|
Letters
Jun 21, 2009 8:43:12 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Jun 21, 2009 8:43:12 GMT -5
Here's one for Joe... Editor Brooklyn Daily Eagle:
We are all glad its over. One of the gang evidently got all that's coming to him. And now the public may say a few words. Had Mr. Reilly and Mr. Wilentz used some of the old-time courtesy toward their witnesses they might have obtained a great deal more from some of them.
As for Colonel Lindbergh, his presence in court may have helped his case. But Mrs. Hauptmann, who could not find even a shoe box in her kitchen with $14,000 in it, is certainly to be laughed at. I know women on Long Island who would have found it in seven minutes and be looking for more later.
Millions of people will ask how it was so nicely arranged for the kidnaping of the baby. Even the dog must have been coached before hand. Any one knows you may fool human beings but you can't fool a dog. he knows and barks at a stranger. But even the dog was quietly removed by some one for the occasion. That Hauptmann got in there without help from somewhere is unbelievable. Millions of people believe with Senator Borah that it was an inside job.
Theordorus Van Wyck.
Lynbrook, N. Y., Feb. 16.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Letters
Jun 25, 2009 0:01:33 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Jun 25, 2009 0:01:33 GMT -5
Not Joe, but a comment on an interesting quote: Was that from 1933? It brings up the traditional questions: why was the dog Skean (who usually slept under Charlie's bed) at Mrs. Morrow's?; had to be an inside job (knowledge of window, uninterupted baby sleep time giving time for perp{s} to get away[perhaps two hours to scoot], knowledge that child was even there, knowledge that CAL was probably at a meeting {his showing up possibly disrupted everything} - these are most important, but more have certainly been mentioned.) I have fought this feeling, but the more the crime is considered, the more it looks like CAL is the inside guy. Not opening the letter. Not paying the ransome promptly (he could have raised $50,000 in half an hour on the phone.) Agreeing to take time to build a special box. Claiming it was organized crime when organized crime would have charged ten times 50 for the baby. Nailing Hauptmann at the trial by voice recognition BS - Lindbergh, after many years of flying had to be nearly deaf. Chasing Curtis around - why did Charles have to be there (with Curtis) - why not follow Gaston Means, which was a much more tenable possibility? The quick cremation. The move from the USA when things possibly were getting hot. Then through the years on and on (strange companions - Nazi affiliation - estrangement -isolation) and it appears that the kidnapping was a ruse.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Letters
Jun 25, 2009 0:03:16 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Jun 25, 2009 0:03:16 GMT -5
Oops - I see - it's after Hauptmann was convicted.
|
|
|
Letters
Jun 25, 2009 18:01:46 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Jun 25, 2009 18:01:46 GMT -5
My guess about the letter is 2-16-35 but it might be '36. As far as CAL being the "inside" connection to the crime. I must confess that I use a system similar to Rab's which he demonstrated in his " Summary of Accomplice Evidence" Post: I try to look at every possibility and give it a type of grade. Again, as I mentioned in my Condon post, I try to pursue all lines to their logical conclusions. And sometimes even the most logical conclusion isn't the true one. If I can lay something to rest, in my mind, then I do so. But if I can't then I won't disregard it as a possibility however slight. Your point about Curtis is an important one. With Curtis there's no symbol. However, Lindbergh gives him a lot of attention anyway. He believed Curtis's outline of the Crime as being possible - that the Kidnappers locked the pantry door then used the front door. Lindbergh himself said only someone in the house would have known about the key. For me this proves it could have happened this way. However, the same people who boast the fact Hauptmann acted alone violently refute this. But they also back Lindbergh 110% about everything. This is the old "cake and eat it too" position. Can't have it both ways. The man lived in the house so if he is simply trying to get his son back he has no reason to pretend this method was possible - or that only someone who had been inside the house would know this.
