|
Post by wolf2 on Sept 8, 2012 13:47:18 GMT -5
my opinion, and i could be wrong, is that he had it there at one time but he removed it sometime before he got arrested, sighting kevkons take on it with the electrical problems
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 9, 2012 7:57:32 GMT -5
As far as why Hahn didn't testify in Flemington I agree with Joe's opinion above. Where someone would say something that threatened the Lone-Wolf Theory of the State's Case they weren't expected to testify. Presumably, because the State didn't trust aspects of what they had to say because the Prosecutors themselves are required to believe the case they are presenting.
It would be unethical to present Hauptmann as the only Culprit (arguing against anything to the contrary or attempting to disprove it) knowing or, at least, believing others were involved themselves.
It's part of our burden the State must shoulder if they are to convict someone. This, along with disclosing exculpatory evidence, etc. is what is supposed to keep the trial fair and ensure the due process of law.
However, it is and has been very clear this just wasn't the case at all. I've posted numerous examples of hidden evidence and unsavory conduct by many - to include Wilentz himself.
The intimidation of Witnesses with threats, or promises was occurring all over the place. Chief Defense Investigator Foster, who worked for Fawcett before he was fired by Mrs. Hauptmann was promised by Wilentz his bills would be paid, and he'd write letters of recommendation for future employment - if he stayed off the case. Others, like Kloppenberg, was promised to be named an Accomplice if he testified to certain facts. Still others, like Kiss, was called up and threatened with perjury if he didn't return to Flemington and testify he made a mistake in his previous testimony there.
Given the ability to do "pretty much what you want" then you will see more and more of this. Take the subject matter for example. Hahn was issued a subpoena and was in Flemington on the 15th & 16th. Wilentz was no fool. What he would do is keep these Witnesses available in the event he would have to use them. So he would "tuck" them away "just in case." So if something came out in the trial which would create a "damage control" type of situation, then he could call these Witnesses to save his case.
And so apparently he himself had many theories.
The other thing he did was subpoena Witnesses then "tuck" them away to hide them from the Defense. This was done with Treasury Handwriting Expert Farrar for example. It was done with Curtis too, but he was a double-edged sword. He was kept from the Defense to keep him from testifying there were others while at the same time kept for the State in case creditable evidence was produced to prove others were - then they could bring him in to prove Hauptmann was one of them.
It was criminal as far as I am concerned.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 9, 2012 8:25:35 GMT -5
On the other hand, imagine if Hauptmann told the truth, or perhaps just expounded further on his lie.
I was wondering the other day what might have happened had Hauptmann been prosecuted first for the possession of gold notes and a illegal handgun. Would he have plead guilty? He probably would have received a stiff sentence for both offenses. I wonder how that would then have affected the NJ charges and trial to follow?
One thing is sure, anyway you slice it Hauptmann was done. I doubt very much he would live very long either in prison or on the street. The best case scenario would be deportation and I very much doubt his future in Germany would be too bright.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Sept 9, 2012 9:20:01 GMT -5
I'm behind on messages as my main computer is in for servicing and I dislike using this iPad to copy and paste quotes, so ill post a few random thoughts for now.
BR, from what I recall, the reference to Hahn's testimony by Wilentz during his cross-examination of Hauptmann was on Day 20 of the trial and it's near the beginning of the day, although he also refers to it briefly on one of the other two previous days. As far as Hauptmann's purchasing history is concerned, we know they weren't starving in 1931, as is evidenced by the 1930 Dodge purchase and cross country trip, but these were also very practical purchases - a reliable new car for a trip that might well have changed the course of their working lives along the way. By they time they had returned to the Bronx in October, Hauptmann's stock position had been hammered silly and his cash reserves would have been under a lot of strain. So what does he do? He starts spending money on all of those luxury purchases after April 2 at the same time that he gives up professional carpentry. His signature is all over the circumstantial physical evidence within this case and there seems little doubt where his sudden enrichment came from.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2012 9:42:44 GMT -5
I do agree Michael that the way the prosecution conducted itself for this trial was crooked. They used every trick in the book and then some to get their conviction. Alot of what they did probably wasn't even necessary to get Hauptmann convicted. Reilly wasn't doing his job as a defense attorney. His objective was not to keep his client from being convicted. Things he did and things he failed to do for his client helped put Hauptmann in the electric chair.
