mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jul 5, 2007 20:58:00 GMT -5
Hi Michael~~ Perhaps the police were mistaken that lack of odor R/O it's use(?) Re child not crying: I'm not persuaded that a sleeping child would necessarily wake up that easily. If I recall, there was also a rug on the floor. I don't think the perp was being loud. If the baby was conscious I can imagine being dragged out from the foot of the blanket bringing a howl. As to being drugged, I agree that could be a possibility. Paregoric was one thing easily available back then and other things too, I'm sure. Somehow I doubt the chisel as a murder weapon. Wouldn't that have caused a different sort of fracture, plus probably breaking the skin(?) Any ideas as to how fractures would have come about while in the crib-the weapon?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jul 5, 2007 21:21:06 GMT -5
Michael--there are 3 primary impediments to solving the LKH, and all are related directly to the weird and suspicious behavior of Lindbergh himself: he refuses to let all the servants be interviewed, he cuts the local police Chief out of any information like the ransom note (CAL prefers to give the note to Rosner to take to NYC?), and he does not want the local area searched by bloodhounds and the Boy Scouts? Why is Whateley heading into towne on foot for a flashlite? Why didn't Betty Gow turn on the light in the nursery and see the ransom note? Why wasn't Ellerson asked if he saw Charlie Jr at Highfields that afternoon--and the green Ford coupe? What exactly did Lindbergh have to hide that day? An afternoon peccadillo with God knows who? Only Harry Walsh stated that CAL was at Highfields that afternoon, went away and come back. After that, CAL could not accurately account for his whereabouts that day? Had everyone involved been interviewed from the previous Friday>>>Tuesday including Miss Alva Root it would have helped immensely toward a rapid solution--and apparently finding Charlie Jr on March 2nd?. I suppose they had to pay the ransom in St. Raymond's to find BRH 30 months later? Brilliant sleuthing!
"You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time--and those are pretty good odds"
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 5, 2007 22:15:07 GMT -5
I would like to know if anyone can truthfully say that in the planning and preparation of an infant kidnapping, a bag would be considered? I just don't see it. Consider the circumstances. Think about the entry into that room. The minute you are in, the clock starts. Consider the stakes. Can this guy afford to play around with a burlap bag? Does he bring rope as well? What about the ether theory? Think about these actions in real time. He has one shot and it HAS to be right.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jul 5, 2007 23:19:40 GMT -5
Kevin. My thinking is possibly the bag and ladder worked together here. If the child was fighting the exit out the window wouldn't the sack relieve a sudden jolt from the kidnappers grasp to drop the child? You can't hold the child with one hand alone and get out the window with the other. If you wrapped the sack somehow over your shoulder you might be able to use two hands to manage the exit . Then as the exit was made the child fell anyway as he was in the bag. The ladder was left behind but a sack was not. Couldn't this be because the child was in it. Perhaps good thinking was not an asset of the kidnapper.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 6, 2007 7:48:22 GMT -5
Hey Gary, thanks for the reply. I see what you are getting at ,the bag was a type of restraint. Ok, but then this implies that the child was fully conscious. The burlap wouldn't stop or mitigate sound, so why where no cries heard?
Do you think that this would have occurred to you without the knowledge of the LKC? I mean if you were planning to kidnap?
Another problem here is that if the kid went into that bag from the get go then someone has a very gruesome storage situation at hand. And it is a needless one since there were readily available containers , such as small wooden kegs which would more appropriate.
Perhaps he wasn't a good thinker, but he was a mechanic. That makes him task orientated in my book. Look at this custom built kidnap ladder which was a result of a plan and the subsequent requirements and parameters dictated in order to carry it out. Remember that even the cops didn't think about the ladder fitting inside of a car until Lupica came forward. If this criminal can think such things out, why should we believe he completely overlooked how he was going to control that child and get him safely away?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 6, 2007 9:04:03 GMT -5
At the risk of boring some, I need to repeat a few things....
There's certain things we know. There's certain things we don't. And there's some things that seem probable without any solid evidence to support them.
