Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1916-06-01
ATTORNEYS DENY ANY
KNOWLEDGE OF FABRl-
CATION OF a LETTERS

S1ao-~~c~c-~-~ ~-~~~~-~~->~~-~~.~-~->
As was To have heen expected, Mr..
Osborn's evidence flatly contradicted
that of Or. Ewell and one or two re-
marks by MIR. Osborn, uttered with
thinly yelled contempt, to the effect
that the matters testified to by him
were observable by anybody with or
dinarily good eve sight, showed quite
plainly the slight esteem in which he
holds the opinion Of his fellow expert.
Mi Ewell win be given a chance to
come back az Mr.. Osborn tomorrow
morning.
A fair summary OF the expert evil
dence introduced on both sides is
about as follows.
one expert has testified that the six
documents submitted To him were
written on the same typewriter, bas-
ing his opinion on certain similarlties
running through all the documents.
He admits that there are certain diff
ferences, but asserts that those diff
ferences are accidental and entirely
consistent with his theory.
The other expert has testified that
The documents were written on differ
ent typewriters. basing his opinion on
certain differences between them. He
admits that there are certain SINH
larities but claims that those similari-
ties are accidental. ana do not con-
flict at all with the opihien which he
has expressed.
blackboard Demonstration
Mr.. Osborn was quite positive in
his opinion that, as ii was sought to
show by non-eXpert witnesses yester-
day, the two standard" documents
written in the office of Marion &
Wood were the work of different ma
chimes, and he was equally positive
that the four disputed documents
were written on still a third machine.
He was of the opinion that the same
typewriter was used in writing all
four Of the disputed letters.
For a good part of the time this
morning Mr.. Osborn stood before a
sort Of easel of coarse paper. mounted
on a blackboard in the court room,
and drew characters to explain his
testimony as to the difference between
the types appearing in the different
documents
His manner was much that of a
lecturer in class room, and he went
to considerable pains to show in de-
tail the various discrepancies to which
his testimony related. He did not dis
cuss the anatomy of typewriters,
but had a good deal TO say about their
habits"
According to Mr.. Osborn differ
cnces are more important in estab-
fishing the identity or lack of Identity
of machines in typewriting than are
similarites He compared the mat
ter to the identification of two men,
whom, he said, might have any num-
her of similarities, but could easily
be distinguished from the fact one
was white and the other black.
Confronted With Rock
A rather warm colloquy took
place between the witness and Attor-
ney Francis c. Wilson. on cross-ex-
animation when Mr.. Wilson asked Mr.
Osborn as to the frequency with which
The same defects might be expected to
appear in typewriters Mr.. Osborn
stated that there was no way to an
swer the question. whereupon Mr..
Wilson read from Mr.. Osborn's pub
lished work on disputed documents,
in the effort to show that he had un-
dertaken in his book to lay down JUS
such rule. The discussion Of the
matter took somewhat humorous
AUi ~ AZ liiilFF, HNl WI ''SbViH ithlh
not be induced to hazard an opinion
on the question propounded to him.
He admitted, however. that the pres
cncc Of the same defect IN the latter
in all three of the sets Of documents
which he testified were written on
different machines, was very remArk-
able.
At several other points in the course
of his Cross examination MI Os-
born was confronted by his book for
the purpose of refuting his own evil
Gence. and on one occasion he adj
mitted with a smile that he would
have to revise a certain statement in
the book in the second edition.
AT the conclusion Of Mr.. Osborn'sI
evidence transcript of the evidence
of George j. Gibson. Of salt Lake City
in the trial of the Garcia case and
dispositions Of ]. walter Thompson
of the same city tending to show how
the letters alleged 20 have been fab
ricated reached the office of Marion
q Wood, were placed in evidence, asI
were the depositions of three Justices
of the supreme court of Utah, testi-
flying to the good character of the
Salt Lake attorneys. District Attor-
ney Manuel L. Vigil of Albuquerque,
was placed on the stand for the pur.
nose of idpptffvino n uo,,oc ,tca1 In