|
Post by Wayne on Jun 6, 2022 16:09:59 GMT -5
Disclaimer: I have no idea if Hauptmann did or did not kidnap Charlie.
But if, as Fisher and Cahill claim, Hauptmann was the lone-wolf kidnapper, there seems to me that there is one inescapable, logical conclusion.
If Hauptmann had no accomplices or inside help (as Fisher and Cahill claim), then his plan must have been to murder Charlie from the start.
In this scenario, Charlie was not accidentally killed (i.e. dropped from the window, etc.) but maliciously and purposely killed that night by Hauptmann.
Without accomplices or inside help, what was Hauptmann going to do with a live/living Charlie for days and nights until he (Hauptmann) got his money?
All I'm saying here is that if Hauptmann was the lone-wolf kidnapper then he had to have planned to kill Charlie that night. Without accomplices there was nothing else he could have done.
A bit frightening, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jun 6, 2022 18:54:41 GMT -5
Wayne,
In regards to your last post, what is your opinion of the document that author Cahill stated that he found in the New York City Municipal Archives? This is the rental application document that was allegedly found in Hauptmann's home/garage. It purports to be a rental application with the Hibbs Real Estate & Insurance Company seeking a one or two room apartment for two people named "Lynch" and "Jones" for a time period of 3/1/32 to 9/30/32. Obviously it is suggesting/insinuating that Hauptmann was planning to keep the child there during the ransom negotiations. Is this a fake document that was planted in the Municipal Achives? Any evidence at all that it actually came from Hauptmann's home/garage?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jun 6, 2022 19:05:12 GMT -5
Wayne, In regards to your last post, what is your opinion of the document that author Cahill stated that he found in the New York City Municipal Archives? This is the rental application document that was allegedly found in Hauptmann's home/garage. It purports to be a rental application with the Hibbs Real Estate & Insurance Company seeking a one or two room apartment for two people named "Lynch" and "Jones" for a time period of 3/1/32 to 9/30/32. Obviously it is suggesting/insinuating that Hauptmann was planning to keep the child there during the ransom negotiations. Is this a fake document that was planted in the Municipal Achives? Any evidence at all that it actually came from Hauptmann's home/garage? Hi Lurp, Great question. I'm still looking into that. However, if Hauptmann did rent an apartment to hold Charlie, then he would have to have someone else to take care of him. Therefore, an accomplice. Or accomplices. My over simplistic thought is that if Hauptmann was a solitary lone-wolf kidnapper, then murdering Charlie had to have been in his detailed plans -- just like the ladder and the ransom "singnature." What are your thoughts on the apartment rental? It's a very important question.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jun 7, 2022 8:18:21 GMT -5
Wayne, In regards to your last post, what is your opinion of the document that author Cahill stated that he found in the New York City Municipal Archives? This is the rental application document that was allegedly found in Hauptmann's home/garage. It purports to be a rental application with the Hibbs Real Estate & Insurance Company seeking a one or two room apartment for two people named "Lynch" and "Jones" for a time period of 3/1/32 to 9/30/32. Obviously it is suggesting/insinuating that Hauptmann was planning to keep the child there during the ransom negotiations. Is this a fake document that was planted in the Municipal Achives? Any evidence at all that it actually came from Hauptmann's home/garage? Hi Lurp, Great question. I'm still looking into that. However, if Hauptmann did rent an apartment to hold Charlie, then he would have to have someone else to take care of him. Therefore, an accomplice. Or accomplices. My over simplistic thought is that if Hauptmann was a solitary lone-wolf kidnapper, then murdering Charlie had to have been in his detailed plans -- just like the ladder and the ransom "singnature." What are your thoughts on the apartment rental? It's a very important question. I don't mean to butt in here, but that rental application might well have originated in some of Isidor Fisch's stored belongings in Hauptmann's garage, and had to do with possible fur business storage before he even met Hauptmann. From what I understand, there really was a Mr. Lynch and Mr. Jones, the names entered on the application taken by Renee Hibbs for "1 or 2 rooms by March 1st." The address given for the men, 102 W. 79th St., actually existed but no one by that name lived there. In fact, there was a Lynch and Jones, two black men who lived on East 127th Street, an area that Fisch was very familiar with, so perhaps that represents a good starting point.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jun 7, 2022 9:07:14 GMT -5
Hi Lurp, Great question. I'm still looking into that. However, if Hauptmann did rent an apartment to hold Charlie, then he would have to have someone else to take care of him. Therefore, an accomplice. Or accomplices. My over simplistic thought is that if Hauptmann was a solitary lone-wolf kidnapper, then murdering Charlie had to have been in his detailed plans -- just like the ladder and the ransom "singnature." What are your thoughts on the apartment rental? It's a very important question. I don't mean to butt in here, but that rental application might well have originated in some of Isidor Fisch's stored belongings in Hauptmann's garage, and had to do with possible fur business storage before he even met Hauptmann. From what I understand, there really was a Mr. Lynch and Mr. Jones, the names entered on the application taken by Renee Hibbs for "1 or 2 rooms by March 1st." The address given for the men, 102 W. 79th St., actually existed but no one by that name lived there. In fact, there was a Lynch and Jones, two black men who lived on East 127th Street, an area that Fisch was very familiar with, so perhaps that represents a good starting point. Hi Joe, You're not butting in at all. Actually, what you have found makes a lot more sense that Hauptmann was possibly looking for a storage space for furs rather than a place to hide Charlie. According to Cahill, the rental would have been from March 1, 1932 to September 30, 1932. That's 7 months. I very much doubt Hauptmann would have considered holding Charlie that long. Here's all that Cahill has to say about it (from Hauptmann's Ladder, pages 334 & 390):
