STATE
vs. HAUPTMANN
January
10, 1935
[864] THOMAS J. RITCHIE, sworn as a witness on behalf of the State:
Direct
Examination by Mr. Large:
Mr. Large: I will have
these marked.
(The papers handed to the
reporter were marked Exhibits S‑78 for identification, S‑79 for identification,
S‑80 for identification, S‑81 for identification, S‑82 for identification, S‑83
for identification, and S‑84 for identification.)
Q. Do you hold an
official position, Sergeant? A. Yes, sir, I do.
Q. What is it? A. I
am a Sergeant, New Jersey State Police.
Q. And you reside
where? A. In Lawrenceville, New Jersey.
Q. Sergeant, I show
you seven papers or writings marked S‑78, S‑79, 80, 81, 82, 83 and 84 for
identification respectively, and ask you whether or not you saw them written? A. This
one I did, yes, sir.
Q. I am showing all
of them. Look at them all, please. A. (After examining papers) Yes, sir, I
saw all of those written.
Q. You saw all of
them. Does the date appear [865] on them, the date you saw them written? A. On
some of them, not all of them.
Q. On what days did
you see them written, just look at them? A. Some September 19th and
September loth, two different occasions that I took the writing.
Q. All were written
on one of those two days? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And then you
referred to September 19, 1934? A. That is right.
Q. And they were
written by whom? A. By Bruno Richard Hauptmann.
Q. And they were
written where? A. In the Second Precinct Police Headquarters in Greenwich
Street, New York City.
Q. New York City? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. State whether or
not they were written voluntarily by the defendant? A. They were written
voluntarily, in fact, Hauptmann said, “I would be glad to write, because it
will get me out of this thing.” He made that statement to me.
Q. To you? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Before writing
them? A. That is right.
Q. Now Sergeant, do
you know how long the defendant had been in custody when these specimens were
taken? A. Why, the ones taken on the 19th were taken around between six
and seven o'clock.
Q. In the afternoon?
A. In the evening, that is right.
Q. And about the
ones on the 10th? A. At lunch hour, I think, 12:45.
Q. That is just
after midnight? A. No.
Q. Oh, in the
daytime? A. At lunch time, that is right.
Q. Now, I ask you to
look at that 12:45 and does that say a.m. or p.m.? A. This says a.m.
Q. It says a.m.
Well, that isn't the lunch hour, [866] is it? A. No. Maybe there is a
mistake, on this you will find 2:45
Q. It says a.m. too,
doesn't it? A. Well it was at 12:45 in the afternoon.
Q. Then the writing
is contrary to the markings: is that correct? Your marking says a.m. and you
insist that the writing was done in the p.m.? A. It was done in the p.m.
Q. So that the
marking on the specimen is incorrect: is that right? A. That isn't my
writing.
Q. Well, it says a.m.,
doesn't it? A. That is right, sir.
Q. All right; then
to that extent the marking is improper, isn't it? A. I would say it is.
Mr. Large: Which do you
refer to, Mr. Fisher?
Mr. Fisher: I am
referring now to Identification S‑82.
Q. Despite the—what
is your name? A. Thomas J. Ritchie.
Q. And what does
that say right under the time that it is marked? A. Thomas J. Ritchie.
Q. And is that your
signature or not? A. That is my signature, yes, sir.
Q. Then the writing
is yours, isn't it? A. That is not.
Q. Simply the
signature is yours? A. No, there is another signature above it.
Q. But this
signature is yours here? A. That is right.
Q. So if there was a
mistake made there, the mistake must have been on there at the time you
attached your signature, is that correct? A. That is right, yes, sir.
[867] Q. And
although your document is marked 2:40 a.m.? A. That is right.
Q. Over your
signature? A. That is right.
Q. You still say
that is was written in the afternoon? A. I do.
Q. Yes, twelve hours
difference? A. P.m.
Q. Yes, and that is p.m.
of Wednesday? A. That is right.
Q. After the
prisoner had been in custody now some 30 hours? A. That is right.
Q. Having been
apprehended at nine o'clock on the 19th, in the morning? A. Yes.
Q. Now will you tell
me why weren't all these specimens taken at one time? Why were there so many
hitches at having the defendant writer A. Oh, at midnight or shortly after
midnight I was detailed to take some handwriting specimens to Mr. Osborn and he
had told me to obtain from the defendant some printing matter, so that he may
go over that.
Q. Now as to exhibit
marked S‑83 for identification, I call your attention again to the a.m. Do you
say that is a mistake too? A. I do not.
Q. That was taken at
12:45 a.m.? A. No. I mean that should be p.m.
Q. That should be p.m.?
A. It was taken—the writing was taken at p.m.
Q. So that the
notation on it is an error? A. That is right.
Q. Is that correct? A. That
is right.
Q. Twelve hours
difference? A. That is right.
Q. Now that also bears your signature,
doesn't it, Sergeant? A. That does, yes, sir.
Q. So that is two
mistakes over your signature? A. That is right.
