CHAPTER 54

Inez Rios’s direct testimony takes almost an entire day. Luke Maddox, standing tall at the podium with a stitched-up split upper lip and two shiners, deliberately parades the investigator through the history of fire, from its discovery by early man through present day. By four in the afternoon I’m more afraid of fire and its destructive properties than the scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz. When Maddox finally tenders the witness I know I should suggest to Judge Maxa that we adjourn and call it a week. If I only had a brain.

Instead I limp to the podium, my right knee protesting loudly and violently over yesterday’s hallway brawl. “Good afternoon, Ms. Rios. It’s late in the day and I realize everyone wants to go home, so I’ll just ask you a few questions and perhaps we can resume on Monday—or Tuesday rather, since Monday’s a holiday.”

I glance at the jury to see whether they’re still paying attention, then I get right to the heart of my cross-examination.

“Ms. Rios, you testified earlier today that given Dr. Noonan’s findings as to the cause and manner of death of Mr. Simms, you thought it very likely that this fire was started in order to conceal the crime of homicide, correct?”

“Correct, Counselor.”

“Aside from Dr. Noonan’s determination as to the cause and manner of Mr. Simms’s death, is there any physical evidence to support this claim?”

“Of course,” she says. “The fire was clearly started in the honeymoon suite where the murder of Mr. Simms took place.”

“Location,” I say. “I’m glad you mentioned that, Ms. Rios, because you testified on direct that the point of origin, identified by a prominent V-shaped burn pattern, was discovered on the lower part of the wall across from the bed on which Mr. Simms’s body was found. Isn’t that right?”

“That’s right.”

“And that location is where the bulk—or say, the lion’s share—of the charcoal lighter fluid was also discovered, isn’t that correct?”

“Yes, with trailers heading in the direction of the bed.”

“Trailers, plural?”

“No, I apologize. Trailer, singular. There was one trailer of lighter fluid found heading from the point of origin in the direction of the bed.”

I stand back from the podium and look up at the ceiling as though trying to formulate my next question. “If, right at this moment, Ms. Rios, you wanted to set me on fire, would you attempt to do so by dousing the jury box with lighter fluid?”

Maddox is up. “Objection, Your Honor! What kind of question is that?”

“Withdrawn,” I say quickly, bowing my head. “I apologize, Your Honor. That question was poorly phrased.” But the jury will sure as hell remember it.

I step up to the podium again. “Let me take you briefly down another road, Ms. Rios. In your report, you state that there were three potential exits in the Simms’s honeymoon suite, correct?”

“Correct, Counselor.”

I count them off on my fingers, inadvertently exposing my bruised knuckles to the jury. “The front door. The door that led to the neighboring suite. And the sliding glass door that led out to the lanai. Isn’t that right?”

“Yes, it is.”

“From your investigation you determined that at the time the fire started the sliding glass door to the lanai was closed, correct?”

“Yes.”

“And, unless the front door was somehow propped open, that door was in all likelihood closed as well, right?”

“Right. The front door is designed in such a way that it closes itself.”

“But this third door, this door to the neighboring suite. That door, you determined, was open at the time the fire started?”

“That’s correct.”

“How do you account for that, Ms. Rios?”

“Objection.”

“Your Honor, I’m simply asking Ms. Rios to formulate an expert opinion based on her many years of experience investigating fires.”

“Overruled. Ms. Rios, you may answer the question.”

“In my opinion,” Rios says, “before setting the fire, the arsonist was checking for potential avenues of escape.”

“But that door to the neighboring suite was not, in fact, a potential avenue of escape for the arsonist, was it?”

“No, it was not.”

“Why not, Ms. Rios?”

“Because the second door, the interior door, into the adjoining suite was locked.”

“So, Ms. Rios, are you suggesting that the arsonist discovered that this second door was locked and therefore dismissed that exit as a possible avenue of escape?”

“I think that’s very likely.”

“And yet, Ms. Rios, not a single fingerprint was discovered on the knob of the interior door to the neighboring suite, correct?”

“That’s correct, Counselor.”

“Nor, Ms. Rios, was a single fingerprint discovered on the knob of the exterior door to the neighboring suite, isn’t that right?”

“That’s right, Counselor.”

“And how do you account for that?”

“Well, unfortunately, Mr. Corvelli, we don’t always find fingerprints where we might expect to find fingerprints.”

“Fair enough. But why do you suppose, Ms. Rios, that the first door to the neighboring suite was left open?”

Rios shrugs. “Carelessness?”

“Carelessness,” I repeat. “But on direct examination you detailed all of the quote-unquote ‘painstaking efforts’ the arsonist apparently made to use this fire to conceal the crime of homicide, didn’t you, Ms. Rios?”

“I did.”

“Then what advantage, Ms. Rios, does leaving that door open give the arsonist, if the arsonist set this fire in order to conceal the murder of Trevor Simms?”

Rios shrugs again. “None that I can think of.”

Judge Maxa follows Rios’s answer by asking me if this is a good time to break until next week.

“Just one final line of questioning, Your Honor.” I flip the page on Rios’s report. “Let’s talk briefly about the accelerant, Ms. Rios. The charcoal lighter fluid. In addition to finding the accelerant in massive amounts at the point of origin, and in addition to the trailer leading to the bed, a fair amount of lighter fluid was also discovered in the neighboring suite, correct?”

“I’m not sure I would characterize it as a ‘fair amount.’”

“How would you characterize it, Ms. Rios?”

“I believe in my report I call it a ‘puddle.’”

“And how do you account for that ‘puddle’ of accelerant discovered in the neighboring suite, Ms. Rios?”

“Spillage.”

“Spillage?” I repeat. “More carelessness, Ms. Rios?”

“I suppose so.”

“On direct this morning, Ms. Rios, you characterized the arsonist as ‘meticulous,’ did you not?”

“I did.”

“Tell me, Ms. Rios, in your twelve-plus years as a fire investigator here in the state of Hawaii, would you say that the individual who set this fire in the Simms’s honeymoon suite is the most careless, meticulous arsonist you’ve ever come across?”