The Case of the Fenced-In Woman

Chapter 13

Judge Nedley C. Fisk, a benevolent-appearing gentleman with a mind as sharp as a razor, glanced at Morrison Ormsby, one of the more deadly competent members of the district attorney’s trial staff.

“The peremptory is with the People,” Judge Fisk said.

Ormsby, intently studying a series of cabalistic notes marked opposite the names of the prospective jurors, said without looking up, “The People pass their peremptory at this time.”

Judge Fisk looked at Perry Mason. “The peremptory is with the defendant.”

Mason arose and said gravely, “The defendants are completely satisfied with this jury, Your Honor.”

Ormsby, caught by surprise, looked up incredulously. The defense in an important murder case had not exercised a single peremptory challenge.

“Swear the jury,” Judge Fisk directed the clerk.

After the jury had been sworn, Judge Fisk said, “The remaining members of the panel are excused from this courtroom.

“The persons who now compose this jury are warned that they are not to form or express any opinion in regard to the merits of this controversy until it is finally submitted to them. They are not to discuss the evidence in this case, nor are they to permit it to be discussed in their presence. Court is going to take a fifteen-minute recess before starting evidence in the case. Court will reconvene at exactly ten o’clock.”

Judge Fisk left the bench.

Mason turned to where Paul Drake and Della Street were seated beside him.

“Well,” he said, “this is a lawyer’s nightmare. I’m going to listen to the evidence without having the faintest idea of what the prosecution is holding up its sleeve until they start throwing punches.”

“You can’t get a word out of the defendants?” Drake asked, looking over to where Morley Eden and Vivian Carson were seated between two officers.

“Not a word,” Mason said.

“Well, the prosecution has got something all right,” Drake said. “They’re keeping it buttoned up, but Ormsby is as snug as a bug in a rug.”

“I know,” Mason said, “but he doesn’t want to be too sure. I’m going to use every psychological trick that I can. I’m going to keep within the letter of the law but I’m going to make him prove these defendants guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

“This is a case that is going to depend almost entirely on circumstantial evidence. It is a rule of circumstantial evidence, a rule of law in this state, that if the circumstances can be explained by any reasonable hypothesis other than that of guilt, the jurors are bound on their oaths to accept that hypothesis, and acquit the defendants.

“That is of course merely another way of stating the rule of law that a defendant can’t be convicted unless the evidence proves him guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. If there is a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors they must resolve that doubt in favor of the defendants, and acquit.

“However, the rule has a peculiar application in regard to circumstantial evidence and I propose to rely on it.”

Della Street said, “The newspaper reporter who said you were going to rely on technicalities — was that what he meant?”

“He didn’t know what he meant,” Mason said. “He was trying to get some copy and he was mad because I wouldn’t outline to him what my defense was going to be.”

“Well, that’s the spirit of the law,” Drake said. “A defendant doesn’t have to prove himself not guilty, the prosecution has to prove him guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. A defendant can simply sit quiet and rely on his presumption of innocence to see him through.”

Judge Fisk returned to the bench. The jurors took their seats. The press, having played up the house divided by barbed wire and the two defendants who had supposedly been mortal enemies but now were jointly charged with murder, had made the story one of the big crime pieces of the year.

By this time it was well known that Mason was, to use the expression, “going it blind,” that his clients were not making any statements to anyone, had made none to the press and didn’t intend to make any.

Some of the reporters had intimated that this was simply masterly strategy on Mason’s part and that the defendants were following their attorney’s instructions. Others, however, were convinced that Mason was as much in the dark about the defendants’ side of the case as anyone — a situation which brought sex, mystery, drama and an unusual setting into a murder case and resulted not only in a jam-packed courtroom but in a crowded corridor where people waited, hoping that by standing in line during the morning they might have some chance of getting into the courtroom in the afternoon.

“Does the prosecution wish to make an opening statement?” Judge Fisk asked.

Ormsby nodded, arose and said, “May it please the Court, and you ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this is going to be one of the briefest opening statements I have ever made.

“The decedent, Loring Carson, and the defendant, Vivian Carson, were husband and wife. They weren’t getting along. Vivian Carson sued for divorce.

“In the meantime, Morley Eden, the other defendant, hired Loring Carson to build a house for him. That house was built upon two lots which the defendant, Eden, purchased from Loring Carson.

“I won’t go into all of the legal difficulties, but it turned out that of the two lots on which the house was built the decedent, Loring Carson, owned one as his separate property and the defendant, Vivian Carson, owned the other as her separate property. When the title was adjudicated Vivian Carson placed a fence along her boundary, dividing the house into two parts. The defendant, Morley Eden, having a deed from Loring Carson, owned the other side of the house.

“Each defendant had a grievance against Loring Carson: Vivian Carson, because she felt her husband had been secreting money in such a manner that she couldn’t get a fair accounting in the divorce action. As the evidence will show, this suspicion was justified.

“Morley Eden had purchased lots from the decedent, Loring Carson, and had paid him to build a house on those lots. He found out that Carson had lied to him as to the title and that as a result Morley Eden’s house was partially built on property which did not belong to him.

“We are going to show that Loring Carson did have assets which he had been concealing and that he had arranged to conceal those assets in a place where he felt they would not be discovered — in a secret receptacle by the swimming pool of the house he was building for Morley Eden.

“By an ironic twist of fate, it turned out that of the two lots, the one awarded to the defendant, Vivian Carson, as her sole and separate property, contained the place of concealment for Loring Carson’s undisclosed assets.

“Loring Carson went to the premises and opened this secret place of concealment on the fifteenth day of March of this year. He evidently intended to leave his concealed assets right where they were, feeling that no one would ever suspect that his hiding place was actually right under the very eyes of his estranged wife.

“However, he was too confident. The defendants found his hiding place, and killed Loring Carson, either in cold blood or in an altercation which followed the finding of his hiding place.

“The defendant, Vivian Carson, waited until her ex-husband had betrayed the place of concealment, then, entirely nude, she emerged from the Morley Eden side of the house, while Eden stood guard. She swam under the barbed-wire fence and withdrew an unknown amount of cash and securities valued at more than a hundred and fifty thousand dollars from this hiding place. The securities were found in the possession of Perry Mason on the day of the murder.

“Loring Carson discovered what was happening and was killed by the defendants.”

“The Court will instruct you that once it has been established that a defendant, any defendant, has killed another human being, the burden of proof shifts to that defendant to prove any circumstances by way of extenuation or justification.

“It is true that we expect to establish our case in part by circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence, however, is good evidence. We will show you beyond any question of doubt, by circumstantial evidence alone, that the defendants, acting together, killed Loring Carson and then attempted to conceal the evidence of their crime.

“The People of this State ask only justice at your hands. “Thank you.”

Ormsby walked back to his chair and sat down with the air of a man who is doing a disagreeable duty but intends to do it most competently.

Mason waived any opening argument at that time.

Then Ormsby, working with calm, dispassionate efficiency, his manner as thoroughly professional as that of a surgeon performing a difficult operation, started a procession of witnesses to the stand.