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jun 7, 2022 10:15:58 GMT -5
I don't mean to butt in here, but that rental application might well have originated in some of Isidor Fisch's stored belongings in Hauptmann's garage, and had to do with possible fur business storage before he even met Hauptmann. From what I understand, there really was a Mr. Lynch and Mr. Jones, the names entered on the application taken by Renee Hibbs for "1 or 2 rooms by March 1st." The address given for the men, 102 W. 79th St., actually existed but no one by that name lived there. In fact, there was a Lynch and Jones, two black men who lived on East 127th Street, an area that Fisch was very familiar with, so perhaps that represents a good starting point. Hi Joe, You're not butting in at all. Actually, what you have found makes a lot more sense that Hauptmann was possibly looking for a storage space for furs rather than a place to hide Charlie. According to Cahill, the rental would have been from March 1, 1932 to September 30, 1932. That's 7 months. I very much doubt Hauptmann would have considered holding Charlie that long. Here's all that Cahill has to say about it (from Hauptmann's Ladder, pages 334 & 390): <button disabled="" class="c-attachment-insert--linked o-btn--sm">Attachment Deleted</button> <button disabled="" class="c-attachment-insert--linked o-btn--sm">Attachment Deleted</button> Hey Wayne, unless Hauptmann and Fisch had actually met prior to their Henkel mutual introduction in early August 1932, I'd tend to believe the rental application originates with Fisch, because of Fisch's familiarity with the East 127th St. area. And call this a hunch, but when I think of "Lynch and Jones," I can't help but think of "Klar and Miller." As an outside thought, could Hauptmann have been planning to rent a separate location for his personal use or entertainment, believing he would soon be coming into $50K? I wonder if there was anything or anyone near 102 W. 79th St. that might have been a draw for him?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 7, 2022 11:25:14 GMT -5
Hey Wayne, unless Hauptmann and Fisch had actually met prior to their Henkel mutual introduction in early August 1932, I'd tend to believe the rental application originates with Fisch, because of Fisch's familiarity with the East 127th St. area. And call this a hunch, but when I think of "Lynch and Jones," I can't help but think of "Klar and Miller." As an outside thought, could Hauptmann have been planning to rent a separate location for his personal use or entertainment, believing he would soon be coming into $50K? I wonder if there was anything or anyone near 102 W. 79th St. that might have been a draw for him? I don't want to butt in either and hopefully won't disrupt the flow of the discussion... First, I like your original question Wayne. Lone Wolf or not, I've always believed the child was meant to be "put down." You know, the whole Eugenics thing that concerns sterilization, mercy killings, etc. Concerning Lurp's question, I like Joe's theory here, it certainly makes more sense then Hauptmann, but in all honestly there's no way to know where this is from. I have all of the inventories, to include the NYPD's, from the Hauptmann home and garage. That application isn't listed on any. Furthermore, they developed certain lists of phone numbers, buisnesses, people, and residences to investigate based on what was found there. None of the information on this application is listed for investigation. So where did this application come from? We are at Cahill's mercy here since all he writes is "allegedly found" among Hauptmann's things. According to whom - or what? If there was a report this wouldn't be a mystery, so that can't be it. Fact is, and Wayne can tell everyone this too, there are thousands of receipts, applications, and documents that concerned just about any person among the countless files at the NJSP Archives. In fact, sometimes things weren't even connected to this case. Here, while I have no doubt its "real," I have absolutely no way to know anything about this other than there's no record of it at all in the NJSP Archives. Nothing in the 1600 reports. Nothing in the Accordian files. Nothing in the State Police Collection. Nothing in the Hoffman Collection. Nothing in the Inventories. Nothing in the Prosecutors notes or preparation outlines. Lastly, Hauptmann was never asked one question about it. If this was a viable lead as it concerned Hauptmann, my experience tells me it would have been investigated. And if that investigation bore fruit we'd all know about it. There'd be a reference somewhere about it and I'm certain if it was earthshattering there would have been some testimony concerning it.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jun 7, 2022 13:09:09 GMT -5
Thanks Michael, Wayne and Joe for responding to my question concerning this apartment rental application. The information that you all have provided certainly makes me think that this document is not related to the kidnapping, The origin of this document is definitely questionable at best. If it had been seized as evidence by the NYPD during the execution of the state search warrant on Hauptmann's premises in September of 1934, it should certainly appear as an item on the search warrant inventory list. Since Michael has never seen it listed as a separate item on any list, one does have to wonder where it came from and how it found its way to the NYC Municipal Archives.
