|
"Boad"
Mar 9, 2007 6:46:07 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Mar 9, 2007 6:46:07 GMT -5
Issues have always been raised concerning "boat" & "boad" & "boot" but it was something the Police knew about very early on. Agent Sisk had written up a very large report in which he goes through the variations of spelling in English from foreign Writers. Although Hauptmann does, in his standards, appear to spell "boat" correctly, there is the infamous example of "Boad" being found in his notebook and used by Wilentz in Flemington. This note-book wasn't supposed to be used during the trial because there was some issues as to whether or not Hauptmann had authored all of its contents and this area would be exploited by the Defense Experts (or so the Prosecution Experts thought). Personally, I don't have a problem saying he wrote this word. However, Dr. Gardner does a good job calling this into spelling into question (see illustrations between p120 and p121). So do we really know if this is a "t" or a "d" (?) Additionally, questions arise knowing that if it is indeed a "d" then is it a unique identifier? This is where I believe Dr. Baier's conclusions are so important because he is German. Now before anyone starts putting words into my mouth (or his) simply read his conclusions found within his report. You'll both see and here how (3) Experts on CourtTV concluded he wrote all the notes but this just isn't true. Here some examples: Conclusion - Looking at all these findings no definite and unambiguous conclusion can be drawn (p7).
Aforementioned material critique demands restrained appraisal of results. (p7)
Hence it can be assumed that Bruno Richard Hauptmann wrote probably the ransom notes (p7). *What exactly is Dr. Baier's levels of criteria? 1. Near Certain probability 2. Very Highly Probable 3. Highly Probable 4. Probable 5. Undecidable (p4) Let's compare Dr. Baier's level of criteria to the SWGDOC guidelines used by many Experts: 1. Identification 2. Highly Probable 3. Probably 4. Indications 5. No Conclusion Again I am 50/50 and have yet to see the one thing to push me to one side or another and the above conclusion doesn't make me feel any better about believing he wrote them. My other problem is the use of the "requests" which I believe were tainted which reveal even more contradictions and were improperly used. Again, I still believe any Expert's conclusions are reduced in the degree of probability if they omit them from consideration. There's no doubt the Prosecution used the best Experts in the Country at the time. One should remember there were times they even testified on opposite sides in Court previous to this case. My point here being how could their opinions differ at any time if they were all the best? Money was certainly a factor here as was ego and/or reputation. If anyone disagrees then I would refer you to the near "blow-out" between Wilentz and them after he was quoted in the press blasting their bills. Wow, did that really hurt their feelings. But I do have a memo that I want to share which may give a little inside perspective into the minds of one of those Experts. One has to remember that Stein could not have possibly known anyone but Wilentz would probably be reading it: If anyone has any particular interest in anything specific just let me know. The best thing about our board is that no one tells anyone what to believe and/or requires them to rely just on their word. Basically, this case is fun to debate because more and more differing perspectives lead us closer to the truth, therefore, what you'll see here is more of a "gathering" of thoughts and information presented in a fashion so that you can make a personal decision that's comfortable. I cringe sometimes reading things people throw out as 'fact' when it just may not be (or isn't) or when they invent things in order to "win over" people. There's nothing to "win over" here because just about every Poster believes something different in one variation or another about the many aspects of the case.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
"Boad"
Mar 9, 2007 9:27:07 GMT -5
Post by kevkon on Mar 9, 2007 9:27:07 GMT -5
Not having any experience with handwriting analysis, I really defer to the experts when it comes to this subject. However, the "singnature" is another story as are the contents of the notes. I find the "singnature" intriguing as it is simple , yet elegant and effective. It is puzzling that I have never seen a similar form in Hauptmann's drawing or work. In fact, he seems to have a more linear form. It's a small point, I admit. But I know from experience that one usually stays with a consistent and familiar format with their draftsmanship. Also of interest is the anonymous nature of the Nursery note, it could have been a ransom note for any kidnapping as opposed to that of the most famous man in America.
