Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Mar 29, 2024 8:51:34 GMT -5
Yes, I have read Berg’s book and Lindbergh was indeed very fastidious and organized, making his absence at NYU on the night of the kidnapping very strange. Bingo! And what about the fact Lindbergh claimed not to remember where he was before he got home on March 1? Nobody believes that. Of course Joe will pretend to because he has no choice. But in doing so he undermines his own argument. He's in a Catch-22. As I understand it, the collective inference here is that someone who is fastidiously organized or consumed by his work, should never have occasion to forget about attending a social commitment? I’m not by any means concluding that happened here, as I still don’t discount the possibility Lindbergh simply used this excuse to sidestep an event he really had no desire to attend. But there is a world of difference between the meticulously detailed planning of a trans-Atlantic flight, expedition over the Great Circle or even a hypothetical criminal event, and a simple momentary mental lapse. Do you think Einstein ever forgot his wife's birthday?
We’re all keenly aware of how important the March 1, 1932 NYU Alumni dinner appears at least on the surface, within the overall timeline of events leading up to the crime. Lindbergh, for the most part, appears to have known March 1 was the day of the dinner by previous acknowledgement, even though there remain some essential questions and loose ends regarding the second letter with an incorrect date sent out by Chancellor Brown.
Lindbergh provided a less than thoroughly detailed accounting of his day’s activities, almost three years later at Flemington. Perhaps this is understandable though as he wasn’t the person on trial here! Would he have made detailed notes about his day’s activities on that day, or possibly have had them recorded by his secretary? I don’t know, but surely if they were, they would be there for verification by anyone in an official capacity if they felt the matter was important enough to investigate.
By way of his absence at the dinner, I just don’t see Lindbergh trying to hide anything here or even attempting to use the excuse of a ‘scheduling mistake,’ the latter one having been embraced by investigators and future authors.
In any case, I believe you’re just reading too much into the dinner event. And although I don’t support this specific inference, I do understand where you both are, ie. interpreting Lindbergh’s ‘no show’ as just more grist for the many churning conspiracy mills.
In reality though, could March 1, an otherwise unimportant date in history, have been just another long and busy ‘day at the office’ for Lindbergh, with another unwelcome social engagement at its tail end?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Mar 29, 2024 9:14:14 GMT -5
I agree with some of what you say, particularly the most recent post. And when it comes to the finger of suspicion being pointed, I think it’s important to remember that Lindbergh was suspected, but who’d dare say anything? Small conspiracies happen all the time, and if he could use his personal clout to control the investigation, as he did, he’s pretty much covered from every angle. That being said, I freely admit there’s no smoking gun here. I’m simply looking at the totality of the evidence, old and stuff that’s more recently come to light. Parents of the child have to be considered without prejudice, but they also have to be justifiably suspected of being guilty before they're actively pursued. Do you believe the entire scope of the United States government and all of its myriad agencies would essentially have turned a blind eye to something as criminally nefarious as what you infer here? If Lindbergh had have been guilty, he would not have been the first sacred hero to fall, unless you truly believe he was that far above the law to absolutely avoid such a process of scrutiny. Look at his pre-war isolationist stance. Much of government and the public began to revile him for what they considered good reason. Given the fact there's not one piece of conclusive proof he had anything to do with the planning and execution of this kidnapping, it comes as no surprise the vast majority of investigators gave him a clean bill of health. Interpreting the totality of the evidence picture, also recognizes the fact that some of it may be relevant and some of it may not. If it's not relevant and has no intrinsic or verifiable connection to the crime, it's basically useless fill. And there's no shortage of that in this case.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Mar 29, 2024 9:29:03 GMT -5
Well, to be clear, I agree with Joe that Hauptmann was no angel and was in this up to his neck. I’m just not so sure on what his exact role was. Personally, I think he was either part of a group, or had some connection to that group, and just happened to be the unlucky one who got caught and railroaded with the whole thing because he was all the authorities had. I agree Hauptmann was involved (not at all convinced he was at Hopewell) but if I was someone who was a "lone wolf" believer and the reality was that on the night of the kidnapping Hauptmann had no real accounting of his whereabouts and missed an important engagement without an explanation, we'd never hear the end of it. If March 1, 1932, was just another 'day at the office' for Charles Lindbergh, how detailed would you expect him to have been almost three years later at Flemington, among other things, considering he was not the individual on trial. Frankly, I'd be a bit suspicious of his intent if he had offered some overly detailed accounting of his time, which might be suggestive of some form of pre-emptive collusion designed to ensure the success of the kidnapping he would ostensibly have been part of.
And speaking of Hauptmann's (and Anna's) explanation about their whereabouts on the evening of March 1, I'd really like to hear the end of it!
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 29, 2024 16:42:05 GMT -5
Well, Lindbergh’s 1932 status and his status in 1940-41, when he was essentially considered a traitor just before the war, were two very different things. By the latter point, the kidnapping was largely forgotten anyway and was such a tangle that no one really wanted to wade back into the swamp. Hauptmann had paid for it, case literally and figuratively closed. At the time of the kidnapping, though, I don’t think it was so much a matter of law enforcement willingly allowing Lindbergh to get away with it as it was an understandable fear of even going down that road. To use an illustration with two hypothetical investigators, I think there could have been a lot of: "Are you thinking what I'm thinking...?" "No, and neither are you, so shut up. We'll never be able to prove it in court and the attempt will ruin us. Even if we could prove it, no one's going to thank us for tearing down the greatest idol of the age, and none of it will bring the kid back, so what's the point of even mentioning it?" And apologies, when I say I look at the totality of the evidence, that's a bit of a misnomer. I've certainly looked at the evidence, but what I really think I should say, to be perfectly accurate, is that I look at the totality of all the circumstances involved before drawing a conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 29, 2024 19:11:37 GMT -5
Bingo! And what about the fact Lindbergh claimed not to remember where he was before he got home on March 1? Nobody believes that. Of course Joe will pretend to because he has no choice. But in doing so he undermines his own argument. He's in a Catch-22. As I understand it, the collective inference here is that someone who is fastidiously organized or consumed by his work, should never have occasion to forget about attending a social commitment? I’m not by any means concluding that happened here, as I still don’t discount the possibility Lindbergh simply used this excuse to sidestep an event he really had no desire to attend. But there is a world of difference between the meticulously detailed planning of a trans-Atlantic flight, expedition over the Great Circle or even a hypothetical criminal event, and a simple momentary mental lapse. Do you think Einstein ever forgot his wife's birthday?
