jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 15, 2015 6:25:07 GMT -5
Good posts!
Yes, the evidence placing BRH in the Lindbergh nursery is iffy, but the jury (and I agree - trial by jury is always risky because you never know what you'll get - judges have to stand by their decisions but juries just walk away) decided that in their minds he did the kidnapping of Charlie and so he was convicted of capital crime.
The tongue and groove was planed off by Hauptmann's large plane. Kohler wondered why he would use the large one, but remember Hauptmann's tools (those he mostly would use) were at the Majestic Apartment building on the days around the crime, including his two smaller planes.
The end to end (almost) wood grain matches up. Studies agree.
Hasn't it been determined that the bank clerk wrote "J.J. Faulkner" and the address?
You wouldn't have to be too brilliant of a criminal to not leave fingerprints behind at an important crime. Hauptmann, as Ron says, was an experienced undesirable. Footprints were left at the crime scene (probably too many of them).
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 15, 2015 10:06:59 GMT -5
No way! According to Noel Behn in "Lindbergh: The Crime," "J. J. Faulkner" was Jacob J. Nosovitsky. NYPD records reveal that "J. J. Faulkner" was one of Nosovitsky's many aliases.
Furthermore, the handwriting on the bank deposit slip matches the handwriting on a letter to Gov. Hoffman signed "J. J. Faulkner" in January 1936. Do you think that the bank teller would be writing to the governor several years later, when Hauptmann was on death row, to tell him that, in his opinion, Hauptmann didn't kidnap the Lindbergh baby? Highly doubt it. No reason for a bank teller to do such a thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2015 10:14:26 GMT -5
I have been following the posts here and just want to put my two cents worth in.
I see the Lindbergh kidnapping as a "Wag the Dog" case. Attention is being purposely diverted from what truly happened/is happening to a staged cover up that would intentionally be turned into the biggest crime in the history of America at that time. Everything would go into the mix to make sure the underlying truth was buried forever. It needed to be made into a "world affair".
And so it was. Lindbergh would "forget" to go to the Alumni Dinner that night in New York. He would come home to Hopewell and steer this needed cover up the way it was intended to go.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 15, 2015 12:42:36 GMT -5
I wonder why Noso would be using one of his known aliases when cashing Lindbergh bills which would get him into very deep trouble. He could have just gone to any other bank where they didn't even require a signature or name to exchange gold bills, or of course used a different name.
I know that at least two people on here know more about Faulkner and he has nothing to do with Nosovitsky.
As far as Faulkner's letter to Hoffman, the only time I've seen it analyzed it was determined to be a hoax although Michael didn't seem to think so. Did someone actually analyze that letter and say professionally that the handwriting was the same as the Faulkner note? If so who?
Faulkner was/is just a red herring with exactly as much credence as the writing on the famous table.
Ron - you make a good devil's advocate pal. Remember the Hells Angels picture you sent me? I've still got it.
|
|
ron
Trooper
Posts: 29
|
Post by ron on Dec 15, 2015 13:22:57 GMT -5
Hasn't it been determined that the bank clerk wrote "J.J. Faulkner" and the address? That is a good question. If it was nobody told the FBI, who conducted an exhaustive investigation starting from a match of the JJ Faulkner handwriting with an Alfred Geissler, who at one time had resided at the address on the deposit slip. I believe it was Souder who made the match. Its interesting that the lead fizzled out the same way Violet Sharp's did, with the person coming under suspicion, (Geissler's son-in-law,) committing suicide.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 15, 2015 15:15:54 GMT -5
I don't know WHEN the NYPD linked the alias "J. J. Faulkner" to Nosovitsky in its files. Could be that the connection occurred well after Hauptmann's arrest, trial and execution, in which instance they might have abandoned interest in other possible suspects in the LKC and left Noso alone. Or it could be that Noso had provided the NYPD with good leads on other cases, and the police therefore were returning him a favor by not reopening their LKC investigation. Or it could be that the filing system was so flawed (remember, there were no electronic data bases at the time) that no one even knew of the link of the "J. J. Faulkner" alias to Nosovitsky until writer Noel Behn uncovered it years later, long after Noso was presumed dead.
