|
Post by aaron on Sept 16, 2021 13:58:35 GMT -5
The man in front on the right has been identified as William Haas. He also appears in the photo taken at Hauptmann's New Year's party again in front on the right.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Sept 16, 2021 14:09:43 GMT -5
Commenting once more on the relationship of Engen Gewuerz: Richard Hauptmann made trips to Hunter Island for recreation, soccer and picnics. Isidor and "Fritz" would not travel to Hunter Island for that purpose. They were interested in obtaining and laundering hot money, so if they made a trip to Hunter Island in February of 1932, it would have been for business purposes. Their intention was to meet someone in a relatively private area. In "The Case That Never Dies" Lloyd Gardner gives specifics about their business with Isidor's use of "Fritz" as his front man. OK, the weather is cold, though that does not deter Hauptmann from playing soccer in February, and it would not deter Isidor from trying to drive a good bargain.
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Sept 16, 2021 16:46:53 GMT -5
The man in front on the right has been identified as William Haas. He also appears in the photo taken at Hauptmann's New Year's party again in front on the right. I think you mean Rudolf Haase. There was no William Haas in the case.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 16, 2021 18:09:18 GMT -5
Guest, I believe this is the photo that Aaron was referring to in regards to a William Haas. Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Sept 16, 2021 18:51:43 GMT -5
Commenting once more on the relationship of Engen Gewuerz: Richard Hauptmann made trips to Hunter Island for recreation, soccer and picnics. Isidor and "Fritz" would not travel to Hunter Island for that purpose. They were interested in obtaining and laundering hot money, so if they made a trip to Hunter Island in February of 1932, it would have been for business purposes. Their intention was to meet someone in a relatively private area. In "The Case That Never Dies" Lloyd Gardner gives specifics about their business with Isidor's use of "Fritz" as his front man. OK, the weather is cold, though that does not deter Hauptmann from playing soccer in February, and it would not deter Isidor from trying to drive a good bargain. Aaron, Michael's Dark Corners Vol 2, pages 602-614 covers a lot of information regarding "Fritz".
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Sept 16, 2021 20:30:01 GMT -5
Guest, I believe this is the photo that Aaron was referring to in regards to a William Haas. View AttachmentYes Lurp173, that's the one. Thank you for posting it. Perhaps the man on the lower right is Rudolf (or anglicized Rudolph) Haase. (If I remember correctly, he worked in the wine cellar of the Waldorf Astoria (have to find his statement given to Asst. DA Breslin on Sept. 28, 1934)). It's so strange that Hauptmann was alternately described as sullen and dull and not participating in conversations and being very social and outgoing, as shown in this photo. Dual personality? I always enjoy your informative and insightful posts.
|
|
|
Post by pzb63 on Sept 17, 2021 6:20:07 GMT -5
Joe I disagree with your comments that people do not remember where they were the day before a defining event. For example - I clearly remember what I was doing the night before the twin towers attack. I watched the events on that evening, and at that time recalled I had emailed a cousin the US just the night before. This in itself brings to mind the room I was in, the time of day, the house I as living in etc. This will always be associated in my mind with where I was when I heard the news of that day. In the same way that someone might hear of a death in the family or of an old friend, they may say "I was just thinking about her yesterday" or "isn't that funny, xxx mentioned him the other day", this can form part of the memory around learning of the death, and become part of the recollection of it. Only sometimes, of course. I clearly remember the day John Lennon was killed and I know that I had just came home from work, and how shocked I was, but I would really have to backtrack and think hard as to where I was working back then. So two things may go to recollecting things that happened years before - what memories you form around it at the time, and the length of time gone past. So Anna may well remember the events of the day / night before the kidnap for similar reasons. She was at work when she heard, and at work when it happened and this formed her recollection of the event. I'd like to make it clear I am not taking a position as to what she did recollect - only that people can remember their movements and doings prior to an event, and relate them at a later time. I believe the key in your case, is that you consciously thought back, at that time, to the evening before 9/11. When Hauptmann was arrested, Anna could not recall if Richard had picked her up on the evening of March 1, because she had not fixed in her mind at that time, the evening before the morning in which she first heard the news of the kidnapping. She immediately claimed to investigators, something to the effect that "it was too long ago" to remember whether he had or not. When she became aware that the night of the kidnapping was a Tuesday, it triggered her recognition that Richard usually did pick her up after working late at Fredericksen's Bakery, but without specific reference to that very evening. During the trial, she testified Richard arrived at the bakery around 7:00 pm and they went home around 9:30 pm. Here she was just doing her best here to help out her husband by stating this in fact when in reality, she had nothing to back it up. Wilentz missed an opportunity here to press her on exactly how she would have been able to recall the events of March 1, 1932 at the bakery, specific to Richard having been there.
|
|
|
Post by pzb63 on Sept 17, 2021 6:43:55 GMT -5
I believe the key in your case, is that you consciously thought back, at that time, to the evening before 9/11. When Hauptmann was arrested, Anna could not recall if Richard had picked her up on the evening of March 1, because she had not fixed in her mind at that time, the evening before the morning in which she first heard the news of the kidnapping. She immediately claimed to investigators, something to the effect that "it was too long ago" to remember whether he had or not. When she became aware that the night of the kidnapping was a Tuesday, it triggered her recognition that Richard usually did pick her up after working late at Fredericksen's Bakery, but without specific reference to that very evening. During the trial, she testified Richard arrived at the bakery around 7:00 pm and they went home around 9:30 pm. Here she was just doing her best here to help out her husband by stating this in fact when in reality, she had nothing to back it up. Wilentz missed an opportunity here to press her on exactly how she would have been able to recall the events of March 1, 1932 at the bakery, specific to Richard having been there. (Joe)
Yes, Joe. That is my point, so thanks for reading my post. I was replying to your statement that people don't recall what happened the day before an event, just where they were when they heard of it. Ain't necessarily so, as per my example.
