Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Jun 9, 2006 11:18:50 GMT -5
Michael, I understand your belief that this was a staged event and that Lindbergh himself commissioned the participants, ran the program from the beginning and then orchestrated the aftermath to create general confusion and false leads. Personally I see far too many issues that fly in the face of such a plan ever suceeding. And too few reasons why Lindbergh would ever want to attract the kind of investigative and public attention to himself and his family he knew he would be powerless to stop. Not to mention placing the reputations and lives of many high ranking individuals and other people directly on the firing line. On one hand, you are supporting Parker's interpretation of the events, as it relates to the timing, which in turn could have been supported only by a staged kidnapping. I don't recall Parker ever making any reference to the kidnapping having been staged at the direction of Lindbergh or anyone else. He ultimately concluded Paul Wendel had acted on his own, is that not right? So I am wondering how it is possible to support Parker's firm convictions about the timing of the kidnapping if he believed it was an actual kidnapping. Personally, I think he would have had great difficulty concluding anything of significance because of his general position on the case's periphery. For information, the font size of quotes can be changed from 2 to 3 by clicking on the font button which is directly above the quote button. Click the quote first, arrange the font inside the quote brackets and then add the copied text inside the font brackets. I find the size 2 too hard on these eyes!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 9, 2006 12:00:24 GMT -5
I have to make this quick because I am on my lunch break and already used up most of it cleaning up that Spammers mess.....
I am not sure what you are referring to....
However, it is true because I have a copy of the actual letter. If you think Nicholson is lying then I am all ears as to why. I don't think it is "irrelevent" because it is beyond strange that the Father of his murdered child would compliment Hauptmann in this way. It may have to do with CAL simply being "strange" like everyone said he was or taking his beliefs in Eugenics to the next level....
These are my thoughts. If they offend you in any way please know that isn't my purpose in writing them here. However, I can't hold back on posts because I will be afraid someone is going to "quit" the board. I think the diversity here is an asset and the last thing I want to do is censor thoughts and/or ideas - especially mine. Hopefully you see where I am coming from because I certainly wouldn't want you to leave.
You understand wrong Joe.
I haven't taken anyone off of my suspect list yet. I have many personal theories that I "float" out there in order to get a varying degree of observations, opinions, and arguments from the intelligent people on this board (and others).
Lindbergh ran the investigation and I am suspicious of many things concerning him that I have discovered during my research. A favorite theory of mine is that a group were hired to commit this "snatch."
Why would Parker have to? Does this mean we all must agree on everything or nothing is true or correct? This is an "all or nothing" argument and I really can't believe you are making it - especially here. You also seem to be assigning failure to everything Parker did because of what you perceive as a mistake concerning his conclusions in late '35.
Anyway, there is a ton of information we don't know yet. I personally have much that I have never discussed on this board. People have a tendency to think along the lines as though there is nothing more to consider because they may not have it in front of them.
My time is up but I'll try to check back later on tonight.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Jun 9, 2006 13:57:31 GMT -5
An observation on Lindbergh's comments about Hauptmann's physical stature. I also don't read a lot into this, other than to suggest it may have had more to do with Lindbergh's amazement that such a "fine physical specimen" was capable of involvement in such a sordid crime. This probably also speaks somewhat of Lindbergh's naivete and lack of appreciation towards the scope of human emotions and motivations and how they can override physicality. Whether of not Lindbergh truly believed Hauptmann acted alone, he made it very apparent he believed he was involved.
No problems there. I have a few suspects and related motivations of my own, in addition to Hauptmann being a definite. The intention of my post was only to point out a basic flaw in Parker's deductions relating to the timing for what he believed to be a real kidnapping, so that others might also consider including the relevant problems of such a conclusion.
What do you have difficulty believing? I'm pointing out the basic flaw in Parker's conclusion. He's the one who believed it was the kidnapper's car going by at 8:22 or 8:23 pm, and we both know there is no proof of that. And he doesn't explain how anyone participating in a real kidnapping, which he believed had just occurred, could have got from Point A to Point B in just over twenty minutes. We're all aware of the numerous steps that would have been involved in between. I'm talking strictly about the credibility of his own investigative conclusions timeline.
