Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Bruno Hauptmann - gulty or innocent?


  • Please log in to reply
232 replies to this topic

#31    FurthurBB

FurthurBB

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,393 posts
  • Joined:21 May 2008

Posted 03 August 2012 - 07:54 PM

View PostAntilles, on 25 July 2012 - 12:51 PM, said:

No, you get me wrong. I myself have no doubt that Hauptmann was involved, I just don't believe he was the only one.

But he didn't get a fair trial and if you read about the case, these points are important: the handwriting evidence that he wrote the original kidnapping note. H said he was told to write the note with the wrong spelling which he did. His explanation of how he had the ransom money in his house - he said Fisch left it but the prosecution never proved that didn't happen. The timber found in his house I believe was used in the ladder and he was a carpenter but it was never proved that H made the ladder or that he took it to Hopewell or that he climbed the ladder and took the child.

It's all circumstantial and while it's strongly circumstantial it wasn't proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The hysteria around the case because it was Lindbergh's child made it almost certain that whoever was put in as defendant would be found guilty.

I also think that if you look at the time of the trial, you have growing unease with Germany because of Hitler. Here's a guy who's come to the USA illegally not once but twice. He's obviously involved. Lindbergh recognises his voice (and that was a travesty of justice allowing that testimony but understandable) so Hauptmann must be guilty.

Think of this case in a court today. With DNA and all our sophisticated CSI, he might be found guilty of being an accessory but that's it. Let's face it, if CSI couldn't convict OJ Simpson, then it couldn't convict Hauptmann.

CSI could have convicted OJ, but I think they got star struck or something because they didn't do their job right at all.


#32    regi

regi

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,493 posts
  • Joined:28 May 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Texas

Posted 04 August 2012 - 02:38 PM

View PostAntilles, on 03 August 2012 - 11:41 AM, said:

You're having a bet both ways. Hauptmann was there, he wasn't there. Your 1st statement I agree with. The ransom note does not prove H was anywhere near Hopewell.

The poster wasn't having a bet both ways; the poster was quoting a previous statement.
The second statement is what makes that clearly obvious.


#33    Antilles

Antilles

    NCC-1701

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,274 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:2nd star from the left

Posted 05 August 2012 - 05:33 AM

Well, it's not a big deal, but maybe the poster needs to learn how to use quotes... :yes:


#34    regi

regi

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,493 posts
  • Joined:28 May 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Texas

Posted 05 August 2012 - 03:40 PM

View PostAntilles, on 05 August 2012 - 05:33 AM, said:

Well, it's not a big deal, but maybe the poster needs to learn how to use quotes... :yes:

Using quotes is beside the point; I found it interesting that you apparently accepted that the poster could have believed both statements.

So...you don't believe the handwriting was Hauptmann's. Never mind the writing style, but you believe that the police instructed Hauptmann to misspell particular words.
What you're doing is disregarding actual evidence, and choosing to believe Hauptmann.

His story about Fisch: Don't you think it's possible that the reason it wasn't proven is because there was no evidence to prove that it was true?
I, myself, brought up several points as to why the Fisch story doesn't make a lick of sense, but despite that it doesn't make any sense, again, you disregard the evidence and choose to believe Hauptmann- who had already lied about the money before he decided to pin it on Fisch! To me, his bogus story is further evidence of his guilt.

It's right to analyze evidence, but evidence has to be supported with other evidence and then weighted together rather than picked apart and offered an alternate explanation based on speculation.


#35    Antilles

Antilles

    NCC-1701

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,274 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:2nd star from the left

Posted 06 August 2012 - 10:46 AM

View Postregi, on 05 August 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

Using quotes is beside the point; I found it interesting that you apparently accepted that the poster could have believed both statements.

So...you don't believe the handwriting was Hauptmann's. Never mind the writing style, but you believe that the police instructed Hauptmann to misspell particular words.
What you're doing is disregarding actual evidence, and choosing to believe Hauptmann.

His story about Fisch: Don't you think it's possible that the reason it wasn't proven is because there was no evidence to prove that it was true?
I, myself, brought up several points as to why the Fisch story doesn't make a lick of sense, but despite that it doesn't make any sense, again, you disregard the evidence and choose to believe Hauptmann- who had already lied about the money before he decided to pin it on Fisch! To me, his bogus story is further evidence of his guilt.

It's right to analyze evidence, but evidence has to be supported with other evidence and then weighted together rather than picked apart and offered an alternate explanation based on speculation.

Once again, I will state the obvious. There was never any solid proof that Hauptmann was anywhere near the Hopewell Mansion or that he alone kidnapped and murdered Charles Lindbergh Jnr.

I don't believe the evidence the prosecution used and as defense attorney I am inclined to believe my client's version of events.
Speculation is part and parcel of my brief and I will use it to defend my client to the best of my ability.

That's what I would have said if I had been Hauptmann's attorney.

