Hauptmann was on the record saying that he believed Fisch had been involved, and always denied HIS involvement in the Kidnapping and/or murder of the child.
He was heard to say that "...if I go I won't go alone...." or at least that's what everyone was saying he said.
Fisher would always say he believed Hauptmann innocent of the kidnapping but that the State had a perfect case for extortion. While that's not an admission of anything its always raised my eyebrow when I read that.
Now the source for this rumor seems to have been coming from someone connected to Hoffman in some way who I have never been able to identify - could have been just about anyone. But there is nothing in the records, or even the informal memos which indicate anything to support it.
My guess is there was discussion, since there was the offer on the table to commute, about what Hauptmann might say in order to save his life. But its pure speculation on my part. And even if I am right - what does it mean really?
I've got more on this somewhere....if I come across it I promise I will post on it.
Steve Romeo is famous for saying things like: "If Hauptmann was found not guilty in New Jersey, he still faced extortion charges in New York."
Hauptmann's greatest aim was to avoid conviction in Flemington. With the prospect of the electric chair out of the way, he could better deal with being sent back to court in New York. Maybe Hauptmann's logic was to deny ANY involvement when he was in Flemington. Later, in New York, he could modify his part in the Lindbergh crime.
This Australian paper (magazine?), The Age, may have been privy to the truth about Hauptmann's involvement. I feel Hauptmann probably did confess to his role in the extortion. Maybe only The Age had the courage to print the truth. Just like the 1976 National Inquirer's article about Hauptmann's alleged confession to inmate Arthur Jones, maybe some reporters deserve more credit than they get?
Not sure that I see the logic in the argument that BRH could face only an extortion rap instead of kidnapping. He never was charged or convicted of kidnapping, rather murder in the course of theft. How would you disassociate him from the charge when through the course of extortion he provided evidence of his involvement of the break in? He would still be stuck with the money, ladder, notes, and sleeping suit.
Not sure that I see the logic in the argument that BRH could face only an extortion rap instead of kidnapping. He never was charged or convicted of kidnapping, rather murder in the course of theft. (Kevin)
This was only done through some legal wrangling. It was why Harold Fisher was employed. The death had to occur in the commission of a burglary. Without this no death penalty.
Did they really ever prove where and how the child was killed?
Lloyd's book has a good piece on this and why, in his summation, Wilentz changes up what he said in his opening.
How would you disassociate him from the charge when through the course of extortion he provided evidence of his involvement of the break in? (Kevin)
It doesn't prove he was there. He could have written the letter, and built the ladder AND still that doesn't mean someone else didn't put the letter there or employ that ladder. It's why they manufactured Whited, Hochmuth, and Rossiter.
These things in Hopewell, along with both the money and the eyewitness accounts of both Lindy & Jafsie created the airtight extortion. Now, of course, both Lindy and Jafsie said different things originally but I don't think the Defense had knowledge of this until after Whelan squawked about the Grand Jury testimony.
He would still be stuck with the money, ladder, notes, and sleeping suit. (Kevin)
I am assuming the sleeping suit due to the handwriting on the package. There's too much testimony at other trials (e.g. Means, Curtis, Bronx Grand Jury, etc.) which leaves open the question whether or not it was the actual suit.
The notion that somehow BRH's involvement could somehow be limited solely to extortion requires quite a bit of denial. Even if he never set foot in Hopewell, he is clearly an accomplice to the death of the child regardless of whether it was intentional or not.
Some notions are insane. Just as an example if BRH was simply guilty of extortion why wouldn't he eventually admit to that? Or, for another case, what if he's guilty of simply building the ladder for unknowns - why not admit to that, and hope the courts would be nice? By admitting to nothing, while quite a bit of junk is obviously in his corner, he's really saying he could have done the whole D thing by himself. The more I look at it the more I side w/Kevkon, though it still seems unlikely one person could have accomplished it all. But enigmas often happen - how could twenty terrorists (at least two on FBI wanted lists) board planes the morning of 9/11? It's impossible on paper to happen - yet we all know it did.
