Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Sept 2, 2012 6:07:44 GMT -5
Fred and Marie Hahn owned and operated Fred's Lunch Bar and Restaurant at 1816 Webster Ave., in the Bronx. In the spring of 1931, about a year after they had set up shop there, they were introduced to Richard Hauptmann by two of Hauptmann's friends, Hans Kloppenburg and Willie Dreissigacker. Hauptmann frequented their restaurant often by himself, with Anna and others over the next two years. Although they were never called to testify at the trial, the Hahns and their testimony still give us an opportunity to gain more insight into the life of the man we seem to know so little about. After Hauptmann's arrest, Fred and Marie were interviewed separately on November 19, 1934 at the District Attorney's office of Bronx County by Assistant District Attorney Breslin; Attorney General Wilentz of NJ; Col. Schwarzkopf, NJ State Police; Capt. Lamb and Lt. Keaten, NJ State Police and Det. Madden of 48th Squad Detectives, NYC Police. Rather than post excerpts here or try to interpret them, the full scanned reports which total 40 pages can now be read on Ronelle's LKC website. Click on www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com and currently they should be at the top of the main page. I would encourage everyone to take a good read through both reports and revisit them afterwards. Believe me, it takes a couple of times through to understand the real intent of the fractured English and what appear to be mistakes and anomolies, which are then cleared up later in the report(s). I’m still picking up little nuggets after reading them both a half dozen times!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2012 11:43:54 GMT -5
Thank you for the link to the Hahns' statements Joe. Fascinating read for sure.
I wonder why the police never called them to testify? Their statements about all the items purchased after March of 1932 and the money in a paper bags. Why would they not want this as part of the trial testimony showing the sudden wealth the Hauptmanns had?
Hans Kloppenberg I know of. I am not at all familiar with Willie Dreissigacker and Henry Lempke. Did the police ever do any followup on these men? Fred also mentions a waitress named Paula who is with this group in May 1932 when the discovery of Charlie's body is being publicized. Very interesting physical reaction by both Hauptmann and this girl.
Was the garage Hauptmann built still hooked up to an alarm when he was arrested? I don't remember reading that it was. Neither Fred or Marie say they know Fisch. Guess he never ate at their restaurant.
I plan to go over these statements several more times. It is hard to take everything in at first. Hauptmann saying he would never admit guilt to a crime even "if they kill me" was stunning to read. Lots to think about with these statements!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Sept 2, 2012 12:17:05 GMT -5
At first blush Amy, it does seem a mystery as to why they were never called, but I have come to believe the prosecution considered that certain events within their testimony might have been damaging towards their case against Hauptmann as "Lone Wolf." Wilentz did directly refer to some of the testimony of Fred Hahn during the trial in his questioning of Hauptmann.
I think it's pretty interesting that as early as the summer of 1932, Hauptmann was willing to explain the source of some of the paper bagged money, as being Isidor Fisch. Perhaps a harbinger of explanations to come?
I know very little about Willie Dreissigacker (perhaps Michael can fill in some blanks) and you can't even Google him, but I've often wondered if it was he who accompanied Hauptmann to the Austin, Cross and Ireland lumber yard where two men raised the suspicion of cashier Alice Murphy.
According to Joyce Milton in Loss of Eden, Henry Lempke had started a chicken farm about 8 miles out of Lakewood in 1931 or 1932, where there was a sizeable German community as a result of several hundred technicians having immigrated there after WWI to work on the zeppelins hangared at nearby Lakehurst Aerodrome. Hauptmann himself had an admitted connection to this area dating back to 1924.
I don't believe there was any evidence of the lighted alarm system connected to the garage at the time of Hauptmann's arrest although there were some newspaper reports of this. This has been a source of controversy however I find Marie Hahn's detailed description of it quite credible as I generally find both of their testimony throughout.
