and therefore certainly did not stand up and walk out three days later. Lastly, I firmly believe that this fragment was written around the time of the death of Jesus, and that it was written in the area of Jerusalem by someone who purports to be an eyewitness. It is near-perfect evidence, historically and archaeologically, of the nonresurrection of Jesus.”

“And your conclusions confirm Dr. Reichstad's published conclusions about 7QA?”

“Absolutely.”

“Did you expect some religious/cultural backlash to your 7QA discovery?”

“Of course. But nothing like what Angus MacCameron published. That was just plain shocking.”

“Was Dr. Reichstad guilty of either deception, or scientific malpractice—as MacCameron wrote—regarding his findings on the 7QA fragment?”

“Absolutely not. MacCameron's allegations about Dr. Reichstad were—and are—totally unfounded. And Dr. Reichstad's conclusions about 7QA are absolutely correct.”

Sherman rested his direct examination. He sat down at his counsel table full of smiling legal associates and a radiant client.

Will walked to the podium, introduced himself to the witness with a smile, and then began his cross-examination with a seemingly minor point.

“You said that it is not unusual at all for a fragment to be torn along the edges like the 7QA fragment was. Do you remember that?”

“I'm not sure that is what I actually said.”

“Well,” Will said, “I have it right here in my notes. You said, and I quote, that it ‘happens very often' in the case of ancient fragments. Now, do you want me to have the court reporter read back your testimony?”

“Not necessary,” Jorgenson noted confidently, “I will accept your statement as accurate.”

“So, tell me, how many other ancient papyrus fragments have you examined in your professional experience?”

“Oh my, hundreds—thousands—I suppose.”

“And how many had irregular edges, and showed evidence of having been torn by something?”

“Many. Many. Too many to count.”

“Now you agree with me, that 7QA, when examined microscopically, is shown to have been scored with a hard, metallic, sharp instrument—probably a razor blade or a artist's-type blade—and then torn along the scores?”

“Yes, that would appear to be the case.”

“Scored with the kind of blade that is tempered steel?”

“Probably.”

“The kind of blade that is found only in the twentieth or twenty-first century?”

“Oh, I might argue a little with your dating—but—yes, it was scored with a blade of recent origin.”

“So tell me, Doctor, exactly how many ancient fragments have you rendered
conclusive opinions
upon, when their edges show signs of having been removed from another fragment with the use of a modern knife?”

Sherman was on his feet objecting, but Judge Kaye overruled him.

Jorgenson was deep in thought, and said he had forgotten the question and wanted it re-read.

After the court reporter had finished reading the question, Jorgenson tried to avoid the answer.

“I really don't understand the question,” Jorgenson replied. “It doesn't make any sense.”

“Then let's see what you don't understand,” Will responded firmly. “Do you know what ‘ancient fragments' are?”

“Of course.”

“Do you know what I mean by ‘conclusive opinions'?”

“I suppose.”

“How about my reference to the ‘edges' of a fragment having shown signs of having been ‘removed from another fragment'—any problem understanding that?”

“Well, now you're being a little ridiculous,” Jorgenson responded, feeling the noose starting to tighten.

“Perhaps you were thrown by my use of the unusual phrase ‘modern knife'—do you have a problem understanding what a ‘modern knife' is?”

Jorgenson paused. His smile was gone. There was a mild look of contempt on his face.

“I don't know.”

“Is it a fact that the
only
ancient fragment about which you were willing to render a conclusive opinion regarding its origin and its meaning, when the edges of such a fragment show that it was in fact tampered with and torn apart by someone very recently—the
only
case of such a thing, is the 7QA fragment? Is that correct?”

“I don't know what you mean by ‘tampered with.'”

“Well,” Will continued, “what if an antiquities dealer by the name of Azid in Bethlehem, Israel, takes an ancient fragment, for whatever reason, and uses a modern knife to score it and then tears it into three smaller
pieces, and sells you only one of the pieces. Would you consider that ‘tampered with'?”

“I suppose I would.”

“Would that be a reliable way to conduct your scientific evaluation—to base it on a piece of papyrus that had been tampered with?”

“7QA was
not
tampered with.”

“But it had been removed from the rest of the fragment?”

“Yes.”

“With the use of a modern knife—by someone who had the fragment before Dr. Reichstad did?”

“Yes.”

“You don't call that ‘tampered with'?”

There was a pause.

“I don't know.”

“Let's change gears, Doctor. How important is ‘context' in the matter of evaluating the meaning of an ancient fragment?”

“Define ‘context,'” Jorgenson shot back.

“Well, let's define it the same way you used it last month in the
Journal of Ancient West Asian Archaeology,
where you wrote, and I quote, ‘The physical context of an ancient papyrus fragment is always essential in order to fully understand it.'”

“Yes. I wrote that. And I agree with what I wrote.”