|
Post by lightningjew on May 28, 2012 22:52:05 GMT -5
Good point about neither Hauptmann nor Red Johnson cracking, Bookrefuge. Though I have my doubts about Johnson's involvement, I do believe Hauptmann had to have at least done something in all this, and, very true, like Johnson, he didn't budge a millimeter--not when a confession of something would've saved his life, not when it would've provided for his family. But I think the difference is that while Hauptmann was found with 14-15K in ransom money for example, nothing like that ever turned up in Johnson's possession. And it is strange, even with all this against him, that Hauptmann wouldn't admit to any involvement. It's something I've never quite understood--unless he really didn't have anything to confess, but I don't think the evidence supports that. At the same time though, neither do any of the reasons given for him keeping quiet work for me (not wanting to disappoint his wife's belief in his innocence, not thinking anything he'd say would be believed anyhow, honor among thieves, etc.). I dunno; one of the many disturbing contradictions in the maze. And Michael, I believe Violet Sharp killed herself because she thought, rightly or wrongly, that she'd accidentally let something slip to the kidnappers and couldn't handle waiting for the shoe to drop, waiting for the police to figure out what she'd done (even though she may not have known herself). Additionally, there may've also been other, completely unrelated episodes in her life that she didn't want coming to light. Like many who kill themselves, it seems to me that she was absolutely desperate and just wanted out. It doesn't necessarily strike me, then, that she would've been too concerned with later impressions. But had a question as to local involvement: I remember hearing vaguely about some mysterious shack in the woods near the Lindbergh house, where a man named Schesler (sp?) lived. Did anything suspicious ever turn up on him?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 29, 2012 11:22:11 GMT -5
He obviously had much to confess, I wonder though, if it would only have made his position worse.
It seems most believe an "insider" was necessary, but I actually believe that someone very familiar with the Sourlands area would be much more helpful. Even today and after numerous visits to Highfields, I can find myself wondering where I am. Many of those roads back then were not even on a general map.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 29, 2012 19:45:45 GMT -5
I am not sure if this made it into any book, or if I posted on it before, but Salvy Spitale got a little one on one time with Red. I think that might have been the time, if he was going to "crack" that he would have. You're talking about Charles Schippell. It's okay that you misspelled his name because I have quite a few reports where his name is never spelled the same twice. It makes finding them a real task. We've mentioned him from time to time here, and I remember a thread with quite a bit of discussion about him but I can't seem to find it. He's mentioned in Lloyd's book, in connection with Cerardi (sometimes spelled Gerardi) who is also an interesting character. Both names can be found in the FBI Summary Report too - I just can't remember how they are spelled there! Schippell looked a little like Hauptmann and some Witnesses had come forward identifying Hauptmann mistaking Schippell for him. Probably one of the bizarre occurrences connected to Schippell was the fact Waxey Gordon, before the corpse was found, told George Clarke the "baby was dead" and that a "local mad-man" had done the job. Schippell was known to be mentally "off" and the child's body would be found near his shack. I am going to re-post his picture that was in that thread I mentioned that I cannot find (sigh): By not confessing he was protecting people in my opinion. Although we cannot forget that he does implicate Fisch. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 29, 2012 22:28:03 GMT -5
Schippell! That's it. Schlesser was someone else. Do you think this guy Schippell had anything to do with anything? I can't find the thread you mentioned about him either. And interesting idea about Hauptmann protecting people by not confessing. He did give up Fisch, as you say, but Fisch was already dead. I still wonder, though, what with the electric chair facing him, why Hauptmann didn't give these people up. Was he worried about his family maybe...?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 30, 2012 8:46:42 GMT -5
Wow, Shippell was in the Australian Army?
Maybe Hauptmann was protecting someone with his silence, but unless it was his wife I can't see him not giving up something. As you say, he did it with Fisch and he could have done it again. I was watching an old newsreel of the trial the other day and I still at amazed at his lack of fear or emotion. Watching Wilentz rip into him face to face I couldn't help but notice that Hauptmann didn't even flinch. It's almost inhuman, I doubt any normal person, guilty or not guilty, could show such a complete lack of response.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on May 30, 2012 9:03:19 GMT -5
Concerning BRH's emotions, out of laziness I am going to quote a post I made in the "Face of a Killer" thread:
quote author=bookrefuge board=general thread=746 post=11738 time=1324757115]Regarding Hauptmann’s demeanor, I just noticed an interesting remark he made to attorney Lloyd Fisher (Gardner, p. 361):
Hauptmann probably could have managed his demeanor better in the courtroom. But I understand his dilemma.
--News reporters were watching his reactions like hawks. If he showed fear or went pale, they were quick to report it.
--On the other hand, you might recall that Wilentz had an issue with Hauptmann “smiling” and attacked him over the laughter generated when he looked at the ladder and said “I am a carpenter.” Later Wilentz told the jury: “Look at him as he walks out into this room, panther-like, gloating, feeling good.”
