[1074]
ELBRIDGE W. STEIN, sworn as a
witness on behalf of the State.
Direct examination by
Mr. Lanigan: Q.
Where do you live, Mr. Stein? A. I live in Montclair, New Jersey.
Q.
Your place of business is located where? A. 15 Park Row, New York City.
Q.
What is your profession? A. I am an examiner of disputed documents,
including questions of handwriting, typewriting, inks, paper, and those things
that enter into the physical makeup of documents.
Q.
Do you devote all of your time to the work? A. All the time that I work,
yes.
Q.
I see. Have you made a special study of the study of handwriting? A. Yes.
Q.
What work have you done and what studies [1075] have you pursued in connection
with the subject of handwriting? A. I have studied the subject of
handwriting for upwards of thirty years in numerous ways, its history, its
teaching, its learning and its identification. This has included the books that
have been written on the subject in English, of which I know, some foreign
translations of articles, the collection of reference materials on handwriting
of various kinds, reproduction of handwriting and the preparation of cases for
court.
Q.
Have you testified in court on numerous phases of your work? A. Yes.
Q.
Have you testified in New Jersey on handwriting identification? A. Yes.
Q.
Can you recall for me briefly some of the cases in which you have been engaged?
A. I have been engaged in the Gypsum-Queen case of Ottawa, Burt Gamble case
of Saginaw, Michigan, the Jennings case in Chicago the MacDougal case in
Toledo, Schafter case in New Orleans, the Wendel case in New York, the Ridley
case in New York, recently the Vanderbilt case in New York, are some of them.
Q.
Now, have you testified in homicide cases? A. Yes.
Q.
What period of time and how wide a territory does your experience cover? A. I
have been testifying for the past, almost twenty-two years it will be next
month.
Q.
In how many states, sir? A. I have had cases from 27 states of the United
States, various parts of Canada and Alaska. I haven’t testified in all of those
states, but in the greater number of them.
Mr.
Lanigan: I offer the witness as to experiential qualifications.
[1076]
Mr. Reilly: Mr. Fisher will take charge of him.
Mr.
Fisher: No objection.
The
Court: I suppose it is conceded he is qualified as an expert. You may proceed.
Q.
Mr. Stein, I show you the so-called ransom notes and ask you if you have made
an examination of them? A. I have.
Q.
When did you first make your examination? A. First in the summer, I think
it was in July of 1932.
Q.
What was the purpose of your examination? A. The purpose of the
examination at that time was to discover, if possible, any evidence that might
lead to the identification of whoever wrote them.
Q.
What did you do? A. I examined these various ransom letters and made a
report.
Q.
Yes. On how many occasions have you seen the original ransom notes? A. Well,
I have seen them on two occasions, in 1932, and then I have seen them on a
couple of occasions in 1934.
Q.
When was the last time you saw them? A. A couple of months ago.
Q.
I show you exhibits which are the request writings of Bruno Richard Hauptmann
and ask you if you have examined those? A. I have.
Q.
I show you the conceded writings of Bruno Richard Hauptmann and ask you if you
have made an examination of those? A. Yes.
Q.
What was the purpose of your examination and comparison, Mr. Stein? A. The
purpose of my examination was to determine, if possible, whether or not the
writer who wrote the request [1077] and conceded writings of Bruno Richard
Hauptmann wrote the ransom letters.
Q.
As the result of your comparison and examination, have you reached an opinion
concerning them? A. Yes.
Q.
What is that opinion? A. My opinion is that the writer who wrote the Bruno
Richard Hauptmann writings, that is, the request and conceded writings, also
wrote the ransom letters.
Q.
Now, will you take these original documents and just explain to the Court and
jury, and illustrate it, if you will, the reasons which have led you to that
conclusion which you have just expressed. A. Very briefly, the reasons for
my conclusion that the writer of the Hauptmann writing, the request and
conceded writings, is the same writer who wrote the ransom letters, is based
upon a consideration of the similarities in the handwriting, the Richard
Hauptmann writing, as compared with the ransom letters, taking into
consideration the differences that exist between these two sets of writings and
by two sets I mean the ransom letters and the Hauptmann writing, as well as the
similarities, and interpreting in my judgment in a correct way what the
similarities and differences mean as affecting the identification of the
writer. Specifically my opinion is based upon numerous similarities, always
keeping in mind the differences, because there are some differences. These
similarities are of several different characters. Some of them are similarities
that concern spelling, and there are a couple of divisions of the spelling.
Some words are spelled incorrectly, because the correct letters are not used;
other words are spelled incorrectly, because the letters are arranged
incorrectly—that is, the correct letters are used, but they are in improper
sequence.
[1078]
Q. Proceed. A. There are a number of misspelled words in the ransom
letters and in the Hauptmann writing. They are not all the same. There are some
misspelled words in the ransom letters that are spelled correctly in the
Hauptmann writing. There are some words in the ransom letters that are spelled
correctly and that are misspelled in the Hauptmann writing; and there are words
both in the ransom letters and in the Hauptmann writing that are spelled both
correctly and incorrectly—that is, the same word. I have made some photographic
illustrations of some of these similarities, and it will probably shorten my
testimony a little to use them.
Q.
All right. Have you the photographs here? A. I have.
Q.
Produce them, please. A. (The witness produces photographs). These
photographs which I hold in my hand are photographs in enlarged form, of words
taken from the ransom letters, from photographs of the ransom letters, and
photographs of words from the Hauptmann writing, a schedule of which I have
prepared, showing where each of these words came from.
Q.
Taken from the originals? A. Yes.
Q.
And do they truly depict the originals? A. They do.
Mr.
Lanigan: These are offered in evidence, if your Honor please.
The
Court: If there is no objection they will be admitted.
Q.
How many sets are there? A. I think there are ten sets there of seven
different divisions.
[1079]
Mr. Lanigan: Shall we mark them all as one exhibit?
Mr.
Reilly: Sir—
Mr.
Lanigan: Shall we mark them as one exhibit?
Mr.
Fisher: Don’t we need just one of each? Won’t that be sufficient. Aren’t you offering
a number of the same thing?
Mr.
Lanigan: Yes.
Mr.
Fisher: It seems that one of each would be ample.
The
Court: Well, I don’t know whether it will result in confusion to give them one
exhibit number or not. Counsel will have to determine that.
Mr.
Lanigan: I suggest then in that event that we mark them by sets.
The
Court: Mark them by sets?
Mr.
Fisher: That is all right.
The
Court: That seems to be agreed. That will be done.
Q.
Will you divide them into the sets in which they come, sir.
(Set
No. 1 of specimens of handwriting [1080] submitted by Witness Stein received in
evidence and marked State Exhibit S‑114.)
(Set
No. 2 marked S‑115, Set No. 3 marked S‑116, Set No. 4 marked S‑117, Set No. 5
marked S‑118, Set No. 6 marked S‑119, Set No. S‑7 marked S‑120.)
Mr.
Lanigan: Now we have finished, your Honor.
The
Court: The Court is about to take a recess, but I wish everybody to remain just
where they are.
The
jury may retire and come back at one-forty-five.
(The
jury retired at 12:35 p. m.)
The
Court: The prisoner is remanded in the custody of the Sheriff and he may now
retire.
(The
prisoner retired.)
The
Court: The Court will now adjourn until 1:45, and the people may retire.
[1081]
(At 12:36 p. m. a recess was taken until 1:45 p. m.)
After
Recess. (1:48 p. m.)
(The
jury was polled and all jurors answered present.)
Elbridge
W. Stein resumed the witness stand:
Direct examination
(continued) by Mr. Lanigan: Q.
Mr. Stein, will you now proceed to illustrate to the jury, giving your reasons,
the conclusion which you have reached. A. This exhibit, which is No. S‑114,
contains words misspelled or letters arranged in incorrect order, in words, in
both the ransom letters and the Hauptmann writing. On the left side of this
illustration—
Q.
Pardon me just a moment. Which sheet are you using: the large sheet or the
short sheet? A. Well, I am beginning with the large one.
Q.
Large sheet? A. Top. The arrangement of this illustration is that on the
left side are the words taken from the ransom letters; on the right side from
the Hauptmann writing.
Now
the first illustration at the top is an illustration of the spelling of the
word “not.” This word standing alone, as it does on this illustration, would be
read as the word “note.” Therefore it has to be read in connection with the
other words that preceded and followed it in order to understand that it is the
word “not.”
On
the left side the first word “not,” which is spelled n-o-t-e, came from S‑20,
that is came from Exhibit S‑20, and was in this expression: “We cannot make any
appointment” and it was spelled n-o-t-e. The next one on the left side from the
ransom letters came also from S‑20 and was in the expression “We have warned
you not to [1082] make.” The third one came from Exhibit S‑48 and was in the
expression “You cannot know.” And the last one, the fourth one from S‑52, was
in the expression “Tell Mrs. Lindbergh not to worry.”
Now
these words are not the only ones that were spelled “n-o-t-e” from the ransom
letters. They merely illustrate the way in which the word “not” was generally
spelled in the ransom letters.
From
the Hauptmann writing on the right-hand side, the first word “not” which is
spelled n-o-t-e, the same as the spelling in the ransom letters, came from S‑72,
exhibit S‑72, and in the expression “Did you not write?” The next one came from
S‑75 and was in the same expression “Did you not write?” The next one “They
were not near” from S‑75 and the fourth one from S‑72 in the expression “You
cannot tell when.”
This
spelling of “not” as n-o-t-e in my judgment has a connection, connecting the
writer of the Hauptmann writing with the writer of the ransom letters.
The
next division of this misspelling is the word “the,” as it appears on this
illustration No. 114. Actually, that word was written “t-h-e” for the word “t-h-e-y.”
The first of these words illustrated and on the left side, underneath the
heading Ransom Letters, the “the” came from S‑70 and reads “they are innocent.”
That is, that is the expression in which the word “the” was used for “they.”
The
next one, on the left side, came from the expression from S‑65, that is, the
ransom letters, and was in the expression “they are innocent,” but the “they”
was spelled t-h-e. On the right side, under the Hauptmann writing, the first of
these words used, that is, the word “the” used for “they” came from S‑72 and
was in the [1083] expression “did you not write.” The next one came from S‑75—no,
no; that is incorrect. The first one came from S‑75, in the expression “they
will be good for something,” and the “they” is spelled t-h-e as it appears here
on the illustration under the Hauptmann writing.
The
next one came from S‑98 and in the expression “They are innocent,” and I am
referring now to the t-h-e on the right side, under the Hauptmann writing, and
the last one “They will be good for something,” from Exhibit S‑73. Here are two
examples of the word “they” spelled t-h-e, from the ransom letters and three
examples from the Hauptmann writing where the word “t-h-e-y” was spelled “t-h-e.”
The
next illustration under the ransom letters is the word “were.” That word was
used where the expression or word was “w-h-e-r-e.” The first of these came from
S‑18 and it was used in this expression, “Inform where to deliver.” Now, that
word “where” was spelled “w-e-r-e.” That was the first of the ransom letters.
The next word spelled “were” for w-h-e-r-e, in the ransom letters from S‑20 and
in the expression again, “Where to deliver.” The third one came from S‑48 and,
in the expression, “Tell you where to find us.” In each of those instances the
word “where” was spelled w-e-r-e, as you see in the illustration.
In
the Hauptmann writing on the right-hand side the first of these words used in
an expression that the proper word is “where” was in this expression from S‑72:
“Where the robbery.” The remainder of that expression was “Where the robbery
took place.” That came from S‑72.
The
second one of these words, spelled w-e-r-e for w-h-e-r-e, came from S‑73, in
the expression “Where shall we send them?” And the last one [1084] from S‑75,
in the same expression as the first one. “Where the robbery.” Those came from request
writings, where the same matter was dictated more than once.
In
my opinion the use of this word, spelled we-r-e for w-h-e-r-e, is a connection
between the writing in the Hauptmann writing and the writing in the ransom
letters.
The
next misspelled word is the word “money.” The word “money” was spelled correctly
in the ransom letters and it was spelled correctly also in the Hauptmann
writing; but it was spelled in the manner in which it is illustrated here
m-o-n-y on the occasions that will be found in this illustration. That requires
no connection in order to determine what the word is.
And
the next word, at the bottom of the page, is the word used for anything,
spelled a-n-y-d-i-n-g. There are more illustrations of this spelling in the
ransom letters than I have illustrated here but it shows this word “anything”
was spelled a-n-y-d-i-n-g in both the ransom letters and in the Hauptmann
writing.
Now,
referring to the small section of this Exhibit 114, at the top, on the first
line, is illustrated the use of the correct letters in a word in an incorrect
order. The first word is “right,” spelled in the ransom letters r-i-g-t-h. The
second one, the word in its proper sequence or context would be the word “the,”
but it is spelled “h-t-e.”
