Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Mar 13, 2013 16:05:26 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2013 16:05:26 GMT -5
So Michael, I have some questions for you. 1) The small pocket diary that has an inscription by Louise, March 1925. Would you happen to know if she addressed the inscription to someone or are we to assume it is to Hans? 2) Since there is a Hans noted against Feb. 19, a Herman Schoeffler (related to Anna Haupmann?) on July 26, and Ann Hauptmann on November 19, is it possible that this diary belonged to someone other than Hans Mueller? 3)I can find nothing in the date notations to indicate what year these entries are for. Is there another page to this report that might shed some light on the year? I did find it interesting that the diary was wrapped in the cover page of the New York Evening Journal of March 25, 1932. Why did the FBI leave out the first three letters of the first word of the headline? It doesn't look like it would be someone's name. The small black looseleaf notebook looks like it may contain another loan that Hans was paying back. I am perplexed by this also. Perhaps Hans made note of something told to him by someone else about someone he knows. I get confused just trying to write about this. It seems that the he turns into the mother-in-law? And what is a booket??? I am sure he is being vague on purpose to protect the identity of whoever he is talking about. The she must of met the he accidently causing someone some concern so it was noted in this notebook just in case it became a problem later. Just guessing. Actually, I think this whole report suffers in the translation! I also wanted to ask you Michael if you know whether Hans and Maria hung out with Hauptmann on Hunters Island?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Letters
Mar 13, 2013 21:13:53 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Mar 13, 2013 21:13:53 GMT -5
You guys, Michael included will never figure it out. That doesn't mean that you're bad reasoners, just that it's an unsolvable.
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 13, 2013 21:48:45 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Mar 13, 2013 21:48:45 GMT -5
The notebook may have belonged to someone before Hans got it, but all of the information was Hans's. (Kind of like buying an old book where its written in the inside cover that it belongs to that person but there's nothing else written in it until you start writing.) So it looks to me like he got ahold of an blank notebook that once belonged to someone else originally but they didn't use it.
Any Schoeffler you see will be a relation to Anna. Maria was Anna's niece, and Anna was a Schoeffler before she married Hauptmann.
I think its the same loan from the same notebook. This is a page of part of an investigation into it.
I have considered it might be a code. If not, then maybe from a story of some sort. Doesn't make any sense literally.
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 14, 2013 8:43:04 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Mar 14, 2013 8:43:04 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Mar 14, 2013 12:39:39 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2013 12:39:39 GMT -5
Thanks for posting the piece of newspaper the diary was wrapped in. Now I see why the FBI had asterisks for letters. It is a torn portion of the front page that was used to wrap up the diary. I was reading over some old newspaper articles this morning. I came across this an article that had some photos in it. There is one photo labeled #4 that I had a question about. The picture was taken at Hunter Island during the summer of 1932. I know who everyone in the picture is except the man on the right hand side eating a banana. Would you know if this man could be Hans Mueller? news.google.com/newspapers?id=oCUbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=kEsEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3766,4663244&dq=lindbergh+baby&hl=en
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 15, 2013 20:53:16 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Mar 15, 2013 20:53:16 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Mar 17, 2013 8:50:03 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2013 8:50:03 GMT -5
Michael, thanks for the corbis image of the picture I asked about. Much better to look at.
I have been thinking about that radiola and the fountain pen that was found hidden in it. Since the police made a specific trip to get this radiola it suggests that someone must of tipped them off to check this piece of furniture out. I am sure the Muellers had other items in their apartment. Why did they single out this one item in particular?
If Hauptmann really did give the Muellers the radiola in 1934 then I wonder where he acquired it. It is an older model, 1924 vintage I think. If the radio portion was already removed when the Muellers received this "gift" I am not sure why they would have wanted it. Why would Hauptmann hide a pen in there? If this were the pen used to write the ransom notes, why would you want to keep what could be incriminating evidence around? Why not just throw it out? Is it possible that neither Hauptmann or Mueller knew it was there?
If the police were tipped off about this radiola, then someone wanted that pen found. Perhaps the M on that expensive pen is the reason why. If someone were trying to implicate Hans in the kidnapping it didn't work. He was questioned and released. He was never asked to testify about this pen hidden in the radiola that Hauptmann gave him. In fact, he never testified at Hauptmann's trial at all. Only Maria was called.
This is the kind of stuff that is so frustrating about this crime. Things are found and never lead anywhere. UGH!!!
