In response to a specific question by Vandling he stated that an attempt had been made to find tracks but that because of the tracks of the boys and of Martin Medford at the time of his digging there had been no footprints which had been deemed significant.

  “You may cross-examine,” Vandling said.

  “Under the circumstances,” Mason said, “I will ask no questions at this time.”

  “Of course,” Vandling pointed out, “my stipulation with counsel was for the purpose of enabling him to protect the rights of his client and not to be caught by surprise. It was not a blanket invitation to pass up all cross examination until all of our case had been presented and then recall witnesses.”

  “I understand,” Mason said. “I can assure counsel I will not take advantage of his courtesy in the matter. I will recall witnesses only when it seems there is some specific point to be gained by so doing.”

  “Thank you,” Vandling said. “That’s all, Sheriff.”

  Dr. Milton Hoxie was the next witness. He gave his qualifications as a physician and surgeon and toxicologist. He testified that he had been called on to perform an autopsy at the morgue on the evening of the thirteenth, that circumstances had prevented him actually performing the autopsy until nearly midnight, when he had been able to leave his practice long enough to perform the autopsy.

  He had found the body of a man five feet eight inches tall, weight one hundred forty pounds, who was about thirty-five years of age, who had arteriosclerosis but who had apparently died of poisoning. He had performed certain tests and had detected the presence of a specific poison. He had come to the conclusion that death had been caused by the ingestion of cyanide of potassium. In his opinion at the time of the autopsy the man had been dead for perhaps twenty-four to thirty-six hours.

  “Cross-examine,” Vandling said abruptly.

  “You made a specific test for cyanide of potassium?” Mason asked.

  “Yes, sir. Hydrocyanic poisoning.”

  “And other poisons?”

  “I tested for arsenic.”

  “Did you find any arsenic?”

  “Not in significant quantities. No, sir.”

  “Did you find any quantity at all?”

  “Not enough to be of any medical significance.”

  “Did you find any other poisons?”

  “I did not. No, sir.”

  “Were the vital organs removed from the body?”

  “They were. Yes, sir.”

  “And what was done with them?”

  “They were sent to a laboratory at the University of California for additional examination.”

  “And has a report been received from the University?”

  “Not to my knowledge.”

  “Then you don’t know that the man met his death because of the poison you have mentioned?”

  “I know that I found enough poison present to result in death and therefore I assume that death was caused by that poison.”

  “Why did you send the organs to the University of California?”

  “Because I wanted to have a more complete check made.”

  “Because you were looking for some other poison?”

  “I thought it would be a good plan to check and see if there was any other poison.”

  “Then you weren’t satisfied that death was caused by potassium cyanide?”

  “Certainly I was. But I wanted to see if there were any contributing factors—perhaps there were indications of knockout drops, so-called, or some barbiturate by which the resistance of the man might have been lessened so that the poison could have been administered.”

  Mason thought that over frowningly.

  “Proceed,” Judge Siler said.

  “Just a moment, Your Honor,” Mason said. “I think this opens up an entirely new field here.”

  “I don’t see how,” Judge Siler said.

  Mason said. “It is apparent that originally the sheriff’s office had some theory as to the manner in which the poison was administered and that something in the findings of Dr. Hoxie was not in accordance with that theory.”

  “Well, I certainly fail to see it,” Judge Siler said. “Proceed with your examination.”

  “Certainly,” Mason smiled. “Did you look for evidences of chocolate in the man’s stomach, Doctor?”

  “I did. I tried to check the stomach contents carefully.”

  “And what did you find?”

  “I found that the man had died approximately an hour after ingesting a meal of bacon and eggs. I did not find any appreciable amount of chocolate.”

  “Did you test the body for blood alcohol, Doctor?”

  “I did.”

  “What did you find?”

  “I found 0.15 per cent of alcohol.”

  “Can you interpret that in terms of its medical significance?”

  Dr. Hoxie said, “According to the authorities, at 0.1 percent a person is normal according to ordinary observation. He has, however, begun to show certain evidences of medical intoxication. At 0.2 per cent he has become intoxicated. He has emotional instability. His inhibitions are greatly diminished. At 0.3 per cent there is a very definite confusion, a staggering gait, a blurred speech. At 0.4 per cent there is stupor, a marked decrease in response to external stimuli and approaching paralysis. From 0.5 per cent to 0.6 percent there is complete coma and impairment of circulation. There is danger of death which is virtually inevitable after 0.6 percent of alcohol is in the blood. C. W. Muehlberger has prepared an interesting chart. 0.1 per cent is called ‘Dry and Decent.’ 0.2 percent ‘Delighted and Devilish.’ 0.3 percent ‘Dizzy and Delirious.’ 0.4 per cent ‘Dazed and Dejected.’ 0.5 percent ‘Dead Drunk.’”

