|
Post by Michael on May 25, 2019 13:43:47 GMT -5
There's a bunch of different sources. The trial appropriations. Reward Money. State Police funds were used too. Some of this stuff is only mentioned in the reports, etc.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on May 25, 2019 17:08:26 GMT -5
Thanks for posting that list of expenditures from Wilentz's office related to the LKC trial. OK, I'll stop short of using the generalized term "bribery," but the expenditures had to be on a quid pro quo basis of some sort. Each recipient was paid in return for something he or she did or was supposed to do to benefit the prosecution's interests. So there are reasonable questions as to whether these payments violated ethical standards at the time. Probably each recipient should be considered separately to evaluate whether his/her payment would be considered legitimate at the time. But we'll never know what discussions preceded each of these payments.
Note that the amounts of these payments would seem like petty cash to the modern reader, but adjusting for the value of money and the scarcity of it in the Depression era, it was probably significant to most of the recipients at the time.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 26, 2019 9:30:53 GMT -5
Thanks for posting that list of expenditures from Wilentz's office related to the LKC trial. OK, I'll stop short of using the generalized term "bribery," but the expenditures had to be on a quid pro quo basis of some sort. Each recipient was paid in return for something he or she did or was supposed to do to benefit the prosecution's interests. So there are reasonable questions as to whether these payments violated ethical standards at the time. Probably each recipient should be considered separately to evaluate whether his/her payment would be considered legitimate at the time. But we'll never know what discussions preceded each of these payments. I especially like your " considered separately to evaluate" position Hurt. This is important. I can say with confidence that just about no one believed Whited. His reputation was so bad that even the Jury knew about it. May Brelsford, for example, completely ignored his testimony because she knew the guy was a liar. It's hard to imagine a guy like Wilentz wasn't fully aware of this but chose to use him anyway. I think that's very important especially after considering he also used another eyewitness who was legally blind to identify Hauptmann. So the irresistible conclusion is that these people were motivated by money, and the Prosecution was in need of a necessary eyewitness component placing Hauptmann in Hopewell to sew up their case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2019 13:51:12 GMT -5
Note that the amounts of these payments would seem like petty cash to the modern reader, but adjusting for the value of money and the scarcity of it in the Depression era, it was probably significant to most of the recipients at the time. Excellent point, Hurt!! I am still shaking my head about the amount that was going to Joseph Perrone, usually twice a month! That is one discussion I would have wanted to eavesdrop on for sure!!
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on May 27, 2019 16:36:23 GMT -5
Note that the amounts of these payments would seem like petty cash to the modern reader, but adjusting for the value of money and the scarcity of it in the Depression era, it was probably significant to most of the recipients at the time. Excellent point, Hurt!! I am still shaking my head about the amount that was going to Joseph Perrone, usually twice a month! That is one discussion I would have wanted to eavesdrop on for sure!! Now that you mention Perrone, I wonder why Perrone needed such a strong inducement from the AG's office? It would seem pretty simple for him to ID Hauptmann as the man who gave him the envelope to deliver to Condon. (Offhand, I can't think of any other significant issue on which Perrone could possibly testify.) I don't recall Perrone's original descriptions of the man who gave him the envelope, which would likely be in his initial report to NYC police in 1932 and in his Bronx grand jury testimony in 1932. If someone has a copy of either, can you please post? Curious to see whether these Perrone descriptions - given over two years before Hauptmann was arrested - come close to real Hauptmann.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2019 16:29:50 GMT -5
