|
Post by Michael on Jan 10, 2016 16:51:01 GMT -5
Where is there any evidence that it was a well planned crime? Where is there evidence this was not? Just the basics prove it was. For example, there were people who had been to Highfields and still couldn't figure out how to get there without help. One would have to "plan" just to find the place.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 10, 2016 23:21:02 GMT -5
To begin at the beginning, if the well prepared kidnapper had correctly studied the habits of the Lindberghs, he wouldn't even have been at their house on 3/1/32.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 11, 2016 3:07:28 GMT -5
To begin at the beginning, if the well prepared kidnapper had correctly studied the habits of the Lindberghs, he wouldn't even have been at their house on 3/1/32. Which is exactly the point. The idea that an assailant would kidnap the most famous child in the country at a home he did not usually live in, at an hour when the entire household was both home AND awake, all while doing so in a terrible weather is pretty ludicrous. Never mind the fact that the kidnapper would have had to make some noise as he launched himself several feet into the room over the suitcase that sat on the chest by the window sill and then navigate the complex obstacle course of the bedroom (the child's dining set sat right smack dab in the middle of the room). The evidence, whether anyone likes it or not, clearly points to there being some inside direction or help.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 11, 2016 11:20:50 GMT -5
Who do you think the inside director or helper was?
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Jan 12, 2016 10:34:10 GMT -5
Who do you think the inside director or helper was? my money is on either Betty or Violet (or both).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2016 12:22:32 GMT -5
Why guess when you have a direct link - The Morrow dressmaker/seamstress Junge's sister is James Warburg's governess. Warburg's have blood feud with Lindberghs since 1913. The connection is mentioned in the FBI file, and in my 357pp. book "The Lindbergh Baby Kidnap Conspiracy."
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 12, 2016 17:14:24 GMT -5
Who do you think the inside director or helper was? my money is on either Betty or Violet (or both). With all due respect to whoever believes Hauptmann acted alone throughout this entire ordeal - here are my observations... We have evidence of pre-planning all over the place. But when there is evidence that seems to indicate inside involvement there are those who don't like any of the candidates, therefore, they tend to jump over to the State's Lone-Wolf position. That position suggests that anything that cannot be explained means it happened based on "luck." However, when any Researcher examines the State's angle they'll see it wasn't based upon the facts, instead, it was based upon the best possible chance to get a Murder in the 1st Degree conviction. It's why the testimony there contradicted many of the Reports. Yet, we see people point to the testimony as proof the original reports were not correct despite there being no agenda at the time they were written, when clearly there was one at trial. Make any sense? Next, if none of the "Insiders" are favorable - how does that erase the evidence of planning? For example, pointing to something that suggests the Note may have been written in a car is supposed to mean there was no planning? Even on the outside chance that it was written in a car, this would assume the symbol was created in a car too wouldn't it? But that symbol shows planning, and since the holes were so important that the Writer makes sure to point them out - does anyone really believe they were punched in a car? Someone is pouring blue ink on this bottle bottom and red ink on that cork - with the blank piece of paper laid on a car seat? Then waiting for the symbol to dry? Or does this theory suggest the writing was done first? I say the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Luck is always a factor to consider, but when it must occur everywhere then there's a serious flaw in the theory.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 13, 2016 6:48:23 GMT -5
Making ransom notes in the car with bottles of ink, etc. is of course absurd.
Making blank notes in advance doesn't seem to be particularly good pre-planning, of course he's going to need a few. Investigators believed that he made them all at the same time and it would be surprising that he made so many, but perhaps we'll never know for sure. Working from memory, didn't he say at the end of the ongoing note affair that he was out of notes?
Were pictures of Hauptmann's apartment furniture checked for a Mersmer table? I'm sure they have been, and asked this before, but don't recall an answer.
Among other things, the real lack of pre-planning is that it doesn't seem the kidnapper knew the habits of the family. He just shows up assuming the child would be in bed. As far as the "lucky" correct window goes, it's possible there was a difference in the shutters which didn't lock that could be seen from the ground so he chose that one. The shutters were open when he left - might have even been open when he arrived. About locking windows, in spite of what that family said, people usually aren't very concerned about locking upper floor windows. When Charlie turned up missing I think Ann and Betty quickly thought "guess we should have locked the windows," and locked some and relayed to the police that they usually did. The most famous man in the world has to take care of his family and he just got strongly snookered, so CAL might have had a hand in presenting that incorrect image. Someone putting a ladder against your house and entering by an upper floor window at night is beyond normal thinking. A very common crime nowdays is upper floor burglary through unlocked sliding doors which people are careless about locking for the same reason. I'm sure Michael is aware of the commonness of this particular crime.
Hauptmann, an experienced second story burglar, probably had the skills to get in even if the window was locked.
