|
Post by Michael on May 31, 2015 8:56:07 GMT -5
We all read it: The $20 found on Hauptmann when he was arrested was both a ransom bill and had the same folds as the bill thrown at Barr. This came from Fisher, who may or may not have borrowed it from Waller. Regardless, both were incorrect. Outside of these two Authors there was no documentation this bill had such folds. Dare I say that I have at least 50 Reports, Statements, and various Testimony mentioning this specific bill and, while they all have specific things to say about other facts, none say anything about such a discovery concerning this rather important nexus to earlier ransom money that was spent.
And so it was chalked up as an error. Mistakes happen.
Fast forward to Richard's book Hauptmann's Ladder. On page 148 he writes something that made me sit up and take notice: That "Lt. Finn photographed the bill at the scene." That was new to me. While what I have indicates Finn would eventually take a photo of the bill in question, nothing said he was toting a camera along and/or taking a picture of this bill at the scene. Nothing. So, excited about the prospect that a new source might exist, I went to his footnotes to see what Richard may have that I missed. I flipped to the footnotes on page 364 then scrolled down to Footnote #8 only to find there is no source for this assertion. What I did see listed there was even more of a mystery to me then his original assertion.... That footnote refers the Reader to a photograph of that bill which is currently at the NJSP Archives. I'd be cool with that excepting it's not properly being represented. With all due respect to Richard, and I hate disagreeing with him knowing all of the time he's put into this, there is absolutely nothing to support this picture was the one Lt. Finn took. In fact, there's no documentation attached to this photo at all so we don't know who actually took this particular photo, or exactly when it was taken. So I scratch my head wondering how such a leap of faith can be taken in order to support Fisher's mistake in this way. And it doesn't end there, he correctly cites Lloyd from his book The Case That Never Dies in which he writes that many of those bills had creases which were common in the general circulation. What Richard appears to be saying is that we should conduct our own tests to see if what Lloyd writes is correct. However, what Lloyd did was cite several sources, one of which was an FBI Lab Report. It seems to me that Richard attempts to neutralize this source by suggesting it was written from a position of criticism. Then goes on to say: "Here is an example of a report that should be viewed with a skeptical eye." (Footnote #11)
I cannot say strongly enough that this is an error that I do not have an excuse for. It places me in a terrible "Catch-22." Either Richard is seeing something I do not, or he hasn't read the report. If he didn't read the report I can't possibly believe he'd tell the Readers to be skeptical of it. So the question remains: What is he seeing that I am not? I do see on page 6 where the Agents disagree with Dr. Gettler (who did not work for the NJSP), but only in a way that offers more possibilities concerning the presence of glycerine esters. In short, Pickering's Lab Report concerning the examination of Ransom Money is in no way "critical" of any Agency or Police Force. It is simply a scientific examination of the money. Both he and Murphy examined these bills, noted their findings, and at times offered their opinions. One such opinion was the creases and folds were not of particular significance because they had been noted on bills in general circulation. It was in no way meant as a criticism, and was their honest observation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2015 13:28:04 GMT -5
We all read it: The $20 found on Hauptmann when he was arrested was both a ransom bill and had the same folds as the bill thrown at Barr. This came from Fisher, who may or may not have borrowed it from Waller. Regardless, both were incorrect. Outside of these two Authors there was no documentation this bill had such folds. Dare I say that I have at least 50 Reports, Statements, and various Testimony mentioning this specific bill and, while they all have specific things to say about other facts, none say anything about such a discovery concerning this rather important nexus to earlier ransom money that was spent. Just thought you might like to know that Richard Cahill thought just like you state above. When he reviewed Jim Fisher's book "The Lindbergh Case" back in December 2004 this is what he said: "Additionally, Fisher relies upon the word of a former archivist as a citation in support of several claims, such as the folding of a $20.00 gold certificate found on Hauptmann's person when he was arrested. The official documents do not support the previous archivist's assertions."I am assuming that he must have gone to the NJSP archives and researched this in order to make that statement?? At least it sounds that way when you read it. I do know that you have done the research, Michael, so if you say that no documentation supports this, then I can trust that for sure. I have not read the Lab report but I did check Lloyd's book and his interpretation of the reports agrees with yours. All the ransom money used had been bills that were previously in circulation. They very well could have gone to CJ already in that condition. Did Finn ever take any photos of the other "folded" bills he suspected were folded by the kidnappers? Did he take a photo of the $5 bill Barr received at the threater? If he thought this was so incriminating, he should have been documenting these bills with reports and pictures. It is amazing to me that he happened to have a camera with him the day they pulled Hauptmann over. On page 148, Cahill writes: "One must be very careful about accepting anything written about the case by the FBI from the time of the arrest and thereafter."I remember asking you about this, Michael, on the thread where we talked about Richard's book. I found myself wondering if I should just trash my copy of "The FBI Summary Report". When Cahill says "anything written" I thought that must include Thomas Fensch's book. I guess I should go and ask Richard why he so distrusts the work of the FBI when it comes to the Lindbergh case.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 31, 2015 15:58:16 GMT -5
