|
Post by scathma on Mar 20, 2019 17:23:21 GMT -5
For some reason I always pictured Wendel as a short man...
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 21, 2019 14:05:49 GMT -5
The caption for photo # 30 reads:
After Hauptmann's dramatic outbreak on January 17, extra guards have been detailed to escort him to and from the Flemington, New Jersey courtroom.
Never heard of this prison outbreak attempt on the part of BRH. Can someone provide some details? Where was Hauptmann recaptured?
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Mar 21, 2019 15:58:18 GMT -5
The caption for picture 31 states that the spoon was stolen at breakfast in the Bronx County NY jail on Sept 28, 1934. Little late to be upping the guard in Flemington in January of 1935 isn't it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2019 18:40:18 GMT -5
The caption for photo # 30 reads: After Hauptmann's dramatic outbreak on January 17, extra guards have been detailed to escort him to and from the Flemington, New Jersey courtroom.
Never heard of this prison outbreak attempt on the part of BRH. Can someone provide some details? Where was Hauptmann recaptured? Hi Hurtelable - I think it was regarding the metal spoon broken into pieces they found in his cell (there is a photo of the pieces in that same link). Amy35, Wayne, or Michael can correct me if I am mistaken. I don't think he ever truly tried to "breakout" - just more yellow rag sensationalism. So here is what the excitement was about Jan. 17, 1935 which was day 12 of the trial: Special Agent Thomas H. Sisk was on the stand under direct examination by Wilentz. Wilentz was questioning Sisk about the crockery/jug that was found buried in the ground of the garage under some loose floor boards. LE removed the crockery jug but all it had in it was some water but no money. Hauptmann was asked about that jug but his denied any knowledge of it the day it was found. Sisk then went on to testify that they asked BRH about the jug the next day and that Hauptmann admitted that he had money in there three weeks before he was arrested. At this point, Hauptmann stood up in the courtroom and shouted at Sisk: "Mister, Mister, you stop lying. You are telling a story." This caused a stir in the courtroom and, of course, was reported in all the newspapers. I think the term "outbreak" should have been "outburst" by Hauptmann. You would think that Ed Reilly, once he began he cross examination of Sisk would have had questions for Sisk about this. Nothing at all. Reilly let it pass. In fact, the crockery/jug was never even entered into evidence!
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Mar 21, 2019 20:14:00 GMT -5
"Utterly oblivious to the possible fate of his father, Lindbergh kidnap suspect, little Mannfried Hauptman celebrated his first birth anniversary on Nov. 3, 1934 at the La Pourette Home in Flemington, New Jersey." "utterly oblivious"? the caption-er is being kinda harsh on a 1 year old
|
|
|
Post by nancyw on Mar 25, 2019 19:38:43 GMT -5
Hello. I am new to board but longtime researcher on this case. I have read that BRH reacted at Sisk's testimony because of his references to him being nervous in the bedroom and continually looking out the window at the garage. BRH's contention was that the window was on one side of the house and the garage was on another side and he could not have seen the garage from where he sat. I have never been to the house and wonder if anyone on this board has been there - and does BRH's explanation make sense? Thanks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2019 21:32:22 GMT -5
Hello. I am new to board but longtime researcher on this case. I have read that BRH reacted at Sisk's testimony because of his references to him being nervous in the bedroom and continually looking out the window at the garage. BRH's contention was that the window was on one side of the house and the garage was on another side and he could not have seen the garage from where he sat. I have never been to the house and wonder if anyone on this board has been there - and does BRH's explanation make sense? Thanks. Hello nancyw and welcome to the board. It is great to have another longtime researcher join our discussions. I am sure myself and others will be able to learn much from you! You are correct that part of Sisk's direct examination by Wilentz did include a portion about Hauptmann standing up frequently to look out the bedroom window. Here is a portion of that testimony: Trial Transcript, Day 12, Pages 1587 & 1588 Direct Examination by DA Wilentz of Thomas H. Sisk Q) All right. What happened? A) We had him sit down at a chair near the window almost along side of the window in the rear room, I think two of us, Corporal William Horn and myself.
Q) Corporal Horn is of the New Jersey State Police? A) Yes, sir, of the New Jersey State Police.
Q) Yes? A) And Corporal Horn was searching a dresser or a chest of drawers next to a closet, and I was in the closet, delving around, looking at shoes, and going through clothes; and while doing so, I noticed that Hauptmann would get up a little from his chair and look out the window. He did that four or five times.
