Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2018 14:36:29 GMT -5
So, Michael, Volume II contains so much new material that it is taking a lot of time to go through each chapter. I have just started looking into the Hans Mueller chapter (page 412) and you open it with a very suspicious statement made by Hans Mueller sharing why Hauptmann would have had a gold certificate on him and how Hauptmann had been collecting gold certificates as a protection against inflation. This set off bells in my head immediately. Why would Hans just offer this information up without ever being asked if he knew anything about Hauptmann having gold certificates in his possession? It comes across as a prearranged explanation between these two men should anything happen that brings police attention upon BRH. What Mueller offered as an explanation for Hauptmann was also what Hauptmann claimed when first questioned about having gold certificates. Hauptmann also offered this same explanation at the Warner-Quinlan gas station. Apparently, this was to be the prevailing answer if it was ever needed. Sounds innocent enough but not at all adequate if you are knowingly using ransom money that can trace back to you.
The only other way I can come up with why Mueller might have known Hauptmann had gold certificates (innocently), in his possession is he could have acquired this knowledge via Anna Hauptmann either directly or through his wife Maria. Anna could have told both of them or just Maria about Richard hoarding gold certificates as a hedge against inflation. Anna did say that she saw some in a closet in their apartment. Of course, this doesn't even come close to explaining why Mueller would offer this information without any prompting by authorities in the first place. Is he protecting himself or Hauptmann?? Does Mueller have guilty knowledge about the source for those gold certs??
Hans Mueller has always been near the top of my list as a person of interest in this case. Your chapter shows him in a whole new light from what people might have thought they knew about him. So I have a few questions (for starters) that I hope you can answer:
1) Was Hans Mueller's handwriting checked against the ransom notes?
2) Did they check his handwriting against the Faulkner deposit slip?
3) Were the authorities aware that Mueller made the letter "x" in a peculiar way, just as the writer of the ransom notes did? (see picture in TCTND by Lloyd Gardner in the picture section of his book)
There are definitely more things I want to discuss about Mueller in future posts!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 9, 2018 7:14:42 GMT -5
Hans Mueller has always been near the top of my list as a person of interest in this case. Your chapter shows him in a whole new light from what people might have thought they knew about him. So I have a few questions (for starters) that I hope you can answer: 1) There's nothing at the NJSP Archives to suggest it was. 2) Same as #1. 3) Hard to say. My guess is "no" but its only a guess. There is no documentation that I've ever come across about it. I would expect that Snook took a look at it but there's no evidence that he ever did. I'm not sure if you could tell by what I wrote but I share in your frustration about this. I cannot believe they didn't use that gun to put the screws to both Kaiser and Mueller. It appears they were going in that direction - and then (POOF). Clearly Kaiser was lying and just from the transcripts appears he would have given up anyone eventually to get out of this situation. There's something "missing" in all of this but whatever it is I cannot find it among the documents. Could it have been as simple as making a deal they would not testify for Hauptmann?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2018 22:34:53 GMT -5
1) There's nothing at the NJSP Archives to suggest it was. 2) Same as #1. 3) Hard to say. My guess is "no" but its only a guess. There is no documentation that I've ever come across about it. I would expect that Snook took a look at it but there's no evidence that he ever did. UGH! Why am I not surprised by your answers?! I definitely picked up on it because I was feeling the same thing. I believe Kaiser and Mueller were tight but I am not certain that Mueller would have shared with Kaiser anything about the kidnapping, if he (Mueller) did know more and I really believe he did. Both these men had a lot to loose if the authorities decided to bring gun charges against them plus Mueller was in America illegally. Yet nothing happens to either of them. The authorities don't take up Van Kirk's offer to testify about the gun issue either. It certainly made me angry that this all fell flat. From what you shared of the questioning of Kaiser, it seems they were more concerned about Kaiser testifying for the defense then anything else. I think that Wilentz is the reason this whole gun issue went poof. The case Wilentz was building against Hauptmann was that of a lone wolf perpetrator. The murder of the child by Hauptmann was not going to include the use of a gun. Wilentz had not recovered a bullet even though they looked for one. Since the child's death was going to be shown to have happened at the Lindbergh's house, a gun being used was out of the question. Also the death certificate of the victim said "fractured skull due to external violence" and this is what Dr. Mitchell was going to testify to and had done so in the past. Kaiser really didn't want to testify from what I read, so I don't think it would have taken much persuading by police to get him to walk away from this case. What did the defense have to gain by having Kaiser testify for Hauptmann? If the gun isn't relevant to the crime, does it really make any difference if Kaiser sold a gun to Mueller and Mueller sold it to Hauptmann a year before the kidnapping took place? Anyway, if the defense really wanted Kaiser or Mueller there, they could have subpoenaed them, couldn't they?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 10, 2018 8:11:48 GMT -5
