The Mysterious Case of the Fiat Lorry and Rudolf Lacher

[lexi4]

Thank you Dolgoruky. That is interesting. He was in possession of some items that belonged to the Romanovs. I do remember reading that. Lacher is an interesting study.

[JStorey]

Wanted to mention something:  as far as the "possession of items" evidence against our Mr. Lacher, there was hardly a man at the Ipatiev House who left without some souvenir.  This included guards both inside and outside the house, members of the Ekaterinburg Soviet, etc. 

Therefore, we can no more implicate Mr. Lacher based on this evidence then we could the Ipatiev House Stove, which contained significantly more items.  Now until now, I have hardly suspected the stove of participation in the crime, but given the extensive list of items found in his possession (for some reason I assume this stove was a he) I have since added him to my list. 

I may have gone completely mad, as I am imagining this stove hobbling around with a Nagan revolver, fleeing my relentless chase.

[lexi4]

Jeff,
I knew it! It was the Stove! And here I thought I thought it was the butler.

A question. How do you think Lacher got the items found in his possession?

Lexi

[JStorey]

There he was hiding in the kitchen the whole time, that crafty fellow! : )

My guess is that the soldiers of the Ipatiev House divvied up most items among themselves in the days after the murders as they were destroying evidence and fleeing the house.  I also think there was alot to go around - there seemed to be an abundence of little gold Faberge cases, photos in expensive frames, trinkets - and that sort of thing.  I mean, what was an everyday item for the Romanovs was something of incredible value to the Ekaterinburg soldiers (and anyone else, for that matter).

I also believe that Yurovsky overstates in his memoir and notes his "don't steal from the bodies" mantra, because when we discuss possible bias in his testimony - of which we generally find little - that is certainly an area where he might be motivated to fudge.  Why?  Because he was instructed to collect and send on whatever jewels he found to his superiors.  He may not have wanted to admit to the Soviet the extent of pilfering that really took place, or at least he wanted to come across as having done everything he could to prevent it.  In truth, once out at the mine and meadow he probably threatened and warned the men, but ultimately could do virtually nothing to control their thievery.  In particular, the timing of his "jewelry meeting" on the night of the murder seems a little problematic to me; it seems the immediate urgency to bury the bodies under cover of darkness would have trumped all else.

Anyhow, I'm rambling...

[AGRBear]

I can't quite remember, but I think it was drawn out  when Lacher was  asked to testify at AA's trial that he had another souvenirs of Nich. II's  and  it was a cigerette holder which wasn't straight as we think of cigerate holders but bent at the end which gave it a  pipe-like look.   Let  me go check this. Hey, how about that I did remember this right.  See p. 333 of Peter Kurth's book ANASTASIA, THE RIDDLE  OF  ANNA ANDERSON;

>>[Lacher].... open a box containing various articeles that had belonged to the imperial family __ a gold case, a handkerchief or two, and a small cigarette holder, shaped like a tobacco pipe.  It had belong to the Tsar."

As for Austrian prisoner Lacher writting the  Heine poem and adding the little twist ,  I believe it had to be someone who knew German because of the sentence structure. 

"Lacher, who spoke German and Russian, " p. 269-70 THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS by King and Wilson, "acted as official interpreter,  rising quickly through the ranks of his comrades until he came to Yurovsky's notce."

AGRBear

PS  Don't  jump on me for mentioning AA.   This is about Lacher and this evidence was mentioned in Kurth's book which I find to be very well documented.

[AGRBear]

There he was hiding in the kitchen the whole time, that crafty fellow! : )

My guess is that the soldiers of the Ipatiev House divvied up most items among themselves in the days after the murders as they were destroying evidence and fleeing the house.  I also think there was alot to go around - there seemed to be an abundence of little gold Faberge cases, photos in expensive frames, trinkets - and that sort of thing.  I mean, what was an everyday item for the Romanovs was something of incredible value to the Ekaterinburg soldiers (and anyone else, for that matter).

I also believe that Yurovsky overstates in his memoir and notes his "don't steal from the bodies" mantra, because when we discuss possible bias in his testimony - of which we generally find little - that is certainly an area where he might be motivated to fudge.  Why?  Because he was instructed to collect and send on whatever jewels he found to his superiors.  He may not have wanted to admit to the Soviet the extent of pilfering that really took place, or at least he wanted to come across as having done everything he could to prevent it.  In truth, once out at the mine and meadow he probably threatened and warned the men, but ultimately could do virtually nothing to control their thievery.  In particular, the timing of his "jewelry meeting" on the night of the murder seems a little problematic to me; it seems the immediate urgency to bury the bodies under cover of darkness would have trumped all else.

