Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,651
|
Post by Joe on Jan 1, 2016 9:59:32 GMT -5
QDE's are extremely anal and so it helps to start there. Not a criticism by any means as it's needed. Ask a few of your friends with such credentials if they believe Hauptmann did or did not write the entire series of ransom notes. Pelletreau had absolutely no credentials as a handwriting expert and many of Nosovitsky's known handwriting exemplars look nothing like the handwriting found in the ransom notes. It's been a while since I read Behn and while it's an engaging and informative book in many areas, specifically around things like the relationship between Nosovitsky and J. Edgar Hoover, he was primarily a screenwriter and theatrical producer. Harry Green's story that one of the Morrow chauffeurs told him Elisabeth Morrow had tossed Charlie out the window in a fit of rage, is one of the underpinnings of his book, the other of course being Nosovitsky, the extortionist who coincidentally adopts the exact symbol for the remainder of the ransom notes after the nursery note. It's a well-written book of course because of Behn's other forte as a fiction novelist, and he knows how to paint a compelling picture. The theory falls to pieces in too many ways for it to be taken seriously, and I place it alongside Bahm's 'Beneath the Winter Sycamores,' Zorn's 'Cemetery John' and Vitray's 'The Great Lindbergh Hulabaloo.'
Hauptmann's handwriting connects him from the nursery note all the way through to the Boad Nelly note. He began the nursery note writing in an alternate fashion, possibly with his left hand or as I believe, by holding the pen higher up on the barrel which provided a more erratic and less controlled form. The ransom note symbol with it's unique characteristics, also connects Hauptmann from the nursery note to the final one before the Boad Nelly note. The limited sample of handwriting in his closet, which he admitted was his, and which he then retracted in court, is also very similar to the handwriting in the ransom notes. I still shake my head at Hauptmann's original explanation of the closet writing, "I was a little bit interest, and keep a little record of it, and maybe I was just in the closet and was reading the paper and put down the address." What does this tell you about someone who even under the duress he obviously was in, had the uncanny ability to look someone of authority directly in the eye and instantly fashion the most imaginative of excuses to fortress his original admission of complicity? And why then, if he was only guilty of extortion, would he not admit to just that and by doing so, save his own life?
If they have been used extensively before being ground and sharpened, they do have a unique signature. There is no evidence to suggest Hauptmann even used that hand plane from April 2, 1932 until the day Koehler got a hold of it. Even if Hauptmann did occasionally use that plane, it wouldn't really have helped him unless he had ground and sharpened it before he was arrested. Look at the comparison of the two planer rubbings on paper and tell me they are not essentially the same pattern. Ask yourself what are the odds of any plane found in the entire Bronx to have those exact markings compared to those found on the ladder rail. Is this just another stroke of bad luck for the unluckiest carpenter of all time?
For Jack: Wow, OJ as innocent? Just remember this is New Years and not April Fools..
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 1, 2016 16:40:44 GMT -5
Hauptmann was not just involved "after the fact" as you suggest. While I don't place much faith in the testimony of Whited, Hochmuth and Rossiter, Wilentz was still able to demonstrate evidence circumstantially and beyond a reasonable doubt that placed Hauptmann in the baby's nursery on the night of March 2, 1932. There was no need for Wilentz to have someone testify they physically saw him climb in and out of the window. Hauptmann's handwriting connects him to the ransom note found in the nursery and further to each and every one of the remaining ransom notes. Rail 16 of the kidnap ladder was shown to have been made from a length of wood which originated in Hauptmann's attic, the profile of his personal hand plane is reproduced with barcode-like accuracy on at least one of the ladder rails. Condon's phone number, before he unlisted it, and his address is found on the inside of the door jamb in Hauptmann's apartment. He is caught with almost 15K in ransom money in his garage. It was proven that he had no sustainable means of income from April 2, 1932, the day he essentially quit his carpentry day job for the stock market, an enterprise in which he actually lost money, all the while living a relatively lavish lifestyle until he was arrested two and a half years later. How does someone find himself within an arena of circumstantial evidence so damning and not inculpate himself as a key participant in this crime from start to finish? Although I don't carry any credentials as a forensic document examiner, I know some basic principles of handwriting comparisons through friends who have such credentials. First, it appears that the first ransom note is written by a different person than all the subsequent notes. There were a number of independent handwriting experts back at the time of the Hauptmann trial who differed sharply from the Osborns and other prosecution witnesses and who concluded that Hauptmann did NOT write any of the notes. It's helpful to remember Osborn didn't believe Hauptmann wrote the notes UNTIL he heard the other evidence against him, at which point he said Hauptmann was the author.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,651