We know they left behind the ladder, the chisel, and the note. We know they did not leave behind fingerprints at the scene although possibly some were left on the note and at least one on the ladder - this suggests the use of gloves. We know they left behind footprints some stocking covered, some with overshoes, and others possibly female. We know Lupica saw one of them with both the ladder and burlap bags.
I think most of us assume there was more then one person involved in the "snatch" so that may involve another car.
What we don't know was what other items may have been brought along. Why? Because they weren't seen or left behind. We assume the chisel was used or it wouldn't have been brought with them. However, there is no evidence it was utilized but logically I think it can be inferred that it had a purpose and was left behind because that purpose had been served.
What was that purpose?
Some may argue it was "dropped" accidentally, but its location near the ladder suggests to me that it was discarded.
Now maybe I am wrong, but it seems to me that whatever was brought and no longer needed was left behind. The burlap came with a Driver but left with someone as well.
Therefore, the bag was needed and continued to be needed after the "snatch."
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 6, 2007 10:49:37 GMT -5
Me too! Married men living in urban apartments do not undertake kidnappings by their lonesome. It's not in the mix.
Absolutely. Unfortunately we will never know for certain. I take, and correct me if I am wrong, you are deducing that the purpose of the bag may have been to transport these unknown items to the house. It's a good observation and a very real possibility. If this were the case then I would say that the bag was not employed in the Nursery and was utilized after the child was on the ground. Whatever tools or items needed or assumed by the perpetrator to be needed would have been carried up the ladder on his person. You are not going to fool around with a sack of tools and whatever else on the top of that ladder. One issue I do have with the bag as a "tool bag" is that chisel. It is extremely sharp and I would not place in a burlap bag, especially with other objects. But I admit that may be subjective on my part. I know you do not necessarily believe that Hauptmann was at Highfields. For my part, I tend to think he was but I am not wedded to that belief. If he was, and if all of the tools residing at the NJSP museum are indeed his, ( lots of ifs) then I think one in particular would have been in the tool kit. I still don't see the sense of keeping the body in a burlap sack when there were better containers readily available. Any thoughts? Also, I still see no evidence that an actual kidnapping was planned or undertaken. That's a no brainer if you believe Hauptmann acted alone. Even with some undiscovered help, I don't see how anyone could have planned to take that child out of that room without injury and alarming the household. If it were not for that Nursery note...................................
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jul 6, 2007 15:30:10 GMT -5
, I don't find it boring. It is a helpful review for me and I should think likewise for new folks on the forum. Am glad you posted it I hope I've figured out how to use the quote box . Now if I can only learn to use it for different posts.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 7, 2007 8:57:33 GMT -5
Of course I've made it very clear that I am of the opinion the corpse wasn't where it had been found the whole time. With this in mind (or even if it isn't in mind) there were certain items found at the "burial" site which may or may not be connected to the Kidnappers as well. I mention this in order that all things be considered since we have been trying to get down to the nitty-gritty.
Additionally, since my heated debate with Joe brought us to the topic (among others) concerning what John said to Condon and the timing of what was said - I discovered that Condon himself testified in the Bronx he didn't believe the child was there the whole time either. I am very interested in things like this since I am inclined to be believe Condon knew a lot more then what he was sharing. Although he made things up I am equally sure he slipped up as well, that is, revealing more then he should have or was supposed to have.
Another thing to consider is that Condon had been to Highfields before his meeting with John at Woodlawn. I don't think it beyond the realm of possibilities that he learned while there what the child had been dressed in the night of his disappearance.
Mairi asked a very specific question and that was exactly when the first time was that Condon made the statement "vould I burn if the baby is dead." I thought there was a simple answer but of course there is not. The documents I had been relying on were clear but when I went to other supporting documentation then what I expected to find is rather less clear.
This may take me a while (shrug).
Sorry for all the tangents. Trying to stay on the topic of the threads is rather difficult because all things seem to run together while heading in opposite directions at the same time.
Anyway, the original point of this post was to bring up the burlap "strips" found at the burial site and what (if any) their relationship might be to the bag in question. I know we discussed this before but sometimes bringing it up at a later time casts a new light on things.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 7, 2007 10:38:47 GMT -5
The "nitty-gritty" is where the answers lie, it just takes a helluva lot of perseverance, which can be a very tedious process. It's easy to understand why naming suspects is more popular.