Watch out for excessive cringing! I think it is understandable in a case which transcends that of a crime. I think many people see this case as a metaphor for so many other issues; ie death penalty, states rights vs federal government, individual vs government, poor vs. rich, etc, etc. That brings an element of emotionalism into this that transcends reason. It also is a causation for starting out with a conclusion and finding the answers to prove their predetermined position.
|
|
|
"Boad"
Mar 9, 2007 11:51:07 GMT -5
Post by rick3 on Mar 9, 2007 11:51:07 GMT -5
Why do I remember someone offering that all 3 B oads in the final ransom note were really Rs turned into Bs after the fact? It might have been the International handwriitng woman that DHReilly ran out of Flemington during the Trial for saying " in just 5 minutes I can prove to the jury that these notes have been over written after the fact"....darn...what was her name? She turned up in Florida many years later: Hilda Zaglein Braunlich, a native of Bavaria, Germany? [Jones pp 438-439] disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=141545;article=35285;search_term=braunlichThis insight would turn it into Road Nelly? And the putative Charlie Jr. was certainly found near a Road! Amazing?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
"Boad"
Mar 9, 2007 15:44:46 GMT -5
Post by mairi on Mar 9, 2007 15:44:46 GMT -5
Rick~ I, too, have been quite intrigued with the "overwriting" analysis. Seems to me some high tech imaging could even yet detect this. Didn't the Osbornes make a mighty sudden change in their conclusions? Certainly Hauptmann's notebook could have been tampered with as well. (lest we forget how eager the police were to find a way to transfer BRH's fingerprints to something). If we can track on that expert's opinion it would be great for -whoever knows how - to transfer it to the board. Wish I knew how to do that, but I don't.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,636
Member is Online
|
"Boad"
Mar 9, 2007 19:05:49 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Mar 9, 2007 19:05:49 GMT -5
Actually, it's in the photo section between pages 210 and 211. I believe what Dr. Gardner has really demonstrated here are two examples of a Hauptmann letter "d" in which the "o" portion of the letter is simply left unclosed. I think we've all seen that Hauptmann demonstrates this characteristic in numerous examples of his letter "o," (in the same word "Boad") which according to Dr. Baier, goes back to the form children of Hauptmann's age learned from their German primary schooling. Interestingly, in the same memo book, Hauptmann does spell "Boat" properly and the form of the last letter is decidedly not "d" but a "t" with its looped-back cross stroke made a bit haphazardly. Here we see two differently spelt forms of the word "boat" in the same California trip. Erratic English spelling was a common tendency for Hauptmann, as well as for the writer of the ransom notes. Here's something I just noticed in the Boad Nelly Note. The third spelling of "Boad" contains what appears to have been the beginnings of a letter "t" but the writer revised the letter's structure by inserting an "o" to the left of the existing, tented upright stroke. Compare this "d" and even the one in the fourth spelling of "Boad" to the first two spellings of the word "Boad." There is a definite difference here and appears to be a strong indication of another example of the ransom note writer's inconsistent English spelling form.
|
|
|
"Boad"
Mar 9, 2007 19:49:35 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Mar 9, 2007 19:49:35 GMT -5
Kevin - would you defer to Script after the example above? I can't imagine who would. Also consider that Anna Kyle was qualified on the stand in Court as an Expert and wrote a book alleging these notes had been forged.
I suppose some Experts are better then others?
Good observation and this is something someone of your expertise would notice. Thank you for bringing it to our attention for consideration. I have always been of the opinion these notes weren't thought up by Hauptmann, and so if he did write them - then the words/thoughts came from someone else in my opinion. (The structure and context is just not Hauptmann).
Rick - I think Cassidy mentioned he believed those words were changed. If you are interested I will look for the reference.
Mairi - You and Rick are correct in that Braunlich did make this claim. Credit Scaduto for finding her in Florida and Governor Bryne for listening. I am not sure what she was seeing however. Possibly what Cassidy referenced? Or perhaps, under the circumstances, I've speculated they were even given the real notes to inspect. She claimed Goodspeed saw exactly the same thing as well.
