|
Post by rick62 member on Apr 1, 2006 7:25:55 GMT -5
Michael, yes if it was ether? (Wendel said paragoric) It was Rita that remembered Betty Gow stoping at the Pharmacy and yes, the two incidents would have been connected years ago. I do like the notion of Charlie being sedated for his big trip to somewhere. Kids are a whole lot less trouble and more quiet when asleep. Betty Gow is still my first choice for the insider since noone has suspected her for 75 years. Betty is a central figure, Ollie is a bit player. Charlie doesnt turn up missing Monday nite (not to our knowledge) only after Betty Gows Journey cant we find him. As Rielly said, Betty Gow is a very cool customer! {thanks, I broke it by 22 years!}
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 1, 2006 9:01:24 GMT -5
Interesting conjecture and supposition about a possible purchase and suspect. But why when Hauptmann has the real stuff in his garage is it dismissed. Maybe Betty Gow needed to start a car too.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 1, 2006 11:13:35 GMT -5
Betty's stop was looked into, and she was the only one who could handle the baby without it crying out so I don't believe she would have needed the product for that purpose.
As far as Hauptmann's possession of a 3 ounce bottle with 1 ounce used which was purchased nearly 2 years after the fact - I need a little more to connect it to this or any other crime.
Fisher's explanation is weak.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 1, 2006 11:24:38 GMT -5
Not saying I subscribe to the Fisher theory, but the possession of this ether by Hauptmann is a reality that needs to be explained somehow.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 4, 2006 7:55:15 GMT -5
I am beginning to wonder, even doubt, whether the "crock" found buried in the floor ever contained anything of value. It may have had an entirely different purpose.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 4, 2006 8:01:37 GMT -5
It simply must have had a purpose otherwise Hauptmann wouldn't have lied about it by saying he didn't know it was there. Definitely hiding something.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 4, 2006 8:14:53 GMT -5
Yes, I agree it definately had a purpose. But was that purpose containment? Look at how Hauptmann conceals. Buried treasure is not his style.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Apr 4, 2006 9:15:14 GMT -5
I think the issue relates as much to the general location of the concealment, ie. Hauptmann's garage. This was obviously his safe haven for things he didn't want others to know about. Within that garage, he used a variety of innovative means to conceal without making it look obvious.
The crock may well have been used to initially bury the money until the heat had let up a bit, or perhaps he just tired of having to dig it up all the time. Do we know from what time frame in the detection of passed ransom money, came the reports of musty smelling bills? This could well reveal indications of how the money was stored prior to it being spent.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 4, 2006 9:52:07 GMT -5
The problem with that theory, as I see it, is one of access and identification. Think about this in real terms. We know the bills were turning up pretty quickly. Rab's research also shows a pattern to the disbursement. Now if Hauptmann takes the $50k and puts it in this "crock" ( which we don't know if it would fit in) he has to take the car out, remove the floorboards and dig up the soil. It would be difficult to ascertain what the denominations or bundles were due to being stuffed in the "crock". If he is trying to conceal the bulk of the money he must repeat this procedure each time he wants some cash. Then there is the issue of the water. Hauptmann built this garage and I believe he would have been aware of any groundwater presence. I am sure he would have used a watertight container if he chose to bury the stash. Given his MO with the concealment of everything else the burial method seems out of place. I also still maintain a purpose for the ransom box specifications which makes me believe that another location was intended to store the money.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 4, 2006 18:48:11 GMT -5
During the Hauptmann investigation, the Police went to Hunter's Island and were showed the area where Hauptmann and friends camped. They described finding his equipment as "cleverly" hidden beneath some rocks.
My biggest problem involves his Florida trip. There is no evidence that he spent ransom during this excursion. Not only that, those interviewed described him as being frugal and tight with his money while down there.
If you believe he is in possession of the ransom what is your remedy for this problem?
Do you believe he left it behind concealed in his garage? His neighbor Shussler had access to both his apartment and his garage, in fact with Hauptmann's knowledge and blessing.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 4, 2006 19:35:08 GMT -5
I don't necessarily see a problem with this. That Hauptmann was "frugal" on the Fla trip is not surprising nor uncharacteristic. Similarly the lack of ransom money being discovered is not too surprising. First, because he is not spending it wantonly and second because the method o f detecting the money, especially the $5 bills is not effective. Even in the area most carefully scrutinized , ransom bills escaped detection. As for the garage security, we know Hauptmann had almost $15k hidden when arrested, so obviously he felt his stash was safe from discovery.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 5, 2006 5:53:04 GMT -5
I don't necessarily see a problem with this. That Hauptmann was "frugal" on the Fla trip is not surprising nor uncharacteristic. (Kevin)
***Yes and no. We do have cases where Hauptmann spends.... The Victrola for example. The Maine trip would be another example. Also, if you had the ransom this is the perfect time to launder it (in my opinion) yet Hauptmann is holding back even on opportunities to spend a couple of dollars - perfect for laundering this cash.
