"Perhaps."
"Ten minutes?"
"Perhaps."
"Fifteen minutes?"
"I consider it very unlikely. Actually I think death occurred within a matter of two or three minutes."
"And which bullet wound caused death?"
"Oh, Your Honor," Fraser said, getting to his feet, "I object to this type of cross-examination. The questions have already been asked and answered."
"They've been asked," Mason said, "but they haven't been answered."
"Furthermore, it's incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. It doesn't make any difference," Fraser went on.
Judge Keyser said, "I'd like to hear from counsel if he feels the questions are pertinent or relevant to any particular point."
"I think it is very important to find out how the victim died, when the victim died and what caused the death of the victim. I think that's important in any murder case," Mason said.
"But where an assailant fired two bullets, does it make any difference which bullet was fired first or which wound was the one which produced death?" Judge Keyser asked.
"How do we know that the assailant fired two bullets?" Mason asked.
Judge Keyser looked at Mason with an expression of swift surprise. "Are you contending there were two assailants?" he asked.
"Frankly, I don't know," Mason said. "I am contending at the moment, as the legal representative of this defendant, that I have the right to find out all the facts in the case."
"The objection is overruled," Judge Keyser said.
Dr. Calvert said angrily, "Let me make this statement to the Court and counsel. There were two bullets. One of the bullets actually penetrated a portion of the heart. I consider that bullet produced almost instantaneous death. The other bullet was a little to the left. It missed the heart but would have been fatal within a few minutes… that is, that's my opinion."
"All right," Mason said. "Let's call the bullet that missed the heart bullet number one and the bullet which penetrated a portion of the heart bullet number two. Which was fired first?"
"I don't know."
"I submit that it's incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial," Fraser said. "This is simply a case of an attorney trying to grasp desperately at the straw of some technicality."
Judge Keyser shook his head. "I think there is an interesting point here. I don't know what the other evidence will show, but if counsel is pursuing this lead with some definite objective in mind, it is manifestly unfair to deprive the defendant of the right of a searching cross-examination. Therefore, I will overrule the objection."
"Which bullet caused death, Doctor?"
"I don't know. It depends upon the sequence in which the bullets were fired."
"If," Mason said, "the bullet we have referred to as bullet number two was fired first and bullet number one was fired after an interval of as much as three minutes, you would assume that bullet number one was fired into a dead body. Is that correct?"
"If you want to assume anything like that, I would say yes."
"If bullet number one was fired first, it would have been how long before death intervened?"
"My best opinion would be three to five minutes."
"But it could have been as much as ten minutes?"
"Yes."
"Now, suppose that after bullet number one was fired and, assuming that it was fired first, bullet number two was fired almost immediately, then death actually occurred from bullet number two."
"I would so assume if we accept those premises."
"Both bullet number one and bullet number two were recovered?"
"That's right. Both of them were taken from the body."
"And what did you do with them?"
"I personally gave them to Alexander Redfield, the ballistics expert."
"And what did you tell him when you gave him the bullets?"
"That they were the bullets taken from the body of Nadine Ellis."
"You had identified the body by that time?"
"It had been identified so that I could make that statement to Mr. Redfield."
"You gave him both bullets?"
"Yes."
"Did you mark them in any way?"
"I made a small secret mark on the bullets, yes."
"So that you can identify them?"
"Yes."
Mason said, "I assume that the prosecution has the bullets here and that they will shortly be introduced in evidence. I think that Dr. Calvert should identify the bullets at this time."
"We can identify them," Fraser said, "by having the witness Redfield testify that the bullets he produces are the ones he received from Dr. Calvert."
"I would like to connect up every link in the chain," Mason said. "I think I have a right to do so."
Fraser said angrily, "If the Court please, I was warned that I would encounter just these badgering tactics from counsel. After all, this is only a preliminary examination, and I am not going to be trapped into making a big production of it."
"I'm not making a big production of it," Mason said. "I am simply asking that the witness produce the bullets that he mentioned in his testimony. He stated he recovered them from the body of Nadine Ellis. I want to see those bullets."
"I think counsel is within his rights," Judge Keyser said. "Certainly you intend to produce the bullets within a few minutes, Mr. Deputy District Attorney."
"I do," Fraser said, "but I want to put on my case in my own way and not have the defense attorney tell me how I'm going to do it."
"Come, come," Judge Keyser said. "Apparently it doesn't make any difference. If you have the bullets here, why not produce them? Is there any reason why they can't be produced or why you are reluctant to produce them?"
"No, Your Honor."
"Let the witness identify them, then."
Fraser, with poor grace, turned to Alexander Redfield, the ballistics expert who was seated directly behind him, and accepted a glass test tube from Redfield. He approached the witness stand and handed this test tube to the doctor.
"I hand you two bullets, Doctor. I'll ask you to look at them and state whether or not they are the bullets you took from the body of the decedent."
Dr. Calvert took a magnifying glass from his pocket, inspected the bullets through the glass test tube, then nodded slowly. "These are the bullets," he said. "They both have my secret mark on them."
