|
Post by rita on Feb 28, 2006 23:28:32 GMT -5
To Michael Sue posted a site on the old board that had a story on Don Keyhoe who was Lindbergh's chase pilot. He had visited Anne the afternoon of the kidnap, and is where he seen the figure. I wrote Sue back about knowing a Bill Keyhoe, and the fact that both had similar discriptions of their home especialy where both had pianos that displayed pictures of the Lindbergh's. I checked Don's web site and old pictures of Bill and found that they looked like twins. An interesting thought came out of that note you posted about the 1:30 death, and the fact that would have been the approximate time necessary to tidy up the house and clean fingerprints from the nursery. Does anyone have a sample of Don Keyhoe's handwriting?
|
|
|
Post by rita on Mar 1, 2006 19:54:03 GMT -5
The comparison of Don Keyhoe's (one sample) writing to the anonymous letter di not match,
|
|
|
Post by rick on Mar 5, 2006 20:39:36 GMT -5
One question that occurs to me is how many Mersman Tables were around in 1932. What is the quarantee that Mark found the only one? Yes, I know the paper edge finds a happy place, but the holes would match on any of them? Its not a "one of a kind" hole set up. Could this be some kind of SOP for the agents of any country? How close can we attach the said Table to the case? Either by miles from Next Day Hill or Highfields or the Bronx. or any servants that frequented Summit NJ? 2. As for the Nazi Party letters, isnt it interesting to blame Germany for the kidnapping yet again/ We are led to believe that a German immigrant "disquised" his handwiritng and speech to match up with a german immigrants, yet JFC hears Italian. Would Good Germans really do that? 3. Does anyone quess that two swiggles are the thundrbolts of the SS?
|
|
|
Post by rita on Mar 7, 2006 1:30:15 GMT -5
Mersman Tables were very popular during that period and many homes had their coffee tables and end tables. I think the ransom note symbols were contrived out desperation by someone other than a kidnapper who needed a mysterious ransom note for an alibi. It would have been much simpler for a real kidnapper to include a lock of hair, a fingerprint, or the name a the childs favorite toy, if they realy had the child.
|
|
|
Post by kathy for rick on Mar 7, 2006 6:55:43 GMT -5
rick you are smart and funny. the tables were manufactured in a factory so there wer probably more than a few, my question would be how expensive were they and when were they begun to be made (before the great depression) were they affordible for anyone other than the lindberghs and morrows (or RBH after the ransom?) coukld the junge family had one?
|
|
|
Post by rick for kathy on Mar 7, 2006 7:14:55 GMT -5
Kathy...thanks for making me laugh too! I think you have an excellent idea! If Charlie were kidnapped in a VW bug or Yugo...well then we would expect common folks. But if Charlie was abducted in a Hummer or Lexus then we would suspect the Morrow or Guggenhiem families. Who, in point of fact, could easily afford Mersman Tables in the early 30s? Nazi spys with an unlimited supply of ready cash? It is a rather clever idea to punch the holes on a common household item like a table--unless they are very expencive. for Mersman Tables should tell us how much they co$t. That way if another cell of the group needs to reproduce the singnature out-of-towne, say in the Bronx or Harlem, they can quickly find another template. Thats the whole idea of a fixed hole pattern isnt it? This could be why the Nursery Note symbol looks a little ragged when compared to ransom note #1 and #2 on pages 161 in Scaduto. Tony didnt alter the evidence, he just photographed it--photos are the Gold Standard in the LKC! Why not just ask the experts....did CAL or Dwight own a Mersman Table? Junges are good too/
|
|
|
Post by rita on Mar 12, 2006 0:04:28 GMT -5
For Rick, Kathy Did you know that Dr. Carrell had a penchant for x-rated pen and ink drawing at work, and had a great sense of humor?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 3, 2008 10:10:19 GMT -5
There are many letters written from the public to the Official Investigators, the Morrow Family, Lindbergh, etc... Some were signed with real names, fictitious names, and of course some were simply anonymous. The Police chose which to investigate, which to quickly dismiss as "crank" or "crack pot," and which to eliminate after an investigation. I like to look at these and pull one out every once in a while because one never knows if the Police may have overlooked something, made a mistake, or possibly didn't follow it up properly. Here's one written in December '34: Dear Col. Lindbergh!
I hope to give you some information which may help to convict the kidnappers of your son Charles.
During the summer of 1932 while visiting Hunters Island I saw Dick and Hanna[sic] Hauptmann in company of an ex convict by name of Ed Willman who served five years in prison for hold up and robbery between 1920 and 1930. He is pretty slippery and never done a honest days work in his life.
