M. Bertillon.—“Yes, if you will give me the documents to which I have referred.”
M. Labori.—“Did you mention these documents in your written expert testimony?”
M. Bertillon.—“I furnished no written expert testimony.”
The Judge.—“First of all, M. Bertillon, will you tell us what this plan is?”
M. Bertillon.—“The significance of this plan in this case is sufficiently great, in that it is a material proof that the experts in the first trial were of the same opinion as those of the second. But I am absolutely determined to say nothing, unless the documents are produced,—as well those that were taken from the blotting-pad as those that were seized in the war department. I am perfectly willing to make my demonstration public, but I ask that the court put me in a position to do so by furnishing the documents. Then I will make the demonstration. But I warn you that it will be rather long. Perhaps it would take two sessions.”
M. Labori.—“What are these documents?”
M. Bertillon.—“Oh! I do not know their titles. There was a note of this, a note of that, etc.”
The Judge.—“Can you not sum up what you said in your report?”
M. Bertillon.—“I made no written report. The documents seized at the war department are various notes concerning the service, writings on various questions. The documents taken from the blotting-pad are letters from M. Mathieu Dreyfus, one concerning hunting rifles, and the other concerning an issue of bonds. But their substance is immaterial. Yet these documents must be seen in order to be discussed and analyzed. I cannot go farther.”
M. Labori.—“Did you not once receive a visit from M. Picquart?”