Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 5, 2007 12:36:50 GMT -5
As I understand it, there has never been a realistic issue around what Hilda Braunlich observed to be "forged strokes." What she saw was simply backflow of ink into the path creating by the pen's nib. This was a common problem with early fountain pens, moreso when the pen was full and relatively pressurized. Pen pressure and speed of stroke are contributing factors here. The heavier than normal ink deposits in these areas can actually take on the appearance of a different ink colour compared to areas of standard stroke. I have to believe Reilly must have recognized this although there could have been other variables that sent her packing, fearing for her safety. From all accounts I've read, it doesn't sound like she was playing with a full deck. In any case, there would have been no incentive for the prosecution to tamper with the writings. Minor amounts of tampering would have served no purpose and still have been detectable. Major tampering would have made the ruse obvious. Both instances could have had disasterous consequences in the circumstantial handwriting case against Hauptmann.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 5, 2007 13:05:40 GMT -5
Here are some personal thoughts about the form and content of the nursery note:
Of all the instructional notes, the nursery note is the one most direct and to the point. Emphasis is on the money and indicates the writer's greed, with the bill denominations and amounts clearly laid out first and foremost. Any consideration of the child is relegated to the end of the note with one terse statement. I don’t necessarily regard the statement that the “child is in gute care” as an ominous lie at this point, as I think one has to also take into account who the victim is in this case and this is a first communication. The repeated references to this in subsequent notes without any mention of direct threat to the child I think then become the clear indication the child is not well or dead. The writer's biggest mistake in the nursery note was in not addressing the envelope or adding on it a warning that Lindbergh was not to call in the police. He really didn't want to make this a "world affair," yet ultimately is prepared to go the course despite the massive police effort and publicity.
There are two main elements in all of the notes, i) the symbol and ii) the notes' missive. The writer has devised the elaborate symbol with a great deal of thought and wants to present it as something far more than just a simple identifier. There is a larger and very personal meaning behind this device and each one is produced prior to its corresponding ransom note, as demonstrated by the writing conforming around the symbols' perimeter. The writer also makes what appear to be needless reminders as to the significance of the symbol and 3 holes in a number of the notes, partly out of some concern Lindbergh will not pick up on the repeating alignment, but moreso, the holes bear that personal significance and he is basically foisting this detail directly at Lindbergh, recognizing the symbol’s significance is beyond Lindbergh’s comprehension.
As far as when the nursery note was written, I have to believe it was prior to the abduction and not as a result of events that took place. The nursery note is simple and direct, saying no more than it need to. It doesn't have to say much more as the intent and actions are clear. The kidnapper will follow up in 2 - 4 days, ostensibly with the required and detailed directions for a discreet payment for return of the child, be it dead or alive. The kidnapper's mistaken belief that Lindbergh would deal discreetly and without police involvement shows naive oversight of a major detail, ie. the unaddressed envelope with no warning. The fact this did happen then requires a wholesale change in plans, particularly in the light of publicized gangland involvement. This is why the kidnapper essentially jumps at the opportunity to deal with Condon and avoid being blindsided by an unknown underworld element.
