Wallace has him explain that once Pete showed up, his main function was over. Prentice obviously did his job professionally and by the book, and there is a limited amount I'll be able to get from him on cross-examination. I start by showing him police photographs taken of the rest of the alley on the night of the murder.
“Detective Prentice, are you married?”
“Yes, I am.”
“Would you be nervous if your wife told you she was going to hang out in this particular alley tonight at around one A.M.?”
“I would advise her not to,” he says.
“Why is that? Do you consider it dangerous?”
He tries to evade the question. “There are a lot of places that are not very safe at night.”
“Thank you for that. Is this one of those places?”
“Yes, I would say so.”
“Was there a homeless problem in the area at the time?”
“I believe there was, yes.”
“In your experience, is one of the reasons for the proliferation of the homeless mental illness?”
“Objection. Mental illness is not an area of the officer's expertise.”
I reply, “I am simply asking the witness to speak to his beliefs based on his experience.”
“Overruled. You may answer.”
“I believe mental illness is one of the causes of homeless-ness, yes,” says Prentice. “There are others as well.”
“Was the back door to the bar locked?”
“No. The bartender said it was always left open when the bar was open.”
“So anyone walking through the alley could have entered the bar through that back door?”
“Yes, I suppose so.”
“And if they did, would the first inside door they come to be the ladies’ room where Denise McGregor was?”
“There is a storage closet first and then the ladies’ room.”
“So there was nothing about Willie Miller's job which gave him a unique access to that room?”
Wallace objects. “It is beyond the witness's direct knowledge to make conclusions about the defendant's unique access.” Hatchet sustains the objection.
“But anyone could have entered?”
“Yes.”
“Would you say the alley at the time you arrived was clean?”
“Well, there was a great deal of blood.”
“I understand, but I mean in addition to the evidence of the murder. Did the alley look as if it had been scrubbed recently?”
“No, I wouldn't say so.”
“So the scene was already dirty. Trash, food from the restaurants, animal waste?”
“Yes.”
“Detective Prentice, you said the first thing you did was cordon off the scene. Why did you do that?”
“To prevent people from tromping around on the evidence and contaminating it. To preserve the evidence.”
“Were you successful at that?”
“Yes, I believe that I was.”
“Did any people enter that specific area?”
“Not after I was there. I made sure everyone stayed clear of the scene, so that the forensics people could do their work.”
“I'm not an expert on this kind of thing, so perhaps you can tell me … is there a law of contamination that says it can only take place after the police arrive?”
“Of course not,” he says. “Contamination can take place at any time.”
“Well, was anybody on the scene before you arrived?”
“Yes.”
I feign surprise. “Who?”
“Well, Edward Markham, his father-”
I interrupt. “Edward Markham's father was there? Was this some kind of a family outing?”
“No, he had called his father as well as the police.”
Under prodding, Prentice is forced to admit that there were also a group of people from the bar that had been on the scene.
“So there were at least a half-dozen people walking around that alley before you got there?” I ask.
“Yes,” he concedes.