|
Post by Michael on Apr 23, 2015 20:47:06 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2015 20:47:49 GMT -5
I enjoyed listening to this interview. There are a number of things I would like to talk about that she said but I should really pursue that on her blog and not here. Ronelle believes in the total 100% innocence of Hauptmann. I am amazed by that. I have never been able to get to that point so far. I don't believe he killed Charlie and should have received a life sentence not death.
Michael, besides that one closet that had the handwriting written in it (Condon's address, phone number plus serial numbers), did LE ever find any other handwriting on other walls or doors in that apartment? Hauptmann claimed that this was something he did sometimes. Was there any other examples to back up that claim?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 26, 2015 8:32:19 GMT -5
Michael, besides that one closet that had the handwriting written in it (Condon's address, phone number plus serial numbers), did LE ever find any other handwriting on other walls or doors in that apartment? Hauptmann claimed that this was something he did sometimes. Was there any other examples to back up that claim? There are no specific examples outside of these from the Police side of it. I recall Anna backing this up although I am having a hard time remembering that source. For me, if she agrees that he did this then I believe it. If she were to lie about things of this nature then she'd have testified about seeing the box on the top shelf. No one can tell me she'd tell the truth about that but lie everywhere else. So when she's on the record I am confident she's telling what she believes to be the truth, or refusing to believe certain things. While I consider her honest, she must also be viewed as sometimes being an ignorant source of information too. Know what I mean? But in this case he either had this habit or he didn't so it's a black or white answer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2015 19:44:54 GMT -5
There are no specific examples outside of these from the Police side of it. I recall Anna backing this up although I am having a hard time remembering that source. For me, if she agrees that he did this then I believe it. If she were to lie about things of this nature then she'd have testified about seeing the box on the top shelf. No one can tell me she'd tell the truth about that but lie everywhere else. So when she's on the record I am confident she's telling what she believes to be the truth, or refusing to believe certain things. While I consider her honest, she must also be viewed as sometimes being an ignorant source of information too. Know what I mean? But in this case he either had this habit or he didn't so it's a black or white answer. I think I understand what you are getting at with Anna. I don't think she purposely lied about anything. I just don't think she knew details about everything that her husband was doing. She had no knowledge of the money he hid in the garage but did believe Hauptmann's explanation for how it came to be in his possession. It came from Fisch and she would believe that with all her heart even though she never saw the shoebox come into the house and never saw it on the shelf in the closet. If Anna backs up her husband writing things on walls, etc., perhaps she had cleaned it off of a surface once. I haven't read Anna's testimony recently so I do not recall if they questioned her about the writing in that closet. Will have to check on that. Thanks Michael for your thoughts on this.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Apr 27, 2015 0:08:30 GMT -5
Very interesting to hear Ronelle's take but that interviewer... Diane Sawyer she is not. Sidenote: I'm very confused who she thinks was involved in the extortion and writing all the ransom notes. Someone had to be doing it.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Apr 27, 2015 8:02:48 GMT -5
I like Ronelle's website a lot. Many great photos and tidbits on there. I remember, on one page, you can click on Lindbergh's name as a link and it directs you to a picture of a kind of pin that was worn when he made it across the Atlantic. On this election button-type thing are simply the words "He Did It!" Kind of made me jump the first time I saw it. So my guess is that Ronelle thinks Lindbergh had something to do with the kidnapping--elsewhere on the website she seems to think it wasn't a kidnapping at all--but as to who wrote the notes, that I don't know. I don't think it would've been Lindbergh and I doubt it was Hauptmann either--at least not as the author of all of them. I thought at one time it may've been Condon, what with that homemade purple ink of his and the circles in the ransom note symbol... but now I don't think so. Would've been too dangerous to extend his involvement to forging something, writing a ransom note. Hauptmann may have written some, but not all. There's a picture of an unrelated note somewhere on here, regarding a debit to Hauptmann's account, in his handwriting, which looks very similar to the first nursery ransom note. But other notes look nothing like this or the first ransom note, and may've been written by other participants. And some of the canonical notes may actually be hoaxes, written by people with nothing to do with the crime, which is why their handwriting doesn't match with any other notes. I don't know. The ransom notes are very confusing.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 27, 2015 18:40:38 GMT -5
