STATE
vs. HAUPTMANN
January
10, 1935
[853] WILLIAM
F. HORN sworn as a witness on behalf of the State:
Direct Examination by
Mr. Large:
The
Court: William F. Horn?
The
Witness: Yes, sir.
Q. Where
do you reside, Corporal? A. I reside in Hackensack, New Jersey.
Q. Have
you any official position? A. Corporal detective, New Jersey State Police.
Q. New
Jersey State Police?
(Mr.
Large gives the Reporter a paper to mark.)
The
Reporter: S‑72 for identification.
(The
paper referred to was marked State's Exhibit S‑72 for identification.)
Q. I
show you a paper writing marked Exhibit S‑72 for identification and ask you
whether or not you saw that written? A. Yes, sir, I did.
[854] Q. Where was it written? A. It was
written in the Second Precinct, New York City Police Station, at 156 Centre
Street, New York City.
Q. Who
was it written by? A. By Bruno Richard Hauptmann.
Mr.
Large: I offer it in evidence.
Mr.
Fisher—It is objected to, your Honor; at the present time we should know some
of the conditions under which it is written.
Q. Under
what circumstances was this written? A. Hauptmann was requested to take the
dictation from several forms that we had.
Q. Yes.
A. And he wrote those.
Q. Was
it done voluntarily? A. Done voluntarily, yes, sir.
Mr.
Large: I submit it is admissible.
Mr.
Fisher: It is still objected to, your Honor, because, for the various following
reasons: First, that no time is shown as to the hour of the day or the day of
the month; second—
Mr.
Large: Well, I will show that.
Mr.
Fisher: Second, nothing is shown as to the condition under which the writing
was done. The witness has simply said it was voluntary. We have no way at the
moment, without the privilege of cross-examination, of knowing that to be true.
The
Court: Well, do you wish to cross-examine the witness as to the voluntary
character of this writing?
[855] Mr. Fisher: Yes, indeed; before it is to
be admitted.
Mr.
Large: I will ask first, if your Honor, please:
Q. On
what day was this written? A. I think the date appears on the paper itself.
Mr.
Reilly: Yes; 9/20.
The
Court: September 20th.
Q. September
20, 1934; is that right? A. Yes, sir; between midnight the 19th and the morning
of the 20th.
Mr.
Large: Go ahead, Mr. Fisher.
By Mr. Fisher: Q. When was Mr. Hauptmann
apprehended, do you know, Corporal? A. The 19th of September.
Q. At
what time of day? A. At about nine A.M. in the morning.
Q. And
this writing you are talking about was done some time between midnight and the
following morning, is that correct? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That
would be after the man was in custody from nine o'clock in the morning until
nine at night and then on until sometime after midnight? A. That is correct.
Q. More
than fifteen hours, is that correct? A. That is correct.
Q. Do
you know what had been done with Mr. Hauptmann during the fifteen hours of
custody? A. He had been questioned.
Q. Continuously?
A. Continuously, yes.
[856]
Q. So that for fifteen continuous hours, the man had been under a barrage
of questions propounded by police or authorities of some description, is that
correct? A. I wouldn't say continuously.
Q. Well,
he was continuously in custody, was he not? A. He was.
Q. And
you were taking statements among the various policemen, were you not? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Practically
all day? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And
into the night? A. Yes, sir.
Q. As
a matter of fact, if you hadn't been questioning Hauptmann he would not be up
at 12 o'clock, would he?
Mr.
Large: Object to that as calling for a conclusion and argumentative.
Mr.
Fisher: Withdrawn.
Q. The
fact is that he had been continuously awake under the examination of police
officers from the hour of his arrest at nine o'clock in the morning until sometime
between midnight and daylight of the next day, is that correct? A. I didn't see
him all the time.
Q. Well,
you know that he was in custody, don't you? A. I know he was in custody, yes.
Q. Where was he when he wrote this alleged
specimen? A. He was in the Bureau of Criminal Identification.
Q. And
who was present there with him? A. Lieutenant Finn—
Q. Who
is Lieutenant Finn? A. A member of the New York City Police Department.
Q. Who
else was there? A. Several other police officers.
Q. How
many? A. Approximately ten or fifteen.
