|
Post by Michael on Jun 26, 2006 10:20:54 GMT -5
I have always believed, whether or not Hauptmann actually penned out the ransom notes - that he was probably dictated to and/or told what to write as he did so.
The "packet" dimensions for example. The size will bee about. As Kevin has hypothesized - the dimensions could be important. If so, why would a carpenter not give exact measurements specific in addition to to them being made from the inside or outside of the "packet?"
Why is some of the phraseology in the notes such good English?
Note #3: We know Police interfere with our privat mail, how can we come to any arrangements this way.
There is no worry about the Boy he is very well and will be feed according to the diet. Best tank for information about it. We are interested to send your Boy back in god Health.
Note #9: There are no more confidential conference after the meeting from march 12.
Those arrangements are too hazardous for us.
We will not allow ouer man to confer in a way like befor.
There is a ton of examples and a dictionary does not explain how someone looks up a word they have never seen or used before AND use it correctly in the context of the sentence. Think about it.... There are people who grew up in this country that would never say "very well" rather "very good" in describing the Boy's health in Note #3.
Any thoughts on this angle?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 26, 2006 16:21:10 GMT -5
A guess on my part would be a feminine influence. Just a feeling.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 29, 2006 6:16:29 GMT -5
Michael, you have mentioned several times on this board and in conversation your doubts about Hauptmann as the sole writer due to the need to keep track of writing disguises. Could you elaborate on exactly what that means and why it would be so difficult?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 29, 2006 22:00:40 GMT -5
Interesting position. It's something I hadn't considered. Actually, its one of the reasons which cause my 50/50 position on whether or not he actually wrote the notes. Being the Author is something I simply don't believe due to his phraseology, and difficult words being both spelled correctly and used in their proper context..... Now the comment I made above is based upon Osborn Jr's statements concerning someone attempting disguise. He gave specific instructions as to how to perform "requests" from a suspect (that Police obviously strayed from) which said the following: It is important to have the writer write this matter three times, taking each sheet away as it is finished, for in this way if a disguise is being attempted the first and the last specimens may, and probably will, be quite different. It is difficult for any writer to remember how he has disguised a piece of writing even when it has just been done, while if he is writing naturally the three specimens will all look very much alike And now from Osborn Sr.: The purpose of writing the same matter the second and third and fourth times is not merely to get an additional writing and more writing but it is to see whether the writing is honest writing or not. It is impossible for a writer to write connected matter and disguise his writing and then have that writing taken away from him and he is asked to write the same matter again, he can't remember how he disguised it the first time. Here is my position based upon the above information: 1. Notes #1 & the first couple of lines in #2 match in disguise. These letters were written days apart. How did the Writer remember his disguise? 2. The last lines in Note #2 thru to the last ransom note all match - not exactly - but enough to support the position this Writer either remembered his disguise - days and weeks apart -or was using his normal handwriting. 3. Hauptmann's Standards prove if he wrote the notes all were in a disguise. 4. Hauptmann's "requests" seem to indicate he could not remember his supposed disguise during his sessions made only seconds apart. So looking at it through this lens, Hauptmann had an uncanny ability, if he wrote the notes, to have (2) separate disguises which he could remember days and weeks apart - in 1932 but apparently lost this ability in 1934 when the Police were seeking "requests" from him made only seconds apart. There's much more to this but I think you get the jist of it from my post.
|
|
|
Post by leah on Dec 1, 2006 21:27:16 GMT -5
does anyone know if the note that arrived at breckenridge's office matched the oter notes? thanks
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 2, 2006 8:48:21 GMT -5
Nursery NoteNote #2 (Sent to Hopewell) Note #3 (2-sided sent to Breckenridge) The reason I post these is so people can judge for themselves. The symbol proves (to me) they came from the same Parties. I have yet to see an Expert, any Expert, say the notes were penned by a different hand so it seems to rule out forgery from one note to any next one (in my opinion). I believe the Nursery Note was written in the opposite hand and the first couple of lines in Note #2 was too - then the Writer switched to his/her normal hand and continued to write the rest of those notes with their normal hand.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Dec 2, 2006 9:50:51 GMT -5
Agreed - no question. We can also add the type of paper and envelope, the paper being torn in half from its original size and of course, the handwriting itelf. Those first four lines of the second note are a real tie in to the writing of the first note.
