Cracks in the Sidewalk(53)

“They would likely experience short-term anguish. Then, best-case scenario, the dog’s leg would be amputated and the child would be quite happy with their three-legged dog. Worst-case scenario, the dog would die and be buried in the back yard. The child would still suffer only short-term anguish because he saw the dog die and be buried, so while he is saddened by the loss he does not have a sense of abandonment.”

It went on that way for a full twenty minutes. Finally with a rather impatient huff, Noreen announced she had no more questions.

~

After Noreen sat, Dudley took the floor again. He introduced three exhibits—the first, a certified copy of the medical report from Doctor Sorenson, the second, a copy of psychologist Peter Belleau’s opinion of Elizabeth’s mental stability based on his telephone conversation with her.

“As you will note, Your Honor,” Dudley said, “Doctor Belleau agrees with Doctor Sorenson that visitation time with her three children would be most beneficial for Elizabeth Caruthers.”

The third exhibit was simply a list of the jewelry and other items that Elizabeth had requested. At the top of the list was Liz’s two-karat diamond engagement ring. No one actually anticipated that it would be returned, but Dudley had put it on the list as something for negotiation.





The Defense


Noreen had three people listed as witnesses. The first was Doctor Hans Wolfburger, a man with a good part of his face hidden behind a bristly red beard. Doctor Wolfburger spoke with a thick accent, replacing W sounds with Vs and Ss with Zs. When asked what the potential effect of reuniting the Caruthers children with their dying mother might be, Doctor Wolfburger answered, “You vill zee da younzeers have much zrezz und turmoil.”

“Excuse me,” the court stenographer said. “Could the witness please repeat that?”

Doctor Wolfburger repeated his answer.

“Come again?” the stenographer said.

After she asked a third time, Judge Brill leaned forward and whispered, “I believe he said that we will see the youngsters have much stress and turmoil.”

“Oh,” the stenographer answered, turning back to her machine.

It continued that way throughout much of Doctor Wolfburger’s testimony, but Noreen established that in a qualitative study, children separated from one or both of their parents then reunited and removed for a second time frequently suffered a rejection complex. The testimony took several go-rounds with Judge Brill often serving as interpreter.

Doctor Wolfburger, apparently as frustrated as the court stenographer, finally asked, “Vhat zeems to be zee problem?”

Taking into account the stenographer’s problem deciphering Doctor Wolfburger’s words, Dudley Grimm structured most of his cross examination with questions that could be answered yes or no.

“A qualitative study,” Dudley asked. “Isn’t that one which draws in-depth information from a relatively small number of participants?”

“Ya.” Doctor Wolfburger nodded.

“The number of participants in your study, was it less than one hundred?”

“Ya.” Doctor Wolfburger nodded again.

“Under fifty?”

Another nod.

“Between thirty and fifty?”

“Nein.”

“Between twenty and thirty?”

“Ya.” The doctor gave another nod.

“And was this study conducted within the past ten years?” Dudley asked.

“Nein.” The doctor shook his head and waved a hand indicating further back.

“So the study was conducted over ten years ago, right?”

The doctor nodded.

“And in that study,” Dudley asked, “can you recall what number of those children separated from a parent or parents for the second time lost the parent to death as opposed to divorce?”

Doctor Wolfburger scratched at his beard for several moments, then he held up two fingers.

“Only two of the twenty or thirty children in the study lost their parent to death?”

“Ya.”

“So, your assumption that the Caruthers children will be psychologically harmed by restoring their relationship with their dying mother is actually based on a decade-old analysis of two children, correct?”

Doctor Wolfburger sat there staring straight ahead.

“Please answer,” Dudley said.

“Dat conclusion leaze much confusion.”

“Not to me,” Dudley answered. Before Noreen could jump up and object, he said, “I have no more questions.”

~

Noreen’s second witness, oncologist Doctor Frank Bowden, testified that patients with a malignant brain tumor often suffer severe headaches, memory lapses, or complete blackouts.

“By complete blackout,” Noreen asked smugly, “do you mean that the patient passes out and loses consciousness?”

“Yes,” Doctor Bowden answered. “Although these blackouts sometimes last only a few minutes, they can also extend into the comatose or quasi-comatose state, which frequently precedes the patient’s death.”

When Noreen returned to the defense table, Dudley said any cross would be unnecessary because they had already stipulated that there was a possibility such a thing could happen.

Judge Brill smiled, dismissed the doctor, and moved on to Noreen’s third and last witness: Jeffrey T. Caruthers. He wore a dark blue suit, a crisp white shirt, and a gray tie with narrow bands of red on it. A look of sadness clouded his eyes and the corners of his mouth tugged down just far enough.