|
Rickets
Nov 9, 2017 19:36:11 GMT -5
Post by trojanusc on Nov 9, 2017 19:36:11 GMT -5
What you showed there, Stella, in a photo of Hauptmann holding his baby son, Manfried. This is the first time I've seen that photo, and at first glance, he seems to have an abnormally wide head. We know, however, that Manfried lived to at least his 80s, so whatever probbem he may have had with his head either resolved on its own or was treated successfully He's still alive isn't he?
|
|
|
Rickets
Nov 10, 2017 8:45:03 GMT -5
Post by hurtelable on Nov 10, 2017 8:45:03 GMT -5
I don't know that for a fact. The reason why I know that Manfred Hauptmann reached age 80 is that Robert Zorn went to Manfried's home in Pennsylvania, attempting to interview him for his book, "Cemetery John," several years ago. Manfried was very much alive at the time.
|
|
|
Rickets
Nov 10, 2017 9:45:37 GMT -5
Post by wolfman666 on Nov 10, 2017 9:45:37 GMT -5
so what does this pertain to the kidnapping. if you think Lindbergh had his son killed because of this, I think its insane.
|
|
|
Rickets
Nov 10, 2017 20:33:27 GMT -5
Post by hurtelable on Nov 10, 2017 20:33:27 GMT -5
Slight correction to my earlier post:
At the time author Robert Zorn visited Manfred Hauptmann in Pennsylvania in 2010, Manfred Hauptmann was 77 years old. This brief story is told in Zorn's "Cemetery John", pp. 229-230. (FWIW, I don't buy Zorn's proposed theory on the LKC.)
|
|
|
Rickets
Nov 10, 2017 20:43:12 GMT -5
Post by hurtelable on Nov 10, 2017 20:43:12 GMT -5
UPDATE:
Manfred Hauptmann died on Jan. 2, 2016 at age 82. Last residence was in Farmington Hills, Michigan.
|
|
|
Rickets
Nov 11, 2017 7:12:47 GMT -5
Post by trojanusc on Nov 11, 2017 7:12:47 GMT -5
UPDATE: Manfred Hauptmann died on Jan. 2, 2016 at age 82. Last residence was in Farmington Hills, Michigan. There was one living in MI. He was living in Pennsylvania last anyone heard and that one appears to still be alive. Are you sure this is the correct Manfred Hauptmann you are speaking of?
|
|
|
Rickets
Nov 11, 2017 10:47:26 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Nov 11, 2017 10:47:26 GMT -5
He's still alive isn't he? I have no idea myself. When I first started researching I was told that he was a private person who wanted to be left alone. As a researcher I won't contact anyone who's made that clear. For me it would have been disrespectful. So I am very surprised to hear Zorn interviewed him from both sides of it. Still not enough to get me to buy his book tho....
|
|
|
Rickets
Nov 11, 2017 12:47:13 GMT -5
Post by hurtelable on Nov 11, 2017 12:47:13 GMT -5
He's still alive isn't he? I have no idea myself. When I first started researching I was told that he was a private person who wanted to be left alone. As a researcher I won't contact anyone who's made that clear. For me it would have been disrespectful. So I am very surprised to hear Zorn interviewed him from both sides of it. Still not enough to get me to buy his book tho.... Well, what Zorn did was just to drop by unannounced at Manfred Hauptmann's place in Pennsylvania in 2010. Manfred came out of his house and talked briefly to Zorn. As soon as the subject turned to Manfred's father, Manfred abruptly broke it off and went back into his residence. So, Michael, you are correct about Manfred and you didn't miss anything by not interviewing him.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Nov 11, 2017 12:57:51 GMT -5
All I can tell you is the web site I found showing Manfred's death on Jan. 2, 2016 also showed his date of birth, which was in the same year (1933) in which we know that Manfred was born. You can link to it by Google if you insert MANFRED HAUPTMANN OBITUARY.
