|
Post by Michael on Jan 1, 2019 9:05:11 GMT -5
As we all know Anna Hauptmann filed a wrongful death suit that began in the early 1980s and spanned almost 10 years. Her lawyer, Robert Bryan, was involved with the Lindbergh Kidnapping since the mid to late 1970s. I don't care how this matter was (or is) perceived, the truth of it is that Bryan spent an enormous amount of time and money on this case. Staggeringly enormous. So when I see someone say they sent him a letter with some stamps asking for a copy of the report from the QDE he retained to make an examination of the handwriting evidence I am completely mystified. Sure give it a shot but who in their right mind thinks it would actually happen?
Judge Lacey ordered that Bryan's expert be granted total access to ALL of handwriting evidence the NJSP had. Up until that point he was the only Expert outside of the NJSP to have this complete access.
Can any "Expert" since say that they examined ALL of the handwriting evidence available at the NJSP Archives? I know of only one and he was working for the NJSP at the time. Next, according to various/random sources certain original writings the expert examined originated from Bryan which were utilized - then were returned to him after examination.
So what do we know? The Expert had access to the "request writings." If what Fisher wrote in Ghosts was true, and I have no doubt it was, then it was the EXPERT himself who made the decision about what to use and what not to. I would expect that he examined them first before making the decision not to use them but I wasn't there. Regardless, I do know he had complete access to them. But this idea that he was "duped" or some other wild excuses (e.g. "maligned standards") that are being made on Ronelle's board is outrageous.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2019 11:19:45 GMT -5
Judge Lacey ordered that Bryan's expert be granted total access to ALL of handwriting evidence the NJSP had. Up until that point he was the only Expert outside of the NJSP to have this complete access. Can any "Expert" since say that they examined ALL of the handwriting evidence available at the NJSP Archives? I know of only one and he was working for the NJSP at the time. Next, according to various/random sources certain original writings the expert examined originated from Bryan which were utilized - then were returned to him after examination. I am not 100% that Hauptmann wrote the ransom notes. The first printing of Kennedy's book "The Airman and the Carpenter" came out in 1985. I have a copy of this book. In Appendix III of this book, Kennedy shares the results of Gunter P. Haas, a leading British handwriting expert. Kennedy writes that this expert also examined the state's handwriting exhibits; the ransom notes, Hauptmann's request writings, and Hauptmann's acknowledged writings. From these Haas pointed out that the differences between the ransom note writings and Hauptmann's writings were "very prominent, and I submit far outweigh occasional similarities to which the reader's attention has been drawn."
Kennedy was also able to include in Appendix III, page 418, with the permission of Robert Bryan and Gus Lesnevich, the conclusion of Lesnevich's examination which he said included the use of "known writings not used by police, along with the additional known writings". From everything Lesnevich examined, he drew the conclusion that "Mr. Richard Hauptmann did not write the questioned ransom notes."Both of these men are qualified experts in the field of handwriting identification. I know, Michael, that you have pointed out certain known writings done by Hauptmann were cautioned against being used in the trial by at least one of the experts who would testify at the trial, because those writings showed differences between Hauptmann's handwriting and the ransom notes. This need to hide something that could be exculpatory evidence for the defendant happens with the handwriting portion of this case, also. Isn't it always better for a QDE to have as many known handwriting samples to use in comparison with the evidence handwriting that they are being called upon to give an opinion on? Not very many of Hauptmann's known writings were used in this case to make that comparison against. Don't the differences in handwriting count for something, especially if they outweigh the similarities? It is this selective use of the evidence that really bothers me. It happens here as well as other places during this trial.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 1, 2019 11:59:57 GMT -5
Isn't it always better for a QDE to have as many known handwriting samples to use in comparison with the evidence handwriting that they are being called upon to give an opinion on? Not very many of Hauptmann's known writings were used in this case to make that comparison against. Don't the differences in handwriting count for something, especially if they outweigh the similarities? It is this selective use of the evidence that really bothers me. It happens here as well as other places during this trial. I don't know much about Haas. I might have something on him but I'd have to look. But YES - I would expect the more examples the better. But there always seems to be a slide-rule in use when it comes to this case concerning what is proper and what is not. Ever notice? As I've always said I am skeptical of handwriting analysis. I know there is something to it but I also know it isn't a real science. As I've also always said if you have a questioned document there always seems to be an Expert on both sides in court. How is that even possible? They qualify as experts so how do they see things so differently at times? If they agree they're both "good" but disagree then there's all kinds of wild speculation concerning "how" one got something so "wrong." Here concerning this point about Bryan's expert is the need which arises for one "expert" to assume he knows "more" than the one who didn't conclude what he did. So while he's smart enough not to be tricked, duped, or gullible enough to accept maligned standards the "other" expert is/was not. See how that works? And this "ability" to ward off "trickery" seems to have come from the fact he does not know much about what really happened concerning the other guy's examination. It's completely absurd. That is of course unless he belongs to the "Secret Order of the Handwriting Mage" which consists of the "super" handwriting experts who know more than the "regular" experts. Sound ridiculous? Yes - because it is. All of it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 2, 2019 9:07:41 GMT -5
As far as Bryan's experts I think there's others to consider as well. Cole, and Wilson are names I've come across. There's also a couple more but I'm not sure whether or not they were attached to his efforts or merely acting on their own: Degen, Schaffenberger, and Holt. There's some more names that escape me at the moment but I suppose my point is that going by what's in Kennedy or Fisher isn't all there is. I know I keep saying we cannot evaluate what we do not have and that goes for what's a step behind that - what we do not even know. It started for me by first collecting all of the names that I could determine were or might be involved (during this time).
