jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Mar 2, 2016 22:41:51 GMT -5
I think you all are right. Anne was satisfying in her own mind that Charley's final moments were as humane as possible.
I've read her few words about the issue and they have helped to form my thoughts about the crime. It's beyond belief that this incident could be a family tragedy rather than a horrible contrived insult and for-money illegal endeavor.
She would never put up with a contrived story no matter who her family members were.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Mar 2, 2016 22:56:49 GMT -5
Many thanks for welcoming me to your discussion board. I greatly appreciate that. I do not have the outstanding knowledge of this case that most of you have, so I would never attempt to interject any theories that I have on the kidnapping In my posting, I just wanted to relate some background information on my great uncle Harry Wolfe, and how the crime affected my parents generation who lived in Hopewell at that time
Unfortunately I do not have a great deal of additional information on my uncle Harry's thoughts about the case. I think this thread started out with the idea of time travel pertaining to the Lindbergh kidnapping. I would travel back to when I was eight or nine years old before uncle Harry's passing and attempt to use my three decades of interrogation experience to grill him on everything he saw, heard and felt that night of March 1st. This wouldn't solve the continuing mystery of this case, but it sure would answer some questions. I know what it is like to be the first at a crime scene, and in terms of the subsequent investigation it can be priceless.
Sweetwater asked if I knew whether my uncle Harry had ever expressed his opinion on when that child's remains were placed at the recovery site. Unfortunately, I never heard that aspect brought up by anyone who knew Uncle Harry. I will say that while growing up in Hopewell it was clear that everyone believed that the baby's remains were "dumped" at the recovery location as the kidnappers fled through town that night headed towards New York City by way of the Princeton area. Also, the idea that Charles Lindbergh was somehow involved in this crime was never entertained by anyone.
Amy 35 asked if I had any additional information as to why Uncle Harry had strong suspicions about Betty Gow and Violet Sharpe's involvement in the case. Again I do not. I only remember my mother saying that Uncle Harry did not like the reactions of the Lindbergh's nursemaid when he spoke with her that night, and he always thought that she was "hiding" something. As to Violet Sharpe, I do not know why Uncle Harry became suspicious of her, but I remember my mother commenting that when the Morrow's maid committed suicide during the investigation it only strengthened uncle Harry's suspicions of her.
My mother passed away in 2002, and uncle Harry's daughter in 2006. I now regret not having spoken with them more often about Uncle Harry's involvement and thought processes on this case. Most all the members of that generation are now deceased and so much information that was not reduced to writing is lost. Unfortunately on my visits home to Hopewell during my working career, the only investigations I had any interest in were the ones in the case load I was carrying as an agent at the time.
My mother did agree with you Jack 7. I remember at some point in time before her passing, I was home on a visit and talking to her about some of my current investigations which she always had an interest in. Somehow the Lindbergh kidnapping case came up and I told her that many new books had been written that contained many theories as to what exactly happened in the case. In her very direct way she told me "if they had just let your uncle Harry handle that investigation it would have been solved quickly and to everybody's satisfaction." Such was her complete faith and confidence in uncle Harry's abilities.
I'm not surprised that no reports or statements have surfaced in regards to my uncle Harry. The New Jersey State Police jumped on this case immediately, and I would think that if they didn't request a statement from him, none would have been provided. Policies on reports and statements by law enforcement officers vary greatly from agency to agency, and have constantly changed over time. In the federal system everything that occurs during an investigation was expected to be put in a report. I once had a supervisor who would say "if you don't reduce it to writing, it never happened." However, I have worked with Officers from some local and state agencies that were extremely laxed on report writing. In addition, some officers would learn quickly that if you make a written statement on some aspect of a case, a defense attorney at trial will use it against you if your testimony varies in any way from the statement. This always caused some officers to shy away from making written statements.
Once again I apologize for this long post. I will go back to just reading and enjoying the vast amount of information you all have on this case. I'll conclude with one last "words of wisdom" in regards to criminal investigations. When I started as an agent in 1973, I was assigned to an old-time agent who was about to retire after a very successful 30 year career. He very quickly told me "son, when you investigate these cases follow the facts only the facts. If you get bogged down in assumptions, you get off course and will not be successful." I always tried to follow that advice throughout my career, and I passed it along to younger agents along the way.
