|
Post by Michael on Aug 22, 2012 20:36:17 GMT -5
What I wanted to follow-up with what I posted earlier was this.... When Hauptmann was arrested he told Police he was worth "more then $10,000" before the kidnapping. Compare that to what Anna told the Wollenbergs. I say when Hauptmann claimed this 4K wasn't known to Anna he was protecting her from suspicion. Not because she was involved (IMO), rather, knowing the less she knew about money - the better. Q: Did you ever see any gold bills in his possession?
A: I saw some bills. He had bills in his box in his closet. They were single bills, too.
Q: When was that?
A: Months ago. I did not count it. I went to the box to get some out and I saw he had the gold pieces there and some bills, and single bills on top.
Q: Don't you know how much money there was there?
A: I don't know. It was about one-half or three-quarters inch in height. (p.23) I think another point to consider was that even after the Kidnapping Anna continued to work at the Bakery. It's hard to think she would do so knowing she's come into 50 Large.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 22, 2012 20:46:30 GMT -5
How about we stick with the trunk for now. What are some thoughts on the points I raised?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Aug 22, 2012 22:13:41 GMT -5
I think the spending is significant, because when that kind of money is stake (over a half a million in today’s dollars), even “experts” will slant their testimony. Handwriting can be cherry-picked like anything else. Just check Zorn’s new book—he’s got handwriting expert Sargur Srihari saying Hauptmann didn’t write the notes, Knoll did. As far as spelling goes, I have a hard time believing that a veteran carpenter couldn’t spell “house” or that a veteran stock trader couldn’t spell “money.” I haven’t seen the Fawcett document—maybe Michael can upload it some point.
No security video cams in those days. Joe, what sort of “verifiable proof” would you realistically expect them to produce beyond the eyewitnesses who said Hauptmann was at the bakery?
Perhaps those report are true, but I would like to point out that just because someone says something, doesn’t mean it’s true. There were many false reports in the LKC—look in the FBI Files at how many people got accused of kidnapping Charlie; and in a number of cases the accusations were made out of revenge or thirst for reward money. So you’re saying Anna bought, in today’s dollars, $8000 worth of evening dressings? When did she wear these twenty evening dresses---on the evenings when she worked at the bakery, or on her evenings off? As far as Fisher goes, I lost respect for him when I compared his text to the original trial transcript, and found he had altered the trial transcript to suit his purposes.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 23, 2012 5:39:23 GMT -5
My last post was about that claim. I was trying to show that she must have known about it in one way or another thru these examples.
I am also sure someone could make the charge that it was an invention too, but I think if it were, then Anna was either behind it or fooled by it herself. I personally would say fooled if it weren't true - but I believe it was.
There's much about the handwriting that doesn't make any sense..... Anyway, I wish I had that document but I don't. There's some stuff that isn't at any Archive and most of Fawcett's material is among those.
I believe a picture of it exists on one of the photography sites somewhere - Joe probably can link it up for you (hopefully).
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Aug 23, 2012 6:39:08 GMT -5
I agree with you 100 percent, Michael. The guy misspells “good,” “not,” “our,”“money” and “house,” yet he correctly spells “hazardous,” “accordingly,” “appointment” and “underneath.”
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 23, 2012 7:58:00 GMT -5
Do you really believe Hauptmann would leave $4000 of "clean" money alone in a linen trunk? The guy is a gambler and the stock market is beckoning.
So you believe Anna knew about this $4000 even though Richard claimed she didn't and couldn't?
Am I the only one who is finding these stories a little too similar and unbelievable? I mean, it's pretty easy to completely destroy the Pantry top shelf story. In fact I might go to the Myths of the LKC thread with it. The trunk story isn't much better. What else?
BTW, the handwriting belongs on it's own thread, but I will say there is a major point regarding the notes that seems to get ignored.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Aug 23, 2012 9:17:37 GMT -5
Hi Joe, Could you elaborate on the above.
