kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 2, 2010 14:11:25 GMT -5
I'm not sure I follow. Have you ever seen or heard of any of the principals in the case holding the notes together to see if they are in perfect alignment?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 3, 2010 7:49:45 GMT -5
I will keep checking for this. One thing that stands out in my mind was something in Foster's report, but that was either in '35 or '36. I'll make a search for things when I get a chance.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on May 3, 2010 9:22:22 GMT -5
It's great to see so much energy going towards the significance of the ransom note symbol and punched holes. I've been following the thread for a while and will try to weigh in over the next few days. I too believe investigators missed out on some clues here but at the same time, the emergence of Hauptmann after Sept. 18, 1934 sheds a whole new light on their significance.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 3, 2010 12:38:16 GMT -5
Great to hear from you Joe. Did you do anything with the inked circles? I'm not entirely convinced that they were made in the way described in the reports.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on May 3, 2010 19:15:58 GMT -5
Kevin, I remember creating the inked cricles a number of years ago but I know the type of jar lid I used wouldn't have been around in 1932.. and I was really only looking to reproduce the symbol as a visual backdrop to my own theory on the meaning of the symbol and holes. I think most of the opinion at the time centred around the raised glass cricle of the bottom of an ink bottle but I wouldn't exclude the possibility of the screw top lid of the ink bottle itself. Do you know if they were stoppered at the time or had screw top lids as they do today?
The actual distance between the holes I believe are important to the writer Hauptmann and that the pre-determined measurements were transferred to a simple wood or cardboard template for the purposes of reproduction on each of the notes that carried the symbol. From centre to centre of each hole, the approximate measurements are 26 mm from first to second hole and 23 mm from second to third hole, based on a left to right orientation.
I too have always been amazed at how little attention was paid towards these measurements, as even Scotland Yard noted they were "approximately one inch apart," but then perhaps no one had bothered to think of them in terms of having been metric-inspired, something which would have meant more to someone of Germanic background.
There are a couple of potentially interesting correlations between the hole distances and years of influence within the lives of both Hauptmann and Lindbergh, including the years both traversed the Atlantic and the years they were married and I think these may be significant when viewed in the context of the inked portion of the ransom note symbol and its ultimate meaning.
|
|
|
Post by pzb63 on May 4, 2010 2:47:24 GMT -5
I think most of the opinion at the time centred around the raised glass cricle of the bottom of an ink bottle but I wouldn't exclude the possibility of the screw top lid of the ink bottle itself. Do you know if they were stoppered at the time or had screw top lids as they do today? - Joe I'm sure Kevkon will be able to answer this question, but I found this site quite interesting regarding the variety of ink bottles and associated items available at that time. www.1001inkbottles.com/inksfromusa.aspPam
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 4, 2010 7:09:17 GMT -5
That's a very good site Pam. I've used it as well as a couple of other collector sites and of course, Ebay in an attempt to find the proper bottle. I agree with you about the bottom of the bottle as the stamp, however I believe the reports claim the top of the cork was used. I find that a bit hard to believe ( can you imagine the mess?).
Joe, as far as I can tell, at least four types of caps were available at the time. There were still cork stoppers and a variation which was part cork and part Bakelite. Then there were metal and Bakelite screw tops. It seems to depend on the manufacturer.
I'd be interested in your take on the addition of the holes after the symbol on the Nursery note.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on May 4, 2010 19:13:29 GMT -5
Kevin, I did some searching last night and came across a number of the lid types you mentioned. I recall from my own experimenting that it was easier to "paint" the bottom ring of a jar lid with the ink via a small brush, before impressing it on the paper. Cuts down on the mess and waste, and I think might even more closely duplicate the inconsistent ink deposit seen in the ransom notes.. just a thought.
I'm not sure what you mean by the holes added after the symbol was drawn but believe you're implying they were an afterthought to the first note, which then became the norm for subsequent notes. Is that right?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 4, 2010 21:05:41 GMT -5
I would agree Joe. I found the bottom of the bottle to be the best way of creating that uneven ring. Yes, I'm referring to the Nursery note where the holes appear to be added after the ink. What are your thoughts?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on May 5, 2010 20:33:53 GMT -5
Kevin, were you able to find an ink bottle that had a bottom ring identical to the size of the ransom note circles?
Are you sure about the holes being added after the fact? If they were, a couple of possible explanations come to mind:
Playing it Safe - perceived need to ensure there was no mistaking the true author at a later date and the next ransom note.. perhaps an indication of the lack of trust on the part of the author and that others might try to move in.