Jack 7, I have been impressed with your knowledge and investigative mindset in all of your postings on this forum site. I'm also impressed that you recognized my association with recon. The Recondo patch is in recognition of graduating from the U.S. Army's 5th Special Forces Recondo School which I attended in 1967 in the Republic of Vietnam. I served in Vietnam for 14 months as a young paratrooper in 1967-68 assigned to the 173rd Airborne Brigade's Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol unit (LRRP). At the time, people who knew about LRRP units call them Lurps. I do have quite a few recon stories from those days, and actually enough to write a book- if I can ever find the time.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Mar 2, 2016 23:17:23 GMT -5
We owe you and those like you a great debt of thanks.
You blew your cover when you called yourself LURPS.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 3, 2016 6:17:10 GMT -5
Thanks Michael for checking on this. Since it was brought up by Jack, I thought it was worth asking you about. If any such reports were in the files anywhere, I know that you would be the person to know about them. It is disappointing though. Wolfe and Williamson were the first officials on the scene and there impressions and observations should have been in the record somewhere. The Police did take Statements from these men. I assumed everyone was aware of that and I was always focused on the question whether or not other Hopewell PD specific sources existed that no one knew about. I'm not surprised that no reports or statements have surfaced in regards to my uncle Harry. See above. Newark Police took his Statement in March. Of course he was just giving the "facts" as to his step by step movements. He may have also given a Statement after the child was discovered but as I sit here this very second I'd have to go search for it to say if this were absolutely true.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 3, 2016 17:59:02 GMT -5
From the fascinating collection of photos from the Denver Post linked to by sweetwater on this thread on Feb. 29, here is the strangest (# 45) with the following caption:
Robert Grant, Jr., 19, New York City high school student, was photographed with a small brother and sister in his home Jan. 21, 1935 after he told police he had been kidnapped the night before in an effort to keep his father from providing an alibi for Bruno Hauptmann, accused kidnap-killer of the Lindbergh baby. Grant said his father had heard another man say he saw Hauptman in a Bronx bakery on the night of the kidnapping but that the man had refused to testify, and the Grants had been threatened. Police say his story is that he escaped his kidnapers in a traffic jam, when their auto was stopped. (AP Photo/ Tom Sande)
Has anyone out there ever heard of this Robert Grant and his story?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 3, 2016 18:40:43 GMT -5
Has anyone out there ever heard of this Robert Grant and his story? The story is that Walter Manley told Grant Sr. that he saw Hauptmann in the Bakery on the night of March 1st and it was Grant who persuaded him to testify. As a result Grant claimed he received several threats. I've only ever read these accounts in newspaper articles and there is nothing in the Reports that say whether this was true or not.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 6, 2016 17:16:15 GMT -5
Getting back to the Denver Post photo collection linked to by sweetwater on this thread on Feb. 29:
I notice that there is a photo (# 12) pf police working at the Lindbergh home on Dec. 7, 1934, apparently in preparation for the trial against Hauptmann, which started about a month later. There is a similar but different photo taken perhaps on the same day on the front of the dust-jacket cover of the book "Cemetery John" by Robert Zorn. It turns out, comparing these two photos, that the LIndbergh house on one of them is the mirror image of the same house on the other. So only one of these photos shows the correct layout of the house, the other was in all likelihood processed incorrectly so as to produce a mirror image. I know that the substance of Zorn's book isn't too credible. So if I had to guess, I'd say that the photo in the Denver Post collection shows the correct orientation of the Lindbergh house at the time, while the photo adorning Zorn's book was screwed up in the processing and therefore shows a mirror image.