So the kidnapper is unknowingly there on 3/1/32 when the Lindberghs shouldn't have been but he's there and with very little ground study could have done it all in one quick swoop.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 13, 2016 7:14:30 GMT -5
Making ransom notes in the car with bottles of ink, etc. is of course absurd. Making blank notes in advance doesn't seem to be particularly good pre-planning, of course he's going to need a few. Investigators believed that he made them all at the same time and it would be surprising that he made so many, but perhaps we'll never know for sure. Working from memory, didn't he say at the end of the ongoing note affair that he was out of notes? Were pictures of Hauptmann's apartment furniture checked for a Mersmer table? I'm sure they have been, and asked this before, but don't recall an answer. Among other things, the real lack of pre-planning is that it doesn't seem the kidnapper knew the habits of the family. He just shows up assuming the child would be in bed. As far as the "lucky" correct window goes, it's possible there was a difference in the shutters which didn't lock that could be seen from the ground so he chose that one. The shutters were open when he left - might have even been open when he arrived. About locking windows, in spite of what that family said, people usually aren't very concerned about locking upper floor windows. When Charlie turned up missing I think Ann and Betty quickly thought "guess we should have locked the windows," and locked some and relayed to the police that they usually did. The most famous man in the world has to take care of his family and he just got strongly snookered, so CAL might have had a hand in presenting that incorrect image. Someone putting a ladder against your house and entering by an upper floor window at night is beyond normal thinking. A very common crime nowdays is upper floor burglary through unlocked sliding doors which people are careless about locking for the same reason. I'm sure Michael is aware of the commonness of this particular crime. Hauptmann, an experienced second story burglar, probably had the skills to get in even if the window was locked. So the kidnapper is unknowingly there on 3/1/32 when the Lindberghs shouldn't have been but he's there and with very little ground study could have done it all in one quick swoop. The place was notoriously difficult to find, even unfamiliar law enforcement had trouble getting there that night. What kind of would-be kidnapper is going to venture to a place that remote on a night with terrible weather at an hour in which would, in just about every logical way, be the worst time to kidnap a child? Most kidnappers would snatch the child in the early morning hours when everyone was asleep or mid-day when all but the nursemaid were out, not at dinner time. Reading the above, it seems like it takes far more effort to reason away all of the reasons in which a kidnapper got lucky (finding the house from the road, lack of footprints leading up to the house, total silence at a time when at least 4 people + barking dog were awake and home, navigating to the correct window, entering the nursery with nothing moved, etc) than it does for the simplest solution: somebody in the house gave clear explicit instructions of where to go, at what time and how to obtain the child. It solves so many of the problems you face otherwise. To believe BRH acted alone, you must not only believe he was some kind of miracle worker/acrobat to accomplish what he did, you must also disregard the fact there were multiple sets of prints leading from the nursery and the repeated testimony of lookouts by both Lindbergh and Condon.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 13, 2016 7:26:52 GMT -5
There is no why or what, there is only is.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 13, 2016 8:11:49 GMT -5
There is no why or what, there is only is. Of course and as Michael said, there IS a report from just about every law enforcement officer, witness and person involved who believed this was the work of multiple people and in turn, someone on the inside. It wasn't until Hauptmann was captured that they HAD to make a very specific charge stick, therefor essentially at Wilentz's direction, everything changed to fit the necessary narrative.
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Jan 13, 2016 10:04:14 GMT -5
"The place was notoriously difficult to find, even unfamiliar law enforcement had trouble getting there that night. What kind of would-be kidnapper is going to venture to a place that remote on a night with terrible weather at an hour in which would, in just about every logical way, be the worst time to kidnap a child? Most kidnappers would snatch the child in the early morning hours when everyone was asleep or mid-day when all but the nursemaid were out, not at dinner time."
this reminds me of a great line from Sarah Vowell's book "Assassination Vacation". she says she's beginning to believe that Dr. Mudd must have been a part of the gang because she had a difficult time finding his house in the daytime & with the help of Mapquest whereas Booth found it easily in the middle of the night, riding a horse & with a broken ankle. (great book btw, i highly recommend it.)
given the fact of the last minute decision to spend the night there, the kidnappers would have to have been either local (easy to keep the house under constant surveillance) and/or be in cahoots with someone on the inside (Better, Violet etc.)