Kaiser really didn't want to testify from what I read, so I don't think it would have taken much persuading by police to get him to walk away from this case. What did the defense have to gain by having Kaiser testify for Hauptmann? If the gun isn't relevant to the crime, does it really make any difference if Kaiser sold a gun to Mueller and Mueller sold it to Hauptmann a year before the kidnapping took place? I come back to what Van Kirk told police: He also told me that the defense wanted him to take the stand on behalf of Hauptmann and testify, and I asked him what questions, and he would not say, and I told him, if it was not the truth, not to do it, and he replied that they had nothing on Hauptmann and he did not think they could convict him. (TDC V2, page 429) This gives me the impression that he was planning on lying about something. I wish I knew what it was he going to testify to. That, I think, is probably the key to it as it concerned him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2018 16:00:56 GMT -5
I come back to what Van Kirk told police: He also told me that the defense wanted him to take the stand on behalf of Hauptmann and testify, and I asked him what questions, and he would not say, and I told him, if it was not the truth, not to do it, and he replied that they had nothing on Hauptmann and he did not think they could convict him. (TDC V2, page 429) This gives me the impression that he was planning on lying about something. I wish I knew what it was he going to testify to. That, I think, is probably the key to it as it concerned him. I get what you are pointing out here. I think Kaiser is repeating what Harry Whitney said to him that they have nothing on Hauptmann and did not think they could convict him. Since Kaiser never did testify at all, we cannot know for certain what the defense wanted from him. My guess is that they might have wanted Kaiser to point a finger at Isidor Fisch as the source for the ransom money. Possession of that ransom money is what put Hauptmann under arrest. The defense needed to put the source for that money into someone else's hands to back up Hauptmann's claim that it came from Fisch. Fawcett's investigators were working on sources to show Fisch had ransom money. Perhaps this is what they wanted Kaiser to do for them...to be such a source to help Hauptmann, even lying if necessary. Clearly from what you share, Kaiser is not above lying to authorities. I think Wilentz was really concerned about what might turn up about Fisch and this is why they were uneasy over what Kaiser was going to testify to for the defense. It was all about control of the narrative and neutralizing any source or evidence that might threaten the case Wilentz was building against Hauptmann as the lone murderer and extortionist for this crime. In Adam Schrager's book, The Sixteenth Rail" he includes a quote from H. Norman Schwarzkopf, made in the summer of 1932 to the United Press, that really sums this up nicely. Schwarzkopf said the following: "If the kidnapper came into this room and told me that he had kidnapped the baby, I'd have no case against him. There are no fingerprints, nothing that would directly connect an individual with the crime. When we get our break, we'll depend on circumstantial evidence. We have scores of circumstances which we will seek to fit with the circumstances in the life of the man we find with the ransom money. If they dove-tail even 60%, we'll send that man to the chair."The whole truth and nothing but the truth wasn't necessary to seek a conviction in this case; just 60% would do. Michael, when you open your section on Clemens Kaiser on page 427 of TDC Vol. II, you write that the police saw a car parked outside of Hauptmann's apartment on November 9, 1934. Hans Mueller was sitting in that car. I find this to be very interesting. Was Hans asked why he was there?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 11, 2018 7:09:30 GMT -5
Michael, when you open your section on Clemens Kaiser on page 427 of TDC Vol. II, you write that the police saw a car parked outside of Hauptmann's apartment on November 9, 1934. Hans Mueller was sitting in that car. I find this to be very interesting. Was Hans asked why he was there? You are doing a great job of considering the different options. At this point all we can do it consider all of what we've got, list the options, then hope one fits when considering the other information we have elsewhere. Kaiser is connected to Mueller, Mueller to Hauptmann, and all three to that gun. Hauptmann never offered up information to link anyone to it. If you notice his explanations they always pointed to some anonymous person. I think this is an important window into his head about "how" he would handle a situation by deflecting blame away from those who were involved. So while there's no doubt in my mind person(s) were assisting Hauptmann by laundering Ransom Money, I am equally as certain he would never implicate them. So for anyone who believes the "Lone-Wolf" theory its "evidence" that he worked alone. It's part of the reason much of what I have in the book hasn't been written about. Some authors read the Statements then stopped right there and wrote their books. Some didn't even read these. But considering Mueller's last official statement was in October its clear how much information could be missed. Now, the report doesn't say that Mueller was actually sitting in the car although it is possible. Det. Patterson was very general in stating his purpose to drive over was to investigate associates of Hauptmann. While passing the apartment he saw the car " and stopped and interviewed" Hans Mueller who was obviously there at the time. BTW: I found a copy of Kaiser's handwriting which Wallace attached to his report, however, there is no evidence it was ever evaluated. Of course I could have missed something over the years but the odds are very slim that would be the case. I plan another trip down there soon so I'll take another look just in case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2018 19:59:13 GMT -5
