|
Post by sue75 on Jul 16, 2011 8:52:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Jul 16, 2011 8:55:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 16, 2011 9:33:27 GMT -5
I was able to highlight, copy, and paste the first link Sue. It's hard for me to look this up, and it doesn't ring a bell. Too bad they don't give the newspaper, and the date. I do have a file which I have labeled "Hauptmann IDs" where there could be something in it about this particular incident. Probably not though....I usually remember something before I look but I will check anyway.
A ton of people were looking to "cash in" on the reward. Especially those who had earlier been on record as seeing something before the arrest. Once Hauptmann was arrested it was then the time to say it was him they saw, then go testify, then get a piece of the action. Surprisingly, some who were in a great position to do so refused, or came around to say they weren't sure.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 17, 2011 7:42:29 GMT -5
Nothing in that file, but I could still have something in the files that contain "suspicious people." These leads came flooding in the days and weeks immediately after the kidnapping. Problem here is that I have them filed in various places so they are scattered all over the place. If I ever run acrossed something I promise to post it here as a follow-up.
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Jul 17, 2011 10:00:20 GMT -5
Thank you, Michael.
I think you have a much better filing system them me. My files are in no particular order. I just know most of the time whether I have something or not. Finding it is another matter.
I looked at pictures of the south entrance of Rutgers Stadium and the Middlesex County Museum to get a feel for where this house was located. I wonder what evidence Piscataway News has that Hauptmann was the renter and that he owned a Ford pickup?
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Jul 17, 2011 20:23:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 18, 2011 7:06:10 GMT -5
What would happen is the Witness would see a picture of Hauptmann in the paper, call up Police, then say something like: "hey, that looks like one of the men who rented the Apartment I told Police about back in '32."
Police would go over to re-interview them, then decide whether or not they could use it. If they could, then they would be driven over to actually see Hauptmann. In a case like this, they wanted nothing to do with Hauptmann having Conspirators, therefore, even if they showed interest initially, they would either discard it or convince the Witness they were in error.
Here's an example below.... As my memory serves me, this Taxi Driver would later claim one of these people "looked like" Hauptmann. So where is his testimony? He turns invisible because the State simply cannot allow it. Whether or not its actually true is does not matter. Do you kind of see the trend? The Defense never finds out about this "Witness" because the State hides it. These people were almost always told to "keep their mouths shut" and I have proof of that all over the place.
Only if its useful to their own theory would it be brought out. And again, its not really whether or not its true - just that it could be believable.
There is no one on this planet, Hauptmann guilty or not, that could say he got a fair trial.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 18, 2011 11:03:09 GMT -5
I believe BRH did live in the New Brunswick area for awhile when he first came to the USA as I remember Kurt saying so. Perhaps this led to this claim.
You are right Michael, Hauptmann didn't get a fair trial. Could it ever be fair as long as he denied all involvement?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 19, 2011 16:06:40 GMT -5
The State has the burden of proof. But to meet that burden you must not tread upon the Rights of the Accused.
Why have a trial at all?
If the Prosecution was "on the level" then it wouldn't matter what Hauptmann says. And he didn't have to say anything, but the more he talked the more ammunition the Prosecution should have had. But they resorted to underhandedness, which means, they didn't believe they had a strong enough case.
The last thing the Prosecution would have wanted would be for Hauptmann to have taken the stand and say anything to indicate he was involved with others - in ANY way.
You see, Judge Large was the person to whom the State relied to formulate their whole entire case (along with Harold Fisher to formulate a little legal hokus-pokus), and of course this was because he had been privy to the Defense strategy, and Hauptmann's mindset, when he was a part of it before "flipping" to the Prosecution.
It's unimaginable, and I still have to pinch myself to believe that ever happened, and wasn't overturned because of just that.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jul 19, 2011 18:54:16 GMT -5
i think they had more then enough evidence to convict. the wood was proven not to have been planted and the handwriting was powerful. if theres anyone who ruined this case to me it was hauptmann
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 20, 2011 7:59:47 GMT -5
So you think they could prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Hauptmann climbed into that window, and while in the commission of a burglary (stealing the child's sleeping suit!!!), murdered the child - on site?
Really?
Even with the perjured testimony of the 3 Amigos they didn't have it - but then throw that out and what do you get?
Imagine Wilentz saying: "I can't use Whited's testimony. His is a notorious liar, cheat, and thief plus he told everyone he didn't see anything originally." He does exactly what he accuses the Defense of doing. Then HIDES everything and anything they have which would ruin his "theory."
What happens if there were two people on scene as the evidence shows? Was Hauptmann one of them? If so, was he the guy who killed the child? Did that person kill the child at Highfields or somewhere else? Could the child have been accidentally suffocated by the bag in which he was contained? If so - where did the death occur? Could they have tripped in the dark while walking in Mercer County? Was there inside help as ALL Police Investigators believed prior to Lindbergh taking over the reigns of this Case?
