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

#46    regi

regi

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,271 posts
  • Joined:28 May 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Texas

Posted 14 August 2012 - 01:26 PM

View PostAntilles, on 14 August 2012 - 11:31 AM, said:

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.

Oh, I think it can be.
I think it depends on what the circumstantial evidence is.


#47    Antilles

Antilles

    NCC-1701

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,211 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:2nd star from the left

Posted 17 August 2012 - 12:27 PM

View Postregi, on 14 August 2012 - 01:26 PM, said:

Oh, I think it can be.
I think it depends on what the circumstantial evidence is.

Completely disagree. Circumstantial evidence has been used to send many people to their deaths but it's not a good enough reason.


#48    regi

regi

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,271 posts
  • Joined:28 May 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Texas

Posted 18 August 2012 - 02:47 PM

View PostAntilles, on 17 August 2012 - 12:27 PM, said:

Completely disagree. Circumstantial evidence has been used to send many people to their deaths but it's not a good enough reason.

You say circumstantial like it's nothing...like it's all in one bag and is something weak. Never as good as direct evidence, and never as convincing as "direct" evidence.

Direct evidence is eyewitness testimony and it's helped send people to death row in wrongful convictions.
Forensic evidence isn't direct evidence...it's very strong evidence, but it can be objective.
Apart from eyewitness testimony, a video is considered direct evidence. An audio recording is considered direct evidence.
It's not common to have any one of those things- eyewitness testimony, auto or video, or forensics presented at a trial.

People have to be capable and willing to come to a reasonable conclusion, and not all people have been shown to be capable or willing to do that. Just look at the Anthony jury.


#49    Antilles

Antilles

    NCC-1701

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,211 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:2nd star from the left

Posted 03 September 2012 - 12:01 PM

View Postregi, on 18 August 2012 - 02:47 PM, said:

You say circumstantial like it's nothing...like it's all in one bag and is something weak. Never as good as direct evidence, and never as convincing as "direct" evidence.

Direct evidence is eyewitness testimony and it's helped send people to death row in wrongful convictions.
Forensic evidence isn't direct evidence...it's very strong evidence, but it can be objective.
Apart from eyewitness testimony, a video is considered direct evidence. An audio recording is considered direct evidence.
It's not common to have any one of those things- eyewitness testimony, auto or video, or forensics presented at a trial.

People have to be capable and willing to come to a reasonable conclusion, and not all people have been shown to be capable or willing to do that. Just look at the Anthony jury.

Circumstantial evidence is not good enough to send someone to their death. If he'd been given life imprisonment, then he would have had time and a competent appeals lawyer to prove that he wasn't the sole perpretrator.


#50    Antilles

Antilles

    NCC-1701

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,211 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:2nd star from the left

Posted 04 September 2012 - 06:30 AM

I find it interesting that the Governor of New Jersey at the time was the only support Hauptmann had at his appeals hearing because he believed that the kidnapping could not have been carried out by one man.

Hauptmann's attorney, Reilly, bizarrely tried to suggest that the kidnapping was an inside job at the behst of neighbors of Lindbergh angry that access through his estate had been denied to them.

Hauptmann did not stand a chance and he should not have gone to the electric chair on the evidence presented. At the least, a new attorney could have gone for a mistrial based on Reilly's obvious incompetence.

Edited by Antilles, 04 September 2012 - 06:35 AM.


#51    Small Town History

Small Town History

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 430 posts
  • Joined:17 Feb 2014
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 24 February 2014 - 05:40 AM

The question is, why did Lindberg carry a pistol to court every day of the trial.

The most suspicious part of this whole charade is the black guy finding the body in the middle of the pitch black of night, while taking a sh** in the woods.


#52    Vincennes

Vincennes

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,235 posts
  • Joined:12 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

Posted 11 July 2014 - 09:58 PM

Obvious to you guys I have been reading through this thread.  I'm doing that because I have just started reading John Douglas' book, "The Crimes That Haunt Us" and this is a crime that has always caught my attention and I hate it when people start commenting without reading through the thread.

I will have to explain one of the reasons why this case has always caught my attention and that is my grandmother attended one of Lindbergh's ticker tape rides.  She was a young woman then and the reason for her attendance was my uncle's worship of "Lindy."  He was about eight at the time and because of his worship, she took him to downtown Denver so, while clutching his copy of "We," he could watch his hero ride by  ~~ maybe even an autograph, who knew.

