|
Post by rick3 on Sept 10, 2007 11:09:28 GMT -5
Excellent question! Why not anyways, I can think of two reasons: 1. All leads became dead ends: "a dead end" Was this assured by the NJSP? a situation in which no progress can be made. Negotiators have reached a dead end in their attempts to find a peaceful solution to the crisis. Logical solutions were blocked by CAL and "death" There is a good reason why they are called "dead" ends because many persons end up dead. (eg Violet, Ollie, Fisch, WJ Burns etc. over a 30 month period). Red told 3 huge LIES about his actions on the nite of March 1st: first he went to the movies, then he drove around with Johannes Junges, then he left for Hartford, CT. BUT not until Wednesday morning. Nevertheless, he was released and deported "voluntarily" with a $50,000 bail? 2. In terms stated by the Arthur W. Jones Letter....see link #24 below 7 pages....many serious questions were left hanging: www.state.nj.us/state/darm/links/guides/sintr003.htmlWe don't really know WHY? See page 7 : - Condon advertised as go-between in Bronx Home News?
- Hauptmann didn't talk or name any accomplices?
- Reilly sold out BRH on corpus delicti?
- Hoffman accepted $50,000 for each stay of execution?
- Why didn't detective Ellis Parker keep his findings secret?
- Why did CAL leave the country in December 1935?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 10, 2007 13:22:57 GMT -5
Problem is that these ideas of conspiracy and large scale criminal plotting are never backed up with anything tangible and that's especially true when it comes to drawing a line back to Hauptmann. It seems that there is too much negative reasoning, the police failed to do this, Lindbergh didn't do that, Hauptmann couldn't have done that, the ladder couldn't be climbed, etc,etc. How is it possible that such a crime if planned and committed with the assistance of so many could leave no discernible trail even after all of these years? Every person involved in such an event is not and end unto themselves, each will leave a trail and each will interact with many others. Yet we see nothing of substance in this direction. Believe what you like, I am not dismissing the possibility of a larger effort here, what I am simply doing is exploring that which has been largely ignored. If so many intelligent and insightful people have spun their wheels for so long attempting to find the elusive proof of a large criminal conspiracy, then I think it may be time to look in a direction which has not been. I think there is ample evidence to explain this crime as a far more simple one than that proposed through all of the conspiracy theories. If you feel differently I say fine, it should be a achievable task to find some tangible linkage between Hauptmann, either as a major player or a patsy, and those whom you believe were involved. Can anyone provide such a link?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 10, 2007 15:22:10 GMT -5
For me the dots have been connected. What I notice most about this case is people (in general) apply certain things when favorable but ignore those same things when they aren't to whatever theory they hold dear.
For example, if one believes Perrone's identification then they must believe it was Hauptmann, or one of his Confederates, talking to Condon on City Island. If one does not believe this then Perrone must be removed from the equation totally. Even if one believes Perrone was coerced then we still have his eyewitness account, before Hauptmann, that Condon was talking to the man who gave him the note to deliver.
Alexander testified Hauptmann was "shadowing" Condon. If Condon could ID Hauptmann as John then he would have noticed Hauptmann stalking him - immediately.
Condon's lies serve but one purpose and the Police were quite aware of what that was.
Physical evidence which seems to connect Hauptmann is accepted but that which does not is dismissed without any regard for what produced it.
Evidence and circumstances which directly relate to this crime but do not link up to Hauptmann must link up to someone else. If one believes Hauptmann was involved then by default he is linked in one way or another - directly or indirectly. And so the producing parties, not being Hauptmann, must be involved in this case.
For example, a footprint at the base of the ladder which is smaller then Hauptmann's shoe has to be attributed to someone other then Hauptmann. If it doesn't match a resident of Highfields then what does that tell us?
Of course its circumstantial....but isn't that what convicted Hauptmann of murder? In reality, (no one really) knowing what we know, linked him directly to the killing of the child.
The bottom line was after Hauptmann was arrested, very little was done by way of investigation as it relates to what was done before he was. Again, even with that degree of investigating - Lyle was the reason for his arrest. And so any investigation was really done for the purposes of sureing up their case against him and/or eliminating the Defense strategy revealed to the Prosecution by George K. Large. Accomplices would be revealed if Hauptmann chose to talk...if not he's cooked and the case dies with him.