Kaiser is connected to Mueller, Mueller to Hauptmann, and all three to that gun. Hauptmann never offered up information to link anyone to it. If you notice his explanations they always pointed to some anonymous person. I think this is an important window into his head about "how" he would handle a situation by deflecting blame away from those who were involved. So while there's no doubt in my mind person(s) were assisting Hauptmann by laundering Ransom Money, I am equally as certain he would never implicate them. It is clear that Hauptmann did not want to give up Mueller as the source for the gun. The same holds true for Kaiser, at first. He lies and says he only knew the man as "Martin". Both men are admitting to having had this gun, so its not the gun they want to deflect attention away from. Its Mueller. They are both protecting Mueller. I wonder if there is someone who is attached to Mueller that Hauptmann and Kaiser don't want uncovered. You make the point that Hauptmann deflects blame from those who are involved. If this is true, why is he giving up Fisch as the source for the ransom money found in the garage and not deflecting it away from Fisch? Does this mean it wasn't Fisch who gave him the money, but someone else? Sorry, my mistake. Did Det. Patterson ask Mueller why he was stopping by there? Did he ask Mueller if he was alone or if he came with someone since the car did not belong to him? There was a reason he came there. Anna and Manfred were living at his place, so its not them unless Anna asked Hans to get something from the apartment. Did Mueller offer up a reason for his presence there? If I were a detective, my first question after asking who he was would be what are you doing here? That's awesome! It is also aggravating! This should have been done with Mueller!!!! They did have Mueller's notebooks. Is it very obvious from them that Mueller's writing was very different from the ransom notes so that is the reason they didn't have Mueller give a writing sample? Maybe it might have looked more like the Faulkner deposit slip instead??? Michael, you have a picture of Hauptmann's Liliput on page 434 of volume two of TDC. On page 422 you quote Detective Louis Bornmann's September 1934 report saying the gun was fully loaded with seven shells. In the picture you shared, the magazine/clip is not fully loaded. It is missing three shells. Were any of these shells given to Lt. Hicks for the ballistics testing he did?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 12, 2018 8:21:13 GMT -5
You make the point that Hauptmann deflects blame from those who are involved. If this is true, why is he giving up Fisch as the source for the ransom money found in the garage and not deflecting it away from Fisch? Does this mean it wasn't Fisch who gave him the money, but someone else? The difference is that Fisch was dead. I would expect he wouldn't have mentioned him had he been alive and still in the Bronx. Sorry, my mistake. Did Det. Patterson ask Mueller why he was stopping by there? Did he ask Mueller if he was alone or if he came with someone since the car did not belong to him? There was a reason he came there. Anna and Manfred were living at his place, so its not them unless Anna asked Hans to get something from the apartment. Did Mueller offer up a reason for his presence there? If I were a detective, my first question after asking who he was would be what are you doing here? I'm with you. It's hard to believe none of these things came out during the encounter. My "impression" is he was using the car to retrieve some things out of the apartment for Anna. Don't ask me why, and it is probably a bad thing to jump to any conclusions about what's not in a report. That's awesome! It is also aggravating! This should have been done with Mueller!!!! They did have Mueller's notebooks. Is it very obvious from them that Mueller's writing was very different from the ransom notes so that is the reason they didn't have Mueller give a writing sample? Maybe it might have looked more like the Faulkner deposit slip instead??? Well it may have been done its just that I haven't seen any evidence it was. Although unlikely, I could have missed something or even forgotten. The other thing is the possibility the documentation could be missing. I always fall back on the question as to where Hauptmann's "J. J. Faulkner" exemplars are. We have clear evidence that he wrote them out but they definitely aren't at the NJSP Archives. It's one of the hardest things about researching the case... something could always "pop up" that we do not have or don't think existed. We know, for example, the Fawcett Collection is still "out there" and the only thing I saw was on Ebay sometime in 2001 I believe. (Joe might remember because I think he actually placed a bid.) It could contain things we all already know but for sure there could be new information to apply and consider. That is frustrating too. Michael, you have a picture of Hauptmann's Liliput on page 434 of volume two of TDC. On page 422 you quote Detective Louis Bornmann's September 1934 report saying the gun was fully loaded with seven shells. In the picture you shared, the magazine/clip is not fully loaded. It is missing three shells. Were any of these shells given to Lt. Hicks for the ballistics testing he did? I see no evidence of it but I wouldn't say "no" because Hicks got his hands on a LOT of evidence during the Hoffman Investigation. Prior to that he wrote his Ballistics Report on October 15, 1934 which was just days after the HC Grand Jury. Hicks writes that it is a " non-technical discussion on the subject of ballistics, based on scientific deductions in reference to this particular case." He compares the different calibers of bullets but doesn't refer to the .25 bullet as coming from Hauptmann's actual gun.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 16, 2018 7:10:41 GMT -5
