kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 3, 2008 20:04:46 GMT -5
The only problem with that is that carpenters rarely if ever write "inches", preferring instead to use the " symbol for inches. Also if you use it on one dimension, you would likely use it on the other two. Besides, is he really concerned that someone might confuse it with feet? I wonder if it could say "inside"?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on May 4, 2008 7:45:24 GMT -5
I think it most likely there was a "shoebox" involved along the story line and it could well have been the one Kloppenburg claimed to have seen at Fisch's going away party. Hans wasn't really going out on a limb in his testimony; once the box is in the kitchen and out of his sight, he's basically off the hook. He helps his friend out and is no longer accountable, minimal risk involved. Who was going to stand up and say he didn't see Fisch come in with a shoebox? Kloppenburg strikes me as a great guy and loyal friend and as part of Team Hauptmann, I'll guarantee he was just as willing to mold and stretch the truth as Hauptmann was when he claimed he had no idea what was in the box until mid August-1934.
I think that's a very good possibility and could well have been the same size of shoebox he measured up for the ransom note instruction.
Me too. I've been able to make sense out of all kinds of hen track writing and that word is one of the worst cases of Hauptmann mumblese I've seen.
My best guess here is "inches" because of what looks like the stem of an "h" about where you would expect it, a small letter (e?) and then what looks like a Hauptmann open-looped "s." Also, check out the word "in" in the next line down from the diagram in that particular ransom note. The characteristics of those two letters are the same as in the first two of the mystery word.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 4, 2008 8:05:54 GMT -5
If the consensus is "inches" so be it. As I said before , it's not what a carpenter would write. I think my use of the word in this thread is the most I have used "inches" in 30 years.
Joe, I have to say that I have never been to enamored with the idea that Kloppy and other Hauptmann acquaintances were completely in the dark about what he was up to. I'm not saying that they actively did anything wrong, but I definitely think they had a knowledge of Hauptmann's dishonest enrichment. How on earth could you not?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 4, 2008 8:25:01 GMT -5
I was comfortable with "inches" but it doesn't mean that it is. It does look like an "s" at the end but in reality I couldn't say with any degree of certainty. I think the only way for this to be solved is for a real Expert, (Dr. Baier, Gus Lesnevich, etc.) to look at the original under magnification and tell us.
As far as Kloppenberg, I am certain he didn't believe Hauptmann was involved and that also he wouldn't lie about what he saw. There's no way I'll believe he was involved or knew anything about this crime. That's why I see such a dilemma and asked what I did above. There seems to be a lot of this going on in the case and I feel if we could explain "why" we can get closer to the truth of the matter.
And so follows the question... if it does indeed say "inches" then we'd have to ask "why?"
If Hauptmann is the Author why would he write "inches" if carpenters didn't do this?
Why would it be illegible if it were important enough to write directly on the instruction contained within the ransom note?
Why is it so important that a receptacle be constructed in the first place?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 4, 2008 8:59:45 GMT -5
I am not necessarily suggesting Kloppy knew about the crime. But I am sure that he and other friends of Hauptmann certainly knew something was not right about Hauptmann's source of enrichment. Could any of us be completely oblivious to a friend's new found wealth in a period of economic distress? Kloppenberg must have been struggling like so many others at the time. Would he not find Hauptmann's freedom from that distress as well as his sudden abandonment of his trade as suspicious? Or is he clueless? There seems to be too many clueless people around BRH, IMHO.
Exactly. If it were to be a blind drop the need for a specific container would be understandable. But for a hand over, what's the point? Also, another minor point, as Joe pointed out the arrangement of currency in the "packet" is critical for it to fit. One point here is that there were two sizes of currency at that time. Why is the request specific on a container size, but not on the type of currency and it's orientation? Hauptmann is specific regarding the breakdown of the denominations and the size of the "packet". That indicates a fair amount of thought. Then the thought process is for some reason abandoned regarding the type of currency and the type of "packet". It seems to me that this indicates a overwhelming concern for size and denomination and a disregard for the "packet" construction and type of currency. Why is that?
|
|
|
Post by pzb63 on May 6, 2008 1:44:29 GMT -5
That word 'inches' is certainly difficult to read, but is what you would expect to read due to the preceding line "the size will be about...". It is only natural you would read what you expect - the stated dimensions and then inches.
