|
Post by Sue on Jul 8, 2020 13:17:55 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2020 15:23:51 GMT -5
Sue,
I had asked Michael about Galambos back in 2015 because I had found a picture of him also which prompted my inquiry about him. Here is what Michael shared with me as to why Galambos was never called to testify at the Hauptmann Trial in 1935. Michael posted this in the "Who Was" thread on this board on March 24. 2015.
What happened is this.... Either previous Authors didn't do enough research to stumble upon this guy OR they saw him for what he was. Those who wrote books to defend everything the State did would omit him because this guy completely ruins their position and those who wrote Hauptmann was innocent omitted it simply because it's obvious he was lying.
So while Galambos did make this claim, it was refuted by just about everyone else involved excepting his wife Helen. Even the Investigators didn't believe him. It's just another example to what lengths the State was willing go in order to achieve their ultimate goal.
I hope this answers your question. I can check to see if I happen to have any reports on him if you would like me to do that. If I don't have something, then perhaps Michael might have something he can post for you.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jul 8, 2020 18:58:54 GMT -5
Amy,
Thank you.
I saw the posts from 2015 about half an hour before your post today.
A picture of Charles Galombos appears in the Syracuse American for January 6, 1935.
Lupica, Whited, and Mrs. Maria Szibla's pictures are also shown with the caption:
"Star Witnesses Yet to Confront Hauptmann in Thrilling Murder Trial"
The trial was just underway, and it seems that Galombos had all intentions of testifying in Flemington.
Was it a last-minute decision to scratch Galombos off the star witness list?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2020 8:40:05 GMT -5
Amy, Thank you. I saw the posts from 2015 about half an hour before your post today. A picture of Charles Galombos appears in the Syracuse American for January 6, 1935. Lupica, Whited, and Mrs. Maria Szibla's pictures are also shown with the caption: "Star Witnesses Yet to Confront Hauptmann in Thrilling Murder Trial" The trial was just underway, and it seems that Galombos had all intentions of testifying in Flemington. Was it a last-minute decision to scratch Galombos off the star witness list? It might have been Galambos personal intention to testify but it was not the State's intention to have him testify at Hauptmann's trial. Galambos was not on the State's list of subpoenaed witnesses for the trial. There is no Maria Szibla on the list either. Lupica and Whited were subpoenaed to testify. Once the police investigators went to Manville NJ in October 1934 to check Galambos story of renting his private garage to Hauptmann, they soon discovered it was a false story. Galambos had indeed rented his private garage but it was to a dentist who had moved to the area. Galambos was solidly impeachable had he been put on the witness stand. The correct decision was made not to use him at the trial. He was not the star witness the media was labeling him to be. Galambos was looking for money and was willing to lie to get it. Here is the report Michael shared with me after I inquired about Charles Galambos. The investigation showed him to be a liar. imgur.com/DbykZHR PAGE ONE imgur.com/p80aC5h PAGE TWO
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jul 9, 2020 16:58:42 GMT -5
Hi Amy,
Thank you for showing the documents.
According to newspaper accounts, and contrary to the report you provided, Galambos was an upstanding citizen in the Manville, New Jersey community.
The Galambos garage must have produced happy customers?
Galambos seems to have been Hungarian. Maybe the language barrier would have been a detriment to the States' case, and that was why they didn't use his testimony?
Why choose Millard Whited, who some called "a congenital liar," and turn away Galambos?
I would have put my money on Galambos and NOT Whited.
