|
Post by kanneedwards on Mar 18, 2006 9:43:52 GMT -5
michael, weve had some family illness and are heading north but i wanted to know--- what makes you feel RBH was invovled? Is it the money, the board, his expenditures,his lying,poor alibis, condon's id or anything else? In my mind these questions have been answered but not the questions involving other aspects of the crime, too many to list. Is it one thing or many that cause you to believe he is involved? I always value your impressions and thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 18, 2006 11:46:41 GMT -5
Kathy,
I am sorry to hear about your situation and wish and your family well.
The question you ask, for me, isn't a black and white one. I believe there are differing levels of involvement and that each role creates a situation to which someone may be more culpable then the next guy.
I look at the totality of the circumstances here and I think its beyond the law of averages that Hauptmann isn't somehow in the know at some point within the process. For me, the argument becomes when and exactly what his role was.
If someone says something is absolutely correct and I find a hole in it then I must raise the issue because we all know there was some underhandedness going on here. I am convinced the Authorities felt 100% sure Hauptmann was involved. I am also 100% sure they knew there were Accomplices but Hauptmann wasn't talking so in order to get their conviction they didn't want the jury to confuse this fact with Hauptmann possibly being innocent somehow.... So they proceeded as they did. It's unfortunate in more ways then one.
I personally do not believe Hauptmann was in Hopewell on March 1, 1932.
One thing is for sure in my mind: This crime was way bigger then Hauptmann and involved several people.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Mar 19, 2006 23:03:01 GMT -5
Michael,
Was wondering why you lean that Hauptmann was not there that night ? Are you saying his alibi at the bakery holds up for you?
If you believe it is his handwriting on the first note and you believe at the very least he had the last touch of construction of the ladder he would have to pass these props of the crime to another to use. That is if he was not in Hopewell.
It has been my thought the possibility the crime was planned for that particular day on very short notice. Perhaps the crime was planned well in advance but the decision of that night March 1st came very quickly. Perhaps Hauptmann in possession of the ladder had to drop it off to those or the one that performed the kidnapping. Perhaps the assumption Lindbergh would be at the dinner provided the go ahead. For those that believe Lindbergh had a role perhaps the dinner would provide Lindbergh an alibi.
The issue that haunts Hauptmann innocent is that every aspect of the case you can find an apparent tie with Hauptmann. The wood evidence and the handwriting would signal the tie in with the kidnapping. The fact he a large portion of the gold notes tie him with the extortion. What evidence clears him from atleast one aspect of these two?
I personally believe Hauptmann was being honest when he says " the case will never be closed." How could he even say this without knowing who committed it. Wouldn't it be more appropriate if he was on the up to say something like ........Someday someone will come forward and by their confession I will be proven innocent but he says never be closed. Thats why I believe the events are not all linked to the kidnapping. I think the drama included more that ended with the kidnapping.
|
|
|
Post by rick for gary on Mar 20, 2006 4:47:47 GMT -5
Hi Gary/ sorry for butting in:
First off, noone can really tell who wrote the first ransom note but there is certainly alot of agreement that it is different from all the rest. Both the disquised handwriting and the finer points of the symbol construction do not match the rest. You can see this clearly in Scaduto Scapegoat page 161. Bern, Hoffman etc made a big point to this. Bern thought CAL wrote the first note and put it into the Nursery himself? In the trial only the word "IS" was thought to be similar at all to BRH so thats thin. BUT...the holes match so thats a huge connudrum? Unless CAL brings the note back from the Bronx too? Yikes.
2. Having Fisch for a buddy and business partner is clearly not good for BRHs health. If in fact, Novitotsky is JJ Faulkner, then he is a master forger and could copy BRHs handwriting. Fisch has an airtight alibi for March 1st so that makes him suspicious. Fisch then leaves towne for Connecticutt? Maybe what BRH is referring to in his complex remark is that 1. the LKC is far more complicated than we can easily figure out {does Condon already know Fisch and BRH?] and that the Truth died with Fisch in Leipsig? Fisch's activities are central to the solution and BRH isnt talking.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Mar 20, 2006 8:08:15 GMT -5
Rick, I never mind you butting in. I appreciate always adding in. I noted your opinion a ways back and as anything I always keep an open mind. I see the differences and have considered what it could mean. I still respect that it appears to be the same paper pad used . I think this is one of the most important issues of the case because it could be a component of seperating those that kidnapped and those involved in the extortion. However I can not accept a definite here and so its one more topic a position is hard to make. Perhaps someone else can convince me the first note is the same as the others or different than the others.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 20, 2006 8:09:14 GMT -5
You see Rick this is where I don't understand your objective. Gary has a legitimate and excellent question regarding BRH's involvement and you are misleading him. You admit Hauptmann was involved in the kidnapping, so why do you claim the nursery note signature is different from the rest? Looks like we have to pay for another test here to show that the holes were all made together.
