Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on May 22, 2006 20:25:51 GMT -5
On October 6, 1934, Richard Hauptmann wrote a one-page autobiography of the time he spent in the German Army as a machine gunner in WW1. It was written on the letterhead of James M. Fawcett. img525.imageshack.us/my.php?image=u290732acme4qp.jpgI've often looked at this letter to Fawcett, his lawyer before Reilly, as one of the most damning indictments of Hauptmann the ransom note writer, strictly from its handwriting style. Many of the ransom notes' basic elements, the uncrossed "t's" and undotted "i's" appear almost exclusively. It almost seems that after all of the pressure put upon him by the incessant demands for request handwriting exemplars a few weeks before, he had now let his guard down almost entirely. Why would he openly show so many of the attributes of the ransom note writer in a document that appears to have never been widely circulated and commented on at the time? It's important to note the timing of this writing, just a few days after having been examined by a team of psychiatrists (alienists) on October 3, 1934, headed by Dr. Huddleson and whose report was discovered only in the 1990's. The Huddleson Report is very illuminating as it seems to document a totally different and more revealing human side of Hauptmann, relating to a number of formative year events which may well have impacted his later life. From the content of the letter to Fawcett, Hauptmann was making a concerted effort to detail the nature of the serious injuries he had sustained in the war. Notably the injury to his head, caused by the shell fragment that hit his helmet and knocked him unconscious. It seems to me a distinct possibility, this letter was elicited either by Hauptmann's lawyer as a means of providing some kind of rationale which could be put towards either a impending plea of insanity or one of guilty with explanation. What do others think about the handwriting and purpose of the content of this letter?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 23, 2006 15:22:05 GMT -5
Joe, as I am convinced that Hauptmann wrote the ransom notes this letter is only another reinforcement to that effect. The idea of an insanity is interesting and I have read that before. I wonder how Hauptmann would have faired with that tactic? I would think that a lawyer would have to know his client was guilty before even thinking in that vein. What I found most interesting was Hauptmann's recounting of his tour of duty. I have been looking into the specific actions his unit was engaged in and the locations.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on May 23, 2006 18:55:38 GMT -5
Kevin, yes, I should have added the idea that an insanity plea, possibly forthcoming at some stage in the game with Fawcett at the helm, is not a new line of thought. What I find most interesting about the mini-autobiography content though, is the apparent focus on a number of injuries he sustained and the otherwise traumatic experiences he went through.
It almost sounds like a foreword or introduction to establish "cause" before introducing "effect." I'm not sure when this letter to Fawcett surfaced but I would imagine that due to the insanity plea never materializing, Fawcett did what every good lawyer would have done and buried it, in the same way the Huddleson Report was for 60 years. It's fortunate this letter and the HR survived. Neither one does any favors towards Hauptmann's protestations of total innocence.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 23, 2006 19:14:07 GMT -5
Gentlemen,
I have several problems with the observations you two are making....
1. I concede Hauptmann's standards have always had similarities but I also have a problem with the differences. I have also been on record as saying that Hauptmann must have been a very unique person insofar as he has multiple disguises, which he remembered days, and weeks apart - something Osborn himself said was impossible. If not - then it means Hauptmann wrote all the notes at the same time - please think about this.
2. This letter doesn't exist at the NJSP Archives - all we have is this very poor shot of it, which by the way - sucks. I don't see any value in drawing a conclusion concerning the handwriting on this particular document other then a "ballpark" remark and that's a dangerous thing to do here. Even I know from researching this angle that any legitimate comparison must be made by far better copies then this. Most Experts reserve judgment until they see high resolution scans or the actual documents themselves.
I realize you have a so-called Expert making comparisons from old newspaper pictures and drawing conclusions from this material but all I can say is that I certainly wouldn't hire someone who is obviously abusing the profession by being so reckless....Its a perfect example as to why there always seems to be an Expert on both sides of a case.
This letter appears to be a page from one of the multiple and various auto-biographies. I have a couple of versions where his experiences during WWI were recounted. Honestly, it sounds more like propaganda instead of an excuse for something.
3. Please list all sources for this so-called insanity defense. I have seen a newspaper article but that's it. With that in mind I have seen many newspaper articles which printed a myriad of bogus material. We have the Huddleson report which means that Fawcett was doing his job and covering his bases. This is what Defense Attorneys are supposed to do. There is no indication of an insanity defense at the Bronx hearing and when Large was bribed over to the Prosecution from the defense they certainly made no preparation against such a position.