[
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Aug 23, 2012 10:19:44 GMT -5
This is just a general comment on the credibility of keeping money in a trunk. I always feel it’s important to put ourselves in the context of the times. Bank failures were rampant during the Depression. 11,000 out of 25,000 U.S. banks had collapsed by 1933, according to www.thegreatdepressioncauses.com/banks.htmlThere was no FDIC insurance then, so if a bank went under, you lost everything. In 1933 alone, depositors lost $140 billion from bank failures. Therefore banks were distrusted, and it WAS common to keep some money squirreled away in hiding places—in walls, under floorboards, in the backyard, in mattresses. It may sound crazy now, but it didn’t to people who were losing their shirts back then.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 23, 2012 11:55:37 GMT -5
Certainly BR, it was understandable given the times. One problem with that is that most common folk stayed even further away from the stock market. But not Hauptmann. Now if he has no fear of investing ( on margin no less), why would he fear a bank? More to the point though, with $4000 in the house in a very unsecure location, what would keep him from investing it? nothing that I can see. Now if Anna really knew about the $4000, I could see her preventing him from investing it. That, in turn, creates another problem. Where did this $4000 come from?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Aug 23, 2012 12:26:07 GMT -5
Well, to cut Hauptmann some slack, I don’t know that he was necessarily committed to being what they call “fully invested” in the stock market. For example, the Hauptmanns were earning $224 in annual interest on a mortgage they had invested $3750 in (Kennedy, p. 73). That’s a pretty conservative investment. And I don’t have any problem with Hauptmann keeping gold coins around—the postwar inflation hit Germany so hard that a loaf of bread cost 200 billion marks in 1923. Gold coins have always been considered a hedge against inflation, and if anyone knew about inflation then, it was the Germans.
Anyway, I agree with you, Hauptmann was a risk-taker in the stock market. But like a lot of stock investors, he may have wanted to diversify—and that could include keeping a “cash position.” It’s just that in this case the cash was kept at home, not in a bank, because thousands of banks were collapsing then. The measly interest on a savings account just wasn’t worth the risk to a lot of folks. Sure, the trunk could get stolen, but many people felt that if they hid their money themselves, at least they were “in control” of their destiny, for better or worse.
I’m not saying this proves Hauptmann had $4,000 in a trunk, but I don’t find it unbelievable. The guy did spring $737 for a brand-new car, and with him and Anna both taking 3 months off for the ’31 California trip, I don’t see them hovering on the brink of financial ruin. ‘.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 23, 2012 16:43:38 GMT -5
Well, where was the $4000 when they went on the trip? Look, we know Hauptmann used the bank for savings. We know Hauptmann was heavily into stock speculation. We know Hauptmann invested in rather risky business ventures. So where in this known behaviour do you see him exhibet caution other than the story of $4000? Let's just say he did have this $4000 and he did keep it in a linen trunk. Given Hauptmann's ability to conceal things, keeping $4000 under a blanket seems very out of character. This is a guy who has experience with theft, he would know how vulnerable that money was. And then what do we make of Anna asking for the one and only key everytime she needs to change the bedding? Sounds a lot like the top shelf story. Is this some type of plausible deniability the two worked out together?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Aug 23, 2012 17:22:12 GMT -5
Hi Kevkon, Kennedy's book says the $4,000 was left with Anna's uncle for safe keeping during the CA trip.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 24, 2012 7:04:42 GMT -5
Did he give it to him in a shoebox Seriously, if this is true it would be likely Anna did know about the $4000. Then why does Hauptmann invent the locked trunk story? What's the point of claiming Anna didn't know about the money if it was legit?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Aug 24, 2012 8:45:45 GMT -5
Just to clarify, when they went on the trip, Hauptmann removed the $4000 from the trunk, and put it in a locked satchel, which he gave to Anna’s uncle for safekeeping. (Kennedy, 76) I expect this was as good a way as any to handle something like this. The fact that (1) he didn’t want to leave the satchel unattended during his 3-month absence, (2) that the satchel was locked, and (3) that he left it with a trusted family member, all suggest there was something of value inside. Kennedy does not remark, one way or the other, on whether Anna knew about this money.
