|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 9, 2015 7:34:32 GMT -5
Were anyone's prints found in these places?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 9, 2015 13:28:51 GMT -5
How many people would have been involved with the crime that had the mastermind at the crime scene?
I've always felt that TLC almost worked out as a perfect crime because few people were involved - perhaps only one, BRH of course. Though it would have been difficult, the kidnapping could have been accomplished by one person which would mean no collaterals to pass along the story of the century.
Regarding the jug under the garage, to accept Richard's statement that he knew nothing about it means also to accede to the following:
* That Hauptmann unusually built his garage directly over the "freshly dug dirt" which covered the mysterious jug.
* That for years beneath floor boards of the garage and normal garage activity above it, the dirt stayed in a freshly dig condition.
* That on the day of Richard's arrest the garage floorboards above the dirt and jug were in disrupted positions so much so that the first thing detectives did upon entering the garage was to start digging in the what they claimed was freshly dug dirt above the jug and then finding same.
Unusual to say the least for a condition that had existed for quite a few years.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 9, 2015 14:27:14 GMT -5
I am glad that Sisk believed that Hauptmann wasn't a lone wolf but he sure is pleased with how well the prosecution's case is going - a case that was being laid out against Hauptmann as the only participant in the kidnap/murder/extortion. Did Sisk know that Judge Large was enticed away from the defense team or that Charles Schleser spied for the prosecution by pretending to be a defense team witness? I don't know. I haven't seen any information that leads me to believe he did but that doesn't mean he did not. By now we all know (with the exception of those very few who still cling to the self-serving notion Hauptmann hadn't been beaten) Sisk was there when Hauptmann was being tortured. I've always pointed to his actions as telling his Agents not to get involved with it then reporting it to Hoover as an example of his integrity. I say this because in 1934 it was routine for Police to engage in this. It was Ellis Parker who used to write up articles warning Cops away from these heavy-handed tactics. Yet I suppose it's important to point out that Sisk had been included in Anna's original civil action for, among other things, not preventing the beating. Of course he should have, but my accolades are directed to him (and the FBI in general) due to the fact that, back in 1934, most others would have joined in. Wow! Hoover was sent mutilated copies of the ransom notes. The animosity between Hoover and Schwarzkopf is certainly apparent in that act. I could be wrong, but I think what he means by "mutilation" is that whatever copies he rec'd from the NJSP had the symbol cut off of it. I happen to know he knew what the symbol looked like because Osborn made a replica of it and sent it to him in May of 1932. This was a huge secret because neither Osborn nor Hoover wanted to the NJSP to know information was being provided in this way. I'm not sure if this ever made it into any book or not but I know Lloyd was as much aware of it as I was so it might be in his somewhere. About that jug found in the dirt, would you know if LE had or tried to lift any prints off that crock? I know the jug was dirty, but I thought I would ask anyway. If it was I haven't seen anything written up on it. The Democrats in NJ are already chomping at the bit to take away the one last benefit the middle class have here and that's low gas prices. Once that happens, there's no doubt the situation at the Archives will change. I've gotten a couple of comments off-line about the statement above taken to mean I am a Republican. No, I am neither Democrat nor Republican and have both liberal and conservative views depending upon the subject - like most Americans.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2015 19:10:41 GMT -5
Wow! Hoover was sent mutilated copies of the ransom notes. The animosity between Hoover and Schwarzkopf is certainly apparent in that act. I could be wrong, but I think what he means by "mutilation" is that whatever copies he rec'd from the NJSP had the symbol cut off of it. I happen to know he knew what the symbol looked like because Osborn made a replica of it and sent it to him in May of 1932. This was a huge secret because neither Osborn nor Hoover wanted to the NJSP to know information was being provided in this way. I'm not sure if this ever made it into any book or not but I know Lloyd was as much aware of it as I was so it might be in his somewhere. I shall look to see if Lloyd mentions this secret in his book. I do want to ask you about something Cahill put in his book about a secret. I have not been able to find this in Lloyd's book so maybe you can confirm whether this occurred or not. On pages 130 and 131, Cahill talks about Shoenfeld and Finn exchanging thoughts about the kidnapping and in particular the kidnapper. He goes on the say that Finn asked Colonel Schwarzkopf for copies of the ransom notes so Dr. Shoenfeld could study them and do a psychiatric analysis of the case with them. Schwarzkopf agreed to providing copies to Shoenfeld but Finn would not be allowed to view them. Copies were delivered to Shoenfeld; he did his report for Schwarzkopf and Lindbergh but then secretly provided Finn with a copy of that report. Did Shoenfeld secretly provide that report to Finn? I don't recall reading that in Lloyd's book. I could have missed it though. I know that Finn discussed the money folding with Shoenfeld and, of course, the Doctor felt there was a psychological meaning to it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2015 19:23:42 GMT -5
