|
Post by Giszmo on Oct 23, 2006 16:27:01 GMT -5
3. Lloyd Gardner names Wendel or Fisch as the Masterminds, at least to the extortion. (Rick) Could you tell me on which page this is found?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 23, 2006 16:50:51 GMT -5
Gismo, I think it is on page 481 ;D
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on Oct 24, 2006 11:54:24 GMT -5
Seriously, though, I doubt we will ever know for sure if the death was planned or accidental. We all know that Wilentz started his presentation with an accidental death that occurred in the midst of a felony -- hence capital crime. Throughout, however, he portrayed BRH as a loathesome creature that he would not even wish to be near. The perp obviously knew the child was dead when continuing with the extortion plot, and that is loathesome.
Wilentz has certainly the best of the moral argument that anyone connected with such a plot deserves the highest penalty. If the motive was not money, however, what was it? Why did the perp(s) continue with the extortion scheme knowing the child was dead? In short, what I am trying to suggest in this round-about fashion is, does it make any difference? It can be argued both ways -- especially if one posits that Hauptmann was not there that night. The risks of keeping the child, and returning it alive, perhaps outweighed the risks of killing it. I believe Hauptmann was a risk taker, but between those two choices he might have been the killer, indeed. But why, then, not secret the child in a more secure place? The greatest risk, as I see it dimly through a 75 year fog, is leaving the child's body exposed and carrying out the negotiations at not one, but TWO public locations, where one could not be sure there would not be a surrounding cordon of police. Just think of that, TWO extended discussions. One certainly would have to have a lot of faith in Lindbergh to risk that -- and why would one?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 skeptic5 on Oct 24, 2006 16:49:59 GMT -5
wc/ my very first guess would be because at some finite point CAL, if not JFC, knew that Lil Charlie was toast? Its difficult to say exactly when this was....someone is quoted as saying, maybe CAL, that "someone may have to die because of this"? This is not to say that CAL was directly responsible for Charlies demise, but maybe was just unable to avoid it under some strange progression of circumstances that got out of his control? My first choice would be mobsters, maybe even the Purples? But the extortionists in the Bronx, well, they never expected to get caught, or caught up the staged events defined best by the sleeping suite gambit. If Charlie was alive and well it probably wasnt for very long? As Theon Wright so aptly stated...."there was never one scintilla of evidence that the extortion gang had Charlie"? That would be way too stimplistic and straighforward/ for some reason they all expected CAL to get them off scot free?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Oct 24, 2006 18:16:17 GMT -5
Am just rolling around the thought that the child may have been placed in the woods, somehow in conjunction with the first cem meeting(?) They'd heard "Money is ready" and were expecting the pay off. Maybe they thought of that timing as putting an"amen" to the whole thing, i.e. it's completion(?) ( Later ransom note makes ref to a rising level of danger to the go between.)
Sue75~ That was a fascinating article! Thanx for adding that.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 24, 2006 19:18:58 GMT -5
Excellent post WC!
It represents a true mystery doen't it? I think the faith is in the inside connection or one very near the action. I believe CJ is being tipped off somehow as to what the course of action might be. Perhaps they do trust Condon as well.
I am still of the opinion the child was never meant to be returned and/or negotiated for. I believe those pulling off this "snatch" were paid....probably half up front and half afterwards. I don't think the 50 large was ever meant to be collected.
Mairi's theory is interesting. Still I think if they are bold enough to return the baby then - they are bold enough to retrieve it. There's no way I will ever believe someone knowing that child is laying where he was found would be wheeling and dealing for the ransom. The bags location is a very important indicator if you ask me.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 skeptic5 on Oct 25, 2006 6:10:42 GMT -5
Excellent Thread!
Is there any evidence of multiple ransom payments other than the $50K to CJ and $104K to Means? And the latter was never traced or recovered?
The reason I ask is that early on in the game $250,000 was deposited in a bank somewhere solely for Charlie's return? Could this have been paid out secretly while the lengthy negotiations more visible to the Public were going on?
Charlie Jr. may have been alive for the Woodlawn Chat and killed after the mailing of the sleeping suite? After all, mony is redy was sent 18 times and would likely tip the perps to any trap? Only Irey marked the "hot money" and that could be bad for Charlie?
It has always felt to me like the delay between Woodlawn and St. Raymond's was artificial and was designed for some other purpose hidden from our view? Some other complex motive never revealed?
