|
Post by wolfman666 on Jan 26, 2017 10:29:39 GMT -5
hi amy steve romeo here back to rock and roll. I don't believe the thumbguard was a plant. would you have planted that thing knowing not to many people could identify it. plus it was found way down that road
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2017 11:13:19 GMT -5
hi amy steve romeo here back to rock and roll. I don't believe the thumbguard was a plant. would you have planted that thing knowing not to many people could identify it. plus it was found way down that road Do you think it could have become buried by all the car traffic that went up and down Lindbergh Lane in the early morning hours of March 1 and then when they repaired that driveway at the end of March it became dislodged and ended up on the surface of the roadway again? I now know that the thumb guard had been flattened a bit(it was in that condition when the jury examined it in 1935) so it must have been run over.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jan 26, 2017 16:55:46 GMT -5
I have one of these thumbguards I think a car running it over would have really crushed it
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jan 26, 2017 21:26:58 GMT -5
I haven't contributed much to this forum as my knowledge on the case is limited compared to many of the members of this site. I have been following it quite regularly and I am always impressed with the numerous well thought out theories on the kidnapping. I' m responding here because I may be able to add a little something to this topic. I am retired and live on a 300 acre farm in a very rural area of southside Virginia. Although it is 2017, we are somewhat in an area similar to the Lindbergh property in that our farm is surrounded by hundreds of acres of planted pines with no houses other than two on the road front. Our gravel driveway is one half mile in length. During thd past 12 years, my wife and I have dropped numerous objects on the driveway, only to find them sometimes months later in relatively good condition. One was actually a watch that "survived" rather well. The vehicle traffic will push these objects into the gravel base and between the gravel and soil base, the vehicles actually do very little damage. I maintain the gravel driveway regularly, and everytime I drag and repair it, any dropped items will surface. From my experiences, I can believe that the thumb guard was dropped on the Lindbergh driveway the night of the kidnapping, pushed into the gravel by the vehicle traffic, and brought back to the surface when the State Police worked on the driveway the day before Betty Gow dicovered it. If she truly found it (not planted it), and it was there the night of the kidnapping, it could certainly say something about how the child was taken from the property.
Two other quick comments. Living on our property, I can see how someone could have surveilled the Lindbergh residence at night for a very long time without being dicovered. Also, a gravel driveway is VERY noisy as to vehicular traffic. If I am outside or in the house with a window opened, I can hear a vehicle enter our driveway from the hard surface front road which is almost one half mile away. From my experiences, if a vehicle was on the Lindbergh driveway that night, it is very reasonable to believe that someone heard it. Sorry for the long post. Just thought that some of this might be helpful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2017 16:39:39 GMT -5
I have one of these thumbguards I think a car running it over would have really crushed it That is really cool that you have one. Since these were made to fit the hand of a small child, and then only on the thumb, it must not be very big at all. Thanks for your comment Steve.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2017 17:03:26 GMT -5
From my experiences, I can believe that the thumb guard was dropped on the Lindbergh driveway the night of the kidnapping, pushed into the gravel by the vehicle traffic, and brought back to the surface when the State Police worked on the driveway the day before Betty Gow dicovered it. If she truly found it (not planted it), and it was there the night of the kidnapping, it could certainly say something about how the child was taken from the property. Two other quick comments. Living on our property, I can see how someone could have surveilled the Lindbergh residence at night for a very long time without being dicovered. Also, a gravel driveway is VERY noisy as to vehicular traffic. If I am outside or in the house with a window opened, I can hear a vehicle enter our driveway from the hard surface front road which is almost one half mile away. From my experiences, if a vehicle was on the Lindbergh driveway that night, it is very reasonable to believe that someone heard it. Sorry for the long post. Just thought that some of this might be helpful. Thank you lurp173 for your post. It is helpful for me. Where I am at right now is that Charlie did leave via the driveway. The point you make about how noisy a gravel driveway is when cars are driving on it is important. It certainly adds to the believability of Anne saying she heard tires on the gravel drive around 8:10 pm. I was never sure of this because Anne was in the livingroom which was located on the back side of the house when she heard this vehicle. Now I realize it was possible for her to have heard those tires. I appreciate you sharing your perspective.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 27, 2017 17:17:11 GMT -5
