Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Aug 5, 2022 9:40:25 GMT -5
You may to consider who’s overlooking the obvious, and the not-so-obvious here. This is from Michael's post: “Next, I've speculated that ransom was never meant to be collected. I believe money was paid some up front and the rest immediately after the "crime." At that point, some decided to go rogue and pursue the 50K mentioned in the note.”
You’re missing the gist and follow-through of my argument here, and preferring to segue into Lindbergh ‘misdirecting’ of the investigation. Talk about misdirecting here. Perhaps we can keep within the subject matter here. Consider: If the kidnappers were to be paid up front and immediately after the crime as Michael suggests, and Lindbergh upon discovering his child was missing, immediately brings in the police, (as he did) who were given full disclosure of the nursery ransom note, then he has no choice but to pay any ransom amount that is certain to be found within the note. He’s now in the eyes of the police, press and public.. no more opportunity to not pay ‘Rogue’ so to speak. If Lindbergh believes, as you seem to think, that he’s not supposed to be paying anything beyond what was agreed upon before and immediately after the crime, why on earth does he immediately involve law enforcement, when otherwise by not calling them in right away, he would have had the most ideal of opportunities to conduct 'faux negotiations’ with his ‘fauxnappers’ in complete privacy, potentially saving himself the $50,000? Here’s something else to consider. If Lindbergh was truly part of a faked kidnapping and had to be in charge to the degree you believe, why didn’t he immediately open the sealed ransom note he would have been expecting? If he really was such a lowlife as to have other lowlifes come into his home to “destroy” his child, do you really believe his desire to 'control everything' would have allowed him to trust what would be found in that envelope by the NJSP? This connect-the-best-dots-available theory you defend so enthusiastically, falls flat on many fronts. The above are just a couple of examples. Lindbergh calls the cops because it legitimizes the kidnapping. Why would you need a gang to come in and make things look real if you're not going to call the cops? That makes zero sense. It makes national headlines and makes Lindbergh into a very sympathetic figure. However, does he cooperate with the police in every possible way? Of course not. He won't let them interrogate the staff, he obstructs the investigation in lieu of working with mobsters and shady figures. Everything is done outside of official channels. Think about it like this: Lindbergh, through a trusted third party, hires a gang to stage a "real looking" kidnapping and remove the child. They are hired for, let's say, $10K ($5K to be paid before, $5K after the body is returned). The note says $50K is to be collected, but that is just a ruse. However, part or all of the gang go rogue and decide to collect the full $50K or else they won't return the body. What is Lindbergh's recourse here? To say call the cops and say he's being extorted by the people who he hired to kidnap his kid? He has no choice but to pay the $50K and be done with it. So the $50,000 amount demanded in the nursery note, is just part of the ‘ruse’ and by original design, was never meant to be collected. Is Lindbergh aware of the above two considerations before the faked kidnapping takes place, ie. that a 'ransom note' will be left, and for that amount?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 5, 2022 13:07:53 GMT -5
Lindbergh calls the cops because it legitimizes the kidnapping. Why would you need a gang to come in and make things look real if you're not going to call the cops? That makes zero sense. It makes national headlines and makes Lindbergh into a very sympathetic figure. However, does he cooperate with the police in every possible way? Of course not. He won't let them interrogate the staff, he obstructs the investigation in lieu of working with mobsters and shady figures. Everything is done outside of official channels. Think about it like this: Lindbergh, through a trusted third party, hires a gang to stage a "real looking" kidnapping and remove the child. They are hired for, let's say, $10K ($5K to be paid before, $5K after the body is returned). The note says $50K is to be collected, but that is just a ruse. However, part or all of the gang go rogue and decide to collect the full $50K or else they won't return the body. What is Lindbergh's recourse here? To say call the cops and say he's being extorted by the people who he hired to kidnap his kid? He has no choice but to pay the $50K and be done with it. So the $50,000 amount demanded in the nursery note, is just part of the ‘ruse’ and by original design, was never meant to be collected. Is Lindbergh aware of the above two considerations before the faked kidnapping takes place, ie. that a 'ransom note' will be left, and for that amount? Yes, of course. It's not a coincidence that nobody saw the note until Lindbergh pointed it out. Also raised a lot of eyebrows to just about everyone that Lindbergh, swept up in emotion, runs outside with a shotgun in urgent search of his son, only to return and make a 180º by demanding the note not be opened until a fingerprinting expert arrives. What if the note said "meet us in an hour or he dies" or some other such threat? Every action Lindbergh took that night seemed to be to direct the police's attention to where he wanted it ("oh look a ladder out there!") As Ho-age said, the whole thing appeared to be staged so as to provide a breadcrumb trail of evidence and to, perhaps, misdirect from what really happened.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 5, 2022 13:54:40 GMT -5
Setting aside what this person or that person would or wouldn't do in this or that situation, this theory also generally explains how the kidnappers knew exactly where CAL Jr. would be and when, without a lot of unrealistic alternatives about someone letting all that information slip to the kidnappers, or the kidnappers having to figure it out on their own (outside observation of house is useless and locals would've seen them). I think of it as a shortest-distance-between-two-points kind of thing. That of course doesn't constitute smoking-gun proof of anything; that's impossible at this stage, but this theory explains a lot of things and dovetails virtually all the first-hand source facts, which, at the very least, is significant. It's not about bias, defamation, or axe-grinding against Lindbergh, just putting everything together and looking at the big picture, whatever that may turn out to be.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Aug 5, 2022 15:30:56 GMT -5
