Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 13, 2020 10:31:13 GMT -5
Thanks for that great post, Joe. The pictures reveal how similar in appearance these two radios were. The new victrola was seen by the Hahns in their joint visit to the Hauptmann apartment in July. Right, Hauptmann wasn't showing off the "old timer" Victrola on Hahn's first visit. He was showing off "his" money to Fred that occasion. During the later summer visit by both Hahns, Hauptmann had a piece of entertainment equipment he was dying to show off, and so he took the opportunity to do so on the trip home from Rye Beach.
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Sept 13, 2020 10:32:11 GMT -5
Mid- to late April was too cold for swimming, even for Germans. Hahn is adamant about June as the month when he took his first swim and visited BRH's apartment. And later in the report, when asked by Breslin, "Where did you say this man Fisch lived?," he answered, "Fisch, he said a block down the same street where he was living on," which now puts Fisch a block down from Hauptmann, which was East 221st Street. Fisch never lived there. The Hahn story just has too many flaws. It would also seem to have too many corroborative details within both Fred and Marie Hahn's independent written testimonies, to have been simply fabricated. Certainly some of it may be inaccurate, given the length of time between the actual events and recollection. I don't think anyone's trying to paint it as anything but an intriguing piece of testimony worthy of wringing dry. True, but the inconsistencies are too many to account for the lapse of time. Wilentz would have gone crazy with this witness during witness preparation had Hahn been called to testify at trial. (This whole exchange reminds me of "Who's on first, What's on second.} Breslin: What happened the first time you were there? [This would have been in June, during the opening of Hahn's swimming season.] Hahn: First we went into the bedroom….. Breslin: Was his wife home that day? Hahn: No, she was in Germany, in Europe. [Anna did not leave for Germany until July 1, 1932.] Breslin: How long were you in the house altogether on that occasion? Hahn: Not longer than one-half hour. Breslin: He took you back? Hahn: Yes. Breslin: When did you go up again? Hahn: That was about a month later when I was there with my wife. [This would have been in July '32.] Breslin: How did you happen to go up with your wife the second time? Hahn: To see the new Radio he bought. [Why didn't he look at the new radio in June, when Hauptmann had already owned it for a month?] Breslin: Did he drive you and your wife up? Hahn: Yes. Breslin: That was about a month after your first visit? Hahn: Yes.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 13, 2020 11:26:22 GMT -5
Mid- to late April was too cold for swimming, even for Germans. Hahn is adamant about June as the month when he took his first swim and visited BRH's apartment. And later in the report, when asked by Breslin, "Where did you say this man Fisch lived?," he answered, "Fisch, he said a block down the same street where he was living on," which now puts Fisch a block down from Hauptmann, which was East 221st Street. Fisch never lived there. The Hahn story just has too many flaws. Mid to late April would have been too cold for swimming, according to? In fact, mid to late daily low / high temperatures in NYC for mid to end-April since 1869 to present, have ranged anywhere from 24F to 96F. Naturally on average, the water is going to be cooler than temperatures above freezing, but something tells me Hauptmann would have been game for anything as long as it didn't freeze his cajones. It certainly would be interesting to see a detailed weather summary from April 1932. There are some out there on the internet but they all seem to come up blank with no data recorded for that month and year. www.weather.gov/media/okx/Climate/Almanacs/nyc/nycapr.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Sept 13, 2020 12:28:27 GMT -5
Mid- to late April was too cold for swimming, even for Germans. Hahn is adamant about June as the month when he took his first swim and visited BRH's apartment. And later in the report, when asked by Breslin, "Where did you say this man Fisch lived?," he answered, "Fisch, he said a block down the same street where he was living on," which now puts Fisch a block down from Hauptmann, which was East 221st Street. Fisch never lived there. The Hahn story just has too many flaws. Mid to late April would have been too cold for swimming, according to? In fact, mid to late daily low / high temperatures in NYC for mid to end-April since 1869 to present, have ranged anywhere from 24F to 96F. Naturally on average, the water is going to be cooler than temperatures above freezing, but something tells me Hauptmann would have been game for anything as long as it didn't freeze his cajones. It certainly would be interesting to see a detailed weather summary from April 1932. There are some out there on the internet but they all seem to come up blank with no data recorded for that month and year. www.weather.gov/media/okx/Climate/Almanacs/nyc/nycapr.pdfGreat chart! Hauptmann might have taken a dip in April, but Fred went swimming with him in June '32, he is certain about that. Marie Hahn confirms the timeline as well. She says Hauptmann had invited them to join them at the beach several times, but she never went and Fred went only that one time, in June. Hauptmann would not have extended these frequent invitations in April '32. Marie also says that around that time Hauptmann suggested to her she should do what he did, make money easy. When she pressed him for details, he replied, "Well, I play the stock market and I make just as much as if I work." Problem is, Hauptmann exited the stock market on May 25, 1932, when he closed out his Carlton Mott account, and he did not reenter it until August 8, 1932, when he opened his Steiner, Rouse account. His Carlton Mott account had been a losing proposition, certainly not anything to brag about to Marie Hahn -- at the time she says he did. Her timeline is wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2020 13:05:24 GMT -5