As for Hauptmann's statement that he wouldn't confess without evidence even if they killed him, now you know where Wilentz came up with that line of question while pounding Hauptmann on the witness stand over his iron-jawed willpower. I find it pretty chilling actually, and it quickly brings to mind the dark side of Richard Hauptmann that few people knew or would ever want to know.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Sept 2, 2012 14:39:22 GMT -5
Thanx, Joe, for the Hahn link. For some reason I can't get through to it, but I will keep trying! Kevkon, Wonderful pictures! And a great experiment! Thanx for posting them!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 2, 2012 16:55:05 GMT -5
Wilhelm Dreissigacker (a.k.a Willie Dreissigacker a.k.a. Willie Dietrich). He along with Lempke were Kloppenberg's former room-mates. He told Police he considered himself Hauptmann's friend who he had met through Kloppenberg sometime in 1931. Claimed he stopped going to Hunter's Island in 1932, and as a result, lost touch with him. There wasn't an "alarm." Rauch himself said no such thing existed and that he certainly would have noticed the wire or light when he came home. Additionally, when the Police interviewed Neighbors they were all saying if one was there they would have noticed it - but never did. What this appears to most likely be was something Hauptmann would plug into his Apartment then run a wire out to the garage if he was going to work in there at night - which apparently didn't happen much - if at all. I think, if what she said were true, he was just showing off his capabilities to have a light in that garage if need be - then it got "twisted" or purposely changed to make Hauptmann look worse then he already did. Mairi - Try these direct links: Thanks to Joe for posting and to Ronelle for hosting them!
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Sept 3, 2012 7:02:35 GMT -5
The Hahn statements might be true. But let’s not forget that plenty of people were coming forward to get reward money. Whithed and Hochmuth both perjured themselves in incriminating Hauptmann, and both bagged $1,000 (about $20,000 in today’s dollars). Cecile Barr also got $1,000—and she had originally IDed an “American” buying a solo movie ticket at her theater, when other witnesses confirmed Hauptmann was at home that evening at his birthday party. Even Rossiter’s dubious testimony snagged $500. There were plenty of people willing to lie to put reward cash in their pockets. If authentic, the testimony of the Hahns reads like a prosecutor’s dream come true. Numerous element of the crime are included. First you’ve got Hauptmann, in June 1932, letting Hahn—on his very first visit to Hauptmann’s home—see two bags filled with inches of money. This is money that could send Hauptmann to the electric chair—yet he keeps it in his Victrola, which he casually opens for Hahn? And even though Hauptmann has now “tipped his mitt” to Hahn, he does not distance himself from Hahn. You’ve got Hauptmann supposedly eating supper at the Hahns’ restaurant “near every night”—which pretty much contradicts the statements by the Fredericksens that Hauptmann ate at THEIR restaurant on Tuesdays and Fridays while waiting for Anna. From the Hahns’ testimony, one would gather that Anna almost never cooked supper for Richard. In fact, they claim frugal Anna was a regular there herself. You’ve got Hauptmann suddenly going missing from the restaurant in March of 1932, a time frame they find easy to remember. They say Hauptmann was under a doctor’s care then for an injured leg. Wasn’t it a common misconception that the ladder broke at the time of the crime? Kevkon has posted evidence that the ladder did not break during the crime, nor was there evidence on the soil of a fall. Couldn’t this be something the Hahns read about in the newspaper, so they added the “injured leg” to beef up their story? If Hauptmann was under a doctor’s care for an injured leg, wouldn’t the determined Wilentz have located that doctor? You’ve got Hauptmann getting into a discussion with Hahn about the Lindbergh kidnapping and crimes in general, then saying “they could never get anything out of me.” You’ve got the Hauptmanns conveniently being at the Hahns’ restaurant, with a woman named Paula, when the news of the baby’s body being found comes over the radio—and the woman “Paula” goes faint. The Hahns say they had other employees at the time—but none of them were around any more to corroborate the Hahns’ stories about the Hauptmanns. Mrs. Hahn says she never liked Hauptmann; yet Hauptmann eagerly shows Mrs. Hahn the alarm system for his garage—which, from the above posts by Michael and others, was in the newspapers, but apparently did not exist in reality. This once again sounds like the Hahns were taking cues from the newspapers. Here is a news story about the alarm system published the month before the Hahns gave their statement: news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2202&dat=19341001&id=ggkmAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Jf0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=7339,3365289 You’ve even got Hahn telling his wife not to leave their child with Hauptmann because he already suspected Hauptmann was the Lindbergh kidnapper! You’ve got frugal Anna Hauptmann buying over a dozen luxurious evening gowns. If she was that rich (I have to ask) why was she still working for dime tips at the bakery? And just when and where did anyone ever see her wearing these evening gowns? The Hahns seem to have come to the DA’s office equipped with a complete shopping list of evidence. If true, and taken as a whole, their testimony looks more damning than any actually given at the trial. Yes, I know, Wilentz mentioned the Hahns, but why didn’t he call them to testify? Maybe Joe is right, and Wilentz feared it could botch his “lone wolf” scenario. Or could it be that Wilentz knew that the Hahns were a couple of fortune hunters who would fall apart if their claims were subjected to cross-examination? While on the subject of restaurant owners, it might be mentioned that Gustave and Sophie Mancke, who ran an ice cream parlor in New Rochelle, gave depositions that Isidor Fisch, Violet Sharpe and Oliver Whately dined at their place on several Sundays just before the kidnapping. Sure, the Hahn story could be true. I’m not saying it isn’t. I wasn’t there. I didn’t see, or not see, the things the Hahns talked about. But it could also be testimony that was fabricated, or exaggerated, in hopes of collecting reward money--something that was not uncommon in the LKC.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 3, 2012 10:13:18 GMT -5
BR, I am very surprised that you find the story of Hauptmann with cash in the apartment to be suspect. I seem to remember you firmly supporting the story of $4000 in a linen box and a satchel. If the guy is comfortable with keeping the equivalent of almost $60,000 in a box and a briefcase, why would it be odd to have an undisclosed amount in a phonograph console?
