|
Post by Michael on Jun 22, 2014 7:43:59 GMT -5
Thanks for making Tyrrell's objective clear about the expense book. I find it interesting that someone else was making entries into that book. I need to ask you what kind of an expense book this was. Was it household expenses which could have had entries made by Anna? Was it a business expense book which contained information on stock purchases, fur purchases, mortgage loans, and personal loans made by Richard where others could have entered their own information on appropriate pages? I believe he's referring to the "Boad" notebook. This was the one Hauptmann used during his trip to California. Totally agree! In a perfect world, it would certainly be that way. What you show here with the letters you have posted is clearly actions of conspiring with the officials Tyrrell was only supposed to give his "expert" opinion to. Suggesting the prosecution conceal that expense book from the defense team, should they come looking for it, goes way beyond giving an expert opinion on handwriting. Not just a perfect world but one where there's at least fairness. I expect underhandedness in life, but not coming directly from the State - and in every possible way imaginable. It's why there is doubt lurking around every corner ... because their actions dictated there absolutely should be. I clearly see what you are saying. The prosecution's strategy was to have all the best experts on their team in order to keep them out of the hands of the defense. This certainly hurt Hauptmann's ability to defend himself in court with a reputable expert to testify on his behalf. Yes, and to ensure their testimony would have always been favorable to the Prosecution. Farrar should not have been a threat to them, however, his letters were becoming extremely defensive and emotional. He felt slighted and marginalized. And so, they were thinking he might jump over to the Defense. When Myers & Malone "quit" the Defense, the story was they said Hauptmann had written the notes, therefore, they could not testify for the Defense. This is a HUGE bit of information because it sets them up for either a big payday with the Prosecution or nothing because now they can never return to Hauptmann's corner. This means, depending upon whoever was the source for this fable, its "win-win" for the State concerning them. I went in and read Gardner's passage on Myers and Malone, the almost defense handwriting experts. As Gardner tells it these two men wouldn't even look at anything until they were paid first. The defense could not afford to do this so M&M walked away never laying their eyes upon any handwriting specimens. Were these two experts truly reputable? I realize looks can be deceiving but from the way Gardner described their appearance, etc., I am not really sure they would have done Hauptmann much good. Lloyd Fisher didn't think much of them and his attack on them was really an attack against Reilly. I will give it to you straight from what I've researched.... Malone was a peer among those who testified for the State. He even worked on cases side by side with some of these men. Although Myers claimed to be a "Handwriting Expert," it's my position that he was merely a Student and hadn't yet risen to that level. Of course this position can always be challenged since I am not "Expert" in this field myself, but that's what I truly believe as a result the material I've studied. The other thing that really upsets me is that the handwriting experts the defense was able to afford were only given a few hours to go over the handwriting evidence. This is hardly enough time to evaluate, draw conclusions and give a well thought out opinion and presentation. The prosecution experts had so much more time to do all those things. That's a story in and of itself. They claimed whoever the Prosecutor was who brought these notes into the room was drunk at the time and on the verge of a break-down. I've also wondered whether or not they were even the actual ransom letters. 1) What was the consensus of the handwriting experts regarding disguised handwriting of the ransom notes? Were all the notes in a disguised hand or just the nursery note? I want to be careful with that word " consensus." I would have to research each of their files, and then cross reference it with this trial testimony in order to give you a truthful answer. The thing about these men is they had differing positions in places which was something I've always pointed out to show how unreliable this "science" was. However, in order to at least try to answer your question I can give you some specific examples as they are coming from individual Experts in the documents I happen to have in front of me.. Osborn Sr. wrote the following (May 1932)... Concerning the 1st Note: The writing in the ransom letter is, in my opinion, unmistakeably unnatural and partially