Right, Hauptmann wasn't showing off the "old timer" Victrola on Hahn's first visit. He was showing off "his" money to Fred that occasion. During the later summer visit by both Hahns, Hauptmann had a piece of entertainment equipment he was dying to show off, and so he took the opportunity to do so on the trip home from Rye Beach. Exactly! Fred had made his solo visit in late April. Marie made her solo visit in June before Anna sailed to Germany in July. Marie was there at Anna's invitation to look at the dresses she was taking to Germany. She did not care for Hauptmann. She makes that clear in her statement. After Anna left for Germany both Fred and Marie visited Hauptmann together and he showed off his new victrola to both of them. I think you are right that Hauptmann was more interested in impressing Fred with his wealth in April. He was now a rich business man! By both Richard and Anna showing off their "stock market" wealth, they succeeded in making the Hahns jealous and suspicious. This behavior would result in the Hahns coming forward with what they could share about Richard and Anna in 1934. I do believe there are mistakes or misremembering in statements. You see this in more than just the Hahn statements. Recall under pressure can be difficult, plus any language (comprehension) issues that might be encountered. You will see this in statements. You sometimes get one answer to a question and then when the question gets asked again with different wording you get another answer! It isn't always intentional lying. Of course, sometimes it is. Fred and Marie Hahn have no reason to fabricate anything. Showing off by swimming in April could be what Hauptmann was doing and then encouraging/challenging Fred Hahn to join him.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 13, 2020 17:23:36 GMT -5
Mid- to late April was too cold for swimming, even for Germans. Hahn is adamant about June as the month when he took his first swim and visited BRH's apartment. And later in the report, when asked by Breslin, "Where did you say this man Fisch lived?," he answered, "Fisch, he said a block down the same street where he was living on," which now puts Fisch a block down from Hauptmann, which was East 221st Street. Fisch never lived there. The Hahn story just has too many flaws. Mid-to-late April swimming would not have been too cold for Hauptmann, at least according to this account by John De Ciancia in the Syracuse American, Sept. 30, 1934. Thanks to Sue who recently posted this information in the thread Cat Briar Island. John De Ciancia, a camper at Hunters Island, where Hauptmann spent his week-ends and vacations, disclosed that the stolid German bad a weakness for the company of pretty women and was known by other campers on the island as a nudist. De Ciancia said: "That's why Hauptmann wanted to take his crowd over to Cat Briar Island, about a quarter of mile offshore. All his crowd went in for that sort of stuff, like they do in Germany. Hauptmann used to go in bathing winter and summer — he didn't seem to mind the cold at all."It should also be remembered how Hauptmann, on one of his illegal entry attempts in August of 1923, clung to the knife he had plunged into the pier piling in New York Harbour, his head barely above water for many hours to evade capture, until he was forced by exhaustion to leave the water. Even though this was summer, given the length of his time in the water, I'd venture it would have become quite cold by anyone else's standards. I think most researchers can at times, generally overlook or minimize the kinds of physical and mental conditions Hauptmann was willing to endure to get what he wanted.
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Sept 13, 2020 17:54:21 GMT -5
Mid- to late April was too cold for swimming, even for Germans. Hahn is adamant about June as the month when he took his first swim and visited BRH's apartment. And later in the report, when asked by Breslin, "Where did you say this man Fisch lived?," he answered, "Fisch, he said a block down the same street where he was living on," which now puts Fisch a block down from Hauptmann, which was East 221st Street. Fisch never lived there. The Hahn story just has too many flaws. Mid-to-late April swimming would not have been too cold for Hauptmann, at least according to this account by John De Ciancia in the Syracuse American, Sept. 30, 1934. Sue recently posted this information in the thread Cat Briar Island. John De Ciancia, a camper at Hunters Island, where Hauptmann spent his week-ends and vacations, disclosed that the stolid German bad a weakness for the company of pretty women and was known by other campers on the island as a nudist. De Ciancia said: "That's why Hauptmann wanted to take his crowd over to Cat Briar Island, about a quarter of a mile offshore. All his crowd went, in for that sort of stuff, like they do in Germany. Hauptmann used to go in bathing winter and summer—he didn't seem to mind the cold at all."It should also be remembered how Hauptmann, on one of his illegal entry attempts in August of 1923, clung to the knife he had plunged into the pier piling in New York Harbour, his head barely above water for many hours to evade capture, until he was forced by exhaustion to leave the water. Even though this was summer, given the length of his time in the water, I'd venture it would have become quite cold by anyone else's standards. I think most researchers general can at times, overlook the kinds of physical and mental conditions Hauptmann was willing to endure to get what he wanted. Glad this John De Ciancia set the record straight, although Hauptmann's own friends never corroborated that story. And Hauptmann's second attempt to enter the US mas not made in August 1923. He was in Germany the entire month. He was caught again, in dry clothes, much later, and deported a second time. Official documents don't lie. Stay tuned for Michael's V4.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 13, 2020 18:04:52 GMT -5
