The Case of the Deadly Toy

Chapter Fourteen

Judge Homer F. Kent looked down at the people assembled in the courtroom and said, “This is the time fixed for the preliminary hearing in the case of the People versus Norda Allison.”

“Ready for the People,” Manley Marshall, a trial deputy from the district attorney’s office, said.

“Ready for the defendant,” Perry Mason responded.

“Very well. Proceed,” Judge Kent said.

Marshall, following a generally recognized pattern with the crisp efficiency of a man who knows both his case and his law, and is determined to see that no loophole is left open, called the caretaker at the San Sebastian Country Club.

The caretaker testified to noticing a car parked early on the morning of the eighteenth. He had thought nothing of it as occasionally golfers came early for a round of golf. Later on, at about eleven-thirty, one of the golfers had told him that there was someone out in one of the parked cars who apparently had been drinking and was sound asleep.

The caretaker looked, saw the figure slumped over the wheel, did nothing about it for another hour. Then he had taken another look, had seen blood on the floor of the car and had notified the police.

“Cross-examine,” Marshall said to Mason.

“Did you,” Mason asked, “look inside the car?”

“I looked inside the car,” the witness said.

“Did you open the door?”

“I did not open the door. I looked in through the glass window in the door.”

“Through the glass window in the door?”

“Yes.”

“Then the glass window in the door was rolled up?”

“I think so.”

“That’s all,” Mason said.

Marshall called the deputy coroner who testified to being called to the scene, a photographer who introduced photographs, an autopsy surgeon who testified that death had been caused by a .22-caliber bullet. The bullet had entered on the left side of the chest, just in front of the left arm. It had ranged slightly backward and had lodged in the chest and had not gone all the way through the body. The autopsy surgeon had recovered the bullet and had turned it over to Alexander Redfield, the ballistics expert. Death, in the opinion of the physician, had not been instantaneous. There had been a period of consciousness and a period of hemorrhage. That period was, in his opinion, somewhat indefinite. It might have been an interval of ten or fifteen minutes after the shot had been fired and before death took place; it might have been only a minute or two.

“Cross-examine,” Marshall said to Perry Mason.

“With reference to this indeterminate interval,” Mason said, “it is then possible that the decedent had sustained the fatal wound at some other place and had driven the car to the place where the body was found?”

“It is possible but not probable.”

“Would you say that the interval between the time the fatal wound was sustained and death could not have been more than ten minutes?”

“It could have been as much as ten minutes.”

“Could it have been more?”

“I don’t think so.”

“Could it have been eleven minutes?”

“Well, yes. When I say ten minutes I am not referring to an interval which I time with a stop watch.”

“Well, you know how long ten minutes is, don’t you?” Mason asked.

“Yes.”

“Now you say it could have been eleven minutes.”

“It could have been.”

“Twelve?”

“Possibly.”

“Thirteen?”

“Well, yes.”

“Fourteen?”

“I can’t fix the time exactly, Mr. Mason.”

“Fifteen?”

“I’m not going to say that it couldn’t have been fifteen minutes.”

“Twenty?”

“I doubt very much if it was twenty minutes.”

“It could have been?”

“It could have been.”

“The decedent could have been driving the, car during that time?”

“During at least a part of that time. There was considerable hemorrhage and he was losing blood and losing strength.”

“Thank you,” Mason said. “That’s all.”

The doctor left the stand, and Marshall called Sgt. Holcomb to the stand.

Sgt. Holcomb testified that he was connected with the homicide squad of the police department; that he had gone to the San Sebastian Country Club, had examined the body and the car.

“Did you make any examination of the surrounding terrain?” Marshall asked.

“I did.”

“Did you find anything which you considered significant?”

“I did.”

“Please tell us what it was that you found.”

Sgt. Holcomb glanced triumphantly at Perry Mason. “Concealed in the brush, within a hundred yards of the place where the automobile was parked, and just a few yards off a service road which skirts the hill on a lower level, I found a printing press.”

“What sort of a printing press?” Marshall asked.

“A portable printing press of a very good quality which was capable of doing good work. It weighed in the vicinity of eighty-five pounds, I would say.”

“What else can you tell us about that printing press, Sergeant?”

“A name and address had been set in type in that press. The name was the name of the defendant in this case and the address was her address in San Francisco.”

“Did you find anything else significant about that printing press?”

“I did.”

“What?”

“There was the imprint of a fingerprint in the ink on the steel table over which the rollers ran when the press was operated.”

“That was a circular table?”

“It was.”

“And it revolved with each impulse of the press; that is, each time the press was used the round steel table revolved?”

“It did.”

