|
Post by Sue on Jun 8, 2023 5:41:47 GMT -5
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jun 13, 2023 9:02:55 GMT -5
Louis Kiss may have come to believe he was in Frederickson's Bakery on the evening of March 1, 1932, when he testified in Flemington but his account was certainly at odds with Leo Singer's later testimony that Kiss didn't visit him, (the one and only time he ever did) until late March or early April.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 13, 2023 10:30:57 GMT -5
This appears to be a family carbon copy. For anyone interested, a copy can be obtained at the NJSP Archives. I don't want to speak for the new Archivist, but I'd say if requested, he'd probably mail you a copy. What I see here is someone who thinks they have something worth a lot of money. In reality it's just not worth a lot. I wouldn't pay more than $10. I've seen this a lot over the years, and I'm sure Sue will back me up, where something connected to this case in some way is outrageously priced. I think back to 2010(?) when Pope's collection was listed on Ebay. That was reasonably priced and the bids didn't even meet the reserve. Louis Kiss may have come to believe he was in Frederickson's Bakery on the evening of March 1, 1932, when he testified in Flemington but his account was certainly at odds with Leo Singer's later testimony that Kiss didn't visit him, (the one and only time he ever did) until late March or early April. I addressed Kiss in V3, Pages 438-9. What we see here is that, despite the threats, Kiss stuck to his guns. That doesn't mean it was true but it's an important variable to consider. Also, he mentions Singer and that he believed Singer was wrong. There's no accusation against Singer being a "liar" or anythng like that. To me, that's another consideration. Next, there are the threats from Wilentz, and the promises to Berko for his attempt at coercion. So even if Kiss was mistaken, that's an even bigger consideration. Who else did Wilentz threaten or make promises to that we don't even know about? That's important question. We know that Kiss wasn't the only one to testify about Hauptmann being at the Bronx on March 1. Again, another important detail. Manley, Van Henke, and Carlstrom. Manley was so sure of his testimony that he went to Flemington to testify despite being very ill at the time. There was also a woman who wrote to Mrs. Hauptmann who claimed she saw him in the Bakery but was afraid to testify. And yet another woman named "Williams" who claimed to have saw him there on March 1 when she went there to cash a check. Also, several witnesses Reilly expected to testify were no-shows in court. I seem to recall that at least one of them was to testify that they also saw him there that night. And so, when discussing Kiss, there's a lot more to consider other than just Singer's testimony.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jun 13, 2023 18:30:15 GMT -5
Yes, I agree with you Michael! That is a crazy price to ask!
Good luck to him if he can get $1500!
I wonder if the seller knows that copies can be obtained?
Anyway, that was very generous of this person to take decent pictures of all pages of the deposition!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jun 16, 2023 10:03:00 GMT -5
Louis Kiss may have come to believe he was in Frederickson's Bakery on the evening of March 1, 1932, when he testified in Flemington but his account was certainly at odds with Leo Singer's later testimony that Kiss didn't visit him, (the one and only time he ever did) until late March or early April. I addressed Kiss in V3, Pages 438-9. What we see here is that, despite the threats, Kiss stuck to his guns. That doesn't mean it was true but it's an important variable to consider. Also, he mentions Singer and that he believed Singer was wrong. There's no accusation against Singer being a "liar" or anythng like that. To me, that's another consideration. Next, there are the threats from Wilentz, and the promises to Berko for his attempt at coercion. So even if Kiss was mistaken, that's an even bigger consideration. Who else did Wilentz threaten or make promises to that we don't even know about? That's important question. We know that Kiss wasn't the only one to testify about Hauptmann being at the Bronx on March 1. Again, another important detail. Manley, Van Henke, and Carlstrom. Manley was so sure of his testimony that he went to Flemington to testify despite being very ill at the time. There was also a woman who wrote to Mrs. Hauptmann who claimed she saw him in the Bakery but was afraid to testify. And yet another woman named "Williams" who claimed to have saw him there on March 1 when she went there to cash a check. Also, several witnesses Reilly expected to testify were no-shows in court. I seem to recall that at least one of them was to testify that they also saw him there that night. And so, when discussing Kiss, there's a lot more to consider other than just Singer's testimony. You’re absolutely right when you say there is more to consider here “than just Leo Singer’s testimony.” And there is also much more to consider than Louis Kiss simply having been made “victim” of an overzealous prosecution attempting to stifle a potentially damaging witness to its case. Which is the essential gist of your treatment of Kiss in V3, pages 438-439. Why don’t we just allow the witness himself to present a little personal