|
Letters
Feb 11, 2013 11:29:54 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Feb 11, 2013 11:29:54 GMT -5
Amy,
His friends did call him "Dick." It's mentioned in a lot of reports although I don't recall it being in the papers much. I also found his name listed on some of the jobs he did as "Dick."
So that's what caught my attention.
Next, I recalled Hauptmann telling Ellis Parker that when he met Fisch he was with someone who spoke German with an Austrian accent. Finally, I believe in the Wilentz File there was a name similar to this penned out by hand (but I'd have to check).
Anyway it strikes me as possibly someone who may have known Hauptmann (in some way) writing this.
I've thrown Hans Mueller out there in the past as someone who may have been on the Hauptmann side of things. So again, I think we're on the same "wave-length" on this. Is there anything in particular you are interested in about him or would you just like to see random things?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Letters
Feb 11, 2013 14:33:51 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Feb 11, 2013 14:33:51 GMT -5
You, Kevkon, are a master of riddles.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Letters
Feb 11, 2013 14:46:36 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Feb 11, 2013 14:46:36 GMT -5
So good (incredible) that you can provide this kind of information, Michael. 4 stars!
|
|
|
Letters
Feb 11, 2013 15:55:40 GMT -5
Post by Rab on Feb 11, 2013 15:55:40 GMT -5
Amy, as Michael says, Hauptmann was known as Dick by some of his circle, including when he did jobs for National. You can see an example below from their ledger (the item marked on the left with an X): homepage.ntlworld.com/foxleywood/Nationalp20&21.JPGI've also seen reference to Anna as Hanna. In terms of Hans, there is a lot to suspect. The material I have is the work of other researchers and I'm not aware if it's in the public domain so will leave it to Michael and others in terms of what they can share. Rab
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Letters
Feb 11, 2013 22:49:40 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Feb 11, 2013 22:49:40 GMT -5
It's nice to have this kind of thing, but doesn't add up to much. I could have written a letter to J. Edgar Hoover saying I saw Charles Lindbergh dancing with Anna Hauptmann in a bar in St. Louis, and I noticed that you, Edgar (or may I call you J.?) were sitting in a corner with a lampshade over your head on Clyde Tolson's lap. Would amount to the same nonsense. Obviously someone is trying to further implicate Richard whom the world already thought was guilty anyway.
|
|
|
Letters
Feb 12, 2013 6:42:57 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Feb 12, 2013 6:42:57 GMT -5
Of course you could be right Jack. There are thousands upon thousands of letters like this at the Archives. I think though, some are worthy of (at least) consideration. Is this one of them? I don't know. Sharing it may lead somewhere because its clear someone here may find some connection that I missed or haven't found yet.
Because there are so many letters of this type its easy to blow them off. I must confess I have done so at times but I try not to. Some letters have "panned out" (in terms of truthfulness). Probably 1 in 200. And others contain some truths. Roughly 1 in 50. It's worse when you get something that is Anonymous and its right because you know they won't be able to find who wrote the damn thing.