|
Post by Joe on Jan 1, 2016 18:22:13 GMT -5
Or depending on what you read, not until the money in Hauptmann's garage was found or his father concluded that Hauptmann had written all of the notes. It's also important to recognize that Albert D. Osborn was essentially erring on the side of caution having been struck by what he considered both similarities and dissimilarities. He was certainly not eliminating Hauptmann as quickly as he no doubt did with other suspects many times before him. After the fact, I'm sure ADO probably wished he just had had a good night's sleep and thought about it in the morning, instead of jumping on it in the middle of the night as he did. Regardless, it still doesn't help Hauptmann's cause. If you get a chance to look at the mini-autobiography he wrote for his lawyer James Fawcett at a time when he I believe he was considering an insanity plea for his client, it doesn't take a handwriting expert to see the numerous similarities between the ransom note and this example of Hauptmann's conceded writing.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 1, 2016 19:10:31 GMT -5
True enough, or depending on what you read, not until the money in Hauptmann's garage was found or his father concluded that Hauptmann had written all of the notes. It's also important to recognize that Albert D. Osborn was essentially erring on the side of caution having been struck by what he considered both similarities and dissimilarities. He was certainly not eliminating Hauptmann as quickly as he no doubt did with other suspects many times before him. After the fact, I'm sure ADO probably wished he just had had a good night's sleep and thought about it in the morning, instead of jumping on it in the middle of the night as he did. According to Sisk Schwarzkopf said after hanging up the phone with Osborn D.: " It doesn't look so good." Sisk continued: " He says that when he first looked at the specimens he thought they were the same, and that there were some striking similarities, but after examining them for a while he found a lot of dissimilarities, which outweighed the similarities, and is convinced he did not write the ransom notes." Once reading this account, it seems a little stronger then simply erring on the side of caution.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,651
|
Post by Joe on Jan 1, 2016 20:46:33 GMT -5
It's important to remember investigators were looking for a definitive answer and they were pushing him, just as they were buttonholing Condon when it came to identifying Hauptmann. I don't discount the possibility ADO didn't want to commit himself to saying it was a match when he wasn't sure and that he was pressed into saying yes or no. I don't think it could have been an easy decision given the conditions he was put under to do a thorough evaluation. And would a competent QDE really even get to that stage after such a length of time unless there is some pretty serious consideration that it is a match?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 1, 2016 21:35:28 GMT -5
It's important to remember investigators were looking for a definitive answer and they were pushing him, just as they were buttonholing Condon when it came to identifying Hauptmann. I don't discount the possibility ADO didn't want to commit himself to saying it was a match when he wasn't sure and that he was pressed into saying yes or no. I don't think it could have been an easy decision given the conditions he was put under to do a thorough evaluation. And would a competent QDE really even get to that stage after such a length of time unless there is some pretty serious consideration that it is a match? I try not to envision a narrative. I just know what the guy who was there said. The word " convinced" is what erases any conjecture for me.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,651
|
Post by Joe on Jan 2, 2016 9:20:37 GMT -5
It's still a major anomaly and there has to be a good reason for it, in light of the actual evidence and the fact that the vast majority of QDE's over the years to varying degrees, have determined Hauptmann wrote the notes. It takes a very strong likelihood to get to that point and level of consensus.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 2, 2016 10:12:32 GMT -5
It's still a major anomaly and there has to be a good reason for it, in light of the actual evidence and the fact that the vast majority of QDE's over the years to varying degrees, have determined Hauptmann wrote the notes. It takes a very strong likelihood to get to that point and level of consensus. I think you're trying too hard here Joe. Whether or not it's an "anomaly" is in the eye of the beholder and isn't the real issue. You're looking at the back end then trying to explain away the front. The question should be what happened here? Well let's see... Osborn D. didn't believe Hauptmann wrote the note. Once his father Osborn S. began to evaluate, he too did not give a positive opinion prior to the discovery of the ransom money. These are the facts as outlined in the official reports. Does this mean Hauptmann did not write the note? This is the heart of the matter and it's the rallying point where those who believe he did, and those he believe he did not - go to their respective corners. One side points to this as "proof" he did not, and the other starts making excuses as to why it's irrelevant. So what does it all mean? For me, it's not proof of either. It certainly