“And there was black ink on this round steel plate?”

“There was.”

“Can you describe that ink?”

“It is a very thick, sticky ink such as is used in printing presses of that type. When the rollers move over the steel table the ink clings to the rollers; that is, a small coating of ink clings to the rollers, and then as the rollers go down over the type, the type is inked just enough to make a legible print on the paper.”

“That ink was thick enough and sticky enough to hold a fingerprint?”

“It held it very well, yes, sir.”

“And were you able to identify the fingerprint which was on that table?”

“Yes, sir, absolutely.”

“Whose print was it?”

“It was the print of the middle finger of the defendant in this case.”

“Now then, Sergeant Holcomb, you described the operation of the press. Do I understand that whenever this press was put in operation the rollers moved over this steel table?”

“Yes, sir.”

“And the table itself revolved?”

“Well, it didn’t make a complete revolution, but it moved a few degrees of arc.”

“Then, as I understand it, if the press had been actuated after that print had been made, the print would have been obliterated by the joint action of the rubber rollers, of which I believe there are two, and the rotation of the steel table?”

“That is correct.”

“Did you find anything else in your search of the premises, Sergeant Holcomb?”

“I did.”

“What?”

“I found an empty cartridge case.”

“What sort of a cartridge case?”

“A .22-caliber cartridge case.”

“Do you have that with you?”

“I do.”

Sgt. Holcomb produced an envelope from his pocket, opened it, took out a small glass bottle which contained an empty .22-caliber cartridge case.

“This you found where?”

“At a point about twenty feet, as nearly as we could tell, twenty feet and two inches from the steering wheel of the automobile in which the body of Mervin Selkirk was found.”

“What was the nature of the terrain at that point?”

“At that particular point the terrain was grassy. There was a practice putting green bordering the side of the parking space on the north. This cartridge case was in the grass. On the south side of the parking space there was native brush on the slope of the hill.”

“That’s all,” Marshall said. “You may inquire, Mr. Mason.”

Mason’s smile was affable. “How long had this cartridge case been there in the grass before you picked it up, Sergeant?”

“If it had held the murder bullet, it couldn’t have been there more than about twelve hours.”

“If it had held the murder bullet?”

“Yes.”

“Had it held that bullet?”

“I think it had.”

“Do you know it had?”

“Well we can prove it by inference.”

“Do you know it had?”

“No.”

“Do you know how long the cartridge case had been there before you picked it up?”

“No, of course not. I wasn’t there when the cartridge was fired. If I had been—”

“Could it have been there two days, Sergeant?”

“I suppose so.”

“Ten days?”

“I suppose so.”

“What was the nature of the terrain where you found the printing press?” Mason asked.

“It was on the sloping hill. The terrain there was covered with native brush.”

“Where was the printing press, with relation to the brush; in deep brush or relatively in the open?”

“In deep brush.”

“Was it sitting straight up or was it on an angle, as would have been the case if it had been thrown into the brush?”

“It was sitting straight up.”

“As though it had been carefully placed there?”

“I can’t say as to that. It was sitting straight up.”

“And the fingerprint of the defendant was not smudged in any way?”

“No, sir, it was a perfect print.”

“Did you find any other prints on the press?”

“Well, I didn’t process the press myself. The fingerprint expert did.”

“In your presence?”

“Yes, in my presence and in the presence of Lieutenant Tragg.”

“Also of Homicide?”

“Yes.”

“Were any other prints of the defendant found?”

“None that I know of.”

“Would it have been possible for a woman of the build of the defendant to have picked up an eighty-five pound printing press of this sort and transported it into the brush without leaving fingerprints on it?”

“Certainly. She could have used gloves.”

“Yes, there were places where the brush had been trampled, that some person had gone in there carrying a heavy object?”

“Yes, there were places where the brush had been broken.”

“Could you get any footprints?”

“No.”

“Now, Sergeant, you’re an expert crime investigator.”

“I consider myself such.”

“In transporting an object awkward to carry, such as a printing press of that sort, the transportation of that heavy, unwieldy object would have been attended with some difficulty?”

“I would say so.”

“And do you consider that the press was placed there at night?”

“I don’t know.”

“It is a possibility?”

“Yes.”

“It is a probability?”

“Yes.”

“Moving in the dark that way, through a brushy terrain, there was quite a possibility the person would have stumbled?”

“Perhaps, if the press had been transported in the dark, but we don’t know that it happened in the dark.”

“It is a reasonable surmise?”

“I wouldn’t say so.”

“Pardon me, I must have misunderstood you.”

“I said that it was a reasonable surmise that the press had been transported at night, but that didn’t mean in the dark.”