Regarding the jug under the garage, to accept Richard's statement that he knew nothing about it means also to accede to the following: * That Hauptmann unusually built his garage directly over the "freshly dug dirt" which covered the mysterious jug. * That for years beneath floor boards of the garage and normal garage activity above it, the dirt stayed in a freshly dig condition. * That on the day of Richard's arrest the garage floorboards above the dirt and jug were in disrupted positions so much so that the first thing detectives did upon entering the garage was to start digging in the what they claimed was freshly dug dirt above the jug and then finding same. Unusual to say the least for a condition that had existed for quite a few years. I thought that Hauptmann was reacting to Sisk's claim that Hauptmann admitted to him that he kept ransom money in that jug. If Hauptmann had hidden money in that jug and buried it, why did Hauptmann rebury the jug after removing the money? There would be no purpose reburying an empty crock unless it was used for something else that might end up back in there later. Otherwise why not just put the jug on a shelf or toss it out in the yard where there were other discarded items laying around.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 9, 2015 20:11:22 GMT -5
I do want to ask you about something Cahill put in his book about a secret. I have not been able to find this in Lloyd's book so maybe you can confirm whether this occurred or not. On pages 130 and 131, Cahill talks about Shoenfeld and Finn exchanging thoughts about the kidnapping and in particular the kidnapper. He goes on the say that Finn asked Colonel Schwarzkopf for copies of the ransom notes so Dr. Shoenfeld could study them and do a psychiatric analysis of the case with them. Schwarzkopf agreed to providing copies to Shoenfeld but Finn would not be allowed to view them. Copies were delivered to Shoenfeld; he did his report for Schwarzkopf and Lindbergh but then secretly provided Finn with a copy of that report. Did Shoenfeld secretly provide that report to Finn? I don't recall reading that in Lloyd's book. I could have missed it though. Shoenfeld wrote a Report for Oliver and Finn which is dated November 1, 1932 that I have. Shoenfeld quotes it in his book ( p53) although he claims it was written on November 10, 1932 there. Anyway, I am not so sure this was done in "secret" especially when considering I have that report because it was in the NJSP files. However, both Oliver and Finn were excluded from the Conference held with Lindbergh, Wilson, and Schwarzkopf (etc.) to discuss his theories - this too is according to Shoenfeld's book ( p51).
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 13, 2015 13:25:46 GMT -5
Were anyone's prints found in these places? LJ, I realize this question was posed to USC so hopefully he'll feel free to jump in, but I wanted to respond before it gets lost - because it's a good one. What he's said is absolutely correct. When the prints on the ladder were discovered, some were later identified with those known to have handled it. Others were not. Since Hauptmann's prints were not found among them we often hear his prints were either contaminated or he wore gloves in order to explain it away. Both are possible, yet, these theories can not apply to the print which was found behind Rung 11. This was never matched to Authorities, and could only have been made by someone assembling or disassembling the ladder.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 14, 2015 0:26:31 GMT -5
And was this rung 11 print matched to Hauptmann? If not, who was it matched to (if anyone)?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 14, 2015 10:36:16 GMT -5
My intuitive guess is that it was never matched to anyone, at least not as far as publicly available information is concerned. If it was matched to Hauptmann, it would have been included in the prosecution's case against him. If it was matched to someone in law enforcement like many of the others, it would have no bearing on the question of who made the ladder. And if it were matched to someone other than Hauptmann or law enforcement, it would throw a big monkey wrench into prosecution's case against Hauptmann, because it would open up the possibility that someone else had built the latter, which contradicts the "Hauptmann did everything" theory. So if it turned out that the print was matched to someone else, the prosecution and the police could only keep mum on it, at least once they narrowed their focus to Hauptmann and only Hauptmann.
The most likely possibility was that the rung 11 print was never matched to anybody. Remember that fingerprint matching was a very tedious process back then, light years away from today's electronically-assisted procedures. They would have had to have used visual comparisons between the unknown print and the prints of people already in their files. They would be looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack, so they couldn't do anything more than attempt to match an unknown print to prints of POSSIBLE SUSPECTS that were already in the files. (Of course, if a suspect was never arrested and booked, he would likely not have fingerprints in the police files so no comparisons could be made.)
