NEW JERSEY v BRUNO RICHARD HAUPTMANN: TESTIMONY OF THOMAS J. RITCHIE, 24th PROSECUTION WITNESS


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