Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2013 0:04:47 GMT -5
So, technically speaking, this would not be considered a tracking search for evidence. Still, the dog did follow a scent from Lindbergh's home to the woodpile on Lane's property. Perhaps he had picked up his owner's scent at Highfields and followed it back. I hope Capt. Gautier checked out the woodpile just in case something of interest might have been there. Did a little research on the Belgian Police Dog and it seems that this type of dog is very good for tracking. Here is a link about this breed: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Shepherd_Dog_(Malinois)Since Patrick Lane worked on the Lindbergh house wouldn't he have been investigated by the NJSP when they were checking out everyone who had anything to do with the construction of the house? I agree. She is really pushing this envelope hard. She must have really believed that Schenck was guilty. Did Schenck ever take any legal action against Mrs. Lane for her role in what happened to him?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 16, 2013 10:22:59 GMT -5
So, technically speaking, this would not be considered a tracking search for evidence. Still, the dog did follow a scent from Lindbergh's home to the woodpile on Lane's property. Perhaps he had picked up his owner's scent at Highfields and followed it back. I hope Capt. Gautier checked out the woodpile just in case something of interest might have been there. Here's the thing....There may not have been one to discover but I've never found a copy of Capt. Gautier's Report. Next, I'll try my best to give you my perspective... Although the German & Belgian Shepherd Breeds are used in both drug and rescue searches nowadays, they have to be trained for this purpose. Also, their Handlers know them best. I've seen Dogs searching for drugs that "hit" on items when nothing was there. The explanations from the Handler would vary from, in essence, "drugs were there" or there had been so many drugs in various spots it was "confusing" the Dog. So when I read this Dog was let out to see where it led I completely understand its worth a try, however, I really don't know what its hitting on (if anything) or whether or not Capt. Gautier found it worthy of consideration. I would think if he did, there would be a massive investigation into it, however, there is no evidence of such a thing occurring. When the "Bloodhounds" were offered to Schwarzkopf its for one purpose only and it seems pretty clear they were trained for this purpose. Since Patrick Lane worked on the Lindbergh house wouldn't he have been investigated by the NJSP when they were checking out everyone who had anything to do with the construction of the house? Here is what is located in that file on him: Attachment DeletedHere is his Statement addressing the Schenck matter: Attachment DeletedI agree. She is really pushing this envelope hard. She must have really believed that Schenck was guilty. Did Schenck ever take any legal action against Mrs. Lane for her role in what happened to him? It appears that way from the circumstances but I have nothing else to back this up. It just doesn't make sense if part of his theory is based on this, she is admitting she doesn't remember, spending this time with the Devine's AND he then comes to pick up Schenck. Schenck sued (10) people for $50K in 1932 but Mrs. Lane was not among them. (As of 1936 it was still an open matter.) It only named those Schenk claimed were responsible for his kidnapping and unlawful detention. The PA Criminal Trial led to convictions for kidnapping and conspiracy to kidnap in March 1933. Devine was fined $500, then quickly resumed his career in Law Enforcement. I believe he eventually went on to work for the PA AG on one point and I am positive he had an excellent reputation both before and after this event. Schenck was a forgotten man. NJ was only interested in Devine, in so much as to keep him out of the "mix" and didn't want him conducting/meddling in this investigation. After Schenck was "released" Devine came back and was picked up by the NJSP. I believe they threatened to charge him with being a PI without a license. He quickly retained Lloyd Fisher who swore out a complaint against the Trooper who picked him up and the matter was dropped. Schenck didn't go quietly. He wrote to Hoover asking for Federal intervention but Hoover wrote back saying he consulted Nugent Dodds, Assistant Attorney General, who told him, among other things - this didn't qualify because " it was essential that the kidnapped individual be held for ransom or reward." Of course this opened what appeared to be a can of worms for the Parker matter since this was one of their arguments in his Defense. And so this resurrected attention for Schenck, and it was during this time he told a story about how he approached Trooper in Hopewell who laughed at him concerning his plight. There's much to learn here, unfortunately, despite my best efforts I have never been able to get my hands on those trial transcripts.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Nov 16, 2013 19:50:34 GMT -5
Michael, do you know where Schenck lived?
