The Case of the Mischievous Doll

“Objected to as calling for a conclusion of the witness,” Mason said. “It is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. It is not the best evidence. The jury are entitled to have the thumbprints presented to them for comparison, and Lieutenant Tragg can, if he wishes, point out points of similarity in the prints. But he cannot testify to his conclusion.”

“I think I will sustain the objection,” Judge Flint said.

“Very well. It will prolong the case,” Hamilton Burger said.

“In a case of this magnitude the time element is not particularly essential, Mr. Prosecutor,” Judge Flint rebuked.

Hamilton Burger bowed gravely.

He introduced a photographic enlargement of the thumbprint of Dorrie Ambler, taken from her application for a driving licence. Then he introduced a photograph of the thumbprint of the woman whose body Lieutenant Tragg had found.

“Now then, Lieutenant Tragg,” Hamilton Burger said, “by pointing to these two enlarged photographs which are on easels standing where the jurors can see them, can you point out any similarities?”

“I can. I have listed the points of similarity.”

“How many do you find?”

“I find six.”

“Will you point them out to the jury, please? Take this pointer and point to them on the easels.”

Lt. Tragg pointed out the various points of similarity.

“And these are all?” Hamilton Burger asked.

“No, sir. They are not all. They are the only ones that I can be sufficiently positive of to make a complete identification. You will realize that due to the process of putrefaction and decomposition it was exceedingly difficult to get a good legible fingerprint from the body of the deceased. We did the best we could, that’s all.”

“Were you able to form an opinion as to the age and sex of the decedent?”

“Oh, yes. The body was that of a female, apparently in the early twenties.”

“And you took specimens of hair from the body?”

“We did. And those were compared with the hair colour of Dorrie Ambler as mentioned in the application for driving licence.”

“Did you find anything else at or near the body of this woman?” Hamilton Burger asked.

“We found a thirty-eight-calibre revolver with one discharged shell and five loaded shells. It was a Smith and Wesson with a two-inch barrel, Number C-48809.”

“Did you subsequently make tests with that gun in the ballistics department?”

“I did.”

“You fired test bullets through it?”

“Yes, sir.”

“And did you make a comparison with any other bullet?”

“Yes, sir.”

“What bullet?”

“A bullet that had been recovered from the skull of the body I found there in the sand hills.”

“And what did you find?”

“The bullets showed identical striations. The bullets had been fired from the same gun; that is, the fatal bullet matched absolutely with the test bullets.”

“Do you have photographs showing the result of the experiments?”

“I do.”

“Will you present them, please?”

Lt. Tragg presented photographs of the fatal bullet and the test bullet.

“What is this line of demarcation in the middle?”

“That is a line of demarcation made in a comparison microscope. The bullet above that line is the fatal bullet; the bullet below is the test bullet.”

“And those bullets are rotated on this comparison microscope until you reach a point where the lines of identity coincide? Where the striations are continuations of each other?”

“Yes, sir.”

“And when that happens, what does it indicate, Lieutenant?”

“That the bullets were both fired from the same gun.”

“And that is the case here?”

“Yes, sir.”

“You may cross-examine,” Hamilton Burger said abruptly.

Mason approached the witness. “Lieutenant Tragg, was the body you discovered that of Dorrie Ambler? Please answer that question yes or no.”

Lt. Tragg hesitated. “I think it—”

“I don’t want to know what you think,” Mason interrupted. “I want to know what you know. Was the body that of Dorrie Ambler or not?”

“I don’t know,” Tragg said.

“You didn’t get enough points of similarity from the fingerprint to establish identification?”

“I will state this,” Lt. Tragg said, “we got enough points of identification to show a very strong probability.”

“But you can’t establish it by definite proof as to identification?”

“Well...”

“Be frank, Lieutenant,” Mason interrupted. “It takes a minimum of twelve points of identity to establish positive identification, does it not?”

“Well, no, it does not,” Tragg said. “We have had rather a large number of cases where we were able to make identification from fewer points of identity.”

“How many?”

“Well, in some instances, nine or ten points are sufficient where the circumstances are such that we can negative the possibility of accidental duplication.”

“But those circumstances didn’t exist in this case?”

“No.”

“You don’t consider that six points of similarity are sufficient to prove identity.”