kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 22, 2010 20:35:50 GMT -5
Good points, but let's not forget that Anna was Hauptmann's partner, for better or worse. BRH may have been able to construct his own version of events in an effort to dodge the law, but could that really fool Anna? Then there are the dynamics of a relationship to consider. There are many reasons that can drive a person into denial and they don't always make sense to those observing.
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on May 12, 2011 13:37:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 12, 2011 17:09:01 GMT -5
Julius Braun was a good PI. Here again was another person volunteering his services to Hoffman. That is the part Anna was NOT aware of. He was working for Hoffman all the while Anna thought he was working for her.
His "work" is proof positive that Hoffman was not someone who believed Hauptmann was "innocent" of any wrong-doing. Anyone who cast aspersions at the Governor hasn't done the research this angle reveals.
|
|
|
Post by Marine Mom on Jan 20, 2014 21:09:26 GMT -5
Has anyone read/studied the book "Crime of the Century"? I can NOT believe that Richard Hauptmann kidnapped the Lindbergh baby after reading it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2014 12:15:41 GMT -5
Hi Marine Mom and welcome to the board! If you are talking about Ludovic Kennedy's "Crime of the Century" book, I can say that it was the second book I read complete about the Kidnapping crime. I did find it compelling at the time I read it because its conclusion was the complete opposite of what I read in Kidnap by George Waller. Having spent some time since then learning about this crime, I think the true solution rests somewhere in the middle. I find the wood evidence in the ladder and the money in Hauptmann's garage showing involvement but I do not, at this time, think he committed this crime alone. I think the ladder could have been brought to Hopewell and used by someone else. I don't think it proves he was there. The money suggests his involvement in the extortion end of this crime since he was in possession of it and had concealed its existence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2014 10:34:23 GMT -5
Michael,
I wonder if you can help me to understand something about Ella Achenbach and her testimony that Anna and Richard visited her in early March 1932 and she claimed Hauptmann was limping at the time of this visit. Mrs. Ackenbach says this visit occured after Anna and Richard had returned from a trip.
When Anna Hauptmann testified during the Trial, she claims this visit with Mrs. Achenbach took place in 1931 after she and Richard returned from there California trip (October 1931). They had brought souvenirs for their friends and paid a visit to Mrs. Achenbach then.
My understanding is that Hauptmann was being treated for vericose veins in 1933 and this is when he was walking with a limp, not in 1932 or 1931.
I think that Mrs. Achenbach is incorrect with when exactly the Hauptmanns visited her. But Anna placing it in 1931 is troubling also. It seems that elements of all three years have morphed into one visit.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 9, 2014 10:50:26 GMT -5
I think that Mrs. Achenbach is incorrect with when exactly the Hauptmanns visited her. But Anna placing it in 1931 is troubling also. It seems that elements of all three years have morphed into one visit. Achenback originally told Investigators that Hauptmann had a leg injury immediately following the trip to Miami. That occurred in January thru February 1933. So her recollection of Hauptmann's injury was true, but a year later in March 1933 NOT 1932. And like you said, this is supported by Hauptmann seeking medical attention from Dr. Otto H. Meyers for 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 - I seem to remember they wanted her to say "trip" not to mention "Miami" - it's been a while so I'd have to look it up to make sure.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Nov 9, 2014 20:00:16 GMT -5
I was interested to see this thread brought forward. Anna has always been the one person I believe 100%. First, although the crime took place 2 1/2 years before Richard was arrested, I think she would have remembered if he had not been there to take her home the night of March lst. It's one of those times in history that I call "a Kennedy moment". They woke up on March 2 with the news that the Lindbergh baby had been kidnapped the night before. It would be a moment where you would remember exactly where you were when it had happened. She testified that Richard, as usual on her late work nights, waited for her and drove her home. I believe her. I also believe the man at Frederickson's who said he remembered Richard being there because he laughed at him. (Could someone refresh my memory on the man's name?) It was the guy's birthday, and when Richard laughed at his poor English, it made him mad. Anna also testified that she could not see the top shelf of the broom closet where the shoebox was kept. Here is a picture: www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/anna%20closet2.jpgAlthough the caption states it is the nursery closet, I think it's the broom closet, and Anna is showing where the shelf was and how she would not have been able to see the box. I believe her. I know all of you have been at this for years, and I'm just getting started, but I get so MAD at what they did to this man. No way will I ever believe he was in Hopewell that night. They executed an innocent man.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Nov 9, 2014 21:12:45 GMT -5