I tend to think mainly it was wrong hand writing in the first note and also possibly writing with the pen held in a relatively laboured position for use, eg. held halfway up the barrel of the pen and the wrist not allowed to rest comfortably on the writing surface. At the same time, certain words within the nursery note appear to be written with the correct writing hand so imho it may have been a rotating or random sequence of a number of unnatural writing habits / variables. Whatever the case, it's clear that by the second note, the writer had tired of this particular form of disguise.
Robert Thayer's "copy" of the nursery ransom note was a cursory free-hand effort at best, with no accuracy to original detail intended or achieved. Even if Morris Rosner had taken the actual second note to NYC to show around, the link between nursery note and continuing trail had already been established when the second note arrived. I point this out simply because so much time and energy has been consumed by this red herring.
As you point out and as supported by a troop of Questioned Document Examiners, this continuity of the legitimate ransom note paper trail is one aspect of the case which can be put to rest for good.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 2, 2006 15:46:05 GMT -5
I am not so sure about this.... in fact I believe the opposite. The Police asked Rosner for this 'copy' and he never did turn it over. I would bet there's a relative out there somewhere who has it right now as we speak.
Nevertheless, exact copy or free-hand doesn't matter to me. I had the luxury of examining the real notes - after having the acutal shapes of the holes pointed out to me by Rab - showing they were unique patterns. No way were these shapes duplicated without the original items poking the holes in the notes. For example, one hole in particular consistently takes the form of a 'clover.'
|
|
|
Post by leah on Dec 3, 2006 8:07:21 GMT -5
i was asking because i feel the third note ties into the meeting with cerritta and berritello. if the author of the "breckinBridge note is the same as the others then they had to have played a role IMHO.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Dec 3, 2006 14:29:59 GMT -5
Hi Leah~ You and I are on the same page with Cerrita/Beritello, I think.One of many puzzling aspects with their connection is why the police didn't connect the dots to Cerrita speaking of JFC and soon, here comes JFC/aka Jafsie. I've never read anything about JFC coming along and saying "Oh I know those folks. I sometimes go to their Church". Surely at some point he would have become aware of their entry into the case(?)
Rick~ The best I know, except in emergency, one didn't just waltz into a Hosp and have an abortion back then. Wasn't that the infamous "back alley" deal? The abortion sounds rather Iffy to me, but if one wants to explore that, why not look at the pharmacist she dated? Perhaps he'd be the one to do "double duty"(?)
Gary~ Thanx for the terrific contribution-Ruby Smith-.Quite an interesting angle to study, in my view. Do you think that photo may have been found amongst Edna's or V's belongings?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 13, 2006 23:00:23 GMT -5
In Dr. Gardner's book, The Case That Never Dies, on page 125 he discusses David Bari's handwriting. Bari drew the attention of the Police based upon the $5.00 ransom bill AND the fact his handwriting was similar to that found in the ransom notes. I wanted to post his source for footnote #31 on that page: This is but one small example concerning why Dr. Gardner's book is without question the best on the market. He attempts to leave no stone unturned and allows the reader to draw their own conclusions after being so informed. I get plenty of emails concerning the board sent to me by readers who don't post because they feel we're "too advanced" on the subject.... My suggestion is to get Dr. Gardner's book. Once you are done reading it you will no longer feel that way. 165.230.98.36/acatalog/__The_Case_That_Never_Dies_1350.html#1977
|
|
|
Post by leah for michael on Dec 17, 2006 14:42:57 GMT -5
I agree that Dr. Gardner's book is the most comphrehensive and thank you for posting that letter. I have questions as to your theory about the letter's form. both rita and kevin have surmised that the letters were written by a woman; i'd like to suggest they were wrritten by a very well educated woman, somone used to writing. Also Osborn,jr states" Of COURSE the possiblity that the six months period which has elapsed since the mailing of the last letter is SUFFICENT to permit a person of average intelligence to COMPLETELY change his handwriting". these were the chief experts for the prosecution. i've seen a copy of the letter hauptmann wrote regarding an accident years before his arrest and i see no similarities between it and the ransom notes. what was the point of having hauptman write after his arrest if the samples could not be considered reliable?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 18, 2006 9:26:00 GMT -5
While I agree the possibility exists these notes were authored by a woman, I personally do not believe they were penned out by one. Although I am in no way an 'expert', I believe I've seen enough writing from both genders and this strikes me as being a man's handwriting.
