|
Post by mjrichmond on Jun 5, 2006 11:46:54 GMT -5
I would like to see a show of hands. Does anyone here believe any of these guys?
Mjr
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 5, 2006 16:31:41 GMT -5
Yeah, I believe they all saw something. Who knows what that something was, though.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 6, 2006 5:49:37 GMT -5
I am a bit more skeptical.
I do not believe Hochmuth or Whited because of the earlier investigations in addition to what I have concerning investigations in the area after Hauptmann's arrest.
Rossiter may have actually had an encounter but I don't think it was Hauptmann. As I find and read more on the investigations after Hauptmann's arrest I am quite surprised they didn't use more then these three and don't know what qualified some as opposed to others. Whited was both a liar and criminal with his own brother testifying to this fact. Hochmuth saw nothing, as we know he couldn't physically done - plus later he tells Wallace a fantastic tale after Kimberling sends him out to re-interview him.
|
|
|
Post by mjrichmond on Jun 6, 2006 7:55:27 GMT -5
<<I am a bit more skeptical. >> (Michael)
Why do I think this is an understatement? :)
Because Whitted originally said he saw no one and because his own brother said he was a liar? Because when asked whether his statement to the police included the claim to have seen the man he simply refused to answer the question? (I still cannot believe that Fisher let him get away with that. I would have been jumping up and down screaming.)
Because Hochmuth not only changed what he claimed to have seen from statement to testimony to later statements but because he had cataracts in both eyes and could not even see Hauptmann at the police station - only figures?
I absolutely love this guy. He is my all time favorite "eye witness".
Because Rossiter originally said the man was about 5'6", very stocky, weighed about 170 to 180, had a very prominent nose and had a pronounced German accent (before seeing Hauptmann) then changed it to "slightly taller than myself" (at 5'7") and that "the action of the man was positively that of a German" (after seeing Hauptmann). Leaving out, of course, the stuff about being stocky, etc. (How, BTW, does one "act" German?)
IMHO, Whitted and Hochmuth were lying. Rossiter was either lying or just a nitwit.
Mjr
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 6, 2006 8:37:27 GMT -5
I thought I was being skeptical ;D I wouldn't trust their testimony further than I could spit ( and that's further than one of them could see)
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 6, 2006 17:15:46 GMT -5
It's hard to say.... You have two very good reasons to embellish. The Police coercing and suggesting what to say AND a share in the reward.
One only needs to see what they tried to do to Lupica. That kid had integrity.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 26, 2009 16:50:42 GMT -5
Mr. Driver states that in 1934, July to November, he was engaged in the construction of a bridge within a few hundred feet of the home of Amandus Hochmuth, and it was necessary for him to pay for right-of-way over property owned by Mr. Plumb, Hochmuth's son-in-law. Mr. Driver became acquainted with Hochmuth as he used to walk down to the contraction job almost every day to watch the men work. It was quite apparent to Mr. Driver, his two sons, and the workmen, that Mr. Hockmuth could hardly see.
On one occasion Mr. Hochmuth came to the bridge job and asked Mr. Driver for a piece of wood for a chopping block. Hochmuth then led Driver to a stone gate post lying nearby and said that it was the piece of wood he wanted for a chopping block. This illustrates more then anything else the very bad eyesight of Hochmuth, according to Mr. Driver. [Lewis Report, Meade Detective Agency, 3-21-36]
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 22, 2010 14:15:47 GMT -5
More on Gov. Hoffman's position concerning Whited & Hochmuth: Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Aug 25, 2010 16:05:52 GMT -5
i come to the conclusion studying hoffman that he wasnt to believeable himself. what came out in the 50s about his forgeries and his own extortions and stealing funds, who cares about gov hoffman? his take on the case and his blowhard ways i cant take him seriously either
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 28, 2010 16:45:25 GMT -5
What about his position wasn't believable? It has nothing to do with anything else, because if it does, then no one is believable. A fact is a fact regardless of anything else.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Aug 28, 2010 19:31:58 GMT -5
what facts mike? he got killed in the papers during when hauptmann was on death row.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 29, 2010 6:24:05 GMT -5
4 out of every 5 letters he received supported his actions. Facts such as proving Whited lied, and Hochmuth couldn't see are irrefutable, yet, if it weren't for Hoffman, would never have been brought to our attention.
What I am saying is that if you want to say "if Mr. X said Y, but Mr. X did something wrong in his life, therefore Y must be untrue," then you have to apply that to everyone.
For example, Trooper Kelly sold those Nursery photos to the press then lied about it. Shall I go on?
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Aug 29, 2010 7:59:13 GMT -5
it was a big case, everybody was trying to make money. was it right? no way. as far as gov hoffman goes, to me he didnt prove anything. he thought hauptmann was guilty but had help, that was never proved
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Aug 29, 2010 8:06:28 GMT -5
the real question is was hochmuths eyesight better in 32 then 36? i believe him , but it dosnt matter the wood and the handwriting was to strong. besides you people forget hauptmanns bag of lies through the course of this case
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 29, 2010 9:01:28 GMT -5
Everyone thought Hauptmann had help but it wasn't proven because of how everything went down. Hoffman tried, came close a few times, but in the end it was too late.