The disguise of the nursery note writing indicates to me the writer using his wrong hand or holding the pen with his right hand in such a way as to effect a kind of wobbly, uncontrolled script, which still remains legible. The smudging may have been intentionally used as a secondary form of disguise, particularly in light of the writer’s tendency to drop heavy ink deposits. Rather than let them dry naturally, the writer impatiently has wiped them and formed the smudges. More likely though, the smearing of a number of words tells me its most likely the wrong hand being used and in this case, that hand, in its awkward and unfamiliar stance, ends up smudging the fresh ink.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 5, 2007 13:53:52 GMT -5
Then, Joe, you have decided for a reason or reasons to disregard the logical analysis of the subsequent letters when it comes to the Nursery note. I did that same thing. But why ? If we agree, and I think most experts do, that the absence of threats relating to the fate of the child in the letters and the platitudes given instead regarding the care and health of that child are a sure indication that he is dead, then why is this logic not applicable to the Nursery note? That first note is the ace in the deck, the one which almost always carries along with it the explicit warning in regard to what will happen if you disregard the instructions. Why would Hauptmann not include a simple threat ( or you will never see your child again) with his warning about not to notify the police or make anything public? It makes absolutely no sense as a carefully pre-written kidnap note. The threat of harm or never seeing the victim returned is the only real card the kidnapper holds. He must play it for everything it is worth and he must do so at the very first instant. Failing to do so immediately puts any plan into serious jeopardy . It also diminishes the fear factor which kidnappers so enjoy. The "child is in gut care" follows the exact same pattern and carries the exact same connotation as it's following brethren, yet in the case of this note everyone seems to give it a special dispensation. I wonder why that is? Is this deduction based on the study of kidnappers and their behavior or is it based on something other? You can't have your cake and eat it too! The lack of a direct threat in the nursery note and the inclusion of the " child is in gut care" has to be looked at in the same manner as the following letters. The omission of real threats and the nonsense about the two woman and the diet are now known to be an obvious indication that the hostage was dead. The same is true for the Nursery note.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 6, 2007 9:35:27 GMT -5
Kevin, yes I believe it was the opinion of many who were close to the investigation that the continuous lack of a threat towards the health of the child, meant it was likely dead. At this stage in the development of kidnappings, I'm not so sure there was a universally accepted protocol, which required this to expedite the process. My previous postion was that the kidnapper in this case, had chosen to assure the parents the child was OK, in the belief this would ensure a rapid payment, partially out feelings of misdirected gratitude for not harming it and that the kidnapper truly meant to return the child unharmed. Following the death of the child the kidnapper decided to maintain this thread of assurance in order not to draw suspicion. I have to say I have much less confience in my original position at this point, believing now the child was doomed from the start.
|
|
|
Post by Giszmo on Aug 6, 2007 9:47:50 GMT -5
That first note is the ace in the deck, the one which almost always carries along with it the explicit warning in regard to what will happen if you disregard the instructions. Why would Hauptmann not include a simple threat ( or you will never see your child again) with his warning about not to notify the police or make anything public? (Kevin)
You're right, this is odd. And the only "threat" that seems to come later on is a raise in the ransom amount, never harm to the child.
It makes absolutely no sense as a carefully pre-written kidnap note. The threat of harm or never seeing the victim returned is the only real card the kidnapper holds. (Kevin)
Even if the plan was to kill the child and still collect the ransom, you would think that the note would follow the typical "do this or else" type of threat. After all, at this point only the kidnapper would know that the child is dead. It's almost careless of the writer.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 6, 2007 12:52:36 GMT -5
I think what we see all as odd regarding the Nursery note and the following letters is that they are missing some very essential ingredients. And you are absolutely right Giszmo, even if murder was in store from the outset , there still should be a threat. Notice the ransom note from the infamous Leopold and Loebs kidnapping that I previously posted. In that case murder was the primary part of the plan and the ransom was secondary, yet the threat is still emphasized. No matter how you look at it , planned kidnapping, planned murder with extortion, or some type of "hoax" the absence of any tangible and explicit threat is troubling , to say the least. How could anyone contemplating this crime against this target fail to bolster and exaggerate his position by failing to include a simple threat or consequence of failing to follow instructions? If we have evidence of planning and I think we do, how could Hauptmann fail to think about the inclusion of a threat? It's absolutely absurd to think that anyone taking on this target wouldn't feel the need to exert all of the power possible as a kidnapper. All kidnappers do so partly because it is their nature and partly because the whole success of the crime depends on your ability to manipulate those from whom you are demanding payment. It's a cowardly crime in which you bargain over the fate of a victim. What type of bargaining is going on here? You pay and you get Charlie back, you don't and we take gut care of him forever? That's about what we have going on here in the LKC. Kidnapping was a well known crime of the period and the format was pretty well known. Was Hauptmann completely clueless or was he just responding to the events as they occurred?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 7, 2007 5:44:07 GMT -5
I just don't like either of these options. There's too much preparation in the ladder construction for me to buy into the "stupid" theory. And as I've said above I just think the idea of someone penning out that note on site as highly doubtful if not unrealistic. If they did then there's more wrong here then I could ever have imagined....
