kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 20, 2006 8:37:32 GMT -5
Looking at the tools recovered from Hauptmann's garage it is obvious that there are essential tools necessary for the trade he was engaged in ( prior to kidnapping) which are missing. Hauptmann himself claimed that a complete Stanley chisel set was missing and that he had just used it a couple of months prior to the arrest. In addition there is no square, mallet, pry bars, brace ( to drill holes), and possibly much more. So where are they? Hauptmann claimed the chisel set never left the garage, so loaning is out if we believe him. The police would have wanted to find some of these tools. Could there be another workshop?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 22, 2006 9:28:43 GMT -5
Looking at the board which contained the rolls of money and the gun it is obvious that Hauptmann used a brace and bit to make these concealments. A sharp set of chisels would also have been used for the enlarged gun location. I f we believe his account of finding the money two questions arise. Where are these tools used to make this recently constructed hiding spot? Why would the gun be included in this construction as it would have no relation to the money find? I have heard it claimed ( by Hauptmann?) that this block of 2" x 4" was intended for tool storage. That seems highly unlikely as the hole spacing is not appropriate for this purpose.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 22, 2006 18:36:02 GMT -5
I agree some tools were "missing" out of his garage but I also understand he did lend out tools and that his neighbor Shussler would sometimes borrow them.
People of the state of New York, ex. rel. Bruno Richard Hauptmann against John Hanley. (pgs 72-4)
Q: Why did you bore those holes in that lumber in October 1931? A: I got small tools in it before -- it was in the garage, sticked in those two by four's, with holes facing the outside, and I put little bores in it, bits and so on, and I kept it for this purpose.
Q: So that you originally, when you made these holes in that lumber, it was for the purpose of hanging up tools, is that right? A: Small tools, yes.
Q: Yes, any kind of tools -- there is no question about that is there? A: Yes.
Q: Now in October 1931 you did that? A: Yes, sir.
Q: You made the small holes at the time you made the large hole for the pistol? A: Yes.
Q: There is no question about that? A: No.
Q: And you made the small holes so that you could put some tools in there and they would stick out? A: Yes.
Q: Now when you did make that originally, you made room for the gun also, didn't you? A: When I was looking for a hiding place for a little gun, it came into my mind it would be a good place, and turn it around.
Q: Did you make all the holes together? A: Yes.
Q: Well, when you made all the holes together, you put the gun in, didn't you? A: Not right away.
Q: Did not you say you put the gun in there October 1931? A: Yes.
Q: And when you put the gun in there October 1931, you stated further, did you not, that is the time you put the holes in this lumber? A: Yes, but October has got thirty days.
Q: Sir? A: October has got 30 days.
Q: That is all right. We'll come to that in a minute. But when you did put the gun in, then you turned it around, didn't you? A: Yes, sir.
Q: And you did not use these other holes for the tools at all? A: No, sir.
Q: Because, when you turned that piece of lumber around and put it in the south wall, you could not use it to hide any of the tools or to hold them? A: No.
Q: I notice in this very large hole that one portion is bored to a certain depth and then next to it is deeper and so that there are at least three depths to the large hole? A: Yes.
Q: Was that in order to fit the gun in there so that it would fit smoothly into the rest of the wall? A: Well, I really don't know.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 22, 2006 20:06:21 GMT -5
"I agree some tools were "missing" out of his garage but I also understand he did lend out tools and that his neighbor Shussler would sometimes borrow them."
I believe Hauptmann stated in the undelivered letter to his mother that he never let his Stanley chisels out of his garage. Also would not anyone like Shussler contact the police regarding Hauptmann's belongings?
Hauptmann is lying under oath in this testimony. Look closely at this 2" x 4" and it will be apparent that the gun space, a series of holes mortised out, was layed out with the other holes in mind. In other words it was not an afterthought. Since the gun concealment required the board to be placed with the holes to the wall the wood block could never have had a tool storage utility.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 23, 2006 6:15:55 GMT -5
This is an interesting observation Kevin. What else is interesting is that Hauptmann seems to be holding his own here while, if you are correct - lying through his teeth.