Trial and Error - after creation of the nursery note, author realized there was an advantage in punching multiple thicknesses of bond paper at once, and the process evolved into this process preceding the actual symbol drawing.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 6, 2010 8:25:03 GMT -5
Joe, I am waiting for an Ebay purchase of bottles so I 'll know soon enough. I wish the original reports were as extensive as Koehler's ladder reports. That way we would know exactly what they were referring to.
There should be substantial red ink bleed through on the first note, none is evident.
Do you think he was improvising here? I have a new thought on this that came about from attempting to recreate the symbol.
Michael. are you suggesting that two people made the notes? Why?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on May 6, 2010 19:02:05 GMT -5
I'm inclined to believe the design from start to finish is all Hauptmann and that it evolved over the course of the kidnapping plan. And that in part, this was a conscious effort by Hauptmann to demonstrate to Lindbergh he was "worthy" of gaining his full attention.. as if stealing his son hadn't already done that! I'm interested in how you feel certain elements of the ransom note design might have been improvised.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 7, 2010 5:40:44 GMT -5
I disagree with Joe concerning Hauptmann as it applies here. That's not to say his opinion doesn't apply in part, or elsewhere, but I just don't see Hauptmann masterminding all of this from beginning to end.
He'd have to run down the street signaling himself, wearing disguises, changing his voice, etc. I just don't buy it. If he is going so far out of his way to learn about the Civil War and its Veteran from the Bronx to divert attention away from himself then surely he does not invite that attention by passing ransom money that he is supposed to know is ransom - from his own car.
It's one or the other but it cannot be both.
I wrote what I did to suggest the possibility since its clear to me there are influences other then Hauptmann involved, in other aspects, directly connected to the crime. And here we have a note that certain things seem to be constructed in pieces and possibly at different times. That to me suggests, at least, to have multiple ideas coming together in a final product.
So weighing everything accordingly I don't think its a stretch to at least consider that it may not be Hauptmann's idea.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 7, 2010 16:06:17 GMT -5
Michael, if you are referring to the notes, I'm not convinced there was a great deal of "masterminding" going on.
Joe, I believe that the holes may have been added as a visual reference for locating the inked circles. If so, that would imply that each note had the symbol applied when written and no master was kept. Kinda smart if you think about it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 8, 2010 7:34:38 GMT -5
I see some thought which seems to evolve - some appear to be differing ideas. This could be just one person but I think its more indicative of more then one. The symbol is just one part of my reasoning..... Words and context play a part here too - like "hazardous" - there's people I went to school with from K thru 12 who still, to this day, wouldn't use it in a sentence and if they did - couldn't spell it or use it properly.
When you don't know a word how do you look it up in a dictionary? Use it perfectly in a sentence? Remember who we are talking about. What are HIS tendencies? If he is trying to hide himself by making extra-ordinary measures then why only those measures as they relate to only certain things? While concerning others his cover is completely blown?
It makes no sense.
If, for example, it is Hauptmann penning it out, then, he HAS to be engaging in some very serious prep work by actually teaching himself certain things just to construct the note specifically in order to sound a certain way.
This is in line with the J.J. Faulkner and C. Tihy points I just made...
YET - he doesn't in other places in the note. The "Dear Sir!" or the "Mr. Dr.", or the "them holes." We also know he does some extremely RISKY things that are actually downright stupid which is almost the exact opposite to that behavior.
In some places he's a Doctor/Lawyer (and very much sounds/acts like one) then in another a semi-literate German. When I see tendencies that contrast/contradict like this I see two different personalities at work. I do not think Hauptmann had a split personality, and if he's smart enough to do things one way in some places then he's smart enough, at the very least, not to look/sound stupid/illiterate in others.
Of course there are slip-ups, but is that what these things represent? I don't think so.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on May 8, 2010 8:38:13 GMT -5
Kevin, I think what you're saying is that the symbol placement for the nursery note was the "template" for the rest of the notes, and that holes were punched prior to the symbol placement for the second note and on. I guess that would explain the lack of bleedthrough for the nursery note only.. that's a great observation. How many note pages do you think he planned to punch at the outset following the nursery note?
Michael, I'm not saying Hauptmann had no one else working for him but he seems to be clearly in charge here. His identity is all over the ransom notes in handwriting, use of both German and English languages, distinct misspellings and I don't believe he is outrightly deceiving Lindbergh at the request of someone telling him what to write. His handiwork is all over the kidnap ladder and he was clearly in charge of a large portion of the ransom money, albeit the gold note portion left that was much more difficult to dispose of when he was caught.
