“No objection,” Mason said. “Introduce them in evidence, if you want to.”

  “We’ll introduce them at the proper time,” Nelson said. “Right now we only want these articles marked for identification.”

  “So ordered,” Judge Laporte said.

  “No further questions,” Mason said.

  Nelson called a photographer who had taken photographs of the body.

  This witness was followed by the autopsy surgeon, who had recovered the fatal bullet from the body of the deceased, and who fixed the time of death as between nine o’clock and midnight.

  Mason declined to cross-examine either witness.

  Nelson said, “Your Honor, it now becomes necessary to introduce evidence showing the identity of the corpse. This is rather painful and embarrassing, but since it is necessary, I am going to call Mrs. Frankline Gillett to the stand.”

  Mrs. Gillett, attired in black, took the oath and testified to her name, the fact that she had married Frank-line Gillett eight years earlier, that she had been called on to identify the body at the morgue, and that the body was that of the man she had married.

  “Cross-examine,” Nelson said.

  Mason said, “I’m sorry, Mrs. Gillett. I will try to make this as brief and as painless as possible. You state that you married your husband approximately eight years ago?”

  “Yes.”

  “At that time, what was his occupation?”

  “He was a salesman.”

  “Do you know the amount of his income?”

  “It was not high. He worked on a guarantee and commissions.”

  “And worked hard?”

  “Very hard.”

  “How long did he continue to work for this same company?”

  “For about three years.”

  “Then what?”

  “Then he was out of work for a while, then he got another job as a salesman. This was not quite as good as the first. He held it for about a year, then resigned and got another position which gave us more money.”

  “And then?” Mason asked.

  “About two and a half years ago he announced that he was going in business for himself.”

  “And after that, what about your financial affairs?”

  “After that, our financial affairs were very much better. He apparently made good money.”

  “Do you know anything at all about the nature of his business?”

  “No.”

  “Since his death, have you been able to discover the nature of his business?”

  “I have learned nothing about it,” she said. “My husband was very close-mouthed about business affairs. He didn’t want to discuss them with me. He told me that he was the provider for the family and that I was the homemaker. Since his death I have been unable to find any books of account, I have been unable to find anything that would indicate the source of his income. There is a joint checking account in which there was a balance of approximately three thousand dollars at the time of his death. I have since been given to understand that all deposits in this account were in the form of cash.”

  “Any other assets in the estate?” Mason asked.

  “Certainly. We were buying a home on Trilby Way. We have that about two-thirds paid for. There is also a family car, which I drive for the most part, and another car which my husband drove.”

  “Did you,” Mason asked, “find a gun in your husband’s suitcase?”

  “Objected to as not proper cross-examination,” Nelson said.

  “Overruled,” Judge Laporte snapped. “She was asked about what property her husband left. The Court frowns upon calling on a witness to give only a part of pertinent information. Answer the question.”

  Mrs. Gillett said slowly, “Shortly after my husband returned from his last business trip, I discovered a revolver in his suitcase. It was a thirty-eight-caliber Smith & Wesson revolver. I wrote down the number on it. That number was C232721.

  “I asked my husband about it … Do you want me to tell you what he said?”

  “Go right ahead,” Mason invited.

  “He said he had found the gun lying near the side of the road about three blocks from the house. He said he had picked it up and had at first intended to report it to the police but had changed his mind because he felt they might, as he put it, pester him with questions.

  “I didn’t want to have a gun around the house and told him so. He promised he would keep it in the suitcase and away from our son. When he left the house on his last trip, he took that gun with him.”

  “Thank you,” Mason said. “That’s all.”

  “Now, Your Honor,’ Farley Nelson said, “this, of course, is one of the aspects of the case which has made it spectacular and has resulted in a great deal of newspaper notoriety. I think, however, in order to explain the circumstances in the case it will be necessary to call, rather reluctantly, Nell Arlington.”

  Nell Arlington came forward and was sworn.

  “Where do you live?” Nelson asked.

  “367 Mandala Drive.”

  “Did you go under the name of Nell Arlington while you were living there?”

  “No, sir.”

  “Under what name?”

  “That of Mrs. Felting Grimes.”

  “You considered Mr. Felting Grimes your husband?”

  “Yes.”

  “You went through a marriage ceremony with him in Las Vegas, Nevada?”

  “Yes.”

  “That was generally some eighteen months ago?”

  “Eighteen months and ten days.”

  “You have seen the body that was identified as Frank-line Gillett?”

  “Yes.”

  “Was that the body of the man you married, the one whom you knew as Felting Grimes?”

  “Yes.”

  “Are you familiar with the defendant in this case?”

  “Yes. She had been my closest friend for some years.”

  “Where was she living on the tenth of this month?”

  “With us, at 367 Mandala Drive.”

  “That was on the tenth of this month?”

  “Yes.”

  “Will you please relate the events of that evening as nearly as you can remember them, Miss Arlington?”

  The witness recounted Gwynn’s story about the officer who had insisted on a ride and had given her his gun.

  “Did you,” Nelson asked, “see the body of the murdered man?”

