|
Post by rita on Feb 15, 2006 23:00:41 GMT -5
To Rick,Gary,Kathy,Carol I think we all can see deceptions I missed, and when so many items become illogical, a normal working law enforcement agency would change or try to rematch suspects. I think There was much more going on between Hauptman and Condon, and I don't think Lindbergh had a lapse in army officer training that kept him from following CJ. The child could have still been dead, but his death was not necessary to take over a trust from the Morrow Estate, and was a really excellent motive for his dissapearance. Whether the child was alive or dead they would still need a body, and I'm sure the Skilman facility or a crematory would be able to supply that. I doubt in either case the body of CAL Jr. or substitute was ever outside the five mile radius from the home.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 16, 2006 16:40:41 GMT -5
Gary, are you taking into account an accidental death during the negotiations? Charlie was subnormal and sickly, maybe he could not withstand the rigors of being away from home with strangers and a thick colde. Maybe he caught pneumonia in the rain, cried for 7 days and just died? Who knows? Now there is no live Charlie to return--then what? Search for an end game.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 17, 2006 5:17:02 GMT -5
Joe--you raise a good point that hasnt been mentioned before: the possiblity of a "mercy killing". Dr. Charles Mitchell was pretty certain about a gunshot to the head the nite of the discovery. This was overshadowed in 24h by Walsh's stick poking mea culpa. If Charlie was injured in any way during the crime then the perps could not very well take him to an emergency room for crisis care. A tragic, yet real possibility.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 18, 2006 23:53:43 GMT -5
To Rick, Gary You bring up excellent points, and the answer is if the child was either dead or not dead (no proof either way), The motive would be the Morrow Trust. This trust and my own experience with trusts prove to me that murder ranks high as a means to acquire trusts by bypassing their intended recipient. Now it doesn't always involve murder, a simple brick to the head might help them gain anothers intended trust, by forefiture of trust through incompetence. We all have read about CAL senseless tricks played on CAL Jr. that may have been intended to cause CAL Jr. brain injury which at that young age might cause incompetence, and thereby gaining the trust
|
|
|
Post by rick for rita on Feb 19, 2006 14:06:19 GMT -5
Rita--the whole issue of the Trusts relates to CALs financial solvency. One hint is that it appears he struggled to raise the $50K for Charlies ransom. Someone must know whether CAL was strapped for cash? If so, he would feel very insecure around the millions in the Morrow, Breckenridge and Guggenheim families. Who was paying CALs bills at the time?
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 19, 2006 21:52:08 GMT -5
Rita for Rick Charlie was the quick way out of debt, and maybee there was no kidnap, but if we believe that changes a lot of evidence from fact to fiction.
|
|
|
Post by rick for rita on Feb 22, 2006 11:11:47 GMT -5
Hi rita, Im beginning to suspect that there may have been some sort of kidnap, but that CALs obtuse personality flaws did not permit him to bargain quickly enough for Charlies return? Maybe CAL thought he could call thier bluff. Overlooking that Charlies life was at stake? I cant imagine that Gow and Anne would permit CAL the leeway to kidnap Chalrie for the Morrow Trust--not yet anyways. CAL tripped over his own egotistical illusions. Betty and Anne might allow Carrel to correct any real or percieved medical problems though and something went wrong?
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 26, 2006 22:06:45 GMT -5
To Rick They were the survivors of a long line of the family close proximity deaths, and I can't believe they hadn't gained financially from them. Because trusts do not go through regular probate procedure they are easy for people that have no conscious or like to play kidnap.