If "Faulkner" had gone to another bank to exchange his gold currency, it's very possible that the new law or bank procedures would have required him to sign there as well, especially since the amount of currency he was exchanging would have been considered SUBSTANTIAL during the Depression era.
According to Behn, Faulkner's letter to Hoffman was analyzed immediately after it was received in January 1936 by Private Investigator William Pelletreau (whose personal papers came into Behn's possession in the 1980s). Pelletreau reported to Hoffman that the "J. J. Faulkner" who authored the letter was the same individual as the "J. J. Faulkner" who had written the deposit slip.
"Faulkner" a "red herring"? If so, how did he come to possess so much ransom money? Either he was "Cemetery John" or he had obtained the ransom money in one of or the last of a series of transactions which originated with "Cemetery John." So there would have to have been some connection, direct or indirect, between "Faulkner" and "Cemetery John." That's NOT a "red herring."
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 15, 2015 16:23:51 GMT -5
So now there's J.J. Faulkner confirmed by FBI "exhaustive investigation" as Alfred Geissler and by Pelletreau as Nosovitski and that it's not a red herring.
I still think and believe it will come out someday that it was written by the bank clerk who wouldn't admit it at first because he didn't want to become involved in the Lindbergh crime, but eventually that he did admit writing it. Unknown if he wrote it from ID, or verbal.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 15, 2015 19:09:24 GMT -5
As far as Faulkner's letter to Hoffman, the only time I've seen it analyzed it was determined to be a hoax although Michael didn't seem to think so. Did someone actually analyze that letter and say professionally that the handwriting was the same as the Faulkner note? If so who?
|
|
ron
Trooper
Posts: 29
|
Post by ron on Dec 15, 2015 20:45:16 GMT -5
I still think and believe it will come out someday that it was written by the bank clerk who wouldn't admit it at first because he didn't want to become involved in the Lindbergh crime, but eventually that he did admit writing it. Unknown if he wrote it from ID, or verbal. If you were an investigator would you have taken the clerks word that he didn't assist or would you looked at his workstation to see his handwriting for yourself? If you were the clerk would you risk lying or not disclosing an important fact that you took dictation from the kidnapper? In the case both the police and clerk were incompetent or dishonest wouldn't somebody sometime think to go back and check the clerks handwriting? I do not remember finding a reference to police or agents finding out at some point that the clerk took dictation. I do have a recollection of that being put forward. Maybe somebody could check Fisher's books. He might have made something like that up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2015 9:57:11 GMT -5
I do not remember finding a reference to police or agents finding out at some point that the clerk took dictation. I do have a recollection of that being put forward. Maybe somebody could check Fisher's books. He might have made something like that up. I only recently heard this possibility (slip written by teller) from another long time serious researcher who posts here occasionally. I have never read Fisher's book on this case so I don't know if it is mentioned in there. I tend to think it isn't. Lloyd Gardner's book, The Case That Never Dies, is a good source for the J.J. Faulkner deposit slip investigation. I will check Wayne Jones book to see what he has to say about it. Jones used much of Scaduto's work in his book, so I am not sure that appears in those books. I think I would recall it if it was. James Estey, the bank teller who took this deposit, claimed he really couldn't remember the depositor. He thought maybe it could have been a woman. I would think if the depositor had dictated his name and address, and it was actually Hauptmann, Estey might have remembered that because of Hauptmann's heavy German accent.
|
|
ron
Trooper
Posts: 29
|
Post by ron on Dec 16, 2015 11:36:43 GMT -5
I am very confident the handwriting on the deposit slip cannot be matched to either Hauptmann or the ransom notes. If it was not that of the tellers we have proof of another perpetrator, of course, right there.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 16, 2015 13:09:33 GMT -5
Regarding the Faulkner letter to Hoffman, J. Vreeland Haring, handwriting expert and author of "The Hand of Hauptmann" said in the "Hand" book that it was a forgery.
