Tuesday, February 24, 2015

Statement Analysis: Bruno Hauptmann Part One

Although it sometimes feel to the contrary, Statement Analysis doesn't really bring out "hidden" meaning.  It is simply that we tune into the language, the setting, the order, and what we sometimes see as a deviation from a pattern, with "tuned listening", that is, we "tune" in our listening to what is being said, and how it is being said.  
There is much that is slow moving and dull here, in the published transcripts from the Lindbergh baby trial, yet, focus in upon patterns and deviations that arise, as well as the more typical sensitivity indicators.  We are looking at 2nd language English responses, meaning that for us, we take a step or two back, to get a broader analysis since it is possible that the subject is translating words, on the fly, from German to English.  
Learning Latin, even in high school, is a benefit to Statement Analysis.  
Here is part one, which is mostly setting the stage for the more relevant questions.  You will see how the Interviewer sometimes follows the principles of Analytical Interviewer, but more times than not, veers off course.  When he hits a sensitive point, he does not always pounce, though a few times, he seems to "make note" of it, and return to it later.  
This first part is slow, and I have not added as much analysis as I have for Part Two, but it helps to set the stage for the more confrontational interviewing portion that is upcoming.  
Testimony of Bruno Hauptmann
BRUNO RICHARD HAUPTMANN, the defendant, called as a witness in his own behalf, being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
Direct Examination by Mr.Reilly:

 Q. You are the defendant in this action, is that correct?
 A. It is. 

Instead of answering "yes", he said, "it is", with the pronoun "it."  This is a strong signal that the subject is carefully listening to the wording of the question.  

 Q. Where and when were you born?
 A. 26th of November, 1899, Germany. 

 Q. What part?
 A. Saxony. 

 Q. Did you go to school in Germany?
 A. Yes. Eight years public school, and two years, two to three years, like a trading school. 

Here we learn that the subject's first language is not English.  This is important.   Our analysis cannot use nuance but must step back further, to get a larger view of the words chosen.  

We will note when the subject reflects back the language of the question.  
We also will look for:

a.  direct answers
b.  diverted answers

 Q. In the regular German school did you learn to write German in the regular German script?
 A. I did

 Q. Did you learn to write any English in Germany?
 A. No. 

 Q. And after you left school, you say you attended a trade school. What trade did you study?
 A. Carpenter trade and machinery. 

 Q. Were you apprenticed at any age?
 A. No. 

 Q. At what age did you begin to work?
 A. Fourteen. 

 Q. Where did you work?
 A. In mine home town, Kamenz. 

 Q. Did you continue to work as a carpenter until the War broke out?
 A. Yes. 

 Q. How old were you when you went to War?
 A. Seventeen and a half. 

 Q. And how many years did you serve in the Army?
 A. One and three-quarter. 

 Q. During your service, were you wounded?
 A. Slightly wounded, gassed. 

 Q. You were gassed?
 A. (Nodding head.) 

 Q. When did you come out of the Army?
 A. It was around Christmas time, '18. 

 Q. 1918, about a month after the Armistice, is that correct?
 A. Yes. 

 Q. Were you able to get any work at that time?
 A. No. 

Note consistent short answers as the norm.  Therefore, any deviation from this norm, is important for us.  

 Q. Germany was in a very poor condition, wasn't it?
 A. It was. 

 Q. Now, during the period of reconstruction in Germany, about 1919 and 1920, you were convicted of some offense there?
 A. I was. The Spring time of 1919. 

Note the answer, "I was" suffices.  He went beyond this to "The Spring time of 1919", making it important to him.  

 Q. And as a result of that did you serve any sentence?
 A. Yes. In Beuthen, B-e-u-t-h-e-n. 

Spelling it out is important.
Was he coached to do so?
Was it to save time of having to be asked for the spelling?
What does this say about the pace of the interview?
What does this say about the subject's desire?  Does he wish to 'speed things up' and 'get it over with'?

Note what is missing:

What he was convicted of, and how long he served.  Since he was not asked specifically those questions, he does not answer it as part of his overall response. 

 Q. And afterwards you were paroled?
 A. Yes. 

 Q. When did you first attempt to enter the United States?
 A. Summer time, 1930 – 23. 

 Q. You boarded a steamer did you not, as a stowaway?
 A. I did. 

 Q. You were discovered on the ship and taken to Ellis Island?
 A. Yes. 

 Q. And returned to Germany?
 A. Yes. 

No explanation given about what immigration officials may or may not have found out about his background.  

 Q. When did you next attempt to enter the United States?
 A. I guess it was August the same year. 

Here he only gives a "guess" and he moves away from the answer with seasons, instead giving a specific month.  "August" is not "Summer" in his language. 

 Q. You were caught again and returned to Germany?
 A. Yes. 

 Q. When was the third time?
 A. November, the same year. 

 Q. You were successful that year and entered the United States?
 A. Yes. 

 Q. Did you find employment after entering the U.S.?
 A. Yes. As a dishwasher in New York, down near the South Ferry. 

 Q. How long were you a dishwasher?
 A. About a month and a half. 

 Q. How much were you paid a week?
 A. Sixteen dollars. 

 Q. Where did you get a position after you left the restaurant?
 A. A position as a mechanic with Washburn & Wild. 

 Q. Did you take a position after that as a dyer in a dying business?
 A. Yes. 

 Q. And after that as a machinist?
 A. Yes, in Brooklyn. 

 Q. And each time you would try to improve your position: is that correct?
 A. Yes. 

 Q. Then did you finally obtain a position as a carpenter?
 A. Yes. At Sixth Avenue and 40th Street. 

 Q. And did you receive a salary of approximately a dollar an hour?
 A. Yes. Eight dollars a day. 

 Q. Now you were a professional carpenter, weren't you? You studied in Germany? You got, you say, as much as eight dollars a day for your services?
 A. Yes. 

 Q. Now when did you first meet the lady that afterwards became your wife?
 A. 1924. 

 Q. And her maiden name?
 A. Anna Schoeffler. 

 Q. After meeting Miss Schoeffler, did you live in some house in Yorkville?
 A. Yes. 

 Q. And Yorkville is a German colony, isn't it?
 A. Yes. 

 Q. One of the men, when you came over on the different ships, was his name Albert Diebig?
 A. Yes. 

 Q. Then you and he lived together for a while, didn't you, at 154th Street?
 A. Yes. Then to an apartment on 97th Street on the East side. 

 Q. While you were living on 97th Street, what were you working at?
 A. I was working as a carpenter. 

 Q. Do you remember obtaining a position as a carpenter in Lakewood, New Jersey?
 A. Well, I get this position through the newspaper in October, 1924.

 Q. And did the position end the day before Christmas, 1924?
 A. This position ended on Christmas Day.

 Q. How much did you make a week on that job?
 A. Around fifty dollar a week.

 Q. Well, now, were you spending all the money you made or were you saving it?
 A. I spent very little I say.

 Q. About how much a week would you spend out of fifty dollars?
 A. I say around twelve dollars.
 Q. Did you open a bank account or did you keep the cash with you.
 A. I opened right in the beginning a bank account, United States Bank, around the end of '20 or '23?
 Q. When you were working as a carpenter in 1925 do you remember what your average wages per day were?
 A. Well, I always get my union wages, this time I guess it was ten and a half dollar a day.
 Q. Did you save some of that money every week?
 A. I did.
 Q. Then did you work for Heinselmann on East 9th St. until you were married?
 A. Yes.
 Q. When did you and Anna Schoeffler marry?
 A. The 10th of October, 1925.
 Q. Now, at the point where you had come over to Lakewood, NJ as a carpenter – in answer to the ad you came over to Lakewood, right?
 A. No. I went to an address in New York and this gentleman he sent me over to Lakewood to construct a one-family house.
 Q. And how many carpenters worked on that job?
 A. Well, that was only Mr. Diebig and myself.

 Q. Was Diebig a carpenter?
 A. No, I took him along as a helper.

 Q. And that job was finished Christmas 1924?
 A. Yes.

 Q. After you married, where did you live?
 A. First I live for about one or two weeks on 154th St. between 4th and Amsterdam Ave. After that I moved to 122nd St, Park Ave.

 Q. Then how long did you work for a man named Olson?
 A. This is around three or four years, sometimes they got to stop for month or two months, if there wasn't much work to do.
 Q. Were you out of work very often during 1925 and 1929?
 A. Not very often.
 Q. Well, now, do you remember during 1928 and 1929 that you worked for someone Saturdays and Sundays?
 A. Oh, yes. We built three houses after working time; that means after the usual working hours – Saturday afternoon and Sundays.

 Q. And how much did you make on the job at working overtime in your odd hours on those three houses?
 A. Oh, it was approximate one thousand dollars.
 Q. And how much of that did you save?
 A. Well, I took some to the bank, and some of the money I always keep in the house. That is a habit I have.
 Q. Do you remember how much you had in your house at the end of 1929?
 A. I would say three thousand five hundred.

 Q. In cash?
 A. In cash.

He does not say "yes" but repeats the language of the Interviewer.  This is called "parroting" another's words. 

When a "yes or no" pattern emerges, and an answer is suddenly parroted, the Interviewer should note the change and consider asking more questions on this topic.  

 Q. And was Anna working all the time until practically the birth of the baby?

We must always be cautious how we word our questions.  

 A. Well, she worked all the time with the exception of two times she went to Jurope, to her home town, to visit her parents.

That the answer begins with "well" lets us know that the subject needs to pause to consider his answer.  
Even in second language, the pause, itself, no matter how verbalized, is important. 

The context may help as this was a time where a man who's wife was working during pregnancy may have felt, or have thought to be considered by others, to be not providing properly for his family.  

Money is the issue the prosecutor is focusing on, but the cultural reference above may have been part of the thinking, perhaps even to the point of insult because thus far, the answers have been short, without much emotion. 

Generally speaking:

Long sentences are more likely to be emotional while shorter sentences (and even paragraphs) tend towards logic over emotion, especially when numbered such as, "First of all...and secondly, the..."

Note he goes on about money, and the need for it:  

 Q. How much did Anna make a week?

 A. She makes about $20 or $25, I guess, and about eight dollars tips.

He changed the past tense question to present tense, and reduced commitment with "guess."  The Interviewer may have triggered an emotion from him.  Note the continuation of the theme: 

 Q. About $30 or $33 a week. Did she save most of it?

 A. Well we kept our household from the money from my wife. I used to save my wages.

a.  She earned "money" while he saved his "wages" as a change of language. 
b.  Note the pronoun change from "we" to "I"

Context:  Early years of the Great Depression in the US

 Q. Now in March 1931 did you buy a Dodge four door sedan?
 A. March 1931.

 Q. How much did you pay for it?
 A. $725 in cash. Brand new, but a 1930 model.

 Q. And is that the car you had when you were arrested?
 A. That is the car.

 [Mr. Reilly has Mr. Hauptmann elaborate on his work record over the next few years, exhibiting his solid work ethic and carpentry skill. The Hauptmanns took an automobile trip to California in 1931, lasting about three months with their return in September or early October 1931. The return trip came via the South, including Florida. Mr. Hauptmann began working at the Majestic Apartments on March 15, 1932, quitting on April 2nd by his testimony.]

