“Yes.”

  “Did you see the bullet extracted?”

  “I did. Yes, sir.”

  “And marked by Dr. Stirling?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “And then what was done with it?”

  “I immediately took it into my possession.”

  “Then according to your testimony, there should be minor scratches upon this bullet which would have been the result of penetrating the body of the deceased.”

  “Well, there could have been.”

  “Have you found any such scratches?”

  “I haven’t looked for them.”

  “You have merely assumed that they were there?”

  “Yes.”

  “You were very careful to look for scratches which proved that the bullet had been fired from the revolver which has been introduced in evidence.”

  “Naturally, that was the point I was called upon to establish.”

  “But you apparently took no interest whatever in finding any scratches which would indicate that this bullet had penetrated the body of the deceased and caused death.”

  “I took the doctor’s word for what caused death. That is, for the effect of the bullet on the body of the deceased. I took the evidence of my own eyes that the bullet had penetrated the body of the deceased.”

  “You saw the hole of entrance?”

  “I did.”

  “And were present while the doctor performed the autopsy?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “And saw the position of the bullet?”

  “I did. Yes, sir.”

  “By the way, were any photographs taken of the bullet hole in the neck?”

  The witness cleared his throat. “Well, I took some photographs, yes. But they didn’t establish anything other than that there was a bullet hole in the back of the neck.”

  “Where are those photographs?”

  “I have them in my office.”

  “You didn’t bring them to court with you?”

  “No.”

  “Why not?”

  “Because I saw nothing to be gained by bringing them with me. I take many photographs which I don’t use.”

  Mason said, “As I understood your testimony, this bullet is capable of penetrating four, seven-eighth inch pine boards?”

  “That is right. Those are the statistical qualifications of this bullet fired from this type of firearm with this type of powder load.”

  “The bullet didn’t penetrate very deep into the body of the deceased.”

  “The bullet struck against bone. When it strikes against bony substance, you can’t tell what a bullet will do, particularly when the body is, perhaps, falling when the bullet strikes.”

  “Then you would say that Scott Shelby had been falling when the bullet struck?”

  “No, sir. I wouldn’t say that.”

  “What would you say?”

  “I’m not an expert on that.”

  “You’re an expert on ballistics. How do you account for the shallow penetration of this bullet?”

  “Well,” the witness said and fidgeted, “I have my own theory.”

  “All right, what is that theory? We want it.”

  “My theory,” the witness said, “is that … Well, I guess I’m not supposed to go into that. I’m only supposed to identify the bullet.”

  “No,” Mason said, “you’re an expert on ballistics. You have a theory as to the facts which accounts for the shallow penetration of the bullet. I want that theory.”

  “Well, if you want to know it,” the witness said, “it’s my theory that the man was shot while he was in the water. Just about the time he’d hit the water.”

  “Well, now,” Mason said, “that is very, very interesting. And what makes you think that, Mr. Noxie?”

  “Oh, if the Court please,” Mr. Burger said in a tone of martyred, weary protest, “if we’re going to embark upon all of these irrelevant side matters, the case will take forever. We have already consumed a great deal of time and it seems to me that any mere theory as to where or how the shot might have been fired which this witness may have, a theory which has no particular proof to back it up, is merely taking up time.”

  “As you yourself remarked but a short time ago,” Mason said, “we have all afternoon.”

  “And I don’t propose to consume it with a lot of trivialities,” the district attorney snapped.

  “Are you making an objection?”

  “I am. I object that it’s not proper cross-examination, that it’s incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial.”

  The judge said, “The Court doesn’t care for any argument, Mr. Mason. The objection is overruled. The witness will answer the question.”

  “Well,” the witness said, “you have several things to account for in this case. One of them is the peculiar nature of the hole of entrance.”

  “Oh, there was something peculiar about that?” Mason asked.

  “Well, it wasn’t round. It was sort of oval in shape.”

  “And what does that mean?”

  “Well, that usually means that the bullet had ceased to travel in a straight line. That is, it had started to wobble.”

  “Can you illustrate what you mean by that?”

  The witness took a pencil from his pocket, said, “Now a bullet that is properly rotating travels in a straight line, like this. But, if a bullet is defective, or if there is something defective about the weapon that fires it, the bullet begins to wobble in this manner.—You will see that the point of the pencil is moving forward in a straight line, but the rear of the pencil, the part that is represented by the rubber eraser, has begun to move in a circle some two inches in diameter.”

  Mason nodded.

  “Now then,” the witness went on, “when that bullet strikes, it will not leave a round hole, but will leave what is known as a keyhole point of entrance, so called because of the fact that the bullet strikes partially broadside, and the description of it as a keyhole is very illustrative.”

  “Quite interesting,” Mason said conversationally. “Now in this case, you have what is known as a keyhole bullet wound of entrance?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “And you also have some other unusual factors?”