As Kevkon says above Hauptmann was done no matter how you look at it. Linbergh's testimony about hearing Hauptmann's voice at St. Raymond's and Jafsie identifying Hauptmann would have been enough to get him convicted. There is nothing the defense could have done to counter that testimony. He was a dead man walking no matter what the outcome of the trial.
I can only imagine how differently this case would have turned out if he were tried in the courts today!
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 9, 2012 10:15:48 GMT -5
Don't be so sure that today is any different, it still depends a lot on the profile of the case and the money one has for a defense. Also, don't discount the advances in forensic examination which would have negated much of his claim of innocence.
In any case, I do believe Hahn's description of Hauptmann's view on getting caught and convicted. It was all or nothing. I truly believe that from Hauptmann's point of view there was no direct evidence linking him to the crime. In fact, I am convinced he went to the chair believing that the attic floorboard was a police frame up.
In the end, Hauptmann doomed himself by the very nature of his target and his adherence to the impossible Fisch story. Today we know for a fact that he is tied to this crime and his claim of merely having ransom notes is false.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2012 11:38:20 GMT -5
How do you see today's forensics showing that Hauptmann killed Charlie? I think this would still be a real challenge. If the small hole noted behind Charlie's ear could be matched to the small caliber gun in Hauptmann's possession that would work. Otherwise what else is there?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 9, 2012 13:17:37 GMT -5
Highfields; hair/fiber analysis, DNA, advanced latent print detection
Ladder/wood; advanced latent print detection, DNA, electron microscope imaging
Notes/writing; advanced latent print detection (cyro fuming), DNA, chromatography, electron microscope
Ransom Money; advanced latent print detection (cyro fuming), DNA
Suspect's Car; hair/fiber analysis, DNA
Child's Body; advanced forensic postmortem examination, hair/fiber analysis, DNA
Suspect; behavioral profiling, financial forensics
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2012 15:59:02 GMT -5
This is a great list, Kevkon! Do you think that with all the advances in postmortem examination they would have been better able to conclude the cause of death beyond the external violence finding in 1932? Would forsenics today be better able to determine if the death was accidental or intentional? DNA is really a big advantage. Given Charlie's advanced state of decomposition would there have been enough viable DNA to incriminate Hauptmann's handling of the child? Finding Hauptmann's hair with Charlie's remains would have been excellent. Fibers from Hauptmann's clothing would be helpful but only if you can match it to clothing he owns, I would think. Sorry about all the questions. I hope you don't mind me picking your brain a bit on this!
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Sept 9, 2012 19:38:59 GMT -5
And DNA from the envelope flaps in the here and now.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Sept 9, 2012 21:01:22 GMT -5
mike how little you forget the state wasnt the one in trouble and worried that there lone wolf theory was threatened. the defense had nothing to counter anyway
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 10, 2012 7:22:52 GMT -5
Thanks Amy! I probably left out a dozen or so other tests such as luminol and electrostatic plate .
Amy, without giving away too much about the upcoming Nova production, I will say that Nova had one of the foremost pathologists specializing in children examine the autopsy and photos of Charlie. I believe he said it was one of the worst postmortems he ever saw even for that period. And yes, he did have some new observations even with such a limited amount to work from.
Mairi, yes the notes and DNA. This is something Nova tried to get done but was not allowed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2012 9:34:29 GMT -5
I am so looking forward to the Nova special and any new information that will be shared through this production. It is very disappointing that the envelope flaps Mairi mentions cannot be checked for DNA.
My apologies to Joe for going off-topic on his thread! To bring the conversation back around to the Hahn's statements, I was looking through George Waller's book Kidnap. I have the August 1961 copy and on page 226 it talks about Sisk noticing an electric wire stretched from the Hauptmann's bedroom window well to the roof of the garage. When Hauptmann was asked about it he explained that it was part of a burglar-alarm system he had rigged up a couple of years ago. He then went on to demonstate it by pressing a button beside his bed which then flooded the garage with light. It was meant to scare off any theives in the night who might be after his car. This sounds exactly like what the Hahns said in their statements.
Michael, does this demonstation appear in any of the police statements filed for this initial search of the Hauptmann home? Waller does not have footnotes for his book. The acknowledgement page in the back shows a list of newspapers he apparently used when writing his book. So how reliable would this information be if newspapers are his only source?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 10, 2012 10:38:42 GMT -5
But how does it square if nothing was turned up? It seems you assume it will. But what if Hauptmann's car wasn't used? Or these tests turn up nothing? You cannot test what you don't have.
