GARY BURRIS AND his wife, Debbie, were on the witness list I’d filed before the trial. For some reason, the state attorney’s investigator had never contacted them. It may have been that their names on the witness list would have appeared just to be a couple of neighbors who would serve as character witnesses.
Gary took the stand and was sworn. I got the preliminary questions out of the way and then asked, “What is your profession?”
“I’m a professor of computer science at the University of Florida.”
“What is your educational background?”
He told me about his degrees, including a doctorate in computer science.
“Your Honor,” I said. “I’d like to offer Dr. Burris as an expert witness in computer science.”
“Voir dire, Ms. Evans?”
“No voir dire, Your Honor, but I object to the witness appearing as an expert. I did not have an opportunity to depose him.”
“Was Dr. Burris on the defense witness list?”
“Yes, sir, but apparently, my investigator never contacted him.”
“The court will accept Dr. Burris as an expert witness in the area of computer science.”
“Thank you, Your Honor,” I said. “Dr. Burris, did you receive a laptop computer from me?”
“What were you asked to do?”
“You asked me to examine the computer to determine the date that certain data was put into the computer.”
“Which data was that?”
“Specifically, an MS Word document that was a book manuscript.”
“Did you determine who owned that particular computer?”
“Yes. I examined it closely and found the owner’s name throughout in online orders she made, emails she’d sent and received, and a number of other indicia that I can go into if you like.”
I waved that off and asked, “Who did the computer belong to?”
“Esther Higgins.”
“Was there more than one date concerning the manuscript?”
“A lot of them. It appeared that she worked on the book for several years and the dates in the computer corresponded to the dates she was writing.”
“Were you able to determine when the manuscript was completed?”
“Yes. I concluded that the book was apparently finished when there was no evidence of further inputs.”
“What was the date of the final entry?”
“November 12th of the year before last.”
“Can these dates be manipulated, Dr. Burris, so that it would appear that a document was created on a date other than the date it was actually created?”
“Not without leaving an electronic trail, and I found no such thing. In my opinion, the book was finished on November 12th and nothing was added after that date.”
“Dr. Burris, I’d like to turn to another subject. Take a look at these three pictures. I handed him the exhibits. “Did you at my request manipulate any of these pictures with a computer program?”
“Yes.” He held one of the pictures up for the jury. “This is a computer-generated photograph.”
“Tell me how that works, Dr. Burris.”
He held up the publicity photo of Olivia and said, “I scanned this picture of Olivia Lathom into a computer program that will regress the age of the subject in the photo. In this case, I asked the computer to produce a picture of what Ms. Lathom would have looked like forty years before the present-day picture was taken.”
“Is one of the other photos the one that the computer produced in response to your instructions?”
“Yes. This one.” He held up a picture of a young woman.
“Do you recognize the picture the computer generated?”
“Yes. I’ve seen another picture of this young woman.”
“Did you see it before you ran the computer program?”
“No. I saw it a few days later for the first time.”
“Did you make any changes in your computer program based on what you saw on the later picture?”
“None.”
“Do you have an opinion based upon a reasonable degree of probability as to whether the picture produced by the computer is of the same person as the woman in the third picture you have in your hand?”
“No question. It is the same person.”
“Do you know where that picture came from?”
“Yes. It’s a copy of a photo from a fortysomething-year-old Miss Georgia Pageant program book.”
“Bear with me, Dr. Burris, but I have one more question because I want to make sure I understand your answer. Defense Exhibit three in evidence is a recent picture of Olivia Lathom.”
“Yes.”
“Defense Exhibit D for identification is the computer-generated picture of what Olivia Lathom looked like forty years ago.”
“Yes.”
“And the computer-generated picture matches the picture from the Miss Georgia Pageant program book.”
“Yes.”
“Your Honor, I’d like to mark this copy of the program book into evidence.” I handed the program to the witness. “Dr. Burris, turn to page twenty-three in the program book and compare the picture generated by your computer to the picture on that page.”
“It’s the same young woman.”
“Is the picture in the program the same one as the other picture I handed you?”
“Yes.”
“Please tell the jury the name of the person depicted in the picture on page twenty-three of the Miss Georgia Pageant book.”
“The name under the picture is Polly Norris.”
“Do you have an opinion as to whether Polly Norris and Olivia Lathom are the same person?”
“No doubt about it. Polly Norris and Olivia Lathom are the same person.”
“Thank you, Dr. Burris. Nothing further.”
Meredith stood. “No questions, Your Honor, but I move to strike Dr. Burris’ testimony on the grounds that it is not relevant to any part of this case.”
“I’ll tie this up with the next few witnesses, Your Honor,” I said.
“Your motion is denied, Ms. Evans. Without prejudice.”
That meant that she could renew the motion, but I thought she’d forego that after my next witness. “The defense will call Dr. Debbie Burris,” I said.
When she had taken the witness stand, I said, “State your name and occupation, please.”
“My name is Debbie Burris and I’m a professor of English at the University of Florida.”
I took her through her qualifications including a PhD and her teaching assignments at the university including her emphasis on American literature. “Your Honor, I would offer Dr. Debbie Burris as an expert witness on the subject of American novels.”
“Same objection, same grounds,” Meredith said.
“Overruled.”
“Are you related to Dr. Gary Burris?” I asked.
“Yes. He’s my husband.”
“Did you have an opportunity, at my request, to review a manuscript that Dr. Burris found in a computer belonging to Esther Higgins?”
“Yes.”
“Did you compare it to a book titled Beholden published under the name of Olivia Lathom?”
“I did.”
“Did you find any similarities?”
“For all intents and purposes, they’re identical.”
“Can you elaborate on that?”
“Beholden is comprised of approximately one hundred thousand words. So is Esther’s manuscript. There is very little to distinguish one from the other. The book has some obvious editing differences from the manuscript, but that’s all.”
“Do you have an opinion as to whether the book Beholden is the finished, publishable version of Esther Higgins’ manuscript?”
“Yes. There is no doubt that the book is the work of the author of the manuscript found in Esther Higgins’ computer.”
“Did you determine when Olivia Lathom submitted the manuscript of Beholden to her publisher?”
“Yes. The publisher received the manuscript from Ms. Lathom’s agent on March 21st of last year.”
“Assume, Dr. Burris, that Ms. Bergstrom testified that she was given the manuscript by my client a few days before Christmas the year before last. Assume further that your husband testified that the manuscript was completed more than a month before that. Added to your knowledge that the manuscript was submitted to the publisher about three months after Ms. Bergstrom received it, do you have an opinion as to whether the manuscript found on my client’s computer was the one that was published as Beholden?”
“My opinion is that the manuscript and the book are one and the same.”
“Thank you, Dr. Burris. No further questions.”
“Ms. Evans?” the judge said.
“No questions, Your Honor, but I renew my motion to strike both experts.”
“Overruled.”
We took our afternoon fifteen-minute break and returned to the courtroom. “Call your next witness, Mr. Royal,” the judge said.
“The defense calls Buford Steerman.”