|
Post by bernardt on Sept 13, 2022 12:46:34 GMT -5
The child was trying to copy something he or she found at the Hauptmann house in order to amuse himself/herself while the adults did some visiting or business.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Sept 13, 2022 12:48:18 GMT -5
The child was trying to copy something he or she found at the Hauptmann house in order to amuse himself/herself while the adults did some visiting or business. There’s zero evidence of that. It’s just speculative. We don’t even know if it was drawn at his house, on a trip, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Sept 14, 2022 4:07:17 GMT -5
The circle above the house in the drawing isn't the Moon. Its a pie in the sky.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Sept 14, 2022 6:26:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Sept 14, 2022 7:06:51 GMT -5
Thanks Joe, I still see Ss and Rs. What do you see?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Sept 14, 2022 10:05:52 GMT -5
Thanks Joe, I still see Ss and Rs. What do you see? Norma, I see 3 distinct “S’s” and 2 distinct “r’s” in the segmented rectangle as well, with the sixth figure looking more like a “2.” Whether it was meant to be another “r,” I feel is open to interpretation. I’d also make a case that the “r” which Hauptmann apparently penned at the top of each page to denote something he had not drawn on that same page, and the “r’s” in the segmented rectangle, are similar enough in general form to be considered a possible match. For the reason stated below, I believe Hauptmann made a very conscious effort at Flemington to distance himself from any inference that he had drawn anything in his personal memo books, whether they appeared childlike, or not. I also think it’s important to understand what kind of child draws in a place where they know or do not know that this would not be welcomed. A child perhaps up to the age of kindergarten, might do this, not yet having attained the ‘age of reason’ which would tell them it was inappropriate to do so. Their work would therefore be indicative of their age, ie. mainly scribbling. Would then a child who was proficient enough to draw diagrams that might also confused with being that of an adult, have picked up a personal memo book belonging to a perceived figure of authority, and used it to entertain themselves spontaneously? I somehow doubt that. Summarizing a few other personal observations: Top Page Divided rectangle with upwards angular line to the left, and the house, were drawn by the same person, noting the boldened lines for each one. Also, the line structure and use of the same writing utensil are evident within all four diagrams. The three diagrams on the left are evenly spaced, indicating the ‘artist’ probably drew them at the same time or at least, before moving on to another page. The left page middle diagram can in no way, be confused with the work of a child. I think someone mentioned some or all of these might have been child drawings, done at the request of Richard Hauptmann. I don’t believe they were drawn by a child at all, but that they might have been drawn by Hauptmann at the request of a child, ie. “Mr. Hauptmann, can you please draw me a house.. a star.., etc.?” Perhaps this took place while the Hauptmanns were entertaining guests who had brought a child with them. About that ‘Star’.. there is an interesting similarity within what appears to be the failed attempt at a normal 5-pointed star, with the two individual points making up the right side point, and looking a bit like the ‘double point’ within the unusual small case letter “k” in the ransom notes. This ‘special k’ was never seen within Hauptmann’s acknowledged and request writings, with the possible exception of the word ‘Sedgwick” as it appears on the nursery closet trim, something he ultimately denied having written. I consider the possibility that Hauptmann for some reason, decided to employ this same quirk within the letter “k” in the ransom notes, as an added means of establishing something unique that would not have been reproduced by an impostor extortionist. Middle Page Best guess here would be a conceptual design drawing for an icebox, showing at top, the icebox from its front view, and below, side view of a pull-out upper drawer which contained ice, with the effect that cold air would ‘fall down’ into the lower compartment. Hauptmann appears to be distancing himself from any acknowledgment this was his drawing, by initialing the top of the page. Again, this is not a drawing done by a ‘child.’ Bottom Page Clearly the same principle of design drawn here, as was seen in the kidnap ladder’s recessed rung design. And interesting that it’s not initialed “r” but shows a circled “x.” This is the drawing Hauptmann clearly would have wanted to distance himself from during Wilentz’s questioning. I’d venture he consciously decided to deny having done any of the diagrams, as a means of avoiding any connection whatsoever with this potentially-damning diagram. My apologies for the extended reply but I thought I’d answer your question and elaborate a bit as I was going to post all of the above personal observations anyways!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 14, 2022 11:51:30 GMT -5
Thanks Joe, I still see Ss and Rs. What do you see? You don't think that character at the bottom is an "8"? I can see why you might think the other two were "S" but for me, they are "8" squeezed in flattening the top. I also see why you think the other three could be lower case "r" because a two sideways looks like one. As far as Joe's interpretation of the "r" on the top of the page looking like the "2" (or "r") in the game I have to wonder what he's looking at. The "r" at the top have a loop in them and don't look a damn thing like what's in that game. Of course I don't know who wrote what's in them, but it's quite clear Joe is trying to force a conclusion where one does not exist. It's also interesting to note that there are scores from what appears to be a card game also written in S-261. This in addition to certain names and addresses, some of which, Hauptmann did not write.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 14, 2022 11:55:46 GMT -5
