Free The Case Against Owen Williams by Allan Donaldson Page A

bleeding.”
    â€œIn other words, the murderer would not likely have had blood-stains on his clothing as a result of his attack.”
    â€œProbably not.”
    â€œYou testified that the victim was pregnant,” McKiel said. “Was that far enough advanced that the victim would inevitably have been aware of it?”
    â€œNothing, I suppose, is inevitable,” Bourget said. “But if she did not know it, she must have been singularly ill-informed on the subject.”
    There was a titter of laughter in the court, which was silenced by Thurcott, who so far had listened without comment to the testimony.
    â€œThe injuries to the ankle,” he now asked. “What do you think caused them?”
    â€œSome small animal, I should think, such as a dog or a fox,” Bourget replied, and then allowed himself a small, macabre joke. “Not, I feel sure, by the murderer himself. And a bear would have done more damage and would probably have dragged the body, which there was no sign of, as I have said.”
    â€œI see,” Thurcott said. “Horrible.”
    â€œQuite so,” Bourget said. “The surprising thing is that not more damage was done given the time the body lay exposed.”
    â€œAnd that it was not found by some person in that time,” Thurcott said.
    â€œPerhaps,” Bourget said. “I am not familiar with the locality.”
    â€œMembers of your laboratory also conducted an examination of articles of clothing seized from Private Williams,” McKiel said. “Could you give us the results of that examination?”
    â€œOn July 6, Staff Sergeant Grant turned over to the laboratory a Canadian Army battle dress uniform, three shirts, two neckties, two undershirts, three pairs of shorts, five pairs of socks, four handkerchiefs, and a pair of boots, which I was told were the property of Private Owen Williams. All of these articles were tested for blood stains, and none were found. We also examined the boots for blood stains or other human matter and found nothing. We also examined the traces of earth on the boots, but found nothing that could be of any use in determining whether the wearer had been in the gravel pit where the body was found.”
    â€œThe boots, of course, could have been cleaned,” McKiel said. “And even if these were the clothes worn by the murderer, the absence of bloodstains would not be surprising.”
    â€œThat is so.”
    â€œThe only material found on the clothing that might be of some relevance were faint traces of semen on the inner seam of the fly of the trousers,” Bourget continued. “But how long exactly these had been there, there was no way of knowing since the trousers had been recently pressed.”
    â€œNor,” Bourget added, “could one know by what means the stains came to be there.”
    â€œThey could be consistent,” McKiel said, “with someone’s engaging in an act of sexual intercourse without taking off his clothes, as might happen if the act were taking place in a semi-public place.”
    â€œOf course,” Bourget said. “But there could be other explanations.”
    â€œI understand that,” McKiel said. “I was merely suggesting this as a possible explanation. Not everyone goes around, after all, with dried semen on their trousers.”
    Bourget glanced at Williams with his sad, sardonic eyes and made no comment.
    â€œThank you, Dr. Bourget,” McKiel said. “Your evidence has been most useful. And, as always, presented with exemplary brevity and lucidity.”
    Bourget inclined his head slightly in acknowledgement of the compliment.
    â€œI have no further questions,” McKiel said.
    Thurcott turned to Dorkin.
    â€œLieutenant Dorkin, you are at liberty to ask any questions you may have.”
    â€œThank you,” Dorkin said. “I have no questions.”
    Thurcott studied his pocket watch and considered.
    â€œIt is