The Case of the Mischievous Doll

“Now then,” Judge Flint said, “let’s have that slide which was marked for identification put back on the screen.”

Hamilton Burger, intensely excited, said, “I want it just the same size as it was. It can be matched by the markings made by Lieutenant Tragg on the screen.”

“We’ll have it the same size,” Judge Flint said. “There’s no reason to shout, Mr. Burger. I can hear you perfectly.”

The clerk focused the projector.

“Move that projector back just a little,” Hamilton Burger said, “just an inch or so. Get the marks so they coincide with the tracings made by Lieutenant Tragg... there we are.”

Hamilton Burger turned to Lt. Tragg.

“Now, Lieutenant,” he said, “forget all about the print of the dead woman. Look at the projected print and the photographic print of Dorrie Ambler and tell me how many points of similarity you find in those prints!”

Lt. Tragg said, “I will take a pointer and—”

“Here, take this red crayon,” Hamilton Burger said. “Mark the points of similarity with the red crayon. Let’s see how many points of similarity you find between the projected print and that of Dorrie Ambler.”

Lt. Tragg went to the exhibits, started tracing ridges with red crayon. After some few minutes he said, “I have already found more than eighteen points of similarity, if the Court please. Twelve points of similarity are sufficient to make an absolute identification.”

“And that means?” Judge Flint asked.

“It means that the projected print is not the print of the defendant at all but is the print of Dorrie Ambler.”

“You’re absolutely certain of that?” Judge Flint asked.

“Absolutely certain.”

Judge Flint turned to Perry Mason. “Mr. Mason,” he said, “you stand charged before this Court with a very grave offence, an offence which could well lead to disciplinary action or disbarment proceedings. It would certainly lead to a charge of contempt of Court. I am going to ask you to plead on the charge of contempt of Court right here and right now.

“In view of the fact that this matter came up while the jury was present, I am going to have it determined while the jury is present. Now then, Mr. Mason, I am going to ask you how it happened that in pretending to take an imprint of the defendant’s thumb you substituted a slide with the imprint of Dorrie Ambler.”

“Mason said, “I am sorry, Your Honor, I have no explanation.”

“In that event,” Judge Flint said, “the Court is going to—”

“May I make one statement?”

“Very well,” Judge Flint snapped. “Make a statement.”

“I simply suggest,” Mason said, “that in order to avoid any confusion, the witness, Lieutenant Tragg, take a fingerprint of the defendant’s thumb. Then we will project that on the screen and Lieutenant Tragg can see how many points of similarity he finds between that and the print of the dead woman. In that way there can be no question of confusion. I have here an acetate slide coated with a substance which will show the fingerprint characteristics.”

Judge Flint hesitated.

“I would like very much to have that done,” Hamilton Burger said.

“Very well. You may proceed,” Judge Flint said.

Mason handed a slide to Lt. Tragg who inspected it carefully, took a magnifying glass from his pocket, looked at it, then approached the defendant, took her thumbprint, returned to the projector, removed the slide which was in the projector and inserted the slide of the thumbprint he had just taken.

“Now then,” Mason said, “perhaps the Lieutenant will be good enough to tell us how many points of similarity there are between that fingerprint, the fingerprint of the dead woman and the fingerprint of Dorrie Ambler.”

Lt. Tragg adjusted the focus just right, then approached the projected print.

Suddenly he stopped.

“They coincide,” he said.

“What coincides?” Hamilton Burger snapped at him.

“The points of similarity which I have traced on the paper in red and in green coincide with the pattern now projected on the screen.”

Hamilton Burger said, “Well— They can’t.”

“But they do,” Mason said. “It’s quite evident. The Court can see for itself, and the jurors can see the same thing.”

“Now, just a moment!” Hamilton Burger shouted. “Here’s some more hocus-pocus. I insist that we have this phase of the matter disposed of in the absence of the jury.”

“We’ve had the rest of it in the presence of the jury,” Judge Flint said. “I think we’ll clear up this entire situation in the presence of the jury... Now Lieutenant, exactly what is the meaning of this?”

“I don’t know,” Lt. Tragg said.

“I suggest,” Mason said, “that it means the projected fingerprint which I put on the screen was the fingerprint of the defendant and that the prosecutor’s charge that I had juggled slides, the prosecutor’s charge that I had substituted fingerprints and all of his remarks concerning misconduct, were unjustified, were accusations made in the presence of the jury and constituted misconduct on the part of the prosecutor.”