If this document had been positively linked to Hauptmann via statements from representatives of the Hibbs Real Estate & Insurance Company, it would have been very interesting how Wilentz would have handled it. A great piece of evidence against Hauptmann, but adding too much weight to the idea that Hauptmann had no intention of harming the child. The last thing that Wilentz wanted was for the jury to enter the jury deliberation room with the thought that the child was accidentally harmed (his closing argument confirmed this). He wanted that jury to believe that this was a deliberate murder of an innocent child, and Hauptmann was that murderer.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jun 7, 2022 13:43:07 GMT -5
Hey Wayne, unless Hauptmann and Fisch had actually met prior to their Henkel mutual introduction in early August 1932, I'd tend to believe the rental application originates with Fisch, because of Fisch's familiarity with the East 127th St. area. And call this a hunch, but when I think of "Lynch and Jones," I can't help but think of "Klar and Miller." As an outside thought, could Hauptmann have been planning to rent a separate location for his personal use or entertainment, believing he would soon be coming into $50K? I wonder if there was anything or anyone near 102 W. 79th St. that might have been a draw for him? I don't want to butt in either and hopefully won't disrupt the flow of the discussion... First, I like your original question Wayne. Lone Wolf or not, I've always believed the child was meant to be "put down." You know, the whole Eugenics thing that concerns sterilization, mercy killings, etc. Concerning Lurp's question, I like Joe's theory here, it certainly makes more sense then Hauptmann, but in all honestly there's no way to know where this is from. I have all of the inventories, to include the NYPD's, from the Hauptmann home and garage. That application isn't listed on any. Furthermore, they developed certain lists of phone numbers, buisnesses, people, and residences to investigate based on what was found there. None of the information on this application is listed for investigation. So where did this application come from? We are at Cahill's mercy here since all he writes is "allegedly found" among Hauptmann's things. According to whom - or what? If there was a report this wouldn't be a mystery, so that can't be it. Fact is, and Wayne can tell everyone this too, there are thousands of receipts, applications, and documents that concerned just about any person among the countless files at the NJSP Archives. In fact, sometimes things weren't even connected to this case. Here, while I have no doubt its "real," I have absolutely no way to know anything about this other than there's no record of it at all in the NJSP Archives. Nothing in the 1600 reports. Nothing in the Accordian files. Nothing in the State Police Collection. Nothing in the Hoffman Collection. Nothing in the Inventories. Nothing in the Prosecutors notes or preparation outlines. Lastly, Hauptmann was never asked one question about it. If this was a viable lead as it concerned Hauptmann, my experience tells me it would have been investigated. And if that investigation bore fruit we'd all know about it. There'd be a reference somewhere about it and I'm certain if it was earthshattering there would have been some testimony concerning it. Michael, I know this doesn't sound related, but do you know if the bottle of ether that was mentioned in the Geraghty report, ever found its way into the NYPD inventory?