disguised in certain ways. It is just possible that some of it may have been written with the left hand by a right-handed person, but I am inclined to doubt this. Concerning the following Notes: The letters beginning with No. 2 show but little, if any, disguise although some of them are written more rapidly, and carelessly then others. Stein (June 1932)... Concerning the 1st Note: Number 1, the ransom letter, is undoubtedly written with some conscious effort to disguise and resulted in a very halting and clumsy kind of writing. It has some appearance of having been written under unfavorable surrounding or conditions. Such writing as is found in No. 1 suggests lefthand writing by a writer who writes naturally with the right hand, but I would hesitate to say that the writing in No. 1 was written with the left hand. Concerning the following Note: The beginning part of No.2, especially the first four lines, has in it some of the same character of writing as is found in No. 1: but beginning with the fifth line, the entire remaining part of the page is written more freely and apparently with less attempt to write in an unnatural way. No. 3, and all of the numbers from that point on to No. 12 have a decreasing amount of evidence of any effort to disguise the writing. 2) Did the experts consider Hauptmann's request writings to be natural or disguised writing? I ask this because of something Haring says in his book. Stein (December 1934): In connection with evidences of disguise in the Hauptmann writing which was written by request, Exhibit D shows the first five lines written in a very different style of handwriting then the remainder of the exhibit. There is also some differences between the first three or four lines of Exhibit D-1, and the remainder of the specimen of handwriting. These specimens, in my opinion, show the ability of the writer of the Hauptmann writing to write in a different manner then the normal handwriting of this writer, assuming that Exhibits E and F which are the agreement and the license applications represent substantially the normal handwriting of the writer of the Hauptmann writing. Sellers (December 1934): I am convinced that the dissimilarities between Mr. Hauptmann's exemplar writing and the writing in the anonymous documents are due to an attempt to disguise, and to natural variation characteristics of the writer. Sellers (1936): Specimens of Hauptmann's handwriting which were written by request immediately after his arrest constituted some very damaging evidence against him. He attempted to disguise his handwriting, instead of giving a fair sample. The disguise he used was the same as that used by the kidnaper two and one-half years before.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2014 18:34:11 GMT -5
I appreciate what you could post for me when trying to answer my questions. This is not an exact science by any means. I understand that there are standards used in this medium but each QDE applies his own interpretation of documents he is evaluating when using those standards.
Generally speaking though, based on some reading I was doing earlier today, it seems that the handwriting experts felt that the ransom notes were disguised writing for various reasons. They seem to be mixed on the request writings - some being disguised writing and some not. Osborn especially sees the request writings as split between disguised and conceded. I must admit, I have found him to be confusing at various points. I need more time to go over his positions. Haring in his book says that all the ransom notes and the request writings are disguised writing.
What no one seems to explain here is why they think Hauptmann did those request writings in the same disguised writing as the ransom notes. How nuts is that! He would be incriminating himself by doing that.
Were any of the handwriting experts aware of the procedures used for obtaining the request writings from Hauptmann?
Did Hauptmann do the request writings in pen or pencil? If pencil, would he have been allowed to erase or change things?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 24, 2014 10:55:58 GMT -5
Generally speaking though, based on some reading I was doing earlier today, it seems that the handwriting experts felt that the ransom notes were disguised writing for various reasons. From the examples I've posted previously, you can see that also depends upon the timing of that position. For example, Osborn Sr.'s testimony claims it was a disguise throughout but that's not his earlier assertion. Osborn especially sees the request writings as split between disguised and conceded. I must admit, I have found him to be confusing at various points. I need more time to go over his positions. Haring in his book says that all the ransom notes and the request writings are disguised writing. Right. He claims this is part of the reason for