“It could be.”
“I am asking you if the evidence you uncovered in your examination doesn’t so indicate.”
“Yes, I guess it does.”
“Don’t guess, Doctor. Does it?”
“Yes, but that evidence isn’t sufficient to be conclusive.”
“Then you don’t know in what position the man died?”
“No, sir.”
“But you assume the body had been moved after death?”
“Definitely not. I don’t think it had been.”
“Then the attack must have been from the rear.”
“I won’t argue the point, Mr. Mason.”
“Don’t argue, answer.”
“Well—I don’t know.”
“Then you don’t know the man fell forward?”
“No.”
“Did you examine the body for poisons?”
“I examined the body for the cause of death. I found the cause of death to be the series of puncture wounds mentioned before.”
“You found they were sufficient to cause death?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Do you know, of your own knowledge, whether there was any other contributing cause of death, such as poison?”
“No, sir. I know that these wounds were inflicted during the man’s lifetime. I know that the result of those wounds would have been to produce death. Therefore, I assume that those wounds were the cause of death. Whether there was any other factor which would cause symptoms I do not know. I do know that the wounds were the cause of death. That is what I was asked about and that’s what I testified about.”
“Now, Doctor, you state that you have determined the time of death as being between midnight and three o’clock on the morning of the seventh.”
“Yes, sir.”
“That is an accurate determination?”
“Understand, Mr. Mason, I cannot tell exactly when death occurred, but I can fix limits within which death must have occurred. I am prepared to state that death did not occur prior to midnight and that it did not occur after three o’clock on the morning of the seventh. I think the probabilities are that death occurred around one o’clock in the morning, but in order to be on the safe side I have established that three-hour limit and am prepared to state that death occurred somewhere within those three hours.”
“How do you know?” Mason asked.
“Primarily by taking the temperature of the body and comparing it with certain statistical information we have as to the rate of cooling.”
“And,” Mason said, smiling, “this is the phase of your testimony that you and the prosecutor’s office decided could best be brought out on cross-examination?”
“Well, yes.”
“All right then, let’s bring it out. What about the rate of cooling?”
“The average normal temperature of a body at the time of death, particularly in case of a death by violence, may be assumed as ninety-eight point six Fahrenheit. The body will cool at the rate of approximately one and one-half degrees an hour, depending upon surrounding circumstances—for the first twelve hours, that is.”
“Why do you say in cases of homicide?”
“Because in cases of natural death the man may have been suffering from a high fever. If, for instance, there was a fever of a hundred and three this would make a difference in the body temperature and so would affect calculations as to the time of death. On the other hand, where a man is apparently in perfect health at the time of death and meets a violent end, we are safe in assuming a temperature of ninety-eight point six.”
“So you determined the time of death in this case because of the temperature of the body?”
“Primarily. I also took into consideration the extent to which rigor mortis had developed, the state of food in the digestive tract, and the appearance of the post-mortem lividity.”
“Did you take into consideration the fact that the body was unclothed?”
“Yes, sir. I took into consideration the various elements of temperature. In other words, the temperature of the surrounding air, and the fact that the body was unclothed.”
“But was the body unclothed at the time of death?” Mason asked.
“I am assuming that it was.”
“That is an assumption like the one you made about the sequence of the wounds, Doctor, simply predicated upon what seems to your mind to be most natural?”
“No, sir. We made a most careful examination of the clothing that was hanging in the closet of the apartment occupied by the decedent.”
“That apartment was directly across the hall from the apartment occupied by George Brogan?”
“That is correct.”
“You examined that clothing very carefully?”
“All of it, yes, sir.”
“Looking for what?”
“For puncture marks or bloodstains.”
“You found neither?”
“No, sir.”
“Therefore at the time of death you are prepared to state that J. J. Fritch was wandering around the apartment of George Brogan clad only in an undershirt and shorts?”
“No, sir, I am not.”
“I thought that was the effect of your testimony.”
“I can’t state that he was wandering around. I will further state this, Mr. Mason, if the body had been clothed, and if the clothing had been removed at some time shortly after death, the determination as to the time of death because of temperature rate would not have been changed. I am making a sufficient allowance in the three-hour time limit so that I feel certain death did not occur before midnight and did not occur after 3:00 A.M.”
“Those are absolute time limits?” Mason asked.
“Absolutely. Yes, sir.”
“You are satisfied that it was a physical impossibility for death to have occurred before midnight?”
“Yes.”
“Or later than three o’clock in the morning?”
“Yes, sir.”
“You are prepared to stake your reputation on that, Doctor?”
“I am testifying to it.”
“Thank you,” Mason said. “That is all.”