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 17, 2013 13:13:14 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Mar 17, 2013 13:13:14 GMT -5
Amy,
I tend to think they went to the house to make an investigation, and while there, took notice of the Radiola. (It could be because of the Radio Hauptmann had purchased). The search of it revealed this pen which was worth some money. They noted it for that reason and the other that you suggest above. Any writing implement was taken to be compared to the Ransom Notes. Whether or not this one was I don't remember (or don't know), but I do believe that was their intention.
When it came to testifying, I think so many people were afraid. After the Bronx testimony, they were trying to get Whited's brother to change his testimony. They threatened Kiss after his. And remember that Kloppenberg was under threat of arrest if he testified about the box being left behind by Fisch as a shoe box. I tend to think this sort of thing happened to just about everyone on the Defense side of things. There might have even been a deal, or it could be the Defense thought he could actually harm their case. If that were true though, I would assume the State would have called him anyway.
It's something you would think I should know, but I haven't seen anything to say what the true answer is.
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 17, 2013 13:49:59 GMT -5
Post by Rab on Mar 17, 2013 13:49:59 GMT -5
There are many reasons to suspect Mueller. This is just the tip of the iceberg. I suspect the headline should be "Pastor Negotiates for Lindbergh Baby" i.e. Dobson-Peacock.
Rab
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Mar 17, 2013 14:45:35 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2013 14:45:35 GMT -5
Michael,
The report you posted by Kelly speaks of being dispatched to retrieve this one item from the apartment. Mark Falzini says in his book "There Fifteen Minutes" that on September 21st when the Muellers returned to their Marion Street apartment, they found Hans' name removed from the mailbox and also from the apartment bell button. Mark also says that the building superintendent was told not to furnish any information to anyone that Mueller had lived there. WOW! Sounds like someone wanted to keep the lid on this Mueller "connection". All that and then it ends up going nowhere. Would you happen to know if it was the NJ police that did this or was it the NY police or the FBI?
Rab, I agree that it probably said Pastor. Makes total sense!
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 17, 2013 15:28:41 GMT -5
Post by Anyone on Mar 17, 2013 15:28:41 GMT -5
ANYONE CAN POST AN IDEA OR COMMENT WITHOUT LOGGING IN!..all you have to do is reply to a comment...agree to the terms of this ProBoard...listen to the advertisement...then type in the answer from the ad.....type away with your comments..ideas or theories..and finally....press...Post Reply! Easy!!
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 18, 2013 7:49:15 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Mar 18, 2013 7:49:15 GMT -5
I've been working on this. In doing so I've discovered a Report that I believe concerns this picture:
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 18, 2013 15:07:18 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Mar 18, 2013 15:07:18 GMT -5
The listed source for this in Mark's book is the 9-21 Agent Breed Report. That Report says that Special Agent Kavanaugh drove them to Mueller's Marion Ave. Apt. then mentions the above information. It's hard to say who exactly was responsible for this. However, I've got to mention that I do not believe there was anything nefarious about this happening. I believe it was done, no matter who was responsible, for the privacy of Mrs. Hauptmann. Mueller's name was splashed all over the papers by then. Both Reporters looking for a 'scoop' and a curious public probably would have hounded them to death.
As an example, I remember reading in one report, where Hans had an employment agency use an alias because no one would hire him due to his name being connected to the Case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Mar 18, 2013 15:13:06 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2013 15:13:06 GMT -5
Michael, I appreciate your efforts to try and identify the unknown person in the Hunters Island photo. I am putting a link here to another picture. The only two people I know are Henry Uhlig and Isador Fisch. The man sitting on the floor on the left is identified as Hauptmann but I don't think it is. These identifications are being made by Corbis I think. What I find especially interesting is the actual inscription on the back of the photo which says "Taken at John's birthday party, Brooklyn, New York March 1931". Since this was in Hauptmann's family album am I correct in assuming that Richard was at this party and obviously must have know Fisch in 1931??? www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/U279230ACME/pictures-from-hauptmann-family-album?popup=1I hope this works!
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 18, 2013 15:18:24 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Mar 18, 2013 15:18:24 GMT -5
Hi Amy.
That's Uhlig and Fisch but definitely not Hauptmann. What Corbis is doing (I believe) is regurgitating what the Newspaper and/or Reporter attributed to the Photo.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Letters
Mar 18, 2013 15:30:31 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Mar 18, 2013 15:30:31 GMT -5
What does that picture have to do with anything, speaking of going off topic.
