mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Dec 11, 2010 13:50:42 GMT -5
Hi, The two witnesses for BRH: The man at the diner and the man about the dog, both seeming strangers - what would they have had to gain? Somehow I've not been able to see a clear assessment on why they held no sway. Of course Wilentz was up to his usual "snakeoil" tactics, but how did they get so thoroughly shot down?
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Dec 11, 2010 15:26:06 GMT -5
mairi, reilly was in a bind. his client didnt tell him anything concrete to help his case, so he had to pararde these weak witnessess to try to salvage this liar from the electric chair. one was so bad he was up for perjury.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Dec 11, 2010 17:44:53 GMT -5
Hi Wolf2, ...but why would the two of them put themselves in this position? What with the public's cry for blood, why would these strangers put themselves in what would have been an unpopular position? What was the "perjury" connection you mentioned?
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Dec 11, 2010 20:30:43 GMT -5
mairi, i think it was benjamin heier, a defense witness. i dont know if they ever followed this indictment. i read somewhere there was some law blocking it? mike might know more
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 12, 2010 8:52:11 GMT -5
We have to remember that the Prosecution painted itself into a corner with the indictment against Hauptmann. They had to "fudge" so many specific things in order for him to be guilty of this Capital Offense. (They had to get creative in order to even come up with it.) And so the child MUST be killed in the commission of the offense. Not within 48 hours as Dr. Mitchell testified to in the Gaston Means Case. Hauptmann HAD to be in Hopewell. He couldn't have been in the Bronx while Confederates were committing the Crime. In fact, the mere idea that "Others" were involved could completely ruin their Case. And so they did whatever it took to neutralize ANYTHING which upset the position they chose to "go with" during the Trial. Behind the scene none believed Hauptmann acted alone. Defense Witness? Go out and find me someone who say something - anything - negative about them. If worst comes to worst - we'll threaten or coerce them. There were (4) creditable Witnesses that placed Hauptmann in the Bakery: - Carlstrom
- Kiss
- Von Henke
- Manley
And there were more who were "afraid" to testify. Why you ask? See above. Lloyd's book is really insightful as to the top three Witnesses starting at page 332 and then nicely summarized on page 336.Lloyd points out Wilentz's parting shot at Carlstrom.... Fact is, the NJSP & NYPD where doing their best to find a connection between Carlstrom and Hauptmann. For some reason they felt there was a connection. They even looked very hard at the Majestic Apartments records to see if they had worked together there. A rather odd assignment if Hauptmann is a "Lone-Wolf" wouldn't you say? Manley isn't mentioned much. Fisher misrepresents his testimony in his 1st book. Fact is, when this Witness became known, the State sent out Sgt. Albrecht to drum up some dirt on him. They found a former Employer who was more then willing to say he was "lazy" and some other choice adjectives. But the problem was this man continued to hire him AND the Frederickson's could neutralize that testimony. And so when this man, who was physically ill at the time, literally dragged himself into that Courtroom to testify, Wilentz really didn't have anything to counter him with. And so it seems his tactic was to get him moving ASAP.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 12, 2010 9:10:18 GMT -5
Heier was indicted in retaliation for his testimony. It was purely for positive publicity and political reasons. Lloyd Fisher took up his Case and it was postponed a couple of times. In the meantime, both Hoffman AND Fisher were able to prove Whited, and Hochmuth were lying. They also made Rossiter look very bad. (And I think Rossiter was ready to confess to Hoffman but in order to secure a job.)
In the end, sometime in '37 I believe (I could look this up if need be), the Case was dismissed.
I've seen a couple of different reasons mentioned for why it was.... One is as Steve points out: In NJ at the time you needed (2) Witnesses to prove perjury and supposedly the State only had (1). This seems absurd to me because reading through all of the Reports it would have been very easy for them to do what they always had: Find someone else willing to lie.
Next, I also recall something about Heier being out of State and it would require too much money to bring him back.
I honestly believe Heier had "served his purpose" and that by dragging it out further - it would be harmful for both sides.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Dec 12, 2010 13:39:49 GMT -5
mike gardner isnt winning any debate with those witnesses. im very confident that bruno vwasnt in that bakery that night. those witnesses were terrible, bruno was terrible. hauptmann supporters pouind on the same crap that goes nowhere. ive seen twenty years of this
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Dec 13, 2010 8:44:53 GMT -5
Thank you for the book/page# reference. I read up on it, last night. Guess I've read so many LKC books and forum posts I stay scrambled as to source.
======================= Am buried with snow, here. Wherever you all are, I hope you're managing OK and staying warm.
