|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 7, 2022 12:21:28 GMT -5
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. It's not entirely unknown. We know he had a rickety condition which wasn't responding to treatment. His head was too big and he had trouble standing. As has been mentioned, staged kidnappings to rid families of unwanted/embarassing offspring was not uncommon in Europe at the time and it was Scotland Yard's very first suggestion when consulted on the case.Prior to the kidnapping, CAL recruits an unknown person (or persons) to take Charlie. He doesn't recruit these people! This has been repeatedly explained. CAL works with a third party, or perhaps someone CAL works with engages with this third party, to assemble and stage the kidnapping. Dr. Gardner suspects that Carrel worked with these shady types of people to obtain cadavers and specimens needed for experimentation and it is likely through Carell that this call came together. I tend to agree with this. CAL had one person in his life who had just as strong of feelings about eugenics as him and it's no coincidence he came close with Carrel around the time Charlie was born.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. You're isolating one specific thing. The entire thing was to stage a fake kidnapping and remove the child from the home. The ladder as also built to the exact specifications to fit within the shudder. This person (or persons) finds BRH who builds the ladder. Correct. Or this person obtains the ladder materials from him. This unknown person (or persons) takes Charlie on CAL’s orders from Highfields on March 1st. Correct.This unknown person (or persons) leaves BRH’s ladder behind as a ruse in order to make it look like a kidnapping. Correct. The entire kidnapping seems to be something akin to a breadcrumb trail. CAL, Anne, Olly, Elsie, and Betty are aware of these goings-on and we cannot believe one word they will ever say. They were aware the child was "going away."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. Why would he go to the police? To inculpate himself in a crime against the most famous person in America? It would be his word against Lindbergh's. We also know there was a lookout, which means multiple people were involved this. So it's a stretch to assume he was the one who decided "out of the blue" to extort Lindbergh is a stretch. BRH could have been one of these people or neither. 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. What on earth are you talking about? Part of the gang who was involved in crafting the nursery note - or who at least were aware of its contents - decide to extort Lindbergh. What is Lindbergh's recourse here? Not receiving a reply, BRH (or one of his possibly accomplices) either threatens, blackmails, or promises to pay Condon to become a go-between. They needed a go-between. Condon is perhaps blackmailed, but also enticed with a handsome payday of $20K + the national publicity of the one returning the child to its mother's arms. He likely doesn't know the child is dead.Condon joins the extortion gang and never turns them in because of the threat of harm to his family or through blackmail. Why would he turn them in? He is an accessory to the extortion now.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. Say what you will about Hauptmann but he did seem to love his wife and kid. So, yes, if they were being threatened in some way he probably kept quiet. Also, as Michael has pointed out, numerous people were likely involved in this and Hauptmann may have genuinely known nothing about the kidnapping itself. There's zero evidence he was at Highfields.BRH goes to his death because he was asked to build a ladder and extorted some money. I give up.That about it?
|
|
luf12
Trooper II
Posts: 70
|
Post by luf12 on Aug 7, 2022 13:48:52 GMT -5
I believe that political enemies of Lindbergh family were behind the kidnapping
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 7, 2022 13:51:55 GMT -5
I believe that political enemies of Lindbergh family were behind the kidnapping There is no evidence of this, nor does it explain Lindbergh's odd behavior during the whole process. If political enemies kidnapped your kid, would you be playing practical jokes while on a searching trip? Stymieing the police at every turn?
|
|
luf12
Trooper II
Posts: 70
|
Post by luf12 on Aug 7, 2022 14:27:54 GMT -5
I believe that political enemies of Lindbergh family were behind the kidnapping There is no evidence of this, nor does it explain Lindbergh's odd behavior during the whole process. If political enemies kidnapped your kid, would you be playing practical jokes while on a searching trip? Stymieing the police at every turn? The pilot probably thought that playing practical jokes was the only way to obtain excitement and relief from the stress of searching for his baby. He stop police at every turn because he fear miscalculation/mishandling by police may jeopardize the baby's safe return.
|
|
luf12
Trooper II
Posts: 70
|
Post by luf12 on Aug 7, 2022 15:05:31 GMT -5
So where would Fisch fit into this theory? He is one character who cannot be ignored or omitted. Violet Sharpe is another character who can't be omitted from this story
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Aug 8, 2022 7:59:58 GMT -5
More dots need to be connected if this crime is to be solved. Over the years many "detectives" thought of a "theory" and hunted for a detail or two to support that theory and ignored the rest of the evidence that pointed to the contrary. This was not an Agatha Christie mystery; it was a real crime. The original investigation, which could have produced primary evidence, was incomplete. For example, molds should have been made of the tire tracks in Featherbed Lane. Other famous cases have depended on such evidence for conviction--and before the 1930s. Witnesses were produced,, some of them not credible at all, some well meaning, others looking for publicity or reward. Credible witnesses, those who had nothing to gain and were in a position to have some knowledge, were not asked to testify at all. As happened in the murder of little JonBenet, the case was directed against an innocent party, the parents, while the kidnapper was not caught because of a "theory" for which there was no solid evidence.