when I was in the house the pantry closet in the kitchen was still thre. the shelf was in the same spot. she said she saw no box
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Nov 9, 2014 23:35:41 GMT -5
when I was in the house the pantry closet in the kitchen was still thre. the shelf was in the same spot. she said she saw no box Was the photo taken in this pantry closet, romeo? Notice how she has her arm raised. What do you think she is indicating by doing this? It's obvious she can see the shelf that we see in the photo. Was there another shelf above that one, higher up, as she seems to be indicating?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Nov 10, 2014 0:35:25 GMT -5
To me, it seems very deep and she's about 4-5" under the shelf height, unless she made a good deal of effort, she legitimately wouldn't be able to see the back of that shelf.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Nov 10, 2014 8:05:34 GMT -5
no, that was the top shelf. its amazing it was still there
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2014 12:34:26 GMT -5
I believe that the photo you posted of Anna in the closet is the broom closet in the kitchen. She was questioned about this closet. Here is a link to the photo that was shown to Anna by Wilentz when he was cross-examining her. www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Watchf-AP-A-NJ-USA-APHS253592-Bruno-Richard-Hau-/5b1f5e27723249748a7023134dd79445/1/0Here is a portion of the questioning from the trial transscript concerning this closet. Wilentz starts out asking Anna if the shelves are the way she remembers them. She says there were not bottles on the top shelf because she didn't use the top shelf but she does agree with the position of the shelves in the closet. From Trial Transcript pages 2934,2935. Q(Wilentz) - Now, I want you to take a look at the apron there. A(Anna) - Yes, I see them.
Q(Wilentz) - And it is hanging on a nail, isn't it? A(Anna) - No, it is not a nail.
Q(Wilentz) - What is it? A(Anna) - It is a hook.
Q(Wilentz) - A hook? Will you look at it please, madam? A(Anna) - Yes, I see it.
Q(Wilentz) - Is that where the hook was when you were living there? A(Anna) - I believe so.
Q(Wilentz) - You believe so, and you used to take your apron and hang it up there, didn't you? A(Anna) - Yes.
Q(Wilentz) - You didn't have any trouble doing that, did you? I mean it wasn't hard for you to hang up your apron on that hook, was it? A(Anna) - Oh, I could hang it up.
Q(Wilentz) - Just put it on easily. Now see if that hook isn't above the top shelf of the closet. A(Anna) - I see that.
Q(Wilentz) - It is, isn't it. So you had no trouble reaching above the top shelf of the closet to hang up your apron. A(Anna) - I had no trouble reaching it.
Q(Wilentz) - What is it, madam? A(Anna) - I had no trouble reaching it.
Q(Wilentz) - Certainly not. You had no trouble reaching to the hook which was above the top shelf of the closet? A(Anna) - I could always hang them up like this.Wilentz is no doubt trying to make it appear that Anna would have no trouble seeing things on the top shelf if she could reach the hook to hang up her apron. I don't know how tall Anna was, but I doubt that she stood eye level with that hook. Anna probably reached up to hang her apron on that hook. I don't think it would have been that easy for her to see what was on that top shelf if it was set back from the edge. It is a shame that the defense could not get into that apartment to take measurements of how high the hook was and how high the shelf was and then compare that with Anna's height. I think they would have been able to show the difficulty Anna would have had seeing something on that top shelf if it was set back far enough.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Nov 10, 2014 13:08:16 GMT -5
I should have measured some things in the house. I have pictures I took of the pantry, im sure anna could have seen a shoebox on that shelf. I think she claimed the shelf was lowered but I looked at the wall the current tenant at the time said it was never moved, and I saw no marks that it was
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2014 14:39:14 GMT -5
I should have measured some things in the house. I have pictures I took of the pantry, im sure anna could have seen a shoebox on that shelf. I think she claimed the shelf was lowered but I looked at the wall the current tenant at the time said it was never moved, and I saw no marks that it was I had heard or read something about the shelves having been lowered or altered in some way. Anna in her testimony says they looked like they were in the same position she remembered them. She was looking at that photo I posted when she said that, however. Do you know if she made that claim after the trial was over? Is that what the photo Rebekah posted of Anna in the empty closet is about; the shelves being moved? Anna did testify that she had to stretch up to hang up her apron on that hook. Here is the piece of testimony from the trial transcript about this: Q(Wilentz) - Please. You never cleaned that top shelf? A(Anna) - I did not.