|
|
|
Letters
Jun 26, 2009 7:31:18 GMT -5
Post by rick3 on Jun 26, 2009 7:31:18 GMT -5
Jack--I agree with your observations, and yet there is more. It seems CALs #1 goal was to interfere with any serious investigation or apprehending of suspects by preventing the use of Bloodhounds/lie detectors, or undercover cops at St. Raymonds, or marking the ransom, and using JFC as a skilled & confounding agent:
"...the most effective misinformation is far more than just a convincing lie. Inevitably, some true information--elements that can be verified in order to make the story as a whole seem credible--has to be included. When the exercise is intended to conceal genuine facts, then the game becomes even more complex and multileveled. For example, if evidence in the public domain could lead to dangerous or classified information, false trails are laid to divert attention entirely.{...} Often the misinformation involves serveral trails, so that if enemies see through one, another one takes its place, until in the end they become so confused that even if someone does stumble on the secret they have no idea what to believe. The most subtle version is when the true secret is disquised as misinformation. There are instances where "the enemy" has actually possessed genuine information but dismissed it, perhaps the most far reaching example being Stalin's refusal to believe that Hitler planned to attact the Soviet Union in June 1941, despite the mountain of evidence" [The Sion Revelation p.178 2006]
Another big question is Who Else is CAL hiding the Truth from? Anne +/-?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Letters
Jun 26, 2009 14:06:57 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Jun 26, 2009 14:06:57 GMT -5
Rick3: I have some Masonry stuff for you but would rather not post it openly. False clues is a beauty - lets count a few false clues, one the ultimate - Violet Sharpe! The only better would have been if Betty Gow hanged herself. False clues are the signature of a well-worked scam. So to begin with the note was probably a false clue because Lindbergh didn't even want to open it. The amount to get his son back was false because he was in no hurry to pay it. The body was not an issue because Anne never even viewed it. So every issue in this case is a false clue. That's the germaine, now some incindery false clues. Lindbergh suspected orgainized crime by absolutely no evidence. Lindbergh called his lawyer before contacting the police. Lindbergh followed Curtis out onto the ocean, but totally ignored Means. Lindbergh refused the use of lie detectors for any of the staff. (That alone implies conspiracy.) On and on as has been stated for years and it's all junk. The only concrete evidence in the case is a bit implicating Hauptmann. Would CAL have been grilled today? Probably not - look at Ramsey. So to my mind I like the Nazi angle. but for all your posts am not sure what your thinking is. CLUE US IN RICK!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Letters
Jun 26, 2009 14:25:00 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Jun 26, 2009 14:25:00 GMT -5
Jack For Michael: Regarding your post at 6:01. OK lets start grading things, and everybody can join in. How would you grade Charles' not opening the note immediately - a 1 to 4 grade, with one being unfavorable to him. Lindbergh called his lawyer before police - grade. Charles took out a rifle and went after them - grade. Charles said he couldn't raise the money - grade. Charles agreed to take time to have a special box built (while his only son was gone). Charles was sitting in the car at payoff when Condon didn't give the ransomers an extra $20,000. So while Condon is blamed for that it was really Charles decision. Charles won't agree to lie detectors for staff - whimp cops. Much more, but how does Charles stack so far by your system?
|
|
|
Letters
Jun 27, 2009 8:35:01 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Jun 27, 2009 8:35:01 GMT -5
Let me first say that its my philosophy to qualify whatever looks suspicious by looking at things that don't to. For example, if Lindbergh does or says something which may be suspicious - I look at that but also have to consider those things which look exactly opposite. All things must properly be considered then applied to an overall theory.
Additionally, the system I use is a little more complex but it works for me. For the purposes of your post I will do my best to follow your lead....
For someone in law enforcement that would be an easy question. But for an Aviator? Was there ever any time CAL followed around a bunch of Detectives? Well, let's consider that CAL was exposed to the Constance Morrow Extortion Plot. Might he have learned a little during this episode not to touch evidence? It's hard to say, and I would have to investigate further before giving it a grade. If no, then I'd say a 1.5, if so then I'd say a 4. I've got plenty on this plot so I feel comfortable that I would be able to find out the information I would deem important.
If this were absolutely true it would look really bad. But the fact is he instructed Whateley to call the "Sheriff" before he made any calls himself. Now the fact he calls his Attorney before calling the NJSP is still odd, but I don't think its beyond possibility that if something tragic happens to you that you call the one person you trust the most - if that's the case - and it does from my research at this particular point of time in CAL's life. Again, I would want to re-review all of the documentation to understand his mindset to the furtherest extent possible but for now I'd say a 3.
Could have been an act. But if it were me I would have done the exact same thing. There's something about this that I want to work on but that's for another post. As the question is posed then I'd grade it a 4.
I am not sure I understand this one. Could you explain it a little more?
It was directed by the note. I give it a 4.