Similarly, further down the page of that letter it says "it is about 150 miles away" - it doesn't look like 'miles' to me, but am not sure what else it could be - again reading what you expect to see.
If I was to see that word inches on its own I might venture it to read 'under' which of course makes no sense in the context of the letter and preceeding sentence.
Kevkon is of course correct in stating carpenters would use the " and ' symbols for inches and feet, in fact, I think it likely most people would - I remember always using them before we went metric - human nature. Even 'in' and 'ft' would seem more appropriate, given Hauptmanns carpentry background. Also, it would be pretty automatic to write the " symbol after every number (at least to me).
Mike, is there anything among Hauptmanns effects that may indicate what his usual notations were when measuring or calculating materials required for jobs?
And as to the packet - while having given the dimensions the letter does say 'it will be about....', so the size is an approximation, and the construction of a box to the exact dimensions was Condon's idea.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 6, 2008 7:07:47 GMT -5
Actually I think it's more automatic for a carpenter to not bother with the inch symbol altogether if there is no reason to include it. Most of my shop notes don't have it. I only bother with it if there is some reason that it could be confused with feet or if the dimension includes both feet and inches. Since it's unlikely that anyone would think that the "packet" would be larger than a steamer trunk, I think it's fair to assume that everyone knows it's inches. The fact that the inch symbol ( or inches) is not used on the other dimensions leads me to suspect that the scrawl is not "inches", but perhaps inside or interior. That would be more like a carpenter's notation as it describes the given dimension.
I can't agree here. The idea is determined by the drawing which takes priority over the word "about". I don't think anyone would have taken it otherwise. It may have been Condon's idea to make it wood and it certainly was his idea to base it on a ballot box.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on May 6, 2008 8:08:15 GMT -5
No to belabour the "inches" vs. "other" debate here but I think Hauptmann probably would have written " or "in." if he was making up a drawing for himself or another tradesperson. He wasn't in this case and was communicating a measurement to someone he knew probably didn't have a background in carpentry. Yes, the word looks like a wormtrack, so bad on him, and I don't think Condon or Lindbergh would have any trouble mistaking the short form (if he had written it) for anything else but "inches." I think what's important here though is Hauptmann's intent and what I see is that despite the horrible handwriting, he was trying to make the drawing as clear as possible. The use of the full word "inches" tells me there would be no need to put it behind the other measurements - free space there looks pretty tight as well.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 6, 2008 9:12:42 GMT -5
No to belabour the "inches" vs. "other" debate here but I think Hauptmann probably would have written " or "in." if he was making up a drawing for himself or another tradesperson. He wasn't in this case and was communicating a measurement to someone he knew probably didn't have a background in carpentry. Yes, the word looks like a wormtrack, so bad on him, and I don't think Condon or Lindbergh would have any trouble mistaking the short form (if he had written it) for anything else but "inches." I think what's important here though is Hauptmann's intent and what I see is that despite the horrible handwriting, he was trying to make the drawing as clear as possible. The use of the full word "inches" tells me there would be no need to put it behind the other measurements - free space there looks pretty tight as well. Well, if we don't belabour points in this case, what's left? We will have to agree to disagree here Joe. You ( and others) have made the point on other occasions that an aspect of a piece of evidence was the result of a particular Hauptmann habit. Why should this be an exception? How does this scrawl "clarify" if you can't even read it? Why would he think the dimensions would be interpreted as anything other than inches? Here's the reason for dwelling on this seemingly insignificant word; what is more important to Hauptmann, the interior dimensions or the exterior dimensions? Is he more concerned with what it will contain or what it will be contained in? That's it in a nutshell.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on May 6, 2008 13:54:36 GMT -5
Kevin, I think most of the points made about Hauptmann's habits tend to point out that he is thorough and deliberate but at the same time, notoriously inconsistent in his handiwork. A creatively designed and cunning ladder featuring a major design flaw just about anybody would be able to point out, living like a king in the Depression on Lindbergh money and then passing a $10 gold ransom note in broad daylight at a gas station, sitting in a police station being grilled and knowing that cops will be ripping apart your garage and still remaining mute until confronted with hidden ransom money... I think you've pointed out some as well.