First he called an autopsy surgeon who testified that in his opinion Loring Carson had been dead anywhere from three to five hours when he made his examination. He placed the time of death as being between 10:30 A.M and 12:30 P.M on the fifteenth day of March.

Death, in the opinion of the autopsy surgeon, had been almost instantaneous, produced by a stabbing wound from a knife with an eight-inch blade. The wound had penetrated the heart muscle, but there had been a relatively small external hemorrhage, most of the bleeding being internal.

In the opinion of the autopsy surgeon the decedent had not moved from the time he was stabbed until death resulted, other than to collapse in his tracks and sprawl out on the floor.

Ormsby next introduced certified copies of the interlocutory judgment disposing of the property and awarding one of the lots on which the house had been built to Vivian Carson, the other lot to Loring Carson. He introduced a certified copy of the restraining order, restraining Loring Carson, his representatives, agents or assigns, from trespassing in any way on the property set aside to Vivian Carson.

Ormsby next called the surveyor, who testified briefly that he had been called by Vivian Carson; that he had been asked to have everything in readiness so that he could leave at a moment’s notice on a Saturday morning; that Vivian had called him, had had a locksmith who had opened the doors and made keys for the locks on her side of the house; that she had then instructed him to survey a line which was two inches inside her property line; that a construction crew had been waiting and that as soon as he had run a line through the house which was two inches inside of the line of property awarded to Vivian Carson, she had instructed the contractors to start stringing the fence.

The witness stated that he had remained on the job until the fence was completed, checking it with his transit; that he had gone to the opposite side of the house and had surveyed a line just two inches inside of the property line and had seen that when the fence was carried through the house the wire remained a uniform distance of two inches inside the property line.

“Did this defendant, Vivian Carson,” Ormsby asked the witness, “make any statement to you at that time as to why she desired the fence line to be kept two inches inside of her property line?”

“She did.”

“What did she say?”

“She said that if Morley Eden so much as put a finger on that fence it would constitute a trespass and a violation of the restraining order and she intended to have him cited for contempt.”

“Did she make any statement indicating how she felt toward the decedent, her former husband?”

“She said she hated the ground he walked on.”

“Did she make any other statement?”

“She said that he was a heel and a louse and nothing would give her greater satisfaction than to stick a knife in his ribs.”

Ormsby glanced significantly at the jury. “Would the witness mind repeating that last statement?” he asked. “What was it she said?”

“That nothing would give her greater satisfaction than to stick a knife in his ribs.”

“You may cross-examine,” Ormsby said.

Mason smiled at the witness. “Have you had any experience with divorce?” he asked.

“Not personally.”

“Among your friends?”

“Yes.”

“You’ve known other women who have obtained divorces from their husbands?”

“Yes.”

“And talked with some of them shortly after the divorce was granted, and while they were still in a bitter frame of mind?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Offhand,” Mason said, smiling affably, “about how many of those people have made statements to the effect that they’d like to stick a knife in their ex-husband or that he was a heel and a louse, or that they’d like to scratch his eyes out, or words to that effect?”

“Just a moment, just a moment,” Ormsby said, “that’s objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial and not proper cross-examination. This witness isn’t an expert on divorce actions and I didn’t try to qualify him as such.”

Mason said, “I think if the Court please, it’s proper cross-examination. Of course if the prosecutor is afraid to have him answer the question I’ll withdraw it.”

Judge Fisk said, “That last remark is uncalled for.”

“I’m not afraid to have him answer the question,” Ormsby bristled. “I’m simply trying to keep the record straight.”

Judge Fisk said, “Well, I think I’ll sustain the objection. I doubt if it’s proper cross-examination. Are there any further questions?”

Mason, still smiling affably at the witness, said, “When the defendant, Vivian Carson, made that statement about wanting to stick a knife into her husband, did the tone of her voice differ in any way from any other somewhat similar comments you have heard from friends who had been divorced; comments such as ‘I’d like to scratch his eyes out,’ or, ‘if he ever comes around me again I’ll kill him,’ or words to that effect?”

“Now just a moment,” Ormsby said. “This is objected to as not proper cross-examination and on the same grounds as the other question and on the further ground that the Court has already ruled on the matter and that Counsel is guilty of misconduct and contemptuous conduct in trying to pursue this matter after the ruling.”

Judge Fisk thought for a moment, then slowly shook his head. “I don’t think,” he said, “that it’s the same question which was presented before. This question goes as to the tone of voice. I’m going to overrule the objection. The witness may answer.”

The witness, grinning back at Mason, said, “It was about the same tone of voice that the others have used. I don’t remember anyone stating particularly that she wanted to stick a knife in her husband, but I do remember one woman who said nothing would give her greater pleasure than to push her husband off a cliff — that is, her ex-husband.”

“And this was in about the same tone?” Mason asked.

“About the same tone of voice.”

“Now then,” Mason said, “of all your acquaintances, how many of those women whom you have heard after a divorce action express an opinion that they’d like to push their husband off a cliff or scratch his eyes out, or words to that effect, have actually pushed their former husbands off cliffs, scratched their eyes out, or committed any act of violence as far as you know?”

“Objected to. Not proper cross-examination,” Ormsby snapped.

“Sustained,” Judge Fisk said. “I permitted inquiry about the tone of voice but I think that’s as far as I’ll go.”

Mason turned to the jury with a smile which spoke volumes. “That’s all,” he said.

Some of the jurors smiled back at the lawyer.

Ormsby, enraged but coldly competent, said, “I will now call Lieutenant Tragg to the stand.”

Lieutenant Tragg, an expert in presenting his story so that it impressed the jury, took the stand and testified to what he had discovered at the scene of the murder, introducing photographs of the corpse, describing the physical surroundings.

“You noticed moisture near the body?” Ormsby asked.

“Yes, sir. There were two very well-defined patches of water.”

“About how big?”

“About as big as the palm of my hand.”

“And what were they on?”

“They were on the waxed tile floor.”

“How far from the body?”

“One of them was six and three-quarters inches from the nearest portion of the body; the other was twelve and one-half inches.”

“Did you do anything about testing this moisture to see if you could determine its source?”

“I did. The moisture was carefully drawn up into pipettes and analyzed to see whether the water could have come from the swimming pool. The swimming pool had a relatively large amount of chlorination. It had been serviced early that day.”

“And what did the analysis show in regard to the pools of water?”

“That they had the same content of chlorination as the water in the swimming pool.”

“Have you taken photographs to show the position of the fence as it crossed the swimming pool?”

“I have.”

“Will you produce those photographs, please, and also all photographs which you took or which were taken under your direction showing the body, the house and the surroundings. I’d like to have the scene of the crime identified photographically so the jurors can become oriented.”

Tragg produced a folio of photographs and for the next half hour the photographs were introduced one at a time, identified by Tragg as to what was shown, position of the camera, direction in which the picture was taken, the time at which it was taken and the photograph was then introduced in evidence.

“Who was present when you were at the scene of the murder?” Ormsby asked.

“Well, Morley Eden, one of the defendants, was there, and Mr. Perry Mason, who is acting as his attorney; and later on, Vivian Carson, the other defendant appeared. There were, of course, various newspaper reporters and personnel from the police department and, later on, a deputy coroner.”