  “So in this body in which you found 0.15 per cent of alcohol, what are your conclusions with reference to intoxication?”

  “The man had begun to be intoxicated. He was entering the stage described by Muehlberger as ‘Delighted and Devilish.’”

  “He would be feeling the effects of alcohol?”

  “He would.”

  “He would be showing some manifestation of those effects?”

  “In all probability to the casual observer. Certainly to the trained observer.”

  “I take it, Doctor,” Mason said casually, “that while you were primarily interested at the time of the post-mortem examination in determining the cause of death, you took some steps to identify the body?”

  “That is right. I may state that I was present when some steps were taken.”

  “There is no question in your mind but what the body was that of Edward Davenport?”

  “No question at all.”

  “Let me ask you a hypothetical question, Doctor. Assuming that this man had been poisoned by cyanide of potassium taken in the form of a candy such as was found in the box of candy located among Mr. Davenport’s effects at the motel in Crampton, wouldn’t death have been almost immediate?”

  “It would have been very rapid.”

  “There was, in other words, enough cyanide in each piece of candy to have resulted in almost immediate death?”

  “Not in each piece of candy, Mr. Mason. Some of them contained arsenic and—”

  “I’m not trying to trap you, Doctor. I am referring to the candies which contained cyanide.”

  “That is correct. Yes, sir.”

  “The development of symptoms and unconsciousness comes very rapidly after the ingestion of doses of cyanide such as you found in the candies which did contain cyanide?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “Now then, Doctor, if the decedent had met his death from eating a piece of that poisoned candy, wouldn’t you have found some chocolate in his stomach?”

  “Well, there, of course,” Dr. Hoxie said, “is a puzzling situation. I would assume so.”

  “And did you find such evidences of chocolate?”

  “No.”

  “You would have expected to find some if the man had eaten a piece of poisoned candy?”

  “Frankly, I would—unless he might have bitten into the candy which could have caused his death, detected a strange flavor, and have spit out the candy, yet swallowed enough of the poisoned liquid in the candy to have caused death. I assume that is what happened. I think from all the facts it is what must have happened, but I can’t find any physical evidence which will enable me to testify it did happen. And I don’t see how he could possibly have ingested the poison I found in his stomach unless he had eaten an entire piece of candy at the very least.”

  “Then you don’t actually know how the man ingested the poison which caused his death?”

  “No, sir.”

  “How long had he been dead?”

  “I am unable to determine. I would say somewhere around twenty-four to thirty-six hours.”

  “What about a condition known as rigor mortis, Doctor?”

  “At the time I made the examination rigor mortis was well marked in the thighs and legs but the neck and shoulders were limp.”

  “What about post-mortem lividity?”

  “That was well developed, indicating that the position of the body had been unchanged after death, that is, within a short time after death.”

  “Now as I understand it, rigor mortis develops first in the face and jaws, then gradually extends downward?”

  “That is correct.”

  “And it leaves the body in the same way?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “How long does it take rigor mortis to develop?”

  “It varies. But under ordinary circumstances from eight to twelve hours.”

  “Now in this case rigor mortis had not only developed but had enveloped the entire body, then it had begun to disappear. Is that correct?”

  “That is substantially true, yes.”

  “According to the authorities I believe that the envelopment of the entire body in rigor mortis is supposed to take about eighteen hours?”

  “It varies.”

  Mason said, “Are you familiar with the writings of Dr. LeMoyne Snyder?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “I believe that in his book, Homicide Investigation, Dr. LeMoyne Snyder considers a hypothetical case such as you have described where rigor mortis is still well marked in the thighs and legs, and estimates such a situation as indicating that death took place from twenty-nine to thirty-four hours previously.”

  “I am not entirely familiar with his schedule on that.”

  “But you would say that that was substantially correct?”

  “I would say it could well be, yes.”

  “Now you are referring to the condition of the body at the time you performed the post-mortem?”

  “That is correct.”

  “And you did not perform the post-mortem until some hours after the body had been discovered?”

  “That is true.”

  “I believe you said your post-mortem was performed about midnight?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “And you’re referring to the condition of the body at the time you saw it?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “So, generally speaking, the man must have met his death at from two o’clock in the afternoon to seven o’clock in the evening of the preceding day, which was Monday, the twelfth. Is that correct?”

  “Well, that is correct if you are going to take such a time chart, but rigor mortis is exceedingly variable. It depends upon temperature. It depends upon certain conditions. I have seen rigor mortis develop almost immediately when death has occurred after a struggle under conditions of temperature which—”

  “Were there any evidences of struggle in this case?”

  “No, there were not.”

  “You wouldn’t care to fix a definite time by the development of rigor mortis?”

  “Not definitely.”