He is either a Finn or Esthonian and speaks German. He lived in east Harlem before his conviction, and I believe he still does, or could be found in Finnish or Esthonian speakeasies or gambling dumps. You may also check up on finish and Esthonian help which may have been employed at Morrow home, and who may have furnished the inside information to the criminals.
yours truly
" A Lindbergh Fan" [/center][/blockquote] Might this be the blond man who spoke German with the "Austrian" accent Hauptmann told Ellis Parker about meeting with Fisch on Hunter's Island?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Feb 3, 2008 13:06:49 GMT -5
The letter doesn't sound like a lot to go on but you're right in that the NJSP and other authorities may well have overlooked some leads of value this way. Gardner seems to make a pretty strong case for the blond man seen with Fisch to be Eric Schaffer, (?) although I suppose he may well have had more than one acquaintance with the same features.
|
|
dena
Detective
Posts: 129
|
Post by dena on Mar 5, 2008 13:01:40 GMT -5
There was a servant in the Morrow household in Englewood named "Emily Kemppaim", who had been born in Finland in approx 1888. Not sure how long she worked for the Morrow's.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 5, 2008 16:45:23 GMT -5
At the time of the crime, Emily Kembanen had worked about 20 years for the Morrow's as a maid. She was one of the people playing cards with Betty Gow on Feb. 29th.
++++
I am a little behind on the postings. I will try to catch up but if I miss a question or two shoot me an email to let me know. Also, if you haven't read Mark's newest Blog entry you may want to - its a "must" for everyone interested in the case.
|
|
dena
Detective
Posts: 129
|
Post by dena on Mar 5, 2008 18:43:34 GMT -5
Do you mean Mark Falzini? I have already read it. He is such a nice guy. So helpful & never makes you feel silly for asking questions that Im sure hes heard thousands of times before. LOL . Patient. Some people want to meet movie stars. But someday, I want to meet Mark & see that incredible museum he runs. Which reminds me I have always meant to buy his book & just got busy & forgot. Ill have to see if hes still selling them.
Anyway, Im still chipping away at linking these people up. The closest American translation I could find of her name is spelled "Kemppainen" but most of the other Finns I found with that name seem to have settled in Michigan. Sooner or later someone is bound to link up somewhere though, I figure. I am trying to get hold of the St Albans lists to see if Violet or Emily Sharp are on them. But as not all were recorded its probably a 50/50 chance they are on it anyway.
I was going to ask you if it would be okay if I downloaded to image some of the articles I have on CMM letter of 1929? They are not as valuable as statements of course but are still very interesting. I think theres one that even references Long.
Thanks again for all the hard work you do, Michael.
Dena
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 6, 2008 5:49:10 GMT -5
Absolutely! You don't have to ask my permission.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Mar 6, 2008 8:28:37 GMT -5
The timeline information that Mark puts out certainly shows multi contradictions in Betty's statements. Almost alarming.
Michael, what is a touring car? The vehicle kuchta saw.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 6, 2008 9:12:24 GMT -5
Gary, A Ford "Touring Car" refers to the body style. The "Touring Car" was longer. You'll hear the term "Roadster" and "Coup" which were smaller cars. This is the best example I could find although its probably not the best since this car appears to be tricked out. rides.webshots.com/photo/2256835290077698672ILhfHu?vhost=rides
|
|
|
Post by A Condon on Mar 9, 2008 6:09:54 GMT -5
the first emotion annna had when she learned of this was anger. she thought the whole charge was rediculous. if she was his alibi why wasn't she charged? she and manfred slept in the same bed because they were so poor; of cours the amatuer psychiatrists would probably come up with something for thay I would not think the Hauptmann's were poor. Of course, I wasn't there in the 30s so I cannot say for sure. However, from reading the various material on the case I would think for the Depression era they did OK. They had a car, they seemed to enjoy vacations etc. Hauptmann was a carpenter, supposedly, by trade so why didn't he build a bed for Manfred, a crib? I would be interested in Michael's assessment of Hauptmann's finances and those here who looked into the financial background of the case. Thanks A Condon
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 9, 2008 8:41:38 GMT -5
Michael and Rab are far better versed in the specifics of Hauptmann's finances, but I can comment from the position of one in the same occupation. Given the extreme difficulty and circumstances of the depression era, Hauptmann neither acts or appears to be as one in the midst of economic distress. Anyone who is self employed in the trades or depends on sub contracting for work knows all too well how difficult economic recessions are. Construction is always one of the hardest sectors hit as witnessed by our current economic situation. There is an uncertainty that is overwhelming and you really try to cut all expenditures and brace for the worst. Now Hauptmann had already been through the great post war depression in Germany, which dwarfs anything I have ever experienced, so he knew the drill. When I look art his actions both prior and after the crime, I do not see the actions of a man preparing for the worst. When I look at his tools, I do not see a man who values the source of his financial security. In short, Hauptmann seems somehow above what is going on all around him. He certainly was doing and spending far beyond what my Father, a trained engineer, could. I don't remember hearing about Hauptmann working nights at a gas station.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 10, 2008 9:12:30 GMT -5
Actually I would consider Rab the "expert" and myself someone who simply points out problems and/or inconsistencies with what's been accepted as the true situation.