Q) Were you in the room when he was looking out? A) I was in the closet and I was kind of watching him, and when it appeared to me that--when nobody was looking at him, why, he would sort of raise up and look out the window.
Q) And as you looked out that window in the direction he looked, what would you face? A) Well, you would face the garage.
Q) How far is the garage from that window? A) Approximately fifty feet.Wilentz went on with the direct examination and established that the room they were all in was the Hauptmann's bedroom. Wilentz then reaffirms with Sisk that he observed Hauptmann occasionally looking out through the bedroom window and then the following exchange took place: Q) As the result of that what did you do? A) I called Lieutenant Arthur Keaton, and he observed it also, I believe. I then went over to Hauptmann and I said, "What are you looking at when you are sneaking these looks out the window?" And he said, "Nothing," so I tried to figure out what he was looking at, so I looked out myself.Sisk then went on to testify that he saw the garage and asked Hauptmann, "Is that where you have the money?" and that Hauptmann said, "No, I have no money." According to Sisk, at this point, he and Lieut. Keaton, NJSP, and Inspect. Lyons of NYPD, went down into the garage to search it. They noticed the two middle planks on the garage floor were loose. Sisk then testified they took a crow bar and pried up the two floor boards. Sisk said the dirt was freshly disturbed as if someone had been recently digging. The area was then dug up and the crock with some liquid in it was discovered. Wilentz then questioned Sisk more about the crock and Sisk told how Hauptmann had denied any knowledge of this crock but that the next day BRH admitted to having money in it three weeks before he was arrested. It is at this point that Hauptmann stood up and told Sisk to stop lying. I have never been to the house. I do know that the Hauptmann's bedroom was on the side of the house that faced the garage. There was a window there that you could see the garage from. Steve Romeo would be a good person to ask about this because he has been to Hauptmann's apartment in the Bronx. My understanding is that Hauptmann was actually handcuffed to an officer while the bedroom was being searched. It doesn't seem plausible that BRH was getting up and down and sneaking peeks out that window as Sisk testified he was doing. Was Sisk "telling a story" as BRH accused him of doing?? Michael, can you comment on this?
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 26, 2019 9:01:59 GMT -5
sisk is correct I was in hauptmanns bedroom and you can see the spot where the garage was from his window
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 27, 2019 9:39:52 GMT -5
Michael, can you comment on this? This is something that has been discussed many times over the years. I believe Fisher wrote about this in one of his books and it was something you and I bounced off of each other in the past. This could get lengthy so bear with me... There are many people out there who merely rely on the trial testimony in Flemington as the "Word Of God" when it comes to this case. That is everything testified to on the State's side is "true" and just about everything on the Defense side can be ignored and/or disregarded. To me this strategy seems beyond absurd. For one, if that is the "rule" then how can other testimony in other related cases be ignored? Well that's what I call the " tree in the woods" philosophy. That would be if one doesn't know about it then it never really happened. Don't laugh because it goes on all over the place. This obviously isn't acceptable to me. I like to look backwards to understand how things developed or existed before a specific source. And of course one has to pursue everything forward as well. I've read documents that proclaimed something as a matter of fact which a different (or sometimes the same) Officer later upended by a later investigation. So its important not to cherry-pick or jump to conclusions or you'll wind up like the guy who made the Rose Collins claim - as well as those who believed him. About this specific "event" I've found quite a bit. I also have to say I might be overlooking some sources or missing something as well so we always have to allow for this possibility. Okay so we know that Hauptmann was handcuffed to Wallace. For me that's the first guy I want to consult. Wallace wrote at least FOUR different reports of various dates that covered the specific time this was supposed to have occurred: 9/20, 9/25, 9/25, and 10/6. I've consulted Finn's pretrial statement about it as well. I've also consulted Sisk's report dated 10/17 that covers this. None mention it. However, Agent Turrou's report of 10/13 says this: Following the arrest of Hauptmann and throughout the afternoon, evening, and night of September 19th, Special Agent Sisk had constantly suggested and in fact insisted upon a complete search of Hauptmann's premises, inasmuch as the premises had not been thoroughly searched following the arrest, it being stated that the search at that time would consume approximately an hour and a half or two hours time. Special Agent Sisk advised the writer that Hauptmann had been placed in the rear room of the house near the back window, while that officers were searching the house, following the arrest, and it was observed that he constantly cast his eyes in the direction of the garage and in fact seemed to manifest unusual interest towards what might be going on in the back yard and garage. Why Turrou