  “Yes.”

  “On the morning of the eleventh, do you remember when the defendant arose and came into the kitchen for breakfast?”

  “Very well.”

  “Did you at that time know where the man you knew as Felting Grimes was?”

  “No.”

  “When had you last seen him?”

  “The day before, when he left on one of his trips.” Nelson said, “Are you familiar with the manner in which the defendant carried on her business transactions?”

  “What do you mean by that?”

  “The names of the prospects that she called on?”

  “Oh, yes. I helped her a good deal in those matters. I acted both as a friend and as a secretary.”

  “Can you explain what you mean by acting as a secretary?”

  “She would get lists, sometimes phoned in, sometimes mailed in, of the prospects on whom she was to call. I would take down those lists when they came over the telephone in her absence, or see that she got the names of the prospects when they came by mail.”

  “Do you know how the name of Mrs. Frankline Gillett was received by the defendant?”

  “Yes, it was received by mail. After she … well, after she was arrested, I found in the living room the list of prospects which contained that name—Here it is. The name, Mrs. Frankline Gillett, 671 Trilby Way, is the one here at the bottom. There are eleven names on the list.”

  “Was that list left where the man you knew as your husband, Felting Grimes, could see it?”

  “It was in the living room when I found it. Presumably it had been left there by the defendant.”

  “We ask that this be introduced in evidence,” Nelson said.

  “No objection,” Mason said.

  “Now,” Nelson said, “I am going to ask you if, on the morning of Wednesday, the eleventh of this month, Mr. Mason called on you.”

  “He did.”

  “Who was with him?”

  “His secretary, Miss Street.”

  “And what, if anything, did Mr. Mason try to get you to do at that time?”

  “Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial,” Mason said.

  “It makes no difference what counsel for the defense may have tried to get the witness to do. Moreover, the question calls for a conclusion of the witness.”

  “If the Court please,” Nelson said, “Mr. Mason was the attorney representing the defendant.”

  “Of course I was representing the defendant,” Mason said. “I was also acting on my own. The defendant doesn’t tell me how to try a case. I do what I think is best. If the prosecution wants to show that the defendant is bound by something that I did, let the prosecution show that the defendant knew about it and participated in it.”

  “I think that is correct,” Judge Laporte said. “I’ll sustain the objection.”

  “You may cross-examine,” Nelson said.

  “No questions,” Mason said casually.

  “No cross-examination?” Nelson asked in surprise.

  “None whatever,” Mason said.

  Nelson conferred briefly with Hamilton Burger, then said, “I will call Peterson L. Marshall to the stand.”

  Marshall gave his name and address, stated that he was the proprietor of a sporting goods store, that he was well acquainted with George Belding Baxter, that Baxter had been a customer of his for some time and had a charge account there.

  “I am going to show you a Smith & Wesson revolver, number C232721, and ask you if you recognize that revolver.”

  “I would like to check the number personally to make certain.”

  “Then check the number, please.”

  The witness checked the number, said, “Yes, I am familiar with that gun.”

  “Who sold that gun?”

  “I did.”

  “You sold it personally?”

  “Yes.”

  “To whom did you sell it?”

  “To George Belding Baxter.”

  “Personally?”

  “Yes, sir. Mr. Baxter came into the store and said he wanted a weapon for protection. He wanted something that was dependable and something that was not too bulky. I called his attention to this Smith & Wesson revolver with the two-inch barrel and the alloy metals which made it a very light, very convenient weapon. Mr. Baxter said he would take it.”

  “And what did you do?”

  “Well,” the witness said, hesitating, “we’re not supposed to deliver guns the same day that they’re purchased. We’re supposed to hold them, but … well, under the circumstances, I simply dated the application back three days and delivered the gun to Mr. Baxter.”

  “You delivered it to Mr. Baxter personally?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “And that is this same weapon?”

  “Yes, sir.”

  “You may cross-examine,” Nelson said.

  “No questions,” Mason said.

  “I will call Mrs. Minnie Crowder,” Nelson said.

  Mrs. Crowder identified herself as the housekeeper for George Belding Baxter.

  Nelson said, “Now, on the evening of the tenth of this month, please tell us what you did.”

  “I finished up my work at about nine o’clock. The eleventh was my day off. I had been told that 1 didn’t need to stay all night on the tenth, so I left the house just prior to nine in the evening—just a few minutes before. I had planned to return early on the morning of the twelfth. However, the police located me and interfered with my plans.”

  “What time did the police locate you?”

  “Around two o’clock in the afternoon of the eleventh.”

  “I am going to show you this gun that has been marked for identification and ask you if you are familiar with it.”

  The witness took the gun, looked it over and said, “Yes, I am.”

  “Did you ever have that gun in your possession?”

  “I did.”

  “Who gave it to you, if anyone?”

  “Mr. George Belding Baxter.”

  “And what happened to the gun?”

  “I kept it in my bedroom and I took it with me when I walked at night. It fell from my coat pocket when I was walking on the night of the third. After I missed it, I returned to look for it but couldn’t find it. So I said nothing to anyone.”

