Mason said, “Do you mean you didn’t even tell–”

  “Mr Mason, I told them nothing!”

  “Good girl,” Mason told her. “Don’t tell them anything until we know where we stand – but it isn’t going to be pleasant.”

  She smiled. “I can take it. I can take anything now.”

  “All right,” Mason told her. “Keep a stiff upper lip and I’ll do everything I can.”

  The lawyer signalled to the matron that the interview was over, watched Sybil Harlan being led away, then went to a telephone and called Harry Blanton at Paul Drake’s office.

  “I want to know where certain people were at exactly four-thirty on the afternoon of the third. Can do?”

  “Sure. It’ll cost you money, but I can get the information if it’s at all possible. Of course, sometimes you have to take a guy’s unsupported word for where he was.”

  “In that case, I want to know that he has no one to support his word,” Mason said.

  Blanton said, “Okay. Give me the names, Mr Mason. We’ll do our best.”

  Mason took a list from his pocket. “Herbert Doxey, Lutts’ son-in-law; Roxy Claffin; Enright Harlan; Ezekiel Elkins, a director of the Sylvan Glade Development Company; Regerson B Neffs, also a director; Cleve Rector, another director.”

  “Okay. Anybody else, Mr Mason?”

  “That’ll do for now. Get busy on them,” Mason said. “However, there’s one more thing. The murder gun had been fired three times. One of the bullets entered Lutts’ chest. Try to find out where the gun was fired when the other two shells were discharged.”

  “Now, that may be where we fall down,” Blanton said. “We have contacts, but the answer to that question is probably bothering the police right now.”

  “Well, do the best you can,” Mason said and hung up.

  Chapter Ten

  Hamilton Burger, the massive District Attorney of the county, arose as Judge Hoyt called, “Case of the People of the State of California versus Sybil Harlan.”

  “Your Honour,” Burger said, “this is a preliminary hearing. The object of a preliminary hearing is to determine whether a crime has been committed, and if so, whether there is probable cause to believe the defendant guilty of that crime.

  “In ordinary cases, preliminary hearings proceed in an orderly manner to a speedy conclusion. But in cases where Mr Perry Mason is the attorney on the other side, we seem destined to have legal pyrotechnics, spectacular cross-examinations, dramatic assertions, and a whole series of procedures which, in the opinion of the prosecutor’s office, have absolutely no place in a preliminary hearing. I have, therefore, decided that I will conduct this preliminary hearing in person for the purpose of eliminating all of these extraneous dramatics.”

  Judge Hoyt glanced sternly at Perry Mason. “The Court has no desire to deprive the defendant of any of her rights. But the Court does recognize the fact that in some instances preliminary hearings have been skilfully and very adroitly manipulated so that they have been taken far beyond the scope which the Court feels the framers of the law had in mind. Do you wish to make any statement, Mr Mason?”

  “None whatever,” Mason said, his face a mask of cherubic innocence. “I take it the Court is not insinuating that counsel for the defence is to be deprived of the right of cross-examination.”

  “Certainly not,” Judge Hoyt snapped. “But the cross-examination will be conducted decorously and within the strict technical limits of the law.”

  “Thank you, Your Honour,” Mason said, as though the judge had conferred a great favour upon him.

  “Proceed,” Judge Hoyt snapped at the district attorney, obviously irritated at Mason’s attitude, yet unable to find anything which would furnish a ground for rebuke.

  “I will call Dr Jules Oberon,” Hamilton Burger said.

  Dr Oberon took the stand and qualified himself as a physician, surgeon, a deputy coroner, and an expert in the field of pathology. He stated that he had performed the autopsy on the body of George C Lutts.

  “What did you find as the cause of death?”

  “A thirty-eight calibre revolver bullet, which had penetrated the chest and partially severed the left common carotid artery.”

  “That was the cause of death?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “Where was the bullet?”

  “I found it in the body when I performed the autopsy.”

  Dr Oberon took a small phial from his pocket, said, “This is a sealed phial. I, personally, placed the bullet in it along with a slip of paper containing my signature, and then sealed the glass stopper in place. I removed the bullet only to let the ballistic expert examine it, then replaced it and resealed it.”

  “Did the victim die instantly?”

  “I think he may possibly have staggered a few steps.”

  “Assuming, Doctor, that the body was found lying head downward on the stairs, would you state that from the nature of this wound, the victim could have started for the stairs before death overtook him?”

  “Yes, he could have taken a few steps to the head of the stairs and then fallen down the stairs.”

  “What was the course of the bullet?”

  “Upward. The man was facing his murderer and the assailant must have been holding the gun at about the level of his hip.”

  “Do you have an opinion as to the time of death?”

  “Yes, sir. Mr Lutts died between four-twenty and four-forty.”

  “How do you determine the time of death?”

  “By temperature of the body and by the state of the food in the stomach.”

  “Do you know, of your own knowledge, when the food was ingested?”

  “Only by hearsay.”