|
|
|
Post by babyinthecrib on Nov 17, 2013 9:41:58 GMT -5
Michael, You mention J.J. Devine.....Who is that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2013 18:20:24 GMT -5
I understand Michael. Bloodhounds find people and their intended use would have been to recover Charlie, alive or dead. Thanks for posting those two documents. The very brief mention of Patrick Lane in that police report could have had more meaning if they would have attached a copy of Captain Guithier's report to theirs! I wonder why his report went missing? Perhaps there was something sensitive in it that he uncovered; perhaps the name of someone or something that might have needed to be kept confidential for some reason. After all the years that you have spent at the archives and have not been able to discover this report, I guess it must no longer exist. I found the report on Oscar Schneider interesting. We have certainly discussed the stocking feet and rubber boot prints vigorously on this board. The investigators considered this evidence, yet I am not aware of it coming up in the Hauptmann Trial from what I have read of the transcripts. Did the footprints come up in any way during Hauptmann's trial? Patrick Lane's statement - First question: How quickly were New York Detectives on the Lindbergh case? Lane says two men identifing themselves as such are on his doorstop at 1 a.m. asking for directions to the Lindbergh house. Second question: Do you know when Mrs Lane was sick? Mr. Lane says she made her allegations in June and were the result of the she was taking. I got the impression that it was more like March when all this happened with Captain Guithier and the dog which resulted in her getting pneumonia. Third question: Is the Aug 7th 1932 date of this report correct? I ask because Mr. Lane states that on Sept 1 his wife left again for Johnstown with Mrs. Devine and Roy Cummings for another vacation(?) and he has received 2 letters from her saying she is having a good time and everything is OK. He can't be stating this in August if she has already left for her September "vacation". I, too, think there is more to this Schenck/Lane/Devine angle that needs to be known. I have no doubt that you have tried very hard to get the court transcripts. Are court transcripts like other public records that can be researched freely or do you have to get permission from a court to look at a court transcript?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 17, 2013 19:51:10 GMT -5
Michael, do you know where Schenck lived? He lived with the Lane's on the night of the kidnapping. I have never been able to pin-point where their house was. I know it was in Zone #8 on the 5 mile radius Property Search Grid. That section was south of Featherbed and between both Hopewell-Amwell Rd and Hopewell-Wertzville Rd. Schenck claimed it was "25 Acres which adjoined the Lindbergh property." I've seen both Greenwood Rd RD#1 AND Rilleyville Rd used as an identifier.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 17, 2013 19:58:10 GMT -5
Michael, You mention J.J. Devine.....Who is that? According to the FBI he had been a Detective with the Pittsburgh Police at one time. Also a Police Officer with the DuBois, Penn PD, as well as a Law Enforcement Officer with the B.R. & P Railroad. Like I said above I believe he later went to work for the PA Attorney General's Office sometime after this case. At the time of this situation he was a PI running the "J. J. Devine Detective Agency" out of Johnstown, PA. Apparently he had a great reputation having become somewhat famous for cracking a Murder Case, and anther involving stolen "pre-war" liquor. It appears he was financed to investigate this case by some people who believed he would solve it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 17, 2013 20:06:54 GMT -5
Thanks for posting those two documents. The very brief mention of Patrick Lane in that police report could have had more meaning if they would have attached a copy of Captain Guithier's report to theirs! I wonder why his report went missing? Perhaps there was something sensitive in it that he uncovered; perhaps the name of someone or something that might have needed to be kept confidential for some reason. After all the years that you have spent at the archives and have not been able to discover this report, I guess it must no longer exist. It's hard to say. Sometimes these Reports are just "missing." I've been to files where it has a slip of paper referring to another file then there another piece of paper referring to yet another file and then finally there it is....and sometimes nothing. I found one concerning the "Rice Paper" notes that said they had been returned to NY only to actually find copies (purely by accident) somewhere else. I think some stuff was never handed over, or even written. Some were sent to the Governor then never returned. Even what they found in his garage I see evidence of missing documents from there too. I have found too many things of sensitive nature or labeled " Please Destroy" to think that is what happened to things I can not find. While I don't say its impossible I do believe its more along the lines of improbable. (to be continued...)
