|
Post by Michael on Jul 23, 2006 22:23:48 GMT -5
If you believe Ella Achenback's trial testimony, that Hauptmann walked with a limp, this would (by design) lead you to believe Hauptmann had a leg injury after March 1, 1932. Of course the implications are that he was injured from a fall off of that ladder.
However, after going over all of the source police documentation, it proves Achenback's recollections were flawed.
Achenback originally told Investigators that Hauptmann had a leg injury immediately following the trip to Miami. Now the Hauptmann's trip to Miami occurred in January thru February 1933. So her recollection of Hauptmann's condition was true, but a year later in March 1933 NOT 1932. This is supported by Dr. Otto H. Meyers records indicating treatment for Varizen leitchte Phlebitis, Fuesse schwell manchmal an (Vericose Veins) on January 3, 1933, just before that Miami trip.
The worst part of Achenback's testimony is that Attorney General Wilentz knew she was mistaken about the date and used her testimony anyway.
It seems to me the Authorities were cock-sure someone had fallen off of that ladder. With this in mind, and absolutely no proof Hauptmann had been injured in this time-frame, it appears Wilentz was willing to utilize manufactured evidence by allowing a Witness to testify to something Achenback believed to be true but that he knew wasn't in order to place Hauptmann on that ladder the night in question.
Knowing this, and the fact CJ hadn't been injured either and should have after his jump over that fence at Woodlawn - what more proof does anyone need they knew their "Lone-Wolf" theory simply did not hold true?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jul 24, 2006 12:18:25 GMT -5
Michael....Robert Aldinger has a sure-fired solution to the question of who fell off the Lindbergh Ladder:
Answer: Fred Aldinger!
Robert still swears that in the TIME Magazine article we have all discussed before that BRH is 2nd from the left in the back row and Fred Aldinger is sitting next to Anna in Row 2. If there are any other timely photos of Fred Aldinger around it would help resolve this visual dispute? Is there still a link to the TIME photo of the New Years Eve party on this board?
Robert also confirmed to me as recently as last week the Fred Aldinger had "phlebitis" and is the person seeing the doctor downtown? I believe there is also a rented apartment involved in this somewheres, presumably to house Charlie Jr?
And the mysterious Austrian "Fritz" that helps Fisch find marks to sell the discount Gold Certs to is also none other than..... Fred Aldinger! I suppose this also means that BRH looks Austrian as well since it is so easy to mix them up/
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 24, 2006 20:56:49 GMT -5
Bob's ability to identify photos is very suspect Rick. I have seen people he pointed out in the past who aren't who he has claimed. Hopefully he'll start posting here like he did on our old site because Fred Aldinger as a suspect and/or involvement is interesting. I found a petition for Hauptmann with Fred's signature on it which I copied and sent along to Bob.
"Fritz" can't be Fred. Hauptmann obviously knew Fred but claimed he didn't know "Fritz."
As far as the "phlebitis" - Dr. Meyer produced the patient card with Hauptmann's name on it.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 25, 2006 5:51:56 GMT -5
Perhaps you are correct, but I have a hard time believing it. I simply can't believe I have discovered anything that wasn't already known regarding the ladder. Personally I think the prosecution and the investigators knew very well that no fall occurred from a "broken" ladder. Rather the idea of this scenario was created to make a guilty vote more palatable to the jurors, since they would not necessarily have to believe him capable of cold-blooded murder. Once again I can't believe the defense wasn't all over Wilentz on this as the leg injury / ladder fall scenario doesn't fit with the agile CJ witnessed by Condon and others.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 25, 2006 18:12:55 GMT -5
It seems Investigators were very skeptical until the child was discovered and determined to have been dead very near the date of the "crime." After-wards they did seem to believe the ladder was both used and a fall did occur. This was exemplified by their attempting to show Hauptmann had a leg injury, and when this failed, well, then you can see what they resorted to. If not then they were resorting to it even sooner....
I am definitely with you in that there wasn't a "great fall" off of that ladder responsible for either the baby's death or an injury to those on it.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 26, 2006 6:37:07 GMT -5
Given the experience the police had with the ladder, the replicas, and the crime scene, I find it difficult to believe that they wouldn't have known that a fall resulting from a ladder failure did not occur. I would also add A. Koehler to the list, he knew that ladder intimately and would have noted the lack of damage to it. He was examining that ladder under magnification and he certainly would have noted the nature of the two splits in the rails. Those splits, under magnification would reveal much about the event.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Jul 26, 2006 8:35:06 GMT -5
Michael, have you seen any other references to a leg injury to Hauptmann in March of 1932? I've read somewhere that one of the salesmen from Williamsbridge Motors, where Hauptmann bought his car, claimed to have seen him walking with a limp and his left leg bandaged in that month. Also, that he was noticed limping on Hunter's Island in the summer of '32. Have you come across any report details to suggest these are factual accounts?
If I were the jury, I'd still be out on Ella Achenbach's testimony. It seems unusual that she would have been confused by two entirely different years not that far removed from the actual date of her testimony or that the prosecution would have knowingly used perjured testimony which could have seriously undermined its case. Were there any other time-related events which would have served to solidify or debunk the accuracy of her claim? Was Ella at the same address in 1932 and 1933? Also from her account, there was considerable detail about the nature of the injury related by Anna to Ella. Did Anna ever explain this later with relevant detail, to confirm the injury actually happened in Florida? As a general comment, Anna's outburst seems overly demonstrative and protective. It's a side of her we don't often see and to me suggests the possibility she was capable of some of the same ability to hold inside her true feelings as the man she shared her life with for the previous ten years. Both Richard and Anna demonstrated that boiling point reached and exceeded during the proceedings.
Kevin, your observations about the ladder have been very valuable. As a result, I've certainly come to question and rethink some of my own original beliefs as to what happened during the entry and exit. Do you think it's possible that whoever was on the ladder may have leaned far enough from centre to cause an imbalance and sudden torquing / split within the structure? Further that they were upset by this action and believed they had best "jump ship" in as controlled a fashion as possible to defer a potential catastrophe? I've often considered the deep left footprint as an off-balanced landing point which might well have put considerable strain on the individual's left foot and ankle.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 27, 2006 7:12:14 GMT -5
Sure Joe, an accident involving the ladder could certainly have occurred without the ladder failing. I hope I never claimed otherwise. But I would say that going strictly by the crime scene evidence, there does not seem to be anything to support this possibility. Remember, this ladder is lightweight. Good for transport and erecting, but for climbing more mass ( and width) would help greatly. Bottom line, it is very easy to knock this ladder over. I have a very difficult time believing that any abrupt movement off this ladder could occur without the ladder "kicking" over simply because it can not resist the opposing force. Yet I see and have heard of no evidence which indicates any type of lateral movement of the ladder. One would expect to see horizontal scrape marks or marked deformity of the holes if such an abrupt action occurred. Bottom line, while it is possible some sort of accident occurred, I would say the physical evidence simply doesn't support it. Additionally I would add that had the climber been injured in some way, and given the circumstances, I would doubt very much that we would find the ladder moved and placed in such a way 75 ft from the house. That of course is conjecture on my part, but having suffered a few ladder injuries myself in the course of construction and as a volunteer firefighter, I would say that getting the hell out of there and off your feet would be your first and only concern.
|
|