However, your reply does makes me think - if something out of the norm occurred, that could fix the events in Anna's mind. So for example, you hear the startling news of the kidnap while at work, it would be quite possible to recall "What a crap night. A baby is stolen, Richard did not come for me, I had to walk home (or whatever) grumble, grumble" or something like that, because something different happened to you and you form a memory around it.
If on the other hand it was an ordinary day, and nothing extraordinary happened - you went to work, your husband picked you up, you went home - why would you recall the event of the day before? It was an ordinary day. The news of the kidnap is all you fix in your mind about the day. When asked a few years later, it is natural to say - "I don't know. that was quite a while ago. Oh it was a Tuesday? Back then on Tuesdays I worked. My husband picked up on those nights".
What she had not fixed in her mind is that he did not collect her from work that day. So maybe he did. Maybe.
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Sept 17, 2021 8:06:01 GMT -5
Thank you for posting the photo of that beautiful Dodge. I don't know off-hand if Lupica described the Dodge he saw as having wire wheels like Hauptmann's. As to Anna: She had to have known that her husband's money wasn't earned income or profit from his gambling in the stock market. Like you said, he wasn't working and lost heavily. The accounts were in Anna's name. She had to sign many brokerage and bank documents because of that and was well aware of the balances and activities in these accounts. She also had to have known about the many margin calls Richard received, some of which he covered with large amounts of cash out of nowhere (sometimes he sold stocks to cover them). I recall reading a statement from a neighbor who said Anna had told her that she and her husband worked hard and had saved up money, enabling them to retire early. She knew that was a lie. At the end of October 1932, shortly after her return from Germany, Anna and Richard walked into mortgage broker Burkard's office with $4,000 in cash looking to buy another mortgage. (None was available at that time.) Where did she think that money came from? My point: Even if she did not know early on that her husband was laundering Lindbergh ransom money she knew the funds weren't clean money and she was fine with that. Her shocked reaction when she was shown the stash in the garage makes one think that it was genuine, unless she was a great actress. I want to believe that Hauptmann didn't tell her about the origin of the money; and since I have no proof that he did, I have to go with that -- at least from a legal standpoint. . After his arrest she had to have put two and two together and understood the situation, in particular that the Fisch story was lie. And so she went on living her own lie.
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Sept 17, 2021 8:11:08 GMT -5
Thank you for posting the photo of that beautiful Dodge. I don't know off-hand if Lupica described the Dodge he saw as having wire wheels like Hauptmann's. As to Anna: She had to have known that her husband's money wasn't earned income or profit from his gambling in the stock market. Like you said, he wasn't working and lost heavily. The accounts were in Anna's name. She had to sign many brokerage and bank documents because of that and was well aware of the balances and activities in these accounts. She also had to have known about the many margin calls Richard received, some of which he covered with large amounts of cash out of nowhere (sometimes he sold stocks to cover them). I recall reading a statement from a neighbor who said Anna had told her that she and her husband worked hard and had saved up money, enabling them to retire early. She knew that was a lie. At the end of October 1932, shortly after her return from Germany, Anna and Richard walked into mortgage broker Burkard's office with $4,000 in cash looking to buy another mortgage. (None was available at that time.) Where did she think that money came from? My point: Even if she did not know early on that her husband was laundering Lindbergh ransom money she knew the funds weren't clean money and she was fine with that. Her shocked reaction when she was shown the stash in the garage makes one think that it was genuine, unless she was a great actress. I want to believe that Hauptmann didn't tell her about the origin of the money; and since I have no proof that he did, I have to go with that -- at least from a legal standpoint. . After his arrest she had to have put two and two together and understood the situation, in particular that the Fisch story was lie. And so she went on living her own lie. My apology: I meant to say, "Thank you for posting the photo of that beautiful Dodge, Joe."