Mid-to-late April swimming would not have been too cold for Hauptmann, at least according to this account by John De Ciancia in the Syracuse American, Sept. 30, 1934. Sue recently posted this information in the thread Cat Briar Island. John De Ciancia, a camper at Hunters Island, where Hauptmann spent his week-ends and vacations, disclosed that the stolid German bad a weakness for the company of pretty women and was known by other campers on the island as a nudist. De Ciancia said: "That's why Hauptmann wanted to take his crowd over to Cat Briar Island, about a quarter of a mile offshore. All his crowd went, in for that sort of stuff, like they do in Germany. Hauptmann used to go in bathing winter and summer—he didn't seem to mind the cold at all."It should also be remembered how Hauptmann, on one of his illegal entry attempts in August of 1923, clung to the knife he had plunged into the pier piling in New York Harbour, his head barely above water for many hours to evade capture, until he was forced by exhaustion to leave the water. Even though this was summer, given the length of his time in the water, I'd venture it would have become quite cold by anyone else's standards. I think most researchers general can at times, overlook the kinds of physical and mental conditions Hauptmann was willing to endure to get what he wanted. Glad this John De Ciancia set the record straight, although Hauptmann's own friends never corroborated that story. And Hauptmann's second attempt to enter the US mas not made in August 1923. He was in Germany the entire month. He was caught again, in dry clothes, much later, and deported a second time. Official documents don't lie. Stay tuned for Michael's V4. What's coming down the pipe to bust things wide open? A NJSP Archives official document debunking John De Ciancia's observation?
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Sept 13, 2020 18:30:47 GMT -5
Glad this John De Ciancia set the record straight, although Hauptmann's own friends never corroborated that story. And Hauptmann's second attempt to enter the US mas not made in August 1923. He was in Germany the entire month. He was caught again, in dry clothes, much later, and deported a second time. Official documents don't lie. Stay tuned for Michael's V4. What's coming down the pipe to bust things wide open? A NJSP Archives official document debunking John De Ciancia's observation? No. This obscure article does not need to be dealt with seriously. I don't think John De Ciancia's name ever made it into the NJSP files.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 13, 2020 20:04:17 GMT -5
What's coming down the pipe to bust things wide open? A NJSP Archives official document debunking John De Ciancia's observation? No. This obscure article does not need to be dealt with seriously. I don't think John De Ciancia's name ever made it into the NJSP files. Newspapers made errors and reporters made up stories, but how do you know the John De Ciancia account is one of them? Do you summarily reject it? BTW, I should have confirmed first and realize now it was Hauptmann's first entry attempt in America where he jumped overboard and latched onto the pier. Thanks for pointing out my error. Also an FYI, New Yorkers were treated to some unseasonally warm weather in the latter part of April 1932.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 14, 2020 8:19:20 GMT -5
Right, Hauptmann wasn't showing off the "old timer" Victrola on Hahn's first visit. He was showing off "his" money to Fred that occasion. During the later summer visit by both Hahns, Hauptmann had a piece of entertainment equipment he was dying to show off, and so he took the opportunity to do so on the trip home from Rye Beach. Exactly! Fred had made his solo visit in late April. Marie made her solo visit in June before Anna sailed to Germany in July. Marie was there at Anna's invitation to look at the dresses she was taking to Germany. She did not care for Hauptmann. She makes that clear in her statement. After Anna left for Germany both Fred and Marie visited Hauptmann together and he showed off his new victrola to both of them. I think you are right that Hauptmann was more interested in impressing Fred with his wealth in April. He was now a rich business man! By both Richard and Anna showing off their "stock market" wealth, they succeeded in making the Hahns jealous and suspicious. This behavior would result in the Hahns coming forward with what they could share about Richard and Anna in 1934. I do believe there are mistakes or misremembering in statements. You see this in more than just the Hahn statements. Recall under pressure can be difficult, plus any language (comprehension) issues that might be encountered. You will see this in statements. You sometimes get one answer to a question and then when the question gets asked again with different wording you get another answer! It isn't always intentional lying. Of course, sometimes it is. Fred and Marie Hahn have no reason to fabricate anything. Showing off by swimming in April could be what Hauptmann was doing and then encouraging/challenging Fred Hahn to join him. Amy, there seems little question that Hauptmann, despite his often stolid and bovine nature when meeting new people, loved a good challenge and was keenly open to demonstrating this with those he was comfortable with. Getting back to the occasion where Fred Hahn saw the bags of money in Hauptmann’s Brunswick Victrola, the one Hauptmann called an “old timer.” There is no question in my mind that Hauptmann is talking about his original Victrola with its crank phonograph here, the one ultimately gifted to the Mueller’s once he had purchased the new Stromberg-Carlsen in late April 1932. Hahn is saying all the right things here, including a reference to the partition between both sides of the working sections of the Victrola. So, of course if this is true, it means Hahn had visited Hauptmann sometime in April of 1932, and was simply mistaken about having seen all of this later in June. Still a question mark here, who knows, perhaps Hahn was also there in June, but simply confused that visit’s details with the earlier one. Bottom line, there is far too much going on here regarding details of the original Brunswick Victrola and the reference to Fisch owning some of the money in the bags, for this account to simply be dismissed as being unreliable or invalid. Potentially building on the Hahn testimony is this line of thought. If Fisch was actually known to Hauptmann as early at April of 1932, is it possible Fisch by that time or even earlier, was also know to Hans Mueller, and the two had met previously and independently of Hauptmann? Both Fisch and Mueller had frequented the same section of East 86th St., and there is also the Arthur Trost account which implicated Fisch as someone with hot money at fifty cents on the dollar for sale on E. 86th St. If I’m recalling correctly, it was a man named “Fritz” who had asked Trost if he was interested in buying the hot money, and of course when Trost met Fisch, he advised Fritz he already knew him and wanted nothing to do with the deal. There is also the gifting of the Brunswick Victrola to the Muellers which I’m currently considering may have been in part, recognition or even compensation for any money laundering efforts or assistance on the part of Hans Mueller. Also, given any earlier ransom money dealings between Hauptmann and Fisch in the spring of 1932, there would be plenty of incentive for both men to feign ignorance of each other, when they were "introduced" by the Hahns later that summer. Perhaps some more food for thought here?