Interesting isn't it? This is one of the reasons I decided to post it. What's funny is all throughout the Police investigations they are eliminating suspects based upon their handwriting. Then we have Hauptmann who seems to have mulitiple "disguises"....according to Osborn, although he had claimed a person could have only one and never remember it exactly - which lead them to believe the later notes were the culprits real (non-disguised) handwriting. None of those notes were in Hauptmann's natural hand.
However, I do see similarities myself but I see differences as well - even in the Begg letters. That's not enough for me to draw a conclusion especially when I see time and time again throughout the reports of suspects meeting the exact same criteria.
It was the fact Hauptmann had the ransom which swayed their opinions - especially after Osborn Jr. declared he did not write the notes. The other reason were these damned bogus 'requests' the Police ruined by influencing their creation.
No one, even today, claims Hauptmann wrote those notes within any reasonable range unless they include them.
There will always be a natural range of variation when considering the elapsed time.... I suppose the idea was that someone wrote the notes and purposely worked on changing their style may be overlooked. By having someone pen out these 'requests', in good faith, if they haven't done this a good 'expert' would be able to see the variation, explain it away, and still identify the handwriting.
|
|
|
Post by rick for michael on Dec 18, 2006 12:18:13 GMT -5
What I find even more absurd thantheNJSP like Bormann for instance trying to evaluate everyones handwriting:
Michael
Also, if BRH was "the last person brought into the gang" then maybe he wasnt in time to write the Nursery Note? Maybe he was folded in the first week "after one years of planning"?
Is that many potential accomplices or perps were dismissed only as Cemetary John by, of all persons, Jafsie Condon. One that comes to mind is Ernie Brinkert? Condon went over to Alpine and said: "hes too short to be CJ"? Yikes...at the same time Walsh and Schwartzkopf were supposed to be looking for a GANG? Doesnt add up...they all cant be CJ?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 19, 2006 5:58:06 GMT -5
They had a decent system for this... Any handwriting was first submitted to Capt. Snook who had at least some training in the Handwriting Analysis field. I wouldn't call him an 'expert' but he had some skill. If he saw enough points of similarity then he would request it to be further evaluated by Osborn.
I think the evidence concerning your point is his telling Police Hauptmann was not John. Since so many people seem to believe he was then the only conclusion is that Condon was working against the Authorities. If he was telling the truth and caved in due to threats, as the source material proves, then either John was still 'out there' or Condon was lying. As one can see, all of these options are terrible when it comes to the solution of the case.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 19, 2006 8:05:01 GMT -5
Just a clarification, I never said that I felt the ransom notes were written by a woman. I said they may have had a feminine influence. That may ultimately become important to keep mind when assessing this crime and the perpetrator and not necessarily in conventional terms.
|
|
|
Post by rick for michael on Dec 19, 2006 8:49:33 GMT -5
I agree that based upon Condon's tall tales and obfuscations:
"
....that Condon is either the Missing Mastermind (MM)or working with the Mysterious MM? JFC is working against resolution of the LKC.
