Perfect Victim (39 page)

Finally, Papendick asked: “Did Colleen ever refuse to have sex with you?”

“Yes, in ‘82 and ‘84.”

And did Colleen consent to have sex with him?

“She showed in about every way imaginable that she was willing,” Hooker stated.

Papendick’s direct examination of Cameron Hooker had taken just slightly more than one full day. Now it was the prosecutor’s turn.

Her approach was bitingly sarcastic.

She attacked his story of having been innocently driving when he picked up Colleen, accusing him of carrying the head box for the express purpose of kidnapping someone. “You were out hunting, weren’t you?”

“No, I was not.”

“You took Jan and the baby with you to lure a woman, didn’t you?”

“No.”

“Why did you build the head box?”

“So Jan could scream and yell without everyone in the neighborhood hearing her.”

“Why didn’t you use a gag?”

“They don’t work that well. You ought to try them and see how they work.”

Jaws dropped and chuckles rippled through the courtroom.

Mcguire retorted, “Thank you, but I don’t think I will,” and carried on.

The tone of the crossexamination had been set: Mcguire mocking Hooker’s story, Cameron sticking to his version every step of the way.

“It excites you to see a woman hung, doesn’t it?”

“Yes.”

“Does it cause you to have an erection?”

“Yes, it can.”

“On Friday, you said that when you used your whips, you didn’t hurt Jan or Colleen, just played, is that right?”

“Yes.”

Showing Hooker a photograph of Janice, Mcguire spat out: “Those marks on her back — are those from ‘playing,’ Mr. Hooker?”

“Yes, they are.”

Mcguire attacked his version of Colleen’s first months of captivity. “You had a young, naked woman held captive, and you just held her hand?” she said, her voice dripping incredulity.

She asked where he got his idea for the head box.

He claimed he just made it up.

And the rack? “Did you get the idea from a magazine or a video, Mr. Hooker?”

“No, I did not.”

She asked about Colleen’s second meal, when Hooker hung her up and whipped her for not finishing two egg salad sandwiches.

He denied this, saying, “I didn’t care if she ate.”

She questioned him about the use of the bedpan.

Hooker claimed Colleen only had to use it a few days, then they brought her upstairs to use the bathroom.

Turning again to his fantasy, Mcguire asked if he had discussed it with Jan.

“Yes.”

“Did you discuss it with Elaine Coming?”

“No.”

She asked whether he practiced bondage on Jan while she was pregnant.

He said he’d practiced bondage, but never hung her up.

Here, Mcguire produced several pictures of Janice, seven or eight months pregnant, hung on what Hooker called the “X.”

“She’s standing,” he protested.

Didn’t you strike a deal with Janice, Mcguire asked, that she could get pregnant if you could have a sex slave?

“No,” he said, but his previous cockiness was gone. He seemed quiet and confused.

She harped at him about The Story of O, pointing out the similarities between the treatment of O and his treatment of K.

Then she reviewed some of the evidence with him. Mentioning the photograph of Colleen being hung, she said tauntingly, “You forgot about that, didn’t you?”

Mcguire asked if the head box were insulated with foam.

“Yes.”

“With carpet?”

“Yes.”

Referring to his testimony about opening the head box and finding Colleen sweating, she said, “Isn’t it true she wasn’t going through drug withdrawal, she was going through torture?”

“All I know is what she told me later.”

“That first week when Colleen was chained to the rack, blindfolded, was she petrified?”

“Yes.”

“Terrorized?”

“Possibly.”

“In a state of shock?”

“I don’t know. She shook a lot.”

“Her attitude got better after six months?”

“After she got over being sick, she got friendly.”

“The box opened like a coffin, right?”

“It opened like a freezer.”

“Didn’t you hold a heat lamp close to her pubic area?”

“She was laying on the table and she said she was cold. I held a heat lamp next to her to warm her, then she said it was getting too hot.”

Mcguire turned to the contract. Gesturing to the poster-size picture next to him, she said, “Look at the contract behind you. Where does it say that the slave will be given freedom?”

“It doesn’t.”

“When she signed the contract, it made you happy, didn’t it?”

“Yeah, in some ways it did.”

