|
Post by sue75 on Nov 6, 2008 11:19:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 6, 2008 17:30:03 GMT -5
Thanks Sue.
This puts a name to the face of one of the most important eyewitnesses (never used) in this case.
|
|
|
Post by garyb on Nov 6, 2008 21:38:44 GMT -5
Riehl's testimony is another example of the complexity of various clues and their inability to fit "Hauptmann" or "Hauptmann alone". Reading Riehl's testimony not only does he describe Condon and the confederate incorrectly but also claims the confederate had no coat and in a white shirt. While Lindbergh could identify an accent with as little of two words and nearly ten times the distance Riehl couldn't.
To believe cemetery John was "one person" and Hauptmann you would have to disregard an equal description of Isadore Fisch. In my opinion Condon MIGHT knowingly or unknowingly talked to two different people contributing to the inconsistency.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Nov 7, 2008 10:58:17 GMT -5
To believe cemetery John was "one person" and Hauptmann you would have to disregard an equal description of Isadore Fisch. In my opinion Condon MIGHT knowingly or unknowingly talked to two different people contributing to the inconsistency.-Gary Hi Gary, I, too, have wondered if there was a different CJ's at each meeting. I hope this may be discussed some more. Hauptmann doesn't strike me as one who would sit on that bench with Condon for an hour or more. Hey Joe, "Hahn's coming forward". I must have missed something . Would you mind saying more about this? Who and what about? Thanx
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 8, 2008 8:29:12 GMT -5
The thing about Reihl is that he was born in Germany and spoke German. Additionally, he knew who Condon was. I don't believe so much that Jafsie was talking to different people, just that he was a liar. Reihl had no reason to lie. I am still trying to figure out why the Defense didn't use him I know Reihl's Boss threatened to fire him if he didn't stop talking about his account. I also discovered that prior to the trial Reihl was contacted by the NJSP (via official phone logs located at the NJSP Archives), so I've wondered to myself whether they did the same thing to him as they did Curtis, Farrar, etc.....that is pay him to hide out somewhere so the Defense couldn't find or use him. I know that Reilly's PI's, Pettit & Cashin interviewed Reihl and what he told them was important.
Lloyd (Dr. Gardner) recently gave me all of the steno log translations, and I noticed an interview with Reihl in one of those. I'll have to find it and take another look into what it says.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Nov 8, 2008 19:48:57 GMT -5
Mairi, Fred and Marie Hahn owned Fred's Lunch Bar on Webster Ave. and they became acquaintances of Hauptmann when he began to frequent their restaurant in late 1931. A month after Hauptmann's arrest in September 1934, Assistant District Attorney Samuel Breslin questioned the Hahns in District Attorney Samuel Foley's office in the Bronx. In their testimony, the Hahns stated the following: - In June 1932, Hauptmann showed Fred Hahn his new radio victrola, a Stromberg-Carlson Model 14A. According to Hahn, inside the side-by-side top compartments were large #5 brown paper bags, one of which was open and contained a stack of large bills approx. 4 inches in height. Hauptmann claimed the money belonged to Isidor Fisch. Hauptmann denied this at the trial under Wilentz's cross-examination questioning.
- Marie Hahn visited Anna Hauptmann shortly before she left for Germany in 1932. She testified that Anna showed her a wardrobe containing approximately 15 dresses and evening gowns and that none of them were under $20 in value. (approx. $300 today) When Hauptmann returned home later that evening, he told Hahn he inteneded to give his wife tickets to Germany and $1000 in spending cash.
- When Anna was in Germany, Hauptmann showed his new radio victrola to the Hahns during another visit. Hauptmann claimed he spent "about $600 or $675" on his entertainment system. (it actually cost him $396, reduced 50% from the original manufacturer's list price)
- During the same visit, Hauptmann demonstrated to the Hahns his controversial makeshift alarm system, which consisted of an electric wire between his bedroom and a lighting system connected to the exterior of the garage. Hahn claimed he told them, "If anything should happen I push the button (in his bedroom) and it light up the whole outside."
The Hahns were scheduled to testify at the trial on January 18, 1935, but did not, on a day which saw the appearance of 15 other witnesses for the state.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Nov 8, 2008 22:15:19 GMT -5
Thanks Joe, That is information I'd never read before. Rather startling, I'd say. All those purchases wouldn't have been with gold notes, I guess, huh? What's your take on how the gold certs were being laundered? Hauptmann doing it all himself? Or with help (Fisch or other)? I have a hard time with where all the rest of the ransom certs went. Gosh, that really "puzzles me up" that the Hahns weren't put on the stand. What do you -or anyone- make of that?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Nov 9, 2008 7:50:44 GMT -5
Mairi, while Gerta and Karl Henkel both affirmed that they had introduced Hauptmann to Isidor Fisch in their apartment in August 1932, I believe they knew each other previous to that occasion. Hauptmann himself claimed that he met Fisch in March or April of 1932, although it could be argued his statement provides a ready means of conveniently explaining some large cash deposits made into his stock account at the time, shortly after the ransom payment.
I think there could be many reasons why the Hahns never appeared on the stand. Fifteen other state witnesses did appear that day and there was no shortage of physical circumstantial evidence, the preferred prosecution method of connecting Hauptmann to the crime.
Perhaps it was felt by Wilentz and his team that the eyewitness accounts of the Hahns might somehow be laid vulnerable under Reilly's cross-examination, or that the Hahns themselves might not be able to take the pressure of live courtroom proceedings. Hard to say really. The accounts themselves do not strike me at all in the way of anything contrived, untoward or dishonest and I have to think events of this type relating to greatly enhanced material possessions and experienced against the backdrop of the Depression, would have been well engrained in memory.
Because of the relation of the eyewitness accounts to the Hauptmann home itself, I wonder if all of this might have made it appear Anna Hauptmann would have had to have been aware of these potential connections to the crime, and that the prosecution had no intention of creating another suspect in the minds of the jury.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 9, 2008 9:25:00 GMT -5
But Joe, Anna had made a statement to the Police already as witnessing a large amount of money in Hauptmann's possession. I am curious myself why Wilentz didn't use their testimony - especially since they would use people testifying to things that obviously weren't true.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Nov 9, 2008 10:14:00 GMT -5
It's think it's difficult to conclude why Wilentz didn't use the Hahns, although they were scheduled, so certainly he wasn't shying away from their presence and expected testimony at the trial, even if he picked and chose parts of it. It's not as though the prosecution was hard up for testimony against Hauptmann but I think they preferred to offer the type which could be most accurately gauged by a jury of straightforward Flemington people. Do you have any reason to doubt the veracity of the Hahns' statements?
Alos, what specifically is the large amount of money Anna claimed to have seen or been aware of?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 11, 2008 11:30:39 GMT -5
|
|