|
|
|
Post by rick for rita on Mar 5, 2006 20:51:40 GMT -5
Rita, I think CAL was behaving somewhat schiziod? he does not want the FBI (BOI) or the NJSP etc to interfere and accidentally catch the kidnappers. On the other hand CAL is going fullsteam ahead to try and catch them up him self with his own investigations. He hires the Mafia to find Charlie but wont let the NY cops keep an eye on the mailboxes or CJ "just in case of a double-cross"? The only one that believes Gaston Means was in real contack with any kidnappers is Evalyn Walsh McClean. Some think that Curtis "met somebody" but no actual proof exists. Meantime, CALs stalls the 3 hole symbol gang. What colde hard evidence is there that CAL wants Challie back "alive"? There were all sorts of sensible ways to guard against a zero time accident/ either at Sorry Hill or away from home. I quess what GoD said goes--one of the two circles on the signature.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Mar 11, 2006 23:48:19 GMT -5
To Gary, Rick The different theories described in many posts are resultant from each belief having a deception point that leads nowhere. The actual case is a simple matter of fact that everyone including NJSP has attributed their own complex explanations that go nowhere. The only explanation that covers all areas of confusion and deceptions can be explained by CAL's assignment with Dr Carrell from the OSS to double agent against Germany. This assignment used a phony kidnap of CAL Jr. to make Germany believe he was genuinely angry at the U.S.A., and that he could be trusted to work for Germany.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 20, 2006 6:15:16 GMT -5
The different theories described in many posts are resultant from each belief having a deception point that leads nowhere.(Rita)
***This is so true isn't it?
The only one that believes Gaston Means was in real contact with any kidnappers is Evalyn Walsh McClean. (Rick)
***A Lawyer by the name of Rice tried to contact Roosevelt concerning Means participation. His statement was famous for implicating Means. Have you ever looked into this? By a strange twist of fate (as always seems to happen in this case) he would later become Wendel's Attorney.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Mar 21, 2006 0:59:05 GMT -5
To Michael It is interesting how even characters from military basses (Constance threat letter)are wound up in this case. There is always the possibility CAL had stepped on some ones or some governments toes. The deception dead ends are so numerous that somebody had to figure them in, and that makes me think of some powerful paticipant behind the case.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jan 18, 2007 18:03:34 GMT -5
The ransom: The perps turned down Jfc's $1,000. Why? Seemingly the perps didn't make much to do about $20,000. less. Why? (possibly the passage of time becoming to risky for them{?}) or Was the less-than-greedy amt just not really the point to them? As you may have noticed, I'm rather focused on Nosovitsky right now. He was owed $25,000. by Morrow/Morgan. He takes that cut and the 2(?) thugs he hired for the kidnap split the rest(?) He gets his money and his revenge(?) A different question: The JJ Faulkner "deposit slip". Am needing some clarification here. A dep slip implies to me someone who already has an accout at the bank. So why did he become so invisible? Or he takes the time to open an account. Why no clues? Or was it a matter of just swapping off gold certs for clean money and he just goes un-noticed? Rick~ I agree Mary Cerrita needs more scrutiny. I don't understand at all that she comes in and says she sees the initials "JFC", shortly thereafter JFC enters the picture. She mispronounces Breck as BreckenBridge as the ransom note Breck receives misstates the name in the same way. Why weren't the police swarming all over her??? Kevkon~ You made a very good point, I think. I too take spells of trying to shake off all the usual theories, but then as I crash into a stone wall, I ask myself where do I go next(?) You and others have used the phrase "under the radar". I agree, there must be a LOT to that.
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Jan 18, 2007 18:51:41 GMT -5
Mairi, Charles L. Humes was a Camden cop who wrote editorials. Here's one: dvrbs.com/people/CamdenPeople-CharlesLHumes.htm Camden Courier-Post - March 29, 1932 What Do YOU Think? By CHARLEY HUMES From a round-about source I was informed that the ransom now asked by the kidnapers of the Lindbergh baby is $500,000 .... A cool half million .... But I do know that the original ransom asked was $50,000 .... And if you don't believe me ask, Postal Inspector Gardner how I found out .... But I shouldn't take credit for that .... Because it was really Russell "Hop" Stoddard who pulled the trick .... That boy is getting smarter by the day .... It must be close association with Cliff Cane .... Speaking of "Hop" reminds me of that Mt. Holly merchant who twice left New York in such a hurry he forgot some of his wearing apparel .... And sent a telegram to the hotel to hold the stuff as he would be back .... Frankie Pool is a real smart singer, if anyone should stop and ask you .... But he lost his voice the other morning .... When he was being entertained on a certain entertainer's front doorstep at 4 a. m .... Mike Joyce's Irish Melodies were the main attraction at that First Ward pig roast Sunday .... Where that First Ward Politician was master of ceremonies .... A lot of your old friends were there.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jan 18, 2007 20:18:14 GMT -5
Sue 75~ I'll declare you are a search Wizzard!! I don't know how in the world you find all these good things . I think you beat all the other search engines put together! Always look forward to your posts.