"What is your secret mark?" Mason asked. "Where is it?"
"I prefer to keep it secret," Dr. Calvert said. "It is a very small mark that I make and it serves to identify the bullets which I recover in the course of my autopsies."
"Then you use the same mark on all of your bullets?" Mason asked.
"That's right."
"Why?"
"So I can identify them. So that they are not to be confused with bullets that are recovered by some of the other autopsy surgeons. In that way I know my own work."
"I see," Mason said. "You use the same mark on all bullets you recover?"
"That's what I said, yes!" Dr. Calvert snapped.
"Then may I ask how many bullets you recover in the course of a year from bodies in connection with your own autopsies?"
"I don't know. It isn't a standard amount. It varies, depending on the number of autopsies, the number of homicides by shooting, and various other factors."
"Do you recover as many as fifty bullets a year?"
"Not on an average, no, sir."
"As many as twenty-five?"
"I think perhaps in some years I have recovered twenty-five. I wouldn't say that was an average."
"As many as twelve?"
"Yes, I would think so."
"And the only way you have of identifying these bullets is by your secret mark?"
"That is right. That is all the identification I need."
"It may be all the identification you need, Doctor, but as I understand it, these two bullets are now identified simply as being bullets which you recovered, not bullets which were recovered from the bod
y of Nadine Ellis."
"Well, I know that those are the bullets."
"How do you know?"
"I can tell by looking at them, the shape of the bullets, the caliber."
"Then why was it necessary for you to put your secret mark on them?"
"So there would be no mistake."
"The same secret mark that you put on an average of a dozen bullets a year, that you have at times put on as many as twenty-five bullets in a year?"
"Oh, Your Honor," Fraser said. "This is argumentative. The question has been asked and answered. It's simply an attempt on the part of counsel to browbeat the witness."
Judge Keyser regarded Mason thoughtfully, then turned to the witness. "Isn't there anything that you use in the line of a label or identification on these bullets that shows they are the particular bullets that were recovered in this particular case?"
"I handed them to Alexander Redfield," Dr. Calvert said. "They were in a test tube when I handed them to him, and the test tube had a number; that is, there was a piece of paper pasted on the test tube, and that test tube had a number. It was the number of the case as it was listed in our files. If that number were on this test tube, it would definitely identify the bullets as having come from that particular body."
"But that number has been removed?" Judge Keyser asked.
"Apparently it has. I notice that the label that is on the test tube now bears the handwriting of Mr. Redfield."
"Very well," Judge Keyser said. "Go ahead and resume your inquiry, Mr. Mason. I will state to the prosecutor, however, that before these bullets can be introduced in evidence, they must be connected more directly with the particular case."
"That is what I intend to do," Fraser said, "if I am only given the chance."
"Well, you'll have every opportunity," Judge Keyser snapped. "Proceed, Mr. Mason."
"Now then," Mason said, "assuming that these bullets are the bullets which you took from the body of Nadine Ellis, which bullet was fired first?"
"I've told you I don't know."
"Well, I'll put it this way," Mason said. "We referred to the bullets as bullet number one and bullet number two. Now, which of these bullets is bullet number one, as far as your testimony is concerned, and which is bullet number two?"
"I don't know."
"You don't know?"
"No."
"You didn't mark the bullets so you could distinguish them?"
"Certainly not. Both bullets came from the body. Both would have been fatal. I mean either would have been fatal. I put them in a test tube, put the code number of the case on it-which was, I believe, C- 122-and personally handed the test tube to Mr. Redfield."
Redfield, who was smiling, got to his feet, started to say something, then changed his mind and sat down.
Mason said, "In other words, Doctor, the gunshot wounds in the body of Nadine Ellis showed that one wound, where the bullet actually penetrated a portion of the heart, was probably almost instantly fatal. The other inflicted a wound which would have been fatal within a few minutes. Now, you can't tell which of these bullets inflicted which wound?"
"I made no attempt to keep the bullets separate. They are both the same caliber, they were both fired from the same gun. I will state, however, that the bullet which we have referred to as bullet number two-the one which hit a portion of the heart-lodged in the spine and was somewhat flattened by the vertebra. I notice that one of these bullets is somewhat flattened, and on the strength of that I would state that in all human probability that bullet is the bullet I referred to as bullet number two-the one that hit the heart."
"Was your autopsy such that you traced each bullet as to its course?" Mason asked. "All the way through the body?"
"I traced one bullet from the point of entrance through the heart and I traced the other bullet from the point of entrance through one of the major blood vessels. I may state, however, that I did not-or perhaps I should say that I was not able-to keep the paths of the bullets completely separate because they started to converge slightly, and the deterioration of the body due to decomposition and putrefaction was such that it was virtually impossible to segregate the course of the bullets all the way through the body."
"And you can't tell which of these bullets was fired first?"
"That's right," Dr. Calvert said. And then suddenly added, in indignation, "And that, Mr. Mason, is because I am a man of medicine and not a medicine man."
"And," Mason went on urbanely, "you don't know for certain that these were the bullets that you took from the body of Mrs. Ellis. You only know that they were two bullets which you recovered in the course of your autopsy work."