I have a problem with the logistics of Parker's conclusion, so please don't just stand there swinging at me in his defense. Enlighten me if you have information that's additive to his cause and my own understanding. If not, then just say so.
I'm "perceiving" Parker made a mistake in late 1935? If you're talking about ultimately kidnapping and trying to hang Paul Wendel, what would you call it?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 9, 2006 16:56:59 GMT -5
Well Joe, Lindy being naïvete and/or lack of appreciation toward these things isn't an explanation that I can accept - but at least I know your position - I think. I have no idea how Lindbergh could conclude what kind of build Hauptmann was - especially when considering his physical and mental condition after his arrest.
Bottom line - its a strange and very weird comment.
Lindbergh couldn't have possibly believed he (Hauptmann) acted alone based upon his very own observations and testimony in the Bronx Grand Jury Hearings.
I've even taken up positions I don't actually agree with in order to generate arguments to support what I did against the position. I do play "devil's advocate" from time to time. Again though - I am suspicious of Lindbergh's actions - that much I am willing to commit to 100%.
You keep referring to Parker's "basic flaw" in his timing but I have yet to see what this flaw is.
Where's the flaw Joe?
We're talking Ellis Parker. You know, the man considered one of the best Detectives in the World at the time. He visited the scene, conducted interviews, clocked the timing of events and drew a conclusion. How in the world can you or anyone else disqualify his position with mere conjecture? His methods and conclusions here are both sound and coherent.
How so? I have been trying to find out the location of the Moore's home and simply have not been able to do so yet. Unless you have I see no way you can draw this conclusion about Parker's investigation. Again, how do I offer a rebuttal to something which is based upon conjecture. Exactly what do I argue against?
And I am not swinging at you merely disagreeing with this point. I am also not "defending" Parker. I see his investigation as solid and legitimate. Anyone could see it this way and still disagree with the time-line for whatever reason they happen to hold more valuable.
For me it makes the most sense and fits in better then any other explanation.
The Wendel/Parker matter is a very complex one. If you want to debate this issue I suggest another thread is in order. Please be prepared with sources because I will call you on them.
John's book is due out soon and I suspect we'll all learn some new information when it does.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 9, 2006 17:49:31 GMT -5
That doesn't much matter to me in this context. Assume you have an asset on the inside. This agent could be staff or family. The one thing that you would not do at any cost , and I would think this agent would not go along with, is compromise their identity. The very fact that the Lindberghs were not usually at Highfields when the kidnapping occurred is an enormous red flag which to this day gives rise to suspicions regarding some inside aid. Give the fame of the Lindberghs and their propensity for travel and the social demands put upon them, it is difficult for me to believe that there were not numerous occasions when the child would be vulnerable. With the enormous advantage of an agent on the inside surely a safer and less suspicious abduction could be arranged.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Jun 9, 2006 21:19:16 GMT -5
The comment has always struck me as a bit unusual but I wouldn't go so far as to say "strange and very weird." And I try to consider the possibilities of Lindbergh's true intent and meaning, relative to the importance he placed on physical and mental conditioning. From most written accounts of the time, Hauptmann presented himself well physically at the trial in his tailored suits, and I don't say this from an admiration standpoint. (You have to go to another board to hear about how innocent some believe Hauptmann was because of his "handsomeness") Lindbergh had plenty of opportunity to observe Hauptmann in better condition, apart from his dishevelled appearance shortly after his arrest.
What specifically is it you can't accept here about Lindbergh's comments? You seem to be dancing a bit around something here. Are you suggesting Lindbergh knew Hauptmann better than to see him in a photo, or at the trial, and thus knew the man better or more intimately than we are commonly led to believe?