I agree, there is no way that CJ and the lookouts showed up at St. Raymond's with Charlie lying out in the open. The baby was dumped onto Mt. Rose Hill on or after 1 April 32.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Oct 25, 2006 16:06:55 GMT -5
Hi Michael~ My thinking on when the body was put in the woods isn't as much as a theory--just the trying out of a thought.Is it correct to say that you feel the body was placed there shortly before it was found? Is that based in part on a bone said to have been found in burlap bag and the bag being used as a marker? In your research have you ever found a report with any detail on just how the remains were handled in the retrieval from the woods? I question, in my oun mind whether the bone was in the bag when it was found and first picked up. Or if that possibly ocurred during the retrieval of the remains and other things on the scene. Somehow it's hard for me to think the body was in that same bag long enough for a bone to have fallen off. And am wondering if the bag showed stains enough of that much decomp.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 skeptic4 on Nov 22, 2006 17:27:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rick3 skeptic4 on Nov 22, 2006 17:35:52 GMT -5
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Apr 30, 2007 18:31:00 GMT -5
Rick~~What's your thinking on why a hole punched in baby's head with stick was a preferable story at the time than (possible) bullet hole? Did Wilentz not use bullet hole because that would have seemed death was in a different jurisdiction?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 1, 2007 5:41:38 GMT -5
One thing I try to do is not dismiss any one point because others may not be true. For example, the Jones letter seems to get certain things wrong, but at the same time, if Hauptmann had been talking to him then its possible he would under the circumstances. The problem then becomes, if this possibility is true, is what's real, misunderstood, or imagined?
The serial number recording is yet another weird twist. CAL it seems to me he is trying to honor his word regardless if the Authorities believe it will assist in locating his child or not. It's his word that seems to be the most important matter. Believing there was an inside contact and that Condon would tip them off about this, then its my position they knew before it was in the papers. Rab's theory about the child being moved to the spot where it was found is something else to consider. He feels it was done so the Kidnappers, in essence, were honoring their word in returning the child as promised.
Returning him to that spot was one hell of a risky move, and I do not believe it was done for psychological reasons. It majorly benefited Lindbergh because it brought an end to everything and most especially any further extortion attempts.
CAL would no longer have to go through the motions.
Good question Mairi. I know you asked Rick but I'll add my two cents before his reply... It's not something which would indicate he died in Hunterdon County. No one heard a gun-shot so the argument would be raised he didn't die there. Which also ruins the death in commission of a burglary, and therefore a Capital Offense. It was a can of worms that could have ruined their entire case.
|
|
|
Post by rmc1971 on May 1, 2007 6:55:34 GMT -5
I am still undecided on whether the body was there from the beginning, or if it was dumped at a later date. Although I'm not sold totally, there are some compelling reasons why they body was dumped at a later date:
The fact that Charlie was found in the direction opposite NYC would be one. If the child were kidnapped and killed then and there, I would imagine time would be such a critical factor that they couldn't waste the 45 minutes or hour it may have taken to drive that direction, dump the body, then backtrack to NYC.
The fact that if the kidnap and the extortion were by the same people/group, they would want control of the body, whether alive or dead can be a compelling argument, although history shows that not all kidnappers feel the need to control a body.
The fact that the body supposed to be was lying so close to the temporary phone cable that ran from the police HQ at the Lindbergh estate, it would be hard to think that it wasn't noticed before.
