The Case of the Mischievous Doll

“The objection is overruled,” Judge Flint said. “Had you or had you not committed all those crimes that you were going to confess to?” Mason asked. “Crimes that you did confess to.”

“I hadn’t committed all of them, no.”

“You had committed some of them?”

“Yes.”

“And on the other crimes,” Mason said, “you were going to tell a lie in order to clear up the records so that the police department could wipe them off the books, with the understanding that you would be given immunity for all those crimes and wouldn’t be prosecuted.”

“Well, it wasn’t exactly like that,” the witness said. “They wouldn’t buy a pig in a poke. I had to make good first.”

“Make good in what way?”

“With my testimony.”

“Exactly,” Mason said. “If your testimony wasn’t strong enough to result in a conviction for this defendant, the deal was off. Isn’t that right?”

“I... I didn’t say it that way.”

“You may think you haven’t,” Mason said, turning on his heel and walking back to his chair. “That’s all the cross-examination I have of this witness at this time.”

Hamilton Burger, his face flushed and angry, said, “I’ll recall Lieutenant Tragg to the stand.”

“You have already been sworn, Lieutenant Tragg,” Judge Flint said. “Just take the stand.”

Tragg nodded, settled himself in the witness chair.

“Lieutenant Tragg,” Burger said, “I will ask you if, following a conversation with Dunleavey Jasper, you made a trip to the vicinity of Gray’s Well by automobile?”

“I did.”

“And what did you look for?”

“I looked for any place where the automobile road ran within a few feet of a sloping sand dune so constituted that one man could drag a body down the slope of the sand dune.”

“I object, if the Court please,” Mason said, “to the last part of the witness’ statement as a conclusion of the witness, not responsive to the question and having no bearing on the facts of the case as we have those facts at present.”

“The objection is sustained. The last part of the answer will go out,” Judge Flint said.

“And what did you find?” Hamilton Burger asked, smiling slightly at the knowledge he had got his point across to the jury.

“After three or four false leads, we found a sand hill where there were faint indications that something had disturbed the surface of the sand, and by following those indications to the bottom of the sand hill and digging we found the badly decomposed body of a woman.”

“Were you able to identify that body?”

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

“The objection is overruled. This evidence, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is being admitted purely for the purpose of corroborating the testimony of the previous witness and not with the idea that any less evidence would be required in the case at bar because there might be evidence indicating the possible commission of another crime. Nor are you to permit yourselves to consider any subsequent crime, even for the purpose of proving motivation, but only for the purpose of corroborating the testimony of the previous witness. You are to consider this evidence only for that limited purpose. Continue, Mr. Prosecutor.”

“I will ask you this, Lieutenant Tragg. Was there anything anywhere on the body that gave any clue as to its identity?”

“There was.”

“Will you describe it, please?”

“The tips of the fingers were badly decomposed. The weather had been intensely hot. The body had been buried in a rather shallow sand grave. Putrefaction and an advanced stage of decomposition made it difficult to make a positive identification. However, by a process of pickling the fingers in a formaldehyde solution and hardening them, we were able to get a fairly good set of fingerprints sufficient to give certain aspects of identification.”

“Now then, Lieutenant Tragg, I will ask you if you made prints of the thumbs of this body.”

“We did. We printed all the fingers as best we could.”

“I am at the moment particularly interested in the thumbs. I am going to ask you if you found any other physical evidence on the body.”

“We did.”

“What did you find?”

“We found a purse, and in that purse we found a receipt for rent of Apartment 907 at the Parkhurst Apartments. That receipt was made out in the name of Dorrie Ambler. We also found a key to Apartment 907. We found some other receipts made to Dorrie Ambler.”

“Did you find a driving licence made to Dorrie Ambler?”

“Not there.”

“Please pay attention to my question, Lieutenant. I didn’t ask you that question. I asked you if you found a driving licence made out to Dorrie Ambler.”

“We did.”

“Where did you find that?”

“That driving licence was in the possession of the defendant at the time of her arrest. It was tucked down in a concealed pocket in her purse.”

“And did that driving licence contain the thumbprint of the applicant?”

“It contained a photostat of it.”

“And did you subsequently attempt to compare the thumbprint of the cadaver you discovered with the thumbprint on the driving licence of Dorrie Ambler?”

“I did.”

“With what result?”