"Murder 1" required specific charges and/or certain elements within that charge. It's why they became "inventive" in order to fashion one in which they could, in the end, kill Hauptmann.
If you read through hired hand Harold Fisher's (Newark Attorney Specializing in Capital Murder Cases) letters, and documents, you can see what was going on beyond all question. Personally, under the law, I don't think this should have been allowed. No one knew when or where the child died. And yes, under this charge it is extremely important to know both. If the child is killed in Mercer County they don't have it. If the death doesn't occur while they are stealing something besides that child they don't have it.
Somewhere in my notes I believe I have the Defense Exception to this argued at the Errors Hearing. I think it was Pope who said if they were going to use this, then they'd have to accept the sleeping suit didn't cost enough since there was a value it had to be under the law. This whole thing is amusing really when you consider the absurdity of it all.
But as with the law, we have other issues which were different back then.... Conflict of interest didn't seem to exist. Trial Judges delivering charges fashioned to convict someone wouldn't have been allowed. Hiding exculpatory evidence wouldn't be shrugged off. Bribery and coercion seemed to be the norm. Etc. etc.
I think it depends on who it is and when it was said. Then, I think, you'd have to apply what you accept as a matter of fact.
For example, do I believe Hauptmann wrote those notes? Well, I believe he could have, however, I believe others could have too. So I don't know. If he did - was it his idea? I have no idea but it looks as though there's some things in the note that aren't coming FROM him. Did he build the ladder? I don't know. Did Rail 16 come from his attic floor? Knowing what we now know, I'd say Rail 16 came from S-226 but that Hauptmann didn't know it that it did.
Were others involved? Absolutely no doubt in my mind whatsoever.
The only way around this would be to completely ignore eyewitness accounts from people who made them before Hauptmann was arrested then changed or omitted it after he was. Unless they were making it up from jump-street, then its more reliable originally before it was altered.
Michael How could rail 16 be from Hauptmann's attic and not know it?
There is certainly a lot of information many involved and not necessarily Hauptmann as one of them. Whats up with Breck after seeing a picture of Fisch then believing he was confronted by him? What else did he ignore? The earliest evidence says there are two prints to Featherbed Lane. It should be a done deal there were at least two at Hopewell and maybe a third considering the location of the thumbguard. How is it the Boad Nelly note is so neatly written and appears in CJ's hand so quickly to hand to Condon. Condon's description of CJ is as much Fisch as Hauptmann to me.
Michael How could rail 16 be from Hauptmann's attic and not know it? (Gary)
I have to give credit to both Rab AND Kevin for this one. They suggested (independently of one another) that board was cut by the Electricians to run the wiring.
Investigating this theory, I discovered the floor was laid before the electricians ran their wiring - some of which ran directly under where Rail 16 would have been. Electricians also would have sawn that board the way it was, that is, left extending past the joist (hanging off) and not flush, which according to Koehler's own testimony a Carpenter would have done. I also discovered that any left over materials were placed into the basement by Rauch. Kevin & I together at the NJSP Archives took a look at Rail 16 to see if the shadowing that existed on S-226 appeared on Rail 16. It didn't.
So it all fits, and makes perfect sense. Hauptmann went into the basement and removed any wood and/or items he wanted for his garage. This board finds its way into the ladder - just as Hauptmann suggested it would have since he had boards in his garage. The idea was nutty to him, and anyone else that he would go into his attic when boards were available in his garage.
There is certainly a lot of information many involved and not necessarily Hauptmann as one of them. Whats up with Breck after seeing a picture of Fisch then believing he was confronted by him? What else did he ignore? (Gary)
This wasn't only ignored - it was buried and long since forgotten until Lloyd's discovery of it. Since its Breckenridge who is the source then its hard to upset. His only ulterior motive was to protect Lindbergh - not Hauptmann. That's important.
It's why The Case That Never Dies is so valuable. Facts are layed out, backed up with footnotes, then left for us to kick around. There's nothing left to the imagination.... no made up conversations or "facts" that don't exist.