And I would have gone all out to have him acquitted.

Privately, I believe he was an accessory but he wasn't charged with that. He was innocent of 1st degree murder and I would have done everything I could to see that he had a fair trial.

I would have called for a mistrial and taken the case as far as I could, preferably out of the jusrisdiction area to somewhere where a fair trial may have been possible.


#36    regi

regi

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,493 posts
  • Joined:28 May 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Texas

Posted 06 August 2012 - 12:33 PM

View PostAntilles, on 06 August 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:

Once again, I will state the obvious. There was never any solid proof that Hauptmann was anywhere near the Hopewell Mansion or that he alone kidnapped and murdered Charles Lindbergh Jnr.

I don't believe the evidence the prosecution used and as defense attorney I am inclined to believe my client's version of events.
Speculation is part and parcel of my brief and I will use it to defend my client to the best of my ability.

That's what I would have said if I had been Hauptmann's attorney.

And I would have gone all out to have him acquitted.

Privately, I believe he was an accessory but he wasn't charged with that. He was innocent of 1st degree murder and I would have done everything I could to see that he had a fair trial.

I would have called for a mistrial and taken the case as far as I could, preferably out of the jusrisdiction area to somewhere where a fair trial may have been possible.

Well, that would be a very nice try, Antilles, but the jury is instructed that whatever the attorney's on each side say, it isn't evidence.

Where I live, accessories are charged the same, but once convicted, the punishment might not be the same.


#37    Antilles

Antilles

    NCC-1701

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,274 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:2nd star from the left

Posted 10 August 2012 - 11:51 AM

But no-one else was charged. No other person was ever seriously investigated by the cops. Once H was in custody, that was it. Case closed as far as everyone in the police and prosecution was concerned.


#38    wolfknight

wolfknight

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,658 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA Kentucky

  • There is nothing to Fear, but fear itself

Posted 10 August 2012 - 02:13 PM

A little late for Bruno do you think. Even if he was cleared today what difference would it really made.?


#39    Antilles

Antilles

    NCC-1701

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,274 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:2nd star from the left

Posted 11 August 2012 - 12:30 PM

That's what this section is for. To discuss crimes and cases.


#40    regi

regi

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,493 posts
  • Joined:28 May 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Texas

Posted 11 August 2012 - 02:57 PM

View PostAntilles, on 10 August 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

But no-one else was charged. No other person was ever seriously investigated by the cops. Once H was in custody, that was it. Case closed as far as everyone in the police and prosecution was concerned.

Antilles, it was two years before Hauptmann was brought to trial. They obviously weren't looking for someone to pin the crime on, and the evidence against Hauptmann never pointed to anyone but Hauptmann. I have no doubt that once authorities had Hauptmann, they'd also want anyone else who might have been involved, but there just wasn't evidence of anyone else. You can wonder about it all you want, but eventually you might decide that the reason there's no evidence is that no evidence never existed and it never existed because there wasn't anyone else involved.

You know, defense attorney's like to point the finger away from the defendant, and Hauptmann said the money came from Fisch, so there's their alternate suspect.
The problem the attorney had was that there was no evidence that what Hauptmann said was true, it was only Hauptmann's word that the money came from Fisch, and Hauptmann had already lied to authorities about where the money came from. Apart from Hauptmann's claim, there was nothing to indicate Fisch was involved. Fisch hadn't been using the money over the previous two years...that was Hauptmann.


#41    Antilles

Antilles

    NCC-1701

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,274 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:2nd star from the left

Posted 12 August 2012 - 07:32 AM

View Postregi, on 11 August 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

Antilles, it was two years before Hauptmann was brought to trial. They obviously weren't looking for someone to pin the crime on, and the evidence against Hauptmann never pointed to anyone but Hauptmann. I have no doubt that once authorities had Hauptmann, they'd also want anyone else who might have been involved, but there just wasn't evidence of anyone else. You can wonder about it all you want, but eventually you might decide that the reason there's no evidence is that no evidence never existed and it never existed because there wasn't anyone else involved.

You know, defense attorney's like to point the finger away from the defendant, and Hauptmann said the money came from Fisch, so there's their alternate suspect.
The problem the attorney had was that there was no evidence that what Hauptmann said was true, it was only Hauptmann's word that the money came from Fisch, and Hauptmann had already lied to authorities about where the money came from. Apart from Hauptmann's claim, there was nothing to indicate Fisch was involved. Fisch hadn't been using the money over the previous two years...that was Hauptmann.

But there is and never was any proof that H was at Hopewell, NJ and that he put that ladder against the house, climbed up and took the baby, either killed the boy then or later. No proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There was hysteria about a famous man's child and an obvious crook who I have always said was involved.

But there is no proof he kidnapped and killed Lindbergh Jnr.

