Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Sept 7, 2022 8:15:25 GMT -5
For his Bachelor of Arts degree in 1951, George Hawke wrote his Princeton University Senior Thesis based upon his research of the Lindbergh Kidnapping and personal interviews with many of its key participants, most notably Lloyd Fisher, David Wilentz and many of the surviving jury members. Wayne was kind enough to send me a copy, and within it I found that the assorted recollections and insights for the most part, seemed to centre well with what is known about the investigation and Flemington Trial.
On page 85 however, Hawke writes something based upon his interview with jury member Charles Snyder, that really caught my eye:
Snyder recalled, “They had all the State exhibits and marked evidence arranged before them on a table. One notebook crept in for their surveillance which was hardly admissible, however, though not introduced and admitted as evidence in the course of the trial, a notebook containing drawings and plans of the Lindbergh home and purportedly belonging to Hauptmann was present for their perusal.”
The implications of this action, if true, would of course be groundbreaking, relative to what Hauptmann might have known prior to the kidnapping and our general understanding of the case. I tend to discount that any such document of this description and detail actually existed, as it seems certain that Wilentz would have used it to irreversibly nail Hauptmann to the wall. On the other hand, if there was anything within such a source that might compromise or even cast the slightest shadow on the 'Hauptmann as Lone Wolf' premise, this might be explained by its 'last minute' and confidential insertion within the jury deliberation process only. Snyders's remark about it being "hardly admissable" might provide a clue here.
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Sept 7, 2022 8:51:45 GMT -5
This could be a really significant find. It would indicate that someone on the inside was complicit with Hauptmann or one of his confederates. Again, this individual would have to be very familiar with the Lindbergh's new home, whether a staff member, a visitor, or a workman. The question now is who might be involved.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Sept 7, 2022 10:06:28 GMT -5
Other possibilities might include any confusion within the accounting of the actual event by Charles Snyder, or with Hawke, based on what he interpreted Snyder as having said. Another thought.. would/could the prosecution at this stage, have risked planting something they knew did not relate to the question of Hauptmann's guilt, in order to effectively swing any uncertain members of the jury?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 7, 2022 10:50:11 GMT -5
For his Bachelor of Arts degree in 1951, George Hawke wrote his Princeton University Senior Thesis based upon his research of the Lindbergh Kidnapping and personal interviews with many of its key participants, most notably Lloyd Fisher, David Wilentz and many of the surviving jury members. Wayne was kind enough to send me a copy, and within it I found that the assorted recollections and insights for the most part, seemed to centre well with what is known about the investigation and Flemington Trial. Great source. Glad Wayne was able to send it to you. For those who don't have it there is a copy at the NJSP Archives. The only other copy I know of is at the Hunterdon County Historical Society which is located right on Main Street across the street from the Courthouse. It's in book form there and sitting right on the shelf so it isn't something that needs to be retrieved by the Librarian. Unfortunately, my copy is 132 pages long so it isn't something I could post. On page 85 however, Hawke writes something based upon his interview with jury member Charles Snyder, that really caught my eye: Snyder recalled, “They had all the State exhibits and marked evidence arranged before them on a table. One notebook crept in for their surveillance which was hardly admissible, however, though not introduced and admitted as evidence in the course of the trial, a notebook containing drawings and plans of the Lindbergh home and purportedly belonging to Hauptmann was present for their perusal.” I addressed this on page 563 in V3. Hawke is my source. However, there is a bunch of other complementary information throughout the chapter. The implications of this action, if true, would of course be groundbreaking, relative to what Hauptmann might have known prior to the kidnapping and our general understanding of the case. I tend to discount that any such document of this description and detail actually existed, as it seems certain that Wilentz would have used it to irreversibly nail Hauptmann to the wall. On the other hand, if there was anything within such a source that might compromise or even cast the slightest shadow on the 'Hauptmann as Lone Wolf' premise, this might be explained by its 'last minute' and confidential insertion within the jury deliberation process only. Snyders's remark about it being "hardly admissable" might provide a clue here. OMG! You just confirmed that you are in complete denial. Didn't you see all of the dirty tricks they pulled? The trial is covered in Chapter 6 in V3 and all the nonsense is DOCUMENTED. Wilentz didn't use it because he obviously could not. It's common sense. One might argue Snyder was wrong and that he was describing S-261 that was admitted as evidence, however, I disagree. I know of no such book concerning the " plans of the Lindbergh home." The jury obviously saw and considered something they shouldn't have. Other possibilities might include any confusion within the accounting of the actual event by Charles Snyder, or with Hawke, based on what he interpreted Snyder as having said. Another thought.. would/could the prosecution at this stage, have risked planting something they knew did not relate to the question of Hauptmann's guilt, in order to effectively swing any uncertain members of the jury? If one looks at all they did, this question just isn't necessary.
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Sept 7, 2022 15:13:42 GMT -5
This does seem to be a significant find, but I have a question that Hawke may have answered in his paper. The jury does not examine materials that was not introduced in the trial as evidence. Is is possible that Hauptmann's notebook was used because of the sketch of the ladder and the plan of the Lindbergh house was included in that notebook? If so, a member of the jury might have found the plan while flipping the pages, quite by accident.