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Jun 7, 2022 14:27:54 GMT -5
Hey Wayne, unless Hauptmann and Fisch had actually met prior to their Henkel mutual introduction in early August 1932, I'd tend to believe the rental application originates with Fisch, because of Fisch's familiarity with the East 127th St. area. And call this a hunch, but when I think of "Lynch and Jones," I can't help but think of "Klar and Miller." As an outside thought, could Hauptmann have been planning to rent a separate location for his personal use or entertainment, believing he would soon be coming into $50K? I wonder if there was anything or anyone near 102 W. 79th St. that might have been a draw for him? I don't want to butt in either and hopefully won't disrupt the flow of the discussion... First, I like your original question Wayne. Lone Wolf or not, I've always believed the child was meant to be "put down." You know, the whole Eugenics thing that concerns sterilization, mercy killings, etc. Concerning Lurp's question, I like Joe's theory here, it certainly makes more sense then Hauptmann, but in all honestly there's no way to know where this is from. I have all of the inventories, to include the NYPD's, from the Hauptmann home and garage. That application isn't listed on any. Furthermore, they developed certain lists of phone numbers, buisnesses, people, and residences to investigate based on what was found there. None of the information on this application is listed for investigation. So where did this application come from? We are at Cahill's mercy here since all he writes is "allegedly found" among Hauptmann's things. According to whom - or what? If there was a report this wouldn't be a mystery, so that can't be it. Fact is, and Wayne can tell everyone this too, there are thousands of receipts, applications, and documents that concerned just about any person among the countless files at the NJSP Archives. In fact, sometimes things weren't even connected to this case. Here, while I have no doubt its "real," I have absolutely no way to know anything about this other than there's no record of it at all in the NJSP Archives. Nothing in the 1600 reports. Nothing in the Accordian files. Nothing in the State Police Collection. Nothing in the Hoffman Collection. Nothing in the Inventories. Nothing in the Prosecutors notes or preparation outlines. Lastly, Hauptmann was never asked one question about it. If this was a viable lead as it concerned Hauptmann, my experience tells me it would have been investigated. And if that investigation bore fruit we'd all know about it. There'd be a reference somewhere about it and I'm certain if it was earthshattering there would have been some testimony concerning it. A kidnapped child would most likely be held in a place in the country since children taken by strangers would make a good deal of noise and so attract attention. it's more likely that a more isolated place in the country would be chosen and that a woman would be hired to take care of the child. The woman would be paid, of course, and would be considered an accomplice. You will recall that Ellis Sanborn's wife Erna appeared with Fisch--who was introduced to Sanborn as "Fisch" with a proposal that a kidnapped child stay temporaily on the estate Sanborn was overseeing in Brigton, Maine. This happened in the summer of 1933. It's quite likely that Fisch was involved with kidnappings in some way and that Erna would have been the child's "nurse" until the ransom was paid. There was another person, an unidentified man, who drove Fisch to the place where Sanborn was living, possibly a partner in the kidnapping scheme. I am not trying here to establish innocence on the part of Hauptmann, but rather to suggest that the plan would have have been more elaborate than renting a small apartment in New York for several months.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 7, 2022 20:08:01 GMT -5
If this document had been positively linked to Hauptmann via statements from representatives of the Hibbs Real Estate & Insurance Company, it would have been very interesting how Wilentz would have handled it. A great piece of evidence against Hauptmann, but adding too much weight to the idea that Hauptmann had no intention of harming the child. The last thing that Wilentz wanted was for the jury to enter the jury deliberation room with the thought that the child was accidentally harmed (his closing argument confirmed this). He wanted that jury to believe that this was a deliberate murder of an innocent child, and Hauptmann was that murderer. I certainly don't want to stifle anyone from researching it but that's what I've got. It's hard for me to get excited about stuff like this because I've seen so much of it over the years. Your observation about the Prosecution is spot on. Think burlap bag. That never made the trial but we certainly know about it despite the fact it was omitted. Same with the J. J. Faulkner deposit slip. Never entered into evidence, but like the burlap bag, there's information about it all over the Archives. Of course, not everything that ever existed is down there now, but given the implications, its hard to believe there's absolutely no trace of something that could incriminate Hauptmann in this way.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 7, 2022 20:32:26 GMT -5
