NEW JERSEY v HAUPTMANN: TESTIMONY OF ALBERT S. OSBORN, 29th PROSECUTION WITNESS


STATE OF NEW JERSEY

vs.

BRUNO RICHARD HAUPTMANN

Flemington, N. J., January 11, 1935

 [941] Mr. Lanigan: Mr. Albert S. Osborn.

ALBERT S. OSBORN, sworn as a witness on behalf of the State:

Direct Examination by Mr. Lanigan: Q. Where do you reside, Mr. Osborn? A. In Montclair in this state.

Q. Where is your business office? A. 233 Broadway in New York City.

Q. What is your occupation? A. I am an examiner of questioned documents, disputed handwriting and typewriting, ink, paper and so forth.

Q. Have you testified on the subject of disputed handwriting in courts? A. Yes.

Q. How long a period of time have you been testifying? A. Upwards of thirty years.

Q. And how wide a territory has your experience covered? A. I have been engaged on cases from 39 states of the United States, various parts of Canada, Newfoundland, Puerto Rico.

Q. Have you had cases submitted to you from countries other than the United States and Canada? A. Yes; the ones I have mentioned, Canada, Newfoundland. I have had one case directly from the City of London, England, originally a [942] case submitted to me for examination from New Zealand.

Q. I see. Are you the author of any books on the subject of questioned documents? A. I am.

Q. What are they? A. They are right over there, “Questioned Documents,” is the title of one of them.

Q. Look those over and tell me what they are. A. And the title of the other one is “The Problem of Proof.”

Q. With respect to “The Problem of Proof,” can you tell me who wrote the introduction of your book.

Mr. Reilly: I object to it as incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, who wrote the introduction. It may have been a gratuitous act—

The Court: The question is who wrote the introduction?

Mr. Reilly: Yes. It is not at all competent. It might have been a gratuitous act of some old friend who might have been very extravagant in his praise, and I say it is not competent, relevant or material.

The Court: Well, I think I will exclude that.

Mr. Lanigan: All right.

By Mr. Lanigan:

Q. Have you made a study of the law relating to questioned documents? A. Yes. I am not—

Q. What purpose— A. But I am not a lawyer.

[943] Q. For what purpose did you make your study? A. I cited in my book “Questioned Documents” some 1400 cases or citations regarding the law relating to questioned documents.

Q. Have you testified in the State of New Jersey? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Have you testified in homicide cases? A. Yes.

Q. Can you name for me some of the late cases in which you have testified? A. Late cases?

Q. Yes, in the last four or five years. A. I testified in Texas a few weeks ago; I testified in the Bronx—not in this case—let me see. Just recently, you ask the question?

Q. Make it in the last four or five years, any cases of prominence. It is not material anyhow.

Mr. Lanigan: I offer the witness as to his experience and qualifications.

The Witness: I can name a number of cases.

Mr. Lanigan: I rest it there. I offer the witness as to his qualifications.

The Court: Are there any questions in relation to the qualifications of this witness?

The Court: Does the counsel desire to examine this gentleman as to his qualifications?

Mr. Reilly: No. I got up to assist the witness in looking for something he was looking for under the chair. I think he has found it now.

[944] The Court: Yes. It seems to be in effect conceded that the gentleman qualifies as an expert on handwriting.

By Mr. Lanigan: Q. Now Mr. Osborn, when did you first see the ransom notes in this case? A. Your Honor, I have to ask indulgence from the Court and opposing counsel, because I can’t hear as well as I did once.

The Court: Well—

The Witness: And if people speak distinctly and look at me I can hear them. And I have also—

The Court: Yes—

The Witness: An apparatus here which helps me somewhat.

The Court: Very well. You may use that and we will get along, I am sure.

The Witness: What is that last question?

Q. When did you first see the ransom notes? A. I first saw the ransom notes in May, 1932.

Q. Did you make an examination of them at that time? A. I did.

Q. Did you make photographs of them at that time? A. Yes.

Q. Did you afterwards have occasion to make a [945] further examination of the letters and compare them with other writings? A. Yes.

Q. Under what circumstances and for what purpose were these examinations made? A. I examined them later, in the month of May, and I think not long afterwards. Then I had occasion to examine the photographs of the notes many times during the next two years and a half. Shall I tell the circumstances?

Q. Yes. Relate the circumstances under which you examined them. A. The writing of well over 100 different possible writers of the ransom notes were brought to my office and the office of my son for examination, to see whether these various writers or any of these various writers wrote the ransom notes and the occasion arose, of course, for examining the notes during those examinations.

Q. Yes; now, with respect to those writings did you reach a conclusion? A. Yes.

Q. What was the conclusion you reached? A. The conclusion was that the writer of the ransom notes had not been found.

Q. What period of time did that cover? A. up to September last year; that is, from after May 1932 to September 1934.

Q. Have you made a careful comparison and examination of the so-called ransom notes with the conceded writings and the request writings of Bruno Richard Hauptmann? A. I have.

Q. Does the amount and the character of the writing which has been placed before you for comparison and examination give you sufficient material upon which to base a conclusion? A. Yes.

Q. What have you to say with respect to the amount of the writing?

[946] Mr. Reilly: I object to the form of the question and ask that he be asked what his opinion is.

Mr. Lanigan. Read the question. (Pending question read by the reporter.)

The Court: The amount of the writing?

Mr. Lanigan: Yes; the volume of it, the number of pieces.

Mr. Reilly: Oh, I withdraw that objection.

The Court: Yes. The witness may answer. You may answer that question, Mr. Osborn.

Mr. Reilly: I didn’t understand that question.

The Court: You may answer that.

A. The amount of the writing, in my opinion, is ample upon which to base a positive opinion.

Q. Have you reached a conclusion concerning the writer? A. I have.

Q. Are you prepared to state that conclusion?

Mr. Reilly: I object to the form of the question and ask he state his opinion.

The Court: Well, that may be done; it amounts to the same thing, I think. You may ask that.

 [947] Mr. Lanigan: I am unable to distinguish—

The Court: Yes.

Mr. Lanigan: I am not Dr. Condon, exactly, I can split hairs with you if you care to.

The Court: Let the question be read.

(The reporter reads question: “Are you prepared to state that conclusion?”)

A. I am.

Q. What is the conclusion?

Mr. Reilly: And opinion.

Mr. Lanigan: It is the same thing.

Mr. Reilly: Well, I would like to have the word opinion used for the purpose of the record and I ask that he ask what is his opinion.

Q. Based on your examination and comparison what is the opinion you have reached? A. My opinion is that the ransom notes were all written by the writer of the various papers signed, “Richard Hauptmann.”

Q. Have you examined these various ransom letters for the special purpose of determining whether or not they were all written by the same writer? A. I have.

[948] Q. What is your opinion regarding that matter? A. My opinion is that all the ransom letters were written by the same writer.

Q. Do you recall how many ransom notes there were, Mr. Osborn? A. I think fourteen.

Q. I show you exhibits—take the first ransom note, Exhibit S‑18. A. Yes.

Q. Have you the second note? A. The second note is Exhibit S‑20.

Q. Have you the third note? A. I am unable to say.

Q. Have you any other notes? What is the third note? A. I am unable to say exactly without further examination just what the order is. I can give the exhibit numbers. The next one I am examining is State’s Exhibit S‑23.

Q. That is right. That is the third note. Now have you S‑43? A. 43?

Q. S‑43—L-5.

Mr. Wilentz: May I help the witness? The envelope is in the way.

The Witness: I haven’t seen these papers since they had these new marks on them. They have all been marked since I have examined them.

The Court: Take your time, Mr. Osborn, we are in no haste. Take your time.

A. The next one I am examining is State’s Exhibit S‑44.

Q. All right. That is right.

Mr. Reilly: We can shorten this, General, by admitting he examined them all.

[949] Mr. Wilentz: Fine; thank you, sir. And that he admitted also, if I may inject, all of these—

Mr. Lanigan: One of the request writings.

Mr. Reilly: If he said he did, we stipulate that he examined those. That is all.

The Witness: (after examining writings) All of these various requests and proved writings I have examined.

By Mr. Lanigan: Q. I see. Now, for the sake of continuity the ransom notes you have examined, the fourteen ransom notes— A. Yes.

Q. And you have examined the request writings? A. Yes.

Q. And you have examined the conceded writings? A. Yes.

Q. And your opinion is what with respect to them? A. My opinion is that the ransom notes were written by the writer of these various writings, proved writings, that I have just referred to.

Q. All right. Now, will you please explain the reasons which led you to the conclusion you have just expressed.

Mr. Reilly: May I suggest that you do that note by note, what he is going to do, one note after the other?

Mr. Lanigan: He is going to state his [950] reasons first and then pick up the notes in sequence.

The Witness: Will you hand me my brief case. My brief case is down there somewhere.

Mr. Lanigan: There you are, sir. (Handing witness his brief case.)

Mr. Lanigan: The witness refers to the ransom notes, the papers I showed him.

A. Do you want these?

Q. Just explain them now, explain the reasons. A. I first examined these writings for the purpose of determining, if possible, whether or not they were all written by the same writer, that is, the ransom notes themselves and this examination was—I will try and hear you if you object.

Mr. Reilly: Go ahead.

Q. Just address the jury. A. Yes. This examination was made in May, 1932, when the ransom notes were first submitted to me. I examined them then for the purpose of determining whether they were connected with each other and I found that they were connected with each other in a large number of ways, seven or eight different ways. A number of these ways outside of the question of handwriting. They were connected with each other, in my opinion, by the language contained in them, the use of words, spelling, peculiar spelling, by the statement in the latter letters of the amount of the ransom mentioned in the first letter; by the statement in the latter letters relating to the subject of not reporting to the police, and [951] mainly, and perhaps most positively the ransom notes were connected with each other by a peculiar and ingenious device that appeared on the lower right-hand corner. Am I talking too loud, your Honor?

The Court: No, you are doing nicely.

The Witness: I am inclined to talk louder because I like to hear anybody speak so loud. I encourage loud speaking in others by the way I talk myself.

Q. Just address the jury, please. A. I hold in my hand the reproduction of printing, photograph of printing, of various parts of these letters which in my opinion indicate that the letters came from the same source. I refer to the language and the statement, the ideas, in the letters. For example, the first one is the letter that was left in the room when the kidnaping occurred, what has been referred to and is referred to in the notes themselves as the ransom note. That letter says, “We warn you for making anyding” intended for anything—“public or for notify the police”; and then in the lower left-hand corner of that first page are the words “Indication” I think the word is indication, it is rather illegible, “Indication for all letters are,” then the word, peculiar word, “singnature” S‑i-n-g-n-a-t-u-r-e, and below that the word “and three holes”; and then to the right and in the corner appears this peculiar device which is made by imprinting two overlapping circles with ordinary printer’s ink—I mean ordinary writing ink—and I think the impression was made not by a rubber stamp but by [952] some instrument which didn’t take ink well, so that the impressions are not good. It is a crude device in certain ways. I experimented with the various instruments; I think with the bottom of a bottle or a porcelain or some China cup or something that is simply put upon ink and then the impression made.

But the most significant thing about this device are the holes which are referred to on the first letter and referred to in one of the later letters as “specially them three holes.” The three holes connect these eleven letters with each other, in my opinion, unmistakably, for this reason: they are punched through the paper, so there is a hole through the paper, not merely a perforation, but a hole and, in my opinion, they were all punched from the same model or pattern. A pattern was made or a model or they were punched one from the other. They were not punched at the same time because the holes are not exactly the same size and not exactly the same shape, but they are in the same relation to each other and in the same relation to the edge of the paper and to the bottom of the paper, so that you can take Letter No. 1, put the corners together and the side together, hold it-up to the light and you can see through all three holes, and you can see through all three holes on all eleven of them. The only difference is in what is numbered 13 and 14; they are the last ones—I don’t know what the exhibit numbers but they are the last ones, the two latest ones; the two holes are about a sixteenth of an inch nearer the bottom of the sheet.

But horizontally they are the same distance from the edge and another circumstance in connection with the holes is that they are not the same distance from each other. The first and second holes are farther apart than the second and [953] third, and they are uniform. So in my opinion it couldn’t have been made excepting from a pattern or one made from another. It would be impossible to make them from a description alone or a mere observation of them, because of this mechanical similarity.

The second letter which originally was marked L-1—these original marks perhaps ought to be explained, were the marks that were put upon these papers at the extradition proceedings and they were the only marks that I could follow in preparing these exhibits.

Q. That is S‑20 here. A. What?

Q. S‑20. The second letter is S‑20. A. Yes. well, it was originally one, the second letter said, the first line of the second letter: “Dear Sir: We have warned you note”—intended for not, it was spelled n-o-t-e, “to make anyding public or other notify the police.” The very first sentence is a repetition of the sentence in the first letter, and on that same letter, down in the lower corner, appears the word “singnature” on all letters. Not only refers to the previous one and this one, but those that might follow, and an arrow which points up to the device. The second page of that same letter—and by the way, these exhibit numbers do not designate the second page, do they?

Q. No, one exhibit. A. The exhibit numbers do not designate, they designate the piece of paper?

Q. That is right. A. Some of these letters are written on both sides of the sheet and I have referred to the second page in my references. The second page of this letter says “Our ransom—a‑u‑e‑r, our—“was made aus”—a‑u‑s, out, German—“for $50,000.” That is what the first letter said, $50,000. This letter says, “Our [954] previous letter, practically says our previous letter said $50,000 and it did, but now, we have to take another person to it and probable have to keep the baby for a longer time as we expected.”

The reference to the amount $50,000 is the same.

The next letter, which originally was marked Exhibit H—

Q. Yes. A. What is that?

Q. Just refer to your own notes and go right on. A. All right. Exhibit H, at the lower part of the first page, has merely the word “singnature” at the left, and then the device at the right; and the second page of that same letter, they are single sheets and the writing is on the back, the second page “Wy” why—W‑y—”Wy did you ingnore our letter which we have left in the room.” Two points of connection there: one, the peculiar spelling of the word “ingnore,” an unnecessary “n” before the “g,” exactly as the word “singnature” is written; and also the reference to the first letter which was left in the room.

The Witness: I have been at home three or four days, your Honor, with throat trouble, and I may have to stop occasionally.

The Court: Many of us have the same trouble.

A. (continuing) In the same letter, in that same letter there appears “and ransom was made out for $50,000,” another reference to the amount that appeared in the first letter, “but now we have to put another lady to it and probably” intended for “probably,” although it is misspelled, [955] “have to hold the baby longer as we expected.”

The next letter, which originally was marked Exhibit K—and these exhibit numbers still appear upon the papers, says, “It seems you are afraid if we are the right party and if the boy is all right. Well, you have our singnature. It is always the same as the first one, specially them three holes.”

The next reference to this was originally on L-2, it says, “He knows”—that previous reference was to Colonel Lindbergh—“He knows we are the right party.” This is another letter. “Our singnature is still the same as in the ransom note.” Now these ransom notes are connected with each other with many peculiarly spelled words. It can hardly be described as misspelling, they are peculiar combinations of letters. This word “singnature” that appears all the way through them for instance. And another connection appears in the second letter. The first two lines of the second letter are written with great deliberation and very distinctly like the writing in the first letter. The rest of that letter, the second letter, is written somewhat more freely.

Q. What does that indicate to you, A. What?

Q. What does that indicate to you? A. Well, it indicates the closer connection at the beginning of the second letter with the first letter. The first letter was written with more deliberation than any of the other letters, written somewhat more slowly and with more deliberation, but in my opinion it was written by the same writer.

