|
Post by Michael on Aug 17, 2014 8:16:05 GMT -5
Here's another picture of these shoes and box located at the NJSP Archives: My best guess is the damage occurred sometime after being in the possession of the Police. The way both Hauptmann and Anna were yelling about people lying leads me to believe, at the very least, they would have pointed out a discrepancy concerning the shoe box to the Defense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2014 18:37:11 GMT -5
Thanks Michael for posting the reports on the shoe box and the picture of the shoes. Since the condition of the box is not noted in the report, I will have to assume that it was not as it appears in the photos when taken from Hauptmann's apartment.......but I will always wonder about it!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2014 20:58:42 GMT -5
And I agree Michael, there was no need for Hauptmann to write on the closet casing. He probably never wrote any of it. Perhaps the person who wrote the phone number also wrote Condon's address. Curious though that he had no phone but had two phone books. Have you seen the phone books at the archives? Was anything marked or underlined in them?
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Aug 17, 2014 21:08:40 GMT -5
he wrote it amy
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 18, 2014 6:12:12 GMT -5
And I agree Michael, there was no need for Hauptmann to write on the closet casing. He probably never wrote any of it. Perhaps the person who wrote the phone number also wrote Condon's address. Curious though that he had no phone but had two phone books. Have you seen the phone books at the archives? Was anything marked or underlined in them? I understand what you are saying about the address too, and it's a logical position. However, it's my belief he did write the address. I haven't seen them myself, but I am quite sure if there was something in them worthy of note it would have been mentioned in a report. If it harmed Hauptmann's position it would have been raised at trial. What they used at trial is a good test for what they believed would "work." I think you believe this based upon your position that Cassidy wasn't the Author. However, I think you know more then anyone there is a ton of material out there to consider. How does one consider what they have not seen? That's the trick of it, and its why after all of these years researching I am afraid to stop looking.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Aug 18, 2014 8:12:59 GMT -5
mike I don't base it on Cassidy because he was a fraud, he testified in the parker trial also. I go by what came out of hauptmans mouth. ive stopped looking because there isn't much else
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 18, 2014 8:45:22 GMT -5
mike I don't base it on Cassidy because he was a fraud, he testified in the parker trial also. I go by what came out of hauptmans mouth. ive stopped looking because there isn't much else Not sure what you mean by Cassidy being a "fraud." Regardless, I think it's important to look at everything in it's proper context. There were many statements by Hauptmann. There were (3) sets of writing he was being asked about. The Address, the Phone Number, and the Serial Numbers on the back of the door. It appears to me, before Hauptmann denies it outright, he's admitting to the Address, but balks at or seems confused by the Phone Number. He also admits to the serial numbers, an admission I've seen others mistakenly point to as an admission to the phone number.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2014 9:20:27 GMT -5
Why do you believe he wrote the entire address on the trim? When you read over the very deceptive way he was being questioned in Foley's office, he seems to be admitting to the 2974 looking like his writing but not Decatur. He can't even make out the spelling to say if the written part of the address is his. Hauptmann is very clear on the serial numbers however and is not hesitant in admitting writting those on the actual door. He is just not positive about that whole address. He thought maybe he would have made a note of it because he was following the case. How can you be that sure he wrote the entire address?
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Aug 18, 2014 10:46:41 GMT -5
well its silly to think one person wrote one thing and another person writing the other. either he wrote it or not. I believe he did
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2014 10:57:32 GMT -5
I understand what you are saying, Steve. Him just writing the address is just as damning as him writing both. It gives Wilentz the Hauptmann/Condon connection to the calls and cemetery meetings. Why write any of it there if Hauptmann has phone books?