Incidentally—Michael, this is for you. Hauptmann wrote an autobiography while in prison called “The Story of My Life.” It just occurred to me that I have never seen it reproduced anywhere. Do we have a copy somewhere on this board? Whether we believe the document or not, it might help shed light on details such as this.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 24, 2012 10:25:50 GMT -5
I would have thought a safety deposit box would be best, but sure, a locked briefcase held by a relative is much better. I wonder why he didn't do the same with the Fisch money? Now after they return he retrieves the locked satchel from the uncle and returns the money to the equally safe linen trunk. Anna may or may not know about the money but Richard keeps her locked out in any case. Makes sense to me.
btw, $4000 in 1932 is about $56,000 today
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Aug 24, 2012 11:58:07 GMT -5
I would have chosen a safety deposit box too. But interestingly enough, a lot of people during the Depression chose walls, mattresses and back yards over safety deposit boxes. I don’t know why, because I don’t think a bank’s collapse would cause you to lose your box—maybe just some delay in getting to the contents. But what I do know is, it wasn’t just Hauptmann hiding money during the Depression; the practice was rampant. After gold was made illegal, the government did assume the right to inspect safety deposit boxes to make sure no one was “hoarding” gold (which made the boxes less popular), but that was still a bit in the future from the California trip.
This discussion about the California trip and pre-kidnapping time frame has also raised some questions in my mind.
It seems like the trip was done at a leisurely pace—fishing, guitar playing, sightseeing. On the leg home, they made new friends in Georgia, and delayed going back to New York twice. It doesn’t seem like BRH was in any rush to get home at all—kind of odd if the guy has his sights set on committing the crime of the century.
Now of course, one could easily argue that BRH didn’t decide to kidnap Charlie until after he got home. But he got home in October—just under 5 months from the kidnapping. While this is an adequate time frame to set up a crime, it still seems kind of rushed for such a challenging crime: figuring out how to kidnap the most famous baby in America, plus getting a ransom for him. Personally, I would have preferred to scope out Highfields during warm months rather than winter.
And the Hauptmanns were still pretty busy during this time. They moved into East 222nd Street, and Richard built that garage, did he not? Correct me if I’m wrong, Michael, but I believe he built it before the kidnapping.
Now building a garage had to be fairly time-consuming. If I was planning the crime of the century, I’d be focusing all my attention on that. Well, maybe BRH was good at multi-tasking.
I don’t think it can be argued that he built the garage for the express purpose of hiding the ransom money there. How could he be that sure, in advance, of getting the money?
And something else is bugging me. I know there’s been a lot of controversy about whether or not Hauptmann worked at the Majestic Apartments on March 1. Furcht swore in an affidavit that BRH did—then changed his mind. But whether he really worked that day or not, my question is this: why was he even be ARRANGING work at that time? Again, if it was me, I’d be all-out focused on the crime.
I suppose one could argue that Hauptmann set up the work just to give himself an alibi, but, just personally, he doesn’t strike me as that tricky.
These are just thoughts off the top of my head, and there are probably defects in them.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 24, 2012 13:22:45 GMT -5
I guess you see no problem or inconsistency with this $4000 story. I certainly don't feel the same. We are talking about an amount that is more than their entire worth and a man who has absolutely no reluctance to invest his ( and her) money. Now if you flipped this story around and told me Anna held the key, I'd find that believable considering Richard's past stock history. And once again, it's not the money that interests me, rather the strange re-occurrence of the Richard sees-Anna doesn't scenario.