Regarding the supper, look at what Hahn says he ordered. Webster Ave is the direct route from the West side to the Bronx, it even leads directly to Woodlawn Cemetery. It would be a natural location for Hauptmann to stop for something and meet Kloppenberg.
Regarding the "alarm", I would agree that the story is highly exaggerated, imagined, or invented.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Sept 3, 2012 11:22:27 GMT -5
There is a huge difference between hiding savings in your home (a common practice then because banks were collapsing by the thousands) and keeping Lindbergh ransom money where people such as Hahn could easily see it. The ransom money meant the electric chair; the savings didn’t.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 3, 2012 12:35:52 GMT -5
Well, there's really no difference when you go around telling people about it. And who said the money that Hahn claimed to see was Lindbergh ransom money? That's your assumption. And didn't Hahn confirm your claim that Hauptmann didn't trust banks? So we are to believe Hauptmann had $4000 in cash which both he and Anna told people about but which there's really no evidence of and it was kept unsecured. Yet it's unbelievable that Hauptmann had cash in the Victrola. If you believe one story involving Hauptmann wealth, why not believe the other? One thing seems certain, in a time of general economic hardship, the Hauptmann's don't seem to have any shortage of cash in and around that apartment.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Sept 3, 2012 13:58:16 GMT -5
Honestly, I need you to refresh my memory. Who exactly did the Hauptmanns go around telling that they had huge amounts of cash lying around in, or hidden in, their home? (Not in bank accounts, in their home.)
Well, that certainly WAS Hahn’s implication. He included this bit about huge wads of money “from Fisch” along with a half-dozen other details with which he clearly intended to tie Hauptmann to the kidnapping—being missing in March 1932, the leg injury, the reaction to the news of the discovery of the body, etc. In fact, Hahn even said he himself had suspected Hauptmann was the Lindbergh kidnapper.
So the business about the big bags of money in the Victrola was not a random piece of information Hahn happened to throw in. He obviously could not go so far as to say he KNEW this was the ransom money. If he did, he’d be in trouble for having withheld evidence.
Yes, I have no problem with that.
For the reasons I gave. There was nothing incriminating about keeping savings in your home during the bank catastrophe; but Lindbergh ransom money, that can send you to the electric chair, is not something you’re going to keep where visitors can so easily see it.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Sept 3, 2012 21:38:00 GMT -5
theres people that said he had the light alarm, and theres people that said he didnt. i think mrs rauchs daughter told somebody in the newspaper that he had it. it dosnt matter to me, because they found ransom money in the garage which is more credible and damaging to his case
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 4, 2012 7:51:54 GMT -5
BR, are you telling us that the Hauptmann's kept their financial status a secret? As for the inference that the money Hahn claimed to see was ransom money, that may be what he determined but given Hauptmann's wheeling and dealing, who knows? I read an account like the Hahn's and try not to take it verbatim. It probably is a result of actual experience coupled with hindsight. Still, it's hard for me to believe that this man invented the Victrola story. Bottom line; Hauptmann has plenty of cash at hand and I don't find a report of such to be in any way inconsistent. In fact, given the vagueness of Hahn's report of this money it could actually have been the $4000 that you so strongly feel he had stashed in the trunk.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Sept 4, 2012 10:54:20 GMT -5
No. My question above was, did they openly tell people that they kept money stashed in their house (as opposed to bank and investment accounts)?