In
the Hauptmann writing there are two illustrations of the word “the” written “h-t-e”
as are found at the top of this small section or part of Exhibit 114. There is
also the word “night” showing the difficulty that this writer had in using a
combination of “g-h-t.” It is true that in this word “night” the arrangement of
the letters are not the same as they are in the word “right” from [1085] the
ransom letters. In the ransom letters it being r-i-g-t-h. In the word “night”
from the Hauptmann writing it is arranged n-i-h-g-t. And in my judgment it
shows the difficulty, the similar difficulty that the writer of the Hauptmann
writing had as compared with the same character of difficulty that the writer
had who wrote the ransom letters.
The
next misspelled word is the word “by,” that is, it is spelled “by.” The word,
however, that was intended to be written and that the matter that becomes
before and after would indicate is the word be, b-e. Now the first of these
words that I illustrated here in the photographic illustration, the word “by,”
came from this expression from S‑75—no, that isn’t correct—the first one came
from S‑20. That is on the left side and under the title of “ransom letters.”
That word came from this expression “Don’t be afraid,” and it was spelled “by”
as it is shown here in this illustration, and the next one under the heading of
the ransom letters came from the expression, “The amount will be $70,000.” I
haven’t that exhibit number, but it is about the second or third in the series
of ransom letters. This word “be” was spelled b-y by the writer of the Hauptmann
writing and as is shown here on the right side in the expression from Exhibit S‑72,
“Will be good for something,” in the Hauptmann writing spelled “by” as is
illustrated here. The second spelling of the word “be,” spelled “by” from the
Hauptmann writing came from Exhibit S‑74 and from the expression “when it will
be,” and the “be” is spelled “by.”
In
my judgment these misspellings, as one is added to the other, become much more
significant and forceful in connecting the writer of the Hauptmann writing with
the writing of the [1086] ransom letters. Standing alone, not so important as
when considered altogether.
The
word “be” b-e, was misspelled in another way in both the ransom letters and in
the Hauptmann writing. It was spelled b-e-e, and that came from the expression
in the ransom letters “The size will bee about.” That was in the expression,
talking about the box, and that came from Exhibit S‑42. That is the word b-e-e,
under the left, in the left column under the ransom letters.
Now,
there were two illustrations, and I think those are all that there were in the
Hauptmann writing of be spelled b-e-e. The first of these came from S‑75, that
is, the first one that is illustrated came from Exhibit S‑75 and in the
expression “Tell when it will bee.” There, the “be,” which should be properly
spelled b-e was spelled b-e-e, and the second one illustrated came from S‑72
from the same expression, “Tell when it will bee.” In my opinion, this word “bee”
spelled incorrectly in two different ways, is much more significant in
connecting the writing in the Hauptmann writing and the ransom letters than if
it were misspelled one way.
The
next misspelled word that I have illustrated here was the word “was” spelled
w-h-a-s; and there is just one illustration of it, the first of which came from
S‑56 in the expression “this case was prepared.” There the word “was” was
spelled w-h-a-s, as is shown in this illustration No. S‑114. The word “was” was
misspelled in the Hauptmann writing in this expression, “anything that was
stolen” from S‑74.
Then
the word “can;” the word “can” was misspelled, spelling it c-a-n-e, an
illustration of which came from S‑48 in the ransom letters, spelled c-a-n-e in
the expression “you can not know” and two illustrations of this word “can,” [1087]
spelled c-a-n-e, from the Hauptmann writing in Exhibits S‑74 and S‑77, both in
the same expression, “you can not tell,” spelled c-a-n-e.
Hour:
that is, the word used for h-o-u-r was spelled “o-u-e-r.” I have the exhibit
numbers from which those came but they are spelled the same way in both the
ransom letters and in the Hauptmann writing.
And
the word “did”—that is, the word “did” as it would be interpreted as being that
word from what precedes and follows in both the ransom letters and in the
Hauptmann writing, spelled “t-i-t.”
Now,
in my judgment, these various misspelled words, like in the ransom letters and
in the Hauptmann writing when considered altogether, have a strong connection
between the writing in the Hauptmann writing and in the ransom letters. I would
say that one of these misspelled words standing alone is not nearly so
significant as when they are considered one enforcing and backing up the other,
until, when they are all considered together, they do have very great
significance.
Now
as I have said, these are not all the misspelled words that are in the ransom
letters and neither are they all the misspelled words that are in the Hauptmann
writing. There are some misspelled words in the ransom letters that are not
misspelled in the Hauptmann writing and it is the other way about; there are
some words spelled correctly in the ransom letters that are misspelled in the
Hauptmann writing and there is also words spelled correctly in the Hauptmann
writing and that same word spelled incorrectly.
Q.
Is that the second chart? A. Yes.
Mr.
Fisher: How is this one headed, [1088] Mr. Lanigan, that is, the first word on
it? I haven’t the heading on it.
Mr.
Lanigan: This happens to be S‑115.
(The
chart referred to was distributed to the jury.)
Q.
Proceed with your illustration on Exhibit S‑115. A. S‑115 is arranged in
the same manner as the one that I have just explained; that is, the ransom
letters, the words taken from the ransom letters are on the left side; the
Hauptmann writing on the right side, that is, the words taken from the
Hauptmann writing.
The
first part of this illustration and down to that white line that runs across is
illustrating the small “y” at the beginning of words. The small “y” at the beginning
of words—and all of these illustrations are the word “you” or “your”—shows a
peculiar design and not only is this design of small “y” peculiarly developed,
but there are some variations even in that peculiarity which in my judgment is
important and to which I will call attention.
Now
this small “y” standing alone, without anything to tell what it was, could not
properly be interpreted as “y” and in my opinion when a letter is so modified
that it becomes illegible, it tends towards significance and peculiarity in a
handwriting. These words were taken from various exhibits, and as we go along I
will refer to the exhibits. The first word “you” under the ransom letters came
from Exhibit S43. Then there are two of these words immediately under it coming
from S‑22 and S‑18 and then the next two under the ransom letters came from S‑23
and S‑52 and then the next one standing by itself came [1089] from S‑68 and the
next one under the ransom letters, S‑51 and then the next to the last of these
words, two on the left side from S‑48 and S‑56 and the last two on the left
side, S‑56 and S‑23.
Now
on the right side, from the Hauptmann writing, the first one came from S‑72,
the next two from S‑75 and S‑79 and the next two from. S‑78, both of them from
S‑78; the next two from S‑79 and S‑78 and the next two from S‑79 and S‑98; the
next from S‑74 and the last two from S‑77, both from S‑77.
Now,
there is some modifications in this letter to which I would like to direct
attention. The first of these, “y,” is at the top, made without any preliminary
upward stroke, the letter beginning at the top with the curved stroke made like
an abbreviated “j.” That is without the upper portion of the “j.” That kind of
peculiar letter is found both in the ransom letters and in the Hauptmann
writing.
Now,
there is a modification of that in the very next column of words where the two
words appear, the two words “you,” and one of these come from S‑18, that is, as
I understand, has been referred to as the nursery ransom letter. There the
small “y” is made with a slight upward stroke, similar to a “j,” and over in
the Hauptmann writing there is the same thing, that is, there is this modified
peculiar small “y” made like a “j.” Then there are different modifications of
the connection of this “y” to the following letter. It was usually made by not
raising the pen, that is, this peculiar “y” was made and gone right on to the
small “o” without raising the pen, but sometimes the pen was raised, as is
shown in the third one from the top, the y-o-u. There this peculiar “y” was
made when the loop was completed, the pen was raised quite a little space
between the finish of the “y” and the beginning of the “o.”
[1090]
Over here are illustrations of that same thing from the Hauptmann writing, this
peculiar “y” with the pen raising, another modification of a peculiar letter,
found alike in both the ransom letters and the Hauptmann writing.
This
“y” was finished in two different ways; it was made with a loop at the bottom
as an ordinary “y” would be made. It was also made without any loop; it was
made with an angle at the bottom and then starting from the bottom of the
letter, off to the right off toward the small “o.” Now, here is an illustration
of it in the last one of the word “you,” found in this Exhibit S‑115 under the
ransom letters.
There
is the word “you” made with a small “y,” no loop at the bottom at all, just an
angle going right over to the “o.”
Across
on the other side are two examples of the same identical modification of this
peculiar “y” in the Hauptmann writing, no loop, an angle, just going across.
Now in my judgment these modifications of this peculiar letter are much more
significant as connecting these two writings than if there was only just this
peculiar form alone; because all of these modifications are found in the ransom
letters and found in the Hauptmann writing.
The
next, under this Exhibit S‑115, is the final “y.” There are three positions in
which letters are found in words, and sometimes the position that a letter
occupies in a word has something to do with certain writers in its form. Now
that position may be at the beginning of words, such as in this word “you” that
I have just been describing; another position may be in the middle of words,
and another position at the last of words. Now this “y” that I have been
referring to next is the “y” at the end of words. The “y” [1091] at the end of
words was not made in this peculiar way that it was made at the beginning of
words; and there are two peculiarities in the final or ending “y” of words to
which I wish to call attention:
Here
in this word “empty”—and that came from Exhibit S‑48—the word “way” came from S‑66.
The word “rely” from S‑20 and the word “by” just to the left of the word “way”
from S‑44, and the word “any” to the left of “rely” came from S‑43; the word “specially”
from S‑52 and the word, the first word “baby” on the left side from S‑56 and
the other two in order from S‑23 and S‑61.
Now
on the other side the word “maybe” up there just under the white line—the word “may-be”
came from S‑72 and the word “by” just to the right of it from S‑72 also; the
word “they” from S‑74 and the word “money” from S‑75; the word “day” from S‑86
and “July” from S‑86.
The
next word, the word was “every” written a-f-e-r-y, came from S‑72 and the next
one from S‑75; the next word intended for the word “robbery,” written
r-o-p-e-r-y came from S‑75 and the word “by” from S‑77 and the word “money” at
the bottom from S‑79.
Now,
these final y’s have two kinds of finishing strokes or portions to them. The
word “empty,” the word “by” and the word “way” under this column on the left
side from the ransom letters, the letter “y” is finished with a straight
downward stroke, no loop, no stroke of any kind except just the straight
stroke. That is not an unusual finishing stroke for a “y,” many people do that,
and it is only significant here in connection with other kinds of finishes. I
would say that that, standing alone, doesn’t have very much connection; it is
not very significant as indicating [1092] identification and it is only when it
is combined with other things that it has value. But this same kind of
finishing of “y” is found in the Hauptmann writing, as it is illustrated here
on the right side of this word “maybe” and “by” and “they” and “money.” But
there is another finishing stroke or portion or loop used in both the ransom
letters and in the Hauptmann writing. Now, this “y” in the word “any” and “rely”
and “specially” and “baby,” under the ransom letters, is in some ways—I think,
can best be described by saying it is a kind of clumsy finish, a little stroke
up toward the left without any particular destination, it doesn’t make it a
loop, neither does it go off in a skillful way. So that I think it is rather a
clumsy kind of a finish.
Now,
that same kind of a clumsy finish is found over here in the Hauptmann writing
in the word “day” and “July” and “every” and “robbery” and “money,” and so
forth.
Now,
in my judgment, the fact that the “y” is finished with the straight downward
line, which in itself is not very important, but in connection with these other
kinds of finishes, this clumsy one, the fact that the writer used both of them,
in my judgment, has a connection, connecting the Hauptmann writing with the
ransom letters.
There
is another peculiarity about this final “y” to which I wish to call attention.
Not in every instance but in some instances the upper portion, that is, the
part that is the top before the loop is made, is made like a “v,” like a notch,
with an angle at the bottom.
Now
in this word “empty,” there is no turn at the bottom in the word “empty” from
the ransom letters.
The
word “way” is another illustration of a notch or angle at the bottom of the
first part of [1093] the “y;” and then there is quite a plain one in the word “by,”
b-y; another one in the word “any.” Now in the word “they” on the—well,
starting at the top of those, the word “maybe,” the top part of that “y” is
just like a “v,” a printed “v” with a sharp point down at the bottom. The word “by”
just to the right of the word “maybe” is the same kind of a top part to this “y,”
and then the word “they,” t-h-e-y, under the Hauptmann writing there is another
illustration.
Now
the next word “money” isn’t so—that is not really one of this kind of finishes,
but down here in the word “July” there is another one of these angular “y’s.”
Now these angular “y’s” were found not only in these small letters but in the
capital letters, and I will refer to those in an illustration showing those
capital letters.
Now
these peculiarities, some of which as I have said are somewhat general, become
significant when considered altogether, and that is the way I considered these,
the identification of the writing of these letters; not one of these letters,
not the nursery letter alone, not any one of these notes, but I considered all
of the letters, all of the ransom letters, as compared with all of the Hauptmann
writing.
Q.
