Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Feb 21, 2006 9:41:28 GMT -5
I feel the "singnature" was as much a personalized statement of involvement as a means of ensuring Lindbergh would know he was dealing with the right party.
Joe
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 21, 2006 10:10:24 GMT -5
Why would that be a concern? After all the kidnapper(s) would be the only party who had the real article. And why go to such an elaborate process? Wouldn't a simple numeric code be sufficient? It looks a lot like someone is overemphasizing the signature because the simple fact is that they know they do not have the object which they claim to. I mean this is no one step process making the signature. It is also extremely risky if they are pre-made and in one's possession. Note also that it did not stop imposters from entering into consideration. Had it not been for that signature, however, would Condon have been able to get through to Lindbergh and thus become an intregal part of this case? Would the payoff have been made solely on the identification of the Dr Dentons?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Feb 21, 2006 10:28:51 GMT -5
Hauptmann left a trail of personally-designed identity all over the physical evidence, that he was too self-assured to recognize from the beginning, would come back to haunt him.
There is the personally-inspired ransom note symbol, unique ladder design, the piece of wood from his attic which became a rail on the ladder, his own handwriting in all of the ransom notes, his diagram of the recessed rung design, Condon's coordinates written on the closet trim, the hiding locations for the ransom money, electric wire alarm to the garage from his bedroom, chastising of Lindbergh in the ransom notes, confidence in remaining in Condon's company for over an hour, his expression to the effect "it is like a book I close." There must be dozens of other examples in this case.
In the end, it must have been very hard on the poor guy, having by then made the irreversible decision to remain mute and not be able to take credit for his "great insights and achievements." For the unrepentant criminal, any profiler will agree this is one of the hardest things to keep from spilling, but then Hauptmann seems to have been anything but a normal human being.
Joe
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 21, 2006 10:55:10 GMT -5
Yes, but with the exception of the famous writing on the closet trim which I personally believe to be highly suspect, all the other personalized elements you correctly identify would not necessarily be known by the kidnapper to be identifiable with him. I am reminded of several accounts from the trial in which Hauptmann seems genuinely surprised at the ability to scientifically make identifications of various evidence. In any case it still does not explain the need to include such an elaborate signature in the notes. Why not just the three holes? Would that not be sufficient? The additional circles is as unnecessary as hand carving designs on the ladder. What is the point? Now if a profiler could look at this case and determine that the signature was some sort of unconscious act as a result of the psychology of Hauptmann, that might be a different story.
|
|
|
Post by rick for kevin on Feb 21, 2006 11:57:13 GMT -5
Kevin--This is a very astute observation! What is the purpose of a complex symbol if youve got the real deal! Good one! We now have reasons to suspect that CJ did not have access to Charlie. So we have 2 go-betweens?
It could be the result of "overthinking" how the gang will be identified. It could be designed to try and avoid proveing you have Charlie? Just in case you dont?But its a very poor substitute. >It could be designed to actually "locate" a pre-exsiting extortion group? One that knows the symbol? >It has been reported that Condon reported seeing the symbol on the note delivered by the taxi driver, but before he opened up the note with the symbol on it. >Rosner took a copy of the nursery note to NYC and copies were bandied about...including the symbol. >It could be the result of planning the kidnapping strategy but knowing you won't ever have Charlie to bargain with to collect the ransom? >And finally, CAL continue to pursue many other leads including Edgar Cayce, Al Capone, and Curtis in Norfolk in spite of the Bronx Blackmailers revealing the symbol. why is that?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Feb 21, 2006 12:03:18 GMT -5
The point I make here is that Hauptmann went to these lengths to satisfy his own inner desire and direction to demonstrate to himself and others that he was brilliant and important. I think there's a huge psychology factor in play here and that Schoenfeld nailed a good chunk of the traits of the ransom note writer and the bizarre agenda of this crime that eventually led investigators to Hauptmann. I do think in a way, Schoenfeld himself succumbed to some of the character traits of omnipotence he ascribed directly to the kidnapper, but I digress.
