Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1905-01-10
Was Morton Address
the Work Of Tucker?
Experts Labor to Connect His
Handwriting With Sample.
Employed by the State, They Testify
Against Accused.

chardeg with the murder of Miss Mabel
Page, that, in their opinions, the per-
son who filled out certain sales slips.
alleged by the prosecution to have been
made out by the prisoner, also wrote
the address of y. l.. Morton, Charles
town, Mass" which was on a piece of
paper found beside the body of the
murdered woman. The greater part
of the days proceedings seemed TO
weary everyone in the courtroom with
the possible exception of the attorneys
conducting the direct and cross-ex-
animation. The prisoner made no at
tempt to conceal the fact that he was
bored: the spectators yawned fire.
quently, and the jurymen shifted un-
easily in their seats.
The three handwriting experts who
testified We're Prof Marshall ID. EWeN
of Chicago. Charles French of this
city, and David n. Carvalho OF New
York. Prof. EWcll finished his testi-
mOny. this forenoon, after having oc-
cupied the stand during court sessions
since Friday afternoon.
Mr.. French went further in his de-
auctions than did Prof Ewell. describ
ing to the jury the state of mind of the
time it was written. This writing
shows" said the witness. that at the
time the author was labcring under
nervous pressure; he was evidently in
haste, and did net exactly know what
to write or how TO write it,
The examination of Mr.. French oc
cupied the greater part Of the day and
1t was not until nearly 3 O'Clock that
Mr.. CarvalhO took the stand. Witness
said that in making Investigations Of
certain standards he looked for eccen-
tricities. IF the Letter A is written cor
rectly in 90 different places" he said
cit does not follow that the 20 "a s We're
written by the same person. On the
other hand if there IS a peculiar. dis
tinguished feature on 4 combination of
peculiar features appearing in num-
Der of as. it is fair to assume that one
person wrote them"
Mr.. Carvalho in concluding his direct
testimony said that he was of tn"
opinion that the same person, who
wrote the standards also wrote the
Morton address. He said further that
he had examined the writing on a
postal card. which will be introduced
later. and that portion of this writ
ing was identical with the writing ON
the standards and on the disputed adj
dress This postal card. theNprosecution
alleges. was found in Il pocket of Tuck
ers Overcoat, on the night he was ar
rested.
Mr. Carvalho, m order to Illustrate
his testimony, had prepared series of
photographic reproductions of the
standards and the disputed writing.
This composite photograph was shown
to the jury after Attorney James II.
Valley of counsel FOR the prisoner, had
r,ade a spirited objection. The court,
however, overruled the objection
When court adjourned Mr.. Carvalho
was being cross-eXanined by Mr.
Valley. He said that the handwriting in
the disputed address was disguised but
did not believe that the disguise was
intentional. The two other experts tes
titled that the disputed handwriting
was in n disguised hand. and was of the
opinion that it was disguised intention
ally.
The ajority OF the spectators. today,
We're women.
When Tucker was brought in, a few
pcared much refreshed by his Sundays
rest. and his face had lost the wearied
look which it bore on Saturday.
Mr.. Ewell took the stand Immediate
" after the opening of court and was
cross-examined by Attorney James II.
Vancy for the defence. The cross-ex-
animation was extremely technical and
related mainly to the character Of the
individual letters in the writing on the
sales slips alleged to have been made
out by Tucker and previously introduce
ed. Those letters We're compared with
those in the u. L. Morton address on
the paper found near Miss Pages body.
Mr.. Valley referring to the claim thar
the piece Of paper on which the Morton
address was written. was torn from the
same pad as the paper on which was
found the note signed by Miss Page and
saying that she mad gone to Boston,
asked the witness whether it was true
that the manner IN which a piece of
paper was held and the position of the
writer would have 4 marked effect on
the handwriting. Mr. Ewell replied that
under such circumstances. with a small
piece Of PAPER, the inclination might be
different from ordinary conditions.
This concluded the cross-examination
and District Attorney Sanderson asked
few questions IN redirect eXamina-
ton. Mr.. Ewell said that in genuine
handwriting there is always a marked
difference in the way OF writing the
same letters or combinations of letters
at different times. but that there was
more difference between the Tucker
handwriting standards and the disput-
ed Morton address than between differ
ent specimens OF the standards.
Mr. Ewell then left the stand and
Charles French of Boston. another
handwriting expert was called. He de-
tailed his method of examining the
standards of fuckers writing and the
Morton address. saying that he first
studied the character Of the disputed
address and then that of the standards
thus reversing the method of Mr. Ewell
He said he had formed Il conclusion re-
Earding the authorship Of the note. The
standards We're real while he believed
that in the Morton address to be dis
Guised, because IN the latter case. the
writing is a mixture of the vertical