The Waterbury Democrat., 1935-01-11

the request writing, certain thing, that mark the documents as wflt- ten by the same person" After lunch Lanigan continued the direct testimony of Osborn, who showed the jury II transpar- ent films of the symbol, which, laid over each other and held to the light practically matched" There are slight, very slight differences" he said, but the signatures are almost identical"
 The films were offered in eyi- dence and admitted. Osborn continued: "I have examined these two gets of writings--where are they"' Time out was taken while the prosecution hunted for them. One | was the scte of the "admitted" handwriting of Hauptmann, the other the requested" writing of the prisoner.
 Q. Are you making compari- son of the writings of Hauptmann and the ransom notes? A. Yes. c. Proceed with your explana | ton.
 Osborn said he studied the two sets to determine if the similari- ties of the two sets were dellber- ate or accident. osborn said 1t was important to determine if the letters had na- tural characteristics of writing or developed rare characteristics tn It l were similar in all notes. 1 "In my opinion the ransom notes arc connected with Haupt-
 mann's admitted writing in all these characteristics,' he said. This matter of handwriting com parison Is Q matter of reason
 ing finally" he said. Osborn faced the jury. talked to them in Il firm voice. He said some of the writing was disguised.
 The writing of q promissory
 note. he said, was in the norma handwriting.
 In the request writings done | by Hauptmann after his arrest. | some Of this was done by the de- | fcndant three different times. "Tn the request writing, 1t is ad-
 visable to have the same words
 written more than once to deter mine If the writer is using his nor maj hand" he said. Now if the three samples diff fer from each other, then that is
 not the honest, natural writing 0 | the writer.
 Part of the request writing Is like the ransom notes and part of
 1t like the promissory note. Now, in my opinion. exhibit 72 (request writing) has Ave lines like the ransom notes and then the ! style changes to the writer's na- tural hand. Now exhibit number "A Is like
 the first part of 72--all in the un-
 natural style.
 | "rhe next is not disguised.
 50 1t is necessary to compare
 the request writings with each
 other"
 c. Did you find q basis of com
 pnrison? A. Yes. | c. Proceed from there.
 This handwriting Is identified
 through chnracteristics--those by
 which 1t can be described. All characteristic are not alike Handwriting is identified as q
 man is identified or q horse identi-
 fled. It is the combination of cir | cumstanceE 10 show that character
 istics are not coincldences.
 If all persons learned to write
 in shoof. perfectly. then there
 would be no dlfferentiatio at all and no means of identifying one or
 the other,
 developed writing is that which differs from copy book writing" , Hauptmann listened intently tc
 the scholarly discourse. All eyes ir
 the jury box were focused on tho | expert.
 'gThe significant parts Of writinp are the babltudI motions that create It,"
 c. Do those habiluoi motions appear in the rans0n, noiesy 4 Yes. they d0.
 c DU they appcrr in both ran. som nnfes and thc Afeauesty writ'