So the $50,000 amount demanded in the nursery note, is just part of the ‘ruse’ and by original design, was never meant to be collected. Is Lindbergh aware of the above two considerations before the faked kidnapping takes place, ie. that a 'ransom note' will be left, and for that amount? Yes, of course. It's not a coincidence that nobody saw the note until Lindbergh pointed it out. Also raised a lot of eyebrows to just about everyone that Lindbergh, swept up in emotion, runs outside with a shotgun in urgent search of his son, only to return and make a 180º by demanding the note not be opened until a fingerprinting expert arrives. What if the note said "meet us in an hour or he dies" or some other such threat? Every action Lindbergh took that night seemed to be to direct the police's attention to where he wanted it ("oh look a ladder out there!") As Ho-age said, the whole thing appeared to be staged so as to provide a breadcrumb trail of evidence and to, perhaps, misdirect from what really happened. Okay, so if Lindbergh is aware that a ransom note demanding $50,000 be paid for the 'safe return' of his son will be left in the nursery, how on earth by the supposed faked kidnapping plan design, would he have been able to get out of paying that amount, especially in light of him having involved the police right away? Who's going 'rogue' here, besides nobody? And how would Lindbergh have know about the details of the ransom note? Michael stated that he was to be 'insulated' from the various other parties involved in this scheme, ostensibly to protect him from complicity. Seems to me you'd have to believe there must have been a pretty direct link between Lindbergh and the actual perpetrating party for him to have had this level of detail. For many reasons, this theory has plenty of convenient wiggle room within, to appear quite palatable in an overall sense as long as little thought is applied towards establishing the veracity of each of its individual and seemingly-shifting parts.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 5, 2022 17:56:42 GMT -5
Yes, of course. It's not a coincidence that nobody saw the note until Lindbergh pointed it out. Also raised a lot of eyebrows to just about everyone that Lindbergh, swept up in emotion, runs outside with a shotgun in urgent search of his son, only to return and make a 180º by demanding the note not be opened until a fingerprinting expert arrives. What if the note said "meet us in an hour or he dies" or some other such threat? Every action Lindbergh took that night seemed to be to direct the police's attention to where he wanted it ("oh look a ladder out there!") As Ho-age said, the whole thing appeared to be staged so as to provide a breadcrumb trail of evidence and to, perhaps, misdirect from what really happened. Okay, so if Lindbergh is aware that a ransom note demanding $50,000 be paid for the 'safe return' of his son will be left in the nursery, how on earth by the supposed faked kidnapping plan design, would he have been able to get out of paying that amount, especially in light of him having involved the police right away? Who's going 'rogue' here, besides nobody? And how would Lindbergh have know about the details of the ransom note? Michael stated that he was to be 'insulated' from the various other parties involved in this scheme, ostensibly to protect him from complicity. Seems to me you'd have to believe there must have been a pretty direct link between Lindbergh and the actual perpetrating party for him to have had this level of detail. For many reasons, this theory has plenty of convenient wiggle room within, to appear quite palatable in an overall sense as long as little thought is applied towards establishing the veracity of each of its individual and seemingly-shifting parts. What on earth are you talking about? The plan was for the gang to be paid whatever the agreed upon amount was, then the whole thing would quietly fade away. Lindbergh did everything he could to ensure the police would make no real progress towards finding the kidnapper, that much is clear. Instead, part or all of the gang goes rogue, deciding to collect the full amount specified on the note for return of the body. Lindbergh has no choice but to follow through. Lindbergh knew a kidnapping would be staged. Perhaps he informed the contact what was to be specified in the note, perhaps the contact informed Lindbergh. Either way it doesn't really matter. It was just supposed to be a prop.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Aug 5, 2022 20:31:46 GMT -5
Lindbergh knew a kidnapping would be staged. Perhaps he informed the contact what was to be specified in the note, perhaps the contact informed Lindbergh. Either way it doesn't really matter. It was just supposed to be a prop. Okay here are some of the problems... Reading Dark Corners 1-4 (and certainly correct me if I’m wrong), I think the possibility is explored that: (1) Charlie was dead prior to March 1 (2) the household was aware that Charlie was dead (3) the events of March 1 were a ruse to fake a kidnapping as trojanusc and Dark Corners suggest So, if Scenario #5 is what happened – that CAL was behind the death of Charlie – then CAL had to have recruited, either directly or indirectly, BRH to build the ladder that was found on his property. There is no other way around that. Then CAL and BRH were communicating either (1) directly or (2) indirectly though a third party. So, if the kidnapping on March 1 was a staged ruse, then when did Charlie “disappear?” Again, the possibilities HAVE TO BE: 1) The week leading up to Saturday, February 28 when the Lindberghs were at Englewood. In this timeline, most if not all of the 29+ people at Englewood would be aware that Charlie was missing. 2) The weekend of February 28/29. In this timeline, at least 8 people would be complicit – CAL, Anne, Henry and Aida Breckinridge, Alva and Oren Root, and Ollie and Elsie Whateley. If Charlie was missing prior to the weekend, then all 8 of these people lied and that increases the complicit list to almost 40 people. 3) Monday, February 30. At least 4 people would be complicit – CAL, Anne, Ollie and Elsie Whateley. 4) Tuesday, March 1. At least 5 people would be complicit – CAL, Anne, Ollie and Elsie Whateley, and Betty Gow. But Tuesday can be discounted as per trojanusc and Dark Corners because that was when the kidnapping ruse occurred and BRH’s ladder was left behind. Also, if CAL pre-paid a gang to carry out the March 1st kidnapping ruse, where is there documentation of CAL taking out a large sum of money? And this money certainly did not go to BRH. He couldn’t even pay his gas and electric bill on April 2. Both were turned off due to non-payment. Both were turned on immediately after the ransom was paid. And, since CAL and BRH had to be working together (directly or through a 3rd party) in Scenario #5, then Condon was not necessary. CAL and BRH could either communicate as they must have done either directly or through the 3rd party.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 5, 2022 22:06:56 GMT -5
