The Case of the Calendar Girl

Chapter Fifteen

Judge Erwood looked down at the jammed courtroom, said acidly, “The People of the State of California versus Dawn Ferney, also known as Dawn Manning. This is the time fixed for the preliminary hearing.”

“We’re ready, Your Honor,” Hamilton Burger said.

Judge Erwood said, “Does the Court understand that Mr. Mason is representing this defendant?”

“That is quite right, Your Honor,” Mason said.

Judge Erwood said, “The last time you were in this court, Mr. Mason, you were presenting evidence which pointed the finger of suspicion very strongly at this defendant.”

“That evidence will now be presented by the district attorney,” Mason said, smiling, “and I will be permitted to cross-examine the witnesses.”

Judge Erwood hesitated a moment, as though casting about in his mind for some ground on which he could administer a rebuke, then he said, “Proceed, Mr. District Attorney.”

Hamilton Burger delegated the preliminaries to his associate counsel, Sam Drew, who once more introduced evidence as to the location of the premises, the finding of the body, the location and identification of the fatal bullet, the firing of test bullets through the gun which had been recovered from Ansley’s car, and the identification of the fatal bullet with the test bullet. Now the pictures of Dawn Manning which had been found in Borden’s studio were introduced by the prosecution as a telling point in its case.

“My next witness will be Harvey Dennison,” Hamilton Burger said.

Harvey Dennison came forward, was sworn and once again told the story of the missing gun.

“Any cross-examination?” Judge Erwood asked Mason.

“Yes, Your Honor.”

Mason arose and stood by the edge of the counsel table, looking at Harvey Dennison with steady eyes. “Mr. Dennison, I take it you have consulted the records of the store in order to get the information on which your testimony is based?”

“Yes, sir.”

“The defendant was working for you during the period when the gun was found to be missing?”

“Yes, sir.”

“You can’t tell the date when the gun was taken?”

“No, sir.”

“As I understand your testimony, your records show that the gun was ordered and received from the wholesaler on a certain date, that, at a later date, perhaps some months later, you took an inventory and found that the gun was not in your stock.”

“That’s right.”

“How many employees did you have in your store?”

“You mean as salesclerks?”

“No, I mean your total employees.”

“Well, counting bookkeepers, stock clerks, salespersons, we had — let me see, about twelve, I think.”

“Including the owners?”

“No, sir.”

“How many owners are there?”

“Three.”

“So there was a total of fifteen persons who could have taken that gun?”

“Well... yes, sir, I guess so.”

“And, during the time between the date the gun was received by you and the date when it was found to be missing when an inventory was taken, there were two burglaries of the store, were there not?”

“Yes, sir.”

“And what was taken in those burglaries?”

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

Judge Erwood said, “I think you should limit your question somewhat, Mr. Mason.”

“Very well, I will. I’ll withdraw that question and ask Mr. Dennison if it isn’t true that sporting goods were taken when the store was burglarized on each occasion.”

“Same objection,” Hamilton Burger said.

“Overruled,” Judge Erwood snapped.

“Yes, sir,” Dennison admitted. “As nearly as we could tell, all that was taken on those occasions was hunting and fishing material, and some cash.”

“What do you mean by hunting and fishing material?”

“Ammunition, rifles, shotguns, fishing rods, reels.”

“On both occasions the material taken consisted solely of sporting goods?”

“And money.”

“Both times?”

“Yes.”

“No further questions,” Mason said.

“Just a moment,” Hamilton Burger said. “I have one or two on redirect. If that gun had been taken on the occasion of either of those burglaries, you would have found that it was missing at that time, isn’t that correct?”

“Objected to as argumentative, leading and suggestive, and calling for a conclusion of the witness,” Mason said.

“Sustained,” Judge Erwood said.

“Well, you took an inventory after each of these burglaries, didn’t you?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Now then, I am going to ask you if you found that this gun was missing immediately after either one of the burglaries?”

“No, sir.”

“That’s all,” Hamilton Burger said.

Mason smiled.

“Did either of those inventories disclose this gun as being present?”

“No, sir, it did not. As I have said, something happened to our records on this gun. I don’t understand it exactly, but all I can state is that the gun was not sold over the counter.”

“That’s all,” Mason said, smiling.

“And during the time of this shortage, the defendant was in your employ?” Hamilton Burger asked.

