|
Post by Michael on May 11, 2008 10:13:21 GMT -5
Dr. Sheonfeld had persuaded the officers that the man would not readily confess. He was given the promise that he would be summoned to assist in the questioning immediately after the man was captured when he explained how the man would act after being seized.
"If and when you capture this man", he told the police, "you will find yourselves confronted by an individual who feels no fear or apprehension in the ordinary sense of those words. He lacks the normal emotional development required to feel these sensations. He will not bluster or feign indignation, because these are reactions to deeply felt sensations of fear and apprehension. Your prisoner will be the same fellow he was in the notes. He will be mild and mendacious. He will lie in the most obvious fashion and yet not be able to feel how ridiculous he is being. he will exhibit a plaintive attitude toward his questioners, just as he did when the question of his being the "right party" was raised by Dr. Condon and Col. Lindbergh. Back of this plaintiveness and his air of injured servility is a massive, insane belief that nobody can break his will or do him any serious harm. he thinks he is capable of getting away with anything, merely by trying. Physical violence would not obtain a confession. He would enjoy playing the stoic and thus demonstrating his superiority. He will not be stubborn, in the ordinary sense of that word. If he is not too far gone in his mental decay, he will talk volubly, but he will not admit anything important. he would admit any crime rather then the one about which you are concerned, not from fear, but for the mere satisfaction of baffling whoever was trying to pin it on him. His emotional equipment is that of a none-too-bright youth, to whom a thoroughgoing cross-examination would not be so much a test of wits as a test of secretiveness. I believe he could be made to confess by accident, by leading him on from extravagance to extravagance until he got so over-confident that he became careless in every statement. A questioner who adopted a sympathetic, simple-minded attitude toward him might lead him gradually into this state of excessive recklessness. Completely unorthodox surprise actions also might jog him out of his ego-maniacal complacency. None of your routine questioning methods, however, will serve to obtain that confession -- of this I am certain."
Such were the opinions given in 1932 by Dr. Shoenfeld, which resulted in the promise by police that he would be summoned to aid in the questioning, if and when any suspect, captured as a result of our theory and suggestions, was taken in custody. That Lieut. Finn and Captain Oliver meant to extend this courtesy both to Dr. Shoenfeld and me, I am certain. They had superiors, however, who began presently to think it was inadvisable to grant any official favors to two men who so firmly contended that the fugitive must be a maniac. As I will let Lieut. Finn explain more fully later, these higher officials felt only one obligation -- to obtain the most severe sentence possible for the Lindbergh baby's murderer -- and so they were afraid any admission that they had pursued the fugitive as a "lone maniac" would "jeopardize" their chances of obtaining a sentence of death when he was placed on trial. [Leigh Matteson Manuscript - January 15, 1936]
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 11, 2008 15:19:48 GMT -5
I say Dudlley was ahead of his time and really should be given more credit for profiling even despite his other failings. had the police followed his advice they might have benefited greatly.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on May 12, 2008 6:15:06 GMT -5
I'm also a fan of Dudley's. No question they would have done much better in the interrogation department, and it would have been an entirely new ball game. Unfortunately, Schoenfeld's suggestion to Finn that Hauptmann be put in a quiet non-confrontational environment was never taken seriously. Every cop just wanted their shot at breaking him the only way they knew how but ultimately, they had no idea who they were dealing with.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 12, 2008 6:22:19 GMT -5
Not to mention checking the auto registrations!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on May 12, 2008 8:14:00 GMT -5
Actually, I think that one was Matteson's idea that he broached directly to Finn. I've heard differing accounts as to whether or not it was ever followed up on, but I believe it was Osborn Sr. who basically put the kaibosh on that idea, believing there wouldn't be enough registration handwriting for comparison purposes. As it turned out, Hauptmann's 1932 registration would have hit the jackpot - the infamous "x," "5$ past red lihgt", along with the handwriting, his nationality and profession. In the FBI Summary Report, there is also mention of Condon having seen a dark-coloured Dodge parked in the vicinity of Woodlawn Cemetery the night he met CJ. If the cops had really thought about what information they had at their disposal, we might not be discussing this case today.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 12, 2008 9:36:36 GMT -5
