New Britain herald., 1926-11-23
NAVY EXPERT IS GIVING TESTIMONY
(Continued from First Page)

the crime, and which the prosecu- ton contends is that of Willie Ste vens' left index finger, was called as the first witness. He told of making photographs of the fingerprint on the small card and of making sub- sequent enlargements. l Drummond said he photographed the card in the Somerset county jail during the present trial in the pres ence of Edward Schwartz. Frederick /, Drewen and Joseph A. Faurot, fin- gerprint experts who testified for the state.
 Great map-like enlargements of the fingerprints. with the ridges and arches looking like mountain ranges, hills and valleys, were introduced in evidence and kept the jurors craning their necks.
 The jurymen showed great inter- est in the exhibits.
 l -:ot Willie's Marks J. H. Taylor, fingerprint expert of the United States Navy Department, testified that the fingerprint on the | NtilllllE ttii loulib ht tiiS oSN'iS ci the crime was not that of Willie Stevens.
 The witness, who said yesterday that he had been given permission by the secretary cf the navy to ap- pear as a defense witness in the present trial. testified definitely that the two prints introduced by the state were not those of the same person.
 It was largel. on this finger print evidence that the state had sought to place Willie Stevens at the scene of the crime. Three finger-print ex- perts for the state had testified that the imprint on the calling card was that of Willie Stevens.
 Arrangements of the states own | finger print figures were used by Taylor during his testimony. One of the enlargements was of known photograph of Willie Stevens left l index finger. while the other en- largement was of a photograph of the flngerprint on the calling card found at the scene of the crime. Are Not the same
 Are these the fingerprints of the same person?" asked Robert H. Nc Carter of defense counsel, in direct examination of Taylor.
 They are not" answered the wit ness
 A large easel had been set up in front of the jurors and the enormous ly enlarged photographs of finger prints were placed on it. The one known to be the defendants finger print was in bold outline with the ridges showing dark and heavy. while the other one was less pro- nounced in its contour. The state. in presenting this phase of its evil dence, had contended that the diff ference was because one was made coming from the scene of the crime, was made casually.
 There Is no doubt" salid Taylor these two fingerprints were not made by the same person."
 Jury Interested
 While he was standing by the two large charts, pointer in hand, showing the differences which he found in the two prints, many of the jurors stood so as to follow him more carefully.
 There are seven or eight distinct differences between the two prints" Taylor continued when he had laid aside his pointer and returned to the witness stand.
 The testimony seemed to have no affect on Willie Stevens.
 Taylor said that the print develop i ed from the calling card showed abrupt ending of ridges in two places. while on the print taken from Willie's finger corresponding ridges did not come to an abrupt end.
 Cites Other Differences
 In two other places the calling | card print showed bifurcation and a dot, respectively. while the off cial print had no such markings at corresponding places.
 At another part. the official print showed Dvo lines between corres- bonding points while that taken from Willie's finger showed four.
 McCarter sthen asked one of the longest questions of the trial It gave the history of the calling card from the time it is supposed to have been dropped at the scene of the killings up until Wednesday of the next week. and asked if the ex- posture, handling and delay in de- veloping the print would not have ] made it almost impossible for any print left on the card to have sur vived.
 Taylor said that the greater part of the precipitation which made the print. would have been oblterated or absorbed, in his opinion, by such usage and delay in development.
 Colors Different Taylor also testified that the smudge of the flngerprint taken from the calling card had a bluish 1 tinge while other smudges on the card itself was brownish in tint.
 The witness had made drawings showing the outstanding character istics of the fingerprint known to be Willie Stevens and the one found at tho scene of the staying, but the court refused to admit them as evil dence on objection of Alexander Simpson. special prosecutor. Simpsons Questions
 I'd like to ascertain his Cray lor's) qualifications, as an artist" Simpson had said, and proceeded to question the witness as to whether he was landscape painter or an artist of any typ. The witness said he was not and the court ruled his drawings could not be admitted.
 McCarter had maintained that the drawings showed the Characte eristics