|
Post by johndoe on Apr 1, 2012 11:30:54 GMT -5
I'm coming round to the idea that rail 16 and S-226 are from the same board.
I'm still considering the possibility that there is a Police trick involving the whole board due to their behaviour throughout and the fact they were fixing other things in this case.
But let's consider the possibility that Hauptmann did make the ladder.
Could he have made it for someone else without knowing its purpose?
Could he then have lied about making it the same way he lied about the gun and the money hidden in the garage because he was protecting himself against lesser charges chancing they might not find them? ie. possession of an illegal firearm and possession of gold certificates above a certain value.
Did he think, "OK I made the ladder but they'll never connect me to - but if I admit it I'm in bad trouble, they'll never believe I had nothing to do with it"?
There are lots of things about this whole case that strongly suggest he had nothing to do with the kidnapping and death of the child.
I believe he was at work 1st March, I believe he picked up Anna in the evening, I believe they were not his footprints at the house or the cemetary, I believe he was not Cemetary John, I don't see how he could know the Lindberghs would be there on that tuesday - and many other things.
So did he make the ladder for Isodor Fisch (obvious choice) or someone else?
|
|
|
Post by rmc1971 on Apr 1, 2012 20:11:09 GMT -5
He still couldn't explain away the money in his garage. My opinion is he was definitely involved but had some level of help along the way.
My hangup on how much help he had (and his overall role)depends a lot on the identity of Cemetery John. If we take at face value Condon's story about Cemetery John, then I have a harder time wrapping my head around the fact that Hauptmann was Cemetery John.
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Apr 2, 2012 0:57:18 GMT -5
As far as hiding the money in the garage goes I think there was possibly two things going on there.
1) That amount of gold certificates was illegal. 2) Although he thought he was owed the money morally, he felt guilty because it wasn't really his.
And perhaps knowing Fisch he thought that it wasn't honest money either.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Apr 2, 2012 9:13:34 GMT -5
Hello, johndoe, this idea had occurred to me also. Was it possible that someone like Fisch asked Hauptmann to build a ladder for some special purpose, and Hauptmann never realized it was intended for the Lindbergh kidnapping? Law enforcement officials estimated the ladder was designed to hold a weight not greater than 125 to 150 pounds (Gardner, p. 113). Since Hauptmann weighed 180, it pretty obviously wasn’t meant for him, but the weight capacity was well-suited to someone Fisch’s size.
However, I also realized there is a problem with this theory. Hauptmann had already implicated Fisch by telling the police and prosecutors that he was the source of the ransom money. So it seems to me that if Hauptmann had quite innocently built that ladder—well, why not tell that to the police? In other words, Hauptmann could have said—“Look, don’t you see that Fisch is your man? He left me with the money, and before that he conned me into building this ladder for him.”
I suppose it could be argued that BRH thought it would be safer just to deny the ladder altogether. But if he really built it for Fisch, without criminal intent on his own part, it seems to me it would have been wiser to go ahead and admit that. This would have defused the prosecution’s ladder argument and laid the whole crime on Fisch. And in fact, Reilly’s defense team was trying to build a case for the crime being a conspiracy involving Fisch, so this would have fit right in with that strategy.
Yet Hauptmann consistently denied building the ladder.
Also, if Hauptmann thought he was building the ladder for Fisch for an “innocent purpose,” he probably would have built it out in the open—no secrecy would have been required. People might have seen him working on it, and he might have told Anna, “Hey, Fisch asked me to build this ladder.”
And it is hard to believe that the ladder was built for an innocent purpose. As Kevkon has pointed out, the light weight and widely spaced rungs indicated it was designed for a swift carry—the perfect ladder to carry over the rugged terrain around Highfields. And it was collapsible, designed apparently to fit into the vehicle that Ben Lupica saw at 6PM the evening of the kidnapping.
Of course, Lupica’s testimony has been used by both BRH’s defenders and accusers. Personally, I have always felt that Lupica’s identification of the car as having New Jersey plates was a strong point in BRH’s favor. And can you imagine Hauptmann driving all the way from the Bronx to Hopewell, with that ladder so visible in his car? He’d be risking innumerable eyewitnesses, at stoplights and such, remembering his vehicle. Of course, someone will say, “Hauptmann must have put New Jersey plates on his car, and he had planted the ladder in Hopewell in advance.” You can always come up with a theory to explain something. Somewhat amazing to me, Ahlgren and Monier, in their “Lindbergh did it” thesis, tried to imply it was LINDBERGH who Lupica saw it that car—a great example of how pliable evidence can become.
But I don’t want to turn this into a Lupica thread.
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Apr 2, 2012 11:05:44 GMT -5
Well Fisch was dead and whilst he might have got away with the money explanation (he had the money, there was no wiggle room left for that connection) he could have thought that admitting he lied about the ladder - even if claiming he didn't know it's purpose - would not help him.
The lies about the gun and the money in the garage indicate that's the way he thought. He was keeping the maximum distance between himself and connection with the crime - even if innocent - he didn't think they could pin the ladder on him.
They didn't question him about the attic - perhaps that might have made him think differently.
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Apr 2, 2012 11:08:39 GMT -5
There is also the possibility that he did know it was for criminal intent.
Just not that crime.
Which might have affected his thinking.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 2, 2012 16:51:31 GMT -5
Good to see you back again RMC!
I take it you don't accept his "Fisch Story" then?
I am confident there was more then one person involved in this process. I know that we've gone round and around about CJ too.
Condon is like a burning tire in the middle of the road, which I feel, is by design.
