New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-12-20
WEEKS LETS KINSLEY GO.
THE EXPERTS CROSS EXAMINATION
FINISHED.
SESSION OF THE TRIAL
DULL SAVE FOR CONTROVERSIES
BETWEEN COUNSEL.


to be in attendance at the trial. For two weeks
short OF one day Mr.. Knsley has been giving testi-
rony and since noon Of Thursday last he has been
under cross-examinatlon. The sum and substance
OF his evidence is that Moneux wrote the address
on the wrapper Of the poison package because by
applying the rules employed by experts in deter
mining the authorship of disputed handwrtings
he had found simllarities OF characteristics In the
defendants admitted handwriting and the writings
which the defence contends were not penned by
MolineuX. on the other hand Barlow S. Weeks
has succeeded in appreciably weakening the frame
work Of theory upon which admittedly Mr.. Kinsleys
expert conclusions were built. Mr.. Kinsley has ac-
knowledged that at time he had practically
eliminated Molneux entirely from the case. but
had taken him again into consideration because OF
aHghting upon such appars lty trivial coinci-
dence the formation Of the letters "c' which
he discovered to have been written the wrap
per and upon an envelope addressed by the de-
fendant in such a way as to resemble an enlarged
small "a"
Again Mr. Weeks drew from the witness that
without the assistance Of the Barnet and Cor
nsh' letters he could rot possibly have traced any
connection between Moneuxs writing and that on
the package. Moreover he has conceded that the
principal standard of comparison upon which
worked was specimen OF the defendants hand
writing which. at the request OF the witness.
worded just the address the wrapper,
and which the witness also asked should be written
so as 10 conform with the vertical style or the
writing the wrapper. Lastly. Mr.. Knsley has
admitted that the application Of his rules relating
to such technically vital particulars spacing.
speed, slant and general proportioning brought out
little uniformity in these characteristics in tho ad
dress. compared with the other writings.
MILLION WORDS ON THE RECORD.
These are the salient points Of Mr. Kinsey's testi-
mony, but 1t has taken fortnight to get them be-
fore the jury. The oquacity that has marked the
progress Of the case was strikngly brought to mind
yesterday when at o'clock just Mr.. Kinsleys
long cross-examination came TO end. the official
stenographer told the reporters that the number OF
words taken down in shorthand had then reached
one million comprehensive idea OF what
a million words means may be gathered from the
knowledge that they take up 555 solidy set coiumns
of The Tribune. and yet only few Of the small
army Of witnesses who have been subpenaed have
far given evidence.
When Mr. Kinsley resumed the stand yesterday
morning Mr.. Weeks momen:L fly abandoned techn-
cal analysis and asked the witness to describe the
defendants handwriting This the witness did In
a manner which made It possible for the lay mind
to understand the expert. Mr.. Kinsley said 1t was
q ierky exceedingly rapid hand. somewhat effemi-
nate and indicated extreme nervousness. II was
only slightly effeminate not wholly inasmuch as
II had the vigor OF a free business style. The hand
was erratc and indicated a rapid action of the
mind These characteristics the expert declared ne
had found running through both the admitted and
the disputed handwriting. At some length. MT.
Weeks dwelt upon the results OF writing inde-
pendently and copying somebody else's writing
The expert admitted that person writing down
his own ideas would write unconsciously. and con-
sequently his peculiarites would be more pro-
nounced while when one was copying somebody
else's writing his penmanship sure to be
nearer to the COPY book and would be more or less
constrained and unnatural. This admission Mr..
Weeks will undoubtedly take advantage of TO show
that the exhibit which the defendant wrote at the
request of the prosecution. with the poison ADDRESS
to copy from. which writing the prosecution TOOK
az a standard OF comparison ought not to be
taken as a specimen of Mollneuxs natural writing.
Mr. Weeks also made another important point
when he asked: You have stated that the defend
ants writing Is erratic You have also pointed out
what you term characteristic resembances ana
characteristic dissmilarites In his penmanshp'
Now, do you think mere resemblances in letters
between admitted specimens ana uIspu'eu eA"'O'''
amount to anything|
al do" replied the witness.
"But" Mr. Weeks asked. putting the question 10
which he had been gradually working slowly anu
impressvely '1f you get an example OF person
handwriting who is erratic In his style ana WHO
is Of nervous temperament. who writes rapoiy' you
rould pick therefrom letters which would reseii-
ble any other handwriting in the world-you couid
find almost anything. couldn't you?
ADMITS THAT HE COULD NOT.
Tho Witness hesitated and shifted uneaslly in his
chair for some seconds hut finally answered .hae
hn could not The witness was next asked 10
state what importance he gave 70 the question Oh
.ren pressure" He explained at some lensth JuSt
what was meant by pen pressure ana ~ ~"ou't
nm bv SAYING that he did not think II OF any sia'
,,,ror,ance in determining disputed handwritihs'
P 80. ia heated controversy was n little later
oro,sad between counsel when Mr.. Weeks sought
90 bave a specirnen OF the handwriting OF FelM D.
gallagher introduced in evidence. MI Osoo,no
vigorously objected, and, beating the ar WIN Hn
osts said. "If Mr. Weeks intends TO sho" Ina'
cauaqber sent the poison TO Cornish am wl'i'ns
that his request should be granted out MI "
&c not going 10 do any such thlng' -
..rrhe shrewdness Of Mr.. Osborne IN kho"lhs ou
so,aaoo ~ this time marks him as man OF par
t,cularly keen perception" Mr. Weeks repneu
,rho conflict between the counsel grew bitter ana
- dosnite the admonitions Of the Recorder
n,ho hnaIlv asked for what purpose MT "eeAs
wished the writing admitted. AS stahualu ~
ooronarison - Mr. Weeks answered. whereupoh 'iie
Court ruled against him, but permitted the spe0
mems 10 be marked for identihcatloh. Na'i',9
name was frequently mentioned IN the s"i',e =.
vestigations Of the case. and the reason MI 49,"
fought so stoutly for the admission OF ms he
~ iSTco was n was said in court because oI lhe
si,riie ritv II bears 10 MolineuNs wrltng. -, o,,
eel Eor th defence took the somewhat original
course of asking the witness u ne W. W." ~ MIR
lan0NTlUUE ~ tabIa
f,neev consented and seating himself al the tanae m
wrote the famous poison address. ,fa',bcard some
crest ne then reproduced on the plackpo,aiu VI
Of the characters Of his own handw@rt,s @ ,necnii.
Weeks sought 10 show that there W. .lp",;Sad
jes IN the writing which the expert hau H.
he had never found in any writing d 9tI ,he sup
cestions as Mr. Weeks pointed out one ,t atCe' n1
other what he contendea, y,ey,s W. Ti,a urtine
Proceedng to inquire into Mr knsey reGUlp
as % al - -, Mildred brewster in Vermont ne had
used an envelope standard OF S0mpTSSdn baDdI
a,bIch he knew was not In the defendaht naiu,
MniJn ti "' - yybich Il was subsequently Proved
Was not Mr. Kinsley denied the insRHatHon kna bna
49, con,tng IN the Mason case Mr.. Weeks ahhrru
tneh ti ba,t tho error which he had admittedly
made in that matter NJ knsley S was ,bn beo%f Nth
~ yrbJcb vas that in the first instance ne ndu
been supplied with only one specimben b 9i wben
ra ,aociynens were given to him he found ne hau
ode mistake in attributng certain signatures 10