Q(Wilentz) - No? All right. But there isn't any question in your mind that every day when you went to put that apron up all you had to do was to reach your hand up and put it on the hook? A(Anna) - I did put it there.
Q(Wilentz) - And you had no trouble with it? A(Anna) - No.
Q(Wilentz) - Did you ever go to reach that top shelf? A(Anna) - I did.
Q(Wilentz) - You didn't have any trouble there. A(Anna) - Trouble I had to stretch up.
Q(Wilentz) - Well, you stretched your hand up, is that what you mean? A(Anna) - I had to stand up and stretch up like this (indicating).What I take from this is that Anna was demonstrating that she had to stretch at arm's length to get that apron on that hook. Not the hand reach Wilentz wanted the jury to think it was. If the top shelf was deep enough she may not have been able to see a shoe box set back horizontally on that shelf. I think it is important to keep in mind that Anna had just had a baby 4 weeks before the night of this party when Fisch was supposed to have brought the package to the Hauptmann house. Back then, if I am understanding this correctly, there was alot more physical restrictions on women as to what they could and couldn't do after having a baby. I believe that stretching/reaching up was one of those. I believe that Wilentz acknowledges this limitation on Anna's part farther into the testimony. If Fisch was laundering gold notes for Hauptmann and he did bring a package to Hauptmann's house that night, then, perhaps Hauptmann put the package into a shoe box placing it on the top shelf of the broom closet and then pushed it as far back as he could so Anna couldn't see it. It could have been there (for a little bit) and Anna honestly didn't see it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 10, 2014 17:40:54 GMT -5
Anna has always been the one person I believe 100%. I have always gauged her honesty based on the fact Reilly wanted her to testify that she saw the box, but she refused. He pressed her by saying, in essence, it would hurt his case if she didn't. But she still refused to say she saw it there. So it's a testament to her belief in what she would say concerning what she did or did not witness or know. Having said that it's also important to consider that even people who believe what they are saying can be incorrect sometimes. I also believe the man at Frederickson's who said he remembered Richard being there because he laughed at him. (Could someone refresh my memory on the man's name?) It was the guy's birthday, and when Richard laughed at his poor English, it made him mad. There were (5) people who claimed to have seen Hauptmann in the Bakery on the nite of March 1st. The men testified: Von Henke, Kiss, and Manley. Manley by the way was seriously ill and still dragged himself to Court to testify. Kiss and Von Henke both testified about seeing Hauptmann with the dog. The (2) women did not testify. One told Reilly she wouldn't out of the gate because she was afraid, and the other was due in Court but when it was her turn she was a "no-show." I believe one of the two told Reilly she had been threatened by Wilentz, and this makes sense because he without all doubt threatened Kiss after his testimony was over telling him he needed to return to recant the testimony.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Nov 10, 2014 21:11:31 GMT -5
Thank you, Amy, for the photo and the testimony. I do not have access to the trial transcripts, so I appreciate anything anyone may post from the originals. Also, not to be unkind, but I can see how she wouldn't have been able to see anything on that shelf. That closet is a mess, isn't it? I can also understand how Richard would have forgotten the box for so long. When the rain soaked the closet, everything must have been wet, including her aprons. I think the box was there. Do you think Fisch was laundering Lindbergh gold certificates for Richard? I don't. I think he bought them on some kind of black market or from someone he knew who was involved in the extortion, but that's just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Nov 10, 2014 21:54:22 GMT -5
"There were (5) people who claimed to have seen Hauptmann in the Bakery on the nite of March 1st. The men testified: Von Henke, Kiss, and Manley. Manley by the way was seriously ill and still dragged himself to Court to testify. Kiss and Von Henke both testified about seeing Hauptmann with the dog. The (2) women did not testify. One told Reilly she wouldn't out of the gate because she was afraid, and the other was due in Court but when it was her turn she was a "no-show." I believe one of the two told Reilly she had been threatened by Wilentz, and this makes sense because he without all doubt threatened Kiss after his testimony was over telling him he needed to return to recant the testimony." -- Michael
Do you know which of these men was the one Richard laughed at? I remember that, when he returned from walking the dog, he told Anna that a man had accused him of stealing it.