The Lindbergh case could yet be solved using modern investigative techniques though the evidence may fade into history eventually. The Venona code was decrypted inthe 1940's, giving evidence of the network of Communist spies in the US. The spies were given code names. An FBI investigator had the task of discovering who the code names really signified. This did occur by careful scrutiny of actions and habits of suspects, the movements made, trips taken, meetings attended and the dates of these movements. The result: confessions and years in prison, one execution from one who did not confess. Methodic evaluation is needed with all major suspects scrutinized. The links are there, but all the links need to be followed. Many are still unexamined either because they have been disregarded, not fitting into someone's pet theory. Such an evaluation could lead to yet more information, but the search needs to be methodic and without prejudice toward any one theory. Primary evidence, especially, should be given priority.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 8, 2022 8:16:33 GMT -5
CAL, Anne, Olly, Elsie, and Betty are aware of these goings-on and we cannot believe one word they will ever say. If it's okay, I wanted to jump in again to address the above from my perspective. Sometimes people lie. The reason behind the lie can be any number of things and not necessarily the first thing that jumps out. Then there are lies by omission. But other times these same people tell the truth. So we're in a situation where we must evaluate everything and attempt to sort out the lies from the truth. To suggest because someone is lying in one place means they never tell the truth is a flawed position. Here, we are lucky to have an avalanche of source documentation to consider and cross reference with the statements. Take Condon for example. This guy lied so much he forgot what he was saying half the time. However, he also told the truth in places, and we know this because of the documentation which proves it. However hard one might try, if someone tells a story in one place where they are home, met a man, gives a description but then in the next story says they were not home and never met, we can never say the man is telling the truth. What does exist is that one version of the story might be true - but never both. So we consult the source documentation to determine what's true and what isn't. What's left is placed into a grey area for future consideration as other circumstances and facts are revealed. In short, if we dismiss information from anyone who ever lied then there would be nothing to discuss. As I've demonstrated in V3, Schwarzkopf lied on the stand about Violet Sharp so this idea we cannot consider anything from any source that concerns or is attributable to him is just not a rational position. Aside from this, you've got me thinking Wayne, and if you are open to it, I'd like to hear about your theory. If not, that's okay. But as anyone who has read my books can see, I've acknowledged and footnoted you and your research several times so there's a lot we do agree on.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Aug 14, 2022 12:26:06 GMT -5
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. It's not entirely unknown. We know he had a rickety condition which wasn't responding to treatment. His head was too big and he had trouble standing. As has been mentioned, staged kidnappings to rid families of unwanted/embarassing offspring was not uncommon in Europe at the time and it was Scotland Yard's very first suggestion when consulted on the case. (Trojan USC) What actual proof do you have behind any of the misleading statements you've given as they pertain to this case's specifics? Yes, Charlie did have a "moderate rickety condition" as diagnosed by Dr. Van Ingen, but to speculate he was not responding to treatment or had trouble standing is nothing more than reckless inference on your part. I do know you were not present at Charlie's medical appointment, so clearly you've chosen to interpret Van Ingen's written comments about getting Charlie to stand, as meaning he was unable to, due to some gross kind of physical and/or mental abnormality. Anyone with an open mind here can consider the possibility that Charlie was exhibiting nothing more abnormal than a case of "the terrible two's" syndrome, a bit pre-emptively. You say “his head was too big?” What are you getting at here, and how is this ‘condition’ representative of this child's very normal physical, mental and social abilities up to the time of his disappearance? Just a suggestion here, but you might want to have a look at images of children suffering from actual hydrocephalus, and also give a little thought about just who's 'waxing Eugenics' here.Prior to the kidnapping, CAL recruits an unknown person (or persons) to take Charlie. He doesn't recruit these people! This has been repeatedly explained. CAL works with a third party, or perhaps someone CAL works with engages with this third party, to assemble and stage the kidnapping. Dr. Gardner suspects that Carrel worked with these shady types of people to obtain cadavers and specimens needed for experimentation and it is likely through Carell that this call came together. I tend to agree with this. CAL had one person in his life who had just as strong of feelings about eugenics as him and it's no coincidence he came close with Carrel around the time Charlie was born. (Trojan USC) With the high degree of speculation going on here, I’d really love to hear some kind of proposed chain of command or custody within this inestimable faked kidnapping scenario, that would be even conceptually-believable by anyone with enough discernment to match their imagination. Can we have some name possibilities or even potential station-in-life positions for these cads, as opposed to this ongoing ‘shadowy group’ explanation, who were apparently in it for the money, didn’t really have a clue as to what the ‘other guy’ was doing, when clearly, the only individual to have significantly benefited financially and who knew exactly what he was doing, was Richard Hauptmann. Yes, the same guy who’s actually been proven guilty by a small mountain of circumstantial physical evidence directly against him?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. You're isolating one specific thing. The entire thing was to stage a fake kidnapping and remove the child from the home. The ladder as also built to the exact specifications to fit within the shudder. (Trojan USC) No disagreement here from me that the ladder was built to “specification.’ Hauptmann obviously did his surveillance and homework effectively. And there was no ‘staging’ here. The guy who went up the ladder into the nursery, came down the same ladder. This person (or persons) finds BRH who builds the ladder. Correct. Or this person obtains the ladder materials from him. (Trojan USC) I have to wonder sometimes, just how many carpenters it takes to build a ladder. Maybe the same number it takes to screw in a lightbulb? And are you suggesting that this ‘mystery person’ who might have obtained the materials for Hauptmann, first went into the Rauch’s basement for the discarded attic board that Hauptmann later fashioned into Rail 16? This unknown person (or persons) takes Charlie on CAL’s orders from Highfields on March 1st. Correct. (Trojan USC) Respectfully disagree right now, for more good reasons than I care to relate on a beautiful Sunday morning, when I really should be outside.This unknown person (or persons) leaves BRH’s ladder behind as a ruse in order to make it look like a kidnapping. Correct. The entire kidnapping seems to be something akin to a breadcrumb trail. (Trojan USC) We all know Hoage wanted to get involved, but he and his theory were out in left field here for many more reasons.CAL, Anne, Olly, Elsie, and Betty are aware of these goings-on and we cannot believe one word they will ever say. They were aware the child was "going away." (Trojan USC) And after Charlie turned up dead, unceremoniously discarded like a piece of trash in the woods off Mount Rose Highway, what do you suppose each of the above individuals now thought about this at-the-time palatable, little “going away” plan? After all, relatively speaking given the enormity of their personal losses, police investigations, global reaction and one monumental trial under scrutiny of the press and public eye, they all seem to have held up very well.
