New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1900-01-10
EXPERT USES MICROSCOPE.
DR.. FRASER'S EXAMINATION OF MOLI-
NEUX EXHIBITS
YESTERDAYS SESSION OF THE TRIAL,
TAKEN UP WITH THE TESTIMONY
OF THE PHILADELPHIA HAND
WRITING EXPERT
WRITING EXPERT.

WRITING EXPERT.
II Is becoming clearer in each DAYS progress
OF the trial of Roland B. Molineux that the
prosecution will rely mainly upon the evidence
% ia"u"rluhS experts to support its case.
AGAIN yesterday the whole day was given I'D
TO this kind of testimony. although Assistant
District Attorney Osborne has promised that the
evidence for the State will be all in by the end
OF the present week. The question of motive
so important factor where the proof Is of the
clrcumstantial nature as is brought against
Mollneux has been almost entirely ignored by
MI Osborne, and in the witnesses he has vet
10 call there is not who can show ADEQUATE
mouVe why Molineux should have sought Cor
Ilshs lie. Again, apart from the handwriting
testimony there are, in the opinion of most peo-
pie who have been present in court from the be-
| ginning OF the trial. a great many important
! stitches missing in the imaginary coat which
Mr. Osborne, in his opening address. said he
would so put together that it could fit none
other than Molireux. Therefore in devoting
the last days Of his case to experts in the science
or chirography, as it has been termed in court
II IS easily apparent that the strength Of the
prosecution lies almost solely in establishing an
identity between Molineuxs admitted writing
and the hand which penned the address on the
wrapper of the poison package
Already surfeited with the theories deduc-
curves. angles. loops and stems. a long suffering
judge and jury were subjected again for a whole
day to this kind Of testimony From the open-
Ing Of the session until few minutes before ad-
Journment DR.. Persifor Fraser of Philadelphia
Who in addition to being handwriting expert
said he was also chemist and d geologist was
on the stand Like his professional colleagues
who have testified before him Dr. Fraser as
serted that the defendant undoubtedly wrote the
poison address, and he occupied a whole days
sitting in explaining why he thought so. 1t was
one of the dullest and dreariest days of the
trial so far and it was obvious that the Jury
did not follow DIR. Frasers evidence with the
same attention they gave to some of the ex-
perts who went on the stand in the earlier
stages of the case
NEW REASONS FOR HIS THEORY.
DR.. Fraser's evidence was interesting only IN
that he had some reasons to advance for
his opinions. He had submitted the disputed
and Molineux's writings he said, to microscopic
examination and had found that the general
structure of the two classes of exhibits was
alike, while the tremors. sv.eIIings and ragged
features which the microscope disclosed in these
exhibits he swore did not appear in the hand
writing Of either Barnet or Cornish" More
over. DR.. Fraser produced chart of the meas
urement in millimetres of the word "obIige."
which is so frequently repeated in the admitted
and disputed exhibits. The purpose OF tT1s s.rt.
was to show that the measurements of the word
a whole. and of the much commented on
break between the 81" and "g" were relatively
the same in all the writings. Dr. Fraser how
ever was able to demonstrate any similarity in
this respect only by taking the measurements
Of all the exhibits and striking an average For
instance, the individual breaks between the let
ters 'i' and e" in the Barnet" and Cornish
letters ranged all the way from / ) to milli-
metres, while in Moneux's admitted writing
the distance varied from $50 to $50 mne-
tres. 1t was this same system which Bertillon
used in the Dreyfus case The fallacies Of Ber-
tllon's reasonings were abundantly exposed in
the Rennes court martial, and Mr.. Weeks was
about to draw attention to the inefficiency as
was then proven. Of applying such a process to
the determination Of disputed writings but was
prevented from doing so by Recorder Golf. The
Court ruled that the Dreyfus trial was not a
case in law, and could not be cited for prece-
dents.
Soon after DR.. Fraser was called to the stand
he asked by Mr.. Osborne to state his rea-
sons for the opinion which he had already given
that Molineux wrote the poison address. The
witness read his opinions in the course OF which
he said:
In coming to my conclusion that Roland Moineux
wrote the poison address, have discarded alto
gether Exhibits Nos. 8 4, 6, and 10. These are
the papers written by Roland MOllneuN at request.
1 have examined them under the microscope, and
will if may, talk about them more fully later
twentyone characteristics in the poison address
which are also to be found in the conceded letters
of the defendant.
My second reason is that the patterns of the let
ters in Exhibit accord with the patterns In the
conceded letters.
My third reason has TWO subordinate reasons
The microscopic structure of the ink lines in the
GGnceqeq letters agrees With the nicroscopic struet-
FIRST, In the swellings and tremorS of the lines
2cter or the margins or leaving on of the Ink lines.
! have come to the conclusion that Barnet and
Cornish did not write Exhibit \ the Barnet and
acteristcs found in Exhibit or the Iettered
exhibits. because the patterns of their letters and
in Exhibit A and the disputed letters. and because
the microscopic structure of the ink lines of their
of the ink lines in the poison address and the
bogus Cornish and Barnet letters.
METHOD OF EXAMINATION.
DR.. Fraser stated subsequently that the micro
scopic examinations were more to be depended on
than any other process. In making this exami-
nation ne said he used a microscope magnifying
120 diameters, or Il 400 times, in area. In con-
nection with the examination he had used the
camera lucida and made drawings to represent
the magnified lines. In one of these magnihed
line for the address the poison package
showed not only decided tendency to lateral
deviation in The line characteristic of the ad-
mitted writings of MolineuX and the other
hibits but the left and right hand margins OF
the ink line were not equally provided with in
dentatons the right margin having a decided
preponderance of raggedneSS. DR.. Fraser de-
clared that It not so easy TO say, even with
such an examination, that a certain person pos
sessed such characteristic nerve tremor as that
other persons did not possess them. Cornish
and Barnet ne started to say, did not show
them in their writings, but upon protest from
NJ no mo-