And the wood was proven to be shown to have been "planted." There is no doubt in my mind they knew Hauptmann did not crawl into his attic for this wood, yet, they still portrayed it that way because they couldn't have anyone suggest it came from anywhere someone else could have gotten their hands on it. Kelly admitted as much to Magill.
It is a HUGE difference if I find a bloody knife at a crime scene in front of a locker but instead put it in the locker then claim that's where I found it. No matter how you spin it - that is a plant - regardless of where the knife might prove to have actually came from. You cannot frame evidence at a crime scene, and if your case is so weak that you have to resort to ALL of these illegal tactics then its time to re-think the charges.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jul 21, 2011 18:43:46 GMT -5
mike theres so much evidence that the wood wasnt planted. i was up there the whole attic looks like rail 16. this is crazy if you think you can prove in your book about the wood
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 21, 2011 19:05:29 GMT -5
Steve,
You have to read what I've written carefully.
Hauptmann did NOT crawl into his attic and cannibalize his flooring. Rab & Kevin were right and its very provable. I believe both the Police and Prosecution knew it too, which was why Kelly blurted out that evidence had been framed to McGill.
Again, the board from the attic was removed by the Electricians to run the wiring. They threw the board out of the window. Rauch placed all the leftover material in the basement. The most likely scenario was that when Hauptmann was told to build the garage and take what he needed he went into the basement and grabbed that board which went into the garage and used later. Then problem is the basement was accessible to everyone, and so, the Police simply went with the claim Hauptmann took it out of the attic himself, where only He or Anna had the only access to it. This way no one could claim a friend, neighbor, Confederate, or otherwise actually took the board. The Defense, and everyone else, believed it wasn't a match because the idea of Hauptmann doing what was alleged defies common sense. And they were correct.
However, proper research reveals what really happened. This explains everything. I have the blueprints. I have the work schedules. I know who worked where and when. Kevin and I looked at Rail 16 for shadowing and found none. Rail 16 was supposed to be part of Board 27. Board 26 had shadowing when we checked that one out. That board exists because of Gov. Hoffman and Leon Ho-age having purchased it from Rauch.
So yes, I will say that in my book - and I'd be right.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jul 22, 2011 19:53:26 GMT -5
okay, i wont say a word until your book comes out
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 23, 2011 7:31:57 GMT -5
No, by all means speak your mind. I have no problem with it. You're old school here, and many times old schools can be right.
But this is a perfect example of how pursuing something that ain't "right" bears fruit. And so both sides of this issue come away mad because the truth lies in the middle.
You cannot dismiss what you don't like but embrace what you do - if they hold equal weight. There is a solution which ties the two together but it must be searched for.
Rab originally suggested the idea. It was why I searched and searched for the material I accumulated in order to see if there was anything to it. The VDers dismissed his idea in about a tenth of a second.
That's not research.
The Keystone was Kevin. If I hadn't met him at the Archives that day I think I would still be scratching my head. But again, that's why if you don't research something to its logical conclusion then it hasn't been solved.
If something makes it into my book you will see this. That's the whole idea. And Steve, you and just about everyone else are going to be very unhappy.
But it will be the truth. What anyone wants to do with it will be up to them.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 23, 2011 12:42:33 GMT -5
Probably due to the fact that the crime itself is not the primary concern or interest of those on the left and the right of the middle. I try not to think in terms of position, just work the puzzle until a picture emerges as opposed to working the picture until a puzzle emerges.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jul 24, 2011 8:04:29 GMT -5
mike, i wont be unhappy, your just lucky theres no more debating the book live in front of people. my side kiicks ass
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 24, 2011 9:23:28 GMT -5
Why would I be lucky?
I can debate right here or live - the only difference is that live debates can challenge someone for documentation they know could not possibly be at the debate. It would take a Mack Truck for me to bring all of my material.
I just found the removal proceedings concerning the Druckman Case. That only took me 11 years. Its fun to read the notes the Mole wrote to the Governor then watch what was said at the Hearing.
There is too much to know. But I am willing to bet I know most of it as this point.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jul 24, 2011 17:54:28 GMT -5
be careful mike, im tripping over evidence
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 25, 2011 6:45:05 GMT -5
Surely. And so how would you be able to produce a source in a live debate? How do you pick and choose what it is you want to bring? You can't. That's my point.
Next, if you'd like, we could play this "game" where we mention names then challenge the other guy to explain their connection to this Case. Sounds like fun doesn't it?
In short: I don't know everything. If I did this board wouldn't exist. But my knowledge has grown exponentially as I continue to learn from the past 11 years of Archival Research. Our discussions and debates were the main fuel to pursue this research. Therefore, if I didn't know something I simply went to the Archives to pursue it. Then the "treasure hunt" began. I would see where a follow-up report existed but wasn't where it belonged, then I would search until I found it. Sometimes it took years, and sometimes I found it in the same day. As this process unfolded over the years I learned about techniques, filing systems, and explanations for where the best place would be to look for items outside of where they should be. I would learn to recognize certain type-face as coming from different people, and being able to identify who penned out certain unsigned notes.