Joe - You could be right about the letter "d" but it also could be a different version of "t" as well. Hauptmann did have a wide range of variation and often made letters differently at differing times. However, the board Nelly note clearly doesn't demonstrate the disputed version "d" found in his notebook. Additionally, I believe one has to look at the number of times something may occur in the standards as opposed to how many times in the ransom notes.
It was argued the ransom notes were disguised. Would Hauptmann use a very rare and random conscience mistake as his choice for a disguise?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,636
Member is Online
|
"Boad"
Mar 9, 2007 20:19:23 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Mar 9, 2007 20:19:23 GMT -5
Michael, no, the ransom note writer doesn't demonstrate the open looped "d" in the Boad Nelly Note. But it's about the only place he doesn't, having clearly demonstrated it time after time in previous ransom notes, in the same form demonstrated by Hauptmann in his writing.
The die for the letter "d" has for the most part, been cast through the previous notes and we know it's one that shows considerable ability to vary in form. It should also be noted that the Boad Nelly Note appears to have been written and spaced out in a more careful and measured manner, with more attention to letter form. I don't know why but perhaps there was a conscious desire here on the part of the writer to demonstrate clarity and even some faux professionalism in response to the positive and somewhat "gentlemanly" tone of the final meeting between Dr. Condon and Cemetery John.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 10, 2007 9:06:24 GMT -5
Joe - I think you missed my point and I think this might be due to my inability to clearly convey my position in writing and/or my awkward style. While I don't dispute the degree of similarity, at times, demonstrated with this and other letters, my point was to be taken in conjunction with the word "boad" and its misspelling. There are several factors to consider: - How often did Hauptmann misspell "Boat" as "Boad"
- Did he ever really misspell "Boat" as "Boad"
- If he did, do the odds jibe considering his standards in relationship to ransom notes
- Was the "Boad" Nelly Note written in disguised handwriting
I rec'd an email asking me what I though Stein's motives were for writing that letter to Wilientz.... It could be a sincere one. It could also be that he didn't want to get blasted again in the newspaper, therefore, wanted to be on the front lines in order to pre-empt it from occurring. What better way then to offer one's services free of charge? Or it could be a little bit of both (or neither and something else I haven't considered yet). Deviating from the specific topic somewhat I wanted to post a Pre-Trial document written by Osborn D. (Jr.). It's interesting because it once again covers the holes which we have been wrestling with ever since the table was discovered. Another point is something David Sims used to bring up.... That is the mention of the Nursery Note possibly not having been written by the same Writer as the rest. Again, these are documents written with the belief no one else (like us) would be reading:
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
"Boad"
Mar 10, 2007 10:11:52 GMT -5
Post by kevkon on Mar 10, 2007 10:11:52 GMT -5
The peculiar thing about the "singnature" , for me anyway, is that it seems redundant. Wouldn't the holes or the inked circles independently be sufficient on their own? Without an original you can't exactly make a copy of either and in a time of b&w news and reproduction the colored circles have an added level of protection. It is also interesting that the kidnapper had the prescience to realize, with so many other concerns, that he would need such an unique identifier. Usually a kidnapper has the knowledge that he can produce evidence to authenticate his identity and does not need to resort to such methods. A simple code or name would suffice, as well. The Nursery note is interesting since seems carefully worded. It does not directly mention a kidnapping or Lindbergh. Yet it seems hastily written. Even the circles in the "singnature" are not completely formed , as if the creator did not have a proper writing surface. Perhaps it was composed at the last moment in a precaution if apprehended prematurely.
BTW Michael, when I said I defer to the "experts" I simply meant that I try to steer clear of such specialties of which I am not well versed. I have Haring's original book and it seems to make sense, but I am more comfortable dealing with a less subjective science.
|
|
|
"Boad"
Mar 10, 2007 13:57:14 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Mar 10, 2007 13:57:14 GMT -5
I think the signature & holes clearly indicate this was planned in advance and not a last minute whim so many who want Hauptmann to be the Lone-Wolf cling to with a death grip.
Your observation concerning the Nursery Note's content has been mentioned in the past by various people. It was suggested by someone (I can't remember who) that perhaps it was done so in the event another child was instead kidnapped. Or it was written in a moving car.
