Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Jun 1, 2023 12:49:07 GMT -5
Michael, I just wanted to first clarify your statement. What information are you implying I've stated to the contrary? What I did say was that both Hesshaimer sisters were disabled and had difficulty walking. I also questioned why if Lindbergh had really had such apparently deep rooted Eugenics views as is often implied here, he would have chosen to have relationships with women possessing chronic disabilities. Okay, so what I see you now saying is there were no genetic issues with these women which makes your point moot. What I'm now saying? You're incorrect. I did not say there were no genetic issues involved with either woman. Please just read what I wrote, as opposed to simply attempting to misrepresent my statements on the fly in order to inflate the perceived credibility of your own.In an overall sense, I don't believe these views you maintain were held by Lindbergh were as strong as you routinely make them out to be, given that he seemed to have no misgivings about marrying into a family with known examples of physical and mental illnesses, and then having six children with Anne. All one has to do is read his book to discover I am right. It's all right there. Additionally, just look at what he wrote to his own daughter about it. I don't know, it's like you expect we should all ignore this stuff. Your position can only be taken up if one doesn't believe what the man himself is clearly saying in no uncertain terms. Next, as far as marrying Anne, it all depends on the circumstances. What he knew and what he did not prior to the marriage. It also depends on what he believed were the causes once he did become fully aware. For example, if someone broke their arm, and it was never set properly, that is not a genetic defect. If someone is using drugs, impulsive, or moody with no self control, that could be viewed as lack of discipline in upbringing and not one of genetics. It's "reassuring" I guess, to see your cut-and-dry take where it suits your purpose, while always ensuring there's enough wiggle room through your use of thoroughly distracting analogies. Lindbergh understood full well the nature of the family he intended to marry into. During his and Anne's courtship, he spent many hours in their company and clearly related how he felt that for the first time in his life, he was in the presence of a large and loving family. And I believe it was well demonstrated by both partners-to-be having fallen in love with each other and seeing the great potential within their relationship together, that any perceived 'genetic breeding standards' on his part, were not critical to the degree you routinely espouse.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 1, 2023 13:26:16 GMT -5
What I'm now saying? You're incorrect. I did not say there were no genetic issues involved with either woman. Please just read what I wrote, as opposed to simply attempting to misrepresent my statements on the fly in order to inflate the perceived credibility of your own. So you are saying there were genetic issues? If not, again, your point is moot. If so, please state your sources so I can attempt to look them up. It's "reassuring" I guess, to see your cut-and-dry take where it suits your purpose, while always ensuring there's enough wiggle room through your use of thoroughly distracting analogies. Lindbergh understood full well the nature of the family he intended to marry into. During his and Anne's courtship, he spent many hours in their company and clearly related how he felt that for the first time in his life, he was in the presence of a large and loving family. And I believe it was well demonstrated by both partners-to-be having fallen in love with each other and seeing the great potential within their relationship together, that any perceived 'genetic breeding standards' on his part, were not critical to the degree you routinely espouse. This is not a rebuttal to what I wrote. Please re-read it. What you've written is merely based on wishful thinking. If you'd like to move it into the non-fictional category please give sources for this - otherwise its nothing more than drivel. Exactly what you can prove he knew and when. Lindbergh wrote about his views in several documented sources. Attacking me because you don't like what's written in them is irrational.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Jun 1, 2023 19:48:42 GMT -5
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Jun 4, 2023 12:07:10 GMT -5
Joe's finding that "Careu" (Romanian) translates to "Square" (English) prompted the thought that CAL may have been a Freemason. "Square" is a word often slipped into conversation if one mason seeks to recognise a fellow mason. "Is he on the square?" might be asked. Here too is the connection with secrecy. Just a wild idea. Lindbergh was no linguist. He would not have had any knowledge of Romanian or French and little knowledge of German. I suggest that he created the name "Careau" from selecting letters in his own name "Charles Augustus" and probably thought the new name original.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jun 4, 2023 14:46:22 GMT -5
HI Hiram, I agree that's a very plausible origin for the name Careu. And Kent could well have been, as you say, derived from Clark Kent. A man with a secret alter ego, leading a double life. Lindbergh's German son Dirk confirmed in an interview that Lindbergh always conversed with them in English. There's an interesting article on this carrying the Daily Beast logo. If you Google "Lindbergh German Family" you should be able to access it halfway down the page. Apparently US publishers were approached regarding a possible English translation of the German book but there was no interest. Best regards, Sherlock
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Jun 4, 2023 17:03:21 GMT -5
Hello, Sherlock: Thank you very much for the reference to the article in The Daily Beast. The suggestion that Lindbergh found greater satisfaction in his relationships to machines, and not so much to fellow humans, is very interesting. Perhaps his first love was The Spirit of St. Louis. I saw the plane (or a replica) in the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Michigan. Ford also may have had a fascination for machines that move as well. Both Ford and Lindbergh produced fighter planes for several years at Willow Run, Michigan, during WWII. If a person cannot establish good relationships with human beings, then he/she may turn to other objects (dogs, hobby collections, garden plantings, etc.) Interesting thought! Brought up as a single child, a lonely boy, unable to empathize with others, he may well have developed some kind of desperate relationship with lifeless objects that move. OK, so he also liked dogs too. Perhaps someone with knowledge of this psychological problem could make some comments.