We are supposed to believe that Hauptmann lost just about everything in the market and lived off of Anna's earnings and by January 1, 1932 had only $200.00 to show for all of his efforts from 1926 to that date.
And so the Hauptmann's entire resources, excepting the $3750 mortgage are supposed to have been entirely exhausted.
Let's take a step back a little....
He had a job but quit. He goes out and buys an brand new car. For a person who was so frugal in the past these are highly unusual acts. Then he gathers his wife and best friend and takes off on a country wide trip. The money figures barely cover these expenses but do not cover the rental fees for storage - nor do they cover the temporary housing fees upon their return. And if that's not enough, Hauptmann rents the apartment from the Rauch's which is more then the place he rented before he left.
These are not the actions of a frugal man in such dire financial straights.
My conclusion is that he had to have money other then what the Police could account for at that time. Now he did testify to leaving a satchel of money with family, so this might actually be true. But if he did where did it come from?
|
|
|
Post by acondon on Mar 17, 2008 5:56:13 GMT -5
I agree Michael: The next question I have is "was he paid to do or take part in the kidnapping of the Lindbergh child?
My grandmother lost the house in the Depression and everyone seemed to be feeling the pinch. i.e. well, Dr. Condon seems to have been OK. But then, he had savings and put it into real estate.
Pat
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Jan 8, 2010 14:26:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Cassie M on Dec 21, 2010 2:01:07 GMT -5
These are not the actions of a frugal man in such dire financial straights. My conclusion is that he had to have money other then what the Police could account for at that time. Now he did testify to leaving a satchel of money with family, so this might actually be true. But if he did where did it come from? It seems to me this point is a good one Michael. He has money not legitimately come by (as far as we can tell) before the Lindbergh disappearance, and yet he is not registering on the police radar for any of the types of offences (money laundering, fencing, etc.) that are sometimes suggested he might have been involved in to explain this cash. I would suggest an activity that is potentially lucrative enough, without involving him in 'mainstream' criminal circles, and that we know he later did engage in might fit the bill : kidnapping. Like blackmail, this is a crime victims are frequently too afraid to report, and if they don't the perpetrators remain 'clean' in the eyes of the law. I'm wondering if he could have already been involved (alone or with others) in kidnapping a child of affluent parents - though probably not in the same league as the Lindberghs/ Morrows in terms of wealth, status, or celebrity. If all had gone to plan, and unlike CAL they had obeyed instructions not to involve the authorities, Hauptmann could have found himself with the funds he seems to have acquired in 1931, with no evidence of a crime even having been committed. and what might have seemed like a successful blueprint for making easy money when his 'windfall' began to run out and finances got tight again. If this crime netted a relatively modest profit which was gone through more quickly that anticipated, the temptation to target a wealthier family who could be expected to absorb a much larger demand in their stride might be strong. All speculation, I know. And unlikely to ever be much else unless the putative victims reported the crime after the event, which I would imagine might have rung bells with the police investigating TLC, so unlikely. It occurs to me because I generally resist reaching for complex 'mirror & smoke' conspiracy theories if avoidable, and in this case the alternative explanation for Hauptmann's unaccounted enrichment - a down-payment received for future participation in the crime - that seems to suggest itself, inevitably puts the investigation on such a path. And I don't think it's too much of a stretch to suggest a known participant in a kidnapping case might have acquired a substantial and unexplained sum of money by the same means previously. And if he did, it could connect with the claim that the kidnap had been planned for 'years'/ 'a year'. If a previous child was taken, it could in hindsight have come to represent a 'practise run' of sorts for 'the big one' (or not inconceivably actually been such, I suppose?). I apologise btw if posts like these that you peeps have probably dealt with a hundred times already are somewhat trying to experienced researchers (rather like someone constantly asking you all to re-invent the wheel , but I'm only starting to get to grips with the detail of this case, so I'm afraid I'm liable to be annoying you by retreading basics for quite a while yet
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 21, 2010 16:45:42 GMT -5
No one will ever get annoyed with these types of posts. (If you were a Member I would have given you a karma point)
Everyone sees things differently and its these differences put together that sometimes spell out the truth to the facts which are missing. Going over things more then once is not only important - its a necessity.