Q. Now, I show you a
document marked S‑81 for identification and call your attention to the time on
there. Does that say 12:45 a.m.? A. A.m., yes, sir.
[868] Q. And does it bear your signature?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And was it
written at 12:45 a.m.? A. P.m.
Q. So that the third
specimen bears an error? A. That is right.
Q. Over your
signature. A. That doesn't bear any—
Q. That doesn't bear
any. A. That was taken at the same time. (Indicating.)
Q. Now you say that
you took some of these specimens at about six o'clock on the 19th, is that
correct? A. That is right, yes, sir.
Q. Will you
identify—it couldn't be any of these three, could it (Handing paper to the
witness)? Will you identify out of the others? A. (The witness examines
papers handed to him by examining counsel.)
Q. Referring to Exhibit S‑80
for identification. Do you say that was written at the same time as the three
we have discussed? A. Yes, sir. And these were written between six and
seven on the 19th.
Q. On the 19th. Now,
did the prisoner write these voluntarily? A. He did.
Q. Will you relate
your conversation with him immediately leading up to the writing? A. Why,
I asked him to pick up his pen and write of his own free will what I would
repeat to him, which he did voluntarily and at that time is when he said he
would be glad to write so he could get out of this thing.
Q. And he didn't
offer any objection whatever to writing? A. None whatsoever.
Q. At that time? A. No.
Q. And he wrote
exactly what you told him to write, is that correct? A. Not exactly.
Q. Well, what did
you tell him for if he wasn't to write it? A. I mean that some of the
words on there are not written as I pronounced them to him.
Q. I see. You
pronounced one thing and he wrote something else, is that it? A. Right.
[869] Q. Now as to the other writing that
has been ad-mitted, testified to by Corporal Horn, did you take your writing
before Corporal Horn or after Corporal Horn? A. Some of it before and some
after.
Q. Some of it was
taken after? Which was taken after Corporal Horn's? A. This was taken
after Corporal Horn, the next day, or rather, his was, I understand, between
twelve and two in the morning and this was at 12:45 p.m. of the same day.
By
Mr. Fisher: Q. Following after
the same afternoon? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who all was
present when you took your specimens? A. Which ones are you talking about?
Q. The first ones,
the six o'clock ones. A. Detective Cashman and Detective Cramer of the New
York City police.
Q. Was the defendant
represented by counsel at the time? A. He was not.
Q. And what people
were present when they were written? A. Lieutenant Finn—there were other
detectives in the room.
Q. Was the defendant
represented by counsel at that time? A. He was not; no, sir.
Mr. Fisher: They are
objected to, your Honor, upon the grounds stated before, and upon the further
ground that these specimens clearly were taken in September, 1934. I apprehend
the rule of law to be that any mediums of comparison in handwriting cases are to
be taken from writings of the defendant prior, written prior to the disputed
documents, and for that reason I offer that as a further objection to their
admissibility, sir.
[870] Mr. Large: I understand the rule to be
that that only applies where a defendant wishes to use that for himself.
Mr. Fisher: I raise that
objection.
Mr. Large: “Such writings
are only inadmissible under the language of the statute when they are sought to
be used before a Court or jury by a party in whose handwriting they are.”
That is in the case of
State versus Barris.
Mr. Fisher: It would be a
strange rule indeed to change the rule of evidence depending upon which side
they were to be used for, sir. The rule is the same.
The Court: Let me have
the Compiled Statutes containing the Act relating to Evidence.
Mr. Large: 78 New Jersey
Law is the one I am referring to. Prior to your Honor's ruling I would like to
state as to these exhibits that they are also offered merely as handwriting
exhibits and do not purport to be confessions.
The Court: I understand.
Mr. Fisher: My objection
goes to them only as handwriting exhibits. I realize fully what they are
offered for.
Mr. Large: 78 New Jersey
Law, page 14, your Honor. State vs. Barris. I have the opinion briefed here,
your Honor, if you would like to see it. I have it marked there.
[871] The Court: I would
like the Court Crier to bring me the Evidence Act as found in the Compiled
Statutes. Mr. Fisher, do you desire
to offer any proof with respect to the voluntary character of the documents?
Mr. Fisher: At this time,
no, sir, your Honor, the only one I will have will be the defendant, and I
would rather that that be in its regular turn.
The Court: I think the
exhibit is admissible. Take your exception.
[EXCEPTION ALLOWED]
The Reporter: Exhibits S‑78,
S‑79, S‑80, S‑81, S‑82, S‑83 and S‑84 in evidence.
(The papers referred to
were received in evidence and marked State Exhibits S‑78, S‑79, S‑80, S‑81, S‑82,
S‑83 and S‑84.)
The Court: Mr. Peacock, I
think you brought this book to me. I thank you very much and I wonder if you
would put it back where it belongs.
Mr. Fisher: Mr. Peacock,
will you take this one at the same time. Thank you very much.
[872] Mr. Large: Cross‑examine.
Mr. Fisher: Nothing
further from the Sergeant.
No comments:
Post a Comment