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 17, 2021 10:58:39 GMT -5
Thank you for posting the photo of that beautiful Dodge. I don't know off-hand if Lupica described the Dodge he saw as having wire wheels like Hauptmann's. My apology: I meant to say, "Thank you for posting the photo of that beautiful Dodge, Joe." I’m pretty sure Mbg, that that rotisserie-restored Dodge DD Sedan looks better today than it ever did back in its heyday! Lupica claimed the Dodge he encountered had wooden spoke wheels, while Hauptmann’s Dodge had wire wheels from the date of purchase until his arrest. I’m not saying Ben was mistaken but I believe the following may have occurred in the receding light of dusk on March 1, 1932. Ben’s interest was initially piqued by the presence of a vehicle he probably determined just wasn’t familiar to him. This interest would only have been increased by the driver of the oncoming Dodge having made that unusual steering maneuver to his left. Here, I believe he may have been trying to totally avoid Lupica and had attempted to duck into a sideroad on the left. When he discovered he had mistaken a tractor entrance to the corn field on that property as a means of exit, he regrouped and continued south along Wertsville Road on the wrong side, eventually passing Lupica. At this point, Ben’s attention would have been on the driver and so not only took notice of him, but also what he determined to be “ladders” at approximately the same elevation as the driver’s face and upper body and at that point, directly in front of him. Passing by the vehicle at this point, Ben may not have even been able to see anything below the top line of the doors of the Dodge, so I’m not sure at what point he would have concluded the Dodge had wooden spoke wheels, or if this was in fact an accurate recollection. Ben also claims to have noticed the relatively new Dodge winged logo on the radiator and from this he determined the vehicle represented a changeover year to 1929. Here, he may not have realized the Dodge DD Sedan model, which Hauptmann drove, was only introduced in 1930 and also had this winged logo feature. From recollection, I’m pretty sure Lupica simply noted the vehicle was a dark colour, while Hauptmann's Dodge was of course, dark blue. He also observed a spare tire and possibly wheel on the rear of the vehicle. Hauptmann’s Dodge had a spare tire and wheel on the driver’s side front fender, but because it would have been on the wrong side while he passed, Ben would not have seen this. I’ve previously speculated that given the rough roads of that area and time and the propensity for frequent blowouts, having an extra spare tire on the rear, replacing the custom made trunk Hauptmann usually had there for this day, may have represented some additional peace of mind. Ben also testified that the Dodge had “bumperettes” on the rear which Hauptmann’s Dodge had, as opposed to a solid bar bumper across the back. Here are a couple of videos showing exterior and interior features of the 1930 Dodge DD Sedan as well as an idea of the authentic engine sound of the vehicle Ben would have seen coming his way. There is also a great view of the rear attachment plate which Hauptmann would have used to attach his trunk or a spare tire and wheel. www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIdCEI0YjPkwww.youtube.com/watch?v=cITCTeWECH4
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 17, 2021 12:04:18 GMT -5
As to Anna: She had to have known that her husband's money wasn't earned income or profit from his gambling in the stock market. Like you said, he wasn't working and lost heavily. The accounts were in Anna's name. She had to sign many brokerage and bank documents because of that and was well aware of the balances and activities in these accounts. She also had to have known about the many margin calls Richard received, some of which he covered with large amounts of cash out of nowhere (sometimes he sold stocks to cover them). I recall reading a statement from a neighbor who said Anna had told her that she and her husband worked hard and had saved up money, enabling them to retire early. She knew that was a lie. At the end of October 1932, shortly after her return from Germany, Anna and Richard walked into mortgage broker Burkard's office with $4,000 in cash looking to buy another mortgage. (None was available at that time.) Where did she think that money came from? My point: Even if she did not know early on that her husband was laundering Lindbergh ransom money she knew the funds weren't clean money and she was fine with that. Her shocked reaction when she was shown the stash in the garage makes one think that it was genuine, unless she was a great actress. I want to believe that Hauptmann didn't tell her about the origin of the money; and since I have no proof that he did, I have to go with that -- at least from a legal standpoint. . After his arrest she had to have put two and two together and understood the situation, in particular that the Fisch story was lie. And so she went on living her own lie. I wouldn’t say Anna was a great actress. I’d say she was an absolutely superb and unparalleled actress given the circumstances she would have found herself living under leading up to and including the trial. Knowing in her mind, she was essentially protecting an extortionist and possibly a killer in the midst of the most celebrated crime case ever. From the time I first read about her reaction to the discovery of the ransom horde in the garage, I can’t help but believe it was unnatural and contrived given her normal mannerisms as seen in newsreel shorts, if accounts of her having just stood there at the garage door, open-mouthed, hand slowly rising to cover it are indeed accurate. Anna’s typical reaction to anything she did not understand was represented more by an absent type of stare and blank look of confusion, as opposed to anything this theatrical. I also believe that if Richard had suddenly broadsided her with a complete accounting of his true involvement within the kidnapping, it would have been too much for her to take.. and who knows, she might even have turned him in. Better I think that Richard would have “protected” her, (and himself) by slowly letting the cat out of the bag.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 17, 2021 12:11:39 GMT -5
I believe the key in your case, is that you consciously thought back, at that time, to the evening before 9/11. When Hauptmann was arrested, Anna could not recall if Richard had picked her up on the evening of March 1, because she had not fixed in her mind at that time, the evening before the morning in which she first heard the news of the kidnapping. She immediately claimed to investigators, something to the effect that "it was too long ago" to remember whether he had or not. When she became aware that the night of the kidnapping was a Tuesday, it triggered her recognition that Richard usually did pick her up after working late at Fredericksen's Bakery, but without specific reference to that very evening. During the trial, she testified Richard arrived at the bakery around 7:00 pm and they went home around 9:30 pm. Here she was just doing her best here to help out her husband by stating this in fact when in reality, she had nothing to back it up. Wilentz missed an opportunity here to press her on exactly how she would have been able to recall the events of March 1, 1932 at the bakery, specific to Richard having been there. (Joe) Yes, Joe. That is my point, so thanks for reading my post. I was replying to your statement that people don't recall what happened the day before an event, just where they were when they heard of it. Ain't necessarily so, as per my example. However, your reply does makes me think - if something out of the norm occurred, that could fix the events in Anna's mind. So for example, you hear the startling news of the kidnap while at work, it would be quite possible to recall "What a crap night. A baby is stolen, Richard did not come for me, I had to walk home (or whatever) grumble, grumble" or something like that, because something different happened to you and you form a memory around it. If on the other hand it was an ordinary day, and nothing extraordinary happened - you went to work, your husband picked you up, you went home - why would you recall the event of the day before? It was an ordinary day. The news of the kidnap is all you fix in your mind about the day. When asked a few years later, it is natural to say - "I don't know. that was quite a while ago. Oh it was a Tuesday? Back then on Tuesdays I worked. My husband picked up on those nights". What she had not fixed in her mind is that he did not collect her from work that day. So maybe he did. Maybe. Hi pzb63, I can't help but think that given the time it took Anna (and Richard) to even come up with half-baked alibis regarding the evening of March 1, she was ultimately unable to cement any conscious association with her actual location and associated events involving Richard, at that time. If she had been able to recall anything that was truthful and would have helped them, I believe she would have fallen over herself to impress that on Richard's accusers.
