Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2018 11:02:15 GMT -5
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. I asked you the same question you asked me. I asked you about the credibility of the prosecution witnesses used by Wilentz in the trial. There are challengeable issues on both sides of this case concerning witnesses. I am not aware that Jim Fisher thought any of Wilentz's witnesses might be lying. Does he say this in his books? Can you point me to what book? I would like to read which ones he thought had credibility issues. I have always thought Fisher believed Wilentz's case was the gospel for this kidnapping case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2018 11:16:08 GMT -5
but amy you don't know until you use them I see your point about not knowing how truthful a witness might be until you use them. I also realize that, for the defense, they had limitations on them such as financial that could have made it difficult for them to properly "vet" a witness before putting someone on the stand. However, that does not mean that every witness the defense used was a liar. Wilentz, on the other hand did have foreknowledge about Whited and Hochmuth never claiming in 1932 that they saw anyone around the Lindbergh estate or in a car with a ladder. He uses them anyway though, doesn't he.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Dec 29, 2018 13:28:19 GMT -5
Wilentz, on the other hand did have foreknowledge about Whited and Hochmuth never claiming in 1932 that they saw anyone around the Lindbergh estate or in a car with a ladder. He uses them anyway though, doesn't he. Wolf, Adding to what Amy says, Hochmuth said 5 times on the witness chair that he saw a " dirty green car" and to Peacock that the "dirty green" car was a 2-seater. Think about that. Hochmuth is actually clearing BRH, not implicating him, isn't he? (BRH had a blue, 6-seater Dodge.)
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Dec 30, 2018 9:23:08 GMT -5
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. I asked you the same question you asked me. I asked you about the credibility of the prosecution witnesses used by Wilentz in the trial. There are challengeable issues on both sides of this case concerning witnesses. I am not aware that Jim Fisher thought any of Wilentz's witnesses might be lying. Does he say this in his books? Can you point me to what book? I would like to read which ones he thought had credibility issues. I have always thought Fisher believed Wilentz's case was the gospel for this kidnapping case. Amy, this is one of the FAQ's from Jim Fisher's website: Was there perjury at the Lindbergh trial?
Yes. Some of the prosecution eyewitnesses were questionable, but they were irrelevant since the state made its case with the physical evidence. Almost all of the perjury came from the defense side of the case. It's all I could find for now but from what I recall from my reading, he has specifically questioned the veracity of the testimony of Hochmuth, Whited and Rossitter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2018 11:36:40 GMT -5
Thanks Joe for researching that Fisher answer for me.
With both sides having some witness credibility issues, had the defense had access to investigative reports and statements made in 1932 and prior to both the arrest and trial of Hauptmann, there may have been more challenges to the state's case concerning the physical evidence against Hauptmann. With no discovery rights existing in the 1930's, anyone who was a defendant in a trial was at a disadvantage from the start.
I am glad that you say Fisher had questioned the veracity of Whited, Hochmuth and Rossiter. In all fairness, that would be a correct response based on reports at the archives.