I didn't know that, Joe. But wasn't it Shoenfeld that narrowed down the search area to the area of the Bronx in which Hauptmann's house fell thus making the registration search viable? I often wonder how different this story would have unfolded had Hauptmann been caught early on. Quite a few possibilities there. It's also interesting to note how the incorporation of people from outside the police ranks helped and could have potentially been even more helpful.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on May 13, 2008 12:19:46 GMT -5
And look at the clues they had. Late model Dodge identified by Lupica, ransom notes from and cemetery meetings in the Bronx, ransom bill spending pattern, German nationality, loads of personal handwriting, ladder most likely built by a carpenter... and those vehicle license registrations.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 14, 2008 6:19:20 GMT -5
If only they focused on that. That's probably the single biggest mistake Koehler and others made, they stressed "poor workmanship" over ingenuity and method and thus mitigated the evidence of a professional woodworker at work. An effect that I am sure was intended by Hauptmann. Even to this day, that particular view of the ladder is recited as proof of an amateur at work and not a carpenter such as Hauptmann.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 17, 2008 7:18:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 18, 2008 6:56:44 GMT -5
My excuse for intruding forth at this time is that virtually all of the "unaccountable" aspects of the crime and Hauptmann's behavior are unaccountable only because the Prosecution was afraid it would open the way for an insanity plea if proper attempts were made to explain those aspects --- and the defense, under Reilly and now later under Fisher, has steadily refused to make an insanity pleas which would explain everything. The Prosecution, I suppose, naturally should have tried to avoid raising the assumption of insanity in the defendant, but with the defense conducted as it was, Hauptmann has, by a sort of tacit conspiracy o the part of the defense, been railroaded as a sane man, when the contrary is the circumstance. He probably is the most priceless specimen of deranged humanity ever to emerge into public view. [Matteson to Lutz, 1-15-36]
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Nov 18, 2008 14:54:07 GMT -5
Hauptmann wasn't insane. An insanity plea would have been poppycock-IMO. If one wants to consider character, that's one thing but I, for one, see nothing out there showing him less than sane. Schoenfeld's profiling strikes me as just so much buckshot. Just my view.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 19, 2008 7:27:41 GMT -5
Mairi,
I would agree that some of it seems to be wrong. But some of it is also interesting. Since he was a real Doctor and had no idea who Hauptmann was when he put this down then I think there's value in considering it. If he's right about just one point and we investigate that point we may be more knowledgable as a result - which of course could led us to more and more.
But, as of now, I agree with you that he wasn't insane.
Joe's also right about Mental Illness vs. Insanity. There are different degrees of which Insanity is the worst. I know there are now verdicts which include "guilty, but mentally ill" and I'd have to research that a little more to find out the specifics.... They certainly didn't have that back in '32.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 13, 2009 9:30:59 GMT -5
I am posting this report, not necessarily for the contents, but to ask if anyone has looked into what the "Secret Six" had said about the Preptrator(s) after the crime...
|
|
|
Post by ktolks on Feb 25, 2013 21:43:22 GMT -5
Shoenfeld was a fraud. The reason his profile was so accurate was that he was a party to the framing of Hauptmann.
Koehler was a fraud. The reason his search reached the National Lumber & Millwork Co. was that he knew in advance that it must end there (because that's where Hauptmann bought his wood).
Both "feats" were too amazing to be real -- and they weren't!
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Feb 26, 2013 10:50:33 GMT -5
seems like Shoenfeld's profile is also accurate of Lee Harvey Oswald. and probably many other dumb mugs who seek to bolster their egos by committing "big" crimes. I think Shoenfeld was mostly was spot-on, too bad he never got a chance to question BRH.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 26, 2013 16:35:50 GMT -5
I like the term "buckshot" when considering this Mairi. I've always wanted to compare everything to what was actually said in 1932 vs. what Matteson/Shoenfeld said after Hauptmann was arrested.
For example, I have his letter to Capt. Oliver and its dated November 1932. Since the child was found dead in May, I hesitate to give him credit for seeing anything about his death in the ransom notes. He kicks around the idea the Writer could be suffering from VD due to the handwriting tremors. He also says that "Gay Head" may have originally been written "Gun Hill."