We’re all keenly aware of how important the March 1, 1932 NYU Alumni dinner appears at least on the surface, within the overall timeline of events leading up to the crime. Lindbergh, for the most part, appears to have known March 1 was the day of the dinner by previous acknowledgement, even though there remain some essential questions and loose ends regarding the second letter with an incorrect date sent out by Chancellor Brown.
Lindbergh provided a less than thoroughly detailed accounting of his day’s activities, almost three years later at Flemington. Perhaps this is understandable though as he wasn’t the person on trial here! Would he have made detailed notes about his day’s activities on that day, or possibly have had them recorded by his secretary? I don’t know, but surely if they were, they would be there for verification by anyone in an official capacity if they felt the matter was important enough to investigate.
By way of his absence at the dinner, I just don’t see Lindbergh trying to hide anything here or even attempting to use the excuse of a ‘scheduling mistake,’ the latter one having been embraced by investigators and future authors.
In any case, I believe you’re just reading too much into the dinner event. And although I don’t support this specific inference, I do understand where you both are, ie. interpreting Lindbergh’s ‘no show’ as just more grist for the many churning conspiracy mills.
In reality though, could March 1, an otherwise unimportant date in history, have been just another long and busy ‘day at the office’ for Lindbergh, with another unwelcome social engagement at its tail end?Just as I had predicted. You certainly did not disappoint Joe! Unfortunately, this wasn't "just another day at the office." And everything that occurred seemed to be a 'first' of its kind for a guy who you claimed could not have committed a crime like this because of his personality. "Forgot" his dinner. Came home, when the day before, he did not. Did not hire Security for the most absurd reason I have ever heard in my life. Purposely left Skean behind at Englewood that weekend. Claimed Wahgoosh would not bark when everyone else on the planet said he would. Did not get the shutter fixed because of another ridiculous reason that makes ZERO sense, especially since he attempted to get the door fixed on that same weekend. Etc, etc, etc. Next, I know where I was when the planes hit the towers on 9/11. And I can tell you where I was before it happened. Not the day before and not the day after. Heck, I know where I was when the Challenger blew up. And where I was before it happened. Not the day before or the day after. Know why? it wasn't "just another day at the office." Now imagine its the day when your child is abducted. Never mind, I'd rather not hear another of these cockamamie excuses. Every father would be going over that entire day in their head for the rest of their life. You know it, I know it, and everyone else knows it too. Fact is, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Apr 6, 2024 7:59:08 GMT -5
Well, Lindbergh’s 1932 status and his status in 1940-41, when he was essentially considered a traitor just before the war, were two very different things. By the latter point, the kidnapping was largely forgotten anyway and was such a tangle that no one really wanted to wade back into the swamp. Hauptmann had paid for it, case literally and figuratively closed. At the time of the kidnapping, though, I don’t think it was so much a matter of law enforcement willingly allowing Lindbergh to get away with it as it was an understandable fear of even going down that road. To use an illustration with two hypothetical investigators, I think there could have been a lot of: "Are you thinking what I'm thinking...?" "No, and neither are you, so shut up. We'll never be able to prove it in court and the attempt will ruin us. Even if we could prove it, no one's going to thank us for tearing down the greatest idol of the age, and none of it will bring the kid back, so what's the point of even mentioning it?" And apologies, when I say I look at the totality of the evidence, that's a bit of a misnomer. I've certainly looked at the evidence, but what I really think I should say, to be perfectly accurate, is that I look at the totality of all the circumstances involved before drawing a conclusion. What better time for someone who was considered a traitor (your words) in the days leading up to WWII, to take a permanent tumble into complete and irreversible disgrace? Referencing your hypothetical investigators who believed what you’re suggesting, ie. they entertained real suspicion of Lindbergh having engineered the kidnapping and murder of his son. Where were these same investigators just a few short years after the sentencing and execution of Richard Hauptmann? Would they not now have sought to ‘put things straight’ by exposing the ‘traitorous Lindy’ as the true mastermind of his son’s demise? And wouldn’t such a morally sound and well timed action also have helped their own careers? Yet no one in their ranks came forward with any such notions.
And given that many of the official agencies associated with the United States government were actively and intimately involved within the kidnapping investigation, wouldn’t someone like FDR and his rankling secretary Stephen Early, have taken great satisfaction in putting it to Lindbergh once and for all, if anyone actually believed what you're suggesting? Yet no one in the entire government came forward with any such notions.
As an aside, you might want to think about the United States government’s own position prior to it’s sudden entrance into WWII, as a result of being bombed in its own backyard. For well over two years from the date Hitler’s forces swept down on Poland, America essentially adopted the same anti-interventionist stance stance advocated by Charlies Lindbergh by avoiding a declaration of war on Germany. At the same time, and through a relaxation of its Neutrality Acts, the United States actively allowed for the support of the war efforts of not only the Allies, but the German war machine as well! The word ‘traitor’ can often be used quite relatively, to establish what an individual or organization is seeking to establish as truth.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Apr 6, 2024 9:05:03 GMT -5
As I understand it, the collective inference here is that someone who is fastidiously organized or consumed by his work, should never have occasion to forget about attending a social commitment? I’m not by any means concluding that happened here, as I still don’t discount the possibility Lindbergh simply used this excuse to sidestep an event he really had no desire to attend. But there is a world of difference between the meticulously detailed planning of a trans-Atlantic flight, expedition over the Great Circle or even a hypothetical criminal event, and a simple momentary mental lapse. Do you think Einstein ever forgot his wife's birthday?
