“Do you know whether she was photographed on the morning of the ninth?”
“She was.”
“I show you a color photograph and ask you what that picture is.”
“It is a picture showing Dawn Manning, taken on the ninth. It shows the condition of her left thigh and the left hip.”
“Cross-examine,” Mason said to Hamilton Burger.
The district attorney smiled. “In other words, Miss Cornell, everything that you have noticed substantiates the story told by the prosecution’s witness, Loretta Harper, that the defendant had been in an accident the night before?”
“Yes.”
“Thank you,” Hamilton Burger said, bowing and smiling. “That’s all.” And then he couldn’t resist turning to Mason and bowing and smiling and saying, “And thank you, Mr. Mason.”
“Not at all,” Mason told him. “My next witness will be Morley Edmond.”
Morley Edmond was called to the stand, qualified himself as an expert photographer, a member of several photographic societies, a veteran of several salon exhibitions, winner of numerous photographic awards, contributor to various photographic magazines.
“I now show you certain pictures of the defendant which have hereto-fore been introduced in evidence, and ask you if you are familiar with those pictures.”
“I am.”
“You’ve seen them before?”
“I’ve studied them carefully.”
“I will ask you if you are familiar with the studio camera which was in the photographic studio of Meridith Borden.”
“I am.”
“Can you tell us whether or not these pictures were taken with that camera?”
“I can.”
“Were they?”
“Just a minute, just a minute,” Hamilton Burger said. “Don’t answer that question until I have an opportunity to interpose an objection. Your Honor, this is something I have never encountered before in all of my experience. This question calls for an opinion and a conclusion of a witness in a matter where the physical evidence speaks for itself. Of course the pictures were taken with that camera. They were found in the camera.”
“What is your specific objection?” Judge Erwood asked.
“That the question calls for the opinion of the witness, that no proper foundation has been laid, and that it is in a case where the issue on which this witness is expected to testify cannot be covered by expert testimony.”
Judge Erwood looked at Perry Mason.
Mason merely smiled and said, “We propose to prove to the Court that the pictures of the defendant were planted in that camera, that they couldn’t have been taken with that camera.”
“But how in the world can you prove whether a picture was taken with a certain camera?” Judge Erwood asked.
“That,” Mason said, “is what I am trying to illustrate to the Court.”
“I’ll permit the question,” Judge Erwood said, leaning forward curiously. “However, the Court would want to have some very, very good reasons from this expert, otherwise a motion to strike the testimony would be entertained.”
“We’ll give the Court reasons,” Mason said. “Just answer the question, Mr. Edmond. Were those pictures, in your opinion, taken with the Meridith Borden camera?”
“They were not.”
“And on what reasons do you base your opinion?”
“The size of the image.”
“Explain what you mean by that.”
“The size of the image on a photographic plate,” Edmond said, “is determined by the focal length of the lens and the distance of the subject from the camera.
“If the lens has a very short focal length, with reference to the area that is to be covered, the lens usually gives a wider field of coverage on the photographic plate, but the size of the object is smaller. If the focal length of the lens is very large, with reference to the area of the plate, the image shown is shown in larger size but with a very small field.
“In order to get a proper plate coverage, it is generally conceded that the standard focal length of the lens should be the diagonal of the plate to be covered. However, in portrait work it is generally considered that a focal-length lens of one and a half or two times the diagonal will result in more pleasing proportions.
“A rather simple illustration of what I mean has doubtless been noticed by Your Honor in television photography. When the television camera is focused, for instance, on the second baseman, a long focal-length lens is used in order to build up the image. At that time, if the Court has perhaps noticed, the center fielder seems to be within only a few feet of the second baseman. In other words, the perspective is distorted so that it no longer bears the ordinary relationship which the eye has accepted as standard in photographic reproductions.
“To some extent, this principle makes for a better portrait of a face, and, therefore, the longer focal-length lens is used in portrait photography.”
“But what does all this have to do with whether the picture of the defendant was taken with Meridith Borden’s camera?” Judge Erwood asked.
“Simply this, Your Honor: The full-length picture of the defendant shown on the photographic films occupies but little more than one-half of the perpendicular distance. With the longer focal-length lens used by Meridith Borden in his camera, and taking into consideration the dimensions of his studio, it is a physical impossibility to take a full-length which will occupy only one-half of the perpendicular distance of the film. Even if the camera is placed at one corner of the studio and the model at the other corner so that we have the maximum distance permitted within the room, the image on a five-by-seven plate or cut film would be materially larger than that shown on the developed plates.
“Therefore, I have been forced to the inescapable conclusion that these pictures of the defendant were taken with some other camera and then, before those pictures were developed, the film holders were placed in the Meridith Borden studio, and one of the film holders bearing an exposed film was placed inside the camera itself.
“However, for the physical reasons stated, none of these pictures could have been taken with the Borden camera.”
“Cross-examine,” Mason said.
Hamilton Burger’s voice was sharp with sarcasm. “You think because you found a certain focal-length lens in the Borden camera, the photographs of the defendant couldn’t have been taken with that camera and that lens.”
“I know that they couldn’t have been.”
“Despite the fact that all the physical evidence shows that they must have been taken with that camera?”
“That is right.”
“In other words, you’re like the man who went to the zoo, saw a giraffe and said, ‘There isn’t any such animal.’ ”
There was laughter in the courtroom.
“That question is facetious, Mr. District Attorney,” Judge Erwood said.
“I think not, Your Honor. I think it is perfectly permissible.”
“I have made no objection,” Mason said.
“I’m not like that man at all,” the witness said. “I know photography and I know what can be done and what can’t be done. I have made test exposures using a duplicate of the Borden camera, and at various distances. I used a model having exactly the same measurements as the defendant as far as height is concerned. Those pictures were taken on five-by-seven films with a lens that had the same focal length as that in the Borden camera. I have compared the image sizes. I can produce those films, if necessary.”
“No further questions,” Hamilton Burger said. “I’m going to rely on the physical evidence in this case, and I think His Honor will also.”
“Call James Goodwin to the stand,” Mason said.
James Goodwin testified that he was an architect, that he had designed the apartment house known as the Dormain Apartments, that he had his various plans showing the apartment house, and he identified and introduced in evidence a floor plan of the fourth floor.