doesn't prove he wrote them while at the same time doesn't prove he did not. Osborn D. himself said he made a mistake. I can't understand why any excuse should be made when the man himself gave this explanation. The Osborns were both highly respected by all Law Enforcement, yet, they all laughed and joked about the ransom discovery being the impetus for the identification. That's the real issue if you ask me: This is a pseudo-science. And it's why there will always be, even today, an Expert on both sides of a case in Court. For example, you won't see two Ballistics Experts in Court where one says a gun fired a bullet and the other saying it did not. It's an example of what a true Science really is as opposed to one that employs educated guess-work. Where you and I agree is that I also believe the Nursery Note and the first couple of lines on the 2nd note were written with the left hand. Here too Osborn disagrees but this time with us. Well he's the Experts so we're obviously wrong - right?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jan 2, 2016 20:04:47 GMT -5
If Pelletreau had "absolutely no credentials as a handwriting expert," then why did Governor Hoffman rely on him for his handwriting investigations relating to "J. J. Faulkner"? Pelletreau reported that the bank deposit slip of May 1933 and the letter to Hoffman of January 1936, both signed by "J. J. Faulkner," were written by the same person. And Nosovitsky was known to use the alias "J. J. Faulkner" (among many others), as Behn discovered in looking at Noso's NYPD file. As far as is known, no other possible suspects in the LKC case ever used that alias.
Nosovitsky was known as a master forger, so one can assume that he could effect many different styles of handwriting, making life very difficult for document examiners. He also was fluent and literate in several languages, including German, which would have enabled him to fool authorities by interjecting German words and syntax in the ransom notes, despite the fact that he was not ethnically German. We know that, for example, that in the 1920s he had worked an investigation in a German language community in upstate New York by going under the distinctly German alias "Augenblick."
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,651
|
Post by Joe on Jan 10, 2016 13:07:50 GMT -5
Perhaps because Hoffman had even less in the way credentials as a handwriting expert, and he was desperate to entertain anyone who might save his political reputation? The handwriting evidence against Hauptmann is as strong today as it was eighty years ago and has never been successfully overturned. Even Hauptmann himself said it was the "worstest thing against me!" How does one say that about the kinds of similarities, language, diction, syntax and so many other subtle traits within something so intimately personal, without essentially indicting themselves?
I will say that Nosovitsky is still a character of interest to me, particularly the Jan. 1, 1936 'confessional letter' and my belief it could have been dictated by him to a female compatriot who wrote this letter. It is within the general language, thought shaping and expressions that seems to mirror a lot of Nosovitsky's earlier correspondence, most notably to his friend at the time, J. Edgar Hoover. But there is no way he wrote any of the ransom notes.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,651
|
Post by Joe on Jan 10, 2016 14:04:24 GMT -5
Not trying too hard here at all, Michael just trying to find answers to what has become a pretty monumental red herring in this case. That's why we discuss these kinds of things here, often pulling them apart to their elements, in order to ascertain the truth. Aside from Gus Lesnevich more recently and Trendley back in the day, (who I believe did as much if not more to show that Hauptmann was the ransom note writer) are there any other qualifed QDE's over the course of eight decades who have not implied Hauptmann wrote each and every one of the ransom notes? A pretty strong indictment I would say. I really don't think you have to look any further than the fact Albert S refused to do the analysis when first called as he was bed-ridden nursing a bad cold. He then suggested they call his son Albert D. Why Albert D then offered his infamous verbal 'curbside' opinion is open to speculation but I believe he was essentially being pressed, and even hounded by investigators to come up with an opinion that circumvented what would normally be his standard due diligence. He simply should not have agreed to give them a curbside opinion in the middle of the night; that is his mistake and the red herring. That fact that both Osborns gave their affirmative and written findings that Hauptmann wrote the notes after the discovery of ransom money in Hauptmann's garage and then attributing this to the belief that they were influenced by that, is simple cause and effect logic and really not much more. How does one event essentially create the other in its entirety, without due consideration of the complete picture? All science can essentially be deemed 'pseudo science' as it depends entirely upon the perception of the observer. At the level of the sub-atomic, you cannot even observe an object without it changing at that level. I think you're attempting use this significant red herring here as a means of buttressing a belief that Osborn D's initial 'curbside' opinion contained far more validity than it was worth. The reference to the investigators yukking it up and 'interpreting' the event as a means of discrediting Questioned Document Examination as a whole, is a bit like piling on something that is based almost entirely upon personal perception. For those interested here is an excellent article written by Clark Sellers QDE, who testified at the Hauptmann trial and who stated that Hauptmann "might as well have signed the notes with his own name." How is this article regarded? It is still used to this day at the FBI Training Facility in Quantico, Virginia during preliminary training of FBI forensic document examiners and has obviously stood the test of time. scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2693&context=jclc