Now, there are some other words, other statements, ideas, contained in these letters which in my opinion tend to connect them with each other and especially, I mean tend to connect the later letters with each other and with the first letter. The first letter says, “The child is in gut care.” [956] That is the letter left in the room. That particular sentence is written with a coarser pen than the rest of the letters, indicating it was written not continuously with the other part of the letter.

The next letter says, “Don’t be affrait about the baby.” These are references to the care of the child which appear in the different letters. “Don’t be affrait about the care of the baby. Two lady keeping care of it day and night. The also” intended for “they,” written “t-h-e “—that is an error which appears here numerous times in which the verb is not correctly spelled or the noun is not correctly spelled in some instances, and sometimes it is the verb. Here it is “the” intended for “t-h-e-y,” although it is rather illegible—“also will feed him according to the diet.”

The next letter says, “We are interested to send him back in gut (g-u-t) health.”

Or “got,” it is difficult to tell just exactly what some of these letters are. They are written so peculiarly and so illegibly. The next letter says “There is no worry about the boy. He is very well and will be feed according to the diet.” This, in my opinion, this reference connects these letters with each other as series. I suppose it is understood what the diet means. The next letter says, “Please tell Mrs. Lindbergh not to worry, the baby is well. We only have to give him more food as the diet says.” In the next letter it says, “Did you send that little package to Mr. Lindbergh. It contains the sleeping suit from the baby.” Then, “The Baby is well.” In the last letter it says, “There is absolute no fear about the child. It is well.”

Q. Are these correct photographic reproductions of the notes? A. They are.

Mr. Lanigan: I offer them in evidence.

[957] The Court: If there is no objection they will be received.

(Photographs referred to received in evidence and marked State Exhibits S‑104 and S‑105.)

Mr. Lanigan: Proceed, Mr. Osborn.

The Court: Mr. Attorney General, it is about our recess time, and before you take up another topic I think we had better take a recess until 1:45 o’clock. The people will remain seated where they are in the courtroom.

The jury may now retire.

(The jury retired at 12:29 p.m.)

The Court: The prisoner is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff, and he may now retire with the officers.

The Court will now take a recess until 1:45 p.m.

(At 12:31 a recess was taken until 1:45 P.

AFTER RECESS

(1:46 p.m.)

[958] (The jury was polled and all jurors answered present.)

The Court: Will the Attorney General and Mr. Reilly step up here to speak with me one moment.

(Counsel conferred with the Court at the Bench out of the hearing of the jury.)

Mr. Reilly: May it please your Honor and Mr. Attorney General, last week in conference your Honor said that you were most anxious to proceed with this trial on all Saturdays, that you thought the interest of justice would be best served that way. Your Honor will recall that when the motion for the bill of particulars was argued defense counsel asked that certain exhibits be impounded so that our experts could devote some time to the examination of them so they could follow Mr. Osborn and the other experts for the State, and your Honor said that you were without power at that time, but that you would give us the opportunity to examine the exhibits.

Now it appears, if the Court please, that there are many exhibits—I should say Mr. Osborn has very likely, and the other experts have very likely, gone over, I should say, 30 or 40 exhibits in order to arrive at their conclusions.

The experts for the defense have never seen any of the original notes, nor have they seen any of the comparisons that the prosecution had. If we were to stop the examination of the experts for the State, say, in the middle of next week, and ask [959] this Court for sufficient time to examine the exhibits, I fear we would have to take at least 48 hours before we could do substantial justice to this defendant.

Most of our experts come from not only Jersey but from other places, and it is our desire to gather them together tomorrow and I have been assured by the Attorney General that he will set aside a room in Trenton where these exhibits may be examined by our experts under the supervision of a member of his staff. I am moving now for an adjournment for tomorrow at the close of the court today, until Monday morning so that counsel, who although not engaged in court, will be actually engaged in the preparation during Saturday and Sunday of their side of the case, so there will be no delay when the time comes for the defense to offer their expert wit-nesses.

Further than that, the Attorney General tells me that there are a line of witnesses to certain steps in this proceeding which, if called, would amount to at least 25 or 32 witnesses and would take at least a day and a half. So as to try to make this trial move as rapidly as possible and within the confines of justice, the defense feels that during the Saturday and Sunday interim, the Attorney General and our staff of the defense may be in such a position that we can shorten the trial and eliminate at least 26 or 27 of those witnesses and limit the evidence under a stipulation to about three of those witnesses.

So that I would not want your Honor or the jury or anyone to think that this [960] application was merely for the purpose of obliging counsel to get some fresh air. It is work that must be done by the defense, and your Honor appreciates the more or less limited time that we have had and will have in examining these exhibits. So I ask your Honor for that discretion which is vested upon you to grant this adjournment.

Mr. Wilentz: If your Honor please, the prosecution did last October or November, it is my recollection, provide to the defense counsel at that time an inspection of some of these exhibits, not all, those that we had at the time, particularly the ransom notes, and also gave them a copy; but my information is that the present counsel have never had an opportunity to see those exhibits. Under those circumstances I believe that the request now made is fair and reasonable.

In addition to that counsel has very kindly consented to endeavor to agree upon certain facts which would eliminate twenty-five or more witnesses.

I believe this request is fair, if your Honor please, because it will save time. In other words, we would have to spend a day and a half here in matters that would not be interesting, for one thing, if your Honor please, and secondly they would be just a matter of formal proof. “Did you wrap the money?” and did the next man wrap this money and “Did you mark down these numbers?” Counsel has consented to agree to have three or four witnesses who [961] know about it testify to it and eliminate the others.

So that we actually will not lose any time, if your Honor should decide to grant the request made by the chief defendant’s counsel.

In addition to that, if your Honor please, let me suggest to your Honor very respectfully that if you do give us the day tomorrow, as far as the lawyers are concerned, we will be occupied all day. The only difference it will make will be that the jury will not be forced to be here. There won’t be any time lost. And I think under all the circumstances the State should and does consent to the request of counsel.

The Court: I wish to speak about this matter to the jury. I have had time to think about this request that has been made. I think the request should be granted. Normally I would be very anxious to go on on Saturday, but to go on over Saturday, as has been explained by the lawyers, would not result in the saving of any time; on the contrary, I think the adjournment would result in the saving of time in the trial of this cause. Now, in such circumstances it seems that I ought to adjourn over from tonight until Monday morning. Having determined to do that, I want to say a word or two to the jury. In the first place, I wish to suggest to them that they spend as much time as they feel like and as reasonably possible out in the open air and in the sun light over Saturday and Sunday. Now in connection with that thing it appears that one of the guards of this jury, I do not know his name, one of the officers [962] in charge of this jury, happens to be the owner of two buses that carry quite some few passengers when loaded. Now he has volunteered to take the jury, he is going along in the buses, to take the jury and the officers who are in charge of the jury on a little ride; I do not know whether it is to be Saturday or Sunday, I suppose that can be adjusted between the jury and the officers. Now I see no objection to that, and I have consulted with the counsel on both sides, and they consent to it. I am going to impose this limitation, that the route to be traversed when you are out for this ride of relaxation shall not be along any of the places which have been described here in the trial of this cause. Counsel tell me that it would be quite satisfactory to them to have the buses driven from here to—Frenchtown, is it?

Mr. Fisher: That is right, sir.

The Court: And from Frenchtown to Milford—I ask the guard’s attention to what I am saying—from Frenchtown to Milford, from Milford—to where?

Mr. Pope: Pattenburg.

The Court: Pattenberg,

Mr. Pope: That is right.

The Court: From Milford to Pattenburg and—

Mr. Fisher: And thence to Clinton.

[963] The Court: And thence to Clinton and then back here.

And of course it is understood that there is to be no talk with anybody about this case. The purpose is to give you a little bit of relaxation and air.

That may be done.

Counsel may now proceed.

Mr. Lanigan: If your Honor please, there has been offered and introduced in evidence some 55 exhibits relating to the ransom notes, to the request writings and to the conceded writings. For the purpose of clarification and in order to expedite, I would like to have entered on the record that when the witnesses refer to the following exhibits, the numbers of which I shall give the stenographer, they are referring to the ransom notes and the envelopes; that when they refer to the following numbers, 1 to 10, they refer to the request writings and in the subsequent numbers to the conceded writings. I think by referring generally to “ransom notes,” to “request writings” and to “conceded writings” the jury will have a clear picture.

I make a motion that they be entered in that way and the testimony of the witnesses so taken.

The Court: Is there any objection to that?

Mr. Reilly: No objection.



[964] The Court: That may be the course.

By Mr. Lanigan: Q. Mr. Osborn, at the lunch hour we ended with the introduction of the photographic exhibits S‑104 and S‑105.

Mr. Reilly: They are in evidence?

Mr. Lanigan: Yes.

Q. Will you now proceed with your reasons and illustrations from that point. A. In further explanation of the identity of these so-called devices or signatures, I have in my hand a photograph which is printed on a transparent film of the 11 devices. These are made from the photographs that were made of these documents in May 1932, the negatives were made then and these are simply prints on films so that they are transparent. The devices shown in the corner and the holes print as black because these are transparencies. These 11 transparencies are fastened together so that any one can be compared with any other one by simply pulling them out to one side like this, and then there is a little lost motion so that the edges of the paper, which is shown by the black line, the edge of the sheet, can be put together and the corner can be put together and then it can be seen whether the holes will match. It is much easier to compare them than it is to compare the originals, because the originals are, of course, opaque paper and the holes are there; if you get them and hold them up to the light you will see whether they will match. This is a method of comparing particularly the punched holes with each other.

[965] It will be seen, in my opinion, that No. 13 and 14 that I have already referred to, is a little different from the other two, that apparently they were punched at the same time by the shape of their holes, and their position, exact position. The others practically match. Of course, the holes are a little different in size, but it in my opinion is possible to take the exhibit that I have and see whether there is this identity of position of these punched holes as connecting the eleven letters with this device on it.

Q. And that refers to the signatures? A. Yes, the device, the signature in the lower righthand corner.

Q. Are they correct reproductions? A. They are.

Mr. Lanigan: I offer them in evidence. Mr. Reilly: No objection.

The Court: No objection, they will be received.

The Reporter: Exhibit S‑106.

(Reproductions referred to were received in evidence and marked State Exhibit S‑106.)

The Witness: I didn’t have the sticker on.

Q. Proceed from that point. A. I have examined these two sets of writings—where are they?

Q. In your bag? A. No, I mean the originals.

[966] Q. These are the original notes. Note No. 1. A. All of them, and the standards.

Q. All right. There is your envelope and these are your standards. A. I have examined these two sets of writings for the purpose of determining—

Q. What are they, Mr. Osborn, please? A. The two sets of writings are the ransom notes.

Q. Yes, and these? A. And the request writings.

Q. Of whom? A. The admitted writings—

Q. Of whom? A. Of Richard Hauptmann.

Q. And you are making a comparison between the writings of Mr. Hauptmann and the ransom notes? A. Yes.

Q. Proceed. A. I made this comparison examination for the purpose of determining whether or not these two sets of writings were written by the same writer, whether or not, in the second place, the similarities and identities are due to accident or coincidence, or third, whether the similarities and identities are due to intended imitation. They are the three alternatives. In my opinion the question must be considered in that way. Either these two sets of writings are by the same writer or the similarities and identities are accidental and coincident—just happened to be the same. And the other is that the ransom notes are the imitation of the handwriting of this writer.

Fortunately, there is a large amount of writing. Otherwise it would be difficult to answer to these questions definitely, some of them. For example, the question of imitation: it would be an enormous problem to imitate the amount of writing that appears in these ransom notes and imitate it successfully. First would be the necessity for the physical skill, the necessity for the ability to analyze the writing and determine what its characteristics, its controlling characteristics, are; and [967] third, and most important of all, would be the securing of standard writing, genuine writing, for imitation which would contain all of the characteristics which appear in the ransom notes.

It is important to consider in connection with that point as to what it is that connects the writings, what kinds of characteristics are they? Are they mere accidental things or are they the reproductions of a system of writing? Or are they developed characteristics and rare characteristics? In my opinion, the ransom notes are connected with this other writing, with this standard writing, genuine writing, writing of Richard Hauptmann, in all three of these ways: General characteristics, ordinary, usual characteristics, and unusual or rare characteristics. Now it would require an enormous amount of standard writing, for instance, if one had one or two letters of this writer, those letters would not contain a large number of things that appear in these ransom letters that are in the genuine writing. When you have a sufficient quantity of the genuine writing. This matter of handwriting comparison is a matter of reasoning, finally, it is looking at things and saying, is it reasonable to assume that that would be the fact? It is just a matter of reasoning, not merely looking at it, and when we show our illustrations here, that will be the question, whether accidental, the imitation or is it the same handwriting. In my opinion it is the same handwriting.

As the ordinary conditions in the amount of writing and the character of the writing. In my opinion the anonymous letters are all written in a disguised hand, somewhat disguised. The standard writing, the genuine writing is of two or three different kinds, one phase of it are the automobile [968] registrations, they are made a year apart, and I think covered three years—doesn’t it?

Q. Correct. A. Three years. Then, there is some genuine writing, a promissory note, or a contract it is called, which it is reasonable to conclude is a natural handwriting, and then we have sixteen—a large number, I am not, I just don’t know how many there are—

Q. Sixteen, go ahead. A. A large number of pages of what is known or described as a request writing, that is, a writing that the writer was asked to write, knowing inevitably, of course, that the purpose of it was to examine his handwriting and to see what kind of handwriting he did write. You will find when you examine these papers if you have not already examined them, that some of this request writing is of matter that is written three times, the same matter.

Now, that was a request made at the suggestion of writers on the subject, that in asking for re-quest writing it is desirable to have the same matter written more than once, not merely to get more writing but to see whether the writing is honest writing or not, to see whether it is the genuine, ordinary, habitual writing of the writer. Now, that is shown in this way: when, for instance, a page of writing, as some of these letters are, a page — when it is dictated to a writer and the writing is then taken away, the sheet is taken away from the writer and another sheet is supplied and the same matter is dictated—now, if they differ from each other, it is not the habitual genuine, honest writing of the writer. And that is exactly what we find in this request writing. In one instance we find it on the same sheet of paper. In my opinion, these request writings—I mean these ransom notes—are disguised writings; part of the request [969] writings are disguised writings, and the writer didn’t have but one disguise. So that when the request writings were asked for, part of them are written in the style of the ransom notes and part of the request writings are like the writings of the automobile registrations and the promissory note contract.

Now, in my opinion, that has significance in this case as indicating the condition of mind of the writer in writing, for instance, Exhibit S‑72. Exhibit S‑72 has five lines of writing on it, very similar to the ransom notes, and then there is a sudden change to the natural or more natural style of writing of this writer.

On Exhibit No. S‑73 we have the writing—all of the writing is like the last part of S‑72. It is not the disguised writing at all and this particular exhibit in my opinion, Exhibit S‑73, would hardly furnish basis for the opinion that that writer wrote the ransom notes. I mean if that is the only one we had.

Now Exhibit No. S‑74 is nearly all of it like the first part of S‑72. It is all in that unnatural style, the whole sheet.

No. S‑75 is another one that is not disguised. So that in examining these request writings it is necessary to examine them in comparison with each other, to see which of the writings can be depended upon as a basis of comparison for the identification of the ransom notes.

Q. Well, did you find your basis of comparison? A. What?

Q. Did you find a basis of comparison? A. Yes. Q. All right proceed from there.

A. Now this handwriting is identified by comparison of the characteristics. A characteristic in handwriting is that by which it may be [970] described, just the same as the characteristic of anything else.