I don't think the body was always where it was found either, nor do I think it was buried.
I still don't see any evidence of an actual kidnapping. Besides the complete lack of evidence regarding the means to hold and maintain a live child, there is the very real and problematic issue of the abduction. Given the stakes, especially in regard to the penalty for murder vs. whatever charges could be brought about for kidnapping at the time, it would seem apparent that the child's well being would be a primary concern to any would be kidnapper. I just don't see that concern shown in this case. Ladder acrobatics, drugs, ether , bag stuffing , gagging, knocking unconscious, lowering out of second floor windows, etc,etc, these are just a few of the possibilities that have been mentioned regarding the abduction of CAL Jr. Where in all of this can we see a concern for the securing of a healthy hostage?
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jul 7, 2007 11:02:17 GMT -5
Michael, I am very interested to discuss Condon again perhaps in another thread. I know we've labored many things about Condon. His mental state and how nutty he was but I can't piece together why some believe he was either a part of the kidnapping or took a side adventure of secret negotiations with the kidnappers. I think it is feasible. Matter in fact to an extent I believe he attempted this side adventure of investigation but I have a hard time being pulled to an in depth involvement beyond what we know.
To be a part of the kidnapping or extortion there would have to be absolute trust given to this man. I can't see this. Lots of little things too. It seems he was souvenir hunting such as the picture of the baby etc. Why would he want souvenirs if he had a first hand in this thing?
I can understand Condon's most likely attempt to shield pertinent information of the kidnappers / extortionists in hope to get the child back safely. Perhaps not in full understanding this would harm the situation more than help. It is understandable to believe he did this but I am wondering where th substance is to sincerely believe this. Why is his lies, lies rather than fragmented and defective retentions as well pumping up the story to expose the hero he thought he will be.
I know you have a complete train of thought here involving the return to the cemetery to find the ransom box etc..... Now if you are correct about the would I burn statement being false it is my thinking he has placed himself in a position of jeopardy of trust to the kidnappers. If Lindbergh accepted this statement as we do this would seriously hurt further negotiations.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jul 7, 2007 11:23:58 GMT -5
Kevin: Why would the killer(s) return the child to this location? Do you think the child was in close proximity and then dumped specifically there after they took the sleeping suit?
I was thinking a possibility the child was taken like Vitray says maybe to the Sourland, into the hills. Maybe Vitray actually saw an involved diaper as she says. Then coming back to dispose the child at the found location as well as getting the suit and/or cleaning up wherever he or they originally were.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 7, 2007 11:36:48 GMT -5
Hi Gary, Just wondering if you have read Dr. Schoenfeld's The Crime and the Criminal. He has some interesting observations on Condon, though a little reading between the lines is required.
I don't think the child was returned. That's another 1+1=3 deal for me.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 7, 2007 19:12:24 GMT -5
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 8, 2007 7:44:04 GMT -5
Ok Michael, I will do that. However, I really would like to keep this thread going, it may be the single most important point of the case. What do we have here? Is this a planned kidnapping gone wrong or is CAL Jr's death intentional? What happens if we look at the crime from a completely different perspective? I wonder if that is even possible to do given the vast amount of information that we have been exposed to. I certainly don't think it can hurt to try. From my perspective, I can not give Hauptmann a pass. There is simply too much evidence to do so and no one has managed to credibly alter that fact. Yet, like many others, I find myself in a quandary in regard to Hauptmann, seeing him as an opportunist willing to break the law but not necessarily a man with the capability of murder. So, I suppose there is a prejudice I hold which causes me to look for a plausible explanation for his actions. I would certainly like to believe that he did not intend to harm that child. But how could anyone plan this crime in this manner and not comprehend that the actions required to carry it out would most certainly put this infant's life in serious jeopardy? Kidnapping was widespread during this era and the successful formula was well known. So why deviate from it? If Hauptmann was but a single member of a larger gang as has been suggested by some, then why not utilize that manpower for a traditional controlled take over or ambush style kidnapping? I still see control as the essential ingredient to any kidnapping. What control does this method of abduction provide to a kidnapper? That's particularly true if one considers the multitude of actions which could have occurred that night by any number of people. So what was the plan?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 8, 2007 19:34:19 GMT -5
I agree Hauptmann has involvement but can't say with any degree of certainty what it was exactly and to what degree. By proving your and Rab's theory about Rail 16 (despite all of the bias which purported to prove Hauptmann had crawled into his attic and sawed the board there himself) it demonstrates it came from his basement. The money in his possession shows involvement. And while his explanation for it may be rooted in truth I am personally sure he knew more about it then what he chose to tell. The handwriting is less convincing to me but if he did write it then, again, its seems to me someone is probably dictating what's being written AND Hauptmann is a Master at remembering his disguise in '32 but lost this ability in '34.