First, because he is not spending it wantonly and second because the method of detecting the money, especially the $5 bills is not effective. (Kevin)
***I am not sure he is spending the ransom and that's my point. Your point about the 5's is noted but we must consider 5's were being found.
Even in the area most carefully scrutinized , ransom bills escaped detection. (Kevin)
***We assume this.
As for the garage security, we know Hauptmann had almost $15k hidden when arrested, so obviously he felt his stash was safe from discovery.(Kevin)
***Hauptmann was home when he was arrested. I think your observation concerning the 1st can, and the possibility about this crock shows he had moved this money on at least (1) occasion. Even if its in the garage, it shows he's worried about it. The paper's its wrapped in show a definite time when it was handled in its totality. My point is that while 15K may have been there when he was arrested it may not have been there at all times. The Fisch story still may have some basis in fact, that is, the ransom stash may not have been in his possession or in that location the entire time.
I just don't see Hauptmann leaving this money behind "unguarded" and there's no evidence he brought it with him.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 5, 2006 6:10:10 GMT -5
"I just don't see Hauptmann leaving this money behind "unguarded" and there's no evidence he brought it with him." (MM)
I don't disagree with you on this. I don't know where that money was. I just don't think it was ever buried in that "crock". I believe the "packet" size has more relevance here.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Apr 5, 2006 19:23:05 GMT -5
If there was a problem with ground water or runoff drainage affecting the soil under the garage, as it appears was the case, Hauptmann may have not have been initially aware of this, for a number of reasons. He had only built the garage in the late fall of 1931, so he might not have been aware of potential problems throughout the other seasons of the year. There were also heavy floorboards above the space where the water-filled crock was found, which might have concealed any ground saturation.
If Hauptmann had originally buried some of the ransom money in the ground under the floorboards, water from later runoff could well have seeped under the floorboards without him realizing it. I don't believe the money would have been buried there long if this was the case, as I'm sure he would be monitoring it regularly. If this had have happened though just once, any transferred water soluble soil minerals and other compounds would definitely have contributed to the kind of musty odor detected in some of the passed ransom money.
Any water related damage from the effect of sudden, heavy rains around the garage contributing to this effect, could also have provided the inspiration for Hauptmann's later claim as to how the Fisch shoebox had become waterlogged on the top shelf.
I believe Stanley Keith also found traces of camphor, produced from mothballs, in the water recoverd from the crock, the same substance found on some of the ransom bills discovered in Hauptmann's garage.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 6, 2006 6:08:51 GMT -5
Joe, I see your points but here is my problem with that scenario. Hauptmann gets the $50k in spring of 32 and there has been a good deal of rain. If the drainage in that floor was poor he would find out pretty quickly. I still don't see the burial in a pickle jar as being very accessible and it would definitely be messy. Leaving traces of fresh earth on the floor would be a dead give away. Notice also how the first find by the police in that garage was the buried jar. Another issue here is would someone trying to exchange (launder) bills though minor purchases want to attract more attention by handing over money smelling of mothballs ?
|
|
rick for fro and Michael
Guest
|
Post by rick for fro and Michael on Apr 6, 2006 10:43:23 GMT -5
Thanks Michael, I broke 40 by 22 years this time?
Well, Betty Gows Journey is nearly Chapter One in Gardners book so we should pay close attention to everything and anything she does on March 1, 1932.
Sure, she might say she stopped for candy. Did she happen to save the reciept? did the Pharmacist concur?
As best we can discern, Betty Gow was the last "family member" to see Charlie Jr alive and the next one to see him dead on Mt. Rose Hill. That would make her at least a "person of interest" in any murder-kidnap case.
|
|
|
Post by rick62private eye on Apr 6, 2006 10:52:08 GMT -5
Has anyone considered the possiblity that Condon only tossed Cemetary John about $20K dollars in Gold Certs at St. Raymonds? Whats CJ going to do about it if he does--call the cops? They both agree already that Charlie is dead and is all a big hoax at Woodlawn Cemetary {"baby alive and well, mony is redy"). It is this negotiation, covered up nicely by Condon, that takes over one hour. What to do/what to do. about the dead babyand the Gold Certs. We can be fairly certain that the missing $30,000 is not buried in Summit NJ/ What proof is there that CJ ever had Charlie or saw Charlie or knew where Charlie was. ZERO! Logically then, if Condon withholds the $20K in $50 Gold Certs he must tell everyone, but the other low denomination bills he can just finesse. Apparently, its still missing?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 6, 2006 13:04:34 GMT -5
Hey, you left out the Temple crew!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Apr 6, 2006 21:01:34 GMT -5
You may be right about the runoff around the garage, Kevin. Yet, soil conditions or grading around the garage may also have changed from the spring to summer, perhaps related to the surrounding garden, or if the ground had become hard and baked over the summer, it would feasibly affect drainage. Unproven, yet a possibility.