“Why not?”

“The person could have used a flashlight.”

“I see,” Mason said. “Holding an eighty-five pound printing press in one hand and a flashlight in the other?”

“Well, I didn’t say that.”

“Where would such a person have held the flashlight — in his teeth?”

“She could have held it in her mouth,” Sgt. Holcomb said.

“I see,” Mason said. “You are assuming that the defendant transported the press to this place of concealment.”

“Yes.”

“She did that, in your opinion, in order to conceal the press?”

“Naturally.”

“She carried this eighty-five pound press in her hands and a flashlight in her teeth?”

“So I would assume.”

“There would have been ink on the rollers?”

“Yes.”

“And ink on the edges of the steel table?”

“To some extent, yes.”

“And isn’t it a fact that in picking up the press, the edges of the steel table would have pressed against the forearms of the person picking it up?”

“They might.”

“And that would have left ink on the garments of the defendant, if she had been carrying it?”

“She might have been wearing short sleeves.”

“At night?”

“Yes.”

“And it would have been difficult to have transported that press through the brush at night without stumbling and falling?”

“I don’t know.”

“You didn’t make a test to determine that?”

“Well, not exactly.”

“You were the one who found the press?”

“I was,” Sgt. Holcomb said, beaming with pride.

“And when you found it, were there other persons present?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Who?”

“Two technicians and Lieutenant Tragg.”

“And did you call to them to come and see what you had found?”

“Yes.”

“And they came over to where you were standing in the brush?”

“Yes.”

“And did any of them stumble?”

“Lieutenant Tragg caught his foot and fell flat.”

“Did any of the others stumble?”

“The fingerprint man almost fell.”

“Neither of these people were carrying anything?”

“No.”

“And it was daylight?”

“Now, if the defendant had been trying to conceal the printing press, Sergeant, why would she have concealed it so near the scene of the crime?”

“You’d better ask her,” Sgt. Holcomb said. “She’s your client.”

“That will do,” Judge Kent said sharply. “There will be no repartee between witness and counsel Answer the question.”

“I think, if the Court please,” Marshall said, “the question is argumentative and not proper cross-examination.”

“It certainly is argumentative,” Judge Kent said. “I was wondering if there would be an objection on that ground. The objection is sustained.”

“Assuming,” Mason said, “that some person, either the defendant or someone else, murdered Mervin Selkirk at the place where his car was parked, it is obvious that the murderer must have made an escape, presumably by automobile. Did you check the vicinity for the tire tracks of another automobile, Sergeant?”

“Certainly,” Sgt. Holcomb said sneeringly. “We don’t overlook the obvious.”

“And did you find any such tracks?”

“We did not. The parking place was hard-topped and there were no other significant tire tracks that we could find.”

“Did I understand you to say you didn’t overlook the obvious?” Mason asked.

“That is quite correct,” Sgt. Holcomb said.

“Then how did it happen that you overlooked the obvious fact that if a person had wanted to conceal the printing press, the murderer would have taken it away in the escape car rather than leave it in the brush within a hundred yards of the decedent’s body where it was certain to be discovered?”

“That question is objected to as argumentative,” Marshall said.

Judge Kent smiled faintly.

“The question was asked because of the statement of the witness that the police didn’t overlook the obvious,” Mason observed.

This time Judge Kent’s smile broadened. “That was a statement which the witness shouldn’t have volunteered,” he said. “And, while it is a temptation to overrule the objection because of the manner in which the assertion was volunteered, the Court will sustain the objection to this present question on the ground that it is argumentative.”

Judge Kent looked at Perry Mason, inclined his head slightly and said, “However, the parties will note that counsel has made his point.”

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

Marshall called Lt. Tragg to the stand.

“Lieutenant Tragg, did you make any search of the room which had been occupied by the defendant on the seventeenth and eighteenth; that is, Friday night and Saturday morning?”

“I did, yes, sir.”

“What did you find, if anything?”

“Under the pillow of the bed I found a .22-caliber Colt automatic of the type known as a Colt Woodsman, number 21323-S.”

“Do you have that weapon with you?” Marshall asked.

“I do.”

“Will you produce it, please?”

Lt. Tragg opened a briefcase which he had taken in with him, and produced the weapon.

“Were there any fingerprints on this weapon?” Marshall asked.

“None that we were able to use; that is, none that were legible.”

“Does the fact that there were no fingerprints on the weapon indicate to you that the fingerprints had been removed?”

“No, sir.”

“Why not?”

