“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,” Sgt. 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,” Sgt. 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,” Sgt. 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,” Sgt. 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,” Sgt. 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 Lt. 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?”
Lt. 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?”