They are the things by which it may be described. And in handwriting, characteristics of varying degrees of force as a means of identification are not all alike. They are like the description of an individual. Handwriting is identified exactly as a man is identified, as an automobile is identified, as a horse is identified, by general description and then by individual marks and scars and characteristics which, in combination, and that is the significant part of this matter of comparison, is the combination of characteristics so that it is not reasonable to say that they would accidentally coincide. That is the question.

Now, we have this writing, certain characteristics, which are characteristic merely of a class of writing. When pupils learn the same system of writing, if they learn to write perfectly, you couldn’t distinguish one writing from another, because it would be merely the copybooks of writing; they would be just alike, but that does not occur.

In the first place, handwriting from the same system and the same teacher, with a different pupil, produces a different result in certain particulars, so that some of the handwriting characteristics given at the beginning, given at the time that writing is learned and then, as soon as writing is employed—and what I am saying, when writing is employed, it may be assumed that all the time I am referring to this writing, this writing (ransom note exhibits). In my opinion, this writing in this case, both classes is what may be described as developed writing.

Now, developed writing is that which differs from copybook, differs from the model that one [971] follows, or differs from the copies that were set for them to learn.

Writing, of course, begins, it is an acquired qualification, it is an acquired habit, first imitating the forms, and then the forms become more easily made, until finally writing is a succession of habitual motions; the signature part of writing are the motions which are made with the pen, with the ink on it, records the motions.

Q. Do those habitual motions appear in the ransom notes? A. Yes.

Q. Will you illustrate them for me, please? A. I have put together various clippings from both sets of these writings (producing).

Q. What are they? Explain what they are, please. A. These are words and similar combinations of letters taken from the ransom notes on one side and on the other side from these request and genuine writings.

Q. And they truly portray both the request writings and the ransom notes? A. What?

Q. Do they truly portray the ransom notes and the request writings? A. Yes.

Q. All right. A. These are clippings from photographs. Of course, we couldn’t cut up the originals. They are photographs, and then prints are made and these parts are taken apart, taken and put opposite each other for comparison; and the method would be just the same whether it was to show that the writer was different or the writer was the same—put the same words and combination of words opposite each other and see how they look and then ask the question, Is it the same writing? Are they accidental similarities or are they imitated similarities? Now each of these—

Q. Have you any enlargements of these? A. There are five of these collections; there are five [972] of these collections. Each page has a place that can be marked as an exhibit.

Mr. Lanigan: All right, mark it for identification.

The Witness: Well, do you want to show it to Mr. Reilly?

Do you want to see that?

Mr. Lanigan: Mark it for identification.

The Reporter: S‑107 for identification.

(Rook of enlargements referred to marked State Exhibit S‑107 for Identification.)

The Witness: Mr. Lanigan, you didn’t show it to Mr. Reilly.

Mr. Lanigan: I am doing that in due course.

Mr. Lanigan: This is offered in evidence for the purpose of comparison and I desire to present the enlargement.

The Court: If there is no objection it will be admitted.

(Received in evidence and marked Exhibit S‑107.)

Q. Now, Mr. Osborn, what does this purport to be? A. We have in these two groups of the writing, of the Hauptmann writing—

 [973] Q. In other words this is the writing of whom? A. In the right-hand side or the request writings and the—

Q. Of whom? A. And—of Richard Hauptmann.

Q. All right. And this purports to be what, sir? A. On the left side are the clippings from the ransom notes.

Q. Yes. A. On this exhibit the Hauptmann writing is on the left side and the ransom notes are on the right side. They are just the opposite of this.

Q. Yes. A. The inscription at the top indicates of course, that these are the ransom notes, clippings on the right side, and on this one the ransom note clippings are on the left side.

Q. Then we have all the Hauptmann writing on the middle and the ransom notes on the outside? A. Yes.

Q. All right. Now proceed. A. Yes. We have here a combination of words showing the characteristics in this writing. On the one at the right—Mr. Lanigan, shouldn’t this be marked as an exhibit for identification so I can refer to the whole sheet?

Mr. Lanigan: I offer them for identification (two large photographic reproductions which had been affixed to the wall.)

(Photographic reproductions marked State Exhibits S‑108 and S‑109 for Identifications.)

Q. Proceed, Mr. Osborn, please. A. I have five of these exhibits.

Q. Take these two first. Confine yourself to what is on the board. A. These exhibits are the reasons for my opinion. These are the reasons, [974] the things that can be seen, and I will attempt to interpret them somewhat. We have in S‑108 on the left-hand side a group of the writings of Richard Hauptmann. On the right-hand side are the ransom notes. This Exhibit 108 contains three, in my opinion, invented, unusual characters. The first one is the “X.” This X in the word “next,” the word “expected” and the word “expenses,” and another word “expected,” and this is “extra.” On the right-hand side we have two examples of the word “Bronx” written with this same strange character. It isn’t an “x” at all. It isn’t German, it isn’t roundhand, it isn’t Latin script.

Latin script is the round hand or writing similar to American handwriting or English handwriting. In Germany it is referred to as Latin script. It is like English roundhand, like the old style and the old style American writing. That character is not in either, any of these systems of writing. In my opinion, it is an incorrect attempt to make what is an old hand “X,” an old roundhand “x” is made with a beginning stroke like a small “n,” with a loop at the bottom and then a loop at the top, and then the downward stroke touches the upward stroke and it makes an “x.” (Witness demonstrates with a pencil and paper.)

The old writing books had it in, the early writing books. Now, the error in this letter is in making a loop at the top. If you make a loop at the top, then you can’t make the second part touch the first, as it should, to make an “x” and this result we see as shown here in five examples.

Q. Will you just step down close to the map so that defense counsel may have an unobstructed view? A. No. I am going to sit down.

Q. All right. Do it that way then. A. If we [975] had only the request writing we wouldn’t have these “x’s” at all. There are some words with “x’s” in the request writing but not that “x.”

The next character that I call attention to is the character shown—where is my pointer?

Q. Here it is, right here (handing to the witness). A. All right; so we don’t have to get up. The next writing which I call attention to is the one I am pointing at, in the word here (indicating) and the one below. It is not familiar to me.

Q. Well, what is it? A. But it is intended for a capital “T.”

Q. All right. A. In the request writing we have two of them; one that I am pointing at could be almost exactly superimposed. That is a capital “T.”

Q. (Witness indicates the letter “T.”) A. What? Q. Do you indicate the letter “T”? A. Yes.

Q. All right. A. Capital “T” in the word time, in both instances, and the capital “T”—that was intended for the word there, but the “e” wasn’t written. That was in one of the ransom notes.

Now the next characteristic to which I call attention is this unusual difficulty with the h. In one of the ransom notes we have this word (indicating). This is in the second ransom note, h‑t‑e. In one of the requests, only one of the request writings, we have the word the, written three times h‑t‑e.

In my opinion it is highly individual. Of course, it is not a matter of form; it is a matter of the order of the letters. We have in the Hauptmann writing on the left the word “little,” l-i-h-g-t for “light,” passing a red light—that is in one of the automobile applications. On the right-hand side we have the word “right” from the ransom note, r-i-g-t-h for “right.” We also have the word “was.” This is the verb “was” [976] with an “h” in it that shouldn’t be in it. And this fault of arranging the letters incorrectly. This word that I am pointing at is the word “years,” y-e-a-r-s. It is written y-e-a-h-s. At the right of that we have the word “year,” which is written y— this first character here is intended for a “y,” but of course it isn’t a “y.” There are 57 of them in the ransom notes, showing that it isn’t an accidental thing. The word is written y-a-e-r, “year.”

Now we have at the left over here the first word at the top, the word “not” with a peculiar final “t,” peculiar final “t” in the word “not,” and then we have the same letter in the word “next” and the same letter in the word “it,” and the word “not” at the left-hand side under the Hauptmann writing on the second line. Now that character spraddled out in that way, sprawled out in that way, in my opinion is a distinctive individual characteristic. There are dozens of them in this writing on both sides. These examples that I showed here with the exception, for instance, of the “x’s” these are the only ones that are shown here, but many of these characteristics appear over and over again, and the ones that are shown are only examples, for instance. Now we have some examples here, examples here of the German form of “t.” Now that is a German “t” simply indicating that the writer was a German writer. That “t” finished at the bottom with a little stroke inside, and we have one over on the left-hand side here. That would have significance only as connecting the writings, that alone, of only connecting the writing with a German writer, which, of course, wouldn’t be sufficient to identify an individual.

But, that is one of the general characteristics in this writing. Now, we have in the word “near” [977] here a peculiar final “r,” and this writing throughout the ransom note writing, and also the writing with which we are comparing, the Richard Hauptman writing, has a peculiar habit of finishing words in an awkward way with strokes that are too long. It applies to many letters, many letters. For instance, take the word “will,” down at the bottom here, this one on the right-hand side, the ransom note, would seem to be just an individual accidental thing, but it is repeated. We find similar ones throughout the writings. It applies in some instance to “e,” sometimes to “1” sometimes to “h”. For instance, there is an example of it in that word “right,” “r-i-t-h”. There is the stroke going down here, the word “near” here, too long below the line. And then, at the left, we have here examples of the word, of the letter “w” on the right-hand side, the ransom notes, the word “will” beginning with a downward stroke. Then, the letter “w” I mean be-ginning with a downward stroke the letter “w,” then beginning with a slight little bit of a beginning stroke and then an upward stroke and then the “w” made with a whole extra part at the left and then at the bottom, this letter “s,” an old round hand letter that occasionally appears on both sets of these writings. “It,” as made in the copy book, and written like “nv” it is the old round hand double. “It” occasionally appears we have one over here in the request writing. You will see there that it is like “nv”. That is a small “w” and we have some, and on the left-hand side we have four “w’s,” one with the downward stroke, upward stroke, double stroke, and then this old round hand style of “w”.

Q. Will you go to the next map and continue your explanation from that map, please. A. There are other characteristics in this writing, in these [978] documents, than the writing alone, which in my opinion connect them. We have one peculiar one that appears at once in the writing at the top of Exhibit S‑109, the word “New York” written as a compound word.

Q. Illustrate that, will you, please. A. A compound word. This specimen at the top is the writing that was on the sleeping suit wrapper; the paper was folded and it was of brown color, so that it was a little more difficult to photograph it; but you will notice that there is a hyphen between the “New” and the “York;” there is a hyphen between the “New” and the “York” in the next one, and in the next one. The one below that does not have it. Then on the right-hand side we have the word “New York” in one of the automobile registrations, and the word “New York” in—I have forgotten where that one comes from.

Q. Well, go on to the next one. A. But it is one of the—

Q. Go on to the next one; take the one below it. A. Yes. It is one of the Hauptmann writings; and then below that is some writing from the request, the request writing, the word “New York” with a hyphen, and below that another one in the same writing. These two show what I have already referred to as the disguise in the request writing, these two words, “New York.”

Q. Well, in the ransom notes where you have indicated the word “New York,” how many times does the hyphen appear there? A. It appears on the ransom notes one, two, three times.

Q. And on that request, on the Hauptmann writing, where does it appear? A. It appears three times, four times on the request writing.

Q. All right. Now proceed to the next, please. A. Now there is another characteristic here in this Exhibit S‑109 which in my opinion is significant [979] and that is the peculiar form of the capital “N.” If we had only the one at the upper righthand side here it would look like an accidental letter, with the first part of the letter tilted up in the air. We have the same letter exactly on the notation on the wrapper containing the sleeping suit, the same form of “N”—we have the same form of “N” in the second “New York” here. It doesn’t appear every time. Then in the next “New York” request writing, we have a strange “n,” a strange character. That character is the capital “N” made backwards.

Q. Is there such a character in the ransom note, such a character of “N”? A. Yes.

Q. Will you point it out to me? A. Yes. This is the last ransom note.

Q. I want the character “N.” A. It refers to the boat Nellie and the “N” is a printed “N,” this is the ransom note, a printed “N” in the word Nellie, made wrongside up, made backwards, and in the request writing the word “Condon” appears with the “N” made twice in that way, showing that it is not an accidental thing, merely an accident thing. i Then we have here in connection with—opposite this middle part here—the capital “C” a peculiar capital “C.” The word “Condon” is printed excepting the beginning letter which is a script letter and that same letter appears in the ransom notes, one of them on the wrapper of the sleeping suit and the other the word “Condon” at the top of one of the ransom notes.

Now we have next here the word “house” and “hall” and the beginning of the word “Hauptmann.” Those three “h’s” are German “h’s.” They are in my opinion similar to some of theie German characteristics I have already pointed out that would only indicate German, excepting for instance the peculiar and awkward manner in [980] which they are sometimes made, that is, there is as much variation in German writing as there is, of course, in American writing, so that German writing can be identified as compared with other German writing which differs from ordinary, the ordinary conventional forms.

Then we have a capital “W,” the ransom notes. This “W” is another common German characteristic that tends to connect this writing with a German writer and of course the similarities as they are constructed here in my opinion does tend to indicate this particular writer. We have below the word “boad” which is intended for boat, which is in the last letter, the same letter the word “Nellie” is in; the word “boad” with a “b” with the loop, the ovals at the right extending up to the right, you see. Below that we have the character “t” which is used by certain German writers for the “d”. The “d” and “t” are used interchangeably and the significance here is simply the peculiar manner in which it is made, the large finishing loop at the left and in this instance the word “Dear Sir,” or “Tear Sir” with its flourish out at the left. Below that we have the word “ransom” and the word “note”.

Q. Go on. A. the word “ransom note” is written in one of the ransom notes, referring back to the ransom note. This contains a peculiar “a” which is a modification of the German or roundhand “a” made continuously like in the word “Hauptmann.” ***

That is a peculiar adaptation of the German form, but of course other (German writers do write it, some of them. We have at the bottom here the word singnature from the first letter, with a large flourishing s— the word singnature, S‑i-n-g-n-a-t-u-r-e, with this t that has no crossing, [981] and that is a circumstance that I wish to call attention to particularly.

I assume I may look at my notes here.

Q. Go on. Use them to refresh your memory, please. A. Of the “t” crossings. The “t” in German writing is made like the letter “t” in the word expected up here, finished at the bottom, and requires no crossing; but this writing, most of this writing, is not German writing—most of the writing, I mean, in the ransom notes, and in the Hauptmann writing; it is not German writing. I have counted the number of t’s that would require a cross, like the one, for instance, in the word singnature, and in the ransom notes there are three hundred and ninety-one of these t’s; three of them are crossed. In my opinion this shows a general habit which is, I think, characteristic.

And in that same connection, referring to a characteristic in writing which is—

Q. Just a moment, please, Mr. Osborn. How many did you say: three hundred and what? A. 391.

Q. In the ransom notes? A. No, 391 t’s in the ransom notes that would ordinarily be crossed, have a crossing.

Q. Did you examine the conceded writings for the number of t’s contained therein? A. Well, I didn’t count them all but there are a very large number the same way. For instance, there are whole pages of the request writings, there are whole pages of the request writings with not one crossed “t.” I thought—whole pages with not one crossed “t.” There are a few crossings. The specimens that have more crossed “t’s” than any-thing else are one or two of the automobile registrations where the writer is asked to print the [982] name, and evidently the question of legibility in the writing was right in mind.

Now, the same peculiar omission in writing which is a characteristic is shown in the small “i.” Now, the small “i” requires a dot and, in the ransom notes, there are 304 small i’s, seven of them are dotted, and the—

Q. Now— A: —and the same proportion exists in the standard writings, whole sets of the standard writing with not one “i” dotted in it at all.