Q. Yes.
Ten or fifteen police officers and Hauptmann. [857] I assume Hauptmann's
counsel was there, his lawyer.
Mr.
Wilentz: I object to that, because there is no basis for the assumption.
Mr.
Fisher: I will withdraw it, your Honor.
Q. I
ask was Hauptmann's attorney there? A. He wasn't.
Q. Hauptmann
was there without the benefit of counsel, is that correct? A. That is correct.
Q. And
having been in your custody or the custody of the police for at least fifteen
hours or upward he was then asked to write, is that so? A. He was, yes, sir.
Q. What
was the defendant's condition as to nervousness at that time? A. As far as I
could see he was all right.
Q. Do
you think that the constant examination of police for fifteen hours in no way
affected his nervous system?
Mr.
Wilentz: Just a minute. I object to the question as to what his opinion is.
Q. From
his appearance did it seem that he had in any way been affected by the examination?
A. It didn't seem that way.
Q. Had
he had any food at any time? A. I don't know. I personally didn't see him have
any, but I wasn't there—
Q. That
is all right, Corporal. But you didn't see him have any food? A. I didn't.
Q. Who
directed the prisoner to write? A. I did and Lieutenant Finn.
Q. I
see. And what did you direct him to write? A. Directed him to write the writing
on those sheets, on the sheet.
[858] Q. Just as it appears on there? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. And
you directed him to do it just as it is there? A. What do you mean? I don't
understand you.
Q. There
is the paper. Does that contain exactly what you directed him to write? A. (Witness
examines paper at length.) To my best recollection it does.
Q. Was
the prisoner abused in any way during that day? A. No, sir.
Q. Did
you see him struck at any time? A. No, sir.
Q. Were
there any threats of any kind made to him during the fifteen hours of
confinement? A. No, sir.
Q. Any
promise of any kind held out to him? A. No, sir.
Q. Did
he volunteer to write upon the first request, or did you use some persuasion? A.
He volunteered. He was exceptionally willing to write it.
Q. I
see. After is hours he was willing to write? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now,
what kind of a pen was this written with? A. It was written with three
different pens.
Q. What
type of pen is the first? Show me what type of pen is the first, show me how
far it is written with one pen, down to what point. A. I could not determine
that positively, looking at it now.
Q. I
assume about there, for one point. (Indicating on paper.) A. It is
possible.
Q. One,
two, three, four, five, indicating a point about halfway on the fifth line of
the writing, it would seem about there is the end of one writing, isn't it? A. It
is possible; it is hard to say.
Q. What
kind of a pen wrote the top? A. With two ordinary Spencerian pens and a
fountain pen. Q. What sort of a tip? A. Not a stub pen; an ordinary office
pen.
[859]
Q. Fine point or broad point? A. It wasn't exceptionally fine, it wasn't
broad, it was an ordinary soft pen.
Q. And
the first two pens that he wrote with, they are office Spencerian pens? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. And
the last a fountain pen: is that right? A. Yes, sir.
Mr.
Fisher: I submit, your Honor, that the offer should be rejected because of the
fact that the man clearly was not writing under normal circumstances in such a
way as would give his hand the normal appearance in his penmanship.
The
Court: Is that the only objection, that you have to make?
Mr.
Fisher: Further that it is not the voluntary writing of the defendant, but that
there appears on that paper just such things as he was directed to put there by
the officers, some fifteen of them, who had him in charge, and under no
circumstance can it be considered the voluntary writing of the defendant in
this cause.
The
Court: Did you hear the witness say that he volunteered to write?
Mr.
Fisher: Yes, your Honor, while in the presence of 15 police officers and in
custody, sir.
Mr.
Large: If your Honor please, the subject matter of the paper was dictated by
the officer and it is offered for handwriting purposes rather for its content
(handing paper to the Court). In other words, it does not purport to be a confession
or anything of that nature.
[860]
The Court: Well, that is what I was interested in.
Mr.
Large: Oh, no; oh, no, it doesn't purport to be such. The words were supplied
by the man asking for the sample. It is merely as a sample of handwriting.
The
Court: There is nothing in here in the way of a confession of guilt?
Mr.