Also Geissler committed suicide it is believed not because ha may have been involved in TLC, but because of the scrutiny of the FBI which was about to disclose an extra marital relationship he was having that his wife was not aware of. Interestingly in the case of The Gainesville Ripper it's very well known how the press and authorities ruined an innocent man and his family.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 16, 2015 15:11:52 GMT -5
Regarding the Faulkner letter to Hoffman, J. Vreeland Haring, handwriting expert and author of "The Hand of Hauptmann" said in the "Hand" book that it was a forgery. Stein said he didn't believe they were a match and both Osborns said, as I remember, that it wasn't a match as well. There were others that said it was besides Hartkorn also. Also Geissler committed suicide it is believed not because ha may have been involved in TLC, but because of the scrutiny of the FBI which was about to disclose an extra marital relationship he was having that his wife was not aware of. Interestingly in the case of The Gainesville Ripper it's very well known how the press and authorities ruined an innocent man and his family. Jack - is this your actual belief or is it coming from somewhere? I'd have to disagree he killed himself over an affair.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 16, 2015 15:46:27 GMT -5
Just to clarify this, according to Lloyd C. Gardner's The Case that Never Dies (paperback, pp. 120-121): Following the "J. J. Faulkner" deposit of Lindbergh ransom gold notes c. May 1, 1933, it was discovered that a Jane Faulkner had lived at an address on the same block as the address of the "Faulkner" deposit slip, but a dozen years earlier. Checking out Jane Faulkner, investigators discovered that she had married a man named Carl Giessler (the spelling as given in Gardner's book) at about that time. Giessler was extensively grilled about the LKC, and a review of Giessler's relatives shifted attention toward Giessler's son-in-law, Henry C. Liepold. It was Liepold, NOT Giessler, who committed suicide because of the pressure brought to bear upon him by authorities, but no involvement of Liepold in the LKC was ever discovered. You are correct that Giessler was concerned that his extramarital relationship might be disclosed, but Giessler did NOT commit suicide.
In Gardner's book, he has an endnote stating that the most extensive coverage of the "J. J. Faulkner" aspect of the investigation is to be found in Anthony Scaduto's Scapegoat.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 17, 2015 6:19:06 GMT -5
Giessler was extensively grilled about the LKC, and a review of Giessler's relatives shifted attention toward Giessler's son-in-law, Henry C. Liepold. It was Liepold, NOT Giessler, who committed suicide because of the pressure brought to bear upon him by authorities, but no involvement of Liepold in the LKC was ever discovered. You are correct that Giessler was concerned that his extramarital relationship might be disclosed, but Giessler did NOT commit suicide. This is absolutely correct. However, knowing that Jack's been at this a while I am pretty sure he was actually talking about Liepold in his post and not Giessler. I don't want to speak for him but that was my impression. But it's good you pointed this out... The J. J. Faulkner investigation was huge, and Giessler was merely a part of that massive undertaking. With that being said, I've never felt there was anywhere near enough attention paid to it in the most recent books. As Amy pointed out, Lloyd wrote about the new revelation that it may have actually been a woman who deposited the money. One would think there'd be more research coming on the heels of that interesting find. Pro, against, possibilities.... nothing. What I find mostly is that if an Author "breaks rank" with previous information that's been accepted, other Authors who don't like it or find it harms their positions just ignore it like it was never mentioned or raised. Another one of Lloyd's finds was that one of the footprints at Hopewell was actually casted by Police. That's huge. Yet, how is it addressed in any of the newer books? It's stuff like this I can never understand. One of the things I've read with interest in Richard's book is his position on the footprints. What I've written doesn't attack his position specifically, but it does cover the entire situation with facts so there isn't a real need to point out exact details concerning where I believe he went wrong. Know what I mean?... it's simply answered by the proof listed concerning what I write. And so I suppose my point is not to ignore information before it's addressed. Maybe it's me but I see this happens a lot. Not so much here, we're pretty good at analyzing information, but I think we should all be careful about moving on from something by and through omission. It's a huge research flaw and one that can be costly IF the goal is to find the truth.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 17, 2015 7:05:41 GMT -5
Thanks Michael. Usually I check on stuff like that, but books are now a long ways away. Dead end anyway?