|
|
|
Rickets
Nov 11, 2017 14:31:47 GMT -5
xjd likes this
Post by stella7 on Nov 11, 2017 14:31:47 GMT -5
I'm sorry if my post about Manfried seemed rude, I was just trying to point out that babies come in all shapes and sizes and develope at different paces, most of which fall into the norm. We have very little to go on in Charlie's case and in those photos up to when he is a year old he appears normal.
|
|
|
Rickets
Nov 11, 2017 15:31:38 GMT -5
Post by Mbg on Nov 11, 2017 15:31:38 GMT -5
Anna and Richard Hauptmann's son Manfred was born on November 3, 1933. He should still be alive, living in Pennsylvania.
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Nov 12, 2017 12:47:45 GMT -5
I'm sorry if my post about Manfried seemed rude, I was just trying to point out that babies come in all shapes and sizes and develope at different paces, most of which fall into the norm. We have very little to go on in Charlie's case and in those photos up to when he is a year old he appears normal. i for one knew what you meant Stella7. seems like i've read somewhere that babies heads & eyes are naturally disproportionately large compared to their other body parts, part of nature's way to make them seem cute and thus guarantee that adults protect them.
|
|
|
Rickets
Nov 12, 2017 21:46:15 GMT -5
Post by hurtelable on Nov 12, 2017 21:46:15 GMT -5
i
As a general rule, the length of a newborn's head is approximately 1/4 of the length of the entire body. That fraction gradually decreases with age and development, until adulthood, when head height is approximately 1/8 of total height
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 13, 2017 14:23:07 GMT -5
so what does this pertain to the kidnapping. if you think Lindbergh had his son killed because of this, I think its insane. Lindbergh "forgot" his engagement. Hard to believe that he would but okay... But he comes home using a road he didn't normal traverse. Why? Also, the trail of footprints led to a car parked on Wertsville Road. Lindbergh blowing his horn upon coming home around 8:25PM should have passed right by it. He claims he saw nothing. When he called Anne to say he was going to be a little late she thought he could make it home in 1/2 hour. Why was he going to be late? Where was he when he called? Whited saw him come home earlier than expected and in line with Anne's belief concerning the possible timing of his return. There's a lot of circumstances, just in this short paragraph, that suggests something was not right. We can all shrug it off, or, we can explore the different possibilities.
|
|
|
Rickets
Nov 16, 2017 9:48:36 GMT -5
Post by wolfman666 on Nov 16, 2017 9:48:36 GMT -5
I guess its nice to talk about it but theres no real evidence. somebody who writes the next book on Lindbergh doing it might make some money. im not talking about your next book either. I tried to make it to Flemington last Saturday for cahills book talk, but being a veteran I had to go to some functions
|
|
|
Rickets
Nov 16, 2017 9:50:25 GMT -5
Post by wolfman666 on Nov 16, 2017 9:50:25 GMT -5
I know talking to anna hauptmans friend at the time, her son wanted her to stop fighting and get on with her life. I met her on Ritchie sloans first lindy tour in the bronx
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 16, 2017 10:35:04 GMT -5
I guess its nice to talk about it but theres no real evidence. somebody who writes the next book on Lindbergh doing it might make some money. im not talking about your next book either. I tried to make it to Flemington last Saturday for cahills book talk, but being a veteran I had to go to some functions My books are all based on what's in the source material. That's plural. Not just one source or the one I happen to have in front of me at the time. The volume I am currently working on moves on to after the crime, and both before and after the discovery of the body. I may run out of room to get into the trial which I can always address in the next volume. Again, my goal is to bring out NEW information that was missed. Aside from Lloyd, I find that most Authors relied on a limited amount of sources. They "find" what they are looking for, use it to announce what "happened" then that's that. It is insane from where I am sitting to use the Trial Transcripts, or the FBI Summary as the only source for any one topic. I think at the very least I have proven one has to gather ALL or as many possible sources to find ALL facts which can lead anyone to the truth of the situation. I've even seen a couple of footnotes where some are relying on Jafsie Tells All! to prove a specific scenario! Are you kidding me? The other thing is what appears to be some sort of "tactic." By that I demonstrate by example: The NYU Dinner. I have completely and utterly debunked the claim that Lindbergh missed this dinner due to "a scheduling error" by providing multiple sources - a couple of which quote Lindbergh himself saying he simply "forgot." So how do some reconcile this? Oh, they say I am wrong, without any counter argument or additional offer of proof beside what I have already smashed and disproven. I don't know if it's denial or what but to me it's proof that it's a troublesome fact and harms whatever it is they believe.