“Mr. Perry Mason was there?”

“He was there.”

“Did you have any conversation with him about the crime?”

“Yes.”

“Did Mr. Mason make any suggestions?”

“Yes.”

“What were they?”

“He suggested that I pay particular attention to the condition of the clothing of the corpse.”

“What part of the clothing?”

“The sleeves of the shirt.”

“What about the shirt?”

“The shirt,” Lieutenant Tragg said, “was a shirt with French cuffs. The cuff links were diamond cuff links that had been covered with a black enamel so that the diamonds were concealed. A part of the enamel on the right cuff link, however, had chipped away disclosing the diamond underneath.”

“Were these large or small diamonds?”

“Quite large, and quite valuable. The cuff links themselves were of platinum.”

“And what about the shirt itself?”

“The sleeves of the shirt were wet up to the elbow.”

“The corpse was wearing a coat, I believe?”

“That’s right.”

“And the sleeves of the coat?”

“They were not wet except on the inside where moisture from the wet shirt sleeves had soaked into the lining. However, the sleeves themselves were not wet.”

“And was there any conversation with Mr. Mason concerning this?”

“There was.”

“What did Mr. Mason say?”

“He suggested that I make an inspection of the swimming pool.”

“And you did this?”

“Yes.”

“And what did you find?”

“Nothing.”

“Then what happened?”

“Then Mason suggested that I had not looked far enough or hard enough.”

“You gathered the impression from what Mr. Mason said that in some way he was familiar with the hiding place which you subsequently discovered and wished to direct your attention to it?”

“Just a moment,” Mason said. “That question is argumentative; it calls for a conclusion of the witness. It is, moreover, incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.”

“The objection is sustained,” Judge Fisk said. “Surely, Mr. Prosecutor, you don’t need to direct the attention of this witness as to his conclusions. Let him show what he did, what he found.”

“Yes, Your Honor,” Ormsby said, glancing at the jurors to make certain they had got the point.

“Let me put it this way,” Ormsby went on, as though baffled by the technical barrier put up by the Court but patiently desiring to get an important matter before the jurors, “you did complete a survey of the swimming pool?”

“I did.”

“And found nothing?”

“Nothing.”

“Then you made a second search.”

“Yes, sir.”

“And at whose suggestion was that?”

“The suggestion of Mr. Perry Mason.”

“Now, by Perry Mason, you mean the attorney who is at present representing the defendants in this action.”

“Yes, sir.”

“And what did Mr. Mason say — if anything?”

Ormsby got up from his chair and stood waiting for the answer, emphasizing the question by his action, and also emphasizing the answer Lieutenant Tragg was about to make.

Tragg said, “Mr. Mason suggested that I look behind the steps of the swimming pool.”

“Behind the steps of the swimming pool,” Ormsby repeated.

“Yes, sir.”

“And you did so?”

“I did so.”

“And what did you find?”

“As soon as I looked behind there, or, rather, as soon as I groped behind there with my hand, I felt a small metal ring.”

“And what did you do?”

“I inserted my finger in that ring and pulled gently.”

“And what happened?”

“I could immediately feel that this ring was at one end of a flexible, metallic cable which was running over a roller.”

“And what happened then?”

“I pulled the ring a matter of some two or three inches, which released a catch on the inside of a receptacle some ten feet back from the swimming pool.”

“And then what happened?”

“A spring raised up a section of tile about eighteen inches square, disclosing a cleverly concealed hiding place measuring sixteen and one-quarter inches square, and two feet, three and a half inches deep, lined with steel and containing an automatic spring catch so that when the tile was pushed down the catch would automatically lock on the tile, holding it in position.”

“The tile was hinged on one end?”

“Yes, sir.”

“And what, if anything, did you find in this steel-lined receptacle?”

“Nothing.”

“Nothing?”

“That is right. Absolutely nothing.”

“And did Mr. Mason try to register surprise when you discovered this ring in the place which he had so insistently pointed out?... Well, I’ll withdraw that. I beg the pardon of Court and counsel. As I think it over I realize that question is improper. I just want to make sure, however, Lieutenant, that I understand your testimony correctly. You found this ring in a place that was indicated by Mr. Mason?”

“He indicated that I search there.”

“And that was after you had previously explored the swimming pool and found nothing.”

“Yes, sir.”

Ormsby strode over to the counsel table where Mason was sitting, bent slightly forward and said, “I just want to show you, if you want to grandstand to this jury I’ll meet you halfway.”

“Go right ahead,” Mason said in an undertone.

“Now then, this tile was pushed up by a spring?” Ormsby asked.

“It was.”

“Where was that spring?”

“It was a coil spring, as we subsequently discovered, which had been inserted so that it was around the steel rod which served as an axis on which the hinge revolved. Now, that’s not expressed very clearly, but the point is this tile was hinged. A half-inch steel rod ran through the hinge and furnished the pivot on which the hinge was raised. This steel spring, or coil spring, was twisted around the ends of this rod and was on a sufficient tension so that whenever the catch was released the tile raised up.”

“This tile, I take it, was the same in appearance and dimensions as the other tiles?”

“It was identical with the other tiles, except for the fact that a hole had been drilled in the tile, a metal insert had been placed in this hole to give it reinforcement and cemented in place. Then the steel rod which acted as an axis on which the tile revolved was inserted in this piece of cemented pipe so that the whole constituted a very rugged hinge.”

“And there was a spring so that the lid came up when the wire was pulled?”

“Yes, sir.”

“And how could this tile, this hinged tile you have referred to, be closed?”

“Only by physical pressure sufficient to overcome the tension of the spring.”

“Was this tile arranged so that it was virtually impossible to detect that it was different from the others?”

“It was a very cunning piece of work,” Tragg said. “Even after we knew that there was a hinged tile there it was possible to stand on it or walk on it and have no inkling of what lay beneath. The hinge was so carefully constructed and the spring catch was so mechanically perfect that there was absolutely no give or sway to the tile or anything to indicate that it wasn’t embedded firmly in cement.”

“And the receptacle was waterproof?”

“It was waterproof.”

“How was this waterproofing arranged?”

“By a piece of sponge rubber covered with tape which surrounded the lower side of the lip of the hinged tile.”

“So that any person pushing this hinged tile back into place would be very apt to place fingertips on this tape?”

“Yes, sir.”

“And, once raised, the tile had to be pushed back into place in order to close it. Is that right?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Now then, did you find any latent fingerprints on this tape which surrounded the lip of the tile or did you find any fingerprints on the interior surface of the tile — now mind you, Lieutenant, I am asking you about the interior, not the exterior — or in the interior of the steel-lined receptacle?”

“I did.”

“Did you discover latent fingerprints which could be deciphered?”

“I did.”

“And you developed those latent fingerprints and photographed them?”

“I did.”

“You subsequently took the fingerprints of various persons whom you felt might have had access to this receptacle or to the premises on which the receptacle was located?”

“Yes, sir.”

“And, by making comparison, were you able to determine who had made some of these fingerprints?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Whose fingerprints were they?”

Tragg swiveled in the witness chair so that he was looking straight at the jurors. “Two of the persons who had made fingerprints on the inside surface of the tile and on the tape were the defendants, Vivian Carson and Morley Eden.”