None. Zilch. Nada. H had the fishy money but I've never been so sure that the timber used in the ladder came from his attic.
But let's it did and he made the ladder - he was a carpenter. Let's say he wrote the ransom note (and I don't think he did), let's say he was Cemetery John (and I don't think he was) it's still circumstantial proof.

Circumstantial proof should not send a man to the electric chair. Life in prison, then maybe we may have have out the truth one way or the other.


#42    Antilles

Antilles

    NCC-1701

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,274 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:2nd star from the left

Posted 12 August 2012 - 07:34 AM

View Postregi, on 11 August 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

Antilles, it was two years before Hauptmann was brought to trial. They obviously weren't looking for someone to pin the crime on, and the evidence against Hauptmann never pointed to anyone but Hauptmann. I have no doubt that once authorities had Hauptmann, they'd also want anyone else who might have been involved, but there just wasn't evidence of anyone else. You can wonder about it all you want, but eventually you might decide that the reason there's no evidence is that no evidence never existed and it never existed because there wasn't anyone else involved.

You know, defense attorney's like to point the finger away from the defendant, and Hauptmann said the money came from Fisch, so there's their alternate suspect.
The problem the attorney had was that there was no evidence that what Hauptmann said was true, it was only Hauptmann's word that the money came from Fisch, and Hauptmann had already lied to authorities about where the money came from. Apart from Hauptmann's claim, there was nothing to indicate Fisch was involved. Fisch hadn't been using the money over the previous two years...that was Hauptmann.

But there is and never was any proof that H was at Hopewell, NJ and that he put that ladder against the house, climbed up and took the baby, either killed the boy then or later. No proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There was hysteria about a famous man's child and an obvious crook who I have always said was involved.

But there is no proof he kidnapped and killed Lindbergh Jnr.

None. Zilch. Nada. H had the fishy money but I've never been so sure that the timber used in the ladder came from his attic.
But let's say it did and he made the ladder - he was a carpenter. Let's say he wrote the ransom note (and I don't think he did), let's say he was Cemetery John (and I don't think he was) it's still circumstantial proof.

Circumstantial proof should not send a man to the electric chair. Life in prison, then maybe we may have have out the truth one way or the other.


#43    Antilles

Antilles

    NCC-1701

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,274 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:2nd star from the left

Posted 12 August 2012 - 07:40 AM

Sorry double post. This site is always baadd this time of day.


#44    regi

regi

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,493 posts
  • Joined:28 May 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Texas

Posted 12 August 2012 - 10:58 AM

There's no evidence that anyone but Hauptmann did any of those things... the evidence tells us it was Hauptmann who did those things.

Circumstantial evidence is among the strongest, most compelling evidence there is, and is often the ONLY evidence there is.
Say you hear screams for help and you run around a corner in that direction and see a guy covered in blood, holding a knife with blood dripping from it. He's standing over a body, and when the guy sees you, he runs away. The body shows to have stab wounds.
That's circumstantial.
You hear a voice yell "Don't shoot me!", you hear a gunshot, and then run into the next room where you heard the shot come from. You see a guy holding a gun and a guy across the room with a gunshot wound.
That's circumstantial.
What do you expect? For someone to have witnessed Hauptmann actually putting the ladder against the house... for someone to have witnessed him taking the baby out of his crib... climbing down the ladder with the baby...... then later, actually killing the baby? Do you expect someone to have witnessed Hauptmann actually building the ladder, or loading it into his vehicle that night?
Do you really expect even one of those things?

What evidence is it that convinces you of Hauptmann's of involvement?


#45    Antilles

Antilles

    NCC-1701

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,274 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:2nd star from the left

Posted 14 August 2012 - 11:31 AM

View Postregi, on 12 August 2012 - 10:58 AM, said:

There's no evidence that anyone but Hauptmann did any of those things... the evidence tells us it was Hauptmann who did those things.

Circumstantial evidence is among the strongest, most compelling evidence there is, and is often the ONLY evidence there is.
Say you hear screams for help and you run around a corner in that direction and see a guy covered in blood, holding a knife with blood dripping from it. He's standing over a body, and when the guy sees you, he runs away. The body shows to have stab wounds.
That's circumstantial.
You hear a voice yell "Don't shoot me!", you hear a gunshot, and then run into the next room where you heard the shot come from. You see a guy holding a gun and a guy across the room with a gunshot wound.
That's circumstantial.
What do you expect? For someone to have witnessed Hauptmann actually putting the ladder against the house... for someone to have witnessed him taking the baby out of his crib... climbing down the ladder with the baby...... then later, actually killing the baby? Do you expect someone to have witnessed Hauptmann actually building the ladder, or loading it into his vehicle that night?
Do you really expect even one of those things?

What evidence is it that convinces you of Hauptmann's of involvement?

The money. You can't get away from that and he lied about how he obtained it.

regi, circumstantial evidence is not good enough to send a man to the chair.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users