An example would be a letter sent about Hauptmann's connection to the Blanks. They didn't use their name, but once I figured out who they were talking about it was spot on. Another about Dorothy Walker. She was the Waitress who encountered the 3 men asking about the Lindbergh Estate that turned about to be Reporters. That investigation erased many sightings which turned out to be them.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Letters
Feb 12, 2013 12:17:38 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Feb 12, 2013 12:17:38 GMT -5
I was of course being facetious and it seems like you've done a great job with all things. My problem has always been that though BRH doesn't seem to have any connections (except for Fisch {would you let him orchestrate your extortion?}) I just go at this thinking there is some great unknown, because it clearly isn't a one man crime. And, like you, I like to see everything possible tossed out and something might stick, but in this case nothing seems to stick. I was on another true crime site and just normal looking at stuff, and something stuck, and I expounded on it and they banned me. In short, they didn't want to figure it out and had plenty of "experts" to blast me. I've enjoyed being on here and having conversations with you and Kevkon and Wolf2 (did you know he is one of the wayback investigators? I think he had dinner with Anna Hauptmann, or one of her attorneys anyway), but I think it's an insolvable thing. Did you know that an unsolvable murder happens every day in the USA? It's nice that you keep doing this because who knows, something could happen. My best thought was always a Nazi connection because they were people who wouldn't care about killing a kid. A lot of that information is still classified, and we discussed that before, but on the whole case there seems to be some kind of hold.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Feb 12, 2013 12:43:06 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2013 12:43:06 GMT -5
Michael, this letter that you posted. Is it dated somewhere? Just wondering how quickly this person came forward with this information after Hauptmann's arrest. After reading it over again this morning, now knowing that Hauptmann was known as Dick, it would seem that the writer could have been acquainted with the Hauptmanns. I am more impressed with this writer's knowledge about Ed Wellman. He/she knows he is a convict, did jail time for hold-up and robbery, is a slick fellow who never earned an honest dollar in his life. It would seem the letter writer is more interested in having the police look into Ed than Hauptmann. Was this letter ever followed up on? Was Ed Wellman ever investigated? Was Hauptmann ever questioned about this man?
Rab, Thanks for the link showing that Hauptmann was called Dick when he was working for National. So much more informal than Anna's way of addressing him. A guy thing maybe?
Michael and Rab - Knowing that the gun hidden with the ransom money actually belonged to Hans has made me curious about him. I have been looking for more info but it is really hard to come by! In Kennedy's Crime of the Century, he talks about the Hauptmann's getting ready to take the trip out to California in 1931. One of the things he mentions that Hauptmann brings along on that trip is a small pistol for protection. Is there any record of Hauptmann owning a pistol of his own? Or could the pistol brought on the California trip in 1931 been given to Hauptmann by Hans and would eventually be the one that is found with the ransom money? Kennedy also mentions that Hans and Maria Mueller are poor. Scaduto's Scapegoat also mentions Hans Mueller. Hans is uneasy with the business relationship developing between Richard and Fisch. He presses Hauptmann to get something formal on paper to protect himself.
So we have Hauptmann protecting Hans by not telling the police about who the gun really belonged to and we have Hans backing up Hauptmann's claim to being in business with Fisch who Hans thought was untrustworthy and possibly swindling Richard. I guess I am wondering if they are innocently protecting each other or trying to cover up for each other?
Was Hans Mueller investigated by the Police? Did they learn that the Liliput belonged to Hans?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Letters
Feb 12, 2013 19:13:59 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Feb 12, 2013 19:13:59 GMT -5
How do you know the gun belonged to Hans, and what difference would it make? It was what is known as a gut gun which many soldiers carried (not just Germans) to take out their captors, and if they didn't have too many of them they might get away. Very inaccurate, short barrel .25 cal - I have one myself, a Browning. Your statements, and as you have quoted Rab's (who has been on this case forever by the way) are exactly what has made this thing unsolved for so many years. It's one thing to look at issues and things objectively, yet quite another to make your own instant determination and draw a conclusion from that. Read above - you're making a conclusion from that gun issue which doesn't make sense. Wouldn't you want to protect your money and what's wrong with having a gun near it? Who cares whose gun it is, it's there for a purpose. I carried my gut gun for many years, in and out of service, so beware of fowling with me. I remember one time I was shooting pool with a couple guys in downtown Minneapolis and they started calling me names, just disrespectful you know, and I thought of that gun in my back pocket and thought no way, so I just walked out. Perhaps saved their lives and me from plenty of time.