Criminals who are on scene while others are present but don't know they are seem to be in a vulnerable position. I can't see anyone hanging around. I believe its already been established they utilized the ladder in both 2 & 3 sections - we're talking too much time here to then stop and write this note.
Now the "3rd" option doesn't necessarily have to be the "crime for hire" scenario I've mentioned but if one takes issue with the way the note was written then it does fit. If the child wasn't to be returned or the money ever collected - then this makes sense.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 7, 2007 7:15:49 GMT -5
I think that someone with the capacity to undertake an invasion of Colonel Lindbergh's home in such a manner would be more than capable of adapting to the situation as required. Even if that makes penning a few lines in situ necessary. I do think the overall length of time spent on site was longer then most think. I also think the ladder was climbed twice, the final climb made to place the note.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Aug 7, 2007 14:48:11 GMT -5
Hi Michael~ Your 3rd option--or the ransom ever collected. I run into a disconnect there. Would you please elaborate as to why, then the ransom was collected.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 9, 2007 5:34:51 GMT -5
This involves a little theory I have been keeping in the back of my mind. I've seen that Gary too may have a similar belief which we had developed completely independent of one another. He may have changed his mind but I am not sure.
Concerning this particular theory, one would assume a group (2 or more) were hired to commit the "crime." They were paid some money up front - possibly half before and the other half afterwards. And so they were being told specifics and what was to be expected (and of them). Under this theory the ransom request was merely a "blind." However, someone in the group may have decided the $50,000 could still be collected so they added the holes to the note with this in mind. Basically to leave the door open for its collection which was never supposed to have occurred.
Can you imagine if the ransom was never collected and the body never brought back to Mt. Rose what the conclusion of this case would have been?
Anyway, its just a theory to which I hold no allegiance. I am trying to find something that fits in with everything that appears to have occurred which will explain all that happened. I can't accept the idea that someone would meticulously plan for the exactness on one angle yet says "what the hell" when it comes to another. When this happens it usually means something else is going on.
Kevin, could you map out the potential course of action starting with the Kidnapper(s) standing beneath the nursery window? Erecting and breaking down the ladder....the note writing..... and exit from Highfields? If not, that's ok but I am trying to map out in my head exactly what you see and sometimes how one person sees things interferes with another person's perspective so this might be the only way for me to completely understand your position.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Aug 9, 2007 6:20:13 GMT -5
Hi Michael--I can imagine lots of things: - Some sort of kidnap hoax might be suspected.
- Release of Capone from jail as motive might be suspected.
- Or some other ulterior motive for Charlie's sudden disappearance and not the money-- eg stop the booze trucks into NYC and open up the Waterways.
- However, I might separate the return of the body from the payment of the ransom--maybe to get the booze trucks rolling again like suspected by Ellis Parker?
- No hot money, no CJ, no arrests, no suspects, no BRH, no Fisch, no Trial, no Rail 16, no execution, no hoaxes.
- You have to baite the hook to catch the fish/
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 11, 2007 7:35:18 GMT -5
Sorry, I missed this one. I can only give my opinion on what happened that night, there is just not enough solid evidence to do more. Times are approximate!
19:30 Ladder and kit bag transported from auto ( possibly Featherbed) to staging area near house ( I will call the area where the ladder was found the staging area for lack of a better term)
20:15 Ladder is deployed . Two sections directly under the window footed on "the boardwalk" or three sections in the offset position.
20:17 Nursery is entered
20:19 CAL Jr is dead.