This has occurred to me also, Kevin. I have no issue with the possibility that Hahn saw a stash of Hauptmann’s savings, perhaps later exaggerated the amount he had seen, and subjectively misinterpreted this as having been ransom money. However, if Hauptmann kept $4,000 savings in a trunk and a locked satchel in 1931, it seems odd that he would transfer it to a Victrola in his parlor in 1932. That seems like a “downgrade” in terms of security.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Sept 4, 2012 13:20:10 GMT -5
BR, we don’t know for sure if this was Lindbergh ransom money and there is no indication within Fred Hahn’s statement that Hauptmann casually opened the victrola with the intent of having Hahn see the contents, as you’re inferring. Perhaps Hauptmann had put the money there temporarily, it slipped his mind (would anyone really do this for the long term?) and suddenly realized he was letting a “cat out of the bag”.. or perhaps he was showing off. He certainly had the presence of mind to apportion part of that wealth to his new friend and business partner Fisch, a reference that also helps to cement Hauptmann’s explanation that he knew Fisch before August of that year. In any case, he doesn't take credit for it being savings or stock market earnings, which I'm pretty sure he would have done if that were the case. The Hahn’s later discussion of this event and Fred’s thought that Richard may have been referring to the Fisch couple he and his wife knew, as well as their independently corroborative accounts, adds a considerable degree of credibility here in my mind.
Given the nature of the Hahn’s business, their dependence upon regular and repeat business and the magnitude of the kidnapping, I don’t find this noted absence at all surprising.
I believe there was a wire there at one time but that it was only there for a very short time. Marie Hahn’s account is supported by that of Laura Urvant, daughter of the landlady Mrs. Rauch. If Hauptmann felt an alarm light was going to give him any peace of mind towards the protection of whatever was in his garage, he would have quickly come to understand that a visible wire running from the house would probably prompt many questions from neighbours.
It seems pretty clear to me from what we know factually about the life of the Hauptmanns and the “disposable cash” purchases that were going on at a time when Anna was still working, they were showing telltale signs of the dichotomy between past routine and temptations of the “nouveau rich.”
Yes, and a lot more people who didn’t have a clue who Hauptmann was, would have gladly come out of the woodwork to sell their souls with dubious or false testimony against him. Fred and Marie Hahn though were a couple who knew him well enough before and after the kidnapping to be able to do some serious ruminating over their relationship with him and his words and actions during this time. And they were certainly within the kind of business where it makes good sense in many ways to know your regular customers well.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Sept 4, 2012 15:00:40 GMT -5
Joe, I have a hard time believing that anyone who had collected the Lindbergh ransom—money that could send him to the electric chair—would let it “slip his mind” where he had hidden it.
I have to ask—if Hauptmann was so worried about his Lindbergh ransom money that he hid it in his garage with an electric alarm, why did he previously leave the money in his Victrola, where he let Hahn see it because it “slipped his mind”? And if Hauptmann changed his attitude, and suddenly became so worried that he transferred the money to his garage, why did he show off the garage alarm to visitors? I should think Hauptmann would have kept the alarm as much of a secret as the money it was supposedly protecting.
Well, that’s one way of explaining a waitress buying more than a dozen luxurious evening gowns—gowns that apparently no one besides Hahn ever reported seeing. Personally, if I suddenly came into a fortune, I wouldn’t let “routine” force me to keep laboring at a low-wage job. But maybe Anna was more inflexible.
That’s possible. And it’s also possible what they were seriously ruminating about was reward money.
Which could also be said of the Manckes and the Fredericksens, who were in the same business (restaurant) as the Hahns.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 4, 2012 15:18:04 GMT -5
Why do you keep assuming this money is ransom money? Did Hahn mention gold certificates? Honestly BR, one minute you are arguing that it's perfectly fine to keep a small fortune in the apartment or a briefcase and the next you deride the claim that a bag of money was in the apartment. Is there some agenda here?
Regarding the supposed $4000. What became of this money supposedly earmarked for a house purchase? Where was it in 9/34?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2012 16:42:21 GMT -5
Reading over Marie's statement about the dresses, perhaps they were bought for her upcoming trip to Germany. She probably wanted to impress her family and friends over there with how financially well they were doing in America. And since she was bringing $1000 dollars with her as spending money, she needed to dress the part.