|
|
|
Post by rick the member on Mar 20, 2006 8:37:52 GMT -5
As usual, Kevin, you focus on me and my socalled motives and objectives. Im going to start calling you Son of Schoenfeld? I hope you arnt as wrong about the facts of the case as you are at projecting your missed interpretations of my posts. 1. I never said I thought BRH guilty of the kidnapping, if there actually was a kidnapping? 2. In spite of all the whining about the Nursery Note it is not the same hand as the remaining notes either in the handwriting or the Symbol. Gary is a big boy and he can go look at Scapegoat page 160+ to see that for his own self. The handwriting is crude starting right out with the Dear Sir and does not match the style or form of notes 2 and 3. The singnature is crudely or sloppily done and would not be recognized as the Vesica Pisces in that form. YES--the holes match so I guess at least the hole maker is abourd. One outta 3 aint bad so youre batting 0.3333333/
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 20, 2006 8:44:13 GMT -5
Sorry Rick , I thought you had a purpose. Since I know now that you have none , why the constant mis-information and mis direction? The nursery note and ransom notes can be connected regardless of the handwriting and I think you know that. I thought you were complaining some posts ago about not being able to get anywhere in this case. Is it any wonder when we have to keep re hashing what we can determine as fact ? Once again I will put my money where my mouth is regarding the nursery note, are you game?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 20, 2006 21:21:52 GMT -5
Gary,
Sorry about the delay in getting back to you. Sometimes I research for just one post and it takes me a while to get through.... What sux is that this research sometimes turns up nothing and/or I am just trying to cover my bases and not make any mistakes within a post.
I believe Hauptmann was not in Hopewell for several reasons. The alibi Witnesses strike me as believable especially when you factor in Anna's testimony. Now Anna's testimony is believable because she refused to say she saw the Fisch Box in the closet. If she was lying about Hauptmann picking her up then surely she would have lied here too.
Furthermore, there is the account I found in one of Lewis's reports claiming Mrs. Rauch said Hauptmann had been home that night. She heard him through the walls talking in German with someone about a "fire." Mrs. Rauch was afraid he was talking about burning the house down to collect the insurance money.
There's also the Miller account where he claimed to have driven by and saw a light on in that apartment.... Can't remember where I read this so I'll have to hunt for it if you are interested....
Additionally, I don't believe Lupica is seeing Hauptmann and we all know that Whited lied and Hochmuth was crazy. Rossiter was shown by A & M to be pumping Lupica for information so he could compliment his account so he certainly can't be trusted.
I am still 50/50 on the handwriting, and I never believed the ladder was built in Hauptmann's garage.
I believe this crime had been planned well in advance and wasn't perpetrated by some immigrant with psych issues blindly and at the last minute.
There's definitely an inside connection no matter who is involved and at what level.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 21, 2006 8:42:23 GMT -5
" I never believed the ladder was built in Hauptmann's garage."
Would you accept partial construction in the garage with remote assembly?
"There's definitely an inside connection no matter who is involved and at what level"
Why are you so convinced of this and does this include "passive" involvement?
|
|
|
Post by m60dick on Mar 22, 2006 12:08:11 GMT -5
Hi Kids.
Yesterday somebody posted somewhere about Hauptman not being guilty--I can not find it so will tack on my reply here.
The writer talked about what a tragedy it was for Anna and Manfried--and I agree it was. However I do not agree, as the writer seems to suggest--that RBH was railroaded.
Look, I agree that neither The Eagle nor his servants nor Dr Condon were all they appeared to be at first glance. And goodness knows, the police, prosecutor, and judge were not always fair. And I also agree there are so many loose ends that defy logic (which does not make them impossible however)---that 100 years from now this board will still be well-visited.
