|
Anna
Jul 30, 2014 12:07:36 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Jul 30, 2014 12:07:36 GMT -5
Michael, I am aware that PI Julius Braun stayed close to Anna Hauptmann even after Hauptmann had lost his appeals and was subsequently electrocuted in April 1936. I read on this board that Braun was volunteering his services and worked with Gov. Hoffman. I came across a picture of Braun meeting Anna Hauptmann when she and Mannfred returned from a trip to Germany in 1937. Do you know why it was necessary for Anna to have a PI? Was she receiving death threats against herself or Mannfred? How long did Mr. Braun remain by Anna's side? I really think it is wonderful that Gov. Hoffman and Mr. Braun looked after Anna and Mannfred this way. www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Watchf-AP-A-NY-USA-APHS253212-Hauptmann-Lindber-/0981da25edce449abb375feb2bf40c50/19/0No, he wasn't acting as a body-guard. Braun's role was to chase down leads even after Hauptmann's execution. No one really believed this was a one-man job and his efforts are an example of this belief.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Anna
Apr 10, 2015 13:25:29 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Apr 10, 2015 13:25:29 GMT -5
I ran across a quote that's very revealing about Anna. In 1988 she was asked about her executed husband's criminal history in Germany and she replied, "Ja, he stole a loaf of bread. This is the kind of criminal was my Richard."
That's no little white lie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Anna
Apr 10, 2015 21:56:36 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 21:56:36 GMT -5
I ran across a quote that's very revealing about Anna. In 1988 she was asked about her executed husband's criminal history in Germany and she replied, "Ja, he stole a loaf of bread. This is the kind of criminal was my Richard." That's no little white lie. I don't think Richard was honest with Anna when he told her about his crimes in Germany. He wanted to marry Anna, so he probably left out some details, so she never had a clear understanding of his criminal past, at first. However, when Anna traveled to Germany, she did make inquiries with a lawyer over there to see when Richard would be able to return to Germany. She must have learned more at that time what he had done as a young man before he came to America. I think Anna had denial issues when it came to her Richard. She was overlooking more than just his criminal past during that marriage. Here is a link to an article about the crimes Hauptmann was involved in before he came to America: news.google.com/newspapers?id=X3EbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=kksEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1302%2C1586793
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Anna
Apr 11, 2015 5:48:33 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Apr 11, 2015 5:48:33 GMT -5
I'll buy her thinking to a point, and it does help to clarify some issues. Two things about here in USA. First, as was very astutely brought out on this site earlier, she must have thought it ridiculous that if in need of a board he'd go up in the attic to take one from there. I too felt that was the weakest part of the case against him. Until of course, this board's investigations have proved otherwise. Also she may have known that he was covered by alibi for the significant dates and I've always felt his stories had a ring of truth as well. So she's basically thinking he's getting railroaded here.
It's funny now how few people know the true story of rail 16. Hope it's well covered in Michael's new book.
But she had to have known that in Germany he wouldn't be charged with multiple counts of burglary and armed robbery(a violent crime) as well as escape for stealing a loaf of bread, so she's not deluding herself, she's trying to delude others.