“You mean that you found both of their prints there?”

“I found both of their fingerprints.”

“Do you have photographs of those latent prints, and photographs of the fingerprints of the defendants?”

“I do.”

“Do you have those photographs with you?”

“I have.”

“Will you produce them, please?”

Tragg produced the photographs and they were introduced in evidence, a series of photographic enlargements which stood on easels while Tragg pointed out the points of similarity.

Ormsby turned from the photographs to the witness and said, “You stated that the other defendant, Vivian Carson, was present at the scene?”

“That is right. She was present at her side of the house.”

“Did you go to call on her?”

“I did.”

“You questioned her?”

“Yes, sir.”

“And did you ask her where she had been and what she had been doing?”

“Yes, sir. She said she had been shopping and had just returned.”

“Let’s see if I understand the situation,” Ormsby said, glancing at the jury to make sure they were following him. “The fence divided the house, running through a part of the living room and out over the swimming pool. Now, which side are the bedrooms on, the Morley Eden side or the Vivian Carson side?”

“The bedrooms are on the Eden side.”

“And the kitchen?”

“That is on the Vivian Carson side.”

“And as I understand it from your testimony, you went over to question Mrs. Carson, one of the defendants here?”

“That’s right.”

“Where did you question her?”

“In the kitchen, and later on the patio.”

“And while you were in the kitchen did you have occasion to notice a magnetic bar on which knives were attached?”

“I did.”

“Do you have the murder weapon in your possession?”

“I do.”

“Will you produce it, please?”

Tragg produced the wooden-handled knife, and Ormsby asked that it be introduced in evidence.

“No objection,” Mason said.

“Directing your attention to the time when you were in the kitchen, did you discuss the murder weapon with Mrs. Carson?”

“I did. I asked her if any knife was missing from the bar where the knives were kept, the magnetic bar just to the right of the electric range.”

“And her answer to that question?”

“That there was nothing missing.”

“Then what?”

“I directed her attention to a wooden-handled knife and asked her if that had been there all the time and she said it had. I then got the knife and found that it had never been used; that is, that it still had a crayon price mark on the blade.”

“Did you direct her attention to that?”

“I did, yes, sir.”

“And what was her answer?”

“She said that it had never been used to her knowledge; that she had only been in the house a short time.”

“Do you have that knife with you, that second knife?”

“I do.”

“Will you produce it, please?”

Tragg produced the second knife and it, too, was introduced in evidence.

“I call your attention to these black crayon marks on the blade of this knife, Lieutenant. Were those same marks on the blade of that knife when you took possession of it?”

“They were.”

“Did you make an attempt to locate the car Loring Carson owned at the time of his death?”

“We did. We secured information from the motor vehicle department, and after we had a description we put out an all-points bulletin to pick up the car.”

“Did you ever find it?”

“Yes. Some hours after the discovery of the body.”

“Where did you find it, Lieutenant?”

“In a locked garage rented by the defendant, Vivian Carson, at the Larchmore Apartments in this city.”

“Did the defendants, or either of them, make any explanation as to how this car happened to be in that garage?”

“No explanation. They refused to discuss it.”

“I ask that that last remark of the witness be stricken from the record,” Mason said. “The defendants are not required by law to make any explanation.”

“Motion denied,” Judge Fisk said. “The witness has testified to a refusal which is the equivalent of testifying to a statement made by defendants.”

“Was there some conversation between you and Vivian Carson about Loring Carson’s concealing assets in the divorce action?” Ormsby asked the witness.

“Yes. She stated several times that her ex-husband had secreted assets and had large sums of cash and securities which she had been unable to locate, and that Judge Goodwin, who had tried the divorce case, had been unable to locate. She said that Judge Goodwin had specifically stated that he was convinced that such assets existed.”

“What time did this conversation take place, Lieutenant?”

“It started at about — oh, perhaps two o’clock and continued at intervals until around quarter to three o’clock.”

“Did you find any assets on the body of Loring Carson?”

“We did. We found large sums of cash and — that is, they would be large in the eyes of a police officer — and we found traveler’s checks in a large amount made to A. B. L. Seymour.”

“Do you have those traveler’s checks with you?”

“I do.”

“Will you produce them, please?”

The book of checks was produced and marked in evidence and also the cash that had been found on the body.

“Now, using this name of A. B. L. Seymour on the traveler’s checks as a clue, or I may say as a starting point, did you run down this A. B. L. Seymour?”

“Yes, sir.”

“What did you find?”

“I found there was no such actual person as A. B. L. Seymour, that it was an alias that had been taken by Loring Carson for the purpose of concealing assets; that he had purchased large sums of traveler’s checks; that he had purchased negotiable securities in the name of A. B. L. Seymour; and that he had an account in a Las Vegas bank in the name of A. B. L. Seymour; that the balance in the bank was something over a hundred thousand dollars.”

“And did you check the signature of A. B. L. Seymour to make sure that it was in the handwriting of the decedent?”

“I did.”

“Did you ever locate any securities in the name of A. B. L. Seymour?”

“I did.”

“Where?”

“In Las Vegas.”

“Where in Las Vegas?”

“In the room of a hotel bungalow which had been rented by Mr. Perry Mason.”

“Indeed!” Ormsby said, pausing dramatically. “Mr. Perry Mason, eh?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Were these securities in his possession?”

“Yes, sir. In a briefcase.”

“A briefcase which he had been carrying with him from Los Angeles?”

“It was a briefcase which belonged to him. It was in his room in Las Vegas. I assumed he had brought it with him.”

“Don’t make any assumptions,” Judge Fisk said. “Simply state the facts.”

“I make no move to strike,” Mason said. “Having made the statement as to his assumption in response to a leading question, I would like to have the entire answer remain in the record.”

Judge Fisk looked searchingly at Perry Mason, then smiled. “Very well,” he said, “there being no motion to strike, the answer will stand.”

“And did Mr. Mason make any statement as to how he had come into possession of these securities?” Ormsby asked the witness.

“He did not.”

“You took the briefcase with the securities?”

“We did.”

“Was there any identifying mark on that briefcase?”

“Yes. The name of Perry Mason was stamped on it in gilt letters — that is, the name so stamped was ‘P period Mason.’ ”

“You have that briefcase and the securities?”

“I have surrendered it to you. I believe you have it in your possession, but they have my identifying marks on them.”

Ormsby produced a briefcase and the stock certificates and had them identified one at a time and introduced in evidence.

“I think,” he said, “this concludes my direct examination of this witness, at least for the time being; but inasmuch as it is necessary to develop this case in episodes, so to speak, I may wish to recall the witness later.”

“No objection,” Mason said.

“Do you wish to reserve your cross-examination until the conclusion of the testimony?” Judge Fisk asked Mason.

“I would like to ask a few questions now and then I might ask other questions later on,” Mason said.

“Very well, go ahead.”

“You have intimated,” Mason said, “that these securities and the briefcase which you found in my possession were taken by me from my clients here in Los Angeles and taken to Las Vegas, Nevada.”

“I didn’t know I had intimated it,” Tragg said, smiling affably. “It’s what I thought — of course.”