On the other hand--is there anyone else whom all the evidnece points toward except RBH? We have the money, we have several partial descriptions--some that changed over time maybe but several who were nearly spot-on from jump street; the attic board, yes Bornman lied about ripping it out with his bare hands maybe and yes the modern rules of disclosure were non-existant but that does not mean the evidence is flawed. Stout Governor Hoffman even squeezed into the attic to take a look and was apparently satisfied with a subsquent nail/nail hole verification (and here was a man who was mightily striving to believe RBH was innocent), read Gardner again--if you do not believe the attic board came from RBH's attic--where then did it come from? Gardner admits to no reasonable way the cops could have staged the attic board. There are also the nails, I am not sure if it is posted on this site, but I have read of a tour-de-force a nail specialist did with the Pittsburg Steel Company's nails. Using the identification mark on the head, he traced a certain lot to I think three kegs sold and some of the nails found in RBH's garage were of the lot--yes many others also bought nails from that lot--but still one more piece of evidence.
So, from my view, the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. I can say this--Scott Peterson is on Death Row by virture of much LESS such evidence.
I liken this to my fascination with JFK's assination. Like many Americans, I did not want to believe that Oswald used a cheap mail order Italian rifle and did the dirty deed alone. Just had to be a conspiracy, right? Maybe Tippit was suppose to knock-off Oswald and when the reverse happened, shady Jack Ruby had to cap Lee Harvey. And I read all the books and all the theories until one day I read the true story of how Ruby ended-up at the jail that day. One of his dancers/hookers needed some money wired to her and the place to wire it from was across from the jail. The receipt for the completed wire transaction was found on Ruby---no plan or conspiracy--it was a sudden, rash act by a guy not all wired right. So maybe it was really all that simple--Lee Harvey had a crackpot idea and by golly--he pulled it off by himself.
So, despite no evidence actually placing RBH at Hopewell--maybe he did do the deed. With a lot of luck and fate, one rainy might he slapped a raggedy ladder agains the house and pulled it off--whether everyone will believe it or not.
Regards All, Dick
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 22, 2006 16:18:48 GMT -5
Yes, never underestimate the havoc one person can create. A cheap carbine in the hands of a marine or a crude ladder scaled by a determined kidnapper can change history.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 22, 2006 19:30:05 GMT -5
I get a lot of email concerning "lost" posts on this board. Try using the search feature in the information center above. It allows you to search all or individual threads for specific key words in the posts. The google engine below isn't half as good for the purposes this one above serves.....
Interesting summary Dick.
I have to disagree with some of it though, especially what you've written about Gov. Hoffman. I've spent quite a some time on the Governor's position and I find myself more or less believing now as he did then, that is, not that Hauptmann was innocent but that there was much more to this story and that more people were involved. Hoffman could trust neither Schwarzkopf nor Wilentz and for good reason.
Now to the attic scenario you mention which took place in March of '36....Hoffman never accepted this evidence and always believed something illegal happened in this attic.
Now there's no doubt in my mind reports were back-dated, and Keohler and Bornmann can't contradict each other and both still be correct. Something nefarious did occur in that attic. However, Kevin's new theory, which is supported by Rab's previous observations - seems to answer the question of absurdity surrounding the S-226/Rail 16 mess. It could have been the Police weren't smart enough to put 2 + 2 together as Kevin did here.....I don't know yet.
Stanley Keith's nail report can not be more correct than Pittsburg Steel's very own metal and nail Experts can it? I mean he is contradicting them and looking for publicity so we must be very careful what we accept as absolute fact. Of course it doesn't mean he is wrong but how many people knew about the Pittsburg Steel investigation and what had been revealed?
We only know today thanks to Governor Hoffman's intervention.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Mar 22, 2006 23:02:21 GMT -5
Guilty People are found innocent, and innocent judged guilty all the time with the help of clever lawyers legal tricks. One slip of court procedure (Masoqui Case) can change the outcome, and many people think Haupman's guilt is written in stone by the court. What is realy flimsy evidence convicted him mostly by public sentiment.
Wood evidence: Could only be comparable if all saw rip marks compare, and not comparable if even a fraction inch piece is missing. A simple fraction inch sanding can change wood grain points, and the planeing excuse was not reasonable arguement.
Gold Certificates: Hauptman was brokering for friends, and had a reasonable excuse that Reily failed to defend.
