Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2012 18:54:07 GMT -5
In his court testimony he said that the man he saw had a red face and Hochmuth stood his ground on that with Reilly. That doesn't describe Hauptmann. In a statement he made to Troopers in 1934 he said the man he saw was wearing a dark blue sailor cap. A red face and a sailor cap sound more like Red Johnson to me. Maybe Hochmuth changed his story to get reward money.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jul 9, 2012 0:00:26 GMT -5
but thats the scaduto way, say the wood was planted, all the witnesses lied, hauptmann wasnt in hopewell, his witnesses was great, you believe the fisch story. 24 years of garbage i heard
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2012 8:21:50 GMT -5
I didn't get my information from Scaduto. What I put in my post came from Waller's book and Gardner's. Because Hochmuth changed his story, it doesn't mean Hauptmann isn't involved with the crime. Hochmuth had compromised vision in 1932 and remembers what he was able to distinguish. It just wasn't Hauptmann he saw. Do you think Hauptmann committed the crime alone?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 9, 2012 9:39:26 GMT -5
Hochmuth is another guy who didn't see anything then all of the sudden did. Once the Governor got involved Hochmuth then tried to "pad" his story to make it even more believable. That not only suggests he lied - it damn near proves it once you consider everything piled on top of everything else.
It's why I give so much credit to Lupica. He could have become a very rich Kid but instead remained honest in the face of all the pressure and money held in front of him. It's amazing. Here are all of these dishonest people just about everywhere and in all ranks. Yet this Student remains true to the facts of his observations no matter what.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2012 10:27:00 GMT -5
So, Michael, are you saying that Hochmuth saw nothing at all?? Not a car, not a sailor cap, not a red face: absolutely nothing??? I believe he lied about seeing Hauptmann in the car that went into the ditch. I don't recall reading that he said he saw nothing at all on March 1.
I, too, hold a high opinion of Ben Lupica. He is one of the few honest people in this case which is why he never made it to the court room. He would not compromise what he saw.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jul 9, 2012 16:57:15 GMT -5
yes amy i think hauptmann did it alone, until i get some real proof that he did, im sticking by it. its easy to say witnesses lied, they sure did on the defense side, mike cant deny that.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 9, 2012 20:52:00 GMT -5
That's right. I don't believe he saw anything at all, and that he made it all up.
They went to his house early on. I see if I can find it for you.
He actually did make it to Court. The Defense called him but his testimony really didn't help either side because he couldn't say yes or no as to whether or not it was Hauptmann. Believe me, there was a ton of pressure put on him by the Prosecution before that Trial to say it was Hauptmann. Believe it or not, Lupica even gave testimony in relationship to the Wendel Case.
We'd have to go Witness by Witness. Which one do you think lied?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 9, 2012 20:52:13 GMT -5
That's right. I don't believe he saw anything at all, and that he made it all up.
They went to his house early on. I'll see if I can find it for you.
He actually did make it to Court. The Defense called him but his testimony really didn't help either side because he couldn't say yes or no as to whether or not it was Hauptmann. Believe me, there was a ton of pressure put on him by the Prosecution before that Trial to say it was Hauptmann. Believe it or not, Lupica also even gave testimony in relationship to the Wendel Case.
We'd have to go Witness by Witness. Which one do you think lied?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 11, 2012 20:46:23 GMT -5
The methods by which the NJSP investigated this crime early on was to break up the area into "grids" then go house to house to search and interview its occupants to see whether or not they had any information.
Troopers DeGaetano and Austin were assigned Area #6 by Major Schoeffel then specifically instructed to make a canvass of all houses and ascertain whether or not information of any value could be obtained.
On March 11, 1932 they arrived and went through the home of Harry G. Plump. This was Hochmuth's son-in-law and the home in which Hochmuth lived. There is nothing noted next to this entry excepting the size and layout of the house itself (indicating they had gone inside).
Gov. Hoffman was the only person to be interested enough to find out why Hochmuth never mentioned anything he saw until after Hauptmann's arrest. Hochmuth explained to him it was because he didn't want to get "mixed up in this thing."