Michael, I know this doesn't sound related, but do you know if the bottle of ether that was mentioned in the Geraghty report, ever found its way into the NYPD inventory? This is an excellent question Joe. Since reading it you put me to work combing thru all of this material. It took me a while since there's so many and some are hand written. Anyway, it's not among the NYPD or NJSP inventories. But this gives me an opportunity to explain the situation a little better. (Wayne, if there's anything you disagree with me about please jump in with it). The searches were conducted by all three agencies: NYPD, NJSP, and "FBI." It was under the supervision of Inspector Lyons of the NYPD. What I've noticed is that if items were found by more than one person representing different agencies it would be listed on more than one inventory. However, certain items found by individuals don't seem to have. For example, Det. Petrosino of the NYPD searched Hauptmann's desk. He found a slip of paper with " Mrs. C. Hillenback, 2756 Fenton Avenue, New York" written on it. Although I might be missing it, I don't see this on any other inventory. Another point is that some of the inventories say " Confiscated" and/or " In our possession." This tells me that if they found or came across something, but didn't take it away, it wasn't placed on any inventory. I imagine once the garage was torn down there was all kinds of stuff buried under the debris that police saw, but didn't care about. And finally, the FBI was finding things, of course, but if their Agents were alone, there's evidence they sometimes weren't sharing what they found. For example, Special Agent Wright found some envelops he did not turn over and instead forwarded them to the Bureau Laboratory instead. Needless to say, these didn't make any other inventory. Next, here's more proof about this in a Memorandum written by Hoover to Tamm: Mr. Clegg also stated that although no one knows about it, we have two fountain pens taken from Hauptmann's apartment, which are now in the laboratory being examined in an effort to ascertain whether they might have been used in connection with this case. He further stated that when Mr. Sisk was searching we did not have any handwriting specimens, he secured some specimens of Hauptmann's notebooks, memorandum pads, and other miscellaneous articles, which fact is known only to the Division. That brings us to the ether mentioned in the Geraghty Memo. It is specifically pointed out that the item was discovered by Special Agent Malone. My guess is he was alone and never revealed what he found to Inspector Lyons. This allowed them to keep the bottle and conduct the investigation themselves. Of course, there's always a chance that another source turns up to prove me wrong but I seriously doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jun 7, 2022 21:20:20 GMT -5
Michael, I know this doesn't sound related, but do you know if the bottle of ether that was mentioned in the Geraghty report, ever found its way into the NYPD inventory? This is an excellent question Joe. Since reading it you put me to work combing thru all of this material. It took me a while since there's so many and some are hand written. Anyway, it's not among the NYPD or NJSP inventories. But this gives me an opportunity to explain the situation a little better. (Wayne, if there's anything you disagree with me about please jump in with it). Are you kidding? This is all great stuff! Unfortunately, I have no documentation on the bottle of ether being found in the garage. All I have is what Mark told me years ago... just the fact that the bottle was found in the garage.
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Jun 8, 2022 7:38:10 GMT -5
I don't mean to butt in here, but that rental application might well have originated in some of Isidor Fisch's stored belongings in Hauptmann's garage, and had to do with possible fur business storage before he even met Hauptmann. From what I understand, there really was a Mr. Lynch and Mr. Jones, the names entered on the application taken by Renee Hibbs for "1 or 2 rooms by March 1st." The address given for the men, 102 W. 79th St., actually existed but no one by that name lived there. In fact, there was a Lynch and Jones, two black men who lived on East 127th Street, an area that Fisch was very familiar with, so perhaps that represents a good starting point. Hi Joe, You're not butting in at all. Actually, what you have found makes a lot more sense that Hauptmann was possibly looking for a storage space for furs rather than a place to hide Charlie. According to Cahill, the rental would have been from March 1, 1932 to September 30, 1932. That's 7 months. I very much doubt Hauptmann would have considered holding Charlie that long. Here's all that Cahill has to say about it (from Hauptmann's Ladder, pages 334 & 390): <button disabled="" class="c-attachment-insert--linked o-btn--sm">Attachment Deleted</button> <button disabled="" class="c-attachment-insert--linked o-btn--sm">Attachment Deleted</button> Interesting find here. The apartment in Manhattan may have been intended to house one of the kidnappers or a confederate for a time. The ransom money was first identified in Manhattan and apparently used for living expenses for the most part. Several possibilities come to mind. One of them would be Charles Schippell who was absent from his mother-in-law's farm near Mt. Rose for that length of time almost exactly--March 1 to Sept. 30 with a few trips made to the farm site to check on matters there. Schippell had a daughter, about ten--which is school age. Her name was Charlotte. When the family moved, she would have been enrolled in a different school each time. School records would show her attendance, of course excepting for the summer vacation period. The apartment in New York was small, indicating that it was intended for perhaps one or two persons, or a small family with one child.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jun 8, 2022 7:49:37 GMT -5
Michael, I know this doesn't sound related, but do you know if the bottle of ether that was mentioned in the Geraghty report, ever found its way into the NYPD inventory? This is an excellent question Joe. Since reading it you put me to work combing thru all of this material. It took me a while since there's so many and some are hand written. Anyway, it's not among the NYPD or NJSP inventories. But this gives me an opportunity to explain the situation a little better. (Wayne, if there's anything you disagree with me about please jump in with it). The searches were conducted by all three agencies: NYPD, NJSP, and "FBI." It was under the supervision of Inspector Lyons of the NYPD. What I've noticed is that if items were found by more than one person representing different agencies it would be listed on more than one inventory. However, certain items found by individuals don't seem to have. For example, Det. Petrosino of the NYPD searched Hauptmann's desk. He found a slip of paper with " Mrs. C. Hillenback, 2756 Fenton Avenue, New York" written on it. Although I might be missing it, I don't see this on