Эрл Гарднер - The Case of the Fenced-In Woman

“Did she make any other statement?”

“She said that he was a heel and a louse and nothing would give her greater satisfaction than to stick a knife in his ribs.”

Ormsby glanced significantly at the jury. “Would the witness mind repeating that last statement?” he asked. “What was it she said?”

“That nothing would give her greater satisfaction than to stick a knife in his ribs.”

“You may cross-examine,” Ormsby said.

Mason smiled at the witness. “Have you had any experience with divorce?” he asked.

“Not personally.”

“Among your friends?”

“Yes.”

“You’ve known other women who have obtained divorces from their husbands?”

“Yes.”

“And talked with some of them shortly after the divorce was granted, and while they were still in a bitter frame of mind?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Offhand,” Mason said, smiling affably, “about how many of those people have made statements to the effect that they’d like to stick a knife in their ex-husband or that he was a heel and a louse, or that they’d like to scratch his eyes out, or words to that effect?”

“Just a moment, just a moment,” Ormsby said, “that’s objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial and not proper cross-examination. This witness isn’t an expert on divorce actions and I didn’t try to qualify him as such.”

Mason said, “I think if the Court please, it’s proper cross-examination. Of course if the prosecutor is afraid to have him answer the question I’ll withdraw it.”

Judge Fisk said, “That last remark is uncalled for.”

“I’m not afraid to have him answer the question,” Ormsby bristled. “I’m simply trying to keep the record straight.”

Judge Fisk said, “Well, I think I’ll sustain the objection. I doubt if it’s proper cross-examination. Are there any further questions?”

Mason, still smiling affably at the witness, said, “When the defendant, Vivian Carson, made that statement about wanting to stick a knife into her husband, did the tone of her voice differ in any way from any other somewhat similar comments you have heard from friends who had been divorced; comments such as ‘I’d like to scratch his eyes out,’ or, ‘if he ever comes around me again I’ll kill him,’ or words to that effect?”

“Now just a moment,” Ormsby said. “This is objected to as not proper cross-examination and on the same grounds as the other question and on the further ground that the Court has already ruled on the matter and that Counsel is guilty of misconduct and contemptuous conduct in trying to pursue this matter after the ruling.”

Judge Fisk thought for a moment, then slowly shook his head. “I don’t think,” he said, “that it’s the same question which was presented before. This question goes as to the tone of voice. I’m going to overrule the objection. The witness may answer.”

The witness, grinning back at Mason, said, “It was about the same tone of voice that the others have used. I don’t remember anyone stating particularly that she wanted to stick a knife in her husband, but I do remember one woman who said nothing would give her greater pleasure than to push her husband off a cliff — that is, her ex-husband.”

“And this was in about the same tone?” Mason asked.

“About the same tone of voice.”

“Now then,” Mason said, “of all your acquaintances, how many of those women whom you have heard after a divorce action express an opinion that they’d like to push their husband off a cliff or scratch his eyes out, or words to that effect, have actually pushed their former husbands off cliffs, scratched their eyes out, or committed any act of violence as far as you know?”

“Objected to. Not proper cross-examination,” Ormsby snapped.

“Sustained,” Judge Fisk said. “I permitted inquiry about the tone of voice but I think that’s as far as I’ll go.”

Mason turned to the jury with a smile which spoke volumes. “That’s all,” he said.

Some of the jurors smiled back at the lawyer.

Ormsby, enraged but coldly competent, said, “I will now call Lieutenant Tragg to the stand.”

Lieutenant Tragg, an expert in presenting his story so that it impressed the jury, took the stand and testified to what he had discovered at the scene of the murder, introducing photographs of the corpse, describing the physical surroundings.

“You noticed moisture near the body?” Ormsby asked.

“Yes, sir. There were two very well-defined patches of water.”

“About how big?”

“About as big as the palm of my hand.”

“And what were they on?”

“They were on the waxed tile floor.”

“How far from the body?”

“One of them was six and three-quarters inches from the nearest portion of the body; the other was twelve and one-half inches.”

“Did you do anything about testing this moisture to see if you could determine its source?”

“I did. The moisture was carefully drawn up into pipettes and analyzed to see whether the water could have come from the swimming pool. The swimming pool had a relatively large amount of chlorination. It had been serviced early that day.”

“And what did the analysis show in regard to the pools of water?”

“That they had the same content of chlorination as the water in the swimming pool.”

“Have you taken photographs to show the position of the fence as it crossed the swimming pool?”

“I have.”

“Will you produce those photographs, please, and also all photographs which you took or which were taken under your direction showing the body, the house and the surroundings. I’d like to have the scene of the crime identified photographically so the jurors can become oriented.”

Tragg produced a folio of photographs and for the next half hour the photographs were introduced one at a time, identified by Tragg as to what was shown, position of the camera, direction in which the picture was taken, the time at which it was taken and the photograph was then introduced in evidence.

“Who was present when you were at the scene of the murder?” Ormsby asked.

“Well, Morley Eden, one of the defendants, was there, and Mr. Perry Mason, who is acting as his attorney; and later on, Vivian Carson, the other defendant appeared. There were, of course, various newspaper reporters and personnel from the police department and, later on, a deputy coroner.”

“Mr. Perry Mason was there?”

“He was there.”

“Did you have any conversation with him about the crime?”

“Yes.”

“Did Mr. Mason make any suggestions?”

“Yes.”

“What were they?”

“He suggested that I pay particular attention to the condition of the clothing of the corpse.”

“What part of the clothing?”

“The sleeves of the shirt.”

“What about the shirt?”

“The shirt,” Lieutenant Tragg said, “was a shirt with French cuffs. The cuff links were diamond cuff links that had been covered with a black enamel so that the diamonds were concealed. A part of the enamel on the right cuff link, however, had chipped away disclosing the diamond underneath.”

“Were these large or small diamonds?”

“Quite large, and quite valuable. The cuff links themselves were of platinum.”

“And what about the shirt itself?”

“The sleeves of the shirt were wet up to the elbow.”

“The corpse was wearing a coat, I believe?”

“That’s right.”

“And the sleeves of the coat?”

“They were not wet except on the inside where moisture from the wet shirt sleeves had soaked into the lining. However, the sleeves themselves were not wet.”

“And was there any conversation with Mr. Mason concerning this?”