|
Post by rick3 on May 5, 2007 11:34:50 GMT -5
Mairi....Michael is correct...the Johns Hopkins reference in Jones is in the back of the book nearto the place where Betty Gow tells Jones' Auntie that Charlie Jr. was deaf and dumb? Good match with the "Arthur Jones letter"--oops too many Jones'? But there is another Johns Hopkins link...when a surgeon from JHU tells Evalyn Walsh McClean that shes been hoaxed by Gaston B. Means. Howd he know that? Two links are better than one. Sure wish we knew what lil' curly top was doing at Johns Hopkins? Maybe he was getting a checkup or surgery for rare seizures: search "Life after surgery" at this link: www.newsday.com/news/printedition/longisland/ny-ligirl045197706may04,0,4411781.story
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on May 5, 2007 13:50:24 GMT -5
Thanx Rick~~Dr Leo Kanner at JHU, along about 1943 gave the name to Autism. He had a case study of an 11 yr old girl. For so, so long something has nagged away at me in the pictures - facial (lack of) expressions. He comes across, for one thing as not a happy child. No babykin's smiles/laughter. I see in the film clips of him what rather appears as "repetitive" motions. Have been reviewing Sx of Autism and some things I think I perceive about the child, seem to possibly (only possibly) bear some similarities. As what had been a separate thing nagging me was that I feel sure I' m seeing bald spots in the child's hair. So have been studying the photos and film clips closely. Look at the areas upper and to each side beyond the forehead. Then look at-I believe it was Time mag cover- reproduced from the 1st birthday profile. Do you see how the side of his head has hair being combed forward toward his face? Is this trying to camouflage bald areas? Is this why no older photos of him were used after kidnapping? Is this why people who knew or were friends never saw the baby? Was this why CAL didn't allow servants to be questioned, for fear that something of this may slip out? Now go back to symptomatology of Autism- self injury such as biting one's self. Could the child have been pulling (out) his own hair? It's not unknown that children sometimes do this. Could this be what the "thumb guards" were actually being used for? Recall Anne's nightmare of not knowing how to comb the child's hair. If Gow said "deaf and dumb" am thinking this might be an easy confusion with Autistic lack of attention/response(?).Of course I know I may be completely off the mark here, but think I'll continue to explore it. Am also searching for the name of the medicine the baby was taking. That may have been for the Rickets, but then again.....? (For the Autism connection I had googled in "Autism treatment, 1930" as one ref )
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on May 5, 2007 15:16:21 GMT -5
See page 1117 in Murder of Justice for Johns Hopkins Hospital account.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 6, 2007 7:55:01 GMT -5
Michael, where and how at this late date would we look for a Hauptmann female accomplice?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 6, 2007 9:07:45 GMT -5
This is a good question....
I have always been of the opinion that all the answers lie within the Archives. That is, if the table is legit, then one of the Agencies had indeed interviewed the Author or someone very close to them. I just don't think there is a "surprise" Culprit(s) that was completely unknown to Police and/or the Governor.
A perfect example would be some years ago a woman posted concerning a family member who had told relatives he was involved in the crime. She mentioned his name on one of the boards and I had recognized it knowing the Police did chase down some leads concerning him. I am positive less then 10 people ever heard of him due to the fact no one wrote about him in any book.
I don't know... I suppose I am rambling but what I am trying to say is that I highly doubt it was say - Mrs. Francis Jones from Topeka. Naturally, if you believe Hauptmann was involved you would start with him although I don't necessarily think all parties involved have to be.
The 1600 files at the Archives would be a nice starting point AND Siglinde's email so that you could cross reference your suspicions with just about any time, date, person, and place.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on May 6, 2007 18:48:04 GMT -5
Sue, Rick & Michael,~~Thanx very much for the JHU ref. With the Wayne Jones book I'd have been searching forever. (I do like his book). Also saw the ref to the Gow/deafmute letter. That the baby may have been deaf, early on seemed like a possible to me as I was studying his pictures with his lack of facial animation. As to CAL taking him up in an airplane causing his eardrums to burst, am leery of that being the cause. Sounds like someone's interpretation "filler".I doubt if CAL would then want to take baby Jon up in airplane. And disallow ear plugs with his later children creating a flock of deaf Lindbergh kids, if that had been first child's ear problem. I may be way off about autism or deafness, but to my eye something just doesn't seem quite right from the child's photos, (plus some other bits and pieces).
