, 1935-01-14

say In his testimony that the
nursery note was pTIgina. as far as
the symbols went, and the others
poor limitations?
A. I don't know about that.
@. Have you noticed any differ
ence in the handwriting Of those
notes passing Though DR.. Condons
hands and the others?
"A. / don't know as 7 have.
@. Look at these and tell me what
the last ones look like7
A. Clearer than the nursery note
but still essentially the same.
@. II Is not disguised?
"AII Disguised"
A. They are al disguised TO some
extent.
Il directed my attention specif-
ically and directly 10 ascertain II
the nursery ransom note was In the
same handwriting as the subsequent
notes" said Osborn when Reilly
asked him why he hadn't first
made sure all the ransom notes
we're one by the same person.
In my opinion the connection Is
absolute, unmistakable. ! can't say
1t any palmer" Osborn said.
@. You have been mistaken many
times. have you not. Mr.. Osborn?
A. / won't say many times. I
don't pretend to be infallible. but
I am careful. Ia this case the evi-
dance a. xsor~xu avfar~cfua
Reilly then sought TO bring out
that Osborn had made mistakes In
previous handwriting cases through
out the country.
He cited a case IN Pittsburgh 80
years ago when he said Osborn
had given erroneous testimony on
handwriting. Osborn did not recall
any such testimony.
Reilly was unsuccessful in seek
ing TO refresh the experts testimony.
@. DO you recall back in 1925.
Or. Sinclair Tusi Of New York City?
A. ! remember someone by that
name called on me. ! don't think
he was, oh-Sane.
Reilly objected to the answer.
@. Didn't you render an opinion?
Reilly then indicated he had fin
ished with Osborn for the time be-
ing.
May I reserve further cross
examination pending u finding
papers pertinent 10 these cases.
your honor2" Reilly asked the
court. referring to the samples Of
Isador F1Sch's handwriting which
the state has agreed t. produce.
Justice Trenchard acquieSced.
Does that mean. your honor.
that I must remain here?"
The court assured him the re-
sumption OF cross-examination
would come soon.
Woman Is Called
The prosecution called as its next
witness Miss Hildegarde Alexander,
Of the Bronx.
G. Do you know Or. Condor.
A. Yes.
G. Did you see DR.. Condor in the
month OF March. 1892
A. I did.
She SAID she had known DR.. Con-
don before the ransom was paid.
@. Where did you see him?
A. In the Fordham station Of the
New York Central. In TIE tele-
graph office.
@. Who else was IN that station.
A. Another man.
@. How far from you wa hep
A. Just about Is feet.
@. What was DR.. Condor doing?
A. He was facing the telegraph
office
@. What attracted your attention
70 the gentleman other than Or.
Condon7 Wilentz asked.
A. He was watching DR.. Condor.
@. Who was the man watching
DR.. Condor?
A. Bruno Richard Hauptmann.
Mrs. Hauptmann grew pale and
Hauptmann turned slightly red as
the witness identified the prisoner.
She told the attorney general that
she paid particular attention to the
incident because Of the manner of
"Hauptmann."
@. What was the other person do
ing?
A. He was watching him CJafsie).
@. What was the position Of the
man in relation TO DR.. Condor?
A. The man was In back OF him
d~iagonally in back of him.
Attracted by Manner
She told the attorney general that
she paid particular attention TO the
incident because Of the manner OF
"Hauptmann."
She said she had never zen
"Hauptmann" before that. she said
she saw him again later not far
from DIR. Condon's home.
Reilly took the witness.
@. How old are your
A. 70.
@. What's your occupation7
A. l am employed IN the dual
capacity Of Saleslady and model.
The chic young woman gave the ad-
dress Of her employer.
@. What time did you quit work
that day?
A. s o'clock.
She told Reilly the route she took
home from business.
Reilly asked her where she dined
that night.
"A Chinese restaurant"
The defense chief then started to
bring up who was with her.
Wilentz got UP and offered TO
supply Reilly the name Of her es-
cort.
why I can't see any reason why
cross = examination couldn't pro-
ceed-"
Il had no escort" interrupted
the girl.
Reilly then charged the state
would have furnished him with the
name OF a non existent, fictitious"