A Hole In One by Paul Weininger (10 best books of all time txt) 📕

“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Mr. Straub’s motives for killing Rabbi Bloom have now been clearly established. The prosecution would now like to go point by point through the evidence that implicates him as the perpetrator of this crime.”

“Your Honor,” D.A Stanford said turning to the judge, “the prosecution requests a few minutes to set up equipment for a visual presentation of the evidence against the defendant.”

“Granted,” said the judge.

While the prosecution team shuffled around setting up AV equipment, the D.A. continued her closing summary. “So now that we have clearly established Mr. Straub’s motive, let’s review the evidence that he committed this heinous crime. The prosecution has set up a visual presentation to show the highlights of this evidence. Most of this evidence is circumstantial; so before we get into it, let me take a few moments to explain what circumstantial evidence means. Many people seem to think it means coincidental and inadmissible, but this is a mistaken assumption.”

“Circumstantial evidence, as defined by the courts, is given the same credence as witnesses that may have actually seen the crime take place. When the preponderance of circumstantial evidence allows for no other interpretation, as is the case here, it must result in a determination of guilt. Let’s look at the highlights of the evidence that Mr. Straub committed this crime.” The D.A. signaled her team to start the Power Point presentation. “Remember, the prosecution doesn’t have to prove that Straub took the shot, just convince you, the jury, that the preponderance of evidence shows Richard Straub is guilty of this murder beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The D.A. had prepared her review by having the summarized key points projected onto a pull-down screen in the courtroom, which she would then comment on, one by one, after reading each heading.

The victim and the perpetrator were twins.“According to Mr. Straub and Lorraine Anderson, the Rabbi’s aunt, both knew of an identical twin brother, but the Rabbi himself did not. According to the testimony of Joe Rung, Straub’s boss, Straub showed him a picture of the Rabbi in the paper and asked him to confirm their likeness, which he did. This was apparently when Mr. Straub began hatching his plan to take the Rabbi’s place.”

Witnesses placed Mr. Straub at the scene of the crime. “The Rabbi’s neighbors, Frank and Colleen Weissman, identified Straub, believing him to be the Rabbi, as the person hauling a large bundle into the Rabbi’s backyard, obviously containing the body, and placing it on a pile of leaves and setting it on fire. The Weissmans also noticed that the Rabbi’s body language was distinctly different. In addition, the green pickup truck that Straub drove for work was seen in the vicinity of two of the shootings.”

DNA analysis showed the victim and the perpetrator were extremely similar. “Dr. Collier, the forensics expert, found some minor differences in the DNA results of the brothers, but verified that the victim and Mr. Straub were almost certainly identical twins.”

Dental analysis further confirmed the victim’s identity.“According to Dr. Stern, comparison with his x-ray records proved teeth found in the jaw of the burned cadaver’s skull most closely matched Rabbi Bloom’s teeth. Even the defense’s own expert witness was unable to refute this.”

Fingerprints of the victim and Mr. Straub were similar but clearly different.“Our forensics team identified niney-eight percent of the fingerprints in the house as having belonged to the Rabbi, and two percent of the others belonged to Richard Straub and not any other individual, thus proving that Mr. Straub had spent time in the house.”

The defendant carefully studied Rabbi Bloom’s appearance and mannerisms.“Straub’s cell phone had numerous pictures, videos, and audio recordings of Rabbi Bloom during his services at the synagogue. This clearly indicated planning on Straub’s part.”

The defendant took Hebrew lessons so he could pose as the Rabbi. “We heard from retired Rabbi Isaac who testified that he gave Straub Hebrew lessons months before the murder, suggesting a long-range plan to take the Rabbi Bloom’s place.”

Mistakes made by Mr. Straub while posing as the Rabbi. “You heard Dr. Stern’s testimony that Straub, while acting as the Rabbi, made numerous mistakes during ceremonies at the synagogue regarding the wording of prayers in Hebrew, mistakes that Rabbi Bloom would never have made. He also gave incorrect answers as to how long he had been Dr. Stern’s friend and served as Rabbi to the Sedona congregation.”

The birthmark that Mr. Straub has but the Rabbi didn’t.“Dr. Stern also noticed this apparent difference and pointed it out to the detectives. The defendant had to show his birthmark in court; yet the real Rabbi did not have such a mark, as proven by videos of his past Sabbath ceremonies and the testimony of his aunt.”

The defendant attended a gun show.“You, the jurors, were shown videotaped evidence that Straub entered a local gun show and exited with a carefully wrapped package. Mr. Straub denied having attended such a show, which was a lie, so any claim that the package did not contain a gun—in other words the murder weapon—is probably a lie, too.”

The defendant admitted to desecrating the victim’s body.“Finally, ladies and gentlemen, Straub has admitted to desecrating and burning the Rabbi’s body, which is a felony, because he was afraid he would be accused of murder. He allegedly found the Rabbi’s body lying in the front door of his house but did not report it to the police. Instead, he burned it in the backyard so that the police wouldn’t suspect him of murder. But if he didn’t kill his twin, why hide anything? What he tried to do was eliminate the evidence of his crime!”

“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury,” she concluded, “the great preponderance of the evidence presented to you cannot possibly lead to any other conclusion than Richard Straub is guilty of cold-blooded, first-degree murder in the case of Rabbi Bloom. Your Honor, the prosecution rests.”

Thirty-Seven

Defense attorney Jaxson approached the jury and began his closing arguments:

“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Richard Straub