This doesn't come from a couple of trips - it comes from years of trips. You cannot spend (3) days looking through Hoffman's Collect, for example, then attack everyone with untruths and ignorance disguised as facts as if you are now an Expert on the subject. Each box in that collection takes about 4 hours to go through! I've been through that entire collection - multiple times, and each and every repeat I found things I didn't notice the first AND I continued to learn more and more and more which I would not have IF I didn't go through this collection AGAIN.
And I still don't know everything, and I would be an idiot to say I did. However, I'd also be an idiot to let people get away with some of the various shenanigans I see from time to time.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jul 25, 2011 18:52:00 GMT -5
i dont know everything either, but i know its hard to prove the wood was planted, and thats what your going to have to do in a live debate and that fisch was involved with the crime. thats the two biggies that is tough to do. plus knocking the state witnesses when your witnesses were pathetic. im just scratching the surface, i know theres other stuff to bring up
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 26, 2011 15:46:12 GMT -5
It's not hard anymore, and I've done it on this board. So its already been accomplished. Why would you think I could do it here but not anywhere else?
There was no shadowing on Rail 16 but there was on Board #26. If you believe S-226 and Rail 16 were Board #27 then you must have an explanation. I give it to you and the only thing you do is stick to the silly notion that Hauptmann crawled up there anyway. All boards on that floor should show shadowing.
The lack of shadowing proves Rail 16 was long gone by 1932. The paperwork I have gives an explanation, but you still insist it was there despite the evidence it wasn't.
I can't debate facts with faith and an unwillingness to accept what's in front of you.
I have something BIG on Fisch that I have never before seen anywhere. I also have more on what's been in the books so I can go further with it then anyone else ever has.
Again, let the chips fall where they may. I have no Witnesses. I look at everything when apparently you are only looking at the Defense's Witnesses, or in the alternative, accept the State's because you think the Defense's were worse. That logic makes no sense to me. Both should be under review, and all under the same magnifying glass. When flaws are noticed they should be pointed out regardless of whose side they fall. Some fall on none and they too need to be looked at. Simply because no one wanted to use them doesn't mean what they had to say wasn't valuable.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jul 26, 2011 19:47:17 GMT -5
cant wait to hear about fisch. silly notion? why is it silly? its so obvious that hauptmann took that board and put it on the ladder. he went up there he had access. tough to prove other wise mike
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 27, 2011 5:46:57 GMT -5
Steve,
So I guess he went up there when the house was being built? That's the only time he could have removed that piece to prevent the shadowing AND stop the Electricians from removing it.
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink....
The Fisch information is interesting. I almost fell out of my chair when I stumbled upon it about 5 years ago. I think Lloyd's material was good and this should, in my opinion, compliment it nicely.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jul 27, 2011 6:41:21 GMT -5
so i guess the wood being the same as rail 16 and the grains match, the nails fit perfectly with the nailholes means nothing. how can you drag the electrian in this with this evidence
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 27, 2011 15:36:09 GMT -5
The wood always appeared to match. All of the Experts, and I do mean all of them, said a hands on study would be needed and some of those said invasive study would be needed to conclude it.
Since there was no sane explanation as to why a Carpenter would saw the board where it was sawn, crawl into their attic (like that one) when it wasn't necessary because they already had wood available, and why Kelly and others were saying the situation was framed - I needed a legitmate explanation to buy into in order to fully accept the two matched.
Knowing now that the Electricians, who ran the wiring up there AFTER the floor was laid, made the cut then threw the board out of the window to where Rauch placed it in the cellar answers all of the questions to include why Rail 16 had no shadowing.
Hopefully this finally answers your challenge.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jul 27, 2011 18:55:09 GMT -5
well, if you think it needs more study, then do it. i dont think it needs one. lets see what the outcome is
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 28, 2011 5:48:20 GMT -5
The totality of the circumstances end the debate for me. But its those circumstances you are ignoring (for some unknown reason) which solved the puzzle. The absurdity, the actual cut, the Electricians, the floor, what happened to the wood afterwards, the framing of the evidence.
It's all covered. Everyone who ever believed Hauptmann crawled into his attic was wrong and now the real situation is completely provable. All of the questions can now be properly answered.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 28, 2011 10:31:40 GMT -5
Maybe it's just me, but I think the issue of where the board was found is more damning to BRH when it come from the Rausch basement not the totally bizarre story of him going up into the attic with a bunch of tools.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 28, 2011 15:36:58 GMT -5
That's a good point. The only reason I believe the Police altered the situation was to avoid the claim that someone went into his garage, or as it pertains to an unlocked basement which would have opened the door for the position that other hands could be involved. With the attic, although absurd, it places the board in either His or Anna's hands only.
But of course it muddied the waters for about 80 years about this evidence. It's why you always tell the truth and be honest about the true situation.
|
|