|
|
|
Letters
Feb 12, 2013 21:38:29 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Feb 12, 2013 21:38:29 GMT -5
I know Jack, but your point was valid nevertheless. And I do appreciate the compliment. I read this, re-read it again then wondered.....of all the times this happened to you - why you chose to single out that time in Minneapolis? (See attachment below for the answer to this and the others) Good observation Amy. First let me run down a few things I always keep in mind about the letters.... They could be getting the name wrong or spelling it wrong. It could be an alias (hard to believe but even some Cops used one - it was that common). A certain fact mentioned could be wrong or different. Here it could be where he served time, the offense(s) - or both. It could be someone who dislikes this person is writing a BS letter hoping to cause the named individual grief in some way. Finally, it could be a "crank" or someone not in full possession of their mental faculties. As you can see, there are a ton of obstacles with this type of stuff. Then there were the physical ones the Authorities had to deal with considering it was the 1930s. Probably where the term "leg work" came from originally, and its easy to see why they may not have followed some things up the way we'd like to have seen them do. Firstly I want to say that you are asking all of the right questions. I can see as you accumulate the information you are looking for it will lead to even more good ones. As usual I want to go into the story behind this evidence. The Police interviewed Mueller several times before they became aware the gun came from him. It starts once they began following Harry Whitney around. Whitney was one of Fawcett's PIs and related to Anna. The Police were following him so that they could learn the Defense strategies, and who the Defense Witnesses might be. Once that was learned they would lean on and scare the hell out of them so they wouldn't testify - or better yet - jump over to the Prosecution to destroy what the Defense had planned on them saying. Anyway, they had followed Whitney to Mueller's apartment. Out front they noticed a car and wrote down the tags. They came back with a name (Kaiser) then investigated it. During that investigation they found someone who knew him (VanKirk) and he told them Kaiser admitted selling Mueller the gun and this same gun was the one they found in Hauptmann's garage. VanKirk also said Kaiser told him he brought 2 guns back from Germany with him the above being one of them. That Kaiser became afraid once Hauptmann was arrested and threw the other one into the East River. Finally he said that Kaiser told him the Defense was going to call him as a Witness. By November 20th, the Police grabbed Kaiser, brought him to Greenwich Street and asked him a series of questions. Concerning the guns he said someone mailed them to him. That he sold one to a bartender named "Martin" who then sold it to Mueller (who he knew), and that sometime after that Mueller gave it to Hauptmann. Looks to me like he's lying to the Police and what he told VanKirk was probably the truth. When he's asked what "Martin's" last name is - he doesn't know. When asked when he sold it to him it was March 1931. For my money this is when he sold it to Hans. Hauptmann went to California in July and returned early October. Hauptmann testified in the Bronx he was "hiding" the gun October because he, in essence, didn't want it in the house but he didn't want to get rid of it either. He also testified he couldn't remember who sold it to him and that he bought it on 86th street somewhere. By the time Hauptmann returned from California, Hans was unemployed and in bad shape financially according to him. I haven't reviewed Hauptmann's testimony in Flemington to refresh my memory about what he may have said about this gun so there might be something there I am not bringing up. If anyone knows please post. If not, let me know and I will look it up. Attachments:
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Letters
Feb 13, 2013 2:10:28 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Feb 13, 2013 2:10:28 GMT -5
Regarding the gun I remember it because I was in service at the time and was on leave. In those days we were supposed to wear unis all the time but people spit on us so we didn't. I think I was a Lieutenant at the time and remember getting out of that bar and I had white jeans on so the gun showed up in my pocket, and I'm at a bus stop in Mpls. and this old guy is looking at my back pocket. I'm thinking holy s... if this old coot calls the cops I'm in many problems. Well he didn't but hopefully that answers the issue of gut guns as being necessary for all soldiers. I had a couple other .25's too but that Browning was nice because it was so small you could hold it in your hand and no one else could see it, yet it held seven shots - plenty of close range punch. I know there are nice .22's as well, but the .25 is flatter and center fire.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Letters
Feb 13, 2013 2:18:55 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Feb 13, 2013 2:18:55 GMT -5
Re: above, to note about the gun, it was because the topic had come to small guns. And Amy was wondering, in effect, why anyone would want to own a small gun. I just gave a couple reasons.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Letters
Feb 13, 2013 2:27:30 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Feb 13, 2013 2:27:30 GMT -5
Nobody is a hostile, Michael - you make them a hostile.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Letters
Feb 13, 2013 2:37:33 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Feb 13, 2013 2:37:33 GMT -5
There are certainly people who start out their mornings to rob banks or shoplift, but they're not going to shoot at you unless you try to stop them. It's a psychological profiling principle called goal blockage. It's what amounts to a lot of the things we do and is pretty easy to look up.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Letters
Feb 13, 2013 7:19:20 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Feb 13, 2013 7:19:20 GMT -5
Talking of concealed weapons, we used to wear long raincoats that were green. They weren't issue, but they'd come in on trucks and we'd rip the sleeves off to make them cooler. Anyway, usually anyone wearing one of these ripped up coats was a patrol dude because the long coat hid the long rifle slung on his back. So I went into a bar with a couple rems one time and they sat down but I didn't because I had this rifle on my back. To make a long story short the owner of the bar wouldn't serve me if I didn't sit down. I think in that particular incident I just left, but usually us trenchcoat guys got best status.
