|
Post by bookrefuge on Nov 30, 2011 7:52:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by zerohunter on Nov 30, 2011 12:47:48 GMT -5
BR, those are some horrific images! The one thing I just cannot get past is BRH spending that money at the gas station. I assert that if he had even one little inkling of its true source, there’s just no way he would have done that. There’s just no way… In the second image the caption reads: …felt the paternal pride that Lindy knew. I’m not so sure that Lindy felt any real paternal pride for three reasons. 1.) We are not even sure his child is really a boy. We are led to believe that it is. Autopsy reports on the body found state that child’s sex is indeterminable. Not sure if this would even be significant if the child had actually been a Charlene… 2.) A congenitally imperfect child, supported by pictures/videos in addition to the statement in the autopsy; cranium apparently greater in circumference than would be found in a child this age. Also in the book Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead, on the page preceding page 197, Charles Jr. is shown “standing” on a bench with three dogs. The center of mass of the child is incorrect for him to be standing supported only by his legs. It looks a lot more like he has been strapped to some support which is covered by his shirt and clearly his legs are dangling and his feet are floating a half inch above the bench. Nice try though… 3.) I believe that Charles Jr. was NOT Anne’s child but actually Elisabeth Reeve Morrow Morgan, Anne’s sister’s. If that is the case, it would explain her “jealousy” or whatever that was regarding the child. It would also explain why Ann is traipsing around the world in the first few months after the child is borne. Some of the pictures in the afore mentioned book also don’t “feel” like Mom with her child… Elisabeth apparently had a faulty heart valve, which I believe led to her untimely death, at the age of only 30 (haven’t been able to find the exact cause yet). Is it possible that she actually died of a “Broken Heart”? www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=6779446
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Nov 30, 2011 21:19:37 GMT -5
Hi, Zerohunter. Thanks for the post. I agree that if Hauptmann was in conscious possession of ransom notes, he would not have freely spent them in or near his own neighborhood, where he was known, and with the serial numbers having been widely published.
Regarding the Lindberghs:
Although the sex organs (and a number of other organs) were missing from the corpse, I think it would be extremely difficult to disguise the sex of a child for 20 months—you’d need the cooperation of the pediatrician, nursemaids…and little Charles certainly looks like a boy in all his photos, nor can I think of any solid reason why the Lindberghs would want to maintain the difficult charade of falsifying his gender. They later had five other children, including a girl. As far as Elisabeth being the real mother—this means Elisabeth had to conceal a pregnancy while Anne faked one. Neither of those tasks would be easy for a woman to undertake for several months. And surely the obstetrician and nurses at childbirth, as well as in-laws and close friends, would have known which sister was giving birth.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 1, 2011 7:19:37 GMT -5
Good brain-storming here.
Wendel claimed he "emasculated" the child with acid. (What followed this claim was the one and only time he was ever struck.) Regardless of what Wendel claimed at whatever time, those identifying organs were gone. Mitchell would later claim during the Parker Trial that the width of the pelvis and other indicators lead him to believe the body was that of a Male child.
While there is evidence that child had an illness, whatever it was, there is nothing to suggest he was female. I think if the question becomes whether or not the corpse was female then you have to consider it wasn't him. Issues like this is what gave rise to all of those who think they are Him...like Bob Aldinger. They believe there was a "switch" and the corpse found was a body double.
You may or may not know this but one of the many rumors was just this. However, during Governor Hoffman's re-investigation it came back that various people saw Anne when she was obviously pregnant.
I don't think so. She was married twice since the supposed jilt, and many rumors swirled about her being a "dope fiend" during the investigation. They did a good job hiding her sickness from the public, so its my guess she was on which could give rise to this type of rumor.
|
|
|
Post by zerohunter on Dec 1, 2011 11:29:45 GMT -5
I agree that there doesn’t appear to be any rational motive for falsifying the child’s sex. I point this out merely to show that what we take for granted as being true could easily be the exact opposite or something else… You may or may not know this but one of the many rumors was just this. However, during Governor Hoffman's re-investigation it came back that various people saw Anne when she was obviously pregnant. Ok. But more significant would be people reporting to have seen Elizabeth and that she was obviously NOT pregnant, for one is easy to fake the other near impossible… I don't think so. She was married twice since the supposed jilt, and many rumors swirled about her being a "dope fiend" during the investigation. They did a good job hiding her sickness from the public, so its my guess she was on which could give rise to this type of rumor. Still not sure what exactly caused her untimely passing and am surmising that it was likely somehow related to her faulty heart valve: books.google.com/books?id=poLeUxos5W4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Anne+Morrow+Lindbergh:+Her+Life&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=falsePage 219 little more than half way down, last sentence of last complete paragraph Possibly it was just , but if it had been HER baby wouldn’t she be absolutely flipping out, especially if she suspected that Chaz ‘n Ann mit’a been up to no good? Heck, she might even blow the lid off the deal because its HER baby, causing enormous embarrassment and disgrace to the whole family. So it would make sense to have the good ol’ family doc pump her full of for her "condition", which is actually “good drugs”, to act as a major chill pill during the investigation… On the other hand, maybe she engineered the whole caper (even if it wasn’t her baby) and had the doc shoot her full of good drugs so that she would be in lala land during any questioning, resulting in them giving up? Being new to this, I’m looking at all the people and events as motive being the ultimate driving force behind all actions. I take nothing for granted and spin the wheels of motive until they line up with the actions we are aware of and everything begins to make sense. All I can say is that maybe Detective Lewis Bormann should have checked the attic boards in Highfields…
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 1, 2011 19:31:00 GMT -5
Garsson did check the furnace!