would include this when Sisk did not I cannot say. I do see that in Sisk's report he is throwing Lyons under the bus as an explanation as to "why" he did not find what was later discovered in that garage. Turrou's report looks like something backing up Sisk on this point. I will try to add a little insight into this from my personal perspective... Back when I was on the job if I was told "drugs" were stashed in a room (cell) that was supposed to be hidden there and I walked out empty handed I would certainly be embarrassed about it if someone else walked in and found them behind me. I'd also like to point out that if I walked into a room and noticed someone suspiciously looking at something that would absolutely go in the Memo I wrote about the situation. There's something else that could have happened too. And that is Sisk did see Hauptmann doing this but because his search didn't yield anything he shrugged it off. And so bringing this up at the time would be cause for further embarrassment. On this end I used to tell everyone all of the time to "trust" what they see. If something doesn't seem right, its kind of an autopilot response to explain it away or try to make sense of it. Trust what your head is telling you then immediately act on it. Anyway - in the end it is what it is and I think there's equal ammunition for either side of the debate. I consider Sisk a solid investigator who had the integrity we'd expect from an FBI Agent. So for me that is the tie-breaker.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2019 18:17:09 GMT -5
About this specific "event" I've found quite a bit. I also have to say I might be overlooking some sources or missing something as well so we always have to allow for this possibility. Thank you for sharing so much about this "event". There is one "voice" missing in this that I think is important. It belongs to Lieutenant Arthur Keaton. Sisk testified that he specifically asked Keaton to come in to observe Hauptmann's peculiar behavior of looking towards the window to see what was going on outside. I could not find any testimony by Lieut. Keaton at the trial. Did Lieut. Keaton write a report about this event and, if so, did it mention about observing this behavior by Hauptmann? Keaton had been asked to witness it. So I am clear, you are saying that Sisk's pride prevented him from including this in his written report. Does Sisk's report include the finding of the empty jug? Or was this too embarrassing for him to include? Since this all comes up during the trial, why not use Lieut. Keaton or Inspector Lyons to bring all this out since both of these men were present. Why make Sisk do it? I do appreciate your position on Sisk's integrity. I don't know anything about him except for this case, so I am not in a position to judge him one way or the other.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 28, 2019 10:29:57 GMT -5
Thank you for sharing so much about this "event". There is one "voice" missing in this that I think is important. It belongs to Lieutenant Arthur Keaton. Sisk testified that he specifically asked Keaton to come in to observe Hauptmann's peculiar behavior of looking towards the window to see what was going on outside. I could not find any testimony by Lieut. Keaton at the trial. Did Lieut. Keaton write a report about this event and, if so, did it mention about observing this behavior by Hauptmann? Keaton had been asked to witness it. You are asking all of the right questions Amy. I don't think so. That's not to say someone might not point out there's something in a magazine or a line squeezed in a ransom money report about it. You and I both know there are so many ways for things to "sneak" up on us in this way. Even the Turrou report proves this because he wasn't even there and yet his report is where the information we were looking for can be found. It's a perfect example why there is never a quick solution to any question which concerns any aspect of this case. So I am clear, you are saying that Sisk's pride prevented him from including this in his written report. Does Sisk's report include the finding of the empty jug? Or was this too embarrassing for him to include? Since this all comes up during the trial, why not use Lieut. Keaton or Inspector Lyons to bring all this out since both of these men were present. Why make Sisk do it? I probably shouldn't inject this type of stuff because it makes sense to me but I know I'm not properly explaining it so anyone else can understand... My guess is he was feeling "frustrated" and "embarrassed" about the fact he did not find what was in that garage. He had searched it, as you know, and I am suggesting it made him look bad that he didn't find the bombshell evidence that it contained. Furthermore, if he is seeing Hauptmann do this, that is further evidence that he should have. Even if it wasn't possible under the circumstances its something I am sure was mocked or ridiculed. Now what I see from Turrou's report, if he is being 100% honest, is that Sisk shared these observations with him (possibly others as well) so that at the very least HE could act on it. That makes sense to me. Its something I believe he would do ... first to include someone in his Agency, and second to someone he trusted among whoever he told to follow it up. I don't see mention of the jug in his 10/17/34 report. This is the one with 30 pages but I've just read it twice and don't see it there. I do appreciate your position on Sisk's integrity. I don't know anything about him except for this case, so I am not in a position to judge him one way or the other. That's how it should be Amy. I don't want to influence you or anyone else. However, I think if I didn't say it that I might be misleading you into thinking I didn't. Know what I mean?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2019 16:47:09 GMT -5