Personally, I think it was written with the opposite hand, and it was written with the intention that it be the only note. The rest of the notes were never intended to be written in my opinion.
As for the Experts - I think if you see something that doesn't make sense don't be shy in speaking up. My point is that Experts disagree and can be wrong - stands. That's not to say they are always wrong either.....despite Script's sucky attitude he does sometimes get things right. However, he gets things wrong too as I think I have clearly shown both above and in the past.
And so, if I had thought to myself that I couldn't make those challenges by and through the examples I have posted, then we'd all have been sucker'd into believing some terrible mistakes.
If anyone has been reading Ronelle's board lately you'll see an exchange between me and a Lawyer. Once again, because he's a Lawyer and I'm not - I suppose I am deemed wrong right from jump-street. But let me tell you that I am 100% correct so once again the "Experts" have fallen down relying on the term rather then the actions.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
"Boad"
Mar 10, 2007 14:56:11 GMT -5
Post by kevkon on Mar 10, 2007 14:56:11 GMT -5
Yes, but leaving that point alone for a minute as well as the "lone wolf" aspect , why the redundancy? Where I am coming from here is the thought process behind the "singnature". I am not even concerned with Hauptmann as the author. Why all this concern about the "singnature"? Does it indicate the kidnapper knew it would be all he could offer? The sleeping suit seems to negate that. to me. Is it an embellishment resulting from some psychological need? If you were planning this kidnapping, would you think of this? Would you even consider the need to provide such an identifier? In a sense it is actually like leaving a fingerprint. Let's say, for example that a template was used, pick the Mersman if you like. Now let us say that the hole spacing was truly unique. If you are caught and this template is found, it's game over. So there is an inherent risk involved in using the very unique "singnature". A risk I can not believe was unknown to the kidnapper. So I go back to the beginning and ask , why all of this effort? Another question, if it is all about verification and the kidnapper has the knowledge, either from experience or observation, that false claimants would be an issue, then why not provide a unique id on the envelopes as well?
|
|
|
"Boad"
Mar 10, 2007 17:51:45 GMT -5
Post by rick3 on Mar 10, 2007 17:51:45 GMT -5
I would like to call attention to pages 306-307 in Gardner:
[/li][li] Pope raises the issue of misspelled words as a disquise? [/li][li] This line of argument flummoxed Wilintz for a moment? [/li][li] Then Osborn examines the sleeping suite wrapper with two addresses on it [/li][li] Condon says the writing must be his own? Wow! [/li][li]..." Osborn had backhandedly suggested Condon as the author of the ransom notes!" [/li][li] All this is reminescent of BRHs comments about Condon's phone number in his pantry closet board? [/li][li] Maybe its Condon and BRH that know each other?
|
|
|
"Boad"
Mar 10, 2007 22:23:37 GMT -5
Post by rita on Mar 10, 2007 22:23:37 GMT -5
What if I told you the Mersman sales man looked more like CJ than Hauptmann, and he was questioned by the BOI-FBI on kidnap-bank robbery suspicion. I don't believe the case records show all the investigations, or that a lot of records were simply held in reserve pending a conviction to end the case. I think the government didn't believe the case as told either, and were investigating leads with a grain of salt added. This contributed to everyone having some hesitation on investigating further, believing any minute the true story would be divulged by family or employee. The only incidence of employee divulging a different story came from Ellerson to Governor Hoffmann, telling that he thought Elizabeth had killed Carley claiming he seen Charley dead in the drive with Elizabeth incoherent.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
"Boad"
Mar 10, 2007 22:58:31 GMT -5
Post by mairi on Mar 10, 2007 22:58:31 GMT -5
Michael~"written with the intention of being the only note"? Am puzzled. With only one note -- are we thinking the swap would have been arranged by phone and counting on no police? The perps ID-ing themselves by describing the "singnature"?