She must have known he was up to something over here, but probably figured as long as nobody got caught, what the heck.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Anna
Apr 11, 2015 9:02:13 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2015 9:02:13 GMT -5
I'll buy her thinking to a point, and it does help to clarify some issues. Two things about here in USA. First, as was very astutely brought out on this site earlier, she must have thought it ridiculous that if in need of a board he'd go up in the attic to take one from there. I too felt that was the weakest part of the case against him. Until of course, this board's investigations have proved otherwise. Also she may have known that he was covered by alibi for the significant dates and I've always felt his stories had a ring of truth as well. So she's basically thinking he's getting railroaded here. I am sure that she believed that many people lied about her husband in order to hold someone accountable for the death of the Lindbergh baby. I truly think that Anna believed with all her heart that Richard did not kill the baby. There is no way she would ever accept that he could do such a thing. She probably would think it bizarre that he would saw a piece of wood from the attic when he had plenty of wood available, if she actually believed that Richard built the ladder to begin with. He denied building it and she would definitely stand by him. Anna was being a faithful, loving wife to her husband. Any doubts she may have had were put aside or rationalized away or where possible blamed on someone else. Both Anna and Richard felt that they were in this situation because of Fisch and the money he left with Richard. And they both saw Condon as a liar. It is funny when you read the court transcript how much "memory loss" occurs when witnesses testify. "I don't remember that" is a phrase that pops up frequently when an attorney hits on a delicate area during questioning. I think Hauptmann's alibi for the night of March 1, 1932 is believable. His alibi for April 2, 1932, the night of the payoff, can be challenged. I think once Anna learned the complete truth about the extent of his criminal activity in the homeland, she still chose to forgive him. She saw him as a different man now. No doubt Anna and Pauline Hauptmann had heart to heart talks about the young Richard and the mistakes he made. Both women loved him. They would work together to make it possible for Richard to, once again, return to his country. I agree that Anna wanted others to know and see the Richard she believed in; the one that was not a child murderer and never could be. So, to admit he ever did anything even remotely attached to the Lindbergh crime would mean he could be guilty of all of it. Anna would never be unfaithful to Richard that way. So what do you think Anna suspected he was into? Gambling, robberies, selling drugs, money laundering? You don't think she was buying into the Wall Street success story he was telling everyone about? Do you think she learned about the kidnapping/extortion but purposely looked the other way? I know Anna was capable of turning away from something she didn't want to believe (the Gerta Henkel affair), by rationalizing it as a kiddish flirtation when asked about it. I have trouble seeing her as ever knowing Richard was involved in any way with the Lindbergh Kidnapping crime.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Anna
Apr 11, 2015 9:35:26 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Apr 11, 2015 9:35:26 GMT -5
I think she thought he was a burglar, and he probably was. It would be interesting to see the MO of unsolved burglaries in neighborhoods he lived in - especially before he got a car.
There's a good possibility that he had very little to do with TLC even though the ladder was his - nobody ever saw him climb it. He would have certainly know who had more to do with it and of course he never talked.
The biggest problem with Lindbergh, and I thought of this just recently when I was reading comments about some high government official being involved, is that almost nobody in their right mind, no matter how sorry of a crook would ever commit the crime nor admit to any part of it. So Richard, even if he was only involved in laddermaking and notewriting is stuck for the whole deal.
I do think and this is backed by reports that he was socially deficient.
As far as Anna goes it's interesting that after the conviction she was backed almost exclusively by only the German Community - reminds me of our "free thinking" political system.
|
|
|
Anna
Apr 11, 2015 10:12:40 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Apr 11, 2015 10:12:40 GMT -5
It's funny now how few people know the true story of rail 16. Hope it's well covered in Michael's new book. Most people have chosen sides on this already so anything that deviates from either position is probably shrugged off or just ignored. Other then that, they either don't read our Board or do not care at all. As far as the book, I planned on putting it in there to finally set the record straight. I have run into many problems though, and the first is that I am a poor writer. Next, I believe just about everything is important. For example, I highlighted something which one of my closest friends asked "why" I did. For me it's a major revelation since EVERY book on the crime says the exact same thing when it's completely untrue. His position was "who cares?" if it's not true because it really "doesn't matter" as it relates to the solution of the crime. For me that's not how my mind works. If I know something to be incorrect it's unavoidable for me not to fix it - most especially if "History" itself has recorded something as fact which is complete fiction. I also find myself wondering if I should fix another Author's mistakes, especially if they seemed to have been accepted? And if I don't will that be pointed to as an acceptance of fact and used against whatever I write to rebut a new fact I put out? IDK. But know that I have so much new material which I find