request exemplars ... to see if the person is being honest or not in writing them. He sees Hauptmann disguise, natural, and both. The disguise in those, he says, is the same "style" as what's in the ransom notes. What no one seems to explain here is why they think Hauptmann did those request writings in the same disguised writing as the ransom notes. How nuts is that! He would be incriminating himself by doing that. Osborn Sr.'s explanation is, on page 969 of the trial testimony, is that Hauptmann had "but one disguise." I suppose his position is that while attempting to conceal his Authorship of the Ransom Notes, he reverts to his "disguise." Since that "disguise" is the only one he has it betrays him. The problems with this position exists in many places. First, as my original point opening this thread indicates, Osborn asserts a request exemplar is helpful because even if the Suspect disguises his handwriting, he will not remember exactly how he disguised it, and that truth will come out in the next requests. One right after the other. But if this is true, how in the hell does Hauptmann remember his disguise years later? So we're supposed to believe he remembered the disguise but forgot he used it in the Ransom Notes? Next, since he now claims the Ransom Notes were all disguised, and there were two types of disguise used in them, how can he now say Hauptmann only had "but one disguise?" Were any of the handwriting experts aware of the procedures used for obtaining the request writings from Hauptmann? Sellers suspected it so he asked Schwarzkopf a question so that he could clear his mind of it. Schwarzkopf told him Hauptmann would get "stuck" and would be told how to spell, but was mostly told to spell it the best he could. That's it. Everyone else refused to allow it to enter their minds, with both Cassidy and Osborn Jr. expressing shock at the mere suggestion of it. I think it was Cassidy who said he had a (from memory) "greater faith in humanity" then to believe such a dirty trick would be used. Did Hauptmann do the request writings in pen or pencil? If pencil, would he have been allowed to erase or change things? He was given pens. More then one so as to exemplify the various tips on them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2014 19:54:40 GMT -5
I have started reading through some of Osborn Sr.'s testimony. Right off, I have to tell you that I was getting confused by the terminology he used when describing the warious forms of wrtings he spoke about in his testimony. He called the writings standard, genuine, acknowledged and requests. I am clear on the request writings. I am thinking that the genuine writing is Hauptmann's conceded writing?? What then are the standard writings and the acknowledged writings?
Photographic specimens of words from the ransom notes and from Hauptmann's request writings were placed on the wall behind the witness stand for Osborn to use when explaining to the jury his findings. Osborn starts out saying that the two sets of handwriting presented on the display boards are either by the same writer or that the similarites between the two could be accidental or coincidental. Then he gives the jurors a third option. The ransom notes are an imitation of the handwriting of the writer. I take it Osborn means the natural writing of the writer(Hauptmann). Gee, isn't this what Richard and Anna were claiming?
Osborn says the available penmanship(natural writings) of Hauptmann used for evaluation purposes were several years of auto registrations and one promissory note he signed. How many years of auto registrations are we talking about? They provided a very limited amount of words to use. Lots of repeat words if the car stays the same each year. The one promissory note Osborn mentions; was the entire note used or just his signature?
For me, this disguise issue is very problematic. It seems to me that if Hauptmann wrote the ransom notes in a diguised handwriting, he would remember doing that even if he doesn't remember which disguise he used. All he would have to do when asked to do the request writings is to write in his natural handwriting. Don't you disguise your handwriting so it doesn't look just like your regular handwriting? The dissimilarities of the natural writing should outnumber the similarities to the disguised writing of the ransom notes. Wouldn't this come under the "accidental or coincidental" comment Osborn made?
I am still trying to figure out where Hauptmann's conceded writings fit into these evaluations. If everthing else is in a disguised hand, how do you draw any matches between the conceded writings and the other writings to show he wrote the notes?
That is good to know. The ransom notes look like they were written with a rather broad-tipped fountation pen or it may be because the writing was done slowly giving them a heavier looking ink line.