“She was afraid of you, wasn’t she?”

“I don’t know.”

“She was a good slave, wasn’t she?”

“Yes, she was.”

“But sometimes, she wasn’t good enough, was she?”

“No, she was a good slave.”

Then, showing him a picture of Janice tied and submersed in the bathtub, she asked if that was what he’d done to Colleen.

“Something like that,” he admitted.

“Face down?”

“Yes.”

“You dunked her?”

“Yes.”

“Until she almost drowned?”

“No. When she started blowing out bubbles and she couldn’t hold her breath anymore, I’d pull her up.”

“Was that ‘playing’ too, Mr. Hooker?”

“Yes.”

“On whose part?”

Softly, he answered, “I don’t know.”

“You said Colleen’s attitude went downhill after she signed the contract.”

“Yes.”

“You seem surprised.”

“I didn’t know what to expect.”

“You told Colleen your father was in the Company, didn’t you?”

“No.”

“You told her he had a dungeon under his home?”

“No.”

“You told the same thing to Elaine Coming, didn’t you?”

“No.”

“You whipped Colleen to punish her for breaking dishes, didn’t you?”

“Yes.”

“With what?”

“A cat-o’-nine-tails.”

“Were you playing?”

“No.”

“You were serious?”

“Yes.”

She asked whether he’d burned Colleen with matches. He denied this, maintaining it was Jan.

“Wasn’t that one of your fantasies, Mr. Hooker?” she asked, showing him one of his sketches: a naked woman, handcuffed, being threatened by a flame. “Isn’t that a match?”

“No, it’s a torch.”

Putting the sketch away, she said, “You loved Colleen?”

“Yes.”

“But you didn’t tell her the truth about the Company?”

“No.”

“And you kept her under your bed in a box?”

“Not in 1980.”

“Or you had her sleeping in the back bathroom with a chain around her neck, like a dog?”

“No.”

Turning to the trip to Riverside and its detour to Sacramento, she asked, “Hadn’t you told her on prior occasions that Company headquarters was in Sacramento?”

“Earlier, I may have.”

“And you told her neighbors were with the Company?”

“I told her they were everywhere.”

“And she believed that?”

“Yes.”

“You told her the Company had tapped the phones?”

“No.”

“You had her say goodbye to the Coppas, the Deavers, and your daughters a week before she left.”

“She was leaving.”

Mcguire reviewed Colleen’s return to Red Bluff, the rape on the floor (which Hooker had called “making love”), and her three-year return to the box. Coming to the end of her biting crossexamination, she recounted Colleen’s increased freedom, her job with King’s Lodge, then listed the amounts of Colleen’s paychecks, which Hooker had deposited into his account.

A few jurors studiously took notes. The judge sometimes raised his eyebrows or scowled so deeply it seemed his face was made of rubber. Papendick perched on his chair, seeming irritated.

“Jan moved back in because you promised to get counseling and give up bondage, didn’t she?”

“Yes.”

“And you didn’t give up bondage?”

“No.”

Mcguire suddenly asked: “Jan hung you up once, didn’t she?”

“Twice,” he said.

“It was pretty painful, wasn’t it?”

“Yes.”

“You didn’t enjoy that, did you?”

“No.”

It was a significant, if slightly askew, addition.

“In 1980, Colleen still believed you were a member of the Company?”

“Yes.”

“And in 1984, Colleen still believed you were a member of the Company?”

“Yes.”

With that, Mcguire abruptly rested her crossexamination.

Defense Attorney Papendick focused his redirect examination on his strongest evidence: the many calls placed between Colleen and the Hookers after her departure, and the letters that she wrote.

Papendick went over these item by item, giving times and dates, driving them home, then rested.

Mcguire, on her re-cross-examination, also focused on the calls and letters, though her questions usually revealed more than Hooker’s answers.

“You called Colleen because you were afraid she was going to the police?”

“No.”

“Didn’t Colleen’s cousin call you?”

“Yes, and chewed me up very thoroughly.”

“Did that make you afraid?”

“I don’t believe so.”

“So you called Colleen again to make certain she wouldn’t go to the police?”

“No.”

