Larger Than Lyfe (21 page)

“Was there anything unusual about the fingerprint evidence that your laboratory examined?” Barry Scheck asked.

“Yes,” Adam Crichton responded.

“And what was that?” Barry Scheck questioned.

“Law enforcement typically uses what is called the ‘dry powder method’ to take fingerprint evidence from items found at a crime scene. Aluminum powder is applied to the surface of the evidence. The evidence is swept with a brush to adhere the powder to the latent fingerprints to actualize them. Then the actualized fingerprint is printed on gelatin paper. Fingerprint evidence is extremely fragile and may have to be examined by several forensic specialists in preparation for a trial. Over time, physical evidence, like fingerprints, breaks down until it is no longer usable. Butyl paraben is
a fingerprint preservative used in the dry powder process that extends the life of actualized prints.”

“And, again,” Barry Scheck questioned, “what was unusual about the fingerprint evidence that you examined?”

“After extensive analysis of the fingerprint evidence provided by the Los Angeles Police Department, it is the finding of BIOTECH Laboratories that the age of the fingerprint evidence, shown in particular by the aging of butyl paraben on the gelatin papers containing the fingerprint evidence, predates the date of the murder of Phinnaeus Bernard III. My estimation is that this fingerprint evidence predates the date of the murder by as much as one to two months.”

Much rustling and movement rose from the courtroom. Judge Bartholomew banged his gavel to regain order.

“Is it your professional belief that the fingerprint evidence provided to your laboratory by LAPD is not evidence taken from the scene of the murder of Phinnaeus Bernard III?” Barry Scheck continued.

“It is my professional opinion that the fingerprint evidence
provided by LAPD and analyzed by my laboratory is NOT evidence taken on March 11, 2005, from the crime scene of the murder of Phinnaeus Bernard III. It would be chronologically impossible.”

“Do you believe that the evidence that your laboratory analyzed is planted evidence?” Barry Scheck asked.

“One logical conclusion for physical evidence whose age substantially predates the date of the crime, from which the evidence was supposed to have been taken, is that this evidence was planted,” Adam Crichton stated.

“Thank you,” Barry Scheck stated. “No further questions.”

“Sir, please provide the jury and prosecution with a brief summary of your background and credentials,” Larry Steinberg stated.

“I possess a Bachelor of Science degree in Psychology from UCLA. I attended the Backster School of Lie Detection in San Diego. I am a certified forensic law enforcement polygraph examiner who is an active member of the American Association of Police Polygraphists. I have testified in criminal cases for both defendants and prosecutors for more than ten years.”

“My client, the defendant, submitted to a polygraph test with you following his arrest for the murder of Phinnaeus Bernard III. Is that correct?”

“That is correct,” the polygraphist responded.

“I am going to keep things as simple as possible so that members of the jury are not bombarded with too much technical information amidst all of the other extensive details that they will be requested to analyze in deliberations.

“Per the results of the polygraph test that you administered to Richard Tresvant,” Larry Steinberg continued, “did Richard Tresvant murder Phinnaeus Bernard III?”

“No,” the polygraphist answered.

“Per the results of the polygraph test, did Richard Tresvant have any knowledge of or was he involved in any way in the murder of Phinnaeus Bernard III?”

“No,” the polygraphist answered.

“No further questions,” Larry Steinberg stated quickly and walked away from the witness stand.

Spectators in the courtroom were now on the edges of their seats. The defense was dropping massive bombshells that would be the continuously running top news story on virtually every Los Angeles television network for the rest of the week.

“Mr. Cooley, are you prepared for cross?” Judge Bartholomew asked the district attorney.

“Absolutely,” Steve Cooley said, hopping up from the prosecution table and approaching the witness stand.

“Sir, you state that the results of the polygraph exam administered to the defendant indicated conclusively that Richard Tresvant did not murder Phinnaeus Bernard III and had no knowledge of Phinnaeus Bernard’s murder. Aren’t there literally thousands of websites on the internet that tell people step-by-step how to fool a lie detector?”

“Objection, Your Honor!” Larry Steinberg snapped. “By California law, polygraph tests are admissible for trial. Questioning the reliability of the polygraph exam is a moot point.”

“I’ll allow the question,” Judge Bartholomew responded.

Larry Steinberg irritably took his seat.

“Please answer the question,” Steve Cooley repeated to the polygraphist. “Aren’t there literally thousands of websites on the internet that provide people with all the information they need to deceive a lie detector?”

“I’m quite certain that there are,” the polygraphist answered, “but I think that the most important factor in the polygraph exam
and the reliability of its results is the professional skill of the polygraphist in analyzing those results.”

“Nevertheless, a determined person, especially a highly sophisticated criminal or sociopath, can and has successfully faked his or her way through passing a polygraph exam. Isn’t that correct?” Steve Cooley asked.

“That is correct, sir,” the polygraphist answered.

“And it is very possible that Richard Lawrence Tresvant, the defendant, faked his way through the polygraph exam that leads you to state conclusively as an expert that he did not murder Phinnaeus Bernard III. Isn’t that correct?”

“That is correct, sir,” the polygraphist answered.

“No further questions,” the prosecutor said.

The last defense witness of the day was probably one of the most highly anticipated witnesses to take the stand in the entire trial.

“Mr. Bumgaarten, you are the son of very prominent attorney and real estate developer Victor Bumgaarten. Is that correct?”

