“And what did those tracks show? I think it will be permissible for you to state generally, as an expert in such matters.”

  “The tracks showed absolutely identical tyre patterns. There could not be any doubt of it.”

  “You have those photographs here?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “Produce them.”

  The photographs were produced and received in evidence. It was quite apparent that Judge Keetley was greatly impressed by the indisputable evidence of the identity of the tyres.

  “You noticed the makes of tyres on the defendant’s automobile?”

  “I did. Yes, sir. As can be seen by the tread patterns, tyres A and D were of the same pattern, and tyres B and C were also of identical make and tread. Each one left a distinctive tyre pattern.”

  “You may inquire,” Hamilton Burger said.

  Mason indicated the sheet of glass which had been removed from the window. “You removed this glass personally?” he asked.

  “Yes, sir.”

  “And it is now in exactly the same condition as it was when you first saw it there in the window?”

  “Yes, sir. Except for the fact that it has been removed. There are, therefore, the marks made by the cutter around the outside…”

  “I understand that,” Mason said. “I’m referring only to this bullet hole and the cracks radiating out from that bullet hole.”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “Those cracks radiate for a distance of some two or three inches?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “Following a fairly uniform pattern?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “By the way,” Mason said, “which side of this glass was the inside, the side toward the room?”

  The witness smiled and shook his bead and said, “I couldn’t tell you, Mr Mason.”

  “You didn’t deem it necessary to so indicate on the glass at the time you removed it?”

  “No, sir. One side of a glass windowpane is identical with the other side.”

  “Except that one’s inside,” Mason said, “and one’s out.”

  Hamilton Burger, with a tone of ponderous dignity, said, “Oh, if the Court please, this is hardly legitimate cross-examination. ‘One side of the glass is inside and one side is out.’ What difference does it make? It’s a question of tweedledum and tweedledee.”

  “What happened to the rest of the glass that was in that windowpane?” Mason asked.

  The witness glanced dubiously at Hamilton Burger.

  “I think I can answer that question,” Burger said. “The pane was taken out. The glass that remained was used for tests in the police laboratory.”

  “What sort of tests?”

  “.38 calibre bullets were fired through it,” Hamilton Burger said, “for the purpose of measuring the diameter of the hole. I think the witness saw these tests.”

  “Did you?” Mason asked.

  “Yes.”

  “And,” Hamilton Burger said triumphantly, “the measurements of the holes left by the bullets as they went through the glass were exactly identical to the measurements of the hole in this glass which has been introduced in evidence. The cracking patterns were almost exactly identical.”

  “Are you going to introduce those in evidence?” Mason asked.

  “I see no reason for doing so,” Hamilton Burger said. “In fact, I believe the pane of glass was destroyed after the measurements were taken. However, there were some photographs taken of these holes in the glass, and I believe some attempt was made to save some of the glass. I think the witness knows about that.”

  Neffs said, “The glass could not be saved. The holes were too close to the edge of the glass, and when an attempt was made to cut out more of the windowpane, the cracks in the glass ran the rest of the way through the sash, and the glass was fractured.”

  “That’s all,” Mason said. “No further questions.”

  Burger, seemingly surprised at the brevity of the cross-examination, called his next witness, a fingerprint expert who had carefully gone over the house for evidences of fingerprints.

  This witness testified to finding numerous prints of Lorraine Ferrell, some of the defendant, John Racer Addison, and, in addition to that, latent prints which had not as yet been identified, prints, however, which he believed to be those made by two different, and as yet unidentified women.

  On cross-examination, Mason saw that photographs of all of these latent prints, which were so plain as to make identification and comparison possible, were introduced in evidence.

  Burger’s next witness was Frank Parma, who, it seemed, was also a deputy sheriff.

  “You arrived at the Ferrell country house on the morning of the twelfth?” Burger asked.

  “Yes, sir.”

  “At about what time?”

  “At about one o’clock in the morning.”

  “And you made some special investigation there?”

  “I did, yes, sir.”

  “And, in the course of that investigation, did you find an object?”

  “I did, yes, sir.”

  “What was it?”

  “A .38 calibre Smith and Wesson revolver number 5-64805.”

  “Can you describe it?’

  “It was a .38 calibre double-action Smith and Wesson revolver with a six-inch barrel. While it was a .38 calibre revolver, it was on a .44 frame and was a heavy gun.”

  “Where did you find it?”

  “If I may refer to the map,” the witness said, picking up one of the maps that had been introduced in evidence, “I found it at a distance of approximately eighty-seven feet from the base of the house, at a point immediately opposite the window of the room where the body was found. The distance was eighty-seven feet and two inches from the base of the house at the nearest point. The revolver was lying among the rocks in the dry stream bed at that point. There were some willow bushes immediately adjacent to it, and the revolver was well concealed between these small stream-rounded boulders, boulders which were, I would say, on an average of two inches to twenty-four inches in diameter.”

  “You have photographs of the gun in the position in which it was lying?”