Her re-cross-examination was brief, and now both counsels had concluded their questions to this witness. But before Cameron Hooker could step down, Judge Knight had a few questions.

He asked about that perplexing trip to Riverside in March of 1981: “On the way to Riverside, did you stop in Sacramento?”

“Yes, I stopped at an adult bookstore.”

“Are there office buildings in that area?”

“Yes, near the capitol.”

“Why was it that you took Colleen to Riverside?”

“Originally, it was to leave her there.”

“Why didn’t you send her?”

“We wanted to spend the night together, but we didn’t ‘cause Colleen got excited about seeing her father, so I took her right there.”

“But the purpose of your trip was to spend the night together, and you never did?”

“No, we never did.”

Out of court — clicking down the hall toward the newspeople in her high heels, so smartly dressed they began to jokingly bet on when she might repeat a suit — Mcguire seemed friendly enough. But in court she changed, and after her lacerating crossexamination of Cameron Hooker, some of the press corps wondered if her sarcastic approach could backfire, whether the jury might think she was “bitchy.”

Attorneys, like salespeople, have to worry about image. A customer often buys a product less on its merits than the salesperson’s personal appeal; and sometimes, more than the strengths or weaknesses of the case, an attorney’s charm can tip the scales toward a defendant’s acquittal or conviction.

The jury is the major imponderable in any trial. Who knows which attorney they prefer, how the evidence affects them, whether inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies strike them as lies or simple errors — indeed, whether they’re paying close enough attention to catch inconsistencies at all? These jurors watched impassively — a few took notes, some chewed gum, and one noisily rattled candy wrappers.

A total of eleven witnesses would testify over five days for the defense. Most of these were relatives. It seemed remarkable that if Colleen Stan were held captive, these people had never perceived the least hint of distress or oddity. They consistently portrayed Colleen as “happy” and “outgoing.” All agreed she was wonderful with the kids. No one could remember ever seeing any bruises or scars on her.

At one point, Papendick stopped the proceedings to read a stipulation into the record. The telephone calls. Followers of the trial may have thought they’d heard everything possible about the calls placed from Colleen’s father’s residence to Cameron and Jan.

They hadn’t.

In a clear voice, the defense attorney read each listing: the date, the time it was placed, the duration of the call, the telephone number. It was an impressive list, covering four months, totalling 29 calls, and taking several minutes to read. When he’d finished, Papendick had surely emphasized these phone records as much as he conceivably could.

More than phone records had been unearthed by Gary Kelley, the private investigator Papendick had retained to assist with this case. But, unknown to the jury (and to Papendick’s intense frustration), most of this had to do with Colleen’s past and was therefore ruled inadmissible, so Kelley spent only a short time on the stand.

Defense Attorney Papendick elicited some of the strongest testimony from Cameron’s immediate family: his mother, father, and brother.

First, Papendick called Cameron’s mother, Lorena Hooker, a nervous, quiet woman, who tentatively took the stand. She answered the defense attorney’s questions with a distinct country twang and the kind of concern only a mother can convey.

Papendick established that Cameron’s parents lived only six or seven miles from his mobile home, then zeroed in on Mrs. Hooker’s knowledge of “Kay…How often did you see her from the time you met her to March of 1981?”

“I saw her a lot of times,” she said, “at their trailer, and she was out at our place quite often.” Cameron and Jan came to their place about every other week, and “Kay” came with them about half the time.

On one occasion, she’d come to their home by herself. The well had gone out, and she’d asked a neighbor to take her and the kids to fetch Cameron, who was helping his dad thresh wheat.

“Did it ever appear to you that ‘Kay’ was a servant?”

“No,” she replied. In fact, when “Kay” came to dinner she didn’t even help with the dishes.

Saving this most damaging bit for last, Papendick asked if Mrs. Hooker remembered a particular conversation with Janice shortly after Cameron’s arrest.

She did. Jan and her father had come over to their trailer and, Mrs. Hooker asserted, “Jan said she knew for a fact that ‘Kay’ wasn’t raped.”

Here it was: the other side. If anyone still needed a reason to distrust Janice Hooker, Papendick had supplied it.