We’re all keenly aware of how important the March 1, 1932 NYU Alumni dinner appears at least on the surface, within the overall timeline of events leading up to the crime. Lindbergh, for the most part, appears to have known March 1 was the day of the dinner by previous acknowledgement, even though there remain some essential questions and loose ends regarding the second letter with an incorrect date sent out by Chancellor Brown.
Lindbergh provided a less than thoroughly detailed accounting of his day’s activities, almost three years later at Flemington. Perhaps this is understandable though as he wasn’t the person on trial here! Would he have made detailed notes about his day’s activities on that day, or possibly have had them recorded by his secretary? I don’t know, but surely if they were, they would be there for verification by anyone in an official capacity if they felt the matter was important enough to investigate.
By way of his absence at the dinner, I just don’t see Lindbergh trying to hide anything here or even attempting to use the excuse of a ‘scheduling mistake,’ the latter one having been embraced by investigators and future authors.
In any case, I believe you’re just reading too much into the dinner event. And although I don’t support this specific inference, I do understand where you both are, ie. interpreting Lindbergh’s ‘no show’ as just more grist for the many churning conspiracy mills.
In reality though, could March 1, an otherwise unimportant date in history, have been just another long and busy ‘day at the office’ for Lindbergh, with another unwelcome social engagement at its tail end? Just as I had predicted. You certainly did not disappoint Joe! I'm confused.. what was your prediction? I predict you'll come up with something good here to further attempt to discredit logical observation.
Unfortunately, this wasn't "just another day at the office." And everything that occurred seemed to be a 'first' of its kind for a guy who you claimed could not have committed a crime like this because of his personality. This has nothing to do with Lindbergh’s personality being or not being the impetus for his involvement in such a ludicrous scheme as you suggest. Michael, if you’re planning a crime of this potential magnitude and fallout, would you actually be shortsighted enough to do so around all of these ‘first of its kind’ events you consistently rattle off here. Especially if that individual is someone like the ultimate planner and venerable list maker, Charles Lindbergh? I believe it's little more than Colombo 101 here and perhaps you should pick up his VHS collection.
"Forgot" his dinner. Came home, when the day before, he did not. Did not hire Security for the most absurd reason I have ever heard in my life. Purposely left Skean behind at Englewood that weekend. Claimed Wahgoosh would not bark when everyone else on the planet said he would. Did not get the shutter fixed because of another ridiculous reason that makes ZERO sense, especially since he attempted to get the door fixed on that same weekend. Etc, etc, etc. Each and every one of your above points, appears to lead you to the kind of conclusion that competent criminal investigators in the light of other truths relative to them as well as other events, I believe would consider ‘half-baked.’ And each of them can and has been so exposed in previous forum debates. The fact is, if none of them mean anything of a criminal connection towards the planning and perpetration of the crime, they're basically butterflies.. nice and colourful of course, but still butterflies. You should try setting them free some time and seeing where they ultimately land.
Next, I know where I was when the planes hit the towers on 9/11. And I can tell you where I was before it happened. Not the day before and not the day after. Heck, I know where I was when the Challenger blew up. And where I was before it happened. Not the day before or the day after. Know why? it wasn't "just another day at the office." Your observations are universally rational and common ones. I also remember them, as to where I was standing and who told me about each of these events. But I certainly can’t tell you much about where I was an hour or more before. Why? Because my own personal agenda that day had absolutely nothing to do with the lead up to those specific world events, other than what I knew about the impending launch of Challenger. I certainly would not have been thinking about the World Trade Center while shaving that morning. And if Lindbergh’s activities in the morning, afternoon and early evening of Mar. 1, 1932 had nothing to do with the lead up to the discovery of the kidnapping, why would he have had a clear recollection of same, relative to the perpetration of the crime? As I’ve already suggested, it would not have been difficult to discover exactly where Lindbergh was and what he was doing at any given time on March 1, 1932, if it was believed any of his activities related directly to the crime. And it seems quite evident that in the final analysis, they did not.
Now imagine its the day when your child is abducted. Never mind, I'd rather not hear another of these cockamamie excuses. Every father would be going over that entire day in their head for the rest of their life. You know it, I know it, and everyone else knows it too. Fact is, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Nonsense, I’m offering you nothing less than the opportunity to explore things in a different light that open additional doors for case exploration, as opposed to this distracting manner where you essentially ‘call it a day’ as your own personal explanations and conclusions reach a point that suits you.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Apr 6, 2024 13:36:31 GMT -5
I'm not saying Lindbergh actually was a traitor, only that a lot of people considered him one and that, bottom line, his reputation took a dive. As far as that goes, Lindbergh kind of did it to himself, on his own. He didn't need any help so no one would've really needed to resurrect the kidnapping, which was old news by that point and such a tangle anyway. Besides, going there might've generated sympathy for him, which is obviously not something FDR would've wanted. But in any case, I don't think it would've been some open secret among government officials, or that anyone outside of some investigators close to the case would have had any awareness or thought of this. If one of those investigators who did have suspicions came forward later, just prior to WWII when Lindbergh was unpopular, I think he would've been faced with "Why didn't you say something sooner? The fact that it was too radioactive isn't good enough. You're a cop."