It seems odd, BTW, that law enforcement (NJSP?) waited until they had a suspect in custody to do tests on whether or not the nursery window could have been entered from the ladder found on the premises. Or were they doing similar tests in the days immediately following the purported kidnapping?
|
|
|
Post by georingoes on Mar 8, 2016 20:43:58 GMT -5
lurp, thanks for you family history post. Have a question on Hopewell in 1932 that I have never found any info on - even Mark Falzini said he has never come across any documents, perhaps you heard your family comment on the following. Did the police investigate the telephone operators at the Hopewell exchange? Back in that day it was not uncommon for switchboard operators to listen in on phone calls - especially in quiet hamlets like Hopewell. (My Aunt was a switchboard operator in NJ) I have always thought that a switchboard operator could easily have known that the Lindbergh's were staying over past Monday. From there it wouldn't take much to mention their extended stay while at a coffee shop/luncheonette etc, easily overheard by someone involved in the LKC.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 9, 2016 18:02:53 GMT -5
lurp, thanks for you family history post. Have a question on Hopewell in 1932 that I have never found any info on - even Mark Falzini said he has never come across any documents, perhaps you heard your family comment on the following. Did the police investigate the telephone operators at the Hopewell exchange? Back in that day it was not uncommon for switchboard operators to listen in on phone calls - especially in quiet hamlets like Hopewell. (My Aunt was a switchboard operator in NJ) I have always thought that a switchboard operator could easily have known that the Lindbergh's were staying over past Monday. From there it wouldn't take much to mention their extended stay while at a coffee shop/luncheonette etc, easily overheard by someone involved in the LKC. I know this question was directed to Lurp and I am anxious to see what he might say, however, I wanted to provide some information in the meantime since it's relevant... When I first started researching at the NJSP Archives back in 2000, I immediately became frustrated with the index card system when looking up certain topics. I was constantly bugging Mark for help to find the reports even after I was lucky enough to locate a listing on those cards. Also, there are main files and back up files - some having different reports - some having reports with topics that weren't indexed on the cards. So sometime in 2002 I simply started from one file then went through them all regardless if they were "duplicates" or not. The result was that I found so much more then what's listed in or on any index. Cutting to the chase there was an investigation into the Operators. Here is the first Report:
|
|
|
Post by georingoes on Mar 10, 2016 9:23:22 GMT -5
Michael - you are amazing. Mr. Bittig appears to be very protective of the company and operators, re collusion. Not sure if he addressed the possibility of "loose lips, sink ships." Might one of the operators who knew of the Lindbergh's decision to extend the stay, without malice, pass this info on in casual conversation?
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Mar 10, 2016 21:06:12 GMT -5
Georingoes, Attachment DeletedI read Michael's response to your question and his knowledge and access to information on this case is absolutely amazing. I believe he has more knowledge about this case than anyone past present or future.
I can only add the following concerning Hopewell at that time. I can remember my mother talking about how the police spoke to all the local men who had worked on the Lindbergh house during the construction (her father would have been one of those interviewed if he had lived). However, I have no information concerning the police interviews of the local telephone operators in Hopewell. Michael's document certainly shows the police were attempting to cover that angle.
When I was a child in the 1950's, the telephone operators were still working in the Hopewell Telephone Company billing in town. Even in the 1950's the telephone system in Hopewell was pretty basic. Our first telephone number was "6J" and like most Hopewell residents, we were on party lines. You had to listen for the proper ring sequence to know if the call was for your house. So you can see that even in the early 1950's (let alone the 1930's) the telephone system in Hopewell was not complex. Although the telephone operators could certainly listen in on any calls they handled, I would be very surprised if they would subsequently talk about those calls with others. My father mentioned many times how bad the Great Depression in the 1930's was, and in 1932 jobs were very hard to come by in Hopewell. I would suspect that the telephone operators in Hopewell at that time knew that they would certainly lose their jobs if they spoke about any conversations they overheard while working the lines.