The earliest evidence says there are two prints to Featherbed Lane. (Gary)
Exactly. But that changes in the testimony. And so, what can we trust and what can't we?
How is it the Boad Nelly note is so neatly written and appears in CJ's hand so quickly to hand to Condon. (Gary)
Right, its like he knew it was going to be expected. But let's not forget he walked away, and consulted with someone in the Cemetery. Who was CJ talking to? That wouldn't be an accomplice would it? If not - who?
Condon's description of CJ is as much Fisch as Hauptmann to me. (Gary)
Which one? Condon would later say he saw someone similar to Fisch too. It's a joke. And what of Perrone? He's indentifying anyone and everyone he thinks the Cops want him to. Junge looked like CJ too. Steiner looked like him. Neither looked anything like each other - nevermind Hauptmann.
mike, i was up in that attic, the wires ran under alot of boards. wouldnt you think the electricians would have nailed the board back if they did in fact take that board off? this stuff that hauptmann had plenty of wood in his garage. how do we know that exactly?
Hi Michael, Your post said the Breck/Fisch look-alike encounter was buried and done to protect Lindbergh. Maybe it's so obvious that's why I'm missing it . Could you please clarify in what way it protected CAL? Thanx
mike, i was up in that attic, the wires ran under alot of boards. wouldnt you think the electricians would have nailed the board back if they did in fact take that board off? (Steve)
I am neither an electrician nor a carpenter. And I would do exactly as you are doing now - in fact I did. I had a guess or two but I would defer to Kevin to properly address this question.
Regardless, once you apply the greater weight of evidence to all of the circumstances available - what other conclusion can be drawn? Someone didn't saw board #27 (which later became S-226) "flush" with the joist. Even Koehler admitted on the stand a Carpenter wouldn't leave that board hanging out there like that. So that leaves who? Perhaps an electrician who didn't give a rat's a** about this rough attic flooring slowing him down?
We also know that leftover wood went directly to the basement.
Next, while S-226 had shadowing from the joists, Rail 16 did not. So what does that tell you? It tells me the piece which would later become Rail 16 wasn't nailed down on those joists very long.
This makes so much sense and satisfies every question I ever had.
Your post said the Breck/Fisch look-alike encounter was buried and done to protect Lindbergh. (Mairi)
Sorry for the confusion - that's totally my fault. Sometimes I am not very clear in putting down my thoughts....
I think it was "buried" because of the State's theory - only. The State viewed Fisch as a potential distraction and a force which could undermine their death penalty conviction.
If his name started to get thrown around from anyone on the Prosecution side of things, the Jury may have bought the "Fisch Story" or the idea that Fisch may have written the ransom notes.
They needed a clean case in which all evidence pointed to Hauptmann alone and all by himself. When one of their witnesses backed up the claim they were in a partnership Wilentz almost had a heart attack. They knew this to be true, of course, but still were trying to paint Hauptmann as lying about it.
My point that it was coming from Breck made it more reliable since his only concerning was Lindbergh - whether or not Fisch was involved shouldn't have mattered one way or the other - to him.
There are many factors/contributors to the discoloration of wood. Temperature and/or thermal issues, dirt/soot, moisture, airflow, and time. Did I miss any? Probably.
Drastic temp changes occur in attics. When boards are subjected to this, over a period of time, discoloration of the wood occurs. But where the board crosses the joist, over time, leaves a "shadowing" that can be visible. Again, it depends on the circumstances.
When Kevin and I compared S-226 and Rail 16 we saw evidence of it on S-226 but not Rail 16. To me, that means if Rail 16 AND S-226 made up board #27 then the piece which eventually became Rail 16 was removed years earlier.