 Q. What time did you go to work on April 2nd [a Saturday]?

The word "go" has the focus upon the future destination:  "work" but the response shows the sensitive "leaving" of a place, indicating missing information.  

This missing information is important. 

 A. I left the house at seven o'clock in the morning.

For the subject, he does not focus upon going to work, but upon the time when he left the house.  This is where questions needed to be focused.  

 Q. And you worked until what hour in the afternoon?
 A. We worked until five o'clock.

"I left" but "we worked"

 Q. And the Majestic Apartment is how many miles away from your home in The Bronx?
 A. Pretty near eight miles, I figure.

 Q. Now you heard the timekeeper from the Majestic Apartment testify that you did not work on April 2nd. Do you say positively that you did work on April 2nd?

 A. Positively.

Again, parroted language.  Parroted language is not to be deemed strong, nor reliable.  In fact, in a denial that appears strong, if it is parroted, it is not to be classified as a reliable denial.  

 Q. And you were paid for it?
 A. Paid for it.

Another yes or no question answered by parroted language.  

 Q. And that you resigned on Monday[the 4th]?

 A. I originally resigned on Saturday; on Monday I went down to try to get my pay check, but I get answer I got to wait till the 15th.

 Q. Now you were supposed to get a hundred dollars a month, weren't you?
 A. Supposed to get it.

 Q. As a matter of fact all they gave you was eighty, and that is why you threw up the job, isn't it?
 A. Yes.

Here he stops the pattern of parroting.  This may signal a bit more confidence in his reply: 

 Q. So that on April 2nd, 1932, you worked for the Majestic Apartment the entire day until five o'clock at night?
 A. Yes.

Here is where he should have said, "take us through your work day" with carefully tuned listening.  

 Q. And you took what train home?
 A. I used the Bronx Park subway. This takes me to 177th Street. There I have to change for White Plains.

 Q. And the White Plains subway takes you how near to your house?
 A. Well, I got to walk nine minutes to my house. It is about seven blocks.

 Q. And about what time did you arrive home that Saturday night?
 A. Around six o'clock.

 Q. Do you recall the evening of April 2nd, 1932, after supper?
 A. Well, when I came home, my wife was home already and around seven o'clock Mr. Kloeppenburg came in the house because this is usual our music evening is the first Saturday in every month.

 Q. Now I want you to explain to the jury what you mean by the first Saturday of the month, music evenings; what did you do and what happened in your home?

Here we finally have a question that may seek to elicit an "explanation", that is, perhaps, in hopes of a longer response.  

 A. Well, he was playing the guitar and I was playing the mandolin and we used to play together and enjoy ourselves for about an hour, hour and a half, to keep in practice.

 Q. Any singing?
 A. Of course singing too.

 Q. And how late was this monthly gathering, when would it wind up?
 A. Not before eleven o'clock, twelve o'clock altogether.

 Q. Now on April 2nd, 1932, after you came home from work in the neighborhood of six o'clock, did you ever leave your home that night?

 A. No, sir.

On the yes or no question, we will keep track of his responses.  Here, we have the "no" followed by the polite "sir."

What are we looking for?

a.  Patterns
b.  Deviation from patterns 
c.  yes or no answers
d.  parroted answers 

Part Two:  

January 25, 1935. 

BRUNO RICHARD HAUPTMANN resumed the witness stand.
Direct Examination (continued) by Mr. Reilly:

 Q. The apartment from which you were arrested, what street was that?
 A. 222nd Street. 

 Q. How long had you lived in that apartment?
 A. Two years. 

 Q. You had nothing to do with building that house, did you?
 A. Nothing at all. 

 Q. Now, the time you married your wife, did she have a bank account?
 A. Yes, Central Savings Bank. 

 Q. And did she continue to deposit money in that bank?
 A. Yes. 

 Q. Do you remember the winter after you were married?
 A. Yes. 

 Q. Did you buy a lunchroom at 223rd Street and Lexington Ave.?
 A. I did. From Albert Diebig.

 Q. How much did you pay for that lunchroom?
 A. Nine hundred dollar in cash.

 Q. How long were you in business there with Diebig?
 A. Only four, six weeks.

 Q. Then did you sell it?
 A. I sold it, yes.

 Q. For how much?
 A. Thirteen hundred.

 Q. Made a profit of $400 on it, is that right?
 A. That is right.

 Q. Now at the end of 1929, including the mortgage of $3,750, how much do you say you were worth?
 A. Approximately $9,000.

 Q. What year did you enter the Wall Street market?
 A. I guess it was the end of '29.

Context:  The famous Stock Market Crash and the Great Depression. 

 Q. And you bought and sold stocks right up to the time of your arrest?
 A. Yes.

 Q. Now when did you meet Isidor Fisch?
 A. Suppose the early part of March or the early part of April, 1932.

 Q. Did he go anywhere with you in relation to Wall Street?
 A. Well, used to go to Steiner-Rouse & Co. I didn't have any account with Steiner-Rouse this time; my account was by Charleton Mott & Co., Broadway. I watched the board at Steiner-Rouse.

 Q. And by the board you mean the board in the office that shows the various changes in the quotations on the Stock Exchange?
 A. That is correct.

 Q. Did Fisch give you any money to buy stock?
 A. Yes, he did.

 Q. When was the first transaction that you recall Fisch giving you money?
 A. It was, I guess it was around August '32.

 Q. What business was Fisch in?
 A. Fur trading.

 Q. Did you afterwards become his partner?
 A. Yes. I make it half and half. We kept it this way, he kept care of his line of business and I kept care of the stock.

 Q. Did you advance him any money?
 A. I give him $600.

 Q. Did you ever receive any money from the fur business?
 A. Small sums and large sums.

 Q. What was the largest sum you say you received as your share in any one year from the fur business?
 A. I guess the largest sums, over a thousand dollars.

 Q. Do you remember when Fisch went to Europe?
 A. I do. December, '33.

 Q. And he never returned, did he.
 A. No. He died.

Note that he gave the reason for not returning the money.  It may not have produced anything, but I still would have flagged this and asked questions about the death.  Good interviewing takes time.  It might have been a dead end, or they may have been some emotional resentment in general to the death.  The prosecutor is looking for money issues and it is important to get the interviewee to go past his short answers.  This might have helped.  

 Q. Before he sailed did he leave anything with you for you to take care of while he was in Europe?
 A. He left two suitcases.

"The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth..."

 Q. What else?
 A. Four hundred skins, Hudson seal.

Note the exact number known, along with the type.  Yet, the prosecutor must still continue to assume that the subject has not told all that is the truth:  

 Q. What else?
 A. And a little box.

 Q. The seal skins were purchased in your partnership between Fisch and yourself?
 A. Yes.

 Q. And did you have those skins in your possession when you were arrested?
 A. Yes.

 Q. And are they now in the possession of the New York City police?
 A. I guess they are.

 Q. Now this little box that you described, what kind of box was it?
 A. Well, I find it later out it was a shoe box.

 Q. Now will you describe to the jury under what circumstances it was that he left this shoe box with you?

 A. Well, of Mr. Fisch request it was he was throwing a party when he left for Germany, it was at his request in our house; we invited a couple of friends and about nine o'clock, Fisch came out and got a little bundle under his arm. I answered the doorbell, my wife was in the baby's room. He came out and we went in the kitchen and he said, "I leave it, I leave something, if you don't mind, keep care of it and put if in a tight place." I didn't ask what was in it, he only said that is paper in it. I thought maybe they are bills. I put it in a broom closet.

Note the vivid description of the setting, yet he did not ask what was in the box.  Does this seem congruent?

Why the need to say:
a.  answered the doorbell
b.  wife was not at door with him, but in the baby's room
c.   went into kitchen where quote is stated 

There is more to this than he has explained. That he felt the need to set up the setting makes it very important to him.  Why?

I would have asked more about the position of people, including questions about his wife hearing them, if not seeing them, talk.  

 Q. And how long did that shoe box remain there before you disturbed it?
 A. The middle of August, '34.

 Q. And what caused you to disturb it?
 A. I was looking for – it was Sunday, it was nasty weather outside – was looking for a broom. When I took the broom I must hit the box with the broom handle and I looked up and that way I saw that it is money. I damaged the box.

Note self censoring:  "I was looking for" is interrupted by the day, and the weather outside.  Even in broken English, is he telling us the reason why he went to the closet?  This is very sensitive.  

 Q. And you saw money.
 A. Yes.

 Q. What money did you see in that box?
 A. Only gold certificates.

Instead of saying "gold certificates" he shows us that he likely expected something more than just gold certificates by the word "only."

 Q. About how much?

recall his precision in description above, as well as the exact number of skins.  Note his continued detail regarding money, including how much his wife earned, apart from his "wages"; along with tips, and what was saved.  He has shown that when it comes to money, he is very observant. 

He has also been very observant about body positioning when the box was brought into the house.  

Here, the specific question is only for an "estimate" of "about how much?"  

 A. I didn't count it from the beginning.

Instead of "I don't know" he reports what he did not do.  This is an indication of deception as we observe the breaking of pattern, and the report in the negative.  

 Q. Is that the money that you afterwards started to spend?
 A. That is the money.

parroted language;  he is not on 'safe' ground here. 

 Q. Is that the money that was found in your garage?
 A. It is.

 Q. And was Fisch dead at that time?
 A. Yes.

He should have explored the death earlier.  Note the short answers.  

 Q. How many satchels did he leave with you when he went to Europe?
 A. Two.

 Q. What did you do with those satchels after his death?

 A. After his death, I opened the big satchel and searched it for bills. I couldn't find anything in there and I closed it again and left it in the garage.

 Q. While Fisch was in Germany, did he write to you?
 A. Yes.

Why no further questions here?

 Q. I am now pointing to State's Exhibit 1, which shows the estate of Col. Lindbergh as of March 1st, 1932. Hauptmann, were you ever in Hopewell in your life?

 A. I never was.

Instead of saying "no" in the yes or no question, he parroted back "ever" with "never."

This should not be considered an unreliable denial because of the word "never", since the question used "ever."  It should be set aside with the thought:

a.  it could be true
b.  it is not strong because it is parroted language. 
c.  It is less stressful to lie using the language of another. 

Here we have very important, direct questions which are all "yes or no" questions.  We note his answers to see consistency and pattern:  

 Q. On the night of March 1st, 1932, were you on the grounds of Col. Lindbergh at Hopewell, NJ?
 A. I was not.

"I was not." He does not use "no" but reflects "were you?" with "I was not."

He again avoids the direct, "no" response even though it is a yes or not question. 

With the direct questions, let's look at his responses.  

He is now avoiding using the direct "yes or no" responses.  

 Q. On the night of March 1st, 1932, did you enter the nursery of Col. Lindbergh –
 A. I did not.

The question was "did?" and the answer was 

"I did not" instead of "no."

 Q. – and take from that nursery Charles Lindbergh, Jr.?
 A. I did not.

 Q. Did you leave on the window seat of Col. Lindbergh's nursery a note?

 A. Well, I wasn't there at all.

 Q. You never saw baby Lindbergh in your life, did you?
 A. Never saw it.

1.  "I did not"
2.  "I did not"
3.   "Well, I wasn't there at all."
4.  "Never saw it."