Now, that in my opinion is a characteristic which is distinctive as indicating the connection between these writings. Now, finishing up S‑109, we have the word “singnature” at the bottom, and below that the word “ingnore.” “Why did you ingnore.”

Q. Are you tired, Mr. Osborn? A. What?

Q. Are you a trifle weary? A. Why, I haven’t, I would be—

Mr. Lanigan: I ask your Honor’s indulgence; I think we have finished with these two maps. Shall we recess, with your Honor’s permission?

The Court: Yes, we can have a recess of five minutes.

Mr Lanigan: A recess of five minutes.

The Court: The jury may retire if they wish to.

(At 2:55 p.m. a short recess was taken.)

(At 3:03 p.m. the jury returned to the court room.)

[983] The Court: Poll the jury.

(The jury was polled and all answered present.)

ALFRED S. OSBORN, resumed the stand.

Direct Examination (Continued) By. Mr. Lanigan: Q. Now Mr. Osborn, have you finished with these two enlargements? A. Yes, for the present.

Mr. Lanigan: All right, will you take them down?

The Witness: You can pit the others right over there.

Mr. Lanigan: All right.

The Witness: Put the others right over them.

Q. Which one do you want (showing two charts to the witness)? A. Either one.

(A photographic enlargement was placed on the wall to the right of the jury).

Mr. Lanigan: I offer these and ask that they be marked.

Mr. Reilly: The first two charts?

Mr. Lanigan: The first two charts.

[984] Mr. Reilly: No objection.

The Reporter: S‑110 and S‑111 for identification.

Mr. Lanigan: I offer the first two charts in evidence.

Mr. Reilly: No objection to the other two.

The Reporter: S‑108, S‑109, S‑110 and S‑111 in evidence.

(Charts referred to received in evidence and marked State Exhibits S‑108, S‑109, S‑110 and S‑111.)

Q. S‑110 and S‑111 (indicating). A. S‑110 and S‑111?

Q. S‑110 and S‑111. A. Yes.

Q. Now will you proceed, Mr. Osborn, please, and show me the characteristics which indicate the comparison upon which your opinion is based? A. We have in these two comparisons, S‑110 and S‑111, additional words and letters for comparison. In the first row, the first line, are the capital “I’s,” more capital “I’s” from the Hauptmann writing, the first line, and one on the fourth line, down below here, with a beginning stroke. That is the complete or more complete form of the capital “I.”

This capital “I” as shown at the top here, with the exception of the one at the left, is not a copy book form at all. That is a developed form, an individual form of the letter and on the one side we have the ransom note letters, on the other side we have the Hauptmann writing, some of them are shaded more than others, but [985] in my opinion they are eventually the same form.

I next call attention to the small “s” which in this writing is a very peculiar character as made at the beginning of words, and as made at the ends of words, we have them on S‑110 and we have them on S‑111. I call attention, for example, to the word “is” and the word “is,” on the S‑110 and on the ransom notes on the left‑hand side and the word “is” on S‑111, and on the Hauptmann writing on the right the word “is,” and this is one of the very rare dotted “i’s”. There are only a few of them, three or four of them in all the writing.

Then the “s” is made disconnected at the beginning of words; the pen is taken up and a very rounded large circle is made to begin with, and then at the end of the word, the letter is a distorted and illegible letter. If we had only one, it would seem as though it was an accident; but they appear frequently, the ransom notes—here are three of them in one group. In the Hauptmann writing on S‑111 we have the word “as” and the last part of the word “letters” and this one is the writing in that note or agreement paper.

The letter “y” in the word “you” in the Hauptmann writing and in the ransom notes is a distorted letter. It is really a “j” without a dot, and without an upward stroke. A few of them are made with a short upward stroke and there are 57 of them in the ransom notes, there are two of them that have a little hook to begin with, and all the others are made with the downward stroke. We have here on the left the ransom note, the word “you,” and on the right-hand side in one of the request writings the word “you” with this distorted character as the beginning character of the letter.

Now this same letter “y” made at the end of words is another character, another peculiar [986] character. It has a short‑pointed base. There are many of them; when made at the end of words, the last stroke of what would be the “y” slants over to the right and then an angle is made at the base. We have two examples of the Hauptmann writing on the right-hand side.

We have below the “s” as it appears in the middle of words. The small “s” is a very poorly designed and executed letter in this writing, in the ransom writing, the letter writing, and also in the Hauptmann writing.

The letter “p” is made sometimes beginning with a downward stroke merely and sometimes with a short beginning upward stroke, but the top of the letter is no higher on either side than the rest of the word. Below here we have the word “robbery”. It was supposed to be “robbery” only it is spelled with a “p”. And below that the finishing “r,” a peculiar finishing “r” which appears on the left side in the ransom notes, on the right-hand side in the Hauptmann writing. And here again with one example it would seem to be accidental, but it is not. And below that we have the “f,” an occasional character. Usually the “f” is not this particular form where it goes up on the left-hand side and then across, but it is like the “f” we have on this side, on the S‑111 exhibit. We have two styles of “f” here, and one down here. That makes three “f ‘s”. They appear in both sets of writings.

The first one is just an abbreviated downward stroke. The one on the left, the ransom note “F,” the one on the right, the Hauptmann writing “F,” then we have the same writing with the downward stroke, traced back to the middle, that is similar to German writing, and we have that same character in the ransom notes.

So, we have three different kinds of “f ‘s”



987



appearing in both sets of writings. The word “to” shows the small “o” not merely not closed at the top, but wide open. Many people make the “o” slightly open, but these “o’s” are more like a “v,” but they are intended for an “o,” all of these letters, and they are the same in the Hauptmann writing as they are in the ransom notes.

These “s’s” I have already referred to as com-paring with the “s’s” on 110 and at the left of these “s’s” that look like a distorted accidental letter, but we have the same thing in the Hauptmann writing. Then the word “not,” this writer had a habit of making the small “n” and the small “m” out of slant. The downward strokes, you will observe, are a backhand, slant back to the left, and there are many examples in these writings. Here we have the word “you,” two from Hauptmann writing and two from ransom notes. As I said, there are 57 of them in ransom notes, and pretty nearly the same number—I have forgotten exactly what it is—in the Hauptmann writing.

Next we have the capital “D,” which is a highly developed peculiar character. The “D” is made with an open side on the right-hand, to make a “D” of it, like the printed “D,” like the script “D,” but this writer makes the “D” with the upward stroke so close to the downward stroke that there is no opening, frequently, I mean, that there is no opening on the righthand side at all.

We have this word “Dodge” in one of the auto-mobile registrations and the word “dear” in one of the ransom notes, the word “dear” in another one of the ransom notes, with no opening on the righthand side at all. In my opinion that is a highly individual character tending to connect these two writings. We have in the request [988] writing beginning the word “during” in which the “d” is made similar to the letters in the word “dear” and the word “Dodge,” and in the request writing there is the word “Dear Sir” in the middle of the request writing that is made with no loop on the righthand side.

We have here again the “w’s” with the peculiar extra beginning stroke at the left and the hook.

The word “money” is misspelled in this writing most of the time. I think there are two letters in which the word “money” is correctly spelled; but we have here, for instance, the word “money” m-o-n-y and then in the request writing is the word “money” m-o-n-y, money; below that we have the letter, the German “t” and the same German “t” in one of the ransom notes; and then the other kind of “t”—“t’s” at the end of words ended with a little stroke to the right, and no crossing; one for instance, in the word “feet” and in the word “it”. You will notice the finishing part at the bottom; and the word “feet” appears twice here with this “f” that is traced back to the bottom, similar to the style of the German “f”. On the righthand side in S‑110 we have those “n’s” out of slant, in the word “no,” in the word “one” and then in the word “one” on the righthand side; and then the final “t’s” which appear in this writing as very distinctive characters. They are not any system, but in my opinion are individual characteristics of this particular writing. Now we have one other—

Q. One other map.

Mr. Lanigan: Admitted under the same principle?

(No objection from defense counsel.)

[989] Mr. Lanigan: Mark it.

The Reporter: S‑112.

(Chart received in evidence and marked State’s Exhibit S‑112.)

(Exhibit S‑112 placed on wall to the right of the jury.)

Q. All right, Mr. Osborn. A. S‑112 exhibit shows again Hauptmann writing on the righthand side and the ransom note writing on the left‑hand side with similar words for comparison. We have at the beginning the capital “A” made in a variety of ways. They are all based on the roundhand, old roundhand style of “A” but are peculiar and distorted letters, and we have the same on the ransom notes and the same on the Hauptmann. For instance, the one I am pointing at on the righthand side is the Hauptmann writing; the one on the left in the word “baby” is in the ransom notes. Then they are sometimes made continuously and in some instances made with a little circle in the top, which is made continuously as the letter is made.

We have next the peculiar finishing of the “h” in the word “March” and in the word “have” and another one of these “a’s” with a circle in the top. That is in the ransom notes. We have that same thing in that Hauptmann writing on the righthand side.

The “b” is made in this writing in two ways, one occasionally with a loop and occasionally with simply a downward curved stroke. The word—this is the word “but” at the left and the word “but” in the ransom notes to the right and then the word “but” from the request writing and [990] the word b-o-u-t was intended for the word “boat”.

The small “c” is a letter made continuously and with a shaded part in the downward retraced part on the righthand side. The “d” is made in three different ways: One the roundhand “d,” the old roundhand style of “d,” German style, where the letters are made in two parts and then a stroke to the right, but the letters modified in a very awkward way by making the parts too far apart, leaving an open space between them. Also the “d” as made in the ordinary American writing appears, without taking the pen off, the ordinary “d,” and we have the same thing in the ransom notes. We have below here the word “for” showing the “f’s” traced back at the bottom and the “r” with the long finishing stroke, too long in proportion to the rest of the letter which is the same in the ransom notes and in the Hauptmann writing.

Then a peculiar “h” at the end of words. This one is one of the last ransom notes, the letter “h” with a very long flourish at the bottom, the word “both” also of the ransom notes, then we have the word “each” in the request writing with the downward finishing stroke too long, and the word “with” made in the same way.

Now, these negatives are printed on eleven by fourteen plates, so that they can be held in the hand and looked at at the ordinary reading distance. I don’t know whether the light shines on some of that so that maybe some of those in the back part of the jury box can’t see them very plainly, but these— (Mr. Lanigan takes one of the books of plates) Is that one that has Mr. Reilly’s name on it?

[991] Mr. Lanigan: Is there one that has Mr. Reilly’s name on it?

The Witness: There is one here that does have it.

Mr. Lanigan: Let me have Mr. Reilly’s copy then, please.

Mr. Reilly: I didn’t know you would know I would be here. (The witness gives Mr. Reilly a copy.)

Mr. Reilly: Thank you.

The Witness: Now, these are the same negatives but made in a different form, and we have ten of them, six for the—so that two of the jurors can look at them together and then the testimony can be reviewed.

Mr. Lanigan: Perhaps they can be distributed.

The Court: I suppose, if there is no objection to distributing them.

Mr. Reilly: Well, I would have to take that up with all the counsel. Let’s wait.

Mr. Lanigan: All right. Wait just a moment, please.

The Witness: What?

Mr. Lanigan: Wait just a moment please, until counsel confers.

[992] Mr. Reilly: So that they may confer.

Mr. Pope: It will be decided today as to whether or not the jury may see them?

The Court: Well, it is proposed to be decided today. If there is any objection to it I suppose it may be settled later.

Mr. Pope: We would like to have a conference, your Honor, on that question and decide whether we would do it. It is rather unusual.

The Court: That is to say whether or no you will consent that these photographs that Mr. Reilly has just laid down there, whether or no they may be distributed to the jury to look at instead of undertaking to handle a large map, that is the proposition, is it?

Mr. Pope: Yes.

Mr. Lanigan: Illustrate by the testimony of the witness.

The Court: Well, counsel may agree on it. If they cannot, why then we will think about it further.

Mr. Reilly: Let me see if I can get this. They are copies, I take it, of that large chart.

The Court: That is what the witness says.

Mr. Reilly: And the idea is that the [993] jury may have them here while Professor Osborn continues his testimony,—is that it?

The Court: That is the idea.

Mr. Reilly: Then they are to be taken away from the jury, because they can’t be carrying them around with them.

The Court: No. They are, I suppose, to be put in the hands of the Clerk.

Mr. Reilly: That is it.

The Court: And then if they are admitted as exhibits they may be carried to the jury room with the other exhibits.

Mr. Reilly: With the other exhibits. The Court: Yes.

Mr. Lanigan: With the other exhibits. Mr. Reilly: That is all right.

Mr. Lanigan: The purpose of the offer is to aid, as far as possible, the jury.

The Court: Yes.

Mr. Lanigan: So that they may have a clear picture of what we are presenting.

Mr. Rosecrans: And while the witness is testifying.

[994] Mr. Lanigan: And while the witness is testifying. I will have them marked with the consent of counsel for identification, at the close of the day, and they may be returned to the Clerk. Anything that will aid the jury is the desire of the State.

Mr. Reilly: And it appears on the record that they are what, we will say, are smaller editions of the chart?

Mr. Lanigan: Yes, smaller editions of the charts.

Mr. Reilly: All right.

Mr. Lanigan: Mark them for Identification.

Mr. Reilly: All right.

Mr. Lanigan: And I will offer them in evidence.

The Court: Well, they will be admitted if there is no objection.

The Reporter: S‑113.

Mr. Lanigan: Just mark one of them and mark it S‑113. I think one will be sufficient.

The Witness: There are six. Here are four, and there are two more. Here is another one; that is five.

Mr. Lanigan: Just one will do.

[995] Mr. Hauck: I would mark them all. Then there won’t be any objection that some of them are not in evidence.

Mr. Lanigan: You are the Prosecutor. All right.

Mr. Hauck: Mark them all.

The Reporter: Exhibits S‑113, S‑113-A, S‑113-B, S‑113-C, S‑113‑D and S‑113‑E.

(Received in evidence and marked State Exhibits S‑113‑A to S‑113‑E inclusive.)

The Witness (Aside to the Court): When does your Honor usually adjourn?

The Court: We usually work until 4:30.

The Witness: I am rather tired.

The Court: Are you tired?

The Witness: Yes. I think we can finish this, though.

The Court: Well, you may proceed with Mr. Osborn. Mr. Osborn tells the Court that he is tired. Now, that may be taken into account; see what the result is.

By Mr. Lanigan: Q. Now Mr. Osborn, will you proceed with your illustration, please? A. These illustrations are enlargements of those combinations of the pasted up collection of clippings.

[996] Q. Is this the exhibit to which you refer? A. Yes.

Q. This is an enlargement of this small one? A. Yes. Are these marked?

Q. Yes, they are all marked. A. Exhibit S‑107. There were a few that I noticed were loose. Be sure they are pasted down and don’t get lost.

These are reproductions of this Exhibit S‑107 and are put in this form so that they can be looked at at the ordinary reading distance. I find that some people can see at a distance better than close at hand and others can see better close at hand. The purpose of this is so that every part can be compared with every other part of these writings, beginning on the left‑hand side, the first one, you will see, the Hauptmann writing is on the left and the ransom note writing is on the right. All the others, it is just the reverse of that. Turn to the second page and you will see the ransom notes at the left and Hauptmann writing at the top on the right, just the reverse. There will be no confusion, I think, about it because every one of the pages is marked as to where the letters come from.

Now making this examination, as I have said before, it is necessary to consider whether these similarities here are accidental or not or whether they are merely the reproduction of a particular system of writing, like German or roundhand or the Palmer system or any other system of handwriting.