I'll try to get back on the other items relating to Parker tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 9, 2006 22:11:37 GMT -5
Well maybe its me, but I don't think I would be complimenting a guy who invaded my home, extorted $50,000 dollars from me, and murdered my son. It has to do with Lindbergh's ideologies, I am sure, which of course makes it even stranger to me that he is thinking about this at that very moment.
I promise you that if it were anyone other then a German sitting in that Defendant's chair Lindbergh wouldn't have made that comment.
Maybe its just the reason why so many people tagged Lindy with the "strange bird" label, or maybe it was something else....
|
|
|
Post by leah on Jun 10, 2006 8:07:14 GMT -5
how about naming his son "jon" a few months after the kidnapping and murder of his first son? i call that weird!
|
|
|
Post by mjrichmond on Jun 10, 2006 9:00:44 GMT -5
Michael -
I did not mean to "snark" at you regarding your question on Lindbergh's comment about Hauptmann's looks and I have no doubt that he made the comment.
I also would never ask you or anyone else not to post thoughts or questions because they might offend or keep someone else off the board.
I apologize for my reaction.
I reacted that way, I suppose, because when I left the "other board" one of the threads was a discussion of Lindbergh as (not "whether", mind you, but "as") a sociopathic, homosexual, serial killer. Equating him as a child once allegedly throwing a cat off a porch to see if it would land on its feet to Jeffery Dahmer disemboweling squirrels and wondering where he was when Amelia Earhart's plane disappeared. I feared your question about Lindbergh's comment on Hauptmann's looks was headed that way.
As for Lindbergh's comment, I really do not make much of it. It may have related to his, and many other prominent people's interest in eugenics - an interest that did not last. On the other hand, it may have just been an observation with no real meaning at all.
Mjr
|
|
|
Post by mjrichmond on Jun 10, 2006 9:12:00 GMT -5
<<<Give the fame of the Lindberghs and their propensity for travel and the social demands put upon them, it is difficult for me to believe that there were not numerous occasions when the child would be vulnerable. With the enormous advantage of an agent on the inside surely a safer and less suspicious abduction could be arranged.>>> Kevkon
Sorry, Kev, but I have to disagree here. Anne and Charles may have traveled a lot but Charlie did not. Where he could be found and when would only be known to a few, almost all of them insiders.
I agree about the importance of not compromising the identify of any insider. If the insider's knowledge or participation was crucial to the commission of the crime, however, they would not have had a choice.
If there was not an insider involved in this than the kidnappers were the luckiest guys east of the Mississippi because they would have had no idea who was where in the house or what they might encounter when they entered it.
Perhaps we will just have to agree to disagree.
Mjr
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 10, 2006 9:18:17 GMT -5
I wasn't aware that such a discussion ever occurred.... I don't believe either Lindbergh or Hauptmann fit this profile however I am sure there are opinions to the contrary. I personally don't see how being homosexual would have anything to do with this crime except in one instance which I have all but ruled out. This is stuff the profilers at VICAP (e.g. Robert K. Ressler, John Douglas, etc.) work on... www.fbi.gov/hq/isd/cirg/ncavc.htmIn any event, we agree that Lindbergh certainly wasn't a "Serial Killer."
|
|
|
Post by To Leah from Rick on Jun 10, 2006 12:55:15 GMT -5
Hi Leah/ yes I always thought that Jon was a bad choice later in 1932?
But Joyce Milton comes up with a reasonable explanation in her Biography of ANNe and CAL....Loss of Eden.....she says they wanted St. John or John the Baptist but settled on the Norski or Scandanavian version due to Cementary John!