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Apr 6, 2024 16:08:09 GMT -5
I'm not saying Lindbergh actually was a traitor, only that a lot of people considered him one and that, bottom line, his reputation took a dive. As far as that goes, Lindbergh kind of did it to himself, on his own. He didn't need any help so one would've really needed to resurrect the kidnapping, which was old news by that point and such a tangle anyway. Besides, going there might've generated sympathy for him, which is obviously not something FDR would've wanted. But in any case, I don't think it would've been some open secret among government officials, or that anyone outside of some investigators close to the case would have had any awareness or thought of this. If one of those investigators who did have suspicions came forward later, just prior to WWII when Lindbergh was unpopular, I think he would've been faced with "Why didn't you say something sooner? The fact that it was too radioactive isn't good enough. You're a cop." The kidnapping came up as news quite often following its official closure, no doubt in part due to its many perceived loose ends which remained in the minds of the public and press. It's remained newsworthy for nine decades, albeit less and less with each passing one. Although I understand but don't necessarily agree with where you're coming from, I also believe you're putting an inordinate amount of faith that a hypothetical secret so damning in nature and no matter how well founded or unfounded, would have successfully remained a secret by those who might have believed Lindbergh responsible for his son's demise, even in some small way.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Apr 6, 2024 23:51:37 GMT -5
It’s possible, but, especially without a smoking gun and the inability to prove it court, I can still see where no one would’ve wanted to touch it, no one would’ve wanted to be the one to go there.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Apr 7, 2024 8:34:11 GMT -5
It’s possible, but, especially without a smoking gun and the inability to prove it court, I can still see where no one would’ve wanted to touch it, no one would’ve wanted to be the one to go there. And perhaps any such individual in law enforcement, government or a position of influence, after everything was carefully scrutinized in reflection and over time, came to understand that their original suspicions were unfounded.
|
|
|
Post by rmc1971 on Apr 7, 2024 16:41:50 GMT -5
I recently started to consider the possibility that Condon may have been the brains behind the kidnapping. I consider it at times, but see it being difficult for him not to have told the world if he were.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Apr 7, 2024 16:55:56 GMT -5
It’s possible, but, especially without a smoking gun and the inability to prove it court, I can still see where no one would’ve wanted to touch it, no one would’ve wanted to be the one to go there. And perhaps any such individual in law enforcement, government or a position of influence, after everything was carefully scrutinized in reflection and over time, came to understand that their original suspicions were unfounded.Or that it wasn’t worth pursuing or dredging back up.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Apr 15, 2024 9:45:41 GMT -5
And perhaps any such individual in law enforcement, government or a position of influence, after everything was carefully scrutinized in reflection and over time, came to understand that their original suspicions were unfounded.Or that it wasn’t worth pursuing or dredging back up. I'm just trying gain a little perspective here with regards to your thoughts. Of those individuals who represented the many official state and federal agencies involved in the LKC investigation and who probably numbered in the thousands, from a deep and intimate level and all the way down to those who had only a relative brush with the case, how many of the above do you feel would have believed that Charles Lindbergh orchestrated the kidnapping and murder of his own son? Naturally, the more specific you can be about actual names of investigators and their agencies, and what evidence and circumstances they used to conclude such findings, the better. But for now, do you have a feel for what the percentage might have been?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Apr 15, 2024 11:45:43 GMT -5
There's no telling as to a percentage of who would've felt this way, but when they put it all together: "How did the kidnappers know that the family would be there? I could believe they just got lucky, but how did they also know where the nursery was? The house doesn't have curtains, but that doesn't mean that everything that goes on inside can be seen from the outside. Plus, how did they manage to not disturb anything around the windowsill or make any noise? I don't know, the more I look at it, the more it looks like these guys had help..." When trained investigators start noticing things like that, which they would've had to have done, I think it's very possible that some of them started putting two and two together and started having suspicions. From there, it's plausible no one said anything publicly because who would want to be the one to open that can of worms, particularly without clear proof? A person who immediately springs to mind who felt something was "off" here was Leon Ho-age.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Apr 20, 2024 8:57:49 GMT -5
There's no telling as to a percentage of who would've felt this way, but when they put it all together: "How did the kidnappers know that the family would be there? I could believe they just got lucky, but how did they also know where the nursery was? The house doesn't have curtains, but that doesn't mean that everything that goes on inside can be seen from the outside. Plus, how did they manage to not disturb anything around the windowsill or make any noise? I don't know, the more I look at it, the more it looks like these guys had help..." When trained investigators start noticing things like that, which they would've had to have done, I think it's very possible that some of them started putting two and two together and started having suspicions. From there, it's plausible no one said anything publicly because who would want to be the one to open that can of worms, particularly without clear proof? A person who immediately springs to mind who felt something was "off" here was Leon Ho-age. The questions you pose and which would have faced every investigator working on this case, are all valid and each one would have subsequently required drilling down into until nothing but the truth remained. We know for a fact, not every investigator on the Lindbergh Case was gifted with the same detection and mental abilities, experiential background or even had the full scope of the available information to discover what all of them would equally have concluded to be the truth. In terms of overall abilities, crime investigators are no different than mechanics, dentists and landscapers. They all know their basic craft but simply put, there are good ones, bad ones and most are probably somewhere in the middle. Therefore in this case, it seems reasonable you’re probably going to end up with some kind of bell curve distribution which puts those investigators who discovered more truth at the far right and those who discovered less truth at the far left. Most of them would have been somewhere in the middle of the curve.To highlight one of your example questions, with the intention of furthering the discussion on this point: “How did the kidnappers know that the family would be there?” I submit that the kidnapper would not have known for certain the family would be at Highfields on a Tuesday night, unless he, i) had inside information from the same day to confirm this, ii) didn’t know, but decided to travel there on that day to find out, or iii) believed the Lindberghs were now fulltime residents of Highfields.As no valid insider information connection to the perpetrator has ever come to light, despite many extremely intensive investigations into this possibility, and it seems highly unlikely the kidnapper would have just jumped into his car, ladder in tow and driven about two hours to see if the family might be there on any given day, I tend to believe option iii) represents the strongest likelihood.This position is supported by various photo feature news stories which appeared in the midsummer of 1931, a full eight months before the kidnapping. As an example, the Associated Press on July 28, 1931, reported,
“The Colonel expects the house to be ready for occupancy when he returns from his aerial tour of the Orient.”
