M. Bertillon.--“Yes, on May 16, 1896. He brought me a little
photograph of a few lines of handwriting, an extremely poor photograph,
with words traced in every direction, and asked me my opinion of
the writing; Before even looking at the paper, I suspected that it
concerned the Dreyfus matter, for, if it had been a matter of expert
testimony in some new case, Colonel Picquart would have had to act
through my superior, the prefect of police. Laying the paper on the
table, I said to him: ‘Is this the Dreyfus case again?’ He answered: ‘I
should like to know your opinion.’ I looked at the writing, and, after
a single glance, said to him: ‘That singularly resembles the writing
of the _bordereau_ or the writing of Mathieu Dreyfus. It relates to
that case.’ Then he said: ‘No, it does not relate to that case. Study
it, and talk with me about it afterwards. Be good enough to come to
the war office tomorrow to bring me the original.’ I did what Colonel
Picquart asked. I had the document photographed, and then I paid no
further attention to it. I had a handwriting that resembled that of
the _bordereau_. Now, I have absolute proof that the _bordereau_ must
have been written by the condemned man. Of what consequence is it to me
that there are other hand writings like it. Though there were a hundred
officers in the war department who had this handwriting, it would be
all one to me, for to me it is a settled matter.”
M. Labori.--“M. Bertillon will do a service to everybody, and
especially to the defence, by explaining as far as possible his methods
of investigation.”
M. Bertillon.--“I am absolutely determined to say nothing until the
documents are produced.”
M. Clemenceau.--“Perhaps there is a way of arranging this. The witness
said just now, speaking of two or three documents, that they were
letters from Mathieu Dreyfus. Is it necessary to have the same letters?
Could not M. Bertillon explain his theory with other letters from
Mathieu Dreyfus?”