  “I have, yes, sir, and I also have a photograph of a rock next to it, showing where the gun had struck and glanced when it had apparently been thrown from …”

  “Never mind where it was thrown from,” Burger interrupted. “Just tell what you know, not what you surmise.”

  “Yes, sir, the revolver had struck this boulder and then had glanced a distance of some two feet. There were the marks of blued steel on the rock and a few wood fibres. The gun had a wooden handle, and a small corner of that wooden handle had been broken off. It was found at the base of the rock. The revolver itself was some eighteen inches away.”

  “Did you make any identifying marks on that revolver?”

  “I did, yes, sir.”

  “What was it?”

  “I marked my initials in pencil on a part of the wood stock, after the gun had been tested for fingerprints.”

  “Were any found?”

  “No, sir, there were no latent prints on the gun.”

  “None whatever?”

  “None. The gun had been wiped clean.”

  Burger opened a small handbag which his assistant handed him, took out a gun and passed it to the witness.

  “That is the gun,” the witness said after examining it.

  “Now, did you do anything about tracing the ownership of that gun?”

  “I did, yes, sir. I got access to the records and found that that gun had been sold to John Racer Addison approximately eleven months earlier.”

  “You thereupon exhibited the gun to the defendant?”

  “I did.”

  “And what happened then?”

  “The defendant identified the gun and admitted that it was his. He then made the statement for the first time that he had loaned Edgar Ferrell this gun to take with him on his fishing trip.”

  “What was the condition of the revolver when you found it, with reference to shells in the gun?”

  “The gun was empty.”

  “What was the condition of the barrel?”

  “The barrel had a distinct powder residue and a distinct trace of fresh powder.”

  “Cross-examine,” Burger said.

  “No questions,” Mason announced.

  “Call Dr Parker C Loretto,” Burger said.

  Dr Loretto took the stand, qualified himself as a physician and surgeon, mentioned that he had been with the county for some time as an autopsy surgeon, that he was connected with the coroner’s office, that he had performed an autopsy on the body of Edgar Z Ferrell.

  “What was the cause of death?” Burger asked.

  “A gunshot wound which entered on the left side of the head, slightly back of the ear, had an upward course, ranging toward the front part of the head, and had lodged against the far wall of the skull on the right side.

  “That is, of course, expressing it in layman’s language so that it can be readily understood,” Doctor Loretto added, after a moment.

  “Did the bullet penetrate the brain?”

  “It did. There was considerable damage to the brain tissue and extensive cerebral haemorrhage.”

  “This wound was the cause of death?”

  “It was, yes, sir.”

  “How long would you say the person lived after sustaining this wound?”

  “No appreciable time. Consciousness and motion ceased instantly and death followed within a matter of seconds.”

  “Then the person didn’t move after receiving this wound?”

  “No. The person didn’t move. But the body changed position, in that it fell to the floor. There was no voluntary motion.”

  “Did you recover the fatal bullet?”

  “I did, yes, sir.”

  “And what was the condition of that bullet?”

  “Flattened out on the point, but the base was undamaged.”

  “What do you mean by that?”

  “I mean the base of the bullet retained its original cylindrical shape, and the marks of the rifling of the weapon which had fired it were plainly apparent.”

  “Did you mark that bullet in some way so that it could be identified?”

  “I did, yes, sir.”

  “What mark did you make?”

  “I etched my initials on the base of the bullet.”

  “I will show you a bullet and ask you if that is the bullet concerning which you have testified.”

  Burger lumbered forward, dramatically opened a small sealed envelope, shook a lead slug into the outstretched hand of the doctor.

  Dr Loretto examined the bullet gravely, turned it over between his thumb and forefinger and said, “That is the bullet.”

  “And what did you do with it?”

  “I delivered that bullet to George Maiden of the department of ballistics of the sheriff’s office.”

  “That’s all,” Burger snapped to Mason. “Inquire. Cross-examine.”

  “No questions,” Mason said.

  “Call George Maiden,” Burger said.

  George Maiden was a chunky, competent man with a dry, husky voice. He was short of stature, partially bald, and he walked deliberately to the witness stand, where he was sworn, took his seat, gave his name and address to the reporter and looked expectantly at Hamilton Burger.

  “Your occupation, sir?”

  “I am a deputy sheriff.”

  “How long have you been a deputy?”

  “Twenty-three years.”

  “During that time have you specialized in any particular branch of crime detection?”

  “I have.”

  “And what is that?”

  “The science of ballistics and the science of fingerprinting.”

  “What experience have you had in the science of ballistics?”

  “I have studied most of the standard textbooks on the subject … I have attended lectures in police school, and I have had better than fourteen years actual firsthand experience.”

  “I show you the bullet which Dr Loretto has just identified as the fatal bullet and which was received in evidence as such, and ask you to examine this bullet and state whether you have ever seen it before.”

  “I have, yes, sir.”

  “What is that bullet?”