Your next illustration is what number? A. No. 116.
Q.
S‑116? A. That is right.
(Photostatic
copies of exhibit handed to the jurors.)
Q.
Now referring to S‑116, proceed with the illustration. A. I repeat again
that all of these illustrations that will be shown are arranged in the same
way, the words and characters from [1094] the ransom letters are arranged on
the left side and under the title that is designated at the top, and on the
right side of the words and characters from the Hauptmann writing.
This
exhibit S‑116 illustrates first the word “to” and so other words ending in “o,”
“so.” This shows several things, to which I will refer after I have designated
where these come from. Now, in order, and from the top, under the heading “ransom
letters,” the foreword “to” came from S‑65, then coming right down, S‑20, S‑48,
S‑20, S‑20 again, then in the next line there are three of these words “to.”
The left one being S‑23, the next S‑52, and the next S‑68; immediately under
that S‑56 and S‑44. The two words “so” came from S‑20 and S‑56. On the right
side, under the Hauptmann writing, these words “to” came from S‑78 and S‑86,
those two at the top. Then, in order, S‑98, S‑79, S‑74, S‑98, then those two
came together from S‑72 and S‑75, and the last two from S‑74 and S‑79. Then, “so”
on the right side came from S‑74 and S‑77.
Now,
there are a couple of things here in this word, illustrated by this word—and
might be illustrated by any number of words from both the ransom letters and
the Hauptmann writing. These illustrations that I prepared only show the
principle that is involved by the writer of both of these writings and not the
complete illustration of everything that was done.
In
the first place, there are several different kind of t’s used in this “t-o.”
Now, it will be observed at the top on the left side, under the ransom letters,
that the first “t” was made with an upward stroke. That same kind of “t” is
found in the Hauptmann writing. That is not an unusual “t” at all. The only
thing that is [1095] unusual about that is the fact that it isn’t crossed and
you will observe that there is an absence of t-crossings in these words as
taken from the ransom letters and also as taken from the Hauptmann writing—no “t”
crossings where there should be a “t” crossing. Now, there are some of these t’s
that, made in the form in which they are made, do not require “t” crossing. I
will refer to them. But all of these at the top, down to the last word “to” as
they are made here properly require a “t” crossing.
Now,
there is another kind of upward stroke. The first one illustrated begins down
nearly at the bottom of the “t” going upward to the top and then the “t” being
made from that point on. Now, there is another kind of an upward stroke, the
third line across this illustration. There you will see that this upward stroke
begins about half the height of the “t,” found both in the ransom letters and
in the Hauptmann writing, a modification of the letter. It is a simple
modification but nevertheless it is here, and it shows that the writer used
both of these kinds of beginning strokes for small “t.”
Then
there is still another kind of “t” made, down here where this line of the words
“to” appear. There is a “t” made without any upward stroke at all, just
beginning at the top. That is another modification of the beginning of a “t.”
Then
there is, in addition to that, in the last “t” illustrated, the German form of “t.”
Now, that is the kind of “t” made in the form, in which it is here that does
not require a crossing; that is that makes a “t” of itself without the
crossing. All of these other t’s should properly have been crossed, but they
were not, in neither the ransom letters nor the Hauptmann writing.
Now
this “o” in the word “to”—it has an [1096] unskillful and rather clumsily made
last stroke, just a blunt stroke up to the right at the top of the letter, no
curve in it; and the letter “o” is made so that it stands open, and it is open
more than just a little bit. In fact, many of these “o’s” border very closely
on that same form that I have described as the top of the small “y.” It
conforms somewhat to a printed “v” with an angle at the bottom.
Now
in my judgment these peculiarities, I think when they are all considered they
are peculiarities, they are peculiarities from the fact that this writer used
modifications of the letter “t.” Now, of course, that first “t,” standing
alone, is not a peculiarity at all, but when considered with the other “t’s,”
then the whole list of them do become personal.
Q.
Mr. Stein, did you make any investigation in order to determine the number of “o’s”
that were open at the top? A. I did not. I did not count them numerically.
I would say that from my examination most of the “o’s” that are final letters
in words are represented correctly by this illustration.
Q.
That is right. A. When they are last letters in words, they are open and
they are finished like these words “to” and “so” that I have illustrated here.
I can’t tell how many there were.
Now
the next illustration is the “f,” the small “f,” and I will just give you where
these words came from, and then consider what the significance of them is. The
words “from” and “feed” came from S‑44 and S‑23, respectively. The next two, “for”
and “from” from S‑20 and S‑44; and the next two—I don’t seem to have the next
two; that is, the words “from” and “find.”
Oh,
yes, I have those, they came from S‑20 and S‑24. Then the words “if” and “suffer”
came [1097] from S‑65 and S‑56. On the other side under the Hauptmann writing
the two words “feet” came from S‑98 and S‑78. The words “follow” and “for” from
S‑78 and S‑74 and the words “from” and “or” from S‑86, both from S‑86, and then
the last two “avery” and “of” from S‑77 and S‑86.
Now
here are three different positions of small “f,” the beginning of words, the
middle of words and the end of words. This “f” while not entirely, I would say,
it is not unique at all, you can find this “f” in other writings, but it is similar
in the ransom letters and in the Hauptmann writing. The finishing part from the
bottom comes up on the left side in most instances, and when this letter is a
final letter in a word as is found in the word “if” from the ransom letters and
in the two words “of” from the Hauptmann writing, the downward stroke has been
retraced almost for its entire length that the line continued by the upward stroke
and the finishing stroke just off to the right without an angle.
Now,
the intermediate small “f,” that is an “f” in the middle of words, is a little
different. Take the word “suffer” in the ransom letter and down at the bottom
there you will see that the second “f,” the second “f” shows it more clearly,
the first “f” in my judgment is made in the same way, but the ink ran together
from the first line and the second line until there is no light between the
downward and upward strokes, but the second “f” in the word “suffer” shows the “f”
there was not made on the upward stroke on the left side of the downward stroke,
but it was made on the right side and with an angle at the bottom.
Now,
that same kind of “f,” that is, the same kind of finishing part of “f” is in
this word “a-f-e-r-y” from the Hauptmann writing. Now, [1098] in my judgment,
this combination, the combination in the way in which the initial “F” is made,
the intermediate “f” in the middle of words, and the “f” in the end of words,
connects these writings, that is, the Hauptmann writing and the writing in the ransom letters.
Q.
Now, will you refer to the next illustration. I think it is S‑117. A. Now,
referring to Exhibit S‑117, on the left side again is a matter from the ransom
letter and, on the left side, the letters from the Hauptmann writing.
The
first division here refers to amounts, money amounts, with the dollar sign. The
5,000 at the top came from S‑23, 70,000 from S‑45, 15,000 from S‑18.
Q.
It is 50,000, isn’t it, instead of 5,000 at the top? A. Yes, 50,000 at the
top; that is right.
Then
we are down to the third one, 15,000 from S‑18, “$10” from S‑22 and “$10” from
5-18, and on the right side, “$200” from S‑86.
The
placing of the dollar sign after the amount may not be so peculiar from one
writing, who had learned to write German. The dollar mark itself is a kind of
clumsy sprawling dollar sign which I think has some connection between these
two writings, as well as its location, and as I said its location in some way
may be a general characteristic. There may be other Germans who write a dollar
amount with the dollar sign following the numbers, but it is one of those
general characteristics which connect these two writings, and sufficient
general characteristics in combination are significant.
So
that all of these characteristics which are general in their character, when
they are all gathered together and considered together in the effect that they
may have upon identification have very much greater significance and weight
than [1099] one of them standing alone. However, whether this dollar, the
location of the dollar sign is general or in this particular an individual
characteristic, it is the same in both the ransom letters and in the Hauptmann
writing.
The
next illustration is the capital “D;” the capital “D” as is illustrated here,
and reading from the ransom letter side, the word “dear” at the top of that
section of the illustration came from S‑56 and S‑18. The next two came from S‑22
and S‑44, and the next three from S‑20, S‑56 and S‑52. Then on the right side,
the word “dear” from S‑98, from S‑88, S‑77 and S‑75.
There
are a couple of things about this “D” which in my judgment connect these
writings; that is the ransom letter writing and the Hauptmann writing. First is
the manner in which this “D” at the top is made, without much of the letter on
the right side of the downward stroke; that is, there is a very narrow portion
of the capital “D” on the left side of first stroke—most of it hangs over on
the left side, as is shown here in these words “dear,” and as is shown on the
right side in the words “dear” and “Dodge.” Then there is another kind of “D”
which from its position in these letters I interpreted as being a capital “D,”
and that is a “D” made by throwing the portion after the downward stroke is
made, throwing it over to the left very low in the height of the entire letter,
such as is found in this word “dear” on the right side, and in what seems to be
the word “deal” on the left side. There it is just a little loop on the left
side of the staff, and here again in my opinion that character, standing alone,
if you didn’t have the “ear” following that character you couldn’t tell what
the letter was, and in my judgment, when a letter is modified to the extent of
making it [1100] illegible, it becomes more significant as a personal
characteristic.
Then
the next division in this Exhibit S‑117 begins with the word “New York” on the
left side, which came from S‑53; then the word “mark” from S‑23 and the next
one from S‑20 and then the three words “New York” from S‑65, S‑64 and S‑23, and
on the right side under the Hauptmann writing the word “New York” from S‑75;
then the word “back” from S‑75, the next “back” from S‑73, and then the words “New
York” in order, S‑86, S‑72, S‑88 and S‑74.
There
are several things about the word “New York” which in my judgment connected
these two writings, the ransom letter writing and the Hauptmann writing, the
first of which is writing the word “New York” with a hyphen. In my judgment,
that at least is a peculiarity that is found in both the ransom letters and the
Hauptmann writing. I haven’t seen “New York” written with a hyphen by any
writer—that is, by any writer of any nationality.
If
that is a characteristic of foreign writing, it is a characteristic that I don’t
know anything about. I have never seen it used in the word “New York” and in my
judgment it has a peculiar significance.
Now,
there was a hyphen in this first word “New York” under the ransom letters. That
is the word “New York” taken from the wrapper in which the sleeping suit was
returned. It looks from the photograph as though that little extension below
the finish of the “w” was a continuation of the “w,” but it was not. When that
hyphen or part of this word is looked at carefully under magnifications, it is
quite clear that that little disconnected portion is actually a disconnected [1101]
stroke and in my judgment was intended for a hyphen.
Now
the word “New York” was written both ways, in both the ransom letters and in
the Hauptmann writing. It was written with the hyphen and it was written
without the hyphen.
Now
even if this hyphen is a foreign characteristic, which I don’t know anything
about, then the fact that the writer wrote it both with the hyphen and without
the hyphen connects these two writings, and here it is. Here is “New York”
written in four illustrations here in this Exhibit S-117 from the Hauptmann
writing where there is a hyphen. There are three illustrations from the ransom
letters written with the hyphen.
And
then here is one illustration from the ransom letters without a hyphen and one
from the Hauptmann writing without a hyphen. Now, in my judgment the use of the
hyphen and its omission becomes significant when it appears in both of these
handwritings—and I refer, when I say both of these handwritings, to the
writings in the ransom letters and in the Hauptmann writing.
Now,
there is in this word “New York,” this “v” shaped upper portion of capital “Y,”
found here in the Hauptmann writing, the third word, “New York” from the bottom
of the right side and the last one. There is the upper portion of the “Y” in
the word “New York” and those are script writings as contrasted from printed
forms.
In
my judgment those are intended for script forms. There the upper portion, the
upper part of the capital “V” is a printed “V,” with a sharp part of the
bottom, it is just a notch. That is found over here in the words “New York”
from the ransom letters, third illustration from the bottom, the second
illustration from the bottom [1102] and the last one—the last three on the left
side of that same notch in the Capital “Y.”
And
it will also be observed that these capital Y’s begin in the same way, that is,
there is no initial oval upward stroke or anything at the top, except beginning
at the top with a straight downward stroke similar to a printed “Y.” When I say
they are both made the same way, I am referring now to the last three Y’s in
the word “New York” under the ransom letter side as compared with the last one
on the right side and the third from the bottom; and I am designating those
because those in my judgment are script forms. The other letters would imply
that those are script forms and not printed forms.
Now,
there is another thing about this word “New York” and that is the way in which
the capital “N” is made. The capital “N”—there is an illustration here, both in
the ransom letters and in the Hauptmann writing, where the middle or connecting
portion is made from the bottom of the first stroke up to the top, to the right
of the second stroke. That is the third one from the bottom on both sides.
And
then another is the beginning location of the first part of the capital “N.”
For instance, and specifically the first one under the ransom letter side.
There the capital “N” starts very high, and the second from the bottom is
another illustration of the tendency to make it high, but it is not as high as
that first one.