Amy said one of the footprints to or from the ladder showed the toes. Is that the one they took an impression of?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 17, 2015 17:44:25 GMT -5
Thanks Michael. Usually I check on stuff like that, but books are now a long ways away. Dead end anyway? Amy said one of the footprints to or from the ladder showed the toes. Is that the one they took an impression of? He was an interesting character Jack I will say that much... The print which was casted... All I can prove is that one was. After that I have my belief as to which one but it's just an educated guess based on something that I think reveals the answer.
|
|
ron
Trooper
Posts: 29
|
Post by ron on Dec 17, 2015 22:03:46 GMT -5
As mentioned in many books, there was a particularly clear print at the base of the ladder. I have a poor quality photo of the print from the NJSP file. Due to the proximity to the ladder impressions in the mud they assumed this to be a perpetrator. I would think that would be the one Michael has found documentary evidence was cast. Destroying that cast, (though it could be in someone's attic,) and the surely numerous reports that mentioned it, I would say reveals yet another indicator of modus operendi of the investigators that needs to be kept in mind on all evidence and theories.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 19, 2015 8:57:58 GMT -5
Destroying that cast, (though it could be in someone's attic,) and the surely numerous reports that mentioned it, I would say reveals yet another indicator of modus operendi of the investigators that needs to be kept in mind on all evidence and theories. Since it turns out it was ruined, I think it's natural to consider it may have been done on purpose. But it must also be considered that it wasn't. Know what I mean? I say this because I think it's important not to get into the habit of assigning each and every suspicious event into a "default" category - for either side of it - because sometimes the answer does not reside there.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,651
|
Post by Joe on Dec 27, 2015 7:57:51 GMT -5
If you really don't believe the handwriting is a match and that the QDE's who testified against Hauptmann were "paid off, read Haring's The Hand of Hauptmann cover to cover. I don't agree with it 100%, particularly when it comes to the JJ Faulkner signature, (I agree with his findings on the missive of that letter) but it presents the kind of argument and a level of discernment that goes beyond the basic and obvious similarities. And there are not many Qualified Document Examiners out there now or then who would agree with you.
Could Lindbergh have recognized the same voice two and a half years later? I wouldn't bet my life on it and it's obvious his reputation had a lot to do with jurors and people in general believing him. At the same time, if you were on high alert as Lindbergh claimed he was towards critical communication at a specific moment in time, would you not make a point of being as discerning and focused as possible?
The wood evidence connecting Hauptmann to the kidnap ladder was not planted. Planting physical evidence is much easier on paper than it is in real life. The wood evidence remains as solid today as it was when Koehler presented it at the trial. Read Keraga's excellent analysis of the actual wood evidence, Testimony in Wood: Rail 16 and the Lindbergh Kidnapping (2004) and also the Journal of Forensic Sciences Volume: 42, Issue: 3. (May 1997)
Wilentz only had to prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Hauptmann was involved. He went way beyond that. To Hauptmann's credit, (if that's what it's called) he withstood Wilentz's barrages, but there were few people in that courtroom who didn't see him as the pathetic witness and liar he was.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 29, 2015 23:46:03 GMT -5
I will read Haring's "The Hand of Hauptmann" if I can get a hold of it, but perhaps Joe can read Noel Behn's "Lindbergh: The Crime" which will offer a totally different perspective on who wrote the ransom notes. There was no such credential as a "QDE" back in 1934-1935, to the best of my knowledge. Handwriting examination and analysis was in its infancy as a science (or art, some would say) when compared to the situation today. Handwriting analysts then could earn reputations as "experts" on the basis of favorable publicity, as opposed to objective excellence. And the greater their reputation, the more money they received for their testimony at trial. Since in the Hauptmann case, the state of New Jersey had much more money to spend on these witnesses than the defense team, they were able to put together a group of "experts" whose reputations they could boast about to the jury and the media. On the other hand, the Hauptmann defense team could only afford one such witness at who lacked the aura of the state witnesses, yet could make an equally compelling objective presentation showing Hauptmann did NOT write the ransom notes.
