The Case of the Borrowed Brunette

Chapter 17

In those tense few moments before the arrival of the judge on the bench, the whispered comments of the spectators sounded like a continual hissing. What came as considerable surprise to the initiate was the fact that Harry Gulling was present personally at this preliminary hearing, representing the district attorney’s office and thus advertising to those who knew their way around the courthouse that this was indeed the “grudge fight” it had been called in the papers.

Perry Mason looked up as a deputy sheriff brought in Adelle Winters and Eva Martell. The lawyer rose, shook hands with the two defendants, and saw that they were seated beside him.

“I’m so sorry about that taxicab,” Eva Martell whispered. “I thought I would drive by the apartment that Cora and I shared, and if the police weren’t watching it... It was foolish — I don’t know why I did it.”

“That’s all right,” Mason said. “That’s all water under the bridge now.”

“They’ve been trying to get a statement out of me. Not so much about the crime itself as about where I stayed that night. Whether you had anything to do with getting me... ”

“I know,” Mason whispered. “Let’s not bother about it. Excuse me for a moment — there’s Paul Drake. I have to see him.” He got up and beckoned to Drake, who had just entered the courtroom.

As the detective joined him, Mason said, “Paul, stand close to me. I’m going to slip you something. I don’t want anyone to see it.”

“What?”

Mason didn’t answer him directly, but said, “This is something I’ve been hoping for but hardly dared believe might happen: Harry Gulling is going to handle the case for the prosecution himself!”

“Isn’t that rather unusual?”

“Damn near unique!” Mason replied. “As you know, he’s the shrewd legal mind that guides the policy of the district attorney’s office, but I never thought he’d be much good before a jury — his mind is too mathematical and detached, and he hasn’t enough understanding of human nature. Now, listen, Paul: I want to have witnesses to the contents of this wallet. It’s my own, and I want an inventory of it made. In it are some money, some letters, my driving license, and a few other papers. I want Gulling to find it in the men’s room.”

“Going to be rather difficult,” Drake said.

“No, it isn’t. You can have a man in there ready to plant it. Then have another man out in the corridor who can give a signal when Gulling heads that way. I want it left where it will be readily seen, but where it isn’t too conspicuous.”

“Okay,” Drake said. “I’ll give it a whirl.”

Mason moved closer and slipped the wallet into Drake’s hand. “Make sure Gulling gets it, and—”

They were interrupted by the banging of a gavel and a clerk ordering everyone to stand.

Judge Homer C. Lindale entered the courtroom, took his place at the bench, and nodded the spectators to their chairs. A moment later he called the case of The People vs Adelle Winters and Eva Martell.

“Ready for the prosecution,” Gulling said.

“Ready for the defense,” Mason announced.

“Proceed,” Judge Lindale said to Gulling.

“Your Honor is familiar with the crime charged?”

“I have read the complaint. It is a case of first-degree murder, I believe.”

“Yes, Your Honor. The defendants are charged jointly and are both represented by Mr. Mason.”

“I so understand. Proceed.”

“Your Honor, my first witness will be Samuel Dixon.”

Dixon, duly sworn, took the witness stand, stated that he was a radio-car officer and had been such on the third of the month when he received a call to go to Siglet Manor Apartments and investigate at Apartment 326. On arriving there he had found both defendants in the apartment. The younger, Eva Martell, was excited and somewhat hysterical, but the older one, Adelle Winters, was quite calm and collected. They had shown him a body which they said was that of a man named Robert Hines.

“Where was this body?”

“Seated in a chair in the bedroom, rather slumped forward, the head inclined over toward the right shoulder. There was a hole almost in the center of the forehead. There were powder marks visible around the hole, indicating that it was a bullet hole. There had been some hemorrhage. The man was in his shirt sleeves. His coat had been removed and hung over the back of the chair in which the body was slumped.”

“Did the defendants make any statements to you in regard to the identity of the dead man or how they happened to discover him?”

“Yes, sir.”

“What were those statements?”

“Signed statements?” Mason interrupted.