======================== I, too, would like to hear more about the "Winter Sycamore" book.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 18, 2012 11:20:07 GMT -5
Thought I'd move this discussion. Once again, the source of the fleshy lump story is to be taken with a grain of salt, imho. But say that Condon is being truthful. I handle tools all of the time and much of that involves gripping in the same way one holds a knife. The most you get is callouses. A fleshy lump sounds much more like a Ganglion or mucous cyst to me and that can happen to anyone. In other words I think there are two assumptions being made that are incorrect. One, that Fisch was constantly holding a knife ( see how skinning is done) and two, that resulted in a lump on his thumb.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 18, 2012 11:50:36 GMT -5
For what it's worth, I actually have what I consider to be a "fleshy" lump on my left trigger finger. I was cut with a butcher knife on my right pointer and middle fingers across the top. All that did was require stitches. But the wound to my left finger was deep on the outside of the knuckle. Once I got to the hospital it had clotted up and swelled. The Doctor, who did not wear gloves by the way, told me it would "go away eventually by absorbing itself" then stitched it as it was.
Although it shrunk slightly over the years, the lump still exists to this day. So I've always compared what Condon said to this. Not to a callus or temporary condition.
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Aug 18, 2012 14:45:04 GMT -5
Maybe we can convince the FBI or LE or a really tenacious researcher to go back and check hospital records in the Bronx circa 1931-1932. Maybe Fisch or Hauptmann got stitches?
Is there any documentation stating anything about Hauptmann having scarred hands? No, it's not "proof," but it would be interesting.
Jd
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 19, 2012 8:55:22 GMT -5
I remember that one of the first things Condon did was check Hauptmann's hand. No lump. And so here he winds up eventually saying he wasn't CJ. Then the Cops accuse him of being involved and the rest is history - to include this infamous lump.
People who defend Condon as well as the Lone-Wolf people must hate these discussions!
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Aug 19, 2012 9:57:01 GMT -5
Michael said "....must hate these discussions." I, for one, LOVE these discussions! The different perspectives fascinate me. Those who stick strictly to evidence and those who brainstorm provide a great balance , in my view. By the way, it was Kennedy's book which had Gow also with Jon. Don't know if that was accurate, but I knew I'd seen ir both ways. Anyone, should you have a minute or two, would you kindly walk me through how to get the box around a quote for the forum. I'll declare I've tried every combination I can think of , yet it remains beyond me.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 19, 2012 10:32:01 GMT -5
Mairi, the second row of icons, second to the right. It has a blue arrow. Copy and paste, highlight the text and hit that icon.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Aug 19, 2012 10:48:14 GMT -5
Mairi, the second row of icons, second to the right. It has a blue arrow. Copy and paste, highlight the text and hit that icon. Oh yippee! I did it! ;D Thanks, Kevkon!
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Aug 20, 2012 20:57:02 GMT -5
4 credible witnessess mike? you got to be kidding, they helped put hauptmann in the chair. this lone wolf guy love these discussions, because, all the evidence points to hauptmann. lump on his thumb? condon is the least of my worries. you have to look at all the discriptions of the ransom passer to go anywhere in this case. all these years hauptmann supporters love to try to say of fisch involvment with no evidence
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Aug 21, 2012 9:14:49 GMT -5
Steve, in all fairness Fisch and many others never came under the degree of scrutiny that Hauptmann did and everytime someone else was drawn into the web, the investigation seemed to stall or abort. The Austin, Cross and Ireland incident involving Hauptmann and a friend who appeared to recognize concern over passing a $10 gold certificate in early 1934, is but one example. Let's face it, Hauptmann wouldn't offer a clue over his obvious involvement to investigators and so it didn't take long for the whole thing to fall squarely into his lap. The LKC's lone wolf theory is in large part, supported by its own self-fulfilling prophecy.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Aug 21, 2012 19:26:02 GMT -5
well hauptmann had drawn his scrutiny to himself by lying to investigators. ive looked at alot of angles, i just cant see him having help. hauptmann supporters, gardner and others never convinced me. its not a self fulfilling prophecy, its my opinion as to many others
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 22, 2012 20:14:13 GMT -5
It's an example where neither side wanted to bring up. There are many like this actually. Here we can bring those up because we are searching for the truth and not for a conviction or acquittal.
So Steve, you just said all of the evidence points to Hauptmann. Joe just pointed out something which points to someone else. He gave it to you on a silver platter. So what is your position on it?
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Aug 22, 2012 20:21:37 GMT -5
on a silver platter? how do we know this friend had anything to do with the crime? hauptmann had friends, but which one supposedly helped him? we dont know and i really feel he did it alone
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 25, 2012 7:36:15 GMT -5
That's interesting considering it was Koehler's conclusion that he was involved. So you don't believe Koehler is a creditable Witness?
