|
Post by Michael on Sept 27, 2012 22:00:48 GMT -5
If he doesn't mention it then its something Breck finds out about at least by late April of '32. He gives this Statement then: "John" was startled by a graveyard watchman and clambered over the fence starting to run across the street. This is from his Grand Jury Testimony on May 17, 1932: Q[Breslin]: That is the gate at where?
A[Breckenridge]: 233rd Street entrance of Woodlawn and was contacted by a fellow John, the fellow that we call John the kidnapper didn't show up and he sort of strolled back and forth and came back to Al in the car and then walked up toward the gate and saw John waving a handkerchief through the gate, he then engaged John in conversation and the cemetery guard evidently having observed this intruder in the cemetery had followed him up and the kidnapper sees him and in flight climbs over the fence with alacrity, the doctor thinks he nearly jumped over the fence, it was a very high fence he came out and proceeded across the road to the cemetery gate towards those woods of Van Courtlandt Park, the doctor all the time trying to stop this fellow and get him to stop and asked what was he afraid of, whether he was afraid of an old gentleman guarding the cemetery, he finally got John to stop and then he persuaded him to sit down on a bench which I don't know what it is, it is in front of a house that may be a tool house or whatever it is closed up and there he held him in conversation for a period that was certainly an hour.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Sept 27, 2012 22:59:13 GMT -5
I have always thought that CJ’s evident mobility tended to support his being one of the kidnappers. I believe the word “acrobat” was at some point used to describe his scaling the cemetery fence, and that the word “acrobat” was also used to describe anyone who accessed the nursery using the kidnap ladder.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 31, 2012 17:38:11 GMT -5
Here is another document that I (believe) I said I'd post if I found it:
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Jan 1, 2013 10:21:40 GMT -5
Thanks Michael, for posting the report. Although there is no conclusive evidence of trauma or otherwise from the time of the kidnapping, Hauptmann did seem to have some general issues with his leg, that may well have made it a "background" condition. There is the limp that Anita Lutzenburg recalled when she first met him in the summer of 1932. And the salesman from Williamsbridge Motors who stated that Hauptmann had come in for a service call with a bandaged leg sometime in 1932, although I don't know the exact month. Has an actual date or time frame ever been accurately established for that service call?
From everything I've been able to gather over the years, I tend to believe that Hauptmann's leg/limping problems can be attributed in general to a chronic phebitis situation, that may well have originated with his leg injury from the war. There is a specific reference to this which came from his friend Frank Tolksdorf, although I can't pin down the source right now. Tolksdorf's statement was to the effect that Hauptmann's leg was torn up pretty badly during one of the battles. Physical trauma to the veins in the leg is a primary cause of deep vein phlebitis or thrombophlebitis.
We do know for certain that Hauptmann's chronic phlebitis seems to have been aggravating him enough to the point (or was it that he was better off financially?) that he sought treatment by Dr. Otto Meyer between Jan. and Apr. of 1933. At this time, he had given up full time carpentry, so this level of relative inactivity and perhaps the time of year, might also explain the condition flaring up about nine months later.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 1, 2013 13:06:03 GMT -5
From the Lutzenburg recollection, while she had several interactions with Hauptmann, she appears to be pointing to a singular event. I think the Detective Patterson Report above is really telling for several reasons: 1. The Authorities are fully aware that there was no limp after the crime.
2. The date of this Report indicates that anything preceding this has been investigated.
3. That Wilentz used Achenbach's testimony on January 18, 1935 despite knowing the limp that he was getting her to mislead the Jury about didn't exist when she testified that it did. It would have been nice to see the "Crime of the Century" free from the miasma of "winning at all costs" but it clearly was not. When one has concerns about someone's guilt or innocence - seeing deliberate misconduct on the part of the State isn't comforting. People who want Hauptmann to be guilty, by himself, always seem to be afflicted with selective amnesia when it comes to this sort of thing. Denying something obvious never helps - it makes matters worse.
|
|