If Anna backs up her husband writing things on walls, etc., perhaps she had cleaned it off of a surface once. I haven't read Anna's testimony recently so I do not recall if they questioned her about the writing in that closet. Will have to check on that. I am sorry that I can't seem to find the source for this but I clearly remember her saying that Hauptmann used to write things on a door panel in the Needham Ave apartment. If I ever stumble on it I will certainly post it. Going back to the serial numbers that were found on the back of the door ... Any thoughts on them from anyone? Sidenote: I'm very confused who she thinks was involved in the extortion and writing all the ransom notes. Someone had to be doing it. I know that she's always been of the opinion that he was innocent, and I think she's been firm about believing the Fisch Story. I guess we're going to have to wait for her book to find out the nuts and bolts of her position. Every time I hear about a new book I cringe thinking that something "new" that I have won't be after another book comes out. Richard's introduced Conlon but (thankfully) it was just enough to make what I have even more powerful. What are the odds? So I cross my fingers because Ronelle has been researching longer then I have. But if lightening strikes twice in the same spot, I could get lucky again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2015 19:45:14 GMT -5
If Anna backs up her husband writing things on walls, etc., perhaps she had cleaned it off of a surface once. I haven't read Anna's testimony recently so I do not recall if they questioned her about the writing in that closet. Will have to check on that. I am sorry that I can't seem to find the source for this but I clearly remember her saying that Hauptmann used to write things on a door panel in the Needham Ave apartment. If I ever stumble on it I will certainly post it. Going back to the serial numbers that were found on the back of the door ... Any thoughts on them from anyone? No problem, Michael. At the time Hauptmann would have written Condon's address on the casing and the serial numbers on the door, Anna probably didn't bother with this closet because there was no Mannfred yet. However, when that became Mannfred's closet, I wonder how she missed seeing, at least, the serial numbers on the door when it was open. I guess we will never know. Since the serial numbers were on the inside of the door along with Condon's information on the inside casing, could those serial numbers be linked somehow with the ransom money?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Apr 28, 2015 7:05:33 GMT -5
I just found the interview which is the subject of this thread late last night. I played it and have to confess that, because of the late hour, I slept through a small part of it. Nonetheless, I clearly recall Ronelle leaving open the possibility that Hauptmann committed extortion or larceny or some other monetary crime. She said something about Hauptmann having a common immigrant mentality of scheming to get rich quick to capitalize on financial opportunities that he perceived were available in the new "golden land" but denied him in the old country. She denied that BRH was a violent sort, and said there was no credible evidence pacing him near the Lindbergh estate on the night of the alleged kidnapping. (BTW, I strongly agree on the last point.)
I don't understand the idea that if he didn't kill Charlie (and didn't aid and abet the killing), he should have received a life sentence. If he was acquitted of the murder charge in NJ, he should have been extradited to New York to face an extortion charge. Taking it one step further, an extortion conviction should not have result in a life imprisonment sentence, but something more like 10 or 15 years. The penalty should be commensurate with the crime. Extortion is a serious felony, but nowhere on the same plane as murder.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2015 8:49:15 GMT -5
I just found the interview which is the subject of this thread late last night. I played it and have to confess that, because of the late hour, I slept through a small part of it. Nonetheless, I clearly recall Ronelle leaving open the possibility that Hauptmann committed extortion or larceny or some other monetary crime. She said something about Hauptmann having a common immigrant mentality of scheming to get rich quick to capitalize on financial opportunities that he perceived were available in the new "golden land" but denied him in the old country. She denied that BRH was a violent sort, and said there was no credible evidence pacing him near the Lindbergh estate on the night of the alleged kidnapping. (BTW, I strongly agree on the last point.)