Actually, there is Steve. You can by environmental exposure, relative moisture content, patina, and reasonable deduction. What evidence convinces you that BRH came up with the brilliant idea to take his tools across the street, through his apartment, emptied the linen closet, climbed up into the attic, and proceeded to saw up his landlords attic floor from the wrong side ( starter course), then take all this down to the garage? Not to mention that all of this effort was expended on probably the worse type of wood to work with. If he needed to cannibalize something for one 1" x 4" board he needed only to start with his garage. In any case, it doesn't change the big picture, he still built the ladder.
thats the problem, people are trying to say bruno didnt go up there and saw off a part of the attic floorboard because it didnt make sense to them. who says criminals always do things right? people also say he had plenty of wood in his garage. how do they know? maybe he didnt at that particular time and he needed a piece for this ladder. i think he went up there and took that piece im not convinced a electrician would takre the wood out and never nail it back after running wire. and i agree with you he built that ladder and did the crime alone
thats the problem, people are trying to say bruno didnt go up there and saw off a part of the attic floorboard because it didnt make sense to them. who says criminals always do things right? Steve
I don't think it's a matter of not doing something right, more like doing something completely nonsensical and totally unnecessary. That, in turn, leads to speculation by some that it is proof that he didn't do it. A far more reasonable explanation removes that speculation. There's absolutely no doubt that the rail was once part of the floorboard. I think there's little doubt that BRH made the ladder. So, getting back to the thread, ladder + money+ handwriting = a lot more than simple extortion.
You are arguing against a point for the sole purpose that you don't want to let go of an incorrect - but often repeated mistake.
And now if anyone had reservations in the past about this, like I did, this explanation answers those questions. I looked for anything I could to upset it, however, everything I found supported it.
What you are doing is continuing to argue the world is flat even after seeing a satellite picture proving its round.
If Hauptmann cut it out of the flooring then the joist marks would be the same on both S-226 AND Rail 16. It ain't. So what explanation covers this? Is it supported by other important facts? Does it make sense?
I am pretty sure the police were aware of it too, but made the decision to keep the evidence "in the attic" so no one could claim access to it besides Hauptmann. This is why there's so much BS attached to their reports. But the lie isn't they don't match - its something far less nefarious.
I am still not sure who built the ladder, but that shouldn't matter either way. No one is "sneaking" into Rauch's basement in order to place a board in the ladder to "set up" Hauptmann. Those supplies were at Hauptmann's disposal, and there's no doubt in my mind he had a bunch of stuff in his garage which was orignally left over material from the construction of the house which he took out of the basement for projects.
Last Edit: Jul 10, 2010 17:55:20 GMT -5 by Michael
repeasted mistake? i know your not a wood expert, im going to call keraga on this since he did the most research on the wood and rail 16.again you dont know what he had in his garage in 1932 or whenever he built the ladder. im not arguing this just that your point dosnt maKE SENSE EITHER
I respect you as a Researcher - always have and always will. But on this point I think you've built a wall around it.
It absolutely makes sense, because if it didn't, I would be the first one to say it doesn't. Remember, I never accepted the a conclusive match based upon the 2 best Experts in their fields both saying invasive studies were needed for that to happen.
But after that "other" bored quickly swept Rab's idea under the rug when he proposed it (back in '01 I believe) I neither had the knowledge, nor the documentation I do now - so I assumed Rab was wrong. I did so because I mistakenly assumed people would never debate something like this in bad faith. Then as I watched people making things up and/or spin some outlandish myth about evidence they never even researched or looked at - that's when I knew it was much more then ignorance I was debating at that venue.
And so, fast forward to when Kevin, a MASTER CARPENTER, suggested the exact same thing years later.... Despite my rock solid position it could never be solved without invasive study - I was now at that point in time - in a position to disprove this theory that now could be credited to both Rab & Kevin.
And yes I said disprove.
So I went to the documentation. But this supported it. Then I went to the Archives with Kevin to look for the evidence on the wood itself. And this supported it too. Then I applied this to the scenario to see if it all made sense. And it absolutely does.
So the old absurd theory, which NEVER made sense and was crushed by all the documentation, is upended by the only thing that holds up under every test.