I don't think he was in Hopewell that night but regardless - he's in the mix. I suppose we'll find out more once Dave shares the diary. The Governor found out that Mrs. Rauch heard Hauptmann and another man talking in his apartment the night of March 1st about a "fire" and she assumed he may have been thinking about burning the house down for the insurance money. This conversation may have actually been about the "kidnapping" and the person with him someone else involved - if the account is accurate.
So it shows the ladder wasn't made at Hauptmann's place. So where was it made? Wherever it was made, I think its safe to say someone else knew about it. I believe Liz's soil research gives us an idea where that location may be.
This all by itself shows planning. And if totaling up all details it shows quite a bit of it. Yet, as you mentioned, there's seems to be a lack of it was well. One can only assume that's not for a lack of planning....either we aren't seeing something or it was specifically planned for that way.
The next question is "why?"
They have confidence in their actions. They take minimal precautions and huge risks. They leave behind "evidence" while taking actions to erase it in other places. They seem brilliant yet careless. They know things they shouldn't know. Each and every step seems to be a huge risk but they get through the situation with all these people in the house who appear throughout history to have been none the wiser. No one sees anything. What's my point? This doesn't equal Hauptmann, at least not alone or in any way in the role as a "leader."
People harp on those silly offenses in Germany. How does he go from these actions into the masterminded heist here after a supp-posed clean life after all of those years? They don't equate. What does is that he always seems teamed up with someone else and was up for an easy way to make money. Was this easy?
Maybe it was.
Getting back to the bag. Kevin, what do you think it was brought along for? It seems to me that child was handled roughly if pulled out from under those pinned sheets. He had to be sedated in some way.
I have always been of the opinion the child was supposed to be terminated, but if Police were right in their original hunch that an insider and an area local were involved there is an argument for a legitimate kidnapping which can be made.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 8, 2007 19:41:01 GMT -5
Another question that I have always wondered about... If the house is "closed up" during this storm - wouldn't the occupants know if say someone opened a door or a window in the house somewhere?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 9, 2007 19:59:18 GMT -5
I think opening the window would probably have disturbed the baby. The wind, cold and noise from the sash opening should have been pronounced. The front door would even be worse and it's almost impossible for me to believe that it would escape notice.
I don't know about the bag, it puzzles me. Some seem to find it understandable, I don't. I would still ask everyone to honestly think about whether or not they would plan to bring a burlap sack to a kidnapping. That is, of course, without hindsight. If I were planning to rob a house I would think of bringing a sack, can't say the same about a kidnap.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Jul 10, 2007 12:23:10 GMT -5
Rick, I think it's tempting to view Lindbergh's actions as impediments, depending on the angle you're viewing the chain of events in the days immediately following the kidnapping. You seem to have made a case for Lindbergh not wanting to advance the cause, ie. the safe return of his son. At the same time, these conditions can also be applied towards the scenario in which Lindbergh, by his established nature and current beliefs as to who had his child, did what he felt he did best, commandeering single-minded missions. The general exclusion of others, including the police, in the early stages of the negotiations can also be explained through his desire to deal discreetly with those he was convinced had his son.
Kevin, count me in for a large burlap as probably the best thing from the 1930's in which to stash an anaesthetized child in the event this was a staged kidnapping with a safe return in mind. Tough, tear-resistant, porous for breathing, easy to grab and handle.