It should be noted, though it wasn't presented to the jury, that the Osborn team, the prosecution's star handwriting witnesses at trial, had devised in a handwriting test based on words and phrases used in the ransom notes, which was presented to Hauptmann shortly after his arrest. At first, the Osborn team could not match the handwriting samples Hauptmann had submitted to the police with the handwriting on the ransom notes, despite the pressure the police put on them to do so. It was only after hidden ransom money was found in Hauptmann's garage that the Osborns agreed that the known handwriting samples of Hauptmann matched the handwriting on the ransom notes, but only because the known samples were a disguise. (Using that illogic, they could probably match the handwritings on any two documents to the same individual if the writing on one of them is considered a "disguise.")
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 30, 2015 15:36:59 GMT -5
I not only wouldn't bet my life that Lindbergh could recognize a particular voice (speaking only a few words) two and three quarter years later, I would think it humanly impossible. All because Lindbergh was a superb aircraft engineer and a superb and courageous pilot doesn't mean that he had a superhuman memory for voices. About the best he could have done was to recall that Cemetery John had a German-sounding accent in speaking English. But Hauptmann wasn't the only man in the country who spoke with a noticeable German accent. I agree that his celebrity had just about everything to do with people believing him. But his engineering and piloting talent are separate from his long-term memory for voices. The jurors were just a bunch of local rural folks with limited capability to make that distinction. Plus, it's much easier to go along with lynch the mob atmosphere than to oppose it for logical reasons.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 30, 2015 16:06:08 GMT -5
No. In order to get a conviction carrying a death sentence, the relevant statute required him to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hauptmann had committed a felony during the course of which the baby died. He couldn't do this without showing, at a minimum, that Hauptmann was on the Lindbergh estate on the night of March 1, 1932, or had influence over other people who were. Nothing Wilentz presented in his case (other than the testimony of a legally blind man and a known compulsive liar who purportedly spotted Hauptmann on that day in the vicinity) put Hauptmann anywhere near Highfields on that date. Unfortunately, Hauptmann's defense counsel was too inebriated and incompetent to point that out, and the jury's intelligence level wasn't sufficient to take that into consideration. No fingerprints or footprints nor any other physical evidence was found to put Hauptmann there at that time.
Wilentz did NOT meet the burden necessary to prove a capital offense against Hauptmann. Hauptmann's "being involved" in an after-the-fact matter, such as extortion or buying ransom money in a black market setting, was not a capital offense.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 30, 2015 18:37:21 GMT -5
Neither was making the ladder or, if it really happened, being seen in the area of the crime.
Yes, not the entire crime certainly was proved against Hauptmann, and I don't think Hurtelable certainly I'm not arguing with you about that.
Initially when I looked at this crime I remember thinking big deal - a famous guy, he'll get the end that he wants about it. Then I remember my father telling me the maid committed suicide and whoa! - this is different.
From the start, and this is my opinion of course, but I always felt that Condon was such an egomaniac that if Hauptmann had been recognized as CJ when he saw him in jail, Condon would have screamed it from the rooftops. For a thing, Condon wasn't an idiot and he must have known that with this crime, Hauptmann may not even live to get to trial - so he would miss his moment.
So along with the terrible descriptions Condon gave and the non-identification(s?) it seems Hauptmann was not CJ.