As far as the bagged money goes, Hauptmann tells Fred that it is not his money, that it belongs to Fisch. So once again money in Hauptmann's possession doesn't belong to him. Just like the money in the garage. Apparently all money leads to Fisch!
Except the $4000.00 dollars in the trunk. I wonder if it was still there when Fred visited that day.
Does anyone know when Anna stopped working at the bakery?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Sept 4, 2012 17:45:21 GMT -5
The whole point of directing us to the Hahns’ testimony was presumably to affirm that Hauptmann was the kidnapper. If you think the money Hahn saw was not ransom money, I have no issue with that, as I have already stated. Here’s what I said in my previous post:
So let’s not keep going over this.
I will explain it for the third and hopefully last time. There is an obvious distinction between keeping savings at home because banks are collapsing, and allowing kidnap money, which could send you to the electric chair, in a place where it is easily observed by a casual observer such as Hahn. My pointing this out doesn’t qualify as an “agenda.”
How do I know? Three years had transpired. Maybe it went to cover losses in the stock market, or into the joint business venture with Fisch, or someplace else. I claim no omniscient knowledge of Hauptmann’s finances.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 5, 2012 8:47:04 GMT -5
OK, BR. That's all I wanted to hear.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Sept 5, 2012 17:22:49 GMT -5
And I have an equally hard time believing the Hahns would collaborate to fabricate such a detailed accounting, one which had both of them discussing the experience later. Just for a minute here BR, if Hahn’s story was true, what possible explanations would you envision as to why the money was in the victrola? And have you read BRH’s trial responses to Wilentz’s questions about Hahn visiting his house and seeing that money there?
All great questions BR, but when put in the context of trying to understand why someone would even begin to entertain the notion of kidnapping and ultimately killing the first born son of Charles Lindbergh, I think trying to untangle many of the secondary motivations of that particular criminal mind might be a bit beyond your or my area of psychological expertise. As far as I'm concerned he could have simply been protecting the car in his garage but I think the alleged timing, the summer of 1932 is worthy of further consideration.
This really has nothing to do with what you or I would do BR, and we don’t know who else was aware of or even came forward to talk about Anna’s deluxe wardrobe.. perhaps if the Hauptmanns had been investigated more fully as a potential husband and wife crime team, but that didn’t happen, did it? Anna got a nice clean bill of health and stayed in Richard's corner, only well out of the ring.
What is not debatable here is that Anna continued to work while Richard was playing and losing in the stock market, with no source of employment income, at the height of the Great Depression. At the same time he was buying a $396 radio, ($6000 today) trip to Germany with expenses for Anna, (cost unknown but probably at least $1000 ($15,000 today) canoe $125, ($1875 today) ringside seats for himself and guest to the Sharkey–Schmelling fight $40, ($600 today) a $56 rifle for Karl Henkel, ($840 today) replacement field glasses $126 ($1890 today) and numerous other furniture and silverware upgrades for their apartment.
That would be my guess too Amy, if Hahn’s account is accurate and I think she was probably qualified to talk about the quality of those dresses. BTW – I think it was in December of 1932 that Anna left her job at Fredericksen’s Bakery.
The Hauptmanns could well afford to have Anna staying at home so does anyone have any ideas why she continued working during this time?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Sept 5, 2012 20:09:11 GMT -5
Joe, I have the CD of the trial, but I can’t find the references to the Hahns. Could you tell me on which reel and page numbers they occur? That could obviously be very significant to this thread.
By the way, regarding Hauptmann’s ability to buy some expensive items, I’d like to quote Kennedy (pp. 147-8):
Joe, the cost of the five luxury items you mention (radio, canoe, boxing seats, rifle and binoculars) comes to a total of $743. The three stock transactions earned $1105. I’m not seeing anything too outrageous here. To be fair, I haven’t tried to match the item purchase dates against the stock sale dates, and of course one must factor in the $1000 you estimate for the Germany trip. But when you consider that the Hauptmanns were able to buy a $3750 mortgage BEFORE the kidnapping, buy a $737 new car BEFORE the kidnapping, were both able to take three months off from work in 1931 for their California trip, and reportedly had $4000 in a trunk, I’m not so sure that the luxury expenses smell of money that can only be explained by ransom collection. One must also ask if any of the luxury items were traced to ransom money. I don't believe they were. Now I realize it can be argued that he laundered the money in the stock market, but I believe Michael has said no ransom money was traced to Hauptmann's brokerage accounts.