What I think a good solution would be is to eliminate Condon completely from the equation then consider everything else. What did anyone else see? What did they say? What were Hauptmann's alibi for either Cemetery meeting? Are they legit? Was there a "look-out?" And if there was, did he look anything like Hauptmann (according to the Witnesses). And so, if the Look-Out isn't Hauptmann, perhaps he is CJ. But if he isn't we now have at least 3 in the mix.... and so on.
Steve is famous for saying there isn't any evidence for Confederates but I see it all over the place. Lindy sees one himself for God's sake!
Anyway, once you get to the conclusion without Condon then you can slowly work him into the situation to see how or why what he says can fit in somehow or somewhere.
While Hauptmann isn't "stupid" by any stretch of the imagination, we do have to remember that Fisch "hoodwinked" him about the Fur investments. That's pretty important when you consider the level of trust involved in this partnership. It's that level which leads me to believe, even if Fisch isn't in this thing from jump-street, Hauptmann trusted him enough to share whatever situation he was in with him.
I think in researching the case you have to stop looking for reasons to relieve Hauptmann of his guilt and simply lay out all that's in front of you. Place all the options into the playing field and do that for and with everything. Ask yourself if Hauptmann could be involved and if the answer is "yes" then stop depriving yourself of this choice when formulating a theory.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Apr 2, 2012 17:19:31 GMT -5
BR and Kevkon, I found your coverage of BRH's personality very interesting and comprehensive. I don't see BRH as a loner. Too many photos and descriptions of picnics, games, swimming camping, birthday parties, music evenings going away parties. But yes there were those not so good things he kept to himself. I see the loner and self superiority fitting CAL just fine. I guess I tend to find Schonfeld's profiling a fair measure of buckshot. As to the ladder being a job-of-work, we could try Fisch. Go back and look at the near brutal flogging Wilentz gave BRH about the money, with the bold pronouncement of it's being a "FISCH Story". Maybe at that point BRH didn't dare risk pointing the ladder at Fisch. I wish the Samuelsohn connection to the ladder were'nt so fuzzy! Does anyone know if Wilentz had him under supoena, to lock him away from the defence?
|
|
|
Post by rmc1971 on Apr 2, 2012 20:16:53 GMT -5
Michael - about the Fisch story - I guess I buy it and don't buy it at the same time. I feel pretty confident Fisch had ransom money, and may have left some in Hauptmann's care. But I also think Hauptmann knew what that money was all along.
I think looking at the scenario without Condon's testimony could be of help. I think looking at what eyewitness testimony there was, and then seeing if any of that fits Hauptmann - or Fisch and Mueller for that matter - would be an interesting place to start.
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Apr 3, 2012 1:34:04 GMT -5
While Hauptmann isn't "stupid" by any stretch of the imagination, we do have to remember that Fisch "hoodwinked" him about the Fur investments. That's pretty important when you consider the level of trust involved in this partnership. It's that level which leads me to believe, even if Fisch isn't in this thing from jump-street, Hauptmann trusted him enough to share whatever situation he was in with him. I have problems with loaded statements like this. This implies that Hauptmann was letting Fisch in on the deal when there is absolutely nothing to warrant that. Fisch is the one with the suspicious connections and clearly has a criminal mind. There is no hard evidence that Hauptmann was aware of or physically involved in the actual Lindbergh kidnapping. He may have made a ladder. So what? He may have been asked to make a ladder by Fisch for innocent or not so innocent purposes, he didn't necessarily have to know. He had some ransom money. So what? His story is that Fisch handed a box to him to look after while he was away - there are witnesses to that. Again he might or might not have been aware that the contents were not legit, but he doesn't have to be aware it was Lindbergh money. He probably knew Fisch was a dodgy character, he didn't have to know exactly how dodgy. Fisch had connections to other people he didn't want others to know about.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 3, 2012 16:18:04 GMT -5
Hauck announced to the Press the Prosecution decided not to use him. Riley had only the day before called him a liar to Reporters. Leibowitz called him the "forgotten man" because he would disprove the "one-man job" theory, and while he would assist Hauptmann's claim he didn't build the ladder, he would place him "squarely in the picture."
The interesting part about this is that the State had him make duplicates of the Ransom Box, which they admited he had made the original, then had him make duplicate Kidnap Ladders as well.
I think what's note worthy is that Condon pretended twice to forget who made the Ransom Box. The first was during the investigation. Next came when Riley accused Condon of making the Ransom Box himself. And so on the Stand in Flemington, Condon denies this but just can't remember Samuelsohn's name - again.
This despite knowing the man for YEARS, living only a block or two from his shop, and having stopped by his shop many times in the past.
We both agree on these points.
Am I being "punk'd" or something? Honestly, is this a Social-Psych Experiment you are conducting?
It's my opinion and its presented as such. That opinion is that Hauptmann let Fisch in on whatever the situation was that he found himself in.
There absolutely is. Both building the Kidnap Ladder AND possessing the Ransom Money is clearly evidence he's involved.
Well if it isn't the old "So What?" explanation. Haven't seen this one is a while. Careful with those because if you live by the sword then you die by it as well. "So What?" can be used everywhere and not just where you like it - which happens to be in places it absolutely should not be.
So What? Bundy may have thought he was in a movie when he killed those women. He was just acting. So What? Maybe Bundy was sleep walking when he killed them and when he woke up he panicked. So What? When Bundy was on Death Row thousand upon thousands of women asked him to marry them - they weren't afraid of him so why should anyone else be?
It's irrational. You are defending the man for being smart then act like he's brain-dead concerning things anyone of average intelligence would be asking questions about.
This is true. So what? It also implies Hauptmann is a complete Angel and that everyone knew everything about him. Did they? Do you? If so - how?
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Apr 4, 2012 3:08:24 GMT -5
You