|
|
|
Rickets
Nov 17, 2017 9:50:39 GMT -5
Post by wolfman666 on Nov 17, 2017 9:50:39 GMT -5
i cant rely on jafsie tells all either, as far as the dinner, sue Campbell 20 years ago found the program and when authors say he was going to speak he wasn't on the list to speak. I thought it was a error on his part but didn't his secretary say she forgot to tell him? its not important to me anyway. if I planned to kill my baby wouldn't you want to go to the dinner? out of the way? just my opinion. we have to respect sue campbells research because she dug stuff up that I would have never found. siglande also.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 17, 2017 15:54:46 GMT -5
i cant rely on jafsie tells all either, as far as the dinner, sue Campbell 20 years ago found the program and when authors say he was going to speak he wasn't on the list to speak. I thought it was a error on his part but didn't his secretary say she forgot to tell him? its not important to me anyway. if I planned to kill my baby wouldn't you want to go to the dinner? out of the way? just my opinion. we have to respect sue campbells research because she dug stuff up that I would have never found. siglande also. I think it's been accepted among most of us that Sam was the first to find the program. Whether or not someone posts about it on the message board first doesn't mean they found it first. But maybe it was Sue who found it first? One thing for sure is that it was not me, and I only have it thanks to Sam. Regardless, the reason authors have repeated that Lindbergh was scheduled to "give a talk" there is because that's what the cops were saying and it's in some of their documentation. But does it really matter? No. What does? Well, he was invited to be there, he accepted, and was a no-show. His explanation was that he "forgot." Where was he, and why was he "late" in coming home? Nobody knows, and Lindbergh claimed he could not remember. So he's not only "late" he's unaccounted for until Whited sees him pull onto his private lane at 7:10PM or if you believe him he pulls in around 8:25PM. Those who hate the fact that Lindbergh missed the event, something he wasn't ever known to do, "like" the idea it wasn't his fault and that it was due to a "scheduling error." I thoroughly disprove this excuse (see TDC pages 24-5). So now we're left with the real facts to wrestle with - while those who can't come to terms with them repeat a false narrative to whomever will listen as if it were the truth. Many of these people actually represent themselves as "experts" on this case in order to convince others they should be believed. I can't possibly understand that mentality and frankly do not want to. My footnotes are listed and those documents can be found at their Archival source. But don't expect to see anyone telling you I am wrong there. You have a better chance of seeing Big Foot. Asking what anyone would do IF they were going to kill their child is irrelevant. Unless you have considered it right? And even then, we're talking about Eugenicist who actually believed he was of superior stock. So it makes sense IF his child was "defective" in any way, that thought would cross his mind. Once it crosses someone's mind then how can any of us say what's right or wrong about how to do it? Besides, if I planned to kill my baby, would I run the investigation and road-block law enforcement? No, I wouldn't. I'd want to know what was going on and even make suggestions, but I wouldn't "forbid" this or "order" that. I wouldn't say I thought someone on the inside was involved then block them from being considered as suspects either. But if Lindbergh was behind this thing - he did - and it all worked.