  “That bullet is a .38 calibre lead bullet. It is made by the Peters Company and it has been fired from a .38 calibre revolver.”

  “I call your attention to certain grooves and indentations near the base of the bullet, and ask you what they are.”

  “Those are the marks of the barrel of the gun that discharged the bullet.”

  “Is there any way of identifying the gun from which this bullet was fired?”

  “There is, yes, sir.”

  “Please describe it briefly to the Court.”

  Maiden turned to the judge. “Every gun barrel,” he said, “has certain distinctive marks of identification which are placed there by the manufacturer, for instance, the number of grooves, their shapes and dimensions. In addition to that, each rifle barrel has certain peculiarities of its own, minor imperfections in the metal which, in turn, leave telltale scratches on a bullet which is fired from the barrel with the terrific force of the compressed gases behind it. These marks are as highly individualized as the ridges and whorls on the finger tip of an individual.”

  “Did you make some attempt to examine this bullet and identify the weapon from which it had been fired?”

  “I did, yes, sir.”

  “What did you do?”

  “I took the .38 calibre Smith and Wesson revolver which has been introduced in evidence, loaded it with Peters shells containing bullets exactly identical to this fatal bullet in weight and dimension. I fired several shells into boxes containing loose cotton. I then recovered those shells and placed them in a comparison microscope.

  “A comparison microscope is a microscope consisting of two separate microscopes so co-ordinated that objects which are superimposed may be compared. Obviously, if the two images assume points of identity, they fuse into one image.

  “In this way, I was able to place the fatal bullet and one of the test bullets in such a position that every mark and groove, every scratch, completely coincided.

  “I have here photographs showing the base of the fatal bullet and the tip of the test bullet, placed one above the other and so placed that the scratches and marks on the bullets absolutely coincide. In other words, each scratch and groove seems continuous. Yet the photograph shows two bullets. You can see a transverse line of demarcation, marking the fatal bullet on the lower part, the test bullet on the upper part. Yet, so perfectly do those lines coincide that it would seem to be a photograph of only one bullet. That, incidentally, is the standard way of showing identity and similarity of barrel scratches and groove markings.”

  Maiden produced the photographs, handed them to Burger, who submitted them to Mason and then asked that they be introduced in evidence.

  “Any objection?” Judge Keetley asked.

  “None, Your Honour.”

  “They will then be received in evidence and marked with appropriate exhibit numbers.”

  “Cross-examine,” Burger said.

  Mason rose to cross-examine.

  “You said that you were a fingerprint expert?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “Then you doubtless examined the premises for latent fingerprints?”

  “I did, yes, sir.”

  “And did you find the fingerprints of the defendant, John Racer Addison?”

  “I did, yes, sir.”

  Hamilton Burger smiled complacently.

  “And the fingerprints of Lorraine Ferrell, the widow of the decedent?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “Now, did you find other latent fingerprints?”

  “Naturally.”

  “You found those of the decedent?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “And you did, did you not, find fingerprints which you took to be the fingerprints of a woman?”

  “Yes, sir, I think there are the latents of two other women.”

  “And for the purposes of identification, have you made any attempt to arrange a set of those fingerprints?”

  The witness glanced dubiously at Hamilton Burger, said, “I have tried to get some of those fingerprints assembled in an order which might facilitate an identification in the event the persons who made those fingerprints are located by the police.”

  “Where are those fingerprints?”

  “Oh, Your Honour,” Hamilton Burger said, “I object to this testimony. Let Counsel hire his own detective if he wants to.”

  “Yes,” Mason said, “now that the fingerprints have been completely obliterated from the premises, I would be free to search in vain.”

  “It’s not up to the police to turn over evidence to the attorney for the Defence,” Burger snapped irritably.

  “Why not?’

  “Because you’d twist it and distort it and try to use it to get your client off.”

  “If the police have fingerprint evidence we’re entitled to it.”

  “You’re not entitled to such evidence as the police have.”

  “You’ve qualified this man as a fingerprint expert. I am entitled to cross-examine him on anything he may have in his possession, for the purpose of testing his qualifications.”

  “You’re not trying to test his qualifications. You’re on a fishing expedition.”

  Mason grinned. “Well, the bait I am using happens to be legal.”

  “Your Honour, I object,” Hamilton Burger said. “It is not proper cross-examination.”

  Judge Keetley said, “The only theory upon which the Court would support a demand for the surrender of fingerprints would be on the ground that cross-examination is permissible as to the qualifications of this witness as a fingerprint expert. However, while he stated he was an expert on fingerprints and ballistics, his testimony on direct examination went only to the subject of ballistics. Therefore, the question of his qualifications as a fingerprint expert has no bearing upon this testimony.”

  “Except that it might go to impeach his credibility,” Mason pointed out.

  “I will permit you to ask questions as to what he did and what he found, but I don’t think I will broaden the scope of the inquiry at the present time to permit you to call upon this witness for the production of fingerprints. After all, the other witness has put photographs of those latents in the evidence.”