important. However, I often get side-tracked when one leads to another while I am attempting to construct what I believed I already knew the complete picture of. One would think after all of these years there wouldn't be more to find but I continually find new material each and every time I commit myself to stop researching and start writing. Last night being no different when I found something that's been right under my nose for years and never took notice of it.... This "problem" is exacerbated each and every time I stop to pursue some new fact because it has been worth it - so I am getting caught in a loop of sorts. But not one without benefits because I am now thoroughly convinced with everything I have it points to the bigger picture of this all. It's also led to something most people over the years had hoped would exist but all were convinced did not - myself included. But she had to have known that in Germany he wouldn't be charged with multiple counts of burglary and armed robbery(a violent crime) as well as escape for stealing a loaf of bread, so she's not deluding herself, she's trying to delude others. She must have known he was up to something over here, but probably figured as long as nobody got caught, what the heck. Not to contradict you, but I've found Anna a loyal but principled person. While these qualities can compliment each other they can, in other situations, conflict as well. She stopped going to Hunter Island, and she lost her mind upon hearing a Female had been in her home while she was away. It didn't matter for what reason. Reilly asked her to lie about seeing the box on the top shelf and she refused. He emphasized it would harm her husband and she still refused. On the issue of Hauptmann's post-war Germany crimes here is what she communicated in 1935: He found that with Peace there was little or no work for returning soldiers. He had given his all to the Fatherland...but his homeland, in the chaos of post war readjustments, could not offer its sons either work or sustenance. Much has been written about the so-called "criminal record of Hauptmann in Germany." None of the newspapers seriously considered the character of the "crimes" he was supposed to have committed. That would not be interesting reading... nor a popular thing to do at that time, when press and radio broadcast found it more interesting to paint Richard Hauptmann as an arch criminal capable of committing the most serious types of crime.
This young boy, fresh from the horrors of war... hungry and without shelter, did steal. He stole bread. He did not steal, as the papers would have one believe, food from baby carriages...from mother and babies. In Europe, the baby carriage is used by the poor as a cart to carry every conceivable thing too heavy to carry in one's arms. Almost every family has an old dilapidated carriage that is used as a cart.... and most of them have no baby for the carriage. It is as much a general cart as the push carts of our lower east side. So the picture of Richard snatching food from "baby carriages"... with the inference that the food was stolen from babies and mothers, is not only an untrue picture..but so distorted that it hurt Richard.
Any human being, being hungry and with little prospects of work, would probably yield to the impulse that compelled Richard to steal "food." I am not excusing theft, - but I do contend that there are times when human endurance and need sometimes weaken the moral resistance to a point where preservation is paramount.
Richard Hauptmann was never a criminal in the real meaning of the term. He did enter this country illegally as a stowaways. Many of our finest citizens have been stowaways. he secured work almost immediately. He was happy and contented. He worked hard at honest labor ... he saved what he could ... and sent home money to his mother regularly. The most beautiful thing in Richard's character is his great love for his mother... and his devotion to her all all times.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Anna
Apr 11, 2015 11:44:05 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Apr 11, 2015 11:44:05 GMT -5
I doubt anyone who's read your writing would say you were a poor writer.
Anna of course is not really important to TLC except that she's a character witness for Richard and he couldn't have bought a better one. I'd hoped by starting talk about her that once upon a time she'd said he was a mean drunk or something to that effect, but as far as I've seen there's been nothing negative from her - or from anyone else who knew him for that matter. Of course he had some problems in Germany but times were tough and people handle that in different ways.
It just doesn't seem like someone could go from being a normal citizen to perpetrator of the Crime of the Century in one swoop - and nearly a perfect crime. If he wouldn't have blown it at the gas station perhaps we'd have never even heard of him and as Michael I think wrote, there'd be no ladder, no suspects, etc.
And worst of all no forum.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Anna
Apr 11, 2015 14:15:34 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2015 14:15:34 GMT -5
I have always felt sympathetic towards Anna Hauptmann. She had a high regard for truth, and was so very loyal and loving to her husband. When you read her words above, you see that love shining out from them. Sadly, sometimes love can be blind to things we don't find acceptable about the person we love. I realize that things were very bad in Germany when Hauptmann returned after the war. Stealing was, no doubt, a daily occurrence, in most cities at that time. What troubles me is how Anna characterizes Hauptmann's stealing as not being hurtful (to others) stealing, but just necessary stealing. When Hauptmann and his partner stole money, watches and food, they were taking it from other people who also needed to eat. That includes the children of the families that were victimized. I don't understand how that escapes Anna's thinking when she says that Richard was the one who was hurt.
