Violence (16 page)

Calcote also got Schauspieler to agree their landscaping duties entailed “working in the dirt” which encompassed toiling throughout the whole side and back exterior portion of the house, and that since they had to use the washroom inside the residence wouldn’t it follow logic that “
all
the defendant’s footwear would leave multiple deposits of soil from the exterior inside the house?”

“Inside the house but not the bathroom.” Schauspieler responded.

“It only requires a yes or no answer.” Calcote sniffed.

“Then
no
, not in the bathroom but
yes
, inside the house.” Schauspieler replied, refusing to be lead.

Calcote chuckled disdainfully. “So the answer is ‘yes’?”

“Yes, more deposits at the point where someone would step into the home…” Schauspieler continued. “…and then decreasing amounts as you walked into the interior which was the case here.”

Calcote bristled and took a deep breath before challenging Schauspieler again from another angle on the same point.

“Isn’t it possible…” Calcote persisted. “…that since these men were all working together they could have picked up particles from similar soil or deposits
from Derek Lysander’s shoes
and also tracked them into the bathroom, leading to a build-up of this soil?”

“But only…” Schauspieler reminded Calcote. “…the defendant Derek Lysander’s latent prints and hair strands were found in this bathroom.”

“But isn’t it possible…” Calcote was really steaming now. “…the other two defendants could have walked in there, urinated, and left without flushing or using any other portion of the facilities and still not left behind any hair or latent prints?”

“Yes…” Schauspieler conceded. “…it was ‘possible’.”

“So it is
possible
…” Calcote waved a hand in victory. “…that all of the defendants tracked in this unique particular soil?”

“It didn’t rain that day…” Schauspieler detailed. “…so that would make it more unlikely because clumping-”

“But they water extensively…” Calcote interrupted. “…in performing their landscaping duties, do they not?”

“Yes, that would probably be true.” Schauspieler haltingly agreed.

“Not ‘probably’, you have to water grass and shrubs and whatnot. So the answer is
yes
…” Calcote cemented his point. “…it is possible all the defendants could have tracked this unique soil into the home?”

“Yes.” Schauspieler granted.

“And isn’t it is also possible…” Calcote sprang into this opening. “…that if Derek Lysander had dropped the cord to the music player in the soil around this portion of the exterior of the house as he was looking for an outlet, then when he was using the bathroom and opened or closed the bathroom window for privacy purposes or to let air in, he could have dropped these unique soil particles from his hands, and those soil particles could account for the deposits you mentioned that were on the base of the window frame?”

“It would be…” And it took Schauspieler a second to make the concession because this scenario was only infinitesimally attainable. “…remotely possible.”

“But ’possible’, thank you!” Calcote finished his questioning. “That’s all!”

Schauspieler was excused for the day.

Calcote let the taunt and qualifying modifier ‘remotely’ go without dispute because if he asked Schauspieler to remove it, Schauspieler might have instead expounded on it, and thrown out a rejoinder like
‘the odds are a thousand to one!’
(Really a million to one).

Dr. Khadeeja Azzam, a forensic pathologist from the Cook County Medical Examiner’s Office, was the last witness for the day. She exhaustively went through the process of designating the death certifications for Tristan and Karen.

There are three indications in a certification: “cause,” “mechanism,” and “manner of death.”

The cause is the instrument: “In this case, Karen Emberlynn Anderson perished from a single shot from a .38 Colt super semi-automatic pistol.” Dr. Azzam stated.

The mechanism is the pathological agent which produced the death: “In this case, Karen Emberlynn Anderson suffered a fatal exsanguinating hemorrhage from a perforating gunshot wound” and “destruction of the cranium from the mandible through the orbital plates to the calvarium leaving a partial evacuation of the brain.” In other words, half of Karen’s head was blown away and she bled out.

The manner of death, which is the way the death was caused, natural versus violent, is either classified as natural, accidental, suicide, homicide or undetermined: “In this case, after all facts and tests were considered I indicated Karen Emberlynn Anderson’s death to be a ‘homicide’.” Dr. Azzam deduced.