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 13, 2016 12:19:28 GMT -5
So then, according to Michael and Trojanusc, Lindbergh had nothing to worry about because a kidnapper could never find his house!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2016 17:19:18 GMT -5
given the fact of the last minute decision to spend the night there, the kidnappers would have to have been either local (easy to keep the house under constant surveillance) and/or be in cahoots with someone on the inside (Better, Violet etc.) Having someone local involved certainly makes sense to me. The Lindberghs were never at the Hopewell house before on a Tuesday night. Someone would have needed to communicate this to the kidnappers. If one is inclined that Hauptmann did this alone, I am wondering how someone in Hopewell or even from the Englewood house would have been able to tip Hauptmann to CAL Jr.'s presence at Highfields since Richard did not have a phone to call him on. Myself, I am not inclined to Violet being the inside help. Violet, to my knowledge, had never been to Highfields until March 10, 1932, when she was taken there for questioning. She would not have been able to assist with directions for getting to the house. She would not have been familiar with the layout of the grounds or interior of the house to know what windows were the nursery room windows. This kidnapping needed the help of insider knowledge for it to happen....much more knowledge than Violet had.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 13, 2016 21:51:04 GMT -5
So then, according to Michael and Trojanusc, Lindbergh had nothing to worry about because a kidnapper could never find his house! Few even knew they were living there, let alone the exact details of the house's location. Why would a kidnapper go to an under-construction house to kidnap the child?
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Jan 13, 2016 22:23:41 GMT -5
amy35, you make a terrific point, one i had not thought of before.
but would Violet herself absolutely need to know how to get there? i'm imagining the gang already knew all about the house (possibly with help from the papers and magazine that had the floor plans, etc.) because the kidnapping "had been planned for a year already". her only job would need to be to tip them off as to which house the baby was at and when and then they could decide when to strike. possibly with CAL supposedly out of the way at a banquet (which he forgot to go to, allegedly) and CAL Jr. and Anne with colds, maybe the kidnappers figured they were ultra vulnerable.
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Jan 13, 2016 22:47:21 GMT -5
over on Fair Trial thread, Michael says "It's my position that any person who did not plan for this event would have had an extremely difficult time finding the home. They needed help, and they needed to plan for it. There was no guess-work or they would have failed at every leg of the event."
i tend to agree, and recall vividly friend Kevkon (whose opinions and insights i admired) stating he thought otherwise. from the thread "Cards on the Table", he posted "Sep 1, 2012 at 12:56pm Post by kevkon on Sep 1, 2012 at 12:56pm "It was probably one of the greatest crimes of improvisation.""
i always wondered why he thought that. miss him posting here, btw.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 14, 2016 2:05:09 GMT -5
In terms of an insider, I think, for all the reasons mentioned, it makes perfect sense. But I don't see it being Violet, since, as Amy says, she'd never even been to Highfields prior to the kidnapping. And Betty: Well, the fact that she felt the need to whip up a special shirt for CAL Jr. as an addition to all the other layers he was already wearing--this is, I think, an indication that she knew something was going to happen. That CAL Jr. was going to die? No, but that he was going to leaving, traveling in raw weather. But I can't think of a reason why she would want CAL Jr. to be kidnapped, let alone how she would've arranged something like this herself. Besides, nothing in her background ever came to light to suggest she had shady connections of any kind. Same thing with the Whateleys, same thing with Anne: No conceivable means or motive. So, allowing for an insider, who else is left in that household? And who also had the clout to keep the investigation away from an insider?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 14, 2016 8:53:53 GMT -5
To my mind knowing where the victims live and having prepared ransom notes is not a sign of "well preplanning." Those are the very basics. Like saying he had to eat breakfast to be strong for the act is good planning - well, duh?
There are more examples of poor preplanning, but the fact that the kidnapper simply stumbled upon the Lindberghs where they weren't supposed to be hasn't been taken very seriously. Investigators have been asking for eighty years why a criminal would pick that Tuesday and quite possibly he scouted the house on the weekend, prepared his ladder quickly and just got the job done on the first evening he could get over there. If betty, Violet, Ollie, etc. was an inside source - some means of assistance, it has never been proven and probably never will be.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jan 14, 2016 10:17:21 GMT -5
How about CAL Sr. himself??? You can't underestimate his clout with the police, judging by the way they deferred to him. Maybe the plot was to take little Charlie away (because of a physical disability?) and not to kill him, then cover it up as a fake kidnapping? Or maybe, as Noel Behn suggests, the baby had died earlier and the "kidnapping" was staged to cover up the circumstances of the death?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2016 11:46:43 GMT -5
amy35, you make a terrific point, one i had not thought of before. but would Violet herself absolutely need to know how to get there? i'm imagining the gang already knew all about the house (possibly with help from the papers and magazine that had the floor plans, etc.) because the kidnapping "had been planned for a year already". her only job would need to be to tip them off as to which house the baby was at and when and then they could decide when to strike. possibly with CAL supposedly out of the way at a banquet (which he forgot to go to, allegedly) and CAL Jr. and Anne with colds, maybe the kidnappers figured they were ultra vulnerable. I do see your point about Violet only needing to tip off the perps so they could carry out the kidnapping. This would make Violet an actual participant in the kidnapping and death of Charlie (whether that death was intended or not). This would be intentional passing on of knowledge. I am really reluctant to put Violet in that context. I know that Violet did pass the information about Charlie being at the Hopewell house to someone. She told Red Johnson that Betty was called to Hopewell because Charlie was sick and Betty was needed there. Marguerite Jung knew about Charlie staying over also. Betty, herself told her about it. Monday night would have been an even better night if vulnerability was a contributing factor. There was no Lindbergh and no Betty Gow. Just Anne and the Whateleys. If Violet is tipping the kidnappers off, why didn't they do this kidnapping on Monday night? What made Tuesday more desirable? Like I mentioned on another thread, more people than Violet knew Charlie was staying in Hopewell Tuesday night. This is why I have trouble putting it all on Violet.