Hauptmann and Lindbergh didn't need to know each other or have been in direct or indirect contact. Neither did Hauptmann have to be one of the kidnappers, actually at the house. He might have been, but another possibility is that one of the kidnappers knew Hauptmann and asked him to build a ladder to certain specs, no questions asked, and left some of the $50K with him later. Hauptmann initially gave a version of that story to the police, but they didn't buy it, and he could've been afraid for his family's safety if he gave the name of the actual person who approached him and left the money with him. So he pawned it off on the conveniently dead Fisch. The kidnappers' extortion plot against Lindbergh was separate and subsequent to the murder/removal of CAL Jr. At that point, the kidnappers needed Condon as someone who Lindbergh would have no choice but accept as a go-between, to give the $50K to, to then pass on to them. Given this, I'm not sure what the deal is with all the ranging around with dates. As has been said, Anne, the Whateleys, and Betty would've known CAL Jr. was "going away" on the night of March 1--taken out of the house and smuggled into an institution or something, because that's what Lindbergh told them what was happening. Only Lindbergh would've known what was really going to happen. CAL Jr. died sometime between 8 and 9pm, 3/1/1932, either immediately before or after he was removed from Highfields.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Aug 5, 2022 22:29:41 GMT -5
Hauptmann and Lindbergh didn't need to know each other or have been in direct or indirect contact. Neither did Hauptmann have to be one of the kidnappers, actually at the house. He might have been, but another possibility is that one of the kidnappers knew Hauptmann and asked him to build a ladder to certain specs, no questions asked, and left some of the $50K with him later. So let me get this straight... Hauptmann simply built a ladder for the kidnappers/extortionists. He had nothing to do with either the kidnapping or extortion. And then he was willing to die simply for building a ladder rather than tell who he built the ladder for? I guess that makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 5, 2022 22:45:37 GMT -5
Hauptmann and Lindbergh didn't need to know each other or have been in direct or indirect contact. Neither did Hauptmann have to be one of the kidnappers, actually at the house. He might have been, but another possibility is that one of the kidnappers knew Hauptmann and asked him to build a ladder to certain specs, no questions asked, and left some of the $50K with him later. So let me get this straight... Hauptmann simply built a ladder for the kidnappers/extortionists. He had nothing to do with either the kidnapping or extortion. And then he was willing to die simply for building a ladder rather than tell who he built the ladder for? I guess that makes sense. Well some possibilities: 1) Hauptmann didn't actually build the ladder - Fisch or someone affiliated used some of the wood from the basement. He himself laughed at the idea he would build such a rickety (no pun intended) ladder. By all accounts he was a good carpenter, so I do think its suspect he would construct such a crude ladder. 2) Hauptmann didn't built the ladder and wood matching is incorrect. 2) Hauptmann did have knowledge and/or was involved in its construction, but was led to believe that his family's direct safety was being threatened if he inculpated Lindbergh in any way.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 6, 2022 0:47:20 GMT -5
What on earth are you talking about? The plan was for the gang to be paid whatever the agreed upon amount was, then the whole thing would quietly fade away. Lindbergh did everything he could to ensure the police would make no real progress towards finding the kidnapper, that much is clear. Instead, part or all of the gang goes rogue, deciding to collect the full amount specified on the note for return of the body. Lindbergh has no choice but to follow through. Lindbergh knew a kidnapping would be staged. Perhaps he informed the contact what was to be specified in the note, perhaps the contact informed Lindbergh. Either way it doesn't really matter. It was just supposed to be a prop. I'm with you. I have no idea what Joe's point is. I think he is merely trying to argue against it without first considering the possibilities. Joe, take a look at the poison pen case concerning a woman by the name of Von Moschzisker. She was receiving anonymous blackmail letters which led to the arrest of a 21 year old woman named Mowell. While locked up, she contracted a deadly disease. She won her case, sued, and won. Unfortunately, she died as a result. And who wrote those letters? Von Moschzisker herself. Now before you accuse me of implicating Lindbergh as the ransom note writer that's not what I am saying. I shouldn't have to state this but I already know and understand your tactics. Merely consider what happened here and apply it to your position that Lindbergh wouldn't have a fake ransom note available if committing a kidnapping ruse.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 6, 2022 0:51:13 GMT -5
Hauptmann and Lindbergh didn't need to know each other or have been in direct or indirect contact. Neither did Hauptmann have to be one of the kidnappers, actually at the house. He might have been, but another possibility is that one of the kidnappers knew Hauptmann and asked him to build a ladder to certain specs, no questions asked, and left some of the $50K with him later. So let me get this straight... Hauptmann simply built a ladder for the kidnappers/extortionists. He had nothing to do with either the kidnapping or extortion. And then he was willing to die simply for building a ladder rather than tell who he built the ladder for? I guess that makes sense. So let me get this straight... You're actually having a hard time understanding that someone could've been approached to do something pretty innocuous like use his carpentry skills to knock together a ladder, then, once he realized what it was for, was afraid to name names because he and/or his family could've been threatened with some kind of retaliation if he talked? I guess that makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 6, 2022 1:18:22 GMT -5
So, if Scenario #5 is what happened – that CAL was behind the death of Charlie – then CAL had to have recruited, either directly or indirectly, BRH to build the ladder that was found on his property. There is no other way around that. We know Hauptmann had a hand in the ladder's construction based on Rail 16. So, if the kidnapping on March 1 was a staged ruse, then when did Charlie “disappear?” AAgain, the possibilities HAVE TO BE: 4) Tuesday, March 1. At least 5 people would be complicit – CAL, Anne, Ollie and Elsie Whateley, and Betty Gow. But Tuesday can be discounted as per trojanusc and Dark Corners because that was when the kidnapping ruse occurred and BRH’s ladder was left behind. Complicit in knowing the child wasn't actually kidnapped. There's nothing in TDC to prevent this from being the date. Why couldn't the child be removed simultaneously to the staging? Maybe I'm confused about the argument? Also, if CAL pre-paid a gang to carry out the March 1st kidnapping ruse, where is there documentation of CAL taking out a large sum of money? And this money certainly did not go to BRH. He couldn’t even pay his gas and electric bill on April 2. Both were turned off due to non-payment. Both were turned on immediately after the ransom was paid. Where is the documentation of any of CAL's withdrawals? What do you consider "large?" And who said CAL made the payment? Of course the money went to whoever was involved. An amount up front and a second payment was due on the back end. There's too much to go over, so