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jun 14, 2015 14:53:14 GMT -5
And was this rung 11 print matched to Hauptmann? If not, who was it matched to (if anyone)? No prints found on the ladder were ever matched to Hauptmann. It was this fact, coupled with the fact the prosecution refused to disclose this exonerating evidence to the defense, which caused fingerprint expert Dr. Hudson to defect to the defense. I believe that when Hudson told Schwarzkopf that Hauptmann's prints were not on the ladder, even in places where the person who built it had to have touched, it was ordered the entire ladder be washed down. Michael can probably confirm this?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 14, 2015 18:01:34 GMT -5
My intuitive guess is that it was never matched to anyone, at least not as far as publicly available information is concerned. If it was matched to Hauptmann, it would have been included in the prosecution's case against him. If it was matched to someone in law enforcement like many of the others, it would have no bearing on the question of who made the ladder. And if it were matched to someone other than Hauptmann or law enforcement, it would throw a big monkey wrench into prosecution's case against Hauptmann, because it would open up the possibility that someone else had built the latter, which contradicts the "Hauptmann did everything" theory. So if it turned out that the print was matched to someone else, the prosecution and the police could only keep mum on it, at least once they narrowed their focus to Hauptmann and only Hauptmann. The most likely possibility was that the rung 11 print was never matched to anybody. Remember that fingerprint matching was a very tedious process back then, light years away from today's electronically-assisted procedures. They would have had to have used visual comparisons between the unknown print and the prints of people already in their files. They would be looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack, so they couldn't do anything more than attempt to match an unknown print to prints of POSSIBLE SUSPECTS that were already in the files. (Of course, if a suspect was never arrested and booked, he would likely not have fingerprints in the police files so no comparisons could be made.)
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 14, 2015 22:06:53 GMT -5
No prints found on the ladder were ever matched to Hauptmann. It was this fact, coupled with the fact the prosecution refused to disclose this exonerating evidence to the defense, which caused fingerprint expert Dr. Hudson to defect to the defense. I believe that when Hudson told Schwarzkopf that Hauptmann's prints were not on the ladder, even in places where the person who built it had to have touched, it was ordered the entire ladder be washed down. Michael can probably confirm this? Everything you've written above is correct. I do think it's important to note that by the time of the NJSP Review in 1980, they had (65) latent fingerprint photographs which they found among their material (they had still yet to find the child's fingerprints which would be discovered later). (5) of these prints were from the Ransom Notes, and (60) from the ladder. Now, Dr. Hudson consistently said he raised (500) prints. So it could be the others were lost or ruined - or maybe even some other explanation could be the correct explanation for this. But my point is that while they washed the prints off of the ladder, the above information proves they retained the evidence from it. Exactly why they removed them from the ladder is a matter of speculation. It's obvious what Dr. Hudson believed which he based upon his communications with them.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jun 14, 2015 22:15:16 GMT -5
No prints found on the ladder were ever matched to Hauptmann. It was this fact, coupled with the fact the prosecution refused to disclose this exonerating evidence to the defense, which caused fingerprint expert Dr. Hudson to defect to the defense. I believe that when Hudson told Schwarzkopf that Hauptmann's prints were not on the ladder, even in places where the person who built it had to have touched, it was ordered the entire ladder be washed down. Michael can probably confirm this? By the time of the NJSP Review in 1980, they had (65) latent fingerprint photographs which they found among their material (they had still yet to find the child's fingerprints which would be discovered later). Can you explain what you mean by the fact the child's fingerprints weren't found until later? Do you mean on the ladder? Also do you mean they were found after 1980? I was under the impression that they were located only on the lower areas of the nursery (crib, toys, etc) and also downstairs, months after the disappearance.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 15, 2015 5:42:27 GMT -5
Can you explain what you mean by the fact the child's fingerprints weren't found until later? Do you mean on the ladder? Also do you mean they were found after 1980? I was under the impression that they were located only on the lower areas of the nursery (crib, toys, etc) and also downstairs, months after the disappearance. No - not on the ladder I'm sorry for not being clear. It was during the time of the review where so much controversy surrounded Kerwin and HRO for their claims to being the Lindbergh Child. At the time the NJSP could not locate the child's prints which Dr. Hudson claimed existed. Scaduto knew they had existed because he saw them himself. But at the time of the Official Review they still hadn't been found by the NJSP - but would be later.
|
|
dave
Detective
Posts: 130
|
Post by dave on Jun 15, 2015 13:19:25 GMT -5
Tony Scaduto in his book talks about seeing a set of the child's prints in the basement of a building at Division were the files were kept until Mrs. Hauptmann brought her case against New Jersey.