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Aug 18, 2014 13:30:11 GMT -5
amy, this is what happened. you can question anything in any case, why this why that. Hauptman shouldnt have did a lot of things that connected him to the case. I guess it was easier for him to conceal it somewhere like the babys closet. I was in that closet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2014 15:39:49 GMT -5
Concealment! Yes, that makes perfect sense. So this was on the door trim that was on the inside of the closet, right? Since this is 1932 there was no Mannfred yet so Anna would not have been going in and out of that closet for baby things. She would have never known it was written in there. Now I understand. Thanks, Steve.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 18, 2014 16:16:41 GMT -5
I'm sort of losing the thread of this. Why would Hauptmann write something inside a closet when, as Amy points out, he had phone books? Michael, why would he write one part and not another?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 19, 2014 5:44:42 GMT -5
Why do you believe he wrote the entire address on the trim? When you read over the very deceptive way he was being questioned in Foley's office, he seems to be admitting to the 2974 looking like his writing but not Decatur. He can't even make out the spelling to say if the written part of the address is his. Hauptmann is very clear on the serial numbers however and is not hesitant in admitting writing those on the actual door. He is just not positive about that whole address. He thought maybe he would have made a note of it because he was following the case. How can you be that sure he wrote the entire address? I rely on a combination of things when considering this whole matter. For example, the line which you are looking at: Q: What else can you read on that board that you wrote yourself? A: I can't read - that is "a", "t", "u" and a "r". Another one I can't make out.When I've reviewed everything, to include things that most people don't have and at least one thing I know they don't, this is what I am seeing him say: I can't read .... meaning I can't read Sedgwick. that is "a", "t", "u" and a "r" .... he's jumped to where he can read then begins reading the address. Another one I can't make out ... he's talking about Sedgwick again. Armed with what I believe is the admission, I've looked at the handwriting as well as the other documentation surrounding it. Not only does it look like his handwriting it shows the phone number was written at a different time and by someone else. Look at that " k" in " Sedgwick" again then try to explain away why it looks like the " k" in the Ransom Note. Would Hauptmann revert to his disguised " k" here? But someone with a copy of a circular might try to duplicate his writing then smear it out once it doesn't look so good. That person admitted writing the Phone Number and he wasn't a "nut." In fact, he pulled other ruses too - one during another aspect of the case.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 19, 2014 16:37:50 GMT -5
well its silly to think one person wrote one thing and another person writing the other. either he wrote it or not. I believe he did You definitely have a right not to research something because you think it's silly. I've believed many things were silly until I started looking into them. Certainly I am not the "end all" to anything here, and anyone can disagree or doubt my positions. It's healthy to challenge debatable issues. amy, this is what happened. you can question anything in any case, why this why that. Hauptman shouldnt have did a lot of things that connected him to the case. I guess it was easier for him to conceal it somewhere like the babys closet. I was in that closet. Steve, if something is unknown we should ask "why?" Asking why leads to different things. Sometimes it leads to a point where we realize we do not know - that's important too. Other times it turns up information that (at least) allows us to make a logical decision. Many times, for me, I've started out asking "why" concerning one thing and by researching the answer found an answer to a totally different situation. So if there's a "why" to be asked then I think there's more harm then good to shrug it off. I'm sort of losing the thread of this. Why would Hauptmann write something inside a closet when, as Amy points out, he had phone books? Michael, why would he write one part and not another? One of Hauptmann's explanations was that is was his habit to do this. And it was. The problem for me is this looks bad because there is no good reason for him to have done this. So if this a product of his habit then it betrays him. Furthermore, he had no reason at all to write the phone number down for any purpose since he had no phone, and any public phone had a phone book. So if he's the guy calling Condon he's not doing it from home. Allow yourself to accept he wrote the address there. By what rule does it say he must have written the phone number there too? It does seem likely until everything is examined fully. It really doesn't help him to say he didn't write it but wrote the address, however, if that's true - then I think its important to know what really happened.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Aug 19, 2014 18:12:17 GMT -5
when somebody admits doing something its not unknown. I don't believe one person wrote one thing and somebody wrote the other. and I don't believe Cassidy wrote it. staying on this, I also don't believe the wood was faked in the attic or otherwise, I don't believe the baby was handed out the front door or the ladder was a plant. I do believe it was the Lindbergh baby in the woods. if somebody shows me hard evidence otherwise I will seriously look at it.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 21, 2014 15:30:03 GMT -5
So Michael, you position is that he did write the address because it really was his habit to do this, but someone else wrote the phone number? To frame him I guess?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 21, 2014 16:33:14 GMT -5
So Michael, you position is that he did write the address because it really was a habit if his to do this, but someone else wrote the phone number? To frame him I guess? I believe he wrote the address there. I do not believe it was done because he was in the habit of doing this, however, he did have a habit to write things down on walls. My point was this was a bad excuse because if it were true it doesn't help him for doing what he did. Therefore, it makes no difference if one would accept this explanation. Yes, someone else wrote the phone number there. Certainly it's something many people do not like, from either side, due to the fact it neither helps nor hurts him. Naturally it will meet resistance because of this, and I wouldn't dissuade anyone from taking closer look themselves rather then accept my position outright. Let me ask you why, if you believe I am right about the address, Hauptmann would write that there but not erase it - yet smear out "Sedgwick?" Why not smear it all out? Why leave anything there at all? Why write anything there at all?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2014 19:15:30 GMT -5
If Hauptmann wrote Condon's address there, it is logical to assume it is connected to the kidnapping. He wrote it there so it would not be seen by anyone except himself. He then must have wrote it there to refer to when writing the extortion envelopes to Condon. Once the extortion concluded it wasn't necessary to have it there anymore... if that is the real reason it was written there to begin with. The logical thing to do would have been to remove it. Yet that is not what he does.
Perhaps Hauptmann kept it just in case he would need to make some future contact with Condon. Could Hauptmann have been considering another crime that he would have wanted Condon's assistance with?