It seems that Anna thinks Richard's stealing began after he returned to Germany from the war and was unable to find work. Actually he was stealing before that. According to Ludovic Kennedy's book, Crime of the Century (paperback Page 60), while Hauptmann was a soldier he learned that other people's property was not off limits, that stealing from necessity was not really stealing at all, so he stole things. Wow! That sounds like the same reasoning Anna applies to Hauptmann's post war crimes too. He was in need so he stole and that is ok! Anna says Richard was never a criminal in the real meaning of the term. I guess that means he was only a "necessity" criminal; committing crimes only when absolutely necessary. So, how does she come to terms with the fact that he went to jail for crimes that were out of necessity? I don't think the law makes such distinctions. German law sure didn't.
I will always believe that Anna put more love and loyality into that marriage than Hauptmann ever did.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Anna
Apr 12, 2015 8:01:10 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2015 8:01:10 GMT -5
This "problem" is exacerbated each and every time I stop to pursue some new fact because it has been worth it - so I am getting caught in a loop of sorts. But not one without benefits because I am now thoroughly convinced with everything I have it points to the bigger picture of this all. It's also led to something most people over the years had hoped would exist but all were convinced did not - myself included. So, Michael, does this mean you have found the "smoking gun" that every researcher has been looking for?"
|
|
|
Anna
Apr 12, 2015 9:54:56 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Apr 12, 2015 9:54:56 GMT -5
It just doesn't seem like someone could go from being a normal citizen to perpetrator of the Crime of the Century in one swoop - and nearly a perfect crime. If he wouldn't have blown it at the gas station perhaps we'd have never even heard of him and as Michael I think wrote, there'd be no ladder, no suspects, etc. Jack - do you think Hauptmann was involved with criminal activity after coming to America? I agree with what you've written above but haven't found anything in the investigations pointing to anything at all prior to this crime. So if he was, how could he have flown so far under the radar that even people making things up about him didn't include those crimes? I tend to believe that most here, with the exception of Steve, seriously consider this crime as having more Perpetrators then just one. With this in mind, exactly what "place" would Hauptmann have fallen within the conspiracy? Was he the "Master-Mind," recruited directly, or recruited indirectly? These are the types of things I have wrestle with at all times when reading through the material. So, Michael, does this mean you have found the "smoking gun" that every researcher has been looking for?" I believe it's a 'smoking gun' as it relates to a specific angle. What sux is there was much more to it then what I have but I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth because, like I said earlier, it isn't something I ever expected would turn up at this point in time.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Anna
Apr 12, 2015 10:57:43 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Apr 12, 2015 10:57:43 GMT -5
I'm anxious to see what you've come up with - sounds new.
There's really no evidence of any of the speculation, so though it seems like he wouldn't be above being a habitual criminal, he seems more like a pretty nice guy. In reality though of course he had something to do with TLC and I can't imagine one person coming up with that absurd notion, much less two or more.
My frustration fallback man is Dr. Schoenfeld. He made sense long before anyone heard of BRH, and still does (wish I could find his book).
Finn took credit for solving the crime and he really didn't. He was responsible for, and did a good job of, following up on the serial numbers but the gas station thought they had a counterfeit, not a Lindbergh bill.
The only thing for me that really points to more than one being involved is the passing of the ransom. It was still passed mostly in the same general area, but was more sloppily passed nearer the time of Hauptmann's arrest.
Few people could have climbed that ladder and entered the nursery - but Hauptmann was one of them.