I don't understand the idea that if he didn't kill Charlie (and didn't aid and abet the killing), he should have received a life sentence. If he was acquitted of the murder charge in NJ, he should have been extradited to New York to face an extortion charge. Taking it one step further, an extortion conviction should not have result in a life imprisonment sentence, but something more like 10 or 15 years. The penalty should be commensurate with the crime. Extortion is a serious felony, but nowhere on the same plane as murder. Having listened to that interview myself, my understanding of Ronelle's position is that Hauptmann was completely innocent. She could understand why others can see a possibility of extortion involvement. She believes in the Fisch story as told by Hauptmann. Fisch gave Hauptmann money to hold for him but Hauptmann had no idea it was Lindbergh ransom money. This would mean that Hauptmann was not part of an extortion plot either. I thought she was clear about this and if you spend time on her website, it is abundantly clear this is her position. I will be very interested in reading her book and how she explains the kidnapping and especially the extortion without Hauptmann involved in any way. I don't believe that Hauptmann killed Charlie. I don't think that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Hauptmann was the murderer of the child. They couldn't even prove how and where Charlie met his death. This is my position. I wasn't on that jury. I would much rather they gave him a life sentence than an execution. They had that option even though Wilentz tried to influence that choice in his closing argument. The jurors all thought he was guilty. They took 5 votes I believe. They weren't divided over guilt, they were divided over a death sentence or mercy to be shown. Hauptmann was never going to be aquitted. The jury reviewed the evidence and testimony and from that drew the inference that Hauptmann must have killed the child because he was seen in Hopewell with a ladder; he built this ladder with wood from his attic according to the testimony; he wrote the ransom notes according to the testimony, leaving one in the nursery room; he had possession of the ransom money both on him at the time of his apprehension and hidden in his garage; had monetary enrichment he could not adequately explain; and Wilentz brought out during cross examination that Hauptmann had lied about things to authorities when he was orginially apprehended and questioned. And lets not forget the physical identification of Hautmann made by Perrone and Condon saying John is Bruno Richard Hauptmann coupled with Lindbergh saying it was Hauptmann's voice he heard the night of April 2, 1932. It is easy to see why the jurors would draw the inference they did from the evidence and testimony as presented -- he killed the child. That makes him guilty as charged with no recommendation for mercy by the jury.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 28, 2015 19:06:15 GMT -5
Since the serial numbers were on the inside of the door along with Condon's information on the inside casing, could those serial numbers be linked somehow with the ransom money? I'd like to discuss this more, and I am hoping to get as many opinions/ideas about it as possible. I believe this is a vitally important clue and one I haven't been able to figure out.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Apr 29, 2015 14:45:12 GMT -5
We know that the serial numbers of the bills written in the Hauptmann closet were NOT those of ransom bills, at least according to Lloyd Gardner's book. In his interview with the Bronx DA following his arrest, Hauptmann claimed that they were the serial numbers of bills ($1,000 and $500) that were paid to him by Fisch.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2015 21:02:36 GMT -5
I read the same thing in Gardner's book on page 183. However, In a report I have which is written by Department of Justice Agent Sisk dated Sept. 25, 1934, he reports the following about those two partial serial numbers: "The above serial numbers do not appear in the U.S. Treasury, New Jersey State Police, or Division lists of serial numbers. However, it appears that Hauptmann may have purposely left blank the first four digits in each serial number, inasmuch as there appears among the serial numbers of the $5.00 bills the following number: B-49349272-A, and among the serial numbers of the $10.00 bills there appears the number: A-77967162-A. It should be noted that the last four digits of these two numbers are the same as the numbers appearing on the door."Needless is say, I am now confused. Are the serial numbers written on the door panel by Hauptmann connected to the serial numbers Sisk mentions in his report? In this report when they first ask Hauptmann about these two serial numbers Hauptmann claims, "Those numbers represent the highest and the lowest from the serial numbers". He then continues with, "That was the $40,000 I got from Fisch. I had $2,000 in that closet. I think they were $1,000 bills". So where do we go with this? ??
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Apr 30, 2015 7:55:02 GMT -5
Where do we go with this? Probably nowhere. There was a very good chance that Hauptmann was temporarily psychotic (delirious) at the time of that interview, due to sleep deprivation in the day or two immediately following his arrest. Sleep deprivation can cause an individual to say incoherent things like that.
I don't think the prosecutors ever used those serial numbers written on the closet door during the trial. I think that rather than the last four digits of those serial numbers matching the last four digits on two ransom notes (which is certainly plausible by sheer coincidence, since there are 10,000 possible four digit sequences and there were close to a total of 5,000 ransom bills passed), the key question raised by the serial number writing should have been much simpler: were there in fact $1,000 of $500 bills actually printed with the exact serial numbers that were written in the closet? If yes, that would give Hauptmann some credibility for his story. If no, it might have raised the suspicion that Hauptmann was involved in counterfeiting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2015 9:41:35 GMT -5
That Hauptmann might be suffering from lack of sleep, hunger, and mental fatigue crossed my mind also. I went and checked the Trial Transcript to see if Wilentz asked Hauptmann about these serial numbers. Wilentz did and here is that exchange:
Trial Transcript Pages 2682 & 2683, Wilentz is cross examining Hauptmann who is on the witness stand.
Q(Wilentz) - And then the next question: Thats why you marked it on the door? You had something on the door too, didn't you? Some numbers of some bills, some big bills? A(Hauptmann) - On the panel.
Q(Wilentz) - On the panel? A(Hauptmann) - Door panel.
Q(Wilentz) - You had on the door panel, that same door some numbers of big bills, didn't you? A(Hauptmann) - Yes
Q(Wilentz) - What were the size of those bills, $500 and $1,000 weren't they? A(Hauptmann) - It was a thousand I guess.