Like I said above, I'm personally not 100% that the body was dumped at a later date, but there are reasons to at least keep my mind open to the possibility.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 1, 2007 7:03:12 GMT -5
Yet another irony in this case and one , I suspect, is the prime reason for such continued interest. To believe in the "Lone Wolf" theory one has to buy the whole program. In doing so the only logical conclusion is that no kidnapping was planned or occurred. That's simply because as a single , unassisted and independent criminal, Richard Hauptmann could only possibly perform two of the three required acts in the kidnapping play book. As a married man living in an apartment in a densely populated area, Hauptmann simply could not provide the stewardship of an abductor. It just isn't possible, and you don't plan to kidnap if you have no means to carry out all three acts; abduction, detainment, and exchange. That leaves only one other possibility for the "Lone Wolf" theory and it is pre-meditated murder. So you have to believe that Hauptmann knew from the very beginning that he would enter that Nursery and commit the heartless murder of an innocent child. That's quite a leap to make from my point of view. That's also a position which needs to be reconciled with such things as the discovery of the body on Mt Rose as well as a host of other issues. So it is so ironic that the State would put forth a theory of kidnapping in order to prove a robbery resulting in death occurred. Another irony here is that those at the two extremes in this case are both in agreement, no kidnapping occurred. I think I will stay somewhere in the middle.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 1, 2007 9:18:39 GMT -5
Charley turns up missing somewhere between his first birthday* and March 1, 1932--but where does he go? Then after 72 days he turns up on Mt. Rose Hill....but Ellis Parker and Al Dunlap check the temps and he wasnt there for 72 days--way too colde! Betty Gow identifies the blue-threaded t-shirt, but Mitchell questions her physical identification due to severe decomp.....and within 24 hours the body is cremated. The Wanted Poster is from *June 1931? The fontenells are of a one year olde? Although the body is found and examined in Mercer County by VanIngen, Swayze and Mitchell only his PED--VI can'I confirm the ID?> I find all the confusion disconcerting? Dr. Mitchell, who clearly knows a bullet hole from a stick poke, is muted by the next day? How could the Powers That Be think this quick to try the gang in Hunterdon County? Where is the rule of law in a capital murder case and how many corners were shaved for the Lindberghs?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on May 1, 2007 12:32:44 GMT -5
rmc~~I, like you, waffle on whether the baby's body was always in the same spot. For a foot bone decomped enough to fall off in burlap bag while the face is still pretty well preserved -- coloration , features -- just won't come together for me. I have some question in my mind as to whether the bone was in the bag when the bag was first picked up. It seems to me the face would have already blackened well before had it been exposed to the air, even briefly, while bringing it back at a later time. As to the tele cables I'd say that was done very early on and perhaps with some rush urgency. Likely the linemen had no thoughts about a corpse being nearby. If leaves were even partially covering the remains then it seems to me it could have readily gone unnoticed. Also that early, the odor would not have been that telling. Yes, the surrounding areas likely were searched, but 4 or so miles away, how can we know just how intensively it was done? Swartzy could have well overstated the thoroughness of the search. I also wonder just how long a ground search went on once the missives from the kidnappers - baby well cared for -became established. I'll still try to consider the body being returned to the spot later, but thus far still have bigger problems with that.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 1, 2007 16:08:11 GMT -5
I don't think it's the massive police, National Guard, boy scouts, etc search or the linemen that is the problem here. It's the multitude of wildlife whose keen senses are appropriately designed for the sole purpose of existing off of carrion. Cold weather or hot, they would find and reduce that body to a skeleton in days. Perhaps look to the water and where it comes from.
|
|
|
Post by rmc1971 on May 2, 2007 9:45:53 GMT -5
I don't think the child was ever meant to be taken care of and/or returned. I personally believe he was murdered and buried in a predetermined location. Addtionally, as I have metioned before, I don't believe the ransom was ever supposed to be collected. They got greedy - as criminals oft do. I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on this theory. I'm interested in who you think would have been behind a 'murder for hire' plot and the motivation for it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 2, 2007 20:28:25 GMT -5
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.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 3, 2007 9:21:18 GMT -5
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on May 3, 2007 18:13:49 GMT -5
Does anyone know the source for the baby's having been taken to Johns Hopkins?
|
|
|
Post by john76 on May 3, 2007 21:02:22 GMT -5
What strikes me is that David Wilentz believed Charlie's death was deliberate and that he was killed in his own bedroom. Mr. Wilentz argued the motive was to steal Charlie's pajamas. If this sounds incredible remember that David Wilentz did persuade the jury that this was true and this was his own basis for asking that there be no recommendation of mercy. Thoughout his life David Wilentz asserted his total honesty and integrity and he never retreated from his arguement that BRH enter Charlie's bedroom to steal Charlie's Pajamas, a felony, and killed him in order to steal the pajamas. In order to believe BRH was guilty of murder it is necessary to accept Mr. Wilentz's arguement. However if a person believes that the abductor wanted to kidnap Charlie then there would be no felony murder and the sentence would be a term of imprisonment.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 4, 2007 8:11:27 GMT -5
I think Wilentz's argument was born out of a NJ legal necessity. But the bottom line, imho, is that if you believe Hauptmann acted alone and unaided, then he is guilty of pre-meditated murder. He simply would not be able to hold and care for a 20 month old child. And the fact that the notes are not emphasizing a speedy payoff shows that holding and caring for the child was no problem. In fact the notes explain that the child is being cared for. There could only be an actual kidnapping if there is some truth to that assertion and that means more than one was involved. So it is either Hauptmann alone as a killer or Hauptmann and others as a kidnapping gone wrong.
|
|
|
Post by nannygirl on May 4, 2007 15:30:07 GMT -5
is there any way of seeing a copy of the kidnapping note
|
|
|
Post by deester on May 4, 2007 17:05:34 GMT -5
Here I go with my theories, again. Bear with me, kids...