  “Then I won’t ask you about that now,” Burger said. “You may cross-examine.”

  Judge Hoyt said, “Now, Mr Mason, I wish to give the defendant every possible right, but I would like to caution you at this time that the Court will brook no extraneous questions. Cross-examination must be confined to the questions asked on direct examination.”

  “No questions,” Mason said.

  Judge Hoyt frowned.

  “Call Herbert Doxey,” Hamilton Burger said.

  Doxey came forward, took the witness stand, testified to his relationship to George Lutts, to the fact that he had seen the decedent on the day of the murder, that his last contact with the decedent had been when they left the office of the corporation and had driven to a restaurant, where the decedent had eaten a bowl of vegetable soup, a hamburger with onions, a cup of coffee and a piece of pumpkin pie.

  “What time was that?”

  “That was at three-twenty.”

  “And then what happened?”

  “Mr Lutts said he had some business to attend to, and I went home.”

  “You’re certain as to the time?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “What makes you certain?”

  “I noticed the time.”

  “Where?”

  “In the restaurant.”

  “In what way?”

  “I looked at my wristwatch and compared the time with an electric clock on the wall.”

  “Was your wristwatch accurate?”

  “Within one minute, yes.”

  “What was the time?”

  “Three-eighteen, and the waitress was just bringing our orders.”

  “Sometime after that you went with Mr Perry Mason to the house where a certain real estate development is taking place, a house shown on the map I now hand you?”

  “I did, yes, sir.”

  “And what did you find?”

  “I found Mr Lutts’ automobile parked in front of the place.”

  “And what did you do?”

  “I tried the door of the house.”

  “Was it locked or unlocked?”

  “It was unlocked.”

  “And what did you do then?”

  “I walked up the first flight of stairs; then I crossed the landing and had started up the second flight of stairs when I saw the body of Mr Lutts lying there.”

  “How was the body lying?”

  “On the stairs.”

  “In what position?”

  “Partially on his back, partially on the right side, the head was downward as though he had–”

  “Never mind your conclusions. Just give us the facts.”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “Was the body that of George C Lutts, your father-in-law?”

  “Yes, sir, it was.”

  “Did you subsequently see that body at the autopsy room in the coroner’s office?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “And it was the same body?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “That of George C Lutts?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “What time was it when you made the discovery of the body?”

  “About eight-fifteen, daylight saving time. I don’t know the exact time.”

  “You may inquire,” Burger said to Mason.

  “No questions,” Mason said.

  Judge Hoyt looked thoughtfully at Perry Mason.

  “I desire to recall Dr Oberon for one question,” Hamilton Burger said.

  “Return to the stand, Dr Oberon,” the judge directed.

  Dr Oberon resumed his position on the witness stand.

  “You have heard the testimony of Mr Doxey as to the time at which a meal was ingested?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “Assuming that the meal such as he described was ingested at 3.30 p.m., how long was it after the ingestion of that meal before the decedent met his death?”

  “I would say from fifty minutes to an hour and ten minutes.”

  “You feel that you can place the time within twenty minutes?”

  “I do, yes, sir.”

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

  “No questions.”

  “I’ll call Sidney Dayton to the stand,” Burger said.

  Sidney Dayton, a police expert, took the stand, qualified himself as an expert, and turned to Hamilton Burger.

  “Can you,” Hamilton Burger asked, “tell by any scientific means the distance at which a gun was held when a shot was fired into the body of a man?”

  “Yes.”

  “How?”

  “By powder tattooing on the skin or by the dispersion of powder particles in the clothing.”

  “Will you please explain what you mean by the latter.”

  “When a shell is fired, there are certain particles of powder which are consumed entirely, and so turned into a gas. There are other particles which are not entirely consumed. These particles are spewed from the muzzle of the weapon. They naturally follow a pattern of expansion. By determining the number of particles and the pattern of their expansion or dispersion, it is possible to tell the distance at which the weapon was held from the body.”

  “Can you describe, generally, the method by which that is done? I just want to have it very generally.”

  “The clothing containing the powder chemicals is placed on an ordinary ironing board. A sheet of a special type of photographic paper is placed under the clothing. A blotter containing a chemical is placed over the clothing where it is thought the powder particles are deposited. A hot iron is placed upon that moistened blotter. The iron vaporizes chemicals in the blotter, which in turn cause a chemical reaction with the powder particles, which in turn cause a series of dots on the photographic paper, representing a dispersion of the powder particles.”

  “Did you make such a test on the clothing of George C Lutts?”

  “I did.”

  “Did you reach any conclusion as to the distance at which the weapon was held?”

  “I did.”

  “What conclusion did you reach?”

  “I feel that the person who discharged the bullet into the body of George Lutts was standing at eighteen to twenty inches from the victim at the time the bullet was fired.”

  “Did you examine the hands of the decedent to see if there were any powder stains on them?”

  “I did, yes, sir.”

  “Did you find any?”

  “No, sir.”