Bottom Page Clearly the same principle of design drawn here, as was seen in the kidnap ladder’s recessed rung design. And interesting that it’s not initialed “r” but shows a circled “x.” This is the drawing Hauptmann clearly would have wanted to distance himself from during Wilentz’s questioning. I’d venture he consciously decided to deny having done any of the diagrams, as a means of avoiding any connection whatsoever with this potentially-damning diagram. My apologies for the extended reply but I thought I’d answer your question and elaborate a bit as I was going to post all of the above personal observations anyways! Joe, Have you reviewed the trail testimony or are you just winging it?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Sept 14, 2022 12:45:32 GMT -5
Bottom Page Clearly the same principle of design drawn here, as was seen in the kidnap ladder’s recessed rung design. And interesting that it’s not initialed “r” but shows a circled “x.” This is the drawing Hauptmann clearly would have wanted to distance himself from during Wilentz’s questioning. I’d venture he consciously decided to deny having done any of the diagrams, as a means of avoiding any connection whatsoever with this potentially-damning diagram. My apologies for the extended reply but I thought I’d answer your question and elaborate a bit as I was going to post all of the above personal observations anyways! Joe, Have you reviewed the trail testimony or are you just winging it? It was a pretty big trial Michael, so perhaps you can express your concern a little more clearly and then give me some idea of the area of testimony you're alluding to, including day and page number.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Sept 14, 2022 13:38:29 GMT -5
Thanks Joe, I still see Ss and Rs. What do you see? You don't think that character at the bottom is an "8"? I can see why you might think the other two were "S" but for me, they are "8" squeezed in flattening the top. I also see why you think the other three could be lower case "r" because a two sideways looks like one. As far as Joe's interpretation of the "r" on the top of the page looking like the "2" (or "r") in the game I have to wonder what he's looking at. The "r" at the top have a loop in them and don't look a damn thing like what's in that game. Of course I don't know who wrote what's in them, but it's quite clear Joe is trying to force a conclusion where one does not exist. It's also interesting to note that there are scores from what appears to be a card game also written in S-261. This in addition to certain names and addresses, some of which, Hauptmann did not write. No Michael, I'm not trying to force or conclude anything here. This, in fact, is what I said.. "I’d also make a case that the “r” which Hauptmann apparently penned at the top of each page to denote something he had not drawn on that same page, and the “r’s” in the segmented rectangle, are similar enough in general form to be considered a possible match." As you can see, I wasn't concluding anything, just putting an observation out there for consideration. Of course I realize the little "r's" or whatever they are, don't have an upper loop. Perhaps one thing having a loop and one thing not having a loop, is where it begins and ends for you when comparing two separate things. There's no question about an alternate hand or possibly two in the card game scores, addresses, and California log. Anna's writing is clearly in the trip entries. I just don't see the relevance of these entries against anything that might literally jump off the page to potentially implicate Hauptmann within the kidnapping, most notably the ladder recessed rung design diagram.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 15, 2022 7:47:15 GMT -5
No Michael, I'm not trying to force or conclude anything here. This, in fact, is what I said.. "I’d also make a case that the “r” which Hauptmann apparently penned at the top of each page to denote something he had not drawn on that same page, and the “r’s” in the segmented rectangle, are similar enough in general form to be considered a possible match." As you can see, I wasn't concluding anything, just putting an observation out there for consideration. Of course I realize the little "r's" or whatever they are, don't have an upper loop. Perhaps one thing having a loop and one thing not having a loop, is where it begins and ends for you when comparing two separate things. There's no question about an alternate hand or possibly two in the card game scores, addresses, and California log. Anna's writing is clearly in the trip entries. I just don't see the relevance of these entries against anything that might literally jump off the page to potentially implicate Hauptmann within the kidnapping, most notably the ladder recessed rung design diagram. So here's what I wrote: As far as Joe's interpretation of the "r" on the top of the page looking like the "2" (or "r") in the game I have to wonder what he's looking at. The "r" at the top have a loop in them and don't look a damn thing like what's in that game. Add that to your suggestion that Hauptmann was drunk as an explanation for why the house and star look like a child drew them and there is an obvious pattern. Deny it if you like, but its on full display for all to see. Now let's look at what you presented... That a lower case "r" looks like another lower case "r" in some way, therefore, its a possible "match" to Hauptmann. The sketch of what is not a ladder can be debated as to 'who' drew it there. But absolutely NOT the house and the star. Clearly, beyond all doubt, a child did that. You find it an obstruction to whatever conclusion you want to make about what you believe was the "ladder sketch" so you pull a rabbit out of a hat to make it go away. Again, its a pattern that you engage in.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 15, 2022 7:54:40 GMT -5