Gov. Hoffman points out in Liberty Magazine (March 26, 1938) the many varied descriptions of CJ by Jafsie: continuous hacking cough, CJ is Scandanavian not German, CJ has flapping ears, and on and on AND CJ went off to talk to his two associates in St. Raymonds? [and Jafsie couldnt remember Abe Samuelsohn built the ramson box on the witness stand]? DYBT?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Dec 19, 2006 8:55:29 GMT -5
When we're discussing handwriting similarities and differences, let's not omit the spelling of words. Hauptmann and the ransom note writer misspelt many of the same words and also had similar tendencies to reverse adjacent letters.
Being of limited penmanship skills myself, I am amazed at the variation in handwriting style Hauptmann could comfortably achieve. Would this ability to alter the appearance of one's handwriting at will, perhaps have inspired an individual to risk penning 15 ransom notes, not appreciating the kinds of engrained subtleties that a handwriting expert could readily pick out?
I think so and also believe this is why Hauptmann demonstrated his eagerness to write Osborn's test, further stating that it would get him "out of this thing."
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 19, 2006 18:53:20 GMT -5
I wholeheartedly agree and think this is great advice.
He seems to be the 'monkey wrench' - by design.
This is a good point too, however, concerning Hauptmann I think we need specific examples.
For instance, I've seen people point to the backwards capital "N" and say this helps prove Hauptmann wrote the notes.
How is that I wonder?
If, for example, in the questioned documents you have 3 out of 4 backwards "N" then only 3 out of 50 coming from Hauptmann's standards then I see this as something counting against the notion that it was an identifier, in fact, it says to me whoever wrote the notes either has that issue OR its a disguise attempt. Of course it could very well be Hauptmann using it to disguise his handwriting but if that's the case then pointing to one of the 3 out of the 50 or so in his standards is silly.
My point is that if it takes 50 or so "N" in order to generate 3 what are the odds the same person writes 4 and 3 happen to be the backwards variety?
If involuntary - then I say damn near impossible.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 10, 2008 15:37:39 GMT -5
Interesting website concering Handwriting Analysis written by Julia Layton. Her credentials include a B.A. in English literature from Duke University and a M.F.A. in creative writing from the University of Miami.: However, the police officers' methods of obtaining those samples has since been called into question – Hauptmann was forced to write for hours and hours until he nearly passed out from exhaustion. He was also told how to write, and he was shown a ransom note and told to copy the handwriting as best he could, to name just a few of the major no-nos. This of course means that the validity of the determined handwriting match is in question, and Hauptmann's execution makes a re-test impossible. There are now strict rules in place about how police should obtain a requested exemplar. science.howstuffworks.com/handwriting-analysis1.htm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2014 17:11:09 GMT -5
Michael,
I was wondering if the authorities who were evaluating the ransom notes and envelopes ever considered the writer to be any other nationality besides German. The reason I am asking is because of the occasional use of the reversed N and what we consider a lower case y being used as a capital Y. Could the writer of the ransom notes have had some russian influence with his writing? How about a German who had a family heritage that involved Russia?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 11, 2014 16:15:01 GMT -5
Michael, I was wondering if the authorities who were evaluating the ransom notes and envelopes ever considered the writer to be any other nationality besides German. The reason I am asking is because of the occasional use of the reversed N and what we consider a lower case y being used as a capital Y. Could the writer of the ransom notes have had some russian influence with his writing? How about a German who had a family heritage that involved Russia? From everything I've read, and I tried to double check most stuff to make sure, only German, Scandinavian, or European 'bordering' countries were suggested. Of course there were others who believed it was an American trying to sound that way, or possibly one who had been influenced by travel or residency in one of those countries - but nothing about anything "Russian" was considered - at least nothing I can remember or find.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2014 23:50:21 GMT -5