I remember what you are looking at. I've always written it off because its not in the source Police documentation. Let me go to the actual Reports concerning this supposed alarm to see what I find and get back to you. I did quite a bit of research on this in the past and remember being convinced no such alarm existed. The most I remember them finding was a plug but I'll see what I can cite from the Reports.....
BTW: Joe, you aren't the only one with computer problems. All of the sudden each and every page I visit is accompanied with a SECURITY ALERT concerning the page Certificate. I am being told its expired every time. I have downloaded the Certificate but it doesn't prevent this from happening. I've turned my Security features to LOW and turned off the prompt for the Certs and it still constantly and continuously happens.
Anyone with advice on solving this issue (its driving my crazy)?!!?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 10, 2012 12:36:17 GMT -5
But how does it square if nothing was turned up? It seems you assume it will. But what if Hauptmann's car wasn't used? Or these tests turn up nothing? You cannot test what you don't have.( Michael).
I believe the question was theoretical, meaning had the crime occurred today. Obviously, most of the LKC evidence is either gone ( the car), contaminated, or degraded. However, there still are a number of tests which could be performed that might yield some new clues. I would love to see a thorough forensic accounting done on Hauptmann's finances. I would also like to see an exam of the notes with ESDA and a high resolution microscope.
How about some opinions on what might have happened had Hauptmann faced trial first in NY?
RE; web site security issues; It could be as simple as the computer's clock being wrong- Synchronize to internet time. Or you might need a software update. Last but not least, you have malware on your computer. Actually, now that I think about it I believe it might be malware because I had a brief incident with a security warning a few days ago. Norton scan picked it up and eliminated it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 11, 2012 17:42:12 GMT -5
Amy:
About 6 or so years ago I did an intense amount of research on this "alarm" allegation. In the past couple of days or so I've been trying to replicate that but its just not possible. But I will share a little bit I hadn't remembered which I found.
First let me say again that there is absolutely no doubt in my mind whatsoever that no "alarm" existed. Perhaps it was an idea that was demonstrated, that's a possibility, but the evidence is that no such thing existed permanently. What I believe is that Hauptmann had the capability to have a light, if he needed one, in the garage after dark. His Neighbor had access to his garage after the crime into 1933. The lock was flimsy and easily picked. He had his keys to his Apartment while they took their Florida trip too.
And so if Hauptmann felt the need to have this "alarm" then its pretty obvious that other more convenient measures would have preceded it to ensure the security of that garage.
Next, Hauptmann did not have a leg, ankle or any other injury in the spring of 1932. He had a varicose veins which became painful enough to cause a limp that sent him to a Doctor for treatment. Most people recall this in the Spring of 1933. I have the Reports concerning them and the Police interviews with Dr. Meyer.
All of Hauptmann's Neighbors, who were interviewed about the "alarm" were perplexed having never seen anything and one person in particular saying they definitely would have if one existed. Max Rauch originally said he noticed nothing and would have.
Rauch was asked again about this in mid-November. This time he did recall an "aerial" line running from the garage to the house. He then produces a porcelain double beaver socket and a length of 9 ft. of wire which he claimed originated from Hauptmann's bedroom where it was plugged in, then ran into the baby's bedroom and closet along the east wall of the room and at the south-east end taking a course to the West which led to a floor plug, hooked up in the living room. However, (still according to Rauch) there were no wires leading from the house to the garage or no lights hooked up on the house that would illuminate the garage.
The Police would also interview Pauline Rauch who happened to remember a light - often - but just couldn't figure out where it was coming from. She also remembers that whenever Hauptmann was gone she noticed Anna "watching" the garage.
Additionally, both Max and Pauline remember Hauptmann limping around in the Spring of 1932. According to them, he was injured so badly he had to use a cane to get around. Don't know how a man who can't walk can play soccer but that's what we're expected to accept (I guess).....
I won't tell anyone what to believe but I've already made it clear what my position is.
You mean on Extortion?
Yes but what if there was nothing to connect him other then what we already know?
I guess my point is that it doesn't necessarily disprove anything in its absence. And so that would apply to anyone else - of whom I do believe there would be evidence.
Thanks for the suggestions. I had 2 problems:
1. Caused by McAfee update. They had the solution ready with a Virtual Mechanic feature.
2. Caused by Adobe Reader update which placed an add-on onto by IE Browser. Removing it didn't fix the problem so I had to use their Microsoft Fix It program to reset the browser.