Seriously, what is to be developed when you have both Schwarzkopf & Wilentz telling Hoover not to bother with investigating new ransom bills turning up and accumulated by the Treasury Department (well after Hauptmann was removed from the situation) instead to have them destroyed?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 10, 2007 15:56:38 GMT -5
Kevin--for my 2 cents the best links are between BRH>>>Fisch: - clearly Isadore and Bruno were business partners--Izzy left Bruno holding the worthless sealskins
- Fisch was known as moneybags, laundering money wherever he went
- Jafsie chose Fisch as one of his "too numerous to mention" candidates for CJ = hacking cough, lump on his thumb, flying ears.
- Fisch paid for his (and Uligs) steamship passage to Germany in Dec 1933 with Gold Certs
- BRH had correspondence from Pinkus Fisch and maybe Fisch himself--it disappeared
- Fisch left a suitcase of books to BRH--disappeared
- All traces of Fisch--BRH connection mysteriously vanished
- AG Wilintz paid the entire Fisch family to come over, stay in Atlantic City and claim Fisch was "an upstanding yet poverty stricken young man"
- Fisch was a small time crook and forger for Knickerbocker Pie Co. associated with Joe De Grasi and Charlies Schlesser
- Fisch lived acrossed the street from the Temple of Divine Power and Lyles gas station.
- Wendel may have been Fischs attorney of record in a Trenton drug smuggling case.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 10, 2007 16:06:28 GMT -5
All very well, but where is the linkage between Hauptmann and whomever else evident? By what mechanism does Hauptmann become engaged with those who I assume you believe actually conceived the crime? There has to be a trail and there has to be a motive. Both leave evidence of their existence. The more complicated the plot, the more evidence of it's existence. That's the penalty that complexity inherently and necessarily carries with it. Sure there are numerous examples of odd and suspicious behavior exhibited by a range of characters in this case, but where is the commensurate evidence of participation in a gang or conspiracy involving a kidnapping? Who's on first in this game? How was this "team" formed? By what method of communication were the plans formulated and forwarded? Who enforced the silence? How was the compensation determined and distributed? All of these are actions required by necessity for an organized gang and they all leave traces behind. So where are they? Until someone comes forward with something tangible here I will maintain that we are over thinking this crime. I know it seems inconceivable that a crime of this nature could be anything other than a masterpiece of criminal action befitting the famous Professor Moriarty. I am not so sure, I think it may be far simpler than anyone supposes. It may be that improvisation is being mistaken for masterful design here. In any case I think that the best way to check one's position is to offer it up for argument. If it has validity it will withstand the questioning, if not then it may help to strengthen an opposing position. The way I see it that's the only way to progress.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 10, 2007 17:06:54 GMT -5
In a sense I believe Rick does prove a link between Hauptmann and Fisch. I don't know how this qualifies but it appears to satisfy the obligation.
Personally, I see a problem with any test of this nature. For example, we have Hauptmann and still cannot answer the questions you pose for those he was involved with. When did he come up with this idea? Why? How?
We don't know these answers....well at least they're not being discussed even if one thinks they do (but you get my point).
There are undeniable facts that are not connected to Hauptmann. If one must prove a link to Hauptmann with facts we do not have surely we must be able to do so with ones we do.
For example: Who wrote the J.J. Faulkner deposit slip? Not Hauptmann. So even if one believes Hauptmann benefited from its deposit then who penned it out? If not a Confederate then who? Are we to believe we have people inventing accounts in order to claim reward money but an innocent somehow duped into penning this slip disappears without a trace? How so?
Where'd the "Look-Out" from the Cemetery Meetings go?
For my money just these two things show involvement of more then one person. Of course the question can become exactly how culpable these people were in the crime itself but can we deny involvement of others when looking at this stuff?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 10, 2007 18:45:42 GMT -5
This is exactly why, for my money, it is so vitally important to focus on Hauptmann before going off into grand schemes. Anyway you look at it he must be connected to others. The question is, what was the nature of the connections? Was Hauptmann subordinate to others or was Hauptmann utilizing various individuals to do some of his "dirty work"? Take Fisch for example, was he a knowledgeable accomplice to the crime, was he a simply a convenient aid to launder the money, or was he completely uninvolved? I still see nothing that negates the theory I proposed. That is that the crime was evolutionary in nature having been originally conceived as something very different.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 11, 2007 5:34:29 GMT -5
I still believe there's a possibility that everyone involved may not have been familiar or intimately familiar with everyone else. And so I while I do agree with you I think there were others involved which may never be connected up directly with Hauptmann.