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 14, 2020 10:09:18 GMT -5
Newspapers made errors and reporters made up stories, but how do you know the John De Ciancia account is one of them? Do you summarily reject it? Add me to the list that rejects it. Nothing in the Statements, 1600 files, the Accordion Files, or the Condon Investigation. Someone would have at least mentioned something.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 14, 2020 10:21:41 GMT -5
Newspapers made errors and reporters made up stories, but how do you know the John De Ciancia account is one of them? Do you summarily reject it? Add me to the list that rejects it. Nothing in the Statements, 1600 files, the Accordion Files, or the Condon Investigation. Someone would have at least mentioned something. Michael, even though the De Ciancia story may in itself seem trivial based on the fact we already know Hauptmann was an all-weather kind of individual, do your listed sources include NYPD Investigation files or just those at the NJSP Archives? I mean, after all we are talking about an account from a NYC resident in a New York newspaper.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 14, 2020 10:48:01 GMT -5
Add me to the list that rejects it. Nothing in the Statements, 1600 files, the Accordion Files, or the Condon Investigation. Someone would have at least mentioned something. Michael, even though the De Ciancia story may in itself seem trivial based on the fact we already know Hauptmann was an all-weather kind of individual, do your listed sources include NYPD Investigation files or just those at the NJSP Archives? I mean, after all we are talking about an account from a NYC resident in a New York newspaper. Most of the Hauptmann investigations included the NYPD, NJSP, and sometimes the FBI. Most of the NYPD versions are included at the NJSP Archives and say the exact same thing. You do realize that NYC residents wrote tens of thousands of various accounts of many things to Hoffman, to include those about Hauptmann - right? I've gone through them all and here you have one - and its a "smoking gun?" It doesn't work like that. I know what you are driving at: that Lynch receipt is complete BS. You could find 100,000 similar receipts at the NJSP Archives and their only value is as an attachment to the report of the investigation that was being conducted. So let your imagination run wild if you must. I have every inventory on this earth which concerns what was found in Hauptmann's home & garage and that's not on it. Something like this would have been thoroughly investigated and absolutely beyond all doubt utilized at trial if it amounted to anything. It isn't mentioned anywhere. No investigation. No notes. Nothing in the pre-trial outline. Nothing mentioned in Court. Even the ladder evidence was leaked to the press but not a word on this. It's bogus.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 14, 2020 13:28:47 GMT -5
Michael, even though the De Ciancia story may in itself seem trivial based on the fact we already know Hauptmann was an all-weather kind of individual, do your listed sources include NYPD Investigation files or just those at the NJSP Archives? I mean, after all we are talking about an account from a NYC resident in a New York newspaper. Most of the Hauptmann investigations included the NYPD, NJSP, and sometimes the FBI. Most of the NYPD versions are included at the NJSP Archives and say the exact same thing. You do realize that NYC residents wrote tens of thousands of various accounts of many things to Hoffman, to include those about Hauptmann - right? I've gone through them all and here you have one - and its a "smoking gun?" It doesn't work like that. I know what you are driving at: that Lynch receipt is complete BS. You could find 100,000 similar receipts at the NJSP Archives and their only value is as an attachment to the report of the investigation that was being conducted. So let your imagination run wild if you must. I have every inventory on this earth which concerns what was found in Hauptmann's home & garage and that's not on it. Something like this would have been thoroughly investigated and absolutely beyond all doubt utilized at trial if it amounted to anything. It isn't mentioned anywhere. No investigation. No notes. Nothing in the pre-trial outline. Nothing mentioned in Court. Even the ladder evidence was leaked to the press but not a word on this. It's bogus. What? Lynch receipt? If you're referring to the Lynch and Jones story and the rental application, I honestly haven't thought about that in well over a year. I have to give you full credit though here as you can at times, be absolute lightning in a bottle when it comes to blowing through synapses and segueing the theme of your choice.. lol. I was referring ONLY to the account purportedly given by John De Ciancia that appeared in a number of newspapers around the end of September, and identified Hauptmann as someone who enjoyed swimming in winter months. I know I've seen previous references to this point in my books (possibly Kennedy) which tells me he was a year round visitor to those NYC leisure spots he and his crowd frequented as a group. So this little news blurb does nothing to disagree with that, despite your claim that LE apparently did not even think to entertain it. By the way, what on earth was your connection between De Ciancia and the Lynch receipt? New York City??