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 18, 2013 19:19:24 GMT -5
Post by xjd on Mar 18, 2013 19:19:24 GMT -5
Michael, What I find especially interesting is the actual inscription on the back of the photo which says "Taken at John's birthday party, Brooklyn, New York March 1931". Since this was in Hauptmann's family album am I correct in assuming that Richard was at this party and obviously must have know Fisch in 1931??? sure does not look like BRH. BTW who is John (whose birthday it was)? not Zorn's John?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Letters
Mar 18, 2013 21:09:21 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Mar 18, 2013 21:09:21 GMT -5
Maybe Richard took the picture.
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 19, 2013 5:45:40 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Mar 19, 2013 5:45:40 GMT -5
I agree. But also I am suspicious of that and anything else which was written about it. The Police tried to investigate both the notebooks and these pictures taken from his album. Their best chance was in the very beginning before the Prosecution decided to go with the one man solo act theory.
Once that was decided upon their investigation was more to protect themselves from surprise Witnesses, or Defense strategies. After that information was obtained, whether it be legally or illegally, they would then focus their efforts on intimidating that Witness or finding a Rebuttal Witness.
A lot of people were never identified because they just ran out of time. I am not saying any of these other men never were though..... I'd have to comb through a bunch of material and if I can't find anything here the next step would be the Archives.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Letters
Mar 19, 2013 13:06:01 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Mar 19, 2013 13:06:01 GMT -5
Hauptmann was a liar from minute one so why wouldn't he be lieing about Fisch too? The police know how to solve problems like that but with such a high level crime you're never going to get a correct answer so just off to the hoosegow.
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 19, 2013 15:41:18 GMT -5
Post by bookrefuge on Mar 19, 2013 15:41:18 GMT -5
Hi, Amy. Acording to: www.darklightimagery.net/flashbulbs.html“On September 23, 1930, the first commercially available photoflash bulb was patented.” I do not believe it is likely that by March 1931, the Hauptmanns had a flash camera—I do not believe they were in wide use yet. There was flash POWDER, of course, but that was mainly used by professional photographers for indoor shots. I suspect that this photo was taken later, when flash cameras were starting to come into much wider use, and that the reported 1931 date is in error.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Mar 19, 2013 16:06:42 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2013 16:06:42 GMT -5
Thats a very good point BR. It may very well be an error. However, there are photos of the California trip the Hauptmanns made that same year with Kloppenberg. Perhaps Hauptmann's sister took those pictures?
Thanks for that interesting link on flash bulbs. It is interesting that a German manufactured the first flashbulbs followed by General Electric.
I guess there is no way to know if Hauptmann had such a camera in 1931 but someone had one at that party.
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 19, 2013 16:19:25 GMT -5
Post by bookrefuge on Mar 19, 2013 16:19:25 GMT -5
I suspect the Hauptmanns had a camera in 1931--just not one with the newfangled flash bulb. The pictures from the 1931 California trip (at least that I’ve seen) were outdoor shots, requiring no flash.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Letters
Mar 20, 2013 5:42:41 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Mar 20, 2013 5:42:41 GMT -5
It's just more of the cosmic joke, BR.
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 20, 2013 15:28:03 GMT -5
Post by Rab on Mar 20, 2013 15:28:03 GMT -5
Most of this for Amy. We may perhaps need a fresh thread on this as it's primarily about Hans Mueller.
We've alluded throughout this thread about reasons to be suspicious of Hans. Some have come out here, mainly that when the authorities took his notebooks etc he still had with him the headline from March 25 1932 referring to the case. Remember, this was two and a half years later, so one has to question why he would still have such an item. The headline was from the New York Journal which was an afternoon paper. It later merged with the New York American (a morning newspaper) to form the New York Journal-American. The American, of course, was a favoured paper of the kidnapper(s) and one which the notes requested notices were placed in throughout the negotiations. March 25 was a particularly tricky time, when the battle of wills around COD was at its height. In the April 1 note, the last prior to the payoff, the kidnapper(s) asked that a notice be placed in the New York American or the New York Journal.