Thanks Michael for checking this for me. I just find it curious that the N becomes reversed at times in the notes and envelopes. I haven't noticed this occuring with any other letters in the ransom writings. It doesn't lend itself to a pronunciation issue either as a cause. I guess it is just one of those oddities that we will never understand!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2014 9:33:23 GMT -5
Another weird question(or two) for you Michael. When the handwriting experts for the prosecution were doing their evaluations, did they ever compare the ransom notes with the writings in Hauptmann's numerous notebooks? Wouldn't these have been a good source for his conceded writings? I realize Wilentz used them for the spelling of the word "Boad" and for the ladder drawing and other drawings he asked Hauptmann about. How about the handwriting?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 18, 2014 20:00:08 GMT -5
Another weird question(or two) for you Michael. When the handwriting experts for the prosecution were doing their evaluations, did they ever compare the ransom notes with the writings in Hauptmann's numerous notebooks? Wouldn't these have been a good source for his conceded writings? I realize Wilentz used them for the spelling of the word "Boad" and for the ladder drawing and other drawings he asked Hauptmann about. How about the handwriting? I'll do my best here.... Appel testified before the Bronx Grand Jury that he concluded Hauptmann had written the Ransom Notes based solely on his Driver's Licenses and Applications. He claimed he hadn't even used the "Requests" because these, having been written before his arrest - were "better." The other Experts were provided copies of many of his notebooks but were later told not to use them. As an example, previous to this Tyrell told them to mislay the expense book, and to deep-six the 1933 passenger car registration. An ultimate decision as to what should be included would be made and this letter is an example of that: Attachment Deleted
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2014 21:23:33 GMT -5
Oh wow. This is really disturbing. Anything that could cast doubt upon Hauptmann being the writer of the ransom notes was not going to be used. His notebooks surely would have done that. This letter shows that this expert did see that and communicated this. Conceded writings should be the most desired examples to use to show guilt..............or innocence. The prosecution actually restricted the conceded writings to a few items where they could match a letter or two to a ransom note. You won't find this being mentioned in the Lindbergh case books.
Thanks Michael for sharing this letter.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 19, 2014 18:39:23 GMT -5
Oh wow. This is really disturbing. Anything that could cast doubt upon Hauptmann being the writer of the ransom notes was not going to be used. His notebooks surely would have done that. This letter shows that this expert did see that and communicated this. Conceded writings should be the most desired examples to use to show guilt..............or innocence. The prosecution actually restricted the conceded writings to a few items where they could match a letter or two to a ransom note. You won't find this being mentioned in the Lindbergh case books. The "requests" were absolutely tainted and should never have been used. Even Sellers saw they had been "influenced." As to some of the other standards, I am going to post one of Tyrell's letters to give you an idea concerning what was going on (from his end): Attachment Deleted
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2014 20:12:50 GMT -5
The letter you just posted puts a different perspective on the notebooks, especially the expense book. Is Tyrrell suggesting that the expense book go missing because there was handwriting in it by someone other than Hauptmann that was a closer match to the ransom note writing?
I am aware that the request writings were not done properly and therefore shouldn't be used. Weren't these request writings relied on heavily at the trial?
I bought the book "The Hand of Hauptmann" by J. Vreeland Haring awhile back. I admit I bought it more for the pictures of the ransom notes than anything else. Looking through that book though, he uses a lot of what he calls composites to prove that Hauptmann wrote the nursery note and others. What it looks like to me is a bunch of cut and paste of letters and sometimes words to create a complete nursery note. Is something like this considered legitimate proof?