|
|
|
Post by rick for Michael on Feb 10, 2007 18:29:44 GMT -5
If the following is true its amazing piece of Lindbergh's Believe It or Not!
***
Sue and I chased down the book of only 7 pages by Thomas F. Rice. Rice accuses AG Cummings, JEdgar Hoove and FDR of collusion in avoiding any investigation of Means prior knowledge of the kidnap on 24 Feb 32/ Imperial Hotel/ Boston.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 17, 2007 19:02:19 GMT -5
Colonel Lindbergh has authorized the statement that a ransom of $50,000.00 was paid to the kidnapers, properly identified as such, upon their agreement to notify him as to the exact whereabouts of the baby within 8 hours after payment. The 8 hours elapsed and the baby was not found at the point designated. Several days were permitted to elapse to give the kidnapers every opportunity to keep their agreement. It was not intended to use the numbers on the specie in which the ransom was paid but in as much as the kidnapers have failed to keep their agreement and have not communicated since the ransom was paid it is felt that every remaining possible means must be utilized to accomplish the return of the baby and to this end the co-operation of the Federal Government was requested in tracing the bills used. The above document located in Schwarzkopf's file at the NJSP Archives....
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Mar 22, 2007 12:53:05 GMT -5
Ransom money: Other than some dividing up between perps, any ideas as to why those specific denominations were spelled out? (Condon's poem: arrghh!)
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 22, 2007 18:20:11 GMT -5
You always ask great questions!
I really have no idea. I think changing a smaller bill would be easier but would yield less "clean" money....while changing a larger bill would yield more "clean" money but bring more attention to oneself.
I have seen in more then one place the suggestion that since these people did ask for specific denominations they were no strangers to this type of crime.
Maybe someone has an idea or two to help us out with this....
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 31, 2007 18:27:53 GMT -5
Rab recently sent me an email concerning this question and as usual it is extremely insightful. Here is (most of his) email: Yes, it is an interesting question. I think it probably represented a balance of denominations easier to pass (not as memorable or difficult to pass as $50 or $100 bills) with also being portable. On the denominations from the nursery note there were 1250 $20s, 1500 $10s and 2000 $5s. So the larger the denomination, the fewer bills. And this is only 4750 bills in total. $5 bills were the easiest to pass and ideally what the kidnapper would want with that in mind. But that would have been 10000 bills so a bigger package. I think portability was a consideration from the start and the package dimensions show that there was some thought given to it. Why specify the dimensions at all? Why not just throw the money in a bag? When the ransom was increased to $70000, the additional denomination was $50s, but there would have been only 400 of them so again the number of bills overall would be kept to a manageable level. Bottom line to me: if you're experienced at money laundering or passing hot money then $5s has to be the way to go. Without the $10s or $20s Hauptmann never would have been caught. Equally, if he'd passed those higher denominsations before the gold orders, he probably wouldn't have been caught either. I'd venture that it would have been impossible to trace anyone passing $5s because they were so common and circulated so much. So it implies to me that the portability or size of the package was more important that getting the most easily laundered denomination. (Rab) lindberghkidnap.proboards56.com/index.cgi?action=viewprofile&user=rab
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 8, 2007 9:59:24 GMT -5
Breckenridge to Agent Wilson 10-33 (in part): From the technical standpoint one great fact stands out in my mind. It was upon the advice of Messrs. Irey, Madden, and yourself that the record was kept of the numbers of the currency paid to the criminals. This has turned out to be the starting point and the only tangible clew in the investigation since the crime. Had this action not been taken the baffling mystery of this case would have been even deeper and there would have been even less of anything tangible to lay hold of.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 18, 2007 8:17:13 GMT -5
I think the ransom is too low for this crime because the kidnapper did not have the luxury of planning or the advantage of a living hostage. For me the low ransom is just one more indication that this crime was improvised.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 19, 2007 10:37:25 GMT -5
I am not sure I understand. What's the amount have to do with this?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 19, 2007 15:42:38 GMT -5
This is a well planned kidnapping/ hoax/ whatever and the planners came up with a ransom amount equal to that paid for a Midwest factory owner? 50k for the son of the most famous man alive and a Morrow ? Is this really indicative of the "crime of the century" given what's at stake and the commensurate public and official response or is it an amount more befitting an opportunist ?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 20, 2007 9:42:14 GMT -5
I still believe the figure of $50,000 is more symbolic and was never meant to be collected. I personally think if someone is coming up with a figure on the fly they shoot higher rather then lower.