What I do remember on from there is that you only had to mention Lindberg's name to send my grandmother into a rage.  She was aghast at Lindberg's parade behavior.  She would always say he was at best sullen toward the crowd and even more than that he was arrogant to the point she was sorry that she had taken her son to observe such behavior.  She was a pretty average, upper middle class mom.  Who I believe would have had average expectations of the event.  I think the fact Lindberg's behavior shocked her so thoroughly is telling to this case.

Now, I don't hold to the belief that Lindberg did this himself but I do think it is a point of interest that to the day my grandmother died, because of the way he acted, she felt it was a possibility.  She said he would not even turn to children or lower himself to acknowledge them.  I'm just acknowledging on her behalf, she never thought he was above doing something to the baby.

Douglas starts out this section of the book by saying Lindberg was shy, especially press shy.  My grandmother would have corrected him, saying that's not shy, that is one arrogant SOB !   However, the things that Douglas goes on to say re. his personality traits of being controlling and "in charge" fit very well with her observations.

Now, I did read through the thread first and I think everyone has said some things I agree with totally..... For what that's worth   ~~~ LOL

Since I've just finished the first half of the book section which is focused on determining the facts of what actually happened, I have to say that IMHO, there is evidence someone in that household was involved.
This isn't diminishing Hauptman's possible involvement at all but IMO it's pretty clear the Lindberghs were there at that house on a fluke.   The fact that the kidnapper would know that and go to that particular window seems to me to make that fluke even more pertinent.  The nursery was in a back bedroom.... They certainly didn't go from window to window with their ladder looking for the baby and be lucky enough to hit that one on the first try ! IMO much of Douglas' "fact" portion seems to point to at least one in-house.

I was also surprised no one in the thread mention Lindberg's pro-Nazi leanings.  Before the baby was taken I believe he was in university programs relating to biological studies.   That certainly fits if he was looking for the Hitler's belief in the perfect Arian....  I actually can't remember if he ever moved away from that or if the press just finally moved away from him.  (???)

BTW, with the description of how they put the baby to bed with the Vicks and the improvised "under" shirt, which was common, it's a wonder any kids made it at all.  I wonder if anyone in the thread is old enough to know why they did that.  Oh, yes, I remember it well ~~~~  When you had a cold they rubbed your back and your chest with Vicks but that isn't all of the "treatment."  They then heated cloths or in this case a throw-away shirt.  My mom used the oven door to heat the cloths.  Then they SLAPPED those on you on top of the VICKS so they could get the "good vapor" going.  The nursemaid had "made up" the undershirt so that procedure wouldn't ruin one of his good ones.  And those of us who lived through the oil vapor treatment were pronounced "cured."


#53    mbrn30000

mbrn30000

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 578 posts
  • Joined:06 May 2014

Posted 11 July 2014 - 10:54 PM

View PostVincennes, on 11 July 2014 - 09:58 PM, said:

Obvious to you guys I have been reading through this thread.  I'm doing that because I have just started reading John Douglas' book, "The Crimes That Haunt Us" and this is a crime that has always caught my attention and I hate it when people start commenting without reading through the thread.


I have this book so i will review that section.  Lindbergh was pro nazi, I think pro eugenics..the belief some races are better than others....he backed off a little after pearl harbor and the military did give him a commission during wwII...but i am sure he never changed his mind.  I think the fact the kidnappers knew which window proves they had an inside source, even if that source was unknowingly a source.


#54    Vincennes

Vincennes

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,235 posts
  • Joined:12 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

Posted 11 July 2014 - 11:29 PM

View Postmbrn30000, on 11 July 2014 - 10:54 PM, said:

I have this book so i will review that section.  Lindbergh was pro nazi, I think pro eugenics..the belief some races are better than others....he backed off a little after pearl harbor and the military did give him a commission during wwII...but i am sure he never changed his mind.  I think the fact the kidnappers knew which window proves they had an inside source, even if that source was unknowingly a source.

Thanks for remembering that.  Both he and Joe Kennedy thought Hitler was a good thing and I think that was part of the reason "lucky Lindy" wasn't followed quite as closely after the divisions were felt.  I did not really mean (like my grandmother did) that there is evidence he killed the baby but there is evidence that he interfered with the investigation and that he was pretty much a bull-headed, "know it all," which exactly verifies what my grandmother saw in him.  She didn't go down to that parade for any reason other than to make my 8 yr. old uncle happy and she came back horrified for the rest of her life at this  jerks demeanor !!!  

Now that doesn't make him guilty of anything  to me but that, along with him being pro-Nazi, puts a cloud on the press reporting.  At that point, I have to get up with him saying that he recognized Hauptman's voice so far away and that long ago .....  That is strictly BS !!! that the kangaroo court allowed in.