4. Fawcett's material exists and one day we may actually get to see it. His notes would shed some light on his personal observations concerning Hauptmann and when he thought what, but by October 15th....you had better believe no such defense was going to be offered.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 23, 2006 19:47:40 GMT -5
I am not sure I am trying to make any point regarding this letter. As I stated I personally believe Hauptmann wrote the notes regardless of this letter. It is not my intention to convince anyone else of that conclusion. I have read about the possible insanity defense, but really have never given it much thought. Although you seem to be verifying it to me. I am far more interested in Hauptmann's war experiences.
Who is this "so called expert" you are refering to?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 24, 2006 16:48:39 GMT -5
Someone who boast the creds and told me (no joke) that they concluded Hauptmann wrote the notes after evaluating the handwriting in the pictures in Haring's book. Just ask any random Expert (pick one) if they'd be willing to conclude the same from those pictures.
I can understand a position on either side of this issue....I have stated that I am personally 50/50 and have seen nothing yet to push me to either moreso then the other.
But having your stance - help me to understand how you deal with Hauptmann's ability to remember his disguises from day to day to week to week when we are told by Osborn that is impossible plus we are also to believe Hauptmann couldn't remember any disguise from one exemplar to the next made only seconds apart?
I will try to scan some pages in our Member's section to look over concerning his account of this. Again, its more of a propaganda effort and I just don't know how true any of it is.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 24, 2006 17:14:56 GMT -5
I have to admit I have no answer to this question, handwriting is a bit outside of my province. Is this observation universally held by other handwriting experts?
As of now, I would tend to agree as some elements of his story don't seem to make sense from a historical account.
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on May 25, 2006 10:47:36 GMT -5
What has always bothered me about the handwriting are the tremendous differences in the nursery note from the rest. At the trial, moreover, Osborn conceded that they had not compared them to one another. I am not interested entirely in the issue of whether the others are similar to the nursery note, but the indications of stress under which the first one was written as compared to the others. Why should that have been so dramatic?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 25, 2006 10:57:06 GMT -5
WC--it looks to me that it doestn match when you see all 3 notes together on Page 161+ in Scaduto: (see Dear Sirs:)
1. It could have been written in a hurry/ under duress?
2. It could have been written in a moving car?
3. The holes are alligned but the symbol is "crudely appointed"?
4. It could have been written by a different person at Highfields?
Postscript: Fingerprints only count if they are already "on file" or for persons you suspect or capture. Not for those never printed.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on May 26, 2006 20:02:35 GMT -5
There is a solid connection between the nursery note and second note. It certainly appears that whatever disguise was being utilized within the nursery note was carried over into the first four lines of the second note. In my opinion, the nursery note was written with the left hand and this continued into the second note, until the writer simply abandoned the added effort and went back to his proper writing hand.
|
|
|
Post by gismo on May 31, 2006 22:41:38 GMT -5
"...In my opinion, the nursery note was written with the left hand and this continued into the second note, until the writer simply abandoned the added effort and went back to his proper writing hand." (Joe) If it's simply a matter of switching hands, why would you stop writing with your left hand 1/2 way through a ransom note??? I can't imagine a kidnapper of the most famous baby on the planet saying "Oh my, writer's cramp. I must switch hands and go back to my normal every day writing now." "Someone who boast the creds and told me (no joke) that they concluded Hauptmann wrote the notes after evaluating the handwriting in the pictures in Haring's book. Just ask any random Expert (pick one) if they'd be willing to conclude the same from those pictures." (Michael) Good God! This person really professes to be an "expert" Does anyone actually take him seriously?? (More importantly, does anyone actually hire him to testify for them in court? )
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 1, 2006 5:45:42 GMT -5
You make a valid point - yet - the theory does make sense if you consider the length of the note AND with the thought in mind he/she will be writing more letters of similar length. If someone is writing with the opposite hand and disguising it then that is quite a lot of work mentally. If its not the left hand then its (2) separate disguises the Writer would obviously remember from day to day week to week - which of course is supposed to have been impossible.
Again, consider that we are led to believe Hauptmann wasn't supposed to know his own disguise, which was different from the ransom note, from one "request" to the next after being arrested.