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 9, 2007 7:33:48 GMT -5
After re-reading and re-freshing my memory concerning the JH Hospital in Jone's book, I once again don't know what to think. He's relying on a Researcher's word for it. I personally don't know who that is and would obviously need to in order to assign any degree of weight to it. Of course as it is written it seems to be legit, but then again, anyone who doesn't know Allen might say the same about him.
See my point?
Same goes with the Betty Gow affidavit. It's hearsay. Now that doesn't mean its not true but I would I need more. That's not to say if I ever write something I won't reference this but I would be sure to offer this disclaimer as far as this source is concerned.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jun 5, 2007 15:38:23 GMT -5
Michael....I fully agree this is the only way to explain certain things: BUT at the same time it severely limits our options and motives: - Rumrunners and mobsters for vengeance/revenge against CAL?
- CAL to wisk Charlie Jr. away to Maine or France or Germany?
- Nosovitsky to revenge his ripoff by Dwight Morrow Sr?
- Territory wars between NJ rumrummers and Purple Gang?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 6, 2007 5:54:29 GMT -5
No one running any type of illegal operation would want this level of Police presence in the area. Longy Zwillman got involved independently in order to bring this thing to an end because it was costing him major $$$$.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 6, 2007 8:42:29 GMT -5
Whatever happened to McLean's money?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 28, 2007 16:43:08 GMT -5
Going back to the original question posed by this thread, I have almost no doubt that Charles Jr was never kidnapped nor was he intended to be. It was murder from the get go. The evidence is there, it's not for the "kidnapping".
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 29, 2007 5:36:54 GMT -5
I am not sure about this.... We have evidence of a kidnapping based upon the ransom note. I think what happens is that people factor in Hauptmann's connection then conclude that murder was his only option. Personally, I do not believe he was in Hopewell that night so I don't see his connection indicating he had "no place" for the child to carry out the ransom. Additionally, even if he were there, they obviously had a place for the child prior to his body being brought back to Mt. Rose. See my point? While I don't think we can say the child was meant to be kept alive, I just don't think there's evidence he wasn't either. However, I am willing to listen to what's on your mind because you always seem to see what I miss.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 29, 2007 7:54:01 GMT -5
What evidence is that other than extortion? The notes are filled with falsehoods, so what value do we place upon their assertions?
Forget about the issue of Hauptmann's involvement here. It doesn't matter whether or not he did it or that others may have been involved. Just stand back from this crime and try to look at it objectively. What is the definition of a kidnapping? You must abduct ( asportation ) and hold a person against their will. Realistically a kidnapper must perform 4 basic tasks. He must abduct his victim , hopefully in a manner which insures his victim will remain alive. He must secret his victim and maintain him. He must negotiate for the ransom of his victim. And finally, he must make an exchange. Of course in the last requirement the kidnapper may opt to only collect the ransom and deny the return of his captive. Still, what evidence exists that the above requirements were performed in this case? We have an incredibly risky abduction via a ladder which is dangerous to say the least. The time of the kidnapping with the household occupants awake and about means there is no time to waste. How much care could one provide in safely removing the child without any disruption? I have heard the use of chloroform mentioned, but that is a dangerous and risky operation to pull off in a dark room. Where, even after 75yrs, is there any evidence of place and means to hold and care for this child? Nada. You mentioned the ransom notes as proof of a kidnapping . I would argue the opposite. Those needlessly overdone "singnatures" say to me that the kidnapper was emphasizing his position as the child's abductor. I have argued previously that this is simply not necessary for a kidnapper. That position is guaranteed by your live captive. In short, what evidence is there that anyone, not just Hauptmann, had a plan in effect for abducting Charles Jr safely and holding him until a successful payoff ? There is none. It's like the fantasy of the ladder breaking, where is the collateral evidence?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 29, 2007 19:39:53 GMT -5
If you think I am playing a little "Devil's Advocate" I am. I think everyone has seen what my personal view is here. However, I still say there's an argument which can be made for a planned kidnapping despite my personal opinion to the contrary. For example, the ladder wasn't built at Hauptmann's place, yet, for years that's what's been alleged because it is convenient for anyone who holds a position that Hauptmann did it all by himself. Perhaps preparation was made at that same location for the caring of the child? If not, surely preparation was made for the hiding of the corpse - why?
