The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1899-08-28

vents MS aLLeHQduCe III court u WHICH
Col JOuaust agreed.
This step does not satisfy the de-
fenSe. but they acquieSced to the COM
mission taking Du Patty de Clans tes-
timOny on the principle that a half
a loaf is better than no bread
TESTIMONY IN DETAIL.
The following is the testimony in de-
tail:
NJ. Paray-Javal, the draughtsman,
called by the defense Saturday to re-
fute the testimony of NJ BertillOn, the
famous anthrOpOmeter, resumed his
testimony at the opening of the court
this morning and with the assistance
of a blackboard. proceeded to show the
fallacy of the calculations of NJ. Bertil-
Ion and the. latter's unfairness in not
submitting the handwriting of Ester
haZy to the same tests as the prisoners.
He declared. however, that even if NJ.
BertillOn had done so, the results would
not have proved anything. The witness,
however, insisted that NJ. BertillOn had
adopted a vicious method in only max
ing partial experiment.
Continuing NJ Paray-Javal proceed
ed to show that the geometric regu-
larities alleged by NJ. Bertillon did
not in reality exist. He pointed out
a number of Irregularities in the hand
writing of the bordereau and said the
same Irregularities We're particularly
noticeable in Esterhazy's caligraphy.
H also COntended that the alleged reg
ularitv of the key word interest was
only approximate and proceeded to IL
luStrate his arguments on the black
DOarQ, showing IndL all M BefLlliCn' s
proofs applied as equally to ESterhaZy
as to Dreyfus. Finally NJ Paray-JavaI
declared that NJ BertillOn'S measure
ment of the word interest" which
served as the basis for the whole sys-
TEN was entirely false and therefore
Nj BertillOns entire system falls to
the ground and no longer exists.
Great sensatiOn-)
This witness who had awakened the
interest of his hearers, maintained that
the bordereau could not have been
traced, adding that it was an utter i'm
possibility He then proceeded to il
lustrate why this was the case and to
prove the falseness of NJ. BertillOn's de-
ductiOns.
amid laughter that he though NJ. Ber-
tillon 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 ad-
mitting his error.
ALL AGAINST BERTILLON.
NJ. Bernard an inspector of the
mines, who took honor at the poly
technic school who followed NJ. Paray-
laval at the witness bar. said he ap-
peared to refute a portion of NJ. Ber-
tillon's evidence, which was based on
false calculations. 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 i'll writing
certain words were such as to consti- |
tute proof against Dreyfus.
NJ Bernard also said he was aston
ished at the fact that NJ. Bertillon had |
undertaken to account for the shape |
OF letters and the space between words |
o There was not 1.25 millimetre. as al
legged by NJ. BertillOn, but SO. More
over, the writing of the bordereau was
natural and rhythmic, while its charac- /
ter and size showed it was not writ !
ten by either a short sighted or a long /
sighted person. The witness then pro-
ceeded to illustrate Photographic his |
contention that the bOrdereau was not |
a fabricated document. and also point
ed out important differences between |
M Bertillon's photograph and the orig |
inaI
While pointing out a fault in the ap- /
plication of the system. NJ Bernard !
aroused merriment by remarking that |
M. Bertillon's system could neverthe- |
less pc useruI, seeing that it enabled !
the witness to show the bordereau was (
a natural and not a faricated docu- |
ment.
LAUGH ON THE DETECTIVE.
In conclusion NJ. Bernard exhibited \
to the judges a plate representing a I
page OF current handwriting and said: !
II II IS examined by NJ. BertillOn's SyS- /
TEN, it viii show certain peculiarities |
which would not be found the examina- |
ton of fifty million other documents
W LoGIAlAAOtl WOulQ therefore say the |
document was fabricated But he would |
be wrong, for borrowed the page from |
a report written by NJ Bertillon him |
self.
NJ. BertilIon demanded permission to |
reply to the witness and Col. Jouaust |
replied: 4 can not grant your request |
and L viii not grant such permission to /
any OF the fourteen experts, except in /
the case of personal explanation. -
NJ Berullon-I wish to speak of the /
manner in which 1 reconstructed the
Col. Jouaust-Why you are discuss
ing the case. 1 can not allow you to
speak except in regard to a personal |
fact.
NJ Trissonieres followed. He said
he adhered in all respects to his report
dated October %, 1894 in which he ex-
pressed the opinion that the bordereau
was the work of the writer of the doc
uments seized at the prisoners resi-
dence- For purpose of comparison, the
witness lengthily criticised the bor-
dereau letter by letter. pointing out re-
semblances to the prisoners handwrit-
ing.
In conclusion NJ. Trissonieres said he
thought 1t 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, NJ. Trissonieres
said he had not noticed the prisoners
handwriting was illegible and he had |
never seen the document dictated to !
Dreyfus The copy of the bordereau
made by Dreyfus was then handed to /
the witness who declared it had never |
been given to him for purpose of com
parison- (Sensation). The witness
added that he would require three days |
to give an opinion upon it.
He could not conclude his examina- !
tion on the spot. He must have time |
Here member of the court martial |
giving the result of his examination of |
the bordereau remarked: The letter
IL is always isolated even at the be- |
ginning of words.
To this NJ Trissonieras replied that
this popularity was also found in the |
prisoners handwriting