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Sept 14, 2020 15:51:42 GMT -5
No. This obscure article does not need to be dealt with seriously. I don't think John De Ciancia's name ever made it into the NJSP files. Newspapers made errors and reporters made up stories, but how do you know the John De Ciancia account is one of them? Do you summarily reject it? BTW, I should have confirmed first and realize now it was Hauptmann's first entry attempt in America where he jumped overboard and latched onto the pier. Thanks for pointing out my error. Also an FYI, New Yorkers were treated to some unseasonally warm weather in the latter part of April 1932. Yes, I do reject the article. All of the people Hauptmann associated with at Hunters Island were Germans, at least according to the many statements taken from those who spent time with him there. No one ever mentioned Cat Briar Island. John De Ciancia probably did not even know Hauptmann. He just wanted to see his name in the paper. And it's nice that the weather was pleasant in April, but this is from a statement Fred Hahn gave on January 5th, 1935, in the Office of the 18th Division, Bronx. I assume it's a police station, as A.D.C.I. Bruckman was in the room as well: "Hahn stated that during the month of July of 1932, he met a man named Gobel, who worked in the Consolidated Gas Company (has since died), and that they both went to Hunter Island. When they arrived at the Island, they met Hauptmann, Kluckenberg [sic], Lutzenberg, a girl named Emily and her gentleman friend known to Hahn as John, and also another man named Henry Lampe, and another man known as Mike, a printer. Hauptmann took Hahn around Hunter Island in a canoe owned by Hauptmann. That when they got back Hahn found Mr. Gobel missing. Shortly thereafter the various members of the party left and Hauptmann took Hahn in his (Hauptmann's) canoe) over to City Island, placed the canoe in a boathouse, and that Hauptmann and Hahn then proceeded in Hauptmann's automobile to Hauptmann's home in 222nd Street. That Hauptmann entered the premises with a key, and when they got to the floor occupied by the Hauptmann family, Hauptmann showed Hahn ..." You know the rest. No mention of the Stromberg-Carlson radio. Hahn must have overlooked it, because we know it was there in July. No big deal. It's just a radio.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 14, 2020 17:53:52 GMT -5
great pictures joe, when i ws in hauptmans apt that stairway going up was steep. the guys had to be strong going up there. i own a 1936 radio stromberg and carlton and it breaks my ass everytime i have to move it so his must have been heavy
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2020 20:06:16 GMT -5
Bottom line, there is far too much going on here regarding details of the original Brunswick Victrola and the reference to Fisch owning some of the money in the bags, for this account to simply be dismissed as being unreliable or invalid. I don't think it should be dismissed either. The bottom line for me is that the Hahn statement reveals that Fisch and Hauptmann knew each other before the introduction at the Henkel apartment in August 1932. And that the money Fred Hahn saw in that old victrola is the common denominator between these two men. Although I have not seen anything in any of the reports I have been able to review so far that shows Fisch and Mueller knew each other, I have wondered if Mueller had some knowledge of Fisch prior to the kidnapping. Mueller was aware of the business relationship between Fisch and Hauptmann. Hans warned Hauptmann to put something in writing about that business relationship. Hans did not see Fisch as a person his uncle should trust. I have wondered if Hauptmann did finally decide to put things in writing in 1933 and that could be why we only have basically 1933 references to a business relationship that began in 1932. Hauptmann did give the Muellers the old Victrola. You might want to reconsider the gifting idea a bit. Mueller's apartment was searched at least twice that I know about. The first time was when they went to pick up Mueller for questioning. Here is that report. imgur.com/WCfiEuISix days later the police would return to Mueller's apartment again. This time it was to obtain the Brunswick Radio. It would yield something interesting when it was searched. imgur.com/0KVlkNT
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 15, 2020 11:09:20 GMT -5
Newspapers made errors and reporters made up stories, but how do you know the John De Ciancia account is one of them? Do you summarily reject it? BTW, I should have confirmed first and realize now it was Hauptmann's first entry attempt in America where he jumped overboard and latched onto the pier. Thanks for pointing out my error. Also an FYI, New Yorkers were treated to some unseasonally warm weather in the latter part of April 1932. Yes, I do reject the article. All of the people Hauptmann associated with at Hunters Island were Germans, at least according to the many statements taken from those who spent time with him there. No one ever mentioned Cat Briar Island. John De Ciancia probably did not even know Hauptmann. He just wanted to see his name in the paper. And it's nice that the weather was pleasant in April, but this is from a statement Fred Hahn gave on January 5th, 1935, in the Office of the 18th Division, Bronx. I assume it's a police station, as A.D.C.I. Bruckman was in the room as well: "Hahn stated that during the month of July of 1932, he met a man named Gobel, who worked in the Consolidated Gas Company (has since died), and that they both went to Hunter Island. When they arrived at the Island, they met Hauptmann, Kluckenberg [sic], Lutzenberg, a girl named Emily and her gentleman friend known to Hahn as John, and also another man named Henry Lampe, and another