BTW, Wilentz was a piece of work. JMO
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 11, 2014 10:03:04 GMT -5
Do you know which of these men was the one Richard laughed at? In my reply to you Rebekah, I seemed to have omitted Elvert Carlstrom - so add him to the list. He claimed to have been in the Bakery on March 1st remembering the date because it was his birthday, and remembering Hauptmann because he laughed at him. This was brought out when Wilentz's badgering backfired on him. Carlstrom said he specifically remembered Hauptmann because he got angry about being laughed at. If you go to Lloyd's book starting at page 332 you will see some good information about him. Also, Lloyd makes a great observation concerning Wilentz and how he reacts to situations he doesn't expect. Another point of interest, that I have found among the State Police Collections, is they seemed to think Carlstrom may have known Hauptmann somehow or that they might have been co-workers at Majestic. So the idea is that Carlstrom may have been attempting to help Hauptmann because of their personal connection. They never turned up anything, but it shows their willingness to accept others could be involved.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2014 12:14:05 GMT -5
Thank you, Amy, for the photo and the testimony. I do not have access to the trial transcripts, so I appreciate anything anyone may post from the originals. Also, not to be unkind, but I can see how she wouldn't have been able to see anything on that shelf. That closet is a mess, isn't it? I can also understand how Richard would have forgotten the box for so long. When the rain soaked the closet, everything must have been wet, including her aprons. I think the box was there. Do you think Fisch was laundering Lindbergh gold certificates for Richard? I don't. I think he bought them on some kind of black market or from someone he knew who was involved in the extortion, but that's just my opinion. Ha! I agree about that broom closet looking very disorganized. Anna, when she was testifying, must have thought things didn't look quite right in that broom closet also. She especially mentioned the bottles on the top shelf. She did not keep those up there. I wonder if the authorities had taken things out of the closet when looking for money and then put the stuff back in. I think the shoe box was in the broom closet originally and Anna didn't see it. I know that they had trouble with that leak into the broom closet for awhile. The box and its contents could have been absorbing moisture sitting on that shelf. I think the box could have been removed after Hauptmann learned of Fisch's death in Germany. He then took the box to the garage where he air-dried the gold certs. The ransom money from that box was found wrapped in newspaper dated June 1934 and Sept. 1934. We know Fisch didn't wrap the money in 1934 newspaper. He never returned to America after leaving in 1933 so that leaves Hauptmann wrapping the money up in the newspaper and hiding it in the garage. I can't come up with any other way to account for it being in 1934 newpaper. Who do you think bought the gold certs on the black market, Fisch or Hauptmann? I believe the ransom extortion involved more than one person. Someone like Fisch would have been very useful in getting the money laundered. Whether Fisch did it for Hauptmann or did it for someone else, I am not sure. I just think Fisch had a hand in it somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Nov 11, 2014 12:53:36 GMT -5
Do you know which of these men was the one Richard laughed at? In my reply to you Rebekah, I seemed to have omitted Elvert Carlstrom - so add him to the list. He claimed to have been in the Bakery on March 1st remembering the date because it was his birthday, and remembering Hauptmann because he laughed at him. This was brought out when Wilentz's badgering backfired on him. Carlstrom said he specifically remembered Hauptmann because he got angry about being laughed at. If you go to Lloyd's book starting at page 332 you will see some good information about him. Also, Lloyd makes a great observation concerning Wilentz and how he reacts to situations he doesn't expect. Another point of interest, that I have found among the State Police Collections, is they seemed to think Carlstrom may have known Hauptmann somehow or that they might have been co-workers at Majestic. So the idea is that Carlstrom may have been attempting to help Hauptmann because of their personal connection. They never turned up anything, but it shows their willingness to accept others could be involved. Thank you, Michael, for the guy's name. I had to return Lloyd's book to the library, so I can't reference it. It was the best information I've ever read on the case, and I'm leaning towards his opinion on the "who." I doubt that Carlstrom and Hauptmann knew each other. If there had been anything to this, I think Wilentz would have brought it out in his cross. I'm reading Scaduto's book right now. His research isn't as extensive as what you've done, but it's pretty good! What is your opinion on Zorn's book? That's next, although I don't put a lot of credence in the John Knoll theory for one reason. No one ever called Hauptmann "Bruno." I do think Knoll resembled the first artist's rendering of Cemetery John, but much less than the one they decided to go with. There is another man who also resembled the first drawing, but I've forgotten his name, which I know I wrote down in my notes, but can't find. He was an uncle to someone investigated in the Bronx, and I know it's on this board somewhere. Anyone know who I'm talking about? I'm spending a lot of time here of late. So much so that the other night I dreamed about a "falling baby." Freaky.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Nov 11, 2014 13:18:36 GMT -5
