kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 1, 2009 12:39:22 GMT -5
I know many names have been thrown out as possible accomplices to this crime, yet they all seem for one reason or another to fall short. My thought is that if Hauptmann was partnered up with someone, that person would be someone Hauptmann had a special relationship with. That leads me to look for someone Hauptmann spent time with prior to the crime. Yet the only one that seems to fit that bill is Kloppenburg. Yet everyone I have spoken to seems to find him completely unsuitable for this role. Could there be another? Is there enough unknown about Hauptmann's pre kidnapping history that would allow for such a person to remain unknown? Is it possible?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 1, 2009 20:36:02 GMT -5
I agree that Kloppenburg is off the list. Here are some suspects to consider:
1. Fisch
2. Hans Mueller
3. Schoeffler
I can definitely come up with more - honestly the list is a very long one...so much so the NJSP would eliminate people simply based upon the handwriting even though they had, even after Hauptmann's execution, believed there were mulitiple parties involved. There is also a very good possibility that some participants weren't even known to Hauptmann. Also, consider the fact that Perrone assisted without ever knowing he had until after the fact.
As far as who he spent time with... its hard to know. Anita Lutzenburg, for example, was only known due the those pictures. We know that when Anna was in Germany Hauptmann was seen strolling down the street with 2 women. I still don't know who they were.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 2, 2009 9:04:05 GMT -5
But who among this list was close to BRH in the year prior to the kidnapping?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 2, 2009 10:23:03 GMT -5
First let me say there are more for this list....
Next, these are my "usual suspects" for starters. I do believe Hauptmann knew Fisch before March 1, 1932. The idea of keeping people from one another is Fisch's M.O. but I believe Hauptmann attempts to use the idea that he didn't know him until after the crime will help his "Fisch Story" alibi. The Henkel "meeting" wasn't, in my opinion, the first time they met.
Mueller and Shoeffler were close to him before the crime. Exactly how close depends upon how you look at it.
I think if you view the fact that Kloppenburg was his BEST friend, and had no idea - even to the day he died - of Hauptmann's involvement - then it speaks volumes about Hauptmann's ability to keep specific information from people. He may have wanted to confide in him but knowing Kloppenburg's character knew there was no way he could.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 2, 2009 19:57:47 GMT -5
I think if you view the fact that Kloppenburg was his BEST friend, and had no idea - even to the day he died - of Hauptmann's involvement - then it speaks volumes about Hauptmann's ability to keep specific information from people. He may have wanted to confide in him but knowing Kloppenburg's character knew there was no way he could. The jury is still out on that for me. Besides, nothing gets my interest as much as someone whom I am told is squeaky clean.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Mar 11, 2009 15:10:35 GMT -5
Hi All,
Can someone clarify the theory for the extortion and the kidnap being separate? I can't get a grip on that. Thanx.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 12, 2009 16:30:43 GMT -5
The idea is this:
There were two separate crimes. One committed by those who took the child and left the first note. The second by others who extorted money as if they actually had kidnapped the child.
Presumably, the "Extortionists" obtained a copy of the symbol and wrote the 2nd note with the first couple of lines forged to look like the writing in the original note - while the actual Kidnappers never bothered to follow through.
Now, as you can see, if you apply certain facts (or omit them where you think they may not apply) then you can get different variations of this theory.
Take "John" for instance. He was supposed to have died. The symbol, according to "John" (or Condon) had been taken away by one of the Kidnappers. Well if he "left" then he wasn't on the receiving end of the ransom that was collected.
There were several theories where the Kidnappers splintered up... etc. If this happened then its possible some that were involved in the "extortion" hadn't been a part of the actual kidnapping.
See what I mean? There's a lot that can go on if one believes all involved in the Kidnapping weren't all involved in collecting the ransom.
Hope this helps. If you have anymore questions then please keep asking. Sometimes I am not very clear at all when I try to tackle these type of questions.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 29, 2009 18:36:10 GMT -5
Is there any evidence or does anyone have any information regarding Hauptmann's choice of either Lindbergh or Highfields as a target?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 30, 2009 7:44:56 GMT -5
The Police looked at Lempke.
They looked at the Blanks (Flemington).
They found the name Boehm in his notebook and noted someone by that name had lived in Hopewell. I believe they followed this up (but based upon what I've found they hadn't done so to my satisfaction).