The questions are short.  The answers are short.  Each answer reflects the question.  Each answer uses the pronoun "I" until the last question where he suddenly drops the pronoun "I" from his answer.  

He does not say "no", nor does he say "I never saw it", instead, after 5 straight answers in the same pattern with the pronoun "I", it is the seeing of the child that causes:

a.  change of pattern 
b.  dropped pronoun 

"Seeing" the baby should be considered highly sensitive to the subject and should be the focus of questioning. 

 Q. March 1st, 1932, you referred to here yesterday in a general way. Will you again tell the jury where you were from the time you got out of bed until you went to bed that night?

This is a very good question.  Even though he causes the subject to likely begin "from the time you got out of bed" it still spans enough time to get information.  Since it covers a full day:

a.  It is impossible for the subject to tell everything he did. 
b.  He should begin the statement where he was told to, and end it where he was told to, with any deviation considered very important.
c.  He will only tell us what he believes is important.  
d.  We will be on the lookout for signals of suppression of information.  

 A. Well, I wake up about six o'clock, took the wife down to the bakery between half past six and a quarter to seven.

 Q. Again, I ask you how many miles would you say it was from your home to the bakery?
 A. A good mile.

I cannot tell, apart from audio, if the subject simply stopped at "a quarter to seven" or was interrupted by the Interviewer. 

Note:  in Analytical Interviewing, we DO NOT interrupt the subject.  HE HAS the information we need and we get it only by him speaking. 

We use "impolite" and "uncomfortable" gaps of silence to cause the subject to continue to speak.  

"I'm listening..." is all that is needed.  

 Q. After Anna entered the bakery, where did you go?

Mistake.  He did not tell us that Anna entered the bakery.  Also note that he used the word "Anna" when the subject used "the wife."

Analytical Interviewing SEEKS TO USE THE WORDS OF THE SUBJECT and avoid introducing words.  If he needed to ask, "Anna" should have remained as the subject identified her with "After your wife entered the bakery, where did you go?"

This comes with training---especially interactive, 'hands on' training.  We use "the gong show" type of high pressure training.  It works.  

 A. I went right home, put the car in the garage, and went to White Plains Ave. subway station. I went to the Majestic Hotel.

The word "right" is an additional word that is not necessary.  Therefore, the gap of time that is being "denied" here is important.  It suggests that he did not immediately go, and that there is something there that should be explored.  This is not lost on the Interviewer: 

 Q. And when you arrived there, did you see anybody?

 A. Well, I went to the carpenter shop. Of course, my tools was down there already. I took the tools down the day before and was going to start work. The foreman said, I got to see the superintendent first.

 Q. Continue your movements.

This is best and similar to "I'm listening" as it does not give information (like "Anna" and the "bakery" above) 

 A. When I saw the superintendent he said I can't start. Well, I showed him the letter from the agency. He said, "I am sorry, it is filled up." So I left the tools right in the Majestic and took the letter and went down to the employment agency where I got the job trying to get them ten dollars back what I paid for it. I couldn't get it them ten dollars and he said, "Come around next day, maybe something else coming in." And after that I went to other agencies and I went over to Radio City which was under construction, trying to get a job over there, but I couldn't. And I went home around five o'clock, maybe a little bit later or earlier, I don't know.

 Q. What time did you go back and call for Anna?
 A. I was there around seven o'clock.

[Mr. Hauptmann testified that he walked the owner's police dog and he and Anna ate supper, as usual, at the restaurant owned by the Fredricksons.]

 Q. What time did you and your wife leave there?
 A. Came before nine o'clock; it was after nine o'clock.

 Q. Did you drive your wife home?
 A. Yes.

 Q. What did you do?
 A. I went home. Took the car in the garage, went right away to bed.

 Q. And on March 2nd, 1932, what time did you get up?
 A. The same time again, six o'clock.

 Q. And did you and your wife go anyplace?

 A. I took the wife down to the bakery. After that I took the car home in the garage again and went down to Sixth Ave. In entering the subway station, I read the paper and is the first time I read about the Lindbergh case.

[Mr. Hauptmann denies writing or mailing any of the additional letters, as well as ever possessing the sleeping suit. Between March 1st and the 15th, he continues searching for a job, working on a daily basis at a lumber yard near his home. He is finally allowed to start at the Majestic Apartment on the 15th or 16th of March, 1932.
 Mr. Hauptmann denies having any familiarity with Woodlawn Cemetery, including his presence there on March 12th, 1932, at the alleged meeting with Dr. Condon. The rough distance from his house is put at 40 to 50 blocks plus the width of the cemetery. He further denies ever having been at the frankfurter stand or the shack by the bench with Dr. Condon.
 Mr. Reilly has the three sections of the ladder brought out.]

Please note that the commentaries are not from Statement Analysis but part of the existing download. 

 Q. Now, how many years, Bruno, have you been a carpenter?

Did you catch that previously he called him by his last name?

 A. About ten years.

 Q. You have seen this ladder here in court, haven't you?
 A. Yes.

Not, "Yes, I have" as in the previous pattern.  

 Q. Did you build that ladder?
 A. I am a carpenter. (Laughter)

 Q. Did you build that ladder?
 A. Certainly not.

 Q. Come down and look at it, please.
 A. (Witness leaves witness stand and examines ladder.) Looks like a music instrument.

 Q. In your opinion, does it look like a well made ladder?
 A. To me it looks like a ladder at all, I don't know how a man can step up.

 Q. Now did you take this ladder in your automobile or any automobile from the Bronx and convey it to Hopewell, NJ?

 A. I never transported a ladder in my car.

Unreliable réponse.  Even with second language, we have seen pattern of answering yes or no questions with:

a.  Yes or No
b.  parroted language.  

He was not asked, "ever" as he was previously, but employs the vague (literally) word "never" on his own. 

[Defendant denies having any dealing with the ladder: construction, conveying, or discarding. Likewise he denies owning the chisel. He additionally denies being present at St. Raymond's Cemetery and receiving the $50,000 from Dr. Condon on April 2nd, 1932, the night when he played music with Mr. Kloeppenburg, the first Saturday of the month.
Mr. Reilly re-addresses the shoe box with the gold certificates in it. The money had become thoroughly wet from a roof leak around a plumbing vent pipe; Mr. Hauptmann had complained about the leak ever since moving into the apartment. In describing the kitchen/broom closet, we find that the ice box, next to the closet, is not one of the new Kelvinators or Frigidaires, but the type holding a block of ice. The shoe box, due to about six months of sporadic wetting from the plumbing vent leak, was "practical falling apart."]

The Interviewer has struggled to avoid leading questions and is are of it:  

 Q. Now, describe to the jury without any leading from me, please, the condition of the money in the box as you saw it for the first time.

 A. Well, I – when I saw the money I took the box down and took it in a pail, because the water was running round my, down my arm in the sleeves, took it in the pail and carry it down to the garage.

He felt the need to explain why he moved it.  Note his attention to detail regarding money:

is it strong and of powerful interest to him?


is his attention to detail rather elementary and weak?

This is an important point in the interview process.  

 Q. Well, was the money flat, rolled up, divided, or tell us more about the condition of it.

 A. It was, it was bundle.

 Q. Describe the bundle.

Excellent question.  He now asked the subject to define his personal, internal, subjective dictionary for himself.  

This is a key component in Analytical Interviewing.  

Does the subject "know" issues regarding money, or is his interest weak?

 A. I guess it was four bundles in there. Dem, dem bundles was mostly mesh up, but must be wrapped in paper, not in thick paper, in thin wrapping paper, brown paper, and there was newspaper in the box too, I guess they wasn't filled up at all; it was 

space, there was some newspaper; I didn't look at the newspaper at all. I took the money out, squeezed the water out, put in the basket, loosened it a little bit, put it in the basket, and the rest, I mean the empty box and the paper I put in the garbage.

Please carefully note that when he "guesses" he is reducing commitment/interest to the topic.  Then, after the "guess", he used descriptive language regarding what the money was in:
1.  "wrapping paper" which was
2.  "brown" and also had
3.  "newspaper" in it. 

This is strong detail to that which he introduced with only a "guess", which represents an incongruity in language. 

The analyst should be on alert for leakage:  he has a need to appear disinterested in money, but his own description betrays the seemingly disinterested "guess" in his language.  Note how he continues to give a clear description of the volume.  

Note that he reports what he did not do:  "I didn't look at the newspaper at all" is not only in the negative, but emphasis added with "at all."

His memory appears strong.  This will soon become important in the interview process. 

 Q. All right. You took the money into the garage. What did you do with the money?

 A. Put it in a basket and covered it up. And then laid the basket up on the ceiling so nobody could see it – not exactly lay it on the ceiling. I put it on the upper shelf which reached the ceiling and put a nail and two strips in front of it and put another basket on top of the basket where the money was laying in.

This answer is void of pronouns. 

Note missing pronoun in "Put it in a basket..." as compared to other answers.  
Notice skipping over of time:  "And then"
Note passive language and, again, missing pronoun.
Note reason why he "laid the basket", if, in fact, he really did. 

Remember:  he does not say "I put it in a basket" and "I laid the basket..."

we will see later on how he uses the pronoun "I" consistently, until it suddenly disappears.  Where it disappears is a sensitive issue for him 

 Q. What was the condition of your account with Fisch when he sailed for Europe?
 A. Well, when he sailed we made what you say a clean table because we didn't know where we are and so on and my account on the market was $12,000 and there was five thousand five hundred in Fisch's account.

 Q. You say your account was $12,000. Explain what you mean by that.
 A. The stock I got in possession was worth twelve thousand dollar. That was on the 25th or 26th of October, 1934.

 Q. Well, did you owe anything on that $12,000 worth of stock or was that a margin?
 A. No, that was actual money. The stock was worth more, but the rest was a margin.

 Q. And how much of that $12,000 belonged to Fisch?
 A. Only $2,500. The rest was my money.

 Q. Now you knew, did you, that Fisch was dead when you found this money?
 A. Yes, I knew.

 Q. Now, after drying it, what did you do with it then?
 A. When I took it down, I took a few of them and put in circulation.

[Mr. Hauptmann denies ever having been in Greenwich Village, at the Sheridan Square theatre and having purchased a ticket with one of the ransom bills.]

 Q. In checking my notes during the noon recess I found that the date I wanted to inquire about was November 26th, 1933, the date that Miss Barr, I think her name is, says you passed in a five dollar Federal Reserve Lindy bill to her window. I understand that you testified November 26th is your birthday. Is that correct?
 A. That is right.

 Q. Now, have you a recollection as to where you were on the evening of November 26, 1933?
 A. I was home, have a little birthday party at home there, a couple of friends present.

 Q. Do you recall who was present?
 A. Mrs. Miller, his little daughter, my wife, and a friend of my wife from her home in Germany and I.

[Next, Mr. Hauptmann uses memoranda he was allowed to make in jail from photostats of his accounts so as to better describe his finances.]