Ask yourself why this would be done if the motive is extortion. So you see, this could go around full circle. In reality - nothing is truly clear without speculation in one way or another.
Additionally, for those who argue Condon was absolutely innocent in all of this, I think they might be hard-pressed to come up with an explanation for the requested sleeping suit if what you say about the symbol is true.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 29, 2007 20:37:10 GMT -5
Sorry, I am losing you here. Are you asking why the crime was committed?
Why? My argument revolves around the use of the "singnature" as a compensator for that which the "kidnapper" could not provide. The sleeping suit is just one more aligned hole.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Jun 30, 2007 13:54:00 GMT -5
My own read on the events surrounding the kidnapping and I know it doesn't seem to be a popular one, is that the kidnappers never intended to have the whole thing blow up into the "world affair" that it became. We have repeated admonishing on the part of the ransom note writer in following notes to Lindbergh for him having called in the police, (and subsequently the press) in direct opposition to the nursery note's implicit instructions not to do so. The fact that Lindbergh didn't know this when he called the police is moot. The kidnappers obviously were counting on him opening the note. If he had have done that and the child had been promptly returned, it seems likely the entire incident would have deserved little more than a passing reference in the news.
Whether the kidnappers truly intended to keep their end of the bargain and return the child unharmed even if Lindbergh had proceeded privately with them for me is one of the most thought provoking questions in this case.
The apartment rental application discovered in the Bronx DA's files by Allen Koenigsberg may or may not provide some insight into the possibility of a location to keep the child. Not a certainty perhaps but there are some very odd coincidences, as Allen has researched, in terms of the address given for the fictitious "Mr. Lynch" and "Mr. Jones" as 102 W. 79th St. Taking the "0" out of the address yields "1279," Hauptmann's address on East 222nd St. And Anna Hauptmann did live on W. 79th St. before she was married. The application requested a 1 or 2 room apartment, furnished with kitchenette and the possible dates of occupancy given were from March 1 - September 30, 1932.
Fred Hahn also claimed that Hauptmann had rented an apartment in downtown Manhattan, near W. 18th St. to be near his foot doctor. The problem here is that Hauptmann's foot specialist, Dr. Otto Meyer's office was in midtown Manhattan, around W. 50th St. and he wasn't seen by Hauptmann until 1933.
Along the lines of false addresses, Allen also makes an interesting observation following the initial discovery by Dr. Gardner about the purchase of Hauptmann's field binoculars by a "C. Tihy." As to the false address given for C. Tihy, 127 E. 84th St., Marie Hahn stated said that the last time she saw BRH was when he dropped her off at the dentist on Lexington and E. 84th St. So Hauptmann was familiar with the area. I also find it interesting that Isidor Fisch lived on 127th St., and there are certainly other known connections, coincidental or not to that area, such as the Warner-Quinlan station and Birritella's Temple of Divine Power. I wonder is this was a case of relating to a number at an almost unconscious level, when suddenly pressed for personal information.
Does the possible connection to the rental application indicate Hauptmann and a confederate were planning to hold the child during the ransom negotiations? Maybe, maybe not. I just it wise not to dismiss such possibilities without further consideration.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 30, 2007 15:27:58 GMT -5
Joe, I am sure the perpetrators of this crime would have preferred that it hadn't been made into a "world affair". Still, that possibility had to have been considered.
The exchange is always the Achilles heel of a kidnapping and it's easy to see why it often never happens. Go back to the Nursery for a moment. How does one remove a live 1yr old from a house, be it via the ladder or front door, without causing a commotion? Would anyone be naive enough to think that you just whack the kid on the head and temporarily render him unconscious? Is fooling about with Ether a likely scenario in a dark room and little time? Is Ether applied to a 1yr old by an untrained person a safe procedure? The bottom line for me is that one simply doesn't attempt an abduction of a 1 yr old child by the means employed in this case, unless that child's well being is not a consideration.