So I wonder how Hauptmann wrote those notes, had multiple disguises - remembered them during the note writing episode - but while seemingly gaining more disguises 2-1/2 years later, he couldn't remember them minutes and seconds apart.
That's a bunch of disguises, and a very unique talent that Hauptmann would have, then lose, when he needed it most. It can't be explained away by 'natural variation' because that has nothing to do with it.
I am personally 50/50 on whether or not Hauptmann wrote them, but if he did then it appears he would have done so all at the same time or while looking at something he wrote in disguise before writing another letter.
If it was the latter then Hautpmann was indeed a lot smarter then we have all given him credit for.
Anyway, what is your theory concerning the obvious differences here that Joe refers to if it isn't the "left-handed" position?
|
|
|
Post by gismo on Jun 1, 2006 6:58:01 GMT -5
Anyway, what is your theory concerning the obvious differences here that Joe refers to if it isn't the "left-handed" position? (Michael)
It very well may be that he used his left hand. I just find it odd to "give up" the disguise in the middle of a note. You also raise another interesting point - the length of the notes. Why are some of them so damn long??
"So I wonder how Hauptmann wrote those notes, had multiple disguises - remembered them during the note writing episode - but while seemingly gaining more disguises 2-1/2 years later, he couldn't remember them minutes and seconds apart." (Michael)
Good point!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 26, 2012 17:51:58 GMT -5
One of the pages of the letter from Hauptmann to his then-lawyer James Fawcett can be viewed in my opening post for this thread.
Of particular interest to me in this letter is the departure from the relatively neat cursive seen within his request writings and this more natural and relaxed hand as it seems to unfold here.
Note the uncrossed "t's" and undotted "i's", "Befor" for "Before", "endet" for "ended" and the basic letter formations compared to those in the ransom notes, including the open loop "o", difficulty with the letter "k".
Admittedly, it's not a great image and I'm trying to get a better example of both pages of the letter, but this will have to do for now.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Feb 19, 2016 20:23:46 GMT -5
I first posted this back in May of 2006, but thought I'd throw it out here again slightly edited, as I believe it's a very significant piece of the dynamics within Hauptmann's defense at the time.
I'm interested to know what others think about the content and similarities to the ransom notes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2016 9:36:14 GMT -5
Thanks for reposting that page of handwriting. I sure wish it was larger. It is hard to make a comparison between the writing of the notes and this particular example. I pulled out my Haring book to look at the pictures of the ransom notes, Hauptmann's conceded writings and the request writings. Having absolutely no training in handwriting analysis, I am offering pure speculation with this post. What strikes me is how much variation there is with Hauptmann's writings. Sometimes he crosses t's, sometimes he doesn't. Sometimes i's are dotted, sometimes not. What I think shows between the ransom notes and the other writings is how they are written. What I mean by that is the ransom notes look like someone who is writing slower and more purposeful in the construction of the words. There is a rounder appearance to the way the ransom note letters are formed. Most of Hauptmann's other writings have a more natural look to the flow of the writings with less spacing between the letters of the words. The only exception I would make is that one letter that Hauptmann wrote in 1931 about the debt he owed on his stock margin. That writing looks more like the ransom notes than anything else I have seen. Looking over the Fawcett letter there is an x in the word "six". This x doesn't look at all like the ransom note x. The k in "struck" and "knocked" is a bit different from the k in the ransom notes. You do see the numerous uncrossed t's and undotted i's in this piece of writing which you see in the ransom notes. This is always a problem for me. You can find similarities but you can also find dissimilarities. Does one just add up how many of each they find and then draw a conclusion based on which number is higher? Do you really think Hauptmann wrote this letter about himself so that it could be used for an insanity plea?? I don't see Hauptmann ever agreeing to make such a plea. I think Hauptmann wrote all that stuff for sympathy and wanting to look like he was physically unable to have done the kidnapping because of what happened to him in the war. Perhaps Fawcett just wanted a good sampling of Hauptmann's writing so it could be submitted to the handwriting specialists he was consulting to be compared with the ransom notes? I am assuming Fawcett was able to obtain the ransom notes for just such a purpose. I really don't understand the whole disguised concept in handwriting. I know that people can forge (imitate) the handwriting of someone else. I would think it would take time to create a disguised style of writing and then be able to remember it so you avoid using it when you have to give exemplars years later.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Feb 20, 2016 18:17:23 GMT -5