I'd simply refer you to chapter 7 in V2 and continue to the end. Hauptmann did plenty of strange things when it came to money. One such thing involved Hager after the ransom payment. Or when he sent his niece $5 bucks for X-Mas when supposedly in financial dire straits. According to Special Agent Frank, Hauptmann made a deposit to his Central Bank Account of $125 in 1932 prior to the ransom delivery. The real question should be why Hauptmann, bought the car, quit his job, and took that cross country trip at the time he did. And why, upon his return, he upgraded his living situation going from $35 per month rent to $50 per month. This all while supposedly financially strapped and before the ransom payment was ever made. And, since CAL and BRH had to be working together (directly or through a 3rd party) in Scenario #5, then Condon was not necessary. I don't get this. My previous posts already address it. CAL and BRH could either communicate as they must have done either directly or through the 3rd party. They were never communicating with each other. That wouldn't make sense if a 3rd party was brought in to assemble these people. If you are suggesting that the 3rd party could have kept them in line or prevented it from happening we would need to know who that person was in order to make that determination. Let's look at the Ellis Parker case as a comparison. If the Prosecutor Quinn was correct, then Ellis brought in Bleefeld to commit a kidnapping for him. And Bleefeld brought in the others. Did Parker prevent Bleefeld from attempting to sell Wendel's confession to Reporters prior to bringing him to NJ? No, he didn't. In fact, he never even knew this happened. Did Parker prevent Bleefeld from implicating him? No, he didn't. Did he prevent the others, who Bleefeld brought in, from implicating him? No, he didn't. Ultimately, things spun out of control and Parker could not stop the sh*t storm that reigned down on him. And Parker had friends in high places ... lots of them.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Aug 6, 2022 8:15:13 GMT -5
So let me get this straight... Hauptmann simply built a ladder for the kidnappers/extortionists. He had nothing to do with either the kidnapping or extortion. And then he was willing to die simply for building a ladder rather than tell who he built the ladder for? I guess that makes sense. Well some possibilities: 1) Hauptmann didn't actually build the ladder - Fisch or someone affiliated used some of the wood from the basement. He himself laughed at the idea he would build such a rickety (no pun intended) ladder. By all accounts he was a good carpenter, so I do think its suspect he would construct such a crude ladder. 2) Hauptmann didn't built the ladder and wood matching is incorrect. 2) Hauptmann did have knowledge and/or was involved in its construction, but was led to believe that his family's direct safety was being threatened if he inculpated Lindbergh in any way. 1) Unless you can show me documentation, Fisch did not meet Hauptmann until the end of July or the beginning of August 1933. Fisch had nothing to do with the LKC. 2) So all the forensics is wrong? The other 2) Really? He would gladly die for simply building a ladder than naming all the people he gave the ladder to who would all be arrested? Okay.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Aug 6, 2022 8:18:28 GMT -5
So let me get this straight... Hauptmann simply built a ladder for the kidnappers/extortionists. He had nothing to do with either the kidnapping or extortion. And then he was willing to die simply for building a ladder rather than tell who he built the ladder for? I guess that makes sense. So let me get this straight... You're actually having a hard time understanding that someone could've been approached to do something pretty innocuous like use his carpentry skills to knock together a ladder, then, once he realized what it was for, was afraid to name names because he and/or his family could've been threatened with some kind of retaliation if he talked? I guess that makes sense. Yep, I can't see dying over building a letter when you could simply turn in the folks who paid you to build it. I don't see Hauptmann as a man living in fear. If nothing else, he could have simply moved. Kind of a no-brainer.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Aug 6, 2022 8:47:52 GMT -5
So, if Scenario #5 is what happened – that CAL was behind the death of Charlie – then CAL had to have recruited, either directly or indirectly, BRH to build the ladder that was found on his property. There is no other way around that. We know Hauptmann had a hand in the ladder's construction based on Rail 16. Thank you. I agree.So, if the kidnapping on March 1 was a staged ruse, then when did Charlie “disappear?” AAgain, the possibilities HAVE TO BE: 4) Tuesday, March 1. At least 5 people would be complicit – CAL, Anne, Ollie and Elsie Whateley, and Betty Gow. But Tuesday can be discounted as per trojanusc and Dark Corners because that was when the kidnapping ruse occurred and BRH’s ladder was left behind. Complicit in knowing the child wasn't actually kidnapped. There's nothing in TDC to prevent this from being the date. Why couldn't the child be removed simultaneously to the staging? Maybe I'm confused about the argument? My understanding from TDC is that the entire household was aware that Charlie was either gone or going to go. So if that is the case, we cannot believe anything as truthful with certainty in any of the Monday or Tuesday statements from CAL, Anne, Olly, Elise, or Betty. So Charlie could have been missing anytime from Monday to Tuesday. Right? Based on TDC.Also, if CAL pre-paid a gang to carry out the March 1st kidnapping ruse, where is there documentation of CAL taking out a large sum of money? And this money certainly did not go to BRH. He couldn’t even pay his gas and electric bill on April 2. Both were turned off due to non-payment. Both were turned on immediately after the ransom was paid. Where is the documentation of any of CAL's withdrawals? What do you consider "large?" And who said CAL made the payment? Of course the money went to whoever was involved. An amount up front and a second payment was due on the back end. There's too much to go over, so I'd simply refer you to chapter 7 in V2 and continue to the end. Hauptmann did plenty of strange things when it came to money. One such thing involved Hager after the ransom payment. Or when he sent his niece $5 bucks for X-Mas when supposedly in financial dire straits. According to Special Agent Frank, Hauptmann made a deposit to his Central Bank Account of $125 in 1932 prior to the ransom delivery. The real question should be why Hauptmann, bought the car, quit his job, and took that cross country trip at the time he did. And why, upon his return, he upgraded his living situation going from $35 per month rent to $50 per month. This all while supposedly financially strapped and before the ransom payment was ever made. BRH and Anna did make money, right? Not a lot, but they did both work. And if you look at Hauptmann's trip book, you'll see that BRH was able to fill up his car for around $1.50. BRH did not have big money until he received the ransom money on April 2nd.