Now
there are some illustrations from the Hauptmann writing of that kind of a
beginning of an “N;” the second from the bottom is one of these illustrations.
Now
I wish to refer to the small “k,” the final small “k.” The final small “k” in
almost all of the ransom letters is made with the finishing [1103] stroke
turned back toward the left. Now there are none of those kinds of finishing
strokes in any of the Hauptmann writing that I have seen. There are no “k’s”
with the finishing stroke turned back toward the left. They are made out toward
the right; and I would say that that is a difference between the Hauptmann
writing and the ransom letters.
Q.
Would that, Mr. Stein, indicate disguise? A. Well, I am just going to call
attention to that.
Q.
All right, proceed. A. Now, I call attention to two “k’s” under the ransom
letters; that is, the first one in the word “New York” and the next one the
word “mark.” Now in neither one of those “k’s” is there a stroke or does the
final stroke of the “k” turn back toward the left. So that the writer of the
ransom letters had more than one “k” in his mind, even if he were trying to
disguise or write in an unnatural way that letter “k,” because there are two
that are not made with this stroke coming back toward the left. Then the third “k,”
that is the third one in the word “mark,” under the ransom letters; and I think
that is an important one.
That
“k” was originally made with a stroke extending up after the loop was made of
the “k” there was a stroke extending up on the right side and you can see it
there sticking up above the last part of the “k.” Now in my judgment that “k”
was intended to be made just like the “k” in the word “back” over in the
Hauptmann writing, in the second line of this “k.” There is a “k” with the
second part of it sticking right up in the air.
Now
you can see going back to this word “mark” that the writer after making that
upward stroke raised the pen and came back and made this clumsy finish on that “k.”
In my judgment [1104] that is an attempt to write in an unnatural way. In my
judgment all of these k’s that are made with this curving back to the left is
an intentional attempt, an attempt at least, to disguise this writing. And in
my judgment the difference between this “k” in the Hauptmann writing and the
ransom letters does not point toward another writer, but toward an attempt to
disguise; and in my judgment the word “mark” and this word “back” show clearly
what the writer had in mind and what he did unconsciously in writing this word “mark.”
Q.
Now, the next set. Now, proceed with an illustration of S‑118. A. S‑118—
Q.
Yes. A. —contains two divisions: one concerns the small “s” and the other
the small “p.” The first portion of this illustration shows small “s” at the
beginning of words in various forms, first sharp at the top, as in the word “certain”
and in the word “sending” and disconnected from the following word, that is,
the pen raising.
The
next section shows the “s” made with the rounding top and the pen raising again
between the “s” and the following letter; and then there follows “s” made with
a rounding top without much curve at the bottom of the “s,” but rather a
straight downward line, and then extending or going right on to the next letter
without raising the pen.
And
then there is another kind of an “s” made with a little loop at the bottom. The
two words “send” look like the word “sin,” but that is not the word, but that
is what it looks like under the ransom letters, and has a loop down at the bottom;
and then this word “sending” and “send” at the bottom on the other side is the
same kind of a connection from the “s” to the following letter.
[1105]
All of these different modifications of the initial “S” are in the ransom
letters and in the Hauptmann writing. Then the next section of the Exhibit S‑118
shows small “s” in the middle of words. Here again is a small “s” that standing
by itself like in the word “press,” you couldn’t tell that it was a small “s,”
it is made in such a way that the two “s’s” in the word “press” would look like
an “n” and the “s” in the Hauptmann writing, the “rs” standing alone, you
couldn’t tell it was an “s.” In my judgment this peculiar form of small “s,”
modifications of this letter at the beginning of words and in the middle and at
the end connect these writings.
Then
the small “p” in the lower part of this illustration shows small “p” not
extended above the height of the small letters “o,” “e” or “n,” that is, it
doesn’t stick up in the air as it properly should as made from a copy-book
style or manner. There is also different modifications of the small “p” with
regard to its connection to other letters, in the word “person” and “police,”
it is found that the pen was raised after the “p” was made, and then the “e”
and “o” started after the pen was raised. On the right side in the Hauptmann
writing is the word “promise,” “place” and “person,” all of which the pen was
raised after the “p.”
This
“p” was sometimes made with a little introductory stroke at the top as is found
in the two words “person” under the ransom letters, and as is found in the word
“police” and “promise” under the Hauptmann writing—modifications of this letter
alike in the ransom letters and in the Hauptmann writing; and then the small “p”
in the middle of words—in the word “papers” under the ransom letter column. If
those p’s stood alone you couldn’t tell that [1106] they were p’s, two p’s at
all, at least I couldn’t. And that is true in this word “robber” and the word “keep”
spelled k-e-p-p, and the final “p” finished with just a straight downward
stroke at the last part in both the ransom letters and in the Hauptmann
writing.
These
different modifications of this letter, when at the beginning of words, in the
middle of words and at the end of words, and alike both in the ransom letters
and in the Hauptmann writing, in my judgment again, when considered with all of
the other things that are alike in these two writings, connect the writer of
the Hauptmann writing with the writer of the ransom letters.
Q.
Are you tired, Mr. Stein? A. A little bit.
Mr.
Lanigan: Might I ask your Honor’s indulgence for a recess for the witness for a
moment?
The
Court: You are thinking about a recess for five minutes?
Mr.
Lanigan: Yes.
The
Court: It may be taken.
(At
2:55 p. m. a short recess was taken.)
(After
a short recess the witness resumed the stand.)
(The
jury was polled and all jurors answered present.)
By
Mr. Lanigan: [1107] Q. Now, Mr. Stein, will you kindly resume with Exhibit S‑119,
please.
Mr.
Fisher: What is he talking on now? Mr. Lanigan: S‑119.
Q.
Proceed, please. A. On Exhibit S‑119, at the top is illustrated small “t”
in two positions, at the beginning of words and at the end of words, and their
various modifications in both of these places. The first of these modifications
or manners in which small “t” is made at the beginning of words is with an
upward stroke, to which I have referred. That is illustrated here in the word “the”
at the top and the words “the” and “them” from the Hauptmann writing. And then
in the next line is illustrated a beginning small “t” without any initial
upward stroke with an angle at the bottom, but without a retrace of the
downward stroke by the upward stroke, but going right off to the “h.”
And
there are three illustrations of that kind of beginning “t,” from the ransom
letters and two of them from the Hauptmann writing, the two on the extreme
right. Then, there is another kind of beginning “t” made by retracing the
downward stroke of the “t” about a third or one-half of the way upward and then
across, which is the third line, both in the ransom, in the writing from the
ransom letters and in the Hauptmann writing, that word “the.”
Then,
there is still another kind of a “t” as is illustrated in the word “time,” and
in the word “to.” These two “t’s” that is the “t” in the word “time” from the
ransom letters and the word “to” in the Hauptmann is peculiar, because of the
direction of that little loop at the [1108] bottom. It goes around so that the
left side of the loop is coming downward, that is, the pen was coming downward
on the left side of the loop, and that isn’t the way a German “t” is made,
be-cause the next illustration in the word “take” and the word, two words “to,”
under the Hauptmann writing are more particularly German and there is an
angular loop or a little loop at the bottom goes upward on the side, all of
these modifications are both in the ransom writing and in the Hauptmann
writing.
The
final “t” is made, and it will be observed also that there are no crossings on
any of these t’s, either in the ransom letters or the Hauptmann writing,
whether the “t”—at least, any of the places where the ‘t” required a
crossing—these final t’s are made with a slight upward stroke at the end as in
the word “but” and “about” from the ransom letters, and in the words “out” and “at”
right across from the Hauptmann writing; no crossing but a slight upward stroke
at the end. Then the “t” was also made with just a straight downward stroke and
stopping at the bottom, without any upward stroke or any other stroke at all.
And there are two illustrations from the ransom letters, the words “but” and “what”
and then directly across, the words “not” and “that.” There is another kind of
final “t” or the finishing of the “t.” And then the last illustration here is
more particularly based upon a German “t;” but there are three different kinds
of final t’s used, both in the ransom letters and in the Hauptmann writing.
In
the next illustration, and the entire remainder, bottom portion, of Exhibit S‑119,
is the small “x.” Every small “x” that is made in the ransom letters is made in
a peculiar way. The [1109] word “next” shows quite clearly that the writer had
in mind the making of two loops or loops in each part of the small “x” and
giving it the appearance of two small e’s. That is also true in the word just
below it, which is “expenses.” All the x’s that are in the ransom letters are
illustrated here, and they are all made in this peculiar way. Some of them look
like small u’s and others like two small e’s. In the word “Bronx” two words “Bronx,”
from the Hauptmann writing this small “x” is made like two small e’s.
In
addition to that the downward stroke of the first small “e” turns back slightly
toward the left as though the writer intended to make a loop at the bottom as
well as at the top; that is, the downward stroke of the first small “e” in this
“x” comes back a little bit toward the left, and that is found over here in the
ransom letters in the x’s in the ransom letters, particularly that word “expenses”
and then in the word just below, the word “expended.”
I
have illustrated here two other x’s made in the Hauptmann writing: in the word “Bronx,”
the third word “Bronx” is a regular crossed “x.” The writer knew how to do that
and there is also an “x” that is made after the German form in the word “Bronx”
at the bottom.
These
peculiar x’s diverge from any form of “x” that I know anything about. It seems
like a modification or a development from a Latin script “x” which has already
been illustrated to you, and which has a loop at the bottom of the first part,
a loop at the top of the second part and then those two parts coming together.
But
loops at the top of both parts of the “x” is the part that makes this “x”
differ from any “x” that I know anything at all about. In my judgment that
is—well, in my experience this “x” [1110] is a unique form. I have never seen
that “x” in any writing before.
These
modifications of the “t,” this peculiar “x” is a further reason for my opinion
that the writer of the Hauptmann writing wrote the ransom notes or letters.
Q.
Your next exhibit is what, sir? A. The next is S‑120.
Q.
S‑120. (Exhibit S‑120 was distributed to the jurors.) Please proceed with the
illustration of S‑120. A. Exhibit S‑120 illustrates the small “w” and its
various modifications as found in the ransom letters and in the Hauptmann
writing. There are numerous of these forms. In the first portion at the top of
this illustration is illustrated the small “w” beginning at the top, no
preliminary stroke at all: In these two words “will” and then across in the
Hauptmann writing the words “when,” “was” and “will” again. Then there is
another kind of small “w” used, a small “w” beginning with a regularly made
beginning stroke like in the word “we” under the ransom letter column and
across on the other side the word “when” spelled w-e-n and “were.”
Then,
there is still another kind of small “w” and that is a “w,” the form of which
comes from the old round hand and looks like “nv.” It is found in the ransom
letter side in the word “will” just as though the first part of the letter was
an “n” and the second part a “v,” and that is found over in the Hauptmann
writing as illustrated in the words “where” and “will.” These various
modifications are found both in the ransom letters and in the Hauptmann
writing.
And
then at the bottom, at the bottom is found the most peculiar of all these w’s.
The “w” is made in many instances with an additional part, making it appear as
though there had been three [1111] portions or parts made to the “w,” the first
part being almost like the first part of the “w” in the first word illustrated
here, the word “will” but there are numerous examples of this peculiar
beginning part of small “w” where the “w” appears to have three parts to it, a
number of them have been illustrated here at the bottom. Now, these various
modifications of all these letters to which I have called attention in my
judgment are more significant as connecting the writing in the Hauptmann
writing and the writing in the ransom letters than if they were just one
peculiar form.
In
addition to that, these modifications of all of these various letters and
modifications of peculiarly made letters, in my judgment, remove still further
away the possibility of an imitated writing, that is, of the ransom letters being
an imitated writing. When all of these things are considered in their
accumulated effect, and in my judgment given their proper interpretation, I am
forced to conclude quite positively, that the writer of the Hauptmann writing
was the writer of the ransom letters.
Q.
I show you Exhibit S‑18, the so-called crib note, and Exhibit S‑19, the letter
dated March 4th, and ask you if you have made a comparison and examination of
the paper in those letters. A. Yes.
Q.
What was the purpose? A. Well, the purpose was to see whether S‑18 and S‑20
belong to the same original sheet.
Q.
You investigated it? A. Yes.
Q.
Did you reach a conclusion concerning it? A. Yes.
Q.
What is it? A. I think there is quite some evidence showing that these two
pieces of paper as they stand now were originally one sheet of [1112] paper and
folded with the diagonal—with the horizontal fold, at the time that they were
together.
Mr.
Lanigan: You may cross-examine.
Cross-examination by
Mr. Fisher: Q. Mr.
Stein, will you let me have your full name, please. A. My full name is
Elbridge Walter Stein.
Q.
E. W. Stein? A. Yes.
Q.
Will you relate for me, please, some of the noted cases you have been engaged
in. I think you gave a list to Mr. Lanigan at the start of the examination. A. Yes.
