Snow Falling on Cedars: Chapter 19 Summary & Analysis

It’s now December 7, the morning of the second day of Kabuo’s trial. It’s freezing and snowing outside, but the courtroom is warm. Alvin Hooks calls Dr. Sterling Whitman to the stand. Whitman is the hematologist who examined the blood found on Kabuo’s gaff. He describes the process of typing blood as “a standard procedure” in his line of work.

Ed Soames, the bailiff, brings Hooks the gaff, which is a piece of the prosecution’s evidence against Kabuo. Whitman identifies the evidence as the gaff he examined, and verifies that it is in identical condition. He shares his findings with the court: that the blood on the gaff was human blood, and that he identified it as B-positive. He checked this blood type against Carl Heine’s, and found that Heine’s blood was also B-positive.

Hooks asks Whitman whether he can say with certainty that the blood is Carl’s; he admits that he cannot, although he does say that the B-positive blood type is somewhat rare. In contrast, Kabuo’s blood type is O-negative. Thus, the blood on the gaff was neither animal blood nor Kabuo’s own blood.

Nels Gudmundsson rises to question Whitman. Whitman verifies, again, that he took the blood sample from the butt of the gaff. Nels asks him if he found anything besides blood and wood scrapings on the sample, such as “strands of hair, or particles of scalp.” Whitman admits that no, there were no strands of hair or particles of scalp. Nels speculates that this is odd, as the prosecution’s theory seems to be that Kabuo hit Carl over the head with the gaff.

Nels directs Whitman’s attention to the second wound found on Carl’s corpse, on his hand. He asks whether it’s possible that the B-positive blood could’ve been transferred to the gaff from this wound on Carl’s hand (as opposed to the wound on Carl’s head). Whitman admits that this is possible; what’s more, he says that, though his findings prove that the blood on the gaff is B-positive, they don’t prove how the blood got there.

Nels positions Whitman to admit that the percentage of males of Japanese descent with B-positive blood is even higher than the percentage of Caucasian males (20% versus 10%), suggesting that the blood could’ve come from any number of men. Finally, he asks Whitman to determine whether it’s more likely that the blood was transferred to the gaff from a hand wound or a head wound. Whitman believes it’s “more probable” that the blood came from a hand.

Three fishermen testify that they’d seen Carl and Kabuo’s boats near one another on September 15, the night of Carl’s death, at Ship Channel Bank. Leonard George, a gill-netter, tells Nels Gudmundsson that Ship Channel is similar to other places the men typically fish: it is “narrow” and with a “limited seafloor topography.” These features force the fishermen to “fish within sight of other men.”

The nearness of other men’s boats combined with the typical fog observed that time of year on San Piedro made it necessary for the fishermen to move around carefully, so as not to hit another man’s net. Thus, it would make sense that Leonard George would remember seeing Carl and Kabuo’s boats at Ship Channel Bank: he would’ve been on high alert so as not to bump into either of them. They were fishing in the same area, with Carl “a thousand yards closer to the shipping lanes that gave Ship Channel Bank its name.”

Nels Gudmundsson then asks Leonard George if it’s common for gill-netters to board each other’s ships at sea; George reveals that it is not. There aren’t many reasons to board another’s ship. George cites helping out a man with a stalled boat as one of these rare cases, however. George emphasizes that the men generally keep to themselves.

Nels then asks if fishermen ever argue on the open sea. George says yes, when “a guy gets corked off.” He explains that a gill-netter’s net consists of a top and a bottom part. The top of the net rests above water, allowed to float with bits of cork tied to it; the bottom rests beneath the surface, weighted down with lead. When one man places his net up current from another, he essentially takes all the fish in that area before they can drift to the net behind his—this is getting “corked off.” A man who’d been corked off might motor past the fish-stealer and lay his net up current, thus corking off the man who’d done it first to him, essentially setting up a game of “leapfrog.” Still, as infuriating as a situation like this would be, George emphasizes, it wouldn’t be a serious enough argument to warrant boarding another man’s boat.

The trial continues. Alvin Hooks calls Army First Sergeant Victor Maples, who trains combat troops, to the stand. He testifies that he remembers Kabuo due to the kendo expertise he demonstrated during training. Kabuo was so skilled that, in a practice exercise, Maples was unable to hit him back. So impressed was Maples with Kabuo’s skills that he’d asked to study with him. In his testimony, Maples asserts that “a man with no training in kendo had little chance of warding [Kabuo] off.” What’s more, Kabuo struck him as “willing to inflict violence on another man.” In fact, “it would not surprise” him to hear that Kabuo had murdered another man with an implement like the fishing gaff.