Michael, you have a picture of Hauptmann's Liliput on page 434 of volume two of TDC. On page 422 you quote Detective Louis Bornmann's September 1934 report saying the gun was fully loaded with seven shells. In the picture you shared, the magazine/clip is not fully loaded. It is missing three shells. Were any of these shells given to Lt. Hicks for the ballistics testing he did? Okay so this proves the gun was still in NY when Hick's wrote his report: imgur.com/a/ZoMHWR6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2018 11:26:56 GMT -5
Okay so this proves the gun was still in NY when Hick's wrote his report: This is very interesting, Michael. All the shells were in the magazine when it went to New Jersey! So I think it is logical to assume that the three shells that are missing disappeared while in the possession of Wilentz and his associates. Could the prosecution have been seeking to link that Liliput to the crime? After all, Dr. Erastus Mead Hudson, had been asked about faking fingerprints on the ladder. Might Wilentz and his team have considered possibly firing that Liliput and then claiming to find the magic bullet at the grave site?? I see that the list of items transferred from New York did not include the crock they found buried in the dirt under Hauptmann's garage floor. Sisk testified at the trial about this crock but it was never introduced for identification or as evidence. Did Valentine make any other evidence transfers to New Jersey besides this one?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Sept 17, 2018 9:55:29 GMT -5
Hey Guys,
Just a thought on the Lilliput gun (by the way, Hitler had a gold-plated Lilliput -- it's at the West Point museum today).
The clip can actually hold at total of 8 4.25mm rounds, not seven (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aE-mP2lZOtI)
I've seen the gun and clip many times at the museum. The clip has seven bullets.
Makes you wonder if there was an 8th bullet in the clip and, if so, where did it go?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 18, 2018 7:58:20 GMT -5
Did Valentine make any other evidence transfers to New Jersey besides this one? There was a TON of evidence given to NJ from NY. I'd say about 90% to 95% of what was found in the Bronx went to Foley first. I am not exactly sure why Valentine was asking for these specific items back - or anything for that matter. Another interesting (but useless) fact is that in '82 Anna was asking for (among other things) Hauptmann's car back from NJ. It's common knowledge that it was scrapped but either she wasn't aware of it at the time, or by making the request was seeking compensation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2018 10:56:59 GMT -5
There was a TON of evidence given to NJ from NY. I'd say about 90% to 95% of what was found in the Bronx went to Foley first. I am not exactly sure why Valentine was asking for these specific items back - or anything for that matter. Another interesting (but useless) fact is that in '82 Anna was asking for (among other things) Hauptmann's car back from NJ. It's common knowledge that it was scrapped but either she wasn't aware of it at the time, or by making the request was seeking compensation. The car was not bought with ransom money so they really should have returned it, I would think. if it wasn't totally ruined. This raises a couple of questions for me. I know this is going off topic but I just gotta ask! 1) What happened with all the money in Hauptmann's stock accounts, etc. Since the prosecution was claiming this was ransom money, even if none of it ever traced back that way. Shouldn't this money have been given to Lindbergh like the garage money was? 2) What about things like the silverware Anna bought in Germany which was being attributed to being purchased with ransom money; Hauptmann's beautiful Stromberg-Carlson radio purchased with ransom money; Hauptmann's canoe bought with ransom money just to name a few. What happened to these items?? Technically if they are bought with ransom money then doesn't Lindbergh have a right to them or to decide what becomes of them?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Sept 18, 2018 15:12:21 GMT -5
There was a TON of evidence given to NJ from NY. I'd say about 90% to 95% of what was found in the Bronx went to Foley first. I am not exactly sure why Valentine was asking for these specific items back - or anything for that matter. Another interesting (but useless) fact is that in '82 Anna was asking for (among other things) Hauptmann's car back from NJ. It's common knowledge that it was scrapped but either she wasn't aware of it at the time, or by making the request was seeking compensation. The car was not bought with ransom money so they really should have returned it, I would think. if it wasn't totally ruined. This raises a couple of questions for me. I know this is going off topic but I just gotta ask! 1) What happened with all the money in Hauptmann's stock accounts, etc. Since the prosecution was claiming this was ransom money, even if none of it ever traced back that way. Shouldn't this money have been given to Lindbergh like the garage money was? 2) What about things like the silverware Anna bought in Germany which was being attributed to being purchased with ransom money; Hauptmann's beautiful Stromberg-Carlson radio purchased with ransom money; Hauptmann's canoe bought with ransom money just to name a few. What happened to these items?? Technically if they are bought with ransom money then doesn't Lindbergh have a right to them or to decide what becomes of them? Something tells me there weren't checks and balances on these kinds of things, particularly in that environment, in 1932.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 19, 2018 8:23:59 GMT -5