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Sept 17, 2021 19:55:11 GMT -5
Could we please get back to the possible kidnap attempt on Monday night?
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Sept 18, 2021 8:12:54 GMT -5
Hauptmann was said to have spent the weekend of Feb.27-29 on Hunter's Island playing soccer. The weather must have been OK then for this type of activity. So when did he return? Sunday evening of Feb. 29 or Monday morning of March 1? One can argue that he would return by Monday morning to take Anna to work, but if she started at 10 a.m. he could arrive home early Monday morning. Hauptmann did not have a phone, as everyone knows. OK, so how would he become aware that the Lindberghs did not intend to travel back to Next Day Hill that day? Someone on the inside would need to inform him after Mrs. Lindbergh's call on Monday, which would have been about noon that day. That gives a kidnapper little turn-around time to plan or finalize a plan for a kidnapping for that evening. Added to that, Hauptmann does not have an alibi for Monday. He attempts an alibi on Tuesday by going to the Majestic for work before he is scheduled to do so.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 18, 2021 9:41:52 GMT -5
Hauptmann was said to have spent the weekend of Feb.27-29 on Hunter's Island playing soccer. The weather must have been OK then for this type of activity. So when did he return? Sunday evening of Feb. 29 or Monday morning of March 1? One can argue that he would return by Monday morning to take Anna to work, but if she started at 10 a.m. he could arrive home early Monday morning. Hauptmann did not have a phone, as everyone knows. OK, so how would he become aware that the Lindberghs did not intend to travel back to Next Day Hill that day? Someone on the inside would need to inform him after Mrs. Lindbergh's call on Monday, which would have been about noon that day. That gives a kidnapper little turn-around time to plan or finalize a plan for a kidnapping for that evening. Added to that, Hauptmann does not have an alibi for Monday. He attempts an alibi on Tuesday by going to the Majestic for work before he is scheduled to do so. Hi Aaron, just to clarify, Sunday was February 28, Monday the 29th and Tuesday was March 1, 1932. Do you believe by necessity that Hauptmann had to have been in close contact with an inside informant who was directing him with the activities of the Lindberghs and their travels between Englewood and Highfields? How would Hauptmann possibly have developed such an intimate connection? Could he not have simply believed that the Lindberghs were living there full time, having followed news of the construction schedule of the new house and having imparted some more detailed surveillance? This would in fact, have shown that the house was being lived in full time between the second half of 1931 and the winter of early 1932, at least by the Whateleys, and also the Lindberghs on many weekends over that timeframe. In my opinion, attempting to establish a direct and even a potentially verifiable connection with anyone from either Highfields, Englewood or through any of the service industries associated with the construction and maintenance of the house or its ongoing supply of goods and services, for the purpose of determining the best date and time to kidnap Charlie, would have been suicidal to the perpetrator(s). I highly doubt that Hauptmann or any other potential accomplice before the fact would have even considered this unless the intelligence was of a much more universal nature, eg. a specific piece of information that anyone else reading the newspapers would have known equally but might have failed to grasp the significance of. I believe that the precise location of the nursery might well have been suggested in such a way and confirmed by way of some very effective weekend nighttime surveillance. When pressed by Samuel Leibowitz during their meeting on death row and Leibowitz tried to convince him to reveal his true involvement and name any others by asking him how he would have “done it,” Hauptmann told him he would have gotten “sweet with one of the ladies” looking after the child. Here, I can’t believe that Hauptmann would have even ventured this close to the tipping of any hand of truth here, even if that potential connection wasn’t with one of the women. Leibowitz ended up being played with here by Hauptmann and the latter’s cast-iron will and determination to remain mute and invincible come through clearly. I believe that their interaction actually caused Leibowitz a burst blood vessel in his eye, with Hauptmann thanking him kindly as he left, assuring him he was available if Leibowitz required any further information. Leibowitz tried to save face by telling reporters afterwards he was convinced of Hauptmann’s guilt but of course had nothing to offer in the way of details, or on his accomplices. In any case, the respective worlds of Richard Hauptmann and the Lindberghs were light years apart, and in almost 90 years, I’m not aware of anyone having even come close to proving such a direct inside connection ever existed.
