The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1899-08-29

"
board, showing that all M. Bertillon' 5
proofs applied as equally to Esterhazy
as to Dreyfus.
Finally M. Paray-Javal declared that
M. Bertillon's measurement of the
word Interest" which served as the
basis for the whole system, was entire
ly false, and therefore M. Bertillon's en-
tire system falls to the ground and no
longer exists" (Great sensation)
This Witness who had awakened the
interest of his bearers, maintained that
the bordereau could not have been
traced, adding that it was an utter i'm
possibility.
He then proceeded to illustrate why
this was the case and to prove the
falseness of M. Bertillon's deductions.
Bertillons Error.
In conclusion M. ParavJaval said,
amid laughter, that he thought M. Ber-
t1llon was a very intelligent man, but
that his system was false, and he (the
Witness) was convinced that only self
esteem prevented NJ Bertillon from adj
hitting his error.
M, Bernard, an inspector of mines,
who took high honors at the Polytech-
at the witness bar, said he appeared to
refute a portion of M, Bertillon's evil
dence which was based on false calcu-
lations. AS matter of fact he added,
it was on such basis that the whole
system rested,
Witness said he was greatly surprised
that NJ. Bertillon thought fit to have
recourse to psychological arguments to
prove
First-That the bordereau was fabri-
Gated.
Second-That the methods which
might have been employed in writing
certain words were such as to consti-
! tute proof against Dreyfus.
M. Bernard also said he was aston
ished at the fact that M. Bertillon had
! undertaken to account for the shape of
letters and the space between words.
There was not 1.25 nlillmetre, as alleged
| by M. Bertillon, but 1.56 Moreover, the
writing of the bordereau was natural
and rhythmic while it's character and
| size showed it was not written by-eith-
er short-sighted or a long-sighted
person. The witness then proceeded to
| illustrate photographically his conten-
1 LlOll llldL lub DOIueTedu WAS llOl d Id
bricated document and also pointed out
important differences between M. Ber-
tillon's photographs and the original.
While pointing out a fault in the ap-
! plication of the system M. Bernard
aroused merriment by remarking that
M. Bertillon's system could neverthe-
less be useful seeing that it enabled the
witness to show the bordereau was a
natural and not a fabricated document.
In conclusion, M. Bernard exhibited
to the judges a plate representing
page of current handwriting and said:
IF it is examined by M. Bertilon's
system it will show certain peculiarties
which would not be found upon the ex-
animation of fifty million other docu-
ments. M. Bertillon would therefore say
the document was fabricated. But, he
would be wrong, for / borrowed the
page from a report written by NJ Ber-
tillon himself.
Bertillon Discomitted
M. Bertillon demanded permission to
reply to the witness, and Colonel Jou-
aust replied:
Il cannot grant your request, and I
will not grant such permission to any
Of the fourteen experts except in the
case of personal explanation"
M. Bertillon-I wish to speak of the
manner In which I reconstructed the
bordereau
Colonel Jouaust-Why, you are dis
cussfng the case. I cannot allow YOU to
speak except in regard to personal
fact.
The presidents statement aroused
loud laughter, amid which M Bertillon,
disconnected, resumed his seat.
NJ. Teyssonieres followed He said he
adhered in all respects to his report
dated October 49, in which he expressed
the opinion that the bordereau was the
work Of the writer of the documents
seized at the prisoners residence. For
purposes of comparison, the witness
lengthily criticized the bordereau letter
by letter, pointing out resenblances
to the prisoners handwriting.
In conclusion, M. Teyssonieres said he |
thought it was impossible to find more |
tangible reasons than those which in
duced in him the belief, which he hoped
the court would share, (sensation.) |
Replying to the court, M Teyssoneres
said he had not noticed the prisoners |
handwriting was illeglble, and he had |
never seen the document dictated to
Dreyfus.
The copy of the bordereau made by |
Dreyfus was then handed to the wit
ness, who declared it had never been
given to him for purposes of compari-
son. (Sensation.)
The witness added that he would re-
quire three days to give an opinion upon
it. He could not conclude his examina-
ton upon the spot He must have time
Here a member of the ourt-martial,
giving the result of his examination of
the bordereau, remarked:
The letter i is always isolated, even
at the beginning Of words"
TO this M. Teyssonieres replied that
this popularity was also found in the
prisoners handwriting.
Dreyfus' Reply.
When he was invited to reply to the
witness, Dreyfus said M. Teyssonieres
remark seemed to him quite incorrect,
and that in order to reply properly he,
the prisoner, must have the documents
under his eyes
AS regards the criticism on the SUBJ