Эрл Гарднер - The Case of the Shapely Shadow

“What’s unfair about it?” Judge Seymour asked.

“It puts the witness in a bad light.”

“You are evidently assuming,” Judge Seymour said, “that the answer of the witness will be in the affirmative.”

“Well, it is quite apparent from the entire course of the examination,” Ruskin said. “I think that the doctor has tried to be very fair here and—”

“There’s no need for the deputy prosecutor to try and build up the witness in front of the jury at this time,” Mason said. “Let him do that in his argument.”

“I think the objection will be overruled,” Judge Seymour said, “and there will be no further occasion for argument. Answer the question, Doctor.”

The doctor shifted his position on the witness stand, then finally said, “I tried to give my testimony to the best of my ability. It is my considered opinion that death took place between midnight and five o’clock in the morning. I have mentioned certain medical factors which entered into my opinion and influenced it.”

“And isn’t it a fact that you tried to build up your testimony by using the technical term post-mortem lividity simply for the purpose of impressing the Court and the jury?”

“I used the term because I felt under the circumstances of this case it was proper to use it.”

“But according to your own testimony it only showed that, in your opinion, the man had been dead more than five hours.”

“Well, that’s something,” the doctor said.

“It’s something, Doctor, but how did it happen that you didn’t mention post-mortem lividity when you wrote this article?”

“I probably didn’t think of it.”

“Oh, you mean you wrote this article without thinking?”

“I didn’t have to include everything in it.”

“It slipped your mind?”

“I wouldn’t say that.”

“Or did you feel that if you mentioned post-mortem lividity in an article of this kind in an authoritative publication of this kind, your contemporaries who were fully familiar with the phenomenon of postmortem lividity would hold you up to ridicule?”

“Well, it had no place in an article of that sort.”

“It had no place in an article of that sort,” Mason said, “which was an attempt on your part to cover all of the scientific factors in regard to fixing the time of death.”

“That’s right.”

“Then why does it have a place in your testimony here?”

“Because it was a factor. I admit, not an important factor, but a factor.”

“And simply because it showed in your opinion the man had been dead more than five hours, you immediately used it as a barometer to fix the time of death as being within a bracket of fourteen to nineteen hours before you examined the body?”

“There were other factors.”

“Oh, there were?” Mason said. “I asked you to list those factors and you mentioned only rigor mortis and post-mortem lividity.”

“Those were the medical factors,” the doctor snapped. “There were other factors which influenced my judgment.”

“Oh, there were other factors.”

“Certainly.”

“Such as what?”

“The physical factors.”

“And what do you mean by the physical factors?”

“The time element.”

“And what do you mean by the time element?”

“The thundershower, for instance.”

“I see,” Mason said. “Now we’re beginning to get to the gist of your testimony, Doctor. Because you saw tracks in the soft ground, because you were told what time the thundershower took place, you fixed the time of death in your own mind very largely because of those tracks and what you had been told. And now, when you are called on to give your testimony, you attempt to justify those conclusions, based on hearsay, by bolstering them up with medical jargon.”

“That’s not true.”

“But you can’t fix the time of death within definite limits from postmortem lividity?”

“I’ve already answered that question.”

“And you can’t fix it by rigor mortis?”

“It is a factor.”

“But the main factors in your mind when fixing the time of death were the non-medical factors.”

“They helped me arrive at my opinion, yes.”

“And you aren’t an expert in those matters?”

“I have eyes and can see.”

“So you fixed the time of death by taking into consideration what you have referred to as the nonmedical factors.”

“I will say this: that the circumstantial evidence on the ground indicated very definitely and positively that death had taken place before the thunderstorm. Since I found nothing in the medical facts to negative that assumption, I accepted it in my own mind.”

“Now we’re getting down to the real crux of the matter, Doctor,” Mason said. “I want to be fair with you, but I want you to be fair with me. You actually fixed the time of death in your own mind because of that thundershower and the circumstantial evidence on the ground, and simply because you found no medical evidence which would contradict that conclusion, you went on the stand and swore positively that death occurred between midnight and five o’clock in the morning. Now, let’s be fair. Isn’t that what happened?”

“Generally, that’s what happened,” Dr. Jasper said, “and despite your attempt to distort my testimony, the fact remains that death occurred between midnight and five o’clock in the morning.”

“Because of your interpretation of circumstantial evidence rather than medical evidence?”

“Because of all the factors taken together.”

“The medical factors standing alone don’t enable you to fix the time of death.”

“Not standing alone.”

“In other words, then, the non-medical factors were what influenced you in fixing the time of death, and you regard the medical factors only as corroborating that because they do not contradict it.”

“If you want to put it that way, yes.”

“I want to put it that way,” Mason said, “and that’s all.”

“No further questions on redirect,” Ruskin said wearily.

Dr. Jasper left the witness stand.

Ruskin said, “I will call Mrs. Carlotta Theilman to the witness stand.”

Carlotta came forward, held up her hand and was sworn.

“You are the divorced wife of the decedent?” Ruskin asked.

“That’s right.”

“On the fourth of this month you took the Union Pacific train, The City of Los Angeles, for Las Vegas, did you not?”

“That is correct.”

“Why did you go to Las Vegas?”

“Because I expected to meet my former husband there. I had reason to believe that he wanted to buy certain stock which I had received as part of our divorce settlement.”

“Had you discussed this matter with your ex-husband, Mrs. Theilman?”

“Not with him directly, but I had told someone who I thought was acting for him that I would be in Las Vegas on the train that night and if anyone wanted to negotiate with me for my stock I would be willing to negotiate with them, but I would not deal with any agents, dummies, attorneys or brokers. I wanted to deal with the principal, whoever he was.”

“Did you take that train?”

“I did.”

“And were met by the defendant in Las Vegas?”

“That is right.”

“Cross-examine,” Ruskin said.

“Why did you designate Las Vegas, Mrs. Theilman?” Mason asked.

“Because I felt certain I had been dealing with the agent of my husband. Las Vegas was where our marriage was broken up and I decided I would— Well, I wanted to have the satisfaction of meeting him there.”

Mason said, “You now weigh considerably less than when your marriage broke up, don’t you? You went on a rigorous campaign of diet and exercise in order to... well, let us say, to get back into the running. Isn’t that right, Mrs. Theilman?”