Per our discussion on the ransom notes I still believe that symbol, in addition to the exactness of the ladder (thanks to your research) shows premeditation.
As I think someone listed before....there were a few things costing $50,000 as it related to that family. Highfields for one, and Constance Morrow's extortion demand as another (See A&M p45)
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Nov 21, 2007 15:03:10 GMT -5
Couldn't see where to put this "Packet" and later note saying "bundle", plus dimensions make me think of a brown paper grocery bag. Wouldn't stand out and if necessary maybe could have been hidden under overcoat(?) I just noticed, too, that the stated measurements said "about' (6x7x14)--maybe guessing at depth(?)
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Nov 25, 2007 16:17:50 GMT -5
In the depths of the Great Depression, $750,000 in terms of today's value would have gone a long way towards a lifetime of relative ease, without attracting too much attention to one's activities. This only became the "Crime of the Century" due to the enormous publicity domino effect that began the moment Lindbergh had Whateley call the Hopewell Police and the subsequent death of the child. And was it really in Hauptmann's game plan for the police and public to be made aware of the crime before payment was made? Because of Lindbergh's aversion to publicity, I don't believe he thought this would happen right away.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Nov 25, 2007 20:12:15 GMT -5
Hey Joe I know 50k was an enormous amount for the time, but think about it this way. Would someone today kidnap Lindbergh's child ( or substitute an equivalent if possible) for $750K? You can't plan for something of this magnitude without knowing that the ensuing firestorm will be enormous and that it's your last job, so it better set you up for life. With approximately 15k left after only 2 1/2 years, was Hauptmann set for a lifetime?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Nov 25, 2007 21:50:49 GMT -5
Hi Kevin, I have great difficulty in believing Hauptmann would have initially conceived that he would get anything out of this had he envisioned police involvement and the instant media frenzy and public firestorm. I think he just blew it by not making it patently clear on the ransom note envelope his true intention that Lindbergh should not call the police, therefore no discreet exchange. How Hauptmann actually managed to carry through with the exchange of a corpse for $50,000 is a testament to his sheer determination and dearth of redeeming human qualities. I think this is where he really starting "winging it," at the beginning of the ransom negotiations. As for his lousy "return on investment," he gambled and lost in a punched out stock market that didn't recovered it's previous index value until the mid-1950's. He should have stuck to writing safe bet mortgages to family and friends and maybe some real estate. At the same time, if he had gotten away scott-free, what's to say he wouldn't have tried for an encore performance with another well-to-do family given the fact his remaining gold notes were now hotter than Georgia ashphalt?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Nov 25, 2007 22:28:30 GMT -5
Joe, I have real difficulty in believing that is possible for anyone to believe that one could kidnap the Lindbergh child "discretely". If Hauptmann was that delusional, he sure made a helluva screwup on that Nursery note.
|
|