Best regards, Hiram
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jun 5, 2023 3:05:23 GMT -5
Its interesting to compare Lindberg's relationship with his wife Anne and Brigitte. He started married life involving Anne closely in his flights and projects but as the children arrived this ceased and they grew apart. With Brigitte there was no period of closeness which negates the idea that he fell deeply in love with her. You don't spend 90% of your time away from a person you love and you don't produce children with those in her immediate circle. Lindbergh could never put himself in the other person's shoes. He seemed oblivious to the feelings of Anne and Brigitte about his long absences. I agree that he was more attached to machines than to people and this was a result of his antecedents and his raising by a cold unemotional mother. We are all the product of our heredity and upbringing, both of which we can't control. So to a great degree I don't blame Lindbergh for his cold anti-social personality but he knew right from wrong and if he was involved in his son's abduction he must take full responsibility.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Jun 30, 2023 17:45:40 GMT -5
Its interesting to compare Lindberg's relationship with his wife Anne and Brigitte. He started married life involving Anne closely in his flights and projects but as the children arrived this ceased and they grew apart. With Brigitte there was no period of closeness which negates the idea that he fell deeply in love with her. You don't spend 90% of your time away from a person you love and you don't produce children with those in her immediate circle. Lindbergh could never put himself in the other person's shoes. He seemed oblivious to the feelings of Anne and Brigitte about his long absences. I agree that he was more attached to machines than to people and this was a result of his antecedents and his raising by a cold unemotional mother. We are all the product of our heredity and upbringing, both of which we can't control. So to a great degree I don't blame Lindbergh for his cold anti-social personality but he knew right from wrong and if he was involved in his son's abduction he must take full responsibility. Sherlock, that's a very massive IF to sum up your post, on the heels of correctly stating Lindbergh knew "right from wrong." He certainly did, and despite his oft anti-social behaviour which did not live up to the standards of a Depression-era public that was essentially starved for headlines to make things appear better for itself, what is it you truly believe might have inspired him beyond his to take this hypothetical and thoroughly-drastic direction that you're surmising here, against the very clear circumstantial physical evidence that damned only a mentally-ill German carpenter from the Bronx?
|
|
|
Post by Wondering on Jul 1, 2023 7:05:17 GMT -5
What is the nature of the mental illness? Temporary or long term?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Jul 1, 2023 8:01:21 GMT -5
What is the nature of the mental illness? Temporary or long term? I believe the length of time Hauptmann that Hauptmann suffered, is a subject entirely open to further debate and really should be covered in a separate thread. Also, when considering the impact of him having been near-fatally struck in the helmet by debris from an exploding shell during WWI, an argument might be made that any changes in his overall sense of judgment due to conditions of the war he endured, were only exacerbated by such a head injury. In any case, I think it's a fair statement that anyone who took the initiative, or even supported the commission of such a crime as the kidnapping of Charles Lindbergh Jr., was far removed from being all right in the head.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 1, 2023 8:50:43 GMT -5
In any case, I think it's a fair statement that anyone who took the initiative, or even supported the commission of such a crime as the kidnapping of Charles Lindbergh Jr., was far removed from being all right in the head. What about a parent who instigates the removal of their child, would you consider that person to be mentally ill?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Jul 1, 2023 10:28:47 GMT -5
In any case, I think it's a fair statement that anyone who took the initiative, or even supported the commission of such a crime as the kidnapping of Charles Lindbergh Jr., was far removed from being all right in the head. What about a parent who instigates the removal of their child, would you consider that person to be mentally ill? I assume you're referring to removal of the child not for its benefit, but for some need on the part of the parent that recognizes a perceived benefit for that same parent by doing so. In which case, yes, I would. Do you have any candidates in mind, based on thorough, objective, impartial investigation and an unbiased representation of the many factors comprising the evidence picture in its totality?
