|
Post by Michael on Feb 6, 2016 9:33:25 GMT -5
just wondering once again about the Nova episode's deleted ladder scene. i gotta think seeing a reenactment would be helpful. Michael, is there anyway for us to see that film? Last I heard from Kevin was about 3 years ago... I don't want to speak for him but my guess he was turned down for permission to share it or you'd have seen it by now. It would be nice if NOVA put these deleted scenes on their web site but I suppose that's just wishful thinking. I agree it would be something of value to see - men zigging and zagging over the yard trying to raise the ladder. How many footprints would they have left in the mud in 1932 I wonder?
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Oct 25, 2020 17:37:57 GMT -5
Hi "Deleted"--
First a disclaimer: I contributed to the book authored by Judge Lise Pearlman entitled "The Lindbergh Kidnapping Suspect No. 1." But I am receiving no royalties or benefits from the book.
Your comments are very valid and are often asked. I would urge you to please read Judge Pearlman's book. I think it will answer your questions. I might mention that another Lindbergh historian discussed the book with the Judge since the first printing. As a result, a second printing became available in the middle of October, available in bookstores. It has corrections and additional explanations based on those discussions. Namely, Judge Pearlman is making every possible effort to get it right.
Peter Speth, MD, FASCP, FCAP, FAAFS, FNAME
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 26, 2020 11:55:18 GMT -5
just wondering once again about the Nova episode's deleted ladder scene. i gotta think seeing a reenactment would be helpful. Michael, is there anyway for us to see that film? Last I heard from Kevin was about 3 years ago... I don't want to speak for him but my guess he was turned down for permission to share it or you'd have seen it by now. It would be nice if NOVA put these deleted scenes on their web site but I suppose that's just wishful thinking. I agree it would be something of value to see - men zigging and zagging over the yard trying to raise the ladder. How many footprints would they have left in the mud in 1932 I wonder? Michael, I hadn't noticed this previous post of yours until now. By extension, (no pun intended) I have to say it's reassuring to note that four years ago, you might have been open to the possibility that even kidnappers handling that ladder on a cold, dark and windy night, might have had significant challenges of their own staying on that boardwalk, while leaving only one distinct footprint behind in the ground near the house.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Oct 26, 2020 17:05:45 GMT -5
Kelvin and a few other people put kelvins replica against the same spot. My fat ass couldn't go all the way up
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Oct 26, 2020 17:09:10 GMT -5
I disagree with the book to much speculation and evidence against hauptman is ignored.but they seem like nice people her daughter has a great smile
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 26, 2020 21:27:27 GMT -5
Last I heard from Kevin was about 3 years ago... I don't want to speak for him but my guess he was turned down for permission to share it or you'd have seen it by now. It would be nice if NOVA put these deleted scenes on their web site but I suppose that's just wishful thinking. I agree it would be something of value to see - men zigging and zagging over the yard trying to raise the ladder. How many footprints would they have left in the mud in 1932 I wonder? Michael, I hadn't noticed this previous post of yours until now. By extension, (no pun intended) I have to say it's reassuring to note that four years ago, you might have been open to the possibility that even kidnappers handling that ladder on a cold, dark and windy night, might have had significant challenges of their own staying on that boardwalk, while leaving only one distinct footprint behind in the ground near the house. View AttachmentI don't want to speak for Michael but my assumption is that its precisely because the kidnappers had inside help and lots of knowledge about what they were doing that they stayed on the boardwalk, rather than zigging and zagging all over the yard.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 27, 2020 9:27:15 GMT -5
I don't want to speak for Michael but my assumption is that its precisely because the kidnappers had inside help and lots of knowledge about what they were doing that they stayed on the boardwalk, rather than zigging and zagging all over the yard. Here's the situation... We see what the evidence is and we accept it. Next, we try to make sense of it. What Joe is doing is seeing what we see but he doesn't like it. Why? Because of the possible implications. And so, rather than consider everything, he instead invents a scenario as a way to get around the facts we so plainly see in front of us. And I'm not talking alternatives to consider but actual inventions like mud that wasn't muddy, or socks that prevent making a print, and heels that do - in places where he asserts there was no mud, etc. etc. So now we have people walking on the board who supposedly walked in the same mud as Anne but didn't leave prints in the mud or on the board after stepping in it. It defies all logic but regardless, its a better choice for Joe because anything else is harmful to his position.