As for the purported apartment rental by BRH, I can only wonder what in the earth numeric coincidences has to do with the planning of such a spectacular crime. I also find it hard to believe that anyone would consider secreting the most famous child in the world in a Manhattan apartment . I am looking at the big picture here and when taking all of the elements into account it seem to me that the evidence is heavily weighted against an actual kidnapping. There is a highly risky entry, the need to transport a 1 yr old out of a house filled with people, no known hideout, and an unnecessary "singnature". What lies on the side of the scale indicating a typical kidnapping?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 30, 2007 15:33:33 GMT -5
I suppose what I am saying is that if we apply the same logic to that of an extortion then it too buckles under the weight of the totality of the circumstances.
Ok. That assumes you know this but how would anyone else? If the symbol was designed for that purpose - why did it fail in that instance? Exactly what did the suit prove? No one accepted it as proof positive of anything.
I think anything this guy "claims" should be taken with a grain of salt. I don't know if I can even believe he found such a thing and even if he did whether or not he's telling the truth about what he found.
His record on such matters is absolutely abysmal.
IF such a rental application does indeed exist, we're supposed to believe the Police didn't follow it up. As I have shared with everyone....the Police were trying to tie Hauptmann up with accomplices and as late as November were still trying to connect him with Sharp.
Unfortunately for Allen, I have enough experience doing Archival Research to know the Police would have investigated this. I also know that an items proximity to other reports may have nothing to do with anything - you need something else to make the connection. As I have said before, I found something in Mueller's file which would break the case if it actually came from him. Fortunately, Allen didn't "discover" that or we'd be dealing with some other bit of fiction right now.
Against my better judgment, someone had already looked into this matter and told me these men were real, and lived nearby - so therefore could NOT be Hauptmann making up names in order to "rent" a place downtown. Feel free to waste your time on this Joe if you want to, but I would advise your time would be better spent elsewhere.
Let me get this straight.....
You believe Hauptmann went searching for a place that would have his home address minus the "0?" May I ask why he would do such a thing?
I am quite sure he had driven down just about every street in the area. I don't see the point here. What's important is the name itself and what Dr. Gardner says about it in his book (see pg 237). No way did Hauptmann come up with this Civil War Vet's name.
I think this is a good theory and there's evidence to suggest it might be the case. However, why was there a series of notes punched if they didn't expect to write more notes?
It seems to me, and I know this too is unpopular - they did want a "world affair" out of the matter.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 30, 2007 16:52:06 GMT -5
Why must it buckle? Perhaps from unnecessary weight?
In reality the suit proved what the signature did. It was chain of participation and a reassurance to those seeking CAL Jr.It in no way provided real proof that the child was alive and well. Both the signature and the suit were successful props utilized by those who committed the crime.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Jun 30, 2007 19:18:58 GMT -5
At the same time ask yourself, what kind of a determined nut plans and executes a plan to steal the son of the most famous man on the planet right out from under their noses? Never mind the alive or dead part. I accept the possibility that the child was doomed from the start and also the possibility this determined nut believed a live exchange was possible with the right degree of planning, however tenuous it might sound to us today.
Nothing here indicates a "typical kidnapping" in my estimation. It's way beyond that and I'm not sure how you ascribe "typical kidnapping" rules (as we know them today to the 1930's) whatever they might have meant to someone demented enough to have even considered this crime. As far as the "singnature" goes, I believe it's necessity is purely a personal need on the part of the kidnapper to communicate his greatness and equality with Lindbergh.
The rental application does exist and I've seen it. It doesn't really matter to me who found it, the fact is it remains an unanswered question relating to Hauptmann's affairs from the Bronx DA's files. I'm certainly not convinced that it means Hauptmann was looking for an apartment to stash CALjr, but I do know for a fact that not all leads were followed up and that there are probably hundreds more like it buried within the Archives that never saw resolution. Would you not agree this is a fair assessment in a case that realized the single largest law enforcement investigation in US history to that time?
Yes, there was a Mr. Lynch and a Mr. Jones, but neither of them lived at 102 79th St. Whoever they actually were, they were obviously attempting to rent an apartment using a fictitious address.
Kevin also asked me about this and I'm not talking numerology here or trying to stray out of this dimension. I am open to the possibility whoever gave this address was consciously or unconsciously basing it on some identifier already known to that individual. A current day analogy might be computer passwords and what they are often based upon, a known identifier.