“That’s right.”

“No further questions,” Hamilton Burger said.

“And fourteen other people were also in your employ?” Mason asked.

“Well, yes.”

“No further questions,” Mason said.

“That’s all,” Hamilton Burger announced. “Mr. Dennison will be excused. I will now call Frank Ferney. I may state to the Court that in some respects Mr. Ferney is an unwilling witness. He has, I believe, tried to protect this defendant wherever possible, and—”

Mason arose.

Hamilton Burger said, “And I may have to ask leading questions in order to get at the truth. I think this witness has perhaps—”

“Just a moment,” Judge Erwood said. “Do you wish to object, Mr. Mason?”

“Yes, Your Honor. I feel that it is incumbent on the district attorney to ask questions, and then, if it appears the witness is hostile, he can ask leading questions. But I see no reason for the prosecution to make a speech at this time, a speech which is quite evidently intended to arouse sympathy for this witness.”

“The Court feels Mr. Mason is correct, Mr. Burger. Just go ahead and ask your questions.”

“Very well,” Hamilton Burger said. “Your name is Frank Ferney?”

“That is right.”

“You were employed by Meridith Borden at the time of his death?”

“That’s right.”

“Now, directing your attention to the night when Mr. Borden was murdered, the night of the eighth, were you at Meridith Borden’s house on that night?”

“Yes, sir.”

“At about what time?”

“Just a moment,” Mason said, “if the Court please, at this point I wish to object to this question and ask that this witness be instructed not to answer any questions as to anything that happened on the night of the eighth.”

Judge Erwood showed surprise. “On what ground?” he asked.

“On the ground that the witness is married to the defendant, that the relationship of husband and wife exists, and that a husband cannot be examined for or against his wife without the consent of the wife.”

“Just a minute,” Hamilton Burger said, “I’ll clear that up. Are you married to the defendant, Mr. Ferney?”

“No, sir.”

“You are not her husband?”

“No, sir.”

Hamilton Burger grinned at Perry Mason.

“May I ask a question on that, Your Honor?” Mason asked.

“Very well, on that particular point only,” Judge Erwood said.

“You married the defendant at one time?”

“Yes, sir.”

“When?”

“Some three years ago.”

“You have been living separate and apart for some period of time?”

“Yes, sir.”

“How long?”

“About eighteen months.”

“And you have now divorced this defendant?”

“Yes, sir.”

“When was that divorce decree granted?”

“Yesterday.”

“Where?”

“In Reno, Nevada.”

“I take it you flew to Reno, Nevada, obtained your decree and flew back here in order to be a witness?”

“Yes, sir.”

“You had previously filed this suit for divorce, the issues had been joined, but you hadn’t gone through with the divorce?”

“That’s right.”

“You were married to the defendant on the night of the eighth when the murder was committed?”

“Yes, sir.”

“That’s all, Your Honor,” Mason said.

“But you aren’t married to her now,” Hamilton Burger said. “There is no longer any relationship of husband and wife.”

“That’s right,” Ferney said.

“If the Court please,” Hamilton Burger said, “I am prepared to argue this point. People versus Godines 17 Cal App 2nd 721, and the case of People versus Loper 159 California 6 112 Pacific 720, both hold that a divorced spouse is not prohibited from testifying even to anything that happened during the period the marriage was in force.”

Mason said, “Doesn’t the case of People versus Mullings 83 California 138 23 Pacific 229, and Kansas City Life Insurance Company versus Jones 21 Fed Sup 159 hold that a divorced wife cannot testify as to confidential communications between herself and the accused while they were married?”

“Who’s asking about any confidential communications?” Hamilton Burger shouted. “I’m asking about facts.”

“Aren’t you going to ask him if he didn’t knock on the door of Borden’s studio and hear his wife’s voice say, ‘Go away’?” Mason inquired.

“Certainly,” Burger snapped.

“There you are,” Mason said. “That’s a privileged communication between husband and wife. This witness can’t testify to that, both under the provisions of Subdivision 1 of Section 1881 of our Code of Civil Procedure, as well as Section 1332 of the Penal Code.”

Hamilton Burger’s eyes widened in astonishment. “That’s not what the law had in mind in regard to privileged communications between husband and wife. The defendant merely spoke to this witness without knowing she was addressing her husband.”

“How do you know what she knew?” Mason asked.

