|
Post by Michael on Nov 9, 2021 9:13:04 GMT -5
I've recently read something which asserts that some of the handwriting experts for the Defense claimed Hauptmann wrote the notes. This, one is led to believe, was the reason these individual did not testify. While there are some newspaper sources that claim Myers and Malone quit because this was their conclusion, Lloyd Gardner was first to debunk this based on C. Lloyd Fisher's account contained in his documents at the NJSP. Who are the others supposed to be? Who knows? If its based on newspaper articles it could be any one of them. But based on the source documentation? Not so much. I did address former Fawcett expert Aaron Lewis in V4 (pages 49-53) and I'll leave that situation up to the reader.
The bottom line is that if Hauptmann wrote them, we should be able to get there without surrounding that decision with BS.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,649
|
Post by Joe on Nov 9, 2021 13:34:13 GMT -5
Not to invalidate your point, but I believe that when you have the very guy who's had the ransom notes pinned on him by dozens of Questioned Document Examiners over the years, lamenting to his wife that he couldn't believe how much the handwriting looked his own, that speaks volumes.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 9, 2021 17:29:56 GMT -5
Not to invalidate your point, but I believe that when you have the very guy who's had the ransom notes pinned on him by dozens of Questioned Document Examiners over the years, lamenting to his wife that he couldn't believe how much the handwriting looked his own, that speaks volumes. Quite the contrary. It doesn't invalidate it at all. What you are doing is drawing a conclusion based on something there are good sources for. Hauptmann made the comment that he believed the Ransom Note writing was similar to his. My issue concerns anyone who draws a conclusion based on bogus information. None of the Defense handwriting experts were dismissed or quit because they thought Hauptmann wrote the notes. Myers and Malone were dismissed over money and never saw the Ransom Notes. Thielen obviously wanted to testify but Reilly didn't use him because of something Sam Foley said about him. Goodspeed, Braunlich, Farr, and Foster all wanted to testify. Who does that leave? When it comes to Hauptmann's handwriting, I've seen several items I believed looked like Hauptmann's that wasn't. So the point you are using doesn't carry as much weight with me. BTW: I have to apologize to you about the thumb issue. I just read a report written by Sandberg who said Condon told him the lump was on BOTH hands, which you already know from V2. However, he does say that Condon told him it was muscular development during one conversation but a fleshy development during the other. I don't know how that helps your position but since I saw it I thought I'd let you know.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,649
|
Post by Joe on Nov 14, 2021 10:12:35 GMT -5
Not to invalidate your point, but I believe that when you have the very guy who's had the ransom notes pinned on him by dozens of Questioned Document Examiners over the years, lamenting to his wife that he couldn't believe how much the handwriting looked his own, that speaks volumes. Quite the contrary. It doesn't invalidate it at all. What you are doing is drawing a conclusion based on something there are good sources for. Hauptmann made the comment that he believed the Ransom Note writing was similar to his. My issue concerns anyone who draws a conclusion based on bogus information. None of the Defense handwriting experts were dismissed or quit because they thought Hauptmann wrote the notes. Myers and Malone were dismissed over money and never saw the Ransom Notes. Thielen obviously wanted to testify but Reilly didn't use him because of something Sam Foley said about him. Goodspeed, Braunlich, Farr, and Foster all wanted to testify. Who does that leave? When it comes to Hauptmann's handwriting, I've seen several items I believed looked like Hauptmann's that wasn't. So the point you are using doesn't carry as much weight with me. BTW: I have to apologize to you about the thumb issue. I just read a report written by Sandberg who said Condon told him the lump was on BOTH hands, which you already know from V2. However, he does say that Condon told him it was muscular development during one conversation but a fleshy development during the other. I don't know how that helps your position but since I saw it I thought I'd let you know. I understand what you're saying about potential defense witnesses, who for whatever reason did not come forward. As for Myers and Malone, wasn’t it those two who were asking for the sum of $500 for their examination, which Fisher ultimately expressed, weren’t worth a nickel? Clearly he wasn’t impressed with them. The valid reason that so many certified QDE's have determined Hauptmann's handwriting was a match to that of the ransom note writer, wasn't just because the two writings "looked" similar, but because the two writings registered an exact match within so many of the subtle personalized characteristics that were so conclusively demonstrated to be apparent in both ransom note and Hauptmann’s handwritings. About the thumb issue, and via the information he was able to determine by shaking CJ’s hand on two occasions, I haven’t seen any evidence coming from Condon to suggest he was referring to anything other than a well developed thenar eminence muscle group at the base of the thumb, palm side.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 14, 2021 18:12:56 GMT -5
I understand what you're saying about potential defense witnesses, who for whatever reason did not come forward. As for Myers and Malone, wasn’t it those two who were asking for the sum of $500 for their examination, which Fisher ultimately expressed, weren’t worth a nickel? Clearly he wasn’t impressed with them. Yes. That's exactly what happened. And no, Fisher wasn't impressed. However, if you research Malone, he was considered a good expert at the time despite his appearance. What "gets" me is that some are still insisting they both concluded Hauptmann wrote the notes as the reason why they never testified. It's simply not true, yet, it keeps getting repeated as if it is. Sound familiar? You keep doing that concerning the thumb deformity Condon invented. The valid reason that so many certified QDE's have determined Hauptmann's handwriting was a match to that of the ransom note writer, wasn't just because the two writings "looked" similar, but because the two writings registered an exact match within so many of the subtle personalized characteristics that were so conclusively demonstrated to be apparent in both ransom note and Hauptmann’s handwritings. Is that why they tied up Farrar like they did? Or why Osborn Jr. told the police Hauptmann did NOT write the notes originally? That is, until they told him about finding the ransom money in his garage causing him to change his mind. And yes, it looks similar. Except for the "k"s which experts expected to find among his standards but never found. Its why there's always "experts" on both sides of any case. The "science" is more like a bunch of educated guessers. I'd hate to be accused of writing something I never did because I know some expert somewhere would be willing to testify that I did. About the thumb issue, and via the information he was able to determine by shaking CJ’s hand on two occasions, I haven’t seen any evidence coming from Condon to suggest he was referring to anything other than a well developed thenar eminence muscle group at the base of the thumb, palm side. Say what? I just posted the evidence in my previous post. Additionally, if you refresh your memory by re-reading V2 starting at page 93, you'll see that he called it a deformity, a growth, a muscular development, and a fleshy development. He also said it was on the left hand, the right hand, and both hands. It all depended on when he was asked. Stuff like this is why suspects like John Wilkens drew so much attention. As a reminder, he had a deformity on his index finger of his left hand. Too bad you weren't around to tell them that Condon " was referring to anything other than a well developed thenar eminance muscle group at the base of his thumb." You would have saved them so much time! Strange though, since it was so clear to you, that they didn't know this already after talking to Condon hundreds of times. Then again, it might have been that each time they got something different but couldn't see through it to realize what he actually "meant" like you apparently can? IDK. With so many versions and descriptions I could never do it myself. Especially since its clear he was lying.
|
|