|
|
|
Post by Robert on Apr 23, 2022 6:06:53 GMT -5
If you have not been able to get to the point of accepting that Richard Hauptmann was innocent, let me assure you that it's not difficult. It's really easy. All it requires is to be able to correctly interpret facts which are on the record and are beyond dispute.
First, there was the demographic Hauptmann was a member of. He was an illegal immigrant. He was happily married and was doing well, managing financially quite comfortably. As an illegal immigrant, he could not possibly afford to do anything which would risk his coming to the attention of the authorities. Not only would he have been deported once they checked his immigration status, but on arrival back in Germany, he would have been arrested and thrown back in the slammer because he had escaped from jail before stowing away on a ship to the USA. Hauptmann was therefore among the least likely to have had any part in any crime, let alone a kidnapping.
At his trial, Federal Treasury agent Frank Wilson testified that an analysis he had done of Hauptmann's finances was able to account for all but a few hundred dollars of the ransom money. This analysis was a total fabrication, but unfortunately, the obvious flaws in it were not noticed by the defence, the press or anyone else. These flaws prove that prosecution evidence was being fabricated. First, a great many ransom notes had been identified as such by alert tellers and clerks checking serial numbers from the list that was widely circulated by the Treasury, but a great many more, also passed by the real kidnappers, passed into circulation unnoticed. This made it impossible to account for all but a few hundred dollars of the ransom money. The passing of these ransom notes which were identified as such showed that the real kidnappers were taking extreme care to pass them only in circumstances where the risk was as low as possible: busy stores where harried staff were anxious to conclude every transaction as soon as possible, allowing no time for checking serial numbers. The real kidnappers would always have carried a couple of ransom bills on them, carefully concealed in their clothing, every time they went out, alert for any opportunity to pass them with minimal risk.
Second, although many notes which were passed by the real kidnappers were later identified as ransom bills by alert tellers, NOT ONE SINGLE ONE of the very many ransom bills Hauptmann was alleged to have deposited in his stock and other accounts was ever identified as a ransom bill. How do we know this? It's simple. If any had been deposited and identified as a ransom bill, he would have been promptly detained and questioned. He never was, until after he paid for gas with a ransom bill on September 15, 1934, after rediscovering, less than a month before, the shoebox left for safekeeping with him by Isidor Fisch.
Hauptmann's innocence hinges on the answers to two questions: Did Hauptmann know these gold certificates in his possession were the hottest of hot money: Lindbergh ransom money? What do Hauptmann's actions tell us about whether he knew?
The police must have thought they were being pretty crafty after they concluded that the kidnapper drove a car. They asked service station staff around The Bronx to watch out for Gold Certificates, which had been withdrawn from circulation by May 1, 1933, and were rarely seen after that, and to write the license number of any car whose driver paid with one, on the margin of the note. But they were deluding themselves. Anyone who was guilty would have realised that his identity was on display, in the form of his license number, whenever he bought gas, and would simply have sidestepped the trap by paying for the gas with some of the change he got from passing a ransom bill elsewhere. Only someone who had no idea these gold certificates were Lindbergh ransom money would have paid for gas with one.
Now, imagine you have a minor carpentry job. You need to construct a collapsible ladder. You've got some wood, but find you're short of a length for one of the side rails of one of the three sections. Do you go to the garage, and select one of the numerous boards you have there, or go to the timber merchant one block away from your rented home, or do YOU GO TO THE TROUBLE OF CLIMBING UP INTO THE ATTIC, LUGGING TOOLS WITH YOU, AND PRISE UP ONE OF ATTIC FLOORBOARDS AND USE THAT TO FASHION THE SIDE RAIL? DESPITE ALL THE CREAKING NOISES THAT WOULD CAUSE, PROBABLY BRINGING THE LANDLORD RUNNING, TO FIND OUT WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON (Hauptmann's landlord lived on the ground floor of the house, with his mother)? The last thing you would do, or I would do, or Richard Hauptmann, or anyone else in the history of mankind would do, would be to get up into the attic and prise up a board from there, to use. Why would anyone even think of such a thing? But of course, there has to be an explanation for this preposterous 'evidence' given at the trial, and there is.