From my experiences, I can believe that the thumb guard was dropped on the Lindbergh driveway the night of the kidnapping, pushed into the gravel by the vehicle traffic, and brought back to the surface when the State Police worked on the driveway the day before Betty Gow dicovered it. If she truly found it (not planted it), and it was there the night of the kidnapping, it could certainly say something about how the child was taken from the property. This is a great post that I haven't stopped thinking about since I read it. If we run down our different options through our minds one would be it was dropped the night of the crime. Your experiences are important and represent that real possibility. The problem I have is that everyone was combing the area for clues. The Press, having been shut off from the yard, combed that driveway for anything they could use in a story. Many of them in fact, and as I wrote in my book, they were even creating footprints to take pictures of. So here my question would be ... do you think by riding over the piece the cars would have buried the thumb-guard deep enough to prevent the Police and scores of Reporters who searched there? I've often considered it but talked myself out of the possibility so it's important for me to hear your position on this. If you believe so, then I'd say it shows even more people were involved since the double set of footprints leading away from the house never went towards that Private Lane. So we'd have 2 people walking away by navigating the abandoned road to the car parked on Wertsville Road while someone else was on the Private Lane. Which I believe is quite possible under the circumstances. I've often considered it was placed there but never found immediately as a consequence of where it was placed. Not necessarily on March 1st. The reason for this is because of the footprint evidence, and due to the fact the Prosecution's theory is completely asinine. Who flees a crime-scene only to stop to remove a sleeping suit in the middle of the Private Lane? Two other quick comments. Living on our property, I can see how someone could have surveilled the Lindbergh residence at night for a very long time without being dicovered. Agreed. Excepting I'd expect the Locals would notice an unusual car traversing the roads during that period of time AND they won't be able to see what's going on once the shutters were closed during the critical period of time. Here also, they would see the shutters before they were shut knowing they had a slide bolt lock on them, and no way to know they were warped. Furthermore, if a carpenter is watching with field glasses he'll know the lock on that window could not be defeated without breaking the glass. All of these points, I believe, show inside help. Also, a gravel driveway is VERY noisy as to vehicular traffic. If I am outside or in the house with a window opened, I can hear a vehicle enter our driveway from the hard surface front road which is almost one half mile away. From my experiences, if a vehicle was on the Lindbergh driveway that night, it is very reasonable to believe that someone heard it. Sorry for the long post. Just thought that some of this might be helpful. This is yet another important point you've made which supports Agent Sisk's report, Lt. Keaten's comment about it, and Anne's earwitness account. Keep posting and make them as long as you want! I'd really like to hear what you think about my comments.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jan 28, 2017 21:05:15 GMT -5
Michael, I just wanted to respond to your questions concerning my recent post. From my experiences with a gravel driveway, I do believe that it is entirely possible that the thumb guard was "pushed" into the gravel by what I would believe was heavy vehicular traffic the night of the kidnapping prior to daylight. My experience has been that a new gravel driveway (5 years and under) has a very soft base that continues to absorb gravel and other objects with regular vehicle traffic on it. The amount of gravel it takes to maintain a decent gravel driveway during the first 5 years is amazing (and expensive! ). The gravel just keeps going into the ground until a solid base is established. It is also very forgiving on objects as they are "pushed" into the base, not crushed. One quick example that I think is very apropos. During the first year that my wife and I moved to our property (building a house and establishing the one half mile gravel driveway), she lost her watch and subsequent believed it may have ocurred during one of our many daily walks on the driveway. A number of days had past and we had driven on the driveway as well as having numerous delivery trucks on it. When she realized it may have been lost on the driveway, we visually searched for it for many subsequent days on many walks, with no luck. Within a month or two, I worked the driveway with rakes and a drag harrow to prepare it for more gravel. Within the next day or so (and before the new gravel arrived) we spotted the watch in the driveway during one of our walks. My wife was delighted and I was very surprised. With the exception of a slight crack in the face, it was in good condition and still running. With this experience, when I saw (I think it was Amy's post) that the Hopewell paper reported that the State Police worked on the Lindbergh driveway the day or so before Betty Gow found the thumb guard, I said "bingo". I am certainly not saying that this is what happened in regards to the thumb guard, but it clearly can not be ruled out.