accountability, as opposed to attempting to pad his credibility as a defense witness? In his trial testimony, Louis Kiss was adamant that exactly one week before he allegedly found himself at Frederickson’s Bakery on the evening of March 1, 1932, his son was taken to Bellevue Hospital with a kidney condition. He claimed this happened on Washington’s Birthday, which in 1932, was February 22. When David Wilentz pointed out that this would have put him at Frederickson’s on February 29th (1932 being a Leap Year) and not the 1st of March, Lloyd Fisher countered that the actual timing of the early morning hospital visit would have pushed things over into the following day, therefore February 23, which might then have added some credence to Kiss’s account. However, Wilentz then introduced the original Bellevue Hospital record which revealed Kiss’s son was admitted at 1:30 am on February 22. Applying Kiss’s insistence that he was at Frederickson’s exactly one week after his son’s hospital admission, would therefore have placed him in the bakery on the evening of February 29, a Monday. Anna Hauptmann would not have been working at the bakery that evening, therefore Richard would not have been there to be walking Whoppie, the Frederickson’s dog. It’s not much of a stretch here to suspect that Kiss might well have been constructing his trial testimony with known information derived from the newspaper account which detailed how Hauptmann had allegedly been approached by a man who believed the dog was his, which Kiss admitted to reading, and was the apparent impetus for his alleged recollection two-and-a-half years later. Leo Singer, in his testimony summarily rejected Kiss’s account by claiming that Kiss had not visited him (the first and only time he did) until the end of March or early April. When Wilentz attempted to demonstrate that the date of the visit had occurred after Singer had purchased a radio for his house on March 10, which they had discussed during this visit, his examination was objected to by Reilly for being immaterial in rebuttal. Clearly, Wilentz could have attempted to establish this as fact without defense objection in another way, but he appears to have let the matter slide. Still, the inference would not have been lost on the jury in that by extension, Kiss could not have been at Singer’s house prior to March 10. Noting the discrepancies within Louis Kiss’s testimony, it’s also not too difficult to connect the “moth to a flame” psychology here as to what compelled some individuals to seek personal involvement in the Flemington Trial, and the case in general. To have their ‘Fifteen Minutes’, one way or another. Given the significance of the event they were choosing to become part of by providing their testimony, would anyone in their right mind have done so unless they were 100% positive of the veracity of their personal account? While the vast majority would have had better sense than to become embroiled in this kind of endeavour unless they were absolutely certain their story was of truthful value, the trial transcript clearly demonstrates there were many who had little problem doing otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 17, 2023 12:48:01 GMT -5
You’re absolutely right when you say there is more to consider here “than just Leo Singer’s testimony.” And there is also much more to consider than Louis Kiss simply having been made “victim” of an overzealous prosecution attempting to stifle a potentially damaging witness to its case. Which is the essential gist of your treatment of Kiss in V3, pages 438-439. Why don’t we just allow the witness himself to present a little personal accountability, as opposed to attempting to pad his credibility as a defense witness? Personal accountability? I have no idea what this means in the context of this situation. Next, you seem upset that Wilentz coerced, threatened, bribed, tampered, and obstructed. I am upset too. So why are you reprimanding me for revealing these facts? I see nothing wrong with my post or what I wrote about in my book. At all. Kiss obviously believed his testimony and did not back down. Was he right? I do not know and never said that I did. The Prosecution, in preparation for a possible appeal, had in their possession a receipt for the radio Kiss was supposed to have admired date 3/10. Thanks to Siglinde I have a copy and I'll attempt to attach it. Seems weird to me that it wasn't admitted into evidence during the Flemington trial. Would have been an easier method than the one Wilentz employed. For this reason I am a little skeptical. pasteboard.co/3hLxMoQdeKAP.jpgRegardless, your theory of Kiss seeking fame doesn't work for me. He's either mistaken or he's correct. Faced with the tampering & threats from the AG, I think he would have been crazy not to recant if he was lying about it.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jun 17, 2023 19:08:27 GMT -5