I don't recall Perrone's original descriptions of the man who gave him the envelope, which would likely be in his initial report to NYC police in 1932 and in his Bronx grand jury testimony in 1932. If someone has a copy of either, can you please post? Curious to see whether these Perrone descriptions - given over two years before Hauptmann was arrested - come close to real Hauptmann. In this post I want to share a post that Michael made on June 2, 2006. It comes from the Perrone thread in the Witnesses section of this board. I think what he shares in this post is very important. ************************************************************************************************************************************************************************* Post by Michael on Jun 2, 2006 at 8:13pm Here is a little bit I put together some time ago. I still feel its worthy to post: Joesph A. Perrone was a hard working man who was simply trying to provide for his wife and three children during the depression. He reported for work at his hack stand on 3-12-32. Of course, as history would record, his taxi was hailed by a man on Gun Hill Road and Knox Place. This man did not want a ride but asked Perrone to deliver a note to Dr. Condon. Perrone agreed and acted accordingly. Oddly, upon delivery of the note, Milton Gaglio came running down Dr. Condon's steps and asked if the note had been given to him at Gun Hill Road and Bainbridge Avenue. Sometime later, Perrone was tracked down by Milton Gaglio, who then quizzed Perrone and told him if Inspector Bruckman were to come looking to interview him that he was to GET OUT OF TOWN for a couple of days. Bewildered by this request, Perrone when contacted by Authorities reported this conversation to which Gaglio flatly denied it ever occurred. At the Bronx Grand Jury testimony, Perrone told District Attorney Breslin that he would not know the man who gave him the note if he saw him again. Shortly after this testimony however, Perrone saw Dr. Condon on City Island talking to a man he felt certain was the person who gave him the note to deliver. Perrone reported this sighting to the Police. Detective Grafenecker later told Perrone that they "were on to" Condon and were going to "put the screws to him." What follows from that point on up until the time Hauptmann is arrested are multiple "identifications" concerning men Perrone believes looks like the fellow who gave him the note - which include but are not limited to the following: Hognell, Gawelczyk, Buck, Chetel, Steiner, Kuchan, Swadba, Kaltenbrunner, Mogel, and Panas - none of which look anything like Hauptmann. Once Hauptmann is arrested, Perrone was transported to the Greenwich Street Police station by Corp. Leon and Det. Coar who converse amongst themselves (loud enough for Perrone to hear) saying that Hauptmann was guilty, had confessed to the crime, and that those responsible for identification would receive the reward. Once in the Police Station, Perrone was shown a picture of Hauptmann and told by Inspector Lyons that "he was the man". Soon Perrone was brought to Capt. Bennett's office where a line-up consisting of (3) men - Ptl. McNamara, Bruno Richard Hauptmann, and Det. Croak was formed. Perrone was asked who the man was that gave him the note to deliver to Dr. Condon which prompted him to put his hand on Hauptmann's shoulder and identify him. Agent Sisk was a witness to this, and even Perrone himself would later admit to these conditions being brought upon him by the Police. Was this a legitimate identification? No way. ************************************************************************************************************************************************************************ In my next post, I will be sharing Joseph Perrone's May 20, 1932 Statement to Authorities which was done in Hopewell, New Jersey, in the presence of Charles A. Lindbergh.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2019 19:50:07 GMT -5
The finding of Joseph Perrone: imgur.com/y7o2f5MThe May 20, 1932 Statement by Joseph Perrone. It is six pages long. Page One: imgur.com/fQ1Oc1NPage Two: imgur.com/czzKiGo (CORRECTED) Page Three: imgur.com/jtvfsD2Page Four: imgur.com/RsEf08yPage Five: imgur.com/wVhSOENWhen I copied this statement at the archives, I did not notice the issue with page six. I am going to post it here anyway but I am typing out the questions and answers from this page also. Page Six: imgur.com/X9GDWY8What page six says: Q. Were there any signs of anyone else around there? A. When he gave me the note he was looking down the street as if he was looking down towards a car facing the other side of the parkway north on Mosholu. Q. Did you not see any cars around there? A. There were quite a number of them on the street. Q. Did you say he came out of the house where he stopped your cab? A. It appeared to me as if he came out of the house but I could not say for sure. Q. What corner was the house on that you said he might have come out of? A. Southwest corner of Knox Place and Gunhill Road. Q. Is it an apartment house or private house? A. Apartment house. Signed: Joseph Perrone Witness: Stanley S. Petty
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2019 21:27:29 GMT -5
amy if houmuth was so blind at the time, wilentz wouldn't have been stupid enough to put him on the stand. I saw a old documentary and they interviewed the njsp policeman who drove him to the police station he said houkmuth said my god that's the man I saw. so you can go all around but people said they saw him Here is Hopewell Assistant Chief Williamson's statement dated Sept. 21, 1934 to the NJSP. He went around asking people if they saw this man Hauptmann in the area on March 1, 1932 or before. Here is how many he found: imgur.com/dgMjLTT
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 2, 2019 7:14:28 GMT -5