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Jul 1, 2023 11:07:25 GMT -5
Charles Lindbergh had difficulty in personal relationships. He liked planes and early in the relationship with Anne took her to his plane and insisted on her learning to fly. (Bring Me a Unicorn). Anne became his co-pilot, so there were three in the relationship, When the marriage had its problems, Charles turned to the three German women who became his mistresses, but there was little any human relationship with them. An ocean lay between them. He could write a check and a letter once a month or so and visit them when he wished, but he was in total control of the relationships and so avoided any kind of personal human interaction that would occur in a united family or between spouses on a daily basis. This also sometimes occurs when a woman writes to a criminal in prison, someone she did not know on the outside but who is doing time for life or perhaps awaiting a death penalty. She may visit the prisoner occasionally and even send him money for canteen, but she is in complete control of the the relationship. Lindbergh's primary interest was in planes initially. A plane would not ask for money or inquire what he was doing late last evening. Individuals who do not relate well to others may take up a hobby such as collecting stamps or coins eg. Lindbergh was essentially a loner, someone who could not deal with other human beings in a close relationship. I am not suggesting that he was mentally ill but that he functioned better in isolation, perhaps because of lack of siblings or absent father, with few real friends whom he sometimes treated rather badly.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Jul 1, 2023 15:45:02 GMT -5
What is the nature of the mental illness? Temporary or long term? I believe the length of time Hauptmann that Hauptmann suffered, is a subject entirely open to further debate and really should be covered in a separate thread. Also, when considering the impact of him having been near-fatally struck in the helmet by debris from an exploding shell during WWI, an argument might be made that any changes in his overall sense of judgment due to conditions of the war he endured, were only exacerbated by such a head injury. In any case, I think it's a fair statement that anyone who took the initiative, or even supported the commission of such a crime as the kidnapping of Charles Lindbergh Jr., was far removed from being all right in the head. How do you come by a diagnosis of Hauptmann being mentally ill? Not sure I understand this. This topic is certainly worthy of a thread of its own. I think "near-fatally struck" is too strong of a description. He had his metal helmet on and was knocked out but was able to rejoin his comrades and fight on. He did have some swelling at first, though. Hauptmann, himself, explained that his time in the military did shift his moral compass and not for the better. I think this has more bearing on his willingness to commit crimes. Taking from others who have abundance while having little himself is how he rationalized his thefts, making it easier for him to continue doing so. I thought the reason for Hauptmann's involvement with the kidnapping was because he wanted money and not because of mental illness. Lindbergh had plenty of money, and Hauptmann wanted some of it. He understood exactly what he was doing.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Jul 1, 2023 18:45:44 GMT -5
I believe the length of time Hauptmann that Hauptmann suffered, is a subject entirely open to further debate and really should be covered in a separate thread. Also, when considering the impact of him having been near-fatally struck in the helmet by debris from an exploding shell during WWI, an argument might be made that any changes in his overall sense of judgment due to conditions of the war he endured, were only exacerbated by such a head injury. In any case, I think it's a fair statement that anyone who took the initiative, or even supported the commission of such a crime as the kidnapping of Charles Lindbergh Jr., was far removed from being all right in the head. How do you come by a diagnosis of Hauptmann being mentally ill? Not sure I understand this. This topic is certainly worthy of a thread of its own. I think "near-fatally struck" is too strong of a description. He had his metal helmet on and was knocked out but was able to rejoin his comrades and fight on. He did have some swelling at first, though. Hauptmann, himself, explained that his time in the military did shift his moral compass and not for the better. I think this has more bearing on his willingness to commit crimes. Taking from others who have abundance while having little himself is how he rationalized his thefts, making it easier for him to continue doing so. I thought the reason for Hauptmann's involvement with the kidnapping was because he wanted money and not because of mental illness. Lindbergh had plenty of money, and Hauptmann wanted some of it. He understood exactly what he was doing. Certainly Wilentz used Hauptmann's lust for money as a lever at the trial, but this hardly addresses the entire issue. Would there not have been countless other wealthy individuals within Hauptmann's operating area who would have represented much easier targets for an abduction with less overall reaction from law enforcement, the press and public? What exactly inspired a seemingly average schmuck like Hauptmann to target an international icon like Charles Lindbergh? Therein lies a very good indication of his mental disorder.
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Jul 1, 2023 19:27:16 GMT -5
Richard Hauptmann was a stubborn German who disliked authority. He could be friendly when surrounded by friends, but he could become cold and unresponsive if someone challenged him. He was not clever or particularly intelligent though, certainly not clever enough to have staged the scenario at St. Raymond's Cemetery or to have involved the Divine Temple members in their roles as messenger. There had to be a more clever mind calling the shots, someone who knew the landscape both in New York (Manhattan) and in the area around New Jersey, including Fort Lee, Englewood, and Hopewell. There are several possibilities as to the identity of Number One, who may have been in the known mix but got away with without becoming identified and captured.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jul 2, 2023 6:11:31 GMT -5
Richard Hauptmann was a conscript in WW1. During the war he had seen and done things as a machine gunner in the trenches which are the stuff of nightmares. When it ended in 1918 he had lost two brothers in the conflict and had suffered head trauma himself. He emerged embittered and angry. The crimes which landed him in prison followed.
Ex members of the armed forces are over-represented in the prison population, even today. Maybe Michael can confirm this from his own experience. This is particularly evident after a war when battle-hardened conscripts are released into the civilian population and expected to adjust to civilian life.
None of this qualifies Hauptmann as being mentally ill except that today he would be a candidate for a PTSD (Post-traumatic stress disorder) diagnosis.
