Free Snow Falling on Cedars by David Guterson Page B

testified to having applied pressure to the deceased’schest and that shortly thereafter a peculiar foam appeared at his mouth and nostrils.’
    ‘That’s right,’ said Horace. ‘I would say this is usually the case with drowning victims. It may not appear when they’re first recovered from the water, but almost as soon as someone starts removing their clothing or attempting resuscitation there it is, generally in copious amounts.’
    ‘What would cause that?’ Nels asked.
    ‘Pressure brings it up. It results from a chemical reaction in the lungs when water mixes with air and mucus.’
    ‘Water, air, and mucus,’ said Nels. ‘But what causes them to mix, Horace? This chemical reaction you speak of – what is it?’
    ‘It’s caused by breathing. It happens in the presence of respiration. It – ’
    ‘Now this is where I got confused,’ interrupted Nels. ‘Earlier, I mean. When you were testifying. You say this foam is only produced when you’ve got water, mucus, and air all mixed together by a person’s breathing?’
    ‘That’s right.’
    ‘But a drowned person doesn’t breathe,’ said Nels. ‘So how does this foam … you can see why I’m confused.’
    ‘Oh, sure,’ said Horace. ‘I think I can make this clear. It’s formed – this foam – in the early stages. The victim is submerged and begins to struggle. Finally he begins to swallow water, you see, and as he does the air in his lungs is forced out under pressure – and this gives rise to the foam I’ve testified about. The chemical reaction occurs at the time the drowning victim is ceasing to breathe. Or breathing his final breaths.’
    ‘I see,’ said Nels. ‘So this foam, then, tells you Carl Heine in fact drowned, doesn’t it?’
    ‘Well – ’
    ‘It tells you, for example, that he wasn’t murdered first – say on the deck of his boat – and then thrown overboard? Because if he was, there would be no foam, would there? Am I understanding the chemical reaction correctly? It can’t happenunless the victim is breathing at the time of submersion? Is that what you said about it, Horace?’
    ‘Yes,’ said Horace. ‘It tells you that. But – ’
    ‘Excuse me,’ said Nels. ‘Just wait a moment, now.’ He made his way to where Mrs. Eleanor Dokes sat poised over her stenograph. He worked past her and nodded at the bailiff, Ed Soames, then picked out a document from the evidence table and made his way back to the witness stand.
    ‘All right, Horace,’ he said now. ‘I’m returning to you the exhibit you identified earlier, in direct examination, as your autopsy report, which you’ve testified accurately reflects your findings and conclusions. If you would kindly take it and read back to yourself paragraph four on page four, please, we’ll all wait.’
    While Horace did so Nels returned to the defendant’s table and sipped from a glass of water. His throat had begun to bother him; his voice had gone hoarse and reedy.
    ‘All right,’ said Horace. ‘Done.’
    ‘All right,’ said Nels. ‘Am I correct in saying, Horace, that paragraph four on page four of your autopsy report identifies drowning as the cause of Carl Heine’s death?’
    ‘Yes, it does.’
    ‘So your conclusion was that he drowned?’
    ‘Yes.’
    ‘Was that unequivocal? Was there any doubt?’
    ‘Yes, of course there’s doubt. There’s always doubt. You’re not – ’
    ‘Just a minute, Horace,’ said Nels. ‘Do you wish to say that your report is inaccurate? Is that what you’re trying to tell us?’
    ‘The report is accurate,’ said Horace Whaley. ‘I – ’
    ‘Can you read for the court the last sentence of paragraph four, page four, of the autopsy report you have in front of you?’ said Nels Gudmundsson. ‘The paragraph you read silently just a moment ago? Please go ahead and read.’
    ‘All right,’ answered Horace. ‘It says this, and I quote: “The presence of foam in the airway and around the lips and noseindicates beyond