|
Post by Wayne on Dec 19, 2018 13:01:13 GMT -5
Wolf, Take a look at the top of page 3 of Hockmuth's statement to Peacock -- Three days before testifying at the trial, Hockmuth says that he can not identify Hauptmann as the man he saw on March 1 ("I can't say that. I can't say that"). Hockmuth's own words in black and white.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 19, 2018 18:03:15 GMT -5
but amy theres also people said they did see him. Hi Wolf, Do you include Hochmuth as a viable witness who saw BRH on March 1? I'm curious if you've read Hochmuth's trial transcript? Hochmuth testified not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, but five times on the witness chair that the car he saw was "green'. Hauptmann's car was blue. Also, have you read the statement Hochmuth gave to Peacock three days before he (Hochmuth) testified? Hochmuth said he saw a "two-seater...green" car. It's there in black and white, in Hochmuth's own words. That would mean he did not see Hauptmann's blue, six-seater Dodge sedan. Also if you take a look at the last couple of pages of Hochmuth's statement to Peacock, you can see that Peacock is leading Hochmuth, telling him that BRH is guilty so he might as well testify that he saw him on March 1. Again, all there in black and white -- I'm curious, which of the witnesses do you believe placed Hauptmann in Highfields on March 1? I know this is hindsight, but H0chmuth's testimony as to what he saw should have carried no weight at all. As Michael revealed, Hochmuth was legally blind! A thoughtful defense attorney in the Hauptmann trial should have observed that Hochmuth was very elderly (elderly enough to have been a veteran of the Franco-Prussian War) and used that as a springboard to ask him how old he was, and the logical follow-up about his visual acuity. That line of questioning might provoke a retort of "ageism" today, but it would rightfully discredit Hochmuth as an eyewitness unless he committed perjury.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Dec 20, 2018 10:10:49 GMT -5
since I don't study this case like I use to I would have to dig in my archives. theres other people besides houcmouth who saw him lurking Hopewell. I think rail 16 places him there nobody ever came forward saying they were part of the crime, I think Hauptman did it alone
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Dec 20, 2018 10:12:03 GMT -5
I think he saw Hauptman because he made a comment to a njs policeman that hes sure it was hauptman
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Dec 20, 2018 10:13:51 GMT -5
either hes guilty or hes not mike. I ve seen no credible evidence that he had help just rumors and speculation
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Dec 20, 2018 11:26:28 GMT -5
since I don't study this case like I use to I would have to dig in my archives. theres other people besides houcmouth who saw him lurking Hopewell. I think rail 16 places him there nobody ever came forward saying they were part of the crime, I think Hauptman did it alone Hi Wolf, I agree with you that BRH built the ladder. But no one definitely saw him at Highfields on March 1. No one saw him climb the ladder, kidnap Charlie, or kill him. Building a ladder does not make a person a kidnapper or killer. That was the point I was making with the 5 witnesses who said they saw BRH at the bakery that night. BRH's 5 witnesses were more credible than any of the so-called prosecution witnesses who lied when they said they saw BRH at Highfield's that day or night. Hockmuth admitted to Peacock 3 days before he testified that he could NOT say that it was BRH who he saw that afternoon. It's there. In this words. See 5 posts above.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 20, 2018 12:30:16 GMT -5
There's plenty of evidence that puts Hauptmann right in the middle of the crime. Don't you think it's kind of a coincidence that police found that a part of the ladder wood which fit into the guy they caught with a bunch of ransom money hidden in his garage were the same man? The crime was really solved long ago. All this chat on sites like this is sometimes interesting but will never amount to anything. Even if a new suspect were to be found - what are you gonna do? Go question him? You gonna search Betty's garage which she never had? Kind of a fun waste of time. I did solve the major questions left of the crime by logic - other than that nothing new has come up for LKC in many years.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Dec 20, 2018 14:31:19 GMT -5
There's plenty of evidence that puts Hauptmann right in the middle of the crime. Don't you think it's kind of a coincidence that police found that a part of the ladder wood which fit into the guy they caught with a bunch of ransom money hidden in his garage were the same man? The crime was really solved long ago. All this chat on sites like this is sometimes interesting but will never amount to anything. Even if a new suspect were to be found - what are you gonna do? Go question him? You gonna search Betty's garage which she never had? Kind of a fun waste of time. I did solve the major questions left of the crime by logic - other than that nothing new has come up for LKC in many years. That "plenty" of evidence is a likely, but not guaranteed, rail match (only DNA testing on both samples would answer that for sure). Beyond that, the shoe impressions don't match, no witnesses place him there, no fingerprints (even on places within the ladder that the builder would have to touch). Nothing.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 20, 2018 17:37:19 GMT -5
Agreed, but there is plenty of something whereas with other possibilities there's nothing. Not even friends of BRH from his notebooks or interesting quotes, like "call Al about 3/1."