Absolutely. We are on the same page here.
The Prosecution portrayed Fisch as someone he wasn't. I think the very best way to approach Fisch is to study the files to better learn about him. Afterwards - lay out the options, just as you have asked them, then ask yourself what the percentage of possibility may be in answering each of them.
Nothing negates it. I believe its this type of thinking that will eventually lead us closer to the truth of the matter. My biggest problem with it is the symbol. After that I see some other issues but nothing which would cause me to dismiss it from my mind.
|
|
dena
Detective
Posts: 129
|
Post by dena on Mar 3, 2008 12:44:05 GMT -5
I was up all night just reading the older & newer posts on here. Not sure if this is right place to ask this but here goes. I have learned that the NJSP museum has much more graphic pictures of the baby but will not put them online. Im assuming that Michael or some of you who post on this board have seen those photos. Is it true that in one of the photos the baby is much more identifiable than in the couple of photos that are online that usually just show the baby's left side?
And that in this photo he actually does really look like Baby Charlie? That you can tell he really is the baby? Michael, bless his heart, has gone so patiently with me over the details abt why he thinks this is the baby, at different times (but I still held out) . But because of this it was only for the first time that I even began to seriously entertain the thought that maybe the baby found in woods WAS Charlie after all. But I still wasn't quite convinced yet. I think Im almost convinced now it was him. Just waiting to here from those of you who have seen all the photos at NJSP M.
Also, as I have been rereading a lot of these old posts, and for the first time EVER, I am starting to rethink my posistion on the baby having been cold bloodedly murdered by his father . I am now leaning towards accident from one thing in particular I read on here yesterday. An accident at home that CAL was only trying to cover up for the familys sake. It just kind of "opened" up my mind & my eyes more. And of course now Im seeing all kinds of things I didn't see before and are able to assimilate old facts with new. I still dont think CAL was a very nice man, but I need to separate my dislike of this man & look at the evidence more. I don't think I have ever been able to do this before. I have learned lots of info from various posts on the other board over the years, but you guys really delve into the nitty-gritty details . I like how I can read a post from 2006 & respond & to it & conversation is picked up like the topic was never dropped in the first place. I like discussing the minutiae of this case endlessly. And Im learning so much from these old posts. Even Joe's. (LOL). I think I have not been looking beneath the surface enough all of these years as you folks over here do.
You are all good at sharing what you find & not just "teasing" with it. You do a lot of hard work and I appreciate this. Esp you, Michael.
Thanks, guys.
Dena
|
|
|
Post by Vietnam Vet on May 25, 2009 11:10:11 GMT -5
HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY! Ellis Parker was the first to say, that I could find, the child hadn't been there the whole time and had been brought there at a later date. Next, Rab came up with this bit of research before having any knowledge of Parker's position: lindberghkidnap.proboards56.com/index.cgi?board=rab&action=display&thread=1141567525Something else that bothers me is this: The child was found in a "shallow grave." Now if this is true, how do we account for the fact the child is still in the grave but the bag is on the side of the road? If he wasn't buried in the bag then revert back to Rab's post. If he was buried in the bag then did the animals dig up the corpse, remove the child from the bag, drag the bag across the stream and onto the side of the road directly in a straight line from where the corpse lay (and remain there from March 1st to May 12) then re-bury the partially eaten child? The problem is that we don't know where and under what conditions the child's corpse existed before being brought to this location. That is the unknown variable. I believe someone hired a group of people they knew would keep quiet. I believe they were probably given an advance to be paid the rest after the job was completed. I don't believe the ransom was ever supposed to be collected but that some of those in that group decided to continue on with its collection anyway. In Dr. Gardner's unpublished work (linked below)... hometown.aol.com/Mmel71/images/Lindy/GETTINGITRIGHT.doc ...we first see Steve Lehman's explanation for why the Driver pulled over to the wrong side of the road. This makes a lot of sense. hello--is GettingItRight posted somewhere else--that weblink closed? Could it be added here?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 25, 2009 14:59:44 GMT -5
Getting It Right: The Ben Lupica Story Unpublished Work by Dr. Lloyd Gardner, author of: The Case That Never Dies Don't forget there are items posted in the Member's Only Section. (P.S. - In a truly self-less act, Lloyd gave me permission to post this. By now its probably all over the net. However, it's still his work so I want to remind everyone not forget to credit him if its decided to cite and/or use any of it.)
