“What sort of a cartridge case?”

  “A .22-caliber cartridge case.”

  “Do you have that with you?”

  “I do.”

  Sergeant Holcomb produced an envelope from his pocket, opened it, took out a small glass bottle which contained an empty .22-caliber cartridge case.

  “This you found where?”

  “At a point about twenty feet, as nearly as we could tell, twenty feet and two inches from the steering wheel of the automobile in which the body of Mervin Selkirk was found.”

  “What was the nature of the terrain at that point?”

  “At that particular point the terrain was grassy. There was a practice putting green bordering the side of the parking space on the north. This cartridge case was in the grass. On the south side of the parking space there was native brush on the slope of the hill.”

  “That’s all,” Marshall said. “You may inquire, Mr. Mason.”

  Mason’s smile was affable. “How long had this cartridge case been there in the grass before you picked it up, Sergeant?”

  “If it had held the murder bullet, it couldn’t have been there more than about twelve hours.”

  “If it had held the murder bullet?”

  “Yes.”

  “Had it held that bullet?”

  “I think it had.”

  “Do you know it had?”

  “Well we can prove it by inference.”

  “Do you know it had?”

  “No.”

  “Do you know how long the cartridge case had been there before you picked it up?”

  “No, of course not. I wasn’t there when the cartridge was fired. If I had been—”

  “Could it have been there two days, Sergeant?”

  “I suppose so.”

  “Ten days?”

  “I suppose so.”

  “What was the nature of the terrain where you found the printing press?” Mason asked.

  “It was on the sloping hill. The terrain there was covered with native brush.”

  “Where was the printing press, with relation to the brush; in deep brush or relatively in the open?”

  “In deep brush.”

  “Was it sitting straight up or was it on an angle, as would have been the case if it had been thrown into the brush?”

  “It was sitting straight up.”

  “As though it had been carefully placed there?”

  “I can’t say as to that. It was sitting straight up.”

  “And the fingerprint of the defendant was not smudged in any way?”

  “No, sir, it was a perfect print.”

  “Did you find any other prints on the press?”

  “Well, I didn’t process the press myself. The fingerprint expert did.”

  “In your presence?”

  “Yes, in my presence and in the presence of Lieutenant Tragg.”

  “Also of Homicide?”

  “Yes.”

  “Were any other prints of the defendant found?”

  “None that I know of.”

  “Would it have been possible for a woman of the build of the defendant to have picked up an eighty-five pound printing press of this sort and transported it into the brush without leaving fingerprints on it?”

  “Certainly. She could have used gloves.”

  “Yes, there were places where the brush had been trampled, that some person had gone in there carrying a heavy object?”

  “Yes, there were places where the brush had been broken.”

  “Could you get any footprints?”

  “No.”

  “Now, Sergeant, you’re an expert crime investigator.”

  “I consider myself such.”

  “In transporting an object awkward to carry, such as a printing press of that sort, the transportation of that heavy, unwieldy object would have been attended with some difficulty?”

  “I would say so.”

  “And do you consider that the press was placed there at night?”

  “I don’t know.”

  “It is a possibility?”

  “Yes.”

  “It is a probability?”

  “Yes.”

  “Moving in the dark that way, through a brushy terrain, there was quite a possibility the person would have stumbled?”

  “Perhaps, if the press had been transported in the dark, but we don’t know that it happened in the dark.”

  “It is a reasonable surmise?”

  “I wouldn’t say so.”

  “Pardon me, I must have misunderstood you.”

  “I said that it was a reasonable surmise that the press had been transported at night, but that didn’t mean in the dark.”

  “Why not?”

  “The person could have used a flashlight.”

  “I see,” Mason said. “Holding an eighty-five pound printing press in one hand and a flashlight in the other?”

  “Well, I didn’t say that.”

  “Where would such a person have held the flashlight—in his teeth?”

  “She could have held it in her mouth,” Sergeant Holcomb said.

  “I see,” Mason said. “You are assuming that the defendant transported the press to this place of concealment.”

  “Yes.”

  “She did that, in your opinion, in order to conceal the press?”

  “Naturally.”

  “She carried this eighty-five pound press in her hands and a flashlight in her teeth?”

  “So I would assume.”

  “There would have been ink on the rollers?”

  “Yes.”

  “And ink on the edges of the steel table?”

  “To some extent, yes.”

  “And isn’t it a fact that in picking up the press, the edges of the steel table would have pressed against the forearms of the person picking it up?”

  “They might.”

  “And that would have left ink on the garments of the defendant, if she had been carrying it?”

  “She might have been wearing short sleeves.”

  “At night?”

  “Yes.”

  “And it would have been difficult to have transported that press through the brush at night without stumbling and falling?”

  “I don’t know.”

  “You didn’t make a test to determine that?”

  “Well, not exactly.”

  “You were the one who found the press?”