I agree with you that any surveillance of the Lindbergh property at night (although extremely effective) would be very vulnable to locals being suspicious of strange vehicles. It was even that way when I was growing up in Hopewell in the 40's, 50's and early 60's. Hopewell itself was very small in population (maybe 1500 people) and the surrounding countryside was even less. Everybody knew everybody, and I'm sure it was even more so in the 30's. (My mother knew every vehicle that appeared on our lane in Hopewell, and if she didn't, she would soon find out!). In one of my prior post, I believe I mentioned I am a retired Special Agent with the federal government and had a little over 30 years investigating criminal cases. I have spent countless hours on surveillance, and when we did it in a rural environment we would simply have one agent drop off the rest of us for the night, and not have any vehicles in the area until before first light. I have always assumed criminals were aware of this simple technique to reduce vehicle presence, and utilized it. I totally agree with you concerning your observations that any surveillance of the Lindbergh estate would reveal how difficult it would be to conduct a surreptitious nighttime entry and exit for the purpose of a kidnapping. To think that total strangers (let alone one individual) on a stormy night could utilize a ladder, a chisel and a burlap bag to silently enter and exit the house to perpetrate this crime is just insane. It defies all logic and the facts that your extensive research Michael has revealed.
Once again my post is too long, but I wanted to respond to Michael's question. I throughly enjoyed your book Michael, and really liked the manner in which you laid it out--presenting your research but letting the reader sort things out. Looking forward to your next book. I have some thoughts on the case based on my background, but I won't bother you with them at this point.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 28, 2017 21:54:42 GMT -5
Michael, I just wanted to respond to your questions concerning my recent post. From my experiences with a gravel driveway, I do believe that it is entirely possible that the thumb guard was "pushed" into the gravel by what I would believe was heavy vehicular traffic the night of the kidnapping prior to daylight. My experience has been that a new gravel driveway (5 years and under) has a very soft base that continues to absorb gravel and other objects with regular vehicle traffic on it. The amount of gravel it takes to maintain a decent gravel driveway during the first 5 years is amazing (and expensive! ). Thank you - this proves to me it's a legitimate option. I've talked myself out of it in the past but not anymore. To think that total strangers (let alone one individual) on a stormy night could utilize a ladder, a chisel and a burlap bag to silently enter and exit the house to perpetrate this crime is just insane. It defies all logic and the facts that your extensive research Michael has revealed. Once again my post is too long, but I wanted to respond to Michael's question. I throughly enjoyed your book Michael, and really liked the manner in which you laid it out--presenting your research but letting the reader sort things out. Looking forward to your next book. I have some thoughts on the case based on my background, but I won't bother you with them at this point. I appreciate that. I also do not think your post was too long and would really like to hear about your ideas and thoughts. Anytime you'd like to share them I am all ears!