I have read a little of John Trendley's court testimony. It seems like he did rather well considering the huge disadvantage he faced. A very small amount of time to review the writing specimens and then having to use the word boards made by the prosecution experts to make his points clear to the jury. He certainly gave it his best shot!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 28, 2014 8:23:32 GMT -5
I have started reading through some of Osborn Sr.'s testimony. Right off, I have to tell you that I was getting confused by the terminology he used when describing the warious forms of wrtings he spoke about in his testimony. He called the writings standard, genuine, acknowledged and requests. I am clear on the request writings. I am thinking that the genuine writing is Hauptmann's conceded writing?? What then are the standard writings and the acknowledged writings? Here's my belief: There are "questioned" documents. There are "standards." And there are "requests." Any other adjectives refer to one of these three. Photographic specimens of words from the ransom notes and from Hauptmann's request writings were placed on the wall behind the witness stand for Osborn to use when explaining to the jury his findings. Osborn starts out saying that the two sets of handwriting presented on the display boards are either by the same writer or that the similarities between the two could be accidental or coincidental. Then he gives the jurors a third option. The ransom notes are an imitation of the handwriting of the writer. I take it Osborn means the natural writing of the writer(Hauptmann). Gee, isn't this what Richard and Anna were claiming? They would explain away difference by attributing them to "natural variation" or "disguise." Similarities they found was attributed to "chance," "authorship," or "imitation." "Imitation" was a concern for this group of State's Experts because Trendley was on the Defense. His claim to fame was to pen out a forged document to which the Defense would get the State's Experts to swear was real. Needless to say, he wasn't a very well liked guy in their community. Osborn says the available penmanship(natural writings) of Hauptmann used for evaluation purposes were several years of auto registrations and one promissory note he signed. How many years of auto registrations are we talking about? They provided a very limited amount of words to use. Lots of repeat words if the car stays the same each year. The one promissory note Osborn mentions; was the entire note used or just his signature? Here is S-86:
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 28, 2014 8:44:54 GMT -5
I am still trying to figure out where Hauptmann's conceded writings fit into these evaluations. If everything else is in a disguised hand, how do you draw any matches between the conceded writings and the other writings to show he wrote the notes? Since there are both many experts, and many sources of handwriting, what I've tried to do over the years is look at their reports, memos, letters, as well as their various testimony (where it exists) in order to understand their position. What they appear to do, for the State's case anyway, is explain away differences by calling it "disguise" or "natural variation." Similarities are searched for then are tied to the questioned documents. Stein, for example, is very specific in claiming that both spelling and letter formation is what he is drawing his conclusions on. The "peculiar x," the undotted "i," the uncrossed "t" are all used in evidence in his report. Then he looks at the "small ending o," the "y," the "w," the "p," the "s" and shows where they not only look similar they were actually formed or created the same way by how they were written. I've have been and still am 50/50 on the handwriting being Hauptmann's. We all must look at everything. When someone like Jim Fisher writes, in essence, that both Myers and Malone quit because their examination led them to believe Hauptmann wrote the notes, it can certainly influence someone. After all, its coming from someone who absolutely slams everyone he deems a "Revisionist" for misleading people. Yet, this powerful argument is completely bogus since neither Myers, nor Malone, ever examined anything but quit because they wanted to get paid a huge amount of money. So we have to be careful of people saying one thing but doing another because it leads to myths being accepted as fact. For me, the most damning could be that "peculiar x." But when I searched for one, just as I had searched for the "k," I was able to locate an example that had not been written by Hauptmann. Additionally, Lloyd found one too, before I did, which was written by Hans Mueller. So while it may be classified as "peculiar" I don't think calling it "unique" is appropriate. So when you start turning over stones and actually looking there might be stuff worthy of consideration. Take a look at the Fisher cross examination of Osborn Jr. as yet another example. He annihilated him over his assertion that the hypen between New-York was a unique characteristic he had never seen before. Fisher then started producing example after example of this exact hyphen between New-York some even coming from Fisch's handwriting. If you remember what I wrote concerning Appel's Grand Jury Testimony - here is a copy of his handwriting report to consider:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2014 8:48:59 GMT -5
I am sure you are looking fairly at this issue. Just from the very limited reading I have done on this handwriting issue, what I find most disturbing is how the use of "disguised" is used when evaluating the writings. Like you say in your quote above, they apply disguise selectively, sometimes even finding one singular sheet of writing to be both natural and disguised writing according to what "matched" and what didn't. That "now you see it, now you don't" application of disguise is very confusing and, I think, misleading.
After all of the years you have spent researching this case and you are still 50/50 on this issue says alot. All the reports created by the experts before the trial need to be considered when trying to make a fair and complete evaluation of the handwriting evidence. What you have posted on this thread proves that. The prosecution had so much of Hauptmann's natural writings available to them. Yet, with all that the experts looked at, so few natural writing items would be used in court. Thank you for posting Appel's findings. I think he created a good report for the Bronx Grand Jury using just Hauptmann's driving applications.
The Haberland agreement you posted was done in 1933. The experts felt this was useful in matching Hauptmann to the ransom notes. Do you know why they didn't use some of the other letters they found especially the 1931 letter Hauptmann wrote for a $74.89 debit he owed?
