The Perfect Alibi (Robin Lockwood #2)(51)

“How so?”

“Norcross Pharmaceuticals manufactures an anticholesterol drug Voss was taking when he had a stroke. It hasn’t been on the market long. Voss had a preexisting heart condition, but the claim is that the drug caused the stroke. There have been a few other cardiac problems and even one death by users of the drug, but Norcross’s position is that the medical problems have been a coincidence and not the result of using their product.”

“I understand that Mr. Nylander went to New York to try to settle the case.”

Norquist nodded. “Mr. Harrison told him that a settlement might be possible. Frank thought that Norcross didn’t want to litigate because of the bad publicity.”

“Did they resolve the case?”

“I don’t know. Mr. Nylander was killed shortly after he returned from New York. The only person who could have talked to him after he got back is Doug, and he said that he doesn’t remember anything that happened on the evening Frank was murdered.”

“Was the drug responsible for your client’s stroke?” Robin asked.

“It’s not clear. Our expert says yes, but there are other experts we talked to who told us they couldn’t say for sure. In court, it would be a battle of the experts, and no one knows how that would come out. That’s why Frank thought the case would settle, and the settlement would have been big. We’re talking several million dollars. Our expert’s opinion was in the minority, so Frank was playing poker with Harrison and Norcross, counting on them to want to avoid publicity enough to settle, even when the product might be okay.”

“Can you think of any reason connected to this case that could account for Mr. Harrison or Mr. Nylander being murdered?”

“Norcross is relatively new, and this is their first big product. The company would take a big hit if a jury found that they were manufacturing a killer drug.”

“Are you saying that you think Norcross may have been involved in a murder?” Robin asked.

“No, no. You just asked if I could think of a theory. Look, do you need me here? I’ve got a lot to do in our other cases, especially now that Frank and Doug…”

“I understand. I’ll call you if I need you. And hang in there. I’ve just started representing Doug, but my gut tells me he’s innocent. Hopefully, I can get him back to work soon.”

Robin spent an hour going through the files Norquist had provided, but she didn’t see anything that would help Doug. Still, on the way back to her office, Robin couldn’t help thinking about her conversation with Detective Jacobs. He’d said that Harrison and Nylander being murdered so close together had raised a red flag, and Robin remembered responding that sometimes a coincidence was just a coincidence.

Voss, Nylander, and Harrison had all died violently within a short time, and Leonard Voss’s death had ended his suit and may have saved Norcross Pharmaceuticals millions. She could see why the company would want Voss and Nylander dead, but Tyler Harrison was Norcross’s attorney. Why would the company want to kill him? Robin couldn’t come up with a single theory that would connect all three murders. By the time she arrived at her office, she decided that it didn’t matter who killed Voss and Harrison, since she couldn’t think of any theory that would help Douglas Armstrong.





CHAPTER FORTY-ONE


Robin had just returned from her meeting with Ken Norquist when Jeff walked into her office. She smiled.

“You interested in Thai, tonight? I’m treating,” Jeff asked, as he dropped into a seat across from Robin.

“Sounds good”

“I’ve got interesting news on that DNA thing,” Jeff continued.

“What did you find out?”

“You know that expert witnesses in an area of science are permitted to give opinion evidence only when their testimony is based on a scientific principle or discovery that has passed the experimental stage.”

“Sure. The side that wants the jury to hear the evidence has to convince the judge that the science behind the evidence has been generally accepted as valid in the relevant scientific community.”

Jeff nodded. “That’s so junk science, like astrology, can’t be used in court. Now, Oregon courts have long held that it’s okay to admit DNA evidence in a trial when it’s obtained in a lab, but no Oregon court has ruled on the admissibility of DNA evidence that uses mathematical probability to match a sample to a defendant.”

“Do you think we’ve got a chance to knock out Rex’s DNA match?”

“Probably not. Unfortunately for Armstrong, other courts have let a jury hear it.”

“Are we dead?”

“There is an argument you can make. I just don’t know if it will win.”

“Explain it to me.”

“There are courts in several states that have accepted conclusions based on analysis by probabilistic genotyping software. These courts have held that forensic biologists accept the method’s validity. You can argue that this is not the scientific community in which the decision should be made. The method uses software, so the relevant community should be the computer science community, because it is inappropriate for forensic biologists with no or little training in software development or engineering to decide if the software works.”

“Have you found an expert who can make our case for us in a hearing?”