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Jan 14, 2016 11:58:19 GMT -5
Maybe monday was the better night but the timing happened too fast to get it done. Finding the house as discussed not easy but even harder to know which room it was. The whole scenario is screaming inside job.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 14, 2016 18:44:50 GMT -5
If betty, Violet, Ollie, etc. was an inside source - some means of assistance, it has never been proven and probably never will be. Revisit this again after you've read my book Jack.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 14, 2016 19:46:15 GMT -5
Deal.
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Jan 14, 2016 19:46:27 GMT -5
Can't wait. As you know I've been waiting a decade. Are you doing anything special to accompany the release?
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Jan 14, 2016 20:02:54 GMT -5
amy35, you make a terrific point, one i had not thought of before. but would Violet herself absolutely need to know how to get there? i'm imagining the gang already knew all about the house (possibly with help from the papers and magazine that had the floor plans, etc.) because the kidnapping "had been planned for a year already". her only job would need to be to tip them off as to which house the baby was at and when and then they could decide when to strike. possibly with CAL supposedly out of the way at a banquet (which he forgot to go to, allegedly) and CAL Jr. and Anne with colds, maybe the kidnappers figured they were ultra vulnerable. I do see your point about Violet only needing to tip off the perps so they could carry out the kidnapping. This would make Violet an actual participant in the kidnapping and death of Charlie (whether that death was intended or not). This would be intentional passing on of knowledge. I am really reluctant to put Violet in that context. I know that Violet did pass the information about Charlie being at the Hopewell house to someone. She told Red Johnson that Betty was called to Hopewell because Charlie was sick and Betty was needed there. Marguerite Jung knew about Charlie staying over also. Betty, herself told her about it. Monday night would have been an even better night if vulnerability was a contributing factor. There was no Lindbergh and no Betty Gow. Just Anne and the Whateleys. If Violet is tipping the kidnappers off, why didn't they do this kidnapping on Monday night? What made Tuesday more desirable? Like I mentioned on another thread, more people than Violet knew Charlie was staying in Hopewell Tuesday night. This is why I have trouble putting it all on Violet. amy35, i quite agree that Violet could have been an unwitting source to the kidnappers. as you and Michael noted, she could have been chatty with what she thought were newspaper people and unaware of their real intentions. the red/betty telephone timing is just too perfect to be ignored as well. as Dame Agatha Christie wrote, you can allow for 1 coincidence, but not for too many.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2016 20:10:40 GMT -5
Maybe monday was the better night but the timing happened too fast to get it done. Finding the house as discussed not easy but even harder to know which room it was. The whole scenario is screaming inside job. I am in the corner of advanced planning and inside help. Things like being able to find the house and knowing which window to use would have already been known before Tuesday. I am thinking that maybe Tuesday was the better night because of who was present at the house that night who wasn't there on Monday night.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 14, 2016 20:40:02 GMT -5
In terms of the inside help being Betty or the Whateleys, my money is on Betty. Not as any kind of mastermind, but as someone who was compelled, under false pretenses, to assist, to keep the coast clear. There was someone else on the inside who was arranging this whole thing, I think, and Betty was just doing what this person told her to.
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Jan 14, 2016 21:11:09 GMT -5
LJ : So when Betty was sent to Hopewell do you think this triggered the plan in action? She went to the bedroom with Elsie allowing Ollie free to roam to react to any noise or sound to the crime. I am not seeing control or keeping the coast clear unless she thought Elsie was the only threat.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 14, 2016 21:44:50 GMT -5
Yes, I think her getting the phone call to come down was her signal that CAL Jr. would be leaving that night. And I think it was Betty's job to do certain things within the house: Mix something into the baby's food to make him sleep (her drugstore pit stop on the way to Hopewell), leave the front door unlocked, things like that. The homemade shirt could've been part of these instructions or her own improvised addition. In any case, she was being used; she was lied to. I think all she was told was that CAL Jr. would be leaving and that staging a kidnapping was the only way to get him out of the house in such a way that the family could save face. She had no idea, I don't think, that CAL Jr. was going to die. Once he did turn up dead, though, she realized she'd been caught up in something awful, left the country, never to return (except for the trial), never married or had a family.
|
|