Here is something I have not seen addressed in analysis of the handwriting. No note seems to have been taken of the numerals written in any of the acknowledged writings of Hauptmann. First, is the IOU of $74.oo + some cents written by Hauptmann, the address of John Condon written on the closet molding, the addressed envelope containing the sleeping suit, and the request in the ransom notes denoting the amount demanded. In all writings. the numerals '2' and '7' all appear to be written by the same person. Please, if anyone would like to comment on the glaring similarities, I would like to hear. It appears to me that the same person wrote each of these numerals.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2016 23:22:42 GMT -5
Here is something I have not seen addressed in analysis of the handwriting. No note seems to have been taken of the numerals written in any of the acknowledged writings of Hauptmann. First, is the IOU of $74.oo + some cents written by Hauptmann, the address of John Condon written on the closet molding, the addressed envelope containing the sleeping suit, and the request in the ransom notes denoting the amount demanded. In all writings. the numerals '2' and '7' all appear to be written by the same person. Please, if anyone would like to comment on the glaring similarities, I would like to hear. It appears to me that the same person wrote each of these numerals. Hi Rebekah, Good point about the numerals. I agree. The numbers are very much like the way Hauptmann writes them. Sometimes numbers can be easier to identify. Hauptmann's handwriting was not consistent. The numerals were. I am going to post an envelope that Hauptmann addressed from Florida in January 1933. He was sending his rent payment to Mr. Rauch, his landlord. Look at the handwriting! Look at those capital M's. Look at how he writes New York City. Doesn't look anything like the ransom notes. Doesn't look like the Fawcett letter either. Look at the x in Max. Look at the x in Bronx. Not like the x's in the ransom notes. Look at the t at the end of street. It is crossed and not typical of the way he usually made his t's. But when you look at those numerals in the address, they scream Hauptmann as they do in his other writings. www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/envelope%20rauch.jpg
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Feb 22, 2016 20:58:29 GMT -5
Here is something I have not seen addressed in analysis of the handwriting. No note seems to have been taken of the numerals written in any of the acknowledged writings of Hauptmann. First, is the IOU of $74.oo + some cents written by Hauptmann, the address of John Condon written on the closet molding, the addressed envelope containing the sleeping suit, and the request in the ransom notes denoting the amount demanded. In all writings. the numerals '2' and '7' all appear to be written by the same person. Please, if anyone would like to comment on the glaring similarities, I would like to hear. It appears to me that the same person wrote each of these numerals. Hi Rebekah, Good point about the numerals. I agree. The numbers are very much like the way Hauptmann writes them. Sometimes numbers can be easier to identify. Hauptmann's handwriting was not consistent. The numerals were. I am going to post an envelope that Hauptmann addressed from Florida in January 1933. He was sending his rent payment to Mr. Rauch, his landlord. Look at the handwriting! Look at those capital M's. Look at how he writes New York City. Doesn't look anything like the ransom notes. Doesn't look like the Fawcett letter either. Look at the x in Max. Look at the x in Bronx. Not like the x's in the ransom notes. Look at the t at the end of street. It is crossed and not typical of the way he usually made his t's. But when you look at those numerals in the address, they scream Hauptmann as they do in his other writings. www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/envelope rauch.jpg Well, pooh, pooh. The link didn't work, Amy. Is that Ronelle's site? I'll just have to go over and check out his rent payment. ( I had her book-marked on my other computer. ) I waiver back and forth, but I think that the penmanship of numbers may be overlooked when someone is trying to disguise their handwriting. He admitted writing Condon's address on the closet molding, and that has bothered me. I still don't believe he was in Hopewell that night.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2016 10:41:21 GMT -5
Well, pooh, pooh. The link didn't work, Amy. Is that Ronelle's site? I'll just have to go over and check out his rent payment. ( I had her book-marked on my other computer. ) I waiver back and forth, but I think that the penmanship of numbers may be overlooked when someone is trying to disguise their handwriting. He admitted writing Condon's address on the closet molding, and that has bothered me. I still don't believe he was in Hopewell that night. My apologizes, Rebekah!! When I posted that link I didn't note the format it was in. It is one of Ronelle's photos. I think you make a good point about the numbers. How much thought is really given to disguising the way numbers are written. Maybe not enough.
|
|