amy if houmuth was so blind at the time, wilentz wouldn't have been stupid enough to put him on the stand. I saw a old documentary and they interviewed the njsp policeman who drove him to the police station he said houkmuth said my god that's the man I saw. so you can go all around but people said they saw him Here is Hopewell Assistant Chief Williamson's statement dated Sept. 21, 1934 to the NJSP. He went around asking people if they saw this man Hauptmann in the area on March 1, 1932 or before. Here is how many he found: imgur.com/dgMjLTT What some people do is believe that whatever happened in Court means there's nothing else to consider. Since Hauptmann was convicted that somehow means all witnesses for the State were truthful and all for the Defense should not be believed. Unfortunately there's documentation available to us all now which proves otherwise. The Governor tested Hochmuth's vision and he could not even see a vase of flowers that was only feet away.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 2, 2019 8:24:54 GMT -5
amy if houmuth was so blind at the time, wilentz wouldn't have been stupid enough to put him on the stand. I saw a old documentary and they interviewed the njsp policeman who drove him to the police station he said houkmuth said my god that's the man I saw. so you can go all around but people said they saw him Here is Hopewell Assistant Chief Williamson's statement dated Sept. 21, 1934 to the NJSP. He went around asking people if they saw this man Hauptmann in the area on March 1, 1932 or before. Here is how many he found: imgur.com/dgMjLTT I saw the image of the statement signed by Hopewell Assistant Chief Williamson. After Hauptmann's arrest in New York, Williamson asked two NJSP police detectives if they had any knowledge of anyone seeing Hauptmann or his car in the vicinity of Hopewell on the night of the kidnapping or shortly before that. The detectives admitted that they had no knowledge of any such sighting by anyone. You have to ask why Williamson would ask these questions to the detectives and would make a written record of their answers. It would seem as if Williamson was, oddly, a law enforcement officer acting on behalf of the Hauptmann defense and against the interests of the state prosecution. I'm quite sure that no one on the Hauptmann defense team ever laid eyes on the Williamson statement. Under current legal practice, however, the Williamson statement would have to be handed over to the defense as Brady material.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jun 2, 2019 9:18:33 GMT -5
Ben Lupica's eyewitness account, supported by Mrs. Conover's account and while not entirely conclusive, strongly infers Hauptmann having been in the Hopewell area in the afternoon and early evening hours of March 1. And I have to wonder how many sightseers and members of the press frequented the area around the Lindbergh estate to the point where locals may have become somewhat jaded to the intrusion of strange vehicles.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 2, 2019 9:57:10 GMT -5
Ben Lupica's eyewitness account, supported by Mrs. Conover's account and while not entirely conclusive, strongly infers Hauptmann having been in the Hopewell area in the afternoon and early evening hours of March 1. And I have to wonder how many sightseers and members of the press frequented the area around the Lindbergh estate to the point where locals may have become somewhat jaded to the intrusion of strange vehicles. I agree that there are similarities among the accounts of Lupica, Moore, Conover, and Wendelin. Despite some of the differences I believe they all saw the same car. However, I don't see any of these sightings as implicating Hauptmann. That's not said to imply it was not - only that it certainly could have been somebody else.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jun 4, 2019 9:07:26 GMT -5
well mike your witnesses wernt truthful in fact they were pathetic. im not high on eyewitnesses but to say everybody lied for the prosecution is silly. the physical evidence doomed Hauptman and even today it don't budge
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 4, 2019 11:03:12 GMT -5
well mike your witnesses wernt truthful in fact they were pathetic. im not high on eyewitnesses but to say everybody lied for the prosecution is silly. the physical evidence doomed Hauptman and even today it don't budge Steve - I don't have any witnesses. I simply evaluate the facts case by case and person by person. The truth is the truth regardless. What's funny is your reply brought back some memories. I remember during one of my football games that the Ref threw a flag on the guy holding the chains - then penalized my team 15 yards for unsportsmanlike conduct. My coach went crazy. I still remember him saying " why did you flag my team? I didn't hire him!" Then the Ref flagged my coach and we got another 15 yards. It cost us the game.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jun 6, 2019 8:40:56 GMT -5
that's a nightmare for me watching the jets last year to many penalties
|
|