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 2, 2019 18:11:46 GMT -5
Sorry not having kept up with Ronelle's board can someone give a Cliff's Notes version of this whole thing? Trying to wrap my head around it.
It's a shame her appeal wasn't ten years later, they could have petitioned the state to test the envelope flaps, some fo which are still sealed by the person who licked them shut. I'd imagine if Manfred cared to, he could have an attorney do the same. It happens with some frequency in cases where there a potential for post-death exoneration.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 3, 2019 9:28:17 GMT -5
Sorry not having kept up with Ronelle's board can someone give a Cliff's Notes version of this whole thing? Trying to wrap my head around it. It's a shame her appeal wasn't ten years later, they could have petitioned the state to test the envelope flaps, some fo which are still sealed by the person who licked them shut. I'd imagine if Manfred cared to, he could have an attorney do the same. It happens with some frequency in cases where there a potential for post-death exoneration. In the end it was all dismissed. I'd have to check but from memory it was about immunity and statute of limitations. The Court allowed Bryan to amend the complaint so many times I've lost count. But what this action did was bring more information "out there" for us to consider. Of course there are those who don't want to consider anything except what they've already committed themselves to. But to most everyone here - the more the better. Lacey was one judge but I think later it went to Judge Brown. This thing never seemed to end and what people do not understand is that Bryan bore the costs for just about everything. So I "get" why he does not (or did not) want to simply hand over his material. This idea that because he doesn't is supposed to mean something nefarious is just plain stupid. I remember there being a little bit concerning him working with Bill Norris in in 1989 mentioned in his book A Talent to Deceive (pages 69-72) if anyone is interested to see the interaction. I wish I could give you the cliff notes but its impossible. Its a QDE who has already concluded Hauptmann wrote the notes fumbling around, speculating, and trying to offer explanations as to why one of Bryan's experts did not. Like I wrote above, Judge Lacey ordered that he have access to everything the NJSP had. So this idea he only saw what Bryan gave him lacks merit. In fact, there were experts who came after him that saw less BUT concluded Hauptmann wrote them. No issues there though. Again - its all about applying things on a slide-rule for some.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2019 14:31:50 GMT -5
Its a QDE who has already concluded Hauptmann wrote the notes fumbling around, speculating, and trying to offer explanations as to why one of Bryan's experts did not. Like I wrote above, Judge Lacey ordered that he have access to everything the NJSP had. You point out the main reason I have trouble committing to Hauptmann being 100% the writer of the ransom notes. It is the fact that you can have one or even several QDEs say someone wrote something and then different QDEs say that the same person did not write the questioned documents. All these QDEs are using the same evidence yet they come out on opposite sides. How can this be considered a trustable science if the same reviewed documents can end up opposing themselves because the QDEs involved conclude differently?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 3, 2019 18:37:58 GMT -5
Its a QDE who has already concluded Hauptmann wrote the notes fumbling around, speculating, and trying to offer explanations as to why one of Bryan's experts did not. Like I wrote above, Judge Lacey ordered that he have access to everything the NJSP had. You point out the main reason I have trouble committing to Hauptmann being 100% the writer of the ransom notes. It is the fact that you can have one or even several QDEs say someone wrote something and then different QDEs say that the same person did not write the questioned documents. All these QDEs are using the same evidence yet they come out on opposite sides. How can this be considered a trustable science if the same reviewed documents can end up opposing themselves because the QDEs involved conclude differently? Unfortunately a lot of "forensic" science is open to interpretation. Even the FBI had to admit that nearly all of their hair comparisons from the last 30+ years were bogus, leading to a number of exonerations.
|
|