“The statements I am referring to at this time were not signed,” Gulling said.

Mason said, “I understand, Your Honor, that the defendant signed certain statements. If that is so, the statements themselves are the best evidence.”

“The statements I am now asking for are merely oral statements which were made to this witness,” Gulling said.

“Objection overruled.”

“May I ask if these statements are considered by the prosecution to be in the nature of admissions? Or are they confessions?”

“I fail to see that that makes any difference.”

“If they aren’t either one, I shall object to them as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial.”

“They are statements.”

“Very well. Then I shall object to them on the ground that no proper foundation has been laid.”

“They are not confessions, if that is what you mean. They are statements — admissions.”

“Objection overruled,” Judge Lindale said.

“Yes,” the witness went on, “both defendants made statements. They said that they’d been employed by Mr. Hines to live in this apartment. The defendant Eva Martell said she had been instructed to take the name of Helen Reedley.”

“If the Court please,” Mason said, “I would like to be heard upon my objection. After all, there is no proof of the corpus delicti as yet. We have merely the body of a dead man. It seems that the orderly way would be to show the identity of this man and some medical testimony indicating that death was the result of violence. For all that has appeared so far, the man may have died of heart trouble.”

“With a bullet in his forehead?” Gulling asked sarcastically.

“Oh,” Mason said, “so there was a bullet in his forehead! That changes the situation.”

“Yes, there was a bullet.”

“I would like to cross-examine the witness about that bullet for the purpose of proving the corpus delicti before these other questions are asked.”

“This witness didn’t see the bullet,” Gulling said.

“Then how did he know there was a bullet?”

“The autopsy surgeon told him so!” Gulling shouted — and then flushed before Judge Lindale’s smile. He went on more calmly. “Very well,” he said, “I will prove the corpus delicti. If you will step down, Mr. Dixon, I’ll ask to have Helen Reedley sworn.”

With obvious reluctance Helen Reedley took the witness stand—

“Were you acquainted during his lifetime with Robert Dover Hines?” Gulling asked.

“I was.”

“Did you see him on the third of this month?”

“I did not actually see him on that date, but I talked with him.”

“On the telephone?”

“Yes.”

“You had, however, seen him prior to that time?”

“Many times, yes.”

“You were familiar with him? You know who he was?”

“Yes, I do.”

“You rented an apartment at the Siglet Manor Apartments, number 326?”

“I did, yes.”

“You had given Mr. Hines permission to occupy your apartment?”

“Temporarily, yes.”

“And did you on the fourth day of this month, at the request of the police, go to the morgue?”

“I did.”

“And there you saw the body of a man?”

“Yes.”

“Did you know that man?”

“Yes.”

“Who was it?”

“Mr. Hines.”

“Robert Dover Hines?”

“Yes.”

“The same person to whom you had given permission to occupy your apartment?”

“Yes.”

“Cross-examine,” Gulling said.

“When you gave Mr. Hines permission to occupy your apartment, you gave him a key to the apartment?” Mason asked.

“Yes.”

“And what was your object in giving him this key and permission to occupy the apartment?”

“Just a moment, Your Honor,” Gulling said, “that is objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, and not proper cross-examination. This witness is called purely for the purpose of establishing the identity of the deceased, and that is all.”

“Then why ask her if she had given the deceased permission to occupy her apartment?” Mason asked.

“It shows why he was there.”

“Exactly,” Mason said. “That is what I’m trying to show — why he was there.”

“I didn’t mean it that way, Your Honor,” Gulling said.

Mason said, “I did, Your Honor.”

“If the Court please,” Gulling exclaimed angrily, “I don’t want to have all these extraneous matters dragged into this case. If Mr. Mason has any defense he wishes to produce, he is at perfect liberty to do so. But, so far as my case is concerned, I merely want to show the identity of the dead man, the manner in which he met his death, and the fact that there is more than a probability that these defendants brought about that death in a deliberate, cold-blooded manner and for the purpose of perpetrating a theft.”

“Then by all means,” Mason said, “the court should know the reason why the defendants were in the apartment, and the reason why Hines was in the apartment.”