Are you claiming those holes in that board were made from a tool not found among those in the inventories? What type of tool could have been used to make them?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 23, 2006 9:21:49 GMT -5
Q: You made the small holes at the time you made the large hole for the pistol? A: Yes.
Q: There is no question about that? A: No.
So knowing that the board would be used to conceal the loaded Liliput Hauptmann bothered to make the "tool storage" holes anyway or vice a versa?
Q: I notice in this very large hole that one portion is bored to a certain depth and then next to it is deeper and so that there are at least three depths to the large hole? A: Yes.
Q: Was that in order to fit the gun in there so that it would fit smoothly into the rest of the wall? A: Well, I really don't know.
Obviously the space for the Liliput was made specifically with the need to bore and mortise a portion of the hole deeper to accommodate the handle
To make this storage block Hauptmann would have needed a 1" auger bit and a brace to drill with. A couple of sharp chisels and a mallet would clean up the Liliput space. A carpenters square would be used to mark the end cuts on the block. Most of these tools are missing. I might add, though I will admit this is subjective, that the use of a 2" x 4" block drilled on edge is hardly an appropriate choice for a tool storage block. And where are these small tools? This does not even take into account the issue of why one would hide this loaded gun in the garage. That 25 cal pistol is a weapon with limited utility. If he has it for personal defense what good does it do him hidden in a block of wood in the garage? If he has no use for it and fears being caught with it (how?) why not get rid of it?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 23, 2006 20:57:09 GMT -5
Yes these tools were missing so where did they go? Certain tools were used to make the ladder and they too weren't in that garage.
This block of wood is yet another example of Hauptmann using tools post April 2nd. The gun was supposedly purchased for protection on his California trip. He also claimed he hunted with it, yet, you make a great point concerning its not only hidden but with part of the ransom stash - why?
In some way shape or fashion it is meant to be utilized in connection with this money.
|
|
|
Post by rick the member on Mar 23, 2006 22:52:36 GMT -5
kevin/ unless the automatic is being hidden because of being used in some crime(?), then I view it as protection for the ransom money. Possibly BRHs garage is subbing as a "safe" to hide the ransom and keep it safe? If BRH were subbing in for Fisch in any money distribution, then the pistol might come in handy to keep BRH from getting ripped off in the money laundering angle when wise guys came to get some "hot" money on the cheap.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 24, 2006 8:14:54 GMT -5
Rick, even though the gun is an automatic, I don't think it could defend the ransom money all by itself. Are you suggesting that Hauptmann had the whole $50k in the garage to be disbursed ( innocently of course) to various criminal types and in case of trouble he would grab a hammer , knock out the block, and retrieve the trusty Liliput ?
|
|
|
Post by rick62 member on Mar 24, 2006 12:07:02 GMT -5
Well, not exactly. Since Fisch had already spent (no pun intended) 18 months laudering the ransom money and paying for his passage, and Uhligs, to Liepsig per testimony by George Steilwig, ticket agent not called by Rielly to testify, then we can only guess that maybe only about $14,900 dollars in Gold Certs was left to him by Fisch in December of 1933? Apparently, Fisch, the expert in laundering funds for Knickerbocker Pie Co. did not "trust" his buddy Bruno with the task of inloading all that mony without getting him fried as well. Lets call it for lack of a better term...."division of labor"?
As totally reckless BRH was at unloading his remainder of the ransom, well, he would have been caught in April of 1932 buying gasoline in the Bronx!
