Witness for the Prosecution

“The prosecution calls Mr Pendergast to the stand.”

“OBJECTION Milord.”

“On what grounds Mr Smythe?”

“On the grounds that the prosecution has not proven that this is actually ‘Mr Pendergast’.”

“Objection sustained. Mr Thaw, can you provide any evidence in this matter?”

“Yes Milord. As I hope my learned colleague is aware, DNA will not help us in the case, so may I please remind them that Dr Venkman’s work was used to prove to us that this is Mr Pendergast. If it please the court, please refer to Exhibit 36.”

“Objection therefore overruled. Mr Pendergast may take the stand.”

“Mr Pendergast, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?”

“I do.”

“Mr Pendergast, in your own words, can you please tell the court what happened during the evening of 13^th October 2024?”

“I set the alarms, and had gone to bed by around 10pm, sometime around midnight I was awoken by the alarm.”

“Can you please explain about the alarm?”

“It is a simple set of infra-red sensors, which can trigger the alarm when someone crosses in front of it, there are also a number of door and window sensors which can also be triggered.”

“Has it ever been triggered before?”

“Yes – previously it has been triggered by a deer visiting the garden and getting too close to the house.”

“Very well. What happened this night when the alarm was activated?”

“I went downstairs to where the alarm controls are so I could see what had caused it, and before I got there I was assaulted by THAT man.”

“May it be please be noted that Mr Pendergast has identified the defendant Mr Van Bergen.”

“OBJECTION Milord. It was not clear who the witness was indicating.”

“Objection sustained.”

“Very well Milord. Mr Pendergast, can you see the person in the court who assaulted you?”

“Yes, it is the man sat next to the defence lawyer.”

“How did he assault you?”

“He assaulted me with a blade of some kind, stabbing me several times!”

“If it pleases the court, please refer to Exhibit 12 where you will see the hunting knife that was found by the paramedics, still embedded in the victim’s stomach. The knife was later found to have DNA evidence which showed that Mr Van Bergen had used it.”

“OBJECTION Milord.”

“What now Mr Smythe?”

“DNA Evidence in this case does not prove that my client used the knife against the witness, only that he had at some time used the knife. My client has already provided evidence that he admits to owning the knife, but that it was recently stolen.”

“Objection sustained. May the jury please note that the knife in question has only been proven to be owned by Mr Van Bergen, and that the knife was used to assault Mr Pendergast, but there is still some doubt about the identity of the actual assailant.”

“Mr Pendergast, did you defend yourself in any way?”

“Yes, I attempted to fend him off, but that was not very effective.”

“Mr Pendergast, what happened after you were assaulted?”

“Initially I passed out, and later regained consciousness and was able to dial 911 and I called for both medical and police assistance.”

“Was anything stolen during this event?”

“Yes, my wallet was taken with some cash and my credit cards.”

“May the court please note Exhibit 22 where it can be seen that the credit cards where later used to purchase goods. Goods that have been linked to the defendant.”

“OBJECTION Milord. That evidence is circumstantial.”

“Objection sustained. Mr Thaw?”

“Milord. The evidence includes CCTV footage of the defendant using the cards to purchase a meal, and also to buy bottles of liquor.”

“OBJECTION Milord. We agree that he defendant used the cards fraudulently, but the defendant has already testified to finding the wallet, but not to stealing them.”

“Objection sustained. Any further questions Mr Thaw?”

“Mr Pendergast, was anything else taken?”

“Yes sir, my smart watch was taken.”

“May the court please note Exhibit 24 which is the victim’s smart watch that was found on the defendant on the night of the assault.”

“OBJECTION Milord. This is mere circumstantial evidence that the victim and defendant happen to own the same make and model watch.”

“Objection sustained. Mr Thaw?”

“We agree, Milord, that it is possible that they both own the same type of watch, but these watches are unique to the individual, and can be clearly traced to the original owner. As per Exhibit 25, the data within the watch clearly identifies that watch as the one bought by my client.”

“Objection overruled. Please continue Mr Thaw.”

“As I was saying, the watch places the victim at my client’s property, as that is the only way he could have acquired it.”

“OBJECTION Milord. As we have stated, both people can own the same make and model of this watch, and whilst we agree that this particular watch belongs to my learned colleague’s client, we believe that they could have been “swapped” in error at the sport’s club that they both attend.”

“Objection sustained. Mr Thaw?”

“Yes Milord, they both played racket ball on the same day, and it is technically possible that their watches got mixed up, and I guess that is what the defence is trying to call ‘reasonable doubt’. However, I would like to point out that this particular model also has full GPS tracking, and it can be seen from the data in Exhibit 25, that the watch travelled from my client’s home, to the sport’s club, and back to my client’s home. Then on 13^th October around 2.00am, while my client was in the ambulance, the watch travelled to the home of the defendant.”

“Objection overruled. Any further questions for the witness?”

“No further questions Milord”

“Mr Smythe? Do you wish to cross-examine the witness?”

“No Milord, but I would like to have Dr Venkman called to the stand please, as I still believe there is some doubt as to the identity of this witness.”

“Very well. Dr Venkman is a witness for the prosecution though, so the initial questions will be asked by them.”

“Dr Venkman, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?”

“I do.”

“Dr Venkman, can you please describe what happened on the night of 13^th October 2024?”

“Certainly. I was called to St Lucian’s hospital to attend to Mr Pendergast.”

“Are you a medical Doctor?”

“No, I am a Doctor of science.”

“OBJECTION Milord. ‘Dr’ Venkman holds no medical certification, nor a PHD, so the title of ‘Dr’ is not valid.”

“Objection sustained. Mr Thaw?”

“Dr Venkman, can you please elaborate to the court how you got the title of doctor?”

“Certainly, it is an honorary doctorate from the University of Las Vegas.”

“Thank-you. May the court please note, that there is nothing illegal with honorary doctorates, it would be illegal if Dr Venkman practices medicine, but he does not do that.

“Can you please elaborate to the jury what science you do practice?”

“Well – I would not say I ‘practice’, I am an expert in my field.”

“Yes Dr Venkman, but what field exactly is that please?”

“Para-normal.”

“I see. So why exactly where you called in to assist?”

“Mr Pendergast was in intensive care, and there was some doubt as to whether he would survive or not, so I was called in.”

“So what happened please?”

“Well – the poor guy went into cardiac arrest, and the medical bods were unable to resuscitate him, so I slipped in there to assist.”

“Thank you Dr Ventman – no further questions.”

“My Smythe – do you have any questions then for the witness?”

“Thank you Milord. ‘Dr’ Ventman, have you ever ‘assisted’ in this way before?”

“Not exactly. This was my first time capturing a fresh one. Previously they have been dead for a lot longer in order for the ‘spirit capturer’, patent pending, to do its stuff. Hopefully going forward you will be able to use a lot more recently deceased witnesses in court.”