Michael 5260 for Joe
Re: Seeing
Thu Jun 6, 2019 11:01
24.185.60.218

I'm glad you took the time to study the unique "x's" Joe. If you can draw this peculiar "x" from memory, anywhere and anytime, you definitely have a handle on this unusual letter form.

Hauptmann's "x" is not a German or an American letter design. You can compare the "x" to the Kurrenschrift alphabet(this is the one Hauptmann learned) and the Sutterlin alphabet and readily see that Hauptmann's unique "x" bears no resemblance to either "x" found in the alphabets.

The same thing happens when Hauptmann's "x" is compared to the (American) Spencerian, Palmer, and Zaner-Bloser alphabets. There is no resemblance at all to the three "x'" appearing in the American handwriting alphabets.

When you closely compare Hauptmann's unique "x" to the "x" we are shown in Gardner's book you will discover that they are different from one another. When you personally draw each one and place them side by side you will see and feel, while you are drawing them, the differences in the details.

Back to the word "box" spelled as "pox."

We find other examples in the Lindbergh ransom notes where a "p" or "b" was used incorrectly in words.

"but" for "put" (twice)
"propperly" for "probably"
"supway" for "subway"

Elbridge Stein mentioned that Hauptmann had trouble understanding the sound of words. This is true. In the four misspellings I pointed out to you there is a confusion with the "b" and its "buh" sound and the "p" and its "pee"/"puh" sound. The "b" is a counterpart to the unvoiced "p" sound and the "p" is a counterpart to the voiced "b" sound. Hauptmann didn't understand this and he was probably unaware of it.

Skipping the ransom notes for a moment, do we have examples of witnessed handwriting of Hauptmann exhibiting this "b/p" difficulty? Yes.

In handwriting specimens S-72,S-73,S-74, S-75, S-76, and S-77 taken by the police we find the following:

ropery for robbery
ropery for robbery
berhabs for perhaps
ropery for robbery
berhaps for perhaps
ropery for robbery
berhaps for perhaps
ropery for robbery
berhaps for perhaps

Hauptmann only managed to spell "robbery" correct once in S-74 and "perhaps" once in S-72.

Is it just a coincidence that Hauptmann had the same strange "b/p" spelling problem that is found in the Lindbergh ransom notes? I sure don't think so.

Hauptmann was being dictated to from the typewritten test paragraph. There were no spelling mistakes in the test paragraph so it could not be used by the police to purposely tell Hauptmann how to spell words.

Because it was typewritten with no spelling mistakes Hauptmann could not have been copying directly from the test paragraph. This is one of the things that Hauptmann claimed and so did Kloppenburg. Hey, what good is a friend if he doesn't lie for you. Speaking of Kloppenburg. I have four specimens of Hans writing the test paragraph. He spelled "perhaps" all four times correctly and spelled "robbery" all four times incorrectly as "robberie." The boys were lying about copying and being told how to spell by the police.

The words "robbery" and "perhaps" do not appear anywhere in the full series of Lindbergh ransom notes. The police would be telling Hauptmann how to spell "robbery" and "perhaps" incorrectly with the same "b/p" spelling confusion when the words are not in the ransom notes? Please, even Michael Avenatti couldn't get any traction with this in court.

Let me know what you think Joe. We are working our way toward a final destination.

  • Re: SeeingJoe for Michael 5260, Wed Jun 5 14:21
    Michael, I've been through the examination of the "x" via the various handwriting comparisons. I have no issues identifying those found in the ransom notes to be a match to the degree of variation... more
    • Re: Seeing — Michael 5260 for Joe, Thu Jun 6 11:01
      • Re: SeeingJoe for Michael 5260, Fri Jun 7 08:04
        Good point that "robbery" and "perhaps" don't appear in the series of ransom notes, and yet get butchered in the request writings. Police would have had no reason to tell Hauptmann to misspell these... more
        • Re: SeeingMichael 5260 for Joe, Fri Jun 7 15:43
          Joe, keep Hauptmann's "p"/"b" handwriting conflict in mind. It's an identifying characteristic that will come into play later on. Here is another handwriting feature that is significant. Hauptmann... more
          • Re: SeeingJoe for Michael 5260, Sun Jun 9 09:05
            All duly noted Michael. I've always found it interesting how Hauptmann really turned on those crossed "t's", not missing one in his mercy letters to Governor Hoffman, right on the heels of all those... more
            • Re: SeeingMichael 5260 for Joe, Sun Jun 9 17:33
              Hauptmann certainly did crank out the t-bars after his trial. You can see him double-crossing his t's using the American method and the German method at the same time! It proves he was paying... more
              • Re: SeeingJoe for Michael 5260, Sun Jun 9 21:26
                From his California trip memo book entry for July 13, 1931, that is an excellent find, Michael. I've seen that strange looking word before and although I wasn't sure, I thought perhaps he was writing ... more
                • Re: SeeingMichael 5260 for Joe, Mon Jun 10 11:39
                  The first thing we have to determine about the "pox soap" entry is whether Hauptmann was writing in German, English, or a combination of both. We can see the second word is obviously "s-o-a-p" so... more
                  • Re: SeeingMichael For Joe, Tue Jun 11 09:45
                    You're right Joe. The word is "Pott Soap." That's a double "t" not an "x." Just look for yourself and ask why an "Expert" can't see what you are seeing. Also notice "Camp Milk" which is also in line... more
                    • Re: SeeingJoe for Michael, Tue Jun 11 11:10
                      Michael, I originally thought it was "Pott Soap" but I now lean much more to Hauptmann having intended to write "Box" here, simply having screwed up, as he has demonstrated on countless occasions in... more
Click here to receive daily updates