You’re absolutely right when you say there is more to consider here “than just Leo Singer’s testimony.” And there is also much more to consider than Louis Kiss simply having been made “victim” of an overzealous prosecution attempting to stifle a potentially damaging witness to its case. Which is the essential gist of your treatment of Kiss in V3, pages 438-439. Why don’t we just allow the witness himself to present a little personal accountability, as opposed to attempting to pad his credibility as a defense witness? Personal accountability? I have no idea what this means in the context of this situation. It means this. Kiss's testimony, examined closely, reveals more than him simply having been a victim of David Wilentz's often-questionable methods. The man, first and foremost, has to take responsibility for himself, notably seen within his decision to testify in Flemington and what he truly had to offer. Next, you seem upset that Wilentz coerced, threatened, bribed, tampered, and obstructed. I am upset too. So why are you reprimanding me for revealing these facts? I see nothing wrong with my post or what I wrote about in my book. At all. Kiss obviously believed his testimony and did not back down. Was he right? I do not know and never said that I did. Your DC3 treatment of Louis Kiss lacks perspective and balance in an overall sense. You simply portray him as some kind of victim and attack the prosecution, while seemingly overlooking the import of what he and Singer actually stated under oath, and how their accounts were so at odds with each others. The Prosecution, in preparation for a possible appeal, had in their possession a receipt for the radio Kiss was supposed to have admired date 3/10. Thanks to Siglinde I have a copy and I'll attempt to attach it. Seems weird to me that it wasn't admitted into evidence during the Flemington trial. Would have been an easier method than the one Wilentz employed. For this reason I am a little skeptical. Thanks (and to Siglinde) for attaching the receipt. I'm amazed at how this kind of information still exists 90 plus years later. Regardless, your theory of Kiss seeking fame doesn't work for me. He's either mistaken or he's correct. Faced with the tampering & threats from the AG, I think he would have been crazy not to recant if he was lying about it. Whether this possibility works for you or not, is immaterial. As neither of us knew Louis Kiss and he made a key error within his testimony, which you still have not acknowledged, we can also add the possibility here of him seeking to do everything he reasonably could to spare himself from being prosecuted for presenting perjured testimony, ie. his follow up statement which Sue posted. I can't claim to believe the man was lying to get his Fifteen Minutes, but I'd hardly be willing to give him a walk based on his highly questionable testimony, as you appear to do.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 18, 2023 8:05:31 GMT -5
It means this. Kiss's testimony, examined closely, reveals more than him simply having been a victim of David Wilentz's often-questionable methods. The man, first and foremost, has to take responsibility for himself, notably seen within his decision to testify in Flemington and what he truly had to offer. Again, this makes little sense. The man testified to what he believed was true and did not back down in the face of the threats the AG made when he attempted to tamper with this witness. Whether his memory was correct or not is up to the individual researcher to decide. As I wrote earlier, there were several who placed Hauptmann in the Bronx that night to include Mrs. Rauch. She never testified, of course, and neither did several others who had information. Why not? Well, for one, the Defense wasn't aware of what Rauch had told the Trooper, and the others were either "afraid" or were no-shows. I think its a safe bet that the AG's pattern of behavior could be a factor. Wouldn't you agree? Your DC3 treatment of Louis Kiss lacks perspective and balance in an overall sense. You simply portray him as some kind of victim and attack the prosecution, while seemingly overlooking the import of what he and Singer actually stated under oath, and how their accounts were so at odds with each others. I have no idea what you are talking about. There's no place where I conclude Kiss was correct. What I was doing was showing a pattern of unethical (if not illegal) conduct perpetrated by the AG. One knows this if they read it cover to cover instead of jumping around. You see, that's why there's no index Joe. Or if you have, and still believe I wasn't "balanced," then explain how that's done concerning Wilentz's behavior. It's impossible because his conduct was outrageous. Thanks (and to Siglinde) for attaching the receipt. I'm amazed at how this kind of information still exists 90 plus years later. The Peacock Collection was a donation made while I was researching. Over the years new stuff comes in or is discovered and I believe there's more yet to come. The most recent donation to the NJSP Archives were letters that were being sent to Hauptmann (and confiscated) while he was in the Flemington Jail. That was either 2021 or 2022. Whether this possibility works for you or not, is immaterial. As neither of us knew Louis Kiss and he made a key error within his testimony, which you still have not acknowledged, we can also add the possibility here of him seeking to do everything he reasonably could to spare himself from being prosecuted for presenting perjured testimony, ie. his follow up statement which Sue posted. I can't claim to believe the man was lying to get his Fifteen Minutes, but I'd hardly be willing to give him a walk based on his highly questionable testimony, as you appear to do. "Anyone who was on Lindy's side in the Hauptmann case was a Hero. Anyone who opposed him was a Skunk."