 Q. Let's start with August 8th. Have you got that sheet there?
 A. Yes, I got it in my hand.

 Q. The entry of August 8th indicates a deposit, does it not, of Warner Brothers Pictures? Do you recall when you purchased that?
 A. That was 51 of Warner Pictures I bought long ago, I guess about three quarters of a year ago. I didn't mark it all down here on the sheet when I bought it.

 Q. Now you traded in the market back and forth, different stocks: is that right?
 A. Well, that is with Steiner-Rouse & Co.

 Q. And did you know the customer's man in Steiner-Rouse?
 A. Yes, I do.

 Q. Did you ask him for advice at different times as to what stock he thought was a good stock to buy or to sell?
 A. Oh yes; that is the usual way you ask.

Here, the subject answers with "oh yes" and "you", showing how it is commonly done.  This is an area in which the subject is comfortable thus far, and the questioning must lead him out of his comfort zone.  This is true for both prosecution and for defense, given the nature of the accusation:  it must be answered and things must be explained. 

 Q. Now, Bruno, on the question of cash that was deposited by you at any time in Steiner-Rouse, was there one dollar of that cash Lindy ransom money?

This question contains the word "Lindy" and the word "money", which is then parroted: 

 A. There was no Lindy money at all.

[Mr. Reilly proceeds to go item by item, ascertaining whence came the money for respective transactions, whether from Hauptmann's own money or from Fisch's contributions.]

 Q. There was a good deal of trading in April ['33], wasn't there? The purchases were about $10,000 and the sales were about $7,500, weren't they?
 A. It is about, yes.

 Q. Now on the 28th of April you deposited in cash, $2,500. Where did that come from?
 A. In this month I bought for Mr. Fisch a hundred New York Central.

 Q. Did he give you cash?
 A. Always in cash...

 Q. Now the trading was very heavy in May and June, buying and selling almost every day.
 A. There was buying and selling every day.

The word "almost" is edited out of the parroted answer.  

 Q. At the end of the month you had a balance of $7,973.72?
 A. Debit balance, yes.

 Q. That is what you owed the firm as against the stocks they were holding; correct?
 A. That is correct.

 Q. Now, during July, you did in that month about $49,300 worth of business on the books of Steiner-Rouse; is that right?
 A. Yes.

 Q. Where you had done the month before $50,000?
 A. Yes.

 Q. And you did in the month of August with Steiner-Rouse $75,000 worth of business, didn't you?
 A. Yes.

 Q. And through sales and profits, with no cash placed into the account at all, [through the margin account.]
    The balance stood as you and Fisch indebted to Steiner-Rouse on August 31st, $11,735.90, that you owed them.

 A. Debit, yes.

 Q. Then they were carrying quite an extensive block of stocks?
 A. Yes, quite a lot. Fourteen different corporations.

 Q. Now the 14 different blocks of stocks, were they holding 5,900 shares of stock in those 14 corporations?
 A. I count 5,700.

 Q. Is it correct that at the end of September, when the house struck a balance with you and Fisch, the balance, the debit balance had grown to $22,172.96?
 A. That's correct.

 Q. But no cash was placed in the account up to the 29th of September?
 A. That's correct.

 Q. The stock was carrying itself?
 A. Yes.

 Q. In October, you began to sell?
 A. Yes.

 Q. And your operations in buying and selling during that month?
 A. It was $46,592.93.

 Q. And your balance due the firm dropped from $22,000 to $6,000, right?
 A. No. Balance dropped to $1,380.16.

 Q. And the trading was quite active in November, was it not?
 A. Well, I don't say so, quite active, compared with the last couple of months this was.

 Q. Only did about $21,000 that month?
 A. Yes.

[Mr. Reilly comes back to the fact that the stock account was carrying itself, as no cash had been deposited in it from July '33 until February, when Mr. Hauptmann deposited $1350, which was in reality merely a replacement of a portion of a $1500 withdrawal he had made 10 days earlier as a loan to a friend.]

 Q. So the account was carrying itself August, September, October, November, December, January and February without the inclusion of a dollar of your money except for the dividends I have referred to?
 A. That is correct

[The pattern continued, with no cash deposit required to cover the activity, reducing the debit balance in August '34 to a credit balance of $1,242.41, while also occasionally withdrawing money for living costs. The account was totaled and closed on September 14, 1934. Mr. Reilly moves to Mr. Hauptmann's bank accounts and follows the record from the time of the kidnapping. One interesting deposit, March 15, 1933 of $1,250: "That's the money when President Roosevelt called in all the gold certificates and the gold coin. I put in $750 in gold certificates and $500 in gold coin."]

 Q. Now on March 25, 1933, I notice you had a balance of $2,528.35. That money was transferred to Anna Schoeffler's account, wasn't it?

 A. Yes. The reason was I got in an automobile accident in New York and I run over a man, but it was entirely not my fault. This man was standing behind the elevated post, the road was very slippery and in the same moment I was going to pass the elevated post and he was stepping right in front of me and he slipped and I went over his leg, and on account of that I was afraid. This gentleman happened to be a lawyer, and that is the reason I transferred the account to my wife's name, the stock account and the bank account. I thought he was going to sue me. I settled with the lawyer...

It appears he was waiting to be able to explain why...

 Q. Then that is the last large withdrawal until after you were arrested?
 A. That is right.

 Q. And then the next one went to a lawyer, is that right?
 A. The next one went to a lawyer.

 Q. And he is not here?
 A. He is not here.

 Q. I want you to explain to the jury about whether or not you had any money in this tin can?
 A. That is about $12,000 in gold certificates in that can.

The tin can is not in his possession; therefore, instinctively, it is "that" (distance) tin can and the change from parroted language is noted. 

 Q. And did you have some money in this board that was offered in evidence?
 A. I did. I can't remember how much.

 Q. You said if you had a big book here you could figure your stock transactions better. Where is that book?
 A. I guess it is in the possession of the police.

He uses the word "guess" repeatedly when referring to his possessions with the police.  This is consistent.  

 Q. Now, when you were taken to the New York City police station were you beaten by the police?
  Mr. Wilentz: I object.

 A. I was.

[Mr. Wilentz indicates the State of New Jersey is independently trying the defendant, not relying on any confession or other evidence offered by the State of New York.]

  Mr. Reilly: I can connect it.

 Q. What date were you arrested?
 A. September 19th, 1934.

 Q. And in time you landed in the Greenwich Station House?
 A. Yes.

 Q. During the period between the time you were brought in and the time you were asked to write and give certain exhibitions of your handwriting, were you beaten in that station house?
 A. Not in this time.

 Q. Were you beaten – yes or no?
 A. Yes.

 Q. When did it start?
 A. The second night when I got arrested.

 Q. Where were you?
 A. New York police station.

 Q. After that were you taken to The Bronx?
 A. After that I was taken to The Bronx.

 Q. You were arrested on the street, weren't you?
 A. I was.

 Q. And you were held for some hours in your car, is that right?
 A. Yes.

 Q. Then they put handcuffs on your hands and you were searched?
 A. Yes.

 Q. Then did they take you back home and search your house?
 A. Yes.

 Q. Then you were told it was Lindbergh money?
 A. It was told me in the house. That is the first time I hear it, I got Lindbergh money in my possession.

 Q. Then they took you to Central Savings Bank and searched your safe deposit box, didn't they?
 A. Yes. No money there.

 Q. Then where was the next place they took you?
 A. It was a police station, Greenwich Street.

 Q. Now in the station, the first night what did they do to you, if anything?
 A. The first night they required the request writing.

 Q. Yes. Now in writing the did you spell the words of your own free will of did they tell you how to spell the words?
 A. Some of the words they spell it to me.

 Q. Did they ask you to spell "not" n-o-t-e?
 A. I remember very well they put an "e" on it.

 Q. Did they ask you to spell "signature" as "sing"?
 A. They did.

 Q. So when they were dictating the spelling, that was not your own free will in spelling, was it?
 A. It was not.

[Objection by Mr. Wilentz as leading.]

 Q. As far as the spelling of these words that I have indicated, and other words that are misspelled in these request writings of yours, was that your voluntary spelling or your voluntary act, or was it the act and spelling dictated to you by policemen and officials who wanted you to write it that way?
 A. It was because of the dictation.

 Q. And in that writing, they kept on for how many hours?
 A. I can't remember exactly the time of the request writing, but I know real well it was late, it was really late in night time, probably after 12 o'clock. I refused to write.

 Q. What did they do to you?
 A. They forced me. They said, "You won't get any sleep, you got to write."

 Q. Did they ever do anything to you physically?
 A. Not exactly, but they didn't give me any chance to sleep.

 Q. Over what period did the so-called request writings, how long a period was it in all before they finished with you?
 A. From the hour of my arrest to I'd say around two o'clock in the morning the next day.

 Q. And how many times did he request you to write?
 A. I don't recall. Many times. I fell asleep on a chair when they poked me in the ribs and said, "You write."

 Q. After the writing, before you went to The Bronx, did you get any knocks of any kind?
 A. Well, that is – I got the treatment, it wasn't home at all.