I don't doubt that Hauptmann had driven just about every street in that area, or at least walked it from the subway. It was a pretty popular area for him. The fact is he owned the binoculars and out of the entire NYC area, W. 84th St. was picked as the address of the purchaser. If I were an investigator, my interest would be piqued by the connection.
Now what makes you certain that Dr. Gardner's point is even a relevant one, the fact that a C. Tihy served in the Civil War? In what capacity, a relatively unknown foot soldier, a general..? I say before getting too wrapped up in that what are the realistic odds that a simple 4-letter name like Tihy could have just as easily been pulled out of a hat by whoever bought his binoculars?
I didn't say this, and on the contrary I think the ransom note writer intended to write as many notes as it took to get the money. I also see no clear evidence to suggest many notes were punched simultaneously, although it seems likely for practicality, that did happen. As I've explained many times, I have been able to duplicate the exact placement of 3 punched holes over a dozen sheets of paper using a very simple cardboard 3-holed template. Simplicity is the key here, which is the main reason the Mersman table piece as a an original template is a logistical nightmare.
I don't entirely discount this in light of all the other excellent points made by Dr. Schoenfeld regarding the kidnapper's personality and which ultimately applied directly to Hauptmann.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 30, 2007 19:52:07 GMT -5
First of all Joe, I just wanted to say how refreshing it is to have a good debate on the LKC especially given the rock bottom depths that seem to have been reached elsewhere.
My point regarding the intent of murder vs. kidnapping may be academic, after all the end result is the same. It is interesting, however, that when you view the crime from different angles so much changes. For example, how different does everything appear if we consider that no kidnapping or murder were planned. In other words, how does this case appear if we look at it as a break-in gone terribly awry.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 30, 2007 20:55:17 GMT -5
It just seems to me the actions of returning the dead child to where he was found seems an act outside of an extortion attempt. Therefore, my position is this too could be considered evidence of something else...just as the points you've made against a "kidnapping."
How so? No one accepted it as the real with any degree of certainty. Lindbergh testified at the Means Trial that is was similar but refused to say it was the real thing. And I still don't see why it was asked for when the symbol serves this purpose. The suit doesn't prove the child's alive. It's redundant but in a reverse sort of way because, while the symbol is provable, the suit was not. It simply does not make any sense to me whatsoever.
Ok. Well it helps that you've seen a rental application, therefore we know one exists. However, that's all we know. You see, it does matter who found it when considering the "Finder" claimed Newspaper Articles were Police Reports in the past, etc. etc. You have someone making a mountain out of a molehill because he doesn't know any better.
Let's say for arguments sake it was found in the Bronx DA files... Does that mean this is directly related to Hauptmann or his affairs?
Absolutely not. Unless you have a Report which ties it together with this assumption then its little more then a wild guess. This receipt certainly wasn't taken from the Hauptmann apartment. Remember, the NJSP & NYPD were together on every Hauptmann investigation after his arrest. There is none concerning this at the NJSP Archives and yes there would be. Beyond all doubt.
These weren't fictitious men....they were real living breathing people who lived a short distance from the place. They would have been interviewed and a lengthy investigation would have taken place. If you say the address on the rental application was "fictitious" then I'd have to ask you how you know that. If we determine it was then I still say "so what?" Most of the exchange tickets at the Federal Reserve in NY had either fictitious names or addresses on them - I'm not sure why but its still a fact.
I can only imagine all the "finds" Allen would make at the NJSP Archives. Again, there are investigations in one file that say things conclusively, however, you may find a continuation or follow-up investigation disproving that position in a totally different file or area of files one would not expect to find it where it is. I am speaking from experience which is why I am certain about this rental application being a false lead of worst kind.
I don't see any worth here. There's 10 numerals and 5 in the address. That's 50/50 if you have an option to discard one. There's just no evidence this has anything to do with Hauptmann at all. That's the first step and its never been met.
Because such a person had existed.
Actually its 5 letters. "C. Tihy" and the odds seem damn near impossible if you ask me. A German Immigrant "pulling" this name out of his butt? Are you kidding me? How many Tihy's have you known in your lifetime? How many did Hauptmann know in Germany I wonder?