Q(Wilentz) - Thousand dollar bills? A(Hauptmann) - Thousand dollar bills.
Q(Wilentz)- How many thousand dollar bills did you have? A(Hauptmann) - I can't remember now. When I put it on, it was summer of '32.
Q(Wilentz) - Yes, sure, summer time '32; after April the 2nd, 1932? A(Hauptmann) - No; summer time '33. I wish to correct.
Q(Wilentz) - Oh, I see. A(Hauptmann) - I got $2,000 I should put in the stock market and I didn't put it in the stock market. I brought it to the bank, and I kept it home for a few days.
Q(Wilentz) - Two one thousand dollar bills? A(Hauptmann) - Yes.
Q(Wilentz) - Tell me, where do you get those one thousand dollar bills? A(Hauptmann) - That is Mr. Fisch brought it in my house, to put in the margin.
Q(Wilentz) - Oh. Mr. Fisch brought it? A(Hauptmann) - Yes.
After Wilentz asks a few questions about Hauptmann making his answers to Mr. Foley of his own free will, Wilentz takes up the questioning again about the serial number bills:
Q(Wilentz) - Now, do you remember being asked this, "Is there anything more you want to say about it or add to it," you were asked that, and your answer was this: "No. About them two numbers, I am sure it was five hundred or thousand dollar bills." Do you remember saying that? A(Hauptmann) - I guess I did say so.
Q(Wilentz) - You didn't even know whether it was a $500 or a $1000 bill isn't that right, it was one or the other? A(Hauptmann) - Yes, one or another.
Q(Wilentz) - You mean to tell me that you sat in The Bronx courtroom, talking to Foley about $500 bills and $1000 bills, and didn't know whether it was five hundreds you had or thousands? A(Hauptmann) - That is true, I don't know if it was a five--
Q(Wilentz) - You didn't know? A(Hauptmann) - --hundred dollar bill or a thousand dollar bill.
Q(Wilentz) - A man that had, the greatest amount of money you ever had in Europe was a hundred dollars, and you couldn't remember in 1932 whether the bills laying around the house were thousand dollar bills or five hundreds? A(Hauptmann) - This time, '33, I get quite a lot of money to put in the market, put in force, so I really, I couldn't remember if it was 500 or 1,000.
Q(Wilentz) - And that is what you told Mr. Foley? A(Hauptmann) - Yes.
If these two serial number bills don't tie in anywhere with the ransom kidnapping money, why is such an issue being made with them? Is Willentz thinking that Hauptmann converted ransom money into large bills such as $500 and $1000. Why would he do that? He wouldn't be able to spend those bills anywhere? Was he using the bills for his stock market accounts? Perhaps that size bill would not draw much attention at a brokerage house?
The other thing about these two serial number bills is when Hauptmann actually had them in his possession. When he was first questioned about them he claimed he received them from Fisch in 1931. When authorites reminded him that he said he didn't know Fisch until 1932, Hauptmann realized he had just trapped himself. The year would go on to change from 1931 to 1932 to 1933. Hauptmann never denied having those bills each time he was questioned. His brokerage accounts also support a large influx of money during 1933. Is this when he received those two bills in question?
There must be a real significance to these bills. But is it because of ransom money or is there another explanation for these bills?
Counterfeit bills are usually small denomination bills that can be easily passed. These bills are too large and attention getting. Besides a brokerage house, where else could someone use bills this large and not draw attention to themselves?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Apr 30, 2015 14:50:38 GMT -5
To amy35:
I stand corrected on the fact that Wilentz actually used the written serial numbers in the closet to attack Hauptmann at trial. But not even Wilentz made a direct connection between those serial numbers written in the closet and the ransom bills, based on the last the last four digits of those serial numbers.
Thanks for your analysis as to what Wilentz may have been thinking. I tend to agree with it, except your point that counterfeiting usually involves small denomination bills. No way, historically speaking. There's much more reward for the same amount of "work" in counterfeiting large denominations. That's why in the last few decades, the U. S. Treasury has not permitted denominations over $100 to circulate to the general public. Those larger denominations are only authorized currently for use by financial institutions. So if Hauptmann had possession of those $1,000 or $500 bills today, he would undoubtedly have attracted notice from law enforcement merely on that basis alone.