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 10, 2016 15:08:18 GMT -5
Not trying too hard here at all, Michael just trying to find answers to what has become a pretty monumental red herring in this case. That's why we discuss these kinds of things here, often pulling them apart to their elements, in order to ascertain the truth. Aside from Gus Lesnevich more recently and Trendley back in the day, (who I believe did as much if not more to show that Hauptmann was the ransom note writer) are there any other qualifed QDE's over the course of eight decades who have not implied Hauptmann wrote each and every one of the ransom notes? Has not "implied?" What does that mean? That's not how it works. The next is that you ask a question but then answer it yourself. That's not how it works either. Let's look at Dr. Peter Baier's 2005 Report as an example. Firstly, most every Expert who's ever drawn an actual "conclusion" relies heavily upon the "Requests" that Hauptmann made which were done outside of the accepted guidelines. One must ask "why" there is a need to do so. Since you brought up Sellers, he himself noticed these "Requests" showed signs of being tainted but was re-assured by Police they weren't. And so he went ahead and used them in drawing his conclusion. It's the type of thing that History forgets to mention. If circumstances and variables get in the way they are swept under the rug then forgotten. Not anymore, and not in this case if I can help it. How did Dr. Baier feel about the requested writings? In the ransom letters is one mirror-inverted capital "N" (see figure 23) that can be found in the requested material (see figure 24), but as we do not know, how the request of writings was performed (maybe Hauptmann was instructed to write capital "N" in such a manner), it cannot be assessed definitely (p6). One of the only Experts to address this without proceeding on "faith" as it applies to the Police tactics used in 1934. So what were Dr. Baier's conclusions? Conclusion - Looking at all these findings no definite and unambiguous conclusion can be drawn (p7).
Aforementioned material critique demands restrained appraisal of results. (p7)
Hence it can be assumed that Bruno Richard Hauptmann wrote probably the ransom notes (p7). And so, in the end, Dr. Baier says Hauptmann "probably" wrote the notes. Sound damning until one sees his level of criteria. It's a 4, with 1 meaning he wrote it and an 5 meaning it cannot be decided. Here are Dr. Baier's exact levels of criteria: 1. Near Certain probability 2. Very Highly Probable 3. Highly Probable 4. Probable 5. Undecidable (p4) Let's compare Dr. Baier's level of criteria to the SWGDOC guidelines used by many Experts: 1. Identification 2. Highly Probable 3. Probably 4. Indications 5. No Conclusion And so I'd say your "strong indictment" just got much weaker.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2016 10:48:13 GMT -5
That's why we discuss these kinds of things here, often pulling them apart to their elements, in order to ascertain the truth. I hope you guys don't mind me jumping into this exchange. I really like to look closely at all the earliest findings when a case is being investigated. They are usually the first and freshest look at the evidence. First impressions are very important, so I like to start there. Lets take a look at some of those "first impressions" both informal and formal. Schwarzkopf had the ransom notes delivered to the Osborns on May 20, 1932 via FBI agent E.J. Connelley and Trooper Russell Snook. Connelly did stress at the time of delivery that the first question needing an answer was whether the notes were all written by one person. Three days later, May 23rd, l932 Osborn offered his "informal" findings: 1) The notes were all written by the same person. 2) This person was possibly born and educated in Germany. 3) The use of a "double hyphen" which is a German writing characteristic. 4) Believed the notes were the work of someone experienced in this operation. Osborn's formal report was done May 27, 1932. It was 20 pages long. Among those findings we have the following: 1) Affirmation of there being only one writer of all the ransom notes from nursery to Boad Nelly. 2) The first note (nursery) and second note (first mailed note received at Highfields house May 5, 1932) had originally been one piece of paper torn in half and used to write these two notes. 3) The signature was "ingenious" and showed forethought in planning with the intention of being used in future notes. It reflects experience in similar undertakings. 4) All the notes exhibited disguised writing to a certain extent, with the first note (nursery)being the only one where a clear effort was made to conceal the writer's natural handwriting. 5) The appearance of German words or phrases could possibly have been used as part of a disguise but Osborn was inclined to think not. (Osborn would go on to contradict himself later in this report over the disguised writing point he makes,) 6) The writing instrument used in creating the first (nursery) note was different than the one used in the creation of all the other notes. 