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Sept 7, 2022 15:47:51 GMT -5
If the sketch of the Lindbergh house was discovered in the Hauptmann notebook as just described, then the juror who discovered it would certainly have shown it to the other jurors. It may well have influenced their verdict. Charles Snyder, according to Mark Falzini in "Their Fifteen Minutes" was a farmer who lived in Clinton N.J. He died in 1967, so an interview with a Princeton student prior to that date is entirely possible. Hauptmann's notebooks which were used as evidence in the trial must still be held in the NJ Archives and could be examined for this particular sketch.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Sept 7, 2022 16:09:55 GMT -5
If the sketch of the Lindbergh house was discovered in the Hauptmann notebook as just described, then the juror who discovered it would certainly have shown it to the other jurors. It may well have influenced their verdict. Charles Snyder, according to Mark Falzini in "Their Fifteen Minutes" was a farmer who lived in Clinton N.J. He died in 1967, so an interview with a Princeton student prior to that date is entirely possible. Hauptmann's notebooks which were used as evidence in the trial must still be held in the NJ Archives and could be examined for this particular sketch. It's preposterous to assume that a sketch of the Lindbergh house existed and didn't become front-page headlines or wasn't introduced at trial. If we know about a sketch of a (possible?) ladder Hauptmann may or may not have drawn, we sure would have known about a sketch of the Lindbergh house.
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Sept 7, 2022 18:43:46 GMT -5
This does seem to be a significant find, but I have a question that Hawke may have answered in his paper. The jury does not examine materials that was not introduced in the trial as evidence. Is is possible that Hauptmann's notebook was used because of the sketch of the ladder and the plan of the Lindbergh house was included in that notebook? If so, a member of the jury might have found the plan while flipping the pages, quite by accident. In the book When the Circus Came to Town they said all exhibits used and not used were in the jury room during deliberations. All piled on a table.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Sept 8, 2022 6:45:57 GMT -5
On page 85 however, Hawke writes something based upon his interview with jury member Charles Snyder, that really caught my eye: Snyder recalled, “They had all the State exhibits and marked evidence arranged before them on a table. One notebook crept in for their surveillance which was hardly admissible, however, though not introduced and admitted as evidence in the course of the trial, a notebook containing drawings and plans of the Lindbergh home and purportedly belonging to Hauptmann was present for their perusal.” 1. I addressed this on page 563 in V3. Hawke is my source. However, there is a bunch of other complementary information throughout the chapter. The implications of this action, if true, would of course be groundbreaking, relative to what Hauptmann might have known prior to the kidnapping and our general understanding of the case. I tend to discount that any such document of this description and detail actually existed, as it seems certain that Wilentz would have used it to irreversibly nail Hauptmann to the wall. On the other hand, if there was anything within such a source that might compromise or even cast the slightest shadow on the 'Hauptmann as Lone Wolf' premise, this might be explained by its 'last minute' and confidential insertion within the jury deliberation process only. Snyders's remark about it being "hardly admissable" might provide a clue here. 2. OMG! You just confirmed that you are in complete denial. Didn't you see all of the dirty tricks they pulled? The trial is covered in Chapter 6 in V3 and all the nonsense is DOCUMENTED. Wilentz didn't use it because he obviously could not. It's common sense. One might argue Snyder was wrong and that he was describing S-261 that was admitted as evidence, however, I disagree. I know of no such book concerning the " plans of the Lindbergh home." The jury obviously saw and considered something they shouldn't have. Other possibilities might include any confusion within the accounting of the actual event by Charles Snyder, or with Hawke, based on what he interpreted Snyder as having said. Another thought.. would/could the prosecution at this stage, have risked planting something they knew did not relate to the question of Hauptmann's guilt, in order to effectively swing any uncertain members of the jury? 3. If one looks at all they did, this question just isn't necessary. 1. Uhhh.. you mean that volume I told you I've read from cover to cover.. lol? Well.. actually I did, but obviously I missed the that part, or at least the potential importance of it at the time. Perhaps because you didn't offer any comments on the alleged Snyder revelation, and so it's a pretty easy entry to overlook. Good on you though, for also recognizing this. 2. I'm not sure what you mean by being in denial. I've never questioned the 'resourcefulness' of the prosecution to make its case against Hauptmann alone, which is why I believe it might not have been beyond their motives and means to produce something like this at the eleventh hour, if it did exist. At the same time, one can't help but appreciate that the prosecution would not have been privy to each and every angle of the deception and chicanery employed by the NJSP (NYPD too) leading up to, and even during the trial, something that organization appeared to require, to compensate for its general dearth of criminal investigation skills. 3. What about this alleged notebook? What do you think Snyder might actually have been looking at?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 8, 2022 9:29:50 GMT -5