Problem is that old habits die hard. Keraga put a lot of work into trying to support Koehler's Courtroom position. This included the idea that no Cop or Authority lied. Then he even made up some crazy notion that this attic was Hauptmann's "secret place." You have to become creative like this if you are going to accept something that doesn't make sense.
So if you address problems with fairy tales, ignore important evidence, or omit other facts which need to be addressed (getting ANgrY about it when someone else brings it up) - you are too far gone for the unbiased approach needed to solve this problem. There's some good in Keraga's report but there's a lot of what he accuses others of in there too - speculation & bias.
This new theory solves everything for every angle. It's over as far as I am concerned.
As evidence of what I consider to be questionable practice by the State to unfairly prejudice the minds of the jurors, may I quote from the record a question asked by Lloyd Fisher, of the defense counsel, and the answer given thereto by Special Agent Wilson:
Mr. Fisher: Now Mr. Wilson, where was the first ransom bill passed after the money was turned over to the suspected person - suspected of procuring the money from Condon - where was the first ransom bill picked up?
Mr. Wilson: The first bill that we know was passed was located in a bank on Broadway not far from 72nd. Street, I believe or near the Majestic Apartments.
Now this statement was untrue and uncalled for, Hauptmann had worked, according to evidence previously submitted, at the Majestic Apartments, and Agent Wilson had gratuitously mentioned that the ransom bill had been picked up near the Majestic Apartments in order to impress the jury.
As a matter of fact the first ransom bill was recovered at the East River Bank, 96th, Street and Amsterdam avenue, twenty-four blocks away from the Majestic Apartments. The State Police records show that the bill had been passed on April 4, 1932 and deposited on April 5 by David Marcus, of 215 West 91st. street, New York City.
[Hoffman Original Unedited Liberty Magazine Manuscript, p11-12]
Michael: Talked to him a couple of months ago.
Feb 11, 2020 18:22:20 GMT -5
jack7: Heey Michael - seen Dave around?
Feb 21, 2020 11:55:55 GMT -5
Michael: Talked to him a couple of months ago.
Feb 22, 2020 10:30:59 GMT -5
Laurence24: Bonjour à tous les membres,et merci d'avoir crée ce forum. Je me présente à vous, mon prénom est mon pseudo. Je suis de France. Pendant mon sommeil,John Edgar Hoover m'a montré son vécu mais également une infinie partie d'indices concernant le nom du forum
Mar 3, 2020 12:02:53 GMT -5
Michael: Bienvenue Laurence. Allez-y et postez ce qu'il vous a dit - ça a l'air intéressant ...
Mar 3, 2020 12:26:06 GMT -5
stella7: Sorry for the short notice but there’s a documentary on Anne Morrow Lindbergh on at 8:30 tonight. Channel 23 New Jersey Public Television
Mar 11, 2020 19:24:43 GMT -5
wolfman666: the half hour one made in 2017? it was very good
Mar 14, 2020 9:23:46 GMT -5
Laurence24: Bonjour Mickael,ainsi que tous les autres membres de ce forum..
Mar 20, 2020 7:48:19 GMT -5
Laurence24: Et merci de m'avoir acceptée chaleureusement dans votre forum..
Mar 20, 2020 7:50:48 GMT -5
Michael: Je vais consulter le site. N'hésitez pas à publier ou à créer un fil de discussion sur le babillard à ce sujet. Vous pouvez également y poster un lien car je crains que beaucoup ne lisent pas cette shoutbox.
Mar 20, 2020 9:56:06 GMT -5
Laurence24: Moi qui comprend pas l'anglais, j'ai été surprise de sa première visite dans mon rêve, quand j'ai cherchée par mots clés, et que j'ai découvert qui il était ou ou il avait vécu, je me suis dis, wouah !! dans l'au delà, ils peuvent faire beaucoup de choses
Mar 20, 2020 10:41:07 GMT -5
Laurence24: Bonjour et merci à vous Michaël,je viens de suivre votre conseil..
Apr 29, 2020 7:52:33 GMT -5