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. Why would he go to the police? To inculpate himself in a crime against the most famous person in America? It would be his word against Lindbergh's. We also know there was a lookout, which means multiple people were involved this. So it's a stretch to assume he was the one who decided "out of the blue" to extort Lindbergh is a stretch. BRH could have been one of these people or neither. (Trojan USC) Hauptmann couldn’t go to the police or later confess because he knew he was the main player and that there was no grand faked kidnapping conspiracy, period. He would though have had to have provided full disclosure regarding who knew what when, in the event that any other individuals might have been charged as collaborators or accessories. And I believe this would have included his own wife. In the end, his life was essentially over no matter what he did, dead or alive in a hostile prison environment, so he simply chose the easiest route, by refusing to acknowledge even one iota of participation in the crime, thereby at least saving Anna, Manfred, and possibly a friend/acquaintance or two, from lifetimes of grief, courtesy of the legal system and one very angry world. 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. What on earth are you talking about? Part of the gang who was involved in crafting the nursery note - or who at least were aware of its contents - decide to extort Lindbergh. What is Lindbergh's recourse here? (Trojan USC) What part of 'The Gang' crafted the nursery note? Do you mean the same one who later lamented to his wife Anna that the ransom notes’ handwriting looked so much like his own, he would have sworn he had written the ransom notes himself?Not receiving a reply, BRH (or one of his possibly accomplices) either threatens, blackmails, or promises to pay Condon to become a go-between. They needed a go-between. Condon is perhaps blackmailed, but also enticed with a handsome payday of $20K + the national publicity of the one returning the child to its mother's arms. He likely doesn't know the child is dead. (Trojan USC) Hauptmann needed a go-between that wouldn’t shoot him between the eyes, something that either Spitale or Bitz would have relished doing and taking credit for. Serendipitously for Hauptmann, Condon was close by and had the kind of public reputation that Hauptmann understood would provide a much higher probability of success for himself.Condon joins the extortion gang and never turns them in because of the threat of harm to his family or through blackmail. Why would he turn them in? He is an accessory to the extortion now. (Trojan USC) Can you explain why Condon would have provided a description of CJ immediately following their Woodlawn Cemetery meeting, which later tallied so closely with that of of Richard Hauptmann? In your scenario, why would Condon have sought to deliberately sabotage the possibility of success for ‘The Gang” he’s now supposedly part of?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. Say what you will about Hauptmann but he did seem to love his wife and kid. So, yes, if they were being threatened in some way he probably kept quiet. Also, as Michael has pointed out, numerous people were likely involved in this and Hauptmann may have genuinely known nothing about the kidnapping itself. There's zero evidence he was at Highfields. (Trojan USC) Is there any end to the speculation here? Go back and have a look at what you just wrote. It seems there’s always lots of room for “seem to’s,” “probably’s,” “likely’s” and “may have’s,” but I’m not seeing much more in the way of actual proof.
BRH goes to his death because he was asked to build a ladder and extorted some money. I give up. (Trojan USC) Don't despair.. That about it?
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Aug 16, 2022 19:48:45 GMT -5
In regard to fitting Isidore Fisch into the picture, I had assumed that Fisch had persuaded Hauptmann to lend him money in order to launder the ransom money. This could have occurred on Hunter Island in late February when Emil Mueller and one other person accompanied Hauptmann to Hunter Island and met Isidore Fisch and "Fritz," Isidore's front man. It's quite possible that the opposite actually happend--that Hauptmann had planned the kidnapping and drew Fisch into the situation at that time, seeing an opportunity to launder the ransom. The fur business was a front although some trading in furs did occur. If Hauptmann did launder the money through Fisch, he would not have been in possession of the original after April 2, but would have spent what Fisch had been able to borrow from his friends and gave to him. He did have considerable money for the hunting trips he took in the fall of 1932. Hauptmann would then not possess the orginal bills until Fisch left the box with him, and he had no problem spending the money Fisch left with him, albeit carefully, one bill at a time, probably believing that he would soon be back in Germany and out of reach from the US authorities.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 16, 2022 23:47:58 GMT -5
1) What? Again, we don't know what the child looked like prior to the kidnapping as the Lindbergh's lied about his looks and refused to release more current pictures. Conditions such as hydrocephalus often don't begin appearing significantly until 1.5-2 years of age. Why did CAL refuse to provide current photos? The corpse that was found was also noted for its abnormally large head, which "came apart like an orange." I hate to tell you but healthy skulls, even those of children, typically do not come apart like soft pieces of fruit. 2) Again, if you don't think there were some underworld figures who were willing to do underhanded things to make a few bucks, especially in the depression, I don't know what to tell you. 3) There's zero evidence of Hauptmann surveying and doing surveillance. 4) Ho-age was involved and did a significant amount of work for Gov. Hoffman. 5) They feared the wrath of Lindbergh for speaking. As did just about everyone else in this case who kept their mouth shut when they saw CAL do shady things. 6) Ridiculous assumption. If he feared for the life of his child or children, it's not surprising that the kept his mouth shut. 7) There is no conclusive evidence that Hauptmann wrote the notes. Handwriting science is bogus. Plus, why would Hauptmann say this if he did, indeed, write the notes? Wouldn't he be saying "that's not my writing!" 8) The descriptions only match if you want them to. He described a "fleshy growth," which did not exist. A severe hacking cough from an illness such as TB, which did not exist. He said the kidnappers were italian at one point. His lies are too voluminous and numerous to go over in detail, yet you write them off and ignore them at every turn. He tried his hardest not to identify Hauptmann. The sketch looks like at least 50% of Caucasian people in NYC in 1932. 9) Well some speculation must occur, given that there's zero evidence Hauptmann himself was ever at Highfields, yet we know he's related to the crime.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Aug 18, 2022 14:27:02 GMT -5
Lindbergh, in spite of his limited education and modest personal gifts saw himself as “special.” He took a dim view of society as it was in the 1930s, especially the masses who lapped up the frivolous and fake news in the tabloid press, especially that of Hearst. He would see the criminal classes as beyond contempt consisting in his simplistic racist view of immigrants, Jews, Mafia types, and borderline mental cases.
With this in mind I have difficulty with the suggestion that he “hired a gang” to effect the “kidnap/murder” phase of the plan. Even working through a “cut out” or intermediary to insulate himself from the operation, things might go wrong. After all, these would be totally amoral people prepared to do anything for cash. Could he trust them to dispatch Charlie painlessly if that was his wish? CAL might not know them but they certainly knew him with the consequent risk of betrayal in years to come. “Reduce my sentence for the bank robbery and I’lll give you the works on the Lindbergh case.”
In one sense a ready-made gang was already in place headed by Dr Alexis Carrel. He was the closest thing Lindbergh had to a friend. They were soul mates with mutual trust. Dr C had a team of workers who were used to keeping silent. Much of the work at the Rockefeller Center was morally suspect and probably illegal. For example Dr Gardner suspected that cadavers were supplied for experimentation. Humane dispatch of the child would be assured. However, I cannot accept the idea of vivisection experiments which has been advanced elsewhere.