Everything is fine now. What a pain in the ass!
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Sept 11, 2012 18:30:33 GMT -5
i think he had a alarm but didnt have it long. a few people said they seen it. i dont think it maters anyway
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 11, 2012 20:30:11 GMT -5
Keep it simple, violation of Executive Order 6102, illegal possession of a handgun, and immigration.
Then we would know for sure
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 11, 2012 20:46:35 GMT -5
Let's look at this logically....
That garage never had anything but a flimsy lock. Back in 1932 and up to when he got arrested. Make any sense if the guy felt it necessary to create an alarm? No.
Rauch hated Hauptmann. He refused to fix the problems and refused to give them their hot water. But we're expected to believe he sees this alarm but doesn't care about it. Make any sense? No.
There's supposedly upwards of 50K in the garage but Hauptmann tells Shussler to let himself into it any time he likes if he's not around to borrow whatever he wants. Make any sense? No.
When the Police arrested him we know where the money was - in the garage. We know there wasn't an alarm on the garage then. Make any sense? No.
Could Hauptmann have had a temporary contraption designed to give him a light if he needed one after dark in the garage which he only ran on just such an occasion? Yes.
That would explain everything.
Could he have been showing the Hahn's this and they ran with it to imply the ransom money was hidden in there? Yes.
But doesn't this contradict the statement that he had the money in the house? Yes it does.
Conclusion: The alarm was an embellishment of the true situation designed to make Hauptmann look worse then he already did.
That might be too simple. He admitted to both. I don't think there would have been a trial.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Sept 11, 2012 22:27:07 GMT -5
I just wanted to say to Kevin and Michael—nice work on discussing the alarm system. Kevin did a great job of explaining the technical difficulties, and Michael did a great job of explaining the logical difficulties. I wish every controversy in this case could be explained as decisively and cleanly as this one.
It sounds as if Hauptmann, being rather handy, maybe had a need at some point to run an electrical wire outside, perhaps even to do some work in the garage. This was apparently seen, and probably got morphed into an alarm system in a chain of changing rumors after his arrest.
Michael, you mention that Rauch hated Hauptmann. Do you know why? I mean, BRH did build that garage, which should have added value to Rauch’s property, and I gather that the Hauptmanns paid their rent on time. At first glance, they don’t sound like “lousy tenants.” Was it a personality thing, or did Rauch have a beef with Hauptmann over some specific issues?
After the arrest, I can understand Rauch wanting to distance himself from Hauptmann, since technically the loot was found on Rauch’s property. But if he was refusing to fix things, it sounds like there was already some bad blood between them.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 12, 2012 5:27:15 GMT -5
From memory, I believe they started to dislike him after noticing his mail coming in from the Broker and that Hauptmann didn't seem friendly. It got worse after the baby was born because, as I remember, the noise a newborn would create.
Max would also say Hauptmann was disrespectful towards his Mother Pauline.
Then there was the complaint about not enough hot water and the steam being cut off. Apparently this was never remedied so Anna didn't pay the rent. When asked why she said Richard had told her not to pay until they got their hot water. So Rauch brought them to Court to be evicted, and they paid the rent once there.
There were a couple of other leaks.... The famous one which was supposed to lead to the Fisch Box in the closet. On this occasion the Plumber Miller was called. The other problem, by Rauch's own admission, was blown off. He claims he called somone who didn't show up so he just let it go.
By the time Hauptmann was arrested it's safe to say they very much disliked each other and I don't believe the word "hated" is too strong.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Sept 12, 2012 7:10:31 GMT -5
I’d forgotten that Rauch wasn’t just the Hauptmanns’ landlord—he was their neighbor, which adds another dimension to the relationship. Having a newborn upstairs crying during the night would have definitely been an annoyance to Rauch, and I can easily see him being slow to fix things in hopes of motivating the Hauptmanns to move out. The noise of Hauptmann building the baby’s furniture might have added to the aggravation. The whole business of withholding repairs, withholding rent, sounds all too typical of landlord-tenant strife. And when people go to court, you know it’s gotten bad.
Personally, if I was sitting on that kind of money, I would have paid for the repairs myself—that, or, as you have suggested, why not just move someplace else more upscale?