|
|
|
"Boad"
Mar 11, 2007 20:00:20 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Mar 11, 2007 20:00:20 GMT -5
Mairi,
This involves my theory concerning people being "hired" with no intention of ever returning or collecting the ransom. I believe Gary may also have a similar theory as well because we seemed to have agreed on this in the past (as I remember)... I should have some more to add to this at a later date - I am still working this angle.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,636
Member is Online
|
"Boad"
Mar 13, 2007 11:53:45 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Mar 13, 2007 11:53:45 GMT -5
It's interesting that Hauptmann not only spells it "Boad" but also as "Boat" within the same memo book which itemized expenses for his California trip of 1931. He never did seem to acquire a consistent handle on English language spelling. Neither did the ransom note writer as can be seen on numerous occasions over the course of the ransom notes, including the final Boad Nelly note. While he does spell "Boad" consistently four times in that note, the first two times it's clearly spelt with a proper "d." The 3rd and 4th spellings of "Boad" in that note contain what appears to have been the initial forming of the letter "t" (as seen in the tented upstroke and downstroke) but they were then adjusted by adding an "o," effectively creating a "d" and which looks nothing like the other letter "d's" in the note. So it appears both the ransom note writer as well as Hauptmann had a bit of a problem here in deciding how that word was spelt in 1931/1932.
|
|
|
"Boad"
Mar 13, 2007 16:52:06 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Mar 13, 2007 16:52:06 GMT -5
Again, I think this is debatable. The pictures in Dr. Gardner's book come from the exact same note-book.
The "d" in "Bread" can be found on page 26 of the note-book. The word "Boa(t/d)" can be found on page 15. The word "Boat" can be found on page 18.
Now there is a word on page 22 which is supposed to be "Bread" but frankly I don't know if Hauptmann wrote it, and it could be that end letter is actually "t" and therefore a misspelling of "bread" as "breat". The pen pressure was obviously different and the "rea" doesn't look like any other "rea" that Hauptmann has written. I don't know what to make of it. The Experts didn't want this note-book used because they said writing in it wasn't made by Hauptmann so perhaps this is one example?
Anyway, my point is that we just don't know if Hauptmann misspelled "boat" and this one debatable example doesn't jibe with the "Boad Nelly" note. Why? None of the "d" or "t" in that note resemble the supposed "d" in the note-book. Again, is this note in disguise or not?
Here I would agree this appears to be the case but I would caution us all not to over-step our abilities. This type of conclusion needs to come from an Expert like Dr. Baier. Experts would want to examine the original under specific magnification which would enable them to tell us exactly how the letter was formed and/or written. You'll even notice disclaimers in a Professional's report if they use high-resolution scans as opposed to the original documents which reveal even more information.
But let's assume this was the case... Let's say the Writer did spell "Boat" as "Boat" the last two times. Did he correct them both afterwords or did he correct them as he wrote them? Why did he correct them? Did he think spelling it "Boad" was a disguise? Or did he think "Boad" was the correct spelling?
There are no corrections in the note-book concerning this. If Hauptmann in 1931 was spelling it both ways how does his ability to spell this word regress, that is, his ability concerning how to spell is worse in 1932 then it was in 1931? If not how do we explain this?
