“In the case of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts versus Konrad Wolfensen, the charges are burglary of the Isabella Stewart Gardener Museum, grand larceny, fraud…”
Konrad shut down his mind to calm himself. As soon as he stopped shaking, he tried to listen again. Just in time, too. The judge had asked him a question. What was it? Oh yeah.
“Yes, I understand the nature of the charges, your honor. May I speak? I’m quite intelligent. I was a dean—”
“Did I ask you about your intelligence or profession?”
“No, your honor.”
“Fine. Perhaps you should let your lawyers speak for you from now on.”
Roz leaned toward him and whispered, “Don’t say another word. We’resupposedto do the talking for you.”
How the hell would I know that? I’ve never been on trial before.
The attorney next to Roz leaned toward her and whispered angrily, “I thought you spent hours with this guy. What the hell were you doing?”
She sat silent and stoic, eyes forward, as if the man hadn’t spoken at all.
“I’m sorry. I should have prepared you better.”
The judge nodded to the prosecution and said, “Proceed with your opening argument.”
The other long table seated almost as many lawyers as his did. One of them stood, buttoned his jacket, and walked around the table toward the jury.
“Men and women of the jury, this unsolved case has gone on long enough. I intend to prove that Konrad Wolfensen was one of the thieves who broke into the Isabella Stewart Gardener Museum on March 18, 1990, to steal twelve pieces of art valued at three hundred million dollars.”
A murmur from behind him let Konrad know the spectators were blown away by the value of the loot the thieves had taken, whoever they were. And probably many of the jurors were struggling to pay their bills and suspectedhewas living high off the hog.
Who the hell does this guy think he is?
“He’s the district attorney. Don’t let him get to you. He’s just doing his job, but I’ll be doing mine too.”
His hands began to shake and sweat again.
“Now, what do we know?” the prosecutor continued. “We know that on that cold spring night between the hours of 1:24 a.m. to 2:45 a.m., thieves who had disguised themselves as Boston police officers gained entry to the museum. They did this by advising one of the guards on duty that they were there to investigate a reported disturbance.
“And we know that the defendant has a brother of the same height, weight, and build who happens to be a Boston police officer.”
What difference does that make?
“I suppose they’re going to claim you had access to a uniform and could have easily been one of the robbers.”
But the eye witnesses descriptions—
“Don’t worry. We’ll cross-examine them.”
The prosecuting attorney continued. “Upon entering the facility, they overpowered both guards, handcuffed them, and took them to separate isolated parts of the basement. There they were duct taped to separate structures to immobilize them. They never had the chance to push the panic button hidden behind the guard’s desk, so noactualpolice were notified during the robbery. No video surveillance film is available, because they stole that too.”
The murmurs behind him sounded like a mixture of amusement and anger, probably depending on how each person valued priceless art. Konrad’s mind drifted to the day he heard the news.
He was watching one of the local TV stations, and a special report broke the news. His emotions ran the gamut of disbelief, heartbreak, and outrage. If he’d only known who did it, he’d have gone after them and practiced a little vigilante werewolf justice on their asses.
Anyone who appreciated the creative arts in this courtroom would probably want him hanged on Boston Common. He shuddered. Dragging himself back to reality, he noticed the lawyer seemed pleased with how he’d horrified the listeners.
“Over the years all logical leads were followed up with no positive investigative results. Numerous interviews were conducted. Many were even accompanied by polygraph examinations. And all forensic evidence recoveredat that timewas sent to the FBI for analysis and, eventually, storage.However, new evidence recently surfaced.”
Are they calling Reginald’s cockamamie story evidence? And if it’s something else, how do they explain learning about it? An anonymous tip?