man known as Mike, a printer. Hauptmann took Hahn around Hunter Island in a canoe owned by Hauptmann. That when they got back Hahn found Mr. Gobel missing. Shortly thereafter the various members of the party left and Hauptmann took Hahn in his (Hauptmann's) canoe) over to City Island, placed the canoe in a boathouse, and that Hauptmann and Hahn then proceeded in Hauptmann's automobile to Hauptmann's home in 222nd Street. That Hauptmann entered the premises with a key, and when they got to the floor occupied by the Hauptmann family, Hauptmann showed Hahn ..." You know the rest. No mention of the Stromberg-Carlson radio. Hahn must have overlooked it, because we know it was there in July. No big deal. It's just a radio. Are you connecting this Hahn statement with what Hahn claims to have been the first visit to Hauptmann's house, ie. the visit in which he purportedly saw the money bags? You're not very clear in your final paragraph, as I don't know who this information is coming from, and what was actually going on with the radio. Can you possibly include the report, so that we have all the information? As an aside, I hope they found the missing Mr. Gobel, and that he wasn't floating when they did.
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Sept 15, 2020 12:49:01 GMT -5
Fred Hahn gave two different statements about his first, i.e. his solo, visit to Hauptmann's apartment. The first is dated Nov. 9, 1934, at Breslin's office, the second, from which I quoted in my last post, is dated Jan. 5, 1934, in Bruckman's office. Both statements describe the same summer trip to Hunters Island and Hahn's only solo visit to Hauptmann's apartment. The first statement places the trip in June '32, the second places it in July '32 – Hahn apparently doesn't remember so well. He does remember that the Lutzenberg girl and her friend (John Braue) were there that day. In her statement, Anita Lutzenberg said she met Hauptmann in July '32, so Hahn's visit had to have taken place in July as well. In the first statement, Hahn says Hauptmann drove him to the beach, in the second he says it was his friend Gobel. Which is true? (When Hahn used the word “missing,” he meant Gobel had left the beach without him, leaving him stranded there. (Gobel died in 1933.)) Hauptmann then offered to take Hahn home instead, with a pit stop at Hauptmann's apartment to show Hahn his old Victrola. Hahn again recounts seeing the money in it. There is just no way he could not have observed that brand new radio, no way! My problem lies with your attempt to backdate Hahn's initial visit to BRH's apartment to April to justify the absence of the new Stromberg-Carlson.
But the biggest problem of all is that there is not a shred of tangible evidence out there proving that Hauptmann and/or Mueller knew Fisch before August '32. In my view, Hahn lied about being given the name Fisch. It's likely, though, that Hauptmann hired Fisch down the road to help him launder money.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 15, 2020 13:13:32 GMT -5
Fred Hahn gave two different statements about his first, i.e. his solo, visit to Hauptmann's apartment. The first is dated Nov. 9, 1934, at Breslin's office, the second, from which I quoted in my last post, is dated Jan. 5, 1934, in Bruckman's office. Both statements describe the same summer trip to Hunters Island and Hahn's only solo visit to Hauptmann's apartment. The first statement places the trip in June '32, the second places it in July '32 – Hahn apparently doesn't remember so well. He does remember that the Lutzenberg girl and her friend (John Braue) were there that day. In her statement, Anita Lutzenberg said she met Hauptmann in July '32, so Hahn's visit had to have taken place in July as well. In the first statement, Hahn says Hauptmann drove him to the beach, in the second he says it was his friend Gobel. Which is true? (When Hahn used the word “missing,” he meant Gobel had left the beach without him, leaving him stranded there. (Gobel died in 1933.)) Hauptmann then offered to take Hahn home instead, with a pit stop at Hauptmann's apartment to show Hahn his old Victrola. Hahn again recounts seeing the money in it. There is just no way he could not have observed that brand new radio, no way! My problem lies with your attempt to backdate Hahn's initial visit to BRH's apartment to April to justify the absence of the new Stromberg-Carlson. But the biggest problem of all is that there is not a shred of tangible evidence out there proving that Hauptmann and/or Mueller knew Fisch before August '32. In my view, Hahn lied about being given the name Fisch. It's likely, though, that Hauptmann hired Fisch down the road to help him launder money. Very interesting, and thanks for the additional information I wasn't aware of. I believe you meant to say Jan. 5, 1935, as 1934 would put this report prior to Hauptmann's arrest. In an overall sense, do you feel both Hahns may have conspired together here to "pile on" someone who was already in deep enough trouble? They give quite a bit of corroborative detail, including the matter of Fisch's name being raised by Hauptmann, the electric light garage alarm (?), Hauptmann's reaction to the news of the body being found. Perhaps some truth among mis-truths here? Because of the apparently lucid detail provided by both Hahns, one of the first things I considered was their personal relationship with Hauptmann. It seems pretty clear Marie Hahn did not care for him and Fred's purported concern about their child being around Hauptmann, so I guess I've always reserved some judgment towards their veracity. But if they did conspire to lie about anything they testified to in Breslin's office, this would have put them at great risk of being criminally charged for making false statements, despite who it was they were knowingly implicating.