|
|
|
Rickets
Nov 17, 2017 18:39:53 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by lightningjew on Nov 17, 2017 18:39:53 GMT -5
Everything you say is indisputable. But that being said, if I was Lindbergh, or anyone else running some kind of conspiracy, why draw attention to it? Why say things like there was inside help when that’s the last thing you’d want the cops to look into? Why arouse suspicion by not at least pretending to be upset when viewing the body? To me, that would be very dangerous; like, almost daring the police to catch you. Can you elaborate a bit more on these anomalies?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 17, 2017 21:32:33 GMT -5
Everything you say is indisputable. But that being said, if I was Lindbergh, or anyone else running some kind of conspiracy, why draw attention to it? Why say things like there was inside help when that’s the last thing you’d want the cops to look into? Why arouse suspicion by not at least pretending to be upset when viewing the body? To me, that would be very dangerous; like, almost daring the police to catch you. Can you elaborate a bit more on these anomalies? I'd like to hear everyone's ideas about this.... However, when it came to what he did in the morgue, it seems to me he believed it showed strength. In other words, it exemplified an elite human ability to restrain his emotions. He used to brow beat Anne about showing her emotions as a reflection of weakness. So he believed a lack of emotion showed how "strong" he was. But in reality, I think it was a huge red flag to those in the room that something wasn't right. And add that to all of the other red flags it showed why most of them unofficially (e.g. Keaten, Walsh, and even Lamb) did believe he knew more about what was really going. Check out page 326 of TDC. Lindbergh told Cowie that he should be, as well as everyone else in the house, "suspected." That's something one might point to and say he wouldn't be saying that if he were guilty. But when it actually happened that was a whole different story. Lindbergh had Lamont call President Hoover and look at how fast Garsson was called off the case! And why? Because he suspected the family and their staff. Isn't that what Lindbergh said should have been done?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Nov 17, 2017 22:54:53 GMT -5
Makes sense. If someone was "on the spectrum" as we might say now (and as Lindbergh seemed to have been), they would very conceivably consider the kind of behavior we see from him in the morgue as stoicism and strength, rather than sociopathic callousness. But what Lindbergh told Cowie is a little different: Why would he say that? Because he was trying to show he had absolutely nothing to hide, knowing that no one would dare investigate him anyway?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 18, 2017 8:21:07 GMT -5
Makes sense. If someone was "on the spectrum" as we might say now (and as Lindbergh seemed to have been), they would very conceivably consider the kind of behavior we see from Lindbergh in the morgue as stoicism and strength, rather than sociopathic callousness. But what Lindbergh told Cowie is a little different: Why would he say that? Because he was trying to show he had absolutely nothing to hide, knowing that no one would dare investigate him anyway? I agree it is different. There were times he said contradictory things to different people. It's why I brought up Curtis right in my introduction. Most of the time he did defend his staff but at other times revealed his belief of the possibility someone there was involved. So why not use the lie detector? Lindbergh blocked it... no way, that would embarrass them! Who cares right? If it gets you your child back they will certainly understand. But no. Same with Condon as I will demonstrate in V2. Another example is the noise he supposedly heard... That was supposed to be when the Kidnappers broke that ladder, yet, he agreed with police that it actually happened earlier (see TDC p54). And we all know what that means because I've pounded away at those points in the book too. Lindbergh's testimony about the front door proves it could not have been used without at least someone in the house being aware to include Wahgoosh. It also makes his reasoning as to why he believed Curtis that much more damning (in my opinion) because of it. On page 40 of TDC I find it incredible that he's attempting to have that door fixed the day before while at the same time ignoring those defective shutters. To me, he wants that door fixed for the event while at the same time needs those shutters to stay in a state of disrepair for the exact same reason. Furthermore, it's such a basic fact that Wahgoosh would have barked that no one dares deny it - except him. So he's on the stand proving it all to us.