“Because it is rather unusual to find fingerprints on a weapon of this type. The surface is usually somewhat oily and it is the exception rather than the rule to find any fingerprints. There is, however, one place where fingerprints are sometimes found. That is on the magazine clip. The clip is usually grasped between the thumb and forefinger and then pushed into place with the ball of the thumb. The magazine clip is not as oily as a rule as the rest of the gun, and sometimes we do find prints on the magazine.”

“Did you find any prints on the magazine of this weapon?”

“None that we could use.”

“Now, can you tell us exactly where you found this weapon?”

“Yes, sir. I found it under the pillow of the bed in the front room of the house occupied by Barton and Lorraine Jennings.”

“Do you know that this was a room occupied by the defendant?”

“Not of my own knowledge, no, sir. I know only that it was a room in the front of the house, and I know that the defendant had at one time been in that room.”

“How do you know that?”

“Her fingerprints were in various parts of the room, on doorknobs, by a mirror, on a table top and in other places.”

“Did you photograph the exact position of the gun after the pillows had been removed?”

“I did.”

“Do you have that photograph with you, or a copy of it?”

“I do.”

“May I see it, please.”

Tragg produced a photograph from the briefcase. Marshall stepped to the witness stand to take it from the witness, showed it to Perry Mason and said, “I would like to introduce this photograph in evidence.”

The photograph showed the head of a bed, a rumpled sheet, two pillows and an automatic lying on the rumpled sheet.

“No objections,” Mason said. “It may be received in evidence.”

“Cross-examine the witness,” Marshall said.

“I take it, Lieutenant Tragg,” Mason said, “that the pillows which are shown in the photograph had been moved prior to the time the photograph was taken?”

“Yes, sir.”

“But the gun was in exactly the same position that it was when you found it?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Then, in removing the pillows, the gun was not disturbed?”

“No, sir.”

“In removing those pillows then, you were looking for a weapon, were you not?”

“We hoped to find a weapon, yes.”

“Was that gun loaded or unloaded when it was found?” Mason asked.

“It was unloaded. It had been unloaded.”

“How do you know it had been unloaded?”

“Because of things that had been done to the barrel.”

“There was no shell in the firing chamber?”

“No.”

“None in the magazine?”

“No.”

“Were there shells in the bedroom where the defendant had left her fingerprints?”

“Yes. There was a partially filled box of .22 shells.”

“Did you find any fingerprints on that box of shells?”

“None that we could positively identify.”

“That’s all,” Mason said.

“If the Court please,” Marshall said, “Lieutenant Tragg can, of course, corroborate the finding of the empty cartridge case and the finding of the printing press, but I didn’t ask him about those matters because this is merely a preliminary hearing and since Sergeant Holcomb has already given his testimony I see no reason in cluttering up the record. I will state, however, to counsel that if he desires to cross-examine Lieutenant Tragg upon these matters we have no objection.”

“I have only one question on cross-examination in regard to that phase of the case,” Mason said.

He turned to Lt. Tragg. “Do you think it would be possible to pick up the printing press in question without getting some smears of ink on your clothing?”

“It would be possible,” Lt. Tragg said.

“But it would require some care in order to avoid doing so?”

“It would.”

“Who carried the printing press out from its place of concealment to the car which eventually transported it to police headquarters?”

“I did.”

“Did you get ink on your clothing?”

“Unfortunately, I did.”

“You have heard Sergeant Holcomb’s testimony about your falling through the brush?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Did you fall?”

“I fell.”

“Did you fall going out with the printing press?”

“No, sir, I used great care.”

“But it was daylight?”

“It was daylight.”

“In your opinion, Lieutenant Tragg, as an officer, was the printing press placed in a position of concealment where it was reasonably safe from detection?”

Marshall started to get to his feet and object, then changed his mind and sat back in his chair, quite evidently feeling Tragg could take care of himself.

“It wouldn’t be safe from detection in the sort of examination which is usually made in a homicide case.”

“In other words, you don’t join with Sergeant Holcomb in considering that his discovery of the printing press represented an epochal achievement in the chronicles of crime detection?”

There was a ripple of laughter in the courtroom and this time Marshall, on his feet, angrily objected.

“The objection is sustained,” Judge Kent said, but again there was a ghost of a twinkle in his eyes.

“No further questions,” Mason said.

“We ask that the .22 Colt automatic, number 21323-S be received in evidence,” Marshall said.

“No objection,” Mason said.

“Call Alexander Redfield,” Marshall said.

Redfield, the ballistics and firearms expert, came forward, was sworn and qualified himself as an expert.

Having been the victim of some of Mason’s ingenious cross-examination several times in the past, the expert was exceedingly careful in answering questions.