1) What happened with all the money in Hauptmann's stock accounts, etc. Since the prosecution was claiming this was ransom money, even if none of it ever traced back that way. Shouldn't this money have been given to Lindbergh like the garage money was? I'm not 100% sure about exactly everything that happened as I sit here. We'd have to go back to each and every source to trace it as best we could to see all of the twists and turns for each individual item - to include the accounts. It might be possible to find out because there seems to be sources for it all but they are scattered everywhere. One document might be in the Wilentz file, another the Hoffman Collection, in Hauptmann's 1600 file, or in the Fisher material, etc. etc. etc. There are also files with many chains of custody documents some that date into 1957. This is picked back up again (sort of) in the late 1970s for the official "review" and this is also where Anna's eventual requests during that "section of time" can be found. While I have over the years attempted to "grab" everything I could, its even hard for me to file this stuff in a way most would expect could occur. In some cases it just can't, and that means I have to try to "remember" where I may have filed them among the other materials I have. It's crazy I know, but as I've often said, it is both a blessing and a curse to have too many sources. I have a separate file for Hauptmann inventories and went through those last night. There was no mention of these accounts so I am going to have to check a different source file to see if I can come up with something for you. I did see a document where Wilentz wrote he had no objection to the furniture being returned but deferred authorization to NY. I have no follow up. "Furniture" is in the eye of the beholder because its not specific. 2) What about things like the silverware Anna bought in Germany which was being attributed to being purchased with ransom money; Hauptmann's beautiful Stromberg-Carlson radio purchased with ransom money; Hauptmann's canoe bought with ransom money just to name a few. What happened to these items?? Technically if they are bought with ransom money then doesn't Lindbergh have a right to them or to decide what becomes of them? I believe I knew at one point but so far I haven't found the documentation. Neither the radio nor the canoe are on any inventory that I can find. I've attached a list of items Anna requested back below. You'll see she is struggling to remember things to ask for. Among them is the silverware. You can see by the notations what they were releasing back at that time. After Kimberling took over and Lewis were reinstated, I have another "receipt" for all of the personal belongings given back to Anna. There's quite a bit on there but I don't see the silverware. In her 1982 request Anna asks for the "combination radio" but the notation on the document says it was not in their possession. However, she was also asking for things on the receipt she signed for in 1936 as already been handed over, so of course the notation of those also said they were not in possession. So you see the battle we face in trying to find out exactly where each and everything went. In some cases we can, but others I'm not so sure. imgur.com/a/2ID7hfuSomething tells me there weren't checks and balances on these kinds of things, particularly in that environment, in 1932. As chaotic as it was they seemed to do a better job of it than we'd expect. Of course the back and forth with NY doesn't help. But there's also the problem of various chains of custody that we do have but no way to know what we don't. Know what I mean? Its a really hard thing for me to explain, but there are not only items missing but documents are missing as well. So we have one that says something was last "here" but it no longer is and no follow up to see where it went. Without having each and every document from 1934 to 1987 we may never know. On top of that, people over the years were taking souvenirs. Items, reports, and other documents. No doubt in my mind that's where the chisel disappeared to. Once the official review occurred people were bringing things back. Other items we can see are in the collections of different Archives. Like Ho-age's stuff in UCLA. Things like the nails he was given should have been returned. I don't blame him because there's no doubt he was told to keep them, but this an example of the problems and pit falls we face as researchers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2018 10:55:01 GMT -5
Another interesting (but useless) fact is that in '82 Anna was asking for (among other things) Hauptmann's car back from NJ. It's common knowledge that it was scrapped but either she wasn't aware of it at the time, or by making the request was seeking compensation. I can see compensation being the purpose of asking for the car since it was 50 years after the crime took place. Apparently the car had been worked over for souvenirs before it was scrapped. Even the door handles were taken from the car! Here is an associated press photo of the car before it went to the scrap heap. www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Watchf-AP-A-NJ-USA-APHS253574-Hauptmann-Auto/8ffdc9308e01438bb8cba3af23d31f35/110/0As far as I can tell, Hauptmann's car was never really clearly identified as the vehicle with the ladder in it. Hochmuth identified a green colored car, not blue. Whited did not put Hauptmann in a car at all. Ben Lupica never positively identified Hauptmann as the man he saw driving a dark colored car with a ladder in it. Rossiter's testimony has Hauptmann out near Princeton airport, too far from the crime scene. No trace evidence was found to connect the car with the kidnapping. I don't find the state's case concerning the car evidence to be very strong at all. I suppose it was more about placing Hauptmann physically near the Lindbergh home that was the real intent of Wilentz but I don't think he accomplishes that beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2018 11:34:11 GMT -5