The jury does not examine materials that was not introduced in the trial as evidence. Is is possible that Hauptmann's notebook was used because of the sketch of the ladder and the plan of the Lindbergh house was included in that notebook? If so, a member of the jury might have found the plan while flipping the pages, quite by accident. There are (3) possibilities: 1. Snyder is either misremembering or making it up. 2. Snyder is wrong and the book was entered into evidence. 3. The Prosecution, or somebody else, placed something for the Jury to consider that shouldn't have been in that room. When I look at things, I create lists of options like this then wrestle with each. If I can eliminate them I do. If I can't, this Board through its members can be very helpful to that end. So much so that at times I have to resurrect options I've previously dismissed. In my earlier post, I offered the possibility that Snyder was remembering S-261 and mistakenly believed it hadn't been entered into evidence. I did this because I had considered it myself and wanted to show Joe I wasn't being unfair in my response. You see, S-261 was the gray memorandum book that included the "supposed" ladder sketch. There are no " drawings or plans" of Lindbergh's home in this book. There's a house that a child obviously drew that has no value whatsoever and could never be mistaken as Highfields or plans for Highfields. It's preposterous to assume that a sketch of the Lindbergh house existed and didn't become front-page headlines or wasn't introduced at trial. If we know about a sketch of a (possible?) ladder Hauptmann may or may not have drawn, we sure would have known about a sketch of the Lindbergh house. Exactly. Sometimes evidence was omitted for reasons it may have been detrimental to the State. Too many to list but the burlap bag immediately comes to mind here. If there existed a book that wasn't brought up or admitted then it should exist at the NJSP but it doesn't. Next, even if "something" did, the Prosecution did not present it in Court. Why not? Because it probably wouldn't have been admitted and may have even hurt their case. In the book When the Circus Came to Town they said all exhibits used and not used were in the jury room during deliberations. All piled on a table. Yup. Snook and several men placed these items on the table. In V3 page 563 I show where he bragged about giving the handwriting items special arrangements. I'm not "blaming him" because he or the others may have had no idea what had been admitted and what had not. But its important to also consider that he had a secret source from inside the Jury room that was obviously unethical: There was a source through which quite authentic information came to us and we were pretty well acquainted at all times with what was taking place inside the locked doors. Enough said about this. Further details I will give you later. Clearly he knew this was wrong and not wanting expand on this in writing is clear proof of it. 1. Uhhh.. you mean that volume I told you I've read from cover to cover.. lol? Well.. actually I did, but obviously I missed the that part, or at least the potential importance of it at the time. Perhaps because you didn't offer any comments on the alleged Snyder revelation, and so it's a pretty easy entry to overlook. Good on you though, for also recognizing this. 2. I'm not sure what you mean by being in denial. I've never questioned the 'resourcefulness' of the prosecution to make its case against Hauptmann alone, which is why I believe it might not have been beyond their motives and means to produce something like this at the eleventh hour, if it did exist. At the same time, one can't help but appreciate that the prosecution would not have been privy to each and every angle of the deception and chicanery employed by the NJSP (NYPD too) leading up to, and even during the trial, something that organization appeared to require, to compensate for its general dearth of criminal investigation skills. 3. What about this alleged notebook? What do you think Snyder might actually have been looking at? 1. Thanks Joe ... I guess. It's probably why I won't write another book though. There's too much information that gets "missed" somehow. Plus, even if I wrote I wouldn't have the money to publish. I don't know what its like in Canada but down here its crushing. Anyway, I was hoping to wait until Julie finishes the book about her grandfather first but that might be moot at this point. 2. Fair enough. I stand corrected then. Its just that I've seen you jump over the obvious choices first so many times that's what it looked like here too. 3. I have no idea Joe. All I can do is refer you to everything in this post as to where my mind is at. It could have been a total fabrication. If it wasn't, who knows where it came from? All I can say is its not on any inventory, isn't mentioned in any report, and wasn't brought up in Court. USC made the point that I believe is pretty much undeniable.
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Sept 8, 2022 13:33:02 GMT -5
Thank you for the illustrations of the child's drawings, Michael. It's possible that the child was copying, or thought to be copying a picture not included in the exhibit. The drawing of the corner of the house may have believed to resemble the corner which contained the nursery. The "star" of six points could be a copy of the room arrangements or a landing. A window is also displayed, not one that could certainly be identified, but the child's work could have been interpreted somehow as copies of Highfield areas, just as the sketch of the ladder found in the notebook was claimed by Hauptmann to be the work of a child.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Sept 8, 2022 13:34:31 GMT -5
Thank you for the illustrations of the child's drawings, Michael. It's possible that the child was copying, or thought to be copying a picture not included in the exhibit. The drawing of the corner of the house may have thought to resemble the corner which contained the nursery. The "star" of six points could be a copy of the room arrangements or a landing. A window is also displayed, not one that could certainly be identified, but the child's work could have been interpreted somehow as copies of Highfield areas, just as the sketch of the ladder found in the notebook was claimed by Hauptmann to be the work of a child. That just seems like a stretch. Could be any house, anywhere. It's clearly a kid's drawing with many others around it.
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Sept 8, 2022 13:43:09 GMT -5
The child includes a figure at the top of the pages which resemble the letter N which may have appeared on the original signifying North. I realize that this seems a stretch, but there direction for N does indicate that this is a copy of some original.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Sept 8, 2022 13:45:06 GMT -5
The child includes a figure at the top of the pages which resemble the letter N which may have appeared on the original signifying North. I realize that this seems a stretch, but there direction for N does indicate that this is a copy of some original. What? The same symbol appears on the left side as well. And that's clearly not based on anything.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Sept 8, 2022 13:48:36 GMT -5
For those who believe the four diagrams on the two pages were drawn by a child, would anyone like to estimate the child's age here?