Arthur Koehler was the wood expert who examined the ladder and prepared a report on it. He discovered that the knife which had dressed one of the boards at the timber mill, used for the side rails. which he designated rail 16, was defective, and had left distictive marks on it. He wrote to 1598 timber mills asking if any of them had machinery which had these particular characteristics, and was eventually able to establish which mill had dressed and shipped the timber used for rail 16. Some of this shipment eventually was purchased by a timber merchant near Hauptmann's home, but this proved nothing, and was purely coincidental. He then went on a quest to look for any possibility that he could track down any of this timber shipment which might be linked to rail 16, accompanied by Detective Lewis Bornman, whose police badge carried the authority which enabled Koehler to make his enquiries and take samples of timber where appropriate.
All of this work by Koehler yielded no leads, but Koehler was able to provide the police with suggestions of what to look for if they ever had a suspect.
Once Hauptmann was detained, 37 police officers searched the attic of his home, but found nothing. Bornman also got up into the attic, and also found nothing. But he did notice one thing. The attic flooring was yellow pine, the same species of timber as rail 16. As a result of accompanying Koehler, Bornman knew more about wood than any of the other detectives. This appears to have given him an idea. He got up into the attic a second time, and then 'discovered' that there was a floorboard missing. How could this have possibly have gone unnoticed by all of the police who had searched the attic before him? The truth was that the fact the flooring was of yellow pine meant that this was an opportunity to link the ladder to Hauptmann. Without this, the wood evidence was of no value. It was Bornmann who prised up the board, and then fitted rail 16 into place in the gap, and hammered four nails through the four holes in rail 16, to fabricate the distinctive pattern in the roof joist, matching the distinctive pattern of the four holes in rail 16, otherwise a billion-to-one to be replicated by chance, which would 'prove' rail 16 had been fashioned from an attic floorboard which Hauptmann had supposedly prised up.
Two 'witnesses' claimed to have seen Hauptmann in the vicinity of the Lindbergh house before the kidnapping. Both were undoubtedly assured by the police that Hauptmann was guilty. One, Millard Whited, claimed to have seen Hauptmann twice in the woods nearby. He was paid $150, $35 a day expenses while on call call to give evidence at the trial, and a share of the reward money. Amandus Hochmuth had made false statements on an application for Social Security payments, so could be threatened with prosecution for welfare fraud, and was also offered a share of the reward money. He had very poor eyesight, and could not possibly have seen anyone clearly enough to have been able to identify Hauptmann or anyone else.
Almost all of the prosecution case consisted of manufactured evidence. No doubt all of the 'witnesses' who changed their testimony to fit the case against Hauptmann assumed they were the only one doing this, but the truth was that almost all of them were doing it.
Richard Hauptmann was innocent. It is 100% certain.