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Sept 15, 2020 15:04:32 GMT -5
Fred Hahn gave two different statements about his first, i.e. his solo, visit to Hauptmann's apartment. The first is dated Nov. 9, 1934, at Breslin's office, the second, from which I quoted in my last post, is dated Jan. 5, 1934, in Bruckman's office. Both statements describe the same summer trip to Hunters Island and Hahn's only solo visit to Hauptmann's apartment. The first statement places the trip in June '32, the second places it in July '32 – Hahn apparently doesn't remember so well. He does remember that the Lutzenberg girl and her friend (John Braue) were there that day. In her statement, Anita Lutzenberg said she met Hauptmann in July '32, so Hahn's visit had to have taken place in July as well. In the first statement, Hahn says Hauptmann drove him to the beach, in the second he says it was his friend Gobel. Which is true? (When Hahn used the word “missing,” he meant Gobel had left the beach without him, leaving him stranded there. (Gobel died in 1933.)) Hauptmann then offered to take Hahn home instead, with a pit stop at Hauptmann's apartment to show Hahn his old Victrola. Hahn again recounts seeing the money in it. There is just no way he could not have observed that brand new radio, no way! My problem lies with your attempt to backdate Hahn's initial visit to BRH's apartment to April to justify the absence of the new Stromberg-Carlson. But the biggest problem of all is that there is not a shred of tangible evidence out there proving that Hauptmann and/or Mueller knew Fisch before August '32. In my view, Hahn lied about being given the name Fisch. It's likely, though, that Hauptmann hired Fisch down the road to help him launder money. Very interesting, and thanks for the additional information I wasn't aware of. I believe you meant to say Jan. 5, 1935, as 1934 would put this report prior to Hauptmann's arrest. In an overall sense, do you feel both Hahns may have conspired together here to "pile on" someone who was already in deep enough trouble? They give quite a bit of corroborative detail, including the matter of Fisch's name being raised by Hauptmann, the electric light garage alarm (?), Hauptmann's reaction to the news of the body being found. Perhaps some truth among mis-truths here? Because of the apparently lucid detail provided by both Hahns, one of the first things I considered was their personal relationship with Hauptmann. It seems pretty clear Marie Hahn did not care for him and Fred's purported concern about their child being around Hauptmann, so I guess I've always reserved some judgment towards their veracity. But if they did conspire to lie about anything they testified to in Breslin's office, this would have put them at great risk of being criminally charged for making false statements, despite who it was they were knowingly implicating. That was a typo, yes. Thank you for pointing it out. Given my premise of BRH/Mueller not having known Fisch before August '32 (I will never waiver on that point), both Hahns had to have lied (again, in my view). They could easily have rehearsed together what they were going to say. When Breslin asked Hahn how Hauptmann came to open the Victrola, Hahn replied, “Well, I don't know. I told him, “What is this here?” Had he never seen one before or was this just a clumsy way to segue to the main point: seeing the money? When asked about the occasion for the second visit with his wife, Hahn explained, “To see the new radio he bought.” “Did he buy the radio while his wife was away?” Hahn: “Yes.” Not so, of course. That radio was delivered in early May. The Hahns made a big deal about the alarm system to the garage. How come the police failed to find or notice it, or Max Rauch, the landlord? No mention of it in their files or statements. And if the Hahns felt so suspicious of the Hauptmanns in so many other respects, even fearing for their daughter's safety, why attend their New Year's eve party? I could go on and on about the pair. They weren't afraid of being criminally charged. Who was going to charge them? Wilentz?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2020 16:06:19 GMT -5
Hahn says he saw the money in the old Victrola, not the new one. If Hahn doesn't visit the Hauptmann apartment for the first time until July, then the new radio is already there in the living room and not the old one. What reason do the Hahns have to fabricate all of this. What about Marie's visit to the Hauptmann apartment alone. Is she lying about this too?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2020 16:20:41 GMT -5
There was a lot of witness intimidation going on. Could Hahn have been afraid to bring up what he said in his Nov. 9, 1934 statement and that is why it is not in the Jan. 5, 1935 one? They tried to intimidate Kloppenburg and there was the threat of charging Anna Hauptmann floating out there just before she took the witness stand. People do become afraid and change their stories. It does happen.
I am not aware of Mueller knowing Fisch before the kidnapping either. Mueller was concerned about his uncle trusting Fisch. He must have had a reason for that. Mueller worked in the restaurant industry. They meet a lot of people and hear a lot of things. I don't think it beyond reasonable that Mueller could have heard things about Fisch. Mueller certainly didn't always hang with the best kind of people. Michael mentions this in Volume II.