  “Why did Mr. Baxter give it to you?”

  “Objected to as calling for a conclusion of the witness,” Mason said, “also as being incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.”

  “Sustained,” Judge Laporte said.

  Nelson said, “After the third of this month, or approximately the third of this month, you didn’t see this gun again until when?”

  “Until it was shown me by the police.”

  Mason said, “I dislike to interrupt counsel, but I think I am entitled to examine the witness on voir dire”

  “Go right ahead,” Nelson invited. “However, I am just about finished with the witness and perhaps you would prefer to do this on cross-examination.”

  “It makes no difference to me,” Mason said.

  “Well, I’ll ask just one more question. You saw this gun again on the eleventh of the month?”

  “Yes.”

  “Where did you see it?”

  “It was in the possession of Lieutenant Tragg. He showed it to me.”

  “Cross-examine,” Nelson said.

  “How do you know it’s the same gun that Mr. Baxter gave you?” Mason asked.

  “Well … well, I can tell it’s the same gun. Mr. Gillett found it where I had dropped it.”

  “Do you know where you dropped it, the exact spot?”

  “Not the exact spot. I dropped it while I was walking. That’s where Mr. Gillett found it.”

  “You know when you dropped it?”

  “Yes. It was the night of the third at about nine-thirty. I was taking a walk. I had the gun in my overcoat pocket. I slipped the coat off after I got hot walking, and when I got back, the gun was missing.”

  “Now, think carefully,” Mason said. “Did you at any time while on that walk approach the hedge near where this gun was found by the police?”

  “No.”

  “Not anywhere near the hedge?”

  “I walked past it, but I didn’t leave the surfaced road.”

  “But you could have lost the gun near the hedge?”

  “I don’t think so. I must have lost it when I slipped my coat off and folded it. I remember that was a hundred yards or so after I had left the gates and while I was walking along the pavement.”

  “Did you at any time make any note of the number of the gun given you by Mr. Baxter?”

  “Of course not.”

  “That was a new gun?”

  “He delivered it to me the day he purchased it.”

  “There were no distinguishing marks on the gun then, no scratches, no blemishes?”

  “Certainly not. It was a brand-new gun.”

  “Are there any scratches or blemishes on the gun now?”

  “I notice there are scratches on the handle. I believe those are marks made by Lieutenant Tragg.”

  “When did you first notice these marks?”

  “After Lieutenant Tragg pointed them out to me.”

  “You have no independent recollection of any distinguishing marks being on the gun that was given you by Mr. Baxter?”

  “Well … no.”

  “You don’t know whether this is the gun given you by Mr. Baxter or whether it is simply one of the thousands of guns manufactured by the Smith & Wesson Company and sold throughout the nation, do you?”

  “Well, if you want to put it that way, all I can say is that it looks like the gun Mr. Baxter gave me.”

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

  Nelson called Alexander Redfield as a firearms and ballistics expert, and asked Redfield if he had examined the fatal bullet and if he had made tests to determine whether the fatal bullet had been fired from that weapon.

  Redfield testified that he had made such tests.

  “What can you state with reference to the fatal bullet having been fired from this particular weapon?”

  “The fatal bullet was fired from this particular gun which I am holding in my hand, this Smith & Wesson revolver, number C232721,” Redfield said.

  “Now, if the Court please,” Nelson said, “I move to introduce this weapon in evidence.”

  “Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, no proper foundation laid,” Mason said.

  “What is your point?” Judge Laporte said.

  “Simply this, Your Honor. There’s one connecting link which is missing. George Belding Baxter took possession of this gun on the day it was purchased. Let him show that he gave the gun he purchased to the housekeeper.”

  “If the Court please, that doesn’t make the slightest difference,” Hamilton Burger said. “This weapon was found on the grounds where it had evidently been thrown into the bushes by the murderer. It is the murder weapon. It was purchased by George Belding Baxter, and a gun, in every way similar in appearance to this weapon, was given to the housekeeper and then was missing from the housekeeper’s possession. That’s all we need. Actually, we don’t need to show anything except that the gun was found on the grounds and that it is the murder weapon. That is all we need in order to get the weapon introduced in evidence. Anything else is simply for the purpose of showing the background and history of the weapon.”

  “The Court is inclined to agree with the district attorney,” Judge Laporte said, “but why not simply call Mr. Baxter and have him testify that the gun he purchased was the gun he gave the housekeeper? Then you have connected up this weapon with its particular serial number.”

  “Because it isn’t necessary,” Hamilton Burger said.

  Mason said dryly, “Because George Belding Baxter is suing me for a hundred thousand dollars’ damages for serving a subpoena on him to testify on behalf of the defendant. If he should be called as a witness for the prosecution, it would then appear that his presence here had been necessary, and I wouldn’t have damaged him by asking him to remain over to testify for the defense. That’s the sole reason Hamilton Burger is here in court, to try and guide this case through the court so that it doesn’t require the presence of George Belding Baxter as a witness.”

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17