kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 10, 2011 8:39:42 GMT -5
Thanks for the info. I have Harings Hand of Hauptmann and have read it several times. To be honest, I think a lot of the QDE stuff is somewhat suspect. In any case, it seems pretty clear to me that BRH wrote the notes. For me, the handwriting is not of primary interest. It's the signature that holds the complete key to this case. So I find it interesting that the signature gets the least attention. In fact, I was disappointed that Haring's book almost completely ignored the signature. I understand that there is still to this day an ongoing battle based upon whether Hauptmann was guilty or not. I also understand that's why issues like the credibility of experts becomes a polorized arguement. It just doesn't interest me. I am more interested in what no one seems to think is important because that's where you can bet that things have been overlooked. The singnature is one of those things.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 11, 2011 6:56:02 GMT -5
As with anything else, as you research this case you find an appreciation for certain lines. Handwriting Expertise is one of those aspects.
Imagine you are a 21 year old, like Sara Mowell, and stood accused by both Osborn and Stein that she wrote notes she did not write?
Nowadays might be different, I am sure, but we can't forget Agent Hanssen who repeatedly "beat" FBI Lie Detector Tests.... until such time he didn't. So the odds are that virtually no one beats them - but as we see with Hanssen - who can count the people who are - when you don't know they are?
For me, the handwriting is very important. However, I can't get sidetracked by information certain people put out there as "fact" when it isn't, or, there are specific circumstances and/or variables that need to be discussed before that evidence should be accepted - instead of shrugged off, disregarded, or ignored.
If Osborn and Stein were wrong in the past, as in the Mowell Case, or when they are on opposite sides, it shows a flaw or a percentage of possible mistakes.
That's important.
The Symbol is very important as well, and I agree its yet another one of those "mysteries" inside of this bigger Mystery.
I've learned that sometimes the answers you seek aren't where you expect to find them. Too often people, outside of a planned debate in choosing sides, pick "one side or the other." Doing so in this Case actually leads us further AWAY from the truth.
The answer lies in the middle.
And again I agree with you about those little things no one seems to know about (or care).
Absolutely.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 11, 2011 7:22:28 GMT -5
as some handwriting experts were wrong in the past, they wernt in this case. i can point out osborne pulling some crap in the blacktom exposion in jersey city but i will have to dig it out
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 12, 2011 8:43:55 GMT -5
Steve, I have a ton of stuff on Black Tom. It started out due to Osborn & Stein being on opposite sides which motivated me. Then after learning of Casimir Palmer & Robert Hick's connection I haven't stopped gathering information about it. It's a perfect example of how two people who are EXPERTS seeing the same thing but coming to opposite conclusions. For me, its like dividing by zero. Here's a little more on Trendley: John M. Trendley, Terminal Railway Employee, copied handwriting of Millionaire Rice so exactly that Experts pronounced it genuine....
Trendley was first called upon for a public test of ability by Attorney Percival Adams of this city in October, 1901. At telling of Trendley's proficiency. The latter firm, as the Patrick case preceded the Molineaux second trial, communicated with Patrick's attorneys, Canfield & Moore concerning Trendley.....
He says that it is a natural gift with him, though it requires study to reach perfection. He states that twenty-four hours study of an autograph is enough in any case... [The St. Louis Republic, 4-19-02]
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 12, 2011 10:10:24 GMT -5
Michael, are you not convinced that Hauptmann wrote the notes or are you just pointing out the inconsistencies and unfairness of the handwriting evidence as used in the proscecution of him? As I said, I think some of the qde stuff is subjective, some isn't. But in this case the Hauptmann specific grammar is probably more powerful as an identifier. And then there is the signature. What if it could be absolutely tied to Hauptmann?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 12, 2011 10:55:00 GMT -5
I am kind of killing two birds with one stone. First and foremost I do not know if Hauptmann wrote them. I believe its a strong possibility, but I also think its possible he did not. Take for example one of Osborn's strongest points: The unique "x" that he claimed only Hauptmann made that way because it wasn't made properly. I know I've pointed this out before, but for me its very note worthy. Lloyd found one made like it written by Hans Mueller. Then I stumbled on one written in an address book by someone the Police were looking at who knew Hauptmann I found this: From this discovery: From the Ransom Note: So I am 50/50 on the actual handwriting. The next issue would be the contruction of the wording and where that came from. It could be the person penning it out isn't the one who "Authored" it. Lastly is the Symbol. It could be all three were the creation of the same person, different people, or some combination. Dr. Baier's report is the one I believe best represents my position. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 12, 2011 10:56:59 GMT -5
I'd be very interested. I have been working on a lead concerning the symbol myself.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 12, 2011 11:37:45 GMT -5
Then there is also the elephant in the room; Henebier.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 13, 2011 8:24:20 GMT -5
Hmmm. Sounds like you found something....