Thank you, Amy, for the photo and the testimony. I do not have access to the trial transcripts, so I appreciate anything anyone may post from the originals. Also, not to be unkind, but I can see how she wouldn't have been able to see anything on that shelf. That closet is a mess, isn't it? I can also understand how Richard would have forgotten the box for so long. When the rain soaked the closet, everything must have been wet, including her aprons. I think the box was there. Do you think Fisch was laundering Lindbergh gold certificates for Richard? I don't. I think he bought them on some kind of black market or from someone he knew who was involved in the extortion, but that's just my opinion. Ha! I agree about that broom closet looking very disorganized. Anna, when she was testifying, must have thought things didn't look quite right in that broom closet also. She especially mentioned the bottles on the top shelf. She did not keep those up there. I wonder if the authorities had taken things out of the closet when looking for money and then put the stuff back in. I think the shoe box was in the broom closet originally and Anna didn't see it. I know that they had trouble with that leak into the broom closet for awhile. The box and its contents could have been absorbing moisture sitting on that shelf. I think the box could have been removed after Hauptmann learned of Fisch's death in Germany. He then took the box to the garage where he air-dried the gold certs. The ransom money from that box was found wrapped in newspaper dated June 1934 and Sept. 1934. We know Fisch didn't wrap the money in 1934 newspaper. He never returned to America after leaving in 1933 so that leaves Hauptmann wrapping the money up in the newspaper and hiding it in the garage. I can't come up with any other way to account for it being in 1934 newpaper. Who do you think bought the gold certs on the black market, Fisch or Hauptmann? I believe the ransom extortion involved more than one person. Someone like Fisch would have been very useful in getting the money laundered. Whether Fisch did it for Hauptmann or did it for someone else, I am not sure. I just think Fisch had a hand in it somewhere. Hi, Amy. I agree that LE probably just threw the stuff back in the closet. Anna must have been appalled. The fact that the dates on the newspapers seem to confirm Richard's story of finding the money sometime in August, 1934 sits well with me. I believe it was Fisch who bought the money. (Probably with money he "borrowed" from one of his friends.) And, I totally agree that the extortion involved more than one person. Even now, it boggles the mind that Rosner was allowed to remove ANYTHING, expecially a ransom note signed with the 'singnature', or a copy of the nursery note, supposedly made by Breckinridge. Once that signature was out, they had no guarantee that they would ever be dealing with the person that wrote the first note left in the nursery. Lindbergh was suppose to be so smart. Letting the underworld in on such inside information was totally stupid. Or, was it deliberate? I'm off to the "Did Lindbergh's Arrival Alter the Kidnapping" thread. (On page 9, so 5 more pages to go!)
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 11, 2014 13:42:42 GMT -5
If there had been anything to this, I think Wilentz would have brought it out in his cross. He did bring it up. There was one question he posed that is directly related to this in my opinion. It's been a while since I read the exchange but if you're interested let me know and I will see if I can find it for you. I'm reading Scaduto's book right now. His research isn't as extensive as what you've done, but it's pretty good! To be fair it's due to the books I've read prior to 2000 that led me to "crash" the Archives in order to verify, then attempt, to answer these questions. I am lucky enough to live near the Archives and in a position to research there without restrictions. It's because of this I am able to possess the answers to most everything Scaduto speculated about. What is your opinion on Zorn's book? That's next, although I don't put a lot of credence in the John Knoll theory for one reason. I've never read the book and won't waste my time. Everything I have seen, read, or heard is completely whacky. Sometimes people who know how to sound like they know what they're talking about generates attention. However, I would never talk anyone out of reading it, in fact, feel free to bring up any questions you might have after reading it.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Nov 11, 2014 17:46:04 GMT -5
To Rebekah and All:
I read Zorn's book a couple of times. I don't give much credence to the John Knoll theory, but not for the reason that "no one ever called Hauptmann 'Bruno.'" (After all, it's possible that he had some buddies who knew his real first name and constantly used it to rib him, so he eventually let them - but only them - call him "Bruno.")