(Lloyd Fisher, V3 Page 486) There was no benefit for testifying for the Defense. It's why many people who had evidence stayed away. Some that got involved were crazy. Some mistaken. Some mistaken about some things while right about others. Some were simply correct.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jun 19, 2023 12:32:00 GMT -5
It means this. Kiss's testimony, examined closely, reveals more than him simply having been a victim of David Wilentz's often-questionable methods. The man, first and foremost, has to take responsibility for himself, notably seen within his decision to testify in Flemington and what he truly had to offer. Again, this makes little sense. The man testified to what he believed was true and did not back down in the face of the threats the AG made when he attempted to tamper with this witness. Whether his memory was correct or not is up to the individual researcher to decide. As I wrote earlier, there were several who placed Hauptmann in the Bronx that night to include Mrs. Rauch. She never testified, of course, and neither did several others who had information. Why not? Well, for one, the Defense wasn't aware of what Rauch had told the Trooper, and the others were either "afraid" or were no-shows. I think its a safe bet that the AG's pattern of behavior could be a factor. Wouldn't you agree? I don't believe anyone can say with absolute certainty that Kiss testified to what was true, or what he believed was true. As I see it, the discrepancies within his account might indicate he knew ahead of time or at the least, during his testimony, that he might have problems making his planned story stick. Perhaps, he wasn't aware his statements would be put under a microscope to the degree they were. I believe this is probably the approach Elvert Carlstrom took before his account was also disproven. In any case, I cannot imagine how anyone in the same position would not verify their story 100% with whatever it took before taking the stand in a case of this importance. And while you're mentioning Wilentz's at times questionable methods, let's not forget Reilly's obviously low standards in presenting defense alibi witnesses. Some of the shady characters he agreed to represent his defense left a lot to be desired, even to the point that Hauptmann was not impressed. Your DC3 treatment of Louis Kiss lacks perspective and balance in an overall sense. You simply portray him as some kind of victim and attack the prosecution, while seemingly overlooking the import of what he and Singer actually stated under oath, and how their accounts were so at odds with each others. I have no idea what you are talking about. There's no place where I conclude Kiss was correct. What I was doing was showing a pattern of unethical (if not illegal) conduct perpetrated by the AG. One knows this if they read it cover to cover instead of jumping around. You see, that's why there's no index Joe. Or if you have, and still believe I wasn't "balanced," then explain how that's done concerning Wilentz's behavior. It's impossible because his conduct was outrageous. My point being that your "covering Kiss in V3, pages 438-439" is in fact, you presenting your summary of the alleged dynamics between him and Wilentz through an intermediary. Certainly, it's one set of circumstances to consider but the veracity of Kiss's root claim that he was at Frederickson's Bakery on the evening of March 1, 1932 is a much weightier consideration. Whether this possibility works for you or not, is immaterial. As neither of us knew Louis Kiss and he made a key error within his testimony, which you still have not acknowledged, we can also add the possibility here of him seeking to do everything he reasonably could to spare himself from being prosecuted for presenting perjured testimony, ie. his follow up statement which Sue posted. I can't claim to believe the man was lying to get his Fifteen Minutes, but I'd hardly be willing to give him a walk based on his highly questionable testimony, as you appear to do. "Anyone who was on Lindy's side in the Hauptmann case was a Hero. Anyone who opposed him was a Skunk."
(Lloyd Fisher, V3 Page 486) There was no benefit for testifying for the Defense. It's why many people who had evidence stayed away. Some that got involved were crazy. Some mistaken. Some mistaken about some things while right about others. Some were simply correct. Given the weight of conclusive circumstantial evidence against Hauptmann, which has never had to rely on the often-erroneous accounts of eye or earwitnesses on either side, I think it's a wonder that Reilly got as much mileage as he did from the assortment of characters he gathered.
|
|