The Murder of Jeffrey Dryden: The Grim Truth Surrounding Male Domestic Abuse (12 page)

Cross Examination of
Detective Pols

On cross the Defense made several run
on questions that were not really questions but more like
statements to a question.

The Defense stressed on a few points as
if he was trying to build a case of cruel or unusual punishment
while Chiquita was kept in holding. To try to show this, the
Defense on several occasions ask Pols if Fizer was “forced” to stay
in the same bloodied clothing during the entire time she was kept
in holding. He asked if she had been offered any pop, water, or use
of the rest room. Pols stated that the officers that oversaw her
during that time treated her fairly and correctly.

The Defense then asked if, during the
initial interview, when Jeff came into the bedroom and touched
Fizer’s private area, (when the private area came up they were
referring with their hands toward the hip area). If the touch was
consensual by Fizer whom at the time previously stated she was
pretending to be asleep, (it is presumed that this question was
asked by the Defense to try leaving open the act of self-defense or
at the very least place the victim in a poor light). Pols stated
that it was presumed that the touch was non-consensual.

The Defense then asked Pols about the
location of the knife after the stabbing but Pols stated that Fizer
stated the she was unsure where the knife was after the stabbing.
That said however, Pols stated, “that during the first interview
with Fizer, she continued to state that she did not have possession
of the knife during or after the struggle (which is the opposite of
what her statement said over the phone during the 911
call).”

The Defense tried on several occasions
during cross to get Detective Pols to state that Fizer had the
knife at some point during the struggle but each time the Detective
told the Defense that according to Fizer’s statement she never had
the knife in her possession before, during, or after the
stabbing.

The purpose for the Defense trying to
get Pols to state that Fizer had the knife at some point would have
been detrimental to the statements already made by Fizer. If the
detective had stated at any time in his testimony that she had the
knife then the idea of Fizer lying to the detective would not be as
destructive towards her defense as it was, as if you’re caught in a
lie once, even before being charged, what does that say about your
character as a whole?

Prosecution witness
3

Medical Examiner (hereinafter ME) 28
years of experience as a forensic Pathologist PHD, Spectrum health,
also the Kent County head medical examiner.

After being sworn in, the Prosecution
asked the ME about the process they use in conducting information
about what was the ultimate cause of death to the body during the
course of the autopsy. In response the ME stated, “the way we do
things is through certain steps to see if we can ascertain what
happened to the victim at what time, to what degree… kind of like a
story slowly unfolding through each layer.” He said before
continuing, “We use three steps in determining the Cause of
Death.

The first step we use is one that
includes the visual history and scene, such as where the body was
found, the manner in which the body rested, the debris around the
body, and so forth. In the second step, we look at the external
view. This is where we take a look at the body, cutting away the
clothing, weighing the body, and make notations to its condition.
Such as bruising, cuts, scraps, open wounds and so on.” he said,
taking a breath before continuing.

“
After making all the
noticeable abrasions on the exterior of the body, we proceed to the
final step by opening the body up and viewing the internal damage,
thus coming to the ultimate cause of death.” He said.

“
I see,” the Prosecution
said, “and in this case how did you proceed?” He asked, “In this
case the first step was pretty much straight forward.” He stated,
“I first began by reading the reports made by the police officers
and detectives that investigated the crime scene. I reviewed the
photos of the body taken at the scene, and of the area where the
victim was found and how he rested when he was pronounced deceased,
after taking in all of this information I proceeded to the external
step.”

“
What were your findings on
the externals?” the Prosecution asked, “In the external step,” The
ME stated as he referred back to his notes in a manila folder. “The
victim was clad in status, (dressed and clothed) he was 5’ 10” in
height, had a body weight of 113 lbs. (extreme blood loss) and was
a 28 year-old white male.” He stated. “I see,” the Prosecution
interrupted, “Please continue sir,” he said.

“
The left collar of his
shirt around the left neck had a knife wound on the clothing; the
lower section of the shirt was cut away in a diagonal crosscut,
presumed to be made by the paramedics that arrived on scene to
attach the AED (Automated Electronic Defibrillator) to the victim.”
He said as he flipped through the pages of his own report before
going on, “There was a major ‘defect’ visible to the upper left
side of the neck; there was an extreme amount of blood both
saturated on the clothing and skin as well as blunt marks and
lacerations marks on the body.”

“
For clarification,” the
Prosecution intervened, “Could you describe what you consider
‘blunt’ marks first and then ‘laceration’ marks on the body?” he
asked. “Of course,” the ME stated, flipping through his notes
before continuing.

“
In the field we describe
‘blunt’ marks as such things as bites, scratches and so on,
anything that does not fully penetrate the internals of the body.”
He stated, “Whereas lacerations as marks that cut through the skin
and into or across the external organs,” he said.

“
First as for blunt marks
on the victim’s body we found bite marks and scratches from
fingernails on the left nose, bite and scratches on the lower left
area just above the left eye. Bite mark on right side of the face
near the right eye. The linear area of the neck, the left side of
neck also had scratches across the neck from fingernails brazening
across the neck in a ‘V’ like formation.” He paused taking a deep
breath before continuing, “The right chest also had a bite mark,
this one detracted and used with more force (digging through the
flesh and into the muscle). There was also a bite mark on the right
hip and the left lower back, the right knee, the left toe and left
outer hand.” He paused again, “there was also a ¾ inch scratch by
fingernails on the left bicep. Furthermore, the blunt force trauma
previously stated did not have time to begin the healing process
and thus occurred moments to a few hours prior to the victim’s
death.” He stated.

