Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 9, 2006 10:21:43 GMT -5
I have difficulty understanding the advantage or need for burying the sleeping suit in the crock underground for such a relatively short time frame between March 1 and the couple of days following the night of March 12.
We know the sleeping suit was washed and that it also may well have been a replacement garment. Would the original have been in such an odorous state to warrant having to fumigate it? If the child had died the night of March 1, would the sleeping suit not have been removed then as a means of later identification?
I still see a lot of truth within Hauptmann's reaction to Sisk's testimony relating to the money having been originally stored there. Keith's finding of camphor on the bills found in Hauptmann's garage seem to imply a connection here.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 9, 2006 14:38:22 GMT -5
What's the source for the camphor odor on the bills?
I still don't understand the need to remove the sleeping suit for the purpose you mention. They had the secret symbol - what does a common sleeping suit prove?
If the thumb guard find was legit - then this implies the suit was removed where the guard was found and it would have, if what we accept as true occurred, been removed that night.
We also have to remember that CJ fully expected, or at least that's what Condon tells us, to be paid the ransom at the March 12th meeting at Woodlawn.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 9, 2006 19:38:08 GMT -5
Source for the camphor on the ransom bills found in Hauptmann's garage is by Stanley Keith, as footnoted in Fisher's Ghosts of Hopewell. I haven't actually seen a Keith report on this finding. I would be interested though if it does turn up.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 13, 2006 8:18:16 GMT -5
"They had the secret symbol - what does a common sleeping suit prove?" (Michael)
The suit may have been common but how would anyone but the actual kidnapper know what make and size the baby wore that night? Also, I thought that there was some slight addition to it done by Betty Gow.
"I have difficulty understanding the advantage or need for burying the sleeping suit in the crock underground for such a relatively short time frame between March 1 and the couple of days following the night of March 12." (Joe)
I don't claim to understand this either. All I know is that a container is found buried under Hauptmann's workbench containing camphor. Unless he was concerned with moths in his ground, what could be the reason to go to the trouble of concealing it ?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 13, 2006 16:40:51 GMT -5
The suit may have been common but how would anyone but the actual kidnapper know what make and size the baby wore that night? Also, I thought that there was some slight addition to it done by Betty Gow. Betty made no alterations to this suit. It went out over the wire, and the baby's size was known to the entire country. Additionally, if you suspect inside knowledge concerning one angle then certainly inside information could be obtained from another. For example, I do not believe Curtis was dealing with "the" gang but I believe someone was supplying him with certain information. One only needs to look at the Nursery pictures being sold by Kelly through Lewis to see the unlimited possibilities here. Lewis didn't talk. He was terminated and Kelly left unscathed with none the wiser. In any event, it didn't convince Lindbergh - as he testified he wasn't sure it was the same one. So I would ask you the exact same question concerning the symbol. That was the authenticator was it not? So what's the sleeping suit for?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 13, 2006 19:22:57 GMT -5
I had read that Betty Gow had stitched some threads on that suit, but in any case I think we all are benefiting from historical perspective or hindsight. Given the situation and pressure of the situation I could see the suit sufficing as evidence of a live baby especially by a desperate father who wants to believe so. I think the police would have been much more skeptical.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 14, 2006 5:50:41 GMT -5
I think you are referring to the blue thread and the home-made shirt Betty made. The sleeping suit was a different piece of clothing.
We seem to be disagreeing lately about multiple points - that should keep us on our toes. I don't want to beat a dead horse but I simply don't understand this transaction. The symbol is supposed to prove who they are and the suit doesn't prove anything that I can think off.....
....Maybe it was showing the child hadn't been sold off to another gang or something to similar? I know I read where that was a concern at one point.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 14, 2006 6:11:30 GMT -5
Michael, I agree disagreement is how we all can learn from another. The thread was supposedly on the Dr Dentons because of the thumbguards, so reported Whipple. I agree the whole sleeping suit episode is meaningless in regard to the baby and his condition. But I do think Lindbergh's state of mind was condusive to grasping at such straws, especially for his wife's sake. Given the advice by most that ransom should not be paid without the baby, the suit provided an additional rationalization for payment. We are still left with the puzzling buried crock and what it contained.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Apr 14, 2006 11:43:42 GMT -5
It should be crystal clear by now that none of the three main extortion gangs has Charlie....at least not "alive and well". [proving vibility is not even a topic for real discussion] But possibly one of them knows the location of Charlies body and is willing to return IT to the family? thats the value of the sleeping suite and the $50K dollars. The final note is coded as to where to look.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 15, 2006 10:02:19 GMT -5
Rick,
I believe they have the "dead" child. The ransom is for the return of the body to end the extortion attempts from everyone else.
