Evening star., 1935-02-09

tance apart by comparison and OBJ
! Servation.
Koehler said he had not taken
hree-dimenSion" measurements of
| the marks on wood, in response to
Pope'S technical questions. He said
/ he had compared distances between.
Q. The distance between nick
marks would vary with the angle the
/ tool was held?
A. Yes.
Q. You have never testified before
to this sort of thing (tool marks?
A. No, sir.
Pope, raising his voice for the first
time. demanded that the witness
admit his identification of the Haupt-
mann and ladder plane marks was
worthless because he has not meas
ured the dimensions of the microsco-
pic plane ridges.
| Il don't have to measure two houses
to get the distance between them"
Koehler replied dryly.
Expert Declares
Plane Marks Correspond.
Pope called out again to the expert
! to declare his testimony on the plane
marks was mere opinion.
mo, I'm stating a fact" Koehler
replied positively. Those plane marks
correspond"
Pope sought to break down Koehl-
er's identification of the two short
boards used as a defense exhibit, as
coming from the same piece.
Koehler, taking his caliphers from
| his pocket, measured the thickness
of the two boards. A defense witness
testified the boards were of different
origin because of variation of thick
ness.
Koehler announced his measure
ments.
This board is Scant 1882 of an
inch on the thick side and a scant
21-32 in the thin side. This board
(the other) is scant 1882 on the
thick side and scant 22-32 on the
thin side"
Pope produced his own caliphers
and asked for a remeasurement.
Koehler agreed that there was
variation in thickness, when using
Pope's caliphers, which, the defense
attorney pointed out, locked
Pope set the caliphers for the board
alleged to be thicker and showed they
we're loose on the other.
The jury made an examination of
the boards with the tool.
Mrs. Rosie Pill, juror No 2, sup
pressed chuckle. as the foreman.
Charles S. Walton, ST., moved the
calphers along both boards, apparent
ly noting very little variation in
thickness.
Koehler identified a nail hole in
one of the short boards as odd" over
Wilentz's objection. Wilentz implied,
in his argument, that the hole might
have been made last night. He said
| the boards had not been left with
other exhibits over night.
Pope asked the expert to point out
plane marks on the rough side of one
of the boards, as he had testified.
Koehler indicated the smoothness Of
| the wood.
@. But do you see any plane marks?
A. don't think I can in this light.
Koehler testified the saw marks at
the ends of the boards did not appear
the same.
O. Is it your idea, then, that for the
purpose of deceiving us the witness
cut them apart and cut short piece
off?
A. That seems to be what occurred.
@. And by the grain you say these
were once the same piece?
A. Not that alone.
O. believe you said you examined
the ladder for nail holes in 1888?
A. Yes, In March.
Expert Asked to
Explain Staggering Of Nails.
@. Then how do you account for
the staggering of nails in rail 16?
A. The joist underneath 1t in the
attic was spliced.
Pope took two pieces Of pine and
gave it to the witness and asked II
the end grains matched.
A. They do not.
@. All, but they match much better
than the end grains on the ladder and
attic board you try to match.
Koehler smiled at him before re-
plying.
A. They do not.
@. The ends of the ladder rail and
the floor board do not match at all,
do they?
A. Yes, they do.
Again Koehler smiled.
Pope indicated Koehler's chart