 Q. Now what was the treatment? [objections ensue.]
 Q. I will ask you, Bruno, was the statement in The Bronx that you made, were you mindful and fearful of the treatment that you had received downtown in New York when you made the statement in The Bronx?
 A. To explain this: When Mr. District Attorney Foley was asking me how did they treat me, the coppers in the Bronx, but that did not cover the treatment in the New York police station. I said the treatment in The Bronx jail and in the courthouse to Mr. District Attorney Foley was fair, but it covers only The Bronx, but the treatment in the police station in New York, it was entirely different, it was just the opposite that way. I got the effect from this treatment for two months, that is the reason I lost over thirty pounds.
[Mr. Reilly addresses the Court, this being 4 P.M. on a Friday, and his still battling tonsilitis and the flu. He requests the week-end off for the trial, so as to consult defense witnesses having to travel down from the Bronx and to rest fully for the defense and rebuttals coming. He asserts that he hopes to shorten his witness list by a third from the original 50.
The Court acquiesces, recognizing the "rather unusual cooperation between the State and the defense in speeding up this trial."]
Cross-Examination by Mr. Wilentz:
 Q. Mr. Defendant, you came into this country illegally, didn't you?
 A. Yes, sir.
 Q. You have enjoyed the privilege and opportunity of earning a livelihood, haven't you?
 A. Yes.
 Q. You have had an opportunity in this court today to tell the whole truth. Have you told the truth?
 A. I told the truth already.
 Q. And the statements you made to District Attorney Foley, do you stand on the statements you made to him or do you want to change those –
 A. I told the truth to District Attorney Foley about my treatment in The Bronx; that is correct.
 Q. About this case, not about the treatment, about the Lindbergh case, the murder, did you tell him the truth about that?
 A. To a certain extent.
 Q. And to a certain extent you didn't tell him the truth, is that it? Did you tell him the truth only to a certain extent and lie to another extent?
 [Mr. Pope objects, the Court sustains, Mr. Wilentz withdraws the question.]
[Mr. Wilentz explores the defendant's conviction in Germany on several charges, all occurring between the end of WWI and March 1919, followed by a replay of the three attempts at illegal entry into the U.S. He also pursues some handwriting comparisons and a board w/holes drilled in it, five of which had ransom money in them. Mr. Hauptmann says the holes were originally for holding small bits, but admits that the last, larger hole he made to hold a small pistol. Court adjourns for the day.]
January 28, 1935
Cross-Examination (continued) by Mr. Wilentz:
[Mr. Wilentz ascertains that the defendant has been thorough in keeping his "books" detailing all his accounts and expenditures over the years, with the sole exception that he has omitted some money in order to hide it from his wife. He explains that he had wanted to surprise her one day by being able to build her a house, but Mr. Wilentz infers other secrets kept from Anna.
More handwriting comparisons: specifically the transposition of "g" and "h" in words such as "light".]
 Q. I want to point out to you another thing, r-i-g-t-h, and   n-i-g-t-h, do you see those?
 A. Yes.
 Q. One in your standard writing and two in your disputed writings. Now, you had a habit of doing that, didn't you?
 A. A habit.
[Mr. Wilentz comes back to the account books.]
 Q. Didn't you stop keeping these accounts as soon as you got the idea of kidnapping this child just as is set forth in that letter [one of the ransom letters]?
 A. I never got any idea to kidnap any child.
 Q. Didn't you stop keeping accounts within two weeks of the birth of the Lindbergh child, and didn't start again until a couple of months after the ransom money was paid?
 A. I didn't even know the Lindbergh child was born.
 Q. Now, in May 1931 you got a letter from the broker for $74.89. You weren't doing as well in the brokerage accounts as you did in your carpenter work, were you?
 A. I couldn't watch the broker because I was working the same time.
 Q. And so you were losing money?
 A. Yes, that is correct.
 Q. In other words, you found out you couldn't do the brokerage business and the carpenter work both and do them well, is that right?
 A. That is right.
 Q. And while you were trying to earn a few dollars as a carpenter, Wall Street was taking away hundreds, right?
 A. That is right, that is right.
 Q. So you, of course, got to the point where you were losing money. You lost money until April 2, 1931, in your brokerage accounts, didn't you?
 A. Yes, I did.
 Q. About $3,000 that you earned as a carpenter and your wife earned as a waitress?
 A. Yes.
 Q. Is that right, you lost in the stock market?
 A. Yes.
 Q. You weren't such a good stock market operator, were you?
 A. Well, you have to – the first time you got on the stock market you have to pay for it.
 Q. And the first time you build a ladder you don't build a good one, do you?
 A. I never build a ladder.
 Q. Let's take a look at that $74 again. Didn't you pay him $50 on May 25th?
 A. Yes.
 Q. And then you got a telegram from the broker to pay the $24, didn't you, in December 1931 –Three months before the Lindbergh child was kidnapped, didn't you get this telegram: "Having no response –" Pardon me. Just take a look at that registry receipt. Is that your signature?
 A. Yes.
 Q. Now read the telegram, please.
 A. "Having no response to our previous communication, this is to advise you that we intend selling sufficient stock to liquidate the balance without further notice. Carleton & Mott."
 Q. As a matter of fact, at the end of 1931 you were running very low for money, weren't you? You were losing money in the market heavily, weren't you?
 A. I guess I didn't play in 1931 at all. There was –
 Q. You had lost your money then. You had only 50 shares of Warner?
 A. Yes.
 Q. You had lost already a lot of money?
 A. I lost a lot of money, yes, that is right.
 Q. Now when Fisch gave you this box, this shoe box, he told you to keep it in a dry place, a safe place?
 A. Yes.
 Q. You counted it many times. How much was in the box?
 A. I find out later it was close to fifteen thousand.
 Q. When you took that money into the garage and you took those gold certificates and put them in a basket, you didn't count it?
 A. No.
 Q. The reason you didn't count it was because you knew, didn't you?
 A. I didn't know anything. Always when I took the dry ones out, I counted the dry ones.
 Q. It took two weeks for the money to dry out?
 A. Yes.
 Q. And Mr. Fisch told you to keep this box in a safe place?
 A. Yes.
 Q. He was very sick, you knew that? You knew he was suffering from tuberculosis or something like that, didn't you?
 A. Now, listen. I was asking a couple of times about his sickness; he always said "Never mind, I am alright." So I think he is OK.
 Q. And here was your sick friend going home, and he asked you to keep this box in a dry place?
 A. Yes.
 Q. You knew from the day he moved into that house that that closet was a wet place, didn't you? You had complained about it all the time.
 A. Well, from the six months or so, yes. I put it in the closet that night and I forgot all about it.
[The Court takes a recess for a few minutes.]
The Court: Before you proceed, I wish to notify the officers that from this time forward people will not be permitted to stand in the rear of the courtroom. So tomorrow morning until the trial is finished, after the seating capacity is well filled, the doors will have to be locked and spectators denied admission because it is undesirable that this intense crowding should be further permitted.
Cross-Examination continues:
 Q. Now Mr. Defendant, in your Direct Examination you stated that you changed the brokerage or bank accounts on March 25th, 1933, because you had an automobile accident and you were fearful that there might be some claim against you; right?
 A. That is right.
 Q. Now the accident you had on October 17th, 1932?
 A. Yes.
 Q. And you settled it before December 1932, didn't you?
 A. I don't know when I settled it.
 Q. Let me show you your book of records. December, 1932, your first payment of $75 – So that you actually settled the case for $300 in December, 1932, and in March, 1933, you didn't have to worry about that automobile accident, nor any claim, did you?
 A. I guess there was something coming up.
 Q. Now, before March 1, 1932, Isidor Fisch didn't know you and you didn't know him, did you?
 A. I didn't know him, but I don't know if he didn't know me.
 Q. You didn't send him any letters before March 1st, 1932?
 A. No, I did not.
 Q. So Isidor Fisch didn't write the ransom notes, did he?
 A. I never said that.
 Q. This board that came from your closet, S-204, has these numbers here. It is a little blurred now, isn't it?
 A. Looks like it.
 Q. It looks like 2974, and the numbers down here, 3-7154, isn't that right?
 A. Yes.
 Q. And between those numbers are some words, it looks like "Decatur" first and "Sedgwick" second, you see that?
 A. I can't make it out.
 Q. You know what that means don't you, that number and that address on there?
 A. Not exactly.
 Q. Well, you know it is Dr. Condon's address and telephone number, don't you?
 A. I know it now.
 Q. Now, let's get back to the time you were arrested and they found this twenty dollar bill on you, the ransom money bill, and the police asked you where you got it. Right?
 A. Yes.
 Q. And you said to the police, "This twenty dollar bill, yes, I had three hundred dollars worth. I saved it, got it from friends and got it from the banks and this is the last of the gold bills.
 A. Yes, I told them that.
 Q. You knew at the very time that you told them that you were not telling the truth, isn't that right?
 A. That is right.
 Q. Well, they finally found a lot of gold in the house, didn't they?
 A. I told them about it later. Before they found it.
January 29, 1935


 Q. Now, Mr. Defendant, you said the other day that on April 2nd, 1932, being the night that it was testified to that $50,000 was paid, that that was the day you left your job because you found out they were only going to pay you $80 a month instead of $100.
 A. Yes.

[Mr. Wilentz introduces the paycheck from Reliance Property Management, Mr. Hauptmann's employer for the latter half of March 1932; the amount of the check, $36.67, supported a pay rate of $100 per month, or $3.33/day, not $80 per month.]

 Q. Now this check for $36.67 you cashed at the National Lumber & Milling Co., the lumber yard where you used to work, isn't that a fact.
 A. Yes.

 Q. That is a company owned by Mr. Hirsch and Mr. Miller, who were here in court the other day and testified that you purchased some lumber from them?

 A. Yes.
 Q. In May, 1932 you bought a radio for $400, didn't you?

 A. Yes.
 Q. In cash?

 A. Yes.
 Q. And you bought some field glasses too, didn't you; how much did you pay for the fieldglasses?
 A. $126.

 Q. Did you buy a canoe and take a hunting trip?
 A. Yes.

 Q. Did you take a trip to Florida and your wife went to Germany?
 A. Yes.

 Q. And during all this time neither you nor your wife worked?
 A. I did work, in the market and as carpenter.

 Q. Well, how much would you say you earned as a carpenter from April 1932 to September 1934?
 A. Couple hundred dollars.

 Q. So from April 2nd, 1932 to September 1934, when you were arrested, you made $200 as a carpenter and your wife did no work at all either, she quit work?
 A. Yes, she quit work in June, 1932.
[Mr. Wilentz introduces letters written by the defendant to Mr. Fisch's brother after Mr. Fisch's death in Germany. The Cross-Examination is suspended for testimony by GEORGE MADISON, Professor of German Literature at Princeton University, who translated the letters from German to English for the State.
Mr. Wilentz proceeds to spend considerable time 1) on the letters, 2) on Mr. Hauptmann's honesty with Mr. Fisch's relatives, and 3) on the honesty with which he answered Mr. Foley's questions in The Bronx after his arrest, during which questioning Mr. Hauptmann was not sworn under oath.]

 Mr. Wilentz: Take the witness.

Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Reilly:

 Q. You have heard the timekeeper for the Majestic Apartments testify that you did not work on April 2nd.
 A. I heared it.

 Q. And you only got paid for the days you worked, is that correct?
 A. Yes.

Mr. Reilly: I offer in evidence the payroll record, pay department of the Majestic Apartments for the payroll ending April 15th, showing that this defendant, Richard Hauptmann, worked April 1st and April 2nd, and received $6.67 pay for both days.

 Q. Now do you remember testifying in The Bronx speaking to a man named O'Ryan, and Commissioner O'Ryan asked you about any money you had in your possession, you said to Commissioner O'Ryan, "There was another $14,000 in my garage"?

 A. Yes.
 Q. And you told the Commissioner where the money was, in the south side of the garage?

 A. That's what I said.

 Q. Now when Fisch and you first decided to go into business, did Fisch tell you that he was interested in the Knickerbocker Pie Baking Co.?
 A. He said he is one of the founders.

 Q. Did he say the business was still being carried on?
 A. He said the business is very fair and he said his investment is $10,000.

 Q. Did you find out after his death that the pie baking company folded up, went out of business two years before he told you that?
 A. I find it out.
 Q. Yes, that two years before he told you the pie baking company was making money, it had folded up into bankruptcy?
 A. That is right.
 Q. So he lied to you there, didn't he?
 A. Yes.
 Q. Now, did he tell you also when he went into business with you that he had borrowed thousands of dollars from Mrs. Hille?
 A. He did not.
 Q. Did you have some letters in your home from Fisch to you at the time of your arrest?
 A. Yes, and I wish you would produce it in the court here.
 Q. Do you know who took them?
 A. I don't know, but I suppose the police took them.
January 30, 1935


Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Reilly (continued):

Mr. Reilly: Mr. Attorney General, have you the Fisch letters?

Mr. Wilentz: We only have one postcard.

 Q. How many letters did you receive from Isidor Fisch after he sailed back to Germany?
 A. About four letters.

 Q. Did you know that Uhlig and Fisch had an apartment somewhere in another part of New York?
 A. I did not.

 Q. And did one dollar of the Lindbergh – what we now call the Lindbergh ransom money, did one dollar of that pass into your brokerage accounts?