This said, why on Earth did they wait so long before the child’s body was discovered? An early discovery would stop the ransom negotiations and save $50,000. But an early discovery might yield information about the child’s disabilities and give rise to the questions already posed by Scotland Yard. With the ransom paid, why did the body have to discovered at all? It certainly wasn’t done to give the family the solace of a funeral to help with grieving.
As always, some things fit, others don’t.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Aug 18, 2022 14:29:28 GMT -5
Line 8. That should be "painlessly."
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Aug 18, 2022 14:31:06 GMT -5
I'll try again. Line 8 should read "in a painless way."
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 18, 2022 17:47:39 GMT -5
Lindbergh, in spite of his limited education and modest personal gifts saw himself as “special.” He took a dim view of society as it was in the 1930s, especially the masses who lapped up the frivolous and fake news in the tabloid press, especially that of Hearst. He would see the criminal classes as beyond contempt consisting in his simplistic racist view of immigrants, Jews, Mafia types, and borderline mental cases. With this in mind I have difficulty with the suggestion that he “hired a gang” to effect the “kidnap/murder” phase of the plan. Even working through a “cut out” or intermediary to insulate himself from the operation, things might go wrong. After all, these would be totally amoral people prepared to do anything for cash. Could he trust them to dispatch Charlie lessly if that was his wish? CAL might not know them but they certainly knew him with the consequent risk of betrayal in years to come. “Reduce my sentence for the bank robbery and I’lll give you the works on the Lindbergh case.” In one sense a ready-made gang was already in place headed by Dr Alexis Carrel. He was the closest thing Lindbergh had to a friend. They were soul mates with mutual trust. Dr C had a team of workers who were used to keeping silent. Much of the work at the Rockefeller Center was morally suspect and probably illegal. For example Dr Gardner suspected that cadavers were supplied for experimentation. Humane dispatch of the child would be assured. However, I cannot accept the idea of vivisection experiments which has been advanced elsewhere. This said, why on Earth did they wait so long before the child’s body was discovered? An early discovery would stop the ransom negotiations and save $50,000. But an early discovery might yield information about the child’s disabilities and give rise to the questions already posed by Scotland Yard. With the ransom paid, why did the body have to discovered at all? It certainly wasn’t done to give the family the solace of a funeral to help with grieving. As always, some things fit, others don’t. My belief is that it was Carrel who helped Lindbergh stage the removal of the child. He no doubt had contacts he used regularly to obtain cadavers and specimens for his medical research. Not a leap to believe then that these same people could be recruited for this purpose. Also not a leap that Carrel, given his involvement in eugenics circles, would be aware that these kinds of “staged removals“ were somewhat common in Europe. Unfortunately some of the gang, realizing they had Lindbergh over a barrel so to speak, went rogue and decided to collect the ransom, given that he’d have no choice to pay since they still had physical possession of the child (dead or alive). CAL couldn’t tell the cops about the extortion or it would expose the whole plot for what it was. Once they collected the ransom (which was never intended to be collected), they returned the body. As to the delay - I couldn’t tell you, but we don’t know how long the body + bag was there, except that it probably wasn’t there the whole time. Once the ransom was paid, they returned the body in due time.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Aug 19, 2022 13:11:02 GMT -5
Hi trojanusc,
I have a number of problems with the hiring of a gang. They are: 1. How would “respectable” upper echelon people like Lindbergh (and Breckenridge?) go about finding such people, even through an intermediary?
2. How could they be trusted? Some of them “going rogue” once they had the child was surely a predictable possibility.
3. It flies in the face of everything we know of Lindbergh’s personality. He trusted only his own judgement a likely exception being that of Dr Carrel.
4. Dr C would be a good source of anaesthetic used in a humane dispatch of the child.
5. If Charlie’s disabilities were obvious, even to the untrained eye, e.g the enlarged head, there would be a risk of this reaching a wider audience with awkward questions to follow. With Carrel in the loop the secret was safe.
6. Boiled down to its basics, the task was to secretly remove the child from his bed and hand him to a member of Dr Carrrel’s team waiting by prior arrangement outside the main door to the house. Choosing his moment carefully, this could have been done by Lindbergh himself.
So to summarise, I find the “gang” an unnecessary and extremely risky complication of an essentially simple operation. Of course this is all speculation but often that’s all we can do.
Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 19, 2022 16:54:48 GMT -5
Hi trojanusc, I have a number of problems with the hiring of a gang. They are: 1. How would “respectable” upper echelon people like Lindbergh (and Breckenridge?) go about finding such people, even through an intermediary? Again, I think the contact came via Carrel. 2. How could they be trusted? Some of them “going rogue” once they had the child was surely a predictable possibility. Carrel likely trusted them. 3. It flies in the face of everything we know of Lindbergh’s personality. He trusted only his own judgement a likely exception being that of Dr Carrel. Agreed. He also couldn't let this just happen. He blew off an event, even though it would create suspicion, to be at Highfields. 4. Dr C would be a good source of anaesthetic used in a humane dispatch of the child. Don't disagree. 5. If Charlie’s disabilities were obvious, even to the untrained eye, e.g the enlarged head, there would be a risk of this reaching a wider audience with awkward questions to follow. With Carrel in the loop the secret was safe. I don't think Carrel or the gang were out to ruin Lindbergh. They had a job to do. However, they saw an opportunity to make some easy cash and they had Lindbergh over a barrel. He couldn't go to the cops or the whole ruse would be exposed. 6. Boiled down to its basics, the task was to secretly remove the child from his bed and hand him to a member of Dr Carrrel’s team waiting by prior arrangement outside the main door to the house. Choosing his moment carefully, this could have been done by Lindbergh himself. Right, but we know he was exported and paid the ransom. So why?So to summarise, I find the “gang” an unnecessary and extremely risky complication of an essentially simple operation. Of course this is all speculation but often that’s all we can do. Sherlock I agree with a lot of your points, I just don't think Carrel himself was on site, just as I don't think he was the one secretly removing bodies from hospitals and funeral homes to experiment on. He relied on others for this. We also know other people were there at Highfields that night based on the evidence and witness statements, so it's only reasonable to assume that Lindbergh relied on a trusted third party to orchestrate the removal - and I think the most likely scenario is this party came via Carrel. Keep in mind, Lindbergh paid the ransom. Why would he do this if he or Carrel had possession of the body the entire time and there were no third parties who could blackmail him? If these were just random people extorting him, that had no knowledge and no evidence against him, why would he pay the $50K? It doesn't make sense. The only way it makes sense if you realize the people extorting him had something on him or something he wanted back. He couldn't go to the police about the extortion because doing so would unravel the whole ruse. Once the "ransom" was paid, the body was dumped sometime there after, thereby ending further extortions.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Aug 20, 2022 13:03:07 GMT -5
Hi Trojanusc,
It is, as you point out, a weak point in my scenario that the ransom would not be paid if Carrel & Co had the child from start to finish. It would fit only if the “kidnap” and ransom phases of the crime were entirely separate operations with extortionists seeing an opportunity for a quick buck. Many have remarked that $50,000 was a modest amount by the standards of the snatch racket at the time. For Lindbergh a price worth paying; if he wanted the world to believe that a real kidnap for ransom had taken place his payment to Cemetery John would convince the doubters. I believe at least part of the cash came from the Morrow fortune which would please Lindbergh bearing in mind their strained relations.