At the time, this story would have implied that the Lindbergh family would be living permanently at Highfields well before Christmas of 1931. (I tried to upload my source news photo story but wasn't able to as the forum size limit has currently reached its limit. I'll try again in a following post.)Just a few thoughts about Leon Hoage for now. Despite all of the positive press he appears to get in Dark Corners and on this discussion forum in general, I fail to see how he brought anything of a positively transforming nature to Governor Hoffman’s desk, or even cast substantial doubt on any of the official conclusions. To a large extent, I believe he came into the case with good intentions and an honest desire to discover, or rediscover the truth, but eventually just got swept up within a one scenario after another which pitted whatever objectivity he retained, against supposed ‘new evidence’ that actually represented little or no additive value to the case, all the while wishing to remain on the case. Arch Loney was another such member of Hoffman's camp, albeit a far more abrasive and ego-driven charlatan.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Apr 20, 2024 11:31:28 GMT -5
So you believe this mysterious lady never even came up to Condon at his violin charity sale with her cryptically suggestive remarks? I do find that a bit hard to process. After all, didn’t he tell Breckinridge about the event, and even go as far as conscripting his daughter-in-law to drive him to Tuckahoe Station in Al’s absence? Yes, there are the usual Condon contradictions involved here, but the basis of the account remains pretty solid in my estimation, and none of it out of necessity, casts him in the role as some kind of criminal conspirator.
I do not believe this story. I do believe he had private and secret conversations with those involved at this venue, but the story about this woman was the usual Condon misdirection type. Remember, again, that he testified under oath during the Grand Jury that he never met anyone or went to meet anyone at Tuckahoe. However, we have documented proof that he told Breckinridge, Coleman, Agent Seykora, Agent O'Leary, Agent Sisk, etc. that he DID go to Tuckahoe for the purposes of meeting with this woman. This clearly indicates that he either committed perjury or obstructed justice. Both felonies so pick your poison. Why are you ignoring this? I do not ignore facts, but I do seek to know more about exactly what shaped them, as opposed to simply standing there and pointing to them as if to say, “You see?” But as you’ve done just that, tell me this.
What evidence do you cite as the basis of your belief that Condon had a ‘private and secret conversation with those involved at this venue?” And if he did actually have such a conversation, why on earth would he have immediately volunteered to Breckinridge any information at all relating to having had such a potentially self-damning communication, given your seemingly locked-in notion that Condon was a willing confederate of the kidnapper/extortionist?
Finally, I am still waiting for an answer to my question which, so far, you have evaded: Considering the possibility that the identification of Hauptmann was bogus, what does that mean? Well it could be, among other things, that Perrone saw somebody else. However, if it was Hauptmann, as you seem to be so sure of, then how can you ignore what he told Sgt. Zapolsky? You know, that while on City Island he saw a man speaking to Condon who " he thought was the man that gave him the note." Sure, I’ll provide my thoughts on your questions, if you’ll give me the courtesy of replying to one I presented to you a while ago, and which I’ve essentially fashioned into my following response to you.
I don’t doubt that Perrone might have momentarily considered the man he saw talking to Condon on City Island, was the same man who gave him the envelope to deliver to Condon. After all, if Condon was looking for the same person he had encountered at Woodlawn and St. Raymond's cemeteries, and based on their independent descriptions of the man they each encountered, it stands to reason he would have approached and engaged in discussion, a few whom he thought bore a resemblance to Cemetery John. And I certainly don’t preclude the possibility this is exactly what took place during Perrone’s reported observation on City Island. Would you consider such a possibility?
And on that note, didn't Joseph Perrone initially identify many individuals whom he claimed bore a resemblance to the man who gave him the envelope? And didn't John Condon also do this during the same two-and-a-half year period between his negotiations with Cemetery John? My primary question here was, why would you continually nail Condon to the wall for his actions, painting him as a lowlife criminal, while essentially slapping Perron on the wrist for his 'mis-identification issues?'