I've got to admit, the likelihood in my own mind that a safe return was planned is taking a real beating lately. Although I still don't see Hauptmann yet as an outright murderer, I do see an ability within his makeup to "mutate" a given plan, which might have started with better intentions, into something almost unrecognizable in comparison. I think there's an incredibly dark side to this man that we'll ultimately see in a much clearer light.
What would be the purpose Michael, in leaving behind such a small but potentially incriminating item such as the chisel? Intentionally discarding any items at the scene of a crime pose an inherent risk to those involved, regardless of their size or perceived slim likelihood they could later be connected. As for the burlap bag, it's potential uses are reasonably a carrying bag for the child or other items brought to the scene of the crime, therefore it carries they would also be taken away from the scene. From the end scene on the Mount Rose highway, I think we can surmise the burlap bag was selected for it's overall efficency.
I'm glad other things were discovered as a result of the rental application slip debate. That by the way in my own mind continues to represent the possibility Hauptmann, had originally intended in some perhaps misguided way, to care for the child, but it's reasonable to infer at least two others would have been required for the plan to work, including at least one woman.
As I mentioned above though, my overall impression of Hauptmann's motives continues to evolve into something far more sinister and a kind of superior adeptness to mutate on an established plan at a moment's notice, taking it into an entirely different direction. In this case, live kidnapping and safe return into ransom for a corpse. The bottom line in both scenarios: lots of greed and desire for easy money with little conscience involved in the transition.
Thinking some more about this statement by CJ to Condon, I think it's enormously important that it was said anywhere in the conversation. This is the type of subject matter I just can't fathom anyone, including Condon, making up out of the blue and it really should have prompted a much more cautious line of negotitation and an outright demand for proof of the child's wellbeing following the Woodlawn meeting. At the same time, I think Lindbergh simply wanted to believe his child was in good health and may have continually felt the need to push aside any misgivings or negative vibes.
Speaking of things that were said, my thoughts around the ransom note writer chastising Lindbergh repeatedly for calling the police, have always been that he was truly upset Lindbergh failed to follow the nursery note directions. That belief still applies, but I'm also beginning to see this admonishment as something grossly overstated and less the actions of one who had a genuine interest in the well being of the child. Why the need to drive this point home with such vigour? Perhaps another indicator of what Doc Schoenfeld was the ransom note writer's need to feel powerful and someone of Lindbergh's stature?
I don't think any conclusion can be made that the ladder wasn't made at Hauptmann's place. If Liz's soil reseach is truly valid, it demonstrates the possibility the ladder was in a place other than Hauptmann's yard at some point in time. It may have been tested somewhere else to avoid any later eyewitness accounts around 1279 E. 222nd St. Further, I don't think we can rule out the possibility soil of a different composition was picked up after the fact during the ladder's many travels.
You cannot write these offenses off as "silly," the way Anna Hauptmann did all her life. Yes, times were tough in Germany after the war, but repeated and ultimately armed robberies are no excuse. Hauptmann and Petzold took enough from thier first heist to live comfortably for a while until they were able to gain employment or at least get into something a little more innocuous, like bootlegging or even fraud. If anything, they got onto a roll doing this. What sort of mind entertains this kind of behaviour? You also have to consider their "progression" from straight stealing without involving the victim to direct confrontation with the threat of bodily harm.
Hauptmann supporters say "Everyone was doing it." Why then did he admittedly live in shame when he returned to his mother's home in Kamenz after his release, virtually ostracized by his neighbours. And what would have prompted the Police Chief there to proclaim Hauptmann had the "worst possible reputation in Kamenz?"