|
|
|
Post by babyinthecrib on Nov 17, 2013 20:34:46 GMT -5
This is interesting! I came across a memo written by President Roosevelt to Frank Hague concerning JJ Devine. I always wondered what that was all about, since Frank Hague's wife was a "Devine" having family members in PA! As soon as I locate it, I will post it up.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 18, 2013 10:55:22 GMT -5
This is interesting! I came across a memo written by President Roosevelt to Frank Hague concerning JJ Devine. I always wondered what that was all about, since Frank Hague's wife was a "Devine" having family members in PA! As soon as I locate it, I will post it up. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 18, 2013 11:09:37 GMT -5
I found the report on Oscar Schneider interesting. We have certainly discussed the stocking feet and rubber boot prints vigorously on this board. The investigators considered this evidence, yet I am not aware of it coming up in the Hauptmann Trial from what I have read of the transcripts. Did the footprints come up in any way during Hauptmann's trial? Yes in several places DeGaetano for sure. They were interested in these footprints early on but it seemed to wane. They were pursuing the wood, and chisel angles as well and along the lines of the local searches they paid close attention to these things. Patrick Lane's statement - First question: How quickly were New York Detectives on the Lindbergh case? Lane says two men identifing themselves as such are on his doorstop at 1 a.m. asking for directions to the Lindbergh house. I personally think he is mistaken and it was most likely Jersey City PD. However, according to Lt. Finn, he was sent to Hopewell by Inspector Sullivan on March 2nd then interviewed Lindbergh upon arrival. He doesn't say when, but my guess is ASAP after the alarm went up. Remember that March 2nd was only hours after the child was discovered missing. Second question: Do you know when Mrs Lane was sick? Mr. Lane says she made her allegations in June and were the result of the she was taking. I got the impression that it was more like March when all this happened with Captain Guithier and the dog which resulted in her getting pneumonia. She became sick in March. Apparently she lost 50 lbs. and it took her quite some time to recover. Third question: Is the Aug 7th 1932 date of this report correct? I ask because Mr. Lane states that on Sept 1 his wife left again for Johnstown with Mrs. Devine and Roy Cummings for another vacation(?) and he has received 2 letters from her saying she is having a good time and everything is OK. He can't be stating this in August if she has already left for her September "vacation". Good observation. The Statement is either made on Sept. 7th, or her trip was on Aug 1st. Hard to say which now that you've pointed this out. I, too, think there is more to this Schenck/Lane/Devine angle that needs to be known. I have no doubt that you have tried very hard to get the court transcripts. Are court transcripts like other public records that can be researched freely or do you have to get permission from a court to look at a court transcript? Some are just hard to find because no one knows where to look or they aren't where they'd expect them - mostly due to time. I know that most Grand Jury Testimony is supposed to be "secret" and other times certain testimony is sealed. Probably best to ask a Lawyer for a more intelligent answer. I think these transcripts do exist and aren't sealed...it's just finding them that's the problem.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2013 18:27:10 GMT -5
Thanks for all the answers to my questions, Michael.
Who is Rice and what paper did he/she write? I don't think I have heard of this person before.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 19, 2013 9:28:18 GMT -5
Who is Rice and what paper did he/she write? I don't think I have heard of this person before. Sorry for assuming you knew what I was talking about. I forget sometimes how long everyone has, or has not been here - plus I can't seem to remember exactly who, or when I've discussed certain topics with! There is a Thomas F. Rice connected to this case, however, these notes do not refer to him. The notes to which I refer are mentioned by Condon at the Bronx Grand Jury Testimony. Here he talks about notes written on "Rice Paper." (My Grandmother actually gave me rice paper to type on back when I was in 7th grade. Aside from that the only other place I've ever seen it was at the Archives were many of the FBI Reports are rice paper copies.) Anyway, there's a bunch of them. The Writer and Condon go back and forth. Some letters were mailed and others dropped off on his porch. Condon answers through the newspaper and leaving replies under "surveyors monuments" west of Jermone Ave into Van Cortlandt Park. Here is one that was left on his front porch: "Dr. Condon I cannot come in. I stated that in last note, as there are other deals for the child which are easier then returning child. Your plan is fine from your side but they will not see it that way. Have suggested lots of plans myself but they insist on their won way. Their plan is money and child identified at the same time. But money first. Then child. The party identifying child will be taken safely back to his car. Whether he leaves with the child or the money. What more can you want. I myself will see that child is there before giving word to come.
This is an opportunity that calls for quick action as I know that their demand anyway will be increased as they have an offer of twice the amount from a private individual which if they accept child might never be returned to his mother. I am doing my best for return of child through you but I am sure they wont wait much longer and I dont want to lose contact with them myself. (I dont deliver these notes). They are wasting their time out at Norfolk as I am sure child just now is not out at sea.
You must either refuse or accept, which it is to be [sic] Make it final same place. Notice the Norfolk reference. Isn't this what Cemetery John supposedly said to Condon?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2013 12:25:29 GMT -5
No need to apologize. You talk to so many people Michael. I do not expect you to remember what we have or have not discussed about this case.