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Apr 20, 2024 15:57:10 GMT -5
There's no telling as to a percentage of who would've felt this way, but when they put it all together: "How did the kidnappers know that the family would be there? I could believe they just got lucky, but how did they also know where the nursery was? The house doesn't have curtains, but that doesn't mean that everything that goes on inside can be seen from the outside. Plus, how did they manage to not disturb anything around the windowsill or make any noise? I don't know, the more I look at it, the more it looks like these guys had help..." When trained investigators start noticing things like that, which they would've had to have done, I think it's very possible that some of them started putting two and two together and started having suspicions. From there, it's plausible no one said anything publicly because who would want to be the one to open that can of worms, particularly without clear proof? A person who immediately springs to mind who felt something was "off" here was Leon Ho-age. The questions you pose and which would have faced every investigator working on this case, are all valid and each one would have subsequently required drilling down into until nothing but the truth remained. We know for a fact, not every investigator on the Lindbergh Case was gifted with the same detection and mental abilities, experiential background or even had the full scope of the available information to discover what all of them would equally have concluded to be the truth. In terms of overall abilities, crime investigators are no different than mechanics, dentists and landscapers. They all know their basic craft but simply put, there are good ones, bad ones and most are probably somewhere in the middle. Therefore in this case, it seems reasonable you’re probably going to end up with some kind of bell curve distribution which puts those investigators who discovered more truth at the far right and those who discovered less truth at the far left. Most of them would have been somewhere in the middle of the curve.To highlight one of your example questions, with the intention of furthering the discussion on this point: “How did the kidnappers know that the family would be there?” I submit that the kidnapper would not have known for certain the family would be at Highfields on a Tuesday night, unless he, i) had inside information from the same day to confirm this, ii) didn’t know, but decided to travel there on that day to find out, or iii) believed the Lindberghs were now fulltime residents of Highfields.As no valid insider information connection to the perpetrator has ever come to light, despite many extremely intensive investigations into this possibility, and it seems highly unlikely the kidnapper would have just jumped into his car, ladder in tow and driven about two hours to see if the family might be there on any given day, I tend to believe option iii) represents the strongest likelihood.This position is supported by various photo feature news stories which appeared in the midsummer of 1931, a full eight months before the kidnapping. As an example, the Associated Press on July 28, 1931, reported,
“The Colonel expects the house to be ready for occupancy when he returns from his aerial tour of the Orient.”
At the time, this story would have implied that the Lindbergh family would be living permanently at Highfields well before Christmas of 1931. (I tried to upload my source news photo story but wasn't able to as the forum size limit has currently reached its limit. I'll try again in a following post.)Just a few thoughts about Leon Hoage for now. Despite all of the positive press he appears to get in Dark Corners and on this discussion forum in general, I fail to see how he brought anything of a positively transforming nature to Governor Hoffman’s desk, or even cast substantial doubt on any of the official conclusions. To a large extent, I believe he came into the case with good intentions and an honest desire to discover, or rediscover the truth, but eventually just got swept up within a one scenario after another which pitted whatever objectivity he retained, against supposed ‘new evidence’ that actually represented little or no additive value to the case, all the while wishing to remain on the case. Arch Loney was another such member of Hoffman's camp, albeit a far more abrasive and ego-driven charlatan. I agree that, all things being equal, the kidnappers could've just assumed that the Lindberghs were full-time residents of Highfields and got lucky that night. Actually, for a long time, I believed that's just what happened. But then, when I look at everything else that seemed to fall into place for them, for me, it honestly gets to be too many pieces of "good luck" and another scenario besides the official version of events becomes more plausible (again, for me; not trying to sway anyone here). This is particularly true when that alternate scenario explains some of the key players' eyebrow-raising behavior.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Apr 21, 2024 9:21:37 GMT -5
In a case of this social magnitude and the nth degree of investigative scrutiny to which it was subjected, it naturally follows there is that more information to effectively draw water from than your average crime would reasonably offer. That's why there is and always will be, no shortage of ‘Top 10’ type speculation lists. Lists that for example, point the finger at Charles Lindbergh for having engineered the kidnapping and murder of his son. Or that he colluded with an eminent surgeon and biologist to offer up his son on the altar of genetic advancement. Or that John Condon decided to give up a lifetime of community oriented and devotional service, in favour of the spontaneous opportunity to willing consort with the kidnapper and killer of the son of his national hero and then write a book about the details of his role.
I believe it’s clear that these speculation lists draw from the same pool of information that on another hand, might be equally well put to use to suggest that Richard Hauptmann was even more guilty of the crime than he has already and conclusively proven by relevant circumstantial physical evidence, to have been. Of course that wouldn’t be fair to Hauptmann, unless any of those specific suggestive circumstances could then be proven beyond all reasonable doubt by means of deeper evaluation, until nothing but the truth remained and that conclusively demonstrated this. I often encourage others to engage here in a deeper evaluation of the facts in order to determine where they objectively and truthfully, fall and gather. And as I have interminable patience, I guess I'll just keep doing that. At the end of the day, I submit that this crime is a much simpler and more straight forward affair than it’s made out to be here and in countless books, articles and videos.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Apr 21, 2024 12:02:47 GMT -5
Fair enough. And I do believe Hauptmann was involved--in it up to his neck, in fact. I think he was the one who they happened to catch.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Apr 27, 2024 6:52:58 GMT -5
Fair enough. And I do believe Hauptmann was involved--in it up to his neck, in fact. I think he was the one who they happened to catch. Given that Hauptmann, by conservative estimates and not including his claims of 'trunk money,' (even though he couldn't afford to keep his electrical power from being turned off the very weekend of the ransom payment) appears to have benefitted almost entirely from the proceeds of the $50,000 ransom payment through financial accounting analysis. Why would these other suspected participants you allude to, have agreed to settle for such scraps? And if these other hypothetical players, ostensibly higher up the food chain, had perhaps been shafted by Hauptmann after the ransom payment, why would he have been allowed to remain living in plain sight in the Bronx for two-and-a-half years prior to his capture, or living, period?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Apr 27, 2024 10:49:09 GMT -5