|
|
|
Post by mhaighirtis on Jun 3, 2009 19:01:26 GMT -5
The baby was not intentionally murdered. The kidnapper on the way down the ladder, dropped the baby when the ladder broke. He automatically reached out with his arm holding the baby to save himself, that's when the baby fell to the ground and died. While they were fleeing the scene, it was confirmed to by both parties (there had to be two perps) that the baby was dead. Then and there they decided to bury the baby in the woods and take their chances on collecting the ransom money.
|
|
|
Post by cal77 on Jun 14, 2009 17:18:27 GMT -5
Hello Michael & all!
My name is Sue...and this is my very first post here. Though I have been following the case off & on for MANY years.
My husband and I just made our first trip to Hopewell....FINALLY found the house. We had NO address, as it was a last minute visit.
We also visited the NJ State Police museum to see the LINDBERGH display. It was awesome. And I truly enjoyed seeing the collection, finally.
When we returned home...of course I had to do a search, and found this wonderful message forum.
take care, Sue
|
|
|
Post by cal77 on Jun 14, 2009 17:20:55 GMT -5
We had NO idea where to look...so we went into the Hopewell public libary. They told us the road - Lindbergh Road....and the man in the libary REALLY feels Charles killed his own son.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 14, 2009 18:14:06 GMT -5
Hi Sue and welcome to the board!
Care to share a little more about your observations? Any favorite books or personal theories?
|
|
|
Post by cal77 on Jun 14, 2009 19:18:07 GMT -5
Hi Sue and welcome to the board! Care to share a little more about your observations? Any favorite books or personal theories? Hi Michael - great to be here. It was so surreal seeing the Lindbergh house...even though it was for only a few minutes. I hope to be able to take a tour sometime soon. Well, I just can not believe that Charles would have killed his own son. It is just not in my heart. Even though I know I could be very wrong. I just can not get passed a couple of things...mainly, that the family was not supposed to even be there. I do understand that SOME people might not have known that this was a weekend home, and went to the house anyway. Someone getting into the house, and no one hearing anything...other than the sound Charles heard. I do believe the kidnapper dropped the baby...and died from the fall/injuries. I do believe they wanted to give the baby back. I have ALOT to read here and in books. I just bought LINDBERGH and looking forward to reading it. Talk again.. Sue
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 15, 2009 16:14:44 GMT -5
Is that the Berg or the Behn book? Either way keep reading! When you are finished I'd like to suggest what I consider the best book on this case - hands down.... The Case That Never Dies by Dr. Lloyd Gardner Please be sure to jump into any discussion or thread to post questions, comments, or positions. I am very glad to have you as a Member.
|
|
|
Post by cal77 on Jun 15, 2009 19:34:25 GMT -5
Is that the Berg or the Behn book? Either way keep reading! When you are finished I'd like to suggest what I consider the best book on this case - hands down.... The Case That Never Dies by Dr. Lloyd Gardner Please be sure to jump into any discussion or thread to post questions, comments, or positions. I am very glad to have you as a Member. I am sorry. The book is by A. Scott Berg. Very interesting so far. And I want to thank you for your suggestion on books. Michael, you do feel that Charles could have somehow been involved? I have read some of Ronelle's web site. Very interesting. And there is alot pointing to Charles, that I did not realize. I can not even imagine he being involved. It would be very sad. I have also read that the American family had taken several items from the NJ Museum. What are your thoughts? And about the German kids? Has that been proven to be true???