7) He felt the nursery note was created under difficult writing circumstances, such as being in an automobile or other such circumstances that made it difficult to write the note as opposed to sitting at a desk and writing it. 8) Osborn felt that the writer had planned to kill the child from the beginning. Most interesting is the fact that Schwarzkopf had sought an opinion on the ransom notes before he ever had Osborn look at them. May 7, 1932 Trooper Russell Snook took the ransom notes to Washington D.C. and they were examined by Dr. Wilmer Souder of the Bureau of Standards in Commerce Department. Dr. Souder examined these notes secretly for Schwarzkopf. Souder drew the following conclusions about those notes: 1) The man was a German who was familiar with the Bronx. 2) The man might have lived near the Lindbergh home at some point. 3) He was perhaps a workman skilled in the use of a ladder. 4) He probably had a criminal record. 5) The cramped writing of the notes suggest this man was a former prison inmate accustomed to not having much paper available. 6) Thought the holes in the paper were made by a blunt instrument punched through the paper using something as a gauge, such as a hole in a belt, a shoe or some other ordinary object which would not attract attention. 7) This man had a personal liking for Jafsie and possibly knew him or knew of him by reputation for his honesty and integrity. These findings are all from May of 1932. There was no Richard Hauptmann yet. There were none of his requested writings or conceded writings to compare the notes to, there was no suspect with thousands of dollars of ransom money found in his possession. To Joe and Michael: What I find problematic with these examinations is what seems like a lot of graphology emerging. They read like personality profiles. Where is all the analysis of the structure of the script formation and such you expect from a QDE??? Is there more to these 1932 reports of Osborn and Souder that goes into such details?? For the details used to create this post, they come from Lloyd Gardner's book: The Case that Never Dies, Chapter Six.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 11, 2016 12:18:49 GMT -5
It's interesting, as Amy has correctly pointed out, that some of the conclusions the various handwriting experts (and Schoenfeld) long before Hauptmann was known, pointed right at Richard. Just from the above, "Familiarity with the Bronx, German, criminal record - actually a former prison inmate." Somewhere it was even said at that time the kidnapper was possibly a carpenter as well.
The volume and quality of notes certainly don't indicate a very well prepared kidnapper - "first note possibly written in a car," size of money box, no threats in notes, last note made while Condon waited at cemetery, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 12, 2016 17:40:59 GMT -5
What I find problematic with these examinations is what seems like a lot of graphology emerging. They read like personality profiles. Where is all the analysis of the structure of the script formation and such you expect from a QDE??? Is there more to these 1932 reports of Osborn and Souder that goes into such details?? The first thing to say is these men only had the questioned writing to evaluate and no one to compare it to when these ideas were written. Okay, with that being said, the Snook Report mentions some "unofficial" suggestions made at the time he was there. Souder wrote a letter concerning the "Adamson Case" (code name for LKC) which mentions similar ideas to Schwarzkopf, but this too was not a "handwriting report" and is meant as described in the letter (see below). Next, Osborn's Report was 24 pages long that attempts to address (11) questions (see below). There is material from these men which I believe you are expecting to see but in other sources.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2016 17:44:11 GMT -5
Thanks, Michael for posting both those documents. I understand now the limitations on these men and what they could discover with only the questioned writing to look at. I was just surprised about not seeing things about the letter "x" and the letter "k" and other characteristics that might have been considered unusual. I appreciate your help!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 13, 2016 19:26:44 GMT -5
So then, according to Michael and Trojanusc, Lindbergh had nothing to worry about because a kidnapper could never find his house! It's my position that any person who did not plan for this event would have had an extremely difficult time finding the home. They needed help, and they needed to plan for it. There was no guess-work or they would have failed at every leg of the event. given the fact of the last minute decision to spend the night there, the kidnappers would have to have been either local (easy to keep the house under constant surveillance) and/or be in cahoots with someone on the inside (Better, Violet etc.) There's three points that give the appearance of guilt as it concerns Violet: She took the call which led to the information that the family was staying over on March 1st, and she became really upset upon learning the child was found dead then eventually killed herself. Myself, I am not inclined to Violet being the inside help. Violet, to my knowledge, had never been to Highfields until March 10, 1932, when she was taken there for questioning. She would not have been able to