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 29, 2017 0:30:22 GMT -5
Lurp, I second what Michael says: With your background I'm very eager to hear more of your thoughts on the case. You points about the thumbguard on the driveway, the gravel, etc. have caused me to rethink things too. I also lived in a home with long gravel drive (app. 1 mile long), so I know what's involved in maintenance, raking, re-graveling and so on, particularly when the gravel has yet to settle. I do have a question about this for Michael though: Do we know the road was, in fact, gravel? I've heard it described as "cinder", but is that the same thing? From photos (in Mark Falzini's 'Images of America' book), to me, the driveway looks like more of a packed earth or dirt road. It is a bit hard to tell though, what with the black-and-white pictures.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 29, 2017 9:50:35 GMT -5
Hey Lurp:
Are you related to the writer Thomas Wolfe? He has peeked his way into the Case. (See Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax Site)
It would be soo strange if it turned out that one of the First officers at the crime scene and the writer of the ransom notes (I don't believe that but it is a long shot) were related!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 29, 2017 10:00:14 GMT -5
I do have a question about this for Michael though: Do we know the road was, in fact, gravel? I've heard it described as "cinder", but is that the same thing? From photos (in Mark Falzini's 'Images of America' book), to me, the driveway looks like more of a packed earth or dirt road. It is a bit hard to tell though, what with the black-and-white pictures. Here's what I can tell you: We know from my book (see page 49 in TDC) that the lane, as it approached the house was covered with "heavy" gravel. The fact Keaten specifically pointed this out may imply something about the rest of the lane or perhaps was only meant to emphasize the point about that location. Next, I have a photo of the abandoned house at the beginning of the driveway and it shows gravel on the lane. It's undated but the amount isn't "heavy" so I guess it's only use is to show that gravel existed there. Now as to a little history on it's construction.... It was subcontracted to G.R. Murray who hired quite a few people, and it appears to have taken them at least (3) months. Both Princeton Quarries, and Pennington Trap Rock were used for supplies in building the house. Princeton had drivers, but Trap Rock required pick up. According to Police interviews Parvin Stryker, working for Murray, was used in the sole capacity to deliver "crushed stone" for the construction of that lane. He claimed he only worked (4) days before quitting because of the roads leading to the home were in "terrible" shape. I don't know who took over for him because most interviews don't give these kind of specifics. What appears to have happened after the sub-contractor was finished is that employees from the Matthews Construction put the final touches on this lane. For example James Buck graded the road, and George Dunwald spread cinders on top.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jan 29, 2017 20:47:08 GMT -5
Hey Lurp: Are you related to the writer Thomas Wolfe? He has peeked his way into the Case. (See Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax Site) It would be soo strange if it turned out that one of the First officers at the crime scene and the writer of the ransom notes (I don't believe that but it is a long shot) were related! Jack, I can say with certainty that my Great Uncle Harry Wolfe was not related to the 20th Century novelist Thomas Wolfe. My Uncle Harry's family was from the Trenton, N.J. area prior to his move to Hopewell. I believeThomas Wolfe was a North Carolinian. I would also believe that my Uncle Harry and Thomas Wolfe did not quite travel in the same social circle!!!! It is always amazing to me how many names have been dragged into the Lindbergh case. I have been wanting to make an observation on this forum to see if the many informed and talented people on this forum have any thoughts on it. If this has been hashed-out previously, please just disregard. I have been reading the great historical threads on this forum but have not seen all of them. If this has been thoroughly dicussed in the past, just tell me and I will continue to look for it in the forum's archives. The one thing about this case that has always puzzled me is that Hauptmann never flipped on any coconspirators (with the small exception of Fisch and the box of ransom money). This flys totally in the face of my investigative experiencs. Defendants facing serious federal time, would scramble to be the first one to turn on their coconspirators and get the "best" deal from prosecutors. It was easy to get them to talk -It was just a matter of going out and corroborating their statements to use in court. It was a standing "joke" (law enforcement gallows humor) that if you were going to commit a crime with other individuals, you better make sure that all your accomlices were dead within a few months, because if caught they were going to roll on you. It was totally my experience that when the jail house door closed (and it appeared that it was going to remain shut) there were no stand-up guys. They all flipped. So, why did Hauptmann remain silent to the end. I realize that once he was apprehended, neither Wilentz nor the State of N.J. were looking for deals. They wanted a warm body for the electric chair and Hauptmann was it. However I have read that even though Governor Hoffman offered to commute his sentence to life, and several newspapers offered large sums of money to his wife and child, he confessed nothing and turned on no one. WHY? In my experience, there were only three reasons why a defendant did not give up coconspirators: 1. They were truly innocent of the crime and had no information to give. 2 . They were the sole perpetrator and had no one to roll on. 3. They were so low on the totum pole in the conspiracy that they did not know the identities of the accomplices. From my readings of this case thus far, it appears that Hauptmann does not fall into any of the above three categories. This complete silence on his part right to the end is a complete mystery to me at this time. I think it would be interesting to here any comments on this from the extremely knowledgeable members of this forum. It may be far too late in time at this point to ascertain why he didn't give everything up to save his skin (as virtually every petty crook does), but I believe that if his motive for this could be revealed, it would shed a great deal od sunshine on what really happen that night of March 1, 1932 outside of little old Hopewell..
