Doc: The Rape of the Town of Lovell (48 page)

The courtroom fell quiet as Wanda told how Dr. Story had dilated her, then lifted her hand "and placed it down around his thing." When she'd realized what she was feeling, she testified, she'd jerked her hand away and exclaimed, "Dr. Story!"

Someone in the audience laughed. Dr. Story looked up from his yellow pad with a faint smile. Aarestad brought the cross-examination to an end in a few minutes.

As Beverly Moody told her husband Larry, the stupid trial made her want to kick somebody where the sun don't shine. The judge was out for Doc's hide—you didn't need a law degree to see that. Every time one of the supporters made a sound, he banged his gavel. But over on the other side of the aisle, folks were oohing and aahing and faking tears, and not a word was said.

"That judge even climbed on me!" the florist told Larry that evening as he tended some tomato starts in their greenhouse. "I seen a conterdiction in one of the witnesses and I just went, 'Aaaahhhh,' and that dang judge said 'Order in the court!' three or four times. Seemed like he was picking on our side. And we weren't being ignorant ladies, ya know?"

Marilyn Story wrote in her journal: "John and Wayne and Scott [Kath] seem to be optimistic."

73

HAYLA FINK FARWELL

"I was all shook up when I got off the stand," Hayla told a friend later, "and Judi took me downstairs to the witness room." Hayla had testified that Story "dilated" her, then stepped back to reveal his erect penis, then went ahead and raped her.

"When I saw my husband Bill after I testified," the heavyset housewife went on, "I just came unglued. I kept telling myself, You can't cry like this in front of the other witnesses. You're gonna scare 'em.

"Bill said, 'I'm gonna go up to that courtroom and kill that little son of a bitch.'

"The deputy walked Bill to the window to calm him down. Somebody said, 'The Story people are looking for a mistrial. You go up there now and they're gonna have what they want.'

"A crew from Casper TV was out in front of the building, so Bill and I left by a side door. I was still shook. I heard somebody call my name, but I wasn't gonna turn around. A hand touched my shoulder and I jumped. It was Anna Parks, the columnist for the
Chronicle.
She said, 'Our prayers are with you and we believe you.' That made me feel better.

HAYLA FINK FARWELL 387

"My family always belonged to St. John's Lutheran Church in Lovell, and our pastor, Sam Christensen, showed up for my testimony. It felt good to see him there. At recess time, Dr. Story walked down the aisle and my pastor went up and hugged him."

74

TESTIMONY

After Hayla Farwell, the trial proceeded in spurts. Annella St. Thomas told about her rape thirteen years earlier and her futile attempts to get action. Her husband described his frustrating visit to LaMar Averett and how the old chief turned him away.

The sixty-eight-year-old Averett took the stand'and rubbed gnarled knuckles across his eyes as he explained that he'd gone to Dr. Story for twenty-five years and refused to write up the St. Thomas complaint because "I didn't believe it."

Mae Fischer testified that she'd seen Story's erect penis after the rape and "I started backing up," whereupon he said, "You didn't know?" Her mother, Caroline Shotwell, no longer listed as a complainant, verified that Mae had come home and reported the rape. But Caroline made no mention of her own difficulties with the doctor a month earlier.

Diana Harrison drew whispers as she walked past the jurors. She was dressed in a gleaming white polyester dress-suit with off-white accessories. Her makeup was flawless, her hair coiffed. She didn't seem intimidated by the fact that most of the spectators considered her a turncoat. When the county attorney asked her to state her name, her voice carried to the back wall.

Her testimony went smoothly until Tharp asked if Story ever gave women pelvic exams for "nongynecological complaints."

Aarestad began a series of objections. "I am going to object to that on lack of foundation and incompetent on the part of this receptionist to testify as to what is or is not nongynecological examinations."

The judge had turned down most of Aarestad's earlier objections, but he sustained this one. A few seconds later, he sustained another, and then another. The questioning turned to the reluctance of Hayla Farwell and Julia Bradbury to pay their bills. Aarestad sat silently until Tharp slipped back to his original approach:

Q Did you ever notice any unusual behavior by the doctor during the course of any pelvic examinations?

M
r.
A
arestad
I
am going to object again as to calling for a vague response and lack of foundation.

T
he
C
ourt
Sustained unless foundation is waived.

Q
(By
M
r.
T
harp
) Would you observe the doctor during the course of your work as he was walking around the office?

A Yes.

Q And would you observe him as he might come out of an examination room?

A Yes.

Q Did you ever notice anything unusual in his demeanor when he came out of the examination room?

A Yes.

M
r.
A
arestad
I am going to object again on the grounds it lacks specifics and it is vague in respect to what day, what patient and time and place, et cetera.

T
he
C
ourt
Overruled.

Q Go ahead and answer, Mrs. Harrison. What did you notice?

A Okay. On occasion we noticed he would come out of an examining room very fast, his hair would be ruffled, his ears were red, and he would go immediately to the bathroom.

Q Would this be from a room where a pelvic examination was scheduled?

A Yes.

After a few questions about Mrs. Bradbury's bill, Tharp asked, "Were you ever called upon to clean up an examination room?"