BTW, every time someone posts the transcripts of Wilentz grilling Hauptmann, I'm reminded of how foolish the defense team was in allowing Hauptmann to be a witness in his own defense. It's pretty much a hard and fast rule among defense attorneys today that the defendant is never allowed to take the witness stand.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on May 1, 2015 0:35:23 GMT -5
BTW, every time someone posts the transcripts of Wilentz grilling Hauptmann, I'm reminded of how foolish the defense team was in allowing Hauptmann to be a witness in his own defense. It's pretty much a hard and fast rule among defense attorneys today that the defendant is never allowed to take the witness stand. This. It was a deadly mistake. Not only because you should rarely take the stand in your own defense, but also because Hauptmann's German accent and casual demeanor really worked against him. Having said that, the snarky "I'm a carpenter" line I think might have helped him more than anything else in the trial. Beyond being a memorable zinger, it raised a good point that why would a relatively skilled carpenter create such a ladder, which was perceived as shoddy and unstable. Having said all that, one of the aspects that Garder's book that stood out to me was Hauptmann's insight on how he should act at the trial. It was a really fine line for him, I'm sure. If you appear to be too casual you seem cold but too sad and the jury thinks you're remorseful for your crimes. It's still fascinating to me that by all accounts he spent most nights bawling his eyes out in his cell, which is the opposite of what we expect from him. This is one of the reasons why I don't think he's as culpable as many do. Beyond all that, it continues to baffle me that Reilly didn't really hammer in the absurdness of the whole crime more than he did. The idea that a Bronx carpenter would drive in a storm, to a remote house that even authorities could barely find, immediately make his way to the one unlocked window on the whole property and all without creating a single footprint approaching the house. On top of this, it happened on the one weeknight ever that the child happened to be there? All of this, by the way, takes place during the two hour period the baby is not to be disturbed, but at a time when the rest of the house is awake. Most crooks would do this at night, when everyone was asleep. It is feasible to explain a few of these circumstances as coincidences or strokes of luck, but when you add them all together it defies any logic whatsoever.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 1, 2015 7:57:04 GMT -5
What's been said is certainly true in most trial situations. In the Lindbergh case however, denial was the only reasonable defense. Reilly didn't present any alternative that the jury would buy unless you believe a Red and Violet and Betty conspiracy - to what end he didn't really say.
I thought Hauptmann did very well on the stand. He couldn't do much about his being abused there, but his attorneys should have.
Richard was probably sunk when they found the ransom bill in his wallet and things only got worse. By the time CAL gave his testimony all was certainly lost.
Are all those who defend Hauptmann zero on logic? For just one example, BRH until the end claimed he had no idea that the bills in his garage were Lindbergh money. Anyone who wouldn't suspect that is just a liar. We know that Hauptmann read the paper because he said he did to check on his stock quotes. Since sitting around a brokerage waiting for B/A moves is kinda like watching grass grow you'd think that in his free moments he'd at least check out the front page and learn there was ransom money but according to him he never did . . . Yet when he was asked about the writing on his closet door he said he was interested in the case, so . . .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2015 11:03:53 GMT -5
BTW, every time someone posts the transcripts of Wilentz grilling Hauptmann, I'm reminded of how foolish the defense team was in allowing Hauptmann to be a witness in his own defense. It's pretty much a hard and fast rule among defense attorneys today that the defendant is never allowed to take the witness stand. Hauptmann's time up on the witness stand really didn't help his case. When you read through his time on the stand you can see how Wilentz capitalized on it in numerous ways. I think Hauptmann, himself, defines part of the problem with the following exchange between him and Wilentz. Hauptmann is being cross-examined by Wilentz about what Hauptmann told District Attorney Foley in New York. It concerns the matter of S-204, the closet casing strip with Condon's address and phone number on it. Trial Transcript - pages 2626 and 2627:Q(Wilentz)- Did you tell the District Attorney at that time the truth when he was talking to you about this board, S-204? A(Hauptmann) - Well --.
Q(Wilentz) - You don't know whether you told him the truth? Why don't you answer the question, Mr. Defendant? A(Hauptmann) - For the first time he brought this piece of wood and he said that's from my closet. Well, anybody can show me a piece of wood like that; you can find it in every house. I didn't even think of it, what I said.
Q(Wilentz) - Oh, you didn't even think of it. Did you tell District Attorney Foley the truth when he spoke to you about this board, S-204? You might just as well answer it because I am going to stay here until you do. A(Hauptmann) - The truth? Well, I told him --.
Q(Wilentz) - Did you tell him the truth? A(Hauptmann) - I told him the truth, yes.
Q(Wilentz) - You told him the truth? A(Hauptmann) - Yes.
Q(Wilentz) - Did you tell the truth about this board in the Supreme Court in New York? A(Hauptmann) - I --.