We disagree. Condon came back with the money. Isn't it safe to assume John had left by then? I give it a 4. Now its always been portrayed as CAL being happy about it. If this is true then I give this fact a 2.
I give this a 1.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Letters
Jun 27, 2009 9:36:22 GMT -5
Post by kevkon on Jun 27, 2009 9:36:22 GMT -5
Exactly. I think it important to also apply that very sense of fairness to the selection of actions considered. In other words, one should not selectively only pick actions that would indicate a particular intent to question, but rather all actions. Anything less is prejudicial.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Letters
Jun 27, 2009 10:34:14 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Jun 27, 2009 10:34:14 GMT -5
"Exactly. I think it important to also apply that very sense of fairness to the selection of actions considered. In other words, one should not selectively only pick actions that would indicate a particular intent to question, but rather all actions. Anything less is prejudicial. " - Kevkon. Certainly true, but the entire scenario is made up of small acts. In regards to Michael's question about raising the money, he could have gotten $50K from his mother-in-law in probably less than five minutes. He could have agreed to do an endorsment for Firestone Tires and gotten it in easily a half an hour. Instead he claims to have sold stocks at major losses (not as market adept as BRH) and stalls by having a special box built. I could, and Charles probably too, build that box in about ten minutes - so taking days to do it while your child is somewhere unknown seems just more false clue BS. I threw taking the rifle out and looking because it seems the only correct thing he did. The note could have readily been opened by someone wearing gloves. He could have directed the police to keep people off his property. If he knew something about criminal investigation, he didn't show it. I thought Condon made the deal for 50 then went back to the car and got the money (50 only.) Evidently CAL didn't understand the significance of the additional 20, so perhaps both he and Condon (though Condon could have been unawares) were just stupid. Or maybe whoever came up with the idea of the tracable 20 didn't explain it well enough which shifts the stupidity. I guess the overall feeling seems a real lack of urgency on the part of Charles. Instead of a menu I think I'd write a long please bring our baby back letter since I had the ear of the world press - we'll give you anything you want and no questions asked. The "menu" rings of grandstanding and sounds as phony as the box and the cemetery meetings, etc. If this all really went down the way it's been told, how could CJ be sure that the body hadn't been found? Obviously it did not go down the way it's always been told!
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Letters
Jun 27, 2009 11:21:32 GMT -5
Post by kevkon on Jun 27, 2009 11:21:32 GMT -5
Agreed, Jack. But one must take all of these into account and look at the totality. I would also say that while I don't necessarily agree with starting out with a theory or concept of this crime and then questioning the actions of certain individuals, I would suggest to those who take this approach to do what Michael suggests. Take that person and ask if the opposite holds true. For example, if Lindbergh grabbed the note and contaminated it with his prints, would that not seem suspicious? If Lindbergh did not get his gun and attempt to look for his son and the kidnapper, would that not seem suspicious? So forth and so on. Personally I think it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to look at the actions of someone in such a situation and ascribe too much to each and every action ( or lack of). All of us do things in the course of an ordinary day that upon close examination might seem unusual or without reason from the perspective of others. I can't honestly say how I might react if I found my son missing. I'd like to think that I would act rationally and intelligently, but truthfully I don't really know.
|
|
|
Letters
Jun 27, 2009 12:08:58 GMT -5
Post by rick3 on Jun 27, 2009 12:08:58 GMT -5
Hello Jack--sorry about that Nazi quote.. ...it was merely at the end of an interesting paragraph on how to divert attention from the Truth at Hand--eg sometimes its just "hidden in plain view" if you get my drift? I sure wanna stay neutral, wishy-washy and 50/50 on all your questions, and the ID of baby on Mt Rose, so later if they lead anywheres I can claim either full credit or plausible deniability/ JFCs motto is never commit! BUT I think all your questions (and mine) are totally trumped by the childish, second-rate, bogus identification or verification of Charlie Jrs actual aliveness or holding by CJ! It wasn't real! All that the 4 Colonels and JFC are begging for is relative similarities with the sleeping suite--just to keep the hoax going? - no photos no fingerprints no footprints no phonecalls no birthmarks? eg nothing credible like a Lock of Hair?
- clothing is the weakest of forensic evidence--DEAD or alive?
- the SSymbol was a red herring and Curtis did not have it?
- After about 7 days of delay and daudling everyone should know that Charlie Jr. is dead? After that CAL was just playing for time to somehow figure out an endgame!