Kevin,
I agree about this crock. It wasn't there for the hell of it. The ribbon was attached on the thumb guards and then Gow wrapped and tied it around the arms over the sleeping suit. When the thumbguard was found on Lindbergh Lane, Gow claimed the ribbon still had the knot in it. This seems to indicate, if true, the thumb-guard was not "untied" and perhaps came off while the sleeping suit was removed. This further complicate the thumb-guards discovery in the location where it was found. Who believes the Kidnappers would stop fleeing at this spot to remove the sleeping suit?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 16, 2006 8:17:31 GMT -5
So what possible purposes could this buried crock provide? I know it took some effort to bury it there. I don't think it would have contained all the ransom money and I don't think Hauptmann would do this in any case.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 16, 2006 8:52:21 GMT -5
It seems to me that, by design, its protected by the Car when its parked in the garage and over the spot. With this in mind, I would think when he took his car he may have taken out whatever was in there to bring with him.
Are you sure those holes in that block couldn't have been for drill bits etc. originally?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 16, 2006 11:44:05 GMT -5
I try to be responsible when posting so I can not say too much with definite assuredness. However I would strongly doubt Hauptmann would use this block of wood for tool storage given the spacing and size of the holes. The Liliput space would have to be re-bored to accommodate the gun.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 16, 2006 12:17:52 GMT -5
I believe that's what Hauptmann claimed so I just wanted to make sure whether or not it was a possibility. If so, then it implies the gun was elsewhere and the thought crossed my mind that maybe the gun had been in the crock originally.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 19, 2006 17:39:31 GMT -5
Given the state of readiness this gun was in I would think Hauptmann wanted it close at hand. I don't know what he was engaged in that made him feel this particular need to defend himself.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 19, 2006 18:28:22 GMT -5
It would be interesting to know if Hauptmann carried one of these types of guns during his WW1 days, ie. a "comrade" gun, as Wilentz called it, that was easy to conceal for possible up close enemy confrontations. Something tells me he was content to simply possess this kind of weapon, because of it's small, but potentially lethal package, than a specific need to use it with any routine.
We will probably never know if he carried it at all for protection or other use. I have previously read that CJ held his hand in his pocket in such a way to indicate he was armed when he met Condon at Woodlawn. Is there a documented source for this?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 20, 2006 10:37:47 GMT -5
Joe, are you saying that this gun was a security blanket for Hauptmann? I would only add that with a round in the chamber this is a particularly dangerous weapon to carry around or handle.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 23, 2006 4:09:30 GMT -5
Not exactly a security blanket, Kevin, but an item he held in high regard. From the effort taken to create its special hiding place and the fact the Lindbergh ransom money was kept alongside it. Would this grade of firearm have created the type and size of hole found in the baby's skull?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 23, 2006 8:27:12 GMT -5
I don't think the baby's skull showed evidence of beveling typical of bullet entry wounds, maybe someone else has more info on this. I see what you are saying about the significance of the gun. I still can't marginalize the danger of it's state of readiness. My father had one of the pistols and I remember it was not the safest pistol to handle. All things considered I have to believe Hauptmann felt some imminent danger which required him to be armed and ready. I would think it has a connection to the money.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 23, 2006 16:45:41 GMT -5
Whatever its ultimate purpose(s), the miniature pistol certainly fits the bill for discretion and effective protection. I don't see the Liliput as a specific firearm to protect Hauptmann's garage stash, although I'm sure he would have used it if push came to shove.
I believe the lighted alarm was installed to protect any "valuables" kept there and that the gun was stored in the same 2 X 4 location as the ransom money, in light of its direct significance in the cemetery meetings, ie. gun in CJ's pocket.
Can you imagine how concerned he must have been about an accidental fire in that garage?
|
|
|
Post by rickIII PI on Apr 23, 2006 19:53:59 GMT -5
Joe--I was stunned to read, most likely in Bern, that Doc Nosovitsky (international spy and master forger} was known to carry a "small German pistol in his lapel pocket"? Due to the reports that he "disappeared off the face of the Earth" we can no longer axe him where it went? It was very clever of him to keep JEdgar on the over a barrel all his life. Helps get into a witness protection program.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 23, 2006 20:47:52 GMT -5
Rick, I know --- I did a double take when I first read that in Behn. I'm not sure what the source is and it doesn't seem to appear in the FBI Nosovitsky files. I know Behn had also checked the old NYPD records though and of course he had access to the Pelletreau files which gave him the impetus for his book. It's these seemingly insignificant potential connections that sometimes strike a nerve and make me wonder if the two had ever met, with Hauptmann perhaps liking the the idea of carrying a miniature pistol in his inside breast pocket, which I think is the location pointed out by Behn.