Regarding the planning for the kidnap, just how long do you think that requires? The house is easy to scope out, the ladder is easy to build for any carpenter, there's not a whole lot of logistics with the exception of holding the victim and getting the ransom. So scratch the holding of the victim and the ransom plan is non-existent. Now that should really get some argument.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Aug 24, 2012 14:10:33 GMT -5
You’re right, I have no problem with the $4000. He shelled out $737 for a new car. He shelled out $3750 to invest in a mortgage. So what’s the big deal about him having another $4,000 in cash? As I’ve said before, we have no compelling reason to believe that Hauptmann wanted to be “fully invested” in the stock market. If there was nothing of value in the satchel, why did he lock it and give it to a relative for safekeeping? You would have to have to total knowledge of Hauptmann’s finances to say he “couldn’t” have $4000 in the satchel, and I don’t think any of us have such knowledge, even if we look at Hauptmann’s ledger. If you asked me to look at my own bank balances from 20 years ago, and asked me to account for where every dollar came from, I’d probably have a hard time doing it. So how can we look at a stranger, living 80 years ago, and claim to have a total understanding of their financial picture? We just don’t know enough to say Hauptmann couldn’t have had $4,000 in cash.
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Aug 24, 2012 15:29:21 GMT -5
I'm going to play devil's advocate here.
The house might be easy to scope out, once you figure out how to get there from the Bronx. When did Hauptmann have the time and opportunity to do that?
If he didn't know where it was, then how often would he have to make a dry run before he felt comfortable being there?
Wouldn't he have to take very careful notes about how to get there, since the more often he went there, the greater the risk of being seen by suspicious neighbors?
And once he figured out how to get there, wouldn't he have to scope out the place while the residents were there, so he could learn their habits?
Wouldn't he have to hide the car? Where did he, himself, hide to reconnoiter the house?
Wouldn't all of this be incredibly risky for one person--even a gambler such as Hauptmann?
Let me take it a step further: If it were Hauptmann by himself, then why would he drive PAST Highfields to bury the child in the woods, which meant doubling back and passing Highfields? If he did it the night of the kidnapping, then wouldn't he risk being seen doubling back?
If he didn't bury the child in the woods the night of the kidnapping, then when did he return? More importantly, where did he have the baby hidden? And WHY did he return THERE?
How could all of these factors just fall into place so easily and neatly for one man?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Aug 24, 2012 15:37:44 GMT -5
Did he give it to him in a shoebox You funny ;D Kevkon! No, the $4000 wasn't in a shoe box. Get your facts straight, here. It was wrapped in a cabbage leaf.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Aug 24, 2012 15:53:48 GMT -5
Nice going, JD. And adding to the “degree of difficulty” (to borrow a phrase from the recent Olympics), we have to ask how Hauptmann would have known Charlie would be there on a Tuesday. Since this had never happened before, previous scopings of the house should have told Hauptmann a Tuesday was NOT the night to strike—unless we want to buy a “he lucked out” theory or "stupidity worked in his favor" theory.
By the way, Mairi, Hauptmann didn't give the uncle the $4000 wrapped in a cabbage leaf. It was wrapped in a copy of the Bronx Home News. ;D
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 24, 2012 16:31:40 GMT -5
Plenty if it can't be explained. Hauptmann was very good at keeping track of his wealth.
Why did he HAVE to know? This is one of the most common assumptions in this case and yet it goes along unchecked. Hauptmannn did NOT have to know. He could have assumed, which is pretty reasonable. He could have tried previously, also very possible. Now I can predict the answer I'll get as it's always the same. However, the fact that something is hard to believe in no way negates it.
JD, I think you are over complicating the movements. Why would he need to come back to the house?
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Aug 24, 2012 16:53:38 GMT -5
Kev,
Like I said, I'm playing Devil's Advocate. There is no way for us to know if Hauptmann (assuming he was the lone culprit) needed multiple treks to Highfields or not.
I do, however, believe he'd need to scope out the house during the day. I'm convinced he'd have a very hard time driving from the Bronx to Hopewell, NJ, by himself, and finding the place. Unless he was familiar with the area BEFORE getting the idea to kidnap the child.