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Dec 20, 2018 19:00:29 GMT -5
Agreed, but there is plenty of something whereas with other possibilities there's nothing. Not even friends of BRH from his notebooks or interesting quotes, like "call Al about 3/1." Hi Jack, Where is that from? "Call Al about 3/1"? And unless you saw Hauptmann climb the ladder up to the nursery, take Charlie from the crib, and then kill him, how do you know for a fact that Hauptmann didn't build the ladder for someone else and then was involved only in the extortion part? And do you totally ignore all 5 of BRH's witnesses who placed him in the bakery on March 1? I can show you ALL of Wilentz's witnesses who "saw" BRH around Highfields lied. Again, it's in black in white, in their own words. I can not show you that any of BRH's bakery witnesses lied. I really have a problem with that.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 21, 2018 10:45:32 GMT -5
In addition, as was proved by police investigation, it would have been next to impossible for anyone to climb that ladder to enter the nursery through the window, then descent with baby in grasp, all without disarranging the items within the nursery.
The jury was too intimidated by the prosecution to grasp Wayne's crucial point.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Dec 21, 2018 12:57:30 GMT -5
In addition, as was proved by police investigation, it would have been next to impossible for anyone to climb that ladder to enter the nursery through the window, then descent with baby in grasp, all without disarranging the items within the nursery. The jury was too intimidated by the prosecution to grasp Wayne's crucial point. Anybody trying to exit that room in haste with baby in tow would slide the chest by the window to the side or at least remove the tinker toys. Since that wasn't done, it's an immediate red flag.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Dec 22, 2018 9:47:19 GMT -5
im not big with eyewitnesses. if they hold up during cross exam its a win weather you believe them or not on either side of the case.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Dec 22, 2018 9:50:15 GMT -5
I don't think much for eyewitnesses, but if they hold up in cross exam its a win.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Dec 22, 2018 9:53:32 GMT -5
but he didn't have problems with the English talk. reilly had really nothing to get him out of this. some of hauptmans explanations for the ransom money and other things were comical
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 22, 2018 10:14:30 GMT -5
im not big with eyewitnesses. if they hold up during cross exam its a win weather you believe them or not on either side of the case. The problem lies with what your position is. Do you care more about the Prosecution victory or the truth? Have you read Wilentz's pre-trial outline? Peacock's? They were relying on the eyewitnesses to make their case of his physical presence there. I don't care what anyone says was or was not necessary because I HAVE their outlines. If it wasn't necessary it wouldn't be presented in those notes as necessary. Wilentz was really hoping for Lupica. That's an absolute fact. It's why he put so much pressure on him. I don't think much for eyewitnesses, but if they hold up in cross exam its a win. It might have been a win for the State but was it a win for what really happened? I realize that some may solely be interested in the case itself but I am more interested in what really happened. I could care less who used perjured testimony unless it helps me solve this thing. but he didn't have problems with the English talk. reilly had really nothing to get him out of this. some of hauptmans explanations for the ransom money and other things were comical Hauptmann could speak English and understand a lot of English. However, there are obvious indicators in his interrogations, interviews, statements, and testimony where he didn't understand certain phrases or words. Plus, he was telling the truth about translating what he heard in English into German before he answered much of it. That's not to say the man never lied because he did. But he also told the truth at times too. So its our job to figure it all out. Shrugging something off, sweeping something under the rug, or ignoring certain things to make it "easier" is never a good strategy.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 25, 2018 12:21:43 GMT -5
". . .unless it helps me solve this thing." I hear you Michael. When I solved the Lindbergh personal part of the crime I had to think back and was really amazed. There had been guys, even on this forum who had been looking at the crime for many years, and had never come up with the truth about how Lindbergh handled the especially first ransom note. Or, maybe more correctly they never thought of the answer to this whole thing - see posts above and it will be obvious why. I guess there are people who think in answers and others who just come up with more difficult to answer questions. Such is life, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 26, 2018 8:50:10 GMT -5