assist with directions for getting to the house. She would not have been familiar with the layout of the grounds or interior of the house to know what windows were the nursery room windows. This kidnapping needed the help of insider knowledge for it to happen....much more knowledge than Violet had. This certainly makes sense unless she's one person in an event that involved more then one. I've also considered she may not have been a part of it but knew something, or believed she knew something... Like, hypothetically, someone in the Morrow home says: "hey if you get a call that the family intends to stay over let me know," and then she does only later putting 2 and 2 together realizing she actually was the finger man. (This would be along the lines of how Perrone was used - he was involved without knowing he was involved until after the fact). And of course it could have been for a completely different reason that she killed herself too. When I see people try to explain her suicide "matter of factly" I know they are fooling themselves. One of the biggest problems with a large conspiracy is that, the more involved - the bigger the potential for it to blow up in their faces. So it's a natural thing to resist something like this being "large scale." Thanks, Michael for posting both those documents. I understand now the limitations on these men and what they could discover with only the questioned writing to look at. I was just surprised about not seeing things about the letter "x" and the letter "k" and other characteristics that might have been considered unusual. I appreciate your help! These things did exist Amy. This was an attachment to the Report: If you noticed in the first page of the letter I posted Souder says the writer was either German, Austrian, or Italian. He bases this on the letter formations. If you look at his chart above you can see where he attributes the "k" to an Austrian and the double-hyphen to either an Austrian or German. This, I assume, comes from his experience in examining the handwriting over the years from these sources.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2016 10:50:12 GMT -5
Myself, I am not inclined to Violet being the inside help. Violet, to my knowledge, had never been to Highfields until March 10, 1932, when she was taken there for questioning. She would not have been able to assist with directions for getting to the house. She would not have been familiar with the layout of the grounds or interior of the house to know what windows were the nursery room windows. This kidnapping needed the help of insider knowledge for it to happen....much more knowledge than Violet had. This certainly makes sense unless she's one person in an event that involved more then one. I've also considered she may not have been a part of it but knew something, or believed she knew something... Like, hypothetically, someone in the Morrow home says: "hey if you get a call that the family intends to stay over let me know," and then she does only later putting 2 and 2 together realizing she actually was the finger man. (This would be along the lines of how Perrone was used - he was involved without knowing he was involved until after the fact). And of course it could have been for a completely different reason that she killed herself too. When I see people try to explain her suicide "matter of factly" I know they are fooling themselves. One of the biggest problems with a large conspiracy is that, the more involved - the bigger the potential for it to blow up in their faces. So it's a natural thing to resist something like this being "large scale." I understand what you are getting at; Violet was used unknowingly as the source for passing knowledge about Charlie's whereabouts on Tuesday. I do think Perrone was used in such a way also. Hypothetically, if Violet was asked by one of the servants to let them know if the family intends to stay over at the Hopewell house, I could see her reacting the way you suggest. She would have been very upset upon realizing she might have been the source for the info. Charlie should have returned to Englewood on the customary day of Monday but he stayed in Hopewell Monday night. Why not pass that along to this curious person who wants to keep tabs on Charlie? I believe there had been a call to the Englewood home on Monday that Charlie would be staying in Hopewell that night because of his cold. Lindbergh stayed at Englewood Monday night so if these kidnappers were looking for CAL not to be present during the snatch, Monday would have been a good night to take Charlie from the Hopewell house yet they don't. I guess I just have trouble seeing an inside Morrow servant needing Violet to alert them that the Lindberghs are staying in Hopewell. Violet knew about the stay over for Tuesday night but so did Banks, Ellerson, Marguerite Jung and probably others. There is the possibility that someone other than Violet could have passed on that information. I do take Violet's death seriously. So much so that I am not really sure it was a suicide. Maybe Violet could have been putting 2 and 2 together but not because she had been the finger man. Other things she might have known took on a whole new meaning once Charlie ends up dead. Violet and her fragile state of mind become a liability to someone who is involved in what really happened to Charlie and needs to make sure Violet doesn't break under more questioning. If Violet's intent was to die by her own hand, it seems to me that after she drank that poison she would have just stayed in her room and died. But she doesn't. She leaves her room looking to make contact with others. Looking for help perhaps?? I agree. The more people involved, the harder it is to keep control of a conspiracy. I know it can be done IF the people who are in the know are the kind of people who don't talk and/or would never want the truth to be known. Then it would work.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2016 11:20:49 GMT -5