“That is correct,” Walter Bumgaarten smiled, “but, at this rather late point in my life, I’d like to believe that I’ve made a substantial name for myself. I am a rather prominent real estate developer in my family’s business, just as my father is.”

“Absolutely, absolutely,” Larry Steinberg responded with a smile.

There were twitters of laughter around the courtroom at Mr. Bumgaarten’s humor.

Walter Bumgaarten was an affable man in his early sixties. He had sterling good looks that could most likely be attributed to his Swedish/Nordic lineage. He’d been educated at Yale and abroad. He came from a family of “blue bloods.” His family was comprised
of well-known members of society, on both the East and the West Coasts. They were well-bred, well-educated real estate moguls and philanthropists. Richard Tresvant, on the other hand, was a “boy from the ‘hood” who couldn’t for the life of him keep himself from being consistently linked to organized criminal activities and whose sizeable “entrepreneur’s” fortune and its origins were constantly in question. The fact that these two men from such vastly different worlds were such good friends had raised more than a few eyebrows long before Richard Tresvant was charged with first-degre
e murder. Theirs was one of the oddest couplings indeed.

“So, tell me, Mr. Bumgaarten,” Larry Steinberg continued, “how did you and Mr. Tresvant, the defendant, meet?”

“We met at a black-tie political fundraiser several years ago,” Walter Bumgaarten answered. “He’s a brilliant man, brilliant. No formal education beyond high school, but I must say with all frankness that he is a very astute businessman, one of the smartest people I know…certainly smarter than some of my associates possessing family fortunes amassed from oil, degrees from Yale, and a couple of questionably successful runs for the United States Presidency.”

There was more laughter in the courtroom.

“And, despite the substantial age difference, would you say that you and Richard Tresvant are friends?” Larry Steinberg asked.

“Yes, absolutely. Richard Tresvant is a very good friend of mine…despite the substantial age difference,” Walter Bumgaarten replied amiably.

“Have you ever done business with Richard Tresvant?”

“I’m not sure what you mean.”

Larry Steinberg clarified his question. “Have you ever contracted in any formal agreement and/or exchanged monies toward any type of business enterprise?”

“No,” Walter Bumgaarten stated. “I did refer him to the broker that he used to purchase his current residence in Bel Air. We’ve had some serious discussions regarding real estate development, as Mr. Tresvant branches much more seriously into that area. As a matter of fact, we were meeting about a real estate development project on the night that…ahem…that Mr. Phinnaeus Bernard III was killed.”

“Have you ever heard of Mr. Tresvant having any involvement in organized crime?” Larry Steinberg asked.

“Of course,” Walter Bumgaarten answered. “I’ve heard stories that portrayed Richard like the John Gotti of the West Coast. I put no stock in any of it. I rely upon my personal dealings with the man to form any assessments of his character, and I know that he is an upstanding guy. He did not come from a background like mine, but he certainly upholds many of the same core beliefs that I uphold.”

“Do you have any direct knowledge of Richard Tresvant’s involvement in any kind of illegal activity?”

“Absolutely not,” Walter Bumgaarten answered.

“Mr. Bumgaarten, on the evening of March 11, 2005, you stated that you, Richard Tresvant, Richard Tresvant’s attorney, and former Mayor Richard Riordan got together at Mr. Tresvant’s Bel Air home for dinner. Is that correct?”

“Yes. We discussed a potential, major, residential development project in Downtown Los Angeles. It was not a formal meeting. We were simply getting together over dinner to toss some ideas and numbers around. I play golf all the time with Dick Riordan and asked him to join us.”

“So, there was a strong possibility for you to get directly involved in a business deal with Mr. Tresvant?” Larry Steinberg asked.

“With the downtown condo project? Yes…absolutely.”

“And, considering the many stories that you’ve heard about Mr. Tresvant being linked to organized crime and the questionable source of his wealth, you had no misgivings about entering into a business deal with him?”

“None whatsoever,” Walter Bumgaarten responded.

“At approximately what time did you all get together that evening for dinner at Richard Tresvant’s home?”

“I’d say that I made it to the house sometime after five,” Walter Bumgaarten responded. “Dick Riordan didn’t arrive until about seven.”

“Was there anyone else present?” Larry Steinberg asked.

“With the exception of the housekeepers and security, no,” Walter Bumgaarten responded.

“What transpired over the course of the evening? What did you all do?”

“Richard and I chipped a few golf balls on his back lawn. Dick arrived and we had drinks and dinner. Then we had a few more drinks…”

There were more twitters of laughter from the spectators in the courtroom.

“We discussed the downtown condo development project,” Walter Bumgaarten continued. “We tossed around some numbers, and did a bit of networking regarding bankers we each knew who would best be suited to help make this thing happen.”

“When would you say that you and Mr. Riordan wrapped up dinner and your meeting and left Mr. Tresvant’s Bel Air home that evening of March 11, 2005?” Larry Steinberg asked.

“Ten thirty…10:45…,” Walter Bumgaarten answered. “We got quite involved in our discussion. This downtown condo project could be an incredibly lucrative venture with all that’s taking place development-wise around the Staples Center right now.”

“So, Mr. Bumgaarten, considering that the time window for the murder of Phinnaeus Bernard III has been established to have been between 8 and 10 p.m., would you say that it was possible that Richard Tresvant murdered Phinnaeus Bernard III?”