  “If the decedent had been grabbing for the gun, if he had been putting up his hands in front of the gun trying to ward off the bullet, you’d have found powder stains.”

  “Very definitely. When I say that the weapon was about eighteen to twenty inches from the decedent, I mean the distance from the muzzle of the weapon to the chest of the decedent was not more than that.”

  “At that distance he could then have reached for the gun?”

  “He could have, if the bullet hadn’t reached him first, which, in this case, it evidently did.”

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

  “No questions,” Mason announced tersely.

  Judge Hoyt started to say something, then changed his mind.

  “Call Alexander Redfield,” Hamilton Burger said.

  Alexander Redfield glanced at Perry Mason with a half-smile. He had been cross-examined by Mason many times and knew only too well the skilful manner in which Mason could confuse an uncertain witness or one who was misrepresenting the facts. His manner showed that he intended to be very, very cautious in giving his testimony.

  He qualified himself as an expert in ballistics, stated that he had been called to the scene of the crime after the body had been removed.

  “At what time?” Hamilton Burger asked.

  “It was the next morning.”

  “What time the next morning?”

  “After daylight.”

  “What was your purpose in going out there?”

  “To try and find the murder weapon.”

  “Did you search the premises?”

  “No, I understand the premises had been searched by police the night before. I confined myself to searching the grounds.”

  “And did you find a weapon?”

  “I did.”

  “How soon after arriving?”

  “Within five minutes.”

  “Wasn’t that rather fortuitous?”

  “I knew by experience about how far it would be possible to fling an ordinary weapon of ordinary weight under those circumstances, so I went out to the place where I thought such a weapon might have landed. Sure enough, I found a track in the moist soil, indicating that something had struck, bounced, then slid under some loose, moist soil. I probed in this soil and found the revolver.”

  “What sort of a revolver?”

  “A Smith and Wesson revolver with a five-inch barrel, thirty-eight calibre, number S910684.”

  “What did you do with that gun?”

  “I took it to my laboratory, I tested it for fingerprints, and found none. I examined the cartridges that were in it.”

  “How many cartridges were in it?”

  “Six. There were three loaded cartridges and three empty cartridge cases in the cylinder.”

  “What did you find about the empty cartridge cases?”

  “Two of them were Peters, thirty-eight specials. One of them was a UMC.”

  “Did you weigh the bullets that were in the undischarged cartridges in the weapon?”

  “I did.”

  “What did you find?”

  “I found that they were Peters cartridges containing lead bullets of one hundred and fifty-eight grains each.”

  “Now, did you check the fatal bullet to determine the weapon from which it had been fired?”

  “I did.”

  “In what way?”

  “My first test was to measure the lands and grooves and get the pitch in order to determine the type of weapon from which it had been fired.”

  “Did you make such determination?”

  “Yes.”

  “What was it?”

  “The bullet had been fired from a Smith and Wesson thirty-eight calibre revolver.”

  “Did you subsequently make tests to determine whether or not the fatal bullet had been fired from the revolver which you had found in the place that you described?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “What did those tests disclose?”

  “That the fatal bullet had been fired from that revolver.”

  “Do you have that revolver with you?”

  “I do.”

  Hamilton Burger said, “I move that the fatal bullet now be introduced in evidence as People’s Exhibit C and that the revolver be introduced as People’s Exhibit D.”

  “Any objection from the defence?”

  “No, Your Honour,” Mason said.

  “And what about the shells that you found in the chamber of the gun?”

  “I photographed those cartridges in place, so that the position of the cartridges could be determined. I made scratches upon the cartridges, numbering them one, two, three, four, five and six, and I made scratches upon the cylinder of the gun so that the position in which the respective cartridges had been found could be determined.”

  “You have those photographs?”

  “I do.”

  “What do they show?”

  “They show the cylinder of the gun. The cartridge chamber marked six is the one that was at the top of the cylinder, that is, the one that contained the UMC cartridge. That would have been the last cartridge fired.”

  “And what did you do with the shells themselves?”

  “I have placed those in receptacles, each one of them numbered according to the places in the cylinder from which they were removed.”

  “I ask that all of those and the photographs may be received in evidence as appropriate exhibit numbers,” Hamilton Burger said.

  “No objection,” Mason said.

  “That’s all,” Burger said.

  “No cross-examination,” Mason said.

  Judge Hoyt cleared his throat. “Mr Mason.”

  “Yes, Your Honour.”

  “The Court is not unfamiliar with the fact that sometimes attorneys try to take advantage of the Court.”

  “Yes, Your Honour.”

  “I am not accusing you of doing that.”

  “Thank you, Your Honour.”

  “I am aware, however, that a desperate and resourceful attorney might seek to refrain from cross-examining witnesses and then raise the claim that the attorney had been intimidated by the remarks of the prosecutor and the remarks of the Court. I therefore charge you, Mr Mason, that not only is the Court not trying to restrain you from any proper cross-examination of witnesses, but I believe it is your duty as the attorney representing the defendant to cross-examine witnesses who are called against her.”