These directions, given quite clearly, kept Eve away and Penny in the courtroom. Quite a wily defense system you’ve constructed in that marvelous head of yours. When you needed ferocity, you had Eve, and when you needed quiet and stillness, you could be Penny.
So who were you when Rachel died?
I guess that’s the question everyone wants answered.
On the opposite side of the aisle, seated at the table across from you, was the assistant district attorney, Jessica Johnson. She had dark hair, expressive eyes to match, and mocha-colored skin. I know little about Jessica other than she graduated from Suffolk Law School, has a seven-year-old daughter, and at one time was a competitive tennis player.
The sounds of the courtroom filled my ears: the groan of a wood bench as a spectator shifted in her seat, the snap of a purse closing shut, the chirp of a phone powering down.
I watched the judge enter the courtroom with purposeful strides and take her seat at the bench. The nameplate in front of her read: JUDGE CLAIRE A. LOCKHART.
Judge Lockhart was about Mom’s age. Her face was bronzed in what couldn’t be a natural shade, and her eyes were ringed darkly with mascara so they stood out on her face. Dark roots were visible on her stylish shoulder-length hair, which she proceeded to tuck behind her ears. The attention she called to her ears, to her eyes—it’s like this judge wanted to make sure everyone knew she would see and hear everything that happened in her courtroom. Her dark robe was more like a cloak, and she radiated authority like a regal presence.
“Please be seated.”
All retook their seats. I felt like I’d drunk rocket fuel that morning instead of coffee.
“All right, good morning, everyone,” Judge Lockhart said in an officious voice.
Attorney Johnson spoke from a standing position at her table, papers and binders strewn in front of her. “Good morning, Your Honor. This is the State of Massachusetts versus Penny Isabella Francone, 2277 CR 1011, first-degree murder. The state is ready to proceed, Your Honor. We do have some pretrial motions from both sides. We will take those in whatever order the court pleases.”
The motions were settled quickly. No issues there.
The prosecutor’s opening statement was blistering and brutal.
“When this trial is over, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you will have no doubt that Penny Isabella Francone, this defendant”—and Attorney Johnson pointed to you—“intentionally and savagely slaughtered her birth mother, Rachel Boyd, murdering her in her home.” She gave the jury Rachel’s address in Lynn. “The defendant had the opportunity to be alone with Rachel that night, and used a knife taken from Rachel’s kitchen to stab the victim twenty-three times in her arms, chest, and abdomen before brutally slashing her throat.”
Attorney Johnson didn’t move around a lot, but occasionally she’d glance at her notebooks.
“The evidence will show that the defendant was completely aware of her actions, had fantasized about killing before, had made threats to kill before—even made written threats to kill the victim—and was completely sane at the time of the murder. You will hear from an expert witness on dissociative identity disorder, who will testify that Penny believes she possesses multiple personalities. Let me repeat the key part of that: Penny believes.
“But these beliefs, as the evidence will show, do not—let me repeat—do not meet the legal definition of insanity. Through the defendant’s own words and actions, you will learn, and the evidence will show, that the defendant was completely aware of her actions and knew exactly why she did it. Rachel Boyd, the victim here, was a symbol for this defendant’s anger and resentment at the world. The defendant acted in retribution for being abandoned by her birth mother years ago in a park, and that fermenting anger, combined with her dark desire to kill, led to this atrocious crime for which the defendant now stands accused.
“Ladies and gentlemen, we may never know exactly what was going through the defendant’s mind at the time of the killing, but not knowing why the defendant slaughtered Rachel Boyd does not mean the defendant is not responsible for the murder. It merely means that there is no good answer.
“As you know, the defendant has entered a plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. Judge Lockhart will instruct you on the elements of the law pertinent to this case. If you find the defendant not guilty, you will have to believe that the defendant was unable to understand or control what she was doing at the time of the killing, and lacked awareness that what she was doing was wrong.