I testified in the Hall-Mills case here in Somerville. I testified in the Odierno
case in The Bronx; in the Walsh case in Binghamton, New York; the Scholes case
in Pittsburgh; the Fine case in Mays Landing. Now, those cases that I have given
you are all homicide cases.
Q.
Yes; and partly New Jersey cases? A. Yes; two of them in New Jersey.
Q.
What about other cases that you mentioned? A. Well, I testified in the
Jennings case in Chicago, the Burt Gamble case in Saginaw, the Schafter case in
New Orleans—I don’t know whether I mentioned that or not, that is one of them.
Q.
Well, Mr. Stein, aren’t you overlooking a very important New Jersey case of
recent date that you testified in? I refer now to the Mowell case in Hackensack
in Bergen County. A. I testified in that case.
Q.
You testified in that case? A. Yes.
Q.
You neglected to mention that in reciting the cases that you testified in? A. There
are a lot more I neglected to mention.
[1113]
Q. You didn’t mention that case, did you? A. No.
Q.
You were associated in that case with Mr. Alfred D. Osborn, am I correct in
that? A. You don’t have the name correct.
Q.
Albert D. Osborn, that is the junior Osborn? A. Yes.
Q.
Do you know whether the junior and senior Osborns are engaged as partners in
this business of examining questioned documents? A. I do know that they
are not. Their work is entirely independent of each other.
Q.
Do they share the same office? A. Yes.
Q.
They share the same office, but they are not partners? A. No.
Q.
Father and son, aren’t they? A. Yes.
Q.
Now what was your preliminary education leading up to your being an expert in
examining questioned documents? A. You want me to go back to my beginning
education, I presume?
Q.
Yes, that is right. A. I went to the public schools in the country, was
educated to teach school, and I did teach in the schools of Pennsylvania for
four years. Then I began to study the subject of handwriting with a view of
teaching it.
Q.
Pardon me there, Mr. Stein. In what way did you begin the study of handwriting?
A. Why, I went to the Zenerian College in Columbus, Ohio and there spent
pretty nearly two years, first in the study of handwriting, its practice, and
later I assisted in teaching in that college.
Q.
Is the school still there? A. Yes. It is not under the name that it was at
that time. At that time it was called the Zenerian Art College. It is now just
called the Zeneria as I have information.
Q.
And that is a school teaching among other [1114] things the art of determining
handwriting or— A. No, now that isn’t correct.
Q.
You tell me what it is. A. That is a school that teaches, and in which I
studied—
Q.
Yes. A. —the history of handwriting, its learning and its teaching.
Q.
Yes. And from there where did you go? A. From there I went to Pittsburgh
into a commercial school where I taught handwriting.
Q.
That is what we would call in our present schools penmanship? A. Yes.
Q.
Where the pupils have a copy book and you teach them how to write the words
down in the book under the copy—that sort of penmanship? A. Well, it wasn’t
done in that way but it was the teaching of handwriting, that is teaching
students to write.
Q.
Was it the Palmer method of writing? A. No, I never taught the Palmer
method.
Q.
Never taught the Palmer method. And from there, Mr. Stein, where did you go to
further your education? A. Well, I was in Pittsburgh quite a long while,
and it was during my work in Pittsburgh that I became interested in document
work.
Q.
Now, permit me to ask you this question: is there any examination that you had
to undergo submitted by the authority of this or any other State, in order to
become qualified to act as an expert in determining the authenticity of
questioned documents, such, for instance, as an attorney or physician has to
pass? A. No, no.
Q.
One simply studies until he acquires what he thinks is sufficient background,
and then he starts out into the world an expert: is that it? A. Well, that
is partly correct.
Q.
So that there really is no qualification that you have to submit, to satisfy a
State of your [1115] ability to be an expert? A. No, that isn’t quite
correct.
Q.
Well, now, you tell me what test you have to pass, for instance, to practice in
New Jersey your art, or your trade, or your profession, or whatever you term
it. A. Why, you have to comply with the law.
Q.
Yes. A. And that, as I understand it, in almost every jurisdiction, is to
the satisfaction of the trial court that you are qualified.
Q.
I see. A. Now, I don’t know, that varies in different places.
Q.
Well, if that were strictly true, Mr. Stein, any person would have a hard time
testifying the first time, wouldn’t they? A. Well, I don’t think so.
Q.
I mean, how would you qualify yourself the first time you offered yourself as
an expert witness? A. Through your previous study of handwriting and the
study of disputed document questions.
Q.
You would simply say to the Court “I have read Mr. Osborn’s book,” we will say,
and the book of a man whom he said was an authority from London; “I have looked
at documents, ancient and otherwise, and I feel I am now qualified to pass on
these documents as an expert.” A. I don’t believe that would qualify you.
Q.
Well— A. I think you would have to say that you had studied the subject
and that you had made a study for the purpose of identifying handwriting.
Q.
Now, —
The
Court: Mr. Fisher, I don’t like to interrupt—
Mr.
Fisher: Yes, your Honor.
[1116]
The Court: But I understood that counsel conceded that this gentleman had
qualified as an expert.
Mr.
Fisher: I am trying, your Honor, to point out to this jury the manner in which
a man becomes an expert, for their guidance.
The
Court: Well, is it important except as it relates to this witness?
Mr.
Fisher: I think it is highly important; I think it is of the utmost importance,
sir, to show this jury how a person becomes qualified to come in and say that
this writing is or is not the writing of any individual, sir.
The
Court: Well, he has just told you that he qualifies by satisfying the Court.
Mr.
Fisher: That is right.
The
Court: In which he is testifying.
Mr.
Fisher: Now I am trying to further that, to see whether he has to undergo, for
instance, the examination that I did or your Honor did for admission to the
Bar.
The
Court: Well, I think the fact is that he has already testified he has not, Mr.
Fisher.
Mr.
Fisher: All right.
The
Court: And my only purpose in [1117] interrupting you was to save time, if we
could.
Q.
Let me ask you this further question then, sir: Assuming that I should become
dissatisfied with the practice of law, I should buy all recognized authorities
on the examination of questioned documents, I should prepare myself in such way
as I thought would make me a qualified examiner of questioned documents, there
would be nothing then to prevent me from hanging up my sign or listing myself
in the telephone directory as an examiner of questioned documents, would there,
sir? A. Not at all.
Q.
That is right. A. You could do that without that study.
Q.
That is exactly right.
Q.
So that anyone in the world then can hold himself out as an expert and they don’t
have to satisfy the constituted authority of any State that they are experts? A. Not
at all. You might have to satisfy the trial court before you could testify, but
you could put out your shingle for any profession at all.
Q.
That is not true, is it, Mr. Stein? Can you do that for law, for instance?
The
Court: Now, why go into that?
Mr.
Fisher: I think the statement should be clarified. He says you can do it in any
profession at all.
The
Court: I think he was referring to so-called handwriting experts.
By
Mr. Fisher: [1118] Q. You didn’t mean that to apply to any profession other
than your own? A. Of course not, not a doctor or a lawyer, not at all.
Q.
That is what I thought, sir. Now, about the procuring of the medium of
comparison—May I have those? Mr. Stein, I now show you a group of papers,
Exhibits S‑72, S‑73, S‑74, S‑75, S‑76, S‑77, S‑78, S‑79, S‑80, S‑81, S‑82, S‑83,
S‑84, S‑85, S‑97 and S‑98, and ask you whether you saw any of those written. A. Not
a single scratch of the pen on any of them.
Q.
They first came into your possession from someone connected with the New Jersey
State Police or some other police organization: is that correct? A. Yes.
Q.
So that at no time did you see the defendant Hauptmann write anything on these
notes? A. No, I never saw Hauptmann write anything.
Q.
Under what conditions can a best specimen of test writing be taken from a
suspect? A. Before he is suspected at all.
Q.
That is correct, is it not? A. Yes.
Q.
What have you to say as to a specimen taken after a man has been in custody for
a minimum of 15 hours and a maximum of 30 hours under examination by police
authority or authorities, where the testimony is that all the sleep he had was
such sleep as he could get in an upright chair? A. Well, that depends. In
certain circumstances, I think that would be a very excellent time, and that
might show some things that this writing wouldn’t show that was written before
the controversy arose.
Q.
Will you reconcile that please, with your statement of a moment ago that the
best time to take it was before a man was suspected? A. My reconciliation
of that is that the latter condition might show that he was trying to disguise
his writing or that he failed to disguise it.
[1119]
Q. Well, now which time would you say was the best to take a specimen, Mr.
Stein, before a man is suspected—that is to get a true test now, a true
specimen—or under such conditions as I related in my question? A. Well, I
am inclined to think both times.
Q.
Both times would be excellent? A. I think the first time before the controversy
arises you get the natural handwriting and afterward you may get—and depending
on circumstances of course, you may—that writing that is taken by request may
show some things that the other writing written before won’t show.
Q.
Well, now— A. And I am thinking particularly now of an attempt to
disguise.
Q.
Now, let me ask you this, in connection with a person writing by request, what
is his mental attitude most likely to be?
Mr.
Lanigan: That is objected to—A. That—
Mr.
Lanigan: I can’t follow that question, sir.
Mr.
Fisher: Oh, I think that is quite a proper question, your Honor.
The
Court: What is his mental attitude likely to be, when?
Mr.
Fisher: At the time of the request writing.
Mr.
Lanigan: How can this witness know that?
[1120]
The Court: How can he know that?
Mr.
Fisher: From his years of experience, the normal reaction of a witness held in
custody for fifteen hours.
Mr.
Lanigan: That is objected to.
The
Court: I think I will have to sustain the objection.
Mr.
Fisher: Very good, sir, I pray, of course, an exception.
The
Court: Take your exception.
By
Mr. Fisher: Q. In the taking of test writings, what should be done as to the
party from whom the test is being taken? A. The matter should be dictated.
It ought to be dictated more than once. The matter ought to be written with
sufficient speed so that there isn’t too much of an opportunity to write
unnaturally. I’d say those are the main things.
Q.
Yes. What have you to say as to an effort to keep the man doing the writing
calm and keep the conditions as natural as possible while he is writing? A. Well,
I don’t know how you’d do that unless you give him a sedative of some kind.
Q.
Well, is a person who writes by request [1121] while in custody likely to write
self-consciously and somewhat unnaturally or is he likely to write a perfectly
natural hand? A. That depends whether or not he is guilty or not. A person
that isn’t guilty of a crime or knows that the writing that he is writing would
not be a link in connecting him or convicting him of a crime, I think he’d
write, and I have known people to write, with the exception of slight
nervousness, almost naturally.
Q.
Do you consider Mr. Albert Osborn, who was on the stand today, an authority on
handwriting? A. Undoubtedly.
Q.
May I quote you from his book and ask you whether this is your experience in
line with the question you just answered: “One who writes by request is
inclined to write self-consciously and somewhat unnaturally even when there is
no attempt made to do so.” A. That is exactly what I said, that he writes
nervously.
Mr.
Fisher: Will you read the last question. May I have the witness’s answer, the
one where he said it is the one I said? May I have that read?
The
Court: Yes, you may have it read.
Mr.
Fisher: The question before he said just to the contrary.
The
Reporter (reading): “Well, is a person who writes by request while in custody
likely to write self-consciously and somewhat unnaturally, or is he likely to
write a perfectly natural hand? A. That depends whether or not he is
guilty or not. A person that isn’t guilty of a crime or knows that the writing
that he is writing [1122] would not be a link in connecting him or convicting
him of a crime, I think he would write and I have known people to write, with
the exception of slight nervousness, almost naturally.”
Mr.
Fisher: Yes.
Q.
Now you say that is the same thing as Professor Osborn’s book says, do you,
sir? A. Yes.
Q.
Yes. All right. Now, let me ask you as to the subject matter of a specimen
writing. What had the subject matter ought to be? A. Well, I can’t answer
that question. You can have him write anything. I would say that a subject
matter that would take the man’s mind on a traveled route, or something of that
kind, would be desirable.
Q.
Yes. But what have you to say as to something that makes good, coherent reading
after it is written? Is that the fair way to do it? A. Yes, I would say
so.
Q.
And is that a more preferable way than to giving words cut up? A. I think
so.
Q.
That mean nothing? A. Yes.
Q.
I ask you to read exhibit marked S‑77 aloud. (Handing to witness.) A. “We
were not near” and I don’t know what that next word is; it looks like “
s-n-u-d.”
Q.
Well, did you examine it, sir? A. And the next word is “hull,” “where the
robbery took place between six and twelve by our time. During all the time I
was out”—then the second word —“out the house but later came home, did you not
write letters to New York sending back anything that was stolen from Mr.
Conway. Police keep those letters and papers.” [1123] Then there is some crossed
out there.
Q.
There is what? Just a minute—there is what? A. Some crossed out. There are
two words crossed out.
Q.