And what about Nosovitsky's real or preceived skills as a forger and Hauptmann's lack of concern about providing a handwriting sample. Could he have possibly picked up some basic training along the way through any association with the Doc?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Apr 23, 2006 21:01:32 GMT -5
Joe--we both wish we knew. but Im suspicious that in his zeal to prove that BRH never met Fisch before March 1932 to kill the Fisch story, AGWilintz went to alot of bother questioning Gerta Henkel/ The timing agreed upon by all parties, including Reilly was just too convenient to suite me and it seems that BRH was oblivious to its import? Or, he was just lying to protect....Fisch and himself? Seems crazy. But then they both could have taken lessons from Doc in 1931? Maybe someone actually knows the make and model of the Nosovitsky pistol? {like his parole officer or JEdgar Hoover his job reference?}
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 24, 2006 7:40:59 GMT -5
There was a suggestion by Mitchell I believe that the baby's injury could have been a bullet. Rab pointed this out years ago and its from the FBI Summary Report. I also have a little about this in Hick's file although I am not sure how much there is. Didn't we look into this a couple of months back? I can't remember.
The garage "alarm" evidence is rather dubious and I tend to believe there wasn't one.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 24, 2006 8:07:57 GMT -5
I have a very good photo of the house and garage taken in the days following the arrest and I can not see any power cable running to the garage from the house, so I tend to think you are correct.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 24, 2006 21:51:53 GMT -5
I think it's hard to say just when the light alarm was installed and if it was taken down prior to Hauptmann's arrest. The Hahns gave quite a detailed account of Hauptmann demonstrating its operation and I see no reason for them to have lied about such a thing. Wasn't this also corroborated by Laura Urvant, the Rauch's daughter?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 25, 2006 17:24:19 GMT -5
Joe,
You are correct that Hahn did give them this information. I believe Max Rauch said something about a wire running from the house to the garage. If you need me to look this up let me know and I will get the dates as well.
However, let's think about this for a moment....
If it's an "alarm" then why doesn't it exist when Hauptmann is arrested when we know all that cash IS in there?
The Police interviewed neighbors who all said the same thing - no light alarm seen by them.
If something did exist, couldn't it just have been something Hauptmann ran to the garage on those rare occasions when he needed to work out there at night and then promptly rolled it back up when finished?
It could have been a misunderstanding or those "giving" the Police what was perceived as something they wanted to hear...
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 25, 2006 18:53:27 GMT -5
Michael and Joe, I was thinking about this issue today and I want to throw something out for discussion or thought. I don't know if this so called alarm actually existed or not but assuming it did here is what is involved. First, this is not an alarm but a switchable light on or in the garage as I understand it. The switch being in Hauptmann's apartment, I think it was said to be in the bedroom. Now to do this is a little more involved than just throwing a wire out of the window, it actually can get somewhat involved. First Hauptmann needs a 110v source or feed. In homes of that period houses were notably short on wall outlets so getting that feed could be difficult, I will return to this in a moment. Next Hauptmann needs to mount a 110v switch from his feed and continue with a shielded cable to the garage and his light fixture. Now running a line from the house to the garage is a fair distance and crosses a road so it would have to be buried in conduit (unlikely) or suspended in air. That requires a secure attachment at both terminations as there is quite a tensile force here. Also , Hauptmann would have to obtain a cable suitable to exterior exposure. Now just suppose that he did go to all of this effort for his "alarm". It might be very likely that his feed that I mentioned earlier would come from the attic. If he put this alarm in before the kidnapping and ladder construction we might have a possible reason for the removal of rail 16 which just happens to lie`directly above`a wall with electrical feeds.
|
|
|
Post by rickIII Trooper II on Apr 25, 2006 20:32:22 GMT -5
OK boys, just one question. There is now exactly $14,900 Golden Certs hidden in the Garage plus the Lilliput Pistola. So why does BRH disconnect the hotline before being arrested? Did he dismantle it after spending half? Do you think he developed an allergy to high voltage?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 26, 2006 8:13:34 GMT -5
That's actually three questions ;D, Your point is well taken, though and you raise a good point. Perhaps the whole story is untrue, although it seems quite odd of an invention. Maybe Hauptmann perception of danger was higher at some point and subsided. Or if Hauptmann did not take the proper steps I outlined to achieve his security system it would likely not last very long. For example, if he used inexpensive "zip" cord ( lamp cord) which is not designed to be used in an exterior application and certainly not suitable for suspension, then it would most likely fail after a short time. He may just have been thinking short term with his security light.
|
|