Anyhow, I'm rambling...

In  V. V. Alekseyev's  THE LAST ACT OF A TRAGEDY  carries a number of testimonies from people who had items from the Ipatiev House which were collected by OGPU and others.  List are given in some cases and in others just one or two items are mentioned.

AGRBear

[JStorey]

[Lacher].... open a box containing various articeles that had belonged to the imperial family __ a gold case, a handkerchief or two, and a small cigarette holder, shaped like a tobacco pipe.  It had belong to the Tsar."

As for Austrian prisoner Lacher writting the  Heine poem and adding the little twist ,  I believe it had to be someone who knew German because of the sentence structure. 

All fairly ordinary items, the sorts of things he might have picked up around the house or bartered for.  In other words, given all that was there, he didn't come away with much.

I agree with dolgoruky18 that the Heine poem points to Lacher - well reasoned.

[lexi4]

There he was hiding in the kitchen the whole time, that crafty fellow! : )

My guess is that the soldiers of the Ipatiev House divvied up most items among themselves in the days after the murders as they were destroying evidence and fleeing the house.  I also think there was alot to go around - there seemed to be an abundence of little gold Faberge cases, photos in expensive frames, trinkets - and that sort of thing.  I mean, what was an everyday item for the Romanovs was something of incredible value to the Ekaterinburg soldiers (and anyone else, for that matter).

I also believe that Yurovsky overstates in his memoir and notes his "don't steal from the bodies" mantra, because when we discuss possible bias in his testimony - of which we generally find little - that is certainly an area where he might be motivated to fudge.  Why?  Because he was instructed to collect and send on whatever jewels he found to his superiors.  He may not have wanted to admit to the Soviet the extent of pilfering that really took place, or at least he wanted to come across as having done everything he could to prevent it.  In truth, once out at the mine and meadow he probably threatened and warned the men, but ultimately could do virtually nothing to control their thievery.  In particular, the timing of his "jewelry meeting" on the night of the murder seems a little problematic to me; it seems the immediate urgency to bury the bodies under cover of darkness would have trumped all else.

Anyhow, I'm rambling...

I agree that the more pressing issue would have been the bodies. Afterall, they didn't have all night.  And there was no way for Yurovsky to know whether or not the soldiers had items stuffed in pockets etc. I wish we knew more about Lacher. Did he have a wife? I would also like to know more about his testimony at the AA trial.
Lexi

[JStorey]

Wanted to add something of interest:

Remember when Gilliard and Gibbes witnessed Nagorny and the elder Sednev being taken away:

"We saw two carriages drawn up and surrounded by a large number of Red Guards...  Nagorny was... just setting foot on the step with his hand on the side of the carriage when, raising his head, he saw us all there standing motionless a few yards from him.  For a few seconds he looked fixedly at us, then, without a single gesture that might have betrayed us, he took his seat..."

This shows that even before the second palisade fence was built, carriages pulled up in front of the house, and not into the internal courtyard.  It also illustrates one of the primary reasons the second palisade was built in the first place:  to conceal from the public any dubious activities occuring in the narrow lane in front of the house...

I find it such a remarkable window of transitional history...  A brief moment in time when carriages and motorcars actually traversed the same streets - along with Empire and Republic, Old and Modern World.

[JStorey]

An update:  having just finished H. Rappaport's "The Last Days of the Romanovs", I was pleased to read her correct account of the Fiat lorry and its position in the external courtyard.  Both the procession of bodies and the lorry itself would have been clearly visible to Lacher from his little window, validating his testimony.  Notably Rappaport provides her own list of shooters which does not include Lacher, further distancing him from the original allegation of "almost certainly" being one of the shooters.

There exists not a shred of evidence to implicate him; he is innocent until proven guilty.

I found it interesting also that the revving of the lorry engine during the murder most certainly influenced the events and timing of the remainder of the evening, and ultimately where the IF was buried.  Anyone who knows anything about engines (particularly older ones) is aware that revving an idle vehicle will rapidly increase the temperature and quickly lead to overheating.  Thus before the journey even began the Fiat's radiator was ready to runneth over.  This poor lorry was not up to the task and  repeatedly on the trip out to the original mine destination, finally giving out altogether.