The Case of the Mischievous Doll

Chapter Fourteen

Hamilton Burger was on his feet as soon as court had convened the next morning and Judge Flint had taken the bench.

“If the Court please,” he said, “in the case of the People of the State of California versus Minerva Minden I have one more piece of evidence to put in. I have here a certified copy of the firearms register showing the purchase by Minerva Minden of a thirty-eight-calibre Smith and Wesson revolver, Number C-48809.

“This is a sales record kept in accordance with law and is, I believe, prima-facie evidence of the matters therein contained. I offer this in evidence.”

“We have no objection,” Mason said. “The matter may go in.”

Paul Drake, accompanied by Jerry Nelson, hurriedly entered the courtroom, caught Mason’s eye.

The lawyer said, “May I have the indulgence of the Court for a moment, please?” and as Judge Flint nodded, Mason moved over to join the detectives.

Drake said in a low voice, “Nelson has all that’s known on that Santa Maria bank job, Perry. There were three persons on it, two in the bank, one driving the getaway car. Witnesses got a partial licence number and description. It’s the same car as the hit-and-run car and—”

“The driver,” Mason interrupted. “Was it a woman?”

Drake’s face showed surprise. “How did you know? Yes, it was a woman.”

“Any other jobs?” Mason asked.

“Yes, a liquor store stick-up in Bakersfield. It’s probably the same gang again — a light-colored Cadillac and a woman getaway driver.”

“Thanks,” Mason said. “That’s all I need.”

He turned to face Judge Flint. “If the Court please, before the prosecutor calls his next witness I have a question or two in regard to fingerprints which I would like to ask of Lieutenant Tragg on cross-examination. I notice that he is here in court and I ask the Court to be permitted to resume my cross-examination of this witness.”

“Is there any objection?” Judge Flint asked.

“There is, if the Court please,” Hamilton Burger said. “I think defence counsel should cross-examine his witnesses and complete his cross-examination. It is a habit of counsel to conduct piecemeal cross-examinations and—”

“The sequence of proof and all matters of procedure in connection with the examination of a witness are in the exclusive control of the Court,” Judge Flint said. “The Court in this case is particularly anxious to see that the defendant is not foreclosed in any manner from presenting her defence.

“The Court has decided to permit the motion. Lieutenant Tragg will return to the stand for further cross-examination.”

As Tragg stepped forward Mason nodded to Della Street, who opened a leather case, took out a folding tripod, placed it in front of the witness, put a small projector on the tripod, ran an electrical connection to a socket and put up a screen.

“This is to be a demonstration?” Judge Flint asked.

“I simply want to project a fingerprint so that I can get it to an exact size,” Mason said, “and question Lieutenant Tragg concerning points of similarity.”

“Very well, proceed.”

Mason turned on the projector, experimented for a moment with a spot of light on the screen, then said, “Now, Lieutenant, I am going to take a print of the thumb of the defendant on this specially prepared glass slide.”

Mason went over, extended his hand and Minerva Minden put out her thumb. Mason pressed the thumb against the slide for a moment, then said apologetically to the Court, “I may have to repeat this experiment, if the Court please, because I am not an expert in taking fingerprints.”

He went to the projector, put in the slide, focused it for a moment, said, “I am afraid I have smudged this one.”

He took another slide from his pocket, again went to the defendant, again received a thumbprint, then returned to the projector and focused the lens on the screen.

“Ah, yes,” Mason said, “we’re getting it now. I think this thumbprint is clear enough. You can see that, can you, Lieutenant?”

“Very well,” Lt. Tragg said.

“All right, I’ll arrange it so the three prints are as nearly the same size as possible; that is, the print on the left, which is the thumbprint of Dorrie Ambler; the print on the right of that which is the print of the thumb of the dead woman; and over on the right of that again, this print which I am projecting.”

“Now, just a minute,” Hamilton Burger said, getting to his feet. “This is simply a projection, an evanescent bit of evidence which we can’t identify. The other prints are enlarged photographs which can be introduced in evidence.”

“Well,” Mason said, “you can have this slide introduced in evidence, put in an envelope and marked an appropriate exhibit.”

“Very well,” Hamilton Burger said, “if that’s the best we can do. I should prefer a photograph.”

“It depends somewhat on the point counsel is trying to make,” Judge Flint said.

Mason said, “I am trying to test the qualifications of this witness, and to show the fallacy of an identification made from only six points of similarity.”

“Very well,” Judge Flint said, “proceed with your questioning, and when you have finished, this slide can be put in an envelope, marked for identification and then introduced as an exhibit if either side desires.”

“Now then, Lieutenant,” Mason said, “these prints are all about the same size. Now, I am going to call your attention to this projected print and ask you if you can find points of similarity between that and the print of the dead girl.”

“There should be some points of similarity,” Lt. Tragg said, “and there might be several, depending upon certain similarities of design.”

“Well, just approach the exhibits and indicate with a pointer any points of similarity you can find.”

“Well, here’s one, to start with,” Lt. Tragg said. “They have almost identical whorl patterns in the centre.”

“All right, proceed.”