The actual truth, in my opinion, was to be found with Plump who it was said, even by the NJSP, to have had "full control" over Hochmuth.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jul 11, 2012 20:52:31 GMT -5
how can he have full control over hochmuth? the fact of the matter is he said he saw hauptmann and stood by it
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 12, 2012 5:23:32 GMT -5
Plump was also interviewed several times prior to Hauptmann's arrest and the Troopers always reported he had nothing of value to say. Yet, if you believe Hochmuth, Plump knew about his eyewitness account the entire time. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jul 12, 2012 6:38:48 GMT -5
just another document mike at the njspm. like i said this dosnt mean plump used hochmuth as a puppet we all know what he said
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 12, 2012 15:46:47 GMT -5
Just another document at the NJSP? I am not really sure what that means Steve. It's a Report written by Trooper Sawyer. Do you believe he's lying? That he could have interviewed Hochmuth but decided not to - then blame Plump for controlling Hochmuth?
When you research an angle, you have to open your mind up enough to consider the evidence. All of it. Surely you admit there's evidence you haven't seen yet. What is your course of action once you are made aware of that which you hadn't seen? To dismiss it because it doesn't "fit" or rather to actually consider it among what other information you do have?
I've accumulated everything I could on Hochmuth. Lot's of stuff that never made it into the books. So does that mean, because the Authors didn't spend enough time on him, that whatever I found isn't "real?"
The story about Hoffman & Hochmuth and the "hat" was true. Exactly how do I know that? Take a wild guess. The man could see but wasn't sure what he was looking at. Even if he saw Hauptmann on March 1st there's no way he'd have known it was him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2012 17:05:04 GMT -5
Lets just say Hochmuth did see a car on March 1. He said he saw it rather early in the morning. Was the house where Hochmuth lived located before or after the private entrance to Highfields?
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jul 12, 2012 17:57:59 GMT -5
how do you know mike? 1932 till the hat incident is many years later of course his eyesight was worse. a trooper said that hochmuth swore that hauptmann was the man he saw. amy his house is way before the private entrance, in fact its got to be a mile or two. its not close
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 12, 2012 18:11:13 GMT -5
It's in those pesky files.... Just look at the Dept of Public Welfare document I posted. In June '32 he was "partly blind." So that means about 3 months earlier his eyesight was good?
So many people wrote in about him being blind I felt bad for the old guy.
Steve's right. Depending on the approach its possible the Kidnappers would have driven past. But what isn't possible, despite Steve's objections, is that Hochmuth would have been able to identify them.
Again, the Troopers interviewed everyone in that household. No one saw anything. Then once Hauptmann was arrested the 90 year old blind guy in the house, already hemmed up for fraud, remembers seeing him on March 1st. And, oh yeah, the family remembers him telling them about it too.... Just not when the Troopers talked to them before Hauptmann was arrested.
And exactly why did Hochmuth apply for a pass to see Hauptmann executed? Not for himself, of course not, the thought "repulsed" him he told Hoffman.
It was for Mr. Plump.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jul 12, 2012 20:16:46 GMT -5
lets be fair, when he was on the stand in flemington at the age of 87, reilly asked about his eyesight. he said he needed distance glasses but could read without glasses. he had better eyesight then me right now. im 57 and have to wear distant and reading glasses. thats the problem with the trial, reilly let these witnesses who saw hauptmann in hopewell off the hook, it might have been bad investigating and his preparation.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 13, 2012 17:11:24 GMT -5
I am being fair Steve. The man was partly blind in 1932 according to the records. He said on the stand his eyesight was alright. When was the trial again? 1935?
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jul 13, 2012 18:40:59 GMT -5
how can he be partly blind when he said he didnt need glasses to read? you think wilentz would be that stupid to puit a guy with bad eyesight on the stand? i dont think so
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2012 14:06:43 GMT -5
Did the defense know anything about Hochmuth's eyesight being questionable? I think Wilentz would have put him up there if he knew that the defense was clueless about Hochmuth's vision problems. He didn't have to worry that the defense might ask Hochmuth to read something during cross examination.