My head to swirling right now. I would have never guessed that the Rice paper was something like this! So these notes are coming to Condon in addition to the official ransom notes?? And Condon was answering them at the same time he was handling the other negotiations? They sound like they are definitely from someone who is part of the Bronx "gang" since this particular example shadows the ransom negotiations going on through Condon. In fact, it sounds like he is the author/writer of the ransom notes when you read the first sentence of this note.
When did Condon reveal these notes?
Did Lindbergh or Breckinridge know that Condon was involved in this rice paper exchange at the same time he was negotiating with CJ?
Was this exchange ever investigated by LE?
Do the other rice paper notes shadow other ransom notes? This writer seems well aware of the Curtis negotiations as you mention and also another interested party as well. Perhaps the McLean/Means angle?
I know that Condon was insisting on a COD arrangement. CJ and the ransom notes were clear that no such transfer would be made. According to this quote the money was to be paid first. Then arrangements to return the child would be made. Makes me wonder if what Uebel saw at St Raymond's when Condon brought back that white envelope to the waiting touring car might be what was occurring that day.
Do you think that these rice paper notes are legitimately connected in some way to the kidnapping? Or was Condon just being manipulated even further by the Bronx extortion gang?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 19, 2013 14:14:29 GMT -5
I took note concerning his testimony which was either on May 14th or 20th. Detective Thompson NYPD told the FBI that Condon turned over these letters to him on May 14th at 7PM. According to Special Agent Sandberg these exchanges took place immediately after the Ransom was paid. NY turned them over to the NJSP in July and Schwarzkopf had them looked at by Snook who determined they didn't compare to the actual Ransom Notes. (In case you don't know, Snook apparently had some skill in Handwriting Analysis so everything went through him first. If he deemed it worthy only then would a sample make it to Osborn). So to answer your question: Anything Schwarzkopf knew - Lindbergh knew. Keaton told the FBI these were the work of a "Chiseler" when they inquired about them. Whether or not he really felt that way is a matter for debate.
My personal opinion is this: I can't see how anyone could write a book without knowing about these notes, or what they say. It exemplifies why I find it so hard to write because there is so much to know and learn.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2013 14:03:35 GMT -5
Am I understanding you correctly that because the handwriting didn't match with the ransom notes the NJSP felt these rice paper notes were were not considered to be part of the kidnapping/extortion? Were they able to check these notes for fingerprints? I have googled rice paper and it seems to be of a delicate nature. Certainly much thinner than bond or parchment paper.
Keaton probably would have withheld his own opinion of the notes and took the "official" position of the NJSP. I just don't understand how investigators could have considered these notes the work of someone trying to chisel in on the extortion. Did they not wonder how this chiseler knew the content of the original ransom notes since he clearly references one of them. He also knows about the Curtis angle and possibly the one being conducted by Gaston Means. How would a chiseler know all this? In fact, how would he know that Condon was Jafsie?
It is because you ARE considering all the evidence that your book will be the most comprehensive look at this case ever printed. It will certainly be like no other. Can't wait till it is finally ready to publish!