“I show you a Colt Woodsman automatic, number 21323-S, which has been received in evidence,” Marshall said, “and ask you if you have conducted a series of experiments with that weapon and if you have examined it.”

“I have.”

“I show you a .22-caliber bullet which has been received in evidence and which the testimony shows was the so-called fatal bullet taken from the body of Mervin Selkirk, and ask you if you have examined that bullet.”

“I have.”

“Did that bullet come from this gun?” Marshall asked.

“I don’t know.”

“You don’t know?”

“No, sir. I know that it was fired from a weapon made by the Colt Manufacturing Company similar to this weapon, but I can’t say that it came from this particular weapon.”

“Why not? Can’t you usually tell whether a given bullet comes from a given weapon?”

“Usually you can tell.”

“How?”

“There are certain characteristics which are known as class characteristics,” Redfield said. “Those relate to the pitch of the lands in the barrel, the dimension of the lands and grooves, the direction in which they turn, the angle of turn which gives a twist or rotation to the bullet, and from those class characteristics we can generally tell the make of weapon from which the bullet was fired.

“In addition to these general or class characteristics there are characteristics which are known as individual characteristics. Those are little striations which are found on a bullet, and are caused by individualized markings in the barrel itself. By comparing these markings, we are able to tell whether the striations on a fatal bullet coincide with those on a test bullet fired through a weapon, and from that we are able to determine whether a bullet was fired from a certain weapon.”

“But you are unable to make that determination in the present case?”

“Yes.”

“Why?”

“Because the barrel of the gun number 21323-S has been tampered with.”

“What do you mean by being tampered with?”

“That’s the best way I can explain it. It is as though someone had taken a small circular file of the type known as a rattail file, and scratched and filed the interior of the barrel so that the characteristics were entirely altered; that is, the individual characteristics.”

“In your opinion, that was done?”

“In my opinion, the barrel was tampered with, yes, sir.”

“Do you know when?”

“After the last bullet had been fired through that barrel.”

“How do you know that?”

“Because of bits of metallic dust, or scrapings, which remained inside the barrel of the gun and the peculiar appearance of certain blemishes in the barrel which would have been altered in appearance by the firing of a bullet.”

“Now then, I call your attention to the empty cartridge case introduced in evidence and found near the place where Mervin Selkirk’s body was found. I ask you if you are able to tell whether that empty cartridge case had been fired in the gun in question.”

“Yes. That cartridge was exploded or fired in the weapon which has been introduced in evidence.”

“And how are you able to determine that?”

“By a microscopic examination of the imprint of the firing pin in the rim of the shell, and a microscopic examination of the ejector marks on the cartridge case.”

“You may cross-examine,” Marshall said to Mason.

“Did you check the ownership or registration of this weapon, number 21323-S?” Mason asked Redfield.

“I did. Yes, sir.”

“And who is the registered owner of that weapon?”

“Mr. Barton Jennings.”

“You found the weapon in his house?”

“Yes.”

“And you found that the weapon was owned by him?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Now, let me see if I understand your testimony,” Mason said. “If the defendant in this case had killed Mervin Selkirk, she would have gone to a house owned by Barton Jennings, she would have found some way of possessing herself of a weapon belonging to Barton Jennings, she would then have left the house and gone to the San Sebastian Country Club; she would have fired a single shell which resulted in a fatal wound, bringing death to Mervin Selkirk, and then, regardless of whether she carried an eighty-five pound printing press out into the brush into the dark without stumbling, tearing her clothes, or getting ink all over her garments, she would have returned to her room in the Jennings house, would have taken a rattail file and spent some time working on the barrel of the gun so that the bullet could not be identified, and then would have conveniently left that gun under the pillow of the bed in which she had been sleeping so that you could find it there without any difficulty. Now my question is this, is there anything in your testimony that is inconsistent with such facts?”

“Your Honor, I object,” Marshall said. “The question is argumentative. It assumes facts not in evidence. It is not proper cross-examination.”

“The objection is overruled,” Judge Kent said after some deliberation. “The question is skillfully framed. Counsel is asking the witness if certain things must have happened, whether his testimony indicates any evidence in contradiction of these facts. He is asking that question for the purpose of trying to clarify or modify the opinion testimony of an expert witness. I will permit the question only because this witness is an expert and for that one limited purpose.”

Redfield said reluctantly, “I have no way of knowing the sequence of the events or who altered the barrel of the gun. It is quite possible that the defendant could have left the gun under the pillow and that thereafter some other person could have altered the barrel by mutilating it with a rattail file.”

“Exactly,” Mason said, smiling. “Now we’re coming to the point which I wish to bring out, Mr. Redfield. You state that you have no way of knowing who altered the barrel.”