Bottom line, there is no proof that CAL made a pay off to anyone prior to March 1st, right?Aug 5, 2022 21:31:46 GMT -4 Wayne said: And, since CAL and BRH had to be working together (directly or through a 3rd party) in Scenario #5, then Condon was not necessary. I don't get this. My previous posts already address it. If CAL was behind the death of his son and since BRH's ladder and the Nursery Note made it to his property, then either CAL had to recruit BRH either directly or through a 3rd party to build the ladder and leave the ransom note.
Right? That had to be his plan in Scenario #5.
CAL and BRH could either communicate as they must have done either directly or through the 3rd party. They were never communicating with each other. That wouldn't make sense if a 3rd party was brought in to assemble these people. If you are suggesting that the 3rd party could have kept them in line or prevented it from happening we would need to know who that person was in order to make that determination. Let's look at the Ellis Parker case as a comparison. If the Prosecutor Quinn was correct, then Ellis brought in Bleefeld to commit a kidnapping for him. And Bleefeld brought in the others. Did Parker prevent Bleefeld from attempting to sell Wendel's confession to Reporters prior to bringing him to NJ? No, he didn't. In fact, he never even knew this happened. Did Parker prevent Bleefeld from implicating him? No, he didn't. Did he prevent the others, who Bleefeld brought in, from implicating him? No, he didn't. Ultimately, things spun out of control and Parker could not stop the sh*t storm that reigned down on him. And Parker had friends in high places ... lots of them. So if CAL and BRH were not communicating (either directly or indirectly) then how does BRH's ladder and ransom note make it onto CAL's property?
If CAL was behind this, he had to somehow have gotten word to BRH to bring the ladder and ransom note that night. Right?
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Aug 6, 2022 9:59:13 GMT -5
So where would Fisch fit into this theory? He is one character who cannot be ignored or omitted.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 6, 2022 10:43:51 GMT -5
Well some possibilities: 1) Hauptmann didn't actually build the ladder - Fisch or someone affiliated used some of the wood from the basement. He himself laughed at the idea he would build such a rickety (no pun intended) ladder. By all accounts he was a good carpenter, so I do think its suspect he would construct such a crude ladder. 2) Hauptmann didn't built the ladder and wood matching is incorrect. 2) Hauptmann did have knowledge and/or was involved in its construction, but was led to believe that his family's direct safety was being threatened if he inculpated Lindbergh in any way. 1) Unless you can show me documentation, Fisch did not meet Hauptmann until the end of July or the beginning of August 1933. Fisch had nothing to do with the LKC. 2) So all the forensics is wrong? The other 2) Really? He would gladly die for simply building a ladder than naming all the people he gave the ladder to who would all be arrested? Okay. 1) There is evidence he paid for his trip to Germany in goldbacks. He met the description of Breckinridge's "visitor" etc. There is some evidence which points to Fisch. 2) They are likely not but could be. The only way to know for sure would be to DNA test rail 16 and the floorboard but the state is unlikely to let this happen. 3) Again, his family could have been threatened.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Aug 6, 2022 10:46:01 GMT -5
So where would Fisch fit into this theory? He is one character who cannot be ignored or omitted. Unless you can show us otherwise, Fisch can be ignored and omitted until he met BRH in late July or early August 1932. Show us the two met before that time.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Aug 6, 2022 10:53:39 GMT -5
1) Unless you can show me documentation, Fisch did not meet Hauptmann until the end of July or the beginning of August 1933. Fisch had nothing to do with the LKC. 2) So all the forensics is wrong? The other 2) Really? He would gladly die for simply building a ladder than naming all the people he gave the ladder to who would all be arrested? Okay. 1) There is evidence he paid for his trip to Germany in goldbacks. He met the description of Breckinridge's "visitor" etc. There is some evidence which points to Fisch. 2) They are likely not but could be. The only way to know for sure would be to DNA test rail 16 and the floorboard but the state is unlikely to let this happen. 3) Again, his family could have been threatened. 1) Okay, then show us that Fisch paid for the trip to Germany with goldbacks. And a lot of people look like Fisch. Did Breckinridge ever ID Fisch as his visitor? Yes or no? 2) The leading wood experts around the world do not test wood using DNA, I've checked with them. They use Stable Isotope Ratio Analysis (SIRA) and Direct Analysis in Real Time – Timeof Flight Mass Spectrometry DART-TofMS. 3) Again, he could have simply turned them all in and/or moved.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 6, 2022 11:47:32 GMT -5
2) Hauptmann did have knowledge and/or was involved in its construction, but was led to believe that his family's direct safety was being threatened if he inculpated Lindbergh in any way.1) Unless you can show me documentation, Fisch did not meet Hauptmann until the end of July or the beginning of August 1933. Fisch had nothing to do with the LKC. Not jump in here but I believe you mean 1932. Next, I've always believed Hauptmann knew him before that date, but since Fisch tended to keep people separated that could account why the Henkels may have believed when they met that summer they weren't known to each other. Regardless, I believe its a safe bet to assume Fisch assisted with the ransom money laundering. Breckinridge's assertion that he believed Fisch was the man who came to his office is a tough one to ignore. And if one believes Condon was honest, as both you and Joe do, then he's clearly attempting implicate Fisch as well. (V2 pages 314-16) I certainly disagree that many people "looked like" Fisch - except maybe Eddie Cantor. I went into all of this in V2. Hauptmann was in a "catch-22" when it came to this whole situation of when he first met Fisch. And to be honest, a lack of documentation is not grounds to completely eliminate the possibilities that may or may not have existed. There's quite a bit we don't have about everything. Take the serial numbers on the back of the closet door. There's no documentation in any of Hauptmann's ledgers to explain them. Does that mean they were not there? Of course not. All we have is Hauptmann giving a story about money Fisch gave to him and various dates when it was supposed to have occurred. Most choose the date they feel comfortable with and accept this money was actually real. Right?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Aug 6, 2022 12:10:17 GMT -5