I have not read the Lab report but I did check Lloyd's book and his interpretation of the reports agrees with yours. All the ransom money used had been bills that were previously in circulation. They very well could have gone to CJ already in that condition. Did Finn ever take any photos of the other "folded" bills he suspected were folded by the kidnappers? Did he take a photo of the $5 bill Barr received at the threater? If he thought this was so incriminating, he should have been documenting these bills with reports and pictures. It is amazing to me that he happened to have a camera with him the day they pulled Hauptmann over. Some of the bills were photographed. Possibly all were but I've only seen some. Whether or not Finn took pictures of any other bills is something I hadn't looked into. I do not believe he took a picture of that bill at the scene. I'm always open minded and believe there could always be a source I've missed or came from a place I am unaware of, however, Richard is the only source for this and it isn't footnoted. Without the footnote, it's hard to accept it since everything I have (and I have a lot) doesn't say the bill was photographed on site. Regardless, there is no proof that photograph at the Archives would even be that picture. As I read on I see that Richard offers a rebuttal as to why the bill would have folds, then appears to shoot it down based upon his assertion the bill was creased before it had been removed from Hauptmann or that it would have been mentioned in the reports if the intent was to frame him. It's an interesting spin to see him use something so damning against his position as a way to support it. The bottom line is that if this bill wasn't creased before it left Hauptmann then there is no counter-argument to be made. The Reports, Memos, Statements, and Testimonies are solid evidence - individually - but when taken as a whole it's insurmountable. An undated photo which completely lacks documentation cannot possibly trump them all. Why it would be creased afterwards is moot but there are several possible explanations that "fit" - just the same way Richard's theory does at his footnote #12 on page 364. I remember asking you about this, Michael, on the thread where we talked about Richard's book. I found myself wondering if I should just trash my copy of "The FBI Summary Report". When Cahill says "anything written" I thought that must include Thomas Fensch's book. I guess I should go and ask Richard why he so distrusts the work of the FBI when it comes to the Lindbergh case. Here's what I wrote about it then: He is editorializing. Anyone who researches is certainly allowed to do this and just about everyone has. But keep in mind why its done. I have always said the FBI Summary Report needs additional sources to back up what's in it. Why? Because the NJSP was not only withholding certain information from the FBI, they were giving them bad intel about certain things as well. As a result, they relied on everything they had at the time in order to draw it up. Frankly, the FBI Reports themselves are what I consider the "best" when it comes to the actual investigations. They were the Best Investigators, and the Most Honest of everyone who was involved. A good example was when Hauptmann was getting the hell beat out of him by both NYPD and the NJSP, but the FBI had no part in it, and would have no part in it. I also believe the the Flemington Trial Testimony is probably the least trustworthy. That's why this crime is so hard to keep track of and figure out.
There's so many circumstances and variables to consider. But the bottom line is that it should be up to the individual to decide AFTER having enough information under their belt. I think its wrong to tell people what to and what not to believe before that happens.
It's hard for me to speak for Richard so I will just speak for myself. Imagine you research a specific topic, find one or two of the reports on the subject, then you stop. Jim Fisher did this in his book, and it's why he made so many mistakes. The FBI, NYPD, and NJSP were at odds at various times almost the entire investigation. This fact should be a consideration concerning any report from any Agency. But as I've said in the past, I am a firm believer is casting a wide net by pulling in as many sources as possible then sifting through everything chronologically to see what's what. There doesn't need to be a general omission or scrutiny concerning a specific Agency. As one reads and researches you'll begin to actually see what's going on, and this is done case by case, point by point, report by report.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2015 23:52:42 GMT -5
Would you be able to elaborate on how the recovered ransom money was handled once LE was notified by the bank that they had recovered another bill? Did Finn go over each time to exaimine the money? Did he take possession of it or did the money remain with the bank?
|
|
dave
Detective
Posts: 130
|
Post by dave on Jun 1, 2015 17:08:36 GMT -5
Hey Amy, Just a quick note. The "folded bill" was a comment made to my good friend Det/Sgt Cornel Plebani and myself by Arthur Keaton. Keaton is where it came from. Cornel bought it hook, line and sinker. He told Fisher and the rest is, shall we say history. I only believed about a third of what Keaton told us. Cornel loved the guy. The perfect image of a Jersey Trooper in the early days. I though he was full of crap. He could have been a great help to researchers, but was too full of himself.