His post-payment behaviour, joking etc, while searching for Boad Nellie was not that of a father anxiously searching for his kidnapped toddler. Its also possible that Lindbergh helped the extortion towards its inevitable conclusion by sending Condon the sleeping suit or its duplicate.
Ben Lupica: When two left hand drive cars pass each other when travelling in opposite directions on a narrow road in the U.S. the drivers are within a few feet of each other allowing a clear view of each other. Lupica said the other car pulled over to “his" side of the road so that when Ben passed it the width of two passenger seats separated them and Ben’s view of the driver was less clear. This strikes me as a deliberate attempt to avoid recognition, the action of someone with a well-known face. Ben was taken to tell Lindbergh his story but instead of getting the expected close attention and many questions about the stranger and the ladder, Lindbergh gave him short shrift saying that he (CAL) had to leave to attend to his wife!
Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 20, 2022 21:25:53 GMT -5
Hi Trojanusc, It is, as you point out, a weak point in my scenario that the ransom would not be paid if Carrel & Co had the child from start to finish. It would fit only if the “kidnap” and ransom phases of the crime were entirely separate operations with extortionists seeing an opportunity for a quick buck. Many have remarked that $50,000 was a modest amount by the standards of the snatch racket at the time. For Lindbergh a price worth paying; if he wanted the world to believe that a real kidnap for ransom had taken place his payment to Cemetery John would convince the doubters. I believe at least part of the cash came from the Morrow fortune which would please Lindbergh bearing in mind their strained relations. His post-payment behaviour, joking etc, while searching for Boad Nellie was not that of a father anxiously searching for his kidnapped toddler. Its also possible that Lindbergh helped the extortion towards its inevitable conclusion by sending Condon the sleeping suit or its duplicate. Ben Lupica: When two left hand drive cars pass each other when travelling in opposite directions on a narrow road in the U.S. the drivers are within a few feet of each other allowing a clear view of each other. Lupica said the other car pulled over to “his" side of the road so that when Ben passed it the width of two passenger seats separated them and Ben’s view of the driver was less clear. This strikes me as a deliberate attempt to avoid recognition, the action of someone with a well-known face. Ben was taken to tell Lindbergh his story but instead of getting the expected close attention and many questions about the stranger and the ladder, Lindbergh gave him short shrift saying that he (CAL) had to leave to attend to his wife! Sherlock There has to be some correlation between the extortion and kidnapping, given the the use of the symbol, same paper, etc. Therefore, the only logical thing for me is that there was a "sub-group" hired to stage a fake kidnapping, which included leaving the ransom note, ladder, removing the child, etc. I don't full know what was supposed to happen to the body from that point or at what point they went rogue, but it does seem clear that they collected on ransom that wasn't actually supposed to be collected. CAL only went along with this extortion because they had something on him. His behavior post-payment behavior and response to Lupica remains the same under any circumstance. He knows the child is dead and doesn't want him back. Also keep in mind Lindbergh was told by Curtis the kidnappers took the baby out the front door and he seemed to find this quite likely. Seems odd to me. Would love to hear Michael thoughts on this.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 21, 2022 16:52:47 GMT -5
There has to be some correlation between the extortion and kidnapping, given the the use of the symbol, same paper, etc. Therefore, the only logical thing for me is that there was a "sub-group" hired to stage a fake kidnapping, which included leaving the ransom note, ladder, removing the child, etc. I don't full know what was supposed to happen to the body from that point or at what point they went rogue, but it does seem clear that they collected on ransom that wasn't actually supposed to be collected. CAL only went along with this extortion because they had something on him. His behavior post-payment behavior and response to Lupica remains the same under any circumstance. He knows the child is dead and doesn't want him back. Also keep in mind Lindbergh was told by Curtis the kidnappers took the baby out the front door and he seemed to find this quite likely. Seems odd to me. To me the theory seems rather simple. The idea was to get rid of the child and he used someone to arrange it all. I personally believe the child was always meant to be destroyed. From there, I could imagine his body "turning up" shortly after the "crime." No further contact, the child found dead, death looks accidental, the world mourns, the parents are stunned, the culprits are never caught ... that sort of thing. Whoever actually had that body now controlled when that happens. My guess is they were looking at an amount in the hundreds and decided to cash in on the ransom amount instead. Let's look at the ransom note for example. The amount happened to be for what Highfields cost, and the amount in the Constance Morrow Extortion. It suggests that someone knew about one, the other, or both when it came to providing the amount asked for in this case. Next, while Ransom Note #1 (Nursery) and Ransom Note #2 were torn from the same sheet of paper, the holes in those notes were punched separately. That tells me at the time the paper was torn, they weren't thinking about writing the 2nd note. The paper was there, the symbol maker was there, but they did not punch the other piece at that time. As far as Lindbergh was concerned, he was now paying for the corpse to be returned in order to stop any future extortion attempts - not for a live child. Could Carrel have been the person to arrange it? Sure. One should recall how he came to meet him in the first place. It was Dr. Flagg who attended Anne's delivery as the anesthesiologist who introduced the men. How did Carrel's name come up after Anne gave birth? It's not proof of anything but the timing doesn't look good if you ask me. As far as Curtis was concerned, I believe the child was merely taken away out of the front door and everything else was just for police consumption. So of course Lindbergh would entertain him knowing that was the method that actually occurred. This in case he was, like Condon actually was, an emissary. It's also important to remember that Curtis said a member of Lindbergh's staff was involved. We all know Lindbergh protected them and supposedly didn't believe they were. This proves otherwise. And so they go off on this boat trip to look for a live child that Lindbergh already knew was dead. That's why all he did was sleep, pull pranks, and play cards ... basically using it as a vacation to get away from Highfields. The biggest mistake these men made was to actually return the body. If anything, that's the one thing that bothers me. There's no doubt in my mind that a child was removed from wherever it was and tossed into the road to be found as I wrote in V3. If not for the animals coming out and dragging the body into the woods it would have been immediately found.