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 10, 2007 12:48:15 GMT -5
Just taking a break from the heat. Joe, if you honestly would have thought of using a bag to stuff the kid in without the knowledge of this case, then I will concede the point. For me, it still seems bizarre. It sure wasn't taught in fire school. I have taken a lot of odd things out of houses and down a ladder but I have only used a bag when dealing with loose items. I am really trying to envision the scene that night in the Nursery and stuffing the body into a bag. It just seems like an awkward and needlessly time consuming maneuver. Then there is the exit and descent. Carrying a body in a bag means you have little control over the mass. That makes the descent that much more difficult, IMHO. In the end, I would just be grasping the child's body and changing the carrying position as required. The bag would only be another layer of clothing.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Jul 10, 2007 14:47:32 GMT -5
Kevin, I suppose I am a bit predisposed towards the burlap bag, seeing as it's already front and centre in the case. But I'm also aware before woven polypropylene and other plastics, they were very popular at the time for transporting food, animal feed, coffee beans and just about anything you needed to throw into one in Depression America and move on, so one would be exposed to them much more than today. I think it's a case of that "30's thinking" here. I think it would have been an important consideration on the part of the kidnappers that the child was safely contained, although not necessarily for the good of it's health. In this case, containment equals control and an easier carry or even a one armed handoff, especially if the bag was cinched tight to the body. A child of that age and flexibility would represent little more than a big ball in a bag. Would it not be a challenge to carry a live or dead 30 lb. body uncontained, within an unfamiliar room and out a deep window frame, while trying to deal with the natural tendency of the limbs to flail here and there? (Can't say I have any experience here and this is not a pleasant topic; unfortunately I guess we have to go there for a better understanding)
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 10, 2007 16:21:53 GMT -5
On that ladder at night it's a challenge no matter what container you have. Personally, the bag would be a hindrance to me. Maybe Santa would feel differently. Whatever, I don't mean to beat this dead horse as there already are so many laying around. I just was exploring the premeditation of murder as I see nothing that makes me feel that Hauptmann had any means or plans to actually care for the child. The bag just seems out of place. I have read about many kidnappings and have not seen this particular MO.
|
|
|
Post by Giszmo on Jul 10, 2007 18:20:03 GMT -5
"Hauptmann and Petzold took enough from thier first heist to live comfortably for a while until they were able to gain employment or at least get into something a little more innocuous, like bootlegging or even fraud. "(Joe)
I'm very curious. Just how much was it that Hauptman and Petzold got from their first heist???
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Jul 10, 2007 18:54:20 GMT -5
According to Ludovic Kennedy, they got 400 marks, a watch and a gold-plated chain from their first heist from a house in the village of Rackelwitz. Today's currency exchange on one German Mark today is about 46 US cents. Given the economy of the time and uncertainties of inflation, I have no idea what this amounts to in purchasing terms in German post-world War I. I do know that during WWI, German soldiers were given a reward of 400 marks for the capture of any Negro soldier, as they seem to have been feared for their fighting abilities, so it seems to me a considerable amount.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 11, 2007 5:45:49 GMT -5
The same purpose the ladder was discarded. By your own argument, this is incriminating evidence which ultimately would come back to haunt Hauptmann. The chisel only did so directly through perjured testimony - its never been tied to Hauptmann. It's located near the discarded ladder implies the same thing. Had it been found under the window (as we sometimes erroneously see mentioned) then I may have believed it was dropped - but I can't knowing where it was really found.
It's looking very probable at this point he never attributed this to John until after the child was discovered. If you find an instance of him saying this prior to May 12 then please let me know so that I can put this timeline together properly. It's something I'm still working on so I don't want to say anything definite yet.
I absolutely can when comparing them to this case. For years everyone made it seem as though Hauptmann stuck up women with babies in their carriages and it wasn't true. These "crimes" don't compare in any way whatsoever. The circumstances and situation was a million times different. The crimes were a million times different. Hauptmann was involved with accomplices. Nothing intelligent and/or mystifying concerning these acts. There's no evidence of progression, in fact, there's evidence he isn't committing crime at all.
Then supposedly those crimes point to this crime as evidence Hauptmann was a lone-wolf mastermind?
By the way..... Post WWI.... I've looked into this in the past and historians all agree about the crime that took place. Hauptmann was not alone. It's the type of thing/condition that gave rise to the Nazis so if you think it was a small matter or that it was only Hauptmann - think again.
I think you have to look at the entire matter then draw your own conclusions.... No one saw him building a ladder and its very probable they would have. Koehler mentioned he believed the ladder was built elsewhere. Tools were needed to build the ladder that weren't found among Hauptmann's tools. Keraga mentions he believes the ladder in the attic! Why such an outlandish and impossible suggestion if indications were that he built it in his garage? Then we have Liz's soil report. To suggest it was tested "elsewhere" implies it was never tested where it was made because the soil still would have been present.