I talked to Tony in the summer of 1983. Then he told me that a set of prints were stored in the garage of Gov. Hoffman's daughter. I don't know how he knew that, he may have talked to her. He and I were going to go and check the material out, but as he often did, couldn't go at the last minute. A lttle later the story broke about all of Gov. Hoffman's files being found in a garage.
In 1986 I gave a copy a letter to Wayne Jones, that Gov. Hoffman wrote to the NJSP requesting the child's prints for his investigation. The Governor must have never given the prints back.
When copies of the prints were given to Harold and the rest of the baby gang, no one had a match. Therefore, they all said the prints found could not have been those of Lindbergh junior. Imagine that!
How do the prints of the latest Linbergh Baby, his daughter, Lindy's great granddaughter, who posts on this site turn out? Match?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2015 14:10:39 GMT -5
Hey Dave,
Wasn't there more than one set of Charlie's prints made? I thought I read somewhere that the NJSP had a set, that Gov. Hoffman had his own set and maybe one more??
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 15, 2015 15:31:56 GMT -5
Tony Scaduto in his book talks about seeing a set of the child's prints in the basement of a building at Division were the files were kept until Mrs. Hauptmann brought her case against New Jersey. Around December 1975. He said they were in a box about the size of a shoebox loosely covered in brown wrapping paper, but was not tied. On the top of that paper was written, "Lindbergh case fingerprints." Inside the box were about 100 to 150 finished black and white photographs of fingerprints. He said that most of them were of fingerprints that had been raised on what clearly were pieces of unfinished wood, which he believed were parts of the ladder. However, others were what he said were of different composition. One was a child's wooden block, another was a ball (or sphere of some kind), and there were two or three on pieces of finished, polished wood, somewhat rounded wood which he believed was the railing on the child's crib. These fingerprints were smaller and he had no doubt they were the Lindbergh Child's prints.
|
|
dave
Detective
Posts: 130
|
Post by dave on Jun 15, 2015 16:20:57 GMT -5
Hey,
In 1982 when i was going through the NJSP files, and they were a mess, I, we, Plebani and I found all the photos of the fingerprints. (Block and Ball photos were there.) Plus fingerprint cards for everyone who came in contact with the case. Even Lindbergh! There was no separate package for finger prints for the child. Tony Scaduto said he saw some in a box. (There's no record of his visit to Trenton) He says he saw the prints.
I found in 1982 Hoffman's letter wanting the prints and made a copy of that letter for myself. When Wayne Jones was doing his book I gave him a copy. The baby fingerprints were always a so what to me. The body was found, Identification was made.
If New Jersey had had the prints they could have shut the "nuts" down way before the Hoffman garage find years later.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2015 19:13:44 GMT -5
So I am getting confused. Are the prints Scaduto saw in 1975 the same prints that Gov. Hoffman had in his files?
I see the point about how the baby claimers could have been shut down by NJSP if they would have had Charlie's prints available. I shall look into this a little more. Sounds interesting.
|
|
dave
Detective
Posts: 130
|
Post by dave on Jun 15, 2015 22:17:06 GMT -5
Keep digging Amy!
|
|
dave
Detective
Posts: 130
|
Post by dave on Jun 15, 2015 22:32:17 GMT -5
Tony was not looking at the prints that were forwarded to Hoffman. I have questions about Scadulo ever being there. This is based on other visits that I know never happened. What ever was turned over to Gov. Hoffman from the NJSP was in his files. Fisher in the intro to the paper back edition of his book goes into the time and place the Hoffman files were found, and about them.
The NJSP always took the smug position, until Mrs Hauptmann's sued them, that they didn't need to respond to any questions from anyone regarding any aspect of the Lindbergh Case. In 1975 there was absolutely no reason or any benefit to them to let a guy who wrote books on Marlyn Monroe, Bob Dylan, and the Beatles look at their files. I do not think it ever happened.