If you want some more information on any of these let me know. I will also post more as my memory, or something in the reports reveals it to me.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 30, 2009 12:45:04 GMT -5
Michael, the reason I'm asking is due to some responses by people who I kinda turned on to this case. One common question that I get is What made Hauptmann decide to pick a target so far from his house?. Honestly, I have no good answer for them. I know some, I think Joe for one, have speculated that Hauptmann had a fixation on Lindbergh. If so it would be an explanation, but it brings up another problem. Where do we see any evidence of an obsession with Lindbergh exhibited by Hauptmann prior to the kidnapping? I would think this would be manifest in some way. A book on Lindbergh, for example. I'm just trying to look at possible connections between Hauptmann and Lindbergh or Highfields.
|
|
|
Post by vovina on Mar 31, 2009 8:50:20 GMT -5
One of the earliest attempt to unravel the psychology of Hauptmann prior to the kidnapping is found in Alexander Woollcot's book " Long, Long Ago " ( 1943 ). Woollcot was a radio broadcaster who covered the trial in his capacity as radio's " town crier ". On page 118 Woollcot claims that Hauptmann had a consuming jealousy of Lindbergh on behalf of Bruno's boyhood hero Baron Von Richthofen: Lindy's aeronautical achievements had eclipsed that of the Red Baron. Hauptmann read and reread the Richthofen biography while awaiting trial. And he named his son, who was alive while Charlie was dead, after Richthofen. Woollcot thought that Hauptmann's pathology made him strike at Lindbergh singlehanded, just as Lindbergh had flown the Atlantic singlehanded. Another line of speculation is found in psychohistorian Lloyd de Mause's " The Emotional Life of Nations ". In the chapter " The Assassination Of Leaders ", de Mause shows how media such as newspaper article placements and poltical cartoons can " create a message " to those with unbalanced psyches - much the same way as spatial distortions in building design can cause a higher frequency of murders and suicides. If one were to examine the newspapers Hauptmann read over the years preceding, perhaps we would be lucky enough to find one with the kidnapping uptick during the Depression, Lindbergh, Charlie, and the Red Baron all in the same issue. This association of ideas could then be a trigger if Hauptmann was already slightly wacko on the topic of Richthofen. This is all quite speculative, of course, but at least the attempt to verify this hypothesis via newspaper archives is possible.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 31, 2009 14:07:33 GMT -5
I've thought about this myself and its one of the reasons I don't see Bruno masterminding this event. I've always believed, and still do, that he was interested in making "easy" money.
That's the only psychology of the situation that I see. That he made money - Not bringing down Lindbergh. Never a negative word about him - ever. When one looks at the scope of the crime, and its financial yields against the monumental risks, then its easy to conclude we have either an Amateur group or a Mad-Man at work.
But the facts do not support this. And if one looks closer - there's just too many complexities that were resolved by the would-be Kidnappers. While many things were quite odd, they did meet with success when they should have failed at each/every turn/level IF they were acting both blindly and ignorantly - which is EXACTLY as history records.
There was something else going on here....
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 31, 2009 16:36:10 GMT -5
Thanks for that Vovina. I guess I am somewhat with Michael on this, I just don't see any indication that Hauptmann had any degree of interest in Lindbergh prior to the crime. Now I suppose that could be because those around him simply didn't care to relate any info regarding this. Would Kloppenberg tell anyone that Hauptmann talked about Lindbergh? You travel across the country and spend so much intimate time together, it would be unbelievable to me if a person with such a degree of obsession with Lindbergh wouldn't bring it up. Could there be some indication of Hauptmann's feelings toward Lindbergh somewhere? This is one reason the theft of some of Lindbergh's belongings from Newark airport intrigued me.
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Jun 20, 2009 17:32:31 GMT -5
Could you please elaborate on this? I don't recall reading anything about this anywhere. I might have, but I just don't remember.
Thank you! Jd
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 28, 2009 16:52:22 GMT -5
Oops. Sorry I missed this. I believe I found the article while going thru all the NY Times archives on Lindbergh in the year prior to the kidnap. If I can find where I put it, I'll post it. I know the theft occurred at Lindbergh's personal locker at Newark Airport and I believe several items from his flying kit were stolen.
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Jul 2, 2009 15:05:40 GMT -5
Hmmm...my first gut reaction upon hearing the theft took place in the year prior to the kidnapping is: It's probably unrelated.
But on the other hand, it would be interesting to know how someone found out the locker was Lindbergh's. Perhaps it was common knowledge.
And yet, if it was common knowledge, then it would take sheer nerve--and perhaps a lot of luck--to steal it. People milling about, running the risk of being seen, and caught, and doing it anyway.
That sure sounds familiar, doesn't it? It sure does sound a little like....oh....some place known as....Highfields?