He was attracted by risk: the crimes, his prison escape, the three attempts to reach the USA as a stowaway. But once in the US, he knew that if he stepped on the cracks in the pavement he would be on the next boat back to Bremen. Absence of evidence is not evidence of innocence but he has a clean record up to the time of the kidnap. He married and started a family. Nobody has come forward with any evidence of erratic behaviour, violence, headaches, temper outbursts etc and he seems to have been well- integrated into the community of German immigrants who were his friends.
There are doubts about the lasting effects of PTSD but on balance I do not think Hauptmann was mentally ill in 1932. If there had been the least indication of it, a defence along these lines would have been advanced, even by Reilly.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Jul 2, 2023 7:21:28 GMT -5
Richard Hauptmann was a stubborn German who disliked authority. He could be friendly when surrounded by friends, but he could become cold and unresponsive if someone challenged him. He was not clever or particularly intelligent though, certainly not clever enough to have staged the scenario at St. Raymond's Cemetery or to have involved the Divine Temple members in their roles as messenger. There had to be a more clever mind calling the shots, someone who knew the landscape both in New York (Manhattan) and in the area around New Jersey, including Fort Lee, Englewood, and Hopewell. There are several possibilities as to the identity of Number One, who may have been in the known mix but got away with without becoming identified and captured. Really, not clever enough to have staged St. Raymond's or Woodlawn? That Hauptmann spent an hour and fifteen minutes with John Condon, the latter having come away with no serious doubts as to the veracity of his story, tells me he was not only clever enough to stage the cemetery encounters but he could think on his feet without getting rattled and turning over his hand in the intimate company of someone who was quite intelligent. As for the Temple of Divine Power scenario you mention, there is no proof Hauptmann engaged any of its leaders or members as messengers.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Jul 2, 2023 8:27:30 GMT -5
Richard Hauptmann was a conscript in WW1. During the war he had seen and done things as a machine gunner in the trenches which are the stuff of nightmares. When it ended in 1918 he had lost two brothers in the conflict and had suffered head trauma himself. He emerged embittered and angry. The crimes which landed him in prison followed. Ex members of the armed forces are over-represented in the prison population, even today. Maybe Michael can confirm this from his own experience. This is particularly evident after a war when battle-hardened conscripts are released into the civilian population and expected to adjust to civilian life. None of this qualifies Hauptmann as being mentally ill except that today he would be a candidate for a PTSD (Post-traumatic stress disorder) diagnosis. He was attracted by risk: the crimes, his prison escape, the three attempts to reach the USA as a stowaway. But once in the US, he knew that if he stepped on the cracks in the pavement he would be on the next boat back to Bremen. Absence of evidence is not evidence of innocence but he has a clean record up to the time of the kidnap. He married and started a family. Nobody has come forward with any evidence of erratic behaviour, violence, headaches, temper outbursts etc and he seems to have been well- integrated into the community of German immigrants who were his friends. There are doubts about the lasting effects of PTSD but on balance I do not think Hauptmann was mentally ill in 1932. If there had been the least indication of it, a defence along these lines would have been advanced, even by Reilly. It seems reasonable that Hauptmann may have suffered from PTSD after the war, with any effects having also been magnified by the general nature of his head injury. Being attracted to risk is one thing. Burgling a mayor's home in Germany and then targeting Charles Lindbergh's son in America more than a decade later, are activities which I'm pretty certain do not reflect common aspirations within the average criminal's mind and his or her assessment of risk. I tend to believe Richard Hauptmann, while far from being any kind of cookie-cutter case, suffered from forms of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, an interminably strong inner belief in his own superiority, greatness and intelligence. Those afflicted by its often associated condition, Delusions of Grandeur, (some good reading out there) may believe they have a special relationship with a famous person or authority figure, or in this case, an international hero like Charles Lindbergh. Their cause is also marked by a strong sense of determination to succeed. Dudley Schoenfeld covered much of this ground in his assessment of the kidnapper two-and-a-half years before Hauptmann was apprehended, which only seemed to be affirmed following Hauptmann's capture. Again, what would have inspired Hauptmann to target Charles Lindbergh Jr., versus the son of a lesser known but wealthy banker or businessman, where high risk would still have been a very notable factor ?