"I took these two bullets from the body of Mrs. Ellis and handed them to Alexander Redfield on the evening of the twelfth," Dr. Calvert said.
"Thank you," Mason said. "That's all."
"No further questions," Fraser said. "You may be excused, Doctor. I'll call Alexander Redfield as my next witness."
Redfield, smiling slightly, came to the stand.
"Your name is Alexander Redfield, you are employed by the county as a ballistics expert and scientific investigator?" Fraser asked.
"That's right."
"Are you acquainted with Dr. Andover Calvert, the witness who just testified?"
"I am."
"Did you see him in this county on or about the twelfth of this month?"
"I did."
"Did you have any conversation with Dr. Calvert on that date?"
"I did."
"Did Dr. Calvert give you any objects on that date?"
"He did."
"What objects did he give you?"
"Two bullets."
"And what did you do with those two bullets, Mr. Redfield?"
"I put them in a test tube, sealed the test tube and marked the test tube for identification. Then I locked the test tube in a special compartment in the safe in my office."
"You made no comparison of the bullets with any test bullets?"
"Not at that date."
"When was that done?"
"Later, when I was given a weapon and asked to tesi fire that weapon."
"And what weapon was that?"
"That was a Smith and Wesson revolver with a twoand-a-half-inch barrel."
"Do you know the number of that gun?"
"I do. It was 133347."
"Do you have that gun?"
"I do."
"Will you produce it, please?"
Redfield reached in his brief case and pulled out the gun.
"I ask that this be marked for identification," Fraser said.
"It will be marked People's Exhibit B," Judge Keyser said.
"Now then, you received two bullets from Dr. Calvert. I will ask you if you have those bullets with you?"
"I just gave them to you."
"Here they are. Will you tell us whether or not those are the same bullets which Dr. Calvert gave you?"
"Those are the same bullets."
"How do you know?"
"They have been in my custody since the time Dr. Calvert handed them to me."
"And have remained in that test tube?"
"No, sir. I took them out of the test tube from time to time for the purpose of making comparisons and taking comparison photographs."
"Did the bullets ever leave your possession?"
"No, sir. They were in my possession from the time Dr. Calvert gave them to me until I handed them to you just a minute ago."
"I'll ask the bullets be marked for identification as People's Exhibit C," Fraser said.
"Both bullets as one exhibit?" Mason asked.
"They're in the test tube."
"I suggest that they be identified separately," Mason said. "I notice that one of the bullets is flattened on the nose of the bullet, evidently from hitting some rather solid object. The flattening is on a slant, and the edges of the bullet have been curled over. The other bullet shows little damage. I suggest that the flattened bullet be People's Exhibit C-1 and the
other bullet be C-2. I will also state that in order to expedite matters I will stipulate that both the gun and the bullets may be received in evidence, which will obviate the necessity of marking them for identification now and introducing them into evidence later."
"Very well," Fraser said. "The People accept that stipulation. The bullets will go into evidence as People's Exhibit C-1 and People's Exhibit C-2."
Fraser turned to the witness. "Did you test fire this gun, People's Exhibit B?"
"I did."
"And did you compare the test bullets fired from that gun with the bullets, Exhibits C?"
"Yes."
"What did you find?"
"The bullets were fired from that gun," Redfield said. "I have photographs made through a comparison microscope which shows the bullets superimposed one upon the other and the lines of striation."
"Will you produce those photographs, please?"
Redfield produced a photograph.
"I ask that this be received in evidence as People's Exhibit D."
"No objection," Mason said.
"Cross-examine," Fraser said.
Redfield, who had been cross-examined by Mason on many occasions, turned his eyes slowly and appraisingly toward the lawyer and settled himself in the witness chair. His face showed that he intended to weigh each question carefully and not be trapped into any inadvertent admission.
"There is only one photograph," Mason said, "but there are two bullets."
"The one photograph is of bullet Exhibit C-2. Since the other bullet was damaged and it would have been more difficult to have matched the striations, I didn't photograph that bullet."
"And you are completely satisfied that the bullets were fired from this gun which has been introduced in evidence as Exhibit B?"
"Yes… Now, wait a minute. I don't think I made detailed tests of the damaged bullet. I did make detailed tests of the undamaged bullet and I made this photograph of it so there could be no question that it came from the gun, Exhibit B."
"You assumed that both bullets were fired from the same gun," Mason said.
"That's right."
"But you didn't check it?"
"I didn't check the damaged bullet to the same extent that I did the other."
"You checked it?"
"Well, now, just a moment, Mr. Mason. If you want to be painstakingly accurate about this, I am not in a position to swear that I did check both individual bullets. I know that I checked the undamaged bullet and I checked the damaged bullet to the extent that I determined they were both of the same caliber and weight and had been fired from a Smith and Wesson revolver. That can be told from the angle and pitch of the grooves. But as far as actual striations are concerned, I think I checked only the bullet which has been identified as Exhibit C-2."
The Case of the Singing Skirt pm-63 Page 11