Al Ward, ever present in the gallery, always found it disconcerting when the full name of someone was uttered in a public setting. This was probably because he heard it mostly at the issuing of a divorce decree or a death pronouncement. Usually you never hear someone’s name in total unless that person is being Christened, graduating from something, getting married, getting divorced, being sworn into office, placed under oath, or is deceased. And they say dying is a natural part of life, but that’s really only true if you pass away in your sleep at a ripe old age leaving a legacy of love and loved ones. And divorce, well, that’s no fun either. Ward had too much experience in both of these negative endings.

“In the case of Tristan Leighton Anderson…” Dr. Azzam explained to the jury. “…the proximate cause of death for the pediatric decedent (‘pediatric’ because she was under 18) was determined to be blunt force craniul trauma” with the immediate cause of death certified as “due to drowning.”

The mechanism of death for Tristan was “asphyxia” and “cerebral hypoxia coupled with internal organ failure” while “the manner of death” was listed as a “homicide.”

Calcote immediately raised objections for both “homicide” certifications saying they were “unduly suggestive” and asked for clarifications.

Judge Marr knew what he was after and let the jury know “a homicide death certification is not meant to imply criminality or intent” because “those conclusions are always left to the courts.”

The defense obviously would have liked both deaths to have been considered equivocal deaths, in other words, left open to interpretation, and finally labeled as accidental, suicide or at least undetermined. Every homicide, or any death for that matter, is considered equivocal until all the facts and test results are factored into making the decision for the final death certification. Calcote didn’t like that not even the words “probable” or “possible” were used in Dr. Azzam’s “homicide” findings. Calcote would try to make up for this on cross-examination.

As far as collecting on the life insurance money for Karen, the official manner of death was inconsequential, even if it were ruled or had been changed to a suicide, because her death occurred well after the customary 2-year contestability exclusionary waiting period which began at the inception of her policy.

It was Peter Guishet (pronounced gu-shay), another prosecutor from the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office, who stepped up for the first time and performed the direct questioning of Dr. Azzam. The reason? He was good at this. It was in his wheelhouse and being a trial veteran of 25 years he had, from the serious stare he casted over his bifocals attached to neck straps to that shuffling way he walked, the kind, respectful bearing of a longtime mortician. It
was
natural. His father and grandfather were real undertaker’s from central Illinois who ran a farmland funeral home for four decades. He also knew when to stop a medical examiner or coroner and have them explain things in layman’s terms, if need be, because autopsies, if they didn’t repel, had a tendency, with their overabundance of medical and Latin terms, to overburden and give juries a collective stress headache.

Dr. Azzam, during her testimony, detailed how she commenced her responsibilities by doing “an external examination of what was a well-developed, well-nourished Caucasian female understood to be aged 37. The body weighed 132 pounds, and measured 68 inches from crown to sole…”

When Dr. Azzam ultimately finished her summary of findings, after being stopped numerous times by Mr. Guishet to clarify conclusions, there were quite a few discoveries which stood out and undermined the defense explanation of events from that horrific May evening. This was true regarding the passing of Karen as well as for Tristan’s death.

First, Guishet had her explain how the routine toxicology studies were ordered but indicated nothing out of the ordinary, no alcohol (again, except for what was naturally occurring) and no drugs of any kind were found in Karen’s system (or in Tristan’s for that matter).

Second, the decedent “Karen Anderson” had “multiple injuries to upper extremities that were compatible with defensive wounds.” There were a significant amount of “fresh bruises” and “abrasions” on both “anterior forearms” with “the avulsed dermis inferiorly signifying that the direction is from distal to proximal” suggesting the decedent was protectively moving her arms in a “flailing motion.”

Thirdly, there were similar injuries to Karen’s “right lower leg” indicating she was likely kicking at her assailant.