Maria Szibla was in the newspapers in the months leading up to the trial. She also claimed to have seen Hauptmann in Hopewell.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2020 7:52:02 GMT -5
Hi Amy, Thank you for showing the documents. According to newspaper accounts, and contrary to the report you provided, Galambos was an upstanding citizen in the Manville, New Jersey community. The Galambos garage must have produced happy customers? Galambos seems to have been Hungarian. Maybe the language barrier would have been a detriment to the States' case, and that was why they didn't use his testimony? Why choose Millard Whited, who some called "a congenital liar," and turn away Galambos? I would have put my money on Galambos and NOT Whited. Maria Szibla was in the newspapers in the months leading up to the trial. She also claimed to have seen Hauptmann in Hopewell. Hi Sue, Glad to be able to share reports for you to review! This is an example of how sometimes newspapers don't get everything right! Renting that garage would have provided some much needed income for Galambos and his family during the depression. Galambos was a carpenter by trade so it would have been difficult to have a steady income. There was no language barrier that kept Galambos from being called to testify at Hauptmann's trial. It was the lie he was telling about renting his garage to Hauptmann that prevented his use. Had Galambos story been true (or not impeachable), Wilentz would have used him and had an interpreter there to make sure Galambos testimony made it into the official record and, most importantly, into the ears and minds of the jurors. Wilentz made sure there was an interpreter for Isidor Fisch's sister, Hannah, when she testified for the state. Wilentz was faced with needing to use lying witnesses in order to place Hauptmann in Hopewell in 1932. When he reviewed the stories, I think his goal would have been to choose the people whose testimony would have accomplished this placement without being refutable. This is why Wilentz chose Whited over Galambos. There were no witnesses present when Whited claimed to have seen Hauptmann around the Lindbergh property in February 1932. He was alone. Galambos's claim to have rented his garage to Hauptmann in March 1932 could be refuted by several witnesses who knew he didn't rent to Hauptmann but to someone else. It would have been a serious error for Wilentz to put Galambos on the witness stand. He knew it and he did not make it. I see both these men (Whited and Galambos) cut from the same cloth. They were both lying and they were telling those lies to profit from them. Neither of them were worthy of testifying. I am not at all familiar with Maria Szibla and what her story was. Perhaps you could ask Michael if he has anything official on this person that could be shared and discussed.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 10, 2020 11:10:41 GMT -5
This is an example of how sometimes newspapers don't get everything right! It's a perfect example of it. Every reporter for the papers were the "investigative" types on the case who were pressed to produce. So sometimes they embellished or even invented. Unfortunately, we see that going on nowadays too. Hard to believe but we've come back full circle. And so, sometimes people they interviewed were even "led" into certain statements they would later recant once police started knocking on their doors. Police would would sometimes be surprised to read these stories and would then drive over to interview these people. But even still, we have to remember police had an agenda along certain investigative lines too. So its important to bring these people up so WE can make our own research into what they were saying. Sometimes its important information while much of it turns into the "not so much" category. Only one way to find out though so its good that Sue is bringing up what she's finding. I see both these men (Whited and Galambos) cut from the same cloth. They were both lying and they were telling those lies to profit from them. Neither of them were worthy of testifying. Crazy as it sounds ... I believe Whited's original account of seeing what police believed he was describing as Lindbergh's car (V1 pages 13-16). There was no reason for him to say this at the time and it was close enough to the event to be believable. I am not at all familiar with Maria Szibla and what her story was. Perhaps you could ask Michael if he has anything official on this person that could be shared and discussed. imgur.com/gWFmXACimgur.com/ENxqRA7
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2020 15:14:32 GMT -5
I see both these men (Whited and Galambos) cut from the same cloth. They were both lying and they were telling those lies to profit from them. Neither of them were worthy of testifying. Crazy as it sounds ... I believe Whited's original account of seeing what police believed he was describing as Lindbergh's car (V1 pages 13-16). There was no reason for him to say this at the time and it was close enough to the event to be believable. I am right with you about Whited's 1932 account about seeing that car. He was telling what he actually did see in 1932 but had been told to keep it to himself, clearly because of the implications of it. As far as the police telling people not to reveal certain things, this is really something they did do during this investigation. I encountered this being done by Trooper Dunn in one of his early reports on the case. He asked the informants to keep what they knew to themselves. You can read where he does this on page two of his report. imgur.com/7JaYOKd Page One imgur.com/cA1bEw2 Page Two Thanks so much for sharing that report on Maria Szibla. It will give Sue and myself something else to research on!
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jul 10, 2020 22:29:57 GMT -5
Thank you Amy and Michael for the reports.
Of course, you must know that reports are just as capable of having errors as newspaper accounts.
Reports and newspaper articles are written by fallible human beings. Just because something is in print does not mean it is true or accurate.
I posted under the "Who Was....?" thread a few weeks ago. There was a newspaper picture of a fellow named Richard Snellingberg with a caption that indicated that he saw Hauptmann in Hopewell.
Is this what you mean about newspapers sometimes not getting things right?
Maybe Richard Snellingberg was a made-up story?
But if it is true that Snellinberg was a person who said that he saw Hauptmann in Hopewell, shouldn't Snellingberg then be in the running with Galambos, Whited, Lupica, and others who claimed they saw Hauptmann in Hopewell?
The Brooklyn Eagle October 15, 1934 Page 2 (picture)
If true, what became of Richard Snellinberg's eyewitness account?