Depending on how bad his cataracts were in 1932, he may have been able to see a car go in a ditch. Seeing the driver would be more difficult without getting close enough. He does say he saw what he thought was a sailing cap sitting atop a red face. Not clear details of the face at all. Don't see how he could have identified Hauptmann as the driver based on that description. Did Hochmuth ever say what type of car it was or what color the car was?
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jul 14, 2012 16:01:04 GMT -5
he said he saw a dirty green car
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jul 14, 2012 17:21:31 GMT -5
Lupica also said the licence plate was New Jersey
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2012 18:32:06 GMT -5
A green car was seen near the entrance to the Lindbergh estate during the daytime. Could be the car Hochmuth saw. Lupica saw a dark blue car with a New Jersey plate in the early evening hours near the Lindbergh driveway. Perhaps these are the two cars involved with the kidnapping. Bush saw tracks from two cars on Featherbed Lane.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jul 14, 2012 19:54:08 GMT -5
well amy, that why the physical evidence convicted hauptmann, not the eyewitnesses.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 15, 2012 8:51:54 GMT -5
It's irrelevant what he said concerning his vision. His eyesight is what's in question and the document I posted proves it. Unless you believe its fake or in error then you can't take the position you are here. And yes, not only do I believe Wilentz would put him on the Stand he did, and many like him. You are talking about a guy who tampered with Defense Witnesses, and hired a Defense Attorney so to steal their strategies (among other things).
Amy, this is (as usual) a great question.
Let me start out by saying Fisher spoke to Wilentz about possible perjury charges against Defense Witnesses at the various post trial hearings. Wilentz would smugly suggest that if Fisher could at any time prove a State's Witness had lied he would do the same to them.....
Keep this in mind.
The answer is they knew little about it during trial. It appears they knew something of it by the time of their Appeal in May '35. But still, as it relates to him, they seemed focused on Trenchard's over emphasis of his testimony as influencing the Jury. Then they mention p455 where he claimed on the Stand he needed glasses to see distances. Then the "red" complexion, and the fact he said he couldn't "see" Hauptmann in his cell when it was well lighted. They point to his false statement that he told no one what he was going to testify to. They also question why it took so late for him to come forward.
It was mid to late June of '35 that information became available to Fisher that Hochmuth was partly blind. As the matter was pursued the flood gates opened up especially during the course of the year in 1936. Reporters were telling the Governor Mrs. Plump said her Father saw nothing and said so. A man who was at the house in 1929 explained his eyesight was bad then. Another talked about him falling over a chair then proclaiming he couldn't see. And another says he asked him for a block of wood which turned out to be a fence post. Gov. Hoffman conducted his own test which we all know about.
So Fisher, in January '36 wrote to Wilentz attempting to call to his attention the proof he would need against Hochmuth in particular to see if he would stand by his word and take the matter up.
He ignored it.
I don't agree Steve. It was a combination of things. Some things were stronger then others, but I do believe if someone on that Jury, Rosie Pill for one, had believed these Eyewitnesses were lying it would have affected their decision to send him to the Electric Chair, in the least, and possibly create a hold-out.
On top of that, due to the nature of the charge, Hauptmann had to be in Hunterdon County in order to be convicted so they needed people to place him there.
So you can't argue something "doesn't matter" because each and everything that happened there, on both sides - mattered.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jul 15, 2012 12:06:38 GMT -5
well the defense was unprepared and i know everybody blamed reilly, but you have to look at the rest of the defense team also. i still think the physical evidence and hauptmans testimony doomed him. i really think hauptmann was seen in hopewell prior to the crime
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 24, 2012 23:13:57 GMT -5
It was a slam dunk anyway. Nobody walkin from that court. I was thinking about how much money this trial and other high profile ones cost the taxpayers and suddenly thought of Isador Fisch - are we sure he really died? Wasup wolf?
|
|