Or whether they are the developed characteristics of a particular writer; developed characteristics are the ones that are the modified forms that are originally learned, if they are learned correctly. Then, of course, the consideration of the peculiar characters which, in my opinion, in this instance are inventions or developments not [997] found in ordinary handwriting. It is—now on the question, for instance, of is it imitated writing: I have already said that the writing imitated—you have to have something to imitate. It is necessary to have models and it is necessary to have models for everything if you are going to reproduce it correctly. And in my opinion this is not an imitated handwriting for the reason that it is so skillfully done. It embodies so many characters, it embodies characteristics of so many different kinds, it embodies the forms of the same letter made in different ways and then also contains—shows this general characteristic of, general characteristics of the omission of the “i” dots, the omission of the “t” crossings, these peculiar flourishes at the end of words, and then those characteristics which are not handwriting at all. For instance, we have that word “New York.”

Q. Pardon me, Mr. Osborn, upon what page does that word appear, the word “New York?” A. That appears on the second page.

Q. Page 2? A. Yes, page 2, the word “New York.”

Q. Whereabouts on the page does it appear? A. It appears under the words “ransom notes” on the left‑hand side, three examples. I don’t remember that I have ever seen the word “New York” in any connection of this kind written as a compound word.

Now, that is a peculiar individual, in my opinion, characteristic, an error, of course, and it is repeated in both sets of writings.

Then, the combination of script forms and printed forms. Take the word “Condon” on that same page, you have a printed “C” or I mean a script “C,” and a printed “D,” capital letters, as compared with the same letter in the [998] word “Nellie.” May we have some of that printed, those printed specimens in the request writing—those printed—

Mr. Lanigan: Referring to Exhibits S‑84, S‑83, and Exhibits 5-82 and S‑80.

Q. You describe them as what, the printed what? A. We have four examples there.

Q. What are they? Suppose you explain to the jury what they are. I don’t believe the jury are— A. They are eighty—

Q. But what are the papers, what are the papers? A. Exhibits.

Q. Not the papers themselves; what are they, describe them? A. These are part of the request writings.

Mr. Peacock: Written by whom?

The Witness: One is Exhibit S‑84.

Q. Written by whom? A. S‑83, S‑82 and S‑80.

Q. Written by whom? A. Written, I am informed, by request, by Richard Hauptmann. Now, these show numerous examples of this “n” like in the word “Condon,” just the same thing. I am simply calling attention to that to show that that was just not an accident, in which they were written, the “n” made in that way. Did you ever look at them, ever see these? Handing exhibits to Mr. Lanigan.) There are some qualities in this writing.

Q. Will you kindly wait just a moment until the jury conclude with the exhibits? A. Oh, you mean looking at that?

Q. Yes, please. A. Yes.

The Court: You may proceed now. The [999] jury seems to have finished looking at the pictures.

By Mr. Lanigan.

Q. Proceed, please, Mr. Osborn. A. If you will just turn to the page with the word “of” at the top.

Q. Which page is that, please? A. It is the third example, the word “of” at the top. There are certain features or qualities in this writing that haven’t been referred to at all. If you will look at that whole page, you will see that the slant is very similar, especially in words like, for instance, “of.” If you will look at the word “will” down on the righthand side, the fourth word from the bottom, you will see how much more it slants than the others. That is taken from one of the request writings, in which the whole page is slanted like that. The ransom writing and the request writing, that in my opinion is in the disguised form, are written practically the same slant. That is about 20 degrees to the right or 25 degrees to the right of vertical. The identifying qualities in writing are slant, proportions, connections, pen lifts, design of letters. For instance, this writing, ransom writing, and also the request writing with which I am connecting it, is a proportion of only about 1 to 2.

Now proportion in writing is the different sizes of the letters in comparison with each other, the long letters for instance; this writing in this particular differs from German writing, and it also differs from the old roundhand or the Latin script writing, which makes “l’s” and “f’s” three or four times as high as the small “p,” I mean the small “o” or small “a” or [1000] small “n.” Now this writing is in the proportion of about one to two; the longer letters, many of them, a large number of them are only about twice as high as the smaller letters; and in that particular are characteristics or show characteristics that are the same in both sets of writing. And I have already called attention to the peculiar habit of slanting the “n” and “m” too much to the right. That appeared in both sets of writings. Now, of course, as a particular form differs in slant from other forms, it to that extent is individual, is the individual form. For instance, take the word “the”—it will be slanted to the right and an “n” following it, and “n” will be slanted leaning practically over to the left. Then the degree of skill in this writing, that is another characteristic by which writings, many times, are positively differentiated. You can say that these two writings are not the same because one of them is much more skillfully written than the other.

But in this instance we have here practically the same degree of skill. The writing is of the same quality, the same general quality, the ransom notes and the request writings, the—

Q. To which page are you referring now, please? A. Well, I was referring to the “of” but I have referred to all of them in some of these particulars.

Q. “Of” at the top of page 3? A. ”Of” is on page 3, yes.

Q. All right. Proceed from there, please. A. Now if we have only a signature, for instance, only a signature to identify as having been written by a certain writer, not for the purpose of determining whether it is genuine or not, but to determine who wrote it, many times the question can’t be answered at all positively, I mean, [1001] because there isn’t sufficient matter. There isn’t sufficient matter so that it might be said “But that is accidental because there is only one instance.” You might say it is accidental.

So that in examining this writing, in my opinion, the whole problem must be presented: Does this writing as a whole, not simply one word—I’d say some one of these words, perhaps any one of them might be accidentally, accidentally duplicated in another writer. But then when another one is duplicated and another one is duplicated, then we have the principle apply upon which this matter of identification in handwriting is based, and that is, the presence or the absence of one characteristic may be accounted to accident or coincidence.

But as the number increases, the probability of accidents or coincidence disappears and conviction is irresistible. The word that I have just repeated as describing the principle upon which identification of handwriting is based is, in the New Jersey Law Reports, an opinion written by a—

Mr. Reilly: I object to this.

Mr. Lanigan: Wait a minute; one moment.

Mr. Reilly: Stick to the handwriting, please.

Q. Will you turn to page—

Mr. Reilly: Not the opinion; I object to it.

Mr. Lanigan: I consent.

[1002] The Court: Yes, I think—

Mr. Lanigan: We consent to it.

The Court: I think the legal conclusion perhaps is objectionable.

Mr. Lanigan: Yes.

Q. Now, turning to page 3, Mr. Osborn, of this book, taking the letter “y,” the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6—the sixth line— A. You mean on the page beginning at the bottom?

Q. The “y,” I understood you to say, looked like a “j,” I am not clear as to that. A. Yes, it is not only made like a “j,” but you will observe if you look at it carefully that the stroke is curved to the right, curved, the downward stroke.

And in my opinion the freedom with which these letters are written is another indication that it is not an imitation of writing. They vary slightly but they are written quickly, rapidly, most of them and indicate—do not indicate a careful attention to the form and details of the letters.

Q. Taking the letter “d” on the same page, is that a characteristic? A. ”D?”

Q. Yes. A. Yes, I think that is a highly individual characteristic, in that it is a modification in form that modifies toward eligibility, towards making a letter that you can tell what it is. Now when that “d” stands all by itself and the downward stroke is traced by the upward stroke, it is very difficult, for instance, to tell what it is, whether it is a “d” or not, because the distinctive characteristic of a “d” is an open righthand side. That is the form, the printed form and also the script form.

[1003] Q. Now, taking the word “feet,” is the letter “f” a characteristic, referring to page three of the exhibit. A. Yes, in my opinion, that is a characteristic, and in this writing also there is this little peculiar bottom of the stroke. For instance, there are three examples on next to the last line at the left, the word “it” i‑t, “it,” and the next word, it is intended for “did” but it is written t-i-t with that finishing stroke to the “t.”

Now over on the righthand side in the request writing there is that same word, “dit,” and then on the last line we have three words, two at the left on the ransom notes and one at the right with that little stroke at the bottom.

Q. Now referring to the next page, page 4, is the letter “p” appearing thereon a distinguishing characteristic? A. Which letter did you say?

Q. Page 4 in the ransom notes, line 6, and in the Hauptmann writing line 4, the letter “p.” A. You said “d?”

Q. On page 4— A. I know, but “d,” was the letter “d?”

Q. “P”; the letter “p” appearing in police and, under the Hauptmann writing, the letter “p” appearing in the word “place.” A. Well, one of those is a capital and the other is a small letter.

Q. I see. Then take the word “between.” A. Yes. That is a small “b”; the small “b,” that is.

Q. Is the “t” appearing in the word “between” a distinguishing characteristic? A. Yes; that is the occasional German “t” which appears in this writing. In either the ransom letters or the Hauptmann writings, that “t” is an unusual “t” although it is a German “t,” but ordinarily it is not made that way; but it does appear occasionally in both sets of writings; as it appears, for instance, in these two words “between.” And [1004] there is another letter that I haven’t referred to before in that word “between,” the one on the righthand side. Look at the second “e.” It looks like a small “c.” Well now, that is a modification of the roundhand or Latin script “e.” That is an “e.”

Now, over on the other side, under the ransom notes, is the word “deliver.” You notice the “e” in “deliver” that has that extra stroke in the middle, extra stroke in the middle of the letter. Now, those letters are rare letters, in both sets of writings, are rare letters, but they do appear occasionally, and in my opinion are significant as indicating the connection between these two sets of writings.

Q. On the same page, Mr. Osborn, the word “my” has the letter “m” appearing in the word “my” under the ransom notes. A. Yes.

Q. And the word “my” appearing likewise in the Hauptmann writing. A. Yes.

Q. A distinguishing characteristic? A. Yes. And the downward stroke and also the word “with” at the right of it, the downward strokes of those letters are made vertical or just slightly slanting to the left.

That is one of the, another one of the characteristics that I have already called attention to. There are many of these forms which appear only once, which would be significant only as an indication that they are rare characteristics, which appear in both sets of writing.

Q. Now, turning to the next page, please, the word “any,” the angular “y” in the word “any,” appearing in the ransom notes— A. Yes.

Q. And, the “y” appearing in the Hauptmann writing— A. Yes.

Q. —is that—

[1005] Mr. Peacock: What line?

Mr. Lanigan: Line 6.

A. Yes, that same form appears in the capital letter “Y,” also, which is on the second specimen in the book. The word “New York” at the top, now that is characteristic, that is the second specimen in the book, the word “New York” at the top; you look at the three words, “York” the three words “York,” and the capital “Y” form, which is made of two strokes, which come down and form an acute angle at the bottom. That is not the ordinary common capital “Y” at all, and on the righthand side, on the Hauptmann writing, the first “Y” at the top is a more ordinary formal “Y,” but the next one with two strokes, with an angle toward each other, the third one where the stroke is out at the left and disconnected, but would form an angle, and the fourth one a very distinct angle. Now, the same words under the words “ransom notes” you see have that form of the beginning part of the “Y” decidedly out of slant with the main part of the letter and the second part of the letter is the “Y” made just like the small “y” is made without, for instance, the one under “ransom notes” at the top, there is, the paper was partly folded, but the downward stroke is a single stroke and then the stroke at the left‑hand side which forms a form similar to the capital “V” and the first one on the righthand side at the top, you see it disconnected with two strokes at an angle of nearly 45 degrees to each other. Now, that is an individual form in handwriting.

Q. Mr. Osborn, does the exhibit which you hold in your hand contain any other distinguishing characteristics upon which you have based your [1006] opinion? A. You mean do these specimens?

Q. Yes. A. Well, I think I have not referred to every word, but I have referred to enough of them so that I am somewhat weary.

The Court: Mr. Osborn says again that he is fatigued. I am wondering—you have not finished, have you, Attorney General?

Mr. Lanigan: No.

The Court: Well, I think it is unwise. Mr. Osborn is not quite as youthful as most of the counsel here and perhaps it is unwise to require him to go further on it. What do you think about that?

Mr. Lanigan: In view of your Honor’s courtesies to us, I was endeavoring to get as far as I could with the witness. I personally would like to continue, but out of deference to Mr. Osborn, if it would meet with your Honor’s approval, I would like to suggest the possibility of adjourning at this time. My examination may be quite extended. My witness is fatigued, and it presents a situation in which I desire to ask your Honor’s indulgence.

The Court: Mr. Osborn, do you feel that you ought not to go on at this hour?

The Witness: Well, I would prefer not to. I really haven’t been very well for a week.

The Court: Yes.

[1007] The Witness: And I am somewhat exhausted.

The Witness: I can go on if it is necessary.

Mr. Reilly: I understand Mr. Osborn is over 80 years young, and we will consent to the adjournment.

The Court: I think perhaps it would be wise to adjourn. Before we do so, I desire to say another word to the jury. You will recall that something was said about the possibility of your taking a ride tomorrow or the next day in the custody of your officers. If you go, be sure and do only what the Court has told you it is agreed that you shall do. You are not to go outside of the limits of the County. If you go you will take the route that the Court has indicated to you and that will keep you within the limits of the County. You are not to stop anywhere where there is an assemblage of people, you are not to talk to anybody about the case, and the officers are to accompany you and see to it that these directions are observed.

The jury may now retire.

(The jury retired at 4:00 p.m.) The Court: Has the jury retired? Court Crier Hann: The jury is out. The Court: The jury is out. The [1008] prisoner is remanded to the custody of the sheriff and he may go in the custody of the officer. The Court will now take a recess until 10:00 o’clock Monday morning.

(At 4:04 p.m. court adjourned until Monday morning, January 14, 1935, at 10:00 a.m.)

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

vs.

BRUNO RICHARD HAUPTMANN

Flemington, N. J., January 14, 1935

Present: Hon. Thomas W. Trenchard.

Appearances: Mr. Wilentz, Mr. Lanigan, Mr. Hauck, Mr. Peacock, Mr. Large, for the State.

Mr. Reilly, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Pope, Mr. Rosecrans, for the Defendant.

[1009] (The jury was polled and all jurors answered present.)

Mr. Lanigan: Mr. Osborn.

ALBERT S. OSBORN resumed the witness stand.

Direct Examination (continued) By Mr. Lanigan: Q. Mr. Osborn, have you had an opportunity to make a count of the “i” dots and the “t” crossings and the word “you” in the request writings? A. I have.

Q. Will you report the result of that count. A. In the photograph of request writings I found that there were 106 small i’s and eight of them were dotted. The word “you,” there are 24 words of the word “you” in the photograph specimens, and there was just one that had the beginning part of the “y” in the word “you.”

Q. Yes. A. And of the “t” crossings there were 196, and there were four—196 “t” crossings that would require a crossing. I didn’t count the German forms that were finished at the bottom, but there were 196 that would require a crossing, and there were four crossings.

Q. Now, I wish to ask you a few questions, Mr. Osborn, about what is referred to as graphology. Is your evidence in this case based upon the so-called science of graphology?

Mr. Fisher: Objected to, your Honor, unless it is first explained to the jury what they mean by the science of graphology.

[1010] The Court: He may answer Yes or No.

The Witness: My opinion in this case is not based upon the principles of what is described as graphology.

Mr. Fisher: Your Honor, I ask you to have that stricken, and ask him to answer yes or no.

The Court: I decline to strike it out.

The Witness: Is that correct, your Honor?