Handwriting: Many experts disagree on this issue, since am not an expert was told by an expert samples cannot be proven in court unless from documents compared from same time period. Many factors change handwriting (prescriptions, family pressure, etc.), and since only certain perhaps forced letters compared, a good lawyer could have argued them out.
|
|
|
Post by m60dick on Mar 23, 2006 7:25:15 GMT -5
Michael,
Good point of view on the Governor. There is no doubt the prosecution did all they could to enhance their case--including shenanigans over the attic board---but only in the sense of how it was found and removed. And also true Koheler may have post-dated observations to make him look better-all with a book in mind.
But still one can not get by, it seems to me, that there is no way a fake matching board could have been planted. Board 16 had to have came from that attic.
Dick
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 23, 2006 19:52:07 GMT -5
Dick,
Matching S-226 and Rail 16 seems very unlikely if one has Rail 16 but not S-226. However, it hasn't been proven conclusively they match as far as I am concerned - heck an Expert hired by the NJSP during their review in the late 70's had the luxury of invasive study and still refused to make the identification. Of course we then have Dr. Hoadley's position which demands tremendous consideration. Then we have Kelvin's observations/photographs. Again, no Expert I have ever communicated with used such absolute terms as Kelvin does in his report - one being an Expert cited within Kel's own report.
However, I agree if its ever determined that S-226 and Rail 16 are the same species then to hunt for and find a piece so nearly matching as it seems to would require the Police to find a board within the stand in which Rail 16's origin grew. This seems impossible yet we are all supposed to believe they found pieces of wood in a lumber yard from lot of approx 2200 ft planed at least (2) years earlier by matching the planer marks on it with those on Rails 12 & 13. I seem to be the only one who ever points this out.
The biggest problem for me is the "what if" S-226 never laid in that attic in the first place? What if it could be shown that attic floor was never that wide when Koski packed up and went home at the end of the day in 1926?
I've also raised an eyebrow at the fact Samuelsohn is at the Training School identifying part of the ladder as his on 9-26, the exact same date as Bornmann's supposed discovery of S-226. It was also on this date that he turned over to the Police several "left-over" pieces from this job. Did he build the box? He claimed he did and and everyone accepts that fact. But he claims he built the ladder and suddenly the man is nutz....but not enough to say he didn't build that box.
Kevin's and Rab's position seems to make the most sense and leads us even closer to the most likely scenario - however, we simply can not say the puzzle is finished until all the pieces are where they belong.
Hauptmann is involved....I think some who defend him absolutely tend to believe he was involved but without knowledge of the fact. I can not accept his possession of part of the ransom without knowledge of its source. I've argued every point there is and I'm all argued out. He was captured for being stupid and not spending the money the way the others had been. This was not his area of expertise in my opinion.
Now having said the above, there is no way in hell Hauptmann is the "mastermind" this event.
Not a chance.
I am convinced Squire Johnson was correct. There were two people involved in the construction of this ladder. Obviously, if Rail 16 came from the basement then Hauptmann either added it to, or gave it to those constructing or fixing the ladder.
There's no way Hauptmann, let alone anyone else went into that attic for this piece of wood. Only Hauptmann, or another tenant would have been able to go to the basement and take the left-overs....I can't accept anyone else doing this for any purpose - especially to frame Hauptmann. The way he was spending that ransom effectively "framed" himself.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Mar 24, 2006 1:47:49 GMT -5
Yes Michael. A thought that should be well considered. Board s226 found in possession of Samulesohn, the true builder of the ladder, and then placed in Hauptmann's attic. if you think it couldn't happen. Think again. We already know about erased employment records at the Majestic
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 24, 2006 6:41:02 GMT -5
I am with you here Gary....
The worst is the ink blobs on the timecard. Hauptmann quit April 2nd so they really screwed this one up. The problem with the Samuelsohn/S-226 connection is that if any of Samuelsohn's pieces he handed over to the NJSP match then that means his only identification while at the NJSP concerning the ladder would be Rails 16, 12, and 13.
Then we have to assume they really went to work up in that attic.
It could be they were afraid of the publicity generated by Samuelsohn's story and that their "discovery" came afterwards - so they backdated the reports, and lie about what actually happened in order to counter any claims that we imply above.