Look into Keaton and Lamb, another real p---- of s---, and the Hall Mills Case. The hits just keep on coming. Forget about Col. "S" he's a Saint when it comes to the NJSP!
I made a comment a few days ago about the problem of research based on other peoples books and not primary sources. Plebani and myself are two of the last three researchers (Mrs. Hauptmann's attorney is the other.) to speak to, I would guess the last forty people who worked the case, were friends of the Hauptmann's, or were involved in the trial and execution. (I talked to Mrs. Hauptmann several times. She wouldn't see me if I came with Plebani. Very sweet lady.) They all have one thing in common now, their all dead! I'm going to discuss with Plebani the idea of he and I sitting down, on film and talking about the case and the key people we got to know. Filming it the museum in Trenton. Could be fun.
Remember,Amy, a simple crime, in a simpler time.
A simple crime!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2015 23:28:37 GMT -5
Hi Dave,
I really don't buy into the "folded bill" theory. Cecile Barr may have received a folded bill that November night but other than that there is no documentation to support the ransom bills being consistently passed that way.
I think your idea to put something down on film is great! And what better place than at the NJSP Museum. Preserving what you know through your research and contact with people original to this case is priceless. You really need to get it all down, if not in a book, a film is an excellent idea Dave.
A simple crime. It is such an easy thing to say. So why is it so hard to embrace that viewpoint after you start looking into this crime? Simple would have been Lindbergh opening the ransom note immediately after discovering his son missing, not calling the police, getting the $50,000 together quietly and then when contacted a few days later, paying the ransom and getting his son back. Now that is simple. But that is not how this case played out.
How do you look at the details of this crime and still keep it simple?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jun 2, 2015 1:48:03 GMT -5
A simple crime. It is such an easy thing to say. So why is it so hard to embrace that viewpoint after you start looking into this crime? Simple would have been Lindbergh opening the ransom note immediately after discovering his son missing, not calling the police, getting the $50,000 together quietly and then when contacted a few days later, paying the ransom and getting his son back. Now that is simple. But that is not how this case played out. Exactly. Simple would be a lot of footprints around the house looking for an open or unlocked window. Simple would be any kind of footprints leading TOWARDS the nursery, as would fingerprints in all of the areas they should have been. Even simpler would be some state of disarray in a darkened nursery that was basically an obstacle course. The child being snatched from the house he normally lived in or over a weekend, when he was normally there, would also make it a simpler crime. Further, an overnight kidnapping on a clear night, rather than the most dangerous time (stormy, while most people are home and awake), would make this a much better case for a "lone wolf" kidnapping. So many things take away from this being a truly simple crime. None of this, by the way, speaks to the improbability of the entrance and exit with a child for one man.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 2, 2015 9:54:05 GMT -5
No, but the position of the ladder to the side of the nursery window does. How would someone pull themselves over and onto the windowsill from that awkward angle and manage to get in? And, even more awkward, how do you get out that way and back onto the ladder, holding a 25-30 pound child? Unless someone managed to get in through the window unencumbered, and then exited with CAL Jr. by going downstairs and out the front door... But that seems nuts; how would the kidnapper know he wouldn't bump into a household member on his way out? No, what it looks like to me is that, if the ladder was used for anything other than a prop for illustrating that a kidnapping had taken place--outside of this, another kidnapper could've climbed it to receive CAL Jr. from the other kidnapper inside. The presence of at least two kidnappers is supported by the two trails of footprints leading away from the house anyway.
|
|
dave
Detective
Posts: 130
|
Post by dave on Jun 2, 2015 10:16:24 GMT -5
Simple crime! It's about the crime. Up the ladder. Into the room. Kill the baby. Take the body. Leave a note. Down the ladder. Strip the body. Bury the body. A meeting at Woodlawn. A meeting at St. Raymond's. That is the crime. Everything else is filler. Like the man said: "Everyone wanted to get into the act!"
If someone believes theres a conspiracy, good for them. It's great fun. How many posts? How many words on this site alone? Example: Michael can tell you who built the house Hauptmann was living in when he arrested. When it was built and how much it cost. Great information. Simple crime though!
I can go on for days. This is a great site, and like porn and drugs, it's addictive.
Try not over thinking it, and all of the sudden it becomes very clear. What the Cols did, Footprints, Wood, Handwriting, Time frames, What Condon said, Church's in the Bronx, Beer Gardens, New Shoes for Anna and trips to Gremany. The list goes on and on. "Yea but what about........?" Yea what about it.?