The Court: Yes. The answer may stand. By Mr. Lanigan:

Q. Will you explain briefly, please, just what graphology is? A. Graphology in America, in this country, and in England is understood as determining from handwriting the character of the writer, as distinguished from the students of handwriting, document examiners and so forth who examine writing for the purpose of determining whether it is genuine or not, that is the question of forgery and also examining writing for the purpose of determining whether it can be identified as the writing of a certain individual. There are two classes of handwriting examiners. One class‑examines writing for the purpose of determining whether it is genuine or not and whether it can be identified. The other class‑examines handwriting for the purpose of determining whether it indicates the character of the individual who did the writing. And the questions are entirely different. In one case, it is a [1011] question of genuineness and the question of identity; the other case is a question of—oh, all kinds of problems: whether the writer would be a good husband or wife; whether the writer is honest, whether the writer likes children and dogs, any kind of a question. And the graphologists go farther than that, some of them, to determine disease from handwriting, diagnosing disease. The two classes of examiners are entirely different.

Q. In your experience have you been opposed in any case by graphologists? A. Not who testified as graphologists.

Q. Are there graphologists in America? A. Yes.

Q. Where? A. Well—

Mr. Fisher: That is objected to, your Honor. It has no materiality at all here.

The Court: I am wondering what materiality it has.

Mr. Lanigan: I withdraw it.

The Witness: Yes, there are graphologists in America.

Mr. Fisher: I think he did not hear the objection.

The Court: Yes. That may be stricken out.

By Mr. Lanigan: [1012] Q. I understood you to say that a graphologist delineates character. What does that include? A. I didn’t quite understand that.

Q. I understood you to say that a graphologist in his examination delineates character. A. What?

Q. He delineates character, he shows character; is that correct? A. Yes, yes; any quality in the individual. It is inferring from the handwriting the qualities of the individual.

Q. All right. Now, Mr. Osborn, you have examined the conceded writings of Bruno Richard Hauptmann? A. Yes.

Q. You have likewise examined the request writings of Bruno Richard Hauptmann? A. Yes.

Q. And you have examined the ransom notes which are in evidence? A. Yes.

Q. Based upon your examination and comparison, can you say who wrote the ransom notes? A. Yes.

Q. Who wrote them? A. In my opinion, Bruno Richard Hauptmann wrote them.

Q. Why do you say so? A. Because in my opinion the evidence of the physical evidence of connection between the admitted writings and the ransom writings and the request writings and the ransom notes, the physical connection between these writings, in my opinion, is irresistible, unanswerable, and overwhelming.

Mr. Lanigan: You may cross‑examine.

Cross‑examination by Mr. Reilly: Q. Now, Mr. Osborn—

Mr. Reilly: May I have the nursery note?

[1013] Mr. Hauck: The note?

Mr. Reilly: Yes.

Q. I am going to refer now to what is known as the nursery note, Exhibit S‑18. I have a very, very bad cold, and if you have any difficulty in hearing me, I will either raise or lower the tempo. A. I think you have a good, penetrating voice so that I won’t have to need my, use my machinery here at all.

Q. All right. Now, you examined that note, didn’t you? A. I did.

Q. Yes. Now, looking at the note, the visual observation of this note, it is, is it not, entirely different in looks from the other notes? A. No. You used the word “entirely.” I would say “somewhat.”

Q. Well, I will come to that in time. A. That is I was answering the question as you asked it.

Q. All right. Now will you look again, please, at S‑18 and S‑19 and S‑20. They are somewhat different, are they not? A. Yes.

Q. As you look at them—may I, your Honor, hand these two to the jury now? (Handing letters to the jury.) Now where do you say, Mr. Osborn, in your chart here you find a “d” in the first nursery note that corresponds with any other “d” in the ransom note—on your chart? A. This is not the chart that shows the “d’s” at all.

Q. Then let’s have all the charts put up. A. You can’t put them all up at once. Which ones do you want?

Q. We will find a way of putting them up.

(Court Crier Hann exhibits a chart to the witness.)

[1014] The Witness: That is not the one. That is the one (another chart).

(Exhibit S‑111 placed on wall to the right of the jury.)

By Mr. Reilly: Q. Now, referring to chart— A. Here it is, S‑111.

Q. Yes, S‑111. I am now indicating Chart S‑111, and I am pointing to a “d” under the heading “Ransom Notes.” Is the “d” that I am pointing to the “d” you have taken from the nursery note? A. No. You have asked me what—

Q. You have answered the question. A. You have asked a question. I haven’t answered it.

Q. I asked you a question and you answered “No.” A. No, you asked me where the “d” appeared.

Q. No, I didn’t. I asked you this: is the “d” that I am pointing to in the ransom notes, Chart S‑111, the “d” from the nursery note? A. Oh. Well, I am referring to a previous question you asked; that is all.

Q. All right. I am asking you that “d” now, is it or is it not? A. Oh, that is not from the nursery note.

Q. All right; that is your answer.

Q. Have you a chart with “s’s?” A. Yes. This is the chart (indicating).

Q. Number S‑110? A. Yes, S‑110. There are a number of “s’s” on that and also there are “s’s” on one of the others, but I think there are more here.

Q. Capital “S’s?” A. No, small “s’s.”

Q. So that nowhere on the charts or in the [1015] books or any of the exhibits that you have here—because I take it that the first book, small book, contains all of your comparisons? A. Yes.

Q. The books for the jury contain the same comparisons enlarged? A. Yes.

Q. The charts contain the same comparisons greater enlarged. A. Yes.

Q. So there is nothing on the chart that is not in the book. A. No.

Q. Now, does it appear anywhere on your chart the “s” of the nursery note? A. The capital “S?”

Q. Yes. A. No.

Q. Does it appear on your charts the “h” of the nursery note, the capital “H”? A. No.

Q. Do the figures $50,000 appear on your charts? A. No.

Q. Does the capital “A” reading down the nursery note; “Dear Sir: Have $50,000 ready, 25,000 in twenty dollar bills, 15,000 in ten dollar bills, $10,000 in five dollar bills, after—” have you a capital “A” on your charts? A. I think not, not that one. There is a—

Q. I am referring to the nursery note now as I go along. A. No.

Q. Reading down further, “After two—four days we will inform you will be—” I think it is “where to deliver the money.” Now, have you the capital “M” of the “money” on your chart? A. No, I think not.

Q. Now, I want you to look at the “y” of “money,” see it? A. Yes.

Q. Have you that “y” on the chart? A. No.

Q. Now, how many other people’s handwritings did you examine besides Hauptmann’s as a comparison? A. Oh, I think over a hundred.

Q. And where did you secure those specimens from? A. Those specimens were brought to me, [1016] most of them, by the State Police of New Jersey, a few by the United States Investigation Bureau.

Q. Did you examine in your one hundred or more specimens other than Hauptmann’s the handwriting of one Isidor Fisch? A. Yes.

Q. I hand you a card and ask you whether or not—

Mr. Lanigan: It is objected to.

Q. —that is not the handwriting of Isidor Fisch. A. I couldn’t say.

Mr. Lanigan: It is objected to.

The Witness: I couldn’t say. It looks somewhat like it.

Mr. Lanigan: That is objected to under Section 120 of the Act. There is nothing to show that it is the handwriting, satisfactory to the Court, under the statute.

Mr. Reilly: I am cross‑examining this expert, who looked over a hundred other specimens, and I believe I can hand him anybody’s handwriting, anybody’s in this room or anybody alive or dead, and test his credibility and his experience.

Mr. Rosecrans: He already said he examined it.

The Court: I am inclined to overrule the objection.

Q. It does resemble, as you recall, the handwriting of Isidor Fisch, does it not? A. My [1017] recollection is it does, although it doesn’t have his name at all as the word “Isidor.”

Q. Well, that has from Isidor, hasn’t it? A. Yes.

Q. Yes.

Mr. Reilly: I will ask to have it marked for identification, please.

The Reporter: D‑11 for identification. (So marked.)

Q. Do you in examining the “y” in defendant’s exhibit D‑11 for identification see any general characteristics of that “y” which conforms to the word “y” in money? A. The letter “y” you mean.

Q. The letter “y,” yes. A. Oh, there is some general resemblance, but they are very different, not sufficiently alike so that I would say that they were by the same writer.

Q. Where are the handwritings that you examined of Isidor Fisch? Where are they now? A. I don’t know.

Q. Who did you give them back to? A. Why, the New Jersey State Police people, I think.

Q. Did they take them back after you examined them? A. Yes.

Mr. Reilly: May we have them?

Mr. Wilentz: If your Honor please, we know of no reason why we should surrender papers that we have that have nothing to do with this case up to this time.

Mr. Reilly: I believe, under [1018] cross‑examination, I have the right to see and have exhibited here the handwritings that he compared and from which he says there is no comparison, and have them offered in evidence, so that when our handwriting experts go upon the stand they may see just what he saw and pass their opinion.

The Court: Did not the witness on his main examination say that he had examined a number of other handwritings?

Mr. Lanigan: That is correct sir.

The      Court: Well, having examined those handwritings, why is it not competent for the counsel for the defendant to cross‑examine with respect to them if he can get hold of them?

Mr. Lanigan: He can if the genuineness of the writing which he produced can be established.

The Court: The genuineness of the writings be established?

Mr. Lanigan: Yes. We have no knowledge that the letter counsel holds in his hand belongs to Isidore Fisch or anybody else.

The Court: I don’t understand that we are cross‑examining now with respect to the so-called Fisch letter. The cross‑examination now apparently is purporting to inquire into what the expert saw when he examined these, let us say a hundred other [1019] papers. The thing that, interests me now for the moment is, upon what principle can cross‑examining counsel be denied the right to inquire into those matters if he can get his hands on the papers that the expert examined. I suppose that is so, is it not?

Mr. Lanigan: That is correct, yes.

The Court: The question now is, he wants the State, if it can, to produce those papers that the State handed to the expert. Why shouldn’t the State do that?

The Court: I just want to know why should not the State, if it can—I do not know that it can—

Mr. Lanigan: Well, I am not in a position to say, your Honor, whether we can or not; I will ascertain if we can, but at the present time I have no knowledge of them and I will make every inquiry that can be made.

Mr. Reilly: We will pass that.

The Court: Then the matter will have to be left in that fashion.

Mr. Lanigan: Yes.

By Mr. Reilly:

Q. Mr. Osborn, again I direct your attention to S‑18 and ask you how many of these letters or words from the nursery note are up here on [1020] your charts, if you can recall? A. I can’t recall; I think there are only a few, two or three.

Q. Will you point out the two or three? A. The word “singnature” is one.

Q. Yes. A. And the word “is,” the word “we,” and the line “the child is in good care” is on one of the exhibits that I put in.

Q. I think you testified that in your opinion the nursery note was in a disguised handwriting? A. Yes.

Q. Now “singnature”—did you take that as what I might call a monument in this case, because of the fact that it was spelled that way? A. A monument?

Q. Something that stood out all through these letters. I understood you to testify yesterday that wherever the word signature was used it was spelled that way, is that correct? A. Well, I think that had some significance, yes.

Q. Yes. That directed your attention more or less toward that word, is that correct? A. Yes.

Q. Because of its spelling? A. Well, its spelling and its use in connection with calling attention to the device in the corner.

Q. Yes. A. It would have been significant even if it hadn’t been misspelled.

Q. Well, now, the device in the corner, apparently was made by a punch, wasn’t it, holes? A. No, I don’t think it was a punch. It might have been made with some kind of instrument, I think a rough instrument. I reported that it might have been made with a nail or with some instrument of that kind.

Q. I think you testified last week that from an examination of this device all of the holes were the same distance in from the edge of the paper, from the bottom, is that correct? A. Well, practically so except the last ones. The last ones [1021] are a little nearer the bottom. There are just two of them.

Q. You have seen punches, have you not, Doctor, or rather Professor— A. Neither; neither doctor nor professor.

Q. Well, you have been long enough in this business to rate both of those. A. You think I am entitled to them, do you?

Q. I think you are. A. I see. I thank you.

Q. There have been so many titles given out in this case, it won’t do any harm to give you one. A. May I call you judge?

Q. Not yet, please. A. I see. (Laughter.)

Q. You are familiar with these punches, are you, Mr. Osborn, that are like a conductor’s punch or a school teacher’s punch for punching papers through? A. Oh, no; oh, no.

Q. You wouldn’t say then that these were made with any punch? A. No. You mean a regular punch?

Q. Yes. A. No. Otherwise the holes would be uniform. In shape and size they are not.

Q. And in your opinion they were made either with a nail or some rough instrument? A. Well, some rough instrument, I think. I couldn’t say what. There are two of them—the last two I think were punched at the same time with the last instrument; but that isn’t true of many of them.

Q. I make about between 67 and 75 words or figures in here. I take 50,000 to be two words, although it takes five figures. Will you count the words or symbols or figures in that letter and tell me how many? A. You mean all the characters?

Q. The whole thing, all the characters, yes, please, and tell me how many you make. A. I don’t know as I understand you. You want me [1022] to count the letters, all the characters or the words?

Q. Words. A. Oh, the words.

Q. “Dear Sir” would be two? A. Oh, yes.

Q. “Have 50,000”— I don’t know how you designate that. A. I see. I think there are about 64 or 65; somewhere along there.

Q. Now, Mr. Osborn, will you point out on your chart the “we” that you have taken from the nursery note (referring to Exhibit S‑110). A. It doesn’t appear on these. There is the word “is” from the nursery note.

Q. That is the word “is”? A. Yes.

Q. You compared it to this one of Hauptmann’s; is that correct? A. Yes. And is the “s” of the word “letters.”

Q. You say visually that the comparison between this “s” and this “s”—yes or no, please—A. I would say those are not so much alike as some of the others.

Q. I am asking you about that one, pointing out this “s” and this one: they are not very much alike, are they, looking at them? A. I would say they are not very much alike, just those two. Of course, my opinion is not based on any one comparison anywhere.

Q. Anywhere? A. Yes.

Q. Now, is there a difference in the line, isn’t there pressure on these ransom notes as you look at them than there is in the Hauptmann writing? A. I think most of them are written with a coarser pen.

Q. You wouldn’t say there was more pressure? A. No.

Q. Now, do you notice this break here? A. Yes.

Q. And the break here? A. Yes.

Q. Doesn’t that indicate to you that whoever was writing the ransom note was copying it from [1023] something? A. No, there is no indication of copying in my opinion at all.

Q. If a man was writing these ransom notes from a copy and was trying to imitate the handwriting on the original, you say there would be no break in the line of letters? A. Oh, there is no, there should be a break between the capital “I” and the small “s” in “is.”

Q. No, in making the letter itself? A. There is no break in this “i,” this peculiar “i.”

Q. There isn’t any break, but there is a shading, isn’t there? A. There is a change—

Q. Doesn’t that show that the pen was lifted, or the pressure was lifted from the pen? A. Not at all.

Q. Isn’t this part heavier than the top? A. That is the ink, that is a distribution of ink.

Q. Well, isn’t it due to pressure? A. No.

Q. A man wouldn’t stop in the middle of a “J” here and here and dip his pen in the middle of the ink well and then come back again? A. Well, he didn’t, you are misinterpreting the physical evidence.

Q. I am pointing out to you on these charts the visual difference, if I can, between the ransom notes and the Hauptmann writing. Now, did you testify that these ransom notes were in a disguised hand? A. Yes, and therefore—Shall I answer the rest of it?—there must have been a disguised hand to imitate, if they are imitated.

Q. Absolutely. And in disguising the handwriting of the ransom notes it is fair to assume that someone was copying from a disguised hand? A. No, no. They do not show. For example, the particular one that you hold in your hand is two pages of writing, much of it written rapidly and carelessly, and it does not show the characteristics of imitation. Shall I tell you what they are?

[1024] Q. No, no. A. I can tell you.

Q. I suppose you can—in your opinion. A. No, my business.

Q. Your business, yes. A. Yes.

Q. Well now, you have written a couple of books, haven’t you? A. I have.

Q. And you don’t want us to get the impression that you are the only one that has written a book? A. I really have written three. One of them is published in German.