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Apr 23, 2022 8:35:02 GMT -5
The point is well argued. Following the kidnapping, the ransom money was spent primarily in Manhattan, not in the Bronx, and used in small bills to purchase every-day needs, like meals at restaurants, clothing, utility bills and the like. Hauptmann did not do business in the Bronx. Although Hauptmann seemed to be in good physical condition, he was not possessed of a clever mind, rather someone who simply repeated his attempts without much change, hoping for some success. If he was in trouble, he tried to escape. This is not the style of a successful criminal. The use of southern yellow pine is not remarkable. This type of wood was very popular in the building of ladders as well as other uses. The investigation into the kidnapping had been bumbled time and again to the embarrassment of the agencies involved. They wished to restore their reputations in the eyes of the public by finding someone guilty, and Hauptmann provided that opportunity. Too many mistakes were made in this scenario to establish credibility in the outcome. If he played a role in the action, it would have been a relatively minor one, and whether he knew he was playing a role at all is a question to be asked.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Apr 23, 2022 19:51:35 GMT -5
First, a great many ransom notes had been identified as such by alert tellers and clerks checking serial numbers from the list that was widely circulated by the Treasury... Robert, Can you please show us where one "alert" teller or clerk discovered a "great many ransom notes"? Or for that matter, a single ransom note? Facts matter, right, and I'd really like to see where you got this information. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Apr 27, 2022 18:09:40 GMT -5
First, a great many ransom notes had been identified as such by alert tellers and clerks checking serial numbers from the list that was widely circulated by the Treasury... Robert, Can you please show us where one "alert" teller or clerk discovered a "great many ransom notes"? Or for that matter, a single ransom note? Facts matter, right, and I'd really like to see where you got this information. Thanks. You are right, Wayne. Not a single ransom bill was caught by a bank teller, the person behind a window in a bank cubicle interacting with a customer. By the time ransom bills were discovered at the Federal Reserve Bank in Manhattan (nobody ever looked for Lindbergh ransom money at the Federal Reserve Bank in Philly or any of the other ten Federal Reserve Banks in the country), the trail was cold. The system devised by the people in charge of tracking the extortionist(s)/kidnapper(s) through the money trail was a total failure. If legit, a gas jockey solved the extortion angle of the Lindbergh kidnapping case. What does that say about the crime-solving abilities of the NJSP, the NYPD or the Federal agencies?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 28, 2022 8:04:19 GMT -5
Just wanted to inject a fact that I’m not sure many are aware of….
The Secretary of the Treasury tasked six counters employed at the Treasury in DC to check all serial numbers of Gold Cert $10 & $20 that were there against the list of ransom notes. This is important because the money was coming in from all the banks within the Federal Reserve system as well as the other banks not a part of it. My point is that once bills got past the Federal Reserve banks, there was still another layer of scrutiny waiting in DC.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Apr 28, 2022 14:48:35 GMT -5
Just wanted to inject a fact that I’m not sure many are aware of…. The Secretary of the Treasury tasked six counters employed at the Treasury in DC to check all serial numbers of Gold Cert $10 & $20 that were there against the list of ransom notes. This is important because the money was coming in from all the banks within the Federal Reserve system as well as the other banks not a part of it. My point is that once bills got past the Federal Reserve banks, there was still another layer of scrutiny waiting in DC. Hi Michael, Completely agree with you. And if you are aware of one bank teller (the person behind the counter or window) who discovered one Lindbergh ransom note, please let me know. I'm with Guest on this. I'm not aware of one bank teller discovering a single ransom note as Robert stated. I just want to get the facts right.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 28, 2022 16:06:25 GMT -5
I was just posting what I did because I’ve seen it stated over the years that all ransom money was spent and slipped past the Federal Reserve Bank. So there is this idea that once it made it to Treasury that was it - but it wasn’t.
As far as a teller finding ransom, I do believe there were some who did. One example, according to Lt. Finn, was that on 12/18/33, a Teller at the Corn Exchange Bank named Harry Pragoff found a ransom $5 in a $251.24 deposit made by “Gasoline Distributors of New York.” Is this what you are looking for or am I misunderstanding the question?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Apr 29, 2022 16:13:02 GMT -5
I was just posting what I did because I’ve seen it stated over the years that all ransom money was spent and slipped past the Federal Reserve Bank. So there is this idea that once it made it to Treasury that was it - but it wasn’t. As far as a teller finding ransom, I do believe there were some who did. One example, according to Lt. Finn, was that on 12/18/33, a Teller at the Corn Exchange Bank named Harry Pragoff found a ransom $5 in a $251.24 deposit made by “Gasoline Distributors of New York.” Is this what you are looking for or am I misunderstanding the question? Hi Michael, I don't have Finn's report regarding Harry Progoff having discovered a $5 ransom bill but am certain that he was NOT a teller but a clerk in a different department checking deposits for ransom money AFTER it was sent to his department. The FBI Summary report states that the bill was traced to "Gasoline Distributors in NY, Inc." in a $251.34 deposit. It also states that "investigation disclosed this bill was received by the gasoline station..." -- not a bank teller. Had a teller discovered the $5 bill he'd have alerted his supervisors while the depositor was still at the counter and no tracing or investigation would have been necessary to determine where the bill came from. Unless there is some documentation, I'm still not sure if any bank teller discovered a ransom bill. Wouldn't that person have received the two dollars promised by CAL and made the newspapers big time?