Burger, so angry he was all but sputtering, said, “Your Honor, if the Court should enforce any such rule, it would mean that the defendant in this case would be allowed to get by with murder. And I mean literally to get by with murder. She has committed the crime of murder. A witness is now on the stand who knows facts that force us to the conclusion that this defendant committed the crime. They are no longer husband and wife, they have been living separate and apart for over a year, there is no relationship between them which the law should encourage. The reason for the rule has ceased, and so the rule itself should cease.”

“Whatever a wife may have said to her husband is a confidential and therefore a privileged communication,” Mason said. “If this defendant was in that room and asked her husband to go away, she was appealing to him as his spouse. She was his wife at that time.”

“Poppycock!” Hamilton Burger exploded. “She had no idea who it was at the door. She only knew someone had knocked and she didn’t want the door opened while she was standing there in the nude.”

“Not at all,” Mason said. “If the witness could have recognized his wife’s voice, she could have recognized his.”

“But she didn’t mean it as a confidential communication,” Burger said.

Mason smiled. “If you’re going to testify as to what my client thought, Mr. District Attorney, you’ll have to get on the stand, and then you’ll have to qualify as a mind reader. You’ll probably need your crystal ball to hold in your hands while you’re testifying.”

Judge Erwood, fighting back a smile, said, “Let’s not have any more personalities, gentlemen. In the face of the objection on the part of the defense, Mr. District Attorney, this Court is going to sustain the objection to anything it is claimed a wife said to her husband while the marriage was in existence, particularly at a time when she was in a room where a corpse was subsequently found.”

“But, if the Court please,” Hamilton Burger protested, “that simply tears the middle right out of our case. We don’t have a leg to stand on unless we can rely on the testimony of this witness.”

“Just a moment,” Judge Erwood said. “Let me point out to you, Mr. District Attorney, that in this court you are not building up a case to prove the defendant guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. You only need to establish a prima facie case. That is, that the murder has been committed (a fact which you have now established), and that there is reasonable ground to believe the defendant committed that crime. You have proven she had an opportunity to possess herself of the murder weapon. Now, all you need to do is to prove the presence of the defendant on the premises at the time the crime could have been committed. That’s all you need to establish in this court.

“You can then take this question of evidence to the superior court, where it can be properly ruled upon and after the ruling can be properly reviewed.”

Hamilton Burger thought that over.

“I take it,” Mason said, “that the Court is not intimating in advance what its decision will be.”

Judge Erwood frowned down at Mason. “The Court is not precluding the defense from putting on any evidence it may desire, if that is what you mean. If that evidence indicates that the defendant should be released, the defendant will be released.

“However, the Court is stating that if the evidence in this case, when it is all in, tends to prove that this defendant probably had possession of the weapon with which the murder was committed, at the time of the murder, that the murder was committed at a time when the defendant was on the grounds where the murder was committed, the Court will consider that as sufficient evidence to make an order binding the defendant over.”

“Very well,” Hamilton Burger said, his face brightening somewhat. “We’ll withdraw you from the stand, Mr. Ferney, and call Loretta Harper.”

Loretta Harper was sworn and testified that she had been giving a party in her apartment, that Jason and Millicent Kendell, two very old friends, were there in the apartment, that she had left shortly before nine o’clock to run across the street and get some cigarettes, that a Cadillac had slowed down opposite her while she was in the crosswalk, that the defendant had been in the car, that the defendant had accused her of “playing around” with the defendant’s husband and keeping the defendant’s husband from getting a divorce. The defendant had ordered Loretta into the automobile with her at the point of a gun.

Loretta went on to testify about being taken out to Meridith Borden’s place along the wet roads, about the defendant driving with one hand, about the car skidding and overturning. She admitted that she substituted herself for the defendant in order to try to keep her name from getting in the papers, that she had then told George Ansley that her name was Beatrice Cornell in order to keep herself from becoming “involved,” and had had him drive her to the Ancordia Apartments, from which she had taken a taxicab back to her own apartment where she had suddenly realized her fiancé, Frank Ferney, had failed to keep an appointment with Dr. Callison and had aroused him from a deep sleep and started him hurrying to Dr. Callison’s veterinary hospital.

“You may cross-examine,” Hamilton Burger said.

“You occupy an apartment in the Dormain Apartments?” Mason asked.

“Yes.”