Neither the radio nor the canoe are on any inventory that I can find. Perhaps the canoe never came to New Jersey because it was not directly related to the crime. The radio is a different matter. That should have been on an inventory list. Here is the Associated press photo of this radio being carried into the Flemington Courthouse in January of 1935. Seems to me it would be awfully hard to miss this item when creating an inventory list. www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Watchf-AP-A-NJ-USA-APHS256932-Charles-Lindbergh-/91cbc3badcbc42e6a1bf33f64033f4c8/217/0Apparently this Stromberg-Carlson radio was going to be used as evidence in regard to ransom money being hid in it. Fred Hahn claimed he saw money in brown paper bags in a radio in Hauptmann's home in June 1932. For some reason, Wilentz never called Hahn to the stand to make this connection for the jury. After I read Hahn's statement, calling Hahn would not have been in the best interest of the prosecution's case. Not only does Hahn say that part of the money in the radio belonged to Isidor Fisch according to BRH, Hahn and Hauptmann, when discussing this radio money, what becomes clear is when Hahn describes the radio he sees he said it was "an old type victrola." Hahn then says that Hauptmann agreed with him saying "this is an old timer." (page 7 of Frederick Hahn statement, District Attorney's office, Bronx County, November 19, 1934) The radio Hahn says had the bags of money in it sounds like Hauptmann's old radio not the new Stromberg-Carlson radio. I would like to think that Fred Hahn, when seeing the new radio being brought into the courtroom had second thoughts about testifying under oath that that radio was the one he saw that day when he claimed he saw bags of money in Hauptmann's radio.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2018 11:39:22 GMT -5
There are also files with many chains of custody documents some that date into 1957. This is picked back up again (sort of) in the late 1970s for the official "review" and this is also where Anna's eventual requests during that "section of time" can be found. I was wondering what the reason was for the official "review" of the case in the 1970's. Did it have anything to do with the adults who were claiming to be the "Lindbergh Baby"?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 21, 2018 6:46:26 GMT -5
I was wondering what the reason was for the official "review" of the case in the 1970's. Did it have anything to do with the adults who were claiming to be the "Lindbergh Baby"? It began in the Fall of 1976. Whether it started "officially" as a specific "review" I'm not sure but it would only be disputed in name only because that's when the ball started rolling for sure. And yes, it did start because of the claims. As we all know those claims began almost immediately after the crime and the NJSP were looking into them both before and after the discovery of the corpse. Then Hauptmann's Defense was getting claims but the real onslaught came during Hoffman's investigation. Over the years claims persisted - most notably Olson and Kerwin who had been pestering the NJSP for years. What seemed to change was that Lawyers became more involved and it snowballed with people being added to the mix because of all of the publicity (e.g. Arnold Unger). So Pagano saw this getting worse and what they were doing was being pro-active about it. It started as an attempt to prove the body found was Charles Jr. but evolved into a bigger review from there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2018 10:11:44 GMT -5
hand written item on list: "Inlaid wood box" - wasn't the box used with the ransom money inlaid? The beautiful box returned to Anna was the one Hauptmann made for her and it was made with inlaid wood. It was not the ransom box. Condon claimed to Breckinridge he would have a special box of various inlaid woods made to put the ransom money in but, this being Condon talking, in actuality he did no such thing. He had a plain 5-ply Maple veneer box made.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Sept 29, 2018 9:59:11 GMT -5
1) Was Hans Mueller's handwriting checked against the ransom notes? Amy, Interesting question. About a year ago, I was looking at the JJ Faulkner deposit slip and, at the same time, a few of the address books at the NJSP Museum. One address book stood out and I made a letter-by-letter comparison. Take a look -- The "F" doesn't match exactly, I know, but the fact is that it's written backwards several times in the address book. The two-stroke "k". The "u" that looks like an "m". The "r" that ends with an upward flourish. The two-stroke "5". The one-stroke "7". The near identical "W", "1", and "4". And finally the "9" with the stem shooting way below the line. In the address book, there are 19 iterations of "9". 17 of those have the stem well below the line -- What do you think? Anyone want to take a guess at whose address book this is from?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2018 12:29:21 GMT -5
Interesting post, Wayne. I find Hans Mueller to be a real person of interest in this case for many reasons. Hauptmann was so protective of him; maybe for more reasons than just that Liliput gun!