Lindbergh couldn't have picked a better guy than Condon to make the crime nothing short of confusing for eighty years or so!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,651
|
Post by Joe on Dec 31, 2015 5:52:22 GMT -5
Hauptmann was not just involved "after the fact" as you suggest. While I don't place much faith in the testimony of Whited, Hochmuth and Rossiter, Wilentz was still able to demonstrate evidence circumstantially and beyond a reasonable doubt that placed Hauptmann in the baby's nursery on the night of March 2, 1932. There was no need for Wilentz to have someone testify they physically saw him climb in and out of the window. Hauptmann's handwriting connects him to the ransom note found in the nursery and further to each and every one of the remaining ransom notes. Rail 16 of the kidnap ladder was shown to have been made from a length of wood which originated in Hauptmann's attic, the profile of his personal hand plane is reproduced with barcode-like accuracy on at least one of the ladder rails. Condon's phone number, before he unlisted it, and his address is found on the inside of the door jamb in Hauptmann's apartment. He is caught with almost 15K in ransom money in his garage. It was proven that he had no sustainable means of income from April 2, 1932, the day he essentially quit his carpentry day job for the stock market, an enterprise in which he actually lost money, all the while living a relatively lavish lifestyle until he was arrested two and a half years later. How does someone find himself within an arena of circumstantial evidence so damning and not inculpate himself as a key participant in this crime from start to finish?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 31, 2015 7:49:38 GMT -5
Hauptmann was not just involved "after the fact" as you suggest. While I don't place much faith in the testimony of Whited, Hochmuth and Rossiter, Wilentz was still able to demonstrate evidence circumstantially and beyond a reasonable doubt that placed Hauptmann in the baby's nursery on the night of March 1, 1932. While I agree that if Hauptmann had a hand in building the ladder, or even wrote the original note - just one of these things being true puts him in ahead of the extortion. However, in order for the 1st Degree Murder charge he had to be in the Nursery, had to be alone, and had to remove that child (stealing his sleeping garment). Neither the ladder nor the note prove those things at all (never mind reasonable doubt). It's why Wilentz used the perjured testimony because he had no choice if that was the charge he wanted to go with. Those men place him in Hopewell alone on March 1st. Each with a different tib-bid to damage Hauptmann (e.g. Hochmuth sees him with the ladder in his car). Remove those men and no one can say Hauptmann wasn't in the Bronx drinking coffee at Fredrickson's - just as the Defense Witnesses testified. And if that were the case it wouldn't matter if he signed his name on that note because, if he's not actually killing the child while in the commission of a burglary, then he could not get the Death Penalty.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 31, 2015 8:16:23 GMT -5
There are three high-profile crimes and probably more, that government has used the principle, "we don't have enough evidence but think you did it, so you're screwed." One was Lizzie Borden who in spite of absolutely no evidence of crime spent about a year in jail awaiting trial where she was found not guilty. Another was Hauptmann with no evidence of a capital crime was just semi-quickly executed. And then there was O.J. Simpson who if the crime is looked at closely could never have done it, but spent a year in jail before being found not guilty.
The Lindbergh case is most interesting because he did, in spite of a lot of time between crime and capture, come up with a solid alibi. Who cares if the man who saw him happened to be a bootlegger, and what does that have to do with an observation.
Wilentz has been held in history as kind of a great man for nailing Hauptmann, but I think he was a clear criminal for allowing what happened to happen.
