Evening star., 1926-11-30
STATES OWN WITNESS ATTACKS
VERACITY OF MRS. JANE GIBSON

Shaving and which, the State contends,
bears the fingerprint of Willie Ste
vens.
Character Witness Called.
After Hartcorn left the stand the
State called it's first witness to TESTIFY
as to the reputation of Mrs. Gibson
for truth and veracity. DR.. Waiter
Madden of Trenton said he had known
Mrs. Gibson in Trenton in 1914. The
defense contended that as 1t was IL
years since he had known the woman
he could not qualify as a character
witness and was upheld by Judge
Parker.
DR.. J. H, Cooper, the next charac-
ter witness, caused a surprise by his
first answer as to the reputation OF
Mrs. Gibson, whom he said he had
known for six years.
What is her reputation for truth
and veracity, good or bad?" asked
Simpson.
"Not SO good" answered the wit
ness.
Simpson appeared to be astonished
by this answer.
DIR. Cooper said he had treated Mrs.
Gibson during the first investigation
of the double Staying.
"Have you acquainted yourself at
all with her during the last three
years?"
EYES," said the witness, explaining
he had been called by Mrs. Gibson to
her farmhouse. before this trial be-
gan, but not to give her medical at
tention.
II understand you won't vouch for
her reputation" asked Simpson.
There was an objection by defense
and the court upheld the objection.
to question the witness, and turned
to confer with his associates.
Cant you say whether her repu-
tation is good or bad, flat-footed?" he
asked.
well, I don't know whether you
are trying to hang me, but it looks
like that" said the witness.
After he had asked DR.. Cooper If
he hadn't heard what people had said
as to Mrs. Gibson's veracity, Simpson
asked again what her reputation was
among the people the witness knew.
From what people say to me, I'd
say it's about $780," answered the
witness.
The defense did not cross-examine.
The State then recalled Joseph
Faurot, one Of its fngerprint ex.
perts.
Faurot, under Simpsons question.
ing. testified that the enlargement Of
the disputed fingerprint, which de.
tense experts had used in their demon
stration to the jury. had lost in detail.
through enlargement, and that certain
ridge lines were missing entirely.
What is the result of that condition
on the correctness of the enlargement
at a flngerprint?"
1T Is not an accurate print"
What would you say with respect
to whether you could identify this en-.
largement as the print on the calling
card?"
''It would be rather difficult"
Cross Severe.
Faurot was cross-examined at length
regarding distortions which he said
he found in the enlargement. He said
these distortions were mainly at the
outside edges of the print
THE significant points which the
defense experts pointed out as grounds
for their testimony that this is not
the print of Willie Stevens are on the
inside ends of these lines, are they
not?" McCarter asked, indicating GER
tain lines.
YES" replied Faurot.
Have you pointed to any distor-
tion In the center Of this enlarge
ment?'
mo"
On redirect examination F'aurot
contradicted the defense fingerprint
expert who testified that enlarge
ments of Willie Stevens f1ngerprint
and that found on the calling card
showed discrepancies, proving they
were not the same mans finger.
Frederick Drewen, fingerprint ex.
pert of the Jersey City police, was
called next. He testified that there
was lack of detail on the enlargement
and also distortion
The witness said that he could not
identify fingerprint by using the
enlargement and added on cross-ex-