So, reasons to be suspicious of Hans:
- He had an epileptic fit when the authorities first came to him with news of Hauptmann's arrest. This might explain somewhat why they went relatively easy on him later. - He lived a block and half from Condon's house. - He spent a lot of time on City Island where he was involved in running a party boat. It seems likely he knew Condon who, of course, ran a real estate business there. - When Hauptmann got into the accident with Begg, Hans was in the car with him. That same day Hauptmann had made a substantial coin deposit to his laundering account at Mt Vernon Trust. It can't be said that Hans was with him all day but it's a very suspicious incident. - In the jailhouse conversations between Hauptmann and Anna, Hauptmann constantly asks about Hans coming to see him. It was never allowed. - Hans had been a sailor before he jumped ship to live illegally in NYC. The Nelly note contains maritime references which it's hard to understand Hauptmann knowing. - Hans was constantly in need of money. - His notebooks contain many references to places connected with the case. Of course, he has a German immigrant so it's not strange that he would frequent some of the same places as Hauptmann. - He supplied Hauptmann with the gun. - He was from Hamburg. Remember the tableboard.
Finally, courtesy of Thelma Miller and the researcher who knows more about this case than anyone else and is the source of the majority of the information above, here's a photo of our friend Hans.
Rab
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 20, 2013 18:22:35 GMT -5
Post by bookrefuge on Mar 20, 2013 18:22:35 GMT -5
Hey, Rab. That’s definitely a “Karma” post. Do you think Hans could have been CJ? Has any work been done on his handwriting to see if compared to the ransom notes, the JJ Fauklner deposit slip, or the Mersman table message?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Mar 20, 2013 20:03:53 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2013 20:03:53 GMT -5
Rab,
Thank you ever so much for the picture of Hans Mueller. I have been searching through old newspapers trying to come up with a photo of him but hadn't found one yet. You have saved me so much time by posting that picture. My kindest regards also to Thelma Miller for supplying this picture of Hans.
Your post is certainly outstanding. I really feel that Hans assisted Hauptmann with this crime. I have been going over map locations of where the primary players in this case lived in the Bronx. I felt that Hans was the one who probably knew Condon and was influential in choosing him as the intermediary for the extortion of the money. I also think he was with Hauptmann the night of March the 12th for the Woodlawn Cemetery meeting. My theory is that Hauptmann picked up Hans and dropped him near Perrone's hack stand at Jerome Ave and W. Mosholu Parkway. Hauptmann then drove to Gunhill Road and Knox Place and parked. Hans was the fare who Perrone drove to Knox Place. When Hans left the taxi, Perrone drove around the corner onto Gunhill Road and was flagged down by Hauptmann to deliver the note to Condon. After Perrone left, Hauptmann and Hans drove to the frankfurter stand and placed the note and then went on to the cemetery. I am also considering that Fisch was in Hauptmann's car that night also.
Going back to your list of reasons, I think they are all excellent points. I never considered Hans as assisting with the laundering of the money but then why not. He is in this up to his ears if you ask me. I did not know that Hauptmann was asking to see Hans. I think that is so important. What did he want to tell Hans? Could it have been about that pen they found in the radiola??
The fact that Hans was a sailor does explain the way the Nelly note was composed. I believe that Hans was there at St. Raymonds when the ransom was paid.
Your point about Hans always being in need of money surely goes to a motive for his involvement with this crime. What I haven't seen is any finanical gain made by him as a result of helping Hauptmann. From all your research it looks like Hauptmann had most of the money. What did it profit Hans by being involved?
I did not know that Hans was from Hamburg! The Mersman table writing mentions Hamburg but everything I have read concerning this table suggests a connection to the Junges. You make an interesting association here.
You have given me much to think about Rab. Thank you so much once again!
Amy
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 20, 2013 20:41:38 GMT -5
Post by bookrefuge on Mar 20, 2013 20:41:38 GMT -5
Amy, that’s a great theory on the taxi stand!
I see that Mueller went on record as stating that he warned Hauptmann not to trust Fisch’s fur business. Is it just possible that Hauptmann was investing Mueller’s share of the loot, and this is why Mueller became concerned about the validity of Fisch’s furs?
Are Hauptmann, Mueller and Fisch the three interlocking circles?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Mar 20, 2013 20:59:06 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2013 20:59:06 GMT -5
Hey BR,
You are so right about Hans not trusting Fisch! I think it could be possible that Hauptmann was investing Mueller's share like you said. Very good explanation for why there is no obvious enrichment in Muellers bank account.
I never thought about the symbol. Maybe it could mean that. The symbol was unique and your explanation would make it very personal. Great thought!
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 20, 2013 21:12:19 GMT -5
Post by bookrefuge on Mar 20, 2013 21:12:19 GMT -5
Hi, Amy. It was actually Zorn’s book that suggested that the interlocking circles might have referred to three men sworn to never betray each other. I think the idea has possibilities—I just don’t agree with Zorn’s thesis that the Knoll brothers were two of the perps.
|
|