It was a pretty big trial Michael, so perhaps you can express your concern a little more clearly and then give me some idea of the area of testimony you're alluding to, including day and page number. Okay, so you've answered my question. I just think its a good idea to review the section of the trial transcripts where Hauptmann is being questioned by Wilentz and told to mark the different pages with an "x" an "r" and an "H." To me this makes the most amount of sense to better understand the situation. Asking me for the page number doesn't assist, because if I've got to go look it up, I might as well do it myself. I remember a lot but not to the point where I can quote it unless I have something in my notes. So I'll spend my day booting and rebooting up the old computer and hopefully I can get both the file explorer and the cdrom drive to work. Last time it couldn't read the disk. So don't worry, I'll help you out here Joe.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 15, 2022 13:34:55 GMT -5
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Sept 16, 2022 7:55:24 GMT -5
Thanks Michael, and much appreciated. I'll need to dig into these further this weekend on my home computer.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 16, 2022 8:28:11 GMT -5
It starts on 2599 but I couldn’t get the email for some reason. Wilentz is talking about the “ladder” sketch there. We know because of what he says later.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Sept 16, 2022 9:59:44 GMT -5
Okay, do you happen to know if the trial transcript has ever been transcribed into a Word-type document? The only filtering I'm aware of for the original typed format is the list of witnesses against the day they appeared on the stand.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Sept 16, 2022 20:10:43 GMT -5
For now, here's Day 19 of the trial. As you indicated, the relevant references start at page 2599 and relating to the diagrams, continue from there. www.yumpu.com/xx/document/view/67230743/flemington-hauptmann-trial-day-19It's been a few years since I've reviewed some of these pages and I believe I was recalling things pretty much as they were indicated Michael, so I'm not sure what you mean by your suggestion I was winging anything or engaging in some kind of pattern. Perhaps others here can have a look for themselves and determine what they're able to extract in relation to Hauptmann's explanations from the testimony.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 18, 2022 10:52:02 GMT -5
For now, here's Day 19 of the trial. As you indicated, the relevant references start at page 2599 and relating to the diagrams, continue from there. www.yumpu.com/xx/document/view/67230743/flemington-hauptmann-trial-day-19It's been a few years since I've reviewed some of these pages and I believe I was recalling things pretty much as they were indicated Michael, so I'm not sure what you mean by your suggestion I was winging anything or engaging in some kind of pattern. Perhaps others here can have a look for themselves and determine what they're able to extract in relation to Hauptmann's explanations from the testimony. Great new host you've found. Too bad one can't upload without signing up. It's good to read thru these to see exactly what was going on much of which I've already indicated. That is, even Wilentz conceded that others wrote in that notebook. As a reminder, here is what you wrote: (Joe): First of all, these were Hauptmann’s private memo books, period. Hauptmann would have allowed no child the latitude to commandeer them for the sake of his or her personal amusement. Yes, Hauptmann claimed they were drawn by a “visiting child”, yet for some reason, he couldn’t provide the name of that same child. Surprised? Otherwise, I’m sure you would have somehow been able to snoop out this kid during your archival research and titled one of your book chapters accordingly. Please tell me you have a lead on this little curmudgeon! Obviously, this "idea" that Hauptmann wouldn't let anyone else touch his "precious" notebook is merely a figment of your imagination. It sounds good but simply isn't true. Next, where was Hauptmann asked to identify the child? I must be missing it, could you give me the page number? And let's not forget this doozy: (Joe): If you want my best opinion here, these two pages were drawn by Richard Hauptmann either at some stage of intoxication or otherwise-elevated mood, during his planning stage before the kidnapping, or possibly in a state of reverie, while congratulating himself on what a great man he was, after the fact. Pattern established.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Sept 22, 2022 8:16:16 GMT -5
I’ve used the Yumpu site before and pretty sure it had been readable for all without signing up, the last time I posted with it about five years ago. Perhaps they’ve changed their policy. Anyways, it’s a great free service. It does allow up to three personal ‘publications’ before you need to upgrade for more at a cost. If you delete previous ones however, you can keep adding more up to a current maximum of three.