One burning quiestion will always be: How did all the ransom money get spent all over the US of A without anyone getting caught until 19 Sept 1934? A full 2 and 1/2 years later? Noone should be embarrased about that huh? Especially since most spent in and around NYC? Maybe Rab could total up how much was acturally spent for us sometme? Since hes counting one by one?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 24, 2006 12:57:07 GMT -5
Rick,regarding your first post, are you saying that Hauptmann would bring the "launderers" into the garage and risk exposing the hidden cache? I think you know how difficult a task it was to identify those ransom bills. I am sure you have seen both the long and short list so you know that the identification of the Lindbergh ransom was difficult to say the least. Regarding the gun, was it chambered when found?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 26, 2006 11:09:47 GMT -5
Regarding the gun, was it chambered when found? ***This is a very good question Kevin and it caused me to do a little bit of research to find out. The reports that I have searched do not say. They say it was "fully loaded" with (7) rounds. Therefore I searched to find out how many rounds the clip held and I discovered this link to a gun of the same make, model and year: www.auctionarms.com/search/displayitem.cfm?itemnum=5985323Since the clip only held (6) rounds therefore this gun was found with one in the chamber.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 26, 2006 15:39:45 GMT -5
Thanks Michael My father had one of these 25s but I couldn't remember the capacity. I do remember it was fairly inaccurate and there was something about the safety which seemed dangerous.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Mar 26, 2006 17:18:54 GMT -5
Those are great pictures of a Liliput, Michael. I've added them to the Links. I've often wondered about Hauptmann's motivation in hiding his Liliput alongside the rolled up gold certificates. By having done so, and recognizing the other personal stamps of identity he left behind, I don't discount the possibility that the two are linked directly to the crime.
Joe
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 28, 2006 9:56:07 GMT -5
Was Hauptmann's gun ever subjected to forensic testing to determine if it had recently been fired? Was there a box of cartridges ever found? Also, on the subject of guns I remember reading that Hauptmann purchased a rifle for a Friend for a Maine hunting trip. If this is true what rifle did Hauptmann use as I believe only a shotgun was found in his possession? Would he have used slugs instead of buying a rifle for himself?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 29, 2006 17:55:55 GMT -5
It seems to me that there are enough missing items to indicate a possible second location.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 1, 2006 11:24:52 GMT -5
Now I want to correct a possible mistake I may have made.... Perhaps there were different sized clips which fit this weapon. I say this because while looking through my files this morning I viewed a picture of Hauptmann's Liliput and clip. His clip has (7) holes on the side. Unless it was different back then - it seems to me this clip held more then (6) rounds, in fact, the clip in the picture appears to be loaded and I (think) I can see (7) rounds in it. Speaking from experience - these holes are meant so that you can see how many rounds are in the clip. Therefore in my opinion, this is an (8) round clip which means there wasn't one in the chamber. Of course that's assuming the Police upon finding the weapon didn't "clear it" and place that round back into the clip. Oh boy....we may never know for sure! I have found that a hunting knife and case, along with a Remington 12 gauge shotgun, model 11, serial #367745 was found along with at least (2) boxes of shells. Thanks to Sam, we have a picture of this weapon that he generously donated to Ronelle's site which she now has posted: www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/confiscated.jpgKevin, Could you give me your source concerning the rifle? The reports aren't saying what weapon either he or Henkel used on the trip only that while in the tourist cabin during their stay in Bingham Maine they used the curtains to clean their "guns." The owner's wife, Mrs. Folson, was none too happy about that. ;D Lt. Hick's ballistic report written before he was hired to assist Governor Hoffman's "re-investigation" was conducted with .25 cal ammunition but not with Hauptmann's Liliput. I see no further evidence concerning this subject thereafter.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 1, 2006 14:57:43 GMT -5
Regarding the Liliput, your link states a 6 round clip, however that gun is a 4.25mm. I checked and all of the Lilliput 6.35 ( .25acp) have a 6 round clip as well. [ftp]http://www.nazarian.no/wep.asp?id=555&group_id=1&country_id=22&lang=0[/ftp] So it would appear that the gun was chambered. Perhaps you or others could expound on the significance and dangers of an automatic weapon with a hot round in the chamber.