Did this man testify at the trial using all this cut and paste stuff?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 20, 2014 19:16:01 GMT -5
The letter you just posted puts a different perspective on the notebooks, especially the expense book. Is Tyrrell suggesting that the expense book go missing because there was handwriting in it by someone other than Hauptmann that was a closer match to the ransom note writing? He's saying that there are some entries made by people other then Hauptmann, and that the Defense could claim they were all in his hand then use it to their advantage regarding the handwriting angle. It's my position that any "Expert" should be hired for their "good faith" conclusion based upon their "expertise" regardless of who hired them. Here we see one "Expert" turning into a Member of the Prosecution, and it supports something I will mention below. I am aware that the request writings were not done properly and therefore shouldn't be used. Weren't these request writings relied on heavily at the trial? Yes. I bought the book "The Hand of Hauptmann" by J. Vreeling Haring awhile back. I admit I bought it more for the pictures of the ransom notes than anything else. Looking through that book though, he uses a lot of what he calls composites to prove that Hauptmann wrote the nursery note and others. What it looks like to me is a bunch of cut and paste of letters and sometimes words to create a complete nursery note. Is something like this considered legitimate proof? This is something most (if not all) Experts did. They used these charts to support and/or exemplify their conclusions. Did this man testify at the trial using all this cut and paste stuff? No he was never called. What happened was this... Haring was originally a Defense Expert hired by Fawcett. Once Fawcett was fired, Reilly did not retain him as a Handwriting Expert. It's my position it had to do with Haring's fee, which was why Reilly went with those Defense Experts he chose to go with. All were inexpensive excepting Myers & Malone who both quit when told their demands concerning their fees would not be met (as first mentioned in Gardner's The Case That Never Dies). The State's position concerning the Handwriting Experts was to "tie them up," that is, hire all the decent ones so none would "defect" to the Defense. They clearly did this with Farrer (who they believed was disgruntled), and continued with Haring - which also included his son Howard as a "package" deal. The justification was they were to be rebuttal witnesses but it's obvious considering who they already had they were never really needed. I think this is what bothers me the most. Not only was it an unwritten rule that whoever hired you got the testimony they desired, it was actually used as a tactic by the State. Haring submitted a $1250.00 bill, and his son $630.00. Thankfully, due to the outrage concerning the Handwriting "Expert's" fees, they were reduced to $700.00, and $300.00 respectively. Still outrages, but at least they didn't get what they wanted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2014 12:35:17 GMT -5
Thanks for making Tyrrell's objective clear about the expense book. I find it interesting that someone else was making entries into that book. I need to ask you what kind of an expense book this was. Was it household expenses which could have had entries made by Anna? Was it a business expense book which contained information on stock purchases, fur purchases, mortgage loans, and personal loans made by Richard where others could have entered their own information on appropriate pages?
Totally agree! In a perfect world, it would certainly be that way. What you show here with the letters you have posted is clearly actions of conspiring with the officials Tyrrell was only supposed to give his "expert" opinion to. Suggesting the prosecution conceal that expense book from the defense team, should they come looking for it, goes way beyond giving an expert opinion on handwriting.
I clearly see what you are saying. The prosecution's strategy was to have all the best experts on their team in order to keep them out of the hands of the defense. This certainly hurt Hauptmann's ability to defend himself in court with a reputable expert to testify on his behalf.
I went in and read Gardner's passage on Myers and Malone, the almost defense handwriting experts. As Gardner tells it these two men wouldn't even look at anything until they were paid first. The defense could not afford to do this so M&M walked away never laying their eyes upon any handwriting specimens. Were these two experts truly reputable? I realize looks can be deceiving but from the way Gardner described their appearance, etc., I am not really sure they would have done Hauptmann much good.
The other thing that really upsets me is that the handwriting experts the defense was able to afford were only given a few hours to go over the handwriting evidence. This is hardly enough time to evaluate, draw conclusions and give a well thought out opinion and presentation. The prosecution experts had so much more time to do all those things.
There are a couple of things I need to be clear on:
1) What was the consensus of the handwriting experts regarding disguised handwriting of the ransom notes? Were all the notes in a disguised hand or just the nursery note?
2) Did the experts consider Hauptmann's request writings to be natural or disguised writing? I ask this because of something Haring says in his book.
|
|