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Sept 8, 2022 13:57:19 GMT -5
The child was copying a photo or drawing that included map directions; he/she also copied the map directions indicating North. I would guess the age as under ten. Children do vary in their abilities, even at a young age, but I would guess maybe six years old. The ladder sketch is better drawn.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 8, 2022 14:19:26 GMT -5
The child was copying a photo or drawing that included map directions; he/she also copied the map directions indicating North. I would guess the age as under ten. Children do vary in their abilities, even at a young age, but I would guess maybe six years old. The ladder sketch is better drawn. Okay. Firstly, I can't say whether or not a child was "copying" anything. I've always believed it was a drawing that came from their imagination. If we look at the house there's a chimney with smoke coming out of it, two stories, a door and two windows. Pretty generic. This kid even included a moon. The only thing its missing is a ghost in one of those windows. What I see on the left hand page is an attempt at making a star. As far as the lower case ' r' at the top of each page.... I don't have the testimony in front of me, but I've read it enough times to feel comfortable giving this general description of events... Wilentz was questioning Hauptmann and showing him the pages. When it came to those he said he did not make, Wilentz requested him to "mark" the pages that weren't in his handwriting. So these 'r's were made in court by Hauptmann while on the stand being questioned.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Sept 8, 2022 15:09:29 GMT -5
The child was copying a photo or drawing that included map directions; he/she also copied the map directions indicating North. I would guess the age as under ten. Children do vary in their abilities, even at a young age, but I would guess maybe six years old. The ladder sketch is better drawn. Okay. Firstly, I can't say whether or not a child was "copying" anything. I've always believed it was a drawing that came from their imagination. If we look at the house there's a chimney with smoke coming out of it, two stories, a door and two windows. Pretty generic. This kid even included a moon. The only thing its missing is a ghost in one of those windows. What I see on the left hand page is an attempt at making a star. As far as the lower case ' r' at the top of each page.... I don't have the testimony in front of me, but I've read it enough times to feel comfortable giving this general description of events... Wilentz was questioning Hauptmann and showing him the pages. When it came to those he said he did not make, Wilentz requested him to "mark" the pages that weren't in his handwriting. So these 'r's were made in court by Hauptmann while on the stand being questioned. This makes so much more sense than a child labeling the sky above a house with directional maps.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 10, 2022 7:58:50 GMT -5
This makes so much more sense than a child labeling the sky above a house with directional maps. Well, get ready. I've got a sneaky suspicion that Joe is going to say these items were drawn by Hauptmann. I think he'll assert the house is Highfields and since there's a moon, its a clear indication of Hauptmann's intention to strike at night. On the top of the other page, that will be the Nursery Window, another indication his plan. The box with the numbers won't be a game but rather mathematical calculations concerning where to exactly place the ladder. And the item at the bottom of the page (I've referred to as an attempt at making a star), that will wind up being Wahgoosh. I'm sure this will translate into Hauptmann planning to run him over with his Dodge Six as he makes his getaway.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Sept 11, 2022 9:28:06 GMT -5
This makes so much more sense than a child labeling the sky above a house with directional maps. Well, get ready. I've got a sneaky suspicion that Joe is going to say these items were drawn by Hauptmann. I think he'll assert the house is Highfields and since there's a moon, its a clear indication of Hauptmann's intention to strike at night. On the top of the other page, that will be the Nursery Window, another indication his plan. The box with the numbers won't be a game but rather mathematical calculations concerning where to exactly place the ladder. And the item at the bottom of the page (I've referred to as an attempt at making a star), that will wind up being Wahgoosh. I'm sure this will translate into Hauptmann planning to run him over with his Dodge Six as he makes his getaway. Michael, I don’t really have any specific personal interpretations as to what all of the Hauptmann memo book diagrams mean, but I don’t believe for a moment that any of them were drawn by “a child.” Your imaginative meanderings here are interesting, and Geez, it never occurred to me Hauptmann was planning a nighttime kidnapping! There's also a bit of craftiness here on your part, within your intention to shield cherished ‘face-of-the case’ poster boy, Richard Hauptmann, keeping him safely distanced from any possible notion he might have actually dreamt up this kidnapping on his own, even though the substantial evidence that you prefer to downplay, tells us he very likely did. But that wouldn’t look too good for Charles Lindbergh having done the planning. And so, alas, the general case constipation goes on and on, with little or no real progress made.. but I digress. I’ll offer my takes on why all of the drawings in Hauptmann’s memo books were drawn by Hauptmann, and Hauptmann alone. And I won’t be surprised or offended if you choose to ignore or even ridicule them. After all, you’ve been able to successfully piggyback on the 90-year-old ‘Lindy-Did-It’ theory, in part based on ‘revelations’ such as chewing gum swagger, meat skewers in the morgue, an alleged ransom money box languishing in a bush for a week-and-a-half, Lindy’s non-descript tongue-lashing of Betty Gow, not to mention brown Curtis hats thrown into the ocean, so all bets are off. First of all, these were Hauptmann’s private memo books, period. Hauptmann would have allowed no child the latitude to commandeer them for the sake of his or her personal amusement. Yes, Hauptmann claimed they were drawn by a “visiting child”, yet for some reason, he couldn’t provide the name of that same child. Surprised? Otherwise, I’m sure you would have somehow been able to snoop out this kid during your archival research and titled one of your book chapters accordingly. Please tell me you have a lead on this little curmudgeon! The reason I asked about the perceived age of a child who would have drawn these seemingly-whimsical diagrams is because of their direct indication this child would have had to have been many different ages at the same time, up to and including a young adult. I’d invite you to talk to any elementary school teacher who has seen countless thousands of drawings made by children of all ages and abilities and ask them. Fortunately, I have a few in my own family, regardless of the many things that stand out here without myriad opinions required. First of all, take a look at those two side-by-side pages with the house on the right and the three other drawings on the left. Do you see any connection and commonalities among all four? Look at their line structure and thickness, the apparently-little hesitation within each stroke, and how precisely each connects to the next line. The same firmness and unwavering nature of each stroke, are great indications they were done by the same person and