Now again to be fair, Kennedy goes on to explain that the Fisch-Hauptmann partnership went on to become very sour financially, taking large stock market hits, and of course Fisch’s fur business was as phony as his pie company, but I have to wonder if he didn’t initially bring genuine cash into the partnership (perhaps as bait, from borrowings or shady deals) that motivated Hauptmann to start spending more freely.
I certainly haven’t studied Hauptmann’s finances intensively like some of you have; there may be contradictions in what I’ve said; I’m just thinking out loud.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Sept 5, 2012 20:50:13 GMT -5
There’s a follow-up question that’s bugging me here. If Hauptmann figured a way to launder large amounts of the ransom money, so he could buy luxury items, why would he then spend UNLAUNDERED single notes on small purchases, a habit that would be apt to snare him eventually? If he’d figured out a way to launder the money, why not just keep doing it? Why take chances?
I realize there are ways of explaining it—maybe the laundering source dried up, or maybe the banks just failed to trace ransom money to the luxury purchases (though the latter seems unlikely given the intense scrutiny at banks; a big purchase made with several ransom bills should have been detected).
I realize that the JJ Faulkner transaction was probably a single major laundering operation, but I don’t think anyone’s matched Hauptmann’s handwriting to that transaction.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 5, 2012 20:55:10 GMT -5
Forgetting for a minute that I believe the "alarm" allegation has been disproven, I think its important to note they both seem to be, at times, getting their years confused. This leads me to believe they might be getting other things confused as well.
For example, Hauptmann did have a leg issue where he sought medical attention from Dr. Otto H. Meyers for Varizen leitchte Phlebitis, Fuesse schwell manchmal an (Vericose Veins) on January 3, 1933, just before that Miami trip.
In the Victrola story, Hahn says Hauptmann was showing him things from the trip to Florida and through the country. This reminds me of what Achenbach originally told Investigators that Hauptmann had a leg injury immediately following the trip to Miami which she was claiming was in 1932. So here her recollection of Hauptmann's injury was true, but a year later in March 1933 NOT 1932.
It seems to me Hahn is confusing Hauptmann's cross country trip with his Florida trip, misremembering the year of that trip, or possibly just giving them what they want to hear - a leg injury from the result of a fall off of the kidnap ladder. Something there is no evidence of (in my opinion AND see Kevin's post), but if it did happen - then Hauptmann either wasn't the guy or didn't get injured.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 6, 2012 8:29:21 GMT -5
I agree Michael. I think whenever you read these type of depositions you have to be careful about assigning too much weight to the specific dates. An added problem is the language which can cause both a misunderstanding of the questions and answers. There are, however, very interesting bits that can be gleaned. For example, the Hahn story about Hauptmann's view that no evidence, no conviction. It's not the type of thing someone makes up prior to the trial. Other things like the supposed alarm are in my opinion simply exaggerations. Br, I really suggest you read over Rab's research on the Hauptmann financial situation. It's found here under the Archives section. lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=rabIf Rab was still active I would ask him to post under the Myths thread so that some of the nonsense regarding the Hauptmann finances could be put to rest. Too many authors have been "cherry picking" the finances and ignoring the reality which has caused much confusion.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Sept 6, 2012 9:18:39 GMT -5
Michael, I certainly wasn’t aware the lighted alarm had been disproven. And as far as getting their years confused, there is one reference within their testimony on page 10 of Fred Hahn’s testimony where he agrees with Breslin’s question in which he is referring to the date in which he first “missed” Hauptmann as being 1933. By page 12 that is cleared up and confirmed to the correct year of 1932. Do you have other examples of date confusion as I am not aware of them.
I don’t think he is. Fred Hahn refers to “the trip made to Florida and through the country.” As a matter of fact, the Hauptmanns did spend time in Florida on their 1931 cross country trip and would have stayed longer except for the mosquitoes, which perhaps is why they returned in January of 1933, where they stayed in Diana for four weeks.