Q(Wilentz) - Why do you hesitate? A(Hauptmann) - I am not.
Q(Wilentz) - Well, then, why don't you answer? Either you did or you didn't. A(Hauptmann) - You have to give me a chance.
Q(Wilentz) - I will give you all day, but you ought to know whether you told the truth in court. A(Hauptmann) - No, I have to trans -- I am thinking in German and I have to translate it in American language, and it needs quite a bit of time; so excuse me.
Wilentz acknowledges Hauptmann's response but goes on questioning him exactly the same way, rapidly and cutting him off when he tries to answer his way. I realize lawyers do this when they are trying to get a yes or no answer from a defendant. Hauptmann wants to explain in more detail his answers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2015 11:37:31 GMT -5
Not only because you should rarely take the stand in your own defense, but also because Hauptmann's German accent and casual demeanor really worked against him. Having said that, the snarky "I'm a carpenter" line I think might have helped him more than anything else in the trial. Beyond being a memorable zinger, it raised a good point that why would a relatively skilled carpenter create such a ladder, which was perceived as shoddy and unstable. Anything that resonated in a positive way with the people in that courtroom (especially the jury) really irritated Wilentz. Here is another incident where a response from Hauptmann to Wilentz brought laughter to the courtroom. Hauptmann is on the stand being cross-examined by AG Wilentz. The topic is Hauptmann's accounting books which contained a record of financial activities for Anna and himself. Trial Transcript, pages 2613 and 2614:Q(Wilentz)- Then the next page, the same thing, week after week you have got the amount of money you earned and the amount of money Anna earned, isn't that right? A(Hauptmann) - Yes.
Q(Wilentz) - Right, from week to week, correct and accurate, right to the penny, isn't that right? And then you come down at the end of 1928 and you total again the amount of money you have got in the bank, how much of it is yours, how much of it Anna put in, how much Haberland owes you, how much Diebig owes you and how much Ernest owes you and how much you have got in the house, $112, isn't that right, in cash? A(Hauptmann) - Yes, right.
Q(Wilentz) - And so you are through with the end of that year. And you have $5780. Did you ever have that much money when you were in Europe? A(Hauptmann) - I got billions.
Q(Wilentz) - Billions in Europe? A(Hauptmann) - Yes. Inflation it was.
Q(Wilentz) - What is it? A(Hauptmann) - Inflation time.
Q(Wilentz) - Inflation time? A(Hauptmann) - Yes.
Q(Wilentz) - You had billions. A(Hauptmann) - Yes. (Laughter)
Wilentz was not pleased and did bring the questioning back to a serious level and get Hauptmann to admit he only had about $100 while in Europe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2015 11:54:12 GMT -5
What's been said is certainly true in most trial situations. In the Lindbergh case however, denial was the only reasonable defense. Reilly didn't present any alternative that the jury would buy unless you believe a Red and Violet and Betty conspiracy - to what end he didn't really say. I thought Hauptmann did very well on the stand. He couldn't do much about his being abused there, but his attorneys should have. Richard was probably sunk when they found the ransom bill in his wallet and things only got worse. By the time CAL gave his testimony all was certainly lost. Are all those who defend Hauptmann zero on logic? For just one example, BRH until the end claimed he had no idea that the bills in his garage were Lindbergh money. Anyone who wouldn't suspect that is just a liar. We know that Hauptmann read the paper because he said he did to check on his stock quotes. Since sitting around a brokerage waiting for B/A moves is kinda like watching grass grow you'd think that in his free moments he'd at least check out the front page and learn there was ransom money but according to him he never did . . . Yet when he was asked about the writing on his closet door he said he was interested in the case, so . . . Great post, Jack! Good point about Hauptmann being interested in the case enough to write down things in the closet but is clueless about the Lindbergh ransom money being paid and including gold certificates. The newspapers did print an abbreviated shortcut to the serial numbers that made up the ransom payment. How could he possibly have missed seeing that in the papers?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 1, 2015 18:04:05 GMT -5
Needless is say, I am now confused. Are the serial numbers written on the door panel by Hauptmann connected to the serial numbers Sisk mentions in his report? In this report when they first ask Hauptmann about these two serial numbers Hauptmann claims, "Those numbers represent the highest and the lowest from the serial numbers". He then continues with, "That was the $40,000 I got from Fisch. I had $2,000 in that closet. I think they were $1,000 bills". So where do we go with this? ?? You got me here Amy. The Memo I have for this date was authored by Hoover where he writes: Mr. Clegg remared that the last flash he had was that they were serial numbers of Lindbergh bills but the numbers cannot be found in the book, and Mr. Clegg stated he was beginning to doubt that they were serial numbers of Lindbergh ransom money. He stated further that the figures of 1928 appear there. Hoover writes that Clegg told him that Hauptmann was taken and brought up to see the "development" and continues that: When he was shown the serial numbers and the figures 1928 he said that represented some money, probably a $500 bill, which had been given to him by Fisch..." So we have two FBI Memos which say two totally different things. What I wonder most about is exactly why the matter seems to get dropped. Even the questions at trial seem rather weak and there's no real effort to explain what this is all about.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 1, 2015 18:31:41 GMT -5