I disagree. The only place this can be suggested concerns the ransom note. There is no indication of indecision in the note-book concerning these words.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Mar 13, 2007 20:51:34 GMT -5
Hilda Braunlich spoke out in 1977 when Scadutto wrote his book noting that her research showed that the ransom notes had been forged in place or overwritten to prove the prosecutions points against Hauptmann. I did some research to that effect photographically which I list below. I also understand the translation principles used in tanslation and the psychology behind how people think behind translating from their language thinking. I noticed this same use of "boad" mistake police police and Wilentz used repeatedly earning them a three star dunce cap from the world of education. During my time in the University I studied German and used the digital programing style that has English speakers practice common words from English into German pronunciation using their dialect structure, and the word "boat" would be pronounced "boot" with a "D" ending sound. From Theon Wright's Book, In Search of the Lindbergh Baby pg. 159 "Theo Bernsen, a European writer covering the Hauptmann Case, told Anthony Scaduto he had discussed the matter of Hauptmann's writing with an expert on translating English and German writing attached to the German Embassy in London. He showed his enlarged photographs, presumably the kidnap notes, and was told these were not written by a German who had been taught English, but by a man who thinks in English and is trying to write Germanic." "The grammatical errors show it clearly, the attempt to make a Germanic construction by a man who thinks in English. He particularly stressed the word "boad" which Osborn and others claimed was German. In German it is written with a "t"--boot--and is not possible a German just learning English would make that mistake." www.network54.com/Forum/503283/message/1155183493/Nursery+Note+Secret+Writing-
|
|
|
"Boad"
Mar 14, 2007 5:39:21 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Mar 14, 2007 5:39:21 GMT -5
I think it only fair to offer information from the other direction as well. For example, Jim Fisher writes that Derek Davis, Handwriting Expert, had neutrally come to the conclusion that Hauptmann had written the notes. ( Fisher, TGOH, p. 122-23) Of course we all know that Fisher was very wrong concerning the Defense Experts when he wrote (without a proper source): Three declared Hauptmann the ransom note writer,....(Fisher, TGOH, p120) As we see in Dr. Gardner's book this simply was not true..... Anyway, during the time of Scaduto and later, many QDEs made examination and drew conclusions. My biggest concern is when they include the bogus "requests" in those examinations because, as we see in the Kennedy book, a very good Expert who omitted them from examination concluded he hadn't written them. As far as Braunlich is concerned - Rita is correct. However, I personally haven't seen this and I haven't seen any other Expert since her examination make this claim (except possibly Kyle). This has led me to speculate that perhaps the Defense Experts never had an opportunity to see the real notes in the first-place. This would explain the drunkenness of Prosecutor Hauck and the strange behavior by the Police during their examinations.
|
|
|
"Boad"
Mar 14, 2007 23:14:21 GMT -5
Post by rita on Mar 14, 2007 23:14:21 GMT -5
In the Fluorescent-infra red combination I took the pictures you can see faint lines of writing that were erased with heavy areas of accumulated ink from their erasing technique near the bottom of the page so they must have hung the letters to dry vertically. We can deduce various reasons for this unusual use of evidence and I list some of the possible reasons that may explain such official participation
Kidnap may or may not have happened, at least not as described. We know Means was into the case for extortion and fraud like CJ, but was there also a reason for blackmail? The Rice and Jones letters include Lindbergh as participating, with Means and CJ this might have spelled out blackmail, a good reason to alter blackmail notes. Are Dwight Jr. and Elizabeth the cause of Charley's disappearance, and this could also lead to blackmail even from employees?
|
|
|
"Boad"
Mar 15, 2007 15:53:52 GMT -5
Post by Giszmo on Mar 15, 2007 15:53:52 GMT -5
Hi Rita, when you took the infra-red photos of the original notes, did you also try ultraviolet light photos of the original notes? I'm also curious if you were able to discover anything about the ink used when you looked at the original documents under the different kinds of light. Did it have any special features under the different kinds of light that you noticed?
|
|
|
"Boad"
Mar 15, 2007 21:17:34 GMT -5
Post by rita on Mar 15, 2007 21:17:34 GMT -5
I did not use the originals, but where copies of photo original, which will not let me do those spectrographic examinations, however the copies picked up the light variation in black and white. While I would certainly want to take the original todays photocopiers can see better than our vision picking up variations of light difficult to see. Took pictures at different angles to rule out double image and reflection or even watermark. The use of some type of erasing fluid would be the only explanation as it wold be done similar fashion to photo lab work and put in a picture drying frame with minute quantity of ink drying toward the bottom. Notice in the small print the darkest area of the other lines is just starting to become visible, and some of those areas appear to the eye as spots on the ransom note.
|
|
|
"Boad"
Mar 16, 2007 5:32:38 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Mar 16, 2007 5:32:38 GMT -5
I hate to be a nay-sayer but I think there are too many things that pictures of non-originals can pick up. For example, are they pictures of pictures? Are they digital or analog? If analog what developing solution was used? What paper are the pictures printed on? You're photos could actually be picking up things on the photos which were never on the actual ransom notes.