“As a part of your case, if you want — not as a part of mine,” Gulling snorted.

“Perhaps,” Mason said, “I can clear up the situation by pointing out to the Court that the witness has been asked about the permission she gave Hines to occupy her apartment. If that permission was in writing, then the writing itself is the best evidence and should be introduced. If the permission was oral, then — under a well-established rule of law — when the prosecution introduces a part of a conversation I have a right to introduce it all.”

Gulling was unmistakably angry now. “We’ll be here all winter, Your Honor, if all these minor matters are going to be dragged into the case.”

“I don’t think it’s exactly a minor matter,” Judge Lindale ruled. “I would have said that it was part of the defendant’s case, were it not that the witness has been asked about something that obviously was a conversation. I will rule that if this was a part of the conversation, counsel has a right to show all of the conversation on cross-examination. I would suggest you reframe your question, Mr. Mason.”

“Very well,” Mason said. Turning to the witness, he smiled. “You have stated that you gave Robert Hines permission to occupy your apartment?”

“Yes, sir.”

“That was in a conversation?”

“Yes, sir.”

“What else was said in that conversation?”

“Your Honor, I object to that,” Gulling said. “It is a blanket question — it calls for everything.”

“Exactly,” Mason said.

“Overruled.”

“Answer the question, Mrs. Reedley.”

Helen Reedley chose her words carefully, trying desperately to betray as few of the facts as possible. “I don’t remember the entire conversation. We had several conversations on the subject. But at the time when I gave Mr. Hines permission to occupy my apartment—”

“And if the court please,” Gulling interrupted, “it’s only that one conversation that we are interested in. Any earlier conversations or negotiations looking toward the giving of that permission must be brought out elsewhere. On cross-examination, all that may be brought out is what was said at that one conversation.”

“That is correct so far as the present ruling of the Court is concerned,” Judge Lindale said.

“Well, at that one conversation,” Helen Reedley said, “I told Mr. Hines he could occupy my apartment. I gave him a key to it, and we arranged that he would relay any telephone calls to me. In other words, if any telephone calls from my friends were received at that apartment, they would be relayed to Mr. Hines, who would in turn pass them on to me.”

“Anything else you can think of?” Mason asked.

“Not at that conversation,” she said. “No.”

“Any conversation about getting two women to occupy the apartment?”

“It was understood that Mr. Hines was to get someone to occupy the apartment.”

“To take your place?”

“Not exactly.”

“To use your name?”

“Well, yes.”

Mason said, “I’ll show you an advertisement that was published in a theatrical paper, and ask you if you consulted Mr. Hines about inserting it.”

“In that particular conversation,” Gulling amended.

“That’s right — in that particular conversation.”

“No, that was done by Mr. Hines without consulting me,” Helen Reedley said.

“Did you, at that conversation, have some understanding with Mr. Hines as to the type of woman who was to occupy your apartment? Specifically, that she was to be a brunette with certain definite physical characteristics?”

“Well... ”

“Yes or no?” Mason asked.

“Yes.”

“What were the specifications?”

“I gave him my measurements — height, weight, waist measure, and so forth.”

“Why?”

“Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, and not proper cross-examination,” Gulling said.

Judge Lindale was now plainly interested. He was leaning forward in his chair looking at the witness. “Do I understand,” he asked, “that you authorized Mr. Hines to use your apartment, that you gave him a key to your apartment, and that in addition it was arranged that he was to get a woman of your exact description to take your name and occupy your apartment?”

“Not at the conversation, if the Court please,” Gulling said. “It was the result of several conversations.”

“The court wants an answer to that one question,” Judge Lindale said. He sounded irritated.

“That was the general understanding,” Helen Reedley admitted.

“And Mr. Mason has asked this witness why that understanding was reached?”

“Yes, Your Honor,” Mason said.

“And that is what is objected to, if the Court please,” Gulling said; “because it was an understanding reached in prior conversations and did not have anything to do with this one conversation at which permission was given to occupy the apartment. If the Court please, the loophole through which the defense attorney has squirmed to bring out this matter on cross-examination is exceedingly small — an opening based on a technicality only. I feel that the opening should not be enlarged.”