Beyond all that, it continues to baffle me that Reilly didn't really hammer in the absurdness of the whole crime more than he did. The idea that a Bronx carpenter would drive in a storm, to a remote house that even authorities could barely find, immediately make his way to the one unlocked window on the whole property and all without creating a single footprint approaching the house. On top of this, it happened on the one weeknight ever that the child happened to be there? All of this, by the way, takes place during the two hour period the baby is not to be disturbed, but at a time when the rest of the house is awake. Most crooks would do this at night, when everyone was asleep. It is feasible to explain a few of these circumstances as coincidences or strokes of luck, but when you add them all together it defies any logic whatsoever. The beauty of these points is that once one attempts to "fit" these circumstances into a situation where they can be explained it gets much worse. Look at the ladder for example. Kevin Klein (Member: Kevkon) studied the "Kidnap Ladder" for years. In order to make sense of the scenario involving the ladder he's suggested something like this: Ladder was originally erected with only 2 sections, Kidnapper climbs up and the shutters were opened. The Kidnapper climbs down, the ladder came down, the 3rd section was added then the ladder went back up and the Kidnapper re-climbed it and went in. The Kidnapper came out of the nursery with the child, down the ladder, the ladder came down, the 3rd section was removed, and the ladder went back up with 2 sections. The Kidnapper climbed up and deposited the ransom note. Kevin is a Master Carpenter and I consider him an Expert on the kidnap ladder so his opinions and ideas are very hard to ignore. But here the explanation creates more of a problem then the original scenario presents does it not? Now we not only have someone who knows things he should not, and does things that shouldn't be possible - he's doing things which are extremely time consuming and leaving no trace indicating panic, fear, or haste. Let's take this a step further and consider the ladder along with the footprint evidence. Williamson (Hopewell PD) said he believed the Kidnapper(s) removed their shoes before entering the nursery. Imagine if BOTH of these suggestions were true and we combine with what we do know. The odds just get worse with any possible explanation involving Hauptmann acting by himself. Anything that resonated in a positive way with the people in that courtroom (especially the jury) really irritated Wilentz. Here is another incident where a response from Hauptmann to Wilentz brought laughter to the courtroom. Hauptmann is on the stand being cross-examined by AG Wilentz. The topic is Hauptmann's accounting books which contained a record of financial activities for Anna and himself. A great observation that Lloyd made in his book is on page 332: "Yes. All right." (Whenever Wilentz was surprised, "all right" popped up-a classic verbal pause while he figured out how to divert attention from the testimony).
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on May 1, 2015 21:45:16 GMT -5
Beyond all that, it continues to baffle me that Reilly didn't really hammer in the absurdness of the whole crime more than he did. The idea that a Bronx carpenter would drive in a storm, to a remote house that even authorities could barely find, immediately make his way to the one unlocked window on the whole property and all without creating a single footprint approaching the house. On top of this, it happened on the one weeknight ever that the child happened to be there? All of this, by the way, takes place during the two hour period the baby is not to be disturbed, but at a time when the rest of the house is awake. Most crooks would do this at night, when everyone was asleep. It is feasible to explain a few of these circumstances as coincidences or strokes of luck, but when you add them all together it defies any logic whatsoever. The beauty of these points is that once one attempts to "fit" these circumstances into a situation where they can be explained it gets much worse. Look at the ladder for example. Kevin Klein (Member: Kevkon) studied the "Kidnap Ladder" for years. In order to make sense of the scenario involving the ladder he's suggested something like this: Ladder was originally erected with only 2 sections, Kidnapper climbs up and the shutters were opened. The Kidnapper climbs down, the ladder came down, the 3rd section was added then the ladder went back up and the Kidnapper re-climbed it and went in. The Kidnapper came out of the nursery with the child, down the ladder, the ladder came down, the 3rd section was removed, and the ladder went back up with 2 sections. The Kidnapper climbed up and deposited the ransom note. One question with this theory, and please forgive my ignorance, were there not only one set of impressions for the ladder in the mud? Are we to assume that once the third section was added the kidnapper placed the ladder in the exact same spot? Or is the belief the ladder was placed on the boardwalk, which seems really unstable to support a ladder?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 2, 2015 5:11:43 GMT -5
There was only one set of stocking footprints going from the believed point of shoe removal to the house and then back to the ladder discard area and/or shoe temporary discard place.
