Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2020 8:27:30 GMT -5
In both Volume II and Volume III of Michael's The Dark Corners book series, he talks about Hans Kloppenburg and the threats made that he (Kloppenburg) would be arrested in this case based on what he would testify to at the trial of Bruno Richard Hauptmann. There was, indeed, a story that came out in December of 1934 that stated authorities had evidence that incriminated a "close associate" of BRH with the kidnapping of Charles A. Lindbergh Jr. The identity of this person was being withheld because additional "clinching evidence" is being gathered. I have always thought this story was aimed at Hans Kloppenburg. Charles Schlesser (think Fisch and the Knickerbocker Pie Co.) was spying for the prosecution by pretending to be part of the defense team, sitting in on the defense team meetings and then reporting back to the prosecution on the plans being made to defend Hauptmann in court. Kloppenburg planned to testify that he saw Fisch bring a shoebox to Hauptmann which would back up Hauptmann's claim that a shoebox was given to him by Fisch and contained ransom money. The above is clearly intimidation tactics. Kloppenburg was an important Hauptmann witness. These same tactics would also be applied to Anna Hauptmann! She was very clearly targeted by the prosecution with a story coming out just two days before she was to testify. The article talks of plans to charge Anna Hauptmann as an accessory after the fact to the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby. Again, we see them repeating they are "searching" for more supporting facts before acting on charges against Anna. Anna Hauptmann testified on January 30, 1935. This story was reported in newspapers on January 28, 1935: imgur.com/YWqHcdwIf Wilentz and his associates had such an airtight case against Hauptmann, as they were projecting they had in the media, why was it even necessary to intimidate any defense witnesses?
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Feb 25, 2020 10:10:28 GMT -5
amy they had alot of evidence against hauptman. i never saw hard evidence that fisch was involved.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Feb 25, 2020 10:39:17 GMT -5
In both Volume II and Volume III of Michael's The Dark Corners book series, he talks about Hans Kloppenburg and the threats made that he (Kloppenburg) would be arrested in this case based on what he would testify to at the trial of Bruno Richard Hauptmann. There was, indeed, a story that came out in December of 1934 that stated authorities had evidence that incriminated a "close associate" of BRH with the kidnapping of Charles A. Lindbergh Jr. The identity of this person was being withheld because additional "clinching evidence" is being gathered. I have always thought this story was aimed at Hans Kloppenburg. Charles Schlesser (think Fisch and the Knickerbocker Pie Co.) was spying for the prosecution by pretending to be part of the defense team, sitting in on the defense team meetings and then reporting back to the prosecution on the plans being made to defend Hauptmann in court. Kloppenburg planned to testify that he saw Fisch bring a shoebox to Hauptmann which would back up Hauptmann's claim that a shoebox was given to him by Fisch and contained ransom money. The above is clearly intimidation tactics. Kloppenburg was an important Hauptmann witness. These same tactics would also be applied to Anna Hauptmann! She was very clearly targeted by the prosecution with a story coming out just two days before she was to testify. The article talks of plans to charge Anna Hauptmann as an accessory after the fact to the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby. Again, we see them repeating they are "searching" for more supporting facts before acting on charges against Anna. Anna Hauptmann testified on January 30, 1935. This story was reported in newspapers on January 28, 1935: imgur.com/YWqHcdwIf Wilentz and his associates had such an airtight case against Hauptmann, as they were projecting they had in the media, why was it even necessary to intimidate any defense witnesses? I believe the prosecution could have chosen to lay charges against Anna, at least as an accessory after the fact They chose not to in favour of not muddying the waters if they didn't have to. As well, this ensured Hauptmann alone would be found guilty while successfully portraying him as the most secretive of monsters, (Even his own wife didn't know!) an image that the prosecution knew would also appeal to the public.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2020 19:58:27 GMT -5
amy they had alot of evidence against hauptman. i never saw hard evidence that fisch was involved. That was my point in the post. If they had enough evidence to be confident in their ability to convict Hauptmann, why are they so concerned about Kloppenburg saying he saw Fisch bring Hauptmann a shoebox. They absolutely threatened him with charges if he testified that it was a shoebox that Fisch handed to Hauptmann. They are using intimidation tactics, Steve, to control Kloppenburg's testimony content.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2020 20:11:24 GMT -5
I believe the prosecution could have chosen to lay charges against Anna, at least as an accessory after the fact . How do you see Anna being charged as an accessory after the fact? Wouldn't they have to be able to prove that Anna knew at some point that Richard had possession of ransom money and she was knowingly spending it?