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 29, 2018 18:01:07 GMT -5
1) Was Hans Mueller's handwriting checked against the ransom notes? Amy, Interesting question. About a year ago, I was looking at the JJ Faulkner deposit slip and, at the same time, a few of the address books at the NJSP Museum. One address book stood out and I made a letter-by-letter comparison. Take a look -- The "F" doesn't match exactly, I know, but the fact is that it's written backwards several times in the address book. The two-stroke "k". The "u" that looks like an "m". The "r" that ends with an upward flourish. The two-stroke "5". The one-stroke "7". The near identical "W", "1", and "4". And finally the "9" with the stem shooting way below the line. In the address book, there are 19 iterations of "9". 17 of those have the stem well below the line -- What do you think? Anyone want to take a guess at whose address book this is from? Wayne, whose presumed handwriting did you place above J.J. Falkner on the deposit slip with tan background. Could have been "J. J. Falkner" himself! My guess is that it could be from Hauptmann's address book? But then again, no prosecutor nor law enforcement official ever stated that Hauptmann the writer of the "J. J. Faulkner" deposit slip.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Sept 29, 2018 20:51:40 GMT -5
Wayne, whose presumed handwriting did you place above J.J. Falkner on the deposit slip with tan background. Could have been "J. J. Falkner" himself! My guess is that it could be from Hauptmann's address book? But then again, no prosecutor nor law enforcement official ever stated that Hauptmann the writer of the "J. J. Faulkner" deposit slip. Hurt, Funny, when I was looking at the address book, I thought it is was Hauptmann's address book. But Mark Falzini pointed out that it was instead -- Hans and Maria Mueller's address book! What's frustrating is that it's hard to tell which one wrote which entries, but the handwriting does look similar to the JJ Faulkner's deposit slip, don't you think? Also, Siglinde Rach has pointed out that the two "J"s in the Mueller address book are actually "I"s. Regardless, is it possible that either Hans or Maria Mueller wrote the JJ Faulkner deposit slip?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 30, 2018 17:46:18 GMT -5
Wayne, whose presumed handwriting did you place above J.J. Falkner on the deposit slip with tan background. Could have been "J. J. Falkner" himself! My guess is that it could be from Hauptmann's address book? But then again, no prosecutor nor law enforcement official ever stated that Hauptmann the writer of the "J. J. Faulkner" deposit slip. Hurt, Funny, when I was looking at the address book, I thought it is was Hauptmann's address book. But Mark Falzini pointed out that it was instead -- Hans and Maria Mueller's address book! What's frustrating is that it's hard to tell which one wrote which entries, but the handwriting does look similar to the JJ Faulkner's deposit slip, don't you think? Also, Siglinde Rach has pointed out that the two "J"s in the Mueller address book are actually "I"s. Regardless, is it possible that either Hans or Maria Mueller wrote the JJ Faulkner deposit slip? This is rather fascinating. I would never expect the Mueller address book to be at the NJSP museum, because Mueller was not considered as a suspect in the LKC by the NJSP nor any of the other law enforcement agencies, in so far as I am aware. And you now say that "J. J. Faulkner" was in the Mueller address book with similar handwriting to the deposit slip That means that "J. J. Faulkner" was someone known to the Muellers and therefore there's a good chance that Hauptmann also knew "Faulkner." Taking it a step further, could Mueller or Hauptmann have had a connection to Jacob Nosovitsky - who, though not a native German, had a good knowledge of the German language and who, according to author Noel Behn, did use the alias "J. J. Faulkner" as per NYPD records. Separately, Wayne also posts another address from the Muellers' address book: "89-19 120th Lane, Richmond Hill, LI." That looks like a legitimate address which was located in Queens County, New York, within the geographical limits of New York City. (Currently there is NO 120th Lane according to my maps, but there is a 120th Street. So it's possible that 120th Lane was eliminated by development of the area in the interim.) The Richmond Hill area, BTW, retains a significant German-American population to this day. Now would anyone know who had the specific address "89-19 120th Lane" back in the 1939s? The New York Public Library might be of some help in answering that.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Sept 30, 2018 19:16:58 GMT -5
This is rather fascinating. I would never expect the Mueller address book to be at the NJSP museum, because Mueller was not considered as a suspect in the LKC by the NJSP nor any of the other law enforcement agencies, in so far as I am aware. And you now say that "J. J. Faulkner" was in the Mueller address book with similar handwriting to the deposit slip That means that "J. J. Faulkner" was someone known to the Muellers and therefore there's a good chance that Hauptmann also knew "Faulkner." Hurt, Sorry for the confusion! The name "J.J. Faulkner" is NOT in Mueller's address book! I simply noticed a lot of what I think are similarities between some of the letters in Mueller's address book and some of the letters of the J.J. Faulkner deposit slip. I'm wondering if Mueller or his wife might have written the J.J. Faulkner deposit slip. I'm working on getting a legit handwriting expert to compare the two. But the name "J.J. Faulkner" is definitely not in Mueller's address book.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Sept 30, 2018 19:26:38 GMT -5