with the same writing utensil, presumably a pencil. In spite of their nonsensical imagery and childish appearance, these drawings were done by someone with a considerable degree of design and drawing experience. Ask a professional draftsman to draw something that looks like it was done by a pre-teen child, and this is what you’re likely to get. Look at the ‘boldened’ area of the house roof, attained by repeated back and forth strokes. The identical effect is found in the top left drawing, creating a reasonable connection between both pages. The three diagrams on the left are accurately spaced apart. The second diagram on the left provides the best clue, in my opinion. A rectangular box well divided into six segments of similar area, each with some kind of dotted letter or numerical reference. What kind of child draws in such intriguing geometry and symbol-based form, as is demonstrated here? If you want my best opinion here, these two pages were drawn by Richard Hauptmann either at some stage of intoxication or otherwise-elevated mood, during his planning stage before the kidnapping, or possibly in a state of reverie, while congratulating himself on what a great man he was, after the fact. I don't, but would love to know exactly where these diagrams appear in what memo books, in order to attempt to estimate the date they were drawn. Perhaps during some future trip to the archives. Regarding the diagram of the recessed rung design for the ladder that Hauptmann built, also found in his memo books. By no stretch was this diagram, with its highly-accurate right angle perspective and even showing lighter lines to denote the hidden areas of the rung, the work of a “visiting child.” Wilentz and Peacock were no dummies. Yet Hauptmann denied this one too as well as the "window" diagram, again attributing these to his "visiting child." It blows me away at times to imagine how one person could have been such a liar and/or in so much denial. There are other diagrams as you know, which I’ll try to post later as a file transfer, and all of them are the work of Richard Hauptmann.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Sept 11, 2022 9:42:22 GMT -5
The jury does not examine materials that was not introduced in the trial as evidence. Is is possible that Hauptmann's notebook was used because of the sketch of the ladder and the plan of the Lindbergh house was included in that notebook? If so, a member of the jury might have found the plan while flipping the pages, quite by accident. There are (3) possibilities: 1. Snyder is either misremembering or making it up. 2. Snyder is wrong and the book was entered into evidence. 3. The Prosecution, or somebody else, placed something for the Jury to consider that shouldn't have been in that room. When I look at things, I create lists of options like this then wrestle with each. If I can eliminate them I do. If I can't, this Board through its members can be very helpful to that end. So much so that at times I have to resurrect options I've previously dismissed. In my earlier post, I offered the possibility that Snyder was remembering S-261 and mistakenly believed it hadn't been entered into evidence. I did this because I had considered it myself and wanted to show Joe I wasn't being unfair in my response. You see, S-261 was the gray memorandum book that included the "supposed" ladder sketch. There are no " drawings or plans" of Lindbergh's home in this book. There's a house that a child obviously drew that has no value whatsoever and could never be mistaken as Highfields or plans for Highfields. View AttachmentIt's preposterous to assume that a sketch of the Lindbergh house existed and didn't become front-page headlines or wasn't introduced at trial. If we know about a sketch of a (possible?) ladder Hauptmann may or may not have drawn, we sure would have known about a sketch of the Lindbergh house. Exactly. Sometimes evidence was omitted for reasons it may have been detrimental to the State. Too many to list but the burlap bag immediately comes to mind here. If there existed a book that wasn't brought up or admitted then it should exist at the NJSP but it doesn't. Next, even if "something" did, the Prosecution did not present it in Court. Why not? Because it probably wouldn't have been admitted and may have even hurt their case. In the book When the Circus Came to Town they said all exhibits used and not used were in the jury room during deliberations. All piled on a table. Yup. Snook and several men placed these items on the table. In V3 page 563 I show where he bragged about giving the handwriting items special arrangements. I'm not "blaming him" because he or the others may have had no idea what had been admitted and what had not. But its important to also consider that he had a secret source from inside the Jury room that was obviously unethical: There was a source through which quite authentic information came to us and we were pretty well acquainted at all times with what was taking place inside the locked doors. Enough said about this. Further details I will give you later. Clearly he knew this was wrong and not wanting expand on this in writing is clear proof of it. 1. Uhhh.. you mean that volume I told you I've read from cover to cover.. lol? Well.. actually I did, but obviously I missed the that part, or at least the potential importance of it at the time. Perhaps because you didn't offer any comments on the alleged Snyder revelation, and so it's a pretty easy entry to overlook. Good on you though, for also recognizing this. 2. I'm not sure what you mean by being in denial. I've never questioned the 'resourcefulness' of the prosecution to make its case against Hauptmann alone, which is why I believe it might not have been beyond their motives and means to produce something like this at the eleventh hour, if it did exist. At the same time, one can't help but appreciate that the prosecution would not have been privy to each and every angle of the deception and chicanery employed by the NJSP (NYPD too) leading up to, and even during the trial, something that organization appeared to require, to compensate for its general dearth of criminal investigation skills. 3. What about this alleged notebook? What do you think Snyder might actually have been looking at? 1. Thanks Joe ... I guess. It's probably why I won't write another book though. There's too much information that gets "missed" somehow. Plus, even if I wrote I wouldn't have the money to publish. I don't know what its like in Canada but down here its crushing. Anyway, I was hoping to wait until Julie finishes the book about her grandfather first but that might be moot at this point. 2. Fair enough. I stand corrected then. Its just that I've seen you jump over the obvious choices first so many times that's what it looked like here too. 3. I have no idea Joe. All I can do is refer you to everything in this post as to where my mind is at. It could have been a total fabrication. If it wasn't, who knows where it came from? All I can say is its not on any inventory, isn't mentioned in any report, and wasn't brought up in Court. USC made the point that I believe is pretty much undeniable. 1. a) Index / sub-divided Table of Contents for paper book form. Thankfully, Kindle form does allow for word search! b) Less attempting to lead others to water by laying out book direction, as you would like them to be led. c) Enough said. 2. I might be just a bit more objective than you think. 3. I also entertain just about any possibility with this alleged Hauptmann notebook, with so little recourse to accurately determine the truth at this stage of the game. For now, it's filed with a few other things, such as the alleged Anna's diary..