Thanks to you and Lloyd it puts some of the letter formations into a better perspective. Thinking about the way Hauptmann made some of his letters and how they changed over time just shows his handwriting was evolving. The more he would write in English the better it would eventually get. It started to loose the crudeness you see in earlier writings. I have looked at early german styles of writing, Kurrentschrift" and "Sutterlinschrift". Perhaps Hauptmann was trying to change his writing a bit to be more "american" and that is why some of his letters are different from german script.
I was wondering how Hauptmann's german written letters compare in writing style to his english written ones? Does the german writing have a smoother appearance than the english written letters?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 29, 2014 11:49:16 GMT -5
It always seemed to me that the first note--the nursery ransom note--showed a shakiness not seen in any of the other notes. What're people's thoughts on this? Was it an attempt to disguise the handwriting or could it have been that the note was written on the fly, like in a car over bumpy country roads...? Though, if that was the case, how would they have punched the singnature symbol into the paper? Or was that done ahead of time? Maybe my biggest question about the notes in general is, what with the possibility of one's handwriting being identified, why not just use a typewriter? What could the fact that they didn't do that indicate?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 30, 2014 19:17:37 GMT -5
I am sure you are looking fairly at this issue. I'd be lying if I said it wasn't without bias - which exists because I don't believe its a "science." When you have a note, like in the Ramsey Case, either Mrs. Ramsey wrote it, she didn't, or it cannot be determined. How in the world can both sides find Experts testifying against one another with opposite positions? Let's compare this to a "real" science: I was on a Jury back in '08. The charge was Murder, and the Victim was shot. The Ballistic Expert was from the PA State Police who testified the gun which was discovered had been the murder weapon. So where was the "other" Ballistics Expert to testify it wasn't? No, instead we're supposed to believe someone had stolen the weapon, then swapped out the barrel. There was no challenge whatsoever to this Expert's testimony precisely because it IS a science. There's no guess work needed - just expertise. Now, I won't say there isn't value to Handwriting Analysis, but it's not at the level we should expect from a "science" .... at least that's my opinion anyway. Do you know why they didn't use some of the other letters they found especially the 1931 letter Hauptmann wrote for a $74.89 debit he owed? There's nothing that I've found which spells out why. Here it is by the way: I was wondering how Hauptmann's german written letters compare in writing style to his english written ones? Does the german writing have a smoother appearance than the english written letters? In all of the studying I have done concerning this angle, I remember reading it was a unanimous rule that print had to be compared to print, cursive compared to cursive, and English to English, and German to German. If anyone disagrees with this I am willing to listen, but I am 99% sure this is the rule of thumb.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 30, 2014 19:29:05 GMT -5
It always seemed to me that the first note--the nursery ransom note--showed a shakiness not seen in any of the other notes. What're people's thoughts on this? Was it an attempt to disguise the handwriting or could it have been that the note was written on the fly, like in a car over bumpy country roads...? Though, if that was the case, how would they have punched the singnature symbol into the paper? Or was that done ahead of time? Maybe my biggest question about the notes in general is, what with the possibility of one's handwriting being identified, why not just use a typewriter? What could the fact that they didn't do that indicate? Kevin believed this note was written in the car. I seem to remember that he pointed out the smeared ink indicating it had gotten wet. Personally, that's not my position. I believe the symbol wasn't punched in the car, therefore, if that was done ahead of time why wouldn't the words have been written ahead of time too? So for me it makes the most amount of sense the note was simply written the way it was for the purposes of disguise. Another "control" for this might be the "Boad Nelly" note. According to Condon, CJ didn't expect a receipt to be demanded from him. So we're supposed to believe he wrote it on the fly. Compare that note to the original and what do you get? There's no symbol on that one so if Condon was telling the truth we have something to support him. Unfortunately, what are the odds he was? Anyway, the symbol takes preparation. Where you have it I would say it's most likely the writing was prepared ahead of time too.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 30, 2014 20:45:31 GMT -5
I can see where the nursery note might've gotten wet in places, since it was so stormy out that night. And I think the Boad Nelly receipt was written ahead of time--agreed upon at Woodlawn and handed over at St. Raymond's. As usual, I don't think Condon was telling the truth here--at least not the complete truth. But what's your view on why the notes weren't typewritten? And I have to say that that "Dear Sir" note above, that Hauptmann wrote for $74.89--uh... before enlarging it, at first glance I actually thought it was a copy of the nursery note. I'm wondering now if Hauptmann did in fact write at least that first note, trying to disguise his writing...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 23:07:16 GMT -5
Thanks Michael for posting that letter. I personally don't understand why they didn't use this piece of writing. Perhaps it was because it didn't have the "x" or the "k" in the text which all the experts focused so heavily on.