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 29, 2017 21:25:02 GMT -5
Hey Lurp, Not having your investigative experience, I hope you don't mind if I throw something out there. My thoughts on Hauptmann's silence are twofold: First, I think he fell somewhat into the second and third categories you mentioned above. I think he was one of three nondescript ragtags, who was chosen to participate in the crime, could be counted on not to talk and weren't above doing illegal things for gain. He may've also been useful in that he knew how to drive a car, could build a prop ladder, and so on. But I don't think he previously knew the other two "kidnappers". It may've been sort of a Reservoir Dogs-type of scenario: A group of guys are assembled to pull something off, guys who don't know each other and are not allowed to tell each other their names, to reduce the odds that they can be tied back to each other or to the crime. I think Hauptmann and the other guys may have been threatened that their families would be dead if they talked. So, not really knowing the other kidnappers, and his family being in danger if he talked, he may have had a lack of information and a good incentive to not tell what he did know. He gave Fisch's name, true, but Fisch may not have had anything to do with the crime. He could've been just a handy name that Hauptmann picked out of a hat: "Being abroad and dead, he can't confirm or deny anything."
|
|
|
Post by john on Jan 30, 2017 3:14:44 GMT -5
Thanks for your contributions, Lurp. I've always found Hauptmann's "stubborn silence" intriguing as well. He never really deviated from his story, by which I mean his dealings with Isidor Fisch and how he came into possession of the ransom money. Yet as we've gone over so many times on this and other Lindbergh Kidnapping sites Hauptmann had a better than two year window of opportunity to have come up with a better story than the one he told the police and which he stuck to till the day he died.
Hauptmann could have embellished his tale, added new names, kept the authorities on a wild goose chase for a long time. For a man who so meticulously planned and carried out such a major crime as he did Hauptmann appears to have lost his judgment along the way; this, after the crime, when one would expect such a clever criminal to have been to have been at the top of his game.
One question I have about the noise made on the gravel driveway is this: would the inclement weather, with the rain, snow and high winds, have muffled somewhat the sound of people entering the property, then climbing the ladder to kidnap the child? I ask this as an amateur to a professional, am assuming that you know about such things. Snow storms and rain, from my experience, even just snow on the ground, can muffle sound. Storms creates their own noise.
BTW: Welcome aboard,
John
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2017 9:39:59 GMT -5
However I have read that even though Governor Hoffman offered to commute his sentence to life, and several newspapers offered large sums of money to his wife and child, he confessed nothing and turned on no one. WHY? I am no expert on this case. I have spent the last 5 years trying to learn about it because I do not buy into the lone wolf theory that has dominated the historical record of this case. The fact that Hauptmann gave up no coconspirators has bolstered the lone wolf position that he didn't flip because there was no one else but him involved. I think that the facts that Michael presented in his book prove otherwise. I guess I should be clear that I think Hauptmann is involved. However, trying to be brief here because this is not what your question was, I believe that this kidnapping involved two (2) factions; the person or persons who took Charlie via the driveway from the scene: the persons who were solicited to stage the outdoor scene of the kidnapping. They had no part in the killing of the child. To get to your question about why Hauptmann did not roll over on anyone, my thinking is that the person who helped him was probably a family member from his wife's side of the relationship. He would never have given this person up.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jan 30, 2017 9:49:44 GMT -5
mikes book dosnt prove Hauptman had help its very hard to prove since the police found no evidence at the time. one person could have climbed the ladder and done this. kel kerraga built a duplicate ladder and I went with him to climb it at the exact spot it can be done.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jan 30, 2017 9:57:30 GMT -5
thanks amy. this thumbguard is the whackest thing you can own. when I tell people what it was used for they look at it like it should have been taken off the market. I cant see putting it on a baby
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 30, 2017 18:19:03 GMT -5