20:23 Exit from Nursery with child's body
20:25 Return to staging area with body and ladder
20:40 Return to Car
20:50 The Nursery note is written in the car.
21:05 Return to staging area
21:07 Ladder deployed in two section offset position
21:09 Note placed on sill and window lowered close
21:10 Down ladder
21:12 Two section ladder returned to staging area and dropped
21:27 Return to car with body
21:29 Head South to Hopewell
21:35 Turn East on Main St
21:41 Drop body
22:20 Enter Holland tunnel
|
|
|
Post by rick on Aug 11, 2007 11:24:20 GMT -5
Yo Kev--
1>From or by what? Gunshot/ smothering/ sunlamp/ ether/ chisel/fall?
20:22 Car comes south by the Moore family on Wertsville-Stouhtsberg Rd?
2>How closely did Shindlers car mimic CALs Lincoln?
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 11, 2007 18:07:17 GMT -5
You've got the trip from Mount Rose to Holland Tunnel in record time don't you?
Scenario A: I see the ladder being set up in two sections - opening the unlocked shutter which this party seemed to know ahead of time. I see them descending, assemble 3rd section. Fit top section inside the shutter as it was designed to do and climbed again. The window opened and entered.
Scenario B: If not this then alternate scenario of someone handing the child out the window down to 'Kidnappers.'
Scenario A: Once inside they would have to ensure the child was 'silenced.'
Scenario B: Child silenced and/or killed prior to their arrival (which I am inclined to believe).
Scenario A: Note left on window, window then shut, descend down ladder.
Scenario B: Note given to person inside who places it on the sill and shuts window.
Scenario A: 3rd section removed, ladder climbed and shutter closed. Climb down ladder again.
Scenario B: Shutter closed after child handed to them. Descend down ladder.
I do believe this was at least one party involved. The Moores were quoted in the paper as saying it was Hauptmann in the car they saw. Eager for witnesses of this kind, the NJSP quickly looked them up for possible testimony in court. The Moore's had the integrity to say they had been misquoted and didn't see the driver. For me this bolsters their account since they were throwing away any potential reward money by telling the truth about the situation... Not to mention they had given an account to Parker in '32 which was consistent.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 12, 2007 8:09:16 GMT -5
I didn't say anything about Mt Rose , did I?
|
|
|
Post by rick62 on Aug 12, 2007 10:08:06 GMT -5
kevin--i agree with you 110%! - eg--no matter what becomes the final solution to the LKH we can back calculate with 20-20 hindsight and make the wood fit
- Al Dunlap in Bungling the Lindbergh Kidnap clearly proves that Charlie is handed out the window or carried down the stairs.
- He interviews the first cop onto the scene, Cheif Wolfe, who sees the Nursery and voila there is no evidence of entry from the ladder--no mud, no blood, no movement of the chest!
- Obvious conclusion--its an INSIDE JOB! eg Example B--MM
[/i]
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 12, 2007 10:18:32 GMT -5
Kevin, I have a couple of questions about your timeline.
Firstly, that the kidnapper would have gone all the way back to the car to write the ransom note and then return to place it on the nursery window sill. This is an awful lot of time to expend when you have just stolen and probably killed Charles Lindbergh Jr., not to mention the fact you're basically going back into the lion's den, having come this far. Why not just place a previously-written note on the window sill before you leave? What is so important about first having possession of the child before the ransom note can be written? I have great difficulty believing anyone planning this kidnapping would not have the note written ahead of time and ready to drop.
Second point, and I think Michael alluded to this. You have the kidnapper taking approximately 45 minutes to reach the Holland Tunnel from Hopewell. Aside from taking an airplane, I don't believe this would be feasible in 1932. If the kidnapper was Hauptmann and he was returning to the Bronx that night, we're talking about 55 miles of driving, subject of course to 1932 roadway conditions and further impacted by the weather and traffic of that specific evening. Granted, most of the drive (approx. 33 miles) would probably have entailed a combination of Interstate 1 / State Highway 25. With time taken out for burial of the body though, he would still be looking at a minimum 2 hour trek.