He was the consummate risk taker and got burned because he thought he could pass the notes without repercussion after the press heat about ransom bill discoveries dwindled. He had clearly become desperate when he pulled into the Warner-Quinlan station, but maintaining the cool and calm outward appearance to Walter Lyle that he tried to demonstrate at all times at the trial. It's a bit ironic that even Lyle wasn't thinking about the Lindbergh bills, instead thinking Hauptmann's gold note might have been counterfeit. The rules of the game changed significantly from the time the binoculars were purchased and he starting losing money hand over fist in the stock market while enjoying his windfall and not lifting a finger to earn any income.
As for the C. Tihy connection, do you think he had to be an expert on the Civil War to have come up with the name used on the binoculars receipt? And after all, we are talking about one initial and a four letter surname, which is a bit light in the world of statistical probability. Is this really conclusive enough to turn down that road without further questioning the source? For example, could he have ever come across anyone by that name in Europe or America during his travels? I think this is the danger that often presents itself based on some of the assertions and leading comments found in Gardner's book. I think it's great he has uncovered some of these facts but I'm reluctant to connect them conclusively towards any accomplice pattern here.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 8, 2010 10:26:37 GMT -5
That's part of the beauty of it, each punched note serves as the template for the next. It's simple, efficient, and absolutely minimizes the risk of being caught with evidence. It also might explain the punching pattern of the notes and the slight change in the spacing between the center hole and the outside ones. Besides, it's also a helluva lot more convenient that lugging around a table and dismantling it each time you need a note!
PS, I would have to say that I agree with the bulk of what you are saying about the authorship. I not only see any real evidence of anyone but Hauptmann, I don't see any good reason for any. Now if there were something a bit more substantial, I would certainly be open.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 9, 2010 16:36:20 GMT -5
I think if he was a "risk taker" then we'd have to define what "risk" is then stick with that definition throughout. I don't think that can be done unless one is willing to accept the "risks" were absorbed by Hauptmann - while the planning or attempts to conceal which reveal efforts to minimize risk are attributed to someone else.
I've seen it mentioned that "J. J. Faulkner" was simply a made up name, therefore, it was a coincidence that Schindler's car found its way where it did.
That's hard for me to swallow. Next, when you have evidence that includes a name like "C. Tihy" and when you run it, as Lloyd was the first to do (see: Gardner - The Case That Never Dies) and it comes back to a local Civil War Hero (in the Bronx) then I'd say it proves these names are coming from someone who knows about them. And they are then using these names to misdirect Police OR names they are familiar with - therefore using them off the top of their heads to substitute for themselves when the need for their name is presented to them.
The statistical probability of Hauptmann inventing or coming across a "C. Tihy" in Europe seems to hold astronomical odds if you ask me. It's the ONLY place I have ever been able to find it....other then that receipt. When you then factor in the "J. J. Faulkner" as well as other things, the totality of the evidence (or sum of the parts) starts to point to a whole.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 10, 2010 17:14:16 GMT -5
Ok, Waterman 2oz ink bottle with a metal cap is not the right diameter. I'm still waiting for a couple more bottles.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on May 11, 2010 8:52:14 GMT -5
I think in Hauptmann's case, he had a kind of floating scale when it came to risk and which required him to do whatever it took to achieve his personal objectives. Maybe a better definition would be the consummate, mutable risk taker. And in his position, could it really be anything else? If he had employed the same desperate, high risk measures he took on the night of March 1, 1932 from that point on, he undoubtedly would have been caught much sooner. At the end, and in the financial position he was in, he was clearly desperate enough to employ a higher degree of risk again.
JJ Faulkner being a made up name is a stretch, considering a valid address was attached at the time the name was given. But we can't preclude Hauptmann here or anyone who might have purchased some of the Lindbergh ransom money on the street because the passer of the money didn't have to sign his / her name. At the same time, I don't think we can disount the possibility of involvement of Isidor Fisch, Hauptmann's close business partner during the time the ransom money was being passed. The Schindler car (and the Baker Investigation) are interesting and there may be more to it it's proximity to 537 W. 149th St. beyond a stolen car simply being dumped. Those Baker card games in the basement where the dumbwaiters were in view have always intrigued me and might have set the stage for the Faulkner name and address to be used at a later date.