It obviously didn’t help Hauptmann’s case to have made enemies with Rauch, because the bad blood already existing between them may have amplified Rauch’s negative reports when interviewed by law enforcement investigators.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 12, 2012 7:20:16 GMT -5
Thanks BR! I really think this "alarm" story should go to the myth thread. It really doesn't even make any practical sense ( what good is an alarm that you have to plug in after you are alerted??).
Here's another odd story. There could be a leak in the closet ceiling, but it would not be a plumbing leak. There are no pipes carrying fluid above the ceiling. The only pipe is a vertical vent pipe which goes through the roof. If that was the source of the leak it would be a roofing problem, not a plumbing one. You don't call a plumber to fix a roof leak.
That could get him 20 yrs ( 10 + 10) or deportation. So you think he would have plead guilty? Do you think he was aware of what would likely happen to him in prison? I'm certain there would be more than a few guards that would allow him to be exposed to the population.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Sept 12, 2012 9:13:06 GMT -5
The testimony of the plumber Gustave Miller starts on page 40 of Part 19 of Reel 2. Miller said he lived only a block away from Rauch, and that he’d been in Rauch’s basement many times. I gather that Rauch liked to use him. Miller confirms that the Hauptmanns’ closet was very wet and that there was water coming down the outside of pipes. He explored the attic and describes the leak in terms of a roof flange, failed waterproofing, lead and slate. He says he bought some plastic slate and returned the same day, although he doesn’t say he repaired the leak. So he was a plumber, but I gather that he also had some knowledge about roofing. Maybe Rauch just wanted to call someone who he trusted and who was handy, even if he wasn’t the perfect fit for the job.
Actually, I’m a little surprised that Hauptmann wasn’t more aggressive himself about dealing with this leak, since he was pretty handy himself.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 12, 2012 10:03:47 GMT -5
That's what I thought the problem was, BR. Thanks! Do you have a date regarding the plumber?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Sept 12, 2012 10:26:10 GMT -5
In court, Miller said he was there in "early August" 1934.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Sept 12, 2012 12:51:23 GMT -5
First off, this computer is back and running like a charm. I had a bad secondary power supply, my CPU board had been taken over by a family of dust bunnies and Norton 360 was going full bore in the background all the time, sucking up valuable memory. A new power supply, thorough cleaning and disabling some of the Norton features and I’m back in business!
Michael, did Dr. Meyer not also indicate that Hauptmann’s chronic phlebitis exhibited symptoms that it could have been exacerbated by a fall or impact over the previous year? And can we really say for certain that Hauptmann had NO leg injury in 1932, not even a sprain? Although I can’t put my finger on the source right now, I’ve previously read about the salesman from Williamsbridge Motors, where Hauptmann purchased his 1930 Dodge, claiming he saw him at the dealership with his left leg bandaged in the spring of 1932, and also Anita Lutzenburg stating she saw him limping at Hunter’s Island in the summer of 1932. Has either of these claims been substantiated or discounted?
I know you’re not a big fan of Condon, but clearly he had the best opportunity to describe CJ after meeting with him for over an hour. I don’t think Riehl even saw CJ but instead may have observed CJ’s accomplice on the near side of one of the main gate pillars, where he would have been less visible or out of line-of-sight to Condon. Riehls' description of who he saw doesn't even come close to Condon's description of CJ. Condon also noted how he quickly clambered up over the top of the six foot fence “turner style” and landed lightly beside him on the other side, so if he did even sprain his ankle 11 days before, that would have been a very speedy recovery.
I won’t belabour this point but this is what I believe happened. First of all, it wasn't an "alarm," that's just what the newspapers called it. Hauptmann wanted to provide some level of security for his garage in the summer of 1932, and simply ran a length of lamp cord from his bedroom to the garage, where he installed a light base under the front overhang of his garage. Nothing more complicated than a wall plug for power and an on/off switch, which he could operate from his bedroom if he felt he had to scare someone off.
Certainly there would be potential issues to follow.. electrical code violations, tensile stretch over that distance, hindrance to trucks or construction vehicle right-of-way, drawing attention from others, etc. For these reasons, I believe he took it down shortly afterwards and that Marie Hahn happened to be there at a time when he still felt it was worthy of showing off.. there’s a lot of detail within her description for me to simply write it off as purely apocyphal. As for Waller’s account of Sisk observing the wire after Hauptmann’s arrest, THAT sounds like a bad source of information, based on accounts from an earlier time and one that he should have avoided.