There are many "facts" about this Case which history records incorrectly. We all know the ones. It's what does not "make sense" or "sit well" in your stomach once you take a neutral glance at the situation. It's what led to Kevin & Rab solving the Rail 16 mystery. Those who didn't want to upset the Verdict "let it ride" but to the rest of us there was something missing.... the truth of the situation. And it now can be, in my opinion, put to rest.
We have to explain Hauptmann's actions. We have to come up with a solution for someone who is supposed to be motivated by being broke, when, the limited facts we have taken in their totality - do not support that position.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 21, 2010 19:04:35 GMT -5
I would give a karma point as well. The issue of whether BRH had beeen involved in crime(s) previously is one I personally believe to be the case. The point that particular crimes of the period were, for a variety of reasons, not reported is an important one. If one is to believe that Hauptmann was at least the principle player in the LKC ( and I do) then it seems inconcievable that this crime would be his first foray into this field.
|
|
|
Post by Cassie M on Dec 21, 2010 22:08:05 GMT -5
It's what led to Kevin & Rab solving the Rail 16 mystery. Those who didn't want to upset the Verdict "let it ride" but to the rest of us there was something missing.... the truth of the situation. And it now can be, in my opinion, put to rest. Indeed, the Rail 16 mystery is kind of what is drawing me into this case. When I came across Kevin & Rab's work on this (just in the course of chasing up something tangential to the Lindbergh case) it was like a Rubiks Cube moment. The idea that anyone would have taken that rail from their own attic to make the kidnap ladder was (as Hauptmann himself pointed out), ludicrous. And the logic of that was that the state had manufactured that piece of evidence, which, with possession of the money (and even that could have been explained by the 'Fisch Story' ) was the key evidence to his involvement. And yet even so I found it difficult to envisage that this would be so cynically manufactured - not because the state was above manipulating evidence to obtain their conviction (they clearly did), but this would represent a scale of deception beyond manipulation. And suddenly here was the 'solution' - plausible, comprehensively answers all difficulties, elegantly simple. And that rather knocks me out, because in more years than I care to remember of pursuing another historical crime mystery, I don't recall that kind of 'breakthrough'. Which is rather exciting, because it shows that progress CAN still be made with these apparently 'dead' cases. But to be honest, tempting as it is to head for where the action seems to be happening, I think splitting one's focus is probably not going to be productive. These kinds of cases demand so much in terms of immersion in the detail, and realistically we only have so much of our lives we can devote to these sorts of projects. I probably will register with this board - you really are turning up so much good solid research on the case, since the days when I dipped into the likes of Kennedy on the subject - that it's a pleasure just to read this site. So thank you, and the other contributors here, for the enjoyment I'm getting from this site.
|
|
|
Post by Cassie M on Dec 21, 2010 23:39:50 GMT -5
Actually, I think that Rail 16 also has a bearing on Anna's belief in her Husband.
He tells her he is innocent, and she seems to accept this, despite the evidence of the ladder, their unaccounted for 'enrichment' around the time of the high profile crime, and the hidden ransom money - which seems on the face of it a bit beyond credulous and naive for what seems a reasonably acute woman.
But Hauptmann claimed that he came to possess the ransom money innocently (or relatively so) through Fisch, while the enrichment was due to his investment 'acumen' - the money anyway was in evidence before the Lindbergh disappearance. Neither of these were implausible in themselves, given the relationship as she knew it between her husband and Isidor.
Which leaves the ladder. And Richard's explanation for that is that the proposition that he would cut timbers from their roof space, at huge effort and inconvenience, to knock up a ladder when he had ample opportunity to find the materials to hand, was too absurd to be true. Which it was, and Anna could surely not fail to see that.
So given that is precisely what the police claimed they had evidence he did, the only conclusion that left her with was that the State was indeed framing her husband. That the authorities were so desperate for a conviction that they were prepared to fake whatever evidence it took to convince a court that the man found with the money was guilty.
I think possibly a combination of smaller 'dishonesties' from the authorities that she knew to be false, coupled with what must have seemed to her the manifest invention of false evidence regarding Rail 16, convinced her of her husband's innocence. She can believe him or the State - and she has reason to think the State is lying.