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Feb 27, 2020 9:39:19 GMT -5
according to anna hauptmans interview in a old documentry on the case, she said reilly wanted her to say she saw a shoebox on the closet shelf. she said she didnt see one, she apparently didnt want to lie but hurt her husbands case
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Feb 27, 2020 9:40:25 GMT -5
i dont think they had anything on anna to do that joe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2020 10:01:14 GMT -5
according to anna hauptmans interview in a old documentry on the case, she said reilly wanted her to say she saw a shoebox on the closet shelf. she said she didnt see one, she apparently didnt want to lie but hurt her husbands case I think the point you make here is important in the overall understanding of Anna Hauptmann. She no doubt understood why Reilly wanted her to lie to support Richard's shoebox claim but she would choose to tell the truth and not lie about seeing one on the shelf. There were a few newspaper reports that after Anna's testimony that day in court, Richard was not pleased with Anna's testimony saying she didn't do enough to help him. Anna clearly blamed Fisch for what was happening to Richard. Even though she never saw a shoebox, she obviously did see Fisch as a source for her husband's monetary enrichment.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Feb 28, 2020 9:46:33 GMT -5
so obviously there was never a shoebox up there mr hauptman lies again
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Feb 28, 2020 9:48:45 GMT -5
dosnt mean there was money in the shoebox again weak evidence that fisch was involved. i think reilly got to him also
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2020 10:12:01 GMT -5
so obviously there was never a shoebox up there mr hauptman lies again I would not go that far and say it was never there, Steve. Anna says she never saw it there. The night that Fisch brought this box to Hauptmann, he very well could have placed it to the back of that kitchen shelf. Then BRH and Fisch went to the living room and joined the party with the others. I think Hauptmann would have moved that shoebox rather quickly from that location before Anna would have ever had the opportunity to see it. There is no way BRH would have risked Anna coming upon that box of money. He had no intention of telling her anything about it. That money could have ended up buried for a while in the buried crock and would later be found there empty in 1934 during the garage search.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2020 10:23:03 GMT -5
dosnt mean there was money in the shoebox again weak evidence that fisch was involved. i think reilly got to him also It doesn't mean there wasn't money in it either. Like I said in a previous post, if Kloppenburg giving Hauptmann a shoe box was such weak evidence, why did the prosecution not want Kloppenburg to use the term "shoebox" in his testimony. They threatened him in order to control what he said about this point. To me, that works in favor of that box and its contents possibly being ransom money Fisch was giving Hauptmann. Wilentz feared that the jury would also see this possibility from Kloppenburg's testimony. So they use intimidation tactics to alter what he says to lessen the impact of his court room testimony against their case.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Feb 29, 2020 9:56:20 GMT -5
with all the evidence wilentz had, it wouldnt have impacted his case in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Feb 29, 2020 9:58:51 GMT -5
amy when i was in the house years ago i took pictures of that shelf, believe me it wasnt deep to hide a shoebox.i should have measured it. poor preparing on my part
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 29, 2020 10:07:56 GMT -5
with all the evidence wilentz had, it wouldnt have impacted his case in my opinion. If that is true, then please explain to me the reason why they threatened Kloppenburg about his testimony content. Why are they doing that Steve?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 29, 2020 10:18:54 GMT -5
amy when i was in the house years ago i took pictures of that shelf, believe me it wasnt deep to hide a shoebox.i should have measured it. poor preparing on my part I have never been in there so I can only use pictures as source material. Fisch brought a box that night. Fisch and Hauptmann took that box to the kitchen to be out of the vision of the other guests. They returned to the others without the box. It fits perfectly that Hauptmann would have placed it in the back section of the top shelf. He wouldn't have left it on the kitchen table or out anywhere it could be seen by anyone there who might have gone into the kitchen. So that closet is the perfect temporary place for that box that night. Like I said before, it would not have been there very long. Hauptmann would not have wanted Anna to happen upon it in that closet. Just because Anna didn't see it there doesn't mean it was NEVER in that closet.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 2, 2020 11:02:23 GMT -5
i dont think it was there long if it was ever there. i saw the original shelf it was never moved. did you ever see my pictures of in side the house?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2020 11:21:52 GMT -5
i dont think it was there long if it was ever there. i saw the original shelf it was never moved. did you ever see my pictu res of in side the house?I have never seen your pictures from inside the Hauptmann house. I have only seen the ones at the archives and in newspapers.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 3, 2020 9:37:51 GMT -5
if they did they didnt have to. reilly needed more then that to include fisch into the case. theres no conclusive evidence that fisch was involved. he might have been but we will never know. i feel he wasnt. 6 people identified hauptman spending the money in there place of business.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Mar 3, 2020 11:45:29 GMT -5
Fisch was Hauptmann's close friend and business partner and there is solid evidence to show the two were connected for longer than history officially records. Fisch also led at least two markedly different lives among his friends and acquaintances, which included passing himself off as both an astute businessman and a poor destitute bum. Hauptmann may not have known everything about him, but he knew he was the type of character who would help him pass the ransom money for a cut. I feel certain Fisch was at the very least, laundering Lindbergh ransom money and knew well of its source. Gold notes were becoming harder and harder to pass by December 1933, and it seems logical he would have handed over the approximately $15,000 in gold notes he couldn't pass for safekeeping with Hauptmann, before he sailed for Germany. Hauptmann of course also knew where the money came from, and it's no stretch at all for me to envision Fisch bringing it with him in a shoebox on the night of his farewell party. Yes, Hauptmann could have placed it on the top shelf of the kitchen broom closet temporarily, but I'd suggest its more likely he would have put it in their bedroom right away. That is, until he had the first chance to move it to the garage.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 5, 2020 10:13:37 GMT -5
amy did you ever see how many of reillys witnessess lied on the stand? your stuck on that witness? between all of hauptmans lies and his friends who can you believe?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2020 17:09:26 GMT -5
amy did you ever see how many of reillys witnessess lied on the stand? your stuck on that witness? between all of hauptmans lies and his friends who can you believe? Steve, did you see how many of Wilentz's witnesses lied, with others stretching or altering the facts to make the prosecution case work? You can start right with Charles A. Lindbergh who testified that his son was normal and healthy. We all know positively that Charlie had rickets at the very least and that is not "normal or healthy."