|
|
|
Letters
Feb 13, 2013 16:42:16 GMT -5
Post by jdanniel on Feb 13, 2013 16:42:16 GMT -5
Wait, whoa, stop, hold it.
The gun belonged to Hans Mueller? I don't recall ever reading that anywhere. Maybe it's in one of the LKC books, but if it is, I missed it, because that's news to me.
What would Hauptmann be doing with Hans Mueller's gun? And far more importantly, why would he hide it in his garage along with all that money?
If this information is in any of the books I read, then I just don't remember it.
Jd
|
|
|
Letters
Feb 13, 2013 22:50:43 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Feb 13, 2013 22:50:43 GMT -5
There could be, but I don't recall either. What I am posting about it is coming from the Reports/Statements that I have.
Here is a Report made for one of the first encounters the Police had with Mueller. Something in it jumped out at me right away:
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Letters
Feb 14, 2013 1:02:15 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Feb 14, 2013 1:02:15 GMT -5
For Michael: Why would it make any difference who owned the gun?
|
|
|
Letters
Feb 14, 2013 6:45:16 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Feb 14, 2013 6:45:16 GMT -5
I think my first response would be it might not. So what I do is to try to come up with reasons why it wouldn't. Like, for example, it could simply be Hauptmann trying to spare Mueller an unlimited amount of grief by connecting him to it. That it was just used to hunt with like he told Wilentz in the Bronx, etc.
But for me I am not comfortable with stopping there.
So I start to wonder why the gun was found concealed with the ransom. That, directly or indirectly, ties the two together. How a conversation between Hauptmann and Hans would start concerning such a weapon and why Hauptmann would say he needed one. Then, possibly, for Mueller to volunteer to get him one.
Next, that last amount of ransom wasn't discovered right away because Hauptmann didn't tell them about it. Why? He would say it was because of that little "gun."
Do you see where I am going with this?
Certainly, I am not saying that any alternative explanation is not possible - at face value. But its a circumstance that requires looking into. If more circumstances arise, then they should be factored in to either add to, or take away from any suspicion.
That's the key word.
If something is suspicious in any way then I submit it must at least be looked at. Too often we ignore things that catch our attention for a moment, or we talk ourselves out of giving it any thought. There are many reasons for that, but its a direct result of "how" certain unknowns remain a secret.
Anyway that's the jist of why I am interested in the subject. It could be that Amy, Rab, JD, or others will see it differently concerning their interest just as you might for not finding it interesting at all - if you don't that is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Feb 14, 2013 10:38:02 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2013 10:38:02 GMT -5
I do find this interesting which is why I brought it up. I think the gun being hidden with the ransom money makes it a suspicious item. It links the two together. I also recalled reading in Waller I think it was, that Condon thought that CJ had a gun in his right coat pocket. Could it have been this gun? Jack describes it as being the type of gun you would carry for close range protection. If CJ was concerned about being cornered when meeting with Condon sounds like the type he would want to bring with him. Easy to conceal but capable of helping him to escape if necessary.