Tragg’s slight hesitation before adding the words of course, and his smile, gave force to his point.

“Did you have any evidence that I had received those securities in Los Angeles and had taken them to Las Vegas?”

“I did not uncover any direct evidence,” Tragg said. And then added gratuitously, “Those things are seldom done in the presence of the police, you know, Mr. Mason.”

There was a ripple of laughter from the crowded courtroom.

“I think,” Judge Fisk said, “that I will ask the witness to refrain from these voluntary statements and simply answer the questions. After all, Lieutenant, you’re a police officer, you have been on the witness stand many times, you are familiar with courtroom procedure and you know only too well the effect of what you’re doing. I feel that the hearing will be more orderly if you abide by the rules.”

“I’m sorry, Your Honor,” Tragg said.

“Proceed,” Judge Fisk announced.

“Now then,” Mason said, “when you started groping around the edges of the swimming pool looking for something that would be a key to the wet shirt sleeves of the decedent, did you get your shirt sleeves wet?”

“No, sir,” Tragg said, “probably because I wasn’t in any great hurry.”

“What did that have to do with it?”

“I rolled up my sleeves.”

“Both of them?”

“Yes... No, I’m mistaken on that, Mr. Mason. I’m sorry. I rolled up my right shirt sleeve up above the elbow.”

“You didn’t roll up the left sleeve.”

“No.”

“And didn’t get it wet?”

“No. I used my right arm entirely in my explorations.”

“Thank you,” Mason said. “I think that’s all at the moment.”

“Call Oliver Ivan to the stand,” Ormsby announced.

Ivan was a middle-aged individual, rather heavyset, stolid, unemotional and quietly positive.

“What is your occupation?” Ormsby asked.

“I run a hardware store.”

“Were you operating a hardware store on the fifteenth of March of this year?”

“I was.”

“Where?”

“Next to the Village Motion Picture Theater on Dupont Street.”

“Have you ever seen the defendants before?”

“I have.”

“When did you first see them?”

“The first time I can remember seeing them was on the fifteenth of March.”

“At what time?”

“Sometime between twelve and twelve-thirty.”

“Did you have any conversation with them?”

“Yes.”

“Did you conclude any business transaction with them?”

“Yes.”

“What was the business transaction?”

“They wanted to buy a knife.”

“They were together?”

“Yes.”

“Did you sell them a knife?”

“I did.”

“Would you recognize that knife if you saw it?”

“I would.”

“I show you People’s Exhibit G and ask if that is a knife you have seen before?”

“That is the identical knife that I sold them. It has my price mark on the blade. It has both the selling price mark and my private cost mark on the blade. The letters ‘EAK’ represent the cost to me and the selling price of the knife is penciled on the blade.”

“Was there any conversation which you overheard between the defendants as to the type of knife they wanted?”

“Yes. They conversed in low tones, but I was able to hear them perfectly. They wanted what they referred to as ‘an identical knife.’ ”

“Did they say what it was to be identical to?”

“No. Just that they wanted a knife that was identical.”

“Did you notice any peculiarity about their mannerisms?”

“The woman, Mrs. Carson, was trembling so she could hardly hold the knife. The man seemed to be rather excited, but he was trying to calm her.”

“Did you notice any evidences of affection or any indication as to how they felt toward each other?”

“The man had his arm around her quite a bit of the time, patting her on the shoulder and telling her to take it easy.”

“Now you say ‘the man.’ To whom do you refer?”

“Whenever I have said the words ‘the man’, I referred to the other defendant, Morley Eden.”

“You have no doubt that this is the knife that you sold them?”

“No doubt at all.”

“You may cross-examine,” Ormsby said.

Mason’s manner was urbane, almost casual. “You have a good-sized hardware store?” he asked.

“We carry a pretty good stock.”

“This particular knife. Do you remember where you purchased it?”

“I purchased a gross of these knives on the fourth day of February from the Quality Cutlery Company. That is a cutlery jobber.”

“Purchased a gross?” Mason asked in some surprise.

“Yes.”

“And only marked the cost and selling price on the blade of one knife?”

“I didn’t say that,” Ivan said sharply. “I simply said I had marked the cost and the selling price on this one knife.”

“Did you mark it on any of the others?”

“I marked it on all of the others.”

“A gross?”

“A gross.”

“And put those on sale?”

“Yes.”

“Then,” Mason said, “as far as you know, this particular knife could have been purchased at any time from the fourth day of February and up to the fifteenth of March.”

“I remember selling them the knife.”

“You remember selling a knife,” Mason said. “But as far as you know this particular knife, with this cost mark and selling price on the blade, could have been sold at any time after the fourth day of February and prior to the sixteenth day of March; that is, including the morning of the fifteenth of March.”

“Yes, I guess so.”

“It could have been bought by any person.”

“That is true.”

“Then as far as you can tell while you are under oath, Loring Carson, the decedent, could have purchased this knife from you and placed it in the kitchen of the home he was equipping for Morley Eden?”

The witness shifted his position uncomfortably. “I remember the conversation. I remember the transaction with these defendants.”

“You remember selling them a knife,” Mason said affably. “You identify this knife as being one of a gross shipment you received. You can’t truthfully and conscientiously go any further than that, can you?”

“No, I guess not.”

“You remember selling them a knife,” Mason went on. “I am now asking you if you can testify under oath that this particular knife now in evidence was not sold to Loring Carson prior to the fifteenth day of March of this year and after the fourth day of February when your shipment of one gross was received.”

“No, I guess I can’t,” the witness said.

“That’s all,” Mason said cordially, “and thank you for your very commendable frankness. I have no further questions.”

“I have a question on redirect,” Ormsby said. “You did sell these defendants a knife on the fifteenth day of March of this year which is absolutely identical in every way with this knife which I show you and which had the same figures on the blade. Is that right or not?”

“Objected to,” Mason said, “on the ground that Counsel is trying to cross-examine his own witness; on the ground that the question is leading and suggestive.”

“It is leading,” Judge Fisk said.

“I was simply trying to summarize his testimony,” Ormsby said.

“I suggest that if Counsel is going to summarize the testimony of this witness he wait until he argues the case to the jury,” Mason said.

Judge Fisk smiled. “I think that is right. Please reframe your question. Counselor.”

“Oh, I have no further questions of this witness,” Ormsby said irritably. “That’s all.”

“That’s all. You may leave the stand,” Judge Fisk said.

Ormsby said, “I want to call Lorraine Henley.”

The woman who marched forward to the stand was in her early forties; a pinched-faced, rather slender woman with lips that were a thin line of determination.

When she had been sworn Ormsby asked, “Where do you live?”

“At the Larchmore Apartments.”

“How long have you lived there?”

“Something over a year.”

“Are you acquainted with the defendant Vivian Carson?”

“I am.”

“Did she live near you?”

“She lived in the Larchmore Apartments Apartment 4B. That is directly across the car area from where I live.”

“Can you explain what you mean when you refer to the car area?”

“Yes. The apartments are arranged in the form of a big L on slightly sloping ground. The apartments have a street entrance fronting on two streets. There is an alley on each side of the apartment houses, and this cement car area is accessible from either of the alleys. It is a lower area than the streets on which the apartments face.