Have fun! The crime, simple. Everything in and around it is a "can" for everyone to keep kicking down the road as they say.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 2, 2015 11:03:14 GMT -5
Would you be able to elaborate on how the recovered ransom money was handled once LE was notified by the bank that they had recovered another bill? Did Finn go over each time to exaimine the money? Did he take possession of it or did the money remain with the bank? I want to be careful not to give you a "one size fits all." I'd have to read through each and every investigation in order to ensure that was the case. But for the most part, the bill was taken by the Police then eventually turned over to Hugh McQuillan (U.S. Treasury). I don't know if Gettler examined the bills before they were sent over or if they were borrowed from McQuillan. The Report below seems to show, at least this $10 Gold Cert., went immediately over to McQuillan attached to Wilson's Report. I do know that the Ransom Money examined by the FBI Lab did come from McQuillan who had it in his possession because one Report I have said they were shocked to learn this money hadn't been when they asked him about it. That was a start of "another" disagreement between the NJSP and the FBI once Schwarzkopf found out they had examined the money.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 2, 2015 11:16:14 GMT -5
I only believed about a third of what Keaton told us. Cornel loved the guy. The perfect image of a Jersey Trooper in the early days. I though he was full of crap. He could have been a great help to researchers, but was too full of himself. Look into Keaton and Lamb, another real p---- of s---, and the Hall Mills Case. The hits just keep on coming. Forget about Col. "S" he's a Saint when it comes to the NJSP! Dave - what were some of the things you did not believe and why? Your point about Lamb.... I think I told this story before but it's a good one so I'll do it again (from memory because God only knows where it is in my files): Directly because of the Hall-Mills case Lamb was called up to Schwarzkopf's office. Everyone hated the guy so they were all pleased to see he was about to get his "walking papers." Apparently Lamb believed it too, walking slowly with hat in hand and a slumped dejected gait as he shuffled in. But to everyone's amazement, Lamb came out of the office whistling and smiling. Not only hadn't he been fired he got a promotion! After that Lamb was considered untouchable and the theory among the Troopers was that he had 'something' on Schwarzkopf.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 2, 2015 11:52:35 GMT -5
It's true that the chain of accepted events can be broken down and made to sound imminently doable, simple and therefore probable--I mean, it's very to say "He climbed a ladder, got in a window"--but, just generally speaking, I don't think that really is as simple an act as it sounds or might seem. Though I've never tried to reenact the crime at that specific location, I have had to climb a ladder and get into a house through a window, and I can say that it's anything but an easy, simple, or quiet maneuver. That being the case, I'll ask it again: How do you get into the nursery without disturbing anything and/or making noise, and how do you get back onto a rickety ladder placed to the side of a second-story window, carrying a 25-30 pound bundle? I mean, how else would this single kidnapper have gotten out of the house without risking being seen? No, even setting aside the two sets of footprints leading away from the house, a single kidnapper doesn't make sense. And the alternative doesn't have to be some massive (and therefore unrealistic) conspiracy.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 2, 2015 11:53:02 GMT -5
Try not over thinking it, and all of the sudden it becomes very clear. I think there is a danger in "over-thinking" anything. It can be like spinning your wheels in the mud. The problems here are that we will never be able to answer every "unknown" that exists so why try? I know there is a philosophy out there which says we should "let go" what we do not know and accept what we do. But I've found that in trying to solve the unknowns, I've discovered many facts that aren't in print anywhere. Some solved the questions - like with Rail 16. So if we left that alone we'd still have what turned out to be the truth but without the real facts about how it really happened. That might not be important to some but for me it's priceless. The question is erased, and it's true nature revealed. For those I hadn't been able to figure out, while I may not have discovered exactly what I was looking concerning those, I almost always did find other things equally important to the overall solution of the crime. I can say with certainty they absolutely would not have been discovered if I hadn't. And while at least some of these new facts could be called "simple" they do anything but simplify the crime itself. After all of this research I find myself left with either ignoring facts that directly point to something other then the official version, or embracing the possibilities that arise from them.
|
|
dave
Detective
Posts: 130
|
Post by dave on Jun 2, 2015 13:14:36 GMT -5
"Buster" Keaton lost me really early on in conversations Plebani and I had with him. One example: He told us how he was one of the first to arrive at the Mount Rose location where the baby was found. That while turning the body over with a stick "he" put a small hole in the skull. WIth that statement he lost all credibility with me. The funny thing is when I talked to Mrs. Keaton in 1983 she told me the same story. The family stuck to the party line.
Footprints, how the ladder was moved, and last but far from least the "J.J." deposit slip. It's all great stuff and always makes the crime story much more interesting. Are they facts? You bet! I talked to two tellers who worked in that bank the day the deposit went down, and discussed who assisted by writing the deposit slip for the man making the deposit. Height of the Depression, jobs were at a premium, not to mention fear of jail time. After all it was the crime century! A lot of people kept quiet about the deposit mess, all the way to the grave.