any other inventory. Another point is that some of the inventories say " Confiscated" and/or " In our possession." This tells me that if they found or came across something, but didn't take it away, it wasn't placed on any inventory. I imagine once the garage was torn down there was all kinds of stuff buried under the debris that police saw, but didn't care about. And finally, the FBI was finding things, of course, but if their Agents were alone, there's evidence they sometimes weren't sharing what they found. For example, Special Agent Wright found some envelops he did not turn over and instead forwarded them to the Bureau Laboratory instead. Needless to say, these didn't make any other inventory. Next, here's more proof about this in a Memorandum written by Hoover to Tamm: Mr. Clegg also stated that although no one knows about it, we have two fountain pens taken from Hauptmann's apartment, which are now in the laboratory being examined in an effort to ascertain whether they might have been used in connection with this case. He further stated that when Mr. Sisk was searching we did not have any handwriting specimens, he secured some specimens of Hauptmann's notebooks, memorandum pads, and other miscellaneous articles, which fact is know only to the Division. That brings us to the ether mentioned in the Geraghty Memo. It is specifically pointed out that the item was discovered by Special Agent Malone. My guess is he was alone and never revealed what he found to Inspector Lyons. This allowed them to keep the bottle and conduct the investigation themselves. Of course, there's always a chance that another source turns up to prove me wrong but I seriously doubt it. Thanks Michael, I appreciate the detailed explanation on how the evidence was intended to be documented, as opposed to what actually took place at times. Where I was going with this is wondering if the rental application might have met a similar fate in just not having become more widely recognized and pursued for its genuine importance, due to the way this potentially-important piece of evidence was handled. Discussion around this rental application goes back well beyond the Cahill book, as I recall and you probably do as well, some of its contentious and colourful debate on a couple of the now-defunct LKC discussion boards.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 8, 2022 9:30:59 GMT -5
Thanks Michael, I appreciate the detailed explanation on how the evidence was intended to be documented, as opposed to what actually took place at times. Where I was going with this is wondering if the rental application might have met a similar fate in just not having become more widely recognized and pursued for its genuine importance, due to the way this potentially-important piece of evidence was handled. Discussion around this rental application goes back well beyond the Cahill book, as I recall and you probably do as well, some of its contentious and colourful debate on a couple of the now-defunct LKC discussion boards. These are all things you should be asking yourself Joe and I don't blame you for it. Anyway, most of what's in NY had, at one time, been sent to NJ via at least a carbon copy. Even when there were joint investigations, there are sometimes both the NJ and NY versions of that investigation in the file. Now, as I've written, a few things aren't there which could be for any number of reasons: Damaged, lost, misplaced, taken as souvenirs, etc. This included the fact that some of the Hoffman Collection is obviously missing and among that collection are/were copies of certain police reports. It's why whenever I was searching for something in particular there were always multiple places it could be. Heck, sometimes I'd find it in places it shouldn't have been or in a place I didn't expect it would be. However, we do not know what we do not have unless another source points to it. Most of the time I'd eventually find it, but sometimes it's just not there. In this case the existence in NY proves they had it. And if they had it then it would have been pursued if there was any basis to do so. I don't believe you are suggesting they forgot about it or that it somehow fell thru the cracks. The other options are they "buried" it or it didn't lead anywhere significant. Why would they bury it? Well, no one ever thought someone would gain access to this stuff, that is until Gov. Hoffman stuck his nose into it. Once that happened, he leveled some clear accusations against Schwarzkopf and Wilentz. These men were obviously keeping certain information from him. But once Kimberling took over, Hoffman had access to everything. One might argue those aforementioned took certain things with them or kept them out of certain files but there's a ton of unflattering material that exists which tells me if they did, then it didn't involve "much" (choose your definition of this word). But NY was different. Hoffman requested files from Valentine. But unlike NJ, Hoffman was completely at his mercy. Same with Hoover in Washington. So I don't see the reason anyone would Deep Six certain reports/evidence/information while they believed all of their material was safely protected from prying eyes. The final possibility, and this is the one I think you are getting at, is that it led to Fisch and they stopped looking into it because it could upset the Prosecution's narrative. Ellis Parker suggested as much as well, when it came to Ransom Money he believed was traced to Fisch. Since Fisch was dead and they had one of the men who was involved, stopping "short" was a real possibility. But we have nothing else to suggest this as it relates to the application. You see what I'm saying? One has to get somewhere in order to stop. And even if they didn't want to implicate Fisch, the prosecution hid all kinds of stuff from the Defense. On top of that, they wanted information so they could be prepared in case the Defense sprung it on them. The biggest resistance to new information came after the conviction. Anyway, I'm rambling at this point.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jun 8, 2022 12:33:42 GMT -5
