“The damning testimony was given by a forensic chemist with ATF,” Hugo added.
The initials were shorthand for the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Hugo tapped his phone and read from the screen.
“The chemist analyzed nine carpet samples from the trailer carpet. Five of the samples tested positive for an accelerant. Of the positive samples, one was from the living room carpet and four were from the bedroom.”
“What was the accelerant?” Nora asked.
Hugo checked his phone. “The chemist put it in a category he called heavy petroleum distillates. Kerosene is in that category. The prosecution identified kerosene as the likely accelerant.”
Raising his eyes to meet Nora’s, he added, “An empty one-gallon can was sitting on the grass outside the trailer’s entry door.”
His eyes went back to the phone. “The prosecution entered the chemist’s lab report into evidence. I read it and I must tell you Nora, the scientific explanation was compelling.”
Hugo flicked the phone off. “You said your interest in Silvia stems from this new project of yours. What is it you are trying to do?”
Nora paused, trying to recall Channing’s exact language. “Reliance on DNA testing to exonerate convicted felons helps more males than females. A much lower percentage of female convicts are found innocent based on DNA tests. We’re trying to correct that disparity.”
Hugo frowned. “I can imagine several logical explanations for the difference. But why do you think fewer women are being exonerated based on DNA?”
“The main reason is that women are accused of crimes which differ in nature from those blamed on men,” Nora replied.
“Take sexual assault,” she continued. “In a rape investigation, DNA evidence can rule out an innocent suspect or identify the real rapist. Far more men than women are accused of sexually assaulting a stranger.”
She shrugged. “Obviously, more innocent males than females will be exonerated based on DNA tests.”
Hugo blinked. “Rape is a pretty extreme example but I get your point. Men are also more likely to be accused of killing strangers. DNA testing should lead to exonerations of more men than women in murder convictions, too.”
“And it does,” Nora agreed. “Women aren’t often accused of murder. When they are, the victims tend to be the people they live with—a husband or a boyfriend or a child. A female suspect’s DNA is all over the scene before the crime occurs.”
She folded her arms. “Homicide investigators have to look for other incriminating evidence. That was true for Silvia Simon. She was accused and convicted of arson-murder. DNA evidence played no role in her conviction.”
Mimicking Nora, Hugo folded his arms. “As I said, what convicted Silvia was the forensic chemist’s testimony.”
“Which means that to give her the same chance as a male murderer gets from an advanced DNA test, I have to see what’s new in the science of arson investigation.”
Nora grinned. “I’ve ended up where I swore I’d go when they let me out of prison. I get to work with a woman who needs my help and I get to learn something completely new.”
Hugo smiled back. “When will you begin your education?”
“Right now.” Spurred by Hugo’s information, she was ready to go full throttle with her fact-finding. Buying a condo was less important than understanding Silvia Simon’s unsuccessful defense.
“Today,” she continued, “I’ll try to get together with the court-appointed lawyer who represented Silvia. Hear what he has to say.”
Hugo’s forehead wrinkled. “You want to talk to Brad Truesdale.”
“Do you know him?”
“I know who Truesdale is. He started out as a deputy prosecuting attorney in Parma.”
Hugo paused, smoothing back his hair as if he needed brain massage to recall the facts.
“By the time I started writing for the News,” Hugo added, “Truesdale was in private practice. These days, he specializes in defending clients charged with criminal misdemeanors.”
“Less sexy crimes than the felonies you typically cover,” Nora noted.
Hugo shrugged. “I haven’t seen the guy in court since he defended Silvia.”
She frowned. “Does Truesdale have some special expertise with regard to arson?”
“He didn’t demonstrate any. The defense rebuttal of the arson evidence was weak. And Truesdale also let the prosecuting attorney pull a couple of fast ones.”
“Did PA Franklin Endicott try the case himself?” Nora guessed.
Hugo nodded. “That’s right. You went up against good old Frank. Believe me, he was in top form when he prosecuted Silvia.”
“Top sneaky form, you mean.” Nora grimaced. “Man used any trick available to win a case. He retired, thank goodness. What did you spot him doing in Silvia’s trial?”
Hugo sniffed. “In his opening statement, Frank tells the jury that he won’t present a motive because murder doesn’t require one. Yet, in his closing statement, he gives the jury a clear and ugly one. Points out that Silvia didn’t run through the fire. That she shows no remorse for not trying harder to save her child. In fact, he concludes, Silvia wanted to get rid of the little girl.”
“How did Frank come up with that motive?”
“Earlier in the trial, an investigator from the sheriff’s office alleged that Silvia had asked one of her friends to take custody of Gloria. Frank referred to that alleged conversation.”
“You keep saying alleged. Did her lawyer rebut the allegation during the trial?”
“Truesdale put the friend on the stand. Under oath, she denied that Silvia made the request.”
Nora winced. “The PA misinterpreted the evidence in the final speech of the trial?”
“I caught it because I’m a journalist. But jury members aren’t allowed to take notes. I doubt many of them grasped that Frank was directly contradicting a sworn witness.”
Nora shook her head. “Truesdale should have expected that. He’d worked as a deputy prosecutor. He knew his old boss cheated in final speeches.”
Hugo’s expression was grim. “I agree. Truesdale didn’t do enough in his closing statement to cover Silvia’s ass. Frank’s lies were what stuck in the jury’s minds.”