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Sept 18, 2021 10:17:59 GMT -5
I’m pretty sure Mbg, that that rotisserie-restored Dodge DD Sedan looks better today than it ever did back in its heyday! Lupica claimed the Dodge he encountered had wooden spoke wheels, while Hauptmann’s Dodge had wire wheels from the date of purchase until his arrest. I’m not saying Ben was mistaken but I believe the following may have occurred in the receding light of dusk on March 1, 1932. Ben’s interest was initially piqued by the presence of a vehicle he probably determined just wasn’t familiar to him. This interest would only have been increased by the driver of the oncoming Dodge having made that unusual steering maneuver to his left. Here, I believe he may have been trying to totally avoid Lupica and had attempted to duck into a sideroad on the left. When he discovered he had mistaken a tractor entrance to the corn field on that property as a means of exit, he regrouped and continued south along Wertsville Road on the wrong side, eventually passing Lupica. At this point, Ben’s attention would have been on the driver and so not only took notice of him, but also what he determined to be “ladders” at approximately the same elevation as the driver’s face and upper body and at that point, directly in front of him. Passing by the vehicle at this point, Ben may not have even been able to see anything below the top line of the doors of the Dodge, so I’m not sure at what point he would have concluded the Dodge had wooden spoke wheels, or if this was in fact an accurate recollection. Ben also claims to have noticed the relatively new Dodge winged logo on the radiator and from this he determined the vehicle represented a changeover year to 1929. Here, he may not have realized the Dodge DD Sedan model, which Hauptmann drove, was only introduced in 1930 and also had this winged logo feature. From recollection, I’m pretty sure Lupica simply noted the vehicle was a dark colour, while Hauptmann's Dodge was of course, dark blue. He also observed a spare tire and possibly wheel on the rear of the vehicle. Hauptmann’s Dodge had a spare tire and wheel on the driver’s side front fender, but because it would have been on the wrong side while he passed, Ben would not have seen this. I’ve previously speculated that given the rough roads of that area and time and the propensity for frequent blowouts, having an extra spare tire on the rear, replacing the custom made trunk Hauptmann usually had there for this day, may have represented some additional peace of mind. Ben also testified that the Dodge had “bumperettes” on the rear which Hauptmann’s Dodge had, as opposed to a solid bar bumper across the back. Here are a couple of videos showing exterior and interior features of the 1930 Dodge DD Sedan as well as an idea of the authentic engine sound of the vehicle Ben would have seen coming his way. There is also a great view of the rear attachment plate which Hauptmann would have used to attach his trunk or a spare tire and wheel. www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIdCEI0YjPkwww.youtube.com/watch?v=cITCTeWECH4Joe, these two fine videos seem to support a plausible theory. In his autobiography, which is full of lies and mainly an attempt at damage control, Hauptmann writes something interesting about his car: "The spare tire was in the left mudguard. This is something one very seldom sees because a car which has these tires on the front mudguard has one on each side. On my car the right front mudguard was not arranged for the attachment of a spare tire. If I had been in this vicinity everyone would have noticed this car, even at a distance." Dodges with a tire in each front mudguard were either luxury sedans or sporty types. Hauptmann's model with a spare tire on the left front was indeed a rarity and, as he stated, he was aware of it. If it was indeed his car that Lupica saw, Hauptmann had not only removed the trunk for the day but also taken the spare out of its unusual place so as not to draw any attention to this unique feature. He then placed a tire without a wheel on the back to have one handy in case of a flat. It is not surprising then that Lloyd Fisher's stenographer, Laura Apgar, recorded the following deposition given by, or likely coaxed out of, Lupica (January 28, 1935), to make an important point: “After I passed the car, I stopped my car and looked back because the ladders aroused my curiosity ….. When I passed the car, I noticed that there was no trunk on the rear. There was no spare tire on the right hand side of the car nor no spare tire on the left hand side of the car.” At the trial (February 4, 1935), Lloyd Fisher would again focus on these elements when questioning Lupica: “Q. Now, Mr. Lupica, what about a trunk that you saw on the car in the mountain? A. The car I saw didn’t have a trunk. Q. What about spare tires? A. As I recall, one spare tire. Q. What was your answer as to the spare tires? Mr. Wilentz: One spare tire. A. One spare tire. Q. Now, where was that spare tire? A. In the rear.” It would be interesting to know how many Dodges of Hauptmann's model did have a spare on the left fender. Perhaps his car had even been a custom order which was not picked up and Hauptmann got a bargain he couldn't refuse, but one with a feature which would have made the car dangerously unique on the night of the snatch.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Sept 18, 2021 10:21:23 GMT -5
Hauptmann was said to have spent the weekend of Feb.27-29 on Hunter's Island playing soccer. Aaron, What's your source for this?
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Sept 18, 2021 12:23:30 GMT -5
It was posted on the board a number of months ago when I questioned Hauptmann's whereabouts on Sunday, Feb. 28. I will have to look for it but will post the source--which appeared to be reliable.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Sept 18, 2021 13:08:28 GMT -5
OK, the post was made on The Condon Conundrum by Michael on Dec. 7 11:05 a.m. Michael made the post in response to a post I (Aaron) had made. Michael encouraged checking on the facts, cross-reference, and asking questions. Good advice. He used this as an example of what he was advocating: "Hauptmann, for example, was supposed to be playing soccer on Hunter Island on Feb. 27,28, and 29 with Emil Mueller." ". . .the guy who he said was also with them backed him up without being sure of the dates." Attached to Michael's post through IMGUR was a copy of the letter Emil Mueller sent to Gov. Hoffman. The copy can still be viewed, by the way. I just checked. Emil Mueller wrote his letter to Gov. Hoffman on Feb. 24, 1936 telling him that he had made a sworn statement on the dates quoted and the information and that this statement was given to J.J.Reilly, lawyer and to Mr. Faucett, former lawyer and which "should be in the hands of Mr L.Fisher." Although Mueller was willing to testify in court, he was not called.