“Now, I have to explain that. The corner where the streets intersect is the highest part of the ground. The main street keeps a rather uniform level, but the side street falls off rather abruptly. However, the apartments all have garages underneath them, with the exception of the four apartments on the corner. They have separate garages.”

“Was there a garage under the apartment rented by the defendant Vivian Carson?”

“There was, a double garage.”

“On the fifteenth day of March did you notice the defendant Vivian Carson?”

“I did indeed.”

“At what hour of the day?”

“About eleven-fifteen or eleven-thirty in the morning”

“What was she doing?”

“She was opening the door other garage — that is, one of her garages.”

“And then what happened?”

“I saw a man drive a car into the garage.”

“Did you observe the man?”

“Very carefully.”

“Did you ever see him again?”

“I did.”

“Do you see him now?”

“I do. He is Morley Eden, one of the defendants in this case. The man sitting at that table right there.”

“The one who is seated beside Vivian Carson?”

“Yes.”

“And what did you observe with reference to the car?”

“Well, the man drove the car into the garage after Mrs. Carson opened the door. Then the man came out, she closed and locked the door and then the two of them walked rapidly away together.”

“They didn’t go into Mrs. Carson’s apartment?”

“No, that is I didn’t see them go in. There is a back entrance to the apartment house, but they walked down the car parking area to the alley and then turned out of sight.”

“You may inquire,” Ormsby said.

Mason’s voice was almost gentle in its quiet courtesy. “What were you doing when the defendants were parking this car?”

“Watching them,” she snapped.

There was a slight titter in the courtroom.

“And what had you been doing just before that?”

“Sitting by the window.”

“Keeping an eye on the apartment rented by Vivian Carson?”

“Well, I saw it.”

“Were you sitting there watching it?”

“I was sitting there at the time, yes.”

“And how long had you been sitting there?”

“For some time. I don’t know how long.”

“All the morning?”

“A good part of the morning.”

“And had you been watching the apartment the night before?”

“Well, I’d kept an eye on things.”

“Why?” Mason asked.

“Because I just wondered what was going on. I guess a body is entitled to a little human curiosity. Vivian Carson had left her apartment a few days before, carrying some suitcases, and she hadn’t been back. I just wondered where she had gone and what she had been doing.”

“So you kept an eye on her apartment so you could find out.”

“Yes.”

“Now,” Mason said, “you can’t tell the make of the car that these people parked in the garage, can you? That is, the make and model.”

“No, I can’t. It was a green car. That’s all I know.”

“You don’t know very much about the different makes of cars?”

“No, I don’t.”

“Do you drive a car?”

“No.”

“You don’t own a car?”

“No.”

“Have you ever owned a car?”

“I haven’t owned a car for some time. I use the bus to do my shopping.”

“And you didn’t by any chance jot down the license number on this car?”

“No.”

“Did you notice whether it was an out-of-state license?”

“I wasn’t looking at the car, I was looking at the woman and the man.”

“You had taken it on yourself to become a self-appointed censor of Vivian Carson’s comings and goings?”

“Well, I’m a decent woman. That’s a decent neighborhood and I want to keep it that way. I’d certainly read enough about her in the papers to want to keep my eyes open and see what was happening.”

“Did you know whether what you had read in the papers was true or false?”

“I didn’t say whether it was true or false. I’d read about her in the papers. You wanted to know why I was keeping an eye on her and I’ve told you.”

“Thank you,” Mason said. “I think that covers the situation very nicely, Mrs. Henley — or is it Miss Henley?”

“It’s Miss Henley!” she snapped. “I said ‘Miss’ when I gave my name to the court officer.”

Mason smiled courteously but significantly and glanced at the jurors.

“Thank you very much, Miss Henley,” he said. “I have no further questions.”

“That’s all,” Judge Fisk said. “Call your next witness, Mr. Prosecutor.”

With the manner of a man announcing a dramatic surprise which is destined to have far-reaching repercussions, Ormsby said, “At this time, Your Honor, I wish to call Nadine Palmer to the stand.”

Nadine Palmer came forward and was sworn. She was wearing a teak-brown suit, a modish hat, and carried a brown leather purse. Her long legs, beautifully tan under gossamer nylons, were accented by highly polished brown shoes.

Her alert eyes were watchful as she settled herself in the witness box and looked quickly from Ormsby to Mason and back to Ormsby, then over at the jury, then once more back to the prosecutor.

“Your name is Nadine Palmer, you reside at 1721 Crockley Avenue?”

“That is right.”

“Are you acquainted with either of the defendants?”

“I am not personally acquainted with either of them, no.”

“Did you know Loring Carson in his lifetime?”

“I had seen him. I don’t remember having talked with him, and when I say I am not personally acquainted with Mrs. Carson I do not mean to imply that I do not know her by sight. I have attended several meetings where she has been present and I know her when I see her.”

“Directing your attention to the fifteenth of March of this year, I will ask you where you were on the morning of that day.”

“I drove to a place known as Vista Point.”

“Now, can you tell us where Vista Point is in relation to the house built by Loring Carson and sold to Morley Eden?”

“It’s about a quarter of a mile — well, perhaps not that far — from the house. The site is so situated that you can look down on the back of the house — the patio, the swimming pool and the property below the swimming pool.”

“It is considerably higher than the house in question?”

“Yes. I don’t know just how many feet, but you can look down on the house. You can see the roof.”

“Can you see the road leading up to the house?”

“No, you can’t see that. You can only see the patio, the swimming pool and the rooms on that side of the house. The house itself obscures the view of the driveway on the other side and it’s impossible to see the road leading to the house because that comes up a slight grade and the house shuts off the view.”

“I see,” Ormsby said. “Now, I have here a map showing Vista Point, and I will ask you if you will first orient yourself with this map and then point out to the jury just where you were on the fifteenth of March of this year.”

After a moment the witness placed a finger on the map. “I was here,” she said.

“What time was it?”

“It was about — well, I guess I got there about ten-fifteen or a little after.”

“And did you wait there?”

“I waited.”

“Did you have any visual aid with you?”

“I had a pair of binoculars.”

“And what were you doing with those binoculars?”

“I was watching the rear of the Carson house.”

“By the Carson house you mean the house that was built by Loring Carson and sold to Morley Eden?”

“Yes.”

“May I ask what was your reason for being there?”

“It was a personal reason. I... I understood that a gentleman who resented some of the things that Loring Carson had done to my reputation was going to insist upon Carson making some sort of a retraction and if Carson was recalcitrant he intended to — well, I believe he said he intended to teach him a lesson.”

“While you were there what did you see — did you see any signs of activity?”

“Yes.”

“Will you describe them to the jury, please?”

“Well, when I first started watching there seemed to be no one home... and...”

“That can be stricken out as a conclusion of the witness,” Ormsby said. “Just state what you saw. Don’t give your conclusions, Mrs. Palmer — just what you saw.”

“Well, I parked my car, got out and looked through the binoculars from time to time. I would look away to rest my eyes and then look back, and if I saw something I thought would interest me I raised the binoculars.”

“And what was the first thing that you saw, the first motion?”

