Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-12-26
RECORDER GREW IMPATIENT
Tiresome Expert Testimony in the Moi-
neux Case.
Pointing Out Resemblance In Writ.
ing of the Accused and That
on Poison Package.


J. Adams, nearly one year ago, Henry l..
Tolman, the handwriting expert from Chi
qago, who was on the stand at the close of
last Fridays session resumed the witness
chair
Taking up at once the thread Of the ex-
animation by Assistant District Attorney
Osborne where it was dropped on Friday,
Mr.. Tolman began to speak about the gen.
eIal characteristics of the admitted writing
of the defendant and the disputed writing
in evidence. He first chose the forged Bar
net letter, asking for specialist treatment,
doing so, he said, for the reason that, 1t
seemed to him, to constitute a more natural
handwriting than some of the others. In
disguised writing. he said, the tendency was
to exagserate the characteristic of the
writing he was attempting to initiate. No
one could always eliminate from his writ
ing his own personal pen characteristics.
1t is an infallible rule that any writer, in
either simulated or dissimuiated writings.
will somewhere in the writings forget him
self, fail to keep the disguise or stimulation
successfully and will allow his own pen
habits to creep in.
Then the witness went to the paper-cov-
cred blackboard to pictorially demonstrate
the loops of the initial letters "F"' and H
in several of the admitted and disputed
writings He pointed out almost the in
variable resemblance in the formation Of
the initial stroke of these two letters. 1t
contained what he termed ''blind leap"
This he said, was of great Importance, in
his opinion, because 1t was to be found in
all the defendants admitted writings and
this became one of the most pronounced of
the characteristics in the handwriting in
evidence. 1t was even found he said,
where the writer had attempted to bury the
identity of his writing in the pen habits of
another. The same characteristic was to
be found with almost the same regularity
in the formation of the letters 'I' and ct"
There were only one or two of the writings
in evidence that did not contain what he
termed "glaring and important evidences
of this characteristic.
Recorder Cor Impatient.
Recorder Golf seemed to grow impatient
at the long-drawn description of the char
acteristics of the writing. He said:
District attorney, 1 don't see that it is
at all necessary for the witness to go
through all of these exhibits
NO, sir said Mr.. Osborne eve will
get down to the important exhibits"
Mr.. Osborne then called the witness at
tention to the fact that his original state
ment was that the defendants handwriting
was disguised by being written vertic lilly
and almost backward, and asked him 20
conflne his attention to the proposition in
exhibit TX, the request for certain
pamphlet, signed Barnet" and exhibit 2
one of the admitted writings
Mr.. Tolman said in the word please"
there was marked varying in the angle
between the "a and g. he spoke of the
breaks between letters when the following
was of an oval nature. The only disguise
about the writing in exhibit III" lay in the
1act that II was written backward. In the
words ours very truly" occurring
throughout all the writings, there was a
marked and dominant resemblance
The witness then went into the question
Of pictorial effect. He told of the same
lorna ton of letters in the Barnet and
Cornish letters and in several of the stanJ-
ard writings.
He passed rapidly through exhibits CT
disputed writing, 'B'' and c. signed Bar
net, and D., signed Cornish and spoke
of the resembling features. Exhibit &C.
signed Cornish he continued, contained
the same characteristics and was plainly
the writing of the same person. He needed
no detailed comparisons with the standard
writings, he said
Mr.. Tolnan began a comparison between
the general pictorial effect of the poison
package address and exhibit 81, Melneux
ietter OF resignation from the Knicker-
booker Athletic Club. 1t contains one or
TWO OF the same words that are found on
the poison package address. The pictorial
effect between the initial letters *, AZ
ana M was compared.
The witness then said he considered that
ne mad thoroughly covered the ground and
IN answer to a question by Mr. Osborne. he
salu that the disguise attempted by the
pr actically to no disguise at ALL
My conclusion" said the witness finally.
IS mat the same hand wrote all of the
papers-the address on the poison package.
the bogus Cornish and Barnet letters and
the admitted handwriting of the defend
ant"
rs your opinion decided?"
Gear and decided. The defendant wrote
all the papers under dispute"
Witness told Mr.. Osborne that when he
came here first from Chicago he had no
lntfmation of what was wanted of him in
the way of an opinion.
Cross-Examincd by MIR. Weeks.
Mr.. Osborne then announced that his
direct examination was concluded and the
witness passed into the hands OF Mr..
weeks for cross-exan1ination. Mr. ToIran
said he was given the exhibits for exami-
nation the day he arrived here, and that he
spent nearly five hours studying them that
night. He had then formed what he termed
an opinion. This opinion he had delivered
the next day at the coroners inquest. He
had had about twenty pieces Of writing.
consisting of the address on the poison
package the disputed Barnet and Cornish
letters, and what he has since learned
were standard writings of the defendant.
He was not told at that time he said
what Were the standards, even though they
were signed Roland Molineux"
In answer to Mr.. Weeks the witness said
tldl he was pald Tor mis- services in this
case at his usual rate of $50 a day and
travelling and hotel expenses. Witness re-
cited one case In which he had testified to
certain facts. He later got more full and
sufficient documents and learned that he
had been wrong in his opinion. He had
acknowledged his error and returned his
fee.
DO you remember identifying the sigma
ture of the city clerk of Madison, Wis.,
asked Mr.. Weeks.
Il did not. I refused to identify it or to
pass on it,
Mr.. Weeks asked the witness IL he re-
membered testifying in a case in Hartford,
Conn.,. and Mr.. Tolman replied, testify:
II never have been in Hartford in my life"
The witness told Mr.. Weeks he was also
engaged in many lines as an expert in
ibers. cloth, paper and similar commodities
He was then asked If he had ever intro
duced before this case the theory of EN-
ergy impulse" and replied that it was not
new theory. He had never before had
occasion to call such prominent attention
to the matter of energy impulse as in this
case.
Apparent Contradiction.
Mr.. Weeks referred to the statement
made by the witness, that he found In the
writings of the defendant indications of