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 13, 2011 15:39:51 GMT -5
Well, I have but I don't feel it's quite there yet. The more relevant point in relation to this thread is that handwriting was found on one of the two major pieces of evidence ( the ladder) and no one claims it's Hauptmann's. I'm not sure how it can just be ignored simply because it doesn't fit the conclusion. Would tool marks not associated with his tools also be ignored?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2019 22:18:30 GMT -5
Michael and Wayne or anyone else who might want to share an idea. I have a question about this envelop which contained a ransom note. This image is taken from Ronelle's hoax board site. This envelope is addressed to Col. Breckinridge. However the address of 25 Broadway was Lindbergh's address. It appears on the letter head used by Lindbergh to list all of Charlie's photographs which was posted by Wayne on another thread. Henry Breckinridge's address was 39 Broadway according to a letter Breck sent to Col. Schwarzkopf in August 1932. So, did CAL and Breck share the same address in March of 1932? Otherwise, could using this address be a mistake on the part of the kidnappers or might it have been intentional? This envelope contained the note (March 7th) that mentions about Lindbergh's mail being interfered with at the Hopewell house. This is also the letter that immediately followed the meeting between Breckinridge and Peter Birritella and Mary Cirrita in Princeton NJ (March 6th). This is also the note that results in the first newspaper inserted response to the kidnappers. If they want to use Breckinridge's office as a contact point (mentioned in letter), why wouldn't the kidnappers make sure they use the correct address?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 25, 2019 9:35:44 GMT -5
Michael and Wayne or anyone else who might want to share an idea. I have a question about this envelop which contained a ransom note. This image is taken from Ronelle's hoax board site. This envelope is addressed to Col. Breckinridge. However the address of 25 Broadway was Lindbergh's address. It appears on the letter head used by Lindbergh to list all of Charlie's photographs which was posted by Wayne on another thread. Henry Breckinridge's address was 39 Broadway according to a letter Breck sent to Col. Schwarzkopf in August 1932. So, did CAL and Breck share the same address in March of 1932? Otherwise, could using this address be a mistake on the part of the kidnappers or might it have been intentional? This envelope contained the note (March 7th) that mentions about Lindbergh's mail being interfered with at the Hopewell house. This is also the letter that immediately followed the meeting between Breckinridge and Peter Birritella and Mary Cirrita in Princeton NJ (March 6th). This is also the note that results in the first newspaper inserted response to the kidnappers. If they want to use Breckinridge's office as a contact point (mentioned in letter), why wouldn't the kidnappers make sure they use the correct address? Excellent observation Amy! I'm not sure if CAL had an office with Breck at 25 Broadway but I am looking into this right now and will get back to you soon. Michael, do you know? As for how the kidnapper(s)/extortionist(s) got Breck's 25 Broadway address in the first place, Siglinde Rach found this article, dated March 4, 1932 -- Sigi noticed two things about this article -- 1) It listed Breck's office as 25 Broadway. 2) And, just as importantly, it erroneously listed Breck's middle initial as "L". Breck's middle initial was "S" (Skillman). It's pretty apparent the kidnapper(s)/extortionist(s) read this March 4th article and addressed their March 8th letter to Breck using the information in the article.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 25, 2019 9:46:24 GMT -5
Amy,
I meant to add one more thing to my last post:
(3) The March 3, 1932 article also says that CAL had an office at 25 Broadway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2019 10:35:38 GMT -5
It's pretty apparent the kidnapper(s)/extortionist(s) read this March 4th article and addressed their March 8th letter to Breck using the information in the article. Thanks so much Wayne and Siglinde for responding to my post. I agree that the kidnappers must have used that story as their source for mailing that letter on March 7. Since this article also pre-dates the Princeton meeting between Breckinridge and Peter and Mary, it looks like it was used by them for that quick letter response that Breck told them he needed. After reading this, it appears that Lindbergh had his office in the law suite of Henry Breckinridge, so they were "rooming" together at the time. The newspapers played a big roll in this extortion, that is for certain. Not just in communicating but also in how to pull off a successful extortion.
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Jan 25, 2019 18:34:38 GMT -5
i may be late the the party, but does Breck's middle name point to any relation to the Skillman Institute?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 26, 2019 11:39:28 GMT -5
ate the the party, but does Breck's middle name point to any relation to the Skillman Institute? Not that I am aware of. I've got scores of reports based in, around, and on Skillman and the people attached to it but never recall seeing any connection.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jan 26, 2019 14:12:38 GMT -5
Does anyone find it interesting that prior to the kidnapping, the kidnapper(s) seemed to have had inside help on all the intel they needed about Highfields and the family -- the location of Highfields, that Charlie would be there on a night he had never been there before, the location of the nursery, the 8-10 PM shutdown when no one was allowed into the nursery, the only window with an un-latchable shutter, that Skean would not be sleeping under Charlie's crib, that Wahgoosh would not bark, etc.
BUT...
The next day, it appears that this inside intel was gone and that the kidnapper(s) relied exclusively on newspapers for their intel?
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Jan 26, 2019 15:56:02 GMT -5
That observation would seem to bolster the notion that the ransom extortion was committed by a group of people separate and different from those involved with the baby's removal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2019 18:05:00 GMT -5
i may be late the the party, but does Breck's middle name point to any relation to the Skillman Institute? Hi xjd!! Michael is correct that the Skillman in Breck's name is not related to the Skillman Institute. Henry Breckinridge was born in May 1886. The New Jersey State Village for Epileptics came into existence in 1898. One has nothing to do with the other.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2019 18:36:16 GMT -5
That observation would seem to bolster the notion that the ransom extortion was committed by a group of people separate and different from those involved with the baby's removal. I do see what you are suggesting here. Although I think there had to be at least one person who was involved in both the removal of the child and the extortion, I do think that the use of the newspapers as a tool is very evident. I do think a newspaper story played a role in the use of the sleeping suit as the way to acquire that ransom money since it was not possible to hand over a living child. Here is an article that appeared in newspapers March 4, 1932. Think about Condon's role and the baby's sleeping suit when reading this article.
|
|