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Jul 2, 2023 8:28:33 GMT -5
As Sherlock pointed out, Hauptmann probably suffered from Post Traumatic Syndrome following WWI. This state of mind was not well understood or thought to deserve treatment at the time. The crimes he committed were related to the German economy following the war. Germany was expected to pay damages to compensate for the war ,and the value of the German Mark plummeted. Hauptmann at that time became a common criminal who chose escape when he was caught. He escaped from prison once with help from a fellow inmate and left a note saying "Best wishes to the police," indicating a wry sense of humor, if nothing else. He attempted to escape from Germany to the US, succeeding the third time. When arrested for the kidnapping, he very likely hoped to escape jail time and sentencing in some way but was under sufficient guard and given poor defense so this did not happen. He was not very intelligent but would have had more sense than to carry on a rambling conversation with John Condon at Woodlawn for over an hour when it was clear that no business would be done that evening. Also, Hauptmann would not have been clever enough to stage the scenario with the Divine Temple scammers, but someone more clever did so. The mediums were sent to make sure that the ransom letter would be received and read by the right party (Breckinridge, which they pronounced Breckinbridge as also spelled in the letter's address). Someone paid for their tickets from the Bronx to Princeton. Joseph Dunninger exposes them as fakes in his work "Inside the Medium's Cabinet," but the set-up with Breckinridge was designed and paid for by someone with more knowledge and greater skills than Hauptmann could have ever hoped to possess.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Jul 2, 2023 11:46:14 GMT -5
Richard Hauptmann was a conscript in WW1. During the war he had seen and done things as a machine gunner in the trenches which are the stuff of nightmares. When it ended in 1918 he had lost two brothers in the conflict and had suffered head trauma himself. He emerged embittered and angry. The crimes which landed him in prison followed. Ex members of the armed forces are over-represented in the prison population, even today. Maybe Michael can confirm this from his own experience. This is particularly evident after a war when battle-hardened conscripts are released into the civilian population and expected to adjust to civilian life. None of this qualifies Hauptmann as being mentally ill except that today he would be a candidate for a PTSD (Post-traumatic stress disorder) diagnosis. He was attracted by risk: the crimes, his prison escape, the three attempts to reach the USA as a stowaway. But once in the US, he knew that if he stepped on the cracks in the pavement he would be on the next boat back to Bremen. Absence of evidence is not evidence of innocence but he has a clean record up to the time of the kidnap. He married and started a family. Nobody has come forward with any evidence of erratic behaviour, violence, headaches, temper outbursts etc and he seems to have been well- integrated into the community of German immigrants who were his friends. There are doubts about the lasting effects of PTSD but on balance I do not think Hauptmann was mentally ill in 1932. If there had been the least indication of it, a defence along these lines would have been advanced, even by Reilly. It seems reasonable that Hauptmann may have suffered from PTSD after the war, with any effects having also been magnified by the general nature of his head injury. I agree that Sherlock is correct and PTSD is the better call for Hauptmann's postwar condition.
I tend to believe Richard Hauptmann, while far from being any kind of cookie-cutter case, suffered from forms of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, an interminably strong inner belief in his own superiority, greatness and intelligence. Those afflicted by its often associated condition, Delusions of Grandeur, (some good reading out there) may believe they have a special relationship with a famous person or authority figure, or in this case, an international hero like Charles Lindbergh. Their cause is also marked by a strong sense of determination to succeed. Nope. This is a perfect description of John F. Condon. He thought he was going to be a bigger hero than his hero CAL. He was going to give CAL back his first born son and all the world would marvel at him.Again, what would have inspired Hauptmann to target Charles Lindbergh Jr., versus the son of a lesser known but wealthy banker or businessman, where high risk would still have been a very notable factor ? Since you think Hauptmann was the only perpetrator of this crime, then he would have seen the Hopewell home of the Lindberghs was a soft target. Lindbergh never bothered to secure the Hopewell house and made it easy for his son to be kidnapped compared to other wealthy people. I believe Bernardt makes a good point that someone else orchestrated this kidnapping.
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Jul 3, 2023 9:09:06 GMT -5
The individual who planned the Lindbergh baby kidnapping had considerable knowledge of the Manhattan and Bronx areas of New York and also became familiar with routes connecting the Fort Lee and those leading to Englewood and Princeton. I am not trying here to identify this person (the Kingpin) but will list the tasks he would need to undertake.
1. The ransom money would have been laundered immediately following the transaction at St. Raymond's cemetery. He would not have wanted to be caught with any of it in case police were nearby. The box could be clearly identified and was hidden for a few days, recovered and then disappeared.
2. He knew Condon, perhaps not personally but had some information about him that would have caused Condon considerable embarrassment if it were to be made public. Hence, he had control of Condon.
3. The person called CJ was a rep. (flunkie) who participated unwillingly but was coerced, again because the Kingpin knew something about him (as he told Condon) and vented his feelings in an unnecessary conversation with Condon though no business could be done. The Kingpin was probably listening to the conversation nearby in the dark, angry about the turn of events but unable to stop the conversation.
4. The Kingpin sent a rep. (possibly the one sent to Woodlawn) to the mediums of the Divine Temple as messengers to Breckinridge re: the next ransom note. This rep. also provided Mary with much detail involving the site of the Lindbergh residence and Mt. Rose (Schippell farm) where the child would be held until the ransom was paid.
5. The Kingpin may not have been German himself but thought to dictate the ransom notes to someone whose native language was German, or who grew up in a household where German was spoken, perhaps a dialect, with little education in the Standard German language. The longer words in the ransom note were spelled out for the writer..