Kevin's theory makes a lot of sense and its obvious the Police missed this or they would have just worked from the basement, or at least that's what I would have done. The problem is we can only guess at their motivation but we know they lied about certain things there.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 24, 2006 8:28:22 GMT -5
No cabinetmaker ever made that ladder in the first instance. It is even hard to be that sloppy when you copy it.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Mar 24, 2006 9:41:19 GMT -5
I think this whole Samuelsohn angle has in part sidetracked the issue of who really built the ladder. There is only clear and compelling evidence directly linking Hauptmann to it's construction, via Rail 16, the connection to the memo book ladder diagram, the tool mark evidence. It makes very little sense to me why anyone, a carpenter to boot, would go to a cabinetmaker in the first place, and ask him to build a ladder, that is also going to be used in the kidnapping of the son of Charles Lindbergh.
Joe
|
|
|
Post by rick62 member on Mar 24, 2006 11:58:12 GMT -5
Yes--Why Hauptmann?
If we rely on Squire Johnson, the only person to see the ladder prior to reconstruction, we need to find an ambidextrous builder, or two builders, on right and one left handed? Maybe Charlie Shippell?
If we rely on Condons half-truths, for anything at all I might add, then Samuelson built the ladder, the box and the reproduction ladder? Fisch could easily have been a co-conspirator in this. We dont yet know WHY Condon lied about all this?
|
|
|
Post by m60dick on Mar 24, 2006 12:39:20 GMT -5
Michael and All,
I think we need to consider how many times all aspects of this case have been examined and reexamined with a fine-tooth comb; often with powerful tools not available to prior generations. Therefore I do not find it surprising that flaws and holes have been found. Yes, in nearly every piece of evidence one can find an alternate possibility. However, the totality of the circumstantial evidence still points to Bruno being on that ladder as well as getting the ransom money—just not by himself.
I think it is also good to revisit the older documents for balance. Yesterday for example I was rereading the transcript form one of Swarzkoph’s conferences. The question was asked did anyone find the location of the grave hard to believe? Someone opined “no” as that spot was the first place in that direction where a car could pull safely off the road. This same person also stated he did not find it impossible to believe the kidnappers would negotiate with full knowledge the baby was already dead. Now, whether you agree or not—such statements have to be factored in.
It is a real tragedy the dual set of footprints leading away from the house was never introduced during the trial. By claiming the ladder was a prop, the defense could not then acknowledge the tracks. And of course the prosecution did not want that evidence to see the light of day as it cut across their lone wolf theory.
In spite of the awfulness of his crime, I have a certain affinity and sympathy for RBH. He was a machine gunner in war as was I (Vietnam) And the trauma from same surely exacerbated already existing flaws in his character. If his crime occurred nowadays, surely PTSD would be a cornerstone of the defense.
As exhibited by his jail escape and his repeated stowaway attempts, RBH was a clever, resourceful man not easily discouraged. He was also not averse to taking a risk and was no coward. He landed in this country with nothing, absolutely nothing, and shortly started building a life for himself; even if it is clear some of the life came from illicit means—even before the kidnapping. In a word, RBH had the git-up-and-go, the fire in the belly; as well as an apparent cold and calculating side.
Michael, you state you find it hard to believe RBH was the ring-leader. I don’t because, in addition to the above-mentioned characteristics—I also believe him to have been a very intelligent man. Americans can be very bad about equating difficulty with English with lack of intelligence. While it is true that RBH had trouble speaking and writing it, especially in times of duress, he could read it very well as exhibited in the pride he took in allegedly reading the NY Times every day.
I also offer into evidence the final letter to his mother allegedly withheld until after his execution. Unless someone polished it up greatly during translation—it has all the marks of being written by a thoughtful, intelligent man.
Michael, you also state RBH nearly framed himself. Well, if you do not have any cash flow or a job—you gotta start spending those certificates sometime……. His biggest weakness and reason for getting caught? Like Scott Peterson he was smug and arrogant and thought he was too smart to be caught……….
Michael, you mentioned in an earlier post another nail study with differing conclusions than the one I spoke of; could you please supply me a link to both? Thanks!
Also, are there any statements from the Bronx German community regards to what kind of man RBH was and what they thought the truth was?
Dick
|
|
|
Post by rick62 member on Mar 24, 2006 14:14:33 GMT -5
Yo Dick.....I dont think so. You should have joined the group in 2005 and read some my now long-gone most memorable Top 10 Posts:
1. Top 10 reasons why Fisch is Cemetary John 2. Top 10 reasons why BRH is not Cemetary John 3. Top 10 blunders by CAL --obviously JFC being #10
Anyways, one of the most obvious facts to emerge in the past 18 months is that Fisch and not BRH is clearly the central figure on the criminal side of the ledger. Fisch knows practically all the Main Players on the Extortion Side to include: Violet Sharpe, Ollie Whateley, John Condon, Mary Cerrita, Peter Biratella, Charles Schleser, Joe DiGrasi and Paul E. Wendel from Trenton.
