Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1912-01-24
KINSLEY Is
WITNESS IN
READY TRIAL
Testifes That He Thinks Sig
natures to Will Are
Forgery.

EXPERT handwriting testimony py
william j. Kinsley, of Nutley, was re-
sumed this morning in the continual
ton of the retrial of Matthew j. Ready,
the N wark lawyer who was convicted
four years ago of forging what pur-
ported to be the will of John " Rus
sell, a wealthy East Orange q
In the curse of the trial yesterday
afternoon the State produced a num-
Der of witnesses, tenants and business
| associates of the d%ecedant, who identi-
fed a mass of letters and documents
/ bearing the signature of Mr.. Russell,
of the validity of which there could
be no question, in order that they
might be used by the handwriting ex.
! pert as standards of comparison.
Just before the court adjourned yes
terday. Prosecutor Mott succeeded in
having admitted into the evidence
twelve duplicate copies OF a detailed
Photographic study of the alleged
forged signatures compared with the
other signatures known to be genuine.
The volumes were prepared by Mr..
kinsley and upon them the State will
DIdCllCdlIy DdSG It's CdSC a5oliSh NhR
accused.
one of the very last questions put TO
Mr.. kinsley before the adjournment
yesterday was Using those standards
as a basis for comparison what is your
Judgment as to the g~enuineness of the
signature to the paper purporting to be
the will of John W. RUSSELL"
The answer given by the witness was
I'm my opinion, The signature is not
that of John W. Russell"
After Gael member of the jury had
been handed a volume of the signature
photographs, Mr.. Kinsley went to 4
board on the wall neal the jury box
and gave q detailed explanation of his
reasons for saying that the defendant
had forged the signature in question.
He explained how slight differences
in design. shading, speed and methods
of holding the pen convinced him that
the defendant had traced the signature
from the Dear Mary letters. CThese
are Two authentic letters written by
Mr.. Russell to his housekeeper, which
are alleged 10 have beer used by the
defendant in tracing the signature to
the Wild. Many writer's make u for
II, anu 0OiAI w iAhodCll Vac NV OIL
exception said Mr.. Kinsley. cit is In
this point that the alleged forgery is
most apparent.
Mr.. Dennis then went to the board
alongside the Jury box and gave in de-
tail illustrations of the points of dis
crepancy between the proven valid and
alleged forged signatures.
ut is impossible" he said, for any
hand to trace slowly-and slowness is
q necessary element in tracing-the
exact freedom with which a genuine
signature is almost Invariably writ
ten, and there is evidence of such hes
itancy in the lines of the alleged
forged signature
Asked what he believed the sigma
ture to be tracings of the witness an
swered. Il believe that it is a com
posite tracing from the Dear Mary
letters
David \. Carvalho. of New York.
who figured in the Molineaux murder
trial, was placed Oh the stand as the
third expert hand writing witness.
Asked Ills opinion regarding the valid
ity of the will signature as q result
of the study to which he had subjected
it and the standards he replied. I'm
q~uestionably q forgery