Moon said, “Just a moment, Doctor. I have a few questions to ask you on redirect examination covering points that were brought out by Mr. Mason in his cross-examination. Now, Doctor, when you first saw this body, where was it?”
“It was lying on the floor in the apartment of George Brogan.”
“Where in that apartment?”
“Immediately in front of a liquor closet, and I may state the person who claimed to have found the body claimed that it had been in the liquor closet and had tumbled out when the door was opened.”
“Just a moment,” Mason said, “I move to strike the last part of that out as being hearsay.”
“Objection sustained. The motion is granted. That part of the testimony will be stricken,” Judge Kaylor ruled.
Moon, nettled but realizing that his position was legally indefensible, accepted his defeat as gracefully as possible, and said, “Would it have been possible, Doctor, in your opinion, for this body to have been placed in that liquor closet and to have fallen out when the door was opened?”
“No, sir.”
“Why?”
“Taking into consideration the various factors which I have enumerated, that assumption is completely negatived.”
“Why?”
“Because, in the first place, it is negatived by the position of the arms. Rigor mortis had developed so that the arms were locked in position. The elbows were close to the sides. The hands were near the jaw. Yet there was no evidence that the arms had been tied up in any way.”
“And what does that indicate, Doctor?”
“That the body very definitely could not have been propped up in the liquor closet, or anywhere else, immediately after death. The hands and arms in that case would have dropped, and rigor mortis would have set in, locking the arms in that lower position. The fact that the hands were elevated, that
the elbows were at the sides, indicates that the body must have been lying on its back rather than propped up. In my opinion, that was the only way in which rigor mortis could have set in with the hands in that position.”
“Any other reasons?”
“Yes, sir, the development of post-mortem lividity.”
“Thank you, Doctor, that’s all.”
“Now, just a minute,” Mason said. “I’d like to ask the doctor a few more questions about that.”
“Very well, go right ahead,” Moon said.
“This was testimony that you had previously discussed with the prosecutor?”
“Yes, sir.”
“And had agreed between you that if necessary it was to be brought out on redirect examination, but that you would try while you were being cross-examined to slip in the fact that the person who found the body claimed it had tumbled out of the liquor closet?”
“Well, that’s a fact. I heard that statement myself.”
“At the time the body was discovered?”
“At a later date. I interviewed that witness.”
“But it was agreed that you were to try to slip that fact in on cross-examination?”
“Well—I—I pointed out that that statement of the witness was obviously false, and Mr. Moon suggested that if possible I should point that out while I was giving my testimony.”
“And was it suggested that you slip that statement in if you had a chance?”
“Oh, Your Honor, I think we’ve gone into this a dozen times,” Moon said. “Let’s assume that this witness is favorable to the prosecution.”
“On that assumption,” Mason said, “I won’t insist on an answer. I simply want the Court to understand that the entire testimony of this witness is colored by a prejudice in favor of the prosecution.”
“That isn’t what I said,” Moon said.
“But that’s what I say,” Mason said, “and if there’s any question about it I’ll continue to bore into this witness until it is established.”
“Oh, go ahead. Let’s get the case over with,” Moon said, sitting down. “It’s a minor point. I don’t care one way or the other.”
“It wouldn’t have been possible,” Mason asked, “for the body to have been placed in the liquor closet, the hands raised and then the door closed holding the hands in position?”
“You couldn’t have held the hands in that position while you were closing the door without the use of some kind of a device that would tie the hands up,” Dr. Hanover said, “and even then you wouldn’t have a condition of post-mortem lividity such as I found. Taking the two together there is absolutely no question but what the body lay on its back after death in approximately the position in which it was found by the police.”
“Did you examine the carpet to see if there were any traces of blood?”
“You mean in front of the liquor closet?”
“Where the body was lying.”
“Yes, sir. I did.”
“Did you find such traces?”
“No.”
“That’s all, Doctor.”
“Just a moment,” Moon said. “Would you have expected to find such traces, Doctor?”
“Not necessarily. The bleeding was very minute due to the small nature of the puncture wounds, which sealed themselves almost immediately. There was some internal hemorrhage but very little external hemorrhage. It is quite possible that the undershirt would have absorbed all of the visible traces of blood.”
“Thank you, that’s all.”
“Just one more question,” Mason said, smiling. “You have some very delicate tests for ascertaining presence of blood, do you not, Doctor?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Tests that will show microscopic quantities of blood, very microscopic quantities?”
“Well, they’re not specific, but they do show blood. They show several things and blood is one of them.”
“Were those tests performed on this carpet?”
“No, sir. We looked the carpet over but found no signs of blood.”
“Why weren’t those tests made on the carpet?”