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Aug 21, 2014 19:53:06 GMT -5
after he got the money he might have forgot about it
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 21, 2014 21:06:35 GMT -5
Well, if it was me, I wouldn't write anything down where it could be discovered. I'd memorize it or write it on a scrap of paper that could be thrown out. This is why I thought a reporter wrote the address and phone number in the closet. But the way I would do something is not necessarily the way Hauptmann would've done something. So assuming he did write anything in the closet AND built the ladder (since wood clearly came from his house), wouldn't Hauptmann have had to be involved both before and after the fact (that is, not just in some post-event extortion)? I ask because I remember you saying you thought he was involved, but only after the fact. Given all this, can you clarify just what you think his involvement was?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 21, 2014 21:30:47 GMT -5
If Hauptmann wrote Condon's address there, it is logical to assume it is connected to the kidnapping. He wrote it there so it would not be seen by anyone except himself. He then must have wrote it there to refer to when writing the extortion envelopes to Condon. Once the extortion concluded it wasn't necessary to have it there anymore... if that is the real reason it was written there to begin with. The logical thing to do would have been to remove it. Yet that is not what he does. Perhaps Hauptmann kept it just in case he would need to make some future contact with Condon. Could Hauptmann have been considering another crime that he would have wanted Condon's assistance with? If Condon's address is in the phone book, why the need to write it down at all? Next, do you really think Hauptmann didn't know where Condon lived? after he got the money he might have forgot about it So it's your position he remembered the phone number but not the address? Well, if it was me, I wouldn't write anything down where it could be discovered. I'd memorize it or write it on a scrap of paper that could be thrown out. This is why I thought a reporter wrote the address and phone number in the closet. But the way I would do something is not necessarily the way Hauptmann would've done something. So assuming he did write anything in the closet AND built the ladder (since wood clearly came from his house), wouldn't Hauptmann have had to be involved both before and after the fact (that is, not just in some post-event extortion)? I ask because I remember you saying you thought he was involved, but only after the fact. Given all this, can you clarify just what you think his involvement was? I can't remember ever saying he was only involved after the fact. I know that I've said Ellis Parker originally believed there were two crimes and that Hauptmann may have been involved with the extortion part of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2014 8:56:16 GMT -5
About those phone books. They are found in Hauptmann's house in 1934. Perhaps they were not even in Hauptmann's house in 1932. Those books could have been with Fisch's possessions that he left with Hauptmann. So Condon's address is written on the interior trim of the closet because he didn't have possession of the books in 1932. He writes the address there because he keeps things in the closet and he would need to have the address available but not obvious. Anna would not see it in there since the closet was not in use for a child in 1932.
I don't think that Hauptmann ever went to Condon's house but he probably knew where it was. Hauptmann probably was aware of Condon's reputation in the Bronx as a patriotic, do-gooder, save the day man who loved being in the public eye. It goes to why he was approached to be the go-between. Plus, for me, there is that matter of the wooden box that was made for Anna by Richard. Condon sounds like he had seen such a box. I think that Condon must have known about Hauptmann too. Or Hauptmann and Condon shared a common acquaintance who brought these two men together in this crime.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Aug 22, 2014 10:12:57 GMT -5
I thought condons number was unlisted?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Aug 22, 2014 11:05:58 GMT -5
Condon's phone number at the time of the crime through the time of the ransom payoff was listed.
It was changed to an unlisted number about ten days after the ransom payment at the request of the Condon family, who complained of too many crank calls.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Aug 22, 2014 12:15:11 GMT -5
thanks
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Aug 22, 2014 16:56:40 GMT -5
This is only the government wood expert's trial testimony. He wasn't infallible. In fact, the defense at trial objected to his presence an expert witness on the grounds that there is no such thing as a wood expert - at least at the time.
The conclusion that the wood from Rail 16 of the ladder came from the floor of Hauptmann's attic is highly debatable in many respects, and has been over 80 years since the ladder's discovery. If you read Lloyd Gardner's book, "The Case That Never Dies," you will find a bunch of problems with that "wood came from his house" theory discussed. The prosecution's presentation of the alleged Hauptmann construction of the ladder, using wood from his attic for only one rail of the six (and for a rail that was unnecessary to use in the proposed MO of the kidnapping) doesn't make common sense on several levels. Plus, defense attorneys were kept out of the attic by police from the time of Hauptmann's arrest until a few days before his execution. What were they trying to hide?
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Aug 22, 2014 22:47:27 GMT -5
its not debatable. you have to read wood experts that studied the wood evidnce in the past 15 years
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Aug 24, 2014 19:36:05 GMT -5
I don't believe Lloyd Gardner's book mentions later wood experts who agreed with Koehler's opinion. I seem to recall that I may have seen one such mention of that a few years ago.
One thing I have trouble with is Koehler's certainty that Hauptmann's home hand plane was used in preparing the ladder. I'm no expert on this, but I know what a hand plane is and how it's used from my days back in high school woodworking shop. Maybe I'm wrong on this, but it seems to me like someone else could have used the same model of plane and left very similar marks to those found on the wood. So I'd think it would be possible to specify the model of plane used from the marks on the wood, but not the individual who was using that plane. And since no Hauptmann fingerprints were detected on the wood, how can Koehler specify that it was Hauptmann's personal plane?
Furthermore, according to Gardner, Koehler found that another part of the wood was prepared by using a smaller, different type of plane, which wasn't found among Hauptmann's possessions - again pointing to the possibility of some accomplice helping Hauptmann with the ladder, if indeed he was involved in its construction.
IIRC, I don't think that Hauptmann's defense team made much of this discrepancy at trial, perhaps because the Koehler finding that another plane was used was never made available to the defense attorneys.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Aug 25, 2014 12:21:47 GMT -5
theres a few I will have to dig them up.
|
|