|
|
|
Post by babyinthecrib on Nov 20, 2013 23:54:03 GMT -5
Michael, You mention J.J. Devine.....Who is that? According to the FBI he had been a Detective with the Pittsburgh Police at one time. Also a Police Officer with the DuBois, Penn PD, as well as a Law Enforcement Officer with the B.R. & P Railroad. Like I said above I believe he later went to work for the PA Attorney General's Office sometime after this case. At the time of this situation he was a PI running the "J. J. Devine Detective Agency" out of Johnstown, PA. Apparently he had a great reputation having become somewhat famous for cracking a Murder Case, and anther involving stolen "pre-war" liquor. It appears he was financed to investigate this case by some people who believed he would solve it. While searching for the Memo from the President, I came across something of interest. I went back and looked over family trees that I worked on during my research. I was checking the name "Devine" in my Frank Hague Tree, the name "Thomas Devine" showed that he was also in another tree. (I used Ancestry to do the trees) When I looked it up it shows that Frank Hague's Wife Jenny's family is connected with Condon. They are related thru the names Devine & O'Connor. INTERESTING!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 22, 2013 7:00:13 GMT -5
Am I understanding you correctly that because the handwriting didn't match with the ransom notes the NJSP felt these rice paper notes were were not considered to be part of the kidnapping/extortion? Were they able to check these notes for fingerprints? I have googled rice paper and it seems to be of a delicate nature. Certainly much thinner than bond or parchment paper. Yes that's right. Throughout the investigation they did different things like this to eliminate certain angles. Ransom note handwriting was one. Later, J.J. Faulkner deposit slip was another. Those suspected of being "Cemetery John" even had their thumb checked for the "lump." These came and went so its always been my position people could have been mistakenly ruled out as a result. I have no record of fingerprints being checked. I assume no, because it was until the FBI got their hands on the J. J. Faulkner deposit slip that it was checked for them. Concerning these notes, the FBI only had copies which, once they had them, were immediately sent to their Lab for handwriting, and wording analysis. Keaton probably would have withheld his own opinion of the notes and took the "official" position of the NJSP. I just don't understand how investigators could have considered these notes the work of someone trying to chisel in on the extortion. Did they not wonder how this chiseler knew the content of the original ransom notes since he clearly references one of them. He also knows about the Curtis angle and possibly the one being conducted by Gaston Means. How would a chiseler know all this? In fact, how would he know that Condon was Jafsie? The Curtis involvement was mentioned in the Press in late March but after the 12th. The name "Jafsie" was attached to the newspaper , many knew who that was - to include who Condon boasted to. Additionally, it hit the papers very soon after the payment. Since its hard to date the very first letter, do to the fact Condon held them all until the end, I can't even come up with a "likelihood" (if that's what you want to call it.) Thanks for the kind words. That is my goal. Unfortunately it could actually prevent one from happening the way things are going.
|
|
|
Post by babyinthecrib on Nov 22, 2013 9:52:04 GMT -5
|
|
kdwv8
Trooper II
Posts: 95
|
Post by kdwv8 on Nov 22, 2013 18:08:45 GMT -5
He was a resident of Englewood,N.J.? Hmmm. Now that is interesting!
|
|
|
Post by babyinthecrib on Nov 22, 2013 22:10:11 GMT -5
He was a resident of Englewood,N.J.? Hmmm. Now that is interesting! It is interesting! Whats even better is that he is listed as a Lawyer and Bank President, but he's doing PI work on the side? If you look into the background of his father-in-law it seems the family were fairly well to do. He was a silk importer living with his family in Englewood also. The puzzling thing about the memo is that this guy "Devine" is most likely connected with Hague & Condon's family so why would this be sent to Frank Hague?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2013 13:11:59 GMT -5
Michael,
I was wondering if there is anything you can share about a man named August Daniel Hognall. I saw him mentioned in the FBI Summary report. Seems he was driving a taxicab at the time of the kidnapping. The summary report says he is Scandinavian and a carpenter by trade. What brought this man to the attention of LE?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 22, 2013 18:14:59 GMT -5
Michael, I was wondering if there is anything you can share about a man named August Daniel Hognall. I saw him mentioned in the FBI Summary report. Seems he was driving a taxicab at the time of the kidnapping. The summary report says he is Scandinavian and a carpenter by trade. What brought this man to the attention of LE? Hognell worked for the City as a Carpenter. His name was brought in by Perrone who told Police on May 21, 1932 that while at the American Legion he met him and that he was struck by how much he resembled the man who gave him the note to deliver to Condon. After speaking with him he believed his accent was also exactly alike. The Police tracked Hognell down immediately and took his Statement. Afterwards they completely lost interest in him. Here is his description via Agent Kilmartin's Memo:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2013 23:09:38 GMT -5
Thanks Michael for posting this. The FBI Summary was not clear on who connected this man to the investigation. This is early in the crime timeline so I would think that things were still rather fresh in Perrone's mind yet. I guess Hognell had a very solid alibi for March 12 getting him off the possibility list!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2013 14:48:55 GMT -5
Michael,
I was doing some reading on the internet and I came across a man named Alfred B Scott who gave a statement on January 8. 1936 that concerned Condon and Fisch. Would you be able to share any information on this man and what he claimed? Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 31, 2013 10:32:30 GMT -5
Michael, I was doing some reading on the internet and I came across a man named Alfred B Scott who gave a statement on January 8. 1936 that concerned Condon and Fisch. Would you be able to share any information on this man and what he claimed? Thanks! Scott first appeared in the case through Fawcett. You may be aware that Fawcett wasn't too happy with being dismissed and held his material on this case from Reilly in lieu of what he claimed were his unpaid fees. The Defense took legal action to get this material and won. Among those items were Scott's diaries. He was one of those Witnesses for the Defense that I mention from time to time who never testified. His costs were among those billed to Mrs. Hauptmann but pocketed by Reilly after it was paid. Scott was about 70 years old during the trial and had been appointed to the CID during World War I. So he took an interest in this case and began his own "investigation" logging what he saw in his diaries. The Affidavit that I have quoted in the past does contain his assertion that the man he observed enter Condon's home was Fisch. Lloyd Fisher believed his observations were valuable and tried to get Gov. Hoffman interested in them by sending along everything he had. Unfortunately the Governor did not share in his interest. It's also worthy to note that George Foster, who had been working for Fawcett then interviewed Scott at that time, believed in the sincerity of this man's account and included this in a Report he turned over for the Governor....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2014 18:46:56 GMT -5
So, Michael, I have been doing some reading and I came across a few names I would like to run by you:
1) John Bane - This man is supposed to be a friend of Hauptmanns and hung out with Richard in 1932-33 on Hunters Island. He was questioned by Foley around Sept. 26 or 27, 1934. Would you have anything on him?