Within this is a powerful argument to be made for Hauptmann being the main player in this crime. Personally, I don't believe he conceived the crime alone, having originally being coerced into participating, but that he assumed the role of main player with Fisch, after the others got cold feet following the death of the baby.
I absolutely agree that he was probably flabbergasted by some of the revelations of Koehler, Osborn and others who testified through scientific analysis to his detriment. I'm sure he never would have seen it coming or that his overpowering sense of self-delusion would ever come come around to whack him where it counted.
Joe
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 21, 2006 12:40:19 GMT -5
I can't say that I disagree with your points, But my main point here is that for a kidnapper the emphasis on identification seems excessive to say the least. Why would this loom so large in the planning of this caper? Is it solely the result of satisfying some psychological need? Perhaps, but I think if you stand back from this crime and try to look at it as a straight forward kidnapping this among other elements seems strangely out of place. What we have is a kidnapping planned with the use of a ladder which in itself is an odd method of extraction and the over dependence on a signature to prove the authenticity of the kidnapper(s). Why would anyone be so concerned with being taken as the genuine article if they have the child at their disposal?On the other hand, if you did not actually have a live kidnap victim to bargain with, wouldn't you need to prove in some other way that you are the abductor?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Feb 21, 2006 13:36:00 GMT -5
Here's my own read on the relevance of the signature and the intention of the nursery note.
The emphasis on identification is strictly because of who the kidnapping victim was, the great Lindbergh's son. Hauptmann, through his overpowering sense of omnipotence, was driven to identify on an equal level with Lindbergh, whose life he was now intimately connected with, hence the two interlocking blue circles, which represent the two men.
The child, Lindberghs' own blood, and represented by the filled red circle in the middle, is now "shared" by both until the ransom exchange. I've previously mentioned my interpretation of the hole spacing and the relationship between Hauptmann and Lindbergh.
I also see the nursery ransom note and its symbol as a very personal, almost primordial communication, which makes no mention of harming the child and of course, warns Lindbergh not to call the police. If Lindbergh had opened the note and done as he was directed, this in itself would have probably precluded the possibility of anyone else getting involved.
So why go such lengths in the symbol's design? Because of a macabre feeling of reverence on the part of Hauptmann towards his victims and their status in the eyes of the world.
Joe
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 21, 2006 13:56:21 GMT -5
Interesting interpretation Joe. Have you ever read about the Scotland Yard report on the signature? Supposedly they felt it was writen by someone whose initials contained BRH. Shows how we all can look at the same thing and see something entirely different.
Out of curiousity, I know you have done extensive testing on the holes. Are you satisfied with the explanation for how the circles were made? Have you tried it yourself in conjunction with the holes?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Feb 21, 2006 14:22:42 GMT -5
Yes, I've read about the Scotland Yard interpretation, but believe it more or less evolved following Hauptmann's arrest. I could be mistaken though, not positive.
I tend to agree with the one of the proposed theories that the circles were created by dipping the raised, circular base of an ink bottle into a blue ink pad and that the red circle was formed by the base of a cork stopper for a red ink bottle.
I maintain the hole spacing is highly significant and is symbolic of similar events in the lives of both Lindbergh and Hauptmann.
Joe
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 21, 2006 14:40:58 GMT -5
I have always been interested in the Manfred von Richthofen connection. Do you see a connection with your signature theory?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Feb 21, 2006 15:10:48 GMT -5
I really don't know how much Hauptmann idolized von Richtofen at the time of the kidnapping although I assume he was a sort of champion of the average German soldier after the war. I know he read Floyd Gibbons' biography of the fighter pilot in prison. I would say there is a decided boldness in the choice of striking colours in the ransom note symbol. Perhaps there is some subconscious connection at work here with the red Fokker triplane, his bright red garage doors and the red circle in the symbol. But I think I'd have to leave that one to the Son of Schoenfeld {;-}
Joe
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Feb 21, 2006 15:12:28 GMT -5
Kevin, is there anything in the von Richtofen connection with regards to the ransom note symbol that strikes you?