|
|
|
Post by wendyrite on Nov 18, 2017 17:40:52 GMT -5
Well I feel like the only thing I can ever possibly add is the viewpoint of someone with a baby (who looks a lot like little Charlie I might add with a head extraordinarily big for his body and golden curls). Our nanny has been with us for 15 years (she was also the nanny for my older stepdaughter). She’s like family and we love her. I’m only saying this to set the context because If my son disappeared, I would never for one second question her taking a lie detector test. I would absolutely 1000 percent ask and demand she take a lie detector test and I would also be furious that as the last person who saw the baby she must know something. I find it astounding the way he reacted to the staff around his son being taken. Why would protecting his staff be more important than possibley finding his child?! Who cares if they’re “embarrassed”?? Is this a time period thing? That it’s wrong to question staff?
|
|
|
Rickets
Nov 18, 2017 18:15:19 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by lightningjew on Nov 18, 2017 18:15:19 GMT -5
Micheal, since you mention it, a question about Wahgoosh: What does his not barking prove exactly? That he recognized the person entering the house as being Lindbergh? Wouldn’t he have barked regardless of whether or not it was a stranger or someone he knew, as most barky dogs do? Or do you think his silence might be the result of him being given something to knock him out and keep him quiet?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 18, 2017 21:08:19 GMT -5
Micheal, since you mention it, a question about Wahgoosh: What does his not barking prove exactly? That he recognized the person entering the house as being Lindbergh? Wouldn’t he have barked regardless of whether or not it was a stranger or someone he knew, as most barky dogs do? Or do you think his silence might be the result of him being given something to knock him out and keep him quiet? He's a real problem for any outsider who attempts to enter that house. Obviously the lesser of the two when it came to Skean but since Lindbergh left him behind he's out of the equation. So we have a dog "at large" who barks. Anyone who has the measurements to the window in order to build that ladder knows about this dog. They know about Skean sleeping in the nursery too. So what was their plan to defeat them both? Obviously there is no plan unless someone on the inside is taking care of that angle. Like Skean being left behind in Englewood for example. How was Wahgoosh dealt with? Well we're told he's in the farthest place in the house from the nursery. We're also told by Elsie there was so much noise due to the wind he wouldn't have heard a noise over it. We already know the wind itself also disproves so much about this scenario, but for me, Wahgoosh does not stay quiet when there is so much noise - so I agree with you that he'd be barking his head off. He could have been drugged as a option for an explanation. But he might have barked and the consensus was to say he did not - for whatever reason - maybe not to look negligent for ignoring it or perhaps because they knew why. Now we're faced with what we believe and who we believe. Right? And so I ask if Lindbergh's testimony believable? It takes unbelievable to a new level! For me, I am not looking at just one point or only one problem but all them, and there were many, that clearly indicate that something else was going on.
|
|
|
Rickets
Nov 21, 2017 9:55:24 GMT -5
Post by wolfman666 on Nov 21, 2017 9:55:24 GMT -5
yes sue Campbell found the program. sam had or has the most books and magazines on the case, he was very helpful through the years but sue found stuff that people on your board are just talking about but was mentioned many years ago. sue and I are currently if we have time to dig up bad dirt on condon if we find what we think its there wilentz couldn't have saved him on the stand. but as you know research can be disappointing also
|
|
|
Rickets
Nov 21, 2017 14:30:17 GMT -5
Post by Wayne on Nov 21, 2017 14:30:17 GMT -5
Hi Wolf,
Are you talking about Sam Bornstein's collection?
If so, just in case you don't already know, his entire collection is now at the NJSP Museum.
Tons of books, magazine articles, audio recordings, VHS tapes, and more.
If you or anyone hears wants a complete listing of his collection, just let me know.
|
|
|
Rickets
Nov 21, 2017 14:31:10 GMT -5
Post by Wayne on Nov 21, 2017 14:31:10 GMT -5
hears = here
|
|
|
Rickets
Nov 22, 2017 9:48:57 GMT -5
Post by wolfman666 on Nov 22, 2017 9:48:57 GMT -5
I know sam I met him many times and got things from him through the years. he donated that stuff a while ago
|
|