I guess we do disagree on this one, as I have real difficulty imagining why anyone looking to connect for $50,000 in a darkened cemetery would even be concerned about interior or exterior measurements of the box or packet, or whatever was intended. Wouldn't the main objective here be to get the money from Condon, confirm with a quick check the bills looked OK, and most importantly make a clean getaway? I just don't see a whole lot of importance within this detailed Hauptmann instruction (the drawn box and its measurements) and the crappy writing, other than to feel somehow through this oddball order, that he is in charge of the transaction, thumbing his nose a bit at Condon and Lindbergh and calling the shots.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 6, 2008 15:05:10 GMT -5
So do I, Joe. Then why was it important for him to demand it?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on May 6, 2008 15:37:40 GMT -5
Definitively speaking Kevin, I don't know and I hope you can definitively answer this riveting question some day. But I tend to think he first developed an image of what he would like to receive the money in, a convenient shaped container, calculated the approximate size of the box it would take to accomodate $70,000 and then spelled it out as a stern German carpenter would do towards a windbag Bronx pedagogue and a world famous Hopewell aviator. Maybe there is more to it than this but I'm at a loss to make any more sense of it than extraneous detail. Now enough from me on this. Why do you think he demanded it?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 6, 2008 17:34:32 GMT -5
Well I think of myself writing that note and what might cause me to specify a container size. I really can't say that it makes much sense to me. You are saying it was simply a Teutonic gesture by BRH that incorporated the minimum size required to fit the money. Why bother? Put it in a sack, who cares? Hauptmann cares, that's who. He cared enough to incorporate a sketch, the only one of which is found in the notes.I don't know why, but I think as trivial as it may seem there could be something to it. I'm not sure I would so readily dismiss it as insignificant. How about this, would you agree that Hauptmann was concerned that the packet was to be no larger than necessary to contain the money? If it were you in the cemetery getting the money, would you have a preference for how it was conveyed?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on May 7, 2008 6:17:22 GMT -5
I'm not ready to dismiss it as insignificant. In fact, I think a very strong case can be made for him thinking of a container the size of a normal shoebox and that he felt it was adequate to hold the ransom. After all, the shoebox does seem to be a common thread in this case, what with Fisch's arrival at the party, the rainy day discovery in August 1934, right down to the measurements Kloppenburg gave on the stand at Flemington. The way I see it, that alignment of numbers is the most interesting thing about this entire subject and tends to implicate Hauptmann through association.
Do I think Hauptmann was concerned that the packet be no larger than necessary to contain the money? Not really, unless Condon brought a full sized piece of luggage or larger. I think he was more concerned about getting away inconspicuously.
If I was CJ in the cemetery, I'd specify a small box or canvas / burlap bag that wasn't excessive for the purpose and which I could open easily to do a quick check of the loot. And I would probably have looked around my place and come up with a container common to both parties, like a shoebox or sugar or flour bag. Let me ask you this, what difference do you think it would make if the specified measurements represented interior or exterior dimensions? What wall thickness would the container have had? Unless it was a fireproof safe, I would suggest probably 3/8" maximum but more likely 1/4." So how much does this add to the equation? Would this really have made a difference in what the box was designed for in terms of it containing something or be contained in? Why do you think this packet has any more importance than something to temporarily hold the money, not to mention it being a very incriminating piece of evidence if he were nabbed with it in his possession?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 7, 2008 6:38:34 GMT -5
Good points Joe and good questions.