I also believe he would be more likely than not to need more than one visit because he'd need to become familiar with the family's movements inside the house. When is their bedtime? Do they stay up late? When do they put Charlie to sleep? When do they turn out any lights in the nursery? Do they put the lights out in the nursery at all?
I'm not entirely sure Hauptmann would consider asking himself these questions to be overcomplicating the matter. Not for fifty thousand bucks. Not to kidnap the son of the most famous man on the planet. It's not like he was totally alien to criminal thinking.
Kev, do you think the kidnapper would be able to navigate the nursery in the dark? It's possible if he/she/they were familiar with the inside of the house, or the movements of the family, or both.
Did Hauptmann take those unofficial (and unauthorized) tours of Highfields?
I just don't see all of this to be possible without inside help.
Jd
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Aug 24, 2012 18:47:52 GMT -5
(The context here is the question of how could BRH have known Charlie was in Hopewell on a Tuesday.)
To me, if BRH was familiar with the Lindberghs staying at Highfields (which had actually occurred rarely), he should have known that they also stayed at Next Day Hill. Next Day Hill was well-known as Senator’s Morrow’s estate, and it was MUCH closer to the Bronx. If BRH was the kidnapper, and he knew about Hopewell, he should have also known about this much closer and more famous estate.
I think it’s reasonable to say that, whoever took Charlie, knew that he stayed at both places—Next Day Hill and Hopewell. It’s pretty logical that they considered both places, and decided Highfields was the easier of the two targets.
That being the case, the kidnappers would have figured out the Lindberghs’ routine BEFORE the caper—they needed to know when the Lindberghs would be at which of the two estates. They should have known that the Lindberghs did NOT stay at Hopewell during the week. Anyone spying on the estate during the week would seen that the nursery was dark, and that Charlie was therefore not there.
So yes, I believe that kidnapper(s) DID know about that Tuesday. I do not believe Hauptmann drove down to Hopewell, intending to carry a kidnap ladder to the house through a howling gale, on the OFF CHANCE that Charlie just might be there on a Tuesday, even though that had never happened before.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Aug 24, 2012 20:05:27 GMT -5
Anna’s witness stand "recollection” of her trip home that evening with Richard at the regular time, was a real work in progress, from the time her husband was arrested. Initially, she told police it would be impossible for her to remember what she was doing that night, a point anyone would have little trouble accepting. During subsequent jail visits, Richard and Anna continually discussed the evening, making one attempt after another to tie in countless unrelated events that would cement even a reasonable alibi for that evening. Apparently, that never happened, so that by the time of the trial and forever afterwards, she seemed to have done the next best thing by stating the equivalent of “Yes I’m absolutely certain, but I have no reason to say why other than that's what we normally did." That is some alibi.
I'm not saying this at all BR, nor is Fisher really. The account is a first hand one from Marie Hahn, who with her husband Fred, gave detailed testimony of her visits to the Hauptmanns. Theirs are a couple of the most interesting reports I've read to date on this case and they suggest an almost surreal existence and standard of living within that household. Why the Hahns were never called to the witness stand may seem unusual but there is no question they portray Anna as an equal part of this existence, so that in itself may answer the question.
Mairi, regarding Anna's evasive witness stand response, I was referring to her almost extreme hesitation in admitting to Wilentz that she never cleaned the top shelf of her broom closet, even though this was the shelf that collected water from the roof leak and this is where she kept her tin of soap coupons.
Oh, there's more, Kevin. From the Hahns' testimony taken at the Bronx County District Attorney's Office on Nov. 19, 1934, when Hauptmann invited Fred Hahn to see their apartment in the middle of June, 1932, Hahn was surprised to see two paper bags full of money, one containing a stack of bills approximately four inches under the cover of Hauptmann's new victrola radio. When he asked about it, he was told the money belonged "to Fisch." On further questioning, Hauptmann told him that Fisch was a friend who lived "down the block next to a church and some of this money belongs to me." I would have to say the Fisch Story, circa 1934, probably developed its roots back at a time when Richard and Isidor were barely acquainted.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 24, 2012 20:54:41 GMT -5
Yes - with the Uncle. He had to leave it somewhere if he didn't take it with him. However, it is certainly something that is debatable.