Q. Do you speak German? A. I can say a few German words. I learned to write in German when I was a youth and I think I can repeat the alphabet now (laughter), and I can write my own name in German, but I am not a German scholar and I do not speak German.

Q. Did you ever live in Germany? A. No. I have been in Germany, though.

Q. Now let’s get back to these books. Other people have written books on the same question and subject, haven’t they? A. Oh, yes.

Q. Are you familiar with Ames on Forgery? A. I am. I knew him personally.

Q. And Melcher’s book? A. Melcher?

Q. Of Philadelphia, yes. A. Oh, he has written some pamphlets, that is all (laughter). He is dead now.

Q. Well, how about Frazier of Philadelphia? A. Yes, I knew him, too. I know his book.

Q. And Hagen of Troy, New York, wrote a book? A. Yes, I knew him, too, and I am familiar with his book.

Q. And Woods of Detroit wrote a book? A. Well, you would hardly call it a book. It is an advertising—

Q. Another pamphlet? A. No, it was an advertising circular (laughter).

[1025] The Court: Now that must stop. We do not care to be interrupted in that fashion. Proceed, counsel.

Q. And Amesworth of London? A. Your Honor, I didn’t intend that for a joke.

The Court: It is no fault of yours.

The Witness: I am trying to restrain myself.

The Court: It is no fault of yours. It is the fault of the audience.

Q. Did Ainsworth of London write a book? A. Who?

Q. Ainsworth of London: did he write a book? A. No. Ainsworth Mitchell wrote a book. His name is Mitchell, not Ainsworth.

Q. Ainsworth Mitchell? A. Yes.

Q. Well, I have it Mitchell Ainsworth. I thought Mitchell was his first name; my error. Ainsworth Mitchel. A. That is his name—W. Ainsworth Mitchell is the editor of the London Analyst. He has written several books.

Q. And they are all authorities? A. Are they all?

Q. Yes. A. Well, varying degrees of authority. I would say Mitchell is an authority. Some of these that you have mentioned are not.

Q. Well, the writers considered them authorities, didn’t they? A. I am afraid they did.

Q. Yes. And you consider yourself an authority? A. I don’t say that.

Q. You leave it to the world to judge? A. I let other people say it.

Q. Now we will go back to the ransom notes. [1026] Did you find in any of the notes a better flow of English, did you find in some of the latter notes a better flow of English than in the notes in the beginning? A. That is, language, you mean?

Q. Yes. Language. A. Well, in some particulars. The latter notes are brief, most of them are brief, and say perhaps a little more definitely what they intend to say. But—

Q. Now I am going— A. I didn’t quite finish.

Q. Pardon me; I thought you were through. A. But I think the language is substantially similar throughout, although of course there is some difference. I have finished now.

Q. Would you say that in this ransom note, S‑20, the writer attempted to change his handwriting or form of handwriting two or three times throughout that letter? A. The first part of the letter, I remember without looking at it, the first part of the letter is more like Number 1, more like S‑18, than the other part of the letter, that is, the first part of it is written with more deliberation, the first two lines, and then the rest of it is written somewhat more freely.

Q. The first two lines? A. Yes.

Q. May I now direct your attention to the first four and a half lines and then direct your attention to the sentence which begins, “We can note make,” and ask you whether or not there isn’t a change in the handwriting or attempted change at the beginning of the word “We” and from then on? A. No, I don’t see any change. Where it begins “We know very well?” No, I think there is no particular change between that and the preceding sentence.

Q. I take it then that your testimony is that the one person wrote all these ransom notes? A. Yes.

[1027] Q. You do not think that any of these ransom notes were written by different individuals? A. No.

Q. I now refer you to the letters received by Colonel Breckinridge on March 8th, Exhibits S‑21, S‑22 and S‑23, and call your attention to the note which has no signature and the note that has the signature and ask you whether there is, in your opinion, a visible difference? A. Visible difference, did he say?

Q. Yes. Visible difference. A. Oh, there is a little variation, but in my opinion they are substantially the same.

Q. The envelope is printed, corrects A. Yes, most of it.

Q. Well now, have you taken any of the printing of “Mr. Colonel Henry L. Breckinridge, 25 Broadway, New York,” and put it on your chart? A. No, no.

Q. Have you taken any letters or characters from the letter mailed to Colonel Henry Breckinridge, Exhibit S‑23? A. Yes.

Q. How many? A. Oh, quite a number.

Q. Point them out, please. A. The very first words in the letter “Did you,” or “Tid you,”—”t-i-t,” and the word “between,” the word “we” and also the word “the,” which is included in one of these exhibits.

Q. (Mr. Reilly turns over one of the maps on the wall.) A. No, it is not that one.

Q. (Mr. Reilly turns over another map.) A. Nor that one, it must be this one under here.

Q. (Mr. Reilly turns over another map.) A. Yes, this is the one; this, in my opinion, was a significant characteristic to which I failed to call attention.

[1028] Mr. Lanigan: Referring to what, point it out?

Mr. Reilly: S‑108.

A. May I get over here, so I won’t be in the way? The habit of this writer to write certain words incorrectly—we have the word. “kidnaping” which is written with this peculiar capital “T” and the small “t,” and we have in this this letter to which my attention has been called, the word “the,” the word written “t-t-e.”

Q. The word “the” or “we?” A. The word “te,” that is in this letter which you have just handed me in the fourth line from the bottom. That—no, this is another example of it, there is another one somewhere. It appears two or three times in the letters, but that is the characteristic, the writing of the small “t” instead of the letter “h,” in the word “the,” and we have it here with a capital letter “Te.”

Q. Yes. A. Mr. Reilly, I could have made a hundred exhibits—

Mr. Reilly: You must strike that out as not responsive.

The Court: Yes, that is not responsive.

The Witness: I thought you practically had asked me that, why I didn’t do this, why I didn’t put them all in; I couldn’t put them all in.

Q. You had plenty of time to do it? A. But I wouldn’t be permitted to bring 50 different exhibits of this kind into this courtroom.

Q. You mean to say where a man is on trial for [1029] life, or death you wouldn’t be permitted to fill the courtroom, if you wanted to, with exhibits?

Mr. Lanigan: I ask that that be stricken.

A. Well, I think it would be very bad judgment to do it, anyway.

Mr. Reilly: May I ask you now—

The Court: Is there anything pending for the Court to rule upon? There seems to be not. You may proceed.

By Mr. Reilly: Q. May I ask you now, while we are on the subject of your not being permitted to bring this into the room, or that, how much a day you are being paid for your services.

Mr. Lanigan: I object to that.

The Witness: I would just as soon answer.

The Court: Well, now, Mr. Reilly, how do you think that is important?

Mr. Reilly: Well, it is the number of days he worked on that. I will withdraw the money part, and ask how many days you have worked on this.

The Witness: I don’t know.

Q. How many months? A. I have given [1030] attention to this case for two years and a half, but I haven’t counted up the days; and I don’t know whether I am going to be paid for them or not, not all of them. There has been no arrangement whatever about compensation.

Q. You know you are going to be paid by the State of New Jersey, don’t you? A. I don’t know that even, although I have confidence in the State of New Jersey. (Laughter.)

Q. Confidence enough to expect your bill to be paid, isn’t that right? A. (No answer.)

Q. Will you look now at this nursery note, please?

The Court: Now, Mr. Reilly, that note, I suppose counsel will agree, for my information is the note that was found upon the window sill.

Mr. Reilly: That is it.

Mr. Lanigan: The so-called crib note.

The Court: And that note is S‑18?

Mr. Reilly: S‑18, that is it.

Mr. Lanigan: That is correct.

The Court: And it has the symbol on it—any signature?

Mr. Reilly: No, just that signature; the symbol and underneath it “and three holes.”

The Court: Yes. Now, I want for [1031] purposes of clarity to ask about exhibit Number S‑30—no, Exhibit S‑20. Have you got that in your hand, Mr. Reilly?

Mr. Hauck: Yes, he has that.

Mr. Reilly: I believe so. I have, sir.

The Court: Yes. Will you let me see that?

Mr. Reilly: Surely. (Handing exhibit to the Court.)

The Court: I think it will help me very much to have these questions asked.

Mr. Reilly: That, your Honor, is the first one received by Colonel Lindbergh, March 4th, is that right?

Mr. Hauck: Yes.

Mr. Lanigan: We usually describe it as S‑20, note Number 2, mailed March 4th.

The Court: Now I would like to inquire about S‑21.

Mr. Lanigan: S‑21 is an envelope post marked March 7th.

Mr. Reilly: I think you will find they are there, the envelope and the enclosures (Indicating.); Colonel Breckinridge received a letter and—

[1032] The Court: Oh, this is the one that was addressed to Colonel Breckinridge?

Mr. Reilly: Colonel Breckinridge, that is it.

The Court: And it is twenty—

Mr. Lanigan: S‑21 is the envelope and S‑22 is the note.

The Court: S‑22 is the note?

Mr. Lanigan: That is it.

The Court: And that has the symbol on it?

Mr. Lanigan: Yes.

The Court: And S‑23 is the one that you are now examining upon, isn’t it?

Mr. Reilly: Yes, sir.

The Court: And have I seen that, S‑23?

Mr. Reilly: S‑23 is the letter that was directed by the people to have handed to Colonel Lindbergh, enclosed in the envelope to Colonel Breckinridge.

Mr. Lanigan: Directed to Lindbergh through Breckinridge.

Mr. Reilly: Yes.

The Court: I thank counsel very much. [1033] That will help me to keep track of this matter.

The Witness: Here is a “t.”

Q. The “we” that you speak of—withdrawn. I take it that you indicate this as a “the,” the kidnaper, the baby, correct? A. Yes, and that particular small word occurs in another phrase two times.

Q. But it does not appear, does it, in the nursery note? A. No.

Q. In addition to the “the” taken from S‑23, what other word do you say you have picked out here? A. The very first word I think it is “tit,” that is one of these and there are some other ones.

Q. “D‑i-d?” A. It was intended for the word “did,” but it is written ‘t-i-t.”

Q. It looks also like a poor American “m,” does it not? A. You mean the whole word?

Q. Yes. A. Well, somewhat. It is an illegible word.

Q. An illegible word, it could mean anything, but the context of the letter indicated that somebody intended “did?” A. Yes, and it was written carelessly.

Q. Or disguised on purpose carelessly? A. No, I don’t think so.

Q. You don’t think so? A. No, disguised is usually slower than that.

Q. Well, that doesn’t— A. I don’t mean disguised. You said disguised purposely? I would say Yes to that question, but I thought you meant copying.

Q. Yes. A. In my opinion, it wasn’t copied. It was disguised purposely, I think.

Q. Yes. And it is not found in the nursery [1034] note? A. No. That same word isn’t in the nursery note at all.

Q. Have you taken any words or characters from S‑22? A. What is that?

Q. That is a note to Colonel Breckinridge to hand the enclosed to Colonel Lindbergh. A. No. But that is one of the other examples of the “tte.”

Q. Yes. A. Exactly the same thing as we have here for the word “the.” But let me see if that is the one that is here. No. No, that isn’t the one; but that is another example of it. I think there were no clippings from that letter, or photographs from that letter, I mean.

Q. And there is no “the” of that kind in the nursery note? A. No. Let me see it, will you, please. I don’t know whether the word “the” appears at all.

Q. “The police.” A. No; there is an “h” in that one, an “h.” It is usually written with an “h.” This is an exceptional form.

Mr. Reilly: May I have the next letter?

Q. I notice that you paid a great deal of attention to “New York.” A. The under one there, I think, the under one, the third one, the one under that. The next one under that. (Referring to exhibits being turned over on the wall.)

Q. Then, what interested you so much about the “New York” you say was the hyphen, is that correct? A. Well, that is one of the characteristics, but one of the significant characteristics in my opinion, highly significant, is the first letter which is an “M,” which is tipped up, (referring to Exhibit S‑109.)

Q. I see that. But, in your examination of German handwriting, or handwriting written by Germans who are writing or attempting to write [1035] in American, haven’t you ever seen an “N” like that before? A. Oh, perhaps I have, but I think it is an unusual characteristic, especially if it goes to this extreme.

Q. Well, isn’t all handwriting of foreigners after they have come to this country and they attempt to write, unless they are very well‑educated people, college men, isn’t it more or less peculiar unto itself? A. You mean in the “N” alone?

Q. No. A. No, no, there is no system or nationality characteristic in that “N,” made in that way. This design of “N” of course is the old round hand “N,” the Latin script “N,” but I am referring to the fact that it is tipping over, it is tipping over to the right, and if it was made of wood, it would fall down.

Q. Yes, but this one would stand up? A. Well, perhaps that one would stand up a little better.

Q. That is the ransom note, this is— A. No, that is the sleeping suit memorandum.

Q. Well, that is one of the chain? A. Oh, yes. That is the sleeping suit address, that is the wrapper.

Q. You know, do you not, that in Germany when they write the names of towns that are divided like New York, it is customary for Germans to put a hyphen between the name of the town? A. Not educated Germans.

Q. We are not talking about educated Germans, we are talking about carpenters. A. I would say generally it is not the custom.

Q. Did you ever see anyone write the address “Hamburg‑Altoma?” A. Oh, yes, that is a different thing, I think.

Q. Altoma is a suburb of Hamburg. Have you seen, Berlin,‑Schoenberg written with a hyphen? [1036] A. Well, I don’t think that would be correct. I don’t believe I have seen it.

Q. How many times have you seen in Germany, where a town was part of a province, it was divided in writing by a hyphen? A. Well, in some instances, of course, the use of the hyphen is correct.

Q. Yes. A. But in my opinion—

Q. All right. A. It is not correct here.

Q. Well, not from the American viewpoint. Now, give me some instances where a German would use the hyphen in writing, in writing towns, cities. A. I don’t—I can’t recollect any now.

Q. But you have seen them? A. I concede that where there is some connection between the name of a town and a suburb it might be written that way.

Q. Well, have you seen Alsace Lorraine divided by a hyphen? A. Yes. Sometimes the name of a city and a suburb might be separated in that way.

Q. Well, it is characteristically Teutonic, is it not? A. No I don’t think so.

Q. Is it Scandinavian? A. I don’t know.

Q. Have you ever examined any handwritings of Scandinavians? A. Yes, I have examined the handwritings of every nation on earth.

Q. Well, now, the Austrians write the same as the Germans, don’t they? Yes, Austrian writing is practically German writing.

Q. Yes. A. Yes.

Q. Have you heard or do you know that there are a great many Scandinavians bordering on the upper Prussian part of Germany that have come over from Scandinavia and were educated in Germany? A. Oh, yes; and there are a number of nations surrounding Germany, that German is their mother tongue; northern Italy, northern [1037] Switzerland, eastern Holland and eastern France.

Q. As a matter of fact there is a ferry, isn’t there running from Prussia to Scandinavia? A. Well, Scandinavia—

Q. Sweden. A. —writing is somewhat different from German writing.

Q. Yes, but I am talking about those Scandinavians educated in Germany. A. Yes, they may be educated in Germany even if they are Scandinavians.

Q. No, I am not asking you whether they are educated in German, living in Scandinavia, I am talking about the Scandinavians educated in Germany. A. Well, of course, if they went to Germany for education they probably would have learned to write home before they went.

Q. Yes. A. I am trying to answer your question exactly as you are asking it. It is a fact that there are those who write German who are not born in Germany. That is the point.

Q. That is it. Now, we will go on to the next note, please. There is one here. (Taking note which had previously been handed to the jury.) A. I am trying, your Honor, not to unduly prolong this.