Osborn, when trying to explain why the note had smears in 1932 thought the note might have been written hurriedly under unusual conditions which prevented the letter from being blotted so the ink smeared. Lloyd Gardner mentions this in his book on page 303.
That was my first reaction to that letter when I first saw it. It is the reason I asked Michael why it wasn't used. In my humble opinion, it should have been.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 2, 2014 20:28:28 GMT -5
To lightningjew, amy35, Michael et al:
"I can see where the nursery note might've gotten wet in places, since it was so stormy out that night."
From what I know, it was chilly and windy, but there was no precipitation in the area at the time.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 2, 2014 21:16:27 GMT -5
To lightningjew, Michael, amy35 et al:
I was just comparing the known Hauptmann writing specimen posted by Michael - the $74.89 debit note - to the first ransom note in the Lindbergh case. I am not a certified forensic document examiner by any means, but have some personal knowledge on this subject through hiring experts to do work for me in the past.
From what I can see, there are some similarities but some differences as well between the two specimens. I don't think that too many experts would feel comfortable making a definitive call on this. That's why they ideally like to see a minimum of ten to twelve known handwriting samples of an individual in order to determine whether he or she wrote a questioned document.
Also, with respect to Hauptmann, it is well known that one's handwriting can change when the individual is subject to abusive conditions and extreme stress, such as Hauptmann was by the NYPD in the aftermath of his arrest. After having been physically beaten and deprived of sleep, he was asked to write dictated words and sentences (requested writing). Rather than the requested writing being deliberately disguised, it's just as likely that it was altered due to the conditions to which he was exposed.
It's my take that in general, forensic document examination has become a lot more reliable today than it was back in the 1930s.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 7, 2014 9:02:04 GMT -5
To amy35, Michael, et al: Recall that Russian was Nosovitsky's native language! But he also possessed considerable German language capabilities, as Behn states in his book, and as his 1925 memo regarding his pursuit of a guy named Mueller demonstrate. As I posted on the Nosovitsky thread, Noso gave himself the alias "Anderson-Augenblick" at that time. "Augenblick" is German for "blink of an eye" or "instant," so perhaps Noso was insinuating to his pals in the investigations or spy business that he could do things quickly.
That 1925 Noso memo also contains inappropriate (for English) capitalizations, which would be expected for a writer who is more fluent in German, because in German, just about every noun is capitalized. In J. J. Faulkner's letter to Gov. Hoffman in 1936, we see the inappropriate capitalizations again.
All this doesn't prove by itself that Noso is the ransom note writer, but it is certainly consistent with that theory.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2014 11:05:10 GMT -5
My friend gave me a Webster's unabridged dictionary c. 1923 (Wilson is last Pres. mentioned) that has an oil cloth cover, dark green, and glued to the inside cover board is a column of a newspaper article with sub-heading "Irey Aid's Key To Case Long Ignored" the left of the column is torn away with (presumably) a large picture of Hauptmann (his ear is visible) and the beginning of the article. It tells of agent Art Madden who advised to look at auto license applications to match handwriting on ransom notes. They match Hauptmann's & could have saved 30 months investigation if not ignored by the police (article's complaint). On the other inside cover board is some material with white & red stripe and some letters, the only clear letters are "die" which is the most used German word, the article "the". The dictionary has a multi-language section that has most used expressions & German is one of the translated languages. There is one dog-eared page & it contains the word "accomplice" & "accent". I'd love to track the newspaper & its date. An immigrant would NEED a good dictionary & that glued-in Hauptmann article with the "die" article points to someone who CARES.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 22, 2014 12:18:34 GMT -5
To alan et al:
Some observations on what you have there:
(1) The date of your dictionary is probably a little earlier than 1923, because in 1923, Harding was already in his third year as president when he died the same year. Thus a dictionary printed in 1923 by a well-respected authority would undoubtedly list Harding as the last president.