Joe
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 21, 2006 17:20:35 GMT -5
Not really Joe. I have tried to look for some ww1 symbolism, I know there have been reports that there is a connection to a German target for example, but to date I have not seen anything tangible. I even went so far as to check through German badges of WWI to see if there was a connection. Ironically I think the closest thing I have found in this vein is Rickenbacker's flying circus. The connection is still intriguing, though. The large amount of aeronautical industry stock Hauptmann purchased is sometimes cited as an example of his fascination with this subject.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Feb 21, 2006 19:48:44 GMT -5
I put a lot of stock in the genealogical interpretation of the interlocking circles (Dictionary of Symbols, Carl G. Liungman) as relating to togetherness or intimate relationship (relax Rick) and that the symbol was designed to represent a direct and personal communication device between Hauptmann and Lindbergh. With the child represented by the red filled circle in the middle and shared by both circles, I believe it's very compelling.
Joe
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 21, 2006 23:33:09 GMT -5
"singnature"--the name of a person written by himself! Ergo sum/ Pisces = Fish = Fisch. As simple as pie.
For the last 75 years, everybody took silly wilda** quesses at the so called symbol...Blue, Red, Horizontal, the Trigamba, the Mafia, Hauptmans Machine Gun...and now to top them all some psycho drama aka Dudley Shoenfled. No ways, hosesee' can you see this? Nope. this cannot be supported by any rrational evidence--just illusion and mirrors/ sprinkled w/ imagination. Now that the Ripper Dude has nailed down the pattern to a tee, a 2000 year olde symbol existing in European Churches, then everyone just ignores that. Why? Because they didnt think of it, realize it, imagine it or find it? [It also doesnt lead directly to BRH] Its just a big huge coincidence that MARY Cerrita and Peter B. run the mystical Christian Church acrossed the street from Fisch's rooming house and Sharpe, Whateley and Condon were attenders. Yup, just a big wup/ but Gerta Henkel says Fisch was an attender too? Looks to me like we have the makings of a gang and a singnature to represent? This does not exonerate BRH, just makes him party to a big happy family of Mystical Christian Cons ripe for an extortion.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 22, 2006 6:59:59 GMT -5
Rick, you are obviously a very intelligent person. But I think perhaps it would be better for all if you were to tell us just who wasn't involved in this kidnapping. P.S. I think your "alias" is becoming transparent
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 22, 2006 16:43:05 GMT -5
" It seems you are afraid if we are the right party and if the boy is allright. Well you have ouer singnature. It is always the same of the first one specialy them 3 holes."
Ransom Note #6
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 22, 2006 19:27:56 GMT -5
I personally think you are giving Hauptmann way too much credit Joe. The man didn't sit around fixated on anything to do with Lindbergh. His tendencies were to make easy money. He studied the market and was convinced it was a gold mine....He was spending everyday there. He bragged about his interest in this. Obsession? Possibly, but that has to do with money - not Lindbergh.
The symbol definition you like the most was first brought up by Ex-Secret Service turned PI Harold Keys. His attempts of getting the NJSP to invite him in failed and it wasn't until Fisher used him a bit that he was affiliated with anyone. Fisher would turn him loose and Gov. Hoffman began to use him.
I personally don't think the symbol would have been Hauptmann's idea.
I think Kevin's idea about S-226 posted on the "truth" board is probably the best explanation I have ever seen concerning the possibility of Rail 16's origin. Still too many variables and questions here. Unique ladder design?....Not really "unique" but a rare design. Do you think Hauptmann came up with this himself or do you believe he saw the design elsewhere and used his recollection to help create it?
I agree he wrote Condon's address on his closet trim but that he did not write his phone number there. There was never a light shining on that garage - that's a myth. We don't know if he did sit w/ Condon for an hour...that's what Condon said and we know what he said can't be trusted.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Feb 22, 2006 22:21:12 GMT -5
Michael, I think you might be underestimating Hauptmann's mind for how he projected himself in a world that idolized Lindbergh. How on earth would he even have entertained the notion of involving himself in the kidnapping of the man's son if his mind didn't work in some almost surreal manner?