“What is the number of that apartment?”

“409.”

“It is your recollection that the defendant was holding a gun in her hand at the time of the accident?”

“Yes.”

“Did you see that gun after the accident?”

“I did not.”

“Did you look at her hands after the accident to see whether she was still holding the gun?”

“I did not, but I don’t think the gun was in her hands. I think it had been thrown out somewhere and was doubtless lying on the grass.”

“No further questions,” Mason said.

Hamilton Burger thought for a moment, then said, “If the Court please, that’s our case.”

“Well,” Judge Erwood said, “it’s not a particularly robust case, but the Court can well understand that it is only a technicality which keeps it from being a very robust case. This is, of course, the second time the facts in this case have been called to the Court’s attention. Does the defense wish to make any showing, Mr. Mason?”

“It does, Your Honor.”

“Very well, put on whatever evidence you have,” Judge Erwood said in a tone which plainly indicated that evidence would do no good.

“My first witness is Beatrice Cornell,” Mason said.

Beatrice Cornell took the stand, testified to her name, address and occupation.

“Was the defendant, Dawn Manning, listed with you as one of the models you had available to be sent out on photographic work?”

“She was.”

“And that was on the eighth of this month?”

“Yes.”

“On the ninth of this month did someone ask you to have Dawn Manning go out on a job?”

“Yes.”

“And did you have occasion to see Dawn Manning’s body, particularly the area around her left hip, on that date?”

“I did.”

“Can you describe the condition of that hip?”

“From the hipbone down along the thigh, she was scraped. Part of the scraping was simply a mild scrape which had left a bruise and a discoloration, but there were two or three places where the skin had been taken completely away.”

“Leaving unsightly bruises?” Mason asked.

“Yes.”

“Do you know whether she was photographed on the morning of the ninth?”

“She was.”

“I show you a color photograph and ask you what that picture is.”

“It is a picture showing Dawn Manning, taken on the ninth. It shows the condition of her left thigh and the left hip.”

“Cross-examine,” Mason said to Hamilton Burger.

The district attorney smiled. “In other words, Miss Cornell, everything that you have noticed substantiates the story told by the prosecution’s witness, Loretta Harper, that the defendant had been in an accident the night before?”

“Yes.”

“Thank you,” Hamilton Burger said, bowing and smiling. “That’s all.” And then he couldn’t resist turning to Mason and bowing and smiling and saying, “And thank you, Mr. Mason.”

“Not at all,” Mason told him. “My next witness will be Morley Edmond.”

Morley Edmond was called to the stand, qualified himself as an expert photographer, a member of several photographic societies, a veteran of several salon exhibitions, winner of numerous photographic awards, contributor to various photographic magazines.

“I now show you certain pictures of the defendant which have hereto-fore been introduced in evidence, and ask you if you are familiar with those pictures.”

“I am.”

“You’ve seen them before?”

“I’ve studied them carefully.”

“I will ask you if you are familiar with the studio camera which was in the photographic studio of Meridith Borden.”

“I am.”

“Can you tell us whether or not these pictures were taken with that camera?”

“I can.”

“Were they?”

“Just a minute, just a minute,” Hamilton Burger said. “Don’t answer that question until I have an opportunity to interpose an objection. Your Honor, this is something I have never encountered before in all of my experience. This question calls for an opinion and a conclusion of a witness in a matter where the physical evidence speaks for itself. Of course the pictures were taken with that camera. They were found in the camera.”

“What is your specific objection?” Judge Erwood asked.

“That the question calls for the opinion of the witness, that no proper foundation has been laid, and that it is in a case where the issue on which this witness is expected to testify cannot be covered by expert testimony.”

Judge Erwood looked at Perry Mason.

Mason merely smiled and said, “We propose to prove to the Court that the pictures of the defendant were planted in that camera, that they couldn’t have been taken with that camera.”

“But how in the world can you prove whether a picture was taken with a certain camera?” Judge Erwood asked.

“That,” Mason said, “is what I am trying to illustrate to the Court.”

“I’ll permit the question,” Judge Erwood said, leaning forward curiously. “However, the Court would want to have some very, very good reasons from this expert, otherwise a motion to strike the testimony would be entertained.”

“We’ll give the Court reasons,” Mason said. “Just answer the question, Mr. Edmond. Were those pictures, in your opinion, taken with the Meridith Borden camera?”