 A. Not one dollar.

 Q. Now they have brought into court here and exhibited a large plane. Is this your plane?
 A. That's my plane.

 Q. How long before your arrest had you used this plane?
 A. This plane was never used since '28.

 Q. And are there any chisels missing from this box?

 A. There are three Stanley chisels missing, them chisels they are no good at all, they were laying in the garage. But the Stanley set, good chisels, but I see it disappeared.

 Q. When did you last see them in that box?
 A. I would say a couple days before I get arrested.

Re-Cross Examination by Mr. Wilentz:

 Q. While we are waiting for the employment record that was introduced, do you remember the ten dollar ransom bill that you passed down at Boccanfusco's down at 89th Street, the vegetable store? What did you buy there?

 A. Vegetables.

 Q. You lived at 222nd Street and you went down to 89th Street to buy vegetables?
 A. That's near my office, Steiner, Rouse & Co. Since we have a child I mostly do all the shopping.

 Q. You didn't buy the vegetables up around your home?

 A. Because it is cheaper. I usually got my car parked right in front of this vegetable store.
 Q. I want to show you Exhibit 41, the payroll record the defense entered on Re-Direct. Is there anything on here that shows you worked on the 2nd of April?
 A. Well, it shows 2 days that I figure the 1st and 2nd.
 Q. Yes. But it doesn't say which days, does it? It just shows 2 days in April.
 A. Well, I am not familiar with this record, how they keep it.
 Q. What I want to know now is not what you say, but what the record shows as you see it. It says two days, but doesn't say which days, isn't that right?
 A. That's right.

[Mr. Wilentz returns to the subject of the piece of trim lumber removed from the defendant's closet, the one with Dr. Condon's information written on it. Much time had been spent on it in testimony over the preceding days.]

Mr. Reilly: Now is this proper re-cross? It's been gone over seven or eight times. I didn't speak about any board in my re-direct. Now we are having what we had yesterday, for thirty hours in cross examination about this board.

The Court: Well, I am inclined myself to think that the subject matter has been very thoroughly covered either upon the direct or the cross examination, but if the Attorney General thinks the matter is in a state of confusion he may ask the questions necessary to clear up that confusion.
Mr. Reilly: I didn't assume he was confused after all this examination.

The Court: Well, I don't know what is in the Attorney General's mind.

 Q. When you were shown this piece of wood, - I will only be another minute or two, your Honor, I don't want to waste any time – when you were shown this piece of wood, you were also given a magnifying glass to look at the writing, weren't you?

 A. Yes.

 Q. And when you saw this piece of wood with the writing on it you said, "That's my lumber." Isn't that so – in the Bronx.

 A. I did.
 Q. You did.

 A. I said, "Yes," without thinking.

 Q. You don't usually do things without thinking.

 A. No, my physical condition was so bad this time I could hardly think.

 Q. Well, I say, you weren't thinking. You have a very good mind, haven't you?

 A. I don't think so, not so good.

 Q. Oh, you really do think so, don't you?
 A. (No answer.)
 Mr. Wilentz: That is all.


Anonymous said...

SA on the death of Bethany Deaton in Kansas City.

Those who watched this interview on 48 Hours this past weekend would have made Kermit faces at the things said by Tyler Deaton, the homosexual husband of the late Bethany Deaton. What they were instinctually responding to because of his odd language and characteristics, would be easily translated by Statement Analysis as distancing language and a lack of ability to provide a reliable denial.


Anonymous said...

OT - Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert McDonald admits he lied about serving in the Special Forces

His statement to the press:

"While I was in Los Angeles, engaging a homeless individual to determine his Veteran status, I asked the man where he had served in the military," McDonald said in a statement today. "He responded that he had served in special forces. I incorrectly stated that I had been in special forces. That was inaccurate and I apologize to anyone that was offended by my misstatement."

I think he meant to say - "I told someone something that was false and that I knew to be false when I said it. I regret that there was a camera there to capture it. Rather, I would prefer to focus on your reaction to what I did rather than allow you to focus on my lie."

john said...

OT Update:

DOJ announces it will not file charges against Zimmerman in Martin shooting


trustmeigetit said...

So Peter, overall conclusion?

Always was curious about this case and never trusted the dad.

I found it odd he had recently faked an abduction as a "joke" then this happens?

It's like Justin texting Trista that he was worried about Ayla being kidnapped then shortly after is kidnapped.

I always wondered if dad dropped the child and he was paid to help cover it up. But then I question why he would not turn on dad, but then think dad had the power and no one may have believed him.

So I just could not decide.

Anonymous said...

It's worth noting that Edward J. Reilly was Hauptmann's attorney (not a prosecutor) so this explains why some of his questions are not particularly probing. It was not in the defendant's interest to bring out certain facts.


Anonymous said...

Whenever one looks at this case, it's easy to see how high dollar similar cases mimic the "Trial of the Century."

The suitcase under the window.
(didn't the Ramsey's have the same?)
Mysterious fingerprints disappearing.
People being forced, coerced, or bribed to lie.
Unscrupulous journalists.

The accussed had alibis. Why weren't they at trial?

More than one person were involved. Most likley someone from the American military who utilized Fisch and friends.

He bought a radio for $400 in '32? What type?
Then, field glasses for $126. Expensive for depression era.

A simple wiretap on Lindbergs phone could have told the kidnappers their schedule, not necessarily the maid as the agents had bullied.

In most these cases, phone operators have been targeted. It keeps the paranoia up for the snitch program.

Fisch was involved in some form.

These disappearing items are also seen in cases such as the military doctor inprisoned for the murder of his wife and child. Jeffrey ??

Perhaps to control the newspaper, control the police, incite hysteria, etc.

What is odd: Fisch leaving a shoe box at a radio repair store for a few hours. No one looked.

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
It's worth noting that Edward J. Reilly was Hauptmann's attorney (not a prosecutor) so this explains why some of his questions are not particularly probing. It was not in the defendant's interest to bring out certain facts.


He should be probing to beat prosecution to the punch.

GetThem said...

Peter too bad you couldn't be a DA too!!

Wilentz's questions were good. I like him.

Boy, that BH could keep track of every penny ever earned until it came time to count that money from the box. Check out this text, it's down to the penny (who remembers that detail especially from years past, not me):
Q. And your operations in buying and selling during that month?
A. It was $46,592.93.

Q. And your balance due the firm dropped from $22,000 to $6,000, right?
A. No. Balance dropped to $1,380.16.

john said...


911 call details man's hysterical sobs about shooting, suspicious house fire

The home in the 900 block of 3rd Ave where a 29-year-old Lake Odessa Man told police he was shot during a confrontation with an intruder, then escaped his house on Wednesday, February 18,2015. Since he has been charged with three felonies, Lake Odessa, Mich., Tuesday, February 24, 2015. (Joel Bissell | MLive.com)

IONIA COUNTY, MI -- A man charged with three felonies after allegedly making false reports about someone shooting him and setting his house on fire can be heard in a 911 call hysterically crying to dispatchers about the situation

A man identifying himself as Billy Boylan called 911 around 4 a.m. Thursday, Feb. 18, reporting he needed help fast at 923 Third Avenue in Lake Odessa.

"My house is burning down. My dog's in there. I was shot," Boylan said between sobs and cries for help.

He indeed suffered a gunshot wound to the arm, serious enough to put him in the hospital and to now require rehabilitation, Lake Odessa police Chief Mark Bender said Tuesday, Feb. 24.

Police are not identifying Boylan publicly because he has not been arraigned. But Boylan identifies himself in the 911 call obtained by MLive Grand Rapids Press. Police are seeking warrants against him for filing a false police report on the arson, home invasion and about assault with intent to do great bodily harm.

Boylan's house was on fire the morning of Feb 18 when authorities responded. Police discovered evidence an accelerant was used and also found a gas can. The damage was substantial, the police chief said.

But Boylan's initial story about an intruder entering his home in the early morning darkness just didn't add up, Bender said.

Multiple police units from five departments responded to 923 Third Ave. and began searching for the suspect who reportedly fled on foot.

"We felt confident that we literally turned every rock out there," Bender said.

Still, police turned up no evidence of the suspect, he said.

Other "red flags" started to come up throughout the investigation, Bender said.

Then Boylan stopped cooperating with investigators -- something that didn't seem right for a man whose home was set on fire by an intruder and who was injured.

"That's clearly a big red flag," Bender said.

Boylan's account of what happened and what police believe occurred do not match up, the chief said. He would not say who police believe set the fire or how Boylan was shot, saying only he would speak further on what may have occurred after Boylan has been arraigned.

As the 911 call continued and help was being sent to the Third Avenue address, Boylan began to speak more with dispatchers.

"So how did it go down? Did he shoot you and then light your house on fire or what?" a dispatcher asked him.

"I don't know. I was knocked out, I got up. I was running upstairs and he shot me," Boylan said.

At another point, Boylan talks of running downstairs to escape the shooter.

"He was wearing all black, I don't know ... now my house is burning down."

Boylan continued: "I went downstairs. Oh my God. Can I do this later? Oh my God ... I don't have any shoes or anything on. I'm freezing."

Two dogs were found dead in the home. Boylan was outside on the ground when police and fire crews arrived. He remained in medical care Tuesday undergoing rehabilitation, Bender said.


john said...

OT Update:

New Cosby accuser: 'Do you remember me?'


tania cadogan said...

off topic

A missing teenager read a text message from her best friend just nine minutes before she vanished without a trace from her family home.

Rebecca Watts, 16, received a message from her friend Courtney Bicker, 17, around half an hour after she was last seen by her stepmother at their home in the St George's area of Bristol on Thursday morning.

But although a notification showed Rebecca had read the text, she did not reply. The next morning, after she failed to return home, her family called police - prompting a huge search for the college student.

Rebecca's family had thought she had gone out to meet her boyfriend, but called police when the teenager did not return home. She had not taken any clothes with her, and had left her phone charger and purse at home.

Courtney said the last person Rebecca had texted was her boyfriend, named as Luke Oberhansli, 17, to make plans for later that day but he did not reply because he was at the dentist.

'I've got no idea whatsoever what has happened,' said college student Courtney.

'It's really like she has disappeared with no trace.

'I sent her a message at 11.06am and it went through to her phone, but I sent her a message the following morning and it didn't go through.

'I didn't really think much of it. I thought that maybe her phone was off and maybe she was asleep.'

She added: 'I'm just really confused and scared. I'm just literally waiting by the phone for someone to call and say she is back home.

'I like to hope she has just run away and will come back when she is ready, but this is so unlike her.

'She wouldn't go to the shops on her home. She makes someone go to the shop till for her and buy her bus ticket.

'If she was going outside she would meet somebody near by. She wouldn't walk long distances on her own.

'She wouldn't walk out at night on her own.

'When she used to come round mine, she would make me walk her back home. She doesn't like walking back in the dark.'

Rebecca was last seen at around 10.30am on Thursday when her stepmother, Anjie Galsworthy, 49, left their home for a hospital appointment.

At 11.06am, Courtney sent her a one-word message reading 'bae' - a slang term of endearment said to stand for 'before anyone else', which she used as a jokey nickname for Rebecca.

Courtney received an alert saying it had been read, but she didn't get a reply. It is thought that Rebecca left her home at 11.15am.