If the body was buried on the night of March 1, I believe it would have been in the vicinity of Franklin Park, New Jersey, about 15 miles northeast of Hopewell, along State Highway 518. There is a short section of highway (then unpaved but graded) shooting south off 518 and connecting to Interstate 1. This would have been the opportunity to dispose of the body before getting onto a major thruway which would then have essentially taken him into NYC via Elizabeth / Newark, Jersey City and the Holland Tunnel.
BTW -- I have a 1930's Texaco roadmap. If anyone would like a scanned copy of the relevant trip route options, just let me know. I think the image would be too small for uploading into a post.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 12, 2007 11:29:33 GMT -5
You are correct Joe, so is Michael, regarding the time to the Holland tunnel. I really was more focused on the times before. Traveling rt 31 to rt 28 and then rt 25 to the tunnel is about 47 miles. Joe, I have a 1931 NJ road map that was published by the state, it's scale is 3"=10mi.
If you believe that this was previously planned and the note was written beforehand your point makes absolute sense. I don't.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 12, 2007 11:46:38 GMT -5
Kevin, I suppose your theory about the two trips could be supported in part by what I believe was Oscar Bush's assertion that the footprints found were made by one person making two round trips. I have great difficulty with this having been the actual case, as it seems like such a waste of time when every second's consideration is what you want on your side.
You may have alreay explained this, but I'm interested in your rationale for the dual exercise.
Any chance you can scan your 1931 roadmap and e-mail me a copy? I'd like to compare it to my own, which I just realized is from about 1937. Thanks.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 12, 2007 12:03:36 GMT -5
Joe, my map is 3' wide and 5' high. I could try to copy the Hopewell to NYC portion for you or I could take a photo and e-mail it. let me see what works best.
I don't believe that the actions that night were intended, at least not as is commonly held. I believe that the original intention was something other then the kidnapping of CAL Jr, perhaps robbery. In any case I believe it all went wrong in that Nursery and that the note was written in a desperate attempt to salvage the crime while keeping as much heat away from the discovery of the body as possible. It worked to a large degree.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 24, 2008 15:55:22 GMT -5
The more I look at the Nursery note the more convinced I am that it was not written prior to the crime, but in fact afterwords. What leads me to this conclusion is not the sloppiness of that note, though that is certainly a factor. It is the order or hierarchy of thought which leads me to believe it was written after the child was removed from the Nursery. Look at how the human thought process works, there is a logical progression of thought involved. Had that note been written prior to the crime, Hauptmann or anyone would write the note as the progression of the planned crime were to unfold. hence the note would start out with the abduction ie, "we have kidnapped your son". The next element would be instructions to do this and not do that. Then the demand for money, which may or may not be specific which would probably be followed by the contact information. Perhaps another warning or a reassurance would end the note. Look at the Nursery note, the writer starts off with a specific monetary demand and breakdown. That's because he has already committed the actual crime and thus feels no need to recount it. had he been writing this note in the comfort of a time prior to crime his mind would naturally start at that which has not yet happened, the taking of the child. Another point, the holes. We know they were made prior to the circles and are actually the best identifier as they act as a register. Yet the addition of the "and 3 holes" is more like an afterthought. That's odd if the "singnature" is an integral design.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 8, 2008 18:57:55 GMT -5
Yes, I went to England with the five notes in the early part of March, 1932, to have Scotland Yard's experts do an analysis. They had the best facilities in the world at that time according to many law enforcement people, and our own view. The analysis was to determine whether the notes had all been written by the same person. Scotland Yard found that the first page and one half had been written with the left hand and the rest written with the right hand. [Colonel Charles H. Schoeffel Interview, The Triangle, Vol 1, No. 7, 1981]
|
|