“I saw Loring Carson.”

“Now, where did you see him?”

“He was on the kitchen side of the house.”

“Let’s get this straight as far as the record is concerned,” Ormsby said. “The house was divided by a barbed-wire fence. You saw that?”

“Oh, of course.”

“On one side of the barbed-wire fence was the portion of the house which contained the kitchen. On the other side of the fence was the part which contained a portion of the living room and the bedrooms.”

“That is, generally speaking, correct.”

“Let’s refer, then, to the kitchen side of the house and the bedroom side of the house, just to keep the record straight at this point,” Ormsby said. “Now, where was Mr. Loring Carson when you first saw him?”

“On the kitchen side of the house.”

“You’re positive?”

“I’m positive.”

“What did you do, with reference to watching him?”

“I focused the binoculars on him.”

“Do you know the magnification of those binoculars?”

“Eight-power.”

“Could you see him clearly?”

“Quite clearly.”

“You recognized him?”

“Oh, yes.”

“Could you see what he was doing?”

“He bent down over the swimming pool by the steps. I couldn’t see what he was doing. I kept trying to focus the glasses so as to get the best adjustment possible.”

“All right, what happened?”

“Mr. Carson got down on his knees by the portion of the swimming pool that was near the cement steps.”

“Was he carrying anything?”

“He was carrying a leather briefcase.”

“What did you see him do?”

“He got down on his knees and put his right forearm in the water of the swimming pool. I could see that he was pulling at something and then suddenly I saw a section of what apparently was solid tile open up, disclosing a receptacle underneath.”

“And what did Mr. Carson do?”

“Carson took some papers from his briefcase, put them in this receptacle and closed the tile.”

“Go on. What else did you see, if anything?”

She said, “Loring Carson went inside of the house and almost immediately, from the other side of the house—”

“Now, just a minute,” Ormsby interrupted. “Let’s keep this straight. What side of the house did Loring Carson go in, the kitchen side or the bedroom side?”

“The kitchen side.”

“All right, now when you say the other side of the house, what do you mean?”

“The bedroom side of the house.”

“And what happened on the bedroom side of the house?”

“A nude woman came running out of the house and went into the pool like a flash.”

“You were looking through your binoculars?”

“Yes.”

“Could you recognize this woman?”

“I am not able to say positively and beyond all question as to who it was, but I think—”

“Now, just a moment,” Mason interrupted. “If the Court please, the witness has answered the question. She said that she couldn’t identify the person. It makes no difference as to who she thinks the person might be if she can’t swear who that person was.”

“I submit that she was simply using a colloquialism,” Ormsby said. “She means that she can identify the person to a reasonable certainty but she is trying to be fair and recognizes that there is room for the possibility of an error.”

“I don’t think it needs the prosecutor to interpret what the witness has stated,” Mason said. “She is testifying in the English language and I think I understand the English language as well as the prosecutor.”

Judge Fisk frowned thoughtfully, then said, “Let me question the witness. I would like to have Counsel refrain from interrupting me. Mrs. Palmer, you saw a person in the nude?”

“A woman. She was in the nude.”

“She wasn’t wearing a bathing suit?”

The witness shook her head vigorously. “She was in the nude.”

“And what did she do?”

“She came streaking out of the bedroom side of the house and cut into that water so fast that it almost took my breath just watching her.”

“She was running?”

“She was running and then she jumped into the water so clean she hardly made a splash and swam like a seal.”

“You had the binoculars?”

“I had the binoculars but I couldn’t keep her in the field of the binoculars. She was moving too fast — that is, she was within the field of the binoculars but not within the field of the center of my eyes, if you know what I mean. She was just moving — just as fast as she could go.”

“Did you get a good look at this woman?”

“Only in a general way, just a blurred sort of a look.”

“Could you swear absolutely as to the identity of that woman?”

“Not absolutely. I have a general fleeting impression but that’s all.”

“I think, under the circumstances,” Judge Fisk ruled, “we’ll consider the statement of the witness that she thinks she can tell who the person was as being a common colloquialism; that we will let her testify and the question of lack of positive identification will go to the weight, rather than the sufficiency of the evidence. You may continue to lay your foundation, Mr. Prosecutor.”

“I’ll go on a little further,” Ormsby said. “This woman jumped into the pool and swam across it?”

“Like a seal. She cut through the water so fast it was incredible.”

“And then what did she do?”

“She jumped up the steps at the shallow end of the pool, pulled something and the same tile flew open. She bent over the tile. She had some kind of a white plastic bag with her. She started pulling out papers and stuffing them in the bag.”

“And did you get a good look at her at that time?”

“She had her back turned at that time.”

“You were watching through binoculars?”

“Yes.”

“Then what did you do?”

“Then,” the witness said, “I realized what was happening and—”

“Never mind what you realized,” Ormsby interrupted. “Please pay careful attention to the question, Mrs. Palmer. What did you do?”

“I tossed my binoculars onto the seat of the car and started running.”

“Running where?”

“Running down a trail that came to the ground below the swimming pool of the house.”

“You knew that trail was there?”

“I knew the trail was there.”

“How long did it take you to run down that trail?”

“Not very long. It’s — oh, I don’t know, about two hundred yards, I guess, down the hill by trail and then you come to an open place and start uphill again toward the swimming pool.”

“Could you see the swimming pool or the house while you were running down the trail?”

“No. The hill is covered with brush, a chaparral I guess it is — and I believe there’s some greasewood in it. I don’t know just what the nature of the brush is, but it’s the kind of brush that you see all over the Southern California foothills.”

“And when you emerged from the brush, where were you? Can you show us on the map?”

“At about this point,” the witness said, indicating a place on the map.

“I’ll just mark this with a circle,” Ormsby said. “Now from this point on you could see the house clearly?”

“Oh, yes.”

“And what did you do?”

“I moved toward the house, moving very rapidly. I was somewhat out of breath but I hurried.”

“And what did you see?”

“Nothing.”

“What about the swimming pool?”

“It was vacant.”

“What about the tile where the place of concealment had been built?”

“The tile was open; that is, the tile was standing up on its hinge.”

“And what did you do?”

“I headed for the patio, but then I heard low voices coming from the house.”

“You were on the bedroom side?”

“Yes.”

“So what did you do?”

“I walked close to the wall on the bedroom side of the building.”

“And then what?”

“Then I could distinguish what was being said.”

“And what was being said?”

“Just a minute,” Mason said, “let’s first find out who is doing the talking.”

“I’m coming to that,” Ormsby said.

“I think the prosecutor should come to it first,” Mason said.

“Very well,” Ormsby said, “perhaps the point is well taken. I will ask you, did you have an opportunity to see the persons who were conversing?”

“Not right then, but a few seconds later I did.”

“Who were they?”

“The defendants in this case, Vivian Carson and Morley Eden.”

“And where were they conversing?”

“In the living room.”

“And you could hear them at the swimming pool?”

“Yes. The sliding glass doors were open, and it was possible to hear them very distinctly.”

“And what did you hear them say? What conversation did you hear?”

“The woman said—”

“Now, by the woman, whom do you mean?”

“The defendant Vivian Carson.”

