The witness hesitated.
“As much as forty-eight hours?” Mason asked.
“No, it wasn’t forty-eight hours.”
“It could have been twenty-four hours?”
“It could have been. I think it was much less.”
“Who put the weapon back on the table in the exact place where it was found?”
“I did.”
“How did you know where that exact place was?”
“I remembered it.”
“Did you mark it in any way?”
“No.”
“Now when you entered the room,” Mason asked, “and found this weapon, was the muzzle pointing toward the door or was it pointing away from the door?”
“It was on the table as shown in that photograph.”
Mason, holding the photograph so the witness couldn’t see it, repeated, “Was the muzzle pointed toward the door or away from the door?”
“At this moment, I can’t remember. I knew at the time. The photograph will show its exact position. I replaced the gun within five minutes of the time I picked it up and while its position was fresh in my mind.”
“Thank you,” Mason said, “these are all the questions I have in regard to the photograph, if the Court please.”
Hendrie said, “I now wish to offer the photograph in evidence.”
“No objection,” Mason said.
Hendrie turned to the witness. “Did the defendant make any statement to you with reference to the gun?”
“Yes, I asked her about the gun, and she said Mr. Homer Garvin had given it to her.”
“Did you have any further conversation with her?”
“Yes, I asked her about the discharged shell in the gun and she said she knew nothing about it, that the weapon was in the same condition as when she had received it.”
“We ask that the weapon be marked for identification.”
“So ordered,” the Court ruled. “It will be People’s Exhibit Number 30, and the photograph is in evidence as People’s Exhibit Number 29.”
“You may inquire,” Hendrie said.
“Did she say whether or not she had received the gun from Homer Garvin, Sr., or Homer Garvin, Jr.?”
“Just that she had received it from Homer Garvin. That was all she said.”
“Did she say when she had received it?”
“No, sir. She didn’t.”
Hamilton Burger said, “If the Court please, we expect to connect up the time element. However, in that connection, I will ask Sgt. Holcomb one question. What time did you arrive at the defendant’s apartment, Sergeant?”
“It was almost exactly eleven forty-five.”
“No further questions,” Mason said.
“Call Alexander Redfield,” Hendrie said.
Redfield, the ballistics expert, who had been cross-examined by Mason in several other cases and who had learned to be very wary indeed of Mason’s ingenuity on cross-examination, took the oath and settled himself cautiously on the witness stand.
From Hendrie’s manner, it was apparent that there was a certain feeling of exasperation on the part of the prosecuting attorney toward Redfield, that Redfield, on the other hand, knowing Mason’s ability as a cross-examiner and his knowledge of the subject of ballistics, was determined to give only such evidence as was completely unassailable.
“I show you People’s Exhibit Number 30, the weapon which has just been received in evidence. Are you familiar with that weapon?”
Redfield took the exhibit in his hands, studied it carefully, checked the serial number, then said, “Yes, I am familiar with it.”
“I show you a bullet which has previously been introduced in evidence as People’s Exhibit Number 14, the fatal bullet. Are you familiar with that bullet?”
The witness took a magnifying glass from his pocket, carefully inspected the base of the bullet, then said, “Yes, sir. I am familiar with that bullet. It has my secret mark on it.”
“That bullet has already been identified as the fatal bullet,” Hendrie said. “Now can you tell us whether or not that bullet, Exhibit 14, was fired from the gun, Exhibit 30?”
“Yes, sir, that bullet was fired from this gun,” the witness said.
“Could it have been fired from any other gun?”
“No, sir. It was fired from this gun.”
“You may cross-examine,” Hendrie said.
“No questions,” Mason announced.
“Call Paul Clinton,” Hendrie said.
Paul Clinton came forward, took the stand and identified him* self as a scientific investigator in the employ of the police department. He qualified himself as an expert in the science of developing and comparing fingerprints, in making chemical tests for bloodstains, in the grouping of blood, in making various types of analysis.
“Did you have occasion to search the apartment occupied by the defendant in this case?” Hendrie asked.
“Yes, sir.”
“When?”
“On the ninth day of October.”
“Of this year?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Did you find any wearing apparel in the apartment of the defendant which was stained with blood?”
“I did. Yes, sir.”
“What article did you find?”
“I found a left shoe with blood on the sole and on the heel.”
“Were you able to get enough blood to type the stain?”
“No, sir.”
“Were you able to get enough blood to determine that it was human blood?”
“No, sir. The shoe had been carefully and thoroughly washed, but chemical tests gave a typical blood reaction.”
“Do you have that shoe with you?”
“I do, yes, sir.”
“Produce it, please... This is the shoe which you found in the defendant’s apartment?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Is there anything distinctive about that shoe?”
“Yes, sir, the sole is of a certain patented composition.”
“I will ask you if you found any soiled towels in the Casselman apartment?”
“I did, yes, sir. I produce herewith one towel which I consider especially significant.”
“Why?”
“It had blood smears on it. It had been used to wipe off some bloodstained object. In addition to the bloodstains or smears, there was a very small bit of foreign matter adhering to the towel. Spectroscopic analysis showed that bit of foreign matter to have exactly the same component parts as the sole of this shoe.”
Hendrie said, “I ask to have the shoe introduced in evidence as People’s Exhibit Number 31, the towel as People’s Exhibit 32.”
“No objection,” Mason said.
“So ordered. They will be received in evidence,” Judge Decker ruled.
“Now I’m going to call your attention to the photograph, Exhibit Number 12, which has been received in evidence. I am going to ask you if you have made a careful study of that photograph?”
“I have. Yes, sir.”
“What did you find from your study?”
“I found that there are evidences of this color photograph of two footprints. There is the evidence of a shoe with a fairly high heel which has been covered with a metal plate held in place by four brads.
“Subsequent investigation convinced me that this heel plate bore the number ‘thirty-three.’ In part, the numbers which had been stamped into this plate are obliterated but in this photograph which I hold in my hand, it is possible to detect faint traces of the number thirty-three. This footprint made with the heel print bearing the number thirty-three has been almost obliterated by the footprint of a man wearing a much larger shoe and this footprint had been superimposed upon the other print at a time considerably later than the making of the first print.”
“Can you tell how much later?”
“I would say probably two or three hours later.”
“Referring now to the article of wearing apparel, the shoe which you found in the defendant’s apartment, and which has been received in evidence as Exhibit Number 31, have you been able to determine whether this particular shoe which you hold in your hand made the bloody print which you have testified to finding underneath the print made by the larger shoe?”