“That is correct.”

“You assume that someone else could have done it.”

“Yes, sir.”

“That alteration of the barrel required the use of a long, thin, circular file of the type known as a rattail file?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Do you know if any such implement was found in the possession of the defendant?”

“No, sir.”

“It is not the type of implement that a woman would customarily carry in her purse?”

“Objected to as argumentative and calling for a conclusion of the witness,” Marshall said. “The witness is an expert on firearms, not on women’s purses.”

“Sustained,” Judge Kent ruled.

“But you have stated that it is quite possible that some other person, such as Barton Jennings for instance, took this weapon from under the pillow and mutilated the barrel with a rattail file and then replaced it?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Now, isn’t it equally plausible to assume,” Mason said, “that the barrel of the weapon was mutilated and then it was placed under the pillow of the bed in which the defendant had slept, and that that was the first time the weapon had ever been in that bed.”

“That, of course, is an assumption which can be drawn,” Redfield said.

“A weapon of this sort placed upon a sheet leaves a certain imprint?”

“It may.”

“I call your attention to the photograph which has been introduced in evidence showing the weapon in place where it was found, and ask you if you can find any place on that sheet as shown in the photograph where it appears that the weapon could have previously reposed.”

“It would have been virtually impossible to have picked the weapon up, mutilated the barrel and then restored it to the exact position from which it had been taken?”

“It would not have been impossible... well, that depends on what you mean by the exact position.”

“I mean the exact position.”

“Well, if you are talking about a thousandth of an inch, it would have been virtually impossible. But it could have been carefully placed so that it was in virtually the same position from which it had been taken.”

Mason stepped forward and said, “I now hand you an empty cartridge case and ask you to compare that with the cartridge case which has previously been introduced in evidence and to examine carefully the mark of the firing pin and the marks made by the automatic ejector and ask you if it appears to you that both cartridges were fired from the weapon in question.”

Redfield took the empty cartridge case which Mason handed him, took a magnifying glass from his pocket, studied it carefully, said, “I can’t tell you, Mr. Mason, with such examination as I can make at this time. I can state that it has the external appearances of having been fired from this weapon, but in order to make certain I would have to make a very careful check of the impression left by the firing pin in the rim of the cartridge case.”

“How long would that take?”

“Perhaps a couple of hours.”

“I suggest that you do it,” Mason said. “I also suggest that you take care to mark this cartridge case so that it can be identified again without confusion.”

“Now just a moment,” Marshall said. “I don’t know what counsel is getting at, but this is the same old run-around. As far as this case is concerned, it doesn’t make any difference where this empty cartridge case came from. It doesn’t have any bearing on the case. It is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.

“It is, however, a well-known fact that in cases of this sort counsel has a habit of cross-examining experts by juggling bullets, by introducing other weapons and generally confusing the issues.”

“Do you mean that I substitute evidence?” Mason asked angrily.

“I mean that you juggle evidence.”

“That will do,” Judge Kent ruled. “There will be no repartee between counsel. The Court will do the talking. The objection is overruled. The question will stand and the expert will be asked to make tests on the cartridge case presented to him by Mr. Perry Mason as counsel for the defense.

“And since the matter has come up, the Court will take this opportunity of stating that this is a perfectly legitimate question, regardless of where this cartridge case came from. This is an attempt to cross-examine the witness by testing his qualifications as an expert. If the witness has stated that one cartridge case came from a given weapon, it is certainly within the province of the defense to give him another cartridge case and ask him if that cartridge case also came from that same weapon.

“The Court is inclined to agree with Mr. Mason that in a case involving the life or liberty of a citizen, counsel representing the defendant should have the greatest latitude in cross-examination and that it is not the purpose or intent of the law to have the cross-examination confined to a conventional type of attack. If counsel has the ingenuity and the wit to bring in a collateral line of attack, which is still pertinent but somewhat unconventional, counsel should be accorded that privilege.

“The Court may further state that the Court has heard criticism of Perry Mason’s somewhat unorthodox methods of cross-examination before. That criticism is usually voiced by prosecutors.

“As far as this Court is concerned, the primary function of cross-examination is to test the recollection, the skill and the accuracy of witnesses. Any method, regardless of how unconventional or dramatic that method may be, which tends to bring about the desired object is going to be perfectly permissible in this court. It is far better to resort to the unorthodox and the dramatic than it is to have an innocent defendant convicted of crime.