(2) The educated guess here is that the newspaper article you mention about Hauptmann was, based on the content and the photo of Hauptmann, from the days immediately following Hauptmann's arrest, which occurred in September of 1934. Can't help you with the newspaper from which the article may have originated, unless you can match a particular font in the article to a particular font used by a specific newspaper at the time. You might also, if you're lucky, pick up on a geographical clue as to where the dictionary owner may have lived, which might lead to a newspaper in the same geographical location.
(3) The newspaper also contained a story about an IRS agent suggesting back at the time of the ransom payment that auto license applications should be looked at to match handwriting on ransom notes. This would also be consistent with the mind set of law enforcement at the time immediately following Hauptmann's arrest, e.g., "we could have saved thirty months if we followed so-and-so recommendation back then." But I'm not sure that scouring through reams of driver license applications would be all that efficient, considering the large volume of such applications and the limited number of professional people qualified to do such handwriting analysis.
(4) The identification of Hauptmann as the writer of the ransom notes is highly questionable, despite the testimony by Osborne and others for the prosecution at the Hauptmann trial. The defense had a handwriting expert who testified that Hauptmann was NOT the writer. As I for one have posted on these boards, there is a very good chance that the writer of all the ransom notes, except perhaps the first, was one Jacob Nosovitsky, a very shady character with tons of aliases, including "J. J. Faulkner."
(5) Can you speculate on who the original owner of the Webster's Unabridged Dictionary might have been?
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Aug 15, 2014 11:51:52 GMT -5
63014 001.jpg
The "D" in "Dear Sir" looks very much like the "D" in the "Dear Sir" from the nursery note. Michael, do you have a copy of the second note? The only one I could locate was folded and did not show the new demand for $70,000. Also, who lived at 1462 Needham Avenue? It looks like it was added after Hauptmann signed it, and doesn't look like he wrote it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 16, 2014 8:19:22 GMT -5
63014 001.jpg The "D" in "Dear Sir" looks very much like the "D" in the "Dear Sir" from the nursery note. Michael, do you have a copy of the second note? The only one I could locate was folded and did not show the new demand for $70,000. Also, who lived at 1462 Needham Avenue? It looks like it was added after Hauptmann signed it, and doesn't look like he wrote it. Jim Fisher has a good list of the Ransom Notes on his site: jimfisher.edinboro.edu/lindbergh/writing.html If you need a better picture I could go to me files to see if I have one so just let me know. 1462 Needham Ave is where they lived prior to their trip to California.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Aug 16, 2014 14:58:24 GMT -5
63014 001.jpg The "D" in "Dear Sir" looks very much like the "D" in the "Dear Sir" from the nursery note. Michael, do you have a copy of the second note? The only one I could locate was folded and did not show the new demand for $70,000. Also, who lived at 1462 Needham Avenue? It looks like it was added after Hauptmann signed it, and doesn't look like he wrote it. Jim Fisher has a good list of the Ransom Notes on his site: jimfisher.edinboro.edu/lindbergh/writing.html If you need a better picture I could go to me files to see if I have one so just let me know. 1462 Needham Ave is where they lived prior to their trip to California. Thank you so much for the link. I found exactly what I was looking for in the second note. I had no idea that there was a front AND back to the letter. It wasn't folded. I looked closely at the numbers, especially the "7", also the 2s and the 5s. IMHO, these numbers appear to be written by the same person who wrote the request to the broker to give him a little more time to pay the $74.89. Hauptmann. I'm no expert; but that " 7 " looks exact to me. Also, thank you for the heads up on the Needham Avenue address. I was not aware that the Hauptmanns had moved at any time.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Aug 20, 2014 7:44:29 GMT -5
To Michael, Rebekah, et al:
Thanks, Michael, for the link to Jim Fisher's handwriting exhibits used to determine if Hauptmann was the ransom note writer. Fisher introduces his blog with, "The handwriting evidence against Hauptmann is overwhelming." Well, I'm not too sure about that.
