“Yes, sir, it was.”
“Did you subsequently see that body at the autopsy room in the coroner’s office?”
“Yes, sir.”
“And it was the same body?”
“Yes, sir.”
“That of George C. Lutts?”
“Yes, sir.”
“What time was it when you made the discovery of the body?”
“About eight-fifteen, daylight saving time. I don’t know the exact time.”
“You may inquire,” Burger said to Mason.
“No questions,” Mason said.
Judge Hoyt looked thoughtfully at Perry Mason.
“I desire to recall Dr. Oberon for one question,” Hamilton Burger said.
“Return to the stand, Dr. Oberon,” the judge directed.
Dr. Oberon resumed his position on the witness stand.
“You have heard the testimony of Mr. Doxey as to the time at which a meal was ingested?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Assuming that the meal such as he described was ingested at 3.30 p.m., how long was it after the ingestion of that meal before the decedent met his death?”
“I would say from fifty minutes to an hour and ten minutes.”
“You feel that you can place the time within twenty minutes?”
“I do, yes, sir.”
“You may cross-examine,” Hamilton Burger said.
“No questions.”
“I’ll call Sidney Dayton to the stand,” Burger said.
Sidney Dayton, a police expert, took the stand, qualified himself as an expert, and turned to Hamilton Burger.
“Can you,” Hamilton Burger asked, “tell by any scientific means the distance at which a gun was held when a shot was fired into the body of a man?”
“Yes.”
“How?”
“By powder tattooing on the skin or by the dispersion of powder particles in the clothing.”
“Will you please explain what you mean by the latter.”
“When a shell is fired, there are certain particles of powder which are consumed entirely, and so turned into a gas. There are other particles which are not entirely consumed. These particles are spewed from the muzzle of the weapon. They naturally follow a pattern of expansion. By determining the number of particles and the pattern of their expansion or dispersion, it is possible to tell the distance at which the weapon was held from the body.”
“Can you describe, generally, the method by which that is done? I just want to have it very generally.”
“The clothing containing the powder chemicals is placed on an ordinary ironing board. A sheet of a special type of photographic paper is placed under the clothing. A blotter containing a chemical is placed over the clothing where it is thought the powder particles are deposited. A hot iron is placed upon that moistened blotter. The iron vaporizes chemicals in the blotter, which in turn cause a chemical reaction with the powder particles, which in turn cause a series of dots on the photographic paper, representing a dispersion of the powder particles.”
“Did you make such a test on the clothing of George C. Lutts?”
“I did.”
“Did you reach any conclusion as to the distance at which the weapon was held?”
“I did.”
“What conclusion did you reach?”
“I feel that the person who discharged the bullet into the body of George Lutts was standing at eighteen to twenty inches from the victim at the time the bullet was fired.”
“Did you examine the hands of the decedent to see if there were any powder stains on them?”
“I did, yes, sir.”
“Did you find any?”
“No, sir.”
“If the decedent had been grabbing for the gun, if he had been putting up his hands in front of the gun trying to ward off the bullet, you’d have found powder stains.”
“Very definitely. When I say that the weapon was about eighteen to twenty inches from the decedent, I mean the distance from the muzzle of the weapon to the chest of the decedent was not more than that.”
“At that distance he could then have reached for the gun?”
“He could have, if the bullet hadn’t reached him first, which, in this case, it evidently did.”
“You may cross-examine,” Hamilton Burger said.
“No questions,” Mason announced tersely.
Judge Hoyt started to say something, then changed his mind.
“Call Alexander Redfield,” Hamilton Burger said.
Alexander Redfield glanced at Perry Mason with a half-smile. He had been cross-examined by Mason many times and knew only too well the skilful manner in which Mason could confuse an uncertain witness or one who was misrepresenting the facts. His manner showed that he intended to be very, very cautious in giving his testimony.
He qualified himself as an expert in ballistics, stated that he had been called to the scene of the crime after the body had been removed.
“At what time?” Hamilton Burger asked.
“It was the next morning.”
“What time the next morning?”
“After daylight.”
“What was your purpose in going out there?”
“To try and find the murder weapon.”
“Did you search the premises?”
“No, I understand the premises had been searched by police the night before. I confined myself to searching the grounds.”
“And did you find a weapon?”
“I did.”
“How soon after arriving?”
“Within five minutes.”
“Wasn’t that rather fortuitous?”
“I knew by experience about how far it would be possible to fling an ordinary weapon of ordinary weight under those circumstances, so I went out to the place where I thought such a weapon might have landed. Sure enough, I found a track in the moist soil, indicating that something had struck, bounced, then slid under some loose, moist soil. I probed in this soil and found the revolver.”
“What sort of a revolver?”
“A Smith and Wesson revolver with a five-inch barrel, thirty-eight calibre, number S910684.”
“What did you do with that gun?”
“I took it to my laboratory, I tested it for fingerprints, and found none. I examined the cartridges that were in it.”
“How many cartridges were in it?”
“Six. There were three loaded cartridges and three empty cartridge cases in the cylinder.”
“What did you find about the empty cartridge cases?”
“Two of them were Peters, thirty-eight specials. One of them was a U.M.C.”
“Did you weigh the bullets that were in the undischarged cartridges in the weapon?”
“I did.”
“What did you find?”
“I found that they were Peters cartridges containing lead bullets of one hundred and fifty-eight grains each.”
“Now, did you check the fatal bullet to determine the weapon from which it had been fired?”
“I did.”
“In what way?”
“My first test was to measure the lands and grooves and get the pitch in order to determine the type of weapon from which it had been fired.”
“Did you make such determination?”
“Yes.”
“What was it?”
“The bullet had been fired from a Smith and Wesson thirty-eight calibre revolver.”
“Did you subsequently make tests to determine whether or not the fatal bullet had been fired from the revolver which you had found in the place that you described?”
“Yes, sir.”
“What did those tests disclose?”
“That the fatal bullet had been fired from that revolver.”
“Do you have that revolver with you?”
“I do.”
Hamilton Burger said, “I move that the fatal bullet now be introduced in evidence as People’s Exhibit C and that the revolver be introduced as People’s Exhibit D.”
“Any objection from the defence?”
“No, Your Honor,” Mason said.