1. They were truly innocent of the crime and had no information to give. 2 . They were the sole perpetrator and had no one to roll on. 3. They were so low on the totum pole in the conspiracy that they did not know the identities of the accomplices. From my readings of this case thus far, it appears that Hauptmann does not fall into any of the above three categories. This complete silence on his part right to the end is a complete mystery to me at this time. I think it would be interesting to here any comments on this from the extremely knowledgeable members of this forum. It may be far too late in time at this point to ascertain why he didn't give everything up to save his skin (as virtually every petty crook does), but I believe that if his motive for this could be revealed, it would shed a great deal od sunshine on what really happen that night of March 1, 1932 outside of little old Hopewell.. Great information and ideas to think over.... My experiences are a little different - perhaps my dealing with the back end while you were on the front creates that difference. I think the Mandatory Minimums really caused a situation where people who may not have 'talked' in the past might "now." And of course there could be 'weak links' in any situation. I guess if there's a crew of about (5), in my opinion, even today there's no guarantee all involved would flip. In fact, it's just not anything I've ever seen. Next, we're talking about the days of Murder Inc. and not present day. The official corruption was rampant, no one could be trusted, and someone was always getting paid for something. Even 'good' cops involved in this case were handing over information for cash to Reporters thinking there was no harm, or that if they didn't - someone else would. Susan was once telling me a story about Samuelsohn coming home to his house being completely ransacked, and about death threats to him and his family being too many to count - all of which he believed could happen. Like LJ said, Hauptmann also could have worried his family would be killed - Condon certainly worried about that too and it took him to insulate himself against a "sure" thing vs. a "possible" one in order to testify. Condon is the perfect example even saying John was dead having been killed by his Confederates - something very likely to have occurred back then. We also have to consider the other circumstances involved... That Hauptmann may have believed he could evade the death penalty through the Governor's efforts without putting himself in that position. Perhaps he didn't know the full scope of involvement, or as Amy suggested, any confession would lead to, say, Mueller being arrested for his part in laundering ransom. The biggest "weak link" in this case was Whateley. Hauptmann, it seems, was chosen for a reason and taking whoever he knew was involved with him proved it was the right decision by whoever made it. But even so, Hauptmann had considered talking and even might have floated more beyond that one story we've all heard about from Agent Turrou. If Turrou told him anything different at that very time I think we'd all know the name of at least one other involved.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jan 30, 2017 20:46:41 GMT -5
Michael,
Thanks to you, Lightningjew, John and Amy35 for responding to my questions on Hauptmann's silence in this case. I knew that all of you with such knowledge about this case would have some excellent observations and thoughts about it. The fear for the safety of family members is certainly a factor. We would address this issue right up front with assurances that we could provide protection in regards to this concern. We did have resources for this and were always prepared to use them. Maybe we were just smooth talkers, but this never prevented a defendant from ultimately cooperating. It is interesting Michael that your experiences are different from mine, although I would imagine that inmates would put on a totally different image when behind bars than when they are first arrested and advised of what they are facing. I've seen some very tough guys who were the shooters out on the street, who literally became physically sick and vomited into a trash basket while in handcuffs in our office when confronted with the time they were facing. I totally agree with you that times were certainly different in law enforcement in the 1930's as opposed to my years in the 70's, 80's, 90's and into 2000. And this is what I may be missing in placing too much emphasis on Hauptmann not turning on his accomplices. I agree that the mandatory minimum sentencing did help flip defendants, but I keep coming back to the fact that from very early on, Hauptmann knew he was facing the toughest sentence this country has to offer-death.
Again, thanks to all for giving your thoughts on this matter. The knowledge that you all have on the facts/events of this case continues to amaze me. At some point, knowledge will normally "solve" any criminal case. My knowledge is still limited, but my experiences keep telling me that something very special/unique was going on in this case to cause Hauptmann to choose death over talking.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jan 31, 2017 1:51:43 GMT -5
Whateley does seem like the weak link, Michael, but what about Betty Gow?
Your point about Hauptmann being well chosen was well taken. Indeed, whether or not he was wholly aware of it, he was the perfect fall guy. This must have occurred to him while he was in prison but what could he do about it? The potential danger to his wife and son was too great. If he "talked" he might have saved his life but it would have ruined his family, and he knew it, so he sacrificed his life FOR his family, maybe the noblest thing he ever did.