“All right, what did Mrs. Carson say?”

“She said, ‘Darling, we can never live this down.’ ”

“And then what? Go on, what was the conversation?”

“Then Morley Eden said, ‘We don’t have to. We’ll never say anything about this to anyone. We’ll let the newspaper people discover the body. Mason has arranged for a press conference out here later on. The reporters will discover the body. I’ll pretend it’s all news to me.’

“Then Vivian Carson said, ‘But what about the knife? That’s the knife from my kitchen,’ and Morley Eden said, ‘We can get another one. We’re not going to let a thing like this come between us now. We have just discovered each other and we’re entitled to happiness without having anything mar it. I’ll fight for our happiness.’ ”

“Then what?”

“Then I heard them moving. I thought they were coming toward the swimming pool. I hesitated for a moment, then crowded in close to the edge of the building where they couldn’t see me unless they came out on the patio and looked around.”

“Then what?”

“Then I heard a door close and realized they had gone out. After that, everything was silent in the house.”

“So what did you do then?”

“I went back down to the trail and climbed slowly and laboriously back up the hill to where I had left my car and drove home.”

“What time did you get home?”

“About... Oh, I guess it was a little after eleven-thirty.”

“And what did you do?”

“I didn’t notify the police. I didn’t know what had happened. I did feel afraid and — well, I felt guilty about spying and about eavesdropping. I didn’t know that a murder had been committed.”

“Now then, I will go back and ask you once more,” Ormsby said. “Did you recognize the nude woman who ran and jumped in the swimming pool?”

“I think I did.”

“If you could avoid the use of the word ‘think’ it would help,” Ormsby said, “because that is susceptible of several interpretations and of course counsel on the other side will try to use the interpretation that is most disadvantageous to you. Now, kindly tell us just what your mental appraisal of the situation is.”

“Well, I... I saw this woman. She was completely nude. I had of course only a fleeting glimpse but I...”

“Do you know who she is?”

“I feel almost positive that it was the defendant Vivian Carson.”

Ormsby turned to Mason with a smile. “Cross-examine, Counselor.”

“Almost certain?” Mason asked the witness.

She nodded.

“You aren’t entirely certain?”

“No.”

“You can’t swear to it?”

“No.”

“There’s at least a reasonable doubt in your own mind as to whether it was the defendant you saw or not?”

“Yes — I suppose it’s only fair to say that there is such a reasonable doubt. I’m just not certain, that’s all.”

“What did you do when you got home?” Mason asked.

“I took a shower.”

“Any particular reason?”

“No. I... Well, I’d been running around through the brush and the ground was dry. I was covered with dust. I wanted a shower and I took a shower.”

“You had a visitor while you were taking the shower?”

“That was just afterward. Are you trying to have me tell about your visit, Mr. Mason?”

“I’m trying to get you to tell the truth,” Mason said. “Did you have a visitor?”

“Yes.”

“Who was he?”

“You.”

“And did you have some conversation with me?”

“Just a moment,” Ormsby said. “I object to this as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial and not proper cross-examination. It has not been inquired into on direct examination.”

“But there’s no question about the conversation, is there, Mr. Prosecutor?” Judge Fisk asked impatiently.

“I don’t know. There may be. I can’t tell.”

“The conversation,” Mason said, “is for the purpose of showing that the witness, even at that time, was concealing certain matters and dissembling as to others.”

“She was under no obligation to tell you what she had seen,” Ormsby said.

Judge Fisk looked up at the clock. “Well, we’ll come back to it after a brief noon adjournment,” he said. “It is now slightly after twelve. Court will adjourn, until one-fifteen this afternoon. During that time the jurors are admonished not to form or express any opinion as to the merits of this case, or as to the guilt or innocence of the defendants. Nor are they to discuss the case among themselves, nor suffer anyone to discuss it in their presence. Court will take a recess until one-fifteen P.M.”

As the spectators filed from the courtroom Mason swung around in his swivel chair to face his clients. He motioned the officers out of earshot, signifying that he wanted a moment’s private conference.

“Look here,” Mason said in a low voice, “you’re going to have to tell me what happened.”

Morley Eden doggedly shook his head.

Vivian Carson blinked back tears.

“Let’s take things up specifically,” Mason said. “Did you or did you not park Loring Carson’s car in your garage? Is that woman mistaken on her identification? If she isn’t telling the truth the possibilities that are opened up are enormous. If she is telling the truth I don’t want to waste time and money trying to find the people who actually were parking the car.”

After a moment Eden said, “I’ll tell you this much, Mr. Mason. She’s telling the truth. We parked the car.”

“Why in heaven’s name did you do that?” Mason asked angrily.

“If you knew all the facts,” Eden said, “you’d realize there was nothing else we could do, but if you knew all the facts you wouldn’t — well, you wouldn’t give us a whisper of a chance.”

“You don’t stand much more than that now,” Mason observed thoughtfully.

“We can’t help it. We’re going to have to fight it out along these lines.”

“Why did you park the car in the garage?” Mason asked.

“Because,” Eden said, “it had been parked at the curb in front of Vivian’s apartment, it had been parked in front of a fireplug and had been tagged. We only had a minute in which to act and we didn’t know what else to do. We wanted to get it off the street.”

“That car had been tagged for parking by a fireplug in front of Vivian’s apartment?” Mason asked incredulously.

“That’s right.”

“And you knew, of course, that it was Loring Carson’s car,” Mason said.

“Certainly. And the worst of it is, it had been tagged for parking there at three o’clock in the morning. You know what that means — everyone would have felt certain Loring and I had resumed marital relations.”

“I don’t get it,” Mason said. “But it’s better to have people think you had resumed marital relations than to buy yourself a one-way ticket to the gas chamber.”

“Of course,” she said impatiently, “we know that now. But you have to think of the way we saw things on March fifteenth.”

“Why did he park his car there?” Mason asked.

“I don’t know, but I’m satisfied it was part of some diabolical scheme that Loring had been hatching up. He took his car and left it parked at the curb in front of the fireplug where he knew it would be tagged.”

“What were you doing in town together?” Mason asked.

Morley Eden looked questioningly at Vivian. She shook her head.

“I’m sorry,” Eden said. “We’ve answered all the questions we’re going to answer, Mason. You’ve just got to carry on as a lawyer. Just assume that we are guilty. Let’s assume that we committed a cold-blooded murder and you’re the attorney representing us. As an attorney you’d look for every possible loophole in the evidence. You’d try everything you could. Now you just go ahead and try the case that way. Do the best you can. It’s all we can expect.”

“Damn it!” Mason said. “Are you trying to force your way into the death cell?”

“We’re not trying anything of the sort,” Eden said impatiently, “but if we are convicted, that’s all there is to it. If we aren’t convicted we’ve got to hold our heads up in society and live normal lives as well as we can. I’ll tell you this much: We didn’t kill him, and that’s all we’re going to tell you.”

Mason said, “What time did you get to your house out there — that is, if you were in town together?”

Eden shook his head. “We’ve told you all we’re going to tell you.”

The deputies standing impatiently waiting for their prisoners moved in a little closer.

Mason shrugged his shoulders. “All right,” he said, “take them.”