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Aug 22, 2022 7:35:09 GMT -5
The theory proposed is subject to a logical analysis. The signature on the ransom note indicates that the kidnapper knew he (they) needed to authenticate any additional communication in order to distinguish their notes from others that might pass. This took planning; it succeeded, but it also indicates that further notes would be necessary, esp. for the passing of the money. The number of bills and the amounts are specifically mentioned in the first note. It's clear from this that the kidnapper(s) expected further communication and the passing of the bills that were detailed. In spite of the warning, the police were immediately involved, and the next ransom note chided Lindbergh for calling the police. He involved the police before he read the note, but that does not imply guilt or prior knowledge on his part. He went outside with his gun hoping to intercept the kidnappers and directed the butler to make the call. His reaction does not appear to suggest that he was involved in this plot in any way but was acting much as any concerned parent would under these circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 22, 2022 8:18:22 GMT -5
The theory proposed is subject to a logical analysis. The signature on the ransom note indicates that the kidnapper knew he (they) needed to authenticate any additional communication in order to distinguish their notes from others that might pass. This took planning; it succeeded, but it also indicates that further notes would be necessary, esp. for the passing of the money. The number of bills and the amounts are specifically mentioned in the first note. It's clear from this that the kidnapper(s) expected further communication and the passing of the bills that were detailed. In spite of the warning, the police were immediately involved, and the next ransom note chided Lindbergh for calling the police. He involved the police before he read the note, but that does not imply guilt or prior knowledge on his part. He went outside with his gun hoping to intercept the kidnappers and directed the butler to make the call. His reaction does not appear to suggest that he was involved in this plot in any way but was acting much as any concerned parent would under these circumstances. If approaching it from the perspective that this note was "real" from the start, then your position is the only conclusion to be drawn. I submit that was its original purpose: To convince the police an actual kidnapping had occurred. This along with everything else that was staged. The idea that certain elements decided to take advantage of the situation and cash in on a huge payday is not unheard of. Happens all the time in everyday life. I'm not saying your approach is invalid Hiram, only that I believe this was the desired expectation. So yes - there was obviously a lot of preparation for this event. Next, one must consider that these "kidnappers" punched the holes in Notes #4, #6, #7 simultaneously. This, in my opinion, is proof of their intent to write several letters while at the same time indicates a plan that occurred ex post facto. Notes #3 and #5 were not punched because they did not have a symbol on them.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 22, 2022 12:48:12 GMT -5
The theory proposed is subject to a logical analysis. The signature on the ransom note indicates that the kidnapper knew he (they) needed to authenticate any additional communication in order to distinguish their notes from others that might pass. This took planning; it succeeded, but it also indicates that further notes would be necessary, esp. for the passing of the money. The number of bills and the amounts are specifically mentioned in the first note. It's clear from this that the kidnapper(s) expected further communication and the passing of the bills that were detailed. In spite of the warning, the police were immediately involved, and the next ransom note chided Lindbergh for calling the police. He involved the police before he read the note, but that does not imply guilt or prior knowledge on his part. He went outside with his gun hoping to intercept the kidnappers and directed the butler to make the call. His reaction does not appear to suggest that he was involved in this plot in any way but was acting much as any concerned parent would under these circumstances. Lindbergh's behavior from the get go was odd. One moment he races out to attempt to rescue his child with a shotgun, but then a few minutes later decides he wants to wait an unknown amount of time for the "fingerprint men" to arrive, when the note could easily have an urgent demand "meet us in an hour or your child dies." He then stopped the police at just about every investigative turn. As others have pointed out, you can't avoid that his behavior, at no point, was that of a grieving father. Playing games while searching for the child or inspecting his child's corpse with such disdain that it shocked everyone in the room.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Aug 24, 2022 3:47:31 GMT -5
Maybe I’m missing something here: Michael says that Lindbergh was now paying for the return of the child’s body so that extortion would be stopped. We know that CAL didn’t want the body so that a funeral could take place; he was offhand in his examination of the corpse and arranged a quick cremation of the remains. His sentiment and consideration of the family's feelings regarding his child’s body were nil. Why not save $50,000 by refusing to pay and dismiss further extortion demands for what they were. He could demand concrete proof that the child was still alive, knowing full well that this could not be provided and giving him an excellent cover for nor paying the ransom.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Aug 24, 2022 7:51:40 GMT -5
Maybe I’m missing something here: Michael says that Lindbergh was now paying for the return of the child’s body so that extortion would be stopped. We know that CAL didn’t want the body so that a funeral could take place; he was offhand in his examination of the corpse and arranged a quick cremation of the remains. His sentiment and consideration of the family's feelings regarding his child’s body were nil. Why not save $50,000 by refusing to pay and dismiss further extortion demands for what they were. He could demand concrete proof that the child was still alive, knowing full well that this could not be provided and giving him an excellent cover for nor paying the ransom. Sherlock, that’s an excellent point. Given his apparent naivety within the first ransom negotiations, Lindbergh demanding absolute proof that his son was alive and well would have been the only reasonable avenue to pursue in the event of additional extortion demands, and would certainly have been supported unanimously by his inner circle. Given the totality of known factual and conclusive evidence, the faked kidnapping theory, just doesn’t hold up in the real world. No disrespect to those who support it, but I do believe it really shouldn’t be taken any more seriously than speculation that Charles Lindbergh Jr. had serious health problems, or was ‘weak and feeble’ and in need of destruction by his 'monster' of a father. Or that anyone benefitted financially gang-wise from Lindbergh’s pocketbook in a significant way, other than Richard Hauptmann. 'House of Cards' theories need lots of wiggle room, but inevitably crumble in sections and have to be propped up elsewhere to redirect attention from the specific issue under scrutiny. And it’s been going on for over 90 years now. Ironically, Richard Hauptmann was an expert at this same practice in principle. As Lloyd Gardner notes, like a bird, he was able to adeptly flit along to the next fencepost whenever cornered in questioning. Here’s another point that perhaps you can weigh in on, as roundly until now, it seems to have been given the same treatment. ‘Fauxnapping’ supporters continually state that the payment of $50,000 clearly identified in the nursery ransom note, was never meant to be collected, speculation here being of course that the kidnappers by some kind of prior arrangement, were to be paid both upfront, and upon completion of the job. So what happens? Like a dummy, Lindbergh, who's apparently in all of this, immediately calls in the police who stand shoulder-to-shoulder with him while the nursery note is unsealed, all of them noting the demanded $50,000. How then, would non-payment of this amount have been possible in the first place? How within this ‘fauxnapping’ scheme, would Lindbergh ever have been able to get out of paying the $50,000, now that he’s essentially laid things out in the open, thereby committing himself to having to make the payment?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 24, 2022 10:29:05 GMT -5