“Well,” Judge Lindale said, “I think that Counsel is perhaps right — technically right. But at some stage of the proceedings the Court wants to find out why this impersonation was permitted.”

“Not an impersonation, Your Honor,” Gulling said.

“Well, what was it?” Judge Lindale said.

“It was merely a subletting of the apartment.”

“Humph!” Lindale snapped. “To a woman who had the physical appearance of the witness and who was to assume her name?”

“Well, yes, Your Honor.”

“If that isn’t an impersonation, I don’t know one when I see it,” Judge Lindale said. “However, the Court will limit the cross-examination to matters that were covered on direct examination. Proceed with your questions, Mr. Mason.”

“Now,” Mason said, “you have stated that you did not see Robert Dover Hines on the third, the day of the murder.”

“Yes, sir.”

“Are you certain of that?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Where were you at twelve-thirty o’clock in the afternoon on that day?”

“I... I was at lunch.”

“Alone?”

“Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial and not proper cross-examination,” Gulling said.

Judge Lindale sighed. “Well, technically I suppose the objection may be well taken — unless it should appear that the witness lunched with the decedent Hines; and I take it, Mr. Mason, there is no contention that such was the case?”

“None, Your Honor. I merely want to follow the movements of the witness from lunch until the time of the murder. I believe that this is a sufficiently narrow field to be reasonable cross-examination of a witness who has stated she did not see the decedent on that day.”

“What was the time of the murder?”

“I believe the prosecution fixes it at two o’clock.”

“At between one-fifty-five and two-fifteen, Your Honor.”

“Very well,” said Judge Lindale. “That is a period of twenty minutes during which it is claimed that the murder was committed. I believe that an examination of this witness as to her whereabouts from twelve-thirty on is permissible in view of the fact that she has stated she did not see the decedent during the entire day of the third.”

“You finished lunch at approximately one-thirty?” Mason asked.

“Yes, sir.”

“And where did you go?”

She looked helplessly at Gulling.

“Incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial,” Gulling said mechanically. “Not proper cross-examination.”

“Overruled.”

“I... I went to... to a certain restaurant.”

“You had already had lunch,” Mason said. “You went to this restaurant for the purpose of seeing someone?”

“Well, yes.”

“And that person was Robert Hines?”

“Yes.”

“Did you see him?”

“No.”

“Did you talk with him on the telephone?”

“Earlier in the day I had talked with him on the telephone.”

“After one-thirty did you talk with him on the phone?”

“No.”

“Did you try to?”

“Yes.”

“You called him at a number he had given you?”

“Yes.”

“The number of a telephone in an apartment in the Siglet Manor Apartments — another apartment, that is?”

“I believe it is — yes.”

“An apartment rented by Carlotta Tipton?”

“I–I believe so, yes.”

“Had you ever met Carlotta Tipton?”

“Not to speak to. I had seen her once or twice. I think I had ridden up in the elevator with her.”

“By the elevator, you mean the elevator of the Siglet Manor Apartments?”

“Yes.”

“And when you went to this restaurant on the day of the murder looking for Robert Hines, you had reason to believe he would be at this restaurant for lunch?”

“Yes.”

“Yet you made no attempt to get in touch with him until after one-thirty?”

“That’s right.”

“Rather late for lunch, isn’t it?”

“Well... I was hoping that perhaps he would be there.”

“Taking a chance on it?”

“If you want to put it that way, yes.”

“But had you gone there earlier, you would have been sure to catch him, wouldn’t you?”

“I... I suppose so.”

Mason said, “Is it a fair inference that the thing that made you so anxious to get in touch with Mr. Hines was something that happened during your own luncheon engagement. Is that right?”

“Your Honor, I object,” Gulling exclaimed. “That’s purely a conclusion.”

“Not a conclusion of the witness, but a conclusion of counsel,” Mason said smiling.