Is Snellingberg in the record?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2020 7:14:22 GMT -5
Thank you Amy and Michael for the reports. Reports and newspaper articles are written by fallible human beings. Just because something is in print does not mean it is true or accurate. I understand your point but I personally feel this was a bigger problem for newspapers since not all reporters had a lot of time to fact check everything or everyone before their material went for publication. No that is not what I mean. I am perplexed that you are asking such a question. Maybe he had been, Sue. I don't know and obviously you don't know either. We would have to know the details of his claim about seeing Hauptmann and what an investigation of that claim would prove or disprove first. If the authorities took a statement from him, I would think it is in the records of either NYPD and/or the NJSP.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 11, 2020 9:25:30 GMT -5
I am right with you about Whited's 1932 account about seeing that car. He was telling what he actually did see in 1932 but had been told to keep it to himself, clearly because of the implications of it. As far as the police telling people not to reveal certain things, this is really something they did do during this investigation. I encountered this being done by Trooper Dunn in one of his early reports on the case. He asked the informants to keep what they knew to themselves. You can read where he does this on page two of his report. Yup. So you obviously see how reading reports that have nothing to do with the specific topic can sometimes bear fruit in a different way. Often we hear about "how" or "what" investigators "would do" or "would not do." However, by being thorough like you are, one can easily dispel any counter-arguments to the contrary - or perhaps even support them depending upon the issue. Time consuming for sure but important nevertheless. Thanks so much for sharing that report on Maria Szibla. It will give Sue and myself something else to research on! Hope it helps. As always, its up to the individual researcher to decide for themselves but its best done with as many sources as possible. That of course could be additional material that isn't at the Archives or that "we" know about currently. One thing I've learned that's for certain: There's always more to be found.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 11, 2020 9:50:50 GMT -5
Of course, you must know that reports are just as capable of having errors as newspaper accounts. Sure. Like I've written above, we do have to remember that police had a certain agenda at times. Take, for example, that police immediately suspected an inside job but could not pursue any investigation along those lines without Lindbergh's approval. So their hands were tied behind their back right from jump-street, and we can see the reaction toward Whited's eyewitness account because of it. Additionally, police also made mistakes and oversights as well. Anyway, I've used newspaper reports as sources myself, so its up to the individual to decide for themselves as to the weight of any particular article. I do agree with Amy though, concerning the general level of reliability - and the reasons why. But of course that should never eliminate them from consideration so its important to read them. If true, what became of Richard Snellinberg's eyewitness account? Is Snellingberg in the record? Snellenberg's involvement began very early in this case. He recalled that he had seen a Green Chrysler Coup driving toward Hoboken viaduct on the afternoon of March 1st with a ladder inside partially covered with canvas. After seeing pictures of the ladder in the paper he believed it was the same one. Then, after seeing a picture of Red Johnsen's car in the newspaper, he believed this was the same car. After this, he went to several newspapers trying to get them to put him in contact with Lindbergh. The New York Daily News blew him off but the New York Evening Journal drove him to Highfields where he was interviewed by Inspector Walsh. Snellenberg was "disgusted" by the process, and it appears Walsh labeled him a "nut." (That doesn't necessarily mean he was, but once that occurred it was the "kiss of death" as it concerns any possible witness). Snellenberg continued to write letters to the papers trying to get an article written on his account but it appears they merely referred him to the NJSP. After Hauptmann's arrest, Snellenberg re-emerged. The NJSP never took a statement from Snellenberg. This is the only official document I was able to find that concerns him after Hauptmann's arrest (sorry for the dark copy - the original was onionskin): imgur.com/83UxYSF
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jul 11, 2020 14:39:09 GMT -5
Amy,
I was surprised to see Richard Snellinberg's photo in the Brooklyn Eagle for October 15, 1934. His photo was all by its lonesome with the mere caption that he saw Hauptmann in Hopewell.
Why hasn't Snellinberg been a solid eyewitness candidate of the caliber of a Whited, Hochmuch, or Lupica?
Or for that matter, why has his name never, that I am aware of, been discussed before? He seems to have been screaming for attention. What about the green automobile that he mentions?
(Thanks for the Snellinberg write-up, Michael)
I thought maybe the Brooklyn Eagle had erroneously published his picture, instead of, say, Whited's picture. People make mistakes, but Snellinberg indeed was one of a list of people who claimed to have sighted Hauptmann in Hopewell.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2020 15:57:33 GMT -5
Amy, Why hasn't Snellinberg been a solid eyewitness candidate of the caliber of a Whited, Hochmuch, or Lupica? Well, Sue, apparently Snellenberg did not make a good impression. Perhaps his pushiness did not go well with authorities for reasons unknown to me. Plus he claimed the ladder he saw was wrapped in canvas. How would he have been able to identify the ladder when he couldn't see it since it is covered up. I really can't answer beyond this, Sue, because I have not come across anything on him in the archives files that I have viewed so far. All I could offer, at this point, is speculation and I would rather not do that.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jul 11, 2020 18:50:58 GMT -5
Too bad that an eyewitness may be turned down to testify based upon whether or not the person made a "good impression."
Hopefully, detectives can take their emotions out of interviewing witnesses and just do their jobs!
Maybe Snellinberg's "pushiness" should have been overlooked in order to really listen to what he had to say?
At the end of the day, the State chose the witnesses that they wanted.
|
|