I believe that Hauptmann has involvement in this crime, I just don't believe he did this alone.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Dec 31, 2018 11:41:50 GMT -5
Thanks Joe for researching that Fisher answer for me. With both sides having some witness credibility issues, had the defense had access to investigative reports and statements made in 1932 and prior to both the arrest and trial of Hauptmann, there may have been more challenges to the state's case concerning the physical evidence against Hauptmann. With no discovery rights existing in the 1930's, anyone who was a defendant in a trial was at a disadvantage from the start. I am glad that you say Fisher had questioned the veracity of Whited, Hochmuth and Rossiter. In all fairness, that would be a correct response based on reports at the archives. I believe that Hauptmann has involvement in this crime, I just don't believe he did this alone. Amy, I believe there is also a reference somewhere in Fisher's original book, which more or less agrees. I'm just not sure where it is. I do remember originally having read his book and coming away with this understanding. I agree there were others sharing some level of involvement, but the evidence clearly shows Hauptmann was the one who benefited financially, almost entirely. I do believe there is a good probability that Fisch left ransom money with Hauptmann for safekeeping, perhaps even in a shoebox, but that Hauptmann was clearly aware of its source. The spider plant cleanup / Fisch story in August of 1934 was simply a device and ready answer if he was apprehended for the crime. Over the course of his business liaison and friendship with Fisch, I find it almost inconceivable the latter was not at least aware of of Hauptmann's involvement, and most likely was a willing cog within the ransom negotiations and money laundering process. Beyond that, while I see no direct evidence of their involvement, I believe many of Hauptmann's more astute friends, and even Anna knew of her husband's crimes, or seriously entertained suspicions.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 31, 2018 14:47:42 GMT -5
I know about the Fisch story but I've never heard of the "spider plant cleanup." Could you please elaborate about that?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Dec 31, 2018 16:51:18 GMT -5
I know about the Fisch story but I've never heard of the "spider plant cleanup." Could you please elaborate about that? It was related by Anna Hauptmann to Scaduto and appears on page 427 in Scapegoat. Essentially, it's the event that according to Anna, led to the discovery of Fisch's shoebox on a Sunday in the summer of 1934. As the story goes, Richard was transplanting a snake plant into a larger pot and some of the soil spilled onto the floor. While Richard was getting a broom and dustpan out of the kitchen closet, he accidentally struck the shoebox which was tucked away at the back of the topmost shelf. The box, having been repeatedly soaked from previous rainfalls through a leak in the roof which allowed rainwater to run down the outside of their washroom ventilation pipe, was then apparently ripped open when struck, exposing the gold certificates contained inside. It is a fact that the Hauptmanns had complained to Max Rauch on a number of occasions regarding the water leak into their closet, and a plumber named Gustave Miller, had been there in August 1934 to check out the complaint, so there is an element of truth here. On the other hand, just how Hauptmann actually managed to strike an out-of-sight shoebox with a straight-handled broomstick or how a soaking wet cardboard box would not have been noticed for its peculiar smell in a confined space like the broom closet between December of 1933 and that fateful afternoon over 8 months later, is something that's kept me mystified from the time I began studying this case. I believe it also suggests very strongly that Anna Hauptmann knew a lot more about Richard than she was letting on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2019 12:32:57 GMT -5
I believe it also suggests very strongly that Anna Hauptmann knew a lot more about Richard than she was letting on. I will need to review that whole snake plant story that Anna told to Scaduto. I believe this would have been in the 1970's when she shared this with him. I, personally, would not put much stock in that plant story. I can find no basis for it. At least, not in her 32 page statement she gave to Assistant DA Breslin in his office the evening of Sept. 21, 1934. Anna was asked numerous questions about the leaking issues in that apartment and about that broom closet. According to Anna, the leaking issue was extensive. She said they were having water problems in the baby's room, the kitchen, once in the bedroom and once in the closet in the kitchen. She also complained that it was not being addressed properly by the landlord. When discussing the broom closet, Anna never tells any story about a plant needing to be transplanted. She is also very clear that she never saw a shoe box on the top shelf because she could not see that far back onto the shelf. To do that she would need a chair. She only used the very front of the shelf for things she wanted access to. If Anna knew her husband to be guilty of the kidnapping, don't you think she would have supported his alibi about the shoe box in 1934 and during the trial in 1935?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Jan 1, 2019 18:31:26 GMT -5