The major reason why Robert Zorn is wrong about Knoll, is the basis for his entire story. It isn't that difficult to imagine Robert's father, Eugene Zorn, going on a day trip to Palisades Amusement Park in 1931 with the Knoll brothers where they met a friend named "Bruno." But what is extremely implausible was that Eugene Zorn's memory of that day at the park in 1931 wasn't jogged until he read a story about the Lindbergh case in True magazine in 1963! One would have suspected that the very bright Gene Zorn would have remembered "Bruno" from the park in 1934 and 1935, when the name "Bruno Richard Hauptmann" was all over the newspapers, radio and newsreels regarding his arrest, pre-trial proceedings, trial, incarceration, etc. IF he, Gene Zorn, was suspicious that the "Bruno" he saw back in 1931 was indeed Hauptmann.
Furthermore, Robert Zorn's handwriting comparisons of Knoll's known writings with the ransom notes are so flimsy that even an amateur can see that a person other than John Knoll almost surely wrote those ransom notes.
I would agree with Robert Zorn that John Knoll was a very strange character and could very well have engaged in criminal activity, but I for one feel confident in rejecting his theory that John Knoll was "Cemetery John."
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Nov 11, 2014 19:07:10 GMT -5
lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/attachment/download/120 I think I found the first composite made of Cemetery John. Thank you, Michael. Like I mentioned, it looks more like the 'uncle' (or relative thereof) of the guy in the Bronx. He was connected to Condon, I believe. (Not sure.) I may run across it again. And, it may be in Aimee's thread. Yes, I would like to see the testimony about Carlstrom and Hauptmann. Just to read how Wilentz bent it, if nothing else. I don't think they knew each other. Does anyone think they did? Hurtelable, I will read Zorn's book, but just to see if there may be ANYTHING of use. You're right about his father remembering the group way before 1963. I think he would have jumped on it, even if he was just a kid at the time.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 11, 2014 19:56:09 GMT -5
Yes, I would like to see the testimony about Carlstrom and Hauptmann. Just to read how Wilentz bent it, if nothing else. I don't think they knew each other. Does anyone think they did? [ Trial Transcript p2999]: Q: How long did you work for the company? A: I was working for company, I start in May 1931. Then I was working for the superintendent to Christmas, Christmas Eve same year.
Q: Yes. How long did you work at the Majestic Apartments? A: I think it was about two or three days.
Q: Were you Mr. Hauptmann's helper there when he worked there? A: No, I was not.
Q: You weren't? A: (Shakes Head.)
Q: What did you do at the Majestic Apartments? A: I was carrying doors.
Q: For carpenters, weren't you? A: Yeh.
Q: In 1931? A: In 1931. [ Trial Transcript p3065]: Q: You weren't with Mr. Hauptmann that night between one and five, were you? A: I was not.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Nov 11, 2014 20:20:47 GMT -5
reillys witnesses was so bad he should have never put them on the stand
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Nov 11, 2014 21:34:14 GMT -5
For the record, Eugene Zorn (father of the author Robert) was a college student at the time Bruno Richard Hauptmann was arrested in September 1934 and became a "household name" because of his alleged connection to the Lindbergh baby kidnapping and murder. Eugene Zorn went on to become a very well-respected economist who had ties to some upper echelon politicians. According to his son's book, Eugene Zorn did meet Charles A. Lindbergh Sr. in person many years after the purported kidnapping/murder and attempted to brief him on the John Knoll theory, but CAL Sr. showed no interest in discussing the case.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Nov 13, 2014 21:38:34 GMT -5
Thank you, Michael. So Mr. Carlstrom was carrying doors for carpenters at the Majestic in 1931, not in March of 1932. What was the l:00 to 5:00 question about? (It's very frustrating not to have the transcripts posted for the public 82 years after the crime. I could access the Peterson transcripts almost immediately after the trial.)
To Hurtelable. So Lindbergh showed no interest, did he? Why am I not surprised?
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Nov 13, 2014 21:42:19 GMT -5
reillys witnesses was so bad he should have never put them on the stand Reilly, himself, was so bad that the Hauptmanns should have fired him. Was Lloyd Fisher working for Reilly, do you know? I'm not clear on that. I wonder if he would have defended the case pro-bono.
|
|