(Note that the Mayo Clinic defines
signs of abuse on a man by a woman as, “hitting, kicking, slapping,
scratching, choking, biting and/or anything else that hurts you in
a physical way,” (Staff, 2011).

“
And for lacerations to the
victim’s body, what if any, lacerations did you find?” the
Prosecution asked. “As for lacerations to the victim’s body,” the
ME stated as he looked back to his notes. “I found one laceration
on the left side of victims neck 1 ½ inches in width by a single
edged blade that pierced 2 to 3 inches into neck,” (Prosecution
entered into evidence a photo marked exhibit 2, a picture of the
injury and was asked to describe this laceration in greater
detail).

“
As you can see in the
photo,” the ME stated, trying his best not to show the detail of
carnage within the image to Paula or our family as he held it out
toward the judge and Prosecution. “The blade cut through the left
internal vein, or rather the jugular. The blade continued through
the jugular, cutting into the cartilage of the thyroid and Adams
apple, and ended into his throat.”

The ME paused, placing the photo upside
down, as he used his hands and his own neck as exampled before
continuing with his testimony. “The blade cut through the neck on a
steep inward thrust moving in slight left to right angle as it
traveled through the neck, it was this laceration that was the
cause of death, there were no other injuries on the body present.”
He added.

“
I see,” the Prosecution
said as he took the photo from the witness and showed it to Judge
Timmers before walking back toward the witness. “Did you do any
tests on the body?” he asked. “Yes, of course, as is standard for a
situation as this case” the ME responded.

“
What test did you
perform?” The Prosecution asked. “We conducted a toxicology
screening, drawing from the blood, urine and eye fluid of the
victim’s body.” He stated.

“
And according to the
results of the test, did the victim have any alcohol in his system
prior to his death?” the Prosecution asked. “No sir, there was no
alcohol in the victim’s body prior to his death,” the ME stated as
a few of Fizer’s supporters gasped to the statement.

As you can probably detect already,
this statement and its findings were key to the defendant’s case,
as you may recall several times in previous chapters, stated by the
Fizer, and reported by the mass media at that time that it was
alleged that Jeff had been drinking.

In fact, according to Fizer’s statement
to the police, as well made to several neighbors, she alleged that
Jeff had been drunk and that his intoxication lead to him picking
up the knife, which oddly she also stated she didn’t have when her
own recorded words stated otherwise.

“
Was there anything else in
the victims system prior to his death?” the Prosecution asked, “yes
sir, he did have levels of Nicotine, Niacin and marijuana in his
system prior to death.” The ME stated. “And could any of these have
assisted in any way to his death?” he asked. “No sir, none of these
contributed or caused the victims death.” The ME stated. “In your
professional medical opinion then, what was the ultimate cause of
death?” The Prosecution asked as he looked away from the ME and
towards Fizer who continued to keep her eyes on the tabletop in
front of her. “The cause of death to this victim was Homicide due
to being stabbed in the neck,” the ME stated.

“
I see,” the Prosecution,
stated, “Now in your opinion could this stabbing have been
self-inflicted?” he asked. “In my medical opinion, no this was not
a self-inflicted wound,” he said, pausing before he continued to
explain further. “Hypothetically, given the way that the knife
entered through the body, the degree of the entry of the knife, the
path of the blade is insufficient with what I have seen in a
self-inflicted stabbing, and thus, in my experience of over 28
years, self-infliction is ruled out.” He stated.

“
Now sir,” the Prosecution
said, “you have heard what the Defendant stated to detective Pols
when she was asked how the knife ended up in Jeff’s neck, correct?”
he asked, “yes I have,” The ME stated. “Hypothetically speaking,
given the scenario as stated by the defendant, Mrs. Fizer, do you
believe it’s possible that things happened the way she described?
He asked.

“
Hypothetically, given the
scenario given by the accused as to how things happened.” The ME
stated, “The holding of the knife in the left hand by the victim
the way she described, the blade could not have entered into the
neck as even with the arm fully extended the forearm from the
midline of the arm extends away from the neck. Thus, the way that
the blade entered through the neck, even in a struggle the blade
could not have ‘slipped,’ as stated by the defendant.” He stated,
“Furthermore, the blade of the knife would have had to been slammed
into the neck by someone with an adult strength in order to cut
through the cartilage of the neck as it did in this case, as again
the direction and force needed was inconsistent with the scenario
given by the defendant.” He added.

“
So then in your medical
opinion, having more than 28 years in the field…,” The Prosecution
asked, “In my medical opinion, given the scenario I find it near
impossible that the events happed as the defendant described.” He
said. It was at this time we noticed one of the court officers
having silent words with one of Fizer’s’ family members, as she
removed one of her shoes, as if preparing to throw it at the ME for
what he stated before the court.

“
Thank you sir,” the
Prosecution stated before turning his attention toward the judge,
“The State rests your honor,” the Prosecution stated.

Defenses Cross Examination
of the Medical Examiner

“
You just stated before the
court that given the scenario provided by the defendant that,
hypothetically speaking, in your medical experience you believe
that the events described were near impossible, correct?” The
Defense paused, “But not Impossible?” he asked.

“
Percentage wise, I would
say that the events happening the way they have been described by
the defendant are minute at best but no not impossible.” The ME
stated to the defense, almost rolling his eyes to the
question.

“
So then not impossible,”
The defense added, to which the ME remained silent. “Now sir,” the
defense said as he walked back towards his table, looking at Paula
and her family in the front row. “Were you there when the events as
stated by my client occurred?” he asked. “No sir I was not there to
witness the events firsthand,” The ME stated. “I see…thank you sir,
I have no further questions for this witness,” the defense
stated.