M. Bertillon.—“Perhaps I did wrong to say so.”
M. Labori.—“No, you did not. Did the witness base his expert testimony on the original, or on photographs, or on tracings, or on all three?”
M. Bertillon.—“Now we are going straight into the Dreyfus case. It is evident that I am burning to speak of these questions, concerning which so many errors have been attributed to me.”
M. Labori.—“I beg the court to ask M. Bertillon if the writing of the bordereau is natural or disguised.”
The Judge.—“Can you answer that?”
M. Bertillon.—“Absolutely no, not without entering into my deposition of 1894.”
M. Labori.—“Monsieur le Président, in the Dreyfus case three experts say that it is in a running hand; three say that it is disguised; three that it was written by Dreyfus, and three that it was written by Esterhazy. If I show this, I do not say that we shall have made progress toward the manifestation of the truth, but we shall have thrown some light on the value of expert testimony, and that is what I am trying to get at. Consequently I ask the witness, in a general way: Is the Esterhazy bordereau in a natural handwriting or in a disguised handwriting?”
The witness made no answer.
M. Clemenceau.—“Has not the witness demonstrated his system to friends?”
M. Bertillon.—“I have been the object of a thousand attempts, of a thousand plots, but” ...