When I read this I started thinking. Is it possible that Hans didn't buy the gun for himself? Could he have bought the gun for Hauptmann with money Hauptmann gave him? Hans was a waiter. Waiters like bartenders meet lots of people. Sometimes you meet people who can help you get items you are interested in acquiring. Perhaps this is how Hans was able to help Hauptmann acquire this gun.
I totally agree with this. I think Hauptmann bought that gun in March of 1931 also. When I read that sentence, Michael, what echoed through my mind was "this kidnaping was planed for a year already". Did Hans know that Hauptmann was planning a kidnapping when he arranged for Hauptmann to get this gun? Don't know. But what I do know is that Hauptmann tried to keep the gun from being connected to Hans and Hans was backing up Hauptmann's position that Fisch was the source of the gold certificates in Hauptmann's possession. Something to consider when you look at Hans. Sure makes me want to know more.
Jack - You seem to know about guns. Would this be the kind of gun a hunter would carry with him?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Letters
Feb 14, 2013 11:04:21 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Feb 14, 2013 11:04:21 GMT -5
I see what you're getting at - take in all the possibilities. The gun seemed like paranoia to me at first, but he didn't seem like that type of person. The gun certainly wouldn't be effective against the police finding his catch, but it would be effective against one or possibly two people going after it. It seems like somebody else knew he had money and he was worried about their going after it. As you're saying, this speculation certainly can lead somewhere. What if...
|
|
|
Letters
Feb 14, 2013 16:30:07 GMT -5
Post by jdanniel on Feb 14, 2013 16:30:07 GMT -5
I can't remember in which book I read this, but I vaguely recall reading about some sort of miniature gun Germans would carry around. I'm pretty sure it was for self-defense, at least ostensibly. By that, I mean if someone held a German person up, by saying, "Hands Up," they'd raise their hands over their heads, with the miniature pistol hidden in a palm. If things got out of hand--so to speak--they'd stick their finger in the trigger and WHAMMO.
Hauptmann may have been on both sides of the situation back in Germany. He was a mugger, and could have been a muggee as well. I don't recall reading anything to the effect of him ever being held up, but it might have happened. He may have had that gun to protect himself.
Okay, so that begs the question: If it were for protection, then why hide it in the garage? Furthermore, why hide it where a bunch of money is stashed away?
Now, to make matters even more complicated, why hide the gun, if it is Hans Mueller's?
To answer Jack's question: It may not matter whose gun it is, but if it is, in fact, Hans Mueller, then that brings up some interesting questions. These questions could lead to conjecture regarding Hans Mueller's participation, on some level, of the crime. It may be purely indirect, but then, if it turns out the child was shot, then does it make Hans Mueller an accessory?
Jd
|
|
|
Letters
Feb 14, 2013 17:46:57 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Feb 14, 2013 17:46:57 GMT -5
I always believed Condon added this in to make himself look more "death-defying" and brave. But it does make sense CJ would be armed, although not trigger happy since his first course of action was to run like hell.
I believe, since Hauptmann winds up with the gun, it was purchased for him.
However, there are several possibilities though. It's also important to note that Hauptmann stopped recording accurate records in his notebooks in July 1930. This, according to Authorities, was because his financial situation was taking a turn for the worse. But let's say for arguments sake that Hans originally bought it for himself. It seems clear its either sold or given to Hauptmann eventually.
The way I see it, Hauptmann isn't "holding" the gun for Mueller, or if he is - then he's holding Ransom Money for him too.
The other thing is this.... if he bought it for protection on the trip, which doesn't sound impossible, then his hiding it in the garage proves it was not meant for day to day protection. First because it was in that garage and well out of reach. Next because it was not only hidden, but because it was hidden with Ransom Money.
The final variable I want to mention is that once Hauptmann is arrested he has a Ransom Bill on him - but not that gun. So its for a bigger purpose, in my mind, then just laundering a single bill here and there.