2) Hauptmann did have knowledge and/or was involved in its construction, but was led to believe that his family's direct safety was being threatened if he inculpated Lindbergh in any way.1) Unless you can show me documentation, Fisch did not meet Hauptmann until the end of July or the beginning of August 1933. Fisch had nothing to do with the LKC. Not jump in here but I believe you mean 1932. Next, I've always believed Hauptmann knew him before that date, but since Fisch tended to keep people separated that could account why the Henkels may have believed when they met that summer they weren't known to each other. Regardless, I believe its a safe bet to assume Fisch assisted with the ransom money laundering. Breckinridge's assertion that he believed Fisch was the man who came to his office is a tough one to ignore. And if one believes Condon was honest, as both you and Joe do, then he's clearly attempting implicate Fisch as well. (V2 pages 314-16) I certainly disagree that many people "looked like" Fisch - except maybe Eddie Cantor. I went into all of this in V2. Hauptmann was in a "catch-22" when it came to this whole situation of when he first met Fisch. And to be honest, a lack of documentation is not grounds to completely eliminate the possibilities that may or may not have existed. There's quite a bit we don't have about everything. Take the serial numbers on the back of the closet door. There's no documentation in any of Hauptmann's ledgers to explain them. Does that mean they were not there? Of course not. All we have is Hauptmann giving a story about money Fisch gave to him and various dates when it was supposed to have occurred. Most choose the date they feel comfortable with and accept this money was actually real. Right? Thanks Michael, my mistake, I meant 1932. It's one thing to believe in something (like BRH knew Fisch during the time of the kidnapping) but it's another to see proof of that, right? Personally, I just haven't seen anything that connects BRH and Fisch until the end of the summer of 1932. If there is anything, I'd love to see it. And we need a definition of "laundering" here. If by laundering, you mean that BRH sold some of the ransom money to someone like Fisch for a lower price, again, I don't see any proof of that. None of the ransom money was ever traced to Fisch, right? He did with nothing, right? Thanks to Sigi's incredible work on the ransom money, it's obvious that BRH had at least 90% of the ransom money if not all of it and was definitely spending it and exchanging some in banks. I can't see someone like BRH taking less money for his ransom money. Honestly, can you?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 6, 2022 12:40:48 GMT -5
Despite the specific arguments being made in this thread, I believe there are a wide variety of opinions. The theory itself may differ slightly from person to person. Nothing is written in stone and if I see something better or an improvement to what I presently believe I will embrace it. For me the key is the willingness to adjust. Anyway, once I got to a place where Rab's/Kevin's position was provable then it solved the situation. At least from the standpoint concerning where Rail 16 came from. There's still some issues such as "where" certain tools were that needed to be used, why the chisel in Hopewell was razor sharp while all of Hauptmann's tools were nothing like that, etc. etc., I believe these issues indicate what we all already know - other people were involved. My understanding from TDC is that the entire household was aware that Charlie was either gone or going to go. So if that is the case, we cannot believe anything as truthful with certainty in any of the Monday or Tuesday statements from CAL, Anne, Olly, Elise, or Betty. So Charlie could have been missing anytime from Monday to Tuesday. Right? Based on TDC.I can't possibly see it any other way. Real or fake, no one got in and out of that house in the manner in which history records. Everyone would have known about it regardless. And of course, that opens up other possibilities to consider. But that doesn't mean he was gone earlier. In contemplating all there is to consider, and one happens to believe the child exited earlier for one reason or another, they certainly grounds to make that case. That's not my position though for various reasons. BRH and Anna did make money, right? Not a lot, but they did both work. And if you look at Hauptmann's trip book, you'll see that BRH was able to fill up his car for around $1.50. BRH did not have big money until he received the ransom money on April 2nd. Bottom line, there is no proof that CAL made a pay off to anyone prior to March 1st, right?Yes they had money. And they had enough to pay for their gas and electricity before April 2nd after Rauch had it shut off on March 29. Right? As far as "big" money, again, I'm not sure what that means. We also have the possibility that even Special Agent Frank mentioned... that he had cash stashed in the house that was not accounted for in the log books. Again, I went over all of this in V2 so there's no point rehashing it now. As far as "proof" I'd say Hauptmann's actions both before and after taking that trip indicate something was going on. One doesn't quit a job in a Depression and spend money on the prospects of making more in the future. It's my position that someone as frugal as Hauptmann was doesn't act this way. As far as CAL goes we don't have his financial records to see who he may have paid anything to. This includes even his household bills or to the Contractors who built the house. Have you seen them? If not, does that mean no one was paid? Next, someone owed me money once and paid me back with an elliptical. While the purchase may be on the books, a record of it going to me probably wasn't. If CAL was behind the death of his son and since BRH's ladder and the Nursery Note made it to his property, then either CAL had to recruit BRH either directly or through a 3rd party to build the ladder and leave the ransom note. Right? That had to be his plan in Scenario #5. I've lost track of the scenarios. But the answer to your question is no. There is no direct evidence that Hauptmann was even in Hopewell that night. What if, for instance, Hans Mueller was and brought along the ladder his "uncle" built? You see, nothing "has" to be any certain way. If I want something done myself I do it. If I have someone else handle it, that's their job to perform. If there were certain aspects that were required, there's no communication between CAL and whoever the middleman brings in. The ransom note was obviously a requirement. How or what it said could have been influenced, directed, or not. The 50K seems suspicious since Highfields cost that much and the Constance extortion was for that amount. As indicated in my books, CAL came home early and lied about it for the reasons I've indicated in our discussions. Did he meet Hauptmann at that time? Either way, it doesn't affect the ladder or the note. So if CAL and BRH were not communicating (either directly or indirectly) then how does BRH's ladder and ransom note make it onto CAL's property? If CAL was behind this, he had to somehow have gotten word to BRH to bring the ladder and ransom note that night. Right?