Have fun Amy!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 16, 2015 6:07:12 GMT -5
Tony was not looking at the prints that were forwarded to Hoffman. I have questions about Scadulo ever being there. This is based on other visits that I know never happened. What ever was turned over to Gov. Hoffman from the NJSP was in his files. Fisher in the intro to the paper back edition of his book goes into the time and place the Hoffman files were found, and about them. Doesn't the fact whether or not that visit took place exist with Major Quinn and Major Baum? The NJSP felt Scaduto's book was a "slap in the face" so did these men say this particular visit never happened? This was your era so I have to rely on you and your experiences here. It was guys like you who laid the groundwork for guy's like me so what I experience(d) is nothing like what you did. So I am getting confused. Are the prints Scaduto saw in 1975 the same prints that Gov. Hoffman had in his files? I definitely agree with Dave that what Scaduto saw was a separate collection of the same prints. The strange part of it all is the NJSP did find the collection of prints only minus the baby's. Once Hoffman's Collection was "discovered" that's when the child's prints became available for comparison with the Claimants. Having been through the Hoffmann Collections (so many times I've lost count), it appears that whatever reports he asked for were, for the most part, copies of the original. In some small cases it looked like he had some originals. Because no one ever thought this was going to happen (future research) so as a result, some of these copies help fill in gaps where there are some missing files. "Missing" can be attributed to a whole host of reasons. However, most were already in the State Police Collection - or had been. Are you following me? My best guess for the difference between Hoffman rec'ing copies vs. originals is the Schwarzkopf/Kimberling switch. Once Kimberling was appointed the Governor had carte blanche. It's why, for example, Ho-age would have those nails in his personal collection. To put it bluntly, those nails should have been returned to the NJSP once he was finished. No doubt Hoffman told him to keep them but in reality they belong to the State and he didn't have the authority to "give" them to him. My point is that in all of these various examples and circumstances we can see the game of 52 card pick-up we're forced into. Anyway, assuming Scaduto's account was true, I've always believed the prints Hoffman had were copies made from the negatives, and it appears once his material was found, these pictures were added to the others that were already on hand. So I couldn't personally tell you which were which as they now exist there. Mark Falzini is probably the man with the key to that information.
|
|
dave
Detective
Posts: 130
|
Post by dave on Jun 16, 2015 10:09:52 GMT -5
I knew Quinn, and I knew Tony. With Quinn I was confronted with "your not another Sceduto are ya?" All I'm going to say is that a request was made by Scaduto, but he didn't go. There was a lady I found in Florida who was the widow of Ellis Parker Jr.. Tony said he talked with her. (In his book) Mrs. Blair Rodman, from Clearwater, Florida. She and her (then current) husband both said there was no contact with Scadoto. (I talked to them twice in the fall of 1982 at their home.) There are several other examples.
Tony wanted to co-author a book on the case in 1982. I started asking around. Too many questions! (Yes in 1982 I had some doubts about Hauptmann's involvement In the case.)
There ya have it. Doubts about interviews, files reviewed, and visits made. To his credit though I traveled with his book everywhere I went in 1979 -1982. I bet I distroyed a dozen copies highlighting, writing notes on pages.
He's a part of the permanent record. His book did put into motion everything going on with this case, even to this very day! Someday I'll do some posts on Kennedy and his research and book. We came within a half a second of a fist fight once. The true story of Richard Hauptmann should be told, but these two guys wern't the ones to do it. Forgive me but I'm not going to put a "Happy Face" here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2015 18:02:57 GMT -5
Since we are talking about Scaduto's book and also about fingerprints, I have a question.
On page 383 of Scaduto's book Scapegoat, Tony writes that Hauptmann was fingerprinted many times after he was arrested. Besides the normal fingerprints done, they also made prints of Hauptmann's fingertips, his palms, and the edges of his hands. After this excessive fingerprinting is done, two New Jersey State Troopers approached Dr. Hudson and asked if it was possible to counterfeit fingerprints and how that could be done. Dr. Hudson advised the Troopers that counterfeiting was possible but he would be able to detect the difference between real prints and counterfeit fingerprints.
