Hayward also liked calling Val “my star witness” too, and in a way that implied no other witnesses existed. Val was convinced this was his method of persuading all those who were reluctant to take the stand. I need you and only you can do this. Jesus, this guy didn’t get to be a district attorney for nothing. And it did work. Val had to admit she immediately felt guilty for wanting to bag out, because she now felt obligated to join the crusade.

She had to remind herself, I don’t want to do this. “Any chance that you can go forward without me?”

“None. Look, Val, this man robbed you of your career. He stole the lives of several women and you have the ability to see that he pays for it. Your voice can speak for those who can’t. We need you, Val. I have to admit my case hinges on your testimony. Without you, a killer can go free. And I know you are too strong and too courageous to let that happen. You alone have a chance to make a difference.”

Bravo Hayward. Who in the hell says no to that?

Haywood was a master at this “reeling a witness in” crap. Though Val was being lulled into donning armor, raising her sword and saying an eager YES, she still resisted.

The shaky, unreliable, evidence made her hesitate. A man could die if she said the wrong thing, or got led to say the wrong thing by a skilled attorney. “How is that possible? You have other witnesses, bitemark experts.”

There was the briefest of pauses and then a small sigh. Hayward was just building momentum for a point he now needed to make. Val had been down this road with him before.

“Four highly respected bitemark experts said that he was a match and another three, who were not of the other experts’ stature, said ‘absolutely not.’” Hayward sighed again, and there was contempt in the huff. “These charlatans will confuse a jury. To add to that, a set of bitemark researchers, a husband and wife, said that it was scientifically impossible to make a match. This is new information.

“Val, what the defense is doing is trying to muddy the waters, create doubt in a juror’s mind. Confuse them into acquitting. That’s all they have. Without your testimony, which is ironclad and firsthand, told from a survivor, we have a chance of losing this case. I know you don’t want that.” The way Hayward said the last sentence made Val herself seem she’d be guilty of the crime if she didn’t testify.

“Scientifically impossible?” Val said, picking up on these words through the rhetoric. “How am I supposed to outdo that?”