So, although it seems unlikely, I think Hauptmann acted alone - and speaking of unlikely, I wonder what the odds were against Charles Lindbergh successfully flying the Atlantic?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Apr 12, 2015 13:14:02 GMT -5
If Hauptmann acted alone, what would his motivation have been? Hatred and/or jealousy of Lindbergh? Because I'm not seeing that anywhere in his background, in any remarks he made or anything like that. Not even Wilentz could put those kinds of words in Hauptmann's mouth--something like "I'll show that big-shot Lindbergh; 'the hell does he think he is anyway...?" I mean to say, I don't know where or how someone like Hauptmann would've gotten the idea in his head in the first place to kidnap the most famous baby in the world. Seems nuts. What would Hauptmann do with CAL Jr. once he had him? Where would he keep him? Was he not going to keep him at all, but cold-bloodedly murder CAL Jr.? And all just to knock Lindbergh down a peg or show off some kind of Leopold-Loeb superiority? Seems psychopathic, and, again, I'm not seeing evidence of that in Hauptmann. What I do see evidence of is, first of all, more than one person at the crime scene, given, anything else aside, the two sets of footprints leading away from the house. Now, it's not impossible, to use another example, for someone to pull themselves over onto a narrow windowsill from a rickety ladder, in a gale, get in through that window, launch yourself over a toy chest into a pitch-black room that you've never been in before--all without making a noise, knocking anything over, and alerting the household--none of this is completely impossible, but it does seem highly unlikely and prohibitive for a single individual. But if we assume a single individual was responsible, they would have to have had a very strong motive to take such an enormous personal risk--to the point of insanity, and, again, while Hauptmann was a risk-taker, he doesn't seem like THAT kind of daredevil.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Anna
Apr 12, 2015 14:42:39 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Apr 12, 2015 14:42:39 GMT -5
The area where two sets of footprints were found was examined five times prior to DeGateno's seeing them with no mention of any footprints in that area. These led from the ladder in a SE direction to a road. By the time DeGateno saw them there had been many police and even reporters in the area as well as dog prints next to the rubber boot or overshoe prints to the SE, so most likely they were from State Troopers.
Also the suspected kidnapper's footprints beneath the nursery window were described as sock prints or feet wrapped in cloth. The SE going prints were not similar.
Because of the thumb guard which was found on the drive later on it's most likely the kidnapper left via the main driveway.
I agree with you about the way Hauptmann seemed to be.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Anna
Apr 12, 2015 15:05:14 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Apr 12, 2015 15:05:14 GMT -5
Also, if there was such a "gale" why weren't the shutters flapping around? Anne & Betty said the SE corner shutters couldn't be latched so they evidently left them just closed, but according to CAL they were open when he entered the nursery. Sounds like it must have been just a north wind not affecting the south side of the house, hence quiet shutters and not disturbing the ladder.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Anna
Apr 12, 2015 15:09:31 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2015 15:09:31 GMT -5
The area where two sets of footprints were found was examined five times prior to DeGateno's seeing them with no mention of any footprints in that area. These led from the ladder in a SE direction to a road. By the time DeGateno saw them there had been many police and even reporters in the area as well as dog prints next to the rubber boot or overshoe prints to the SE, so most likely they were from State Troopers. Wow, Jack! That sounds just like what I read in Richard Cahill's book, Hauptmann's Ladder. Did the state troopers have rubber boots on that night? They have boots on in the pictures I have seen but they aren't wearing rubber/overshoe boots. I really don't agree with this theory that Cahill promotes in his book. Trooper Wolf is very clear in his Major Report for the night of March 1 that more than one set of prints were found. Everyone who argues the lone-wolf theory ignores this report because it clearly messes up that one-man-did-it-all position. www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/wolf.pdf
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Anna
Apr 12, 2015 15:59:38 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Apr 12, 2015 15:59:38 GMT -5
I have discounted Corporal Wolf for several reasons. For one he directed Hopewell police officers Chief Harry Wolfe and Charles Williamson to leave the crime scene when they should have been directing it. I've always felt that Hopewell PD would have in part depended more on FBI or, in those days, BOI and the crime and possibly crime scene would have been better handled. Jurisdiction issues? - not sure.
In Wolf's preliminary observation of the crime scene around the ladder he didn't report seeing any footprints. In his then original report (which must be the one you've seen) he wrote of two sets of footprints which has lead to all the speculation over the years. In Wolf's final report (trial testimony?) he changed to one set of footprints leading away to the SE. Speaks for itself?