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Dec 24, 2011 15:05:15 GMT -5
Regarding Hauptmann’s demeanor, I just noticed an interesting remark he made to attorney Lloyd Fisher (Gardner, p. 361):
Hauptmann probably could have managed his demeanor better in the courtroom. But I understand his dilemma.
--News reporters were watching his reactions like hawks. If he showed fear or went pale, they were quick to report it.
--On the other hand, you might recall that Wilentz had an issue with Hauptmann “smiling” and attacked him over the laughter generated when he looked at the ladder and said “I am a carpenter.” Later Wilentz told the jury: “Look at him as he walks out into this room, panther-like, gloating, feeling good.”
In other words, fear or tears would be signs of guilt--but smiling was a sign of smug superiority, of callous indifference to the seriousness of the crime, the bearing of an “egomaniac” as Wilentz put it.
This sort of backed Hauptmann into a corner where it probably seemed safest to show no emotion at all. But in that case it was reported he was cold and unemotional, incapable of human feeling—surely symptoms of a psychopathic killer.
I think this was a “Have you stopped beating your wife?” type of trap that Hauptmann was in—sad, smiling, or no emotion, they would all be used against him.
In his book, Gardner has a picture of Hauptmann beaming with a group of friends and writes: “This picture contrasts with descriptions of Hauptmann as stolid and unemotional.” This is also why I linked to the Corbis photos at the top of this thread—to put some balance against the stereotyping.
Hm—I was going to end the post there, but it just occurred to me—why didn’t Wilentz include that question? OK, if Jim Fisher can rewrite the trial transcript, so can I. Here we go:
MR. WILENTZ: Have you stopped beating your wife? HAUPTMANN: Uh… MR. FISHER: I object! The prosecution has asked the defendant a question that’s impossible to answer. MR. WILENTZ: Your honor, please! The state is merely trying to establish, in good faith, whether or not the defendant has the capacity for violence. Yet the counsel for the defense would have us believe this is irrelevant to the worst crime of the century? JUDGE TRENCHARD: Objection overruled. Mr. Fisher, I will not tolerate another outburst like that. The witness will answer the question. MR. WILENTZ: Have you stopped beating your wife? HAUPTMANN: Uh… MR. WILENTZ: Don’t evade the question, Public Enemy Number One of this World! Just a simple “Yes” or “No” please!HAUPTMANN: Uh… MR. WILENTZ: Your honor, since the defendant-- an animal lower than the lowest form in the animal kingdom-- refuses to answer the question, the state will now produce a witness who will confirm absolutely that the defendant beats his wife. BAILIFF: Amandus Hochmuth, take the stand!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 24, 2011 19:27:48 GMT -5
What Hauptmann said was absolutely true. However, it has nothing to do with whether or not he's involved. It's simply an indicator of the amount of bias he faced. It's easy to look at this then use it to support his "innocence" (not saying that's what you are doing). But if one takes a step back then looks at the situation - it cannot be applied in this way. It doesn't actually mean anything either way.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Dec 26, 2011 8:41:30 GMT -5
Right—I didn’t mean that the issue of Hauptmann’s demeanor implied his innocence; only that there were those who wrongfully suggested it implied guilt. And in doing so, they used a “heads we win, tails you lose” approach that gave Hauptmann few options.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 26, 2011 8:57:50 GMT -5
Absolutely.
That was the idea behind what they did - to win at all costs. But again, and I am not defending what they did... it was because they, beyond all doubt, believed he was completely involved. So its not only important to know what they did - but why they did it.
I also want to quickly share something. As I said I am updating my 8 pages of footnotes for my (unedited) 1st Chapter. In doing so, I have to re-read it then search for the document to properly do so... I just got done reading a source and see that I missed something extremely important so I am now going to have to add that to the chapter. How did I miss it? I have no idea. None. But this happens more then I think most people realize. So even with the document in hand things do slip by un-noticed.
No amount of research is too much.
|
|