No matter what anyone has come up with, there is absolutely no evidence placing BRH in the nursery. And without some evidence to the contrary he's just another every-day felon.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 31, 2015 9:47:39 GMT -5
There are three high-profile crimes and probably more, that government has used the principle, "we don't have enough evidence but think you did it, so you're screwed." One was Lizzie Borden who in spite of absolutely no evidence of crime spent about a year in jail awaiting trial where she was found not guilty. Another was Hauptmann with no evidence of a capital crime was just semi-quickly executed. And then there was O.J. Simpson who if the crime is looked at closely could never have done it, but spent a year in jail before being found not guilty. The Lindbergh case is most interesting because he did, in spite of a lot of time between crime and capture, come up with a solid alibi. Who cares if the man who saw him happened to be a bootlegger, and what does that have to do with an observation. Wilentz has been held in history as kind of a great man for nailing Hauptmann, but I think he was a clear criminal for allowing what happened to happen. No matter what anyone has come up with, there is absolutely no evidence placing BRH in the nursery. And without some evidence to the contrary he's just another every-day felon. Agree that there is no credible evidence to put Hauptmann in the nursery at the time of the purported kidnapping. Another huge factor is the near physical impossibility for a man of his height and weight to ascend the ladder found on the property and enter the nursery window from the ladder. None of the police investigators trying to re-enact the nursery entry from the ladder were able to accomplish this feat flawlessly. As for Wilentz, not only has he "been held in history as a kind of great man for nailing Hauptmann," he used the favorable publicity garnered from the LKC to become an very wealthy man with one of the most lucrative law practices in New Jersey, if not the country. I don't want to get into other cases because this board should be an LKC board exclusively, but I disagree with you about OJ Simpson "could never have done it," and haven't studied Lizzie Borden enough to comment on it.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 31, 2015 13:21:56 GMT -5
Hauptmann was not just involved "after the fact" as you suggest. While I don't place much faith in the testimony of Whited, Hochmuth and Rossiter, Wilentz was still able to demonstrate evidence circumstantially and beyond a reasonable doubt that placed Hauptmann in the baby's nursery on the night of March 2, 1932. There was no need for Wilentz to have someone testify they physically saw him climb in and out of the window. Hauptmann's handwriting connects him to the ransom note found in the nursery and further to each and every one of the remaining ransom notes. Rail 16 of the kidnap ladder was shown to have been made from a length of wood which originated in Hauptmann's attic, the profile of his personal hand plane is reproduced with barcode-like accuracy on at least one of the ladder rails. Condon's phone number, before he unlisted it, and his address is found on the inside of the door jamb in Hauptmann's apartment. He is caught with almost 15K in ransom money in his garage. It was proven that he had no sustainable means of income from April 2, 1932, the day he essentially quit his carpentry day job for the stock market, an enterprise in which he actually lost money, all the while living a relatively lavish lifestyle until he was arrested two and a half years later. How does someone find himself within an arena of circumstantial evidence so damning and not inculpate himself as a key participant in this crime from start to finish? Although I don't carry any credentials as a forensic document examiner, I know some basic principles of handwriting comparisons through friends who have such credentials. First, it appears that the first ransom note is written by a different person than all the subsequent notes. There were a number of independent handwriting experts back at the time of the Hauptmann trial who differed sharply from the Osborns and other prosecution witnesses and who concluded that Hauptmann did NOT write any of the notes. Among these were William Pelletreau, a PI who worked for Gov. Hoffman in his attempt to re-investigate the case following Hauptmann's conviction. (Pelletreau thought that the notes were written by Jacob Nosovitsky, aka J. J. Faulkner.) Remember, too, Hauptmann had a defense "expert" who testified to the same at trial. So there certainly is reasonable doubt on that point. Even conceding, for the sake of argument, that Hauptmann did write Condon's address and phone number on his closet door, and did in fact call Condon to eventually set up a ransom payment, this would all have happened, absent evidence to the contrary, AFTER the baby had been stolen. This is what I meant as "after the fact" activity. It works to support a charge of extortion, but that evidence does not place him at Hopewell in the nursery on the date of the purported kidnapping. Same holds for change in lifestyle after the ransom payment. I don't believe that every personal hand plane would have a unique "signature" on the wood it addressed, especially when one is dealing with a two and half year time frame between the time the wood was planed and the time the hand plane was recovered. Obviously, blades undergo change with use of the hand plane and eventually must be replaced over time.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 31, 2015 16:56:32 GMT -5
It's not your call what's talked about on here. Other cases can certainly be used as examples - which were.
You obviously don't know much about O.J. Nice that you admitted it for Lizzie.
|
|