Hochmuth couldn't see in '32 either. Look, I think you have a file on him as thick as I do. The man made it up. Once Wallace re-interviews him for Kimberling he starts making up even more. And you believe him?
I haven't forgotten anything. You see, you are basing your beliefs upon something that is unrelated.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Aug 29, 2010 10:12:27 GMT -5
why would wilentz put him on the stand if he couldnt see? your going on the same path all hauptmann supporters do. all the witnessess lied, the wood was planted, fisch was involved, i heard it all and it goes nowhere
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 30, 2010 7:59:58 GMT -5
Well, Wilentz put him on the stand because Lupica wouldn't say what he was being told to say. They needed Hauptmann in Hopewell. Whited's brother had already impeached his testimony in the Bronx so they sought out anyone and everyone who were willing to place him there.
All you have to do is research Hochmuths file, then cross reference it with his testimony and the other items found within the Hoffman Collection. It proves beyond all doubt his testimony was worthless at best.
All of this other stuff you mention has nothing to do with the above.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Aug 30, 2010 10:02:01 GMT -5
i think the evidence nailed him, the defense had some liars and pretty bad ones i might add
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 31, 2010 17:00:44 GMT -5
Maybe, but we could talk about that when the time comes. Right now its Hochmuth and his lies.....
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Aug 31, 2010 21:05:51 GMT -5
your starting to sound like scaduto. this stuff never changed since the late eighties
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 2, 2010 8:06:19 GMT -5
I disagree Steve. I've found material which disproves some of Fisher's assertions and shows that both Kennedy & Scaduto didn't have those available to them because they are speculating about the subject by suggesting what the material might say if they had it. So much has changed. Here is a document concerning Hochmuth. For those who are interested.... There is a sticker on the top of this letter and on it is written " Hochmuth Ex. No. 10." What Gov. Hoffman did was put together "reports" supported by exhibits. When he did this, by and through the PIs, trusted members of the NJSP, and those loaned to him by various State Agencies, it was with no money, limited resources, and very little time. Yet, he is able to destroy the creditability of key Witnesses vital to the charge which directed Hauptmann to his doom in the electric chair. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Sept 2, 2010 13:16:30 GMT -5
thats 3rd hand info, hochmuth never backed down in fact a trooper interviewed that was with hochmuth when he saw hauptmann after they arrested him told him my god thats the man i saw. so you can go up and down with this case
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 2, 2010 13:39:33 GMT -5
Well, if you don't think his daughter was creditiable there is certainly many more sources for this.... If you know his living arrangements it makes it even more evident that was the truth.
Then consider that Hochmuth attempts to later justify what he testified to by embellishing yet another encounter with Hauptmann he had never before mentioned. The one where he tells Trooper Wallace Hauptmann gave him his name and told him he was from Saxony.
Steve, are you really this gullible or rather, are you just trying to back a bad source because you want to defend Fisher's book?
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Sept 2, 2010 13:49:22 GMT -5
no its not any worse then your source. i for one dont understand what your defending hauptmanns nonguilt or the everybody did it except haupmann please enlighten me
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 3, 2010 6:05:58 GMT -5
I haven't taken up that position here because it doesn't call for it. What I see you doing is shaping what you will consider to be true based upon an overall conclusion.
You can't do that. You go point by point, on merit, then let the chips fall where they may. You are defending flaws and fiction because of your belief, in the end, that Hauptmann did it and by himself.
You can't conclude then tell us it proves what the evidence shows. If the evidence is flawed then you should not consider it. Pretending it isn't, when it obviously is, needs to be addressed if that evidence is used to "prove" something.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Sept 3, 2010 6:26:47 GMT -5
i think after 18 some odd years looking at this case, i can make my beliefs and stand by them
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 3, 2010 16:57:48 GMT -5
Surely you are. I simply question accepting Hochmuth's testimony as true merely because you believe Hauptmann guilty.
Both Hochmuth AND Hauptmann could have lied. You are acting like they are tied together so as one goes so must the other. That's just not true.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Sept 3, 2010 17:49:11 GMT -5
i know there not tied together but i believe the evidence got hauptmann more then the witnesses
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 8, 2012 11:30:46 GMT -5
Here is one of the documents the Governor was relying on to discredit Hochmuth. We've read about it everywhere so I thought since I had it in front of me at the moment I would upload it for everyone. You'll notice the " Ex. No. 6" sticker on the upper-most left hand corner. If you ever see this on documents it means it came from the Hoffman Collection and was one of those the Governor chose to add as an exhibit to his Report on a specific matter. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jul 8, 2012 12:20:37 GMT -5
its funny i think hochmuth was a good witness in 1932. he swore he saw hauptmann, of course his eyesight got worse since 1932. you can always say a witness is lying in this case
|
|