Will you let me see the two that are crossed out there? A. (Indicates to
counsel.)
Q.
Oh, yes. All right. A. Of course, I am reading this with the proper words.
The next word, “s-h-h-e”—it is intended for “the” or “they.”
Q.
All right. You read it any way you please. A. All right. It is intended
for “they.” “They will be good for something later maybe.” “One of the letters
said Dear Sir. Thank you for the bills and for your money. We will send back
the bills later perhaps. We shall” — spelled “c-h-a-l-l,” and it is “were” for “where”—”where
shall we send them? The address we lost. Be at home every night so you will
hear from us. You cannot tell when it will be.”
Q.
Now, would you consider that line of reading that would get his mind on travel?
A. No, not necessarily. It does not necessarily have to be travel.
Q.
Well, would you consider that a coherent, readable letter that makes sense? A. Well,
in different sections; certainly.
Q.
Is that the best way, sir, to take a test? A. I think that it is quite
good.
Q.
You think that is the right way to do it, do you? A. Yes.
Q.
Let me ask you again, Mr. Osborn is considered an authority? A. He is.
Q.
Mr. Osborn has to say as follows “When a suspected writer copies or writes from
dictation a connected discourse which arouses some interest in the matter
itself, he is more likely to write naturally than if he writes a series of
disconnected [1124] names and words.” Is
that correct? A. I agree entirely with that statement.
Q.
And you say that the thing you just read is a connected discourse which arouses
some interest in the matter itself? A. And not separate words as stated in
the book. There isn’t anything like that.
Q.
Will you answer my question? A. Yes, I would say that is entirely correct.
Q.
Will you say what you just read is a connected discourse which arouses some
interest in the matter itself? A. Yes, in different sections of it.
Q.
That is enough, sir. A. Different sections.
Mr.
Wilentz: Let him answer.
Mr.
Fisher: May I have an answer, yes or no?
The
Court: I think you have already had it.
Mr.
Fisher: The answer was Yes?
The
Witness: Yes in different sections.
Mr.
Fisher: I ask that it be stricken, “in different sections.”
The
Court: No, I will not strike it because that is precisely the answer that the
witness made.
Mr.
Fisher: It was not responsive, of course.
By
Mr. Fisher: [1125] Q. Would you consider the writing you just read a series of
disconnected names or words? A. No.
Q.
You would not so consider it? A. Not at all.
Q.
Was it a series of disconnected sentences that you just read? A. A series
of thoughts.
Q.
Disconnected? A. In different divisions of that request writing.
Q.
Disconnected one from the other? A. Oh, but not disconnected sentences, it
is different divisions of thoughts.
Q.
Well now, maybe we better read the letter again—question, the first part of
this letter says, “We were not near”—what one were we reading from, S‑76? A. I
will tell you.
Q.
Isn’t that the one? A. Yes, that is it.
Mr.
Wilentz: What did counsel say?
Mr.
Fisher: Pardon me, I am simply asking him to pick it out from the words.
The
Court: It is not necessary that this witness read the letter again, he has
already read it.
Mr.
Fisher: I am asking him to read it himself, your Honor, and tell me how many
breaks there are in continuity.
The
Court: All right.
Q.
Will you read that through and tell me how many separate breaks there are in
the continuity of the letter? A. Four.
Q.
Four separate lines of thought? A. Yes.
[1126]
Q. And that is— A. Not entirely unrelated, but there are four divisions.
Q.
Yes. A. I would say in that writing.
Q.
And that is what you consider a good coherent writing from start to finish? A. Oh,
I think that is perfectly satisfactory as a standard, as far as language is
concerned.
Q.
And you don’t think it disagrees with Dr.—with Mr. Osborn? A. Not in the
least.
Q.
Now what about the subject matter of a test writing being the same as the
disputed writing itself? A. Well, that is used sometimes, sometimes not.
Q.
Is it the proper form or isn’t it? A. Well, I think sometimes it is
desirable to have the same subject matter or at least very closely related
matter written, in addition to other matter.
Q.
Isn’t it true that it is improper to ask a suspected writer to write the
disputed writing? A. Well, it would be highly improper to give it to him
and let him copy it, yes. He’d be very likely to write it different if he was
guilty.
Q.
Do you think that it is proper to use the same words in exactly the same order,
that is, directly the same thing that is in the disputed writing? A. Well,
occasionally I think it is desirable, in conjunction with other dictation.
Q.
Now, what have you to say as to obtaining standards of comparison all at the
same time or spaced and if spaced how far apart? A. Well, that depends on
opportunity. I can’t say. I think if I could cite an ideal instance I’d say
have them spaced apart a little distance.
Q.
Well, how far? A. Well, that depends on the opportunity that you have for
spacing them apart.
Q.
Well, suppose you have a man in such custody as the defendant Hauptmann was in,
a [1127] custody that lasted for, according to testimony, more than thirty
hours, without him having the benefit of counsel. Now then, when would you have
taken your specimens? A. Well, that I can’t tell you.
Q.
No. Now, about the first impression you gained from looking at the disputed
documents, does that influence stay with you throughout? A. No.
Q.
It doesn’t? A. No.
Q.
Permit me to quote you from Mr. Osborn. A. Just as you please.
Q.
“Although it is impossible in any investigation not to be somewhat influenced
by first impressions the proper control of these impressions is a measure of
the thoroughness with which any investigation is conducted.” Does the influence
stay with you or doesn’t it? A. He doesn’t say that in what you read.
Q.
“Although it is impossible in any investigation not to be somewhat influenced
by first impressions—” A. Now, go ahead.
Q.
“ —the proper control, and so forth.” A. Well, read the balance.
Q.
“ —the proper control of these impressions is a measure of the thoroughness
with which any investigation is conducted.” A. I agree with that
wholeheartedly and that is what I tried to do.
Q.
So that you say then that it is impossible to get away from the influence of
the first impression entirely? A. No, I don’t say that, not exclusively.
Q.
Oh, not exclusively—of course not. A. No.
Q.
“Entirely” is the word I used, sir. A. Well, I think many times I get away
entirely from first impressions; I find first impressions are wrong.
Q.
I see. And to that extent you disagree with Mr. Osborn? A. No, I don’t
disagree with him [1128] at all, because he says exactly the right thing there.
(Laughter.)
The
Court: Mr. Fisher, is it worth while to debate this matter?
Mr.
Fisher: I think we apparently don’t agree in English, the witness and I.
The
Court: Well now—
Mr.
Fisher: All right. If your Honor thinks we shouldn’t go any further.
The
Court: Well, now, put the question. What I deprecate is a debate between—
Mr.
Fisher: All right, I will withdraw that.
The
Court: —between counsel and the witness.
By
Mr. Fisher: Q. Now Mr. Stein, you didn’t see any of the request writings
written, did you? A. No.
Q.
And from hearing you testify in reference to the exhibit marked S‑114, which is
the double one, I take it that you base your opinion that the handwriting here
is that of Mr. Hauptmann largely on misspelling—as a matter of fact, almost
your entire testimony from this exhibit has to do with spelling, is that
correct, sir? A. Well, I would say this exhibit was prepared to show
similarity of misspelling.
Q.
As to that exhibit your testimony was given almost entirely as to misspelling,
is that correct? A. It was.
[1129]
Q. You took your spelling from the Hauptmann writing from the specimen
submitted to you by the police, did you not? A. Yes.
Q.
And you know nothing whatever about how that writing was obtained, do you? A. Not
a thing.
Q.
Nor what instructions were given the prisoner when he wrote? A. No.
Q.
Nothing about that at all? A. No.
Q.
All you took was what was handed to you as the handwriting of Hauptmann? A. Yes.
Q.
And, if he had, for instance, if Mr. Hauptmann had been advised by the police
to write n-o-t-e, there would be no way in which you could tell that, would
there? A. Not at all.
Q.
And if he were advised to spell “money” m-o-n-y you wouldn’t know it, would
you? A. No.
Q.
You would simply take what you had before you? A. Certainly.
Q.
In making your deductions? A. I was given just a little bit of information
and that was that these request writings were dictated.
Mr.
Fisher: I don’t care, of course, about his opinion.
The
Court: Yes, we do not care for that, sir.
The
Witness: Excuse me, sir.
Q.
Now, I call your attention to Exhibit S‑77 and ask you to look at the third
word there and tell me what it is. A. It is “not” spelled correctly.
Q.
Spelled correctly? A. Yes.
Q.
That is right? A. Just as I said.
Q.
Spelled n-o-t? A. Yes.
Q.
Now, I call your attention to exhibit marked [1130] S‑72 and ask you what the
third word there is. A. And that is “not,” spelled correctly.
Q.
That is from a specimen handwriting of Hauptmann, isn’t it? A. Yes.
Q.
That is the test writings, or whatever you call them? A. Well, I think
they have been referring to these as request writings.
Q.
As request writings, that is right. Now, I show you exhibit marked S‑74 and ask
you what the third word is there. A. That one is “not” spelled correctly
again.
Q.
And that is from the request writings? A. It is.
Q.
I hand you exhibit marked S‑76 and ask you what the third word there is. A. That
word is “not” spelled correctly.
Q.
I see. Now, that is four of them spelled correctly, isn’t it? A. Exactly;
just as I said.
Q.
Now I show you—
Mr.
Fisher: I ask that the “just as I said”—the witness can boast some other day—I
should like answers to my questions here, sir.
The
Court: Yes; it better be so.
The
Witness: All right, Judge.
By
Mr. Fisher:
Q.
Now, I show you a document marked S‑73 and ask you the third word there in the
spelling. A. Well, that word is intended for “not” and spelled n-o-t-e.
Q.
And it is exactly the same subject matter in which appeared the four “nots” I
spoke to you about just a moment ago? A. Yes.
[1131]
Q. Isn’t that true? A. That is correct.
Q.
Now, I show you exhibit marked S‑75 and ask you what the third word there is. A. That
word is intended, from the context, to be “not” and spelled n-o-t-e.
Q.
And that is the same subject matter? A. Yes.
Q.
As the other? A. Yes.
Q.
So that we have—pardon me just a second. I think that is all.
Q.
So that we have that specimen writing or that request writing six times; I have
showed it to you six times? A. Well, I can’t tell how many times.
Q.
You can rely on me to that extent. A. If you showed it to me six times,
six of them, why that is correct.
Q.
Yes. Four where “not” was correctly spelled and two where it was incorrectly
spelled, is that so? A. Yes; just in one instance.
Q.
That is right. A. In each of those, however.
Q.
All right. But the word “not” appearing the third word in that request writing
on six separate and distinct papers, four times was spelled n-o-t and two times
n-o-t-e? A. Yes.
Q.
Is that correct? A. Just in that one location.
Q.
That is right. Now we will go to some other location. You found the word “be”
misspelled, didn’t you? A. (No answer.)
Q.
You found the word “be” misspelled? A. Yes.
Q.
And how was that spelled? A. Two ways—b-y and B-e-e.
Q.
And you found the three-letter word was misspelled, didn’t you? A. Yes.
Q.
And you found the three-letter word “the” misspelled? A. No.
Q.
Well, is h-t-e the proper way to spell “the?” [1132] A. Oh, yes, that is
right; that was incorrectly spelled.
Q.
That was misspelled, wasn’t it? A. Yes.
Q.
And you found the four-letter word “were” misspelled, didn’t you? A. Well,
that was the five-letter word “where,” spelled w-e-r-e.
Q.
And you found the five-letter word “money” misspelled? A. Yes.
Q.
Is that right? A. Yes.
Q.
And you found the word “our” misspelled? A. Yes.
Q.
Now, was that “our” used where it was misspelled in the sense of time or
meaning us or a group? A. I think this actual example is o-u-r instead of
h-o-u-r. I believe that I referred to that as h-o-u-r and I think now that it
was not that but o-u-r.
Q.
On your direct examination I believe you used it as h-o-u-r. A. I think so
and I think that is incorrect. I think this is o-u-r.
Q.
It meant our, referring to a group of people. A. Yes.
Q.
Did you find in the ransom notes the word “consequence?” A. I think so.
Q.
And the word “appointment?” A. I think so. Q. And the word “accordingly?” A. Yes,
I think so.
Q.
And the word “arrangements?” A. I think so.
Q.
And the word “hazardous?” A. Well, I remember that word somewhere, I am
not just sure where that is.
Q.
Pardon me, these are not marked (referring to certain photographic
reproductions which counsel had handed the witness), and I can’t pick them out.
You will have to look through and find them. A. I am quite sure the word “hazardous”
appears somewhere in the ransom letters.
[1133]
Q. And the word “information?” A. I just don’t recall that word.
Q.
What about the word “circumstance?” A. I can’t recall that word. It is
probably here but I don’t recall that.
Q.
What about “responsible?” A. I think that word is in the ransom letters.
Q.