As for the rifle, this may have been a mistaken id of the firearm Hauptmann bought. It did seem to make more sense to go hunting in Maine with a rifle. I will keep looking.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 1, 2006 18:58:03 GMT -5
I have been trying to scan the xerox picture I have but its not clear enough to see what I think I see. The clip in my original link appears to be the exact same so it could be the spring I am seeing in the holes.
We call a round in the chamber "duty carry."
Some 9MM handguns have a safety. Our Glock-9, for example, has a safety in the trigger (which I hate). However, the Ruger is double-action first trigger pull and then single thereafter. That is, a full trigger pull for the first shot and a half pull thereafter. There is a "de-cock" to return it to double-action but that's hardly a "safety."
Whether or not the Liliput has a safety is unknown to me but my guess is there isn't. If there is only a (6) round clip then its by no accident one is chambered and its a very dangerous situation for someone who isn't aware of it. Some handguns won't fire if the clip is removed but some do. Again, I don't know what the case would be for this Liliput.
Anyway, anyone familiar with fire-arms always treat a gun as if its loaded, regardless, and clear any weapon they pick up.
Your point is well taken though. Hauptmann had this gun ready for use, that is, if he went to that block and grabbed the gun all he had to do was point, aim, and fire. If the clip is a 6-rounder then this gun isn't simply in that block to be "squirreled" away from Anna - not with it being fully loaded and one in the chamber. I think if that was the case the clip would be out and the action open.
It's not in the house but with the money. Does this tell us that Hauptmann doesn't seem to be worried about his personal protection? It's connected with the money, he was afraid of the Police finding it, but he didn't have it on him when he was arrested - yet - he had a ransom $20 on him at the time....hmmmm.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 2, 2006 7:51:24 GMT -5
Thanks Michael. I think this may be extremely significant. So Hauptmann is locked and loaded. But for what reason is he prepared to shoot? I don't think he is concerned with the garage or the Liliput would have been placed for quicker retrieval. It is a pocket gun and good for up close encounters. Whom is he encountering to cause such dire precautions and is the money hidden with the gun related?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 2, 2006 16:01:34 GMT -5
I agree this is one lead we should follow up the best we can. I know this gun came from Hans Mueller and Hauptmann was protecting him by lying to the Police concerning where he obtained it. This has always raised a "red-flag" making me suspicious of Mueller.
It appears Hauptmann was telling the truth that he didn't reveal where that other stash was do to the Liliput being hidden there. Shouldn't the Liliput have been the least of his worries?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 2, 2006 16:57:42 GMT -5
Michael, do you know when Hauptmann got the Liliput from Mueller? His explanation for this always sounded as weak as most of the other things he "couldn't exactly remember." I recall reading somewhere that the Muellers left NY in the aftermath of the trial, which given their support of the Hauptmanns throughout, is not surprising in itself. Where would Mueller have gotten the gun?
Kevin, your observations about the way the cavity in the 2 X 4 was formed for the handgun are interesting. Are you saying the holes at that end were drilled with the subsequent intention of chiselling out the needed wood in length, width and depth strictly to accomodate the Liliput?
About that 2 X 4, was it by chance nailed between 2 uprights by one nail at each end, so that it could be easily swivelled away and towards the wall of the garage?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 3, 2006 7:34:00 GMT -5
"Are you saying the holes at that end were drilled with the subsequent intention of chiselling out the needed wood in length, width and depth strictly to accomodate the Liliput? " (Joe)
Yes the cavity which holds the Liliput is by necessity mortised out for the profile of the gun, however I am not sure one could say "strictly" for the Liliput.