In other words, fear or tears would be signs of guilt--but smiling was a sign of smug superiority, of callous indifference to the seriousness of the crime, the bearing of an “egomaniac” as Wilentz put it.
This sort of backed Hauptmann into a corner where it probably seemed safest to show no emotion at all. But in that case it was reported he was cold and unemotional, incapable of human feeling—surely symptoms of a psychopathic killer.
I think this was a “Have you stopped beating your wife?” type of trap that Hauptmann was in—sad, smiling, or no emotion, they would all be used against him.
In his book, Gardner has a picture of Hauptmann beaming with a group of friends and writes: “This picture contrasts with descriptions of Hauptmann as stolid and unemotional.” This is also why I linked to the Corbis photos at the top of this thread—to put some balance against the stereotyping.
Hm—I was going to end the post there, but it just occurred to me—why didn’t Wilentz include that question? OK, if Jim Fisher can rewrite the trial transcript, so can I. Here we go:
MR. WILENTZ: Have you stopped beating your wife? HAUPTMANN: Uh… MR. FISHER: I object! The prosecution has asked the defendant a question that’s impossible to answer. MR. WILENTZ: Your honor, please! The state is merely trying to establish, in good faith, whether or not the defendant has the capacity for violence. Yet the counsel for the defense would have us believe this is irrelevant to the worst crime of the century? JUDGE TRENCHARD: Objection overruled. Mr. Fisher, I will not tolerate another outburst like that. The witness will answer the question. MR. WILENTZ: Have you stopped beating your wife? HAUPTMANN: Uh… MR. WILENTZ: Don’t evade the question, Public Enemy Number One of this World! Just a simple “Yes” or “No” please!HAUPTMANN: Uh… MR. WILENTZ: Your honor, since the defendant-- an animal lower than the lowest form in the animal kingdom-- refuses to answer the question, the state will now produce a witness who will confirm absolutely that the defendant beats his wife. BAILIFF: Amandus Hochmuth, take the stand!
[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on May 30, 2012 9:20:41 GMT -5
And here's another reason BRH showed no emotion. He was married, right? Just check out this Budweiser commercial (my apologies to the ladies on the board): www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vCN3BSdFMY
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 30, 2012 9:31:28 GMT -5
Control his demeanor? That's even worse than not having any demeanor. What normal person can do this especially given the circumstance?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 30, 2012 11:11:47 GMT -5
What I would like to see is some really good, clear footage of the trial, where facial expressions can be well seen. All I've ever been able to find are incomplete, hazy, very pixiliated Youtube clips. I'd love to see the Lindberghs, Gow, and Hauptmann's testimony especially. And that imagined courtroom exchange is very funny, Bookrefuge. While it obviously never happened, I think it's a perfect encapsulation of the trial (at least of the prosecution's case): unfair, jingoistic, biased, and the judge allowed it. Not to say that Hauptmann was innocent, but it's still flagrantly obvious that he was railroaded out of sheer expediency. And I think people control their demeanors all the time, in one form or another--not wearing their heart on their sleeves, keeping a firm grip on their emotions, etc. I don't know that it's necessarily a sign of abnormality.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on May 30, 2012 12:36:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 30, 2012 14:28:41 GMT -5
Very cool. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by pzb63 on May 30, 2012 19:51:00 GMT -5
Re the comments about controlling demeaner - I clearly recall a well known Australian case of about 30 years ago where the accused was judged by her demeaner (at least by the general public) - the Lindy Chamberlain / Dingo case.
People seemed to think that her way of coping was a sign of guilt. She was acquitted after being incarecrated for several years.
The comments and insinuations based on her "stony face" were incredible.
I think we should tread carefully here - People cope with siutations in a range of ways, and this does not signify guilt or innocence - just your coping mechanism.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 30, 2012 20:21:44 GMT -5
Sure, if all we are talking about is expression or lack of. John Ramsey and Lindbergh were also ( and are still) often condemned for their stoicism. Hauptmann is a completely different story and if you can't see why and in what way then there is really nothing I could possibly add.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on May 31, 2012 8:15:27 GMT -5
Let me just add that I believe we cannot learn much, if anything, about BRH’s guilt by his courtroom composure, nor do I find it unusual that he attempted to control his emotions.
Let me take an analogy out of my own life. About 20 years ago, I was working at a job where a fellow employee falsely reported something about me to my boss. I was upset by the false report, and insisted that the three of us—me, the accuser, and the boss—sit down and sort out the truth of the matter.
Fortunately, I was able to prove the accusation false, by pointing out contradictions in what the person had said.