Separately, Wayne also posts another address from the Muellers' address book: "89-19 120th Lane, Richmond Hill, LI." That looks like a legitimate address which was located in Queens County, New York, within the geographical limits of New York City. (Currently there is NO 120th Lane according to my maps, but there is a 120th Street. So it's possible that 120th Lane was eliminated by development of the area in the interim.) The Richmond Hill area, BTW, retains a significant German-American population to this day. Now would anyone know who had the specific address "89-19 120th Lane" back in the 1939s? The New York Public Library might be of some help in answering that. Hurt, I posted the "89-19" address entry only to illustrate how the "9"s go way beyond the line, just like the "9" in the J.J. Faulkner deposit slip. Here's the complete entry for that address (I don't think there is any significance here except for a scrutiny of the letters and numbers):
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2019 10:26:50 GMT -5
I want to share this report written by Albert Osborn. It is a supplemental report to his extensive handwriting report done in May of 1932. This supplemental report is dated June 1, 1932. This additional report addresses Osborn's observations about the writing instrument(s) used to produce the ransom notes. He also comments about the ink used and the signature holes. imgur.com/meu0ynO Page One imgur.com/XUaW66G Page Two imgur.com/3iiSGLO Page Three Osborn's observation that the nursery room ransom note was written with a different pen from the other ransom notes (except possibly note 6) has always intrigued me. Why was a different pen used to write the nursery note, especially if it is believed that only one person wrote all the notes? Could it have anything to do with where the first note was written? Interestingly, I have read a couple of remarks about pen usage mentioned by authors in their books on this case. There may be others that I am not aware of. I will mention two here. One can be found in Ludovic Kennedy's book, "The Airman and The Carpenter" on page 155 of Part Four of this book. Kennedy relates that Isidor Fisch brought a pen to Hauptmann in November 1933, just weeks before he would leave for Germany. The other I want to mention is from Dr. Gardner's book, "The Case That Never Dies". On page 161 of Chapter 7, Gardner writes that Osborn had advised authorities when administering the test paragraph to suspects to write exemplars, that different pens should be used during testing because the ransom notes may have been written with more than one type of pen. Dr. Gardner again mentions the topic of pens on page 192 of Chapter 8 of his book mentioned above. Dr. Gardner reveals that the FBI recovered two fountain pens from the Hauptmann apartment! The NJSP would also recover a pen during their investigation of this case. This pen would be found hidden in Hauptmann's old Brunswick Super Heterodyne radio. This radio is the one that Frederick Hahn told authorities that he saw bags of money in that Fisch gave Hauptmann to hold for him. Eventually this same radio would find it's way to the apartment of Hans Mueller with a hidden pen in it. Mueller's apartment would be searched twice. The first time on September 20, 1934 with nothing of interest found. imgur.com/SXA9a22Six days later on September 26, 1934, Mueller's apartment would be searched but this time a discovery would be made. imgur.com/RZpkTeoThe fact that this pen had been concealed in this manner makes it a suspicious item. Could this recovered pen be the one that Fisch left with Hauptmann in November 1933? Did Hauptmann then hide this pen in his old radio cabinet which he would give to Hans Mueller a few months later? Once again there is this fascinating triangle of Fisch, Hauptmann and Mueller!
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Oct 12, 2023 15:39:22 GMT -5
Michael, I have always been highly interested in Hans Mueller as a person of interest in this case. In your Dark Corners book, Volume 2, Chapter 6 on Hans Mueller, you talk about the boat named Mariquita? (spelling). This is a boat that Mueller had been associated with. You do not mention what happened to this boat. I want to share the following report with you. I found this at the NJSP archives. It was in Accordion Folder #2. R1600 reports, manilla file folder number 3. Could this police report be the Mariquita boat that was connected with Hans Mueller? imgur.com/ewiqGc3
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 14, 2023 20:32:19 GMT -5
Michael, I have always been highly interested in Hans Mueller as a person of interest in this case. In your Dark Corners book, Volume 2, Chapter 6 on Hans Mueller, you talk about the boat named Mariquita? (spelling). This is a boat that Mueller had been associated with. You do not mention what happened to this boat. I want to share the following report with you. I found this at the NJSP archives. It was in Accordion Folder #2. R1600 reports, manilla file folder number 3. Could this police report be the Mariquita boat that was connected with Hans Mueller? imgur.com/ewiqGc3Yes, this was that boat. Glad you brought it up. It's also in another file besides the 1600 collection, so there's two places one can find it. Sorry about not mentioning what ultimately happened to it. I'd still like to know the fate of the boat Mueller purchased though.
|
|