". . .unless it helps me solve this thing." I hear you Michael. When I solved the Lindbergh personal part of the crime I had to think back and was really amazed. There had been guys, even on this forum who had been looking at the crime for many years, and had never come up with the truth about how Lindbergh handled the especially first ransom note. Or, maybe more correctly they never thought of the answer to this whole thing - see posts above and it will be obvious why. I guess there are people who think in answers and others who just come up with more difficult to answer questions. Such is life, I guess. I look at it this way Jack.... It's all part of the process. Challenges, re-thinking, different approaches and/or perspectives... It's all good because it allows for a healthy debate. What isn't good is the bad faith efforts of those who resist facts they do not "like" or deny real information because it interferes with their personal theory. Again, I could give a million different examples of this ... like I did above concerning the NYU Dinner. Some find that when they are in a Catch-22 the best tactic is to simply ignore what places them there or to repeat their discredited position as if the facts support it - even when its crystal clear they do not. And so working through the possibilities that the verifiable SOURCES allow us is the only way, in my opinion, to even proceed. If real sources smash any theory then that theory has to be adjusted accordingly. Instead in the past, I've seen brow beatings and condescension by those who never laid eyes on the sources in the first place. "Pretenders" telling people what to believe and what not to all in spite of what the source documentation reveals. Make any sense? Not to me so I am all IN for healthy debate and fresh ideas. And its because of them we've (here) have been able to "work" through and explain so much of what IS actually real. Right now I've just finished up with a section in V3 which explains an observation Scaduto made. It's easy to see why he made it because of his limited access and unfamiliarity with most of the files which exist at the NJSP Archives. And yet that's more than those who say he "lied" as if they'd have any idea about it at all. But with the 18 years of research and our good faith debates/challenges here, I do now have enough information to properly evaluate it. But if one removes Scaduto's book, removes our debates/discussion, and removes my research at the NJSP Archives I could NOT do it. If any of these things are "removed" I wouldn't be qualified or have the ability to do so. And yet there are some who simply sit back and declare Scaduto a "liar" or that he did not "know" what he was talking about as if that isn't a completely reckless approach. I don't believe anyone here thinks like that and its why this is such a great Board. Simply being told something isn't true will never work here, is the tactic of weak minded individuals, and its even the weaker minded of those who simply believe them on their word for it. We want more. We want to know. We want to find out the "wheres" the "whats" and the "whys." And if something doesn't seem quite right any one of us will challenge it regardless. I've had previous positions completely upended by challenges here that had me going back the Archives to find more information, or had me re-thinking how I was looking at things faced with that new perspective. No one is ever "above" being challenged.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Dec 27, 2018 10:38:51 GMT -5
I don't think the defense could find good witnesses
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2018 11:02:48 GMT -5
I don't think the defense could find good witnesses Not so, Steve. Going through those files at the archives, I have already come across someone who would have been a very good witness for Hauptmann and Reilly did not use him. Instead, Reilly put people like Phillip Moses on the stand who wanted the chance to show off his Will Rogers imitation and go on the radio to promote himself. Reilly was Hauptmann's biggest obstacle to having a quality defense.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 27, 2018 15:02:18 GMT -5
Amen! It's practically impossible for an alcoholic to function at full capacity when performing a job which required a very high level of cerebral acuity, as this one did. I think his nickname of "Death House" was well deserved.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Dec 27, 2018 15:03:57 GMT -5
I don't think the defense could find good witnesses Not so, Steve. Going through those files at the archives, I have already come across someone who would have been a very good witness for Hauptmann and Reilly did not use him. Instead, Reilly put people like Phillip Moses on the stand who wanted the chance to show off his Will Rogers imitation and go on the radio to promote himself. Reilly was Hauptmann's biggest obstacle to having a quality defense. Amy, I still believe Reilly was clutching at straws in presenting the witnesses he did. Do you feel any of them had unimpeachable frames of reference to not only place them in Fredericksen's Bakery on the evening of March 1, 1932, but that they could also positively identify at the trial, someone they would have had little reason to even notice almost three years earlier?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Dec 27, 2018 15:22:22 GMT -5
Hi Joe,
I'm curious. Instead of just reading the various truncated accounts of the witnesses' testimony in all the various books, have you actually read ALL of the actual witnesses' testimony from the trial itself?
