“Sustained.”
“And when you had gathered all your evidence,” continued Ebden as if he had not been interrupted, “was it you who made the decision to arrest Mr. Cartwright?”
“No, by then the chief had turned up, and although it was my case, I asked if he would also take a statement from Mrs. Elliot, to make sure her story hadn’t changed in any way.”
“And had it?”
“No, on all the essential points, it remained consistent.”
Fletcher underlined the word essential as both Petrowski and the chief had used it. Well rehearsed or a coincidence, he wondered.
“Was that when you decided to arrest the accused?”
“Yes, it was on my recommendation, but ultimately the chief’s decision.”
“Weren’t you taking a tremendous risk, arresting a gubernatorial candidate during an election campaign?”
“Yes, we were, and I discussed that problem with the chief. We often find to our cost that the first twenty-four hours are the most important in any investigation, and we had a body, two bullets and a witness to the crime. I considered it would have been an abrogation of my duty not to make an arrest simply because the assailant had powerful friends.”
“Objection, your honor, that was prejudicial,” said Fletcher.
“Sustained,” said the judge, “and strike it from the record.
” He turned to Petrowski and added, “Please stick to facts, detective, I’m not interested in your opinions.”
Petrowski nodded.
Fletcher turned to Nat. “That last statement sounded to me as if it had been written in the DA’s office.” He paused, looked down at his yellow pad and commented that “abrogation,” “essential points,” and “assailant” were delivered as if they had been learned by heart. “Petrowski won’t have the opportunity to deliver rehearsed answers when I cross-examine him.”
“Thank you, Captain,” said Ebden, “I have no more questions for Detective Petrowski, your honor.”
“Do you wish to question this witness?” asked the judge, preparing himself for another tactical maneuver.
“Yes, I most certainly do, your honor.” Fletcher remained seated while he turned a page of his legal pad. “Detective Petrowski, you told the court that my client’s fingerprints were on the gun.”
“Not just his fingerprints, also a palm print on the butt as confirmed in the forensic report.”
“And didn’t you also tell the court that in your experience, criminals often try to leave conflicting evidence in order to fool the police?”
Petrowski nodded, but made no reply.
“Yes or no, Captain?”
“Yes,” said Petrowski,
“Would you describe Mr. Cartwright as a fool?”
Petrowski hesitated while he tried to work out where Fletcher was attempting to lead him. “No, I would say he was a highly intelligent man.”
“Would you describe leaving your fingerprints and a palm print on the murder weapon as the act of a highly intelligent man?” asked Fletcher.
“No, but then Mr. Cartwright is not a professional criminal, and doesn’t think like one. Amateurs often panic and that’s when they make simple mistakes.”
“Like dropping the gun on the floor, covered in his prints, and running out of the house leaving the front door wide open?”
“Yes, that doesn’t surprise me, given the circumstances.”
“You spent several hours questioning Mr. Cartwright, Captain; does he strike you as the type of man who panics and then runs away?”