“Very frankly we didn’t think of it at the time, Mr. Mason. It was assumed when the police first saw the body that the statement made by the witness was correct and that the body had tumbled out of the liquor closet when the door was opened. It wasn’t until later on that the post-mortem examination indicated definitely that statement could not have been true. By that time there had been quite a bit of trampling around over the carpet, the conditions were not the same as when the body was discovered, and the prosecutor’s office felt that that would make any evidence we might try to produce objectionable—the fact that the carpet hadn’t been preserved in the same condition and that people had walked over it.”
“That’s all,” Mason said.
“That’s all, Doctor,” Moon said.
Dr. Hanover withdrew from the stand, obviously relieved that the ordeal was over.
Delbert Moon said, “Call Mrs. Erma Lorton as the prosecution’s next witness.”
Mrs. Lorton, a tall, angular woman with somewhat close-set eyes and a mouth that was a thin line of determination, came striding forward to the witness stand.
She gave her name and stated that her address was the Mendon Apartments.
“That is the apartment house in which Mr. Brogan and the decedent, Mr. Fritch, had apartments?”
“Yes, sir.”
“I’m going to direct your attention to the early hours of the morning of the seventh, Mrs. Lorton,” Moon said, arising to his feet, smoothing down his coat, adjusting his hair, looking around at the audience, quite aware of the fact that he was about to explode a dramatic bombshell.
“Yes, sir.”
“At about twelve-thirty on the morning of the seventh, what were you doing?”
“I was occupying my apartment.”
“And specifically what were you doing?”
“I was waiting up.”
“For what purpose?”
“I was waiting for my neighbor to come in.”
“By your neighbor, whom do you mean?”
“The one who occupied the adjoining apartment.”
“What is your apartment?”
“607.”
“And your neighbor occupied what apartment?”
“609.”
“Who was this neighbor?”
“A young woman.”
“A friend of yours?”
“Yes.”
“Now I am not going to ask you anything except a general question to establish the nature of your interest. Had this young woman confided in you as to certain matters? You can answer that question yes or no.”
“Yes, she had.”
“And was the nature of that confidence such that you would naturally be expected to take an interest in the time she returned home on the night in question?”
“Yes.”
“And you were waiting up in order to see what time she returned home?”
“Yes.”
“And what, if anything, did you observe?”
“At twelve-thirty-five in the morning I had my door very slightly ajar. I was listening for the sound of the elevator.”
“You heard the sound of the elevator?”
“I did. Yes, sir.”
“And what happened?”
“When I heard the elevator door clang and steps in the corridor, I assumed it was my friend. I wanted to let her know that I was still up in case I could be of any assistance to her. I opened the door a crack so as to beckon to her.”
“And what happened?”
“I found that the steps were not approaching my apartment but that a person was standing in front of the elevator, looking at the numbers on the apartments.”
“Can you identify this person?”
“Yes, sir. She was the defendant in this action.”
“The one now seated next to Mr. Perry Mason?”
“Yes, sir.”
“If t
he Court please, I’m going to ask the defendant, Harriet Bain, to stand up.”
“Stand up,” the judge said.
Harriet Bain stood up.
“That is the woman?” Moon asked.
“That is the woman. Yes, sir.”
“And did you see what happened to this woman, where she went?”
“Yes, sir. I continued to watch.”
“Tell the Court what happened. Where did she go?”
“Down to the end of the hall, to the apartment occupied by Frank Reedy.”
“That is, the man whom you then knew as Frank Reedy?”
“Yes, sir.”
“And do you now know his real name?”
“Yes, sir.”
“What is it?”
“J. J. Fritch.”
“I am going to show you a photograph of J. J. Fritch, deceased, and I will ask you if that is the man you knew in his lifetime as Frank Reedy?”
“It is.”
“That is his photograph?”
“It is.”
“I ask to have this marked for identification, Your Honor.”
“So ordered.”
“Now, Mrs. Lorton, I am going to ask you what did the defendant do?”
“She rang the bell.”
“Of that apartment?”
“Yes.”
“And then what happened?”
“She rang the bell two or three times.”
“And then what happened?”
“Mr. Reedy, that is, Mr. Fritch opened the door and let her in.”
“Did you see her leave that apartment?”
“No, sir.”
“You didn’t see her come out?”
“No, sir.”
“Did you continue to watch for some period of time?”
“Yes, sir.”
“For how long?”
“For ten minutes.”
“And then what happened?”
“The elevator door opened, my friend came in, and I talked briefly with her. I told her that I was still up and that if she wanted to talk things over with me it would be all right. She told me everything had been adjusted satisfactorily, and so I went to bed.”
“You may cross-examine,” Moon said.
Mason smiled at the witness.
“You identified the defendant without any trouble?”
“Yes, sir.”
“You have exceptionally good eyesight?”
The Case of the Green-Eyed Sister Page 17