Off the top of my head (this just occurred to me): back in 1952 there was a big news story regarding infamous bank robber Willie Sutton, who was identified by a shoe clerk in the Bronx, duly arrested and put in prison. This made the clerk a national hero for fifteen minutes and it got him his picture in all the major news magazines. A while later,--not sure if it was weeks or months--the man was brutally gunned down, an obvious retaliation for his having fingered Sutton. This was many years after the Lindbergh kidnapping and trial, well after World War II, and it goes to show the power of the Mob, organized crime, call it what you will. If one wonders why this or that person didn't talk, the shoe clerk's murder is as good an example as to why. Things like this had been going on for a while, and people knew, especially city people like Condon.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jan 31, 2017 7:52:26 GMT -5
Good point John. Does anyone think that Lindbergh's willingness to work with underworld characters early on(Rosner/Spitale/Bitz)served a dual purpose, it sent a message to those who executed the crime not to "talk" while making Lindbergh look like a father so desperate to find his son that he would deal even with the mob to find him.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jan 31, 2017 15:38:08 GMT -5
That's a great thought, Stella. If Lindbergh's dealings with underworld types early on was his way of "sending a signal" I think it's fair to say he sent it well.
There's a larger issue in this, or rather question, which is how things would have gone down (so to speak) if this hadn't happened. If, for the sake of argument, the kidnapping was committed by a small time criminal or small timers of the Hauptmann kind then the message was clear and everything they did afterwards was at least in part a response to it.
From what I know of Michael's work on the case this is coming to seem increasingly unlikely, as the small timer/small timers hypotheses regarding the kidnapping simply don't fit into the larger scheme of things. There was too much going on in the big house in Hopewell for this to be the case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2017 16:16:43 GMT -5
At some point, knowledge will normally "solve" any criminal case. My knowledge is still limited, but my experiences keep telling me that something very special/unique was going on in this case to cause Hauptmann to choose death over talking. Welcome to the club, Lurp173. This truly is not a typical kidnapping!!
|
|
|
Post by allison on Mar 1, 2017 9:28:41 GMT -5
This is just a note of thanks to Michael for your wonderful book. I'm re-reading it today with a mug of hot lemonade. Your hard work is greatly appreciated.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Mar 2, 2017 14:10:25 GMT -5
I agree Steve.
What, if anything, does Michael's book "prove" Amy?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Mar 3, 2017 13:09:28 GMT -5
Michael:
You state that "Whateley was the weak link." Do you determine that by his death-bed comment about Betty Gow, or have you found more information about Ollie that is coming?
Your old pal, Jack
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2017 14:32:38 GMT -5
I agree Steve. What, if anything, does Michael's book "prove" Amy? I can only speak for myself, Jack, as Michael wrote his book so that each person can be aware of so many facts that exist that have not been told before and then apply those facts to what we know about the kidnapping. It certainly proved to me that more than one person was present at the kidnap scene because they found prints from two people. This is not a lone wolf snatch. This book has also proved to me that I really didn't know enough about the Lindbergh servants, which, until I read his book, I had thought I did know. This definitely has changed my position and understanding of people like Betty Gow and Ollie Whateley. Most of all, it has proven to me that the way the events on the night of March 1, 1932 happened, both inside the house and outside the house, are not exactly the same as has been historically presented. I don't know how anyone can read Michael's book and not find themselves questioning how things really happened at Highfields that night.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 3, 2017 17:33:56 GMT -5
You state that "Whateley was the weak link." Do you determine that by his death-bed comment about Betty Gow, or have you found more information about Ollie that is coming? I think Chapter 9 answers this question. Also take into consideration his answers to Garsson's questions and his reaction once he realizes he's said too much. The confession is the coup d'état. And, while it isn't needed in my opinion, I do have more. I also think that had Garsson convinced Betty that Lindbergh could not protect her I am fairly certain she would have flipped.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2017 19:51:20 GMT -5
Michael,
In Chapter 12, The Crime Scene, I was wondering when Colonel Schwarzkopf arrived at the Hopewell house. I don't see him mentioned anywhere, unless I missed it somehow. There were so many police there and arriving at different times. Who was actually in charge of the crime scene that night?
|
|