These things did exist Amy. If you noticed in the first page of the letter I posted Souder says the writer was either German, Austrian, or Italian. He bases this on the letter formations. If you look at his chart above you can see where he attributes the "k" to an Austrian and the double-hyphen to either an Austrian or German. This, I assume, comes from his experience in examining the handwriting over the years from these sources. That's exactly what I was looking for!!! Notes on the handwriting characteristics. This would have aided the police when looking over the handwriting of any suspects they came in contact with and thought their handwriting might have been suspect. They needed to know what to be alert to. Looking that page over, I notice that Austrian and Italian come up several times. The letter "D" and the letter "S", Souder identifies as being Italian. The letter "k" and the letter "q" he labels Austrian. The use of a double hyphen as either Austrian or German. Souder doesn't say anything about the "x" though. Perhaps then it is not suggestive of a particular writing style but is more of an individual's modification to writing that letter. I find that one person's handwriting suggesting numerous writing styles could be indicative of disguised writing by someone who perhaps writes in more than one language. That makes the writing of the notes sound too sophisticated for someone like Hauptmann to be capable of doing. I want to review Souder's trial testimony and see what he says before I do any other speculating. Thanks so much Michael for posting this page!!
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Jan 14, 2016 11:40:32 GMT -5
Amy I like that you are thinking beyond the trend. Yes it probably was suicide but Violet was out of control and there would be no certainty what she might say. For her to be eliminated could be security for anyone hiding in the shadows.
There was an opinion Sharp gave information to publications for money. I often considered someone posing as a writer to Violet.
Discussion implies the night of the kidnapping was the perfect night because of where Anne and the baby were but not to forget Lindberg's dinner engagement. Who would keep track of the newspapers acutely enough` to see Lindberg was to be at the dinner meeting and then have information the baby and Anne were in Hopewell. Its definitely an inside job. Its only the degree of it to me anyway thats in question.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2016 12:15:19 GMT -5
Hi Gary,
I have read about Violet having an association with a newspaper person that was paying her for information. I know that you have done a lot of research on Violet Sharp. Are you aware of any information that came out in the newspapers that was directly connected with Violet leaking it?
I like your idea that someone might have posed as a writer and Violet told them about Charlie being in Hopewell. If Violet was passing info for money, wouldn't she have only passed it to reporters who she knew and who she would expect compensation from? Why would she suddenly tell someone she didn't know?
You know, I believe that Violet's sister Edna was staying at the Morrow home in March. No doubt Edna would have learned that Charlie was in Hopewell. Is it possible that Edna might have passed on information to someone?
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Jan 14, 2016 17:41:51 GMT -5
I have a copy of the interview with Schwarzkopf as you might also. According to the interview Edna lived on 54th street from January on. She visited Violet at least once a week. So I don't know of any stay in the Morrow home in march.
Violet dated Mckelvie from the daily news. Maybe they weren't dates but interviews. I'm just saying if she felt ok with this what else could she share with anyone that may cross her path.
According to the interview, Violet called Edna wednesday night at around 7 PM and this was the first she heard of the kidnapping.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2016 20:27:38 GMT -5
I have a copy of the interview with Schwarzkopf as you might also. According to the interview Edna lived on 54th street from January on. She visited Violet at least once a week. So I don't know of any stay in the Morrow home in march. Violet dated Mckelvie from the daily news. Maybe they weren't dates but interviews. I'm just saying if she felt ok with this what else could she share with anyone that may cross her path. According to the interview, Violet called Edna wednesday night at around 7 PM and this was the first she heard of the kidnapping. Yes, Gary, I have the report. I am just not sure that she was still living at 54th Street in March like she said she was. The reason is because the FBI Summary report states that Edna resided with Violet at the Morrow residence for several weeks prior to leaving for England on April 6, 1932. The report states that Edna was not employed at the Morrow home during this stay and that the actual dates of her residence in Englewood were being ascertained. I am not aware if this was followed up on by the FBI. Are you aware of any report that confirms when Edna took up residence with Violet at the Morrow home?
|
|