It's a connection to the area that Hauptmann simply would not be aware of - just like J.J. Faulkner. Someone with specific knowledge is doing this. We've got a bunch of real tangents we can pursue without going off chasing our tails over some invention created by a man who loves to tell tall-tales.
Well, if Lindbergh followed the instruction why would one expect this ahead of time?
But there's nothing simple about this crime. Just looking at the complexity, time, and care that was made to create the ladder proves it. And I still thank Kevin for enlightening me about this. I say (alot) that there is no such thing as an "Expert" in this case but Kevin certainly qualifies as an Expert regarding this ladder.
And he is the only one who has exemplified this skill to me. I don't make this statement lightly. Expert is a very serious word but it applies. I think we're lucky he showed up and has gotten 'hooked' like the rest of us.
The Mersman Table exists so we have to deal with it. Simply dismissing it doesn't work. If someone took the care to design that ladder I have a feeling they would do the same in the creation of the symbol.
I don't buy that either. While I do find some worth and interesting observations made by Dr. Schoenfeld, he makes huge mistakes. His first one is trusting Condon's version of events. Next, Hauptmann didn't have syphilis, was certainly not homosexual, and wasn't suffering from dementia.
If he was identifying himself with the baby then he certainly would not murder it. So if you "buy into" Schoenfeld completely then it puts one into a "Catch-22" of sorts.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Jun 30, 2007 21:34:45 GMT -5
Kevin, I guess I've always looked at this crime from a fairly broad angle. One which accepts certain tenets as elements of truth, the primary one being Hauptmann's guilt of complicity, as established by the circumstantial physical evidence.
I'm not sure I understand your hypothetical question about thinking of this as a break-in gone awry. That seems pretty hard to do in light of the series of ransom notes and their clear intent that this was far more than a break-in.
And yes, it is great to have lively, productive debate on this case any chance we get, in light of all that we really don't know yet.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 30, 2007 21:36:38 GMT -5
True, if in fact it was "returned".
Of course not. Nor does anything else. In fact, as we all know, the notes were filled with clues that the child was dead. Only one thing could have provided proof that the child was well and the criminal absolutely could not provide this. What he could provide was proof that he was the same person who had entered the nursery and had taken CAL Jr. That would have to suffice.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jul 1, 2007 2:29:49 GMT -5
Whats unbelievable to me is Lindbergh among the professionals couldn't pick up that the child was not alive. Any portion of the notes in relation to how the child was ...was a child is in good care or whatever. You would think there would be more script in the notes of interaction with the child. When I read each note in sequence there seems no change in flow in reporting the health of the child. The dead give away was the Woodlawn meeting "would I burn" question.
I am not a believer the child was meant to be killed. I definetely believe there is no boat at all. Again Lindbergh duped in Curtis' story. Just unbelievable that professional investigators here can't take Lindbergh aside and say odds on here that his child is not alive.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 1, 2007 8:06:08 GMT -5
Kevin, I guess I've always looked at this crime from a fairly broad angle. One which accepts certain tenets as elements of truth, the primary one being Hauptmann's guilt of complicity, as established by the circumstantial physical evidence. I'm not sure I understand your hypothetical question about thinking of this as a break-in gone awry. That seems pretty hard to do in light of the series of ransom notes and their clear intent that this was far more than a break-in. ( And yes, it is great to have lively, productive debate on this case any chance we get, in light of all that we really don't know yet. Yes I know you do and I agree, let Hauptmann out of your sights and you are adrift without an oar. My point about the break-in gone awry was meant only to prove some outside of the box thinking . We all find it an absurd prospect. After all there is the nursery note which shows prior intent. But what if that note was written extemporaneously or was never left? Would the idea of a break and entry gone sideways still be unfathomable? Change one element and we can look at this crime in a completely different light. Yet we assume that this was a proper kidnapping based on what?. (I have substituted proper for typical in response to your previous post and by proper I mean an abduction followed by restraint against will and an eventual safe return of the victim.) Where in this case do we see evidence of all of this ? There simply isn't any evidence, even after all of this time and investigation, that a kidnapping in the proper sense was planned or executed. Hauptmann was certainly not in any position to have carried out a kidnapping by himself. Personally, I don't think people plan crimes that they know they can not complete. Gary, I don't think anyone was willing to tell the emperor about the condition of his wardrobe.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 1, 2007 10:00:02 GMT -5