First of all, I don't know who wrote the note. Next, I don't know who came up with the wording either. It might have been who actually penned it out or came from someone else who dictated or indicated earlier what they wanted it to say. Next, again, whoever was handling this was probably making the decisions at the time. Like I said, its like a Contractor who hires the plumber, carpenter, electrician, and mason. The home owner doesn't handle that, and probably has no idea who any of them are. Anyway, the timing was not an accident. Everyone always struggles concerning why anyone who planned this crime would strike on a night they should have known the child would not be there. They did because they knew he was. Lindbergh said it himself: " Very few people know what I do."
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Aug 6, 2022 12:58:41 GMT -5
Isidor Fisch is sometimes ignored just because he does not fit into a particular theory. But the following statements are on the record:
1. Gerda Henkel said at the Hauptmann trial that Fisch told her he and Hauptmann were acquainted priot to their "introduction" in August of 1932. She called the situation a "joke" that they then shared, having introduced two people who actually knew each other.
2. Henry Uhlig stated (in an interview posted on this board) that Fisch borrowed money from a number of his friends ostensibly to support his "pie business" when the business was actually defunct. Uhlig stated his belief that Fisch was raising money to launder the ransom money. Some of his friends were paid back; others were not.
3. Emil Mueller sent a letter to Gov. Hoffmann stating that he was present on Hunters Island when Fisch and Hauptmann originally met, in late February or early March of 1932. Mueller had contacted Reilly during the trial, and Reilly had assured him that he would be called as a witness. This did not happen, A copy of Mueller's letter appeared on this board. By the way, Hauptmann could not have been on Hunters' Island to play soccer. The place was closed down in winter. Fritz, Isidor's front man in laundering money, was with him at that time. Hauptmann described Fritz as being stout, about 5' 6" tall, with side-burns (probably those of a Hasidic Jew), and speaking German with an Austrian accent.
4. While in prison, Hauptmann told his wife Anna that "he gave Fisch everything." The money he gave Fisch was most likely intended to assist Fisch in the laundering transaction of the kidnapping money. As a result, Fisch owed him considerable money and should have given him his money back plus an amount gained through the transaction. Fisch was said to have laundered money for 50 to 60 cents on the dollar. He would then need to raise from $25,000 to $30,000 to launder $50,000. To launder $70,000, he would need to raise $35,000 to $42,000 to launder $70,000. It's quite possible that Hauptmann knew what Fisch was up to and considered himself innocent of the actual kidnapping and murder. As Anna blurted out while Hauptmann was in prison, "He was only supposed to get the money."
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 6, 2022 12:58:57 GMT -5
Thanks Michael, my mistake, I meant 1932. It's one thing to believe in something (like BRH knew Fisch during the time of the kidnapping) but it's another to see proof of that, right? Personally, I just haven't seen anything that connects BRH and Fisch until the end of the summer of 1932. If there is anything, I'd love to see it. And we need a definition of "laundering" here. If by laundering, you mean that BRH sold some of the ransom money to someone like Fisch for a lower price, again, I don't see any proof of that. None of the ransom money was ever traced to Fisch, right? He did with nothing, right? Thanks to Sigi's incredible work on the ransom money, it's obvious that BRH had at least 90% of the ransom money if not all of it and was definitely spending it and exchanging some in banks. I can't see someone like BRH taking less money for his ransom money. Honestly, can you? It's easy to do as I've proven myself at times. Well, aside from a few things, I've given most of what I have in all of the volumes. After considering it all, there's bound to be a wide range of opinions concerning what it all means. Even if Hauptmann knew Fisch prior, that doesn't mean he was involved in the "kidnapping." Next, there's no way in hell Fisch was financially partnered up with Hauptmann without knowing the origins of this money. There's no doubt in my mind whatsoever, that among those assisting Hauptmann with laundering the ransom, Fisch was among them. Hauptmann was acting like a banker of sorts. But he was also restrained too. What kept him in the Bronx battling with a landlord he hated? What kept him from spending ransom on his trip to Florida? What kept him from transacting with others watching the Board on Wall Street? What kept him from loaning money to Hager at one point in time but not in another? The answer is that he is not acting alone and he had certain obligations to whoever was assisting him.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 6, 2022 14:34:38 GMT -5
So let me get this straight... You're actually having a hard time understanding that someone could've been approached to do something pretty innocuous like use his carpentry skills to knock together a ladder, then, once he realized what it was for, was afraid to name names because he and/or his family could've been threatened with some kind of retaliation if he talked? I guess that makes sense. Yep, I can't see dying over building a letter when you could simply turn in the folks who paid you to build it. I don't see Hauptmann as a man living in fear. If nothing else, he could have simply moved. Kind of a no-brainer. Okay, then maybe his involvement was deeper than just building a "letter", and if he talked his family would've gotten it. And moving wouldn't have done much good, since, you know, people can find you even after you move. Kind of a no-brainer.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Aug 6, 2022 15:22:14 GMT -5
Yep, I can't see dying over building a letter when you could simply turn in the folks who paid you to build it. I don't see Hauptmann as a man living in fear. If nothing else, he could have simply moved. Kind of a no-brainer. Okay, then maybe his involvement was deeper than just building a "letter", and if he talked his family would've gotten it. And moving wouldn't have done much good, since, you know, people can find you even after you move. Kind of a no-brainer. Okay, this is making sense. Connecting some dots. So far we have CAL, Anne, Olly, Elsie, and Betty Gow all in the conspiracy for starters. Then Condon, Reich, and Coleman are working in conjunction with the extortionist(s). And there is a group in conjunction with CAL who faked the kidnapping and who, Mafia-like, can threaten BRH's family with death if he talks. This is making so much sense now, I don't know why I didn't see it before.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 6, 2022 15:46:43 GMT -5