|
|
|
Anna
Apr 13, 2015 5:38:39 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Apr 13, 2015 5:38:39 GMT -5
I have discounted Corporal Wolf for several reasons. For one he directed Hopewell police officers Chief Harry Wolfe and Charles Williamson to leave the crime scene when they should have been directing it. I've always felt that Hopewell PD would have in part depended more on FBI or, in those days, BOI and the crime and possibly crime scene would have been better handled. Jurisdiction issues? - not sure. Cpl. Wolf directed several men to guard the yard specifically to protect the double set of footprints that he saw leading to the ladder and the smaller set to the back of the house. When it comes down to "who" made the prints which were followed from the ladder by the Police, it's easy to rule out any Cop because the documentation spells out who was where. Next, the Police followed those prints away from the house before the first Reporters arrived. So we can eliminate the both Police and Reporters as the source for these prints. The first Reporters who made it down the private lane to the house were kept out of the yard. The NJSP wanted them gone, but Lindbergh eventually over-ruled them. They wanted to get into the yard to take pictures of the evidence but could not do so. Some walked onto the other side of the private lane, made their own footprints, then took pictures of them as if they were the real ones for their scoops. Eventually the yard would be yielded to the Press when they were given a walking tour by the Police and this was the first time they could take photos of the actual prints. This came well after one print was casted and others photographed. As more and more waves of Reporters came, they too walked the yard in a similar fashion. Some who came by late forenoon could still see the original prints, just as they had been originally although it was noted the rest of the yard had been wore down by the traffic. Eventually the yard was completely "let go" and the Press walked where ever they wanted to in that area. In Wolf's preliminary observation of the crime scene around the ladder he didn't report seeing any footprints. In his then original report (which must be the one you've seen) he wrote of two sets of footprints which has lead to all the speculation over the years. In Wolf's final report (trial testimony?) he changed to one set of footprints leading away to the SE. Speaks for itself? It does speak for itself. We have his reports, and we have what others say they saw at the time. In Wolf's Major Initial Report he specifically saws he saw " two sets of fresh footprints leading off in the southeast direction." He also stated the Kidnappers consisted of at least two or more persons. Now, as you've noted, by the time of the trial when asked how many footprints he saw Wolf replied " I saw one." Since the State's Theory needed Hauptmann to have worked alone this testimony was absolutely needed in order to secure a conviction of the charge which was brought against him.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Anna
Apr 14, 2015 7:54:52 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Apr 14, 2015 7:54:52 GMT -5
The two sets of footprints away in a SE direction is a very important point and I always figured it was an established issue. Then I read Cahill (mentioned by Amy above) and it brought these things into question. But they were still pretty much subjective - the big issue being timing of what happened on late evening of 3/1/32. I started reading the various books about the footprints and came up with the following observations and questions:
The general consensus goes most of all by Wolf's report - "two sets of footprints going in a SE direction." He only mentions the time he arrived, however, not when he observed and did things.
Cahill suggests that the two sets observation was made by DeGaetano and was made after midnight. DeGaetano must have filed a report and it would be important to see if he times things.
In that vein, what time did CAL "open up" the crime scene to reporters, and who says that he even did?
Was the ladder area protected enough so that no one could have parked a car on Featherbed Lane and walked to the ladder laying on the ground and then back to their car? Bush said, at 4 A.M., that two men had entered and left the crime scene, one a larger man, but of course he couldn't determine a time.
On reading Behn as one of my sources I found he says one set of footprints left the scene to the SW. Then he says on p 32 that the left shutter was closed and the right shutter open, and on p 33 that the right shutter was closed and the left shutter open.