“Since there is no jury present and this is a proceeding addressed to the sound discretion of the Court, the Court is also going to state that the Court itself is very anxious to have this question cleared up. Why in the name of sense should any person use a weapon in order to commit a murder, then return that weapon to a position where it is certain to be found and connected with the defendant, but first go to all the bother of mutilating the barrel so that the weapon cannot be identified?”

“May I answer that question?” Marshall asked Judge Kent.

“I’d be glad to have you try to do so,” Judge Kent said.

“The answer is simply this,” Marshall said. “The defendant perhaps did not deliberately intend to commit premeditated murder. She went to meet Mervin Selkirk, she possessed herself of a weapon. We don’t know what happened at that meeting; that is for the defendant to tell us if she chooses to take the stand. But she did press the trigger of that gun and released the bullet which killed Mervin Selkirk. Then she returned to the room where she had been sleeping and, because she didn’t know that the identity of the weapon could be checked by microscopic comparison of the impression made by the firing pin on the rim of the cartridge, she thought she would cover her back trail by mutilating the barrel of the weapon so that the weapon which fired the fatal bullet could never be identified.”

“And then left the weapon under her pillow?” Judge Kent asked.

“Yes, Your Honor, we know she must have done that. The evidence shows she did.”

Judge Kent shook his head indicating utter disbelief.

“The reason she did that,” Marshall went on, “as we shall presently show, is that the weapon had been left on a table in the front hall. Under ordinary circumstances the weapon would have been returned to the bureau drawer in the front bedroom, which was the place it was usually kept. However that night the defendant was occupying the bedroom. So the gun was left in plain sight on the table.

“The defendant left her bedroom and tiptoed down the stairs. It is a fair inference that Mervin Selkirk either had an appointment with her or had found some way of communicating with her. She went downstairs, saw the gun, decided to take it with her, and fired one shot from it.

“Then when she returned to the house she had the gun with her. She went back to her room to decide what to do. She was worried for fear the fatal gun could be identified by ballistics experts so she roughed up the barrel.”

“And then conveniently left it under her pillow?” Judge Kent asked skeptically.

“Yes, Your Honor, she was afraid she had left fingerprints on the gun and thought it would be better to say she had taken it from the hall table to her room. She didn’t realize a ballistics expert could tell the barrel had been tampered with or that this tampering had been done after the last shell had been fired in the gun.”

Judge Kent thought that over, then said dryly, “I take it that you have further evidence which you intend to introduce and which you hope and believe will support this position.”

“We do.”

“Very well,” Judge Kent said, “the Court will keep an open mind. At the present time the Court is very frank to state that it considers the theory farfetched.”

“The Court will bear in mind the imprint of the defendant’s finger on the printing press which was found at the scene of the crime,” Marshall said somewhat irritably.

“The Court will keep all of the evidence in mind,” Judge Kent said, “and the Court will listen to you when you are ready to argue that evidence. I take it you are not ready to close your case and start the argument now?”

“No, Your Honor.”

“Go ahead then and put on your other evidence,” Judge Kent said. “In the meantime, the witness Redfield will be asked by the Court to check this cartridge case handed him by Mr. Mason.

“I take it, Mr. Mason, that you have some particular reason for making this suggestion, and that this particular cartridge case is of importance to your theory of the case?”

“It is, Your Honor.”

“Very well. The witness Redfield will make that check and return to court with his report this afternoon,” Judge Kent said.

Marshall said, “We’ll call Miss Frances Delano to the stand.”

Frances Delano, wearing the uniform of an airline hostess, came forward, was sworn and seated herself on the witness chair.

Judge Kent looked at the trim young woman approvingly.

Marshall said, “What is your occupation, Miss Delano?”

“I am employed as a stewardess on United Airlines.”

“Where is your run?”

“Between San Francisco and Los Angeles, and Los Angeles and San Francisco.”

“On the night of the seventeenth were you a stewardess on a plane flying between San Francisco and Los Angeles?”

“I was.”

“What was your schedule?”

“We left San Francisco at eight fifteen.”

“I ask you to look at the defendant and ask you to tell us if you have ever seen her before.”

“Yes, I have seen her. She was a passenger on my plane.”

“There’s no question about that,” Perry Mason said. “That’s stipulated, Your Honor. There’s no need to call a witness to prove that.”

“I am getting at something else,” Marshall said.

He turned to the witness. “Now, Miss Delano, will you explain to us what happens with tickets which are purchased?”

“They’re on a form,” she said, “a folder. There are carbon copies made and at various control points the ticket part is torn off. There is a final carbon copy on the cover which is left in the possession of the passenger.”

“I now show you a document and ask you if you can tell us what that is.”

“May I see it?” Mason asked.

“Certainly,” Marshall said.