Michael, I didn’t say Hauptmann would not have allowed an adult to pick up one of his memo books and make entries in it, so your attempt at derailment / misdirection doesn’t work here. His memo books contain the writing of other adults, as is clearly evidenced in a number of locations. This never been in dispute. The primary context of this debate is whether or not a child, was allowed to take temporary ownership of his memo books and specifically drew the diagrams that Hauptmann initialed “r,” “r” with a circle and “x.”
I stand firmly by my opinion for the reasons I’ve previously given, that no child drew the four ‘cartoon-like’ diagrams drawn on the two adjacent pages, or any of the other ones he was questioned about during the exchange between pages 2602 and 2606 of the trial testimony. Wilentz appears to have simply set the suggestion into the mind of Hauptmann, who then uses the same “little child” explanation to deny accountability for any of them, ultimately explaining away all the other diagrams, including the ones initialed with an “r” with a circle, and clearly the most damning one, initialed with an “x,” the conceptual diagram of the recessed rung design and the dowel pin connector.
Hauptmann is clearly being evasive here, and Wilentz by this time, should have known better. For so many reasons, he had a perfect opportunity to nail Hauptmann to rights here.. and let it slip by. As a general comment here, it is somewhat heartwarming to see your unwavering support of a real underdog, regardless of how misguided that energy can be at times. Hauptmann certainly didn’t have a whole lot going for him in Flemington, when it came to being honest, straightforward and forthcoming. He has had you though as his champion for the past twenty odd years, whenever there’s a need to distance him from any potential indications toward him being the primary architect of this kidnapping.
Pattern embedded in granite.
In a strange twist of irony, Condon, someone who also championed the underdog, albeit for more altruistic reasons, would probably have at least, given you a nominal tip of the hat here.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Sept 22, 2022 12:56:26 GMT -5
Personally, I think they are a child's drawings, but I wouldn't be shocked to find out that they were Hauptman's doodles either. Joe, I see your point about the heavy lines. Still, I can't see that they have any relation to this case, unlike the drawing which may be the ladder.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Sept 22, 2022 13:23:49 GMT -5
The larger question for me Norma, is why Hauptmann would want to distance himself from the drawings, starting with the cartoon-like ones, by essentially extending the "little child" explanation into all of them, up to and including the one that could easily be interpreted as a concept type diagram of the recessed rung design of the kidnap ladder and an indication of how it was to be connected together. Clearly, Wilentz could have plied him further on the veracity of his claim, and I really feel he dropped the ball here.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Sept 22, 2022 13:29:53 GMT -5
Joe, I'm confused as to why Wilentz chose to lead the witness in this way.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Sept 22, 2022 14:28:03 GMT -5
I really don't know. Perhaps Wilentz was working to some kind of schedule and felt he had more important ground to cover. He could quite easily have made a very strong case that the segmented rectangle on the 'cartoon' pages looked nothing like a child's drawing, yet fit nicely within the grouping and contained many similar, strong and unhesitating line characteristics as well as similar acute angles formed through connecting of many of the lines. Certainly they could have been Hauptmann doodles, but even a doodle has some rationale behind it. Perhaps these four diagrams were done by Hauptmann at a child's request. All in all and relatively speaking, it's the way that Wilentz blew off the potential importance of the drawings, especially the "x" one, with Hauptmann then giving his best appearance of having been in full cooperation, that's always perplexed me. And Wilentz never came back to these during the remainder of the trial.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Sept 22, 2022 14:32:45 GMT -5
Perhaps he intended to to draw a comparison of the letter Rs in the rectangle to the Rs he had him write at the top of the page (which seems random).
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Sept 23, 2022 6:54:38 GMT -5
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Sept 23, 2022 10:06:42 GMT -5
Perhaps he intended to to draw a comparison of the letter Rs in the rectangle to the Rs he had him write at the top of the page (which seems random). Wilentz didn't seem properly prepared to go into the necessary level of detail with any of the memo book drawings he put before Hauptmann. I believe he instead, led Hauptmann into the "little child"-as-author explanation, which Hauptmann then used increasingly to his advantage to essentially wash his hands of any personal ownership for the specific drawings referred to in testimony.
|
|