I am attempting to attach a newspaper article dated March 8, 1932 from the Madera Tribune. One article on the page reports how Lindbergh was very upset that a New Jersey state trooper was stationed in the Hopewell Telephone Company office in town where he would monitor all calls going to the Lindbergh house after the kidnapping. Obviously it was a lot easier for law enforcement at that time to listen in on telephone calls. Interestingly, another article on this same page (entitle "New Angle to Lindburgh Case") reports the possibility that the child was taken from the house without the use of the ladder. I had no idea that this angle was even considered as a possibility as early as March 8th. I apologize if this article has already been posted elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 11, 2016 8:25:06 GMT -5
Michael - you are amazing. Mr. Bittig appears to be very protective of the company and operators, re collusion. Not sure if he addressed the possibility of "loose lips, sink ships." Might one of the operators who knew of the Lindbergh's decision to extend the stay, without malice, pass this info on in casual conversation? I would say it absolutely should have been investigated for sure. And it was. The problem I have, and it's an easy one to make in hindsight, is the way in which they "cleared" certain people during investigations. Also, that sometimes certain information wasn't properly pursued if they believed it might offend Lindbergh in some way. The Police were handed (4) names of the Operators who could have possibly handeled that call by Bittig. The NJSP seem to have quickly discarded (3) then focused on one woman who it was learned had " been in the habit of stepping out." They would learn she had a " rather tough looking" boyfriend so they cased her house to discover who he was. Upon discovering who he was they later cleared him of suspicion. Some might point to this as proof of something. While it doesn't help in it's pursuit, I would say don't give up on an angle you may believe could bear fruit regardless of the conclusions the Police made. I have found conclusions that were entirely disproven by their own later investigations which they themselves did not connect up. Georingoes, View AttachmentI read Michael's response to your question and his knowledge and access to information on this case is absolutely amazing. I believe he has more knowledge about this case than anyone past present or future. I appreciate the vote of confidence. However, I've got to say that for as long as I've been at this I still learn more each and every day. There's no cap on it. For example, as many times as I've gone through the files I could go to the Archives today and see something new that I either missed, or didn't properly understand the value of during my previous review of that document. It's amazing to me how certain things seemed irrelevant only to be extremely important later. Next, fresh eyes and perspectives are important as well because sometimes it's easy to get tunnel vision about certain things. Furthermore, there's no one alive who is right 100% of the time about everything. It's why this Venue and it's Members are so valuable. Everyday I read these posts is a day I add to my knowledge about the crime. It truly never ends. Now to your post... From memory, I do believe there was an issue with a Trooper at the telephone company, however, the story about Capt. Lamb (as has been told) cannot be true in my opinion. These men used that phone all the time, and if there was such a verbal reprimand by Lindbergh given you had better believe no one would have gotten within 50 feet of that phone.
|
|
|
Post by georingoes on Mar 11, 2016 14:45:02 GMT -5
Lurp amd Michael, thanks for the follow-ups. I recall hearing from either Falzini or Davidson that the Lindbergh phone number was: Hopewell 303. Can anyone confirm? Also, where in the various threads on this board is CAL's time accounted for, e.g., Was he the one who drove Anne and the baby to the Hopewell House on Saturday Feb 27th? What were his comings and goings 2/27-3/1?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2016 8:06:02 GMT -5
Lurp amd Michael, thanks for the follow-ups. I recall hearing from either Falzini or Davidson that the Lindbergh phone number was: Hopewell 303. Can anyone confirm? Also, where in the various threads on this board is CAL's time accounted for, e.g., Was he the one who drove Anne and the baby to the Hopewell House on Saturday Feb 27th? What were his comings and goings 2/27-3/1? Welcome to the board georingoes! Lindbergh's comings and goings appear on many threads on this board. I try to make a note every time I read something about that weekend and especially when it pertains to how Lindbergh spent his time. I will give you some of the things I have noted about the time span you mention that I have retained. February 27, Saturday - The Lindberghs (Charles, Anne, Charlie) are at the Englewood house. In the afternoon they get ready to go to Hopewell, NJ. When it is time to leave, Anne, Charlie and Miss Root who is Anne's weekend childcare helper (Miss Root is also the step-daughter of Henry Breckinridge) are driven by the Morrow's second Chauffeur Henry Ellerson to the Hopewell house. Charles Lindbergh leaves Englewood and goes to pick up Henry and Aida Breckinridge who will be house guests that weekend. Anne and Charlie arrive at the Hopewell house around 5 p.m. Charles Lindbergh and the Breckinridges arrive later. February 28, Sunday - The Breckinridges along with Aida's children Alva Root and Oren Root Jr.