This is key. Fred Hahn testified that he visited with Hauptmann for the first time around June of 1932, “a year and about two or three months” after meeting him in the spring of 1931. He further states that he and his wife were at the Hauptmann apartment together about a month later following their day at Rye Beach, at Hauptmann’s urging to see his new Stromberg-Carlson radio. At the time of this visit, Anna was in Germany, (1932) so the timing here is correct. Marie Hahn’s previous visit to Anna with their son only, was at a time just prior to Anna’s departure for Germany. All visits therefore were over the course of a couple of months before and during the summer of 1932.
It's very easy to get crossed up while reading these reports because they bounce around in a way that is actually quite typical of investigators whose job it was to double check and verify the veracity and memory of those being interviewed. The above are just two examples of what I was referring to when I said I was still piecing together the Hahn testimony after many reads.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Sept 6, 2012 9:22:13 GMT -5
I'm still searching BR and as you know Hauptmann was in that witness chair long enough to leave wear marks.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 6, 2012 9:35:29 GMT -5
I agree completely, Joe. Amazing that so many books on this case ignore this angle completely. One often hears how Lindbergh should have been considered suspect. And rightly so, as many crimes are commmitted by a family member. So it's strange that any consideration of a husband and wife team is ignored because that also is found in crimes especially kidnapping. When one considers the possibility it makes far more sense than a majority of the theories thrown out in this case. I'm not saying I believe Anna was involved, but I certainly think she should be considered if for no other reason than to find out more about the Hauptmanns.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 6, 2012 20:33:23 GMT -5
I completely agree Joe.
As far as I am concerned Joe.
Number one.... It doesn't make any sense. The lock on that garage was so flimsy that Hauptmann's upstairs Neighbor, Shussler (with Hauptmann's permission mind you), used to pick the lock to gain entrance to it if he wanted to borrow something that was in there. Furthermore, this "alarm" wasn't there when Hauptmann was arrested exactly at the time when we know the money was. The Home Owner & Landlord (Rauch) said he never saw it - and would have. The Neighbors who were interviewed by Police never saw it but claimed they would have too.
I explained above what I believe the situation really was.
He seems to go back and forth with the dates but it appears to me his intention is to make the claim it was in 1932. What I am saying is that if he's sincere then its most likely a mistake concerning the actual year.
The problem is Hauptmann did not "disappear" in 1932 from anyone Else's position. He did not have a leg injury in 1932. In fact, it was verifiable that he was often seen playing soccer. Cemetery John was seen jumping and running at Woodlawn Cemetery by Robert Reihl (never mind what that nut "Jafsie" claimed we have this neutral eyewitness to back this up). But we have verifiable proof Hauptmann suffered from a leg ailment in 1933.
Next, if you read these Statements its clear they are making Kloppenberg look bad. It's also him they have making this crazy claim that Hauptmann was convalescing (from an implied fall off of a ladder) in some secret Apartment as if that couldn't be done in his own place. Of course Kloppenberg, when asked, denied this. And so do you believe Kloppenberg was involved? If not why was he lying? If so, why was he telling them about this secret place Hauptmann had after the Kidnapping?
I certainly do not suggest we sweep what they say under the rug. But I do believe it cannot be accepted in its entirety.
Of course that is just my opinion and I would never tell anyone else what to, or not to believe.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Sept 7, 2012 20:02:13 GMT -5
joe, it wasnt disproven. people said they seen it. the fact of the matter is, lindbergh ransom money was found hidden so it dosnt matter either way
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 8, 2012 9:55:16 GMT -5
I don't think it matters much either way, but this is another story of the LKC that may benefit from being looked at in a practical way. Let's start with just how one would get electrical supply from the 2nd floor of the house to the Garage about 60 to 80ft away. In the early 30's the choices were quite limited when it came to portable electric cords. Primary wiring, that is what was used in the home, was still what we call "knob and tube" because it consisted of two individual lines separated by an insulated post (knob) and insulated tubes or the more modern steel insulated conduit (bx). Now for Hauptmann to get power across the street in order to power a single light bulb he would need to run two separate wires from insulated posts to a fixture on the garage, a long run of bx, or spliced pieces of extension cord. None of these are grounded and all require some type of supporting line as they can not be stretched over that distance. In the apartment he would have to switch from the two wires to an insulated cord with a plug. Unless he drilled a hole through the wall to do this, he would have to leave the window open partially at all times. Were there other ways to run power out to the Garage at that time? Yes, but all of them were about as labor intensive and costly. So you see, it's just not as easy as it sounds and there was never any evidence that I am aware of regarding electrical wire and a garage mounted light fixture found at the premises.
|
|