“And,” Judge Lindale remarked dryly, “one that is quite obvious to the Court. Mr. Gulling, can’t we proceed with the hearing without quite so many objections from counsel? After all, this is not a matter before a jury, and it would seem that we might dispense with some of the more technical objections.”

“I’ll withdraw the question,” Mason said. “And I have only one or two more questions to ask. Mrs. Reedley, you gave Mr. Hines some money at the time of this conversation, did you not?”

“Yes.”

“In hundred-dollar bills?”

“Hundreds and fifties.”

“How much?”

“Five hundred dollars.”

“Had you previously received some of that money from your husband?”

Gulling said sullenly, “Your Honor, I dislike to seem over-technical in the face of the Court’s admonition, but it is obvious what Mr. Mason is doing. He has trapped me into making technical objections until the court has requested—”

“I think counsel is right,” Judge Lindale said. “Mr. Mason, you will appreciate, of course, the necessity of cooperation by counsel on both sides. The Court has asked for fewer technical objections. That certainly means that counsel asking the questions should lean over backwards to keep his examination within the rules of evidence, not take advantage of the condition.”

“Your Honor, I appreciate that,” Mason said, “and because the situation may reflect somewhat on my professional integrity, may I explain the purpose of the question?”

“Very well.”

“As I understand it,” Mason said, “it is the contention of the prosecution that at the time Hines was killed he had a wallet in his possession containing some three thousand dollars in currency. I understand further that the numbers on some of those bills have been traced to the husband of this witness. It therefore becomes vitally important to ascertain whether those bills found their way into that (wallet as a consequence of this transaction with Mrs. Reedley, or whether they reached the wallet from some other source.”

Judge Lindale’s eyes showed his interest. He turned to Gulling. “Is that approximately correct, Mr. Deputy District Attorney?”

“Your Honor, I respectfully submit that this is an attempt to force the prosecution to put on its case out of order.”

“Mr. Mason has made a statement explaining the reason for a question,” Judge Lindale said. “I am asking if Mr. Mason’s statement is approximately correct.”

“The statement is approximately correct — but that certainly does not mean that the door can be opened so wide on cross-examination.”

“Well,” Judge Lindale said, “if we are going to get technical, this cross-examination may not be on any subject brought out in the direct examination; but it going to be technical, gentlemen, we’ll be technical on may go to show the bias of the witness. And if we’re both sides. The objection is overruled. Answer the question.”

“No,” Helen Reedley said. “There was not a single dollar of the money I gave Mr. Hines that I had received from my husband. I have not had any money from my husband for some six months.”

“Thank you,” Mason said. “That is all.”

“No redirect,” Gulling snapped.

“Your next witness?” Lindale asked.

“Your Honor, it becomes necessary for me to present one phase of my case slightly out of order. I wish to call one witness for just a question or two.”

“Very well.”

“Mr. Thomas Folsom,” Gulling said, “will you come forward and be sworn?”

Tom Folsom proved to be a tall, loose-jointed man. He was sworn, took the witness stand, crossed long legs, and settled back like a person to whom the witness chair is a familiar seat.

“Your name is Thomas Folsom, and you’re a private detective employed by the Interstate Investigators, and you were so employed on the third of this month and had been for some time prior to that date?”

“Yes, sir.”

“I will direct your attention to the defendant Adelle Winters, and ask if you saw her on the third of the month at approximately two-twenty in the afternoon?”

“I did.”

“Where?”

“At the Lorenzo Hotel.”

“What was she doing?”

“At that particular time?”

“At that particular time.”

“She was there with the other defendant, Eva Martell. They arrived at the hotel around a quarter past two in the afternoon. At about two-twenty, while Eva Martell was telephoning, the defendant Winters, whom I had been instructed to shadow, started to walk rather aimlessly around the hotel lobby. Then she went through a door marked ‘Baggage Room,’ and through another door that led to an alley, and finally turned down a side passageway back of the hotel dining room.”

“And what did she do there?”

“Three garbage cans were standing out there in a row. She raised the lid of the middle one, stood there briefly for a moment, apparently dropped something into it, then replaced the lid and turned back toward the main passageway.”