I would go so far as to say the actual notes would have to be photographed outside of their protective plastic coverings for something like this to have value in my opinion.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
"Boad"
Mar 16, 2007 7:02:30 GMT -5
Post by kevkon on Mar 16, 2007 7:02:30 GMT -5
Might be more productive to look at some of the interesting aspects regarding the choice of the particular boad in question.
|
|
|
"Boad"
Mar 16, 2007 20:19:32 GMT -5
Post by rita on Mar 16, 2007 20:19:32 GMT -5
I agree the original needs to be taken out it's protective cover to test it for certain, but I was not expecting to find a complete other note. I had noticed markings on the photo at Ronelle's that under magnification looked like letters or may be even some erased details, and thought they were just single erasures from when the letter was composed, but did not expect whole paragraphs. If there was a protective cover at the time the photograph was made there is a possibility that someone wrote over the surface leaving indentations, but that would not explain the higher degree of opaqueness at the bottom that could only come erasing fluid carrying ink to build up at the bottom on drying.
|
|
|
"Boad"
Mar 16, 2007 21:34:14 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Mar 16, 2007 21:34:14 GMT -5
Let me try to give you an example....
Back in the early '90's (and possibly still to this day) USA Today newspapers took pictures and mass produced them for their editions on presses by using electrochemically grained and anodized printing plates. These plates have "X" amount of runs before they need to be replaced. These analog photos also rely on other variables as well such as specific lighting and/or developing solutions (Aqueous or Chemical). Have you ever gone to the store and picked up a paper where one copy has a line running through it? Does that mean the line existed in the original situation before a picture was taken? Was the paper the picture was printed on virgin in every way or could there have been something that happened to it which could show under ultra-violet lighting that was not on the item or in the real situation?
Taking pictures of pictures includes countless other possibilities and variables, in essence, contaminating the situation. Then think what happens when we take pictures of pictures of pictures of pictures..... need I say more?
In my opinion, any observation concerning "erasures" and/or "overwriting" needs to be made on the originals for it to hold any legitimacy. Of course anyone is free to disagree with me but hopefully you'll see where I am coming from.
|
|
|
"Boad"
Mar 16, 2007 23:14:27 GMT -5
Post by rita on Mar 16, 2007 23:14:27 GMT -5
I hope to make the trip to the Museum to photograph the original.
|
|
|
"Boad"
Mar 26, 2012 16:34:35 GMT -5
Post by johndoe on Mar 26, 2012 16:34:35 GMT -5
I've seen the pictures but don't understand why Hauptmann should write a word that could be "Boad" (or something else) in the middle of a notebook page and doesn't appear connected to anything else.
|
|
|
"Boad"
Mar 29, 2012 14:43:49 GMT -5
Post by fireball on Mar 29, 2012 14:43:49 GMT -5
Since the Boad Nelly doesn't exist, the choice of Nelly should have meaning to the kidnappers. James Warburg's wife is sleeping with Gershwin at the time of the letter. Gershwin's first employer composed "Wait Till The Sun Shines Nelly." Einstein & Thomas Mann write a letter to the NYTIMES in 1931. Heinrich Mann's wife is Nelly & she had lost an infant child. Her letter to Heinrich says:"Please, no more child-murder stories.'" Heinrich's brother Thomas & other German exiles spend time in Ascona. Einstein's son is in a sanitarium in walking distance & Einstein visited there. Ascona's leading entertainment venue is the "Nelly Bar." That's a lot of "Nelly" connections to my conspirators' world
|
|
|
"Boad"
Aug 23, 2012 22:29:53 GMT -5
Post by xjd on Aug 23, 2012 22:29:53 GMT -5
i know in the absence of finger prints, the notes become even more important. however, i am skeptical of the whole science of handwriting analysis. it seems like polygraph, very subjective as to the examiner & the suspect. someone mentioned how the Osbourns changed their view on the notes. the same thing happened with the JonBenet Ramsey case, an expert wrote to Patsy a very moving letter saying he knew she could not have written the notes & then turns around and said she did. i've just not read of consistent research on the topic of handwriting analysis.
so that leaves just the symbolism of the notes. Zorn thinks the circles emulate the cartouches of the post office first day stampings. seems like a very long stretch to me (as does his whole theory, actually). any one think Zorn is on to something?
|
|