“Now, here’s a junction...”

“Go right ahead, Lieutenant.”

Tragg looked at the fingerprint thoughtfully, then said, “I’ll just trace out these points of similarity, if I may, because once the projection is removed from the paper, there will be nothing to indicate what points of similarity I was referring to.”

“That’s quite all right. Go right ahead,” Mason said. “There’s a sheet of white paper on which I am projecting this fingerprint and you may make tracings of any of the points of similarity which you discover.”

Lt. Tragg took a pen from his pocket, traced lines, studied the print, made more tracings and finally after some five minutes backed away from the print.

“Any more points of similarity?” Mason asked.

“No,” Tragg said, “I see none at the moment.”

“Now, how many points of similarity have you discovered, Lieutenant?”

“Six,” Lt. Tragg said.

“The exact number that you had discovered with the print of Dorrie Ambler,” Mason said. “I think, Lieutenant, that is rather a graphic and dramatic demonstration of the fact that an absolute identification cannot be made from six points of similarity. You have now established that this defendant is the dead woman you discovered.”

Lt. Tragg studied the two fingerprints with frowning concentration for a moment, then returned to the witness stand.

“I have no further questions,” Mason said.

“No redirect examination on this point,” Hamilton Burger said. “The witness said earlier that six points of similarity did not necessarily prove identity.”

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

Mason switched out the light in the projector, removed the slide and said, “Now, I believe the Court instructed that this slide was to be placed in an envelope and marked for identification.”

Mason put the slide in an envelope and handed it to the clerk.

Hamilton Burger thoughtfully studied the tracings of lines which had been made by Lt. Tragg on the white paper underneath the projected fingerprints. He beckoned to Lt. Tragg, and Tragg, on his way from the witness stand, paused to confer in whispers with the prosecutor.

Now that the projection had been removed, the six points which Lt. Tragg had traced on the white paper showed out with startling clarity.

Suddenly Hamilton Burger pushed Lt. Tragg back, jumped to his feet, said, “Just a moment, Lieutenant. Return to the stand. Now, Your Honor, I do have some questions on redirect and I want to get this envelope from the clerk. I want that projection to be put on the white paper screen once more.”

“I’ll be only too glad to accommodate the prosecutor,” Mason said.

“You keep your hands off that envelope,” Hamilton Burger shouted. “I want someone to take that envelope, that very identical envelope right there, which you have just had marked for identification. I don’t want any hocus-pocus here.”

“I think that insinuation is uncalled for, Mr. Prosecutor,” Judge Flint said in an acrid rebuke.

“You just wait a moment,” Hamilton Burger said, his voice so excited that it was hard for him to control it. “Just wait a moment and see if it’s an unjustified criticism. Look at that paper screen with the marks on it and then look at the photograph of the fingerprint of Dorrie Ambler.

“Not only did Lieutenant Tragg find six points of similarity between the projected print and the print of the dead woman, but they’re exactly the same points of similarity as shown on the Dorrie Ambler fingerprint.”

“I’m afraid I don’t understand,” Judge Flint said.

“Well, I understand,” Hamilton Burger said. “That print that was projected on the screen wasn’t the fingerprint of the defendant at all. Perry Mason took her thumbprint, pretended that it had been smeared, went back to take another print and that gave him an opportunity to juggle slides. The fingerprint he projected on the screen wasn’t the fingerprint of the defendant at all but was a fingerprint of Dorrie Ambler which he had managed to have made into a slide by some photographic process which would duplicate the appearance of a freshly made fingerprint.”

“Are you making this as a charge, Mr. Burger?”

“I’m making it as an accusation and I demand that Mr. Mason be searched. I want that other slide taken from his pocket before he has a chance to destroy it. This is a fraud upon the Court, it is an attempt to conceal evidence, it is a criminal conspiracy and unprofessional conduct.”

“Now, just a minute,” Judge Flint said. “We’re going to go at this in an orderly manner. Mr. Clerk, you will put that slide back in the projector. Mr. Mason, you will stand right here, please, and the Court is going to ask you to take the other slide from your pocket, the one that you said was smeared, and hand it to the Court.”

Mason put his hand in his pocket, handed a slide to the Court.

“Now then,” Judge Flint said, “let’s have that slide which was marked for identification put back on the screen.”

Hamilton Burger, intensely excited, said, “I want it just the same size as it was. It can be matched by the markings made by Lieutenant Tragg on the screen.”

“We’ll have it the same size,” Judge Flint said. “There’s no reason to shout, Mr. Burger. I can hear you perfectly.”

The clerk focused the projector.

“Move that projector back just a little,” Hamilton Burger said, “just an inch or so. Get the marks so they coincide with the tracings made by Lieutenant Tragg... there we are.”

Hamilton Burger turned to Lt. Tragg.

“Now, Lieutenant,” he said, “forget all about the print of the dead woman. Look at the projected print and the photographic print of Dorrie Ambler and tell me how many points of similarity you find in those prints!”

Lt. Tragg said, “I will take a pointer and—”

“Here, take this red crayon,” Hamilton Burger said. “Mark the points of similarity with the red crayon. Let’s see how many points of similarity you find between the projected print and that of Dorrie Ambler.”