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 6, 2020 9:33:16 GMT -5
he had rickets but dosnt mean automaticly that lindbergh killed his own son. its so stupid thinking that.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Mar 6, 2020 10:31:04 GMT -5
You'd think Steve, that anyone who speculates Lindbergh conspired to eliminate his son, wouldn't be beating around the bush so much here, but actually looking for evidence of a connection between him and Hauptmann. I'd really like to see someone try to fill a book with that information.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 6, 2020 11:04:25 GMT -5
You'd think Steve, that anyone who speculates Lindbergh conspired to eliminate his son, wouldn't be beating around the bush so much here, but actually looking for evidence of a connection between him and Hauptmann. I'd really like to see someone try to fill a book with that information. You are thinking like a mild mannered man from Toronto Joe. Try thinking like a Eugenicist who has a “defective” child he wants to get rid of. Can’t can you? Well if Lindbergh drove to City Island to wheel and deal himself this crime wouldn’t be such a mystery would it? That’s why the average Joe trying his hand at crime gets caught. Don’t quit you day job my friend.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Mar 6, 2020 19:29:16 GMT -5
You'd think Steve, that anyone who speculates Lindbergh conspired to eliminate his son, wouldn't be beating around the bush so much here, but actually looking for evidence of a connection between him and Hauptmann. I'd really like to see someone try to fill a book with that information. You are thinking like a mild mannered man from Toronto Joe. Try thinking like a Eugenicist who has a “defective” child he wants to get rid of. Can’t can you? Well if Lindbergh drove to City Island to wheel and deal himself this crime wouldn’t be such a mystery would it? That’s why the average Joe trying his hand at crime gets caught. Don’t quit you day job my friend. I believe there were a lot of people at the time who subscribed to the basic tenets of Eugenics, but I don't recall there having been a proportionate number of cases of familial infanticide plaguing your nation. Consider too, the possibility that you might just be thinking that way in part, due to your projection of the most logical scenario your own mind has entertained over the past fifteen years or so since jumping on the wagon you're riding. You also seem to be implying that Charles Lindbergh in early 1932, having just brought the boiling pot of publicity down to a simmer after his 1927 flight, had the brilliant idea of staging the fauxnapping of his own child with a group of willing and very high profile "subordinates," so this very private individual could then also have the world again beat a path to his doorstep, only this time to the very place he's chosen to avoid all of that.. in very rural New Jersey. Enjoy your retirement, Michael.. and remember that at times you have to take your nose off the grindstone.. and a step back.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 6, 2020 21:16:02 GMT -5
I believe there were a lot of people at the time who subscribed to the basic tenets of Eugenics, but I don't recall there having been a proportionate number of cases of familial infanticide plaguing your nation. Consider too, the possibility that you might just be thinking that way in part, due to your projection of the most logical scenario your own mind has entertained over the past fifteen years or so since jumping on the wagon you're riding. You also seem to be implying that Charles Lindbergh in early 1932, having just brought the boiling pot of publicity down to a simmer after his 1927 flight, had the brilliant idea of staging the fauxnapping of his own child with a group of willing and very high profile "subordinates," so this very private individual could then also have the world again beat a path to his doorstep, only this time to the very place he's chosen to avoid all of that.. in very rural New Jersey. Enjoy your retirement, Michael.. and remember that at times you have to take your nose off the grindstone.. and a step back. The solution to this case is to consider all of the facts - not just “some” or the ones we happen to “like.” When doing so, we sometimes have to figure out how certain theories “could” work. I think I can honestly say that I’ve tried to do that. Of course there will be some I haven’t heard or thought of yet but I can promise you that I won’t merely shrug it off or fight like hell against them without taking a neutral look first. I said this before but what the hell ... I’ll say it again: You fight against ANYTHING you perceive as harm to CAL no matter what the facts are. Your first course of action is to consider the threat level - not judge the facts on their merits. Now, considering what I wrote above.... You attempted to undermine