Jd
|
|
|
Post by roseo1 on Feb 9, 2010 0:52:28 GMT -5
This man did not kill the baby, he had a small part in it, but so did the scottish nannie. He did not kill the baby he was made to confess.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Feb 9, 2010 11:35:19 GMT -5
Who confessed??
|
|
|
Post by rmc1971 on Feb 22, 2010 20:48:25 GMT -5
I know many names have been thrown out as possible accomplices to this crime, yet they all seem for one reason or another to fall short. My thought is that if Hauptmann was partnered up with someone, that person would be someone Hauptmann had a special relationship with. That leads me to look for someone Hauptmann spent time with prior to the crime. Yet the only one that seems to fit that bill is Kloppenburg. Yet everyone I have spoken to seems to find him completely unsuitable for this role. Could there be another? Is there enough unknown about Hauptmann's pre kidnapping history that would allow for such a person to remain unknown? Is it possible? I tend to think he had an accomplice, or that he was the accomplice. If you look at his crime history in Germany, he tended to work with a partner. I believe in history repeating itself, so that would fit for me. What doesn't fit, though, is that most of his crimes in Germany (what little is known of them) seem to be smash and grab jobs that were solved rather easily. So I think either he had a partner who could navigate the waters of a tricky ransom pickup, or he was very lucky.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 23, 2010 9:56:34 GMT -5
Yeah, though Hauptmann's luck was short lived.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 24, 2010 6:52:10 GMT -5
Good observation and I agree. It's unlikely someone goes from one extreme to the other without a transition period. It's like a "graduation" from one step to the other. So something is either completely missed the whole time he is in the US or he isn't the Mastermind.
Was it though? Each and every move required a huge amount of luck. Then he "gets aways with it" for over 2-1/2 years. Is thats really short? For me, that a lifetime when everyone in the world is looking for you. In the end, Lyle is credited with catching him, but in reality, he turns himself in by abandoning whatever tactics he was supposedly employing the entire stretch which kept him protected from detection.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 24, 2010 10:43:11 GMT -5
It's not such a lucky streak when you end up in the chair. Btw, I don't consider Kloppenberg to be "off the list" by any means.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 25, 2010 7:06:14 GMT -5
Interesting....
So "Golden" Hans is on your radar?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 25, 2010 10:19:29 GMT -5
The question should be why he isn't on everyone's radar. He was BRH's closest friend and present on the very intimate cross country trip at a time when the plan was germinating ( or is that Germanating?). Plus, the minute I hear someone is "golden" or "untouchable" the alarm bells go off. He's also the best qualified accomplice out there.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Feb 25, 2010 11:59:05 GMT -5
Kevkon--nice old Kloppy? Now, really!
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 25, 2010 14:40:31 GMT -5
I know, I know. One thing to consider though, is that we are looking at the case with the benefit of hindsight. I think it's entirely possible that someone who would not be considered a criminal could have been sold on the idea of participating in this crime based on the idea that no one would be harmed and the child would be safely back in no time. I'm sure Michael can give us many example of prisoners who got into something without considering what can happen when it goes all wrong. Also, there are many levels on which one may be considered an accomplice.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Feb 25, 2010 16:04:52 GMT -5
Kevkon, I think you are correct in your thoughts, there. (just had to pull your chain there for a moment). As you indicate, I think there are a number of levels of a mis-step and not looking ahead to consequences. You also touch on something I find myself considering. That is that the kidnap may have been intended as a quick turn around, returning the child unharmed. I even find myself wondering if this dear little one may have lived (unharmed) for even a couple or so days. There is still so much we don't know about the case and alas, probably never will.
|
|
|
Post by arthur45 on Dec 17, 2012 20:45:22 GMT -5
I would disagree that the kidnapping gave any evidence of "masterminding" at work. The kidnapping itself (which was mostly pure luck) was strictly amateur hour -you don't accidentally kill your victim, since people seldom pay ransom for a corpse. Without Condon's newspaper offer, I doubt that Hauptmann would ever have attempted to contact Lindbergh. Of course, I'm still open should some actual evidence appear at this late date. All of the alternative theories I've read so far suffer from a lack of logic as well as evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 19, 2012 6:49:54 GMT -5
Suggesting that everything that happened was "pure luck" is guess-work. For example, suggesting the corpse was "accidentally kill(ed)" - as proof - would be to rely on more "guess-work," offered as evidence to support this. This idea about what is "seldom" is yet more "guess-work" because you are formulating an opinion then using it as "evidence." There were many things that appear to have been firsts here.
Explaining anything "away" with opinions or guess-work doesn't make it so. You are arguing against certain ideas and/or theories by doing exactly what you are accusing others of.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 19, 2012 17:19:14 GMT -5
This doesn't make sense Art. There were several contacts previous to Condon's "attempted" and eventual involvement made by those involved.
Not trying to pick on you or anything. I respect your opinions but you are fair game considering your approach to thoughts differing from yours. If you could, I would better understand where you are coming from if you backed up your points with examples.
|
|