I do. She was making a claim about how much they had saved which must have included the 4K. If it didn't then she's 6K over and above what Hauptmann was claiming to friends. Again, I wouldn't say someone would be crazy to question the idea.
I don't agree and here's why: He did the exact same thing when he went to Florida. On this trip where was the 50K? He spent money like a Miser and not one ransom bill ever showed up along this route. Not one. So where was the Ransom? Perfect opportunity to launder it - yet - he didn't do it on this trip. And so even if he only had a portion of it and not the benefit of the full amount - the facts suggest he didn't bring it with him.
When we evaluate his actions on the California trip we see a man who is supposed to be desperate financially quit his job, buy a new car, then take off on a dream vacation. Here too he shows his normal thrifty behavior while on this trip.
But was he broke?
The bank accounts and the margin call are what the Government points to as evidence of his financial demise. Yet his actions both before and after the trip tell a much different story. It's what leads one to believe Hauptmann had something more then what the records told. Maybe it wasn't 4K - but it was something nevertheless or he wouldn't have been able to do what he did upon his return. Paying his storage fees, upgrading to a more expensive place, and generally acting like someone who is financially secure and not in dire straights as we are told he was.
It doesn't make sense. But if you look at his habits it starts to. His actions tell the tale. We may not like what we see but there it is regardless. It may not fit exactly into whatever we believe so we must adjust that to allow a fit to happen. That is where the truth lies.
This California trip is nearly what he did on his Florida trip. The difference being that he's supposed to be in a partnership during the 2nd one. I attribute this to the fact there's more money on paper whereas prior to the crime there was not. In fact there's a whole missing section of records prior to that California trip. If we believe the argument that his records show everything then their absence means he had zero the entire time they are missing and/or omitted?
As a general comment - I will never say believe Hauptmann 100%, however, much of the time there is some truth in what he says. The trick is realizing what that truth is - and what the BS is. It's the same with Condon. Human nature dictates to us to pick a side, or to become loyal to someone - or something even if its an idea or a concept.
Shake that off and start from scratch. Be neither for nor against anything. Be flexible and allow room for adjustments. Of course, I know its easier said then done.
There are several of these out there. I believe I have all of them (in their english versions). The one to which you refer is well over 200 pages long so I doubt it would be posted anywhere. One of them ran in a series of newspaper articles so perhaps somewhere in the online newspaper archives it can be found.
You're right.
She was always consistent in her "top shelf" position. Originally she wasn't 100% sure about March 1st. I think as she thought about it her recollection about the radio broadcast solidified what had happened that night after her original statement to the Police. This was why her story changed. Obviously it's something that is debatable concerning whether or not its true, but in my mind she believed it.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Aug 24, 2012 22:35:01 GMT -5
Joe, what was the implication being made by Hahn here? Was he suggesting that Hauptmann was openly displaying Lindbergh kidnap money in his parlor, where acquaintances could see it? If so, wouldn’t that be rather brazen of Hauptmann with a murder hunt on? It also doesn’t seem consistent with his burying the money in the garage. Very surprising that Wilentz didn’t call Hahn as a witness, since this story, if true, might have shredded Hauptmann’s explanation of when he found the money. Wilentz was not exactly shy about going for the jugular.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 25, 2012 6:59:35 GMT -5
Nothing wrong with that, it's a great way to sort things out.
I think it would be difficult and that's what led to the death of the child. No, I don't think he was familiar with the interior.
I believe that story has been discredited and should be moved to the myth thread.
I wasn't asking or commenting on what you believe. I was merely pointing out that it is not fact and there is no evidence to support it. Belief is belief, fact is fact.