Thanks Michael, I appreciate the detailed explanation on how the evidence was intended to be documented, as opposed to what actually took place at times. Where I was going with this is wondering if the rental application might have met a similar fate in just not having become more widely recognized and pursued for its genuine importance, due to the way this potentially-important piece of evidence was handled. Discussion around this rental application goes back well beyond the Cahill book, as I recall and you probably do as well, some of its contentious and colourful debate on a couple of the now-defunct LKC discussion boards. These are all things you should be asking yourself Joe and I don't blame you for it. Anyway, most of what's in NY had, at one time, been sent to NJ via at least a carbon copy. Even when there were joint investigations, there are sometimes both the NJ and NY versions of that investigation in the file. Now, as I've written, a few things aren't there which could be for any number of reasons: Damaged, lost, misplaced, taken as souvenirs, etc. This included the fact that some of the Hoffman Collection is obviously missing and among that collection are/were copies of certain police reports. It's why whenever I was searching for something in particular there were always multiple places it could be. Heck, sometimes I'd find it in places it shouldn't have been or in a place I didn't expect it would be. However, we do not know what we do not have unless another source points to it. Most of the time I'd eventually find it, but sometimes it's just not there. In this case the existence in NY proves they had it. And if they had it then it would have been pursued if there was any basis to do so. I don't believe you are suggesting they forgot about it or that it somehow fell thru the cracks. The other options are they "buried" it or it didn't lead anywhere significant. Why would they bury it? Well, no one ever thought someone would gain access to this stuff, that is until Gov. Hoffman stuck his nose into it. Once that happened, he leveled some clear accusations against Schwarzkopf and Wilentz. These men were obviously keeping certain information from him. But once Kimberling took over, Hoffman had access to everything. One might argue those aforementioned took certain things with them or kept them out of certain files but there's a ton of unflattering material that exists which tells me if they did, then it didn't involve "much" (choose your definition of this word). But NY was different. Hoffman requested files from Valentine. But unlike NJ, Hoffman was completely at his mercy. Same with Hoover in Washington. So I don't see the reason anyone would Deep Six certain reports/evidence/information while they believed all of their material was safely protected from prying eyes. The final possibility, and this is the one I think you are getting at, is that it led to Fisch and they stopped looking into it because it could upset the Prosecution's narrative. Ellis Parker suggested as much as well, when it came to Ransom Money he believed was traced to Fisch. Since Fisch was dead and they had one of the men who was involved, stopping "short" was a real possibility. But we have nothing else to suggest this as it relates to the application. You see what I'm saying? One has to get somewhere in order to stop. And even if they didn't want to implicate Fisch, the prosecution hid all kinds of stuff from the Defense. On top of that, they wanted information so they could be prepared in case the Defense sprung it on them. The biggest resistance to new information came after the conviction. Anyway, I'm rambling at this point. Michael, Do you have access to Cahill (phone number or email address)? I really want to see a copy of the rental application form that he "found" in the NYPD archives. I'm pretty sure the QDE I'm working with can confirm whether or not the handwriting is BRH. And a few observations... Hauptmann always used Germanic aliases, never English ones, because his heavy German accent would have betrayed him wherever he went. To think that he would have rented an apartment to hide Charlie under "Lynch and Jones" does not make sense to me. Same with Fisch: "Klar and Miller Brothers" denoted a fictitious Jewish fur shop created by Fisch -- both names are Jewish. Fisch couldn't have passed for "Lynch and Jones" either and would therefore never have used that combo for any of his designs. Besides, unless someone can prove me wrong, Fisch and BRH did not meet until early August '32.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jun 8, 2022 13:12:44 GMT -5
Wayne,
Michael may have a better number, but the last time I checked on him he is an Associate Attorney in NYC with the worker's compensation group of Pasoternack Tiker Ziegler Walsh Staton Romano, LLP with a phome number of (866)456-5939.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jun 8, 2022 18:01:30 GMT -5
Wayne, Michael may have a better number, but the last time I checked on him he is an Associate Attorney in NYC with the worker's compensation group of Pasoternack Tiker Ziegler Walsh Staton Romano, LLP with a phome number of (866)456-5939. Thanks much Lurp. I'll give the number a call and see if we can find this document.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jun 9, 2022 15:57:04 GMT -5
Wayne, Michael may have a better number, but the last time I checked on him he is an Associate Attorney in NYC with the worker's compensation group of Pasoternack Tiker Ziegler Walsh Staton Romano, LLP with a phome number of (866)456-5939. Hi Lurp, Big thanks to you... I was able to get in touch with Rich Cahill! I'll keep you posted.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jun 9, 2022 21:09:56 GMT -5
Wayne, Michael may have a better number, but the last time I checked on him he is an Associate Attorney in NYC with the worker's compensation group of Pasoternack Tiker Ziegler Walsh Staton Romano, LLP with a phome number of (866)456-5939. Thanks to Lurp, I was able to get in touch with Richard Cahill. He was nice enough to email me the Hibbs application and said I could post it with the disclaimer that this is courtesy of Richard Cahill's personal collection.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jun 10, 2022 10:53:47 GMT -5
Just a followup on the Hibbs application.