How about “underneath,” underneath the stone one of the ransom notes that was
found on the florist’s porch. A. I don’t remember that as “underneath.”
Q.
Let me see if I can find that one. That one is a short letter.
Mr.
Fisher: Will you pardon us a moment, your Honor, these are not marked.
The
Court: Yes.
The
Witness: Yes, underneath. The word is “undernead”—n-e-a-d.
Q.
Do you find the word “instruction” in that same letter? A. Yes.
Q.
Is that correctly spelled? A. No.
Q.
Where is it off? A. Well, this “i-n,” if that is intended for “i-n” it has
too many parts in it.
Q.
Mr. Stein, is that “instruction” correctly spelled or isn’t it? A. No.
Mr.
Fisher: Let me see that. May I hand this to the jury to show them where he says—
Mr.
Hauck: Let’s get the original.
Mr.
Fisher: He says that “instruction” [1134] is improperly spelled. I don’t know
what number it is.
Mr.
Wilentz: Your Honor please, there is evidently a controversy between counsel
and the witness as to whether or not “instruction” is properly spelled and—
Mr.
Fisher: It is in evidence and submitted to the jury.
Mr.
Wilentz: It is a matter of argument to the jury. Our observation is that it is “i-m,”
right to begin with instead of “i-n.”
·Mr.
Fisher: It is in evidence and the jury can see it.
The
Court: I suppose it is ultimately for the jury to see.
Mr.
Wilentz: We call their attention to the fact that our claim is that it is “i-m”
right to begin with.
The
Court: You are calling attention to it now and you can argue it to the jury when
your time comes.
Mr.
Fisher: Our contention is that it is “in.”
By
Mr. Fisher: Q. Now I point out the word “information” and ask you if that is
correctly spelled. I wish I had numbers on these things. Can you follow [1135] them
there. A. I think so. I think that first letter is intended for a capital “I.”
Q.
All right. A. And if it is, then it is correctly spelled.
Q.
All right. Now does the word “between” appear in these notes, from your
recollection? A. Yes.
Q.
And was that correctly spelled? A. I will have to look at it.
Q.
I am afraid I will have a hard time to find it. Does the word “absolute” appear
in the notes? A. Yes.
Q.
And is it correctly spelled? A. It is.
Q.
As a matter of fact, there are a great number of words in the notes containing
from six to nine letters that are correctly spelled, is that correct? A. Well,
there are a great many words spelled correctly. Now as to the number of letters,
I can’t just tell you that.
Q.
Well, how about the word “circumstance?” Was that correctly spelled in the
ransom notes? A. Well, I can’t answer that offhand. My recollection is
that it is correctly spelled. I might be wrong about that.
Q.
And what about the word “responsible?” A. Well—(examining counsel hands
paper to the witness) That I would say is correctly spelled.
Q.
So that there did appear throughout these notes any number of words of a
substantial number of letters that were correctly spelled? A. No doubt
about it at all.
Q.
And at the same time, such words as “be” were incorrectly spelled? A. Yes.
Q.
And n-o-t, the word “not” was incorrectly spelled? A. It was.
Q.
Did that have any significance to you, sir? A. Yes.
Q.
Did it lead you to the conclusion that [1136] perhaps the writer of the ransom
notes was purposely misspelling small words? A. I don’t think so.
Q.
Well, didn’t it seem strange to you that a man of sufficient education to spell
the words we have related here wouldn’t know how to spell “not” and “be,” the
little b-e? A. No.
Q.
Nothing unusual about that? A. No.
Q.
I see. Now I ask you to take—you have it in your hand—S‑114 and tell me whether
or not the angle of the writing headed “Hauptmann Writing” isn’t absolutely
different than the angle in the ransom letters? A. You mean the slant?
Q.
The slant, that is right. A. Some of it is different.
Q.
Considerably different, isn’t it? I call your attention to the notes, the four
first words at the top. A. Well, the first one is just about the same as
the one from the ransom letter, very slightly different.
Q.
What about the second one? A. The second one, there is some difference.
Q.
What about the third one? A. Some difference in that.
Q.
And the fourth one? A. And some difference there.
Q.
Considerable difference, isn’t there? A. Well, I would say there is some.
Q.
What about the next “the?” A. Well, a little more slant in the Hauptmann
writing.
Q.
Yes? A. Than the one from the ransom letters.
What
about the next “the?” A. There is a difference there in the slant.
Q.
Now, I call your attention to the word “were” next down in line and especially
to the “r,” do you say that those “r’s” have any similarity at all, these two,
sir? A. Why, yes, I think so.
[1137]
Q. You think that the—is there another one of these for the jury so that they
can follow it intelligently?
Mr.
Hauck: There is a whole bunch of them here.
Mr.
Fisher: Let me have a couple of them, will you please.
(Mr.
Fisher gives the jury copies.)
Q.
Now, referring to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, the seventh word down, the word, the
letters “w-e-r-e,” you say that there is a similarity in those “r’s?” A. Oh,
some relation, it is not close.
Q.
Well, it is a very distant relation, isn’t it? A. Well, I wouldn’t say it
is so distant, but the one on the left side is much more clumsy.
Q.
Yes. A. Than the one on the right side.
Q.
As a matter of fact, that is almost a straight line up in the air, isn’t it? A. No,
it strikes back toward the left, just the same as the top on the other one,
that is a similarity.
Q.
But, the other one is a decided “r,” isn’t it. standing alone, you would know
that was a letter “r,” wouldn’t you? A. I think so.
Q.
And, standing alone, would you think that is an “r?” A. I doubt it.
Q.
Well, to that extent there is a difference, you would know one but you wouldn’t
know the other, is that what you mean by slight difference. is that it? A. Well,
I would say there is a difference in the legibility of the two r’s.
Q.
Now, I ask you, indicating 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, the tenth word down,
what is that word? A. The word is “money.”
[1138]
Q. And do you say that the final “y” on that word ends as the word “money”
immediately opposite? A. Not at all.
Q.
Is there any similarity at all in that “y?” A. That is, as compared with
the other?
Q.
Yes. A. Not very much, except the alphabetic similarity.
Q.
You mean the spelling? A. Why, yes.
Q.
You mean the spelling? A. Yes.
Q.
Yes. And you don’t know how that was put on there, whether it was following
dictation or whether it wasn’t, do you? A. You mean that one word?
Q.
I mean the one word. You don’t know whether the man was told to write m-o-n-y
or whether he was told to write m-o-n-e-y or what he was told to write, do you?
A. In the Hauptmann writing?
Q.
Yes, in the Hauptmann writing? A. I have some information about it.
Q.
Were you there? A. No.
Q.
Then you don’t know from your own information anything about it, do you? A. No
more than you do.
Q.
That’s right. I know nothing about it. A. Well, that—
Q.
I know not the first thing and you don’t either, do you? A. Yes, I do.
Q.
You have been told something? A. Yes.
Q.
So have I, and our information apparently differs. A. All right.
Mr.
Wilentz: I move that that be stricken out, if your Honor please.
Mr.
Fisher: Well, I think the whole thing should be stricken out.
[1139]
Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute.
The
Court: Yes, that is entirely argumentative and, for the most, I think, irrelevant.
I have already indicated that.
Mr.
Fisher: I will consent that it all be stricken out.
Mr.
Wilentz: Just a minute now. Just Wait until the Court finishes.
Mr.
Fisher: Yes.
The
Court: I have already indicated that to you heretofore. Now, is there anything
further that need be said, for the purpose the record, in relation to this
incident?
Mr.
Wilentz: The comment of counsel, I just forget what it was, I move it be
stricken out.
Mr.
Fisher: And the comment of the witness, as uncalled for.
Mr.
Wilentz: I am making the motion, please.
The
Court: Well, I have already in effect stricken out what the witness has said in
response to these irrelevant questions, and now I will strike out what counsel
has said, on motion of the Attorney General, and instruct the jury to disregard
the answer.
By
Mr. Fisher: [1140] Q. Now I refer you to the ransom writing, the next to the
last word before the turn in the paper, the word “anyding,” and I ask you whether
there is any similarity in the final “y” in the “any-ding” in the ransom side
and the “anything,” “anyding” on the Hauptmann side. A. You mean “g,” don’t
you?
Q.
Well, is it a “g” or a “y” there? A. “G.”
Q.
“G?” All right, in the final “g” then. A. Not very much.
Q.
Practically none, is there? A. I would say not very much.
Q.
And I ask you the same question as to the last two words appearing at the
bottom of your exhibit. Is there any similarity there in the final letter? A. Well,
not very much there.
Q.
No. And I ask you in reference to the middle “y” in the last one, whether there
is anything very similar in those two y’s. A. Yes.
Q.
They are similar? A. I say there is something that is very similar.
Q.
Well, one of them, the true writing, ends straight down, doesn’t it? A. No.
Is that one of the similar things? I didn’t understand you.
Q.
I am asking you whether or not the “y” doesn’t go straight down? A. Yes.
Q.
And in the ransom note it has a decided curl, hasn’t it? A. Yes.
Q.
Then there is that much of it that is dissimilar? A. That is right.
Q.
What is there about it that is similar? A. That sharp “V” angle of the
first part of the “Y”—just alike in both of them, both of them sharp, like a
printed “V.”
Q.
Do you see what I am referring to, Mr. Stein, this “Y” here? A. That is
exactly the one I am referring to.
Q.
You say that that “Y” is sharp like a [1141] “V,” is that correct? A. Undoubtedly.
Q.
I see. Now referring to the word “was” about midway down the second part of
this exhibit: I ask you whether the two “w’s” are similar? A. No.
Q.
Is the “h” similar? A. Well, somewhat.
Q.
Well, not very similar, is it now, Mr. Stein? A. Well, I wouldn’t say not
highly significant.
Q.
No. What about the finishing “s” there, is that similar? A. Not as much as
some of the others.
Q.
No. So that there is a word in which you can’t find much similarity, is there? A. Oh,
just that one word.
Q.
But you have it on your exhibit. A. Certainly.
Q.
Now, how many words are there, total number of words, on all the ransom notes? A. I
can’t tell you.
Q.
How many words are there, total, on the request writings? A. I can’t tell
you that.
Q.
How many separate words have you photographed? A. I don’t know that.
Q.
Well, have you photographed ten percent of them, ten percent of the words? A. I’d
be doubtful. Maybe I did, but I wouldn’t know.
Q.
Well, your best information on that, now, your best belief—have you
photographed as much as ten percent? A. Well, I couldn’t tell, I couldn’t
give you any idea.
Q.
Suppose we stop long enough then to find out. I will show you the ransom notes.
The
Court: Well, Mr. Counsel, don’t the papers speak for themselves? Aren’t they
before the jury?
[1142]
Mr. Fisher: Yes, that is true, your Honor.
The
Court: Then what is the use in taking up the time of everybody, having this
witness count things that the jury can count for itself?
Mr.
Fisher: I had no idea in the world of doing that until he said he can’t even
estimate the proportion. Now, if he could estimate it I would be willing to
accept it. I think on cross-examination I have a right to show upon what basis
he made his test.
The
Court: Well, I don’t know. You know there must be some limit to cross-examination.
Mr.
Fisher: Yes, of course. Perhaps I can handle it this way.
By
Mr. Fisher: Q. Can’t you estimate, Mr. Stein, what per cent of the words you
photographed out of the ransom notes and out of the test writings? A. I
cannot.
Q.
Well, would ten per cent be a fair estimate? A. That I don’t know.
Q.
Did you write 90 per cent—
Mr.
Wilentz: If your Honor please, the witness says he cannot estimate—
Mr.
Fisher: It is terribly important.
[1143]
Mr. Wilentz: That seems to be an intelligent answer.
The
Court: Yes, he says so and as far as this witness is concerned that will have
to stand.
By
Mr. Fisher: Q. You didn’t photograph every word, did you? A. On these
exhibits that I have prepared?
Q.
Yes, on these. A. No.
Q.
You photographed just those that you thought showed a similarity, is that
correct? A. Not all of them.
Q.
And you didn’t photograph anything that you didn’t think showed a similarity,
did you? A. Yes.
Q.
You did? A. Yes.
Q.
All right. Now, where are those? A. That small “k” to which I referred is one
of them.
Q.
But you have some other words, some other letters in that word that you set up
as having a similarity, don’t you? A. Somewhat.
Q.
Yes. Now, what I want, Mr. Stein, is for you to tell me whether you
photographed any of the words that didn’t strike you as being similar? A. No.
Q.
In any respect? A. No.
Q.
In other words you were looking for similarities and paying no attention to
those that weren’t similar, is that correct? A. No.
Q.
Now in your specimen writing, you had Mr. Hauptmann write some figures, didn’t
you? A. I didn’t have Mr. Hauptmann write anything.
Q.