I believe it also suggests very strongly that Anna Hauptmann knew a lot more about Richard than she was letting on. I will need to review that whole snake plant story that Anna told to Scaduto. I believe this would have been in the 1970's when she shared this with him. I, personally, would not put much stock in that plant story. I can find no basis for it. At least, not in her 32 page statement she gave to Assistant DA Breslin in his office the evening of Sept. 21, 1934. Anna was asked numerous questions about the leaking issues in that apartment and about that broom closet. According to Anna, the leaking issue was extensive. She said they were having water problems in the baby's room, the kitchen, once in the bedroom and once in the closet in the kitchen. She also complained that it was not being addressed properly by the landlord. When discussing the broom closet, Anna never tells any story about a plant needing to be transplanted. She is also very clear that she never saw a shoe box on the top shelf because she could not see that far back onto the shelf. To do that she would need a chair. She only used the very front of the shelf for things she wanted access to. If Anna knew her husband to be guilty of the kidnapping, don't you think she would have supported his alibi about the shoe box in 1934 and during the trial in 1935? Amy, if you're suggesting the snake plant account never really happened, but assuming for the moment this is what Anna Hauptmann actually told Anthony Scaduto, why do you think she would have come up with such a detailed, yet false and misleading narrative? As a matter of fact, Anna would not have needed a chair to see a shoebox in the back of the topmost shelf of her broom closet. The period photos and the line of sight angles are quite clear. Are you basing your opinion on her word only here? Wilentz had Anna in a deep corner from the beginning and she knew it. I believe he was being kind enough not to embarrass her too much, but equally if not more, wanted to avoid creating any possibility in the minds of the jurors that she was somehow complicit. Reilly for his part, either wan't astute enough or perhaps had had too many orange blossoms, if in fact he did ask her to lie under oath. Anna could not tell Wilentz she had seen a shoebox in her closet because she knew she would have investigated if she had have seen anything in addition to the items she categorically mentioned in her testimony, which were a part of her recognized top shelf inventory. Wilentz knew this and so did Anna. It's also very clear from her labored testimony that Anna was trying to avoid having to tell Wilentz she never cleaned her top shelf, which she also felt was providing her with the out she needed. It didn't work. It's little wonder the defense was deflated, when Anna was done on the stand. Let's be realistic. If Anna had have lied and claimed under oath she saw a shoebox, things would have imploded very quickly here, and it would have pretty much been over for her husband and her. Anna was far from being what most at the time would consider to be a typical German hausfrau, and one who was primarily oblivious to her husband's activities. One of the few bright spots in Scaduto's book is within the deep conversations he had with Anna Hauptmann. There's no question in my mind there were no secrets here, and this couple was as intimately connected as two people could possibly be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2019 20:48:43 GMT -5
Amy, if you're suggesting the snake plant account never really happened, but assuming for the moment this is what Anna Hauptmann actually told Anthony Scaduto, why do you think she would have come up with such a detailed, yet false and misleading narrative? I pulled out my Scaduto book and read about this. Anna didn't come up with this detailed story herself. The story about the snake plant was told to her by Richard when he was in jail. She says he told her this two days after his arrest when she asked him about this money that was found. This was Hauptmann wanting Anna to continue to believe in him. She needed an explanation from Richard and he gave her one. This reassured Anna of her husband's innocence concerning how he came into possession of all that money. Do you believe that Richard was telling a true story to Anna? She certainly believed it and obviously continued to believe it since she told it to Scaduto so many years later. I certainly don't believe that story. I think Hauptmann lied to her. I don't think this story shows any intimacy between this couple at all. What is that old saying? Love is blind. Anna wore big blinders when it came to her husband!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 2, 2019 8:37:57 GMT -5
What is that old saying? Love is blind. Anna wore big blinders when it came to her husband! When it comes to Anna I know that Joe has been suspicious of her knowledge for quite some time. My opinion is that if Anna was "about" lying for her husband she would have seized a major opportunity and did what Reilly asked her to do - lie about seeing the box. So the test for me would be to ask the question why she'd lie in one place but not in another? The answer seems clear.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2019 13:52:05 GMT -5
I agree that Anna would have lied about that box if she really wanted to help her husband and being truthful didn't matter to her. If she had known about any involvement he might have had with the Lindbergh crime before Richard was taken into custody, she would have done what was necessary to help him. They would have been ready with an alibi story just in case he ever ended up being picked up by police. Just like Hauptmann and Mueller had for just such a possibility.
Hauptmann and Anna had no such arrangement. Anna told the truth as she knew it. She never saw that box in the broom closet. Her story never changed concerning that even when she sat in that witness chair in Flemington.
|
|