Lt. Tragg went to the exhibits, started tracing ridges with red crayon. After some few minutes he said, “I have already found more than eighteen points of similarity, if the Court please. Twelve points of similarity are sufficient to make an absolute identification.”

“And that means?” Judge Flint asked.

“It means that the projected print is not the print of the defendant at all but is the print of Dorrie Ambler.”

“You’re absolutely certain of that?” Judge Flint asked.

“Absolutely certain.”

Judge Flint turned to Perry Mason. “Mr. Mason,” he said, “you stand charged before this Court with a very grave offence, an offence which could well lead to disciplinary action or disbarment proceedings. It would certainly lead to a charge of contempt of Court. I am going to ask you to plead on the charge of contempt of Court right here and right now.

“In view of the fact that this matter came up while the jury was present, I am going to have it determined while the jury is present. Now then, Mr. Mason, I am going to ask you how it happened that in pretending to take an imprint of the defendant’s thumb you substituted a slide with the imprint of Dorrie Ambler.”

“Mason said, “I am sorry, Your Honor, I have no explanation.”

“In that event,” Judge Flint said, “the Court is going to—”

“May I make one statement?”

“Very well,” Judge Flint snapped. “Make a statement.”

“I simply suggest,” Mason said, “that in order to avoid any confusion, the witness, Lieutenant Tragg, take a fingerprint of the defendant’s thumb. Then we will project that on the screen and Lieutenant Tragg can see how many points of similarity he finds between that and the print of the dead woman. In that way there can be no question of confusion. I have here an acetate slide coated with a substance which will show the fingerprint characteristics.”

Judge Flint hesitated.

“I would like very much to have that done,” Hamilton Burger said.

“Very well. You may proceed,” Judge Flint said.

Mason handed a slide to Lt. Tragg who inspected it carefully, took a magnifying glass from his pocket, looked at it, then approached the defendant, took her thumbprint, returned to the projector, removed the slide which was in the projector and inserted the slide of the thumbprint he had just taken.

“Now then,” Mason said, “perhaps the Lieutenant will be good enough to tell us how many points of similarity there are between that fingerprint, the fingerprint of the dead woman and the fingerprint of Dorrie Ambler.”

Lt. Tragg adjusted the focus just right, then approached the projected print.

Suddenly he stopped.

“They coincide,” he said.

“What coincides?” Hamilton Burger snapped at him.

“The points of similarity which I have traced on the paper in red and in green coincide with the pattern now projected on the screen.”

Hamilton Burger said, “Well— They can’t.”

“But they do,” Mason said. “It’s quite evident. The Court can see for itself, and the jurors can see the same thing.”

“Now, just a moment!” Hamilton Burger shouted. “Here’s some more hocus-pocus. I insist that we have this phase of the matter disposed of in the absence of the jury.”

“We’ve had the rest of it in the presence of the jury,” Judge Flint said. “I think we’ll clear up this entire situation in the presence of the jury... Now Lieutenant, exactly what is the meaning of this?”

“I don’t know,” Lt. Tragg said.

“I suggest,” Mason said, “that it means the projected fingerprint which I put on the screen was the fingerprint of the defendant and that the prosecutor’s charge that I had juggled slides, the prosecutor’s charge that I had substituted fingerprints and all of his remarks concerning misconduct, were unjustified, were accusations made in the presence of the jury and constituted misconduct on the part of the prosecutor.”

“Now, let’s get this straight,” Judge Flint said. “Lieutenant, look up here. Now, Lieutenant, is it true that there are eighteen points of similarity between the fingerprint of the defendant and the fingerprint of Dorrie Ambler?”

“Yes, Your Honor.”

“How could that happen, Lieutenant? You have just testified under oath that twelve points of similarity would show an absolute identification; yet you have here eighteen points of similarity between the prints of two different people.”

“I’m afraid,” Lt. Tragg said, “that there’s something here I don’t understand. I have now noticed more points of similarity. I could go on and probably get many other points of similarity.”

“And what does that mean?” Judge Flint asked.

“It means,” Perry Mason said dryly, “that either the science of fingerprinting is breaking down or that this defendant and Dorrie Ambler are one and the same person, in which event there never was any Dorrie Ambler and the testimony of the witness, Dunleavey Jasper, that he saw the two women together and noticed their similarity is absolute perjury.

“The Court will notice that other witnesses have testified to the similarity of appearance of Dorrie Ambler on the one hand and the defendant on the other, but no witness has been produced who had seen them together, and no witness could be produced who had seen them together because there was only one person. Therefore the testimony of Dunleavey Jasper that he saw them together is—”

Judge Flint shouted, “Bailiff, apprehend that man! Keep him from leaving the courtroom.”

Dunleavey Jasper, halfway through the swinging door was grabbed by the bailiff. He turned and engaged in a frantic struggle.

The courtroom was in an uproar.

Judge Flint shouted, “The spectators will be seated! The jurors will be seated! Court will take a fifteen-minute recess.”