Do you think he just sat around in German beer gardens thinking only of his next stock market "triumph" or carpentry assignment with Hirsch? The only reason he bragged about "making money in Wall Street" after April 2, 1932, is because he was actually losing money, but had a nice reserve to draw on with which to keep trying to make more money.
Call the ladder design what you will, it remains one-of-a-kind and to me reveals a very creative thought process at times on the part of Hauptmann.
I believe there was a wired light alarm to Hauptmann's garage which coincides with his secretive and money possessive nature. I see no reason for independent eyewitnesses Fred Hahn or the Rauch's daughter-in-law to lie about this. I think you're shrugging a bit on this one.
I'm not familiar with Keyes interpretation at all regarding the meaning of the symbol. If you have anything I'd appreciate you posting it or e-mailing it. Thanks.
Joe
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 23, 2006 8:58:19 GMT -5
"Call the ladder design what you will, it remains one-of-a-kind and to me reveals a very creative thought process at times on the part of Hauptmann."
Joe, I would agree that Hauptmann could be creative. But the particular type of creativity he possesses is what is really the relevant issue here. Hauptmann is adaptively creative. He is not an innovator nor a refiner of ideas. The ladder is an example of this type of creativity as it is actually copied from several sources and adapted to the use it was to serve. Hauptmann, and you can see this in the ladder sketch, created the joint which effectively increased the working height of it.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 23, 2006 12:08:26 GMT -5
Kevin...maybe you missed my point? There is still good reason to believe that the so-called "kidnapping" is separate from the extortion gang in the Bronx. (this has been theorised for many years) Therefore, to anwer your question: Likely NONE of those above are involved in the kidnapping per se: Condon, Mary Cerrita, Peter Biritella, Fisch, Whateley, Sharpe, BRH. they are all involved, but only AFTER 1 March 32. They are involved in agreeing to accept the $50K/ You dont really think that anyone involved in the kidnapping and murder of the Lindbergh Baby would pass out the Gold Certs at gas stations in the Bronx--now do you? If there was a kidnapping, it was some other group;
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 23, 2006 13:23:27 GMT -5
I don't think I missed your point Rick. I understand your contention that there are two separate crimes here with 2 separate groups. It is an interesting theory which has been around for some time. Had Hauptmann not been so obsessed with creating a signature which would absolutely identify him as the one and only kidnapper and had he not been so successful at it, the multiple crime/criminal theory might have some legs. Unfortunately for those who see this as a viable alternative solution to the crime it fails. That is unless you proceed further with this idea and create a third group consisting of various criminal investigators who under your theory must facilitate the fabrication of hard evidence. So we must discard the wood evidence, discard the handwriting evidence, disregard the notebook sketches, disregard the financial evidence, and of course all of the eyewitnesses. There seems to be an awful lot of discarding and disregarding going on here to justify a theory which will exonerate a twice convicted felon and accuse many others of serious crimes.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 23, 2006 15:26:15 GMT -5
Well, with one exception...Isador Fisch....he could act as the pivot man for two disparate groups. This is the con he was masterful at....conning two groups and never the twain shall meet? One group thinks he is a poor, sick homeless pauper--the other group thinks he is a rich stock trader and furtrading business man? [BRH conversely was the same to all folks] One oddity of Fisch also apparent--his very best friends Gerta Henkel and Harry Uhlig "proclaimed" they never suspected his alternate life? Is this possible?
As for Charlies body decompose--it all depends upon the t termperature and time, ice fools everybody.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 23, 2006 17:06:20 GMT -5
Well, once again one would have to do a lot of dismissing and disregarding of evidence to make this work. And all this for $50000 split how many ways? And how with so many conspirators involved does CJ make such a generous concession in forgoing the requested $70000 for only $50000 without any consultation with his comrades? Don't get me wrong, the cast of characters you mention are certainly not above suspicion and may have had a part to play in this crime. But no matter which way you look at it, the bulk of the evidence connecting Hauptmann with the crime for which he was convicted stands firm even after years of scrutiny. There is a reason that there are two separate sections in the library for fiction and non-fiction.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 23, 2006 19:09:54 GMT -5
Well, we only get to hear Condons version of the conversations w/ CJ--and thats only if there ever was a CJ? Condon always comes out on top in his fictional accounts? Thus, your imaginary library would be full up on both sides.