  “I was,” Sergeant Holcomb said, beaming with pride.

  “And when you found it, were there other persons present?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “Who?”

  “Two technicians and Lieutenant Tragg.”

  “And did you call to them to come and see what you had found?”

  “Yes.”

  “And they came over to where you were standing in the brush?”

  “Yes.”

  “And did any of them stumble?”

  “Lieutenant Tragg caught his foot and fell flat.”

  “Did any of the others stumble?”

  “The fingerprint man almost fell.”

  “Neither of these people were carrying anything?”

  “No.”

  “And it was daylight?”

  “Now, if the defendant had been trying to conceal the printing press, Sergeant, why would she have concealed it so near the scene of the crime?”

  “You’d better ask her,” Sergeant Holcomb said. “She’s your client.”

  “That will do,” Judge Kent said sharply. “There will be no repartee between witness and counsel Answer the question.”

  “I think, if the Court please,” Marshall said, “the question is argumentative and not proper cross-examination.”

  “It certainly is argumentative,” Judge Kent said. “I was wondering if there would be an objection on that ground. The objection is sustained.”

  “Assuming,” Mason said, “that some person, either the defendant or someone else, murdered Mervin Selkirk at the place where his car was parked, it is obvious that the murderer must have made an escape, presumably by automobile. Did you check the vicinity for the tire tracks of another automobile, Sergeant?”

  “Certainly,” Sergeant Holcomb said sneeringly. “We don’t overlook the obvious.”

  “And did you find any such tracks?”

  “We did not. The parking place was hard-topped and there were no other significant tire tracks that we could find.”

  “Did I understand you to say you didn’t overlook the obvious?” Mason asked.

  “That is quite correct,” Sergeant Holcomb said.

  “Then how did it happen that you overlooked the obvious fact that if a person had wanted to conceal the printing press, the murderer would have taken it away in the escape car rather than leave it in the brush within a hundred yards of the decedent’s body where it was certain to be discovered?”

  “That question is objected to as argumentative,” Marshall said.

  Judge Kent smiled faintly.

  “The question was asked because of the statement of the witness that the police didn’t overlook the obvious,” Mason observed.

  This time Judge Kent’s smile broadened. “That was a statement which the witness shouldn’t have volunteered,” he said. “And, while it is a temptation to overrule the objection because of the manner in which the assertion was volunteered, the Court will sustain the objection to this present question on the ground that it is argumentative.”

  Judge Kent looked at Perry Mason, inclined his head slightly and said, “However, the parties will note that counsel has made his point.”

  “Thank you, Your Honor,” Mason said. “That is all.”

  Marshall called Lieutenant Tragg to the stand.

  “Lieutenant Tragg, did you make any search of the room which had been occupied by the defendant on the seventeenth and eighteenth; that is, Friday night and Saturday morning?”

  “I did, yes, sir.”

  “What did you find, if anything?”

  “Under the pillow of the bed I found a .22-caliber Colt automatic of the type known as a Colt Woodsman, number 21323-S.”

  “Do you have that weapon with you?” Marshall asked.

  “I do.”

  “Will you produce it, please?”

  Lieutenant Tragg opened a briefcase which he had taken in with him, and produced the weapon.

  “Were there any fingerprints on this weapon?” Marshall asked.

  “None that we were able to use; that is, none that were legible.”

  “Does the fact that there were no fingerprints on the weapon indicate to you that the fingerprints had been removed?”

  “No, sir.”

  “Why not?”

  “Because it is rather unusual to find fingerprints on a weapon of this type. The surface is usually somewhat oily and it is the exception rather than the rule to find any fingerprints. There is, however, one place where fingerprints are sometimes found. That is on the magazine clip. The clip is usually grasped between the thumb and forefinger and then pushed into place with the ball of the thumb. The magazine clip is not as oily as a rule as the rest of the gun, and sometimes we do find prints on the magazine.”

  “Did you find any prints on the magazine of this weapon?”

  “None that we could use.”

  “Now, can you tell us exactly where you found this weapon?”

  “Yes, sir. I found it under the pillow of the bed in the front room of the house occupied by Barton and Lorraine Jennings.”

  “Do you know that this was a room occupied by the defendant?”

  “Not of my own knowledge, no, sir. I know only that it was a room in the front of the house, and I know that the defendant had at one time been in that room.”

  “How do you know that?”

  “Her fingerprints were in various parts of the room, on doorknobs, by a mirror, on a table top and in other places.”

  “Did you photograph the exact position of the gun after the pillows had been removed?”

  “I did.”

  “Do you have that photograph with you, or a copy of it?”

  “I do.”

  “May I see it, please.”

  Tragg produced a photograph from the briefcase. Marshall stepped to the witness stand to take it from the witness, showed it to Perry Mason and said, “I would like to introduce this photograph in evidence.”

  The photograph showed the head of a bed, a rumpled sheet, two pillows and an automatic lying on the rumpled sheet.