Totally disagree this slip has any connection whatsoever with Hauptmann. How has everyone forgotten the claim that Hauptmann was supposed to be flat broke which was his incentive to commit this crime in the first place. Now he's renting places. So if I am wrong about the money where's it coming from to rent this apartment that two known men from the neighborhood were actually trying to rent?
This only works if its a different place, and its conceded that Hauptmann had money.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 11, 2007 7:08:12 GMT -5
You suggested that the bag was used to carry "other" items to the house. If you think that possible or likely then surely there exists the possibility of something inadvertently removed and left behind (lost). A very sharp chisel might be the first tool one would remove in order to prevent injury while "fishing" around for other tools.
Does this statement include the geo-forensics, planning, and post crime actions by Hauptmann?
I don't think any conclusion can be made that it was. Actually, there is probably more that indicates it was built elsewhere. The strongest of which I feel is the lack of marks from the jaws of a machinist vice. That's besides the fact that he would be nuts to build that unique ladder where others could see it.
I know you and Michael have battled over the legitimacy of this slip. It's interesting but the bottom line is this; as of 3/1/1932 Hauptmann had no means to hold and care for an infant hostage, period. That's all that matters. And it's not just a psychical space that's missing, it's the whole logistical chain. Ask a criminal profiler about a man in Hauptmann's position committing an actual kidnapping.
|
|
|
Post by Giszmo on Jul 11, 2007 9:02:17 GMT -5
"Today's currency exchange on one German Mark today is about 46 US cents. Given the economy of the time and uncertainties of inflation, I have no idea what this amounts to in purchasing terms in German post-world War I. I do know that during WWI, German soldiers were given a reward of 400 marks " (Joe)
The purchasing power of the „Papiermark" was almost nonexistant after the war. We all learned in history class how it took a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread when the war was over. Germany was suffering from hyperinflation. My understanding is that comparing the value of the 400 marks Hauptmann stole to the reward of 400 marks during the war is really comparing apples and oranges.
My point is that Hauptmann most likely did not get enough money from his first burglary - even with the gold chain - to live off it for any length of time - it probably wouldn't have been enough to buy food, at least not for very long.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jul 11, 2007 9:38:56 GMT -5
Joe--its not only tempting--its simple logic-- There are only two possibilities depending on your perspective--CAL did it or CAL bungled it--take your pick: Its not only what he failed to permit its what he actually did: - Wait 2+ hours to open up the Nursery note? On a whim?
- Send Whatley in the car for a flashlight? What for?
- Within hours violate each and every warning of the Nnote.
- Call in the BOI, OSS, Gangsters, hucksters, mediums, the Press, NJSP and make it look like a National crisis worldwide case?
- Send Rosner w/ the Nursery note to NYC?
- Have Jafsie initiate a phishing expedition for some extortionists in The Bronx Home News?
- Set up a military ops-control HQ in your own garage? WWI.5?
- You cant possibly scare any kidnappers to any greater degree and jeopardize Charlie Jr's return by accident--only by design.
- As far as we know, Charlie is never seen alive again?
- Withhold the $50,000 for 4 weeks?
- Trade the $50K in Gold Certs for a $3 dollar sleeping suite?
- For a grand finale CAL jumps ship after the Boad Nelly double cross and sails with Curtis for 19 days? But never tells us "why " in the absence of any symbol or proof of ownership?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 11, 2007 10:00:38 GMT -5
Good point Gismo. It seems to me, though, that with such hyper inflation the appeal of goods can be tremendous. I was wondering what other material goods did Hauptmann steal or fence and what was their relative value? We also have to consider the very real possibility that the crimes he was arrested for were not the only ones he committed. Same goes for his life in the USA. If we accept the argument that crime was rampant in post WW I Germany, then I think that we must also consider that many of these crimes were never solved. Same goes for the Depression era USA. Additionally, there is the often cited police corruption issue. I just think that while there is a known criminal record for Hauptmann, the possibility exists that he had engaged in other crimes for which he was never suspected or caught. I am not saying he did, just that it's a possibility to be considered.
|
|
|
Post by Giszmo on Jul 11, 2007 10:12:30 GMT -5
Kevin - I agree completely.
|
|