something most researchers have at least considered. Why? Given the facts it’s impossible not to. You obviously hate that. So you attempted to belittle the mere thought of it by implying there must be a connection between Hauptmann and Lindbergh for that to be true ... but of course that’s complete nonsense. Plus I’m willing to bet, having been a witness to you constant apologies for both Lindbergh and Condon - that it would not matter to you if there was one anyway. You’d probably break out the equation “E=MC2” to somehow explain it away or excuse it somehow. Just look at how you are attempting to shrug off the fact he was a Eugenicist. Anyway it’s a good way to keep everyone “honest” I suppose but you’ll never get to the bottom of anything by restricting yourself in this way.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 6, 2020 22:10:26 GMT -5
Well said, but there's really no point, lol. It's already been pointed out several times on here that the disappearance and/or death of CAL Jr. couldn't have been kept secret for long and would've been page-one news under any circumstances, ultimately bringing the world to Lindbergh's door no matter what. So, that much being an obvious given, if CAL Jr.'s death was the bottom line, it would've had to occur in such a way that the family didn't come off as suspects but as victims, and not as somehow negligent with the child dying in a household "accident" or something. A "fauxnapping" covers all these bases perfectly. So, once again, there's the answer to that question. But that being said, and as increasingly desperate as they are, I do hope the Lindbergh and Morrow estates continue paying their apologists well...
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Mar 7, 2020 2:49:11 GMT -5
You are thinking like a mild mannered man from Toronto Joe. Try thinking like a Eugenicist who has a “defective” child he wants to get rid of. Can’t can you? Well if Lindbergh drove to City Island to wheel and deal himself this crime wouldn’t be such a mystery would it? That’s why the average Joe trying his hand at crime gets caught. Don’t quit you day job my friend. I believe there were a lot of people at the time who subscribed to the basic tenets of Eugenics, but I don't recall there having been a proportionate number of cases of familial infanticide plaguing your nation. Consider too, the possibility that you might just be thinking that way in part, due to your projection of the most logical scenario your own mind has entertained over the past fifteen years or so since jumping on the wagon you're riding. You also seem to be implying that Charles Lindbergh in early 1932, having just brought the boiling pot of publicity down to a simmer after his 1927 flight, had the brilliant idea of staging the fauxnapping of his own child with a group of willing and very high profile "subordinates," so this very private individual could then also have the world again beat a path to his doorstep, only this time to the very place he's chosen to avoid all of that.. in very rural New Jersey. Enjoy your retirement, Michael.. and remember that at times you have to take your nose off the grindstone.. and a step back. When Scotland Yard was asked for help, their literal first question was to ask if they'd looked sufficiently into the health of the child to determine whether the kidnapping might have been fake and he might have been "destroyed" due to being less than perfect. So, yes, it was happening. You also have to remember that kidnapping at the time was very popular. By eliminating Charlie this way, the family became the victim of sympathy - not poor parenting via an accident or a death due to an ailment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2020 8:06:52 GMT -5
he had rickets but dosnt mean automaticly that lindbergh killed his own son. its so stupid thinking that. It does mean, Steve, that Charlie was not healthy or "perfectly normal" as would be testified in court, under oath, by his parents. They lie and they are doing this for a reason, Steve. Wilentz wants to put in the jury's thinking that the child had no problems for the reason that USC mentions in his post above. Here is CAL's testimony about Charlie Jr. Trial Testimony - Charles Lindbergh - January 4, 1935 - Page 115Q (Wilentz) - By the way, the child was about twenty months of age at the time? A (Lindbergh) - Yes.
Q (Wilentz) - A healthy child? A Lindbergh) - Yes, entirely.
Q (Wilentz) - Normal? A (Lindbergh) - Yes-had a slight cold at the time of March 1st-perfectly normal.Entirely healthy and perfectly normal? This is what CAL says in his testimony. You know that is a lie, Steve. If you sincerely believe that the body found in Mount Rose is that of Charles Lindbergh, Jr. then you know for a fact that Charlie was not the healthy, normal child his parents claimed he was in their Flemington court testimony in 1935. Underlining in above testimony quote is mine.
|
|