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Apr 29, 2022 16:55:11 GMT -5
William Cody was the teller who discovered the $5 ransom bill that was given to Cecile Barr at the theater house.
I believe Cody received a small part of the reward when Governor Hoffman was distributing that money a few years after the trial was over.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 29, 2022 20:41:06 GMT -5
Hi Wayne.
The FBI Summary is a good place to start but you’ll notice they don’t mention the teller’s name. That means there’s more information to be learned that isn’t in that report. Before I wrote V2, I noticed I was missing some individual reports that I needed to cross with the summary so I went to the Archives specifically to find those missing reports. I’m almost certain Amy was there that day when I found some new material listing each bill with more detailed information. He was absolutely beyond all doubt a teller. There’s also another source in addition to back this up. On top of that, this isn’t the only example. How important is this to you? I could find more examples if you’re interested.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 30, 2022 8:39:48 GMT -5
William Cody was the teller who discovered the $5 ransom bill that was given to Cecile Barr at the theater house. I believe Cody received a small part of the reward when Governor Hoffman was distributing that money a few years after the trial was over. He definitely shared in part of the reward and I believe he was given $2000. I say "believe" because the source I have in front of me might not be the final disposition. Hoffman wrote several leading up to his final decision and I'm not sure as I sit here this was the last one. Cody was def a Teller, but his discovery came after going thru a night drop deposit. This is why I asked Wayne if I was understanding his position correctly. Anyway, its not like Cody was behind the counter and discovered the bill as it was being deposited. I still believe that did occur in places and I'll try to address that in my next post.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 30, 2022 8:48:13 GMT -5
Had a teller discovered the $5 bill he'd have alerted his supervisors while the depositor was still at the counter and no tracing or investigation would have been necessary to determine where the bill came from. Unless there is some documentation, I'm still not sure if any bank teller discovered a ransom bill. Wouldn't that person have received the two dollars promised by CAL and made the newspapers big time? You def put me to work Wayne! Like I wrote above, there were several different "Tellers" who discovered ransom bills. The question at hand, I believe, is whether the Teller actually made the discovery while standing behind the counter as the deposit was being made. This is a hard one to prove or disprove, although I believe the Affidavit below does prove it in that case. As it concerns large deposits it seems unlikely to me, and Tellers probably checked the serials at their leisure. Then there were the "Counters" who weren't Tellers, but also discovered ransom money later after the fact. imgur.com/8xYQ48Rimgur.com/7e7mhKW
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Apr 30, 2022 15:05:39 GMT -5
Thank you, Michael.
I wonder what type of training bank tellers at public windows received to help them to be on the lookout for Lindbergh ransom bills?
These financial institutions must have provided specific instruction for tellers on what to do and what not to do -- steps to take to protect themselves and their depositors.