6. The Kingpin had need for a ladder but with little knowledge of its construction. He asked someone to build a ladder using bits and pieces of wood and gave specifications of the length but with no consideration of the weight placed upon it, making the ladder inadequate for the intention.
7. He patronized the Sha-Toe tavern in Fort Lee, whether drinking, gambling, or conveying liquor to the establishment, gaining the acquaintance of Morrow servants who drank their regularly. In this way, he persuaded one of them to convey information to him regarding the movements of the Lindbergh family and suggested their assistance in the kidnapping enterprise, assuring him (them) that the child would be safe.
8. He would not have participated in the kidnapping of the child on March 1 but would have remained in another area and would have had a alibi. When Richard Hauptmann was arrested in Sept. of 1934, he would have departed the New York and New Jersey area.
The personality is that of a major criminal, not just a "common criminal" who had knowledge and considerable intelligence and ability to persuade others to join his intentions.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jul 3, 2023 9:37:03 GMT -5
Hi Joe, To summarise your post: Hauptmann must have been a narcissist with possible delusions of grandeur in order to have chosen Lindbergh’s son as his victim. Something a run of the mill common criminal would never do.
Dr Schoenfeld’s profile of the kidnapper was most definitely not affirmed after Hauptmann’s arrest. There is no evidence that Hauptmann exhibited any more interest in Lindbergh than the average newspaper reader. He did not collect pictures of him, didn’t attempt to contact him, didn’t stalk him, or tell anyone about their “special relationship.” Such fantasists do not keep their beliefs to themselves. Quite the reverse; they tell all and sundry about how chummy they are with the famous person.
As for a strong inner belief in his own superiority verging on Narcissism, we have to avoid being influenced by the stereotypical image, especially in the 1930’s, of the German male: arrogant, loud, and affecting superiority. Hauptmann did not match this description.
It is suggested that the perpetrator must have been obsessed with Lindbergh and a narcissist with a superiority complex in order to have chosen Charlie as his victim. The evidence indicates that Hauptmann had none of these characteristics so can we rule him out?
Also, the crime is something the “average criminal” would never contemplate with its enormous risk. So can we rule them out?
If so, we are left with the unavoidable conclusion: it was an inside job.
Best regards,
Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jul 4, 2023 11:11:28 GMT -5
Psychiatrist James H. Huddleson is the author of the "Huddleson Report," a document about Hauptmann's mental condition. According to Jim Fisher, James Fawcett, Hauptmann's first attorney, held back the report because Hauptmann had an outstanding bill with his lawyer.
In 1991, Huddleson's son gave a copy of the document to a Lindbergh researcher.
According to writer Warren Allen Smith, who knew the Huddlesons, Hauptmann had tattoos on his body.
The only information that Dr. Huddleson volunteered to Smith was that Hauptmann had tattoos.
If Hauptmann did indeed have tattoos, what names or images were engraved into his skin?
Could the tattoos help us have a better understanding of Hauptmann?
Steve, does the Huddleson report say anything about tattoos?
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Jul 5, 2023 11:54:25 GMT -5
Hi Joe, To summarise your post: Hauptmann must have been a narcissist with possible delusions of grandeur in order to have chosen Lindbergh’s son as his victim. Something a run of the mill common criminal would never do. Dr Schoenfeld’s profile of the kidnapper was most definitely not affirmed after Hauptmann’s arrest. There is no evidence that Hauptmann exhibited any more interest in Lindbergh than the average newspaper reader. He did not collect pictures of him, didn’t attempt to contact him, didn’t stalk him, or tell anyone about their “special relationship.” Such fantasists do not keep their beliefs to themselves. Quite the reverse; they tell all and sundry about how chummy they are with the famous person. As for a strong inner belief in his own superiority verging on Narcissism, we have to avoid being influenced by the stereotypical image, especially in the 1930’s, of the German male: arrogant, loud, and affecting superiority. Hauptmann did not match this description. It is suggested that the perpetrator must have been obsessed with Lindbergh and a narcissist with a superiority complex in order to have chosen Charlie as his victim. The evidence indicates that Hauptmann had none of these characteristics so can we rule him out? Also, the crime is something the “average criminal” would never contemplate with its enormous risk. So can we rule them out? If so, we are left with the unavoidable conclusion: it was an inside job. Best regards, Sherlock The real aviator hero for the German people in WWI was the Red Baron, Manfred von Richthofen, whose exploits far surpassed those of Charles Lindbergh who captured attention of Americans by a solo flight across the Atlantic. The Red Baron was a war hero who brought down 80 planes before being downed by two Canadian Sopwith Camels of the Royal Air Force. The kidnapping may have been an attempt to retaliate for the death of von Richthofen or a thrust at a place most vulnerable to Lindbergh, his son, to remind him that his success was not all that great when compared to the deeds of the Red Baron. The "signature" on the ransom letter suggest this connection. Photo of the Sopwith Camel attached.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Jul 9, 2023 9:55:47 GMT -5
It seems reasonable that Hauptmann may have suffered from PTSD after the war, with any effects having also been magnified by the general nature of his head injury. I agree that Sherlock is correct and PTSD is the better call for Hauptmann's postwar condition.Guest and Shelock, while Hauptmann may have been negatively influenced by some of the causes in wartime associated with those who clearly exhibit the symptoms of PTSD, there is little to truly connect him here. Which of these commonly-accepted symptoms of PTSD, if any at all, do you feel apply to Hauptmann, directly or even indirectly?