2) August Rieger. He was listed as one of Hauptmann's friends in an article I read. Sorry that is all I have on him.
3) "Carl" the cobbler. Not his real name. Apparently a mystery man who was friends with Hauptmann for several years but returned to Germany after selling his business to another friend who Hauptmann lent money to for the purchase. This cobbler also says he told the investigator about Hauptmann being friends with Hans Kloppenburg.
When you have the time to check out these people, I would appreciate anything you can share about them. Thanks!!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 15, 2014 19:58:51 GMT -5
So, Michael, I have been doing some reading and I came across a few names I would like to run by you: 1. Doesn't ring a bell but if you give me the reference that might help me locate something on him. 2. Yes, I have information on him. Anything in particular you'd like to know? 3. I believe this is Carl Arnold. I will check it out to make sure I am right then get back to you on it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2014 12:14:59 GMT -5
I read John Bane's name in a newspaper article. It seems he was brought in around the same time as Hans Kloppenburg to DA Foley's office in the Bronx. I think they were bringing in anyone and everyone who might have been connected to Hauptmann through Hunters Island. Photographs of those gatherings sometimes include an unidentified man. Was wondering if this might be the "John" mentioned by one of the girls who was part of the Hunters Island crowd. It seems that Hauptmann always called this guy John but that wasn't his real first name. This is during the summer of 1932 I believe. This first link is to the newspaper article that mentions John Bane: news.google.com/newspapers?id=3eEsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=VCEEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1979%2C6831972This second link is to the article that mentions the man that Hauptmann called John: news.google.com/newspapers?id=5PIwAAAAIBAJ&sjid=k-EFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4912%2C5523181Yes! Whatever you are able to share plus things like how long he might have known Hauptmann, was he Scandinavian, what his profession was, did Hauptmann ever lend him money, did he live in the Bronx, was he part of the Hunters Island crowd? Sorry for all these questions!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 16, 2014 15:57:05 GMT -5
1. John Braue. The material claims he was Anita Lutzenberg's boyfriend, and they lived in the same house together. He was on the record as saying they both met Hauptmann together for the first time on Hunter's Island. Attachment Deleted2. August Reiger met Hauptman at the home of Karl Arnold in 1933 when, at the time, both he and Kloppenberg were living there. He claimed to have a lot of respect for him and that Hauptmann was a good carpenter who had a piece he made on display in the Exhibition at the German Turn Hall. Claims after they met he would often accompany Hauptmann on Sundays to Hunter's Island. Also told Police about the card games that Hauptmann would attend at Arnold's shoemaker shop, and that Anna & Richard did not get along instead fighting all the time. 3. Karl Arnold, sometimes spelled "Carl" was a Shoemaker whose shop was on 209 East 81 Street. He knew Kloppenberg since 1930 when he met him at the First Evangelican Church on 55th Street. He claimed he was introduced to Hauptmann there by Kloppenberg. Claimed to have attended "swimming parties" at Hunter's Island where Hauptmann would park his car in a garage on City Island then take his canoe and paddle over. In March of '33 he went to Germany because his Father was sick. He returned in May then sold his business to John Hager for $450 which had been loaned to him from Hauptmann. Soon after Arnold bought a ticket to Germany on the SS Bremen where he lived in Essigen thereafter.
|
|