You and I both know there are so many ways for things to "sneak" up on us in this way. Even the Turrou report proves this because he wasn't even there and yet his report is where the information we were looking for can be found. It's a perfect example why there is never a quick solution to any question which concerns any aspect of this case. I certainly agree and I know how things can suddenly appear somewhere that you would never expect it to be. This is especially true for me because I am just getting my feet wet when it comes to researching and I don't know nearly enough yet and certainly not even close to what you know. I am glad that you include this kind of stuff. It is important that all angles be considered about a situation. You have a professional perspective that I do not have about investigations and the actions of LE figures that I need and want to understand. So important!! I understand, Michael.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 29, 2019 9:40:23 GMT -5
I am glad that you include this kind of stuff. It is important that all angles be considered about a situation. You have a professional perspective that I do not have about investigations and the actions of LE figures that I need and want to understand. So important!! Possibly important but maybe not. Like Dave says it was a different time so my experiences may not translate. But what "I" see is the most famous crime in history with all LE at each others throat looking to come out smelling like a rose while the "other" guy or agency played 2nd fiddle. Take Lt. Finn's articles as an example - the NJSP were none too happy. Look back to Inspector Walsh's too - same thing. To me Sisk's explanation about the garage search supports that. The ridicule and mockery are something that happen all the time so I can only imagine what it was like then under those circumstances. But again I could be wrong. Here's a quick example... I walked into a room once and there was guy on a cell phone. I saw him quickly hide it under a pillow but instead of pretending I didn't see it then retrieve it after I cleared the room, like I should have, I told him to get it and give it to me. Almost instantly I saw in his eyes it "was on." He then beat me to the phone, he nailed me with about 6 or 8 elbows in like a second, he out wrestled me, he out ran me down the hall, and finally saved the best for last by jumping down the steps like a cartoon character. Needless to say he got away. So when everyone else heard about it I was the butt of some jokes - and deservedly so. I got my ass handed to me both mentally and physically so I had it coming. Now I imagine all that was found in Hauptmann's garage after a search and I can only imagine what was being said about those involved in the first search of it. Again I could be all wrong and in the end I suppose it doesn't matter if you believe Hauptmann was glancing over at it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2019 16:22:17 GMT -5
Thanks for sharing your personal story. It certainly helps me to understand Sisk not writing about that whole incident it in his report.
I do think that BRH would have been nervous about the activity outside and whether the garage was being searched. He knew what he had hidden out there even though he was saying he didn't have any more money.
I am trying to understand Hauptmann's outburst in court and I think it is tied to what Sisk testified to about the crock and Hauptmann saying he had money hid there 3 weeks before his arrest. BRH had been hearing so many things said in court, yet this is the one that caused him to react so strongly and loudly.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 30, 2019 7:28:05 GMT -5
Thanks for sharing your personal story. It certainly helps me to understand Sisk not writing about that whole incident it in his report. I wanted to try to explain my perspective better through an example. Like I said I could be totally wrong but when I read Sisk's report I see something I consider an "excuse." Once I put all of the material together from the "Sisk" perspective it points the finger at Lyons for that garage not being thoroughly searched in the first place. That, in my opinion, was put in there for a reason and seems to me why Sisk omitted Hauptmann's suspicious behavior from his report. (Disclaimer: There could aways be a report that Sisk wrote that includes it but I either don't have or don't remember reading it). For me its not so much as an explanation but blame shifting. Maybe I'm reading too much into it but its where my head is at. There's also room for a counter-argument too. Such as Finn's perspective that Hauptmann was cool as a cucumber throughout. I do think that BRH would have been nervous about the activity outside and whether the garage was being searched. He knew what he had hidden out there even though he was saying he didn't have any more money. I am trying to understand Hauptmann's outburst in court and I think it is tied to what Sisk testified to about the crock and Hauptmann saying he had money hid there 3 weeks before his arrest. BRH had been hearing so many things said in court, yet this is the one that caused him to react so strongly and loudly. I am going to try to scan Turrou's report. Sisk's is too large unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 30, 2019 8:17:08 GMT -5