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Sept 11, 2022 13:02:24 GMT -5
Well, get ready. I've got a sneaky suspicion that Joe is going to say these items were drawn by Hauptmann. I think he'll assert the house is Highfields and since there's a moon, its a clear indication of Hauptmann's intention to strike at night. On the top of the other page, that will be the Nursery Window, another indication his plan. The box with the numbers won't be a game but rather mathematical calculations concerning where to exactly place the ladder. And the item at the bottom of the page (I've referred to as an attempt at making a star), that will wind up being Wahgoosh. I'm sure this will translate into Hauptmann planning to run him over with his Dodge Six as he makes his getaway. Michael, I don’t really have any specific personal interpretations as to what all of the Hauptmann memo book diagrams mean, but I don’t believe for a moment that any of them were drawn by “a child.” Your imaginative meanderings here are interesting, and Geez, it never occurred to me Hauptmann was planning a nighttime kidnapping! There's also a bit of craftiness here on your part, within your intention to shield cherished ‘face-of-the case’ poster boy, Richard Hauptmann, keeping him safely distanced from any possible notion he might have actually dreamt up this kidnapping on his own, even though the substantial evidence that you prefer to downplay, tells us he very likely did. But that wouldn’t look too good for Charles Lindbergh having done the planning. And so, alas, the general case constipation goes on and on, with little or no real progress made.. but I digress. I’ll offer my takes on why all of the drawings in Hauptmann’s memo books were drawn by Hauptmann, and Hauptmann alone. And I won’t be surprised or offended if you choose to ignore or even ridicule them. After all, you’ve been able to successfully piggyback on the 90-year-old ‘Lindy-Did-It’ theory, in part based on ‘revelations’ such as chewing gum swagger, meat skewers in the morgue, an alleged ransom money box languishing in a bush for a week-and-a-half, Lindy’s non-descript tongue-lashing of Betty Gow, not to mention brown Curtis hats thrown into the ocean, so all bets are off. First of all, these were Hauptmann’s private memo books, period. Hauptmann would have allowed no child the latitude to commandeer them for the sake of his or her personal amusement. Yes, Hauptmann claimed they were drawn by a “visiting child”, yet for some reason, he couldn’t provide the name of that same child. Surprised? Otherwise, I’m sure you would have somehow been able to snoop out this kid during your archival research and titled one of your book chapters accordingly. Please tell me you have a lead on this little curmudgeon! The reason I asked about the perceived age of a child who would have drawn these seemingly-whimsical diagrams is because of their direct indication this child would have had to have been many different ages at the same time, up to and including a young adult. I’d invite you to talk to any elementary school teacher who has seen countless thousands of drawings made by children of all ages and abilities and ask them. Fortunately, I have a few in my own family, regardless of the many things that stand out here without myriad opinions required. First of all, take a look at those two side-by-side pages with the house on the right and the three other drawings on the left. Do you see any connection and commonalities among all four? Look at their line structure and thickness, the apparently-little hesitation within each stroke, and how precisely each connects to the next line. The same firmness and unwavering nature of each stroke, are great indications they were done by the same person and with the same writing utensil, presumably a pencil. In spite of their nonsensical imagery and childish appearance, these drawings were done by someone with a considerable degree of design and drawing experience. Ask a professional draftsman to draw something that looks like it was done by a pre-teen child, and this is what you’re likely to get. Look at the ‘boldened’ area of the house roof, attained by repeated back and forth strokes. The identical effect is found in the top left drawing, creating a reasonable connection between both pages. The three diagrams on the left are accurately spaced apart. The second diagram on the left provides the best clue, in my opinion. A rectangular box well divided into six segments of similar area, each with some kind of dotted letter or numerical reference. What kind of child draws in such intriguing geometry and symbol-based form, as is demonstrated here? If you want my best opinion here, these two pages were drawn by Richard Hauptmann either at some stage of intoxication or otherwise-elevated mood, during his planning stage before the kidnapping, or possibly in a state of reverie, while congratulating himself on what a great man he was, after the fact. I don't, but would love to know exactly where these diagrams appear in what memo books, in order to attempt to estimate the date they were drawn. Perhaps during some future trip to the archives. Regarding the diagram of the recessed rung design for the ladder that Hauptmann built, also found in his memo books. By no stretch was this diagram, with its highly-accurate right angle perspective and even showing lighter lines to denote the hidden areas of the rung, the work of a “visiting child.” Wilentz and Peacock were no dummies. Yet Hauptmann denied this one too as well as the "window" diagram, again attributing these to his "visiting child." It blows me away at times to imagine how one person could have been such a liar and/or in so much denial. There are other diagrams as you know, which I’ll try to post later as a file transfer, and all of them are the work of Richard Hauptmann. 🤯🤯🤯😹😹😹💩💩💩
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Sept 11, 2022 15:03:13 GMT -5
If you look at the rectangle on the left hand page that is divided into segments, each segment has a letter written in script with a period after it, similar to the script that is at the top of the page. This does not look like a child's handwriting to me although all of the drawings certainly have a naive, immature appearance. Michael, do any of the pages of the notebook have script letters at the top of the page as these do?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Sept 11, 2022 15:24:36 GMT -5
If you look at the rectangle on the left hand page that is divided into segments, each segment has a letter written in script with a period after it, similar to the script that is at the top of the page. This does not look like a child's handwriting to me although all of the drawings certainly have a naive, immature appearance. Michael, do any of the pages of the notebook have script letters at the top of the page as these do? Agreed Stella, there's little or nothing that demonstrates a child's work within that figure and its subdivisions. I believe there is a direct relationship between all of the drawings due to the very deliberate and similar nature of the lines themselves, and the same writing utensil having been used by the same individual. Hauptmann initialed another page which shows two drawings, one an upright rectangle divided into two smaller rectangles in the general proportions of a modern-day refrigerator and the other which appears to me, to represent the side view of some kind of pull-out drawer. I've often thought of this as some kind of conceptual drawing for an icebox from two different viewpoints. Hauptmann did not initial the page with the recessed rung design diagram, but there is a circled "x" beside it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 11, 2022 18:33:16 GMT -5