Courtney said texts were later sent from Rebecca's phone to her boyfriend Luke about meeting up later that day, but he did not reply because he was having dental work.

She said the pair had been dating for a few months, and his home had been searched by police, but added: 'He is in the same predicament as I am.

'The police keep searching his house. He was the last person to be in contact with her.

'She was texting Luke, but he had to go and get his braces sorted. They were going to arrange to meet after he had his braces done.

'Nobody has any idea what has happened.'

She added: 'I last heard from her on Wednesday night and we were just having a normal conversation. She seemed OK - she seemed fine.

'It was just normal banter.

Courtney said as far as she was aware Rebecca didn't have older friends and hadn't argued with anyone in the days before her disappearance.

Her friend had a good relationship with her father, Darren Galsworthy, 51, and stepmother who have been together for many years, she added.

Distraught Mr Galsworthy earlier described his daughter as 'introverted', and has said the family 'fear the worst' as police investigating Rebecca's disappearance search parks around her home for clues.

Mr Galsworthy said his daughter's disappearance was out of character, as the fashion conscious teen was too shy to even pay the cashier at a shop on her own.

tania cadogan said...


'Becky is introverted. She does not mix with big groups of people,' he said.

'She would not go and ask for anything or go to a till on her own - she was that kind of girl.

'This is why her disappearing is so out of character for her. I am trying to remain positive, but really starting to fear for the worst.

'This just really is a nightmare come true - I am just so worried we don't know what to do.

'She loved fashion and clothes and all she took with her was a blue quilted jacket. Her purse and bank cards are all here at home.

'If she had planned to go anywhere she would have taken her phone charger - she was never without her phone and always on Facebook.'

Rebecca, who is studying at college to resit her GCSE exams, was last seen on Thursday morning by Darren's wife Anjie, 49, who left to go to a hospital appointment at around 10.30am.

When she didn't reply to messages or return home they called police.

Rebecca's phone had initially gone straight to answer phone, and has now been switched off since Thursday. Her Facebook profile has also been dormant since Thursday.

Mrs Galsworthy said: 'She seemed OK and her normal self. There was nothing out of the blue. She was a bit grumpy, but that was not unusual - just a normal teenager.

'I went to a hospital appointment and left her at home at around 10.30am.

'We thought she might have gone and met her boyfriend and he had texted her to see if she wanted to meet, but got no response.

'We texted her later in the day to see where she was but her phone was off.

'She hadn't mentioned any plans, but would have just gone out if she had some, but she would have let us know at some point.

'The next day when she still hadn't come home we contacted the police.'

Rebecca's grandmother Pat Watts had previously made an emotional appeal for information.

'Becky, we love you so much,' she said. 'You are so loved - I don't think you realise just how much. You can come and stay at mine for as long as you need.'

Police forensics teams have conducted 'routine' searches of Luke's home, as well as Rebecca's.

Avon and Somerset police said it was routine to carry out searches of homes belonging to people close to the missing person.

Officers have combed woodland and open spaces near the teenager's home, as well as a nature reserve, Troopers Hill in Bristol.

The student's family appealed for people to join a search party near her home this afternoon.

Writing on Facebook, her uncle Joe Galsworthy said: 'Please come along, everybody friends, family and even community members.

Rebecca's father and his wife were led away from their home by police so forensic experts could carry out a thorough examination of the property.

The tearful couple handed their large pet dog to neighbours before getting into an unmarked police car.

Officers took Mrs Galsworthy's wheelchair and a bag of belongings to the car, while her husband thanked the public for their support.

Before leaving, he said: 'I'm very grateful for the support from the public.

'The search this afternoon was organised by my brother and I hope lots of people turn out for it. I can't say anything else right now, I have to go.'

Seconds after the police car pulled away, two forensics officers entered the semi-detached home, carrying a number of evidence bags.

A female forensics officer began photographing the front of the house from a number of different angles while around five plain-clothed officers also entered the home with notepads and clipboards, before closing the door.

A spokeswoman for Avon and Somerset police said removing the parents was 'routine'.

tania cadogan said...


She said: 'We've taken them somewhere - they might be going to friends or family - while we are going to be doing searches of the house, as is routine in a missing persons investigation, to find any clues.

'We've already searched her room and parks, and this is extending that to within the house.'

The search of the home came after a police team with climbing equipment spent a number of hours searching woodland at Troopers Hill, 12 miles from the house.

Course providers KTS Training, in Fishponds, Bristol, where Becky is currently studying said teachers had helped police with their investigation.

Programme director Nicola Lace said: 'All the staff and learners at KTS Training are very worried about Becky's disappearance, and all we want is for her to be found safe and sound.

'We are all concerned for her welfare and we will be taking part in the walk this afternoon to assist and support her family, friends and our local community.

'We have given over all information we have to the police and we are assisting them as much as possible.

'We would really encourage anyone with any information to please contact the police.'

'We need to have her home. She's missed and loved by us all and it's killing us not knowing if she is safe or not.'

Police have also been searching open ground and parks around Rebecca's home for any clues which may explain her disappearance.

A blue caravan and an empty property on the street where she lives were also examined by officers.

'We are not reacting to any specific information, but are looking at local parks and open areas - more to see if anything might have been dropped,' a police spokesman said.

'All likely areas will be searched as routine in situations like this.'

Detective Inspector Richard Ocone, who is leading the search, said officers were ploughing 'all the resources we can' into finding the missing teenager.

Speaking at a press conference this afternoon he said: 'We have officers on the ground, dog handlers and the helicopter.

'We are continuing to search a number of open land searches, this is routine and we are just looking for anything Becky might have dropped or any clue as to where she might be.

'We're urging anyone who might have seen Becky or who has any information to come forward.

'We've printed hundreds of posters and our officers will be handing them out on the street.

'Being a 16-year-old girl we know Becky is very media savvy, we're asking for people to start using the hashtag on Twitter #FindBecky.

'We also have a dedicated Facebook page for people to contact us with any information.

'Becky has a wide range of friends and relatives and we've not been able to contact everyone so we're keen for anyone we haven't yet spoken to, to get in touch.

'Becky has a close group of friends and it is not unusual for her to go away for a night which is why there was a slight delay in reporting her missing.

tania cadogan said...


'As far as I'm concerned she goes by Becky Watts, that is a different to her father but that is her surname.

'There is an intensive search being carried out at the home. This is the last point of reference we have for her so we really need to work from there.

'Her father and step-mother have voluntarily left the house.

'We're still treating this as a missing person investigation. We just want to find Becky and get her home.

'Most of our focus at the moment is on the family home as this was the last sighting of her, so there will be a heavy presence there and door to door enquiries.

'Her step-mother last saw her some time between 10.30 and 11.15 and there has been nothing since.

'As time goes by my worry increases, as does that of the family, obviously we're six days in now so we're very keen to find her.

'I want to find her, the sooner the better.

'Until recently she was very active on social media and obviously it's concerning that she is not using it now.

'We're supporting the family the best we can but as you imagine their 16 year old daughter is missing and this is very upsetting for them.'

Neighbours have expressed their shock at Rebecca's disappearance, and their sympathy for her family.

'This is every parent's worst nightmare and nothing can be said that would help them,' said Sandi Lovett, 26, who lives close by.

'But everyone round here is thinking of them and just hoping she will get back safely and very soon.

'There have been a lot of police around the area and so everyone is hopeful she will be found soon and it pays off.

'I think a public search is a great idea and I am sure hundreds of people round here would help as there is a lot of concern and worry.'

Police described Rebecca as 'striking', and said she is white, around 5ft 4ins tall and of slim build, with 'noticeable' long, bright red hair, which has only been dyed recently and recent photographs of the teenager do not reflect this change.

It is believed when she was last seen she was wearing a waist-length navy blue quilted jacket with fabric sleeves.

Anyone with information is urged to call the force number 101, quoting the reference MP 591/15. Alternatively, information can be left anonymously on Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2968397/Family-fear-worst-introverted-16-year-old-daughter-missing-nearly-week-police-search-ground-clues.html

It is concerning that her dad slips into past tense when referring to his missing daughter, especially since it is only a week.
Does he know or suspect something has happened to her?
Has he been led to believe she is no longer living perhaps?

marietje said...

OT but really up your alley Peter. I spot several unreliable denials right off. Seems he's heading to live out the rest of his days in Barbados. I'm including another link in relation to this I stumbled upon. You can also find info all over the internet. https://www.facebook.com/sircliffrichard?fref=nf, www.scriptonitedaily.com/2013/12/18/uk-establishment-closes-ranks-as-organised-paedophile-network-leads-back-to-no-10/

tania cadogan said...

off topic

Film director Roman Polanski has testified at a court in Poland over a US request for his extradition for a child sex crime conviction.

Polanski, wearing a dark suit, arrived for the hearing in Krakow with his two lawyers.

The media were barred from the court.

Presiding judge Dariusz Mazur said a ruling would not be made at the hearing as the court still had to consider additional documents submitted by Polanski's lawyers.

The judge said the papers related to unsuccessful extradition proceedings against Polanski in Switzerland in 2010.

Another court hearing is reported to have been scheduled for April.

Under Polish law, if the court rules in favour of the extradition request, it will be passed on to the country's justice minister who will make the final decision on whether to allow Polanski to be taken to the US.

The Oscar-winning filmmaker pleaded guilty in 1977 to having unlawful sex with 13-year-old Samantha Geimer during a photoshoot in Los Angeles fuelled by champagne and drugs.

He served 42 days in jail as part of a 90-day plea bargain.

However, he fled the US the following year, believing the judge hearing his case could overrule the deal and put him in prison for years.

In 2009, Polanski was arrested in the Swiss city of Zurich on the US warrant and placed under house arrest.

He was freed in 2010 after Swiss authorities decided not to extradite him.

Now 81, he is viewed by many Poles as one of their greatest living cultural figures.

Internationally renowned for such films as Chinatown and The Pianist, Polanski has been in the country to make a film about the Dreyfus affair, a political scandal that shook France more than a century ago.


tania cadogan said...

Off topic

An historical sex offence inquiry into singer Sir Cliff Richard has "increased significantly in size" and involves "more than one allegation", police say.

The expansion of the investigation meant no date could be given for when it would be concluded, South Yorkshire Police's chief constable said.

It comes after officers raided Sir Cliff's Berkshire home last August.

Sir Cliff, 74, said he had no idea where the "absurd and untrue" allegations against him come from.

"The police have not disclosed details to me," he said in a statement.

"I have never, in my life, assaulted anyone and I remain confident that the truth will prevail. I have cooperated fully with the police, and will, of course, continue to do so."

Sir Cliff has been interviewed about an allegation of a sex crime, but was not arrested or charged.

The BBC understands the original allegation relates to an alleged assault at an event featuring US preacher Billy Graham at Bramall Lane in Sheffield in 1985.
'As swiftly as possible'

In a letter dated 10 February to Labour MP Keith Vaz, chairman of the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, Chief Constable David Crompton said his force was in regular contact with Sir Cliff's lawyers.

That involved a "verbal update about once a fortnight", he said.