And this might also account for her later bitter resentment against them - in her eyes she had good reason to believe there had not merely been error and a mistaken miscarriage of justice; the authorities had actively, cynically, and ruthlessly set out to frame a man whose innocence or guilt meant nothing to them.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 22, 2010 7:32:51 GMT -5
There was an attempt to tie Hauptmann in with the Yonkers Ladder Burglaries/Murder. It's been my opinion that Hauptmann was not above finding ways to make easy money.... Whether that venture be legal or illegal.
No matter who or how you simply must come to the conclusion that one or more people are laundering money. If Hauptmann is speculating stock all day, and no money is traced there - then it has to (at least) involve someone else.
It takes so much time to work through this stuff. I've heard people say over the years that they can't get into the Devine Angle, or Means, or the Lindbergh Baby Claimants even - because its too distracting or a side issue that doesn't matter to the topic of interest....
Let me say (and I know that no one who researches wants to hear this) that all subjects & angles co-mingle. You could be researching the Burlap Bag and find information about Condon that isn't anywhere else. It's hard for me to put into words, but I have found many new things outside of where they are "supposed" to be. And I continue to. The PC correspondence for example.... I've been through it about 10 times, yet, each time I go through it I find something important that I missed the multiple times previously.
The more you learn the more there is to find. The more you realize you missed when it was right in front of you before. I've likened it to a black hole.
Once you get sucked in you will never get out.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 22, 2010 7:38:40 GMT -5
Another Karma point. All I have ever seen to explain Mrs. Hauptmann was her loyalty, or in the alternative, her guilt. This is both a logical & coherent explanation for her beliefs.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 22, 2010 15:57:08 GMT -5
I think it's called denial. Had her husband confessed to his part and came clean, everyone would have been spared the drama and antics. Instead he opted for an all or nothing course. All the courtroom shenanigans and co-opting the evidence would not have such an impact had the defendant chosen to cooperate and be honest.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 22, 2010 16:24:28 GMT -5
It's a good point and I certainly do not want to undermine it. However, doesn't this apply to everyone? Condon is the perfect example.
I also seriously question whether or not it would have mattered if Hauptmann gave them the details behind his involvement. I could see them shrugging it off or labeling it a lie in order to send him to the chair anyway. I mean Wilentz promised Fisher he would prosecute his own Witnesses if he showed they lied. Fisher did this but Wilentz did nothing. In fact, Wilentz himself knew they lied. And not only that, he engaged in it himself.
But for my own selfish reasons I wish Hauptmann had shared what he knew.
|
|
|
Post by Cassie M on Dec 22, 2010 19:33:59 GMT -5
I think it's called denial. Had her husband confessed to his part and came clean, everyone would have been spared the drama and antics. Instead he opted for an all or nothing course. All the courtroom shenanigans and co-opting the evidence would not have such an impact had the defendant chosen to cooperate and be honest. True Kev, but then I suppose almost by definition your average kidnapper/ extortionist's impulse towards honesty is unlikely to be that highly developed in the first place. And the stakes are high when it comes to capitol crime. It's perhaps unsurprising Hauptmann was willing to gamble big when the best outcome he could hope for coming clean was a life sentence. So we have a situation where BRH was denying the facts (aka lying), but Anna was only in denial if she should rationally have accepted what she was refusing to accept (his guilt). And I think the fact that she had (from her pov) reason to believe the authorities had set him up arguably made it irrational to trust their version. I think it's kind of like that archetypal story (frequently reworked, in films like The Forgotten, or Flightplan), where the protagonist is alone in maintaining a particular version of events. They seem passionately sincere, but the only rational response is to reject their claims because all the evidence, validated by every authority we build our trust on, says they are wrong. To believe that protagonist in the face of such evidence would be perverse, and to be in denial (in fact usually someone in these narratives tries to tell them that's exactly what they are). But then those authorities are shown to be dishonest, when crooks/ aliens/ government agencies/ whatever inadvertently reveal themselves as falsifying reality all along. Normally, finding yourself in a situation where you call in to doubt the authorities that underpin our networks of reality, and of psychological and social cohesion, puts you in the territory of paranoia, but in this instance the protagonist is vindicated, and no state of denial or delusional behaviour can be said to have existed. I think it can be argued that parallels the situation Anna found herself in - and to the extent she believed she had grounds for rejecting the official case against Bruno, she wasn't in denial, because a refusal to believe in a profoundly discredited authority wasn't irrational. Which is of course a different matter to whether, as his wife, she could be expected to know the man in such a way that she knew he was made of the stuff capable of such a crime. And also doesn't exclude that Hauptmann's denials (lies) were partly justified, in his eyes, because he was in denial about the degree to which his involvement in the LKC should render him culpable for the crime. He certainly seems to demonstrate a tendency to self-pity that seems somewhat misplaced in an other than innocent man.
|
|