- all this dovetails nicely with the obvious fact that the baby found on Mt. Rose Hill was placed there after March 1st!
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Letters
Jun 27, 2009 14:16:47 GMT -5
Post by kevkon on Jun 27, 2009 14:16:47 GMT -5
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 27, 2009 17:42:33 GMT -5
Hey Rick: I DO agree with you. If we look at facts, the only conclusion can be that the body (whomever it actually was - I suspect CALjr. but maybe not) was planted after the payoff. I'm still of the opinion that they really wanted to get CAL for a monster ransome or concession but something upgoofed in their system - perhaps Duane Baker upscounding screwed things around. Bob Mills may have something to say about that. The baby was probably simply killed because they had no way of keeping him with involving too many others in the crime - too many cooks..., or in this case crooks. I like the Nazis as the origional instigators involving Capone because the told AC they could get him out of jail, and Al could get the job done. Al did get the job done, but when he found out Baker had eliminated the live baby, you'll notice he backed off very quickly. The Nazis returned the baby because in effect it was a warning that worked - Anne could be next and his next child and his mother. So CAL became a Nazi, and no one can argue with that point! Not only that, but by evidence, the only logical conclusion is that CAL even knew it was coming, though perhaps he suspected they'd take him or Anne, or perhaps his girlfriend Betty Gow. I think he even knew the night it would happen within a couple days.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Letters
Jun 27, 2009 19:19:21 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Jun 27, 2009 19:19:21 GMT -5
For Rick: Re - Nazi quote. With all due respect, there is no way Stalin did not know that was coming. That was by far the largest military assault in history (bigger than D-Day) and took about a year to organize and align. The reason it didn't work was Hitler's Generals who stalled, so things didn't get started until June when they should have been on the road in April. Hitler did make a big mistake in going for oil instead of Moscow which in this case would have effectively cut off the head. Instead Stalin by not initially building up seemed not to mind having about a fourth of his population annialated and seiged - Hitler killed more innocent Russian civilians than Jews, to say nothing of his own German people which he sent to certain doom. The Holocaust DID happen - I've been reading a lot about that, and certainly it was horrible, but compared with the other world problems and exterminations Hitler caused it was minor and so, overrated. What about the innocent Greeks and Gypsies who were totally eliminated? They were Rumanian (gypsies) their whole population was cut in half to make room for good Germans. It's all ack and the more you learn about those times the worse it is - how lucky we are to have not been born a few years earlier and in a different place. Interestingly, according to statistics that I found, the Jewish population of central Europe actually rose from 1940 to 1950. I can't explain that considering operation Reinhardt. I'll find the exact stats for you if you want. I am saying AH caused a LOT more problems than just the holocaust which seems to be the only one we ever hear about.
|
|
|
Letters
Jun 30, 2009 20:16:17 GMT -5
Post by anna hymn afford on Jun 30, 2009 20:16:17 GMT -5
Letter to District Attorney Alex Hunter13) Lindbergh let members of the underworld have copies 13) Lindbergh let members of the underworld have copies of the kidnap ransom ... just a separation of the unfused skull bones which is normal in all babies ... www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/darnay.html
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Letters
Aug 15, 2009 10:55:58 GMT -5
Post by mairi on Aug 15, 2009 10:55:58 GMT -5
There is a letter I've been searching for-so far without success. The anonymous writer who claimed to have been in on the kidnapping but changed his mind and was taking flight. My impression was that it was here on the forum, but I may be mistaken. Without going to a bunch of bother, if anyone has a clue, I would appreciate it.
|
|
|
Letters
Aug 16, 2009 9:05:54 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Aug 16, 2009 9:05:54 GMT -5
Mairi, Are you talking about the "Dear Chief" letter? This was written to Chief William P. Walter of the Trenton PD. I believe there were two and I am looking for them now. At some point I believe copies were given to Ellis Parker and he shared them with Gov. Hoffman. Here's something on Walter, and the Trenton PD:
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Letters
Aug 16, 2009 11:03:26 GMT -5
Post by mairi on Aug 16, 2009 11:03:26 GMT -5
Hi Michael,
I can't recall if the letter said "Dear Chief" - maybe so. The letter indicated the baby was alive and seems like the writer said he liked the baby.
Please don't go to a big hunt for it. It may show up again somewhere down the road.