If you look at the rectangle on the left hand page that is divided into segments, each segment has a letter written in script with a period after it, similar to the script that is at the top of the page. This does not look like a child's handwriting to me although all of the drawings certainly have a naive, immature appearance. Michael, do any of the pages of the notebook have script letters at the top of the page as these do? I believe the box contains the numbers " 8" and " 2". Years ago, and I am talking like 2002 or something, someone called it a "game," Rab I believe, and actually had a name for it. If someone wanted to argue these numbers were written by an adult I'd say they are on firmer ground than these drawings. I'm not exactly sure what your question is Norma. Are you asking if the " r" at the top is similar to any others in the same notebook? If this is to determine whether or not Hauptmann absolutely wrote them, here is that part during the trial: [Wilentz]: All right. Put an r on that page you say you think is the drawing of a little child. (Witness marks page). This book contains writings apparently from 1926 to 1930. I don't see any "r"s similar. This could be because none are written alone, variations due to the time difference (1935), or if he was purposely writing them differently. Michael, I don’t really have any specific personal interpretations as to what all of the Hauptmann memo book diagrams mean, but I don’t believe for a moment that any of them were drawn by “a child.” Am I good or what? I'll offer my takes on why all of the drawings in Hauptmann’s memo books were drawn by Hauptmann, and Hauptmann alone. And I won’t be surprised or offended if you choose to ignore or even ridicule them. After all, you’ve been able to successfully piggyback on the 90-year-old ‘Lindy-Did-It’ theory, in part based on ‘revelations’ such as chewing gum swagger, meat skewers in the morgue, an alleged ransom money box languishing in a bush for a week-and-a-half, Lindy’s non-descript tongue-lashing of Betty Gow, not to mention brown Curtis hats thrown into the ocean, so all bets are off. I won't ridicule, rather, I'll just say its crazy. You are also continuing to formulate your positions based on what you think I think. That is skewing your position on these things. Just look at how you are willing to shrug off real and provable events while stretching beyond belief to the point you are suggesting Hauptmann drew that house and star in his notebook. First of all, these were Hauptmann’s private memo books, period. Hauptmann would have allowed no child the latitude to commandeer them for the sake of his or her personal amusement. Yes, Hauptmann claimed they were drawn by a “visiting child”, yet for some reason, he couldn’t provide the name of that same child. Surprised? Otherwise, I’m sure you would have somehow been able to snoop out this kid during your archival research and titled one of your book chapters accordingly. Please tell me you have a lead on this little curmudgeon! You are making things up. Handwriting Experts Tyrell and Osborn BOTH agreed that other people wrote in Hauptmann's "little notebook" but I suppose you missed that too? (V3 Pages 463-6) Next, I am quite sure I remember Wilentz himself suggesting there were things in S-261 that Hauptmann did NOT write. Do you have the Trial Transcripts or are you going to make me look this up? If you want my best opinion here, these two pages were drawn by Richard Hauptmann either at some stage of intoxication or otherwise-elevated mood, during his planning stage before the kidnapping, or possibly in a state of reverie, while congratulating himself on what a great man he was, after the fact. I don't, but would love to know exactly where these diagrams appear in what memo books, in order to attempt to estimate the date they were drawn. Perhaps during some future trip to the archives. You are entitled to your opinion but if you think Hauptmann drew that house, and star then I don't know what else to say. You are skipping over the obvious and putting your money down on the longest of long-shots that ever existed. In short, it makes no sense. Regarding the diagram of the recessed rung design for the ladder that Hauptmann built, also found in his memo books. By no stretch was this diagram, with its highly-accurate right angle perspective and even showing lighter lines to denote the hidden areas of the rung, the work of a “visiting child.” Wilentz and Peacock were no dummies. Yet Hauptmann denied this one too as well as the "window" diagram, again attributing these to his "visiting child." It blows me away at times to imagine how one person could have been such a liar and/or in so much denial. There are other diagrams as you know, which I’ll try to post later as a file transfer, and all of them are the work of Richard Hauptmann. The supposed ladder sketch is something different and once again, I think you need to revisit the Trial Testimony. As I recall sitting here, Hauptmann didn't testify a child drew it there. I think he said he couldn't remember, that he didn't draw it, or both. It was Wilentz, as I remember, that tried to put those words in his mouth. Wilentz also suggested it may have been a bookshelf probably as a means to try to get Hauptmann to admit drawing it there. Smart move because it does resemble a bookshelf. Anyway, what I am seeing you do is move away from your original post onto something new. And in doing so, you are trying to lump all the sketches together as if all things must have been created by one person. That doesn't work. Why? Because a child obviously drew the house and the star. The square with the line through it could have been made by anyone but since its on the same page, I would wager its related to the child in some way. The "game" could have been made by an adult for the child or perhaps by an older child. So as we get further and further away from the fact that someone on the Prosecution side slipped something into the Jury room to be considered that shouldn't have been, you can drag in any sketch you like and say Hauptmann drew it if you think that will help. The notebook itself seems to be in chronological order at first. Going from 1926 to 1930. Next, there is the sketch of the bookshelf and two blank pages. The next page is from 1930. Next, there is a blank page and another sketch that Hauptmann denied drawing. The next page seems to be from 1927 and the next 1926. The next is undated, followed by a blank page, followed by the two pages of sketches we are discussing right now. Next two pages are undated, and the next two after that appear to be from 1928. The variable to consider is that during the testimony, I think I remember Wilentz referencing missing pages or pages that were torn out. Again, revisit the testimony and I'm sure you'll see I'm right. I'd have to boot up my desktop to do this so hopefully you can save me the trouble from doing that. My desktop is old and the file explorer sometimes doesn't work so I have to reboot and reboot until it does.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Sept 11, 2022 19:39:35 GMT -5
OK, I can see 2s and 8s, I thought they were script letter S and R. Perhaps it was a game like tic-tac-toe that we've all played with our children while waiting for our food to come at the restaurant, maybe Hauptman needed to entertain some youngster for a few minutes and asked "Can you draw me a star?, "now, can you draw me a house"? Still the 2s and 8s both look like they were written by an adult.