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Sept 15, 2020 17:36:54 GMT -5
Of course Mueller didn't know Fisch before the kidnapping, Amy. How could he have?
But you said in an earlier post: "Although I have not seen anything in any of the reports I have been able to review so far that shows Fisch and Mueller knew each other, I have wondered if Mueller had some knowledge of Fisch prior to the kidnapping."
By including Mueller in my reply to Joe, I just incorporated your suggested theory of Mueller's potential knowledge of or acquaintance with Fisch prior to the kidnapping. That's all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2020 18:08:59 GMT -5
Of course Mueller didn't know Fisch before the kidnapping, Amy. How could he have? But you said in an earlier post: "Although I have not seen anything in any of the reports I have been able to review so far that shows Fisch and Mueller knew each other, I have wondered if Mueller had some knowledge of Fisch prior to the kidnapping." By including Mueller in my reply to Joe, I just incorporated your suggested theory of Mueller's potential knowledge of or acquaintance with Fisch prior to the kidnapping. That's all. That is what I said. Mueller had warned his uncle not to trust Fisch. So, yes, I have wondered if Mueller had heard things about Fisch and when his uncle was partnering with Fisch in business, Mueller felt he needed to express that to Hauptmann. That is all I was implying with that statement. I have not seen the Jan. 5, 1935 statement made by Fred Hahn so I have not been able to evaluate that. You sound like someone who has studied the case for sometime so I am glad that you are posting here. I am just not as certain as you are that I should consider everything the Hahns said in their November statements as all lies.
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Sept 15, 2020 19:09:06 GMT -5
Of course Mueller didn't know Fisch before the kidnapping, Amy. How could he have? But you said in an earlier post: "Although I have not seen anything in any of the reports I have been able to review so far that shows Fisch and Mueller knew each other, I have wondered if Mueller had some knowledge of Fisch prior to the kidnapping." By including Mueller in my reply to Joe, I just incorporated your suggested theory of Mueller's potential knowledge of or acquaintance with Fisch prior to the kidnapping. That's all. That is what I said. Mueller had warned his uncle not to trust Fisch. So, yes, I have wondered if Mueller had heard things about Fisch and when his uncle was partnering with Fisch in business, Mueller felt he needed to express that to Hauptmann. That is all I was implying with that statement. I have not seen the Jan. 5, 1935 statement made by Fred Hahn so I have not been able to evaluate that. You sound like someone who has studied the case for sometime so I am glad that you are posting here. I am just not as certain as you are that I should consider everything the Hahns said in their November statements as all lies. I understand, Amy, but the only warnings by Mueller to Hauptmann about Fisch's questionable character could have come after Hauptmann's arrest. There weren't any before that. They all sent Isidor off on a bon voyage to Germany in December 1933 without any hint of distrust. (Isidor didn't owe any of them a penny.) Please understand, though, that I have to distrust the gist of the Hahns' story, based on Fred's utterance of Fisch's name in July '32, because I'm convinced beyond reasonable doubt that BRH and Isidor didn't meet until August '32. I have to be consistent in my conviction. I'll ask Michael to post the January 1935 Hahn statement here if he has it (how could he not, he has the entire archive!).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2020 20:19:51 GMT -5
I understand, Amy, but the only warnings by Mueller to Hauptmann about Fisch's questionable character could have come after Hauptmann's arrest. There weren't any before that. Actually, Hans was warning Hauptmann that he should not trust Fisch before Hauptmann was ever arrested. This is revealed in the prison cell conversation between Anna and Richard of October 24, 1934. Anna reminds Richard about the warnings Hans had given Richard about Fisch being no good. The warnings were before Hauptmann was ever apprehended. This is why I think Mueller had heard things about Fisch and didn't want Hauptmann to trust Fisch. I did post this in the past but I will post it again here. imgur.com/mMRXKpmI understand about being consistent in your convictions. I have some convictions concerning this case that I stand solidly behind also. Every researcher has to decide for themselves the weight they give to the documents they read based on what they understand about this case at the time they are reading them. Thank you for offering to ask Michael to post the January 5, 1935 Hahn statement. I have asked Michael for too many things already!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 15, 2020 20:59:34 GMT -5
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 16, 2020 6:35:11 GMT -5
great pictures joe, when i ws in hauptmans apt that stairway going up was steep. the guys had to be strong going up there. i own a 1936 radio stromberg and carlton and it breaks my ass everytime i have to move it so his must have been heavy Yes Steve, those big old radiolas must have thrown out a lot of backs in their day.. take it easy with yours! Here's a couple more pics of Hauptmann's "old timer," the Brunswick Super Heterodyne Model 160, that he gifted to the Muellers sometime in 1934. I used to have an old RCA floor model radio with a lot of different bandwidths including short wave, but have since trimmed things down to some 30's and 40's tabletop AM radios, including a couple of FADA's, an Addison and Electrohome. Attachment Deleted
|
|