It's a great story, it really is. Shoes sizes, hat sizes, how the money was checked is great to dig for and find answers to. All add color to the story. Cornel and I would definitely bring some color to the story. The stories we got when people were no longer afraid.
But don't lose site of who, how, when and where. Simple!
By the way if Lamb were alive today he would say Denny wasn't as lucky as Norm.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2015 14:04:31 GMT -5
Simple crime! It's about the crime. Up the ladder. Into the room. Kill the baby. Take the body. Leave a note. Down the ladder. Strip the body. Bury the body. A meeting at Woodlawn. A meeting at St. Raymond's. That is the crime. Everything else is filler. Like the man said: "Everyone wanted to get into the act!" Filler? Including the nursery note, there was something like 15 written communications, several phone calls, the construction of a wooden box, a look-out at each of the cemetery meetings, Condon changing the ransom payment from $70,000 back to $50,000 (unbelivable for a go-between). All of this taking 31 days to accomplish, just to end up with a worthless Boad Nelly note. They are all a part of this kidnapping and they all create questions that need answers. I agree that everyone wanted to be attached to this case in some fashion and not everything that seems like it belongs in this crime actually does. But getting this to the level of just one person (Hauptmann) committing this crime alone; I just can't get to that place. Perhaps the two people we should give some consideration to when looking at how this crime could have been accomplished are Lindbergh and Hauptmann. Lindbergh believed two people were involved. Hauptmann said he would have formed a romantic relationship with one of the female employees. Two outsiders with inside help!! That sounds about right to me.
|
|
dave
Detective
Posts: 130
|
Post by dave on Jun 2, 2015 14:09:56 GMT -5
Yep, it do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2015 15:08:50 GMT -5
I want to be careful not to give you a "one size fits all." I'd have to read through each and every investigation in order to ensure that was the case. But for the most part, the bill was taken by the Police then eventually turned over to Hugh McQuillan (U.S. Treasury). I don't know if Gettler examined the bills before they were sent over or if they were borrowed from McQuillan. The Report below seems to show, at least this $10 Gold Cert., went immediately over to McQuillan attached to Wilson's Report. I do know that the Ransom Money examined by the FBI Lab did come from McQuillan who had it in his possession because one Report I have said they were shocked to learn this money hadn't been when they asked him about it. That was a start of "another" disagreement between the NJSP and the FBI once Schwarzkopf found out they had examined the money. So, the police had the bills in their possession first before they went anywhere else. That makes sense since they were tracking the money. The report you posted has a woman passing the $10 gold certificate. There were a number of bills passed by women, including the unconfirmed Connecticut bakery attempt. Perhaps this is why the lab found traces of lipstick on some of the bills. I know that the authorities looked seriously at Betty Gow and Violet Sharp for possible involvement. With women being identified as bill passers, did LE still believe that at least one woman was involved with the kidnapping?
|
|
dave
Detective
Posts: 130
|
Post by dave on Jun 2, 2015 15:20:17 GMT -5
Amy, All kidding aside. I get it. The number of notes, the wood box, and on and on it goes. I'm not saying that's bad, but it's a lot like the forest and trees thing.
There was a time ( 1978-1995 ) that I believed I knew Richard Hauptmann better than anyone living or dead. Hans was his best friend, he told me things no one else ever knew. There were a ton of things that Anna didn't have a clue about, (Not to mention the mention the New Jersey State Police.)
Consider, what if the Lindbergh baby wasn't the only person Richard murdered.
What if there was a plan at the time of his arrest to commit another kidnapping?
These are things that would cause a new look at Richard!! The Lindbergh Kidnapping is just one aspect of his life. That's why beating the case death, I find boring.The notes, ok look at them again and again. But, how about flirting with Ethal Stockton in the courtroom. Richard loved women. Friends wives, it didn't matter. It was all about him, and he would kill to get what he wanted.
Living with Hauptmann for close to forty years you find that the Lindbergh Case just becomes a day in the life!