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 16, 2009 4:03:22 GMT -5
Nice to see a ton of reading, Kevkon, Rick and Michael and Cal and others - good show. I see Kevkon is a major now - hope I'm still a corporal because that's the way to take over the world. Nobody reads this stuff anyway, right Michael. Anyway, M, thanks to K and you for my getting back and, hi Rick, what's up. Heard you weren't posting from a source that thinks Elisabeth Morrow and Elizabeth Morrow are the same person. Thanks especially to Kevkon for posting the site - I've been so uninterested but what you're doing is very cool M and K.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 16, 2009 4:17:50 GMT -5
Jack for Michael - why not suggest other books too - I find discrepencies in them which must be judged. For example, the Allen Issue - Gardiner doesn't go into the discovery by Allen at all, and Fisher and Bergh differentiate on their analysis. One says the burlap bag was found by the road, the other by the body, one says Allen a passenger, the other says a rider. One says 75 feet the other says 60 feet, one says bloodstained bag, the other doesn't even mention the bag. Kinda knitpicky, but leads to something else. Is the bag at the museum? I wouldn't be surprised if it has a bullet hole in it that people have missed all these years - just think of it Michael - you find it - bigger than the table.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 16, 2009 4:33:46 GMT -5
Hi Sue: Is that the Berg book? If you read the whole thing you'll know a lot about Mr. Lindbergh. Others, and more concise, are Gardiner as Michael said, but Fisher too which is a dramatized version and easy reading and "The Lindbergh Syndrome" by Robert Lockwood Mills which has a lot about the kidnapping, and about Lindbergh and his trauma which you can see by these posts is a real issue. You might solve the crime, Sue - new information comes along all the time, and it's a possibility that whoever puts it all together in the correctest way will do it. Hopes so, Jack
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 16, 2009 6:11:46 GMT -5
There's a lot to this case to be learned. Even now I continue to learn - and that's important to point out. As Jack says, new stuff keeps turning up too. Sometimes just one thing can shatter an entire theory to pieces. It's also very easy to speculate about what certain facts indicate. I think that's completely normal. But, having said that, if something is at odds with that theory then its important not to ignore it or offer an explanation that you wouldn't offer anywhere else.
Everyone does this. And I've done it myself. It's easy to get caught up. That's why I think our board is so important. It's a "control" and it keeps us honest.
It's funny you said the man at the Library told you that. I've heard that whispered, and I swear actually whispered, as an afterthought by every elderly resident in Lambertville who decided to tell me their thoughts on the Case when I was growing up.
I personally cannot rule out his involvement. I'd like to, but the more I try the more I find to show he could have been. But like I say above - that can all change - but that's where I stand now.
Hard to say. They were his remains, and his items. Also consider the mockery made of him by all of these people (regardless of how nice they are or how strongly they believe in what they allege) claiming to be Charles Jr. when clearly they are not. But also I sure the child was "sick" and that maybe the motive was to make sure no one could start testing the hair or the bones, etc.
Absolutely. You'll hear Lindbergh was "in love" with the sisters, etc. Keep reading about him and I think you'll see what that was really based on.
Jack also suggested some other books - there are so many to choose from and much to learn from each.
|
|
|
Post by cal77 on Jun 16, 2009 12:27:29 GMT -5
Thank you, Michael & Jack - I am going on the hunt for LINDBERGH books before I get them online. See what I can find. Reading LINDBERGH right now is really giving me more insight into all parties. It is so hard NOT to think or feel that someone INSIDE the house had to be involved. But then I think HOW did the money end up in Hauptman's house? Did Lindbergh KNOW Hauptman? Did HE hire Hauptman? All these crazy thoughts enter my mind. The people at the library were very kind. I was taken back when the gentleman mentioned that he felt Lindbergh was involved somehow. It made me sit back and think about it. I hope to get back to Hopewell soon and go to the museum. Has anyone here been inside the Lindbergh house? We drove up the LONG drive, and we were VERY nervous...but I HAD to see the house...and did get several pictures. I would love to see the inside. The exhibit was really interesting as well. I enjoyed finally seeing it. Seeing the thumbguard really hit my heart. I actually had tears in my eyes. As for the FAKE Charlie's...I am sure the American family are not interested in them. Because I can imagine they do not believe any of it. I would want the truth. Whatever that may be. Do you know if ANY of the family members EVER showed interest in the fake Charlie's??? I am still reading the messages here....trying to keep things all straight... Thanks again!
|
|
|
Post by dschwalie11 on Aug 8, 2011 20:41:13 GMT -5
The ransom notes keeps referring to keeping the child well fed and "on the diet". What diet? Who would have known about this special diet? These days I could see parents making a plea to kidnappers, telling them a child was asthmatic or diabetic or whatever, but the notes sound as though the kidnappers know that Charlie must be on a special diet and (even though he is dead) they know about it and are keeping him on it. Doesn't that point to someone in the house?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 10, 2011 5:35:05 GMT -5
The diet was placed in the papers by Anne for the kidnappers. (I am not sure if this was in the Bronx Home News but I don't think it was). This line in the ransom note was taken to be a response to this message.
|
|