|
|
|
Post by leah on Jun 10, 2006 14:52:30 GMT -5
uhm, i dont think so, where in the world did St John the Baptist come from. these were not church going people for heaven's sake! i dont think anne scott reeve and land were named for saints. i'd challenged that big time.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 10, 2006 15:42:36 GMT -5
But that is my point. An insider would be a valuable asset who could certainly have provided a better opportunity. On in which the child was not sick, aerial acrobatics were not necessary and little or no suspicion would be attached to the kidnapping as an inside job. In fact, depending on who this insider was, a routine could be established by this person which could provide an easy opportunity for a snatch.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 10, 2006 18:32:06 GMT -5
What better time then when the family is in the middle of nowhere, unguarded, and between 8 & 10 - a time when no one was to disturb the child by order of his Father?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 10, 2006 19:40:18 GMT -5
As opposed to what? Is this night really so opportune? Is Hopewell really an advantage?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 skeptic5 on Jun 10, 2006 19:44:12 GMT -5
K and M: If CAL was in fact at the NYU dinner as supposedly planned by the insider or by reading the Bronx Home News...well then I could buy in as Tuesday being the perfect nite? BUT not with CAL coming home unexpectedly and him a down-home country boy with a shotgun sitting in the Library>DYBT?
Not only would the insider risk getting shot, but the outsiders, climbers etc. would have to be alerted. The insider would have waved them off. Unless Charlie was gone before CAL got home/
Nope, for my 2 cents, the perfect nite was Monday nite cause CAL/Gow stayed in Englewood and Tuesday was when the staged coverup plan was put into order.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 skeptic4 on Jun 10, 2006 19:57:04 GMT -5
Leah...page 268 Loss of Eden, John was the leftover name from when Charlie was borne? Apparently, Anne and CAL did not have a copy of Dr. Spock with the 7500 baby names? They debated and abreviated it to Jon? DYBT?
You will have to expand your belief system to read the posts on the LKC. After all, Walsh poked a bullet hole in Charlies skull with a stick and Annes footprints were out under the kidnap window (with CALs) from when she was throwing pebbles at Charlies bedroom window? DYBT?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Jun 10, 2006 20:58:21 GMT -5
I see two problems. The timing is too tight and doesn't give the kidnappers enough time to do what Parker implies they had done in a span of 22 to 23 minutes. And I don't see much more within Parker's conclusion to hang a hat on other than that the Moore's observed a non-descript muddy sedan speeding by at a point roughly two hours after the Conovers very likely observed the real kidnapper's car in Featherbed Lane.
Your classification of Parker's abilities and judgment at the time of the Lindbergh kidnapping is open to an entirely different debate. On topic, do you actually have a record of Parker's breakdown of the indivdual steps and the timing as determined by his actual recreation of the event? Michael, I'm really not out to bash Parker here, but I see you essentially agreeing with him on this and I'm trying to understand how he could have concluded the kidnappers were as efficient as he implied they were. There are too many points I have considered in the chain of events that tell me he was wrong.
Then how are you able to conclude Parker's investigation was solid and legitimate if you don't know the location where the Moore's saw the car speed by? This is an important element relating to the overall timing of the event. Is there a Parker-based timeline beginning from the time Betty Gow left the nursery until the Moore's sighting of the muddy sedan? If so, I'd really like to see it.
Where this fiasco gets complex and the head shaking starts is the moment Parker decided to kidnap Wendel and coerce him into confessing to the Lindergh kidnapping. It's hard to read any other way and didn't Parker even comment that someone should have hit him in the head?
|
|
|
Post by pamela on Jun 10, 2006 21:20:22 GMT -5
If what the police are telling Lindbergh is true - and he had no real reason to doubt it - than Hauptmann's voice must be the one that he heard. Consider him identified. That makes Lindbergh wrong - not a liar.
The lie was that Lindbergh testified under oath that he heard "Hey Doctor" when he was sitting in a car 80 feet away from Condon. It would have been impossible for Lindbergh (who reportedly had hearing loss due to all the flying) to hear any voice under the circumstances. That leaves Condon as the sole earwitness, and Condon's credibility is minimal.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Jun 10, 2006 22:23:01 GMT -5
CJ was well inside the grounds of St. Raymond when he called out to Condon, who was well outside the cemetery, so it's safe to conclude he called out in a shout to attract the latter's attention. Lindbergh was only parked on the other side of the street and was no doubt very attuned to what was going on around him. There would have been relatively little background and traffic noise at that time. Lindbergh was not deaf and there is no indication his hearing was impaired to any significant degree. It was Anne who had a hearing problem. In any case, Lindbergh reported his earwitness account of CJ's voice immediately after the ransom payment back at the Morrow's townhouse to Irey and others. Where lies the impossibility here?