Maybe I’m missing something here: Michael says that Lindbergh was now paying for the return of the child’s body so that extortion would be stopped. We know that CAL didn’t want the body so that a funeral could take place; he was offhand in his examination of the corpse and arranged a quick cremation of the remains. His sentiment and consideration of the family's feelings regarding his child’s body were nil. Why not save $50,000 by refusing to pay and dismiss further extortion demands for what they were. He could demand concrete proof that the child was still alive, knowing full well that this could not be provided and giving him an excellent cover for nor paying the ransom. Forgive me, but who said Lindbergh wanted a funeral? As I mentioned earlier, I believe the corpse was "supposed" to be discovered very early on to end this thing. For me, despite the detour, he wanted the body as per the original design, to end what turned out to be the unplanned extortion. Dead or alive, the return of this child serves that purpose. What he immediately did to the corpse actually complements the theory. Right? Next, your suggestion about what he should or should not have done happens a lot concerning this case. There are thousands upon thousands of letters written in from the public during the time, located at the NJSP archives, that contain all kinds of suggestions. Some really good ones. So why hadn't Lindbergh or Police thought of them? Why hadn't anyone acted on them after reading the letters? Lindbergh had the final say on any strategy so there's your answer. Next, why did JEH say Schwarzkopf was botching the investigation and refusing to cooperate, while Schwarzkopf called the FBI's efforts " incompetent and arrogant?" Apply the gist of your argument here and see what it gets you. Two organizations with two very different approaches. We can ask "why" they didn't do "this" or "why" they didn't do "that." But in the end, it doesn't change that they did not. Now let's consider your argument applies whether this thing was real or it wasn't. You see, that was the idea in my opinion - he's not supposed to be operating from a position that he already knows his son is dead. He was warned not to pay that ransom but he still did. On top of that, by his own orders, he kept the police away so that the transaction could take place. You see, they were a necessary obstacle but since he controlled them it was all manageable. He also acted on the Curtis information. I've outlined why. But once out to sea his actions prove what he already knew. It wasn't about the return of a live child. This is why what you suggest makes no sense to me. Either he's acting a part or he's not. By design, he's supposed to want the return of a live child. How does not paying the people who have the body achieve this goal? If the idea was to pull off a faked event, then Lindbergh can't refuse to act on legitimate information. There is no cover for ending negotiations with anyone in possession of that symbol. And by accepting the Curtis information, he opened himself up for even more. So many fake contacts but he jumps on this one. Why? Because Lindbergh believed he had legitimate information. Information, by the way, which contradicts everything (how does one ignore this?) And what does he do? He sleeps, pulls pranks, and plays cards. What would you suggest he was to do in THAT situation? Exactly, me too! But he did not and you don't seem to be questioning it. For me, it clearly shows he's not worried or desperate about a living son. So - it goes on forever under your plan while simultaneously inviting more people like Curtis to emerge with possibilities coming from a split of the 'gang' or a sale of the child that was so often considered as a possibility as time wore on. In the end, he got what he paid for. The return of the body which he quickly disposed of. The body, along with all the (staged) evidence, "proves" a kidnapping, and the extortion along with any other attempts now ends. Sherlock, that’s an excellent point. Given his apparent naivety within the first ransom negotiations, Lindbergh demanding absolute proof that his son was alive and well would have been the only reasonable avenue to pursue in the event of additional extortion demands, and would certainly have been supported unanimously by his inner circle. ‘Fauxnapping’ supporters continually state that the payment of $50,000 clearly identified in the nursery ransom note, was never meant to be collected, speculation here being of course that the kidnappers by some kind of prior arrangement, were to be paid both upfront, and upon completion of the job. So what happens? Like a dummy, Lindbergh immediately calls in the police who stand shoulder-to-shoulder with him while the nursery note is unsealed, all of them noting the demanded $50,000. How then, would non-payment of this amount have been possible in the first place? How within this ‘fauxnapping’ scheme, would Lindbergh ever have been able to get out of paying the $50,000, now that he’s essentially laid things out in the open, thereby committing himself to having to make the payment? I have some major problems with your rebuttal Joe, but there's no point in repeating myself. The main issue above all else is that no one here is a clone of the next person. None of us agree exactly about everything. Trying to paint a picture this way is somewhat disingenuous. Next, everyone always believes they can do something better or they are smarter than the next person. The problem is, you've never dealt with people who have actually done such a thing. I can't tell you how many files I've read about actions involving certain crimes that left me scratching my head. I've pulled inmates into my office and literally asked them why they did what they did or didn't do "x" instead of "y." Sometimes I got answers I never even considered. Sometimes I was actually educated. And still other times I got a smile and an admission that they "F'd" up. Then comes certain "beliefs" that are ingrained into the heart of souls of certain people. We can know of them but never understand it. Someone set that nursery up as if they were actually kidnappers. That was their biggest mistake because the police saw it almost immediately. If you were to set it up, it may have looked differently, but seasoned investigators would spot the red flags and be suspicious.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 24, 2022 13:01:02 GMT -5
Here’s another point that perhaps you can weigh in on, as roundly until now, it seems to have been given the same treatment. ‘Fauxnapping’ supporters continually state that the payment of $50,000 clearly identified in the nursery ransom note, was never meant to be collected, speculation here being of course that the kidnappers by some kind of prior arrangement, were to be paid both upfront, and upon completion of the job. So what happens? Like a dummy, Lindbergh, who's apparently in all of this, immediately calls in the police who stand shoulder-to-shoulder with him while the nursery note is unsealed, all of them noting the demanded $50,000. How then, would non-payment of this amount have been possible in the first place? How within this ‘fauxnapping’ scheme, would Lindbergh ever have been able to get out of paying the $50,000, now that he’s essentially laid things out in the open, thereby committing himself to having to make the payment? If you ignore Lindbergh for a second and just imagine someone hired you to stage an event to look like a kidnapping, with the intention to misdirect investigators, what are the things you would need to be sure are there? First among these is probably a ransom note. In that note you'd prob spell out some bogus conditions of the return, to make it seem like this was all financially motivated. Well, that's what happened here. If things went according to plan, the body would turn up a day or two later, then Lindbergh wouldn't have to pay anybody anything and he'd be a grieving father to the world. Police would hit many dead ends in trying to solve the crime, since it was all staged to begin with. Eventually it would just fizzle out as an unsolved mystery. Instead, some individuals went rogue and started trying to collect the ransom before they returned the body, which was not the plan. Lindbergh had to pay, as it was the only way to get the body back and ensure extortion attempts would end.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Aug 24, 2022 13:54:14 GMT -5
Hi Michael,
I wrote “We know that CAL didn’t want the body so that a funeral could take place.” In other words CAL had no intention of arranging a funeral. So to answer your question “Who said Lindbergh wanted a funeral?” : it wasn’t me.