Well, as you say, Hauptmann couldn’t afford to keep his electricity on and was still living in that tiny apartment, so I don’t know how much he really did benefit or how much of the money he ever really had. My impression is that maybe some elements of his “Fisch story” were true: He was involved, was holding a chunk of the ransom money, started spending it when he thought the heat was off, was unlucky enough to get caught, and so all attention was put on him. And yes, Hauptmann certainly was guilty and deeply involved; I just don’t believe it began and ended with him.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 27, 2024 12:34:32 GMT -5
Well, as you say, Hauptmann couldn’t afford to keep his electricity on and was still living in that tiny apartment, so I don’t know how much he really did benefit or how much of the money he ever really had. My impression is that maybe some elements of his “Fisch story” were true: He was involved, was holding a chunk of the ransom money, started spending it when he thought the heat was off, was unlucky enough to get caught, and so all attention was put on him. And yes, Hauptmann certainly was guilty and deeply involved; I just don’t believe it began and ended with him. We hear Hauptmann was "broke" and in desperate need of money but still bought a new car, quit his job, and went on that trip to California. Upon his return, he paid for his storage bill, then upgraded his living situation by renting a place that cost MORE than before he left. On top of that, in December 1931, he sent his niece $5 for Christmas. Agent Frank conceded that Hauptmann may have had money he could not account for by using the ordinary investigative methods -- its right in his report. For anyone interested in this aspect, I recommend reading Chapter 7 in V2 which gives the totality of the situation and not just a one-sided point of view.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Apr 27, 2024 13:03:43 GMT -5
Well, as you say, Hauptmann couldn’t afford to keep his electricity on and was still living in that tiny apartment, so I don’t know how much he really did benefit or how much of the money he ever really had. My impression is that maybe some elements of his “Fisch story” were true: He was involved, was holding a chunk of the ransom money, started spending it when he thought the heat was off, was unlucky enough to get caught, and so all attention was put on him. And yes, Hauptmann certainly was guilty and deeply involved; I just don’t believe it began and ended with him. We hear Hauptmann was "broke" and in desperate need of money but still bought a new car, quit his job, and went on that trip to California. Upon his return, he paid for his storage bill, then upgraded his living situation by renting a place that cost MORE than before he left. On top of that, in December 1931, he sent his niece $5 for Christmas. Agent Frank conceded that Hauptmann may have had money he could not account for by using the ordinary investigative methods -- its right in his report. For anyone interested in this aspect, I recommend reading Chapter 7 in V2 which gives the totality of the situation and not just a one-sided point of view. And yet Hauptmann allowed his unpaid electrical bill to get to the point where the lights were actually turned out the very weekend Cemetery John received the ransom payment? We're not talking here about when he bought his car which was a full 13 months before, or when he went vacationing across the country nine months previous.
And how many people, conclusively proven to have been involved in both a kidnapping and extortion, with money in the bank as you infer, would also be looking for 6 days of tough-to-find employment between March 21 and April 2, 1932, while the ransom negotiations were in full swing, unless they actually needed the money?
And yes, he quit his job when he got the ransom payment, but I tend to doubt he actually felt his job was needed at that point. Or am I stating the obvious here?
If you're going to provide what you refer to as the 'totality of the situation,' at least consider making that same information, relevant within its totality.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 27, 2024 13:22:04 GMT -5
And yet Hauptmann allowed his unpaid electrical bill to get to the point where the lights were actually turned out the very weekend Cemetery John received the ransom payment? We're not talking here about when he bought his car which was a full 13 months before, or when he went vacationing across the country nine months previous.
And how many people, conclusively proven to have been involved in both a kidnapping and extortion, with money in the bank as you infer, would also be looking for 6 days of tough-to-find employment between March 21 and April 2, 1932, while the ransom negotiations were in full swing, unless they actually needed the money?
And yes, he quit his job when he got the ransom payment, but I tend to doubt he actually felt his job was needed at that point. Or am I stating the obvious here?
If you're going to provide what you refer to as the 'totality of the situation,' at least consider making that same information, relevant within its totality. I don't understand your point Joe. Hauptmann did a lot of strange things that are hard to explain when it came to money. As far as looking for a job, I don't get this either. He worked for Grizzle at a time when jobs were scarce and he QUIT to take a cross country vacation. This was before the ransom was paid too. Once he got back, one of the first things he did was try to get his old job back. Next, the evidence is that he did quit at noon on April 2 from Majestic. Why was he so sure there was ransom money coming his way? Remember Woodlawn? Cemetery John was not only surprised by what he thought was a cop, he EXPECTED payment at that time and got stiffed. Can't have it both ways my friend.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Apr 28, 2024 6:28:58 GMT -5
And yet Hauptmann allowed his unpaid electrical bill to get to the point where the lights were actually turned out the very weekend Cemetery John received the ransom payment? We're not talking here about when he bought his car which was a full 13 months before, or when he went vacationing across the country nine months previous.
And how many people, conclusively proven to have been involved in both a kidnapping and extortion, with money in the bank as you infer, would also be looking for 6 days of tough-to-find employment between March 21 and April 2, 1932, while the ransom negotiations were in full swing, unless they actually needed the money?
And yes, he quit his job when he got the ransom payment, but I tend to doubt he actually felt his job was needed at that point. Or am I stating the obvious here?
If you're going to provide what you refer to as the 'totality of the situation,' at least consider making that same information, relevant within its totality. I don't understand your point Joe. Hauptmann did a lot of strange things that are hard to explain when it came to money. As far as looking for a job, I don't get this either. He worked for Grizzle at a time when jobs were scarce and he QUIT to take a cross country vacation. This was before the ransom was paid too. Once he got back, one of the first things he did was try to get his old job back. Next, the evidence is that he did quit at noon on April 2 from Majestic. Why was he so sure there was ransom money coming his way? Remember Woodlawn? Cemetery John was not only surprised by what he thought was a cop, he EXPECTED payment at that time and got stiffed. Can't have it both ways my friend. Hauptmann is the one here who couldn’t have it both ways. People in 1932 paid their electrical bill, especially in the winter months, to keep the lights and heat on and the stove working in addition to avoiding reconnection charges. Unless they were having financial issues which prevented them from doing this and/or they paid no attention to warning notifications. We’re not talking here about letting a margin call with a broker ride for a couple of months or shortchanging the wife of the guy he hit with his car, the latter example of which was a result of Hauptmann simply having been a cheap SOB.