I guess my feeling is that if I were in that cemetery and prepared for a quick getaway two things would occur to me. One would be that I would want something like a bag or a satchel which would be easy to run with without fear of it opening up. That's where the shoe box would become a problem. Try running and jumping while trying to keep the box from getting damaged or spilling it's contents. The second thing that occurs to me is the possible stashing of the money ASAP. That makes me wonder if the need for a minimal size packet is somehow a result of some nearby niche in which it can be safely concealed . I really can't say that I see any other reason to specify a container size. As for the thickness of the material for the "packet", it could be as much as 3/4". I sometimes make small custom boxes as gifts and the wall thickness is usually a result of what is available, type of joinery, and aesthetics. Just seems odd to me that a carpenter would specify a size and not care if it's ID or OD when the size is so close to the absolute minimum.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on May 7, 2008 11:36:51 GMT -5
OK, I see where you're coming from now, Kevin. The problem I have with that scenario, if I were Hauptmann, is the possibility of that cemetery being trampled by investigators the next day searching for clues. I don't think we can say conclusively Hauptmann believed Lindbergh would have been content to keep searching and having Condon try to raise CJ for better directions through newspaper . Would he really have risked returning for the hidden box? Wouldn't he be more likely to believe that having given Lindbergh a bum steer in the Boad Nelly note, that his buffer zone would be minimal, if not zilch? And even if he he had temporarily stashed the box and contained ransom, any surveillance of that cemetery would still have nailed him as he departed through fresh identification from Condon, packet or no packet. I just can't see him winning either way and my first inclination would be to get the hell out of there asap with the loot, whatever the container.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 7, 2008 14:24:43 GMT -5
So would I! But then again, I wouldn't want to do that with a shoe box if I have a choice.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on May 7, 2008 14:41:22 GMT -5
Perhaps not the ideal carrying container but I wouldn't consider it unwieldy, especially if he anticipated the actual delivered box would be more or less in accordance with the requested dimensions laid out in the ransom note. He certainly didn't put up too much of a fuss about having to take $20,000 less and by the time he had conceded the extra money, I can well imagine the box's dimensions would have been one of the farthest things from his mind.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 7, 2008 17:31:23 GMT -5
Guess I'm lost on this one , Joe. The guy takes the time to specify and draw a container for the money even though the specified amount and breakdown for that money more or less determines the container. Is he afraid they might hand it over in a steamer trunk? What's his thinking here? Someone tells me to make a box a certain size, I have to believe they have a reason for it to be so. Here's a guy demanding ransom $70k from Charles Lindbergh and he has the presence of mind to ask for a "packet" to be made. It has to be important to him.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on May 7, 2008 18:16:11 GMT -5
If the specific "packet" instructions given to Condon in the first letter he received were reinforced in subsequent notes, especially just prior to the April 3 transaction, I might agree they have some importance. They aren't though. There is no further mention of the "packet" and its dimensions beyond the initial instruction in the March 9 ransom note, just requests for Condon to bring the money and only elaborated upon in one case, to having the money in "one bundle." What does this tell you about what Hauptmann was after first and foremost and the actual relevance of his original request?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 8, 2008 6:07:17 GMT -5
Ok Joe, so now it's insignificant. Still, it was when he wrote that note.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on May 8, 2008 10:01:45 GMT -5
I didn't say that, Kevin. As Streppone said to Wilentz at the trial, "Are you trying to puzzle me up? Please don't puzzle me up." Ja, there was a reason he originally included the "packet" diagram and measurements, we both agree on that. And again, my best guess as to why is that it's consciously meshed into the shoebox story, by virtue of the similar measurements and various "threads of custody." But I think Hauptmann's reasoning and that overall connection pales in significance to his anticipation of the contents and beyond the original pictorial note to Condon, he wouldn't really have have cared less if Condon had arrived at St. Raymon's wearing a tutu and carrying a pink Easter basket.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 8, 2008 11:16:45 GMT -5
Me, puzzle some one up? Never!