You had some delivered to you, some figures, as the writings of Mr. Hauptmann,
did you not? A. Yes.
[1144]
Q. I ask you, did you photograph those? A. I didn’t include them in these exhibits,
no.
Q.
I show you an exhibit marked S‑81 and ask you whether that has a number of
figures across the top? A. Yes.
Q.
You did not photograph any of those and set them opposite the ransom note
figures, did you? A. No.
Q.
Can you tell me why? A. I had to draw the line somewhere in my comparisons
and there are many things that I didn’t include in the comparisons, both
similarities and differences. I can’t tell you why a lot of these things were
left out, except that I had to draw the line somewhere to the comparisons.
Q.
Did the fact that there is absolutely no similarity between the ransom figures
and that test have anything to do with your leaving it out?
Mr.
Lanigan: That is objected to; that calls for an assumption. It is an assumption
of counsel.
The
Court: Will the stenographer repeat the question?
(The
pending question was repeated as follows: “Did the fact that there is absolutely
no similarity between the ransom figures and that test have anything to do with
your leaving it out?”)
The
Court: I think if it is important at all to this matter, the witness ought to
be asked whether in his judgment there is any similarity.
Mr.
Fisher: I will withdraw the pending [1145] question and ask the witness whether
he notes any similarity in those figures.
The
Witness: I think there is not a great deal of similarity between the figures
that are shown me and the ones that I have used here in this comparison.
By
Mr. Fisher: Q. The ones shown you now are from State’s Exhibit S‑81, are they
not? A. Yes.
Q.
The admitted writings of Hauptmann? A. Yes.
Q.
And the figures over here are admittedly from the ransom notes, are they not? A. That
is right.
Q.
Now, I ask you did the fact that there was no similarity between these figures
and the ransom figures have anything to do with your leaving them out of your
tests? A. Well, I think it probably did.
Q.
Well, you wanted to put in just things that looked like the ransom notes
writing, didn’t you? A. I put in those things that I thought was important.
Q.
To the State’s case? A. Not necessarily.
Q.
Oh, then, why weren’t these included; those figures are important and are not
in this test? A. I didn’t consider them such.
Q.
Why did you put this “200” in there? That is admitted figures in the writing of
Hauptmann. A. To show the use of that dollar mark.
Q.
That is right. That seemed important to you that you have included that? A. I
thought that had some connection with these writings.
Q.
Didn’t you think all these figures had some [1146] significance to them? A. I
didn’t see the significance in them.
Q.
Because they didn’t look like the ransom figures, is that it? A. Well, that
may be true, that they did not.
Q.
Well, now, in the figures that you took, that you say had the dollar signs, you
will note that is surrounded by parentheses marks, isn’t it? A. Yes.
Q.
So you did see the significance of that in the ransom notes? A. No.
Q.
To that extent it was significant, wasn’t it? A. Well, it was in a
different position.
Q.
It was a figure with dollar signs in both places, wasn’t it? A. Yes.
Q.
Now, did I understand you to say that you had never seen the word “New York”
with a hyphen or with this little mark in the middle? A. I said that I had
never seen it written by a foreign writer in that way.
Q.
Isn’t it true that a German very frequently puts a dash between towns or proper
names that are double? A. Well, if it is true, I have never seen it.
Q.
What about Berlin—Haupelgart have you ever seen that combination of towns
written? A. No.
Q.
Or Berlin—Grenowau with a dash between the two; have you ever seen that
written? A. Well, would that be a similar situation to New York? I am doubtful
whether it would be. I haven’t seen it.
Q.
That is the answer to the question. Thank you, sir. You haven’t seen it? A. No.
Q.
New York is written here on occasions, in the admitted Hauptmann writing,
without the dash, isn’t it? A. Right.
[1147] Q. And it is written in the ransom note
on occasions without the dash, isn’t it? A. Yes.
Q.
And you don’t know whether Hauptmann was told to put that dash there or not in
the request writings, do you? A. I do not.
Q.
No. As a matter of fact, Mr. Stein, don’t you know that virtually every
province in Germany that has two names—the dashes between them? A. Well,
that may be true.
Q.
Like Alsace Lorraine, for instance? A. Yes, where there are two proper
names.
Q.
That is right. A. I think that might be true. I know of none where there
would be an adjective connected with the name.
Q.
Then do you think— A. Such as New York.
Q.
Do you think it would be impossible for a man who learned to write in Germany,
where they divide Alsace Lorraine, and where they divide all the provinces, to
put in the name of a province that is divided in two? Do you think that it
would be terribly unusual to put a dash in there? A. It may not be. I
haven’t seen it.
Q.
Now in the test writing you find the word “every” spelled a-f-e-r-y, don’t you?
A. Yes.
Q.
And in the ransom notes you find every spelled correctly any number of times,
don’t you—everything, or everyding—the every part of it spelled correctly? A. I
think so.
Q.
Yes. A. I don’t have a definite recollection, but I think so.
Q.
Well, if there is any doubt in your mind I could show it to you, sir. A. Well,
I don’t think so, I don’t think that it is misspelled in the ransom letters.
Q.
No, the word “every” is properly spelled in the ransom notes any number of
times? A. Well, that is my recollection.
[1148]
Q. Yes. A. At least it is not misspelled the way it is in the Hauptmann
writing.
Q.
So that the request writing didn’t follow the misspelling there, did it? A. No.
Q.
Now let me get the sample with the word or letter “j.” Now referring to Exhibit
S‑115, and the letter “j” that you have. A. Yes.
Q.
We will look at this one. A. The word “you,” you mean.
Q.
The word “you,” yes, the “y.” Now referring to the fourth one down, is there a
similarity in the characters in the two writings, the ransom notes and the
Hauptmann note? A. Yes.
Q.
Doesn’t this one have a decided loop? A. Yes. That is, the one from the
ransom letters has the loop.
Q.
Yes. Does this have any (indicating)? A. The one to which you have pointed
doesn’t. The one right below it does.
Q
But this one does, doesn’t it? A. No, it is like the long ones down at the
bottom.
Q.
Now this here, I refer you to this one (indicating). Is that similar in any way
to the one you have directly opposite it? A. Yes.
Q.
In angle? A. You mean slant?
Q.
Yes, slant, pardon me; slant. A. No. I would say the Hauptmann writing
slants more than the one from the ransom notes.
Q.
Yes; considerably more, does it not, Mr. Stein, as a matter of fact? A. Yes,
yes.
Q.
And isn’t that a general characteristic of the admitted Hauptmann writing, that
it slants, or, as I say, angles considerably more than the ransom notes? A. Part
of it.
Q.
Yes. A. Part of the Hauptmann writing.
Q.
Now you testified in the Mowell case, didn’t you, Mr. Stein? A. Yes.
[1149]
Q. And on your side of the case was Mr. Albert D. Osborn, is that right? A. Yes.
Q.
The younger Osborn? A. Yes.
Q.
And opposed was a man named Spencer, is that correct, Bushrod Spencer? A. I
can’t recall that he testified. He probably did.
Q.
In that case you were testifying for the State as you are here, were you not? A. Yes,
sir.
Q.
Did the finding of the jury support your testimony? A. No.
Q.
That case was tried before Judge Zabriskie, was it not? A. No.
Q.
Not before Judge Zabriskie? A. No. Judge Zabriskie was the trial attorney
for the defense.
Q.
He appeared for the defendant? A. Yes.
Q.
And he was successful—
Mr.
Wilentz: Just a minute, if your Honor please.
Mr.
Fisher: I withdraw the question. Q. Judge Seufert was on the Bench?
Mr.
Wilentz: What is the difference who was the Judge, if your Honor please?
The
Court: I don’t think it makes a bit of difference.
Q.
Just one question. The letter “o,” isn’t it characteristic of a German to leave
the top of his “o” open? Isn’t that a German characteristic? A. I haven’t
seen it in English writing, written by a German.
Q.
You mean you have not examined any writing by a German that had an “o” left
open at the top? A. As I understand that question, it is [1150] English
writing done by a writer who first learned to write German?
Q.
That is right. A. In all the specimens of that character that I have, I
have not that characteristic.
Q.
I now call your attention to the final “f “—this is on Exhibit S‑116—on the
final “f” and I ask you if it is similar to these two final f’s in the admitted
writing. A. Yes.
Q.
Does not the Hauptmann writing end with a decided curl out to the right? A. Yes.
Q.
And does this one? A. Just a slight one.
Q.
Very slight, is it not? A. Yes.
Q.
So slight it is scarcely noticeable on the photograph? A. I wouldn’t say
that.
Q.
Is it like the other two? A. Not in the length of the finishing stroke.
Q.
Now, the “x” that you speak of, is that an unfamiliar “x” that type of “x?” A. And
you are referring to the word “Bronx?”
Q.
“Bronx” on the Hauptmann writing, on Exhibit S‑119. A. It is decidedly a
peculiar one.
Q.
Have you met it in your examinations of disputed documents? A. I have
never seen it.
Q.
You say you have never seen that “x?” A. No.
Q.
Well, there is an “x” you are familiar with in the Hauptmann writing, isn’t it,
there? A. Yes.
Q.
Referring to the one next to the bottom? A. Yes.
Q.
And that is in the admitted Hauptmann writings? A. Yes.
Q.
And that is made as any of us would make an “x” isn’t it? A. It is the
common ordinary Garden type of “x.”
Mr.
Fisher: Yes. That is all, sir.
[1151]
Mr. Lanigan: Mr. Stein, please—
Mr.
Fisher: Just one moment, I should like to ask now, Mr. Wilentz, if he has found
the Fisch letters we have looked for.
Mr.
Wilentz: I haven’t even looked for them, if your Honor please.
Mr.
Fisher: All right, then, that is all.
Mr.
Lanigan: A short re-direct.
Re-Direct Examination
By Mr. Lanigan: Q.
I show you State Exhibit S‑72 and ask you if the writing contained in that
letter shows different slants? A. Yes.
Q.
Do you find that same slant in the request writing? A. Well, this is the
request writing. Q. S‑72? A. Yes.
Q.
Yes, do you find that same writing in the ransom notes? A. Yes, the first
five lines of Exhibit S‑72 correspond with the slant in the ransom notes. And
from there on in S‑72 the slant is greater.
Q.
Do you find the word “not” in that request writing? A. Yes.
Q.
In what ways is the word “not” spelled there? A. It is spelled both ways;
it is spelled n-o-t in the first line; in the fourth line it is spelled
n-o-t-e.
Mr.
Lanigan: May I show this, your Honor, to the jury as illustrative of the
witness’s testimony?
[1152]
The Court: Yes.
(Request
writing exhibited to the jury, who examined same at length.)
The
Court: Is there anything further from this witness?
Mr.
Lanigan: I am waiting for the jury to finish with the exhibit, if your Honor
please.
The
Court: Oh, yes.
By
Mr. Lanigan: Q. I show you what has been introduced in evidence as the
promissory note and the three automobile licenses which are the genuine writing
s of Hauptmann, all written prior to March 1st, 1934, and ask you to indicate
if you can find therein any hyphens in the word “New York.” A. There is
one “New York” in Exhibit 86 written with a hyphen.
Q.
That is the promissory note? A. That is the promissory note.
Q.
Do you find any others? A. In Exhibit S‑96 there are two “New Yorks”
written with a hyphen. I think those are all.
Q.
I show you an additional automobile license and ask you if it appears there. A. Well,
there is an “N. Y.”
Q.
What is the exhibit number, please? A. This is Exhibit S‑89. There is an “N.
Y.” with what appears to be a hyphen, but that might have been intended for a
period—but it is distinctly a hyphen.
Q.
I see. A. Between the “N” and “Y.”
[1153]
Q. I show you this exhibit and ask you if it is indicated therein? A. Exhibit
S‑87 has the word “New York” written with a hyphen.
Q.
Written with a hyphen. In your examination of the automobile licenses, the
genuine writing of Bruno Richard Hauptmann, and of the ransom notes, do you
find in the ransom notes and in the genuine writings the same peculiar “x” in “Bronx?”
A. Yes.
Mr.
Lanigan: That is all.
Mr.
Fisher: That is all, sir.
The
Court: Counsel seem to be indicating to me that we ought to take an adjournment.
I suppose we ought to do so and yet it may well be that before we are finished
with this case, we will have to go to longer hours. I don’t know how that will
be and I hope it will not be so.
In
pursuance of present purposes, we will take an adjournment now very shortly.
Meanwhile everybody in the court room will remain where they are. The jury may
retire and come in tomorrow morning at ten o’clock.
(The
jury retired at 4:26 o’clock.)
The
Court: The prisoner will now be remanded to the custody of the Sheriff. He may
retire. The Court will now take a recess until 10:00 o’clock tomorrow morning.
(At
4:29 p. m. a recess was taken until the following morning at 10:00 a. m.)
No comments:
Post a Comment