I don't see any other possibility in light of the surrounding circumstances. Exactly. The symbol did this, yet, something other then the symbol was requested. Hindsight is.....well, you know. I am not so sure the reassurance of the child's health should be interpreted to mean this. I hate to be a constant nay-sayer about everything but while I find Dr. Shoenfeld's comments about this aspect interesting I think there are other factors to be taken into consideration. Ok. Consider that the Criminals seemed concerned about the child's health right from jump-street. Perhaps IF what you say above is true Gary, then the Kidnappers did as Kevin suggested above. That is they murdered him on sight. Unless you believe the Nursery Note was written on scene then they were re-assuring the Parents before the Act took place. This isn't a "chicken or egg" argument because we know what took place first IF this was actions of outside Criminals. What about the possibility of an "inside job?" Well this may too explain the reasoning for the Criminals original intent for placing this in the Nursery Note....Meaning they knew about the child's health at the time before the Act occurred. Anne then seems to follow their lead by writing out the baby's diet which was placed in just about every newspaper in the country. This could be the reason for all the rest of the positives concerning the health. The other thing I believe Schoenfeld got wrong is there were warnings. Obviously, if this was a real snatch & grab and there's a warning I think violence to the child is indeed implied. It certainly is, well, if John actually said it. I am inclined to believe he did not. And if I am right then obviously Condon knew something more then what he was sharing with the Police - although he would seem to be attempting to by providing this part of the conversation. Think about it. Why in God's name would anyone ask this? However, it is typical of Condon to do something like this. Amen. And consider things that aren't there which maybe should be. Damn straight! I am in 100% agreement.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 1, 2007 10:21:44 GMT -5
I don't mean to be leading here, but are you referring to the initial search of the area , the bone in the bag, and the state of the corpse? Is there more?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jul 1, 2007 12:08:32 GMT -5
Gary....I have a newspaper article early on in the investigation.
It reads: "Lindberghs may ask for photos of Charlie Jr. as proof?"
So what deterrred CAL from this gambit or any other liken to birthmarks/ words he says/ hair sample? / fingerprints/ footprints/ on and on? / call on the phone?
They had a whole 30 days to get Real Proof?
Was this purposely bungled or was Charlie dead already? eg was it all a hoax from the jump start?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Jul 1, 2007 12:43:38 GMT -5
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't CJ offer to send the sleepingsuit as a token that Lindbergh was dealing with the right party? This would have been an unnecessarily risky move if they didn't have the actual suit, considering the fact the make and size (Dr. Denton - no. 2) had not been publicized.
No, and I've never stated that it does. The fact that a Mr. Lynch and Mr. Jones did live in the same building on 127th St. does raise questions, due to it's proximity to other case related detail. As does the fact "Lynch" and "Jones" at that time, did not live at their given address. As does the fact the application requests an occupancy of between March 1 and September 30, 1932. As does the fact the slip was found in the Bronx DA's files with no apparent followup. I certainly don't dismiss the possibility this was a potentially promising lead that simply got buried and forgotten about.
OK, I have no problem with that. Do you know how many other C. Tihy's existed at the time of the kidnapping in the NYC directory? I don't but I'd certainly like to know.
Who was C. Tihy of NYC, Civil War veteran? A decorated general with a plaque honouring him in a prominent park that people could stop by and read? An infantryman whose obituary appeared in the NY Times about the same time of the purchase? The elderly relative of an acquaintance of whoever purchased the binoculars? I think you can see my point here. Without further information that provides a better understanding as to who C. Tihy was towards a verifiable connection with this case, Dr. Gardner's conclusion here is speculative at best.
Regarding the duplicability of the ransom note holes, let me rephrase my comment. Simplicity and efficiency are all that is required and I've demonstrated this with a deadly accurate cardboard template that took me less than 5 minutes to make. As strikingly efficient as the ladder was, you cannot compare it's multi-dimensional physical requirements with those of a simple positioning template.
Well, if I had to choose someone to give it a go, I can't think of a better candidate. Realistically though, I don't think there's any question someone else had to have had an active participation in this crime.
|
|