Thanks Michael, that's what I was getting at. So once again Anna is in the know.
Well, did he leave it with the Uncle? No, he concealed it. That's his way and he's pretty good at it. That really was my point.
To be accurate, let's say not one bill was identified which given the area in question is not surprising. So, I don't think we can draw the conclusion that he didn't have any ransom money with him.
Are you saying that how you perceive his actions trumps the physical evidence of the ledgers and accounts?
I'm not getting the logic of that conclusion.
Actually, it's practically impossible. And the more you know and read, the more difficult it becomes. I absolutely agree about the concept, though. I'll throw out a challenge, try and dismiss everything you have learned about this case, remove the fame factor, and the prejudice. Look only at the physical evidence. What do you see?
As the Beatles wrote, "with a little help from my friends"
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 25, 2012 9:40:44 GMT -5
I draw that conclusion based upon the fact none were traced to any area he visited. We have to remember the various "levels" of detection bills would have to go through. So we can say a store probably have overlooked it. But once it hits a Bank the standards go up so we might say a Bank may have overlooked it. Now it then goes to the Federal Reserve and here the standards are much much higher.
And after that, we certainly cannot hold the Counters at the U.S Treasury to that level since they had People specifically assigned to do nothing but check the bills for Ransom.
Not a single Ransom Gold Note ever made it to the U.S. Treasury having slipped through any of the Federal Reserves - and the only Federal Reserve where they were found was New York.
So if Hauptmann had any ransom money on him then he did not bring ANY Gold Notes, and NONE of it was ever detected at any level.
Granted, the $5 would have been harder to detect as Rab has pointed out in his Research, however, Hauptmann's spend-thrift approach does not seem indicative of someone laundering money on this trip.
So its the totality of the circumstances lead me to the conclusion I have drawn.
What I am saying is that you can not rely on just these two things if there are other indicators to show something else exists.
If you only go by the Ledgers, and at some point there's nothing in them for a stretch of time - then you would have to say there is zero, nothing, zilch. By pointing this out I am showing it cannot be true. There is something for that period of time but just no record of it. And so if Hauptmann is a "meticulous" record keeper, then what happened to create a situation where all of the sudden he is not? We cannot paint ourselves into a corner here.
The Police had an agenda, but we do not and are free from it.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Aug 25, 2012 10:15:01 GMT -5
Michael, Anna always claimed she heard the news of the kidnapping on the morning after, when she arrived for work at Fredericksen’s Bakery. I hate to sound like a broken record here, but I challenge anyone to provide details of what they were doing the day or evening before they heard about a major news event, when questioned about this a few years later, if they had no specific and verifiable coordinates of reference (date / time / place) to affix their presence there. Think about this carefully. What was Anna’s verifiable point of reference other than claiming she remembers them driving home at the regular time? This is highly worthy of myth status and I believe the truth is simply that she wanted to believe it to the point where it then just became her belief. It also tells me how much she had invested in a spurious statement of such proportion.
BR, this report was taken following Hauptmann’s arrest and so Fred Hahn may have began associating that possibility during the time he was preparing to make his statement, but I can’t say for sure. In any case, it’s apparent that Hauptmann made no attempt to try and conceal this money nor did he appear to have been flustered by Hahn seeing the money concealed there. It’s interesting to note from Marie Hahn’s testimony that her husband had thought about reporting Hauptmann to police following the money bags incident but he never did.
Actually, at the trial Wilentz did bring up the account of the money in the victrola as seen by Fred Hahn, and when questioned about the two packages or “envelopes” as Wilentz called them, Hauptmann replied “No, absolutely not.” In case that response rings a bell, it’s the same one he used to later deny his handwriting (Condon’s address and phone number) was on the inside of his son’s bedroom closet. As mentioned before, I’m not sure why the Hahn’s were never called to the witness stand but I have to believe their presence there would not have been favorable to Anna’s apparent image of blissful ignorance.
|
|