Steve Martini - Double Tap

Harry and I have pounded sand all weekend trying to find a motive as to why Rufus might have killed Chapman. The sorry fact is, unless we’ve missed something, he had nothing to gain from her death-and much more to lose, given that Ruiz, one of Rufus’s own employees, is now in the dock for the murder.

Harry and I have even tallied the missing art glass into the equation. But peddling the Orb , even at an inflated price, wouldn’t begin to bail Karr, Rufus out of their current financial problems.

There is some evidence that Rufus harbored his own passions and may have had his own romantic designs on the victim. But here again there is a problem. It is part of the reason I never bought into the theory that the killing was done by a jilted lover, Ruiz or anyone else.

From what I can see, the murder of Madelyn Chapman is not a crime of passion. It has none of the earmarks, no heated act of rage prompted by a moment of provocation, an argument or rejection. There is no sign of a struggle; even the spilled bottle of cleaning fluid on the garage floor appears to have been dropped by Chapman herself when she left her purse there while presumably wrestling to get the box with the Orb into the kitchen. The fact that she had to do this alone indicates that there was no one with her in the car, or at the house, who offered to help. Even the cops have figured this one.

The only initial evidence of haste in disposing of evidence is the gun and the silencer. The fact that these were placed in their resting spots to be found later by investigators could be more apparent only if the killer had surrounded them with reflectors and flashing lights. At the same time he disposed of the laser sight, mixed the cartridges, and then got rid of the empties and the rest of the loaded rounds when the deed was done. Why?

I have thought about this long and hard. The only conclusion I can come to is that all of this was done for the same reason that a magician amplifies his movement and uses his hands in exaggerated gestures when performing a trick: in order to produce distraction.

Confronted with a seeming array of items that didn’t make sense, and feeling the heat to solve a high-profile murder, prosecutors focused on the gun and the fact that Ruiz had been given his walking papers when it was learned that he’d become too familiar with the victim. The illusion worked, but the fact remains that whoever murdered Madelyn Chapman did it with precision and planned it carefully. And unless I’m wrong, it wasn’t done for reasons of lost love.

This afternoon Rufus is accompanied by another man. I assume this is his lawyer, probably assigned by the firm’s insurance carrier, trying to head off any civil claims that might result from Ruiz’s conviction. The lawyer takes a seat inside the railing behind the prosecution table.

Rufus is sworn and takes the stand. He is dressed for the occasion, a blue pinstriped power suit and a solid burgundy silk tie. His shoes are shined brightly, sleek Italian loafers. The gold-framed glasses and gray hair exude a kind of austere, authoritative presence that I am sure Rufus was going for this morning when he selected his wardrobe.

A few preliminaries for introduction and identification and Templeton takes him quickly to the point.

“So, you are the managing partner of Karr, Rufus and Associates, is that right?”

“Yes.”

“And as such, do you reserve the right to make final decisions on the hiring and firing of key employees?”

“I do.”

“Did you consider the defendant, Emiliano Ruiz, to be a key employee of the firm?”

“Yes. He was hired because of his experience and his skills acquired in the military. Most of our top employees have backgrounds either in law enforcement, the military, or both.”

“And when you say top employees ,” says Templeton, “how would you characterize the duties and responsibilities of these employees when they come to work for you?”

“Usually they would be in supervisory positions, heading up particular security details. We’re not talking uniformed night watchmen or regular security guards here,” he says. “Executive protection, both in the United States and abroad, is a large part of what we do. The employees we hire to perform these duties would be the crème de la crème of the industry,” he says. “People who are already well trained, seasoned, and prepared to hit the ground running. Generally they would require a minimum of training, mostly in company procedures and coordination.”

“And in your opinion the defendant, Mr. Ruiz, was such a man?”

“I thought he was.” Rufus glances toward our table with noticeable disdain as he says it. The key for Rufus is to distance himself from Ruiz and to show that he did everything a responsible employer could in supervising his employees; that the moment he discovered there was a problem, he dealt with it and did so decisively.

“But when you hired him you believed that he had the skills to perform the job?”

“I did. Yes.”

“When did it first come to your attention that there was a problem with Mr. Ruiz?”

“It would have been about eighteen months ago. I was notified by one of our clients that there was a problem involving Mr. Ruiz.”

“And who was that client?”

“Isotenics, Incorporated.”

“The company operated by the victim, Madelyn Chapman?”

“That’s correct.”

“In his job, to your knowledge, did Mr. Ruiz have contact with Ms. Chapman on a regular basis?”

“He did. He headed up her personal security detail. He provided executive protection for Ms. Chapman at home and when she was traveling.”

“In that capacity, did the defendant have access to Ms. Chapman’s home?”

“Yes. He was assigned to sleep in a separate room in the house on occasion in order to provide twenty-four-hour protection.”

“Did he have a key to Ms. Chapman’s house?”

“He did.”

“Before we leave that question, the question of the key, at some point in time, was Mr. Ruiz removed from Ms. Chapman’s personal security detail by your firm?”

“He was.”

“And to your knowledge were the locks changed at Ms. Chapman’s house shortly after he was relieved of these duties?”

“Yes, they were.”

Templeton does this neatly, answering the question why someone with a key would have to break into Chapman’s house through a window in order to kill her. At the same time he showers Emiliano with the damaging innuendo that the locks were changed because he was perceived as a threat. According to Ruiz, the locks were changed at his suggestion after Chapman approached him for some extra security, off the books, after the detail was dropped. Because of the elaborate security system, Chapman called Rufus’s firm to oversee the work on the new locks. This is the only reason Rufus knows the locks were changed.

“In that regard, would Mr. Ruiz have been familiar with the security system installed in the victim’s home?”

“Yes, he would.”

“Would he know how to determine whether that system was on or off at any given time?”

“Yes.”

“And would he be familiar with the layout of the house?”

“Certainly, from having stayed there. Overnight.” Rufus tries to put emphasis on the last word, hinting to the jury in an effort to fill in the blanks missing from Karen Rogan’s earlier testimony. There is little question that Templeton would have prepped him on this.

“You stated earlier that at some point it became necessary to remove Mr. Ruiz from the personal security detail, the assignment involving executive protection for the victim, Madelyn Chapman. Is that correct?”

“Yes, there was a problem, as I said.”

Templeton nails down the time frame when this occurred and then steps out onto the ice. “And what was the nature of that problem?”