  “I’ve mentioned that the distortion or the flattening of the bullet was very, very small. You can see that this bullet has only a few chewed-up surfaces on the nose of the bullet. It hasn’t flattened or mushroomed in any way.”

  Mason nodded. “What does that indicate?”

  “That, plus the penetration of the bullet, indicates to my mind that the bullet had struck some smooth surface and glanced before it entered the body of the decedent.”

  “Oh,” Mason said, “the bullet had glanced, had it?”

  “That’s only his theory, if the Court please,” Hamilton Burger said.

  “He’s testifying as an expert,” Mason pointed out. “His heories are supposed to be the result of an expert interpretation of facts.”

  “Well, I can’t see that it makes any difference, myself,” he district attorney said somewhat testily.

  “You can’t?” Mason asked.

  “No, I can’t!” the district attorney said angrily. “And if you weren’t merely trying to grasp at straws, you …”

  “That will do,” the Court interrupted. “Counsel will refrain from personalities.”

  Mason turned to the witness. There was something of a purring satisfaction in his voice. “You left the photographs showing this peculiar wound of entrance in your office?”

  “That’s right.”

  “You didn’t bring them to court?”

  “No, sir.”

  “You had this theory in regard to the bullet having glanced?”

  “I did.”

  “And did you communicate that theory to the district attorney?”

  “Objected to as improper, irrelevant and immaterial, not proper cross-examination,” Burger protested.

  “On the contrary,” Mason said. “I think it is proper cross-examination. It goes to show the qualifications of the witness as an expert. It goes to show the bias of the witness, and in the event it should appear the witness had communicated this theory to the district attorney, and the district attorney had advised the witness to say nothing about it unless he was asked to do so, and the district attorney had been the one who advised the witness not to bring those photographs to court, then it would go a long ways toward showing the bias of the witness.”

  “Your Honor, I object to that. It assumes a fact not in evidence,” Hamilton Burger said, “it touches the integrity of my professional reputation and I object to it as a matter of personal privilege. I ask that counsel be ordered to apologize to me for those remarks.”

  “On the contrary,” Mason said, “there’s nothing to apologize for. If those are the facts, they speak for themselves. If those aren’t the facts, the district attorney can very readily let me get to the truth of the matter by simply asking this witness questions.”

  “It’s absurd to take up time with such trivia,” the district attorney shouted.

  Mason smiled. “Look at the face of the witness if you think it’s trivial, Your Honor.”

  The witness had shifted his position uneasily on the witness stand. His face was dull red.

  “Your Honor, I object to that statement,” Burger said. “The face of the witness is not in evidence.”

  The judge smiled. “The objections are overruled. I’m going to let the witness answer that question.”

  “Go ahead,” Mason said, “answer the question.”

  “Well, yes, I did outline my theory to Mr. Burger and he didn’t think …”

  “Never mind what you think he thought,” Mason said, “let’s confine ourselves to what he said.”

  “Your Honor, this is all incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial,” Burger protested. “It is not proper cross-examination and it relates to a conversation which this witness had with counsel for the prosecution. Certainly that is not evidence.”

  “I am inclined to think that it is not proper to introduce a conversation between this witness and counsel for the prosecution. That is, unless the conversation is specifically limited within certain designated points,” the judge ruled. “But, this being cross-examination, you have the right to ask leading questions, Mr. Mason.”

  “Very well,” Mason said. “I will ask you, Mr. Noxie, if it isn’t a fact that you communicated your theory to the district attorney; that you pointed out to him that in your opinion the physical evidence proved conclusively that the bullet must have struck the surface of the water and glanced before embedding itself in the neck of the decedent, and the district attorney told you not to say anything about that and warned you that he didn’t want that phase of the case brought into court.”

  “Well, not in those words,” the witness said.

  “Well, what were his exact words on that point?”

  “Same objection,” Burger said.

  “This objection is overruled,” Judge Maxwell said. “The question now calls for a specific part of a specific conversation.”

  “But what possible significance can anything that I told this witness in regard to his testimony have upon the facts of the present case?” Burger stormed.

  Mason said, “It isn’t what you told the witness, it’s what the witness did. It’s the fact that the witness came to court and, following your suggestion, left those photographs in his office. Following your suggestion, he didn’t say anything at all about this matter on direct examination. In fact, he tried to avoid the issue until I pinned him down definitely to it and then he blurted out the truth.—Now then, Your Honor, I submit that any witness who permits himself to be guided in his testimony in a murder case by the direction of a district attorney, is a biased witness and that we have the right to show that bias to the jury.”

  “The bias, or lack of it, is already apparent to the jury,” the judge said.

  “But it isn’t in the record,” Mason pointed out. “I want to get it in the record. I want the record of this case to show that the district attorney made a certain suggestion in regard to the testimony of this witness, and that this witness proceeded to act upon that direction.”

  “I think on that theory, you are entitled to have it in the record,” the judge said. “The witness will answer the question.”