Nope, only the bulk of Wilintz evidence points to BRH. All that was left out points elsewhere! Thats why we'ere here.
Well, JJ Faulkner's share was only $3000, probably for some forgery work. Others may have dropped out after the discovery of a body on Mt. Rose Hill. "Cud we burn if da babe was dead?" You betcha unless we find a patsy.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 23, 2006 19:35:10 GMT -5
"Nope, only the bulk of Wilintz evidence points to BRH" So lets get this straight once and for all. Are you are saying that the wood evidence, the handwriting, the sketches, the money, the eyewitness testimony, and the signatures are some how a fabrication? That this vast collection of evidence collected and examined by so many investigators is to be dismissed? Are you also saying that a NJ prosecutor was involved in this conspiracy before he even had the case before him?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 23, 2006 19:37:04 GMT -5
Joe,
Did you know that when Hauptmann was in the beer gardens he usually drank only one beer and on very rare occasions drank two?
I see no evidence whatsoever that he idolized Lindbergh - none. You are also approaching this from a "Hauptmann as Mastermind" perspective. I don't. He was into easy money. Making display stands, inventing soap, buying stock, buying stocks for others, loaning money for interest, buying mortgages, and buying a food stop only to quickly sell his part to make a big profit, etc. etc.. Where does the Kidnapping fit into this? Well maybe if someone approaches him with some sort of "quick and easy" type scheme.
The ladder design wasn't a "one of a kind"... Kevin is correct here....whether it was Hauptmann who came up with the "tweaks" I am not willing to say due to other evidence which indicates more then one person possibly building it.
There was no "alarm" or lighting system on that garage for the purposes that you are inferring. Post your sources and then I'll post mine and let the best sources win. ;D
I'd be happy to locate these for you. It says exactly what you've been saying.
Kevin,
I have several hunches...
One was the possibility of this group being "hired" to do this job and probably received some money up front. I believe Gary came to this position independent of my thoughts as well.
The $50,000 may not have been meant to be collected just as in the Constance Morrow extortion plot.
Several times Condon (and others) say that "John" had died or had been killed. This suggests to me that someone in this group very well may have died.
Condon said that one of the Confederates had or took the symbol maker away.... If true where did he go?
There has been some indication this group may have splintered up and so if true, then indirectly Rick could be correct that these two events, while linked, could actually be two separate crimes.
All speculation of course but I wanted to through these thoughts out there.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 23, 2006 20:18:15 GMT -5
Michael, I really don't rule out any theory as long as I see some factual evidence to support it. The inherent problem, as I see it, with the complicated conspiracy theories is simply that by their very nature of multiple participants there is that much more probability of a weak link somewhere in the chain. Proposing two separate crimes here results in a very long chain.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 23, 2006 21:45:53 GMT -5
I agree that conspiracies by their very nature create more of a possibility that someone could get caught. Its a matter of odds. What I suggest here is more like a subtraction from the original group when it comes to the extortion part. Basic fear could be the silencer in this hypothesis. Not only is one child dead this assumes a double-cross of sorts by collecting the ransom. Additionally, if one believes its someone "inside" that is connected - now one has the problem of whether this group actually knows who that is. Now let's fast-forward to Hauptmann's arrest. Does he expect his son or wife wouldn't be killed if he talked? If he talks does he drag a friend, family member, or someone very "high up" in the Government down with him? Let's take it a step even further and suggest he knows that Lindbergh was behind it. Would anyone believe him even if he did tell? For those who have read my brothers book, www.looseleaflaw.com/catalog/detail.html?isbn=1-932777-25-3I suggest you read the section on the "Pink Rabbit." Now ask yourself if this was done only one time if anyone would have ever believed this happened in the first place.
|
|