However, although I was innocent, I did feel nervous before the meeting, because I wasn’t sure how it would come out. I also knew that my boss had a lot of respect for “calm” people and had sharply criticized workers who “lost their cool.” Therefore I knew that if I became emotional and “lost my head” when defending myself, I would look bad in the boss’s eyes. Therefore I resolved in advance to stay calm—to “control my emotions” if you will. Now my emotions HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH my guilt or innocence, but I knew that they might impact how my guilt or innocence was PERCEIVED.
This is far from a perfect analogy to Flemington, but I think it’s just possible that BRH thought it would be best if he kept his emotions under control. He probably knew that if he broke down and became upset—the way “Perry Mason” used to get people to do on the stand—he wouldn’t be doing himself any favors. There is also the lesser matter of the rules of courtroom decorum. I may be wrong here, but as I recall, at one point during the trial, Anna Hauptmann became upset by something being said, and--showing her emotions--stood up and protested, and the judge censured her for it. Of course, she was not on the stand, so Trenchard was within his rights. But if BRH had become angry with Wilentz during cross-examination, I imagine Trenchard would have given him warnings and told him "Just answer the question."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2012 10:35:52 GMT -5
I have a question about the mud on the ladder. In May of 1932 Trooper Frank A. Kelly brought the ladder and chisel to Washington DC for examination by the Bureau of Standards. Six specimens of dried mud from the ladder and an unidentifed substance from the chisel handle were examined along with soil samples from the Lindbergh estate, Mount Rose where the child's remains were found, Featherbed Lane where the footprints were found. Also soil samples from places in NY were included. Soil from the Temple of Divine Power, the residence of Dr. Condon, the residence of Bruno Richard Hauptmann and the residence of Isador Fisch. Analysis of these samples placed the highest probability of ladder soil origination to be from the area of Isador Fisch's residence. Richard Hauptmann's residence came in second closest.
It seems to me that this links Fisch and Hauptmann to the ladder. Were these findings ever used during the trial either for or against Hauptmann? The defense could have used this report to help with Hauptmann's "Fisch Story" and show that someone else was connected to that ladder.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on May 31, 2012 11:04:02 GMT -5
Hey BR,
Yours of 9:03am, yesterday and 8:15am today:
Just wanted to say how very much I agree with your assessment I think you covered it so well! Snake oil Wilenz took BRH's "I am a carpenter", turned it wrong side out to attack. Yet when Condon made a "so called" humerus remark, the courtroom laughed and Trenchard gave an amiable response. It might not hurt to mention again that BRH had to mentally back and forth language translate.
The German film coverage was terrific! How in the world did you find that?All those huge crowds - it sure revealed the thirst for blood!
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on May 31, 2012 11:13:09 GMT -5
Amy, Very interesting post about the soil samples! I don't think I'd seen that info before.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 31, 2012 17:57:09 GMT -5
I have considered he was to be the fall guy. There's other tangents concerning him that are interesting as well. I dunno. I believe he fought in WWI for the U.S. If you want me to look it up just let me know. I think this should be a rule of thumb. It's natural to look for things like this, but most of the time it doesn't work unless you know a little bit about the situation first. I think if I could run with this I would go after the fact that Cemetery John wasn't anything representative of this. But then again, Hauptmann wasn't representative of Hauptmann once he got back to his cell either. Pacing, chain smoking, talking to himself, not eating, then crying himself to sleep. There is something to be said about his will, and how he faces certain situations, however, life's experiences have a lot to do with how someone may or may not react. You're not wrong and she did do that. And on top of that she was right because the person was falsely testifying. But Hauptmann did this too when Agent Sisk was testifying. Since this action did not fit with the emotionless persona fitted to Hauptmann, some would say it was a calculated act to distract from what Sisk was testifying to at the time. The Defense never rec'd any of this stuff. Liz Pagel did some of her own research on this end - have you seen her report?
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on May 31, 2012 18:01:43 GMT -5
mike the fbi files also has soil reports
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2012 20:34:04 GMT -5
Liz Pagel's research reveals some very interesting things about this ladder. According to her research not all the mud was from the Lindbergh estate. There was mud that is consistent with the type found in the Bronx, most closely the soil found in the area where Fisch lived. Could some of the wood used to build the ladder have come from construction sites in this area of the bronx? Could Fisch have given Hauptmann wood to use to construct this ladder for him?
I believe the book Beneath the Winter Sycamores has Lindbergh building the ladder from the woodpiles on his own property. I guess Jim Bahm should have done some research on the ladder before putting that idea in his book.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jun 1, 2012 6:20:17 GMT -5
everybody tries to connect fisch with something. there is no hard evidence that he was involved
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 1, 2012 8:02:50 GMT -5
About the only thing I can see that the Pagel report does is to verify what we already know, the ladder was at one time in the Bronx and in Hopewell. I am fairly certain that the ladder was not completely built at BRH's residence, more certain that it was not erected or tested there. Given the enormous amount of soil disturbance and replacement that occurs in the NYC area, I doubt much more can be determined.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 1, 2012 8:50:51 GMT -5
While the soil report is interesting, a couple of remarks. First, Ben Lupica is our best eyewitness as to who brought the ladder, and he saw only one man in the car, the driver. I believe Isidor Fisch didn’t drive. Michael, is that correct?