The Court: That is all right.

Q. Now, I am going to show you Exhibit S‑42 and Exhibit S‑43, the beginning of the Dr. Condon notes. I show you S‑44. There is no symbol on there, is there? A. No.

Q. Now, did you take any of that particular note and put it on your chart? A. Yes, I think so. That word “New York” as it appears the third one up there is taken from this. That one, yes.

[1038] Q. Yes. A. No, that one above that, the third one from the top.

Q. That? A. Yves, that is from here.

Q. All right. A. And I think the word between it is down near the bottom and this is, I think, a highly distinctive handwriting on that note, that is characteristic of the ransom notes generally.

Q. Now, isn’t this written with more clearness as to characters than the preceding note? A. Oh, it is written more freely than the Exhibit S‑18 and the nursery note. You call that nursery note, I don’t mean to—

Q. That is what I call it, yes. A. Yes.

Q. So that the jury will always remember, that is the note found in the nursery. A. I don’t mean to characterize anything incorrectly.

Q. Now I show you Exhibit S‑43 to Colonel Lindbergh about the box. How many words or symbols did you take from that and put on your chart? A. Well, there was quite a number taken from this, I think. I think the word “Condon” or at least the letter “C” in Condon at the top, and my recollection is that the “w” and some of the “you’s,” that is some of the words “you” and quite a number of other characteristics, I think.

Q. Well now, is there any symbol, character, word or letter that you have taken from S‑45 that appears on the chart in comparison to the nursery note?

The Court: Is that S‑45 or S‑43?

Mr. Reilly: S‑43, this is another one, Judge; S‑43, Judge, is the letter with the symbol.

[1039] The Court: Yes.

Mr. Reilly: And S‑45 is the envelope addressed to Colonel Lindbergh, and I assume that S‑44 was the letter addressed to Dr. Condon, was it?

Mr. Hauck: That is right.

Mr. Reilly: And what is the exhibit number please, or the envelope which contained that?

Mr. Hauck: S‑42.

Mr. Lanigan: S‑42.

Mr. Reilly: S‑42 was the envelope to Dr. Condon, S‑43 is the letter directed to Colonel Lindbergh; S‑44 is the envelope?

Mr. Hauck: S‑44 is the letter to Condon.

Mr. Reilly: S‑44 is the letter to Dr. Con-don, all in the one envelope, and S‑45 is the small envelope addressed to Colonel Lindbergh.

The Court: Then what is the exhibit number of the letter addressed to Colonel Lindbergh about the box?

Mr. Reilly: That is 43.

The Court: Was there a symbol on that letter?

Mr. Reilly: Yes, sir.

[1040] The Court: Thank you.

By Mr. Reilly: Q. Did you have my question? A. I don’t think there was any question that was not answered.

Q. Did you find anything in your opinion of the words in S‑43 that were also written in the ransom note? A. I haven’t compared any of the ransom notes directly with the nursery note. Their characteristics are grouped, but not for the purpose of comparing in handwriting the nursery note with the other ransom notes. None of them are compared directly in that way.

Q. But did you hear Dr. Condon say in his testimony that in his opinion the nursery note was an original as far as the symbols were concerned, but that the other notes were poor imitations?

Mr. Lanigan: That is objected to.

The Court: Please repeat the question.

(Pending question read as follows: Q. But did you hear Dr. Condon say in his testimony that in his opinion the nursery note was an original as far as the symbols were concerned, but that the other notes were poor imitations?”)

The Court: Well, he may answer that yes or no.

A. I don’t know anything about his testimony. I didn’t hear it or read it.

By Mr. Reilly: [1041] Q. Did you notice any difference at all between the note, the ransom note, the nursery note, No. 1, the note to Colonel Lindbergh of March 4th, No. 2, the note to Colonel Breckinridge, No. 3, that group: did you notice any difference in your opinion in so far as those notes were concerned and the notes which passed through the hands of Dr. Condon? A. No.

Q. You say No? A. I say No.

Q. In your opinion? Now here is one of the Dr. Condon notes. Isn’t the phrasing of the letters, the general outline, much clearer than the preceding notes? A. I would say that it is clearer than the nursery note, and perhaps a little more freely written than some of the others, but it is essentially the same.

Q. Well, is this disguised in your opinion? A. I think they are all disguised, all the ransom notes.

Q. Exhibit S‑48 and Exhibit S‑47. A. That is, they are all disguised to a certain extent; that is, that they are not natural, free writing.

Q. And that is what you did, you took all of this mass of material, made up your charts, as you have indicated here, and given your opinion on that. A. Yes.

Q. Correct. Without distinctly directing your attention to all of the comparisons, using the nursery note as a standard yes or no. A. Well, I would say no. I directed my attention specifically and directly to the question as to whether the nursery note was written by the same writer as the other notes; and in my opinion, the connection is absolutely unmistakable. I can’t say it any plainer than that.

Q. Well, Doctor, or Mr. Osborn, you have been mistaken many times, have you not, in your diagnosis and your opinions on handwriting? A. I [1042] wouldn’t say many times. I don’t pretend to be infallible, but I intend to be careful.

Q. But you have found to be mistaken, have you not, many times?’ A. No, I won’t say that. When you say “many times”—of course, we have all kinds of questions, Mr. Reilly; some of them are difficult, some of them it is impossible to give any answer to at all; some of them where the evidence is somewhat closely balanced. Now in those cases, of course, it might be possible to make an error, but in this case the evidence is very, very extended.

Q. In your opinion, right? A. How is that?

Q. Do you recall the Hartze case in Pittsburgh about thirty years ago when you were opposed by Cavallo and Malone, two handwriting experts? A. No.

Q. Well, you knew the late Cavallo, didn’t you? A. Oh, I knew Mr. Cavallo very well.

Q. He was a recognized authority, was he not? A. Yes.

Q. Do you know Colonel Malone of Baltimore? A. I know a Mr. Malone. I didn’t know he was a Colonel.

Q. They are all Colonels south of the Mason-Dixon line when they get that old. A. Yes.

Q. You know him? A. He is an engrosser, he makes penmanship exhibits.

Q. Do you consider him an authority? A. No.

Q. You don’t? A. I consider him a witness who testifies on the subject.

Q. Yes. Well, so are you a witness that testifies on the subject? A. Yes, yes.

Q. You are being paid by the State of New Jersey or expect to be paid? A. Well, I hope to be. (Laughter.)

Q. Whether you consider Mr. Malone a handwriting expert or a professor of penmanship, or [1043] whatever you consider him, was he opposed to you with Mr. Cavallo in the Hartze case in Pittsburgh? A. I don’t remember anything—you say it was thirty years ago?

Q. Yes. A. I have forgotten quite a number of things that occurred thirty years ago. I don’t remember that case and I don’t remember that Mr. Malone was there. The last time I was against Mr. Malone was over here in Easton, when his testimony was all excluded on cross‑examination.

Q. Was that the case in which you testified concerning a $10,000 note? A. No, that was a will case.

Q. Well, what was the case at Easton, Pennsylvania, where you testified in a $10,000 promissory note? A. Oh, I had a good many $10,000 notes. That is a favorite amount.

Q. Well, I am getting down to Easton: you have not had many ten thousand dollar promissory notes in Easton, Pennsylvania, have you? A. Easton?

Q. Yes. A. Well, that wasn’t in Easton; I did not have a ten thousand dollar note case in Easton.

Q. Well, where was the last ten thousand dollar note case you had in Pennsylvania? A. I can’t remember that, but I have had many ten thousand dollar note cases; I had three of them at one time, at one time.

Q. Did you ever testify in an action in Easton, Pennsylvania? A. Where?

Q. Easton, Pennsylvania, concerning a $10,000 note, in which you testified that the signature was genuine— A. No, I never testified—

Q. —and it was found to be a forgery? A. No, I never testified in Easton, Pennsylvania, but once, and that was regarding a will; and my testimony was supported by the decision.

[1044] Mr. Reilly: I move to strike that out as not responsive.

The Witness: Well, he is asking me about Easton, Pennsylvania, your Honor.

The Court: “And my testimony was supported by the decision” should go out, I think, and I will strike it out.

By Mr. Reilly: Q. Do you remember testifying in the Whitehurst case, a marriage contract? A. Where was that?

Q. That was in New York. A. And what was the name?

Q. Whitehurst. A. I haven’t any—

Q. A marriage contract that you swore was genuine and it was found to be forged. A. No. I haven’t any recollection of it whatever.

Mr. Lanigan: I object to it as calling for a conclusion.

The Witness: You want the—

Mr. Lanigan: One moment, please.

The Court: Mr. Reilly, that question, I think, is objectionable, and I don’t think the witness is required to answer it. I do not recall whether he did or did not answer.

Mr. Lanigan: He did not answer. it.



[1045] The Court: He will not be required to answer it.

Mr. Reilly: May I have an exception?

The Court: You may have your exception.

[EXCEPTION ALLOWED]

By Mr. Reilly: Q. Do you recall the Kilbourne case in Pottstown, New York? It was a will case where you were engaged to pass on the genuineness of the signatures on the will. A. Pottstown?

Q. Yes. A. Have you got the date?

Q. Well, I should assume from my information that that was within the last five years. A. No, I haven’t been in Pottstown in the last five years at all.

Q. Well, let me see if I can refresh your recollection. The case I am speaking about in Pottstown, a gentleman named Snell up there was interested in the outcome of the estate. Does that refresh your recollection? A. No, no.

Q. Well, do you recall the case of Burke against Peters in New York County in which you were engaged to pass on the validity of a deed made by a woman named White for Mrs. Burke? A. Was that in Brooklyn?

Q. No, that was in New York County. A. Brooklyn is in New York.

Q. Where you testified that the signature was not made—or rather, was made with an iron ink? [1046] A. I can’t recollect any such details in testimony in a case that might have been twenty‑five years ago.

Q. This is not twenty-five years ago. A. I don’t know when it was.

Q. This was less than ten years ago. A. I can’t remember the names. I undertake to remember these things, but I can’t carry these names in my mind.

Q. Well, can you recall any case in which you gave evidence that the ink that wrote the signature on the will was in your opinion an iron ink? A. Oh, I think so, yes.

Q. And were you discredited in that case? A. No, I don’t think so.

Mr. Lanigan: That is objected to.

The Court: He says “No, I don’t think so.” I will allow it to stand.

Q. Now do you recall back in 1925, Dr. Sinclair Tusi or Tousi, 830 Seventh Avenue, New York City? Do you recall him? A. No. I recall, however, that that man, a man by that name, called on me and said that I had been accused of having made a mistake in his case and he said it wasn’t true, and I didn’t remember the man, I don’t know the man; and I am not sure that he was entirely sane.

Mr. Reilly: Now I move to strike that out as not responsive.

The Court: Well, I do not know but what you drew it out, Mr. Reilly, but to make sure that no illegal injury is done to your client, I will strike out the latter part, [1047] which perhaps may be said to be irresponsive.

Q. Well now, despite your opinion of Dr. Tousi, do you remember that he was at 830 Seventh Avenue, New York City? A. Oh, I don’t remember it at all. I didn’t remember the case, and the circumstances were very peculiar; the man wrote to me two or three times and then he came to see me, and I couldn’t get head or tail to what he was telling me about.

Q. Didn’t he bring you some letters for your examination? A. No.

Q. Now, you can remember that, can’t you? A. Did he—

Q. I say you remember he did not bring you any letters? A. Well, I don’t remember the case at all.

Q. But still you can remember the man’s name? A. No. He came to see me or wrote me, and that is all I remembered about it.

Q. Didn’t you render an opinion on letters he brought you? A. I don’t remember that at all.

Q. Didn’t you give as your opinion that another doctor—giving a name—had sent these letters, anonymous letters about Dr. Tusi? A. No, I don’t think so.

Q. Well, you are not definite on that, are you? A. No.

Q. Now we will get down to something nearer, if you can recall this case of Mrs. Von Moschzisker, in this very State. Do you remember that? A. Mrs. Von-what?

Q. Moschzisker, M-o-s‑c-h-z-i-s‑k-e-r, the poison pen case in Hackensack, New Jersey, in February 1928. A. No.

Q. You don’t remember that? A. Didn’t have anything to do with it.

[1048] Q. Do you know a handwriting expert named Stein? A. Yes. Shall I characterize him?

Q. No. I only asked you if you knew him. A. I will be pleased to do so.

Q. Didn’t you testify in this case of Von Moschzisker before Judge Zabriskie in Hackensack, New Jersey? A. No. I wasn’t in—

Q. In February 1928? A. I wasn’t in the case at all.

Q. Well, did you render an opinion which was not used? A. I did not.

Q. Now, do you recall this case, the case of Burt versus Peters, Supreme Court, New York County, 1926, where you testified— A. What was it?

Q. —that the body of the deed was not over eight years old, and it was found that the deed was a great many years old.

Mr. Lanigan: I object.

A. Was it a typewriting case?

Q. It was a deed case in which the signature on the deed was in ink and you testified that it was an iron ink and in your opinion the deed was not over eight years old. A. Well, that the signature was not over eight years old?

Q. The signature, yes. A. Well, that don’t sound like my testimony, because I am very cautious about giving the age of ink.

Q. Do you—? A. It is usually impossible.

Q. Did you testify in that case? A. I can’t remember the case at all.

Q. Well, any cases you testified to as to ink? A. If you want to know if cases have been decided against my view, I don’t hesitate to say that they have.

[1049] Q. How many? A. What?

Q. How many? A. Well, I would say it was occasional. It occurred so infrequent that it always gives me a shock. I think maybe one in twenty, or something like that, by percent, or so. There are all kinds of cases, some of them are very difficult, and yet it is necessary that you give an opinion in it, and others are very plain in which a difference of opinion can be accounted for only on the ground of indifference or dishonesty.

By Mr. Reilly: Q. Do you remember the Tappen will case? A. What is the name?

Q. Tappen, T-a-p-p-e-n, Tappen? A. Tappen?

Q. That was a case in Newark? A. Was that recently? I was recently in Newark in a case but it wasn’t that name.

Q. Well, were you ever in a Tappen will case in Paterson, New Jersey? A. I have never testified in the City of Paterson. I can’t quite understand that either, because it is quite near to Montclair where I live.

Q. Did you ever testify in Newark? A. Many times.

Q. Did you ever testify in Newark in a Tappen will case? A. Tappen? I don’t recollect that name at all.

Mr. Reilly: Now your Honor, may I reserve further cross‑examination of the witness subject to the production here of the papers that they are going to look for?

The Court: Well, yes, I think you may do that, Mr. Reilly, allowing you to [1050] cross‑examine if these papers are discovered and delivered to you.

Mr. Reilly: Yes, sir. That is all.

The Witness: Does that mean, your Honor, that I must remain here?

The Court: I am not sure just what that means.

The Witness: I am supposed to be in Ottawa very soon.

The Court: Cannot that be determined speedily whether these papers are available?

Mr. Lanigan: We will make every endeavor, sir.

The Court: And, Mr. Osborn, it is going to be determined as speedily as possible whether these papers that Mr. Reilly wants are available or not and, if they are available, then you will expect to be here until that time.

The Witness: Yes. I can remain here if necessary.

The Court: Well, it is hoped that you will not be required to be here very long.

The Witness: Yes.

The Court: That is all that I can say.

Mr. Lanigan: That is all.

Court Crier Hann: The jury would like to retire.

The Court: The jury would like to retire? Well, we will have to take a recess then for five minutes.

(At 11:34 a.m. the jury retired.)


No comments:

Post a Comment