“They were not.”

“And on what reasons do you base your opinion?”

“The size of the image.”

“Explain what you mean by that.”

“The size of the image on a photographic plate,” Edmond said, “is determined by the focal length of the lens and the distance of the subject from the camera.

“If the lens has a very short focal length, with reference to the area that is to be covered, the lens usually gives a wider field of coverage on the photographic plate, but the size of the object is smaller. If the focal length of the lens is very large, with reference to the area of the plate, the image shown is shown in larger size but with a very small field.

“In order to get a proper plate coverage, it is generally conceded that the standard focal length of the lens should be the diagonal of the plate to be covered. However, in portrait work it is generally considered that a focal-length lens of one and a half or two times the diagonal will result in more pleasing proportions.

“A rather simple illustration of what I mean has doubtless been noticed by Your Honor in television photography. When the television camera is focused, for instance, on the second baseman, a long focal-length lens is used in order to build up the image. At that time, if the Court has perhaps noticed, the center fielder seems to be within only a few feet of the second baseman. In other words, the perspective is distorted so that it no longer bears the ordinary relationship which the eye has accepted as standard in photographic reproductions.

“To some extent, this principle makes for a better portrait of a face, and, therefore, the longer focal-length lens is used in portrait photography.”

“But what does all this have to do with whether the picture of the defendant was taken with Meridith Borden’s camera?” Judge Erwood asked.

“Simply this, Your Honor: The full-length picture of the defendant shown on the photographic films occupies but little more than one-half of the perpendicular distance. With the longer focal-length lens used by Meridith Borden in his camera, and taking into consideration the dimensions of his studio, it is a physical impossibility to take a full-length which will occupy only one-half of the perpendicular distance of the film. Even if the camera is placed at one corner of the studio and the model at the other corner so that we have the maximum distance permitted within the room, the image on a five-by-seven plate or cut film would be materially larger than that shown on the developed plates.

“Therefore, I have been forced to the inescapable conclusion that these pictures of the defendant were taken with some other camera and then, before those pictures were developed, the film holders were placed in the Meridith Borden studio, and one of the film holders bearing an exposed film was placed inside the camera itself.

“However, for the physical reasons stated, none of these pictures could have been taken with the Borden camera.”

“Cross-examine,” Mason said.

Hamilton Burger’s voice was sharp with sarcasm. “You think because you found a certain focal-length lens in the Borden camera, the photographs of the defendant couldn’t have been taken with that camera and that lens.”

“I know that they couldn’t have been.”

“Despite the fact that all the physical evidence shows that they must have been taken with that camera?”

“That is right.”

“In other words, you’re like the man who went to the zoo, saw a giraffe and said, ‘There isn’t any such animal.’ ”

There was laughter in the courtroom.

“That question is facetious, Mr. District Attorney,” Judge Erwood said.

“I think not, Your Honor. I think it is perfectly permissible.”

“I have made no objection,” Mason said.

“I’m not like that man at all,” the witness said. “I know photography and I know what can be done and what can’t be done. I have made test exposures using a duplicate of the Borden camera, and at various distances. I used a model having exactly the same measurements as the defendant as far as height is concerned. Those pictures were taken on five-by-seven films with a lens that had the same focal length as that in the Borden camera. I have compared the image sizes. I can produce those films, if necessary.”

“No further questions,” Hamilton Burger said. “I’m going to rely on the physical evidence in this case, and I think His Honor will also.”

“Call James Goodwin to the stand,” Mason said.

James Goodwin testified that he was an architect, that he had designed the apartment house known as the Dormain Apartments, that he had his various plans showing the apartment house, and he identified and introduced in evidence a floor plan of the fourth floor.

Hamilton Burger gave a contemptuous glance at the floor plan and said, “No questions,” when Mason turned the witness over for cross-examination.

“That’s all of our evidence, Your Honor,” Mason said.

“Do you have any rebuttal?” Judge Erwood asked Hamilton Burger.

“None, Your Honor. It certainly appears that there is reasonable ground to believe the defendant committed the crime. The testimony of Loretta Harper standing alone is sufficient to warrant an order binding the defendant over.”

“May I be heard in argument?” Mason asked.

“I don’t think it is necessary, Mr. Mason, nor do I think it would do any good. However, I’ll not preclude you from arguing the case.”

