Hi Joe,
Thanks again for Clark Sellers’ Handwriting Evidence Against Hauptmann article.
While I do admire the article, he made some serious errors. I’m aware that we all make mistakes, so all I am doing here is stating the facts from the luxury of an 85-year-old quarterback armchair.
Wayne, I also realized Sellers had made these errors within some of the crime related details outside of his field of expertise. Similar type mistakes can be found in Haring's book. At the same time, I don't out of necessity consider these errors relevant towards the veracity of his overall evaluation of the handwriting evidence specific to his professional field of expertise. 1) Page 875.
Sellers says, “Hauptmann was an experienced criminal. He committed many crimes in his own country-alone; in fact, he was known as a lone wolf.”
Actually, it’s just the opposite. Do you have his German arrest records? The 4 crimes he was arrested for were all committed with an accomplice.
Also, just for the record, nowhere in the German records are there any accounts that Hauptmann (a) used a ladder or (b) broke in to the 2nd floor window of the mayor of Bernbursh. He did break in the mayor’s house, but there is no mention of a ladder or that it was 2nd floor break-in.
Without any doubt, if Hauptmann had used a ladder for a second story break-in, you know that Wilentz would have justifiably hammered that home. He didn’t because those things didn’t happen.
(If you don’t have these German records, let me know and I will send them.)
I know you've posted these before, but if you have them available, by all means please re-post. I was always a bit doubtful believing Hauptmann had entered the mayor's home via a second story window, when it seems likely that's where the sleeping quarters would have been. Do you know if this was the case?
2) Page 877.
Sellers says, “…a chisel found under the window…”
We all know it was found about 75 feet from the house near the ladder sections.
A pretty common error which it seems likely he just took out of an erroneous source.3) Page 878.
Sellers says, “Hauptmann's handwriting was submitted to handwriting experts for comparison with the Lindbergh ransom letters. For the first time those experts reported, "This is the writer."
We’ve been over this, but when Albert D. Osborn first studied Hauptmann’s writings he called Col. Schwarzkopf and told him that he was “…convinced (Hauptmann) did not write the ransom notes.”
Personally, I don't agree with Osborn Jr. having submitted to LE requests for a quick turnaround on his initial handwriting evaluation. Bad on him for going along, but if he was given samples of Hauptmann's request writings where he intentionally attempted to mislead by writing in his more formal handwriting style, and then compared them with the often chaotic styling within the ransom notes, then I can see why he might have said what he did. Do you know which samples he was given? 4) Page 886.
Sellers says, “To offset this damaging evidence the defense attempted to make it a battle of experts. They had nine persons examine the handwriting for the defense. It is significant that only one of the nine testified for the defense. Some of them refused to testify and withdrew from the case.”
The 8 prosecution handwriting experts had exclusive access to the ransom notes from May 1932 until the day the trial started in 1935. They had access to Hauptmann’s handwriting since September 1934 until the day the trial started.
The original 9 defense handwriting experts had a total of
2 hours and 15 minutes to look at all the ransom notes and Hauptmann’s handwriting during
one weekend in the middle of the trial!
That’s why 8 of them left.
I'd debate that Wayne. Clearly they didn't have time to do a thorough examination, but I'd strongly venture a lot of them would have had the smarts-by-trade and the level of visual discernment to realize there were an inordinate number of similarities within Hauptmann's acknowledged writings and the ransom notes, to not want to take a walk with the defense down a path of self-destruction. I can't recall right now which one (Braunlich?) had the audacity to say that that Hauptmann's writings had been altered after the fact, when all she was really seeing was normal ink backflow, ie. too much flow from the nib and wet ink simply adhering to the laws of Newtonian physics.