Then I gave up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Anna
Apr 14, 2015 15:06:20 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2015 15:06:20 GMT -5
The two sets of footprints away in a SE direction is a very important point and I always figured it was an established issue. Then I read Cahill (mentioned by Amy above) and it brought these things into question. But they were still pretty much subjective - the big issue being timing of what happened on late evening of 3/1/32. I started reading the various books about the footprints and came up with the following observations and questions: The general consensus goes most of all by Wolf's report - "two sets of footprints going in a SE direction." He only mentions the time he arrived, however, not when he observed and did things. Cahill suggests that the two sets observation was made by DeGaetano and was made after midnight. DeGaetano must have filed a report and it would be important to see if he times things. In that vein, what time did CAL "open up" the crime scene to reporters, and who says that he even did? Was the ladder area protected enough so that no one could have parked a car on Featherbed Lane and walked to the ladder laying on the ground and then back to their car? Bush said, at 4 A.M., that two men had entered and left the crime scene, one a larger man, but of course he couldn't determine a time. On reading Behn as one of my sources I found he says one set of footprints left the scene to the SW. Then he says on p 32 that the left shutter was closed and the right shutter open, and on p 33 that the right shutter was closed and the left shutter open. Then I gave up. I think it is important to keep in mind that more than one officer wrote that they saw more than one set of prints. Prints had been protected. DeGaetano did his version of a measurement of one of the prints. I believe this is the one a plaster cast was made of also. I think the use of Featherbed Lane (Access Road) in this crime is supported by Oscar Bush's tracking of footprints. LJ is better at explaining this than I am. The Southeast window shutter when viewing it from inside the nursery (check Wolf's report) is clear that the left side of the shutter is closed and the right side of the shutter is open when looking through the window from inside. Looking up from outside the house, the right side shutter is closed and the left side open. So if you have a kidnapper climbing back out the window with the child, he has to put the ransom note on the window sill, close the window, then find the ladder that is 30 inches below and get his footing on it. So when does he close the right shutter??? And why bother?
|
|
|
Anna
Apr 14, 2015 17:45:01 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Apr 14, 2015 17:45:01 GMT -5
In that vein, what time did CAL "open up" the crime scene to reporters, and who says that he even did? In the chronology of things, it's easy to get "lost" in whatever time is stated in a particular Report that seems to "fit" into whatever scheme is "liked." If the Police were out following the prints when the First Reporters showed up - what in the hell does it matter if someone said they showed up earlier then what's said about the timing of the search? Do you see my point? Whatever time someone claims it was is irrelevant. The only fact that matters is whether or not they preceded the search. Otherwise, who's prints are they following if the men who made them haven't arrived yet? In a nutshell: The Troopers and Lindbergh were following the prints. As the Reporters arrived they were kept out of the yard by the Police specifically guarding that area. As time rolled on more and more showed up, the State Police wanted them gone, and Lindbergh returned to the house. The Reporters claimed this notion was over-ruled by Lindbergh himself who not only allowed them to stay, but also had coffee and sandwiches made for them. At some point in time after this, exact time unknown, Troopers gave Reporters a "walking tour" and the ladder, and footprints were shown to them. Still later, the yard was "let go" and the Reporters roamed freely. One source said Police placed boxes over certain prints to protect them but that Reporters, who arrived later still, were flipping the boxes to get shots of them. At some point Schwarzkopf convinced Lindbergh the Kidnappers were not going to make contact if the Reporters remained so he asked they leave. It happened in that order. Whether or not it was Lindbergh himself who allowed the yard to be released is a matter of conjecture, but it makes sense to at least name him the indirect reason for it having occurred since the Reporters would not have been allowed to stay if it weren't for his interference.
|
|
|
Anna
Feb 20, 2022 5:28:00 GMT -5
Post by gael on Feb 20, 2022 5:28:00 GMT -5
Testimony of Hauptman :q.what business was isidor fisch in.A Fur trading. q.Did you afterwards become Isidor Fisch partner? a.Yes. I make it half and Half. We kept it this way, Fisch kept care of his line of business and (Hauptman)I kept care of my Stock(business). As you can see Hauptman admit he in business with Isidor Fisch & Fisch had his job to do he did it and Hauptman had his job to do he did it,then both business ends with sucess result of job End both profit (benefit)from it ?each job to do both did their job? Hauptman claim Isidor Fisch gave him Shoe box(ranson Notes $)? Hauptman claim Fisch left him 2 suitcases? Hauptman admit Fisch left seal Furs? So why leave Stuff?Did Fisch want out of the sticky illegal business?Fisch throw up hands /throw in the towel say want out of it?Or Fisch so sick want to leave go home before he expired or was caught? Hauptman claim he save his money but wife money paid bills? In effect he saying my money is mine and wife money is both that to pay the living expenses?Hauptman isn't saying :my money is mine and Wife money is Hers? my money is my business and wife money is her business?Hauptman didn't say he paid for rent and wife paid for groceries ?Hauptman said wife paid for the bills?Did hauptman want his woman to support take care of him?
|
|