In this letter he makes the following predictions:
1. Perp is suffering from Dementia Praecox but with his intelligence in tact.
2. Even though suffering from this, he could still carry out all aspects of the crime.
3. Has constitutional similarities to Lindbergh which allow for identification with Lindbergh.
4. He is of German origin.
5. His age is closer to 40 then to 30.
6. Homosexual Tendencies
7. A period of incarceration which may have been a short duration.
8. Resides in the Bronx.
9. Man's occupation involves mechanical aptitude.
10. This man will exhibit a greater precaution then even a sane man with greater publicity.
11. This man will exhibit less precaution with the absence of publicity.
12. If he has an acute mental breakdown he will not be talkative as a result.
13. Check up on every man admitted to psychopathic institutions.
14. Not a professional criminal but not an amateur either.
15. Claims these thoughts were all before the baby was found dead.
I really don't know what to say. I know certain claims were made by Matteson that may have truthfully been predicted unofficially. But all things considered he's at most half right when considering the above:
1. I do not believe Hauptmann was suffering from Dementia.
2. Irrelevant.
3. I have no idea what this means. I am guessing one could say he's wrong but also come up with reason to say he's right.
4. Correct. This was the general consensus early on.
5. Close but he was closer to 30 then to 40.
6. Absolute BS. Anytime they labeled someone "deviant" back then they threw this in for good measure.
7. Correct.
8. Correct. Also the general consensus at the time.
9. Yes and No. Was the general consensus due to the fleshy lump on his hand, and the box in the Ransom Note. Hauptmann was a Carpenter but was also a Stock Trader.
10. Don't know. He's portraying himself as a wealthy Stock Trader and loaning money and taking money for people to invest. Not exactly flying under the radar.
11. Don't know. There's still publicity, although less, when he's caught spending ransom in his own car.
12. He was never a talkative person. Should we take this to mean he had a breakdown early on?
13. He was never in a psych hospital. However, he seems to be making a suggestion and not an assertion here.
14. Appears to be hedging his bet here.
15. ??
Obviously he wrote a book later, and Matteson wrote one also as well as a Liberty Article. (see the Matteson quote above).
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Feb 26, 2013 18:30:27 GMT -5
Hey, his name is either spelled Schoenfeld or Shoenfeld, if you look at the books on the Lindbergh kidnapping. Is this Lesley Schoenfeld related to psychiatrist Dudley Schoenfeld? Is she Schoenfeld's grandaughter or something? Lesley cites an "expert witness" in the Lindbergh case in this new exhibit at Harvard. 852 Rare: Extra! Extra! Read All About It" A New Exhibit by Lesley Schoenfeld Harvard Law School Library's Historical & Special Collections (view through April 26, 2013) etseq.law.harvard.edu/2013/01/852-rare-true-crime/
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 27, 2013 6:36:33 GMT -5
Good catch Sue. It's a typo on my end. I do this more often then I should so by all means call me on this stuff if you see it.
|
|
|
Post by john on Feb 28, 2013 3:15:16 GMT -5
I've always found Shoenfeld's comments on the likely perp, pre-Hauptmann arrest, fascinating, Michael. He was so close to the truth, then so far away. The sexual deviance business is a stretch.
Dementia Praecox? No. But this does raise the issue of Hauptmann's mental health, and more broadly, in my mind, as I wonder about the head trauma he received during the war. It affected his walking somewhat,--or am I mistaken? Hauptmann showed no criminal tendencies that I (we?) know of prior to his time spent in the German army during the war.
Head trauma and other kinds of injury/impairment have been, I read years ago (not apropos of the LKC) linked to certain kinds of criminal behavior, such a bank robbery! No, I'm not trying to make excuses for Hauptmann, am simply trying to understand him
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Feb 28, 2013 17:09:59 GMT -5
I believe that the case that the movie "The Honeymoon Killers" was based on, that man had also suffered a head injury prior to his crimes.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 28, 2013 21:41:47 GMT -5
As I am sure everyone can guess, Dr. Shoenfeld wasn't alone in making an analysis - although probably most recognized for it. The NJSP almost from jump-street began investigations into the Builders and Contractor of the home. They also looked closely at the Skillman Institute (where many of the Troopers had been quartered). I don't want to say they expanded this effort to other Hospitals because of Shoenfeld but it is a possibility. As a result, Dr. Marcus Curry of the New Jersey State Hospital at Greystone Park became involved in the process in late November '32. So did Dr. Henry Cotton of the New Jersey State Hospital at Trenton near or about the same time. Dr. Cotton teamed up with a Dr. Laurence Collins to come up with a personality profile based upon the ransom "letters": 1. Fairly well educated German who probably did not get it here.