#55    Maureen_jacobs

Maureen_jacobs

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 337 posts
  • Joined:16 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 12 July 2014 - 12:57 AM

I feel Hauptmann was an opportunist.  The kidnapper(s) had already killed the child.  Once Hauptmann heard of the disappearance, he thought that it would be an opportunity to make some cash.  A con of sorts.  Whether he knew the parties involved ( most likely) or just saw the newspaper article and figured on cashing in, he died for it.  We shall never know but his trial was very unbalanced.  He should not have been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  There was must  certainly doubt.  I don't agree with many verdicts handed down over the years, however, I see where the doubt comes in.  It is a jurors job to see things objectively.  The Hauptmann trial was a circus, a media firestorm, and simply the most exploitive one that had been done in a long while.

@maureen_jacobs ~ twitter

#56    Antilles

Antilles

    NCC-1701

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,211 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:2nd star from the left

Posted 12 July 2014 - 05:52 AM

Thanks for starting up interest in this thread again, Vincennes. :yes:

You're absolutely right about Lindbergh. He was pro Nazi, he was pro eugenics, he was a total control freak and a pretty cold blooded guy. Maybe that's why he succeeded in flying solo across the Atlantic when so many others died.

He also fathered 3 illegitimate children with I think 2 different German women. Lindbergh really did believe that the Nordic/Scandinavian/ Teutonic bloodline was the best in the world and had to be protected.

I also agree that there was someone on the inside, either on Lindbergh's staff or his mother-in-laws because it was not the usual thing for them to be in Hopewell during the week. My best bet is the maid who killed herself shortly afterwards. I don't think the info was given by her for any malicious reason but I'd guess that she had been targeted by H and his accomplice. When she realised what had happened because of the info she'd given, she killed herself.

I also stick with my belief that 2 people were involved. Hauptmann was one of them.


#57    Vincennes

Vincennes

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,235 posts
  • Joined:12 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

Posted 12 July 2014 - 02:12 PM

View PostAntilles, on 12 July 2014 - 05:52 AM, said:

Thanks for starting up interest in this thread again, Vincennes. :yes:

You are very welcome !  Thanks for responding !  :tu:

View PostAntilles, on 12 July 2014 - 05:52 AM, said:

You're absolutely right about Lindbergh. He was pro Nazi, he was pro eugenics, he was a total control freak and a pretty cold blooded guy. Maybe that's why he succeeded in flying solo across the Atlantic when so many others died.

He also fathered 3 illegitimate children with I think 2 different German women. Lindbergh really did believe that the Nordic/Scandinavian/ Teutonic bloodline was the best in the world and had to be protected.

I also stick with my belief that 2 people were involved. Hauptmann was one of them.

I had never heard about the illegitimate kids.  That's so interesting !  I think that initially it is possible people might have been just hoodwinked by Hitler's progress with beginning to bring the German economy out of German's own depression.  I have always tried to allow that for a cause of an initial mistake.  Douglas doesn't mention anything about it in his book at all but when he did mention L had involved himself in "biological" studies programs at one of the area's universities, I have to regard that as a very telling activity.  :cry:

View PostAntilles, on 12 July 2014 - 05:52 AM, said:

I also agree that there was someone on the inside, either on Lindbergh's staff or his mother-in-laws because it was not the usual thing for them to be in Hopewell during the week. My best bet is the maid who killed herself shortly afterwards. I don't think the info was given by her for any malicious reason but I'd guess that she had been targeted by H and his accomplice. When she realized what had happened because of the info she'd given, she killed herself.

Don't know if you've read this book or not and I apologize it's really my only source other than things I remember from my interest in this in the past.  However, this is exactly a possibility Douglas mentions and it does seem like those two maids are a solid possibility for passing inside information along.  I have an issue though that it was not malicious.  That's due to the fact the information that they would be in their new home that night was passed along so quickly.  Not everyone had phones back then so if there was an inside source, there would have to be an immediate manner of communication.  I'm wondering  if the Hauptman's had a telephone.  That becomes part of the issue for me in understanding Hauptman.  It's always been my feeling that Hauptman was pretty much a lower, working class type, not very well educated.  All of a sudden here I'm seeing his initial statements to police was that he made his living in the "stock market" and being a carpenter.  He's playing the stock market here, making money at it  and he can't spell hause ?  That also should have been something they could verify.