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Aug 25, 2012 7:52:02 GMT -5
well, alot of people thought fisch was involved, i dont think he was, i could be wrong but theres no proof that he was that can turn my beliefs
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2014 19:17:47 GMT -5
Michael,
As I understand it, Fisch entered America legally. Would you know if he was ever fingerprinted while living in America?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 9, 2014 11:17:12 GMT -5
Michael, As I understand it, Fisch entered America legally. Would you know if he was ever fingerprinted while living in America? Fisch came to NYC on the S. S. George Washington from Bremenhaven on 12-2-25 having legally applied and granted an immigration visa. The purpose he listed for his request was to visit his cousin Max Liebling. Fisch executed his petition for citizenship in May of 1931 and became a citizen of the U.S. on August 26, 1931. When I saw your question I was sure his prints were taken by the State Department in association with one or all of these processes. However, I've been searching ever since and have been unable to locate any proof of it. There's a couple of things I wanted to consult that I know I have but I moved them from his file a while back and cannot remember where... (I do that a lot). The next thing I checked was the "Lindbergh Evidence Review File" - specifically the fingerprint evidence. This was done from 1977 up to 1980. The NJSP took all of their fingerprint cards along with all latent impressions developed during the actual Lindbergh Kidnapping investigation to a company named "Calspan Inc." who had the state of the art technology in fingerprint identification at that time. Fisch's prints were NOT among those compared which leads me to believe they did not have his prints at this time or they would have been taken there as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2014 20:27:38 GMT -5
Thanks for checking this. I am disappointed but not surprised that his fingerprints were not found with the evidence. They should have existed in the State Department files. It makes one wonder if Fisch was connected to some higher government official who just might have made Fisch's fingerprints unavailable once Hauptmann was apprehended.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Aug 9, 2014 23:26:17 GMT -5
No reason to be disappointed or surprised by the lack of fingerprints for Fisch. Fingerprinting was relatively new back then, having been first described about 1900. People would most commonly be fingerprinted upon arrest, and Fisch had no arrest record in the US. It was not done routinely for visas or passports. Fisch had obtained a visa to get into the US in 1925, according to Michael's post above, then became a naturalized US citizen, then traveled to Germany, presumably with a US passport. None of that at the time involved fingerprinting.
As to Fisch being protected by the State Dept., that would be strange. I don't think anyone in government would have took notice of him until Hauptmann's arrest and the discovery of Hauptmann's correspondence with Fisch. But by that time, Fisch was already dead, so why bother protecting or covering up for him? The only concern about Fisch was whether or not Hauptmann's story about Fisch giving him ransom money was true and Fisch wasn't around to give his version of the story.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2014 9:47:53 GMT -5
You say in this quote that Dr Mitchell testified at the Means trial that there was a 48 hour window during which Charlie might have died. This is certainly different from the Hauptmann trial testimony he gave of almost instantaneous death of the child at the Hopewell house. Since I have never read Dr. Mitchell's Gaston Means trial testimony, I was wondering what other testimony he gave regarding the death of the child that differed from the testimony he gave at the Hauptmann Trial. Can you comment on this?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 5, 2014 10:12:51 GMT -5
Since I have never read Dr. Mitchell's Gaston Means trial testimony, I was wondering what other testimony he gave regarding the death of the child that differed from the testimony he gave at the Hauptmann Trial. Can you comment on this? Off the top of my head I know he testified before the Flemington Grand Jury but I do not have a copy of that. I honestly don't think anyone does and if they do I'd be grateful if they made it available to us.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2015 11:25:34 GMT -5
Michael,
After Hauptmann brought Isidor Fisch into the mix when he was being questioned by police in Sept. 1934, how extensive was the investigation into Isidor Fisch in 1934? I have seen reports quoted by Det. Sgt. Haussling of the NJSP and Agent O'Donnell of the B.I. Did the authorities send anyone to Germany, specifically to search out his background over there and also discover any associates he had in Germany who might also have come to America, especially to the New York City, Bronx or Brooklyn area?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 11, 2015 16:21:37 GMT -5
After Hauptmann brought Isidor Fisch into the mix when he was being questioned by police in Sept. 1934, how extensive was the investigation into Isidor Fisch in 1934? I have seen reports quoted by Det. Sgt. Haussling of the NJSP and Agent O'Donnell of the B.I. Did the authorities send anyone to Germany, specifically to search out his background over there and also discover any associates he had in Germany who might also have come to America, especially to the New York City, Bronx or Brooklyn area? They started investigating him right away. Even at first their real interest was Hauptmann, because they wanted the guy they had - and not the dead guy. As the theory developed the investigations were more of way to formulate a rebuttal to whatever the Defense strategies might be. Know what I mean? Nothing exemplifies this more then Breckenridge's revelation he made on Sept. 26th which was promptly deep-sixed. If it weren't for Lloyd's book it would just be another document, along with all the others, that I'd be keeping under my hat. Detective Arthur Johnson, NYPD was sent to Europe to investigate everything connected to Hauptmann that he could. Of course this involved Fisch as well. He left the U.S. on Sept. 25th and returned in mid January with the Fisch Family who were to be State Witnesses. Here is one report from that trip:
|
|