When I originally found that Report at the Archives that point hit me like a ton of bricks. Of course it came from Condon, but one thing Condon did do was mix in truth with his fiction. So while we must consider the source - we must also consider everything about him. Doesn't make it true, but I certainly wouldn't dismiss it under the circumstances.
This is interesting. If true, that would make this block of wood kind of like a transportation/escort kit.
That sounds like you are referencing Lt. Hick's ballistics report. I will look for that and see what it says.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Letters
Feb 14, 2013 17:50:34 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Feb 14, 2013 17:50:34 GMT -5
To answer Amy's question, yes that would normally be a carry weapon, but it's also very concealable, so you could hide it a breadbox or even a bag of macaroni or in Richard's case near his stash. My thinking now, and thanks to Michael's approach, is that BRH wasn't worried about the police finding him, but he felt somebody knew he had the money, and he was protecting himself from that. A small gun like the one he had can take out two people quickly and noisily, but at least part of his problems would be solved.
|
|
|
Letters
Feb 14, 2013 23:25:39 GMT -5
Post by bookrefuge on Feb 14, 2013 23:25:39 GMT -5
I too have always wondered why the gun was hidden WITH the money.
While it’s probably irrelevant, a film does come to mind here—the old western The Law and Jake Wade with Robert Taylor and Richard Widmark. They are former gang members, and Widmark forces Taylor at gunpoint to take him to where Taylor buried loot from an old hold-up that they pulled together. Widmark forces Taylor to dig up the money box. But when Taylor opens the box, he surprises Widmark by whipping out a pistol that he’d buried with the cash. Could BRH have possibly envisioned a comparable situation?
Just to continue on a Hollywood rant for a moment, a “surrender gun” was featured in the old Korean War movie Men in War (Robert Ryan, Aldo Ray). In that film, a Korean soldier surrenders with his hands on his head, but concealed in his hat is a tiny pistol.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Letters
Feb 15, 2013 0:27:59 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Feb 15, 2013 0:27:59 GMT -5
I always liked Robert Taylor but he sure got his share of junk press. Liked Aldo Ray too - didn't he die in an old actors nursing home? Sure the small gun is a normal soldier tool. The Germans got blamed for (exclusively - haha) using them and that being an unfair weapon largely because they lost a couple wars and didn't have much to say about it. Richard was front line military so although he would probably hesitate to carry a weapon because of his illegal alien status, he certainly would have been aware of the potential of a small pistol.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Feb 15, 2013 11:21:08 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2013 11:21:08 GMT -5
So Hauptmann had the Liliput hidden with the ransom money to protect the ransom money?
How many people knew he had ransom money? If he commited the kidnapping alone no one would know he had ransom money unless he told them. Who would Hauptmann have trusted enough to tell them something like that? He didn't even tell Anna. She believed he was a Wall Street Wonder Man.
Now, if Hauptmann had an accomplice I don't know why he would have been concerned with that person coming after any ransom. Wouldn't the accomplice(s) have his/her own share?
There is always the possibility that Hauptmann needed help with laundering the ransom money and took someone into this crime after the fact. Could he have been protecting the ransom money from this person?
Just like JD, I wonder if Hans would have been considered an accessory to kidnap/murder if the case had been persued that way instead of as a lone wolf case.
I guess the question is - What did Hans really know and when did he know it?