I think we can agree that the central objective was the dispatch of the child following CAL’s instructions. He knows the child is dead but has to act the part (very unsuccessfully as it turned out) of the grieving father desperate for his son’s return alive and well. So he played along with the ransom demands knowing full well that they were bogus but pretending they’re real, eventually paying $50,000 to CJ.
His other option was to demand cast iron proof that his son was still alive: e.g. a photo of the child with the current New York Times. The sleeping suit proves nothing. When this proof doesn’t arrive he can say “Its extortion. Spitz, Vitale took a copy and circulated the first note/ symbol and the extortionists have used it for verisimilitude. I’m not paying. They can’t prove my son is alive” He’s saved $50,000.
The second option is how I would have done it. But as you say Michael, based on your professional experience, this doesn’t mean someone else would take the same path. It may seem obvious and logical to us examining the case in the cold light of day but it would bear a different aspect if we were on the spot and (unlike ourselves) in possession of all the facts and circumstances.
As you say, and we’re all guilty of it: "everyone believes they can do something better…, " All we can conclude is that there must have been a strong justification for paying the “ransom” for a child known to be dead. Maybe, as others have indicated, extortion changed into blackmail - they had some thing on him (the child’s condition? his role in the scheme?). He was paying for their silence as well as for the body. That’s what happens when you hire a “gang.”
Best regards, Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Aug 24, 2022 14:26:22 GMT -5
Hi Joe, Taking the "fauxnapping" scenario as a given and to answer your question, Lindbergh, wishing to avoid payment and knowing the child was dead, could insist on cast iron proof that his son was alive, knowing that this would be an impossible condition for them to meet. I can't agree that "like a dummy" CAL called in the police; he had no alternative if the illusion of a real kidnap was to be launched at that point. I don't see that Lindbergh reading the first ransom note commits him in any way to meeting their demands; they have stated their terms, its up to CAL whether he agrees with them. Totally unrelated: I just finished reading "Checkmate" by Mark Russell. Its about a murder in Liverpool in 1931. If anyone thinks the Lindbergh case is complex, I recommend this book as an antidote. "Its a two pipe problem, Watson." Best regards, Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 24, 2022 15:30:23 GMT -5
Hi Michael, I wrote “We know that CAL didn’t want the body so that a funeral could take place.” In other words CAL had no intention of arranging a funeral. So to answer your question “Who said Lindbergh wanted a funeral?” : it wasn’t me. I think we can agree that the central objective was the dispatch of the child following CAL’s instructions. He knows the child is dead but has to act the part (very unsuccessfully as it turned out) of the grieving father desperate for his son’s return alive and well. So he played along with the ransom demands knowing full well that they were bogus but pretending they’re real, eventually paying $50,000 to CJ. His other option was to demand cast iron proof that his son was still alive: e.g. a photo of the child with the current New York Times. The sleeping suit proves nothing. When this proof doesn’t arrive he can say “Its extortion. Spitz, Vitale took a copy and circulated the first note/ symbol and the extortionists have used it for verisimilitude. I’m not paying. They can’t prove my son is alive” He’s saved $50,000. The second option is how I would have done it. But as you say Michael, based on your professional experience, this doesn’t mean someone else would take the same path. It may seem obvious and logical to us examining the case in the cold light of day but it would bear a different aspect if we were on the spot and (unlike ourselves) in possession of all the facts and circumstances. As you say, and we’re all guilty of it: "everyone believes they can do something better…, " All we can conclude is that there must have been a strong justification for paying the “ransom” for a child known to be dead. Maybe, as others have indicated, extortion changed into blackmail - they had some thing on him (the child’s condition? his role in the scheme?). He was paying for their silence as well as for the body. That’s what happens when you hire a “gang.” Best regards, Sherlock Jumping in here to say that as long as the body is not in Lindbergh's possession or destroyed, he is susceptible to extortion attempts to "out" his involvement and the reason for the kidnapping. Plus a less decayed corpse with a thorough autopsy probably would have been a good way to expose the fact his child was not healthy. Paying the ransom meant he got the body back and it ended all extortion attempts.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Aug 25, 2022 2:15:43 GMT -5
I'm with you all the way there trojanusc; the payment was to regain control of the body and avoid questions arising from a competent pathologist. But, and there's always a "but", if we accept that Carrel and his team were the first group to have the child after its removal from the crib and their role was its humane dispatch (available anaesthetics, sympathy with Lindbergh's eugenics views) how did the body end up with a "gang" of unscrupulous criminals bent on extortion etc? I can't see anyone in Carrel's team, presumably "respectable" people with 9-5 jobs, going rogue. So that's my problem: the interface between the Carrel phase and the gang.
|
|