2. Letters are logical and show no evidence of flight of ideas or distractability. The point being to get the ransom ASAP.
3. Show definite planning and appreciation of Lindbergh's attitude.
4. Unusual act of raising the ransom shows fear the child would be discovered.
5. No pathological signs such as tremors, elisions, misspellings, or misplacement of words except those which might be the result of a German whose English was somewhat limited.
6. Individual is of normal intelligence no matter what one might think of his motives or methods.
7. The whole aspect of the case does not indicate in any way the act of a criminal who was insane. (It is their experience that an insane criminal is bound to show lack of judgment which usually results in detection sooner.
8. Insane people do not work with others (if the Writer wasn't alone).
9. The only motive was the money. -------- I was thumbing through another Report that Schwarzkopf had rec'd written by a Detroit Police Lt. named Royal Baker. It's titled " Analysis Of Lindbergh Kidnapping" and dated March 14, 1932. He's not a Doctor but one of his points I found interesting I'd like to share: The person who took the Lindbergh child wanted to impress the fact that in this case it was kidnapping for ransom. This would start the police alarm across the country and he would be sure to be captured if he travel led any long distance. The criminal must have been sure of his escape, which would mean he only had a short distance to go, and if stopped would have no evidence on him to connect him with the crime. He left both the ladder and chisel behind him. If he were afraid he would be caught with even the chisel, what did he do with the child? Would he dare take that along with him or would he destroy it and hide the body? When he left a note that he knew would bar his way, he certainly couldn't take such a risk, even when he threw aside the chisel. ( p3)[/blockquote]
|
|
|
Post by john on Mar 1, 2013 1:57:40 GMT -5
Good thinking by the Detroit police lieutenant, Michael. Thanks for posting. It makes sense. To me it also suggests that the kidnapper did not intend to murder the child. It was likely an accident. If he was that cautious, and by implication frightened, which doesn't suggest that he wanted the child dead. Something went wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2013 10:45:29 GMT -5
I find the personality profile by Dr. Cotton and Dr. Collins interesting. I agree with most of their interpretations of the ransom notes. There are two that I don't see the way they do:
3. Show definite planning and appreciation of Lindbergh's attitude. I agree about the planning portion but I don't understand what they mean about an appreciation of Lindbergh's attitude. Can anyone explain what they might mean by that?
4. Unusual act of raising the ransom shows fear the child would be discovered. I totally disagree with this. The kidnappers in the ransom note that raised the amount to $70,000 are very clear why they did it. They would need to take on another person as go-between and would need to provide a monetary cut for that person. Also, when you read the ransom notes the kidnappers sound quite confident in where they have Charlie hidden. They will not take anyone there and will not move Charlie for any reason. They are not afraid that Charlie will be discovered at any moment on Mt. Rose. They are so sure about where they are keeping Charlie that they are willing to keep the negotiations going for as long as it takes to get the money.
I don't feel that Charlie's nursery reflects his being murdered in that room. There just isn't any evidence of that. All you have are some mud smudges in that room. If Charlie was alive when he was put to bed that night, then perhaps like John says in his post, something went wrong. I think it happened after Charlie was out of that nursery.
|
|
Aimee
Det. Sergeant (FC)
Posts: 387
|
Post by Aimee on Mar 1, 2013 15:40:59 GMT -5
I find it interesting that no one ever talks about the Yiddish Language.
|
|
|
Post by john on Mar 2, 2013 4:55:31 GMT -5
Aimee: I've brought the Yiddish language up on a number of occasions here and on the other Lindbergh forum as regards Isador Fisch, not sure how it would relate to the LKC otherwise. If you have another reason for raising the subject I'd love to hear it.
My reasons: Fisch was a German Jew, however his roots in Germany did not go back far. His parents were Polish Jews,--Isador may well have been born in Poland, not sure--and his accent, when speaking with fellow Germans was easily recognizable as Jewish or, if you will, Yiddishy, even when he was speaking German.
John F. Condon spoke German, lived in the most heavily German borough of NYC at that time, was a native of that borough, had taught school for decades, and as the city also had a large Eastern European Jewish community as well, thus, being an educated man of keen intelligence I have no doubt he could tell a regular German accent from one that had "Yiddishy" inflections. For this reason I don't see how Fisch could have been Cemetery John. Nor can I see how he could have passed himself off as a Scandinavian. This would have been a stretch for Hauptmann, who spoke with a heavy German accent, damn near impossible, I would say, for Isador Fisch.
