|
Post by Michael on Aug 4, 2015 16:21:22 GMT -5
Here's a little more information on him. I believe any real QDE will be familiar with him most especially since he testified for the State in the Hall-Mills Case. Attachment Deleted
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2015 17:32:45 GMT -5
Thanks so much for posting this, Michael! Mr. Hartkorn was a highly respected expert in his field. I read the letter you posted that Mr. Hartkorn sent to Gov. Hoffman about the J.J. Faulkner signatures. This expert thinks the writer of both signatures is one and the same person. I think this is a very important finding.
Was the office of Carvalho & Hartkorn ever approached to review any of the ransom notes by either Wilentz or Reilly? These QDEs certainly had the expertise!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 5, 2015 20:20:45 GMT -5
Thanks so much for posting this, Michael! Mr. Hartkorn was a highly respected expert in his field. I read the letter you posted that Mr. Hartkorn sent to Gov. Hoffman about the J.J. Faulkner signatures. This expert thinks the writer of both signatures is one and the same person. I think this is a very important finding. They both were. Carvalho was at one time considered the "Dean of Handwriting Experts." I studied the handwriting angle to the point of ad nauseum and have tried to forget as much as I can to make room for more important stuff. However, Joe jogged my memory with something he wrote in an email so I'll share some of it. There was a famous case he was attached to (although not as famous as Hall-Mills or Lindbergh Kidnapping) which involved Roland B. Molineux. Carvalho was the Defense Expert, and he was opposed by both John Tyrrell and Osborn S.. Carvalho had appeared only a year earlier for that same Prosecution during the trial of a woman named Cody who was bribing the wealthy Gould family heirs. And all three were considered solid Experts. During the first trial, Molineux was convicted but that conviction was tossed on appeal. During the 2nd trial the Prosecution believed Carvalho's testimony was damaging his case, and with Molineux on the stand asked him how Carvalho came into the case. Molineux testified that he volunteered, but said if they decided to use him and he concluded Molineux was the Author, that he would immediately advise the District Attorney Molineux was guilty. Molineux was acquitted after 12 minutes of Jury deliberation. Who was right? I say roll the dice and that answer will be just as good. What these Experts do is offer an educated opinion. Nothing more. And then there's the role money plays into it as well. That's why there's always one on either side of things. Everyone "loves" Stein, and everyone "loves" Osborn S. But who do they love when they are on opposite sides? Osborn S. even sent an innocent young lady, Miss Sarah Mowell, to prison based on his testimony during the Mrs. Von Moschzisker poison pen case. While there she contracted a deadly disease. Later she was vindicated and released when it turned out the Accuser, Mrs. Von Moschzisker was the actual Author of the letters herself! The Defense Expert was a man named Bushrod Spencer who turned out to be right in this case. Anyway, my posts on Hartkorn are only meant to be examples of the overall doubtfulness attached to this psuedo-science. While there's "something" to it, I don't believe it's enough and I'd hate like hell to be on trial for something I didn't commit and have to defend myself against this type of testimony. I personally do not believe the J.J. Faulkner who wrote the Governor was the same Author who wrote the original deposit slip. But that's just my opinion. Was the office of Carvalho & Hartkorn ever approached to review any of the ransom notes by either Wilentz or Reilly? These QDEs certainly had the expertise! I've never seen anything involving Carvalho. Hartkorn was approached by Val O'Farrell who brought copies of the ransom notes and had him compare them to a check (or something similar) sometime before the baby was discovered dead. Later, Hartkorn wrote Wilentz offering his services to the Prosecution prior to the Hauptmann Trial. Based on my research, I am pretty sure he wouldn't have done this if he did not believe Hauptmann had written them - so that's my personal conclusion on that end of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2015 10:11:42 GMT -5
What these Experts do is offer an educated opinion. Nothing more. And then there's the role money plays into it as well. That's why there's always one on either side of things. Isn't this what all expert testimony is? The experts review the evidence they are given and then render their opinion on it. If the side who sought out the expert opinion likes the conclusions drawn then they ask that expert to testify in court, agreeing to pay the fees asked by the expert. How much of a role do you see money playing as far as the Osborn testimony goes? Osborn Sr. was already a well established expert in his field and doesn't appear to be someone who would be looking for a financial pot of gold from this. Was Osborn motivated in any way because this was the biggest case in the history of crime at that time and/or because Osborn really believed Hauptmann was the writer of the ransom notes? How is a jury to ever really know if an expert (on either side) is being sincere and ethical or if they are testifying for payment to support a particular position? I know that Wilentz went after some defense witnesses for this very thing. Since we are talking about expert opinion and financial compensation for it, I wanted to ask you a couple of questions. 1) Was Arthur Koehler paid for his research and subsequent testimony in the Lindbergh Case? 2) Did any other experts involved with this case put in a request for Lindbergh Reward money besides Arthur Koehler?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 6, 2015 17:00:53 GMT -5
Isn't this what all expert testimony is? The experts review the evidence they are given and then render their opinion on it. If the side who sought out the expert opinion likes the conclusions drawn then they ask that expert to testify in court, agreeing to pay the fees asked by the expert. I look at a true Expert of a specific and valid science having conclusions based on facts - not "some" science mixed in with some guess-work as we see in Handwriting Analysis. When I was a Juror back in '08 for a murder case the Prosecution called a Ballistics Expert that matched the bullet to the Defendant's gun. Where was the Defense Ballistics Expert to say it didn't match? There was none because the Science proved that gun fired that bullet. The best the Defense could do was allege someone had exchanged the barrel on the Defendant's gun to frame her. As another example, I look at the Ramsey case and that "ransom" letter sure as as hell looks like Patsy Ramsey's handwriting to me. And there are Handwriting Experts who agree. But there are those who say just the opposite. So of course it's natural to "like" those who agree and "dislike" those who don't. So it's not an exact science huh? No kidding it's not - because it's not a real science from where I am standing. How much of a role do you see money playing as far as the Osborn testimony goes? Osborn Sr. was already a well established expert in his field and doesn't appear to be someone who would be looking for a financial pot of gold from this. Well Osborn D. disagreed with himself. First he said Hauptmann did not write them then after the Ransom Money was found on him, he said he did. Even the Police and FBI Agents had a big laugh about that at the time. But to answer your question I'd say money was a huge incentive. Osborn S. submitted a bill for 12k. Osborn D. for $9,655, and Stein for $4800. When Wilentz sent him a voucher for $3,000 he sent it back unsigned with a letter asking for more. Here is a letter Osborn S. wrote to Wilentz and I'll let you judge for yourself: 1) Was Arthur Koehler paid for his research and subsequent testimony in the Lindbergh Case? 2) Did any other experts involved with this case put in a request for Lindbergh Reward money besides Arthur Koehler? 1. Yes, he was paid his salary by his Government Agency. He had no buisness whatsoever asking for a reward for doing his job. When Irey was asked for a list of Bank Tellers who found bills he omitted those working at the Federal Reserve stating they didn't deserve a reward for this exact same reason. The Governor also considered rewarding the FBI Agents and Treasury Agents themselves in one letter but it was respectfully declined on these same grounds. I don't know what was going through Koehler's head when he wrote that letter to be honest. 2. Not that I am aware of.
|
|