New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-12-15
EXPERT IN WEEKS'S HANDS
CROSS EXAMINATION OF WILLIAM j.
KINSLEY BEGUN.
RECORDER GoFF RULES THAT BARNET
AND "coRNrsH" LETTERS MAY BE RE-
GARDED AS STANDARDS OF COM

GARpED AS STANDARDS OF CON-
| PARIsoN.
| After being on the stand for over week WIN,
,or, Kinslev the handwriting expert retained
| bv tho prosecution in the Moneux case, completeu
| his direct testimony yesterday morning me sum
| and substance OF his evidence Is that Mo''"e"N
wrote the Barnet and Cornish letters anu
that the same hand which indited THESE ie''ei'
also wrote the inscription on the poison package.
At great length and with much anayucai "e."n
Mr. KinsIey has explained the reasons upon whch
ha based his conclusions. With crayon and paper
he has demonstrated 90 the Court the similarities
in the formation Of letters. in the pen breaks
emphasis spacing punctuation and pecuiiariueS
of characteristics generally which he contends ex-
list in the writings admittedly Molineux's and the
disputed letters For seven days he has revelled
in the fine distinctions OF Spepcerlan and eclectic
STYLES Of handwriting OF bars and strokes, or
looms and curves with such n wealth OF explana-
tory matter that the mere sight of pen ana INK
missive has become odious 10 those who nave
been compelled to attend the court day after day
JURY LIKELY TO DISREGARD 1T ALL
1t is matter of discussion with many whether
the spending OF so much time upon expert hand
writing testimony Is worth the candle The fact is
recognized that when Mr. Carvalho. the expert for
the defence, goes the stand. he Will hatiy con-
tradict Mr.. Kinsey and will adduce as many and
as good reasons as the other side employed. to
show that the prosecutions contention Is wrong
In that case, as between the two experts the jury
WILL as many other juries have done under similar
circumstances. decide that * - y" will dismiss
the whole confused mass OF expert testimony from
their minds and decide upon their own Judgment
from tho Photographic copies. which they have
before them Of the admitted and disputed writings
whether or not Moneux forged the names of
Barnet and Cornish.
Yesterday was thus far the dullest and most un-
Interesting day OF the trial. And ~ regards the
material value Of the evidence brought out IL
was the least important. Mr.. kinsley was on
tho stand the whole day. Shortly after midday
his direct testimony was completed and Mr..
Weeks began his cross examination and sue
ceeded several times in tangling up the witness
and forcing HIM to admit once that he had mace
at least one mistake I'm his evidence for the pros
ecuton. Mr.. knslcy proved himself to be an ir-
ritable witness under cross examination. Several
times he was on the verge OF losing his temper and
made an unfavorabe impression by his persistency
I'm lacking on long explanations to the answers
given to Mr. Weeks. He was several times adj
monshed by Mr.. Weeks to be explicit In his re-
plies. but without avail. He continued lnduging
in long explanatory remarks. creating thereby the
idea that he was anxious to bolster mp what he
know to be a weak case. Mr. Klnsey admitted
that his reasons for attributing some OF the dis
puted letters to the defendant based the
writing which Moneux made for him in his own
office when he (kinsey) provided the defendant
with a per OF a certain ineness and instructed him
to write In I, vertical style, while Molineuxs nat
ural habit is TO write slantingly Mr. Kinsley per-
sisted also in thinking that the crossing OF the
It's" was an identifying characteristic. although
It was demonstrated on the board that in short
letter the "t's" crossed I'm four different ways.
For over an hour Mr.. Weeks prodded the wit
ness with questions, showing many instances
where the formation of written characters was
different In Molineuxs letters from those in the
disputed letters. Finally Mr.. Weeks brought the
witnesses attention to the time when the writing
the poison package first submitted to him.
Mr.. Kinsley said it brought to him Janu-
airy l. 1892 by Detective McCanerty. together with
five other specimens Of handwriting. One of these
was an envelope addressed by Moneux but al
though Mr.. Weeks endeavored TO show that he
knew at the time II was In ;he defendants hand
writing the witness denied that he had any such
knowledge He admitted. however. that he did
not make his report to the District Attorney until
after he had read I'm newspaper that the police
wanted Moneux. The witness added that the
specimens submitted to him to compare the adj
dress on the poison package with included the
handwritings OF Cornish. j. Martin Riggs and Mrs.
Rogers. - -
One important development OF yesterday the
ruling Of Recorder Con. which permitted the prose
cution to use the Barnet and Cornish" letters
an absolute standard OF comparison by which TO
show that Molineux wrote the address on tho
noson packaRe. Despite the strenuous objections
OF Mr. Weeks the Recorder ruled that these letters
might be taken as a standard OF comparison. de-
Gliding therefore for all practical intents that the
Identification between Molineux's writing and that
Of the letters Is complete
Asked by the Recorder to make his objection
specific Mr.. Weeks said:
object to the witness comparing Exhibit A the
address the PACKAGE disputed writing with
Exhibit Il. another disputed writing. The wit
ness has no right to compare a disputed writing
genuine writing OF the defendant and accepted
by the Court legal standard OF comparison.
The Recorder. however overrul9I the objection,
and Mr.. Kinsley proceeded TO state that the poison
wrapper address was penned by the same hand
that wrote a request for a sample Of salts Should
the verdict OF the jury be unfavorable to Molneux
II is almost that his lawyers will principally
base an appeal for a new trial upon this ruling
o: Recorder COT
When the trial was resumed yesterday Mr. Kins-
ley recalled TO the stand and asked 10 continue
his comparison OF Exhibits e and G. the former
being request for sample of salts signed III
Cornish" and the latter being request for n
trial remedy. signed III. Cornish" also In answer
TO further questions Mr.. Knsley said that in his
opinion the same hand wrote Exhibits and c.
r and A. the address the poison package FIX
hibts A. D and f. Exhibit D being the "Harpster"
letter. signed III. Cornish
MORE OBJECT LESSONS
After making these comparisons the witness was
asked 70 demonstrate on his paper covered black
board the word greatly in the Exhibit d the
"Harpster" letter; the word treat in Exhibit g.
the Barnet" letter and the word greatly" in
Exhibit G. the request for trial remedy signed
III. Cornish" The words reproduced on the
white sheets. and Mr. Kinsey then went into a
detailed explanation of the characteristics he found
to be common in the three exhibits. He explained
the breaks between the letters. and then the wit
ness took up some OF the numerical extracts the
admitted handwriting specimens. and pointed out
the similarity between some Of the letters and
words contained in both the admitted and disputed
handwritings.
Now Mr. Kinsley." said Mr.. Osborne. lust az
briefly as you can state your reasons for believing
that the defendant. or the man who wrote all the