“This was at approximately two-twenty, and immediately afterwards?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Cross-examine,” Gulling snapped.

Mason said, “You were instructed to shadow the defendant Adelle Winters?”

“Yes, sir.”

“And had been shadowing her for some time before you saw her there at the hotel?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Both on the third and on the second?”

“Yes, sir.”

“She had gone to the Lorenzo Hotel directly from the apartment in the Siglet Manor Apartments?”

“That is correct — yes, sir.”

“Leaving the Siglet Manor shortly after two o’clock?” Mason asked.

“Yes, sir. She left the apartment at eleven minutes past two, if you want the exact time.”

“Now did you see her chop anything in the garbage can?”

“No sir. I’ve been very careful to state only what I actually saw. I was shadowing her, but I didn’t want to be noticed, so I sort of kept behind her, out of sight. While she had her back turned toward me, she picked up the lid of the garbage can; at that moment her body hid what her hands were doing. Then she apparently dropped something in. As soon as she started to turn, I ducked around a corner and got back to the lobby.”

“And she returned to the lobby?”

“That’s right.”

“Where you kept her under observation until approximately what time?”

“Well, she didn’t stay in the hotel lobby. The two women were there for a while and did some telephoning. Then they went out and did some shopping.”

“It certainly seems to me, Your Honor, that all this is far afield,” Gulling said.

“I think so too,” Judge Lindale ruled. “It may be very interesting to the defendant, and it might constitute a great temptation for a fishing expedition, but it would hardly seem proper cross-examination.”

“I’m sorry, Your Honor,” Mason said. “I’ll ask no more questions of the witness.”

“Anything about the matter on which he was examined on direct examination is perfectly permissible,” Judge Lindale said.

“No, Your Honor, I feel I have covered the ground and I have no desire to appear to be taking advantage of the Court’s request that we expedite the examination.”

“Any redirect?”

“I certainly have, Your Honor,” Gulling said. “Now then, Mr. Folsom, you have been asked whether or not you saw the defendant drop anything in that garbage can. I want to ask you just one question. If she had dropped anything, could you have seen what it was?”

“No, sir, I tried to explain that. From the position in which I stood, I could not see what her right hand was doing; her body screened the motion. In fact, I didn’t see her left hand at all. But I did see her bend over the garbage can, and I saw her left arm come up and the top of the can come up with it. I then saw her replace the cover on the can.”

“That is all,” Gulling said.

“Just a moment. In view of this last redirect,” Mason said, “I have a few more questions Of the witness. Mr. Folsom, you couldn’t see either one of the defendant’s hands?”

“I’ve said so several times.”

“I just wanted to have it clear in the record. But you did see her left arm come up, raising the lid of the garbage can?”

“Yes, sir.”

“From which you assumed that her left hand was holding the handle of the lid?”

“Naturally.”

“Now then, did you see her right arm move?”

“I’ve tried to explain that her body screened whatever her right hand was doing.”

“I’m not talking about her hand — I’m talking about her arm. Did you see her arm move?”

“No, sir.”

“Her right shoulder move?”

“Well, now, wait a minute, Mr. Mason. I am not entirely sure, but — thinking back to it — I believe there was some slight motion of the elbow and shoulder, the sort one would make in gently tossing some object into a receptacle.”

“You were transmitting reports to the Interstate Investigators?”

“Yes, sir.”

“And were under instructions to telephone a report in every half-hour?”

“If we were where we could conveniently get to a phone, yes.”

“How many men were on the job?”

“Two.”

“You were shadowing Adelle Winters, and another person was shadowing Eva Martell?”

“Right.”

“Now at the time you saw the defendant Winters do this,” Mason said, “or within a very few minutes afterward, you telephoned a report to the Interstate Investigators, didn’t you?”

“Yes, sir.”

“And in that report you stated that she had raised the lid of the garbage pail and looked into the garbage can.”

“I believe so. That’s right, yes.”

“Now, as a part of looking into it, wouldn’t she have had to move her right elbow or right shoulder?”