“Thank you, Your Honor.”

“The prosecution has the right to open the argument,” Judge Erwood said.Hamilton Burger, smiling, said, “We waive our opening argument.”

“Proceed, Mr. Mason,” Judge Erwood said.

“If the Court please,” Mason said, “I claim that this case is a frame-up. Those pictures of the defendant were not taken in Meridith Borden’s photographic studio. We have the evidence of the camera expert that the photographs could not have been taken with Meredith Borden’s camera. And now, if the Court please, I will call the Court’s attention to one other item of physical evidence. The Court will note that according to the testimony of Loretta Harper, the defendant had been thrown from the car and had skidded along on her hip. Thereafter, the witness had dragged the defendant a still further distance on her hip.

“The Court will notice that the next day the hip of the defendant was so bruised and scraped that she could not pose as a model for any so-called cheesecake shots.

“Now then, if the Court will carefully examine the photographs which purport to have been taken with the camera in Meridith Borden’s studio at a time after the accident, the Court will find irrefutable evidence that these pictures were taken at some time prior to the night of the murder and then planted in the Borden camera.

“Bear in mind that this defendant is a professional model. She poses almost daily for amateur photographers who are interested in various types of photography, particularly the so-called cheesecake pictures.

“It would have been readily possible for any accomplice to have paid this defendant her posing rate, have taken these pictures and then have held them for as long a period of time as desired until finally turning them over to the murderer of Meridith Borden to be planted in the camera of the victim.

“If the Court will carefully study the left hip of the defendant, as shown in the Borden photographs, the Court will see that there are absolutely no grass stains, no mud-stains, no scrapes, no blemishes of any sort. It would have been a physical impossibility for the defendant to have been photographed immediately after that accident without some of these defects showing.

“For the benefit of the Court, I wish to call the Court’s attention to this picture of the defendant which was taken the day after the accident, and which shows the extent of the scrapes and bruises on the defendant’s left hip.

“The Court will notice that the defendant worked at the Valley View Hardware Company until her marriage. In other words, it is reasonable to suppose that Frank Ferney was courting her during the time she was engaged as a clerk in that store.

“Someone stole the murder weapon from the store. That thief was a man. If the defendant had been dishonest enough to steal a weapon for her own protection, she would have taken one of the small automatics of a type that could be placed in her purse. This weapon is a man’s weapon. It was stolen by a man. It is reasonable to suppose that Frank Ferney was in and out of the store many times, and, enjoying the confidence of the defendant, that he was permitted behind the counter.

“Turning to the so-called time schedule, or alibi of Frank Ferney, I ask the Court to notice the plans which have been introduced by James Goodwin showing the fourth floor of the apartment house where Loretta Harper has her apartment.

“It is to be remembered that Frank Ferney was supposed to have passed out and to have been placed in this bedroom to sleep it off. The Court will notice that the fire escape runs right past this bedroom in 409. It was a simple matter for Ferney to slip out of the window, go down the fire escape, go to Meridith Borden’s house, commit the murder and return in time to be aroused from his apparent sleep when Loretta Harper came in to tell the spectacular story of her kidnaping.

“I think it is a fair inference that there was a deliberate attempt on the part of Loretta Harper and Frank Ferney to kill Meridith Borden and to do it under such circumstances that the crime would be blamed on this defendant.

“The evidence of that frame-up not only exists in the extrinsic evidence in this case, but, if the Court will carefully study the pictures which were taken of this defendant, and which were in Meridith Borden’s camera, the Court will realize that those pictures simply couldn’t have been taken on the night of the murder.”

Mason sat down.

Judge Erwood frowned, said, “Let me look at those pictures.”

He started comparing the Borden pictures with the photograph Mason had taken of the hip of Dawn Manning.

Hamilton Burger jumped to his feet. “That’s all very simple, Your Honor. Just a little retouching would have fixed up those pictures.”

“But these pictures haven’t been retouched,” Judge Erwood said. “The films are here in Court.”

Hamilton Burger slowly sat down.

Abruptly Judge Erwood reached his decision. “I think some more investigative work needs to be done in this case,” he said. “I am going to dismiss the case and discharge the defendant from custody. The Court is satisfied there is something peculiar here, and the Court feels that there should be a much more careful check of the evidence.

“The defendant is discharged, the case is dismissed, and court is adjourned.”