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 2, 2015 18:55:59 GMT -5
So... Hauptmann was some kind of arch-criminal? Like, a serial killer? You seem to be suggesting that he killed before, but who was it that he killed? Either way, even if we do accept that Hauptmann was a cold-blooded murderer, he also would've had to be some combination of ninja-acrobat to have pulled off the kidnapping by himself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2015 19:01:50 GMT -5
Amy, All kidding aside. I get it. The number of notes, the wood box, and on and on it goes. I'm not saying that's bad, but it's a lot like the forest and trees thing. I get what you are saying but all those things are part of this kidnapping/extortion and they take it from being "simple" to being complicated. I suppose it could be spun as Hauptmann's determination to get that ransom money no matter what it took or how long it took. I still don't think he did this alone though. You seriously need to get what you know preserved, Dave. You have had opportunities to meet and talk to people that none of us will ever have. I hope you will get such a project going very, very soon! I am sure there was much Anna did not know about her husband and some things that she was willing to look the other way from. She was a dutiful, Christian wife who loved her husband but wouldn't knowingly lie for him. She must have really believed him innocent. Hans believed Hauptmann to be innocent also. If you can share, did Hans ever talk about Fisch and his relationship with Hauptmann? I am not even sure Hauptmann killed Charlie. I think someone else was in on this with him. Are you of the knowledge that Hauptmann had killed someone in the past? For money?? I will admit, I have thought about this. And not because he had ether in his garage. If he was down to just the gold certs in the garage and Anna is not going to be able to work with Manfred to care for, I don't think he wanted to go back to carpentry work, plus he would continue to need funds to invest in stocks. Then with Fisch being dead and the whole fur business being a bust, he had to be considering other "options" for getting money. Are you implying he was planning another kidnapping? I totally agree. Richard was all about Richard. I don't think he made one decision without considering how it would benefit him in some way. He was also quite good at rationalizing away questionable behavior. I know how you feel about books, but I read a couple of things in Ludovic Kennedy's book, Crime of the Century, that affected my perspective on Hauptmann. After Hauptmann returned from the War he talked about how his moral compass had changed and that stealing from necessity was not really stealing at all and that, afterall, others do it. Hmmmmm. Then I read that Hauptmann was finally able to find a job at a coal mine as a repair machinist on the night shift. (This is before he started his B & E spree) When coming off a shift one night he was caught with coal in his knapsack. Apparently others were doing this also. Hauptmann was read a lesson on stealing. However, its what he took from that episode that caught my attention. Hauptmann said "I never thought that people who had an abundance could be so small as to take away a few pieces of coal from a poor devil." Well, Lindbergh had an abundance and maybe Hauptmann thought that taking $50,000 dollars from someone who had so much wasn't such a bad thing to do. This is why I can see Hauptmann extorting that money. But killing a baby for it? I would need to know more about him before I could take that leap.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 2, 2015 19:19:37 GMT -5
I agree. For Hauptmann, it was all about the angle that most benefited him, and how does it really benefit Hauptmann (or anyone) to kidnap and/or murder the world's baby, getting the entire country on your tail, screaming for your blood--and all for a lousy $50K? Seems like a literally insane risk; that is, ultimately non-beneficial and not worth it. Now, if Hauptmann was some kind of John Wilkes Booth-type psychopath who just wanted to kill someone to make some kind of statement, consequences be damned, then I could see it. But unlike Booth, Hauptmann did not stand by the crime; he instead flatly denied doing what he was accused of. And if you're crazy enough to do something like this, it would seem to me that, like Booth or something, you're also going to be crazy enough to admit it. Michael? What's your take here? I mean, not to say that anyone who kills is going to be upfront about it; no, obviously not. I just mean that if you're going to kill such a high-profile figure, you're making some kind of statement and would therefore be loud and proud about what you'd done, otherwise, it seems to me, you defeat your whole purpose. (Admittedly, Oswald denied killing JFK, but he also relished the whole man-of-mystery, cloak-and-dagger routine--renting rooms under aliases, things like that--and who knows what he would've ultimately had no choice but to admit to had he not been killed less than two days later?)
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 2, 2015 19:23:53 GMT -5
Thanks, Michael for the report. Uhland mentions a Mrs. Karsten. I wonder if this might be Mrs. Kirsten, Gerta Henkel's mother? If so, just maybe the Henkels knew Hauptmann before they were admitting to. Not the same person but it's a smart thing to have considered it. The Police often mis-spelled names in many of their Reports. When you say "there were others..." are you talking theories or people? I have no clue who George Bieber is. Is George one of those people or theories?? I meant concerning what was found on the money. Bieber wasn't anyone I think was on their radar. I could be wrong, but I seem to recall they investigated him because I believe his name was in one of Hauptmann's address books - I'd have to check to make sure if your interested. They wisely looked at every name and tried to run them down. I know that the authorities looked seriously at Betty Gow and Violet Sharp for possible involvement. With women being identified as bill passers, did LE still believe that at least one woman was involved with the kidnapping? Sharp was suspected for sure because Schwarzkopf said as much to the Press after she killed herself. Garsson suspected Gow, but Lindbergh protected her from the Police so even if they did think she was involved they