“Were these tracks sufficiently distinct so that you could identify the makes of tires that were on the automobile?” Ruskin asked.
“I could, yes, sir. Three of the tires were identical in make. The other one was a different tire. The other one had a small defect in the tread.”
“What tire was that?”
“The tire on the right front wheel.”
“It was a sufficient defect so that it could be identified in the tracks in the soft soil?”
“Oh, yes.”
“Now then,” Ruskin went on, “have you examined a car registered in the name of the defendant, Janice Wainwright, with license number GVB 393?”
“I have.”
“Have you made molds of the tires on that car?”
“I have.”
“Do you have them with you?”
“I do.”
The witness introduced the moulages with appropriate designations, and they were introduced in evidence.
Ruskin said, “Will you please take the moulage casts of the tracks which you found at the scene of the crime and the molds which you made of the tires, and see if they fit?”
The witness said, “I have here moulages of the tracks left at the scene of the crime. These moulages were made in transparent plastic. It is possible to take these moulages and put them over the molds of the tires in order to show the manner in which the tires would fit into the tracks.”
“Will you do this, please, for the benefit of the Court and the jury?”
The witness demonstrated each moulage in turn.
“We would like to have all of this material introduced in evidence,” Ruskin said, “as People’s Exhibits J-i, J-2, J-3, J-4 and so on, putting a number on each exhibit and having all of the moulages under People’s Exhibit J.”
“No objection,” Mason said.
“Cross-examine,” Ruskin said.
“I take it,” Mason said to the witness, “that in making all of these casts and moulages and models you used the greatest care to see that there was no error in measurement?”
“That is true,” the witness said.
“When the tires were on the ground, there was a pressure of several hundred pounds on each wheel?” Mason asked.
“That is correct.”
“And when you made the models of the tires, this pressure was removed from the tires?”
“Well... yes.”
“Then even if the defendant’s tires did make those tracks, the models of the tires should not fit into the moulage of the tracks because of the absence of this pressure.”
“I tried to compensate for that.”
“How did you compensate for it?”
“I partially deflated the tires and put sufficient pressure on them to duplicate the flattening out that would have taken place if the weight of the car had been on the tires.”
“What standard did you use? How did you determine what number of pounds pressure?”
“I used my judgment.”
“In other words,” Mason said, “you deflated the tires and then you put just sufficient pressure on the tire in the process of duplicating it so that the treads would be sure to fit into these tracks.”
“That is not fair,” the witness said, “nor is it an accurate statement of what I did.”
“But you did take this factor into consideration?” Mason asked.
“Yes.”
“And used your judgment as to how much this factor should influence the resulting models and moulages?”
“In a way, yes.”
“Thank you,” Mason said. “That’s all.”
“Just a moment,” Ruskin said, “I have a question on redirect. Is there anything in the deflation of these tires, or the method which you used, which would alter in any way the tread of the tires?”
“Nothing.”
“That’s all,” Ruskin said.
“I have a question on recross-examination. I will ask the witness if the things he did, did not change the dimensions of the tire.”
“The things I did may have changed the dimensions, but the tread wasn’t altered.”
“You did change the dimensions of the tire.”
“All right, if you want to put it that way,” the witness said irritably. “I changed the dimensions of the tire.”
“Thank you,” Mason said. “I was quite certain you had.”
The jurors exchanged glances indicating a certain amount of perplexity.
Ruskin called the cashier of the bank where Morley Theilman had his account. The banker testified, somewhat reluctantly, that over a period of some three weeks Morley Theilman had been withdrawing money in the form of cash; money which had invariably been withdrawn in the form of twenty-dollar bills; that the withdrawals had amounted to something over a hundred and eighty-seven thousand dollars during the three weeks’ time. That on Tuesday, the third, the decedent had drawn out five thousand dollars in cash in the form of twenty-dollar bills.
“Cross-examine,” Ruskin said.
“No questions,” Mason announced.
“I will call Cole B. Troy as a witness,” Ruskin said.
Troy identified himself as having been interested in several business ventures with the decedent, Morley Theilman, and as having been in conference with Theilman on the evening of Tuesday, the third; he testified that the conference had taken place in Bakersfield; that Theilman phoned his wife about eight saying he would be home around eleven or eleven-thirty, then had left his office about nine o’clock stating that he was driving back to his home in Los Angeles and wanted to be home by eleven.
“And what did you do after Mr. Theilman left the office?” Ruskin asked.
“I paced the floor idly for a couple of turns and wound up standing at the window looking down on the street.”
“Now, I will show you this diagram of the street which shows the location of your office and ask you if that diagram is a correct presentation of the street intersection and the location of your office?”
“It is.”
“Now then, while you were standing at the window, what did you see?”
“I saw Morley Theilman cross to the curb, stand a moment, then walk diagonally across the street.”
“I’m going to put this diagram on the blackboard,” Ruskin said, “and ask if you can mark on there with an X the approximate spot where you first saw Mr. Theilman.”
“Well, it was about here,” the witness said, making a mark.
“Now make another mark X at the point where you saw him hesitate on the curb.”
The witness made a mark.
“Now can you make a line indicating the direction which Mr. Theilman took in crossing the street on a diagonal?”
The witness made the line on the sketch.
“And then what? Just what did Mr. Theilman do? Make a line to indicate his motions after he crossed the street.”
“Well,” Troy said, “he crossed the other sidewalk on a diagonal to the corner, then walked around the corner. After that I was unable to see him because of the building on the opposite corner.”
“You continued to stand at the window?”
“I did.”
“And what did you see after that, if anything?”
“Within a matter of seconds after Theilman had started across the street,” Troy said, “I saw the shadow of a woman.”
“You first saw the woman’s shadow?”
“Yes.”
“That was before you saw the woman herself?”
“Yes.”
“Did you notice anything about that shadow, anything that was peculiar?”
“It was a very shapely shadow; that is, the shadow itself intrigued me because it appeared to be cast by a young woman who was... well, shapely.”
“But you could only see her shadow at that time?”
“That’s right.”
“And where was that shadow?”