Fourthly, if someone, in this case Karen, were going to commit suicide by blowing her brains out, normally they would want “to get the job done right.” There would usually be evidence of a “hard-contact wound” which occurs when someone jams the muzzle of a weapon against their skin causing the area at the entrance of the wound to be roasted and blackened by the hot combustion gases which are emitted when one discharges a weapon. That was not what occurred here. Karen showed signs of a “close-contact gunshot wound,” probably where the “muzzle was about an inch from the skin’s surface,” leaving a cleaner entry wound as well as allowing enough room for some gunpowder to be deposited on her body around where the bullet entered under her chin.

Asked during her testimony by Mr. Guishet why this was significant, and also requested to put things in layman’s terms, Dr. Azzam elucidated. “Usually when someone is going to commit suicide with a firearm they will place the weapon against their left or right temple or insert the muzzle of the weapon into their mouths. It is unusual to position the weapon under your chin, especially at an angle that isn’t aiming right for the brain.“

Dr. Azzam asked and was granted permission by Judge Marr to step out of the witness stand to demonstrate for the jury.

“Usually, you have the gun right there.” Dr. Azzam continued, using her index finger to indicate the gun barrel of the .38, pressing the tip of her finger into the skin under her chin. “A person senses if they don’t do it correctly it’s going to be a lot more messy and it could not work, too. In other words, it might take some time to die. Most times, when people get to that point, they want
to get the job done right
.”

Mr. Guishet, being about 6 inches taller and 70 pounds heavier than Dr. Azzam, which is about the same difference in height and weight between Derek and Karen (although Azzam is 5’3” and Guishet is 5’9”), stepped up beside the petite medical examiner to highlight their disparity in size.

“What would normally happen if someone my size was trying to stop someone your size from shooting themselves?” Guishet queried.

Calcote immediately raised an objection, saying that Guishet was, “asking the witness to speculate.” But Calcote was summarily overruled by Judge Marr.

Dr. Azzam continued, explaining, “Under that body size differential, it has been my experience that if the larger individual could not actually wrest the weapon away quickly they would at least succeed in altering the path of the bullet significantly. What occurred here, with the method and the spacing, and the fact that there was some evidence of bruising on the victim’s hands and the distal radius’, which are the wrists, it suggests to me that there was a struggle. The decedent was trying to pull away from an assailant attempting to position a gun under her chin and against her will.”

Guishet repeated back “against her will” making sure the jury absorbed this important point.

Lastly, regarding the irregular and incriminating aspects of Karen’s autopsy results, the fifth and most damningly important finding was the evidence that a sexual assault had occurred. Everything else flowed from that. It was the key to all the allegations, especially the home invasion and felony murder charges. While all three are Class X felonies you needed the sexual assault to be proven first.

Home invasion is basically defined as an individual (who is not a peace officer) entering someone’s home without authority knowing that one or more persons are present and intentionally causing any injury to any person or persons within such dwelling place. The most serious aspect of home invasion is the
unauthorized entry
, and even though Derek and his cohorts say they were “invited back” the court should apply at the very least the “limited authority doctrine” which asserts that even when someone comes to a private residence and is “invited in” by the occupant, the “authorization to enter is limited and criminal actions exceed this limited authority.” That is why the rape evidence is critical. Home invasion by itself carries a minimum of 6 years to a 30 year sentence, and with aggravating factors could lead to enhanced extended term sentencing of the defendants adding 15, 20 or more years to their prison terms. In their case, since the discharge of a firearm caused great bodily harm or death to someone within the dwelling, they could even receive mandatory life sentences.

Dr. Azzam indicated there were “no prior traumas or injuries present on the decedent,” that everything she was detailing in her report appeared to “pre-mortem” or “fresh.” She testified that there was “diffuse vaginal edema consistent with aspects of sexual assault” as well as “hemorrhagic discoloration of the clitoral hood, labia majora and anterior surface of the labia minora.”

She also went over the serology results which indeed showed that Derek had ejaculated inside Karen and Gabriel had left “a slight amount of pre-ejaculate fluid.”