(a student at Princeton University), are there with the Lindberghs until Sunday evening. Lindbergh takes Henry, Aida and Alva to Princeton Junction so they can return to New York. Oren returns to Princeton University. February 29, Monday - Lindbergh leaves the Hopewell House for his office and activities in New York City. Anne and Charlie remain at the Hopewell house because of Charlie's cold. Charles Lindbergh does not return Monday night to the Hopewell house. As far as we know, Lindbergh worked late at Rockefeller Institute. He went to the Englewood house and spent the night there. March 1, Tuesday - Anne and Charlie will continue to stay at the Hopewell house because of Charlie's cold. Anne will call Englewood and have Betty Gow come to help her with Charlie. Lindbergh's whereabouts on Tuesday are based on what he testified to at the trial. He said he went to the offices of Pan American Airways, then the offices of Transcontinental Air Transport, then the Rockefeller Institute and then claimed he stopped at the dentist before heading home. That was his best recollection he told Reilly as part of his cross examination. Lindbergh would arrive back at the Hopewell house around 8:20 - 8:25 p.m. Tuesday night. There may be things other people can add (or correct if needed) to this narrative. These are just things I have noted.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 12, 2016 8:43:20 GMT -5
I recall hearing from either Falzini or Davidson that the Lindbergh phone number was: Hopewell 303. Can anyone confirm? Yes, "Hopewell 303" was Lindbergh's original private line. While that number remained, others were added (e.g. "Hopewell 261") to take on the Kidnapping tips that were coming in.
|
|
|
Post by georingoes on Mar 12, 2016 9:56:22 GMT -5
Aimee/Michael, thanks for the info. Aimee, didn't know that Breckinridge's wife and step-childrewn had joined him at the Hopwell house for that weekend. For someone so close to CAL, always wondered why Breckinridge drew so little attention by investigators.
|
|
|
Post by georingoes on Mar 12, 2016 9:59:37 GMT -5
Think I mixed up Aimee and Amy, sorry! Don't know how to edit a post on this board.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2016 10:26:12 GMT -5
Aimee/Michael, thanks for the info. Aimee, didn't know that Breckinridge's wife and step-childrewn had joined him at the Hopwell house for that weekend. For someone so close to CAL, always wondered why Breckinridge drew so little attention by investigators. I have wondered the same thing as you. To be clear, The Breckinridges were at the Hopewell house arriving on Feb. 27th and leaving the evening of Feb. 28th. We know they were there because Elsie Whateley mentions them in her statement to authorities. I am not aware of any questioning of Henry or Aida about that weekend. If Charlie was starting to come down with a cold, then the Breckinridges should have been aware of this. Elsie claims in her statement that Charlie was sneezing Saturday night. The Breckinridges could have provided another confirmation about Charlie's condition that weekend. If they were ever questioned, this is something Michael would have knowledge of. No problem. Aimee and I are used to this happening! Once you post something to the board you can go back and edit it. Just click on the edit button at the top of your original post. This will allow you to make changes to your post. Once you do that then click save changes and your post will appear in the corrected form. So glad it is there. I have used that button frequently!
|
|
|
Post by sweetwater on Jan 8, 2017 3:07:29 GMT -5
Hello to all, after my absence of awhile. I messaged Michael several weeks ago to explain that the arrival of his book, which I as so many others had eagerly awaited, happened to come during the time of the final illness and death of my mother, and so I was not able to enjoy reading and absorbing all the new facts in quite the way that I had anticipated. I have continued to follow the discussions here, as I felt up to it, but knew it might be a while before I felt up to contributing and wanted to let Michael know privately what was going on with me and that my sudden absence was no reflection on his efforts. I am still having a rough time of it emotionally, actually, but I know that picking back up some interests will be helpful to me. I picked this thread to "bump up" for my reentry, partly because it was (I think) the first thread I ever started (and I thought it turned into a fun thread), but also to ask Michael a question, jumping off his original first reply to the thread: If, in your effort to understand the truth of the LKC, you could travel back in time... but for five minutes only...to a location connected with the case, which five minutes would they be, and where would you spend them? It's a great question that I am sure everyone has previously asked themselves at one time or another. I know I have and the first time came when I was standing under that window myself. So that's where I'd be (if we're still allowed to be invisible). Now the timing would be exactly when the child was removed. I hate to refer to my book again, but I strongly believe I demonstrate when it actually occurred - so that's when I'd be there. I am also certain I know what I see too but I'll leave that to everyone to make up their own minds after "digesting" what's written. Michael, focusing on what I bolded above: I know that your aim in writing your book was to present facts to readers and let them draw their own conclusions, without telling anyone what to believe. I also feel that you have said a lot "between the lines", so to speak, especially here on the board but also subtly in the book. I can't help but wonder, though -- will the time come ...maybe when you are finished presenting the facts through your books ... that you will be willing to share more specifically what you believe you would see, standing under that window that March night so many years ago?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 8, 2017 6:13:13 GMT -5
That would be very interesting Sweetwater.