I meant to thank you for the grave site newspaper info, with it's mapwork. Quite interesting. Until I think it was a post of Kevkon's, in my mind's eye I had the waterways as meandering little creeks. Streams help clarify the landscape for me.
|
|
|
Letters
Aug 17, 2009 17:56:17 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Aug 17, 2009 17:56:17 GMT -5
Well for now there are two upload possibilities. The first is hosted on Proboards. You must log in to see the uploads AND go to the individual thread. If you go to the "Top-10" it won't appear. The 2nd is the Image Shack which shares the photos with Guests too.
Mairi,
Is this the letter you refer to? *(Uploaded on Proboards)
A little more back round on it....
Detective Briest of the Trenton Police Department gave the original to Sgt. Gardiner of the NJSP to turn over to Schwarzkopf. It had been sent to Chief Walters and he was curious to see what Schwarzkopf thought of it. Unfortunately Schwarzkopf never got to see it because the NJSP lost it then Clerk Petty couldn't find any record of it when Walters began asking for it back.
Fortunately Walters kept a copy and at one point it was turned to Ellis Parker in 1935. I assume it was Walters because he would assist Gov. Hoffman during his "re-investigation" of the Case although Parker was respected and on friendly terms with just about everyone on the Trenton PD and the Mercer County Prosecutors Office so it could have been just about anyone.
|
|
|
Letters
Aug 19, 2009 15:33:05 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Aug 19, 2009 15:33:05 GMT -5
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Letters
Aug 21, 2009 12:02:20 GMT -5
Post by mairi on Aug 21, 2009 12:02:20 GMT -5
Thank you, Michael. How did you guess that I couldn't track on the proboards link? I appreciate the "Dear Chief" letter. I do wonder if there's anything valid to be made of that letter
|
|
|
Letters
Aug 22, 2009 7:40:05 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Aug 22, 2009 7:40:05 GMT -5
That's the thing of it....
There were so many CrAnKS in this case!
And as a result, so many letters are written off due to one or more inaccuracies. I think we expect, if a letter is creditable, for it to fall in lock-step with everything we know to be true. The same approach should be followed with anything that actually is as well...
For example, how Curtis seemed to know the information he did, without being there, but still having the tag "hoaxer" attached to his name for the rest of eternity. And so, if true, he either guessed right, was a "seer", or someone was supplying him with intel.
See my point?
Then there's something else that I do... I consider that someone may have been involved but only to a certain extent. This could provide for some information but not all - so they may fill in the "gaps" with what they believe or what they had been told.
Someone was communicating with Condon who I believe may fall into this category.
|
|
|
Letters
Sept 2, 2009 17:22:16 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Sept 2, 2009 17:22:16 GMT -5
While Gov. Hoffman rec'd many letters of praise here's one that voices just the opposite (you'll have to log in to view):
|
|
|
Letters
Sept 27, 2010 17:58:35 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Sept 27, 2010 17:58:35 GMT -5
And another to Wilentz: Attachments:
|
|
|
Letters
Sept 27, 2010 20:42:55 GMT -5
Post by wolf2 on Sept 27, 2010 20:42:55 GMT -5
mike, did you ever read curtis statement from jail about sharpes death? it was in a newspaper article
|
|
|
Letters
Sept 28, 2010 17:10:41 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Sept 28, 2010 17:10:41 GMT -5
I am sure I have but I don't recall at the moment. I have 7 full files on Curtis so you could really help me out by telling me what he said and save me an hour trying to find it.
|
|
|
Letters
Sept 28, 2010 21:13:33 GMT -5
Post by wolf2 on Sept 28, 2010 21:13:33 GMT -5
i cant find it myself, but i remember it was interesting
|
|
|
Letters
Feb 10, 2013 16:39:50 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Feb 10, 2013 16:39:50 GMT -5
Anonymous Letter gets Hauptmann's name right. Could this be Hauptmann's Accomplice? Attachments:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Feb 11, 2013 11:21:58 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2013 11:21:58 GMT -5
After reading this letter, I don't see it anything in it that would give me pause for consideration. Was Hauptmann ever called Dick by anyone? The writer also calls Anna Hauptmann Hanna. Spells Hauptmann's last name wrong too.
I am interested in Hans Mueller however. I think I mentioned this on the Nova thread. If you have anything you would like to share on Hans, I am all ears...........or should I say eyes. ;D
|
|