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Sept 18, 2021 14:28:54 GMT -5
OK, the post was made on The Condon Conundrum by Michael on Dec. 7 11:05 a.m. Michael made the post in response to a post I (Aaron) had made. Michael encouraged checking on the facts, cross-reference, and asking questions. Good advice. He used this as an example of what he was advocating: "Hauptmann, for example, was supposed to be playing soccer on Hunter Island on Feb. 27,28, and 29 with Emil Mueller." ". . .the guy who he said was also with them backed him up without being sure of the dates." Attached to Michael's post through IMGUR was a copy of the letter Emil Mueller sent to Gov. Hoffman. The copy can still be viewed, by the way. I just checked. Emil Mueller wrote his letter to Gov. Hoffman on Feb. 24, 1936 telling him that he had made a sworn statement on the dates quoted and the information and that this statement was given to J.J.Reilly, lawyer and to Mr. Faucett, former lawyer and which "should be in the hands of Mr L.Fisher." Although Mueller was willing to testify in court, he was not called. If this Emil Mueller had such a good memory, why didn't Hauptmann remember with whom he played soccer after he had come back from the employment agency on the 27th and sharpened his tools on the 29th? Not that it would have made a difference. And why did these people come forward with their stories in 1936 instead of in September 1934? Most of these late stories don't ring true. Not even the defense team seems to have believed this man.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Sept 18, 2021 15:40:36 GMT -5
Actually Emil Mueller did come forward and make the offer to testify earlier. If you take a look at the attachment, you will see his claim that he made the offer but was not made a witness. That is the basis for his complaint in his letter to Gov. Hoffman. The problem is that some people make up their minds and do not want to see the evidence that does not seem to be compatible with their own theory. That statement also includes Lawyer Reilly. One can wonder if anyone put the question to Hauptmann re: his weekend activities. If you find the post, you will also see the reactions of other members of the board.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Sept 18, 2021 16:20:19 GMT -5
The point here is that when the lawyers first received his sworn statement, they should have called Emil Mueller into their office and discussed it with him. But they did not; they just ignored him. The prosecution offered two witnesses who testified that they saw Hauptmann in the Hopewell area in the days prior to the kidnapping. These witnesses were obviously unreliable; one had cataracts, eg. Mueller's testimony may have strengthened the defense, but the lawyers would not know that until they had spoken with him.
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Sept 18, 2021 16:32:14 GMT -5
The point here is that when the lawyers first received his sworn statement, they should have called Emil Mueller into their office and discussed it with him. But they did not; they just ignored him. The prosecution offered two witnesses who testified that they saw Hauptmann in the Hopewell area in the days prior to the kidnapping. These witnesses were obviously unreliable; one had cataracts, eg. Mueller's testimony may have strengthened the defense, but the lawyers would not know that until they had spoken with him. Yes. So when exactly did Mueller come forward and offer to testify? And does Mueller provide any evidence of having contacted Reilly and others after Hauptmann's arrest or is his letter to Gov. Hoffman all there is? And why did Hauptmann not say yes, I played soccer with Emil on those days? (Again, what good would that have done?) It's not about evidence not being compatible with my or anyone else's theories, it's the absence of evidence to hold up in court that's the problem here. Mueller was unable to provide it. If Hauptmann's lawyers had unjustly dismissed him they'd have been charged with major crimes, don't you think?
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Sept 18, 2021 18:28:27 GMT -5
Witnesses do testify at court cases. Their testimonies are regarded as part of the evidence. Circumstantial evidence is another way of determining guilt or innocence. Hauptmann's lawyers did not dismiss Mueller's offer to provide testimony; they ignored him completely. Suppose you see an accident, and offer to testify at a trial but are ignored completely. Does that mean the lawyer committed a crime? I do not know that, but it could provide grounds for a mistrial if your testimony was deemed important enough for the accused to file an appeal.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Sept 18, 2021 23:28:52 GMT -5
Witnesses do testify at court cases. Their testimonies are regarded as part of the evidence. Circumstantial evidence is another way of determining guilt or innocence. Hauptmann's lawyers did not dismiss Mueller's offer to provide testimony; they ignored him completely. Suppose you see an accident, and offer to testify at a trial but are ignored completely. Does that mean the lawyer committed a crime? I do not know that, but it could provide grounds for a mistrial if your testimony was deemed important enough for the accused to file an appeal. Generally attorneys have to present a case they feel is strongest for the defendant. Sometimes that involves not calling witnesses if it doesn't speak to their own narrative they are trying to build or if they feel that witness might not do well in front of a jury. However, if it comes to light after the trial that a witness was not called by a defense lawyer, when that witness could possibly exculpate the defendant or could have led to reasonable doubt, it can be grounds for an "ineffective assistance of counsel" claim on appeal. It would be unheard of for an attorney be charged criminally for this, but could lead to a issues with the state bar. This sort of thing was in the news somewhat recently. When the podcast Serial became a global phenomenon, a witness placing the individual convicted of the murder stepped forward and was able to prove that she wrote to his lawyer at the time offering an alibi. The lawyer never followed up on this. It led to a number of hearings. Ultimately the conviction was not overturned (it is frankly too hard in this country to overturn a criminal conviction, even when the evidence at trial is called into question), but like Hauptmann, this defendant was represented by a lawyer who was likely in the throws of mental illness and was not represented well at trial. In the case of Hauptmann, there could be a number of reasons why this witness wasn't called but the strongest is likely Reilly just was a sloppy mess.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Sept 19, 2021 8:40:38 GMT -5