Lots think Lindbergh was involved. Among them Keaton (according to Michael), Ronelle and a host of others. I'd like to see someone propose how that would be possible. Faking the wood evidence to indite Hauptmann alone would seem almost insurmountable, even though his home was in control of the police.
Plenty of people would have to have known the real story (yes Michael, Miss Root too) including the entire staffs at two locations (50 plus) and you'd think for such a hot story somebody would have talked - more than just a death-bed confession - headline news!
So if someone has figured out how Hauptmann was framed lets hear it. If it was a Lindbergh prank or covering for Elisabeth, why not use your own ladder just for starters. I think there was a construction ladder laying right in the back yard and if Lindbergh had anything to do with it he'd know about that ladder. Or, if they could get secretly into the house they could certainly get into the garage and get a ladder from there if that's where the house ladders were kept.
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Jan 8, 2017 9:32:06 GMT -5
welcome back, Sweetwater. all my sympathies on the passing of your mother. i've been there, and it's an emotion-wringing time for sure. getting back into your activities helps, do so at a pace that feels right.
for this post, originally i chose the closing time at the bakery, to see if Richard really did pick up Anna. if i could have "B" choice, it might be the 5 minutes before Whately called the police. what WAS the household doing, looking for baby or preparing their stories?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 8, 2017 9:49:38 GMT -5
I am still having a rough time of it emotionally, actually, but I know that picking back up some interests will be helpful to me. I am very glad you are back. It's funny that you bring this up. I recently rec'd a communication which suggested I do just that. I would say "yes" but the way my brain works it's more of a step by step process for me. Since everyone here is so knowledgeable about the crime, these insights and suggestions make a difference.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 8, 2017 10:06:28 GMT -5
Lots think Lindbergh was involved. Among them Keaton (according to Michael), Ronelle and a host of others. I'd like to see someone propose how that would be possible. Faking the wood evidence to indite Hauptmann alone would seem almost insurmountable, even though his home was in control of the police. Part of what I attempted to do, and will continue to attempt to do, is to show how conflating things is a mistake. Part of the reason why the Rail 16 issue still lingers is because it's only ever been approached from either end of the spectrum. Since 95% of those who look at this crime view things in this way, when there's an answer that involves something in the middle - it gets tuned out. Plenty of people would have to have known the real story (yes Michael, Miss Root too) including the entire staffs at two locations (50 plus) and you'd think for such a hot story somebody would have talked - more than just a death-bed confession - headline news! I believe plenty suspected. And those who knew, well, it's in the book. When anyone says it couldn't have happened - well there it is. We have a situation where even Schwarzkopf "saw" it, yet, no one dare act on it. It's indisputable. Of course one might still say it doesn't actually "mean" anything but it still happened. So if someone has figured out how Hauptmann was framed lets hear it. For someone else to have been involved doesn't mean Hauptmann was framed. Believe me when I say there are fewer "Lone-Wolfs" in prison then people may want to believe. Next, the word "framed" can mean many things. Does beating the hell out of the guy count? Doesn't moving tools around count? Does saying something was found somewhere when it was found elsewhere count? Does writing off a theory, but once Hauptmann is arrested re-accepting it by ignoring why it was originally written off count? Does threatening Witnesses not testify to what they actually saw count? Does claiming he was a Lone-Wolf when there was proof he wasn't alone count?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2017 10:15:07 GMT -5
It is nice to see you post again, Sweetwater. Very sorry to hear of your mother's passing. This is a difficult time for you. I hope that posting again on this board will help you through this sad time.