"About that 2 X 4, was it by chance nailed between 2 uprights by one nail at each end, so that it could be easily swivelled away and towards the wall of the garage?" (Joe)
I don't think that would work as the arc of swing would prevent rotation unless the edges of the 2" x 4" were rounded. It must have appeared to be integral to the garage structure since it escaped discovery until demolition. Also, if your point is rapid access to the gun I would think a storage location such as under the bench would be used as the 2" x4" location is more time consuming and awkward. That is why I think the gun has nothing to do with the garage but instead is linked to Hauptmann's extra curricular activities.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 4, 2006 7:59:56 GMT -5
What is known about Hans Mueller ?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 16, 2006 12:00:29 GMT -5
You know I am still puzzled by Hauptmann's tools. Not only is his collection sparse and devoid of some essentials but the general condition of those found ranges from average to poor. Remember this is a time when power tools, which are more forgiving, are the exception. Hand tools were still king and would be for some time. One cardinal rule of hand tool usage is keeping your blades sharp, this was a necessity and not an option. Trying to rip saw wood, for example, with anything but a sharp saw will definitely teach the value of keeping your tools in proper order. Having to sharpen those teeth and set them will also provide a quick lesson on proper maintenance. Now the way to keep all those blades sharp is by protecting them, planes would have their irons retracted and saws would be sheathed at all times if being transported. I see no evidence of this with Hauptmann. So how is he going out and earning a living with these tools at a time when jobs are scarce and competitive? I wonder how he makes an income with such disregard for the tools of his trade.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 16, 2006 12:22:44 GMT -5
I agree. Even if the argument comes up that Hauptmann hadn't used his tools for a while....that wouldn't explain why they were dull because one would think they were sharpened - then.
Some tools are missing, of that we can all be sure. I know he loaned out his tools but this wouldn't explain the situation as it exists.
However, if you believe Hauptmann's plane actually planed Rail 16 then you would have an example of an out of shape tool doing work and remaining out of shape thereafter. Then, just for good measure, we must also consider the chisel found in Hopewell....
It was razor sharp.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 16, 2006 13:33:01 GMT -5
Even though I tend to believe Hauptmann carried out the kidnapping, the chisel is one piece of evidence I suspect. I really see no good reason to carry a sharp chisel along for this undertaking as it would be of little or no use. The only reason I can see it as being connected is if it was part of a kit used to construct the ladder and was simply carried along. It still wouldn't explain why it was out and left behind. A screwdriver. flat blade, pry bar, hammer, or knife would be all be possible B&E tools, not a 3/4" chisel. And you certainly wouldn't use it as a weapon as Wilentz claimed.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 16, 2006 16:24:09 GMT -5
Kevin, you also mentioned a stiff putty knife would be a good choice for unlocking a sash lock window. Are you familiar with one of Hauptmann's saws which looks to have the point and about two inches of length snipped off the end? Kel has previously theorized this might have been done to fit it into a specific tool box, and this seems reasonable.
I'm wondering too if that saw would also have made a good tool for unlocking the sash lock. It seems to me it would be thin and stiff enough, the handle would make it relatively comfortable to handle and the teeth might even help to "grasp" the piece of the lock that had to be swiveled. The snipped off end might also "shimmy" through the space more easily.
What are your thoughts about this and was this type of sash lock a problem to defeat? I would think much would depend on the play within the window traverse, the stiffness of the swivel mechanism and any security features that might prevent something from being slid between the individual window frames.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 16, 2006 19:41:10 GMT -5
Joe, I can't say for certain about the saw but it might be possible. Those double hung windows were non- weatherstripped models with sash weights and the sash locks were new. That would make it relatively easy to open. The bigger problem are the shutters which have a heavy slide bolt latch. They also sit into the masonry window opening which means you can't get the shutters off their pins or access the lock. You have to break these shutters apart with a bar , no way are you defeating that latch bolt on a ladder at night.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 18, 2006 16:40:37 GMT -5
What shall we conclude about this chisel?
It was found very near the ladder, not under the window, as Dr. Gardner clears up in his book. Is its location a coincidence? Or is it a "prop" of some sort.
|
|