The mere fact that the State had eight handwriting experts testify at the trial that Hauptmann wrote all the notes (vs. one for the defense) doesn't make it so. You must consider that New Jersey paid these "experts" more than twice the money that Hauptmann had in Lindbergh ransom bills! The key point is that the State could afford to recruit a whole bunch of these guys, while the defense was limited to only one because of budgetary restraints. In fact, Schwarzkopf sent out a form letter to recruit the "experts" that wound up in the courtroom. Surely few "experts" would voluntarily pass up the hefty fees and the publicity that testifying in the "Trial of the Century" offered them.
As you might know, another well-known detective and handwriting expert of the era, William Pelletreau, advised Gov. Hoffman after studying the ransom notes that J. J. Nosovitsky (aka "J. J. Faulkner"), wrote all but the nursery note and an unknown author wrote that first note.
Even I, as an admitted amateur, can see some general characteristics that differentiate that nursery note from the others. In that nursery note, the general angle of the writing is pretty much vertical, while in the others, the writing has a definite slant from right to left as it goes from up to down. The general slant of the writing is very much a characteristic of subconscious habit of the writer, which would be very difficult to disguise consciously.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Aug 20, 2014 8:11:04 GMT -5
the handwriting was overwhelming. the problem is through the years non experts gave there expert opinions and proved nothing. leave it to the experts
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2014 9:31:44 GMT -5
Plus there is the fact that the nursery note and the second note are created from the same single sheet of paper that had been torn in half. Also when you look at the beginning of the second note received in the Hopewell mail on March 5, 1932, you can see where the writer started to compose it using the same disguise by using their left hand but after a few senteces gave up and started writing with the right hand and continued writing all the other notes the same way.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Aug 20, 2014 14:02:12 GMT -5
Just went through the trial in Gardner's book. Seem to have seen that "same sheet of paper" conjecture before, although I don't think it was mentioned during the trial handwriting testimony. Now even if the two notes were written on paper coming from the same sheet, it does not necessarily imply that the writers are the same. Could be that two buddies shared that one sheet of paper, and the same signature creation technique as well.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Aug 21, 2014 7:11:50 GMT -5
I believe it was Mark Falzini's blog that I read it.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Aug 21, 2014 7:27:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Aug 21, 2014 20:52:54 GMT -5
To stealla7, amy35, et al:
Thanks for the link to the Falzini article, Stella.
As I grossly eyeball the images of the ransom notes provided by the link to Jim Fisher's site, the nursery note looks to have straight edges, while the next note seems to have an irregular tear on its left edge. Going on that alone, the idea that the two pieces of paper were ripped apart from some larger sheet seems to be in doubt.
Falzini, though, talks of microscopic tests that prove that the two sheets were once parts of the same. Does anyone have the original report on these tests? When were they performed? I haven't seen anything about this that I recall in any books on the case. Most particularly, I don't recall this particular fact being used by the prosecution at the Hauptmann trial.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Aug 22, 2014 9:28:01 GMT -5
To Michael, amy35, et al:
This issue about the hyphenated "New-York" probably could be resolved a lot easier if these folks had some historical knowledge of it. The hyphenated "New-York" was considered standard American English spelling through the nineteenth century and probably into the very early twentieth. When you do research using images of old newspapers from the period, for example, you can notice "New-York Times" on the masthead.
By the 1930s, the hyphen in "New York" had become obsolete in American English, but remained standard in European languages. So it would be extremely common for European immigrants to use the hyphenated form. I can tell you from my studies and of French and my watching of Canadian television, for example, that the hyphenated "New-York" was still standard in French in the 1960s and 1970s, and may still be today. The same is likely true for German.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Aug 22, 2014 10:12:00 GMT -5
how about boat as boad? to many excuses for hauptman
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Aug 22, 2014 13:35:13 GMT -5
It may seem like a spelling error that only an illiterate or semi-literate person would make, but it is the phonetically correct spelling in German. In other words, a final "t" sound would usually be spelled with a "d" in German, as in "hund" (meaning "dog").
BTW, as pointed out in Lloyd Gardner's book, the "d" in the word "Boad" in the "Boad Nelly" note was quite dissimilar in appearance from the "d" in "Boad" in Hauptmann's notebook.
|
|