Both defense and prosecution witness testimony?
If you haven't, I highly recommend it to everyone here.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Dec 27, 2018 15:49:09 GMT -5
One of the reasons I prefer to study the case further upstream is that by the time this gets to trial, the outcome is a foregone conclusion...
With apologies to Mencken, if Jesus Christ himself (or insert you preferred deity here) resurrected into that courtroom and pronounced BRH innocent of the kidnapping and murder of the child, there would STILL be those who would doubt even His testimony!
The anti-German sentiment, unfathomable (by modern standards) aura cast by CAL, the outrage at the death and grave of the baby and the need for law enforcement to end the monumental drain on resources preordained that the FIRST person apprehended with even the slightest connection to the kidnapping was going to be crucified. The fact that BRH had possession of the ransom money was more than enough for the average Joe to proclaim him guilty of the entire caper, an outcome that the prosecution and law enforcement were content to facilitate.
The competency and sobriety of defense counsel is moot in this trial because once BRH was discovered to have the ransom in his possession, his fate was sealed...
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Dec 27, 2018 20:31:02 GMT -5
Hi Joe, I'm curious. Instead of just reading the various truncated accounts of the witnesses' testimony in all the various books, have you actually read ALL of the actual witnesses' testimony from the trial itself? Both defense and prosecution witness testimony? If you haven't, I highly recommend it to everyone here. Wayne, I have the trial testimony and over the years, I've probably read all of it, primarily referencing it to answer and develop additional questions. I can't tell you I've sat down and pored through it from start to finish, as it can make for pretty dry and stultifying reading. But I can tell you I'm not married to any of the authors' accounting of the defense or prosecution witness testimonies. It's clear to me that Wilentz was using every tactic at his disposal to discredit Reilly's defense witnesses. Much of the examination is overly detailed and irrelevant, the questions unreasonably rapid-fire and repetitive; designed to wear down the witnesses. The same goes for Reilly though, so at the end of the day, I don't pay the trial testimony any more attention than it's due. Much of the trial was a strange, ego-stoked charade and a disgrace to true justice. That does not make either side right or wrong, but considering the merits of the associated investigative reports, in my opinion, it still provides enough insight into who was being truthful and who was not.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 28, 2018 9:14:02 GMT -5
Not so, Steve. Going through those files at the archives, I have already come across someone who would have been a very good witness for Hauptmann and Reilly did not use him. Instead, Reilly put people like Phillip Moses on the stand who wanted the chance to show off his Will Rogers imitation and go on the radio to promote himself. Reilly was Hauptmann's biggest obstacle to having a quality defense. Great job Amy - interesting isn't it? Keep searching and you'll continue to find even more! As far as Moses ... this wasn't his last appearance in a famous trial either. Having read so much about him I'd very much like to see Moses's impression of Rogers! Despite the fact that Lloyd Fisher hated that he was used I've seen many accounts that he did a really good job with his imitation. Unfortunately for Hauptmann that was his only motivation for being involved.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 28, 2018 9:28:47 GMT -5
Wayne, I have the trial testimony and over the years, I've probably read all of it, primarily referencing it to answer and develop additional questions. I can't tell you I've sat down and pored through it from start to finish, as it can make for pretty dry and stultifying reading. But I can tell you I'm not married to any of the authors' accounting of the defense or prosecution witness testimonies. It's clear to me that Wilentz was using every tactic at his disposal to discredit Reilly's defense witnesses. Much of the examination is overly detailed and irrelevant, the questions unreasonably rapid-fire and repetitive; designed to wear down the witnesses. The same goes for Reilly though, so at the end of the day, I don't pay the trial testimony any more attention than it's due. Much of the trial was a strange, ego-stoked charade and a disgrace to true justice. That