Despite this, there definitely seems to be something significant about that crock. Hauptmann denied any knowledge of it although the ground under the floorboards appeared to have been disturbed. Is it possible the crock was there before he built the garage? I kind of doubt it, but that's my opinion. For something that he had nothing to say about to investigators, he really hit the roof when Sisk told court Hauptmann had admitted the money was previously buried in that crock.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 7, 2006 5:37:29 GMT -5
Kevin - I agree the packet size, outlined with specificity within the ransom note, did have a purpose.
Rick - If Condon did not turn over the whole $50,000 then the remaining amount had to be in the box which was stashed in the box-wood bush. No way does he risk coming back to the car with it tucked in his jacket.
Joe - I really don't think its possible to have built this garage over that crock by accident. It's existence there seems to be by design. Good observation concerning Hauptmann's outburst in Court.
Everything Agent Sisk did was honest and he proceeded with his duties as a true representative of what Law Enforcement stands for. However, I cannot find any reference whatsoever to Hauptmann saying this to Sisk. I don't know what to make of either action. If Hauptmann never did say this to Sisk, it may indicate his other "outburst" in Court was based upon what the truth of the situation was.
I have a hard time believing Sisk would lie in Court so maybe there's a document out there I haven't seen yet. One thing for sure, Sisk was so careful, intelligent, and meticulous - this wasn't a case of "forgetfulness" or anything like that.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 7, 2006 7:24:28 GMT -5
Michael, Joe there is something very significant about the crock. Think about what was found in it and what camphor is used for.
|
|
|
Post by rick for michael on Apr 7, 2006 10:30:58 GMT -5
Michael....not if Condon comes back to the car and hands it over to CAL? I feel we are forming some sort of pattern with the ransom money......
1. CAL cant raise the cash? Hes not solvent right now due to Highfields expenses? 2. Morrows supply the ransom...how nice? Just like Constance. 3. Jafsie feels brilliant witholding the $20K in gold certs. 4. Why not just withhold some more and really be on CALs good side? 5. CAL makes some easy money on the kidnap?
|
|
|
Post by elyssa on Apr 7, 2006 12:05:11 GMT -5
Does anyone know how Cal paid for his family trip when they left the country? I know he left Highfields to the state of New Jersey, was this before they left the counrtry or after ? How did Cal make his money after the kidnapping? Strange to me he was strapped before the kidnapping, but after he could afford to give away Highfields and the 390 (+-) acres with it. He could have sold all, or at least sold the land and donated the house, it may have taken a while to sell, but he would have money.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 7, 2006 16:54:01 GMT -5
Maybe CAL gave the 50K to Hauptmann to invest for him. A potentially wise move given Hauptmann's acute knowledge of the market and skill as a stock speculator.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Apr 7, 2006 18:44:08 GMT -5
Kevin, I looked up some uses for camphor. Is there a specific one you're getting at?
Camphor is an active ingredient in such familiar over-the-counter remedies as Vicks VapoRub and Mentholatum ointment. Rubbed on the skin, Camphor stimulates circulation. Its inhaled vapors reduce bronchial secretions. When taken internally, it combats bronchial spasms, improves breathing, and promotes circulation.
In years past, cakes of Camphor were used as a moth-repellent. It was once popular as a remedy for stomach and bowel complaints, but fell out of favor due to the danger of overdose, which can easily prove fatal. It was once believed to prevent infectious disease, a fallacy that probably sprang from its strong odor.
Camphor is an import from Japan and Taiwan, where it's distilled from the wood of the camphor tree, a large evergreen.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 8, 2006 9:09:46 GMT -5
Joe, Why would Hauptmann put camphor or mothballs in a container buried in the garage? Would he be concerned with insect infestation? I don't think camphor would act as a desiccant. It seems more likely he was concerned with odor control. I don't see that being a concern with the money.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Apr 8, 2006 9:20:02 GMT -5
Kevin, I'm unclear then as to what you feel is significant about the camphor. Are you suggesting the body was hidden in his garage and that the camphor was being used to mask its odour and discourage insect infestation?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 8, 2006 9:22:56 GMT -5
Not necessarily the body.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 8, 2006 11:50:25 GMT -5
Kevin,
Are you suggesting possibly one of the missing body parts or are you talking about the Sleeping Suit? Either way its an interesting theory....
I still don't know what to make of the Sleeping Suit angle. If the notes prove who they are by the symbol why then do they need this Sleeping Suit, which by the way could not be verified as authentic. Even Lindbergh admitted this on the stand during his testimony in the Gaston Means trial.
The other thing to consider would be why it took so long to mail out. Was it due to the mailing venue of Stamford, or a return trip to Hopewell?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 8, 2006 14:01:23 GMT -5
I think it was Rab who suggested the sleeping suit and I tend to agree. I wouldn't rule out the body due to what I believe is the "hatch drawing". But all we have is the container which obviously limits what could be concealed.
|
|