There is no year listed on the application, just "March 1st".
In February of 1930, Ms. Hibbs lived at 39 8th Avenue in Manhattan. Her address on the application is 241 West 13th Street, which was also her address in 1934. We don't know where exactly she lived in February 1932, when the application was likely made.
The Hibbs application could have been made anytime between 1930, when Hibbs lived at a different NYC address, and 1934, when she did live at the address given on the application.
And without a doubt, that is not Hauptmann's handwriting.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jun 10, 2022 11:44:47 GMT -5
Wayne,
Great job. You are definitely a bulldog on getting things. Interesting to actually see that document and get the information you just posted. Cahill seemed like a decent fellow and I thought that he would accommodate your request but one never knows. That is the amazing thing about Michael; decades of intensive research on the LKC in West Trenton and elsewhere and he shares everything with anyone here.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jun 10, 2022 13:02:50 GMT -5
Wayne, Great job. You are definitely a bulldog on getting things. Interesting to actually see that document and get the information you just posted. Cahill seemed like a decent fellow and I thought that he would accommodate your request but one never knows. That is the amazing thing about Michael; decades of intensive research on the LKC in West Trentin and elsewhere and he shares everything with anyone here. Hey Lurp, I could not agree more with you about Michael. And now that the Lindbergh archive at the NJSP Museum has been effectively shut down for 10 months and with no archivist to replace Mark Falzini in sight, no one can get anything there! Michael is now the archive! And thanks again for the Cahill info, I couldn't have gotten the Hibbs application without you. Much appreciated pal.
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Jun 12, 2022 23:30:15 GMT -5
Hi Lurp, Great question. I'm still looking into that. However, if Hauptmann did rent an apartment to hold Charlie, then he would have to have someone else to take care of him. Therefore, an accomplice. Or accomplices. My over simplistic thought is that if Hauptmann was a solitary lone-wolf kidnapper, then murdering Charlie had to have been in his detailed plans -- just like the ladder and the ransom "singnature." What are your thoughts on the apartment rental? It's a very important question. I don't mean to butt in here, but that rental application might well have originated in some of Isidor Fisch's stored belongings in Hauptmann's garage, and had to do with possible fur business storage before he even met Hauptmann. From what I understand, there really was a Mr. Lynch and Mr. Jones, the names entered on the application taken by Renee Hibbs for "1 or 2 rooms by March 1st." The address given for the men, 102 W. 79th St., actually existed but no one by that name lived there. In fact, there was a Lynch and Jones, two black men who lived on East 127th Street, an area that Fisch was very familiar with, so perhaps that represents a good starting point. This apartment would make a ideal place to store booze.
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Jun 13, 2022 5:54:38 GMT -5
The comment is serious, not a joke. Consider the following scenario: John Lister loses his job at the Maine Electric Company in Bingham, Maine, in 1930. He moves to the New York/Connecticut area, as do two of his friends, one of them being Leo Miller. Lister takes up rum-running successfully and becomes known as Bootlegger John. In his business he makes the acquaintance of Augusta Hile, a housekeeper at an estate in Connecticut. Mrs. Hile wishes him to meet her son Karl Henkel who lives in New York. Karl is not lonely and looking for friends. He has just lost his father-in-law, Hermann Kirsten, and is looking for new avenues to explore. Lister is interested in expanding his territory and agrees to an introduction. He meets, not only Henkel, but also Fisch. Hauptmann will be brought into the group somewhat later. All of these men come to know one another as the photos of the 1932 November hunt in Maine clearly show. The exception is Fisch who was consumptive and was not able to chase deer in the woods. The so-called fur business was a front for another activity, as was the defunct pie business. For Hauptmann, the stock-broker story was another front. Can anyone really believe that he was making hundreds of dollars in the stock market at that time? Can anyone believe that he was really playing soccer in February/March on Hunter's Island with two friends and for three days when the place would have been closed down for the winter? He was a business partner of Isidor Fisch, but their business involved more than selling furs and pies and investing money on the stock market.
|
|