|
|
|
Letters
Feb 15, 2013 22:35:04 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Feb 15, 2013 22:35:04 GMT -5
Well its not in the Hick's Report. Here's a little from that ( The Lindbergh Case vs BALLISTICS by Lt. Robert W. Hicks Jr., p6): The evidence of circumstances points with unwavering finger to the possessor of that small caliber German automatic revolver, rarely found in this country, which corresponds to our American .25 caliber automatic. This type of automatic revolver fires a tiny bullet that, because of the unusual caliber, would be easily identified. Just my response to this.... Obviously, the more people involved the more chance someone will talk. But if you think back to the 20s and 30s there was a lot less of that going on then there is today. If you run down certain facts in this Case one has to wonder why so many people were NEVER found. Where is, for example, the person who wrote J. J. Faulkner? It wasn't Hauptmann and if it was an Innocent person well I guess he (or she) wasn't talking. Where was the man and the girl at the Cemetery? They too were never identified and did not come forward - and if they told anybody - they didn't tell anybody either. The Scissors Grinder, and the Needle Salesman? Into thin air it seems. And that famous Lady from Tuckahoe....well she donned a cape which made her invisible and was never seen or heard from again. The 2 men at the Lumber Yard supposedly passing a Ransom Bill. One was supposed to be Hauptmann - but what of the other? Gone with the wind. Lots of people yet - no one is talking. Regardless though - the more people - the heavier the odds. It certainly doesn't make it less likely. But think "Hauptmann." Get a group like him and no one has very much to worry about. A couple of things Condon said, which may or may not be true, is that the Gang "Leader" took the Ransom Symbol Maker then departed. The point was that no more Notes could contain the secret symbol because it had been taken away. The other, which came later, was that CJ had been killed by the Gang. Others moving away, being killed, dying, or going even to jail. These are variables that must be considered too.
|
|
|
Letters
Feb 15, 2013 23:12:05 GMT -5
Post by bookrefuge on Feb 15, 2013 23:12:05 GMT -5
We can't reply in the "Links" section, but I just wanted to say thanks, Michael, for posting that link to Falzini's newest post.
Whether the kidnappers were trying to “work the moon” or not, Mark deserves a lot of credit for this fresh insight.
I should think a cloudy night would be as good as a dim moon—but then again, in 1932 weather forecasting wasn’t what it is now, whereas they could be certain about phases of the moon.
I don’t know if Falzini is right, but if he is, it shows the kidnappers as careful planners.
|
|
|
Letters
Feb 16, 2013 10:05:03 GMT -5
Post by Rab on Feb 16, 2013 10:05:03 GMT -5
I think this discussion about the gun is an interesting one. It - and the money stored with it - were the most well concealed of the various items hidden in the garage. I agree that Mueller bought it for Hauptmann. I don't personally think it was for protection, perhaps initially for the California trip, but it doesn't seem well suited for that purpose. By 1934 it was too out-of-reach to be any use for everyday protection. So why keep it? I like the thought that it was there to be used if someone tried to force Hauptmann to hand over ransom money. But there seems little risk of that. If he had an accomplice, it was a junior one (and certainly Mueller was constantly being bailed out financially by Hauptmann). It's also been speculated that it was a sort of getaway kit, the gun and enough money to get somewhere. But it's very difficult to say. In terms of Mark's post about the moon phases, I am going to have to respectfully disagree with the analysis, much as I have benefited over the years from Mark's help and amazing depth of knowledge on this case. It was not the kidnapper who delayed the ransom payment. I will repost below an analysis of the newspaper and the ransom notes. I believe it clearly shows that it was Lindbergh who delayed the payment and that was because he was insistent on a COD transaction. This is an important point because it dispels any notion of his own involvement. If he was insistent on COD then he could hardly have known the child was dead or been involved in that death. There was a battle of wills going on and ultimately it was Lindbergh who blinked.
Rab
I prefer to look at the ransom notes in terms of what was going on at the time. What is clear - at least to me - from all this is that the kidnapper(s) were waiting for Lindbergh to cave in, which he finally did after the ninth ransom note threatened to raise the ransom to $100k. It was only when the ad included, without qualification, the words requested in the March 16th note "I accept. Money is ready" that the kidnapper(s) proceeded to arrange the April 2nd handover. Looking at the following timeline it seems to me that there is actually a battle of wills going on with the kidnapper(s) forcing Lindbergh to agree to part with the ransom without seeing the child first. Though Condon often claimed that it was he who was insistent on a COD transaction, the report of Special Agent Wilson puts this decision firmly at Lindbergh's door. So consider this and see how much is actually delaying and how much is just trying to bend the will of the other. Remember also that CJ went to meet Condon on March 12th fully expecting to get the money. And was essentially tricked by the message placed in the paper beforehand. That would have made the kidnapper(s) doubly sure next time a meeting was planned.