Was Anna Hauptmann ever seriously considered a part of the conspiracy? Isn't it possible she was the intended "nurse" for the baby, until the ransom came through and they could return the baby? Then little Lindy was dropped on his head, Hauptmann threw him by the roadside, and decided to go ahead with the ransom anyway.
P.S. I do think the baby was either smothered in his bed, or perhaps chloroformed, and maybe after being chloroformed, the baby smothered on his own, inside a burlap bag or something. Cleary, Lindy didn't make a peep.
|
|
|
Post by deester on May 4, 2007 17:11:35 GMT -5
And if Anna was the only other person besides Hauptmann who knew about the kidnapping, this would help us understand why there wasn't a good confession at his execution, because he couldn't implicate her, could he? The mother of his child? And ultimately, since the baby was dead, she didn't do anything at all, since he built the ladder, wrote the ransom notes, kidnapped the child, and got the ransom. All she did was listen to an expensive radio and wear some nicer-than-thou clothes.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 4, 2007 18:40:57 GMT -5
That's in Murder of Justice by Wayne Jones. I can't remember what page and the index is really bad. Rick may know. This is 100% correct. Kevin's explanation concerning this as a "NJ legal necessity" is also very true IF they wanted a capitol case - which they obviously did. Just to let you all know, even with all the legal minds working on this case for the State they still had to go outside of their circle and hire Harold Fisher to come up with this "grey area" legal wrangling and I've got to tell you I believe this alone should have been reason enough for a re-trial. It's a technical absurdity that should never have been allowed. Osborne suggested it and both Foley, Wilentz, and Police brought this up trying to get Hauptmann to confess. Whether or not they believed it is another story. There's no way I'll ever believe she knew anything about it. If she did she most certainly would have told what she knew to save her husband.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on May 4, 2007 21:00:22 GMT -5
IMHO there's no way Anna Hauptman was involved. Virtually everything indicates to me that she was a good, decent and honest person. No matter how tempting it can be to lie for a loved one I don't believe she did. And too, in her efforts to reopen the case she would have risked herself , had she lied. I don't see alot of focus on the two independent witnesses who had BRH there at the bakery the night of the kidnapping. That is the man who thought Hauptmann had his dog and then the other man in the bakery who heard him say that someone tried to take the dog. So far as I've been able to see neither knew BRH, so what would be their motive for coming forward on his behalf? Wilentz had political ambitions. What better way to advance himself than to bring about the execution of a man to satisfy the publics cry for blood? (I think he was a SNAKE !) "Stealing pajamas", for lordy's sake!!!! Thank you for the ref to Johns Hopkins. I'll dig into the Jones book.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 5, 2007 7:08:33 GMT -5
I don't think Anna was involved directly with the kidnapping for several reasons. First, I don't see how she could care for the child without raising suspicions anymore than her husband. In short I don't see her capability to provide much help in the crime. In addition, It has been my great fortune to know several people who were friends with Anna Hauptmann and I trust their opinions regarding her. Deester I hope you won't be discouraged from looking further and asking more questions, no matter how unpopular the subject. The case is worth it. Personally I think you are on the right track - I think you just have the wrong woman
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 5, 2007 7:58:12 GMT -5
Never be discouraged. This case is like the mob, once you get in you can never get out! If you believe a female was involved and directly connected to Hauptmann then one must take into consideration that he cheated on Anna. We can pretty much assume who one or two may have been but what about the others? Why didn't the Police chase this angle down? Inspector Walsh was always of the opinion that a Female Accomplice would eventually give up the Gang. He may have been right but was off the case way before Hauptmann was ever arrested. I noted in the past the NJSP was indeed actively pursuing a Hauptmann/Sharp connection all the way up until the beginning of the trial. Also note that Hauptmann told Leibowitz his plan would have been to get "sweet" with one of the female "help."
|
|