kept it to themselves because no one wanted to upset Lindy. I know that in Walsh's articles he said he believed the solution would come from a woman. There was a time ( 1978-1995 ) that I believed I knew Richard Hauptmann better than anyone living or dead. Hans was his best friend, he told me things no one else ever knew. There were a ton of things that Anna didn't have a clue about, (Not to mention the mention the New Jersey State Police.) While I never spoke to Kloppenburg, I have a letter he wrote (photocopy) plus I know two people who actually did speak to him. All three sources say HK did not believe Hauptmann was guilty. If he said something different to you I'd be amazed that he'd tell some one thing and others the opposite. But, how about flirting with Ethal Stockton in the courtroom. Richard loved women. Friends wives, it didn't matter. It was all about him, and he would kill to get what he wanted. There's no doubt about this. If you look back at the Aldinger report I posted, it's clear to me there was even something going on between Hauptmann and Lena. Hauptmann met Anna through Lena, yet, they both kept their relationship secret from her for a length of time.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 2, 2015 19:38:42 GMT -5
But unlike Booth, Hauptmann did not proudly stand by the crime, but rather flatly denied doing what he was accused of. I mean, if you're crazy enough to do something like this, it would seem to me that, like Booth or something, you're also going to be crazy enough to admit it and stand by it. Michael? For me, none of this makes sense. If this was designed and acted out specifically as a criminal act meant solely for financial gain it's completely stupid. If it was meant for psychological reasons, I would not be so bold to answer that one. That's more of a question for John Douglas. From everything I've ever learned Hauptmann was all about "easy money." Fisch, for example, worked harder at "hustling" people for money then Hauptmann would ever do himself in my opinion. So since he's involved in this event, the scenario must be one that presented an "easy" target or situation. Ask yourself how that could exist under the circumstances then sort out the options.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 2, 2015 19:48:41 GMT -5
Right. Easy money. And there's nothing easy about kidnapping the most famous baby in the world. I mean, ancillary, cog-in-the-machine aspects of the crime might be simple or easy. Like, if Hauptmann was approached by a friend or associate who actually was involved: "Hey, you're a carpenter, right? So just knock a flimsy foldable ladder together for me, no questions asked, and you'll be given X amount of money..." Something like that's easy enough, which is why it always seemed to me that something like this was the extent of Hauptmann's involvement. If there's real evidence to support something else though, I'm happy to hear it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2015 21:34:30 GMT -5
So, if all Hauptmann did was make a ladder for someone who ordered it from him, how much do you think he got paid? Enough to cover that new radio he bought in April? And how about that 18 foot canoe from Macy's? Hauptmann bought a new suit to wear to "the office". Lets not forget Anna's trip to Germany for 4 months in 1932. Plus her wardrobe for that trip and spending money. And there is the silverware she bought while she was there. How does just knocking out a flimsy foldable ladder cover all this???
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 3, 2015 0:04:03 GMT -5
You know, honestly, I very much go back and forth on the extent of Hauptmann's involvement. Sometimes I think he just made a ladder, not even knowing what it was for, got paid a nice little chunk of change, and then another member of the kidnap gang who was more deeply involved (whether it was actually Fisch or someone else) got scared or something and dumped a bunch of ransom money with Hauptmann to hide it, which he subsequently started spending. I think this could very conceivably cover those luxury items you mention. But at other times I feel Hauptmann may have been much more deeply involved, up to being one of the core trio who went to Hopewell. I say trio because that's the minimum number of people I see being there that night: Two strange cars with a total of three guys in them, according to witnesses that day; two sets of footprints leading away from the house, plus a driver to make the tire sound Anne Lindbergh heard (which I believe was the body being driven off at roughly the same time those footprint trails were being made). This is part of the reason why I was initially very interested in the Zorn book; because I thought it might answer the question of who the other two in the trio were. Now, however, Zorn's book seems like much too much of a leap to me. But that being said, I still basically agree with Zorn that it was a trio that went to Hopewell. Whether or not Hauptmann was part of that though--again, this is one of the biggest questions I still have. What's your take on his involvement?
|
|
dave
Detective
Posts: 130
|
Post by dave on Jun 3, 2015 9:42:59 GMT -5
I really think Michael sums up everything with this comment: "If he (Hans) said something different to you i'd be amazed that he'd tell some one thing and others the opposite." That's a direct quote as they say. The whole story in a "nut shell." Another great quote! That someone would tell one person one thing and another something else. Who would have "thunk" it ?
Hans was a nice old man, and sometimes when people get to the age he was when I talked to him, to quote him,"you just want to get rid of everything." Thank God for cassette tape recorders! He was tired of his life being "defined by the Lindbergh Story." Also some great info on the the famous box that was brought to Richards house the night of the big party.
One other thing and I'm done. No one picked up on the" deposit" comment. If true, and I believe it is, that puts a whole of theories in the s----er.
Anyway, get back to the handwriting, how Violet helped, and my personal favorite the church in the Bronx. Cornel and I found, in 1983, six members still alive. A great story that won't fit most theories.
Every interview we did was taped and we were photographed with the person interviewed. Those of Jersey Troopers are in Trenton. (Wallace, Horn etc.) I have the rest!