  “But you do know that such an authority as Dr. LeMoyne Snyder has claimed that under ordinary circumstances the development of rigor mortis such as you observed in the body at this time would have indicated that death had occurred between the hours of two o’clock and seven o’clock of the preceding day?”

  “Yes, sir. I guess so.”

  “Not what you guess, Doctor, but what you know.”

  “Yes, that is true.”

  “Had you considered this fact as being a development in the case?”

  “Frankly, I had not.”

  “Why, Doctor?”

  “Because of the fact that a doctor certified the time of death as being between two and three o’clock in the afternoon of the day preceding, and there is nothing in the schedule of rigor mortis which can be narrowed down definitely. Dr. Snyder and other authorities are dealing only with average cases. They can’t lay down rules which can definitely determine the time of death in any individual case. They are talking in terms of generalities, and there is nothing more tricky, or I may say nothing which offers more of a variable under existing conditions, than the development of rigor mortis.”

  “You are familiar with the symptoms of arsenic poisoning, Doctor?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “And what are those symptoms?”

  “Generally there is a burning of the mouth and the throat. There are abdominal cramps with nausea and vomiting. There is usually diarrhea. There are times under certain circumstances when the first symptoms are somewhat delayed, but as a rule the first symptoms are very rapid in their development after the ingestion of the poison.”

  “Thank you, Doctor,” Mason said. “I have no further questions.”

  Vandling said, “Call Harold Titus to the stand.”

  Titus came forward, was sworn, testified that he was a deputy sheriff, that he had specialized in the study of fingerprints, that he had been present at the time when the body of Edward Davenport was discovered in the grave about three miles out of Crampton, that he had taken fingerprints of the dead man, and that he had compared a thumbprint with that on the driving license issued to Edward Davenport and that the prints were identical.

  “Had you previously made an investigation in a motor court at Crampton in connection with this case?”

  “I had. Yes, sir.”

  “What time was that investigation made?”

  “About half-past three on the afternoon of the twelfth.”

  “That was Monday?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “What did you discover?”

  “I discovered a locked room in which a corpse was supposed to be located. The door was opened and there was no corpse in the room. There was no one in the room. There was an open window and a loosened screen. There were men’s clothes in the room. There was a handbag, a box of candy. There was a wallet containing various papers of identification indicating that the room had been occupied by one Edward Davenport.”

  “Did you meet the defendant, Myrna Davenport, at that time?”

  “I did. Yes, sir.”

  “And did she make any statements to you with reference to the identity of the man who had occupied that unit?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “Who did she say the man was?”

  “Edward Davenport, her husband.”

  “What did she say about his condition?”

  “That he was in a dying condition when she and her companion, a Mrs. Ansel, arrived.”

  “Did she say whether she and Mrs. Ansel had been admitted to the room?”

  “Yes. She said that they both went into the room, that afterward she had retired, that shortly afterward her husband had taken a turn for the worse, that his respiration was very shallow, that he was barely breathing, that the doctor was called and announced that the man’s condition was very serious. The doctor had been with him when he died. The doctor had then locked up the room after having stated that the circumstances of the death were such that he could not sign a death certificate.”

  “Did she make any further statements?”

  “There were some statements to the effect that the conduct of the doctor had indicated to her mind that he was insinuating she had murdered her husband and she naturally resented that.”

  “And what was your position in the matter at that time?”

  Titus grinned and said, “We learned that Edward Davenport was a heavy drinker. We skirmished around and found a witness who’d seen someone in the same patterned pajamas the man was wearing climb out of the window of that unit, and so we decided the fellow had got hold of some alcohol and had gone off on a binge.”

  “Then what did you do?”

  “Well, at the insistence of Dr. Renault, we retained the key to the room in question while we made an additional investigation.”

  “Was any restraint placed upon the movements of the defendant or her companion, Mrs. Ansel?”

  “Definitely not.”

  “And what did they do?”

  “They were located in another unit of the motel.”

  “You didn’t give them a key to the cabin?”

  “Definitely not.”

  “You retained that key?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “Now was any attempt made to place the defendant under surveillance?”

  “Not at that time. Later on there was.”

  “What happened?”

  “Well, she told us she was going to stay on overnight at the motel, but about—oh, I don’t know, around seven o’clock the manager of the motel phoned us that she and Mrs. Ansel had left. We traced them to Fresno and found they had taken a plane to San Francisco.”

  “What did you do?”

  “We telephoned San Francisco to pick her up when the plane landed and put a tail on her.”

  “And that was done?”

  “Well, of course, I only know now from reports.”

  “I understand. I will not ask you what was done by anyone else. Now when did you next see the defendant?”

  “That was on the fourteenth.”

  “At what time?”

  “At four-thirty in the afternoon.”

  “And where did you see her?”

  “In your office.”