Is it safe to say that if there was an accomplice to the climber he would not have removed his shoes because he was not going into the nursery?
An accomplice could have climbed the ladder for a baby pass-out the window.
Maybe the two of them wound up being on the ladder at the same time and that's what broke it. It seems to me that Koehler said the ladder would support about 180 Lbs.
I don't believe that two people did this, but I'm trying to think of how it could be done. I don't think you could talk Jack the Ripper into accompanying you on a mission like this. Too dangerous (CAL was probably a pretty good shot) and risky.
Regarding all that ladder switching were there any marks on the wall at the full ladder extension point? Also remember it would be very dark and as TrojanUSC implied there don't appear to be any extra ladder holes in the mud.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 2, 2015 8:21:27 GMT -5
One question with this theory, and please forgive my ignorance, were there not only one set of impressions for the ladder in the mud? Are we to assume that once the third section was added the kidnapper placed the ladder in the exact same spot? Or is the belief the ladder was placed on the boardwalk, which seems really unstable to support a ladder? I hate speaking for anyone because I know I will never get it 100% correct. I would rather refer you directly to Kevin, but unfortunately, Kevin, Joe, and Mairi all seemed to stop posting at the same time so whatever I am saying should be mentioned somewhere on the Board. I've done some searching and can't seem to find it myself so I will give you what I remember to the best of my recollection.... I don't think he wrote this theory in stone especially since he contended that he would expect several footprints and marks at the based of that window which were not there - regardless. The theory seemed to arise from the fact the 3rd section fit into the louvers of the shutters perfectly, by design, as a way to stabilize the climb. The problem is the shutter was closed and if the Climber used 3 sections the shutter would open up blocking their entrance - so 2 sections were used to climb and open the shutters out first, etc... I do recall challenging this idea, not only based on the time it would take, but the lack of the ladder divots - just as you point out. From memory I think he said it was hard to make sense of the lack of everything we'd expect there but also did throw out that the base may have been placed onto the board walk. If he's saying this then I'd say the boardwalk would have been able to support it. Kevin was one of the men in the NOVA episode and among those who actually attempted to raise (together) the ladder to the window. It wasn't easy to raise assembled and they were all over the place with their feet while attempting to do so. From my point of view, anyone who thinks this was a one-man job should view this (cut) scene and their mind will change real quick.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 2, 2015 8:29:21 GMT -5
There was only one set of stocking footprints going from the believed point of shoe removal to the house and then back to the ladder discard area and/or shoe temporary discard place. There's only (1) print facing the house. There are (1) set of "smaller" footprints walking to the back of the house. Next, there was a "double set" of footprints leading away from the house to where the ladder was found. These were always the facts of the matter until the State's "Lone-Wolf" theory emerged as the result of Hauptmann's arrest.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2015 15:08:57 GMT -5
So we have two FBI Memos which say two totally different things. What I wonder most about is exactly why the matter seems to get dropped. Even the questions at trial seem rather weak and there's no real effort to explain what this is all about. I agree. This whole "serial numbers on the door panel" issue goes nowhere. LE has only partial numbers to work with so that must make it difficult to match. Plus if LE could link these numbers with certainty to the Lindbergh ransom, as Sisk appears to do in his memo, we wouldn't be sitting here wondering how this all fits together. Plus, like you say, Wilentz really doesn't accomplish much of anything with that line of questioning at the trial. Other than trying to make it look to the jury that Hauptmann had all kinds of unexplained cash in his possession, I see no clear purpose to this exchange. I plan to do some more thinking on this though. Can you tell me whose idea it was to use 1928 series bills for the ransom payment?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 2, 2015 16:09:46 GMT -5
I plan to do some more thinking on this though. Can you tell me whose idea it was to use 1928 series bills for the ransom payment? That is a great question. I'll have to search for an answer then get back to you on this.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2015 20:53:54 GMT -5
The theory seemed to arise from the fact the 3rd section fit into the louvers of the shutters perfectly, by design, as a way to stabilize the climb. If the opened shutter was utilized to stabilize the climb, were any marks from the ladder on the shutter louvers noted in any reports? We know that marks were found on the white washed wall from the use of the two sections of the ladder.
|
|