I certainly believe the man with the ladder met with co-conspirators (for reasons discussed earlier in this thread), and that Fisch could have been one of them. I’ve wondered if it might have been he who left the footprint that Oscar Bush described as that of a “smallish man.”
Still, given the heavy rains earlier on March 1, 1932, and the fact that it was muddy around the Lindbergh estate, I have to think that the most logical source for any mud found on the ladder was from right there around Highfields. I realize it could be argued that Fisch stepped on mud up in New York, then went to Hopewell, climbed the ladder and left New York mud on it—but it seems like a stretch.
Given all the construction taking place right there around Highfields, and I suppose there were landscapers at work, I wonder if the soil in the area wasn’t rather diverse—I’m wondering if you wouldn’t need more samples before drawing conclusions about just what type of soil the kidnappers were stepping on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2012 9:15:33 GMT -5
The diversity of the soil is exactly what Pagel report addresses. The "newer" mud that was deposited on the ladder was consistent with Highfields. The DC bureau report confirmed that. The other "older" soil deposits on the wood were not consistent with Hopewell but with the bronx area of New York as Pagel found in her research.
Like Kevkon says, the ladder may not have been entirely constructed at BRH's home. The footprint evidence at Highfields shows that there were at least two people involved with the kidnapping or at least at the scene of the abduction. I don't think Fisch drove either so he would have needed to come with someone else.
I agree, BR, that the smallish prints could have been from Fisch. Hauptmann and Fisch could have carried the ladder from Featherbed Lane to the house rather quickly since it was so light. Hauptmann could have entered the nursery and handed the baby out to Fisch who was waiting on the ladder. But how do we fit the stocking feet into this scenario then?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 1, 2012 9:57:01 GMT -5
Or account for the fact that no footprints were found leading from Featherbed to Highfields?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 1, 2012 10:29:42 GMT -5
Thanks, Amy; I didn’t read the soil report carefully enough. Regarding how the stocking feet and footprints might fit in, if you don’t mind the redundancy, see my first 3 posts at the top of page 11 of this thread, on a possible reconstruction of how the crime was carried out. It’s a scenario that I like and that LJ seems to agree fits with the facts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2012 11:35:44 GMT -5
OK. That would mean that Fisch is the one who goes into the house and up to the nursery. He takes the child and hands him out the window to Hauptmann who is on the ladder?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 1, 2012 13:27:50 GMT -5
Hi, Amy. Actually, in that reconstruction of events, I was mostly seeking to figure out the “how,” not so much the “who.” I certainly don’t know if either BRH or Fisch themselves were actually at Highfields on the night of the kidnapping. As you probably know from reading my article, I don’t think BRH was. The fact that one of the men was apparently small made me wonder if that could have been Fisch, but since there are millions of small men, it’s a real shot in the dark.
I don’t know if Fisch had his tubercular cough at the time, but if he did, I always thought he’d be a poor candidate for the man inside the house, since a couple of good hacks would draw attention. Also, although Fisch was in on a number of shady deals, he doesn’t quite strike me as having the moxie it must have taken to invade the house of Charles Lindbergh.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 1, 2012 14:58:09 GMT -5
Yeah, I still like Bookrefuge's scenario a lot, one that deals strictly with the "how". The "who" is a separate question altogether, one that I don't know can ever be satisfactorily answered at this point (barring new information). While Hauptmann and Fisch were certainly involved, I don't know that either one was actually at the house that night. Some eyewitness accounts seem to put Hauptmann (or someone very much like him) in the area, but it's hard to say how reliable any of that is (I straightaway discount Hochmuth and Whited, who were demonstrably inaccurate). Same thing with Fisch; it could've been him that was seen in and around Hopewell on the day of the kidnapping, but it's hard to say. I think that Fisch was probably at the cemeteries for the ransom dropoff, and I used to think that Hauptmann was Cemetery John, given the proximity of the cemeteries to his house and the composite sketch, which, to me, looks a lot like Hauptmann--but Hauptmann didn't have the telltale lump on his thumb that CJ had. Then again, Condon was so full of it that the lump may've been a later invention on his part, so, I dunno, while a picture of the "how" is coming together for me, I still remain completely stumped on the "who"...
|
|
|
Post by kjones on Jun 1, 2012 17:05:38 GMT -5
Michael, you said you have considered Schippell to be a fall guy. Have you ever considered he was set up by Cerrardi/Gerrardi? Cerrardi has always been very high on my list. I also would love to know more about the those tangents.
|
|