Post by Michael on Mar 18, 2009 16:33:24 GMT -5
You know.... I really get sick of seeing people criticize other people for "inferences" drawn from "incomplete" and/or "inaccurate" information when the people who author this stuff does this themselves. Also, its most unusual to see someone like this totally reference things out of their proper context, or in the very least, post it according to their interpretation. Then there's the habit of omitting other sources (oopps). Why do this? Maybe they haven't done the research, or maybe they've decided it helps their position to omit those "other" important facts.
I really don't know to be honest. Seems hypocritical though - doesn't it?
So what's the true story? Before the Bronx Grand Jury Hearing there were (3) separate interviews with Hauptmann conducted by Foley:
Note: It seems obvious to me that what we see exemplified above is Foley doing his best to lead Hauptmann into admitting that he wrote the telephone number and one can see that he just isn't admitting to it. Foley really wants this admission so he presses on and attempts to confuse Hauptmann by leading questions and mixing up questions concerning the address, phone number, and serial numbers....
(omitting Foley pretending to be Hauptmann's friend)
(End of interview)
Now this is the first interview, and do we see Hauptmann, despite the leading, and underhanded way this interview is being conducted, is Hauptmann admitting to writing that phone number there?
You be the Judge. Also, there is the matter of that two separate items were the topic of these interviews concerning numbers and it jumps around alot. We had serial #'s to money found written on the door, and on the closet trim - Condon's address and phone number. It's important to figure out which is being discussed. I have seen, in the past, the door serials being referenced by Posters as the closet numbers. Be careful to avoid this mistake.
A Reporter did write the phone number there. He personally told Lloyd Fisher he did. When I have more time to dive into this in more detail.
I really don't know to be honest. Seems hypocritical though - doesn't it?
Condon's Phone Number found in Hauptmann's Closet
So what's the true story? Before the Bronx Grand Jury Hearing there were (3) separate interviews with Hauptmann conducted by Foley:
Q: [Foley] Hauptmann, I want to ask you some questions about this board you know it is from your closet in your own house, don't you?
A: [Hauptmann] It must be.
Q: It is the same kind of wood - your handwriting is on it?
A: Yes, all over it.
Q: What did you write on that board, read it to the stenographer.
A: I can't read it any more.
Q: Who rubbed it out? Can you read the address on it?
A: 2974. I can't make out the first. I read the number down below, 37154.
Q: What else can you read on that board that you wrote yourself?
A: I can't read - that is "a", "t", "u" and a "r". Another one I can't make out.
Q: That's Dr. Condon's address isn't it?
A: I don't know.
Q: Why did you write it on the board?
A: I must have read it in the paper about the story. I was a little bit interested and keep a little bit record of it, and maybe I was just on the closet, and was reading the paper and put it down the address.
Q: How did you come to put the telephone number there?
A: I can't give you any explanation about the telephone number.
Q: Your only explanation for writing Dr. Condon's address on this board, and telephone number, is that you were probably reading the paper in the closet and you marked it down, is that correct?
A: It is possible that a shelf or two shelfs in the closet and after a while I put new papers always on the closet, and we just got the paper where this case was in, and I followed the story of course, and I put the address on there.
Q: That's why you marked it on the door?
A: That's the only explanation I can give.
Note: It seems obvious to me that what we see exemplified above is Foley doing his best to lead Hauptmann into admitting that he wrote the telephone number and one can see that he just isn't admitting to it. Foley really wants this admission so he presses on and attempts to confuse Hauptmann by leading questions and mixing up questions concerning the address, phone number, and serial numbers....
(omitting Foley pretending to be Hauptmann's friend)
Q: When you say those two numbers, you don't refer to anything on this board - when you talk of the two numbers you don't mean anything on this board but other number written on the door?
A: On the door.
Q: But not on this piece?
A: I can't remember where I put it.
Q: And you say that they refer to bills of high denomination?
A: Yes.
Q: Is there anything else you wanted to add?
A: No.
Q: Do you remember the day that you wrote this memorandum on the board?
A: No.
Q: You remember that you did write it?
A: I must write it, the figures that's my writing.
Q: The writing is yours too, isn't it?
A: I hardly can read it.
Q: From what you see of it, it is your writing, isn't it -- it is your figures and your writing?
A: I really can't remember when I put it on.
Q: Regardless of when you put it on, it is your figures and your writing, isn't it?
A: The writing I can't make out so very clearly, I don't know.
Q: Do you know who rubbed it or tried to rub it out?
A: No.
(End of interview)
Now this is the first interview, and do we see Hauptmann, despite the leading, and underhanded way this interview is being conducted, is Hauptmann admitting to writing that phone number there?
You be the Judge. Also, there is the matter of that two separate items were the topic of these interviews concerning numbers and it jumps around alot. We had serial #'s to money found written on the door, and on the closet trim - Condon's address and phone number. It's important to figure out which is being discussed. I have seen, in the past, the door serials being referenced by Posters as the closet numbers. Be careful to avoid this mistake.
A Reporter did write the phone number there. He personally told Lloyd Fisher he did. When I have more time to dive into this in more detail.