Ok, so Hauptmann is busy scribbling away with his disguised hand with visions of $5,$10, $20, & $50 bills floating around and all of the sudden the vision of a shoe box appears out of his subconscious. Just the ticket in case a future alibi is required. So being a good German carpenter he decides to show off his drawing skill and provides a sketch with dimensions less anyone reading said note is unfamiliar with shoe boxes. Now a little subterfuge, he calls it a "packet" and tells them to make it. That should keep everyone busy for a couple of days ( what is a "packet" and what's it made of?). Of course Hauptmann knows that the real fun will start when they try and stuff the $70k into that "packet"!
Does that all sound about right? ;D
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on May 8, 2008 12:05:29 GMT -5
Actually, I think it's a pretty crappy drawing. And what's with that rounded corner? Are there rounded bills out there? Here's something that recently began weighing on my mind. Do you think Hauptmann might have called it a "packet" so as not to frighten off Condon? After all, he would have been aware that the Bronx Bomber was once active in boxing. In light of these considerations, if there was any mention of that "other name" to describe the packet, do you think Condon might have believed he was going to have his ears boxed in the cemetery? I'm wondering here if Hauptmann might have also planned this description for a year alredy. Regardless, I'm hoping we can spend another good two months getting to the bottom of this latest hot topic...
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 8, 2008 13:55:45 GMT -5
Ok Joe, I asked for that Actually I would consider two months a worthy investment if for once we could actually make a determination about even something as small as this! Think about it, an actual discovery that makes sense and suits most everyone. On second thought, never mind. What came over me? You know there is a possibility that Hauptmann had originally intended for a blind drop and later had a change of mind. That might account for his concern with the "packet" size initially. Joe, what's your feeling regarding the actual writing of the notes? Do you feel strongly that they were written extemporaneously , copied from a draft, or as I think Michael suggested, dictated? I only ask because of the need to disguise the writing which is somewhat akin to forging. Personally they seem written extemporaneously to me.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on May 8, 2008 14:30:36 GMT -5
Kevin, it seems to me CJ was pretty comfortable hanging out with Condon for over an hour at Woodlawn on March 12. I'd have to think he intended to take the handoff from the beginning. What evidence do you see of a blind drop in the early going?
As for the ransom note writing, I think Hauptmann was more than capable by himself. The later notes, although still not written in his best form, seem to me to have enough fluidity to suggest a progression from writer's thoughts to visual form on paper. Perhaps some hesitation when it came to words that had to be looked up or he spelt differently between examples. What are the leading indicators otherwise?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 8, 2008 17:17:07 GMT -5
Nothing really, Joe. It's just a bit of speculation on my part. After all, a blind drop is the most common method used in ransom exchanges and I don't think Hauptmann intended to re-invent the wheel here. If he had thought of a blind drop initially, the drawing would make more sense to me. Also, he does employ that method in the directions to the meetings.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on May 8, 2008 19:51:42 GMT -5
Packet drawing solution: CJ was scared that ding-bat Condon would arrive with the money stuffed in all his pockets. See, and yall thought it might take two more months to solve.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 9, 2008 5:42:52 GMT -5
Very possibly true. And if so, most probably a lesson learned the hard way based on prior experience with a food stuffed baby carriage.
It's an interesting aspect of Hauptmann's personality that he always seeks to contain things. Even the ladder is contained within itself. What's that all about?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on May 9, 2008 7:50:35 GMT -5
The use of a blind drop might be supported by the diagram measurements, but remember he did also say the packet "will bee about," which doesn't sound like anything too accurate was expected. At the same time, he might have made the request so that he would recognize Condon from a safe vantage point partly by what he was carrying, to know ahead of time that he had the money with him. In any case, the immediate followup instruction beyond the pictorialized ransom note, stated that Condon should "bring the mon(e)y" with him.
|
|