Michael 5260
Quirky misspellings
Mon Feb 11, 2019 10:40

A couple of days ago I was reading about the Stacey Castor Murder Case. I'll condense this nauseating case.

Castor was convicted of murdering two husbands by giving them antifreeze. The investigation found that husband #2 had ethylene glycol in his system. Castor claimed that husband #2 drank the antifreeze on purpose, thus committing suicide.

Husband #1 was exhumed and an autopsy revealed that his body contained antifreeze crystals too. It was first believed that he died from a heart attack.

As the investigation began to close in on Stacey Castor she attempted to kill her daughter Ashley with pills and vodka. Castor also fabricated a suicide note on her computer that was supposed to be written by Ashley confessing that she was responsible for murdering both her father and step-father.

On Stacey Castor's computer the police found preliminary drafts of the suicide note and the final version of the suicide note. In the final suicide note the word "antifreeze" was misspelled four times as "anti-free".

At trial an investigator testified that Castor pronounced "antifreeze" as "anti-free" during an interview. Was the investigator railroading Stacey Castor? No, you only have refer to the audio/visual tapes of the interrogation.

Not to be deterred by such testimony from the investigator Stacey Castor testified and acknowledged that she had said "anti-free" but said she had cut herself off mid-word because she meant to say something else. This is a good example of creative thinking or thinking on the fly. The old fashioned words for this is are a lie or making an excuse.

This brings us to the spelling of "boat" as "boad" in the Boad Nelly ransom note and "boat" spelled as "boad" in one of Hauptmann's notebooks. I don't think anyone would argue about it not being a peculiar misspelling of a simple word. It isn't an English misspelling or a German misspelling, which gives it evidential weight. This particular misspelling is an example of an "individual characteristic of the writer Bruno Richard Hauptmann.

It cannot be excused with, "all German immigrant writers spell "boat" as "boad" because they do not. If they were writing in English they would spell the word as "boat". If they were writing in German they would spell the word as "boot".

As a defense advocate, maybe in 1934 I could scrounge up another German immigrant writer that coincidentally spelled "boat" as "boad". Then I could shout, "See, see, the misspelling isn't so unique!" What evidential value would my discovery actually have? Zero worth. This other German writer that I was lucky enough to find would not have had a Lindbergh ransom bill in his wallet, Lindbergh ransom money well hidden in his garage, a section
of wood removed from his attic that was used in the construction of the kidnap ladder, or possess the complete combination of individual handwriting characteristics that are found in the series of Lindbergh ransom notes.

Of course if I had only one juror on the jury that always wears an aluminum foil hat to bed every night my German immigrant misspelling discovery may have great merit for that person. It is a fact, you only need one person like this and you will possibly be victorious in your endeavor to get a guilty client off the hook (acquittal) or have a hung jury so the whole trial can start over again.

Click here to receive daily updates