One interesting aspect of the case that I don't think has been discussed, or it has been I'm not aware of it, is whether the language in the ransom notes, the phrasing, the spelling, shows any Yiddish influence. German and Yiddish are practically the same language, however some words are pronounced differently, therefore likely to be written differently when the author is writing in English. I don't see any differences myself, but I'm no expert on this matter. The chances are that if Fisch had written the ransom notes that he was likely sufficiently assimilated into the mainstream of German culture to have written them like a German, which he of course was, rather than a Yiddish speaker, which he also was.
Leaving Yiddish aside, Condon's inability to detect CJ's accent has always been a "sticking point" with me, and it hasn't been discussed much that I know of other than by me. If he was a farm boy who'd moved to the big city to pursue a teaching career, okay; and I suppose if he was a devout Roman Catholic, associated almost exclusively with fellow Catholics, this might have cut him off somewhat from the "larger city" of New York. That Condon was a gregarious, voluble fellow, that he liked all kinds of people, and of diverse backgrounds,--German, Italian, Jewish, etc.--his cluelessness regarding CJ's accent had always been an issue with me, as it raises further questions as to Condon's reliability as a witness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2013 9:11:33 GMT -5
John - Do you think that Condon was trying to protect the identity of CJ by causing this confusion of whether he was Scandinavian, German or what. He spent at least an hour in Woodlawn talking with CJ. I don't understand why he wouldn't have gotten a more clear indication of the ethnicity of the accent. I don't really trust a lot of what Condon says. He had promised the kidnappers that he would not reveal who they were in the letter he wrote to the Bronx Home News.
|
|
|
Post by john on Mar 3, 2013 5:04:27 GMT -5
Amy,--I actually hadn't thought of Condon as trying to protect CJ's identity. My thinking was more along the lines that he had lost some cookies due to his advanced age (combined with his having an eccentric personality to begin with), but now that you mention it you may be on to something.
Now I'm getting a bit confused, as I can't recall whether Condon's description of CJ was kept secret during the negotiations, maybe revealed later, after Charlie's body was found, or if it was or had become common knowledge at some earlier point. Since the baby wasn't handed over the night Condon delivered the cash, and CAL went on the wild goose chase that turned up nothing I have to wonder at what point CAL (and everyone else: his friend, LE) realized that they'd been had.
A case can be made for Condon having been an accessory to the crime after the fact; if not legally, then morally. One thing, though, as to Condon's general description of CJ,--his appearance, manner, accent--I wonder if he altered any of this once the baby's body was found in the woods. In other words, since there was no reason to protect CJ (or anyone else) at this point, he could come clean and state he knew that CJ was German all along, that there were aspects to him that Condon kept secret during his negotiations that he could now reveal.
On the other hand, if, as some have suggested, Condon was dealing with the Mob, a larger criminal network than most people thought at the time (per Bob Mills' Mob Theory), he'd still have something to fear: from the Mob. With the child dead, and Condon having told so many half-truths, he still wasn't safe after the baby's body was discovered. If anything, he was in worse shape: between a rock and a hard place. If so, it's no wonder he had such a difficult time identifying Hauptmann later on.
|
|
|
Post by Victoria Shoenfeld on Oct 18, 2014 14:40:03 GMT -5
Thank you for your insights. As Dr. Shoenfeld's grand-daughter, it is heartening to see others exploring his major contributions. He was as empathetic and brilliant a grandfather as he was a doctor, and a true visionary.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 18, 2014 15:42:25 GMT -5
Thank you for your insights. As Dr. Shoenfeld's grand-daughter, it is heartening to see others exploring his major contributions. He was as empathetic and brilliant a grandfather as he was a doctor, and a true visionary. Thanks for posting Victoria. Could you give us some of the thoughts/discussion that went around the dinner table about this subject when you were growing up? Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by mfb1949 on Oct 4, 2017 17:22:55 GMT -5
Just picked up a 1st edition of The Crime and the Criminal. I'm putting it on biblio.com and on ebay later today (10-04-2017) The book is in fine to very fine condition. It'll be offered for 10 days at a fixed price but offers will be considered.
|
|