The tellers had to be discreet for safety reasons, and they would not have had the time to check every bill presented at the counter against the list of ransom bills.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Apr 30, 2022 18:14:09 GMT -5
Had a teller discovered the $5 bill he'd have alerted his supervisors while the depositor was still at the counter and no tracing or investigation would have been necessary to determine where the bill came from. Unless there is some documentation, I'm still not sure if any bank teller discovered a ransom bill. Wouldn't that person have received the two dollars promised by CAL and made the newspapers big time? You def put me to work Wayne! Like I wrote above, there were several different "Tellers" who discovered ransom bills. The question at hand, I believe, is whether the Teller actually made the discovery while standing behind the counter as the deposit was being made. This is a hard one to prove or disprove, although I believe the Affidavit below does prove it in that case. As it concerns large deposits it seems unlikely to me, and Tellers probably checked the serials at their leisure. Then there were the "Counters" who weren't Tellers, but also discovered ransom money later after the fact. imgur.com/8xYQ48Rimgur.com/7e7mhKWThanks Michael! Those 2 documents tend to support that the ransom bills weren't identified by the actual bank teller who received them, but later by another bank worker. It just seems to me that if the actual bank teller, the person behind the counter, had discovered a ransom bill as he/she was handed it, then wouldn't that person have immediately (1) called security to have the person standing in front of them detained and (2) even if the person managed to quickly leave the bank, wouldn't the bank teller have given a description of that person to the police? To my knowledge, neither of those things happened. Those are reasons why I'm not sure an actual bank teller discovered any ransom notes as they were handed over, but rather later by another bank worker.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 30, 2022 19:22:51 GMT -5
Thank you, Michael. I wonder what type of training bank tellers at public windows received to help them to be on the lookout for Lindbergh ransom bills? These financial institutions must have provided specific instruction for tellers on what to do and what not to do -- steps to take to protect themselves and their depositors. The tellers had to be discreet for safety reasons, and they would not have had the time to check every bill presented at the counter against the list of ransom bills. All great questions/observations Sue. One would expect some type of procedure would be implemented, but I've never seen any such guidance in writing or written about in any interview or report. This has led me to the conclusion they were just winging it. Holland's affidavit sorta gives this impression too, basically that he was being " admonished" to be on the " lookout" to examine the bills handed in by depositors in search for Lindbergh Ransom bills.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 30, 2022 19:36:45 GMT -5
Those 2 documents tend to support that the ransom bills weren't identified by the actual bank teller who received them, but later by another bank worker. It just seems to me that if the actual bank teller, the person behind the counter, had discovered a ransom bill as he/she was handed it, then wouldn't that person have immediately (1) called security to have the person standing in front of them detained and (2) even if the person managed to quickly leave the bank, wouldn't the bank teller have given a description of that person to the police? To my knowledge, neither of those things happened. Those are reasons why I'm not sure an actual bank teller discovered any ransom notes as they were handed over, but rather later by another bank worker. I have to disagree with you Wayne and here's why... First and foremost, I do believe that most of the Tellers probably didn't immediately check their deposits as they were made. It's my impression that most did so, if at all, during their leisure. However, there's no way to know this for 100% sure without a report that specifically states this. But this idea that a different Teller was checking another Teller's deposits doesn't make much sense to me. Could have happened, but doesn't it make more sense that the actual Teller checked their own deposits? Next, when police were notified of a bill being found, they immediately investigated. This investigation isn't necessarily reflected within the FBI Summary. So in checking the notes and reports, it is clear they wanted to know each and every hand the bill in question went thru. This usually led to the Teller who took in the deposit - regardless if they were the one who originally discovered it or not. As examples, the Federal Reserve found $5.00 ransom bills on 6/26, 6/28, 7/2, and 7/25/34 and police interviewed each Teller who originally received the deposits from which the bill in question originated in order to determine who the depositor was and/or a description of that person. Here is what's written for the July 2nd bill originally rec'd at Prospect Avenue Bank: The teller of the bank who received this bill was unable to give any information as to the source from which it was received or the identity of the person who deposited it in the bank. My point here is that police stopped at both Holland and Pragoff. Both are Tellers and both say they discovered the bill in question. If they hadn't been the one to actually receive the deposit, routine practice seems to indicate police would want to know who that person was and talk to them as well. Also, there's more examples to discuss such as the Teller at the Corn Exchange Bank (149th and Third Ave Branch), William Jennings, who discovered one of the ten dollar gold notes in a deposit months after Hauptmann's arrest. I don't know how we can get around these discoveries by saying they were "all" Tellers searching thru a different Tellers deposits.
|
|