If the name on the binoculars receipt was actually given in reference to the C. Tihy in question then I would ask the question, how well known would a Civil War hero be as opposed to someone who fought in the Civil War? Does it take an expert or one well versed in the Civil War to come up with a single name, when there is a higher probablility that name would be found somewhere prominent for anyone to see? Do you have any thoughts as to who might have given the name to the store clerk?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on May 11, 2010 9:09:10 GMT -5
Kevin, have you observed a progressive change in the spacing between holes? If the change in hole distances is random, perhaps this can be explained by the use of a pencil within the template hole to mark the page underneath and that it was not centred perfectly each time.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 11, 2010 12:09:43 GMT -5
Joe, the change isn't progressive from what I can see. It occurs at Note #8 and is consistent for the rest onward. From the measurements and the hole shapes it seems to me that Note #1 was made alone. Then Notes #2, 4, 6,& 7 were punched at the same time. Notes 8 and 10 seem punched at once, Notes 11 & 12 punched together, and then Notes 14 and 15 were punched together.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 12, 2010 6:08:29 GMT -5
I have a hard time with Hauptmann being risky at some ends, not so risky in others, and then totality prepared & safeguarded by taking all the necessary precautions in yet different places - all at random times. But that's just me. If you or anyone else is comfortable with these types of random and/or changing behaviors then I can understand your position. However, I am not. For me, if someone does something extremely risky, then gets rewarded for it - they are encouraged by that behavior... There's no "circuit breaker" for less risky behavior when you pulled off the Coup d'état for your very first act.
As far as the C. Tihy name.... I see a pattern. When it exists we have to find a viable explanation for it. Whether this man was a hero or not, for me, doesn't matter. It's a name that someone, I would expect, who knew of him or about him, or at the very least - went armed with this very real name to be used as an alias. I would expect it was someone from the Bronx but I am not saying they had to be. All I can say is that it is impossible Hauptmann invented this name. How would he come into contact with it? Answer that question and I think you have your answer.
I would say your line of thinking, as it applies to Faulkner, applies here too.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 12, 2010 9:47:34 GMT -5
I don't see the relevance.
FOURTEENTH NEW YORK CAVALRY.
TIHY, COLOMON.—Age, 22 years. Enlisted, September 9, 1864, at Albany; mustered in as private, Co. C, September 9, 1864, to serve one year; mustered out, June 2, 1865, at New Orleans, L a ; also borne as Coleman, Freeley.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 13, 2010 5:44:55 GMT -5
Civil War Vet - from the Bronx.
This is supposed to be "risky" Hauptmann coming up with this name. I don't buy it. If he's researching names in order to misdirect Police, for whatever reason, then how does this compare?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 13, 2010 9:19:21 GMT -5
So you are assuming that someone actually went to buy a pair of binoculars and knew they would need an alias for this purchase? And assuming that, they decided to use the name of an Civil War vet? And because of that, it precludes Hauptmann and suggests that the purchaser was a Civil War buff?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 13, 2010 17:29:36 GMT -5
Here's how I see it...
It tells me that someone other then Hauptmann was involved either directly or indirectly. Hauptmann wouldn't know this information, and if he did, couldn't possibly have come up with it himself.
The same goes for the J.J. Faulkner name and address. If it is him going to the library or somehow researching these names to use as an alias to misdirect the Police, then he is showing a proclivity towards a serious amount of preparation. How then do we explain away those places where he acts recklessly? Without preparation? If its him, why are his actions in one place at variance with his actions under the same conditions elsewhere? And why use someone from the Bronx anyway?
Do you see where I am going with this? There is much more then Hauptmann inventing random names going on here.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 15, 2010 7:34:47 GMT -5
While searching for what I promised to report back to you earlier in the thread, I found this interesting tidbit - I quote Breckenridge here: Well it may interest you Mr. District Attorney to the sequence of this thing, they seemed to go by threes, the first things was received on the first of March then there was another one the 4th of March, another the 7th of March. (omit) 7th, see they run in threes, the first the fourth and the 7th and the 10th. I insert this to see if anyone finds it to connect up with construction of the holes, or if it has anything to do with the number 3, or if it just coincidental...
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 9, 2010 17:49:09 GMT -5
Joe: Do you really think Hauptmann was that smart? Seems to me just this side of dim. Anyone could come up with some jive like that (three circles, etc.) and they did use holes for notes in the German Army WWI, though I'm not sure he was really in long enough to learn that. So I could come up with some stupid signal and people would analyze it for sixty years? Some guy said long ago that it was the bottom of ink bottles - why is Michael now chasing bottles - can't something be settled? Or does Michael want to keep this thing alive forever? Hey write the book Michael - then we'll know what you're all about. Nothin' personal man - you understand I hope. Iz likinda a business decision I (we all) gotta make. I like you and Kevkon and Rick, but I gotta question stuff - seems I been questioning you too much lately and I'm sure that doesn't bother you. When it comes down to the rule who gives a F about Lindbergh, C or Jr. anyway?
|
|