My question is:
Did the excessive fingerprint taking and approaching of Dr. Hudson about counterfeit fingerprints and how to do it happen before Bornmann made his attic discovery that the attic floor in Hauptmann's apartment was missing a length of wood?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 17, 2015 5:15:35 GMT -5
Did the excessive fingerprint taking and approaching of Dr. Hudson about counterfeit fingerprints and how to do it happen before Bornmann made his attic discovery that the attic floor in Hauptmann's apartment was missing a length of wood? It's a great question Amy, and your attention to detail is terrific. Unfortunately, I've never seen a date attached to this event. When I found the "famous" letter to Authorities requesting to know if the prints on the ladder would be acknowledged before trial - that was both undated and unsigned on a plain piece of paper without his letter-head. I knew it was his immediately by the type-face, and of course the content was exactly as he said. What drives a Professional with his reputation to "jump ship?" And not only that, to actually work on his own time, and with his own money? He even lent out his Employee to assist with investigations for the Governor! What did Hudson see an an "insider" to the Police and Prosecution which sent him running to the Defense AND staying on with the Governor to the degree in which he did?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2015 22:19:02 GMT -5
Ugh, Michael!!! No date and no signature?? It is a good thing you are so familar with Dr. Hudson's type-face and recognized that the content of the letter reflected Dr. Hudson's position about letting the defense know about the fingerprints found on the ladder and that none of them matched to Hauptmann.
Now all we can do is speculate about when they spoke to Dr. Hudson about this. It is disturbing that the NJSP were considering counterfeiting fingerprints. It makes me think that maybe this was all occurring before Bornmann noticed the missing piece of floor board. The Troopers wanted to be able to attach that ladder to Hauptmann and they thought this would be the way to do it.
All good questions Michael. Whatever was going on behind the prosecution doors, he clearly wanted no part of it!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2015 22:41:00 GMT -5
Tony Scaduto in his book talks about seeing a set of the child's prints in the basement of a building at Division were the files were kept until Mrs. Hauptmann brought her case against New Jersey. I talked to Tony in the summer of 1983. Then he told me that a set of prints were stored in the garage of Gov. Hoffman's daughter. I don't know how he knew that, he may have talked to her. He and I were going to go and check the material out, but as he often did, couldn't go at the last minute. A lttle later the story broke about all of Gov. Hoffman's files being found in a garage. In Scaduto's book on page 406, he says that Evalyn Walsh McLean hired a private investigator after the Hauptmann trial was over to look into the kidnapping. Tony also said that Mrs. McLean was given a set of Charlie's prints. Did you and Tony ever discuss the fingerprints in this case? If she was given those prints then she would be the third person to have a set; the prints the NJSP had, the set Gov. Hoffman had and the set McLean had.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 18, 2015 20:04:13 GMT -5
Now all we can do is speculate about when they spoke to Dr. Hudson about this. It is disturbing that the NJSP were considering counterfeiting fingerprints. It makes me think that maybe this was all occurring before Bornmann noticed the missing piece of floor board. The Troopers wanted to be able to attach that ladder to Hauptmann and they thought this would be the way to do it. I've considered that maybe the "obvious" might not be the correct answer. Of course it could be, but what if the NJSP were trying to determine why Hauptmann's prints weren't on that ladder but other unknowns were? We can see what Dr. Hudson thought, and it's because they were obviously hiding exculpatory evidence from the Defense so it's a natural conclusion from his perspective. Anyway, I am just trying to inject some food for thought due to Rail 16 and what the solution to that mystery revealed.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 15, 2015 16:08:34 GMT -5
Must have missed this before, but what's most intriguing are the prints found on the ransom notes. Were they all shown to be those of law enforcement or other presumed innocents (Lindbergh, Condon, Breckenridge, etc.)? If not, whoever left prints on any ransom note would have to be a hot suspect in the crime. Could be wrong, but my guess is that it's highly unlikely that a print comparison of those ransom note prints with the prints in the files of the 1930s could be undertaken today, because those files most likely no longer exist. But, wow, it's just fascinating to speculate on what such a comparison might yield.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jul 15, 2015 19:39:31 GMT -5
Must have missed this before, but what's most intriguing are the prints found on the ransom notes. Were they all shown to be those of law enforcement or other presumed innocents (Lindbergh, Condon, Breckenridge, etc.)? If not, whoever left prints on any ransom note would have to be a hot suspect in the crime. Could be wrong, but my guess is that it's highly that a print comparison of those ransom note prints with the prints in the files of the 1930s could be undertaken today, because those files most likely no longer exist. But, wow, it's just fascinating to speculate on what such a comparison might yield. The thing that really fascinates me is the DNA on the envelopes. I think it's been proven that Hauptmann couldn't have mailed all of them so obviously someone else was involved. If Anna were alive today, she'd have a very very good case for getting a court order for the envelopes to be tested.
|
|