March 1st - Nursery note.
March 4th - Second ransom note mailed. "…we will hold the baby until everything is quiet…until the police is out and the pappers are quiet."
March 5th - Second ransom note received.
March 7th - Third ransom note mailed. "We will note accept any go-between from your send. We will arrangh thiss latter…but not befor the police is out of this cace and the pappers are quiet."
March 8th - Third ransom note received. Condon's letter published in the BHN.
March 9th - Ad placed in New York American by Breckinridge: "Letter received at new address. Will follow your instructions. I also received letter mailed to me March 4th and was ready since then. Please hurry on account of mother. Address me to the address you mentioned in your letter. Father." Fourth ransom note mailed to Condon and received that day. Orders that once Condon has the money from Lindbergh, he should place the words "Mony is redy" in the New York American.
March 11th - Ad published by Condon in BHN and New York American: "Money is ready. Jafsie."
March 12th - Ad of March 11th repeated. Fifth ransom note received from Perrone and Condon meets CJ. "Have you gottit the money?".
March 13th - Condon publishes ad in BHN "Baby alive and well. Money is ready. Call and see us. Jafsie."
March 14th - March 13th ad repeated in New York American and a new ad published in the BHN "Money is ready. No cops. No secret service. No press. I go alone like last time. Please call. Jafsie."
March 15th - March 14th ad repeated in BHN, March 11th ad repeated in New York American.
March 16th - March 11th ad repeated in the New York American. New ad in the BHN "I accept. Money is ready. You know they won't let me deliver without package. Please make some sort of C.O.D transaction. You know you can trust Jafsie." Seventh ransom note received with sleeping suit which says "…circumstance will note allow us to make a transfare licke you wish. It is imposibly for us….You are willing to pay the 70000…without seeing the baby first or note…We can't do it other ways…If you are willing to accept this deal put those in the paper I accept mony is redy…"
March 17th - Condon places ad saying "Money is ready. No cops. No secret service. I come like last time. Alone. Please call Jafsie."
March 18th - Ad of 3/17 repeated. Another (unsigned) ad also placed in BHN: "I accept. Money is ready. John your package is delivered and O.K. Direct me."
March 19th - Eight ransom note mailed. "You and Mr Lindbergh know ouer Program. If you don't accept den we wait untill you agree with ouer Deal, we know you have to come to us anyway…WE WILL NOTE COMMUNICATE WITH YOU OR MR LINDBERGH UNTIL YOU WRITE SO IN THE PAPER." [mycaps]
March 20th - Another ad: "Notify me how I can get letter to you. Urgent. Jafsie."
March 21st - Ad of 3/20 repeated. Eight ransom note received.
March 22nd - Ad which included: "…Over 50 years in business, and can I pay without seeing goods?…Please understand my position."
March 23rd - 3/22 ad repeated.
March 24th - 3/22 ad repeated.
March 25th - 3/22 ad repeated.
March 26th - New ad: "Money is ready. Furnish simple code for us to follow in paper. Jafsie."
March 27th - 3/26 ad repeated.
March 28th - 3/26 ad repeated.
March 29th - Ninth ransom note mailed. "It is note necessary to furnish any code. You and Mr. Lindbergh know ouer Program very well…if the deal is note closed until the 8 of April we will ask for 30000 more…if Mr. Lindbergh likes to fool around for another month - we can help it…"
March 30th - Ninth ransom note received.
March 31st -New ad: "I hereby accept. Money is ready. Jafsie."
And this final capitulation by Lindbergh, agreeing finally to pay the money without seeing the child, results in the ransom handover on April 2nd.
|
|