"This is an investigation which has increased significantly in size since its inception. Sir Cliff Richard's lawyers are aware that there is more than one allegation," he said in the letter.

He added: "It would be premature and potentially misleading to predict a likely date when it will be concluded, however, we are progressing as swiftly as possible."

Parts of the letter were blacked out before it was released.

A spokesman for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said it had not been presented with a file for a charging decision.

"The CPS is providing early investigative advice in relation to allegations of sexual offences committed by a 74-year-old man, interviewed by police in August 2014," it said in a statement.

"The allegations remain under investigation by South Yorkshire Police."

It comes after an independent report concluded that police should not have released "highly confidential" details to the BBC about the planned search of Sir Cliff Richard's home.

A deal over the details was made when a BBC reporter told the force he knew they were investigating the star.

The report looked into a subsequent agreement between South Yorkshire Police and the BBC, which led to the raid being broadcast live.

South Yorkshire Police had "interfered with the star's privacy" by telling the broadcaster about the raid, the report said.

A statement from Sir Cliff's lawyers at the time said the coverage caused "immeasurable harm" to the star.

A BBC spokesman said the Home Affairs committee had "already endorsed the way the BBC handled this story."

South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner, Dr Alan Billings, said six recommendations in the report "will be implemented"


tania cadogan said...

Cliff richard statement

A statement released by Sir Cliff said: "I have no idea where these absurd and untrue allegations come from.

"The police have not disclosed details to me. I have never, in my life, assaulted anyone and I remain confident that the truth will prevail. I have co-operated fully with the police, and will, of course, continue to do so.

"Beyond stating that the allegations are completely false, it would not be appropriate for me to say anything further until the investigation has concluded, which I hope will be very soon.

"In the meantime, I would, again, like to thank everyone for supporting me through this unbelievably difficult period."

His initial statement Aug 14 2014

"For many months I have been aware of allegations against me of historic impropriety which have been circulating online.

"The allegations are completely false. Up until now I have chosen not to dignify the false allegations with a response, as it would just give them more oxygen.

"However, the police attended my apartment in Berkshire today without notice, except it would appear to the press.

"I am not presently in the UK but it goes without saying that I will cooperate fully should the police wish to speak to me.

"Beyond stating that today's allegation is completely false it would not be appropriate to say anything further until the police investigation has concluded."

In neither statement is there a strong reliable denial.
I noted the qualifiers in the top statement I have never, in my life, assaulted anyone
never would include his whole life yet he feels the need to add the additional in my life making it sensitive.
Note he uses the word assaulted.
I would want to know his definition of assault since, to most it means hitting or physically harming or hurting someone.
he may not consider it as assault rather he might consider it as cuddling / hugging /loving or similar minimising or even consensual (the alleged victim was 15)
Expected would be him saying "i did not sexually assault or sexually touch a child or, given the alleged age, underage boy" since he may not consider 15 as being a child ( it would rely on knowing his internal dictionary and definition of child)

We also having him fully cooperate (sensitive) and saying nothing further until the investigation has been concluded (If he were innocent why wouldn't he be shouting it from the rooftops since there is no consequence to proclaiming oneself as not having done any crime.
There are consequences though if one has committed a crime which is why they often go silent and hideaway hoping things will die down and they can carry on as before

Anonymous said...

Peter Hyatt said: "He should be probing to beat prosecution to the punch."

I can understand that point of view. But I would also point out that in both parts One and Two you appear to have written that Reilly is a prosecutor. He is not, so to make your analysis more authoritative (not to mention correct) you should be clear which questioner is a prosecutor and which is a defense lawyer.


tania cadogan said...

off topic (again)

The former Colorado police chief who led the investigation into the murder of six-year-old beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey has admitted that officers botched the initial handling of the crime scene.

Mark Beckner, former chief of the Boulder Police Department, gave his most extensive comments on the case to date in an 'Ask Me Anything' session on Reddit on Saturday. But he has since said that he had no idea he was speaking on a public forum, and that he regretted his 'naivete'.

'I talked to the organizer, and my impression was that this was a members-only type group that talked about unsolved mysteries all around the world,' Beckner, 59, told the Daily Camera.

Ramsey was found dead in the basement of her family's home on December 26, 1996, hours after her mother, Patsy Ramsey, called 911 to say her daughter was missing and a ransom note demanding $118,000 had been found.

Although no one has ever been charged, suspicion has long fallen on her parents, Patsy and John, but there was not enough evidence to bring charges against them and they were ultimately cleared.

On the Reddit forum, Beckner, who joined the investigation nine months after JonBenet's death, said on the day JonBenet's body was found, police should have separated the couple to get full statements from them.

The case was initially mishandled due to a 'perfect storm type scenario', he wrote.

'It was the Christmas holiday and we were short staffed, we faced a situation as I said earlier that no one in the country had ever seen before or since, and there was confusion at the scene as people were arriving before we had enough personnel on the scene,' he wrote online.

'I wish we would have done a much better job of securing and controlling the crime scene on day one. We also should have separated John and Patsy and gotten full statements from them that day.

'Letting them go was a big mistake, as they soon lawyered up and we did not get to formally interview them again until May of 1997, five months after their daughter was murdered.'

No one has ever been prosecuted in the case, and Ramsey said he doubt anyone ever would be.

'[I] do not believe anyone will ever be convicted in the Ramsey case,' he told Reddit users.

Court documents released in 2013 showed that a grand jury recommended indictments against the Ramseys, contrary to the long-held perception that the secret panel ended their work in 1999 without deciding to charge anyone.

The documents revealed that the parents had been indicted for felony child abuse resulting in death and accessory to the crimes of first-degree murder and child abuse resulting in death - but that then-District Attorney Alex Hunter had refused to sign the indictments.

At the time, Hunter didn't mention an indictment, saying only that there wasn't enough evidence to warrant charges against the Ramseys, who had long maintained their innocence.

On the forum, Beckner touched upon the trouble his department had experienced with the Boulder District Attorney's office under Hunter.

'DA involvement in this case was inappropriate,' he said. 'They interfered in the investigation by being roadblocks to getting things done.'

Patsy passed away from cancer in 2006, and two years later, former District Attorney Mary Lacy cleared the Ramseys of any role in their daughter's death, based on DNA evidence that pointed to the involvement of a third party.

tania cadogan said...

Beckner would not say who he believed might be responsible for the killing - 'there are several viable theories' - but he did say that investigators did not believe there was a 'legitimate point of entry' for an intruder to get into the house that night.

He said that the girl was hit hard across the head and then, after it was clear that she had not died, she was strangled between 45 and two hours later, based on her brain swelling.

'The rest of the scene we believe was staged, including the vaginal trauma, to make it look like a kidnapping/assault gone bad,' he said.

He added that they came across evidence that would indicate the girl had suffered prior sexual abuse.

After an apparent sexual abuse the night of the murder, the killer then dressed her - which caused one Redditor to note: 'I guess there wasn't a time problem for the killer'.

Beckner added: 'The killer also took the time to find a pad and sharpie pen, write a 2.5 page ransom note, fashion a garrote and choke her with it, then wrap her in a blanket with one of her favorite nightgowns and place her in a storage room in the basement. He/she/they then neatly put the pad and pen away and escaped without leaving much evidence.'

He added that the FBI told the police they had never known of a 2.5-page note and had never had a case where the body was found in the same place as the ransom note.

When police turned up at the home, they found Mrs Ramsey's tone with them 'very strange'.

'The officers also noticed the how distant John and Patsy seemed to be toward each other,' he said.

Beckner, who was named police chief of Boulder in 1998 before retiring in April last year, is now teaching several law enforcement classes online through Norwich University in Vermont, and said he would consider writing an autobiography about his career.

Despite his misgivings about speaking out on Reddit, he said he believed he had spoken honestly and fairly to readers, the Daily Camera reported.

'I think the only thing I would emphasize is that the unknown DNA (from JonBenet's clothing) is very important,' he told the newspaper. 'And I'm not involved any more, but that has got to be the focus of the investigation. In my opinion, at this point, that's your suspect.'

Current Boulder police Chief Greg Testa told the Daily Camera that he did not know Beckner was going to discuss the case online.

'I learned about it by seeing it posted online,' Testa said. 'I didn't read it line for line, but Mark understands the nature of that investigation, and certainly wouldn't do anything to compromise it.'

He added that the investigation remains open and whenever they receive new tips in the case, they are investigated.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2969242/Detective-Jon-Benet-Ramsay-s-murder-completes-Reddit-AMA.html

marietje said...

Thanks Tania, especially on the Cliff Richard one.

MemphisPat said...

OT Re: Jon Benet Ramsey Botched Investigation

. U.S. World Crime The Week News Pics Blogs .

Former Boulder, Colo., police chief admits cops screwed up JonBenet Ramsey crime scene


Wednesday, February 25, 2015, 6:35 PM



Share this URL .

A page from the ransom note found at JonBenet Ramsey's Colorado home in 1996. The former Boulder police chief said Tuesday that cops mishandled the case.

A page from the ransom note found at JonBenet Ramsey's Colorado home in 1996. The former Boulder police chief said Tuesday that cops mishandled the case.

In his most extensive comments on the JonBenet Ramsey case, the former Colorado police chief who led the investigation into the high-profile 1996 slaying of the 6-year-old beauty queen acknowledged online that officers botched the initial handling of the crime scene.

Mark Beckner, former chief of the Boulder Police Department, participated Saturday in an "Ask Me Anything" session on the social-networking and news site Reddit. He told the Daily Camera on Tuesday that he didn't realize his comments would filter out to the rest of the world.

"I talked to the organizer, and my impression was that this was a members-only type group that talked about unsolved mysteries all around the world," said Beckner, 59.

JonBenet Ramsey was found dead in the basement of her family's home on Dec. 26, 1996, after her mother, Patsy Ramsey, called 911 to say her daughter was missing and a ransom note had been found.

In the Reddit forum, Beckner said police should have separated JonBenet's parents and gotten full statements from Patsy and John Ramsey that day. The case was initially mishandled due to a "perfect storm type scenario," he wrote.

A woman cleans JonBenet Ramsey's tombstone in Georgia. The Coloradao police chief who led her murder inquiry acknowledged Tuesday that officers botched the crime scene.

A woman cleans JonBenet Ramsey's tombstone in Georgia. The Coloradao police chief who led her murder inquiry acknowledged Tuesday that officers botched the crime scene.

"It was the Christmas holiday and we were short staffed, we faced a situation as I said earlier that no one in the country had ever seen before or since, and there was confusion at the scene as people were arriving before we had enough personnel on the scene," he wrote online.

No one has been prosecuted in the case. Court documents released in 2013 show a grand jury recommended indictments against the Ramseys, contrary to the long-held perception that the secret panel ended their work in 1999 without deciding to charge anyone.

At the time, then-District Attorney Alex Hunter didn't mention an indictment, saying only that there wasn't enough evidence to warrant charges against the Ramseys, who had long maintained their innocence.

In 2008 - two years after Patsy died - former District Attorney Mary Lacy cleared the Ramseys of any role in their daughter's death, based on DNA evidence that pointed to the involvement of a third party.

john said...

Tanias Ot

'I went to a hospital appointment and "left her" at home at around 10.30am.