Thank you for this information. Let me give here some further details regarding the Emil Mueller situation. The post Michael made on the Condon Conundrum was made on Dec. 7 of 2019 on page 26 of that board, for those who may be searching for the original post and attachment. In summary, Emil Mueller wrote this letter to Gov. Hoffman in February of 1936 but his original statement was made orally to J.J. Reilly on January of 1935 when the prosecution had presented Whitehead as witness. Whitehead testified that he had seen Hauptmann near the Lindbergh estate in Hopewell on the dates of Feb. 27,28, and 29. As a result of this testimony, Mueller spoke with Reilly directly to tell him that this was not possible since he (Mueller) and Hauptmann were on Hunter's Island playing soccer on those dates. Mueller wrote to Hoffman that Reilly assured him that he would be called as a witness and given a date to testify. This did not happen. No explanation. Mueller gave his statement to Reilly orally, and the statement written down at that time. Evidently Mueller was not given a copy but indicated to Hoffman that his statement was very likely still in the possession of the defense lawyers. A copy of the letter to Hoffman is attached to Michael's post by Imgur and can still be accessed.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 19, 2021 9:06:28 GMT -5
Joe, these two fine videos seem to support a plausible theory. In his autobiography, which is full of lies and mainly an attempt at damage control, Hauptmann writes something interesting about his car: "The spare tire was in the left mudguard. This is something one very seldom sees because a car which has these tires on the front mudguard has one on each side. On my car the right front mudguard was not arranged for the attachment of a spare tire. If I had been in this vicinity everyone would have noticed this car, even at a distance." Dodges with a tire in each front mudguard were either luxury sedans or sporty types. Hauptmann's model with a spare tire on the left front was indeed a rarity and, as he stated, he was aware of it. If it was indeed his car that Lupica saw, Hauptmann had not only removed the trunk for the day but also taken the spare out of its unusual place so as not to draw any attention to this unique feature. He then placed a tire without a wheel on the back to have one handy in case of a flat. It is not surprising then that Lloyd Fisher's stenographer, Laura Apgar, recorded the following deposition given by, or likely coaxed out of, Lupica (January 28, 1935), to make an important point: “After I passed the car, I stopped my car and looked back because the ladders aroused my curiosity ….. When I passed the car, I noticed that there was no trunk on the rear. There was no spare tire on the right hand side of the car nor no spare tire on the left hand side of the car.” At the trial (February 4, 1935), Lloyd Fisher would again focus on these elements when questioning Lupica: “Q. Now, Mr. Lupica, what about a trunk that you saw on the car in the mountain? A. The car I saw didn’t have a trunk. Q. What about spare tires? A. As I recall, one spare tire. Q. What was your answer as to the spare tires? Mr. Wilentz: One spare tire. A. One spare tire. Q. Now, where was that spare tire? A. In the rear.” It would be interesting to know how many Dodges of Hauptmann's model did have a spare on the left fender. Perhaps his car had even been a custom order which was not picked up and Hauptmann got a bargain he couldn't refuse, but one with a feature which would have made the car dangerously unique on the night of the snatch. Mbg, I believe that Hauptmann is mistaken or just blowing smoke regarding his statement that vehicles like his had a spare tire on each side. From all of the photos of 1930 Dodge DD Sedans or any other closely-related vehicles I've seen virtually or in real life, I don’t recall one that featured a spare tire and wheel on each side. The standard spare tire location was the rear of the vehicle with either the left or right side front fender location as an option. You may be correct in that some luxury or sports makes and models had this configuration possibly for symmetrical aesthetics, (?) but I honestly don’t see what the point would have been with such a setup unless a person’s travels took them great distances away from a service station at any given time. Your point about Lupica’s observation is a good one. If he didn’t see a spare tire assembly on either side of the Dodge, what does this mean? Was Hauptmann unconsciously tipping his hand in the above statement, because of him having removed the driver’s side spare tire assembly and placing it on the rear of the vehicle after removing his homemade trunk? Can we also be sure that Lupica was not mistaken about the level of detail he was able to accurately determine in his rear view mirror, given the darkening conditions of dusk at the time of his encounter with the Dodge driver? Freezing the image between 0:17 and 0:19 of the 2:03 video showing the exterior and interior of the Dodge DD Sedan, gives the viewer a good idea of how a flat tire could be changed for wooden spoke wheels. It appears this could have been done two ways, the first by removing the centre nut under the removable cap and replacing the entire wheel and tire assembly, or alternatively, by first loosening the four metal clamps between the inner assembly of the wheel and an outer ring or rim that housed the filled replacement tire. www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIdCEI0YjPkAs Hauptmann’s Dodge DD had wire wheels, there was only one way he would have been able to change a flat tire at the side of the road, and this would be by replacing the entire wire wheel and tire assembly. From the Lupica testimony given to Fisher, if it actually was Hauptmann’s car he saw, the million dollar question would then seem to be, was it just a “spare tire” he witnessed on the rear of the Dodge as he claimed, or was it a complete wheel and tire assembly? In other words, if Lupica had seen a tire and inner ring only, this means that the vehicle could only have had wooden spoke wheels and not wire wheels, and therefore was not Hauptmann’s Dodge. Attachment DeletedA final point to try and close this loop. I’m pretty sure the original bill of sale for Hauptmann’s Dodge listed wire wheels as one of its options, but can’t locate it right now. Is it possible his vehicle was originally equipped with wooden spoke wheels, which he later had replaced with wire wheels, at a point in time after the kidnapping?
