New-York tribune., 1899-12-19
KINSLEY'S WORK WEAKENS
MR.. WEEKS AGAIN ATTACKS THE EN-
PERTS TESTIMONY.
AGAIN FORCED TO ADMIT HIS RELIANCE ON
THE DISPUTED LETTERs-CROss En-
ANIMATION OCCUPIES THE
WHOLE DAY.

WHOLE DAY
Another dull and uninteresting day Of expert
dissertation on handwriting marked yesterdays re-
sumption OF the trial OF Roland p. Moneux
William J. Kinsley. the prosecution expert on Fri
day last enumerated the rules which he applies to
mis- study of disputed chrography. over every
one Of those rules almost dozen In number
Barlow S Weeks took the witness. making him ex-
plain the nature OF the rule. It's method OF ap-
pcation. and in what particular the resort to
these rules enabled Mr.. Kinsley to identify the de-
fendant with the address on tho poison wrapper.
The expert stouty maintained that he found
sufficient evidence to connect the defendants ad-
mtted writing with that upon the package. but
when Mr.. Weeks came 10 analyze those reasons
and TO take the witness letter by letter through
the address. It was apparent that the witnesses
opinion had been built up theory rather than
upon any Gstinctivcly appearing similarities be-
tween Molineux's handwriting and the address
Mr.. Weeks had the witness demonstrate upon the
easel the reasons on which he attributed the In
scriptou the package TO Molineux. and how
those reasons were induced Frequently the ex-
pert who was obviously uncomfortable under
counscls insistent questioning was unable to ex-
plain satisfactorily why he believed certain char
acterstics in the admitted and disputed writings
afforded sufficient proof that the same hand penned
the address on the parcel containing the poisoned
bromo-seltzer.
For Instance in such vital particulars. as the
expert regards them. Mr. Weeks elected that there
no uniform characteristics Of spacing. speed
slant and general proportoning in the address as
compared with the other writings. one question
nut by Mr. Weeks upon which he laid particular
emphasis to whether the expert could form
any opinion II the person who wrote the address
was ambdoxtrous. that he n person who
could write with facility with both hands. The
witness replied that he had such opinion
POSSIBLE NEW FEATURE OF THE Defence
The idea was expressed in court that this in
quiry on Mr.. Wecks's part was another proof that
part Of the plan Of the defence Will be to show
that certain person other than Moineux wrote
the address. Before the adjournment Mr.. knslcy
repeated that without the aid Of the disputed Bar
net" and Cornish" letters. he would have been
unable to connect the defendant with the poison
package.
The only relief throughout the days somewhat
dreary proceedings the presence OF MolneuNs
wife and mother IN court during the morning
session Both sat with the defendant at the coun-
sells table and as MolncuN came into court M
was embraced and kissed by his wife and then
by his mother Mollueux's mother is kindly
faced woman with blue eyes and dark eyebrows.
while his wifes attractveness lies rather In beauty
Of figure than regularity of features. Both were
dressed in black ard talked uninierruptedly with
tho defendant
When MI Weeks resumed hts cross examination
NJ, the prosecuton's expert b. called the witnesses
attention first 20 the lettcred exhibits. tho Bar
net" and Cornish" letters" These he sa'f were
written rapidly and without abor"d EFFORT. oui
Exhibit A. the poison package, he said was writ
ten slowly and laboriously
..In arriving Al the decision that tho defendant
wrote Exhibit A. were you not compelled TO use
the Barnet and Cornish letters Mr Weeks
asked.
II was not compelled. but ga 80. could
throw out all these letters nnd prove from
defendant
wrote the address" was the experts reply. al
though later IN the day he ACKNOWLEDGED that he
had been unable 70 satisfy himself or to reach
a definite conclusion without first using these let
ters.
Then at great length Mr.. Weeks examined the
witness as 10 the rules he used IN determining
disputed hsndwritings and I'm what particulars
he applied them in the present case. Each eH-
hbit was taken Up IN turn. and considerable ""'e
was taken up with technical explanations as 10
how the witness able 10 connect the ue
fendant with the disputed writings
APPLICATIONS OF KINsLEYs RULES
Asked by Mr.. Weeks 10 compare Exhibit and
the admitted writing and show how his hrst RUE
the size OF letters applied in those cases the wit
ness said the writing In a was higher ana closer
spaced laterally That all that his rule DEM
onstrated 10 him. Proceeding 20 other eXhihlts
Mr. Weeks brought out the fact that Ia the
size Of characters there was noticeable dssiTni-
Iarity running through all the handwriungs Ap-
nlvng hts next rule the size of parts OF letters.
TO Exhibit A and the admitted writing the witness
called attention 10 the main stroke IN the letter
II in Harry
But Ia there anything abnormal about that7'
Mr Weeks asked.
NO; Il Is about normal size'
And what Is It in the conceded handwriting7"
About normal"
so that as parts OF the defendants letters are
normal and parts Of the letters in A are normal.
the defendant wrote the poison package-s that
it?"
NO But I do not place much reliance on this
rule"
"Weu then. take your next rule-the one regard
Ing slant.
"Exhlbi, a has n different slant to any Of the
requested or admitted handwriting, but comparing
the sants Of parts OF the letters you find the same
slant and the same peculiarly OF two different
sants ia one letter-ha is part Of the letter will
slant one way and another part will slant another
way"
Mr. Weeks apparently could not grasp the
pert's explanation. and he therefore asked him to
demonstrate on the blackboard his method OF de-
terminng the slant OF letters. Mr. Kinsley did
at some length and while hts rule may have been
proved little 10 the lay mind. The witness used
gcometrical instruments In determining the slant
Of letters Regarding the shape Of letters. the wit
ness said the writer Of the exhibits had two well
defined ways Of writing his as Sometimes they
were closed at the top and sometimes they were
open The witness also pointed 10 the similarity
in the pen habits Of the writer OF the admitted
and disputed exhibits In writing the letters N and
"r" characteristics he added. which caused
OF the reasons Tor concluding that the defendant
wrote Exhibit a.
The witness described various similarlties. which,
he asserted. he had found I'm other letters in the
two classes OF writing. Referring TO the much
talked of "pen breaks" Mr.. Weeks drew from
The witness the admission that people
paused 10 dot their '1s" they necessarily made
break.
Passing to the letter "f' as It appeared on the
poison package, the witness denied that he had
,nf,lfg pau gXCr 10 ad m cd ey-
hibits I'm order 10 nnd a similarly written 'f" but
he granted that he had been compelled TO put
aside several The question Of spacing was next
taken up. and replying to counsel. Mr. Kinsley
said he had measured the spacngs with his eye
only and could not specifically state the measure
ments because the matter was one TO which he
had not given much time.
THE MATTER OF SPACING
"Do you mean to say" exclaimed Mr.. Weeks.