Not even "circumstantial" evidence connects BRH to any one of these persons or groups and thereby I consider BRH "Tailend Charlie"who ends up holding the box. No footprints or fingerprints connect BRH to the so-called kidnapping. Sure, BRH is in, just not into any Nursery.
BRH was clearly not clever enough to avoid passing outdated and illegal Gold Notes at a gas station in his own car. Yikes/ thats pretty clever! Just clever enough to get electrocuted! Not the brains of a common thief.
The bulk of the "unbiased" testimony and accompaning documentation puts BRH at work on Tuesday March 1st, and also picking up Anna at the Bakery. But then again--thats exactly what you would expect of the Mastermind of the Century. No airtight alibi at all to speak about.
|
|
|
Post by m60dick on Mar 24, 2006 14:32:13 GMT -5
Rick,
Whatever else I lack--I do have an open mind. Send whatever you want to:
arnold_richard_J@lilly.com
As well as any other fair-minded perosn on this site.....
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 24, 2006 14:48:56 GMT -5
Rick I can certainly see your point about Fisch. He was certainly living the good life after masterminding the kidnapping.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 24, 2006 15:07:22 GMT -5
However, the totality of the circumstantial evidence still points to Bruno being on that ladder as well as getting the ransom money—just not by himself.(Dick)
***The circumstantial evidence certainly points to his involvement but I hesitate to say it puts him on the ladder.
This same person also stated he did not find it impossible to believe the kidnappers would negotiate with full knowledge the baby was already dead. Now, whether you agree or not—such statements have to be factored in.(Dick)
***Which conference is this? I'd like to look this up. I agree all of these sources and accounts need to be considered and factored into our discussion and/or debates.
It is a real tragedy the dual set of footprints leading away from the house was never introduced during the trial. By claiming the ladder was a prop, the defense could not then acknowledge the tracks. And of course the prosecution did not want that evidence to see the light of day as it cut across their lone wolf theory.(Dick)
***The Police lied about the prints at trial. And as we see in Dr. Gardner's book, The Case That Never Dies, they even had at least one cast made if not more. How many guesses why it wasn't introduced? This exculpatory evidence being hidden from the Defense and then lied about never gave them an opportunity to use it - and I believe they still would have because I do not see it erasing the possibility of the ladder being a prop.
RBH was a clever, resourceful man not easily discouraged. He was also not averse to taking a risk and was no coward.(Dick)
***Agreed, but I don't see how this explains away the impossible situation occurring here. How could he have been discouraged when we are to believe it simply happened the way we are told? You'd have to include monumental luck as another attribute here for each and every angle and aspect of this crime .
Michael, you state you find it hard to believe RBH was the ring-leader. I don’t because, in addition to the above-mentioned characteristics—I also believe him to have been a very intelligent man. Americans can be very bad about equating difficulty with English with lack of intelligence. (Dick)
***I think you misunderstand me here. I don't think BRH wasn't the ringleader because he was stupid. I simply don't see him as having the ability to mastermind this crime. I have been through the 1600 files at least 8 times and I see him acting as a follower - maybe a partner at most. I see him as eager and willing to make an easy buck with those he trusted.
Michael, you also state RBH nearly framed himself. Well, if you do not have any cash flow or a job—you gotta start spending those certificates sometime……. His biggest weakness and reason for getting caught? Like Scott Peterson he was smug and arrogant and thought he was too smart to be caught……….(Dick)
***I am not so sure about this Dick.
Michael, you mentioned in an earlier post another nail study with differing conclusions than the one I spoke of; could you please supply me a link to both? Thanks!(Dick)
***There is no link to this because its in my files. I also have a letter written to Governor Hoffman by Keith's relative disavowing his work. Again, this is in line with your position listed above. Many angles of this case have information to be found or unrevealed.
Also, are there any statements from the Bronx German community regards to what kind of man RBH was and what they thought the truth was?(Dick)
***Are you referring to his neighbors and/or associates? If you mean just those Germans in the Bronx in general then I'd have to say there must be at the Archives. I usually don't copy or take note of something coming from just a random person on the street at the time. Maybe someone else knows who has looked closer at this aspect than I have.