“Certainly not.”

“And at the time you made that report, you had no idea she had dropped something into the garbage can?”

“I wouldn’t go so far as to say that. I ‘had no idea’ of it.”

“But all your report stated was that she had looked into the can?”

“Yes.”

“Which was all you thought she was doing, at the time.”

“Well, it was one interpretation of what she had done.”

“And you so reported to your agency?”

“Yes.”

“Your recollection then of what she had done was fresher than it is now, wasn’t it?”

“I don’t think so — I think I recollect it just as well now as I did when I made the report.”

“But your original impression was that she was only looking into the garbage can?”

“Well, if you want to put it that way — yes.”

“At the time you made your report, the recollection was quite fresh in your mind. Now, about how long was it, after she went to the garbage can, that you telephoned your report?”

“I telephoned two or three minutes afterward. When I returned to the lobby, my associate took over and kept both parties under observation while I telephoned.”

“And within two or three minutes after the garbage-can episode, the two defendants were together in the lobby?”

“That’s right.”

“And in your report to the agency you said that she had looked into the garbage can.”

“Yes, sir.”

“You hadn’t had that garbage can under observation earlier?”

“No, sir.”

“And didn’t have any occasion to have it under observation afterward?”

“No, sir.”

“Therefore you don’t know but that this defendant merely did look into the garbage can and didn’t put anything into it?”

“Well, I guess so, if you want to get technical,” Folsom replied.

“I don’t want to get unduly technical, but the point may prove to be rather important in this case.”

“Well, if you want my frank opinion,” Folsom said, “at that time I may have said she only looked inside, but the way I feel about it now is that I’m absolutely certain she lifted the lid of the garbage can and dropped something inside.”

“Why didn’t that interpretation occur to you at the time you telephoned your report?”

“I can’t say,” Folsom answered. “Probably I didn’t consider the distinction particularly significant then.”

“That’s exactly the point I am trying to establish,” said Mason. “What has colored your recollection now is the realization that the point is significant.”

“I don’t agree that it has ‘colored my recollection’ at all! It has just made me think back a little more carefully. I’m absolutely positive now that she dropped something into that garbage can.”

“Just as positive as you were at twenty-three minutes past two on the third day of this month that she had merely looked into it?”

“That’s a rather harsh way of putting it, Mr. Mason.”

“And that’s a rather poor way of answering the question.”

“I... she dropped something into that can.”

“You’re sure she did — now?”

“Yes.”

“You weren’t sure on the third?”

“Well — no — if you’re going to split hairs!”

“That’s all,” Mason said.

“No redirect,” Gulling said.

“Your next witness, Counselor.”

“At this point I wish to recall Sam Dixon for a question,” Gulling said.

“Very well.”

The judge said to Dixon, “You have already been sworn. Go ahead and answer questions.”

“Mr. Dixon,” Gulling asked, “did you have occasion on the afternoon of the third to visit the Lorenzo Hotel and inspect a garbage can there?”

“I did.”

“What did you do?”

“I raised the cover of the garbage can, being careful not to leave any fingerprints on it. I found the can about two-thirds full of garbage. I emptied the garbage out on a piece of canvas, and in that garbage I found a Colt .32-caliber revolver, number 14581.”

“And what did you do with the revolver?”

“Taking great care not to leave any fingerprints on it, and not to smudge any fingerprints that might already be on it — in spite of the fact that it had been right in the middle of wet garbage... ”

“Never mind explaining why there were no fingerprints on the gun — just answer the question. What did you do?”

“I delivered the gun to Alfred Korbel.”

“Mr. Korbel is the expert on ballistics and fingerprinting for the Police Department?”

“He is.”

“And when did you deliver the weapon to him?”

“Both the weapon and the garbage-can lid were delivered at approximately seven forty-five on the evening of that day.”

“The third of this month?”

“Yes, sir.”

“You may inquire.”

“No questions,” Mason said.

“Court will take a recess for ten minutes,” judge Lindale ruled.

Mason caught Paul Drake’s eye.

Paul nodded.