To explain why I am always crying about not being able to find things I had this in my "Hauptmann Financial File" so obviously it could go in several different places and why I might have to search for it. Also, I only have a flatbed scanner so I am behind the times and why I can't upload bigger documents. In fact Sam bailed me out with drivers or I wouldn't even have this one. Here is the Turrou report: Attachment Deletedimgur.com/a/2AUxwzj
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 30, 2019 9:02:03 GMT -5
In the grand scheme of things, does it really add very much to the prosecution's case against Hauptmann if he looked out his window from the apartment to the garage while he was under arrest and the apartment was being searched? Wouldn't it seem plausible that the garage would have been thoroughly searched eventually for ransom money no matter which way Hauptmann looked? Hauptmann never claimed that the money found in the garage was put there by anyone else but he himself, so the prosecution would have tied Hauptmann to possession of ransom money no matter which way he looked. The claim raised by Hauptmann in his defense was that the ransom money found was given to him by Fisch, NOT that Hauptmann himself didn't know that there was money in the garage at the time of the arrest.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Mar 30, 2019 9:48:00 GMT -5
In the grand scheme of things, does it really add very much to the prosecution's case against Hauptmann if he looked out his window from the apartment to the garage while he was under arrest and the apartment was being searched? Wouldn't it seem plausible that the garage would have been thoroughly searched eventually for ransom money no matter which way Hauptmann looked? Hauptmann never claimed that the money found in the garage was put there by anyone else but he himself, so the prosecution would have tied Hauptmann to possession of ransom money no matter which way he looked. The claim raised by Hauptmann in his defense was that the ransom money found was given to him by Fisch, NOT that Hauptmann himself didn't know that there was money in the garage at the time of the arrest. You're right.. and this account has always been just an interesting anecdote. However he responded to the prospect of any activity in and around his garage, I can believe that they sensed Hauptmann's inner trepidation, and he somehow translated this into telltale body language. After all, Hauptmann must have realized these guys were trained investigators and not just casual visitors looking to borrow something out of his garage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2019 16:40:15 GMT -5
In the grand scheme of things, does it really add very much to the prosecution's case against Hauptmann if he looked out his window from the apartment to the garage while he was under arrest and the apartment was being searched? Wouldn't it seem plausible that the garage would have been thoroughly searched eventually for ransom money no matter which way Hauptmann looked? Well, Hurt, when you read Turrou's report that Michael posted, it does indeed matter that Sisk noticed Hauptmann's interest in what was going on outside near the garage. In that report, Inspector Lyon's and the other NYPD officers felt the place had already been thoroughly searched. It is Sisk who goes to Col. Schwarzkopf insisting on a much more thorough search. Schwarzkopf agrees and this is arranged and done. This is what leads to the finding of all that hidden money in BRH's garage.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 30, 2019 17:56:58 GMT -5
With all those law enforcement people in the Hauptmann apartment searching, do you really think that no one would have been aware of the garage and the garage would have been completely neglected as a search target? If that had happened, it would really have been embarrassing to all law enforcement agencies. Remember that law enforcement eventually had a long stay at the Hauptmann place, so you would have to figure that they would get to the garage eventually, especially when they focused on the wood in reference to the ladder. Another thing to remember is that at the time, there was no legal requirement for a search warrant, so none was applied for. Thus the places to be searched and the items being searched for had no limitations. That would be in marked contrast to today's legal framework, where the Fourth Amendment would apply to the situation, and they would be getting a search warrant which would (theoretically, at lest) limit the scope of the search.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2019 19:36:21 GMT -5
With all those law enforcement people in the Hauptmann apartment searching, do you really think that no one would have been aware of the garage and the garage would have been completely neglected as a search target? This isn't about what I think, Hurt. The report speaks for itself. Sisk and Lyons and Keaton made a search of the garage, noticed the loose floor boards, pulled those up and found an empty crock/jug. No money. They asked Hauptmann about it and he denied knowing about the crock. As you read the report it ends up Lyons along with other NYPD felt that the garage had been searched well enough. Sisk felt the garage needed a more extensive search and went to Schwarzkopf for help. A much better search took place and the money was found. That is the facts of this report. Sisk is the reason the money was found sooner rather than later.
|
|