  “Well,” Noxie said, shifting his position once more, “the district attorney told me that I didn’t need to say anything about that. He said that of course if I was asked it would be a different matter, that I’d have to tell the truth, but he didn’t want me to volunteer any information along those lines, and that he didn’t intend to ask me questions about it.”

  “And did he tell you particularly not to volunteer that theory?”

  “Well, yes.”

  “Unless you were asked about it specifically and in so many words?”

  “Well, something to that effect.”

  “And did he suggest that you refrain from bringing those photographs showing the peculiar wound of entrance to court with you?”

  “Well, he said there was no use in getting them mixed up with the other photographs.”

  Mason smiled. “Didn’t want you to get them confused. Is that right?”

  “Yes.”

  “So that in case you pulled out a photograph of the test bullet and inadvertently pulled out at the same time one of these photographs showing the peculiar wound of entrance, I wouldn’t happen to get a glimpse of that entrance wound.”

  “Well … I don’t know what he had in mind. He simply said that he didn’t think there was any use in bringing those photographs to court because I might get them confused.”

  “And more than that, he asked you specifically not to bring them to court, didn’t he?”

  “Well, yes.”

  Mason said, “I think that’s all.”

  “That’s all,” Hamilton Burger snapped.

  “Just one moment,” Mason said, “if the Court please. It occurs to me there are one or two more questions I would like to ask Dr. Stirling on cross-examination. I see that he hasn’t left the court. I would like to have him return to the stand so that I may ask him those questions. I realize, of course, that this is somewhat out of order; but I think under the circumstances the Court will bear with me.”

  “Very well,” the Court said. “Dr. Stirling, will you return to the stand for one or two questions, please? That’s right. You have already been sworn, Doctor. This is additional cross-examination by Perry Mason. Very well, Counselor, proceed with your questions.”

  Mason said with a smile, “Doctor, you didn’t mention anything about this peculiar wound of entrance.”

  “I wasn’t asked,” the doctor snapped testily.

  “That’s right. I didn’t ask you about it because I hadn’t been permitted to see the body prior to the time the postmortem was performed, and of course after the postmortem was performed an incision had then been made along the line of the neck in order to recover the bullet and the peculiar nature of the wound of entrance was not apparent. Therefore I was hardly in a position to ask you about it.”

  “Well, I answered all your questions.”

  “You did indeed, Doctor. You didn’t misrepresent a thing.”

  “Thank you,” the doctor said with some acidity.

  “But,” Mason said, “on the other hand, you carefully avoided volunteering any information on this subject. Now then, Doctor, I am wondering if the District Attorney, Hamilton Burger, told you not to mention anything about the wound of entrance.”

  “Your Honor, I object to this. It is improper cross-examination,” Burger said. “It is personally embarrassing to me. It is casting an aspersion upon my professional integrity, and it seems to me to be entirely out of place. The Court would hardly permit me to inquire as to conversations which took place between the attorney for the defense and his witnesses.”

  “I don’t know why not,” Mason said. “In the event I instructed a witness to suppress any fact and the witness so suppressed that fact …”

  “No fact has been suppressed,” the district attorney shouted angrily.

  Mason said, “If the Court please, in the event I asked a witness for the defense to suppress certain facts, I would certainly think that the district attorney would be entitled to bring out that conversation on cross-examination, not for the purpose of showing any lack of integrity on my part but merely for the purpose of showing the bias of a witness who would suppress certain facts at the request of counsel for either side.”

  “I didn’t request anyone to suppress anything,” Hamilton Burger said.

  “Certainly not. I am talking about what would happen if I asked the witness to suppress something,” Mason said, smiling. “But I do want to establish on the record that the bias of this witness was such that when a suggestion was made by the district attorney that it would be advisable not to comment on this wound of entrance the witness acquiesced and was thereafter very careful to mention nothing about the wound of entrance.”

  “I think the question as it is asked is proper,” Judge Maxwell ruled. “The district attorney of course has the opportunity on redirect examination to clarify the situation in any way that is compatible with the existing facts.”

  “What did the district attorney tell you about that, Doctor?” Mason asked.

  Doctor Stirling said, “He simply told me that I didn’t need to say anything about the wound of entrance unless I was asked.”

  “That wound impressed you as being unusual?”

  “No, sir. It did not.”

  “Nothing unusual about it?”

  “Certainly not. It was a very ordinary keyhole wound. You see them lots of times.”

  “Do you indeed, Doctor?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “Doctor, do you know what causes them?”

  “It’s caused by defective ammunition or defective rifling. It may be caused by half a dozen things.”

  “How many such keyhole wounds have you seen, Doctor?”

  “Dozens of them.”

  “How many wounds of entrance do you suppose you have seen in the last two years, Doctor?”

  “I would say several hundred.”

  “Now then, in those several hundred can you recall any other wound of entrance where there was this peculiar keyhole effect?”