I am still going to be on the road with Ben Lupica. I want to see who is driving the car that brought that ladder to Highfields. Was it really Hauptmann or someone else?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jan 8, 2017 14:20:41 GMT -5
I don't know if you could have gotten such a good look at the driver with the ladder in his car that you could have identified him years later. Remember that it was kind of dark at the time. In addition, how would you know that that ladder was the purported "kidnap ladder" found on the Lindbergh property? Remember that Lupica testified for the defense at the Hauptmann trial.
|
|
|
Post by C on Jan 8, 2017 15:12:46 GMT -5
This whole thing bugs me.The day before the crime Lindbergh leaves the Hopewell house Monday morning. He does not come home Monday night to his sick child and wife. Lindbergh missed a speaking thing Tuesday night in NY (WHY) He forgot. That don't make sense for the perfect man he was said to be. He forgot yeah right. He had plenty of time between Monday morning and Tuesday night to plan all this bullshit out.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 8, 2017 15:19:08 GMT -5
Good post C. This site needs you and more like you!
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jan 8, 2017 15:45:59 GMT -5
Let's start with the phony identifications of Millard Whited and Amandus Hochmuth as to Hauptmann being near the Lindbergh property on the date of the purported kidnapping. Whited was known as a compulsive liar and Hochmuth was legally blind.
What else did the prosecution have to place Hauptmann at Highfields? The initial ransom note? Well, the Osborns didn't think it was in Hauptmann's handwriting until they heard that Hauptmann had a good chunk of ransom loot stored in his garage. And even if the initial ransom note was written by Hauptmann, it could have been placed on the nursery windowsill by someone else Hauptmann knew. The other evidence allegedly linking Hauptmann to the Lindbergh estate was Koehler's comparison of Rail 16 to the floorboard in Hauptmann's attic. This is still a highly controversial issue, as demonstrated by the sharp arguments that broke out during "l'affaire mansarde" shortly before Hauptmann's execution. Meanwhile, the prosecution could find NO evidence of Hauptmann's fingerprints on the ladder, nor of Hauptmann's fingerprints in the nursery, nor of Hauptmann's footprints on the Lindbergh property. And it was shown by police that Wilentz's theory of Hauptmann's climbing the purported "kidnap ladder", entering the nursery, coming out of the nursery with the baby and then coming down the ladder holding the baby was just about physically impossible.
Yes, Hauptmann was possibly guilty of extortion, and perhaps of a currency crime only ( if he purchased the ransom money at discount in the "secondary market.") But the framing for murder after his arrest on the "Lone Wolf" theory was motivated by the desire of authorities to show that they had "solved" the case after such a long period of frustration. In fact, prior to Hauptmann's arrest, I don't think that anyone in law enforcement thought that a single individual perpetrator could have accounted for all the acts in the purported kidnapping.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2017 17:05:07 GMT -5
I don't know if you could have gotten such a good look at the driver with the ladder in his car that you could have identified him years later. Remember that it was kind of dark at the time. In addition, how would you know that that ladder was the purported "kidnap ladder" found on the Lindbergh property? Remember that Lupica testified for the defense at the Hauptmann trial. The great thing about this time-travel option is that we are all doing this with foreknowledge when we select a situation to put ourselves in. I know what Hauptmann looks like so I would be able to identify him. I am invisible so you can bet the ranch that I will be standing up close on the driver side of that ladder car looking in when it pulled off the road to let Lupica pass. If its Hauptmann, I will recognize him without a doubt. I will also get that license plate number for sure! Every letter and number of it! I believe that the car Lupica saw contained the "kidnap ladder". I would be willing to use my 5 minutes on this. Lupica did testify for the defense. If Lupica had been willing to say that the driver of that car was Hauptmann, Wilentz would have jumped on him as a prosecution witness for sure. He wouldn't even have needed the 3 lying witnesses (Whited, Hochmuth and Rossiter) to put Hauptmann in Hopewell. Lupica would have been gold for him if only he would have lied!!! Wilentz tried hard to get Lupica to say it was Hauptmann during cross-examination.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jan 8, 2017 18:02:51 GMT -5
Welcome back Sweetwater and my sincere condolences, I well understand what you are going through.
|
|