I'm not disagreeing with you about the noon quitting of Hauptmann’s job at the Majestic, but can you please indicate the source for this? Perhaps his level of trust within a successful negotiations had been developed to a point of certainty in is mind. At the same time though, I can't quite see Hauptmann not back hammering nails on Monday morning, had there been a delay in getting his 50K in blood money. After all, wasn’t 'adaptation' his middle name? And do you have any other explanations as to why a man in the middle of the worst Depression ever, would quit his job, (while eventually lying to investigators about his reason for doing so) on the same day a $50,000 ransom payment was made to Cemetery John?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 28, 2024 12:35:06 GMT -5
Hauptmann is the one here who couldn’t have it both ways. People in 1932 paid their electrical bill, especially in the winter months, to keep the lights and heat on and the stove working in addition to avoiding reconnection charges. Unless they were having financial issues which prevented them from doing this and/or they paid no attention to warning notifications. We’re not talking here about letting a margin call with a broker ride for a couple of months or shortchanging the wife of the guy he hit with his car, the latter example of which was a result of Hauptmann simply having been a cheap SOB.
I'm not disagreeing with you about the noon quitting of Hauptmann’s job at the Majestic, but can you please indicate the source for this? Perhaps his level of trust within a successful negotiations had been developed to a point of certainty in is mind. At the same time though, I can't quite see Hauptmann not back hammering nails on Monday morning, had there been a delay in getting his 50K in blood money. After all, wasn’t 'adaptation' his middle name? And do you have any other explanations as to why a man in the middle of the worst Depression ever, would quit his job, (while eventually lying to investigators about his reason for doing so) on the same day a $50,000 ransom payment was made to Cemetery John?How much was his electric bill and what is your source? I ask because you failed to live up to your own "rule" about how to post here and I'd like to look it up. Your assertion that he was having such terrible financial issues that he couldn't even pay his electric bill is complete bullshit. According to Special Agent Frank, on April 2, 1932, before the ransom was paid, Hauptmann was worth approximately $5,000. And this is without applying his caveat about the possibility of other funds existing outside of what "ordinary investigative methods" would reveal. Consider also, that on July 4, 1930, Hauptmann stopped keeping records concerning his earnings. Because of this Frank wrote: " Because of the absence of Hauptmann's own records, it is impossible to definitely establish his earnings for the year 1930." I will also refer you to my book again where among other things, Hauptmann claimed to have cash hidden in his trunk which is something people absolutely did during the Depression. There are several sources for the April 2 noon resignation, proving the time cards were indeed tampered with since they indicate he resigned on April 4: Acting Lt Dinneen, NYPD Memo (undated) Sgt. Albrecht, NJSP Report 9/20/34 Det. Duane, NYPD Report 10/25/34 (says "around mid-day") Special Agent Sisk, (FBI) Report 10/29/34 Det. Cronin, NYPD, Report 11/5/34
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 28, 2024 13:21:10 GMT -5
And do you have any other explanations as to why a man in the middle of the worst Depression ever, would quit his job, (while eventually lying to investigators about his reason for doing so) on the same day a $50,000 ransom payment was made to Cemetery John? Since Cemetery John was stiffed at Woodlawn, we must consider that if one believes Hauptmann was either CJ or another of those closely involved, he was convinced payment was guaranteed at St. Raymond's. There's only one person who could have relayed that message - and that person would have been completely trusted as if he was one of them. Take a guess who that was Joe.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Apr 28, 2024 15:06:21 GMT -5
And do you have any other explanations as to why a man in the middle of the worst Depression ever, would quit his job, (while eventually lying to investigators about his reason for doing so) on the same day a $50,000 ransom payment was made to Cemetery John? Since Cemetery John was stiffed at Woodlawn, we must consider that if one believes Hauptmann was either CJ or another of those closely involved, he was convinced payment was guaranteed at St. Raymond's. There's only one person who could have relayed that message - and that person would have been completely trusted as if he was one of them. Take a guess who that was Joe. Hauptmann's father? Didn't Hauptmann tell Condon at St. Raymond's that his father wouldn't allow the latter to go with him to retrieve the baby? Hey, father knows best and I'll put my money on him for having the inside scoop. Of course I'm messing with you here, but please do tell me your thoughts..
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Apr 29, 2024 11:45:57 GMT -5
And do you have any other explanations as to why a man in the middle of the worst Depression ever, would quit his job, (while eventually lying to investigators about his reason for doing so) on the same day a $50,000 ransom payment was made to Cemetery John? Since Cemetery John was stiffed at Woodlawn, we must consider that if one believes Hauptmann was either CJ or another of those closely involved, he was convinced payment was guaranteed at St. Raymond's. There's only one person who could have relayed that message - and that person would have been completely trusted as if he was one of them. Take a guess who that was Joe. I believe what you're doing here is beginning with one assumption and then blithely moving on to the next one in a kind of personal speculation sequence, until ultimately and unavoidably, you arrive at your own tried and true scapegoat, intermediary John Condon. Am I close?
While Hauptmann would have had reasonable assurance the ransom would be handed over on the night of April 2, 1932, he might also have found himself effectively ambushed by gun toting police instead. After all, law enforcement could well have been placed at St. Raymond's well within the 45 minute window specified by Hauptmann, if Lindbergh had chosen to alert them accordingly. Lindbergh though, absolutely refused to allow any interference within the transaction he hoped would bring his son back. A certain level of mutual trust had to have been developed on both sides over the course of the three weeks since Woodlawn Cemetery for the final meeting to take place, period. Despite the fact this trust was not set back in any demonstrable way over that period, Hauptmann still took a monumental risk by appearing at St. Raymond's. But he also knew if he didn't, he would not be $50,000 richer. Not much different than not knowing if he was going to suddenly be surprised by someone walking into the nursery while abducting Charlie. Risk management on his part, and little more here.
|
|