New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-08-29
THE TESTIMONY.


THE TESTIMONY.
Rennes Aug 2S-M Paray-Javal the
draurhtsnan called by the defence on SATURDAY
10 rerute the testimony Of NJ. BertiUon resume"
HIS statement at the opening Of the court INNS
morning and. with the assistance OF p'a'h-
board. proceeded to show the faHacy OF the car
citations Of NJ Bertillon and the latters UNFAIR
ness in not submitting the Handwriting Oh rs
terhazy TO the same tests as the prisoner . nv
declared however. that even II NJ berNIO" ia"
done So the results would not nave proNcu ""'
thing The witness. however insisted that NJ
Bertillon had adopted vicious me'ho" j" '''''
making partial experiment.
NJ. Paray-Javai proceeded to show that me
yeometric Irregularities alleged by NJ. BerthIoh
ga NOT in reality exist. He pointed out num-
her Of irregularities in the Handwriting or the
hordereau and said the same irregularities were
particularly noticeable in Esterhazys Gang
raphv. He also contcnded that the alleged reg
MARTY Of the keyword interest was only APP
proximate. and proceeded 10 illustrate his ar6u-
rnents on the blackboard showing that all NJ
Rertillon's proofs applied as equally 10 Ester
hazv as 10 Dreyfus. Finally N. Paray-JaNa'
declared that NJ. Rortillon's measurement Of the
word interest" which served as the basis ior
the whole system. was entirely false. and there
ground and no longer exists
This witness who had awakened the interest
~ his hearers maintained that the bordereau
could not have been traced. that IL was an utter
iuopossibility He then proceeded 10 illustrate
why this was the case and to demonstrate inc
falseness Of NJ Bertillons deductions. He SAID
amid laughter that he thought Nj Beruiion was
a very intelligent man, but that his system was
false. and he the witness, was convinced tha'
only self-esteeIn prevented NJ. Berrllon from au-
hitting his error
MEASUREMENT THEORY DEMOLISHED.
NJ. Bernard an inspector Of mines. who took
high honors at the Polytechnic School, who fol-
lowed NJ Paray-Java. at the witness bar sala
that ne appeared 10 refute portion 81 NJ. ser
tlllon's testimony. which was based on false cal
culations As a matter Of fact. he said II was
on such a basis that the whole system rested
The witness said he was greatly surprised that
NJ Bertnlon thought fit TO have recourse TO
psvcbological arguments 10 prove % that the
bordereau was fabricated. C2) that the methods
which might have been employed In writing GER
tain words were such as 10 constitute proof
against Dreyfus
He was astonished that NJ. Bertllon had ur-
dertaken 10 account FOR the shape Of letters and
the space between words. There was not 10
millimetres. as alleged by ". Bertillon, but lo'.
Moreover. the writing Of the bordereau was nat
ural and rhythmic, while its character and size
showed that It was not written by either a
short sighted OF long sighted person. The wit
ness then proceeded 20 illustrate. photographic
allv his contention that the bOrdoreau was not
a fabricated document. and also pointed out I'M
portant differences between NJ. I3ertiHons pho
tographs and the original
While pointing out a fault in the application
.bo e,-e.orn T,ornor1 aroused rnprrimpnt
hv remarking that NJ Bertillon's system could.
nevertheless. be useful. seeing that it enabled
the witness TO show that the hordereau was
natural and not fabricated document.
In conclusion, Vi. Bernard exhibited 70 the
Judges a plate representing a page Of current
handwriting and said: IF examined Ivy NJ Der
tglon's system IL will show certain pecuharities
which would not he found upon the examination
Of fifty million other documents. VI. Bertillon
would. therefore say that the document was
fabricated But he would be wrong, for Dor
rowed the page from a report written by NJ Der
uOn himself
~ Bertnon demanded permission 10 reply to
the witness and Colonel Jouaust replied Il
cannot grant your request and viii not grant
such permission TO any ~ the fourteen experts,
except in the case of a personal explanation"
NJ Bcrtilon-I wish 10 speak Of the manner
in which reconstructed the bordereau
Colonel Jouaust-Why you are discussing the
case. cannot allow YOU 10 speak except IN re-
gard 20 a personal fact
The presidents statement aroused loud laugh
ter. amid which NJ. Bertnon. disconnected, re-
sumed his seat.
AN ANTI DREYFUs EXPERT
NJ Teyssonieres followed He said that he
adhered in all respects to his report dated Oc-
tober %. 1894 I'm which he expressed the opinion
that the bordereau was the work Of the writer
OF the documents seized at the prisoners resi-
dence. For the purposes Of comparison, the wit
ness criticised the hordereau letter by letter
pointing out rcsemblances 10 the prisoners
handwriting. In conclusion. " Teyssonieres
said that he though, II was Impossible 10 fine
more tangible reasons than those which in
duced in him the belief which he hoped the
Court would share
Replying TO the Court. " Toyssonleres said
ne had not noticed that the prisoners handwrit-
ing was nogihle. and Dc had never seen the
document dictated To Drcyfus The copy Of the
|, bordereau made by Dreyfus was then handed
10 the witness who declared that IL had never
been given 20 him for purposes II comparison.
lie would require three days 20 give an opinion
upon It. lie could not conclude his examination
on the spot he must have time
Here a member Of the court martial. giving
the result Of his examination Of the bordereau
remarked. The letter T. is always isolated.
even al the beginning Of words"
To this NJ. Teyssonieres replied that this pc
culiarity was also found in the prisoners hand
writing.
When he invited To- reply 70 the witness
Dreyfus said that N. Teyssonieress remarks
seemed 10 him quite incorrect and that in or
der 20 reply properly he Ghe prisoner must