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Sept 19, 2021 11:07:27 GMT -5
Joe, these two fine videos seem to support a plausible theory. In his autobiography, which is full of lies and mainly an attempt at damage control, Hauptmann writes something interesting about his car: "The spare tire was in the left mudguard. This is something one very seldom sees because a car which has these tires on the front mudguard has one on each side. On my car the right front mudguard was not arranged for the attachment of a spare tire. If I had been in this vicinity everyone would have noticed this car, even at a distance." Dodges with a tire in each front mudguard were either luxury sedans or sporty types. Hauptmann's model with a spare tire on the left front was indeed a rarity and, as he stated, he was aware of it. If it was indeed his car that Lupica saw, Hauptmann had not only removed the trunk for the day but also taken the spare out of its unusual place so as not to draw any attention to this unique feature. He then placed a tire without a wheel on the back to have one handy in case of a flat. It is not surprising then that Lloyd Fisher's stenographer, Laura Apgar, recorded the following deposition given by, or likely coaxed out of, Lupica (January 28, 1935), to make an important point: “After I passed the car, I stopped my car and looked back because the ladders aroused my curiosity ….. When I passed the car, I noticed that there was no trunk on the rear. There was no spare tire on the right hand side of the car nor no spare tire on the left hand side of the car.” At the trial (February 4, 1935), Lloyd Fisher would again focus on these elements when questioning Lupica: “Q. Now, Mr. Lupica, what about a trunk that you saw on the car in the mountain? A. The car I saw didn’t have a trunk. Q. What about spare tires? A. As I recall, one spare tire. Q. What was your answer as to the spare tires? Mr. Wilentz: One spare tire. A. One spare tire. Q. Now, where was that spare tire? A. In the rear.” It would be interesting to know how many Dodges of Hauptmann's model did have a spare on the left fender. Perhaps his car had even been a custom order which was not picked up and Hauptmann got a bargain he couldn't refuse, but one with a feature which would have made the car dangerously unique on the night of the snatch. Mbg, I believe that Hauptmann is mistaken or just blowing smoke regarding his statement that vehicles like his had a spare tire on each side. From all of the photos of 1930 Dodge DD Sedans or any other closely-related vehicles I've seen virtually or in real life, I don’t recall one that featured a spare tire and wheel on each side. The standard spare tire location was the rear of the vehicle with either the left or right side front fender location as an option. You may be correct in that some luxury or sports makes and models had this configuration possibly for symmetrical aesthetics, (?) but I honestly don’t see what the point would have been with such a setup unless a person’s travels took them great distances away from a service station at any given time. Your point about Lupica’s observation is a good one. If he didn’t see a spare tire assembly on either side of the Dodge, what does this mean? Was Hauptmann unconsciously tipping his hand in the above statement, because of him having removed the driver’s side spare tire assembly and placing it on the rear of the vehicle after removing his homemade trunk? Can we also be sure that Lupica was not mistaken about the level of detail he was able to accurately determine in his rear view mirror, given the darkening conditions of dusk at the time of his encounter with the Dodge driver? Freezing the image between 0:17 and 0:19 of the 2:03 video showing the exterior and interior of the Dodge DD Sedan, gives the viewer a good idea of how a flat tire could be changed for wooden spoke wheels. It appears this could have been done two ways, the first by removing the centre nut under the removable cap and replacing the entire wheel and tire assembly, or alternatively, by first loosening the four metal clamps between the inner assembly of the wheel and an outer ring or rim that housed the filled replacement tire. www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIdCEI0YjPkAs Hauptmann’s Dodge DD had wire wheels, there was only one way he would have been able to change a flat tire at the side of the road, and this would be by replacing the entire wire wheel and tire assembly. From the Lupica testimony given to Fisher, if it actually was Hauptmann’s car he saw, the million dollar question would then seem to be, was it just a “spare tire” he witnessed on the rear of the Dodge as he claimed, or was it a complete wheel and tire assembly? In other words, if Lupica had seen a tire and inner ring only, this means that the vehicle could only have had wooden spoke wheels and not wire wheels, and therefore was not Hauptmann’s Dodge. A final point to try and close this loop. I’m pretty sure the original bill of sale for Hauptmann’s Dodge listed wire wheels as one of its options, but can’t locate it right now. Is it possible his vehicle was originally equipped with wooden spoke wheels, which he later had replaced with wire wheels, at a point in time after the kidnapping? Joe, Hauptmann's car had only one spare on the fender, on the left side. There was never a spare on the right. The left side for a spare on this model was a highly unusual feature which, if noticed by a witness, would have greatly narrowed the search for the car's owner in the tri-state area -- had a description of it been made public. That is why I'm convinced, if Hauptmann drove to Highfields that day, that he would have removed not just the trunk but also the spare. There are photos of Hauptmann's car with the spare in its place on the left and also one with the spare removed (on Getty images). Hauptmann's bill of sale does list five wire wheels on the day of purchase. His car never had wooden wheels. It's possible that Hauptmann just put a rubber tire on the back to conceal the platform for the trunk and the complete spare was inside the car. If Lupica saw an assembly for a wooden wheel then it wasn't Hauptmann's car. We'll never know. As to Lupica saying he didn't see a spare on either side only confirmed that Hauptmann had removed his, if he was at Highfields. My guess is that spare was inside the car, just in case.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 19, 2021 11:58:45 GMT -5
Mbg, I may have not made myself clear, but yes I realize that Hauptmann's one spare wheel and tire assembly was on the driver's side front fender. I was referring to what appeared to be his argument to Fisher that it was normal for a spare tire and wheel to have been, as he says, on “each side.” He even states that his right front mudguard (fender) was not set up for a spare tire and wheel. Here, he is correctly referring to the recess in fenders created by the manufacturer which helped to stabilize and hold in place the spare tire and wheel. The spare would also have been held down by a top fastener, as can be seen on Hauptmann’s Dodge. Attachment DeletedFrom all of the images I've seen, his driver’s side spare configuration does not appear to have been that unusual, so again I don’t understand what he was actually implying here. The standard location for the spare tire and wheel on a 1930 Dodge DD Sedan would have been the rear of the vehicle, with one side mounted being an option. So perhaps he wanted his vehicle to "fit in" a little better, if he did indeed remove it from the left front fender for this trip. Thanks for the confirmation of Hauptmann's Dodge having had 5 wire wheels from the date of purchase. By the way, the Dodge models of the year in question were highly regarded for their durability and relatively low level of required maintenance, even having been exported for the rugged conditions of the Australian outback. Perhaps just the kind of ride for a guy like Hauptmann to have considered if he was planning a future trip that might involve some unfamiliar and challenging roads.
|
|