|
|
|
Post by mjrichmond on Jun 11, 2006 6:29:13 GMT -5
<<It would have been impossible for Lindbergh (who reportedly had hearing loss due to all the flying) to hear any voice under the circumstances. >>
The only suggestion I have seen regarding Lindbergh's hearing is from Under A Wing by Reeve Lindbergh. She is talking about her father's hearing in the late 1950s not 1932 (13 years before she was born).
Mjr
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 11, 2006 6:40:58 GMT -5
That is an excellent point Mjr. Also, I have a similar hearing loss from exposure to loud machinery and although I have difficulty hearing some sounds, I can hear other noises clearly.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 11, 2006 15:47:11 GMT -5
While I understand you have issues with the timeline I hesitate to accept your term "flaws" as the correct word.
We have sightings well before 8 o'clock. We know the child was put to bed at 8 o'clock. The Moore's described the car to Parker's satisfaction as it concerned Lupica's eyewitness account. It makes sense they struck at 8 o'clock, and if they were there ahead of time there is no time to walk to Highfields once the clock strikes 8. To me they are already in position and ready to go once the child is laid to rest.
We have absolutely no evidence of Kidnapper(s) blindly stumbling around - in the nursery or otherwise - and no evidence of some "humpty-dumpty" type fall.
Dude - its not "my" classification at all. Simply pick up the historical news accounts concerning him....
Yes and no. I have his interviews and then a summary-type accounts within various reports. It's hard to say what actually existed back then but all I can do is put the pieces together with what I have been able to find at the NJSP Archives. And believe me when I tell you they are not all in the same spot.
I highly recommend that you and everyone else take advantage of Mark's great study guide that he is offering anyone who wants it. It will give you a better understanding and greater appreciation for the Archives as they are situated.
Well why don't we try to map out the events ourselves? We all seem to disagree. How long do you think it took from start to finish? Let's put a number on your position concerning this.
It's elementary my dear Watson.
Parker's starting time was 8 o'clock. He actually "measured" the time himself to see if the Moore's eyewitness account was possible and concluded it was. They lived approximately 2 miles from Highfields. Again, this is Ellis Parker were talking about and he drew this conclusion in early '32. He didn't conceal what he learned and attempted to turn it over to the NJSP without any recognition for doing so.
Again Joe - its very complex. I don't know how you can say its hard to read any other way but I also realize most haven't read everything I have. Care to explain to me from the beginning how you think Parker "kidnapped" Wendel?
The comment you refer to comes from where exactly? I would think you are relying on it to support a point so the least you should do is produce the statement and its context for proper consideration.
Lindbergh may have heard something. He says he did but could, in essence, never identify it. Now if his hearing isn't as good then its simply icing on the cake of improbability which we all already have eaten for desert.
His "earwitness" account was nonsense.... It the same (to me) as making it up. The earliest accounts of exactly what CJ said wasn't even what they were saying he said in Flemington.
It was and is bogus.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jun 11, 2006 20:32:42 GMT -5
Very interesting! I hope we arnt giving away the whole plot to the 2006 book on Ellis Parker? Heres a good quote from The Cunning Mulatto: "Ellis Parkers total record is thus somwhat ahead of that established by Scotland Yard, and considerably better than the French Surete, the Vienna police and other organizations that are frequently held up as models. He is probably the best detective in America if not the world." pp.12
So, whomever puts this plan into action, is cutting things pretty close? Apparently, they are totally unaware that CAL is headed home and arrives just moments later @ 8:25? the ladder is moved away from the window so "CAL wont see it in his headlights". Maybe they pass CAL on the road? What direction on what road is the sedan seen? I sure hope its South of Hopewell on Mt. Rose Road?