does not make either side right or wrong, but considering the merits of the associated investigative reports, in my opinion, it still provides enough insight into who was being truthful and who was not. A great position to take which I fully support. The only caveat being that there's much by the way of associated investigate reports, letters, and memos to be seen. Right? So its hard to consider them if we haven't seen them - and I do mean "we" because I would not be so bold as to assume I've seen "everything" when I know I haven't. No one can say I haven't tried though... The biggest problem with Reilly was that he never even spoke with many "witnesses." Those potential witnesses he did speak with usually consisted of about a 15-30 second exchange and if he liked what he heard he promised to use them - although he may not have - and if he didn't he immediately dismissed them. Unfortunately some of those dismissed could have been useful, and some he did use were not properly utilized to bring out what could have been useful. Reilly also wasn't communicating with Fisher, Rosencrans, or Pope. These men often found out who was to be used as a witness once they were on the stand. Some they had never laid eyes on before that. The most famous disagreement came when Reilly admitted the Corpus Delecti causing Fisher to temporarily quit the case. Challenging the dead body was "supposed" to have been a major part of the Defense - or at least that's what Pope, Rosencrans, and Fisher all thought was their strategy. Meanwhile you accurately attribute very shady (if not illegal) conduct by the State.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2018 9:28:58 GMT -5
Amy, I still believe Reilly was clutching at straws in presenting the witnesses he did. Do you feel any of them had unimpeachable frames of reference to not only place them in Fredericksen's Bakery on the evening of March 1, 1932, but that they could also positively identify at the trial, someone they would have had little reason to even notice almost three years earlier? Joe, do you believe that all of the prosecution's witnesses who placed Hauptmann in Hopewell around and including March 1, 1932 are unimpeachable in their testimony?? I agree with Wayne, it is important to read all the testimony surrounding the various witnesses on both sides and then compare it to all the reports in the files at the archives and see what that reveals about impeachable testimony in this trial. Reilly's conduct as a lead defense attorney along with a number of his actions during this trial which actually aided the prosecution's case against his client are there for all to see in that trial transcript. Reilly had taken on the obligation to defend his client and seek to do the very best he could to create reasonable doubt concerning key areas of the case brought against his client. He failed to frame such a defense and got in the way, more than once, of his own defense team who wanted to provide such a defense.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Dec 29, 2018 9:30:52 GMT -5
Amy, I still believe Reilly was clutching at straws in presenting the witnesses he did. Do you feel any of them had unimpeachable frames of reference to not only place them in Fredericksen's Bakery on the evening of March 1, 1932, but that they could also positively identify at the trial, someone they would have had little reason to even notice almost three years earlier? Joe, do you believe that all of the prosecution's witnesses who placed Hauptmann in Hopewell around and including March 1, 1932 are unimpeachable in their testimony?? I agree with Wayne, it is important to read all the testimony surrounding the various witnesses on both sides and then compare it to all the reports in the files at the archives and see what that reveals about impeachable testimony in this trial. Reilly's conduct as a lead defense attorney along with a number of his actions during this trial which actually aided the prosecution's case against his client are there for all to see in that trial transcript. Reilly had taken on the obligation to defend his client and seek to do the very best he could to create reasonable doubt concerning key areas of the case brought against his client. He failed to frame such a defense and got in the way, more than once, of his own defense team who wanted to provide such a defense. Amy, I wasn't referring to any of the prosecution witnesses.. they present their own set of credibility issues and even Jim Fisher acknowledges that.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Dec 29, 2018 10:34:49 GMT -5
but amy you don't know until you use them
|
|