bit, here, Detective,” said Bost, “and ask you about how you came to identify these remains as being those of little Teddy Underhill.”
“All right,” said Skwarecki.
Bost turned to the jury box. “Now first of all, as Ms. Ludlam told us yesterday, Prospect Cemetery has been in use as a burial ground since the mid-sixteen-hundreds. I’m sure we all might wonder whether it’s extremely unusual to find human bones in a graveyard, yet it seems that the investigating officers immediately decided that this was a suspicious death which had occurred relatively recently. Can you tell us what first led you to that conclusion, Detective?”
“Two things,” said Skwarecki. “The first is that Ms. Ludlam was so familiar with the state of the grounds as a whole. She knew that none of the graves had been disturbed, beyond some vandalism to the memorial stones over the years. The second indication was the state of the bones themselves.”
“Can you describe what you learned from your own inspection of the bones on-site that first day?”
“It was immediately apparent that the victim was a child, of course,” answered Skwarecki. “But I could also tell right away that these were the remains of someone who’d died within the previous six months.”
“How so?”
“Most importantly, the ends of the bones change over time with exposure to the elements. It would be impossible to pinpoint an exact day of the victim’s death from skeletal remains, but forensically, we can establish a slightly broader time frame with a good deal of accuracy. The color of the bones themselves also tells us something. They grow whiter over time when exposed to the elements. These bones weren’t white. Given those observations, I knew this was not a child who’d died a hundred years ago, or even two years ago.”
“So you estimated that the boy had died within the previous six months?”
“Yes,” said Skwarecki. “And I was backed up by the pathologist’s report, as I expected to be.”
“But there were things you couldn’t tell about this victim because of the state of his remains, weren’t there?”
“Yes. A number of them.”
“In fact, the boy’s age made the likelihood of identification more difficult?”
“If the child had been found sooner, of course we might have had more to go on—his blood type, his hair color, his facial features—and had he been older, we might have expected to confirm his identity with dental records.”
“With none of those details, you’re still certain that the boy found in the cemetery was Edward Underhill?”
“Yes.”
“Can you tell us why?”
“First of all, none of the information the pathologist was able to give me on the basis of his examination ruled out that identification.”
“Such as?” asked Bost.
“This was a child, aged just over three years, of African American descent.”
“Were you aware that Teddy Underhill was missing when these remains were discovered?”
“Not personally, no.”
“And yet you found the report that listed him as missing rather quickly, didn’t you?”
“Within a week,” said Skwarecki.
“Is there some sort of database you consulted?”
“No. It turned out that one of Teddy’s relatives had been very active in keeping the attention of some fellow officers on his case.”
“Was that the boy’s mother, Angela Underhill?” asked Bost.
“No, it was not.”
“So Teddy’s mother didn’t seem to care that he was missing?” asked Bost.
Hetzler leaped up. “Objection!”
“I’ll withdraw the question, Your Honor,” said Bost before Hetzler could even specify what he was objecting to.
The judge nodded and Hetzler sat down again.
“Which relative kept in contact with the police?” asked Bost.
“Teddy’s great-grandmother, Elsie Underhill. She came to the station on a weekly basis.”
“Detective,” continued Bost, “on these occasions did Angela Underhill accompany Mrs. Elsie Underhill when she visited the officers in your precinct house?”
“Only on the first occasion, when they came together to file the missing-persons report.”
“Can you tell us anything else about the circumstances of that report having been filed?”
“Yes,” said Skwarecki. “Teddy’s mother waited for two weeks before contacting the police to report him missing.”
“And was there a reason why she waited so long?”
“I know why she stopped waiting.”
“And why was that?”
Skwarecki leaned in, a little closer to the mike. “Angela Underhill went to her grandmother for money the day that report was filed.”
“Objection!” said Hetzler, on his feet again. “Hearsay.”
“Sustained,” said the judge. “The jury is instructed to disregard the answer.”
“On what date was the report filed?” asked Bost.
“May the second,” said Skwarecki.
“And it was something listed in that report that allowed you to identify the remains found at Prospect as Teddy Underhill’s, wasn’t it?”
“Yes,” said Skwarecki. “The little boy’s sneakers.”
Bost’s assistant