Originally, judging by Norris' intro/ the crime was said to have occured between 0730 and 10:00pm. Why were the later times settled on as more true when the possiblity of Charlie being long gone by then? Night noises? Or some other aspect or concern?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 12, 2006 8:31:10 GMT -5
If Lindbergh is being truthful then we must consider the Moore's were 2 miles away when this car is there at approx 8:25PM then CAL, if not using the same road wouldn't have seen it "parked" anywhere because they were already gone.
Now Joe seems to doubt this car is connected - I disagree at this point but I can appreciate his position, however, CAL still didn't see it.
So if this is a road that CAL "used more then anybody else" then I start to wonder why he wasn't on it that night, or if he was how he missed passing by this car.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jun 12, 2006 10:32:47 GMT -5
Well, I quess the first question is:
#1 What road was CAL coming back to Highfields on and how did he miss the car (either Moore's or the muddy one?). Well , what road north or south were the Moores on? What was CALs most common route from Next Day Hill to Highfields?
One thing that comes quickly to mind is that Harry Walsh offered in his Jersey Journal article that CAL had been at Highfields earlier that afternoon? I cant explain why? BUT CAL could have been coming back the second time? And blowing his horne to fix the time rather than to have Ollie open up the garage doors?
Question #2: not so readily apparent. Is the guestion: Why did Ben Lupica only see 2 ladder sections, and only 2 ladder sections were used. So--"Where or how was the 3rd section delivered?"
Was it a separate delivery? Or was the nesting section not visible to Ben and he saw what he thought was only two?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jun 12, 2006 10:46:35 GMT -5
PS: The Ben Lupica Story
One of the authors, maybe Wayne Jones, makes a huge tadoo about how little credance the NJSP put into Ben Lupicas Story and also how long it took them to track him down after school and interview him--18 hours!!!! This is reminescent of the charges by Laura Vitray: "no lead was ever seriously followed up or resolved"?As best we can surmise/ Ben Lupica saw a 1929 Dodge, green or blue, with a spare tire on the back. This is a huge "clew":
Question #3: Why didnt the NJSP exhaust all avenues of approach to track down this auto in March of 1932? Its the one solid clew to the snatchers.
Now, since Ben Lupica did not see or ID BRH or his car with the NY license plates--Ben Lupica testifies for the Defense?
|
|
|
Post by mjrichmond on Jun 12, 2006 11:50:43 GMT -5
Michael -
I should very much like to hear more about the Moores. I see where you state you cannot specifically locate where the house stood, but can you give me a better description of where the roads were.
Did the Moores talk to the NJSP or BI? Did Parker find them? What, exactly, do they say they saw and when. I have trying to put some of these answers together from the various posts but I may have missed some.
Mjr
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Jun 12, 2006 12:32:26 GMT -5
Absolutely agreed, that if the kidnappers struck shortly after 8 pm, they would have been well staged ready to begin their assault. I just don't think they were ready to strike the moment the lights went out and every passing minute here puts a crimp in Parker's timing. I wasn't aware of anything more than a non-descript speeding, muddy sedan that sped by the Moore's. Please explain the details of consistency noted in the Parker investigation between the vehicle seen by the Moore's and the one seen by Lupica. Let's remember that Lupica's sighting was under conditions of diminishing daylight, but much more time to focus and take in detail, while the Moore's had to contend with a speeding sedan with dimmed lights under full darkness. Michael, I can appreciate the effort it takes to assemble a distilled version of events from so many disparate sources. But I think you have to play devil's advocate consistently even in the case of someone you obviously have great respect for. You've walked the distance from house to Featherbed Lane, albeit under different conditions of vegetation and wildlife intrusion. We know the ground conditions were very muddy and that the kidnappers were not clad in running shoes, but some kind of overstocking, ostensibly to eliminate any kind of telltale footprint, and which would have made for slower travel. They had a child to carry back to the car 6/10 of a mile away on a dark and very windy evening and over unfamiliar terrain. Just some of the points to consider and I would also suggest initiating an accumulative timeline, regardless of the perceived starting time. I'll kick off something under a new thread soon.
|
|