New York Post
January 17, 1935
Page 12
"Reeve Wonders if Defense Will Produce 'Dark Horse':
Speculates on Possibility of Plea That Man of
Culture Wrote Kidnap Notes"
By Arthur B. Reeve
FLEMINGTON COURT HOUSE
Jan 17.--Is the "mastermind" upon whom Bruno Richard Hauptmann's lawyers will attempt to fasten the guilt a man whose identity has not yet been hinted at?
The foreshadowing of the defense case by Judge Frederick E. Pope's cross-examination of the State's squad of handwriting
experts leads me to this speculation about a "dark horse."
Through his questions the picture begins to take the form of a business man of some standing, accustomed to phrase his thoughts in clipped style of the formal business letter.
Is Man of Culture
The man he hints at is, nevertheless, a man of culture, a man unusually literate who uses the especially correct form
"may," where most of us--even writers--use "can."
This man, he suggests, uses multi-syllable words correctly and without misspelling but misspells, without rhyme or reason, some of the simplest primer words, often without regard to phonetic values.
This does not cast the shadow of any of the little battalion of "kidnapers" hitherto suggested by the defense.
Dr Condon is literate, but would he fall into the use of business letter rhetoric?
Not Fisch or Johnson
We do not think of Fisch or Johnson or of Violet Sharpe, as falling within this definition either.
Nor do any of the others suggested in interviews and by
previous cross-examination seem to fit.
The science of ascertaining the identity of a writer by comparison and study of documents is only one hundred years old.
The development in law has been considerable hampered by the decision of Justice Coleridge in 185[2] sometimes referred to as the rule of general character and general resemblance.
Heid Decision Factor
Four days of testimony by State experts in this case have, I hope, liberated the legal application of the science from these shackles.
However inadvisable, strategically, four days of repetitious and sometimes confusing expert testimony have been, no one can deny that the deciding factor in the present case will probably be the same expert handwriting testimony.
Both State and defense say that the writing is "disguised."
The State says the disguise is one of Hauptmann's own manufacture.
The defense, apparently, will contend that the "master mind" deliberately counterfeited Hauptmann's "pen likeness" in this "disguise."
Will the defense dramatically "snatch off" this disguise, exposing a "master mind"?
If they are able to, they will have set a new mark in scientific criminology far surpassing in interest, me at least, the human element involved in the present case.
By Arthur B. Reeve