Large: No, sir. It isn't intended as such. It is one of many samples of
handwriting.
The
Court: And offered for that purpose alone?
Mr.
Large: Yes, sir.
The
Court: Well, have counsel anything further to suggest or to offer why this
paper should not be admitted as an exhibit?
Mr.
Fisher: Nothing further, sir.
The
Court: I will admit it.
Mr.
Fisher: And we may have an exception?
[EXCEPTION
ALLOWED]
The
Reporter: S‑72 in evidence.
[861]
(The paper referred to received in evidence as State Exhibit S‑72.)
Mr.
Large: S‑72 in evidence. Will you mark that (producing another paper).
The
Reporter: S‑73 for identification.
(Paper
referred to was marked S‑73 for identification.)
Mr.
Large: This witness has witnessed—
The
Reporter: Do you want these all for identification?
Mr.
Large: Yes. There are five of them this witness witnessed.
The
Reporter: S‑74 for identification.
(Paper
referred to was marked S‑74 for identification.)
Mr.
Large: Do you want to look at these?
Mr.
Fisher: Yes. Excuse me. How many of them are there altogether?
Mr.
Large: Five more.
The
Reporter: S‑75 for identification.
(Paper
referred to was marked S‑75 for identification.)
Mr.
Fisher: Now, if I could ask the witness one question about the whole five of
them, I [862] could deal with all of them at once. I will ask him if they were
all written under the same conditions.
The
Reporter: S‑76 for identification, S‑77 for identification.
(Papers
referred to marked S‑76 for identification and S‑77 for identification.)
By
Mr. Large: Q. Now, Corporal, I show you five papers marked for
identification S‑73, S‑74 S‑75, S‑76, S‑77, and ask you to look at them and
tell me whether or not they were all written in your presence (handing the
witness the papers referred to)? A. Yes, sir, they were all written in my
presence.
Q. And
who wrote them? A. The defendant.
Q. Were
these written under similar circumstances to the circumstances outlined under
which S‑72 was written? A. They were written under the same circumstances.
Q. The
same evening or the following day? A. The same evening, it was between midnight
and two in the morning.
Mr.
Large: I offer these in evidence.
Mr.
Fisher: I would like to ask a question or two, your Honor.
By
Mr. Fisher: Q. Do I understand that these were all written at [863] about
the same time, it was a continuing operation? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And
they were all written under exactly the same circumstances and as the result of
the same directions as the other one that has been admitted? A. Yes, sir.
Mr.
Fisher: We offer, your Honor, the same objection as to the other.
Mr.
Large: Will it be admitted? I might state, if your Honor please, that these are
introduced merely as handwriting specimens and are not, or do not purport to be
confessions in any sense.
The
Court: I think they are admissible, Mr. Fisher.
Mr.
Fisher: And assuming your ruling is the same, I shall ask for an exception.
The
Court: Yes. You have nothing further to urge in regard to the voluntary
character of these papers.
Mr.
Fisher: At the moment it is impossible to offer anything further. Of course,
there will be a denial by the defendant at the proper time. At the moment there
is no further objection than I have already urged, your Honor.
The
Court: Very well, they will be admitted.
[EXCEPTION
ALLOWED]
[864]
The Reporter. In evidence, Exhibit S‑73, S‑74, S‑75, S‑76, and S‑77.
(Papers
referred to were received in evidence and marked State Exhibits S‑73, S‑74, S‑75,
S‑76 and S‑77.)
Mr.
Large: Any further cross-examination of this witness? He will be recalled. That
is all, Mr. Horn.
The more we read of the trial the more evident it is that Reilly was not altogether competent to defend Hauptmann. However, it does not change my opinion that he was guilty. While I have read I think every book and blog about his possible innocence, Hauptmann comes off as guilty from two sources that I think are incontrovertible; one is the handwriting expert and his son who published their findings after Hauptmann died, evidence that was not even presented during the trial, and it is very clear Hauptmann wrote the ransom notes. In the book "Graveyard John" it also seems clear to me that there were 2 other accomplices (only 1/3 of the money was found), and Hauptmann went to his execution not saying a word about them, even to the further suffering of his wife and son.
ReplyDelete