He handed Mason a bloodstained, folded bit of heavy paper, then after Mason had inspected it, showed it to the witness.

The witness said, “That is the passenger’s portion of a ticket. That is what the passenger retains on a one-way ticket.”

“And this ticket has the name ‘Miss N. Allison’ on it?”

“That is correct.”

“And what does that indicate?”

“That the ticket was issued to a Miss N. Allison.”

“That is her signature?”

“No, that name was probably written by the person issuing the ticket. It is not necessarily the signature of the passenger, but this is retained by the passenger as an identification coupon and there’s a memo so that in case of making out expense accounts or deductions for income tax purposes this is a voucher for the passenger.”

“Cross-examine,” Marshall said.

“No questions,” Mason said.

“I would like to call Harry Nelson,” Marshall said.

As Nelson was coming to the witness stand, Mason turned to Norda Allison. “That ticket has bloodstains on it,” he whispered. “It must have been found on the body of Mervin Selkirk. Did you see him that night?”

“Absolutely not.”

“How did he get possession of your ticket?”

“That,” she said, “is more than I can tell you.”

“Where was that ticket?” Mason asked, still whispering.

“In my purse.”

Mason frowned. “If you’re either lying or mistaken, you’re going to get a jolt,” he warned, then turned to face the witness stand.

Nelson was sworn, testified that he was a deputy coroner, that as such he had searched the clothes of the body of Mervin Selkirk when the body had been delivered at the morgue, that the airplane ticket identification cover which had been identified by the previous witness was in the inside right-hand pocket of the coat worn by Mervin Selkirk at the time the body was delivered to the morgue.

“Cross-examine,” Marshall said.

“No questions,” Mason said.

The bailiff approached Judge Kent on the bench and held a whispered conversation with him.

Mason took advantage of the opportunity to turn to Norda Allison.

“Was your purse ever out of your possession that night?”

“Not that I can remember.”

Mason frowned. “You’re going to have to account for that ticket,” he whispered, “and you’re going to have to tell a convincing story. Judge Kent has been with us all the way. He’s ready to dismiss the case on the evidence so far introduced. He’s not impressed by that gun having been found under your pillow. But this is something different.”

Judge Kent looked up and said, “Gentlemen, I am going to ask the deputy district attorney and Mr. Mason to attend a conference in my chambers. A matter has come up in connection with this case which should be discussed in private. I can assure both counsel that the circumstances are very unusual. The Court will take its usual noon recess at this point and court is adjourned until two o’clock this afternoon. Will counsel please meet with me in my chambers?”

A policewoman approached to take Norda Allison into custody.

“You do some thinking about that ticket,” Mason said. “There’s something peculiar here, some explanation that... wait a minute! You had a suitcase with you?”

“Yes.”

“That was checked?”

“Yes.”

“Now then,” Mason said, “the airplane companies sometimes staple the baggage check to the inside of the ticket stub. Was that done in your case?”

“Why... I guess so, yes.”

“And when you arrived in Los Angeles, Lorraine Jennings and her husband met you?”

“Yes.”

“Then,” Mason said, “you would have surrendered your baggage check to Barton Jennings for him to get your suitcase.”

“Not Barton Jennings,” she said. “I think it was Lorraine. As I remember it, Barton went to get the car and Lorraine asked me for my baggage check. I think I tore off the baggage check and gave it to her and she... now wait a minute. She may have had the entire ticket stub.”

“You think it over,” Mason said. “That ticket stub got into the possession of Mervin Selkirk in some way. You’re going to have to get on the stand and tell your story and you’re going to have to tell exactly what happened.”

“I... I just can’t remember, Mr. Mason. It’s my impression that I pulled the baggage check loose and left the stub of the ticket in my purse. I... I’m almost certain that’s what happened.”

“Now look,” Mason said in an angry whisper, “don’t be almost certain. If you just say you can’t remember anything about it, I can probably convince Judge Kent that you handed the ticket stub to Barton Jennings so that he could claim your suitcase, and then we’ll leave it up to Barton Jennings to explain what happened to the ticket; whether he dropped it, threw it away or put it in his pocket. But when you—”

“No,” she said, with conviction. “The more I think of it, the more I’m certain that I tore the stub off and handed it to Lorraine Jennings. Her husband went to get the car while Lorraine took care of the suitcase. I know she was standing there with it and then Barton Jennings drove up in the car. A porter took my suitcase to the car and Jennings gave him a tip. I had put the ticket cover back in my purse.”

“Well,” Mason said, “think it over during the noon recess. I’ve got to go and see what Judge Kent wants. It’s something rather important, otherwise he wouldn’t have called a conference.”