Detachment from others Flashbacks Nightmares Avoiding reminders Insomnia Lack of motivation Anger Memory loss Feeling jumpy Turning to drugs and alcohol
Hauptmann's issues were much deeper and I believe a far closer assimilation for him can be found within the concept of Nietzsche's Uber Mensche, (superior man) its primary attributes being self-determination, creativity, becoming, overcoming, discontent, flexibility, self-mastery, self-confidence, cheerfulness, and courage. Put succinctly, Hauptmann given this as the driving force ultimately leading up to his role in the Lindbergh Kidnapping, would have had no time or bother, to consider having been afflicted with what is commonly referred to as PTSD.
I tend to believe Richard Hauptmann, while far from being any kind of cookie-cutter case, suffered from forms of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, an interminably strong inner belief in his own superiority, greatness and intelligence. Those afflicted by its often associated condition, Delusions of Grandeur, (some good reading out there) may believe they have a special relationship with a famous person or authority figure, or in this case, an international hero like Charles Lindbergh. Their cause is also marked by a strong sense of determination to succeed. Nope. This is a perfect description of John F. Condon. He thought he was going to be a bigger hero than his hero CAL. He was going to give CAL back his first born son and all the world would marvel at him.John Condon never wavered from his originally-expressed desire to serve the Lindberghs and return their child to them, and failing that to ensure the perpetrator(s) were brought to justice. Of course he was a harmless ham, windbag and publicity seeker to go along with those sincere desires, but I fail to see how he wanted to be a bigger hero than his hero CAL. I believe you're projected something far beyond its real value here, at the expense of considering the one man conclusively proven to have been deeply involved in, and enriched by this crime. Can you demonstrate valid proof to back up your belief about Condon wanting to be bigger than Lindbergh?
Again, what would have inspired Hauptmann to target Charles Lindbergh Jr., versus the son of a lesser known but wealthy banker or businessman, where high risk would still have been a very notable factor ? Since you think Hauptmann was the only perpetrator of this crime, then he would have seen the Hopewell home of the Lindberghs was a soft target. Lindbergh never bothered to secure the Hopewell house and made it easy for his son to be kidnapped compared to other wealthy people. I believe Bernardt makes a good point that someone else orchestrated this kidnapping.There is a very good reason why the original "Crime of the Century" is still considered to have been one of the most bizarre and shocking in modern times. That's because it's commonly accepted that no criminal or group of criminals would ever have deemed this a plan worth undertaking or even considering, given whose child it was, and no matter what the financial reward might be. It existed so far outside of the traditional matrix of design, risk, execution, reward, publicity and anonymity. This crime took a very dedicated and determined individual to achieve it and someone who was willing to go well beyond those boundaries to meet his inner needs and fulfillment.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jul 11, 2023 10:20:33 GMT -5
I suggested that after service as a teenage gunner, head trauma, and the loss of two brothers in WW1 Hauptmann would be a candidate for a diagnosis of PTSD. I cannot prove that he had this condition by ticking any of the symptoms in your list Joe but I still maintain that this remains a possibility. The available information on Hauptmann’s life from 1919 to 1932 indicates that there were no lasting effects which might have influenced his behaviour in 1932.
Hauptmann “having no time or bother to consider….PTSD,” does not change the possibility of him suffering from it. In those days it was known as “shell shock” and was often seen by ignorant people as evidence of cowardice in combat. As such it was often hidden.
So there is Hauptmann’s war experience which supports a possible PTSD condition. But there is nothing that I have seen which supports Hauptmann (other than his name) seeing himself as a superman “ubermench” figure. He wasn’t unduly arrogant and was well-integrated into the German - American community. He was of course often portrayed as a stereotypical haughty cold-blooded German in the tabloid press but the reality was quite different.
That said, he was clearly comfortable with the rise of the Nazis and the accession of Hitler as Chancellor of Germany. He had tentative plans for a return to the Fatherland once his status as an escapee was clarified (his wife’s trip etc.)
