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