No cabinetmaker ever made that ladder in the first instance. It is even hard to be that sloppy when you copy it.(Kevin)
***Here's the thing Kevin.... (From memory) Samuelsohn claims (2) men came and ordered pieces to be cut to specifications. They returned with corrections. Then different people came and retrieved the pieces. Samuelsohn identified part of the ladder at the Training School as his work, that is, what he cut to the specifications. I don't think he ever claimed to have put the ladder together. There is also another witness to this "ladder" being in Samuelsohn's shop that no one seems to know about - yet.
I think it boils down to either Samuelsohn is telling the turth, lying, or mistaken. If he is mistaken then he did build something for someone who, one of which, was Hauptmann.
I think this whole Samuelsohn angle has in part sidetracked the issue of who really built the ladder. (Joe)
***Not necessarily. It must be investigated, and as I suggest above, might explain the conduct of the Police in that attic.
There is only clear and compelling evidence directly linking Hauptmann to it's construction, via Rail 16, the connection to the memo book ladder diagram, the tool mark evidence.(Joe)
***The trifecta of circumstances definitely hurts the position that he didn't have a hand in it. Each point can be argued but when combined, the totality seems a bit much to overcome. Do you think Hauptmann single-handedly built that ladder? Where do you think he built it? If you believe he used his sergent's plane on Rail 16 and some of the rungs - why didn't he use it on the rest of the ladder? Why didn't he use his sharper plane where he did use the Sergents?
It makes very little sense to me why anyone, a carpenter to boot, would go to a cabinetmaker in the first place, and ask him to build a ladder, that is also going to be used in the kidnapping of the son of Charles Lindbergh.(Joe)
***Everything to do with this case makes "little sense" Joe.
If we rely on Condons half-truths, for anything at all I might add, then Samuelson built the ladder, the box and the reproduction ladder?(Rick)
***Good point Rick. Condon did say he knew the man who built that ladder.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 24, 2006 16:08:07 GMT -5
"***Here's the thing Kevin.... (From memory) Samuelsohn claims (2) men came and ordered pieces to be cut to specifications. They returned with corrections. Then different people came and retrieved the pieces. Samuelsohn identified part of the ladder at the Training School as his work, that is, what he cut to the specifications. I don't think he ever claimed to have put the ladder together. There is also another witness to this "ladder" being in Samuelsohn's shop that no one seems to know about - yet." ( Michael)
Michael, my point is that the sloppiness of the cuts, planing, and layout of that ladder are contrary to the work of a master carpenter and cabinetmaker. The first replica I built was done without a careful examination of the mortises. The result was that they were clean and tight. The second copy was more accurate and I had a hard time consciously being so careless. Since I have not seen the Samuelsohn copy ( are we sure which one it is) up close I don't know how exactly his cuts match Hauptmann's.
"In spite of the awfulness of his crime, I have a certain affinity and sympathy for RBH. He was a machine gunner in war as was I (Vietnam) And the trauma from same surely exacerbated already existing flaws in his character. If his crime occurred nowadays, surely PTSD would be a cornerstone of the defense." ( Dick)
That is an important observation regarding Hauptmann. I think too many people tend to see him in black or white terms and cannot reconcile his good traits with his bad. Who knows how the war affected him as a young man. I think Ford Madox Ford observed this after the trial. I too have or had a certain affinity for Hauptmann as a German and a carpenter.
|
|
|
Post by rick62 member on Mar 24, 2006 18:32:09 GMT -5
Its easy for me to see BRH as a human being, as he seems to have many average human qualities in the movies and in his writing. If you beat him up, he bruises and if you cut him he bleeds. Unlike Fisch, he was not a "wierd loner", but was a typical family man with family and friends, just like CAL and Dwight Morrow Sr. with a job. BRH had a Brand New Car before the Case of the Missing Charlie's. Only 20% of all Americans had a car during the depression. So, what crimes was he committing in the later 1920s and early 30s. Unlike Fisch, Bruno was a family man and took good care of Anna. After the crime, he became a Father and took vacations like a normal family man. None of these things make him innocent or guilty of anything, but hardly a Charles Manson either. Could he be a Nazi spy--you betcha with him driving all over the Countryside.
|
|