Good luck and keep on travelin'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2015 11:16:04 GMT -5
You know, honestly, I very much go back and forth on the extent of Hauptmann's involvement. Sometimes I think he just made a ladder, not even knowing what it was for, got paid a nice little chunk of change, and then another member of the kidnap gang who was more deeply involved (whether it was actually Fisch or someone else) got scared or something and dumped a bunch of ransom money with Hauptmann to hide it, which he subsequently started spending. I think this could very conceivably cover those luxury items you mention. But at other times I feel Hauptmann may have been much more deeply involved, up to being one of the core trio who went to Hopewell. I say trio because that's the minimum number of people I see being there that night: Two strange cars with a total of three guys in them, according to witnesses that day; two sets of footprints leading away from the house, plus a driver to make the tire sound Anne Lindbergh heard (which I believe was the body being driven off at roughly the same time those footprint trails were being made). This is part of the reason why I was initially very interested in the Zorn book; because I thought it might answer the question of who the other two in the trio were. Now, however, Zorn's book seems like much too much of a leap to me. But that being said, I still basically agree with Zorn that it was a trio that went to Hopewell. Whether or not Hauptmann was part of that though--again, this is one of the biggest questions I still have. What's your take on his involvement? I think Hauptmann's involvement goes beyond just making a ladder. I think he could be the writer of the notes but their content was guided by another who was involved. No matter whether you view this kidnapping/murder as an arrangement to eliminiate Charlie because of his health issues or if you see this as purely another kidnapping for money, I think for Hauptmann the motive for involvement remains the same. It was all about the money. He needed enough to kickstart his career change to an investor full-time instead of a carpenter and this made him receptive to what was supposed to be a quick turn-over of child for money, no cops or media. Over in less than a week. Sounds easy, doesn't it? Except Lindbergh doesn't open the ransom note! He never reads the part about not calling the police, or the 2-4 day contact to be made for an exchange. Whether its kidnappers wanting that extra $50,000 that was never supposed to be paid or its a real kidnapping, it now requires a plan B to get that money...a go-between who would help them and protect them. Hauptmann is a player, just not the only one is how I see it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2015 11:30:38 GMT -5
I really think Michael sums up everything with this comment: "If he (Hans) said something different to you i'd be amazed that he'd tell some one thing and others the opposite." That's a direct quote as they say. The whole story in a "nut shell." Another great quote! That someone would tell one person one thing and another something else. Who would have "thunk" it ? Hans was a nice old man, and sometimes when people get to the age he was when I talked to him, to quote him,"you just want to get rid of everything." Thank God for cassette tape recorders! He was tired of his life being "defined by the Lindbergh Story." Also some great info on the the famous box that was brought to Richards house the night of the big party. One other thing and I'm done. No one picked up on the" deposit" comment. If true, and I believe it is, that puts a whole of theories in the s----er. Anyway, get back to the handwriting, how Violet helped, and my personal favorite the church in the Bronx. Cornel and I found, in 1983, six members still alive. A great story that won't fit most theories. Every interview we did was taped and we were photographed with the person interviewed. Those of Jersey Troopers are in Trenton. (Wallace, Horn etc.) I have the rest! Good luck and keep on travelin'. So you do have all this preserved. Excellent!! I do hope that you will eventually gift it to the NJSP archives! I want to know what Hans said about that box. I believe Fisch did bring a package that night to Hauptmann's apartment. Basically that is all we really know about it beyond Hauptmann saying it had the ransom money in it. I read over that deposit comment you made. I didn't give it enough attention the first time around. You sound like you know who wrote that deposit slip. Could it have been a woman? Maybe Gerta Henkel or Anita Lutzenburg? Anita was in a lot of pictures with Hauptmann and they seem to be enjoying each other's company. Hauptmann did love the women and they, apparently, responded to him. Can you give me just a hint before you take off on us!
|
|
dave
Detective
Posts: 130
|
Post by dave on Jun 3, 2015 12:13:07 GMT -5
Amy, It was a teller.
The box, they looked after everyone left. Can't give you any more than that. Check when the bills started showing up.(The "they," you guess.) What happened with the Barr woman at Lowes Theater, didn't happen with Richard. I'm sure you already knew that! Thus the folded bill story. But who was it who had the bill?
I just got a call from a friend who follows this site on a regular basis and he insisted that I put a disclaimer regarding my tapes. I have agreements with the dead and some families of the dead to not use the material until after certain dates. Some of those dates have pasted, but some have not. The longest is still 2 years plus out. Even if everything was clear I would still have everything on hold. My sons are film makers and they have expressed a great interest.
One of the tapes with the longest hold is with a New Jersey State Trooper.
Have Fun Amy
|
|