BTW – If Hauptmann had such a fimsy lock on his garage door and allowed Schuessler to “pick” it whenever he wanted to, what does that indicate? We know Hauptmann had close to 15K hidden in there and was that flimsy lock still guarding his “vault” when he was arrested? Or did that change with the “discovery” of the shoebox” in mid-August 1934?
Amy, there may well have been as much truth to both accounts as there was to many of the things Hauptmann swore to on the witness stand, when much of the time he seemed to revel in dancing around Wilentz’s questions or suddenly come down with a case of memory disconnect. While it seems possible both Lindbergh and Condon might have expressed private doubts later on over the veracity of their identifications, it’s very difficult for me not to see Hauptmann getting exactly what he deserved in this case based upon the overriding totality of the circumstantial evidence against him and his abject denial of one scintilla of personal involvement.
Michael, I know this is a bit off topic, but for what specific reasons do you totally discount Ella Achenbach’s testimony in which she claimed to have seen Hauptmann limping a few days after the kidnapping had occurred? You also indicate gross prosecutorial misconduct here and wondered what your impressions are of how this possible scenario might have unfolded before the trial.
Good point BR, and you have to wonder if it might not have been a good move as far as distancing himself from his presumed base of operations. Or conversely, would he have wanted to maintain some degree of control over them in the event anyone else who moved in start putting two and two together?
What we do know is that the Hauptmann’s seemed to be contemplating a return to Germany in the not too distant future, so one might question the logic of an interim move. And as far as Hauptmann paying for repairs which his landlord should have covered, remember the difficulties faced by Hauptmann’s broker in getting him to cover a margin shortfall as well as Mrs. Begg in recovering the medical expenses incurred by her husband after being hit by Hauptmann while driving.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 12, 2012 17:08:28 GMT -5
I'd say "yes" because we know exactly when he was "injured." The Police asked Lutzenberg about a limp. She remembered one the first time they met (July 1932). She asked him about it and he said he sprained his ankle on the rocks. She was then asked about the pictures and again, these were taken on that very same day. She explained that during this summer she saw Hauptmann at Hunter Island 5 or 6 times and refers to the limp as a singular event calling it " that time he limp." Take a look at the picture then you tell me how bad this limp might have been under the circumstances: Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 12, 2012 17:42:53 GMT -5
I think this picture does indeed offer us a thousand words. Also, I have never seen anything from the Car Salesman about a bandaged leg. There's nothing to indicate Hauptmann bandaged up his Varicose Veins. I do know that an elastic sleeve can help with the pain concerning this condition but without the source I wouldn't be able to comment. I know that I have never it in a Report. The only thing I believe I ever saw I think was in Fisher's book. There are several sources for Achenbach's claim. In her 9/34 Statement she is saying they returned from a trip from Miami, or down south, in which Anna claimed they had gone alone. Achenbach says they went away for 4 weeks starting in the 1st or 2nd week of February. Anna was showing her pictures of the fish they caught while down there. Breslin pressed her on who went with them but she said they went alone. She claimed this was in 1932. In Nov of '34 they interviewed Mr. Achenbach who echoed his Wife's claim that the Hauptmann's were away on a trip " during the first part of March of 1932" and when they came back Anna went to their home seeking German Liniment for Hauptmann's leg. From Det. Joseph Meade's Report: It was not deemed advisable to question Ashchenbach further on this matter until wife's statement could be checked. By late Nov of '34 Ella tells the Detectives she needs to visit her Daughter to refresh her memory about the trip she described above. During the next interview Ella admits she was wrong but still insists the Hauptmann's had been away around the time of the kidnapping because there were no clothes on their clothesline which was Anna's custom. From this Report: Mrs. Achenbach distinctly recalls having asked Mrs. Hauptmann if they were going away with the same party that they went to California with, Mrs. Hauptmann told her that they were going alone and did not want anyone with them. So you see, she is NOT referencing the California Trip. So which trip is left? Everything she is saying points to their Florida Trip and she is getting the years mixed up. This makes sense when you consider Hauptmann's legitimate leg condition and exactly when it becomes so bad he had to visit the Doctor. Fawcett had a Statement from her which would have eliminated her Testimony in Flemington. Unfortunately it was among those documents he did not turn over after he was fired.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Sept 12, 2012 19:29:59 GMT -5
4 months later? i think i could have healed up and carried her. mike, how long does a sprained ankle last? of course hauptmann lied and said he sprained it on the rocks. he was a chronic liar
|
|