Okay, this is making sense. Connecting some dots. So far we have CAL, Anne, Olly, Elsie, and Betty Gow all in the conspiracy for starters. Then Condon, Reich, and Coleman are working in conjunction with the extortionist(s). And there is a group in conjunction with CAL who faked the kidnapping and who, Mafia-like, can threaten BRH's family with death if he talks. This is making so much sense now, I don't know why I didn't see it before. Jumping in here again. Both you and LJ can correct me if I am wrong about what I am saying... I think you are creating a Straw Man in order to knock it down Wayne. Of course everyone in the house knew what was going on - as far as they were told. As I've said, and I'm not sure everyone holds the exact same position, I believe those in the house were under the impression the toddler was being taken away - not destroyed. So yes, there was a conspiracy to stay silent and play along with the false narrative. And who would cross Lindbergh if they didn't want to? Just look at what Gow said to Garsson. Or what Kelly overheard Lindbergh saying to Gow. Or what Whateley said on his deathbed. Or how Schwarzkopf bowed and acquiesced to Lindbergh. This idea it wouldn't happen is disproven by all of the other examples that occurred. Next, you keep saying Coleman would also have to be in league with the Extortionists, and I continue to say that's not true. Condon was, but Coleman was assisting Condon. There's a difference depending on the degree of knowledge Coleman had. A friend asking for help so he or his family doesn't get killed is much different than being on the side of the perceived criminals themselves. Condon pulled this by proclaiming his life wasn't worth anything and that "they" were going to kill him to Agent Turrou. It's on full display to anyone who wants to see it. As it relates to Reich, I'm a little less certain. He could be as Coleman was or may have known the extent. The secret meeting out in the woods, and the hesitancy to switch places with Lindbergh seem to hint that he knew a little more about what was going on.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 6, 2022 16:01:33 GMT -5
Okay, then maybe his involvement was deeper than just building a "letter", and if he talked his family would've gotten it. And moving wouldn't have done much good, since, you know, people can find you even after you move. Kind of a no-brainer. Okay, this is making sense. Connecting some dots. So far we have CAL, Anne, Olly, Elsie, and Betty Gow all in the conspiracy for starters. Then Condon, Reich, and Coleman are working in conjunction with the extortionist(s). And there is a group in conjunction with CAL who faked the kidnapping and who, Mafia-like, can threaten BRH's family with death if he talks. This is making so much sense now, I don't know why I didn't see it before. Me neither.
|
|
luf12
Trooper II
Posts: 70
|
Post by luf12 on Aug 6, 2022 22:06:18 GMT -5
Hi Michael, After re-reading your 4 volumes, I'm just trying to connect some dots... it appears to me that there are 5 basic scenarios to the LKC: 1) BRH was completely innocent of the kidnapping & murder of Charlie and completely innocent of the extortion against CAL. 2) BRH was innocent of the kidnapping & murder of Charlie, but involved in the extortion against CAL. 3) BRH kidnapped & killed Charlie and extorted CAL all on his own. 4) BRH kidnapped & killed Charlie and extorted CAL with an accomplice or accomplices. 5) CAL was the mastermind behind the death of his son. Addressing Scenario #5 only… if Lindbergh planned the kidnapping and either killed Charlie himself or had someone else do it, he somehow had to have contacted and recruited BRH to build and leave a ladder at his house as a ruse, to make it look like a kidnapping had occurred. There would really be no other way around this. The overwhelming data shows that BRH built the ladder and the ransom notes seem to have all been written by BRH. Since the Nursery Note and Ransom Note #2 were once part of the same piece of paper (torn in half), it only makes sense whoever wrote the Nursery Note continued to write the remaining 14 ransom notes. So, if CAL was behind the death of Charlie, then CAL and BRH were working together. Then why would BRH need to convince Condon to take part in his extortion plan? Finally, CAL and Condon take the $70,000 to St. Raymond’s where both CAL and Condon know the man they’re giving the money to. Is that correct? Here is 6th scenario: Both BRH and CAL were innocent of the kidnapping and CAL's family's enemies were behind the kidnapping
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Aug 7, 2022 7:29:39 GMT -5
Okay, this is making sense. Connecting some dots. So far we have CAL, Anne, Olly, Elsie, and Betty Gow all in the conspiracy for starters. Then Condon, Reich, and Coleman are working in conjunction with the extortionist(s). And there is a group in conjunction with CAL who faked the kidnapping and who, Mafia-like, can threaten BRH's family with death if he talks. This is making so much sense now, I don't know why I didn't see it before. Me neither. Okay, let me see if I've got this right. Your dots connect like this… Because of some unknown defect, CAL wants Charlie gone. Either dead or secretly taken to an institution. Prior to the kidnapping, CAL recruits an unknown person (or persons) to take Charlie. CAL premeditatedly has the unknown person (or persons) look for someone to build a ladder. They apparently can’t make one themselves or afford one. This person (or persons) finds BRH who builds the ladder. This unknown person (or persons) takes Charlie on CAL’s orders from Highfields on March 1st. This unknown person (or persons) leaves BRH’s ladder behind as a ruse in order to make it look like a kidnapping. CAL, Anne, Olly, Elsie, and Betty are aware of these goings-on and we cannot believe one word they will ever say. This unknown person (or persons) ultimately kills Charlie. BRH, who has only built a ladder, does not go to the police but instead decides out of the blue, 3 days after the kidnapping, to execute an extortion scheme. He sends Ransom Note #2 to CAL. Remarkably, he uses the bottom half of the page from the Nursery Note, he asks for the same ransom amount as in the Nursery Note (having never seen it) and most remarkably of all, he makes an identical “singnature” and puts it in the exact same spot as on the Nursery Note so that the holes will later line up. Not receiving a reply, BRH (or one of his possibly accomplices) either threatens, blackmails, or promises to pay Condon to become a go-between. Condon joins the extortion gang and never turns them in because of the threat of harm to his family or through blackmail. BRH is eventually caught, and likewise never talks because CAL’s original unknown shadowy person (or persons) is somehow able to get a threat to BRH behind bars that if he talks his family will be harmed or killed. Just like BRH's independent threat to Condon. BRH goes to his death because he was asked to build a ladder and extorted some money. That about it?
|
|