  “No objections,” Mason said. “It may be received in evidence.”

  “Cross-examine the witness,” Marshall said.

  “I take it, Lieutenant Tragg,” Mason said, “that the pillows which are shown in the photograph had been moved prior to the time the photograph was taken?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “But the gun was in exactly the same position that it was when you found it?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “Then, in removing the pillows, the gun was not disturbed?”

  “No, sir.”

  “In removing those pillows then, you were looking for a weapon, were you not?”

  “We hoped to find a weapon, yes.”

  “Was that gun loaded or unloaded when it was found?” Mason asked.

  “It was unloaded. It had been unloaded.”

  “How do you know it had been unloaded?”

  “Because of things that had been done to the barrel.”

  “There was no shell in the firing chamber?”

  “No.”

  “None in the magazine?”

  “No.”

  “Were there shells in the bedroom where the defendant had left her fingerprints?”

  “Yes. There was a partially filled box of .22 shells.”

  “Did you find any fingerprints on that box of shells?”

  “None that we could positively identify.”

  “That’s all,” Mason said.

  “If the Court please,” Marshall said, “Lieutenant Tragg can, of course, corroborate the finding of the empty cartridge case and the finding of the printing press, but I didn’t ask him about those matters because this is merely a preliminary hearing and since Sergeant Holcomb has already given his testimony I see no reason in cluttering up the record. I will state, however, to counsel that if he desires to cross-examine Lieutenant Tragg upon these matters we have no objection.”

  “I have only one question on cross-examination in regard to that phase of the case,” Mason said.

  He turned to Lieutenant Tragg. “Do you think it would be possible to pick up the printing press in question without getting some smears of ink on your clothing?”

  “It would be possible,” Lieutenant Tragg said.

  “But it would require some care in order to avoid doing so?”

  “It would.”

  “Who carried the printing press out from its place of concealment to the car which eventually transported it to police headquarters?”

  “I did.”

  “Did you get ink on your clothing?”

  “Unfortunately, I did.”

  “You have heard Sergeant Holcomb’s testimony about your falling through the brush?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “Did you fall?”

  “I fell.”

  “Did you fall going out with the printing press?”

  “No, sir, I used great care.”

  “But it was daylight?”

  “It was daylight.”

  “In your opinion, Lieutenant Tragg, as an officer, was the printing press placed in a position of concealment where it was reasonably safe from detection?”

  Marshall started to get to his feet and object, then changed his mind and sat back in his chair, quite evidently feeling Tragg could take care of himself.

  “It wouldn’t be safe from detection in the sort of examination which is usually made in a homicide case.”

  “In other words, you don’t join with Sergeant Holcomb in considering that his discovery of the printing press represented an epochal achievement in the chronicles of crime detection?”

  There was a ripple of laughter in the courtroom and this time Marshall, on his feet, angrily objected.

  “The objection is sustained,” Judge Kent said, but again there was a ghost of a twinkle in his eyes.

  “No further questions,” Mason said.

  “We ask that the .22 Colt automatic, number 21323-S be received in evidence,” Marshall said.

  “No objection,” Mason said.

  “Call Alexander Redfield,” Marshall said.

  Redfield, the ballistics and firearms expert, came forward, was sworn and qualified himself as an expert.

  Having been the victim of some of Mason’s ingenious cross-examination several times in the past, the expert was exceedingly careful in answering questions.

  “I show you a Colt Woodsman automatic, number 21323-S, which has been received in evidence,” Marshall said, “and ask you if you have conducted a series of experiments with that weapon and if you have examined it.”

  “I have.”

  “I show you a .22-caliber bullet which has been received in evidence and which the testimony shows was the so-called fatal bullet taken from the body of Mervin Selkirk, and ask you if you have examined that bullet.”

  “I have.”

  “Did that bullet come from this gun?” Marshall asked.

  “I don’t know.”

  “You don’t know?”

  “No, sir. I know that it was fired from a weapon made by the Colt Manufacturing Company similar to this weapon, but I can’t say that it came from this particular weapon.”

  “Why not? Can’t you usually tell whether a given bullet comes from a given weapon?”

  “Usually you can tell.”

  “How?”

  “There are certain characteristics which are known as class characteristics,” Redfield said. “Those relate to the pitch of the lands in the barrel, the dimension of the lands and grooves, the direction in which they turn, the angle of turn which gives a twist or rotation to the bullet, and from those class characteristics we can generally tell the make of weapon from which the bullet was fired.

  “In addition to these general or class characteristics there are characteristics which are known as individual characteristics. Those are little striations which are found on a bullet, and are caused by individualized markings in the barrel itself. By comparing these markings, we are able to tell whether the striations on a fatal bullet coincide with those on a test bullet fired through a weapon, and from that we are able to determine whether a bullet was fired from a certain weapon.”