"Yes."

The defense lawyer stood up as Tharp asked, "Do you recall an incident—?"

"May counsel approach the Bench at this point, Your Honor?" Aarestad called out.

"Certainly," the judge said.

The agitated lawyer warned that Tharp was trying to elicit testimony about the finding of semen in Story's wastebasket, and called it "highly prejudicial . . . remote and irrelevant." His face showed disgust as he said, "That is so remote and so irrelevant and prejudicial that we can't even conceive of such testimony being allowed. ... If Mr. Tharp were completely honest, what he would say is he is trying to use this witness to inject as much extraneous prejudicial information through this witness as he can to characterize the Defendant as some kind of a deviant."

The judge asked if there was any connection between the semen smelled by the witness and any of the complainants.

"No," Tharp answered.

"Highly irrelevant and prejudicial!" Aarestad inteijected, and added several legal reasons why the testimony shouldn't be permitted.

The judge ran a hand through his white hair. "I am going to allow Mr. Tharp to make inquiry into this area," he said slowly, ". . . provided the proper foundation is laid in this matter. I believe that if the witness were to testify as to what Mr. Tharp has just revealed at the Bench conference that it does have probative value as to the Defendant's opportunity and, also, the Defendant's modus operandi."

Tharp resumed:

Q Mrs. Harrison, do you recall ever cleaning out an examination room in the Defendant's new office?

A Yes. . . .

Q Do you recall an occasion in 1983 when you cleaned out Room No. 2? A Yes.

Q ... Were you the first person to arrive at the office that morning? A Yes.

Q . . . What did you do?

A I took off the lid of the garbage can. ... I was going to take the plastic liner out of the garbage. Q Did you notice anything about the garbage in that can? A Yes. Q What?

M
r.
A
arestad
I am going to object on the grounds that are set forth in our Bench conference.
T
he
C
ourt
The Court will stand by its ruling. Q (By
M
r.
T
harp
) What did you see? A
A
wad of tissue. ... It was wet. Q Well, did this arouse your suspicions in any way?
A
Yes.

Q So what did you do?

A I got a piece of plastic and I picked it up. ... I smelled it. Q Do you associate the smell on that wad with anything? A Yes . . . semen.

Q Did you shortly thereafter check the appointment book? A Yes. . . .

Q Did you check for the previous day? A Yes.

Q Was there any indication that a pelvic examination had been performed in that room? A Yes.

Q Do you know what time? A Two o'clock.

Q I believe it was your testimony that—well, you have testified that the Defendant—you made the remark to him about having a nurse in the room? A Yes.

Q Now then, I take it from that there were occasions when the Defendant did not have a nurse in the room with him when doing a pelvic exam? A Yes.

Q And did this practice continue throughout the time that you worked for him?

A No.

Q Did it ever change?

A Yes.

M
r.
A
arestad
I
am going to object to this, Your Honor. Could we approach the Bench?

T
he
C
ourt
Okay.

M
r.
A
arestad
I believe that we are getting awfully dangerous here. I believe that Mr. Tharp is attempting to elicit testimony from this witness as to the events of the Board hearing that stated that he was to have a nurse in the room. And if she even hints of that, I am going to move for a mistrial. I hate to do it on the last witness of the case.

M
r.
T
harp
This witness will testify that in the spring of
1983
Dr. Story's practice changed and he began having a third person in the room because of the complaints they had received. This is as far as she has been instructed to go.

M
r.
A
arestad
Those complaints stem from the hearing and all of that. And he wants his steak and eat it, too, that is he can bring it up to a certain point but prevents me obviously from cross-examination from determining the validity and the identity of the complaints. And I believe for the record at this point Mr. Tharp is trying to set up a scenario for a mistrial.

T
he
C
ourt
Well, the jury has already heard the testimony that Julia Bradbury had complained and, also, the fact that Mrs. Hayla Farwell had in fact complained to them as to the reasons for why the bill was not paid. I would, however, suggest, Mr. Tharp, you approach this very, very carefully and don't get into a situation that is going to cause a mistrial in this matter. We have gone a long way at this time and I'd hate to see anything approach that. Do you wish to take a recess to talk to this witness beforehand?

M
r.
T
harp
Maybe
I
can just phrase the questions so she can answer with a yes or no.

T
he
C
ourt
All right.

Q
(By
M
r.
T
harp)
N
ow
you stated, I believe your last answer was that at some point in your employment Dr. Story's practice changed. Is that correct?

A Yes.

Q When? Do you recall?

A Approximately a month before I quit.

Q This would have been in 1984?

A Yes. Maybe, sir, more than that.

M
r.
A
arestad
I
'm going to object to the witness volunteering information.

T
he
C
ourt
Sustained. Just answer the question.

T
he
W
itness
All right.

Q (By
M
r.
T
harp
) At that point did he begin having a third person present in the room?

A Yes.

Q Was that because of some complaints that had been received?

A Yes.

After Diana Harrison testified that the examining rooms could be locked from the inside, Aarestad began his cross-examination with
a
series of questions about the layout of the clinic, her duties, her current employment, her relationship with the nine complaining witnesses, and Story's office procedures.