My question was does any other page in the notebook have notations at the top to indicate that they were evidence? Joe answered my question.
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Sept 12, 2022 11:22:29 GMT -5
Michael, I don’t really have any specific personal interpretations as to what all of the Hauptmann memo book diagrams mean, but I don’t believe for a moment that any of them were drawn by “a child.” Your imaginative meanderings here are interesting, and Geez, it never occurred to me Hauptmann was planning a nighttime kidnapping! There's also a bit of craftiness here on your part, within your intention to shield cherished ‘face-of-the case’ poster boy, Richard Hauptmann, keeping him safely distanced from any possible notion he might have actually dreamt up this kidnapping on his own, even though the substantial evidence that you prefer to downplay, tells us he very likely did. But that wouldn’t look too good for Charles Lindbergh having done the planning. And so, alas, the general case constipation goes on and on, with little or no real progress made.. but I digress. I’ll offer my takes on why all of the drawings in Hauptmann’s memo books were drawn by Hauptmann, and Hauptmann alone. And I won’t be surprised or offended if you choose to ignore or even ridicule them. After all, you’ve been able to successfully piggyback on the 90-year-old ‘Lindy-Did-It’ theory, in part based on ‘revelations’ such as chewing gum swagger, meat skewers in the morgue, an alleged ransom money box languishing in a bush for a week-and-a-half, Lindy’s non-descript tongue-lashing of Betty Gow, not to mention brown Curtis hats thrown into the ocean, so all bets are off. First of all, these were Hauptmann’s private memo books, period. Hauptmann would have allowed no child the latitude to commandeer them for the sake of his or her personal amusement. Yes, Hauptmann claimed they were drawn by a “visiting child”, yet for some reason, he couldn’t provide the name of that same child. Surprised? Otherwise, I’m sure you would have somehow been able to snoop out this kid during your archival research and titled one of your book chapters accordingly. Please tell me you have a lead on this little curmudgeon! The reason I asked about the perceived age of a child who would have drawn these seemingly-whimsical diagrams is because of their direct indication this child would have had to have been many different ages at the same time, up to and including a young adult. I’d invite you to talk to any elementary school teacher who has seen countless thousands of drawings made by children of all ages and abilities and ask them. Fortunately, I have a few in my own family, regardless of the many things that stand out here without myriad opinions required. First of all, take a look at those two side-by-side pages with the house on the right and the three other drawings on the left. Do you see any connection and commonalities among all four? Look at their line structure and thickness, the apparently-little hesitation within each stroke, and how precisely each connects to the next line. The same firmness and unwavering nature of each stroke, are great indications they were done by the same person and with the same writing utensil, presumably a pencil. In spite of their nonsensical imagery and childish appearance, these drawings were done by someone with a considerable degree of design and drawing experience. Ask a professional draftsman to draw something that looks like it was done by a pre-teen child, and this is what you’re likely to get. Look at the ‘boldened’ area of the house roof, attained by repeated back and forth strokes. The identical effect is found in the top left drawing, creating a reasonable connection between both pages. The three diagrams on the left are accurately spaced apart. The second diagram on the left provides the best clue, in my opinion. A rectangular box well divided into six segments of similar area, each with some kind of dotted letter or numerical reference. What kind of child draws in such intriguing geometry and symbol-based form, as is demonstrated here? If you want my best opinion here, these two pages were drawn by Richard Hauptmann either at some stage of intoxication or otherwise-elevated mood, during his planning stage before the kidnapping, or possibly in a state of reverie, while congratulating himself on what a great man he was, after the fact. I don't, but would love to know exactly where these diagrams appear in what memo books, in order to attempt to estimate the date they were drawn. Perhaps during some future trip to the archives. Regarding the diagram of the recessed rung design for the ladder that Hauptmann built, also found in his memo books. By no stretch was this diagram, with its highly-accurate right angle perspective and even showing lighter lines to denote the hidden areas of the rung, the work of a “visiting child.” Wilentz and Peacock were no dummies. Yet Hauptmann denied this one too as well as the "window" diagram, again attributing these to his "visiting child." It blows me away at times to imagine how one person could have been such a liar and/or in so much denial. There are other diagrams as you know, which I’ll try to post later as a file transfer, and all of them are the work of Richard Hauptmann. 🤯🤯🤯😹😹😹💩💩💩
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Sept 13, 2022 9:53:58 GMT -5
Re: the six-pointed object made on the drawing. This has been referred to as a "star" though stars in the US usually have five points, not six. The six-pointed star has specific uses. This may not be a star but an awkward attempt to copy a hexagram from another drawing.
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Sept 13, 2022 10:21:13 GMT -5
The house is also oddly shaped with a sun or moon above it. There may be some astrological inferences to be made here. I will try to attach a wiccan symbol requesting protection for comparison. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Sept 13, 2022 12:13:01 GMT -5
The house is also oddly shaped with a sun or moon above it. There may be some astrological inferences to be made here. I will try to attach a wiccan symbol requesting protection for comparison. I think you are reading too much into what is clearly the work of a bored child.
|
|