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Jul 11, 2023 13:34:39 GMT -5
I suggested that after service as a teenage gunner, head trauma, and the loss of two brothers in WW1 Hauptmann would be a candidate for a diagnosis of PTSD. I cannot prove that he had this condition by ticking any of the symptoms in your list Joe but I still maintain that this remains a possibility. The available information on Hauptmann’s life from 1919 to 1932 indicates that there were no lasting effects which might have influenced his behaviour in 1932. Hauptmann “having no time or bother to consider….PTSD,” does not change the possibility of him suffering from it. In those days it was known as “shell shock” and was often seen by ignorant people as evidence of cowardice in combat. As such it was often hidden. I agree with your assessment here of Hauptmann and the possibility of PTSD. His military experience very much impacted his life after returning home to Kamenz. The loss of his two brothers did way into Hauptmann's thinking about himself. Hauptmann said that after his arrest for the string of crimes he committed with his friend Fritz Petzold, he found himself "For the first time in my life I cursed the day I was born. Now I asked myself why my two brothers had to die and I remain." These are his words. His life was spiraling out of control and his time in the military was definitely having a negative impact on his future. There are examples of behavior, psychologoical and mood problems that today, in our time, may have pointed to a possible PTSD diagnosis. To be clear, this is not a diagnosis that he had it. So there is Hauptmann’s war experience which supports a possible PTSD condition. But there is nothing that I have seen which supports Hauptmann (other than his name) seeing himself as a superman “ubermench” figure. He wasn’t unduly arrogant and was well-integrated into the German - American community. He was of course often portrayed as a stereotypical haughty cold-blooded German in the tabloid press but the reality was quite different. That said, he was clearly comfortable with the rise of the Nazis and the accession of Hitler as Chancellor of Germany. He had tentative plans for a return to the Fatherland once his status as an escapee was clarified (his wife’s trip etc.)
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Jul 11, 2023 15:42:31 GMT -5
John Condon never wavered from his originally-expressed desire to serve the Lindberghs and return their child to them, and failing that to ensure the perpetrator(s) were brought to justice. You need to seriously review Michael's chapters on Condon in his Volume 2 of The Dark Corners book series. The answers you need are in there.
Of course he was a harmless ham, windbag and publicity seeker to go along with those sincere desires, but I fail to see how he wanted to be a bigger hero than his hero CAL. I don't expect you would see this. Thats ok. However, your description of Condon in the above sentence falls short of being complete, especially his conduct during the investigation. He was also a liar and he did absolutely nothing that aided the authorities in finding any perpetrators.
I believe you're projected something far beyond its real value here, at the expense of considering the one man conclusively proven to have been deeply involved in, and enriched by this crime. (Joe) I wasn't considering Hauptmann's guilt or innocence when I disagreed with the psychological assessment you were putting forward of BRH. It just doesn't fit him. I would like to refer you back to Sherlock's post of July 3, 2023. He gives a good picture of why it does not fit Hauptmann. I am going to quote him here: Dr Schoenfeld’s profile of the kidnapper was most definitely not affirmed after Hauptmann’s arrest. There is no evidence that Hauptmann exhibited any more interest in Lindbergh than the average newspaper reader. He did not collect pictures of him, didn’t attempt to contact him, didn’t stalk him, or tell anyone about their “special relationship.” Such fantasists do not keep their beliefs to themselves. Quite the reverse; they tell all and sundry about how chummy they are with the famous person.
As for a strong inner belief in his own superiority verging on Narcissism, we have to avoid being influenced by the stereotypical image, especially in the 1930’s, of the German male: arrogant, loud, and affecting superiority. Hauptmann did not match this description.
It is suggested that the perpetrator must have been obsessed with Lindbergh and a narcissist with a superiority complex in order to have chosen Charlie as his victim. The evidence indicates that Hauptmann had none of these characteristics so can we rule him out? (Sherlock)
A couple things that I find to be more suggestive of the type of personality profile you put forward Joe, are:1. "I idolized him as a national hero."2, "...following your darling from birth..." Referring to Charles Jr.The above are just two quotes from Condon. I am sure there are probably more that would fit if I had the time to find them. Can you demonstrate valid proof to back up your belief about Condon wanting to be bigger than Lindbergh? (Joe)
There is no way to prove that belief because Condon did not get to return Charles, Jr. Condon certainly entered into this expecting to be the Hero in this situation. His motive as stated by him is clear:
"My one desire, my only thought from the first has been to place that baby's arms again around its mother's neck."
He saw himself as the only chance the Lindberghs had to get their son back. No one else, not even his hero CAL could do it:
"I, it seemed was that chance, the only person in the world who was in actual contact with the man who stole their son."
This was his golden opportunity to be a World Hero. His hero needed a Hero. Condon (not Lindbergh) would be the savior of the Little Eaglet!
"Let me do this one great thing as the crowning act of my life."
All the quotes above belong to John F. Condon.
When you become your hero's Hero, at that moment you are on top.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jul 12, 2023 8:42:03 GMT -5
Joe, at the very least Condon was desperate to stay relevant to the investigation, even after the baby's body was found. I'm certainly no psychologist but his behavior seems narcissistic to me.
|
|