There is something else that really bothered me though.  It refers several times to the first kidnapping notes and the demands not only for the money but that the money be placed in a wooden box  ?
Then this Dr. Condon comes into the picture and he has the "prototype" for the box which is an old ballot box he happened to have.  He then commissions a carpenter to build the box.  Then, at an early point in the negotiations, they think they can get the money to the kidnapper but seem to become all upset because the carpenter hasn't finished the box yet.  (???)

What the heck would that be about ?  Why would the kidnapper specifically demand the money placed in a wooden box rather than a bag, a briefcase etc.  I don't remember the dimensions for the box but it would seem to me that would just make the money heavier and more awkward to deal with getting away.  The only thing I can think of is that it was so they could bury the money.  It would seem to me, if that was what it was for, the primary need in that period would be oil cloth, not a wooden box I'm fixin' to run away down the street with.  :w00t:

Edited by Vincennes, 12 July 2014 - 02:14 PM.


#58    mbrn30000

mbrn30000

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 578 posts
  • Joined:06 May 2014

Posted 12 July 2014 - 02:51 PM

View PostVincennes, on 12 July 2014 - 02:12 PM, said:


It's always been my feeling that Hauptman was pretty much a lower, working class type, not very well educated.  All of a sudden here I'm seeing his initial statements to police was that he made his living in the "stock market" and being a carpenter.  He's playing the stock market here, making money at it  and he can't spell hause ?  That also should have been something they could verify.



One of the causes of the 1929 stock market crashes and in fact many of our crashes has been the increase in the small retail investor.  I would not be surprised at all that a working class person was putting money in the markets prior to 1929.  With rumors of get rich quick,many ordinary people did and many of them borrowing or buying on the margin - put only a percentage of the money down.  I am a little surprised that in 1932 he would have much to put in there.   But the market had been hyped in the roaring 20's and nothing would surprise me about who was investing...

Boring article basically what i just said..lol
http://ic.galegroup....f7c0575588b0c0d
"Another general factor that contributed to the Depression was the "get rich quick" mentality that developed during the 1920s. Many Americans believed their fortune was just around the corner. ..."

Edited by mbrn30000, 12 July 2014 - 02:53 PM.


#59    Vincennes

Vincennes

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,235 posts
  • Joined:12 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

Posted 12 July 2014 - 03:12 PM

View Postmbrn30000, on 12 July 2014 - 02:51 PM, said:

One of the causes of the 1929 stock market crashes and in fact many of our crashes has been the increase in the small retail investor.  I would not be surprised at all that a working class person was putting money in the markets prior to 1929.  With rumors of get rich quick,many ordinary people did and many of them borrowing or buying on the margin - put only a percentage of the money down.  I am a little surprised that in 1932 he would have much to put in there.   But the market had been hyped in the roaring 20's and nothing would surprise me about who was investing...

Boring article basically what i just said..lol
http://ic.galegroup....f7c0575588b0c0d
"Another general factor that contributed to the Depression was the "get rich quick" mentality that developed during the 1920s. Many Americans believed their fortune was just around the corner. ..."

Yep, I read once that one of the multi-millionaires was on his way to the stock market just prior to the crash.  Stopped and had his shoes shined and the shoe shine boy offered him a stock tip.  He went directly in and pulled all of his money out of the market, saying when there were market tips out to everyone on the street, things weren't safe.

Hauptman playing the market in 1932 though, after the crash, strikes me odd.  Its just a feeling on my part, but things I have read about how the ladder was constructed using different pieces of wood and other things like the folding of the certificates in folds of 8, makes me think that if Hauptmann did this, he was an excessively frugal man, right on into "tight."  Perhaps it was caused by necessity but there has to be a reason why someone would construct a ladder out of used pieces of wood. (????)  Especially a carpenter  !  What he didn't have access to lumber ?  Makes no sense to me but I did notice that Hauptman had also built a garage on the rental property he was living in.  The police also described that as ram shackled.   Odd for a carpenter to build that way and it seems like if you consider this, it makes it a consistent trait.  Here again maybe a bad carpenter or maybe just tight and he wasn't going to waste a penny he didn't have to


#60    regi

regi

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,271 posts
  • Joined:28 May 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Texas

Posted 12 July 2014 - 04:26 PM

I don't know what I have to add to the case discussion except that I never knew what Lindberg did but to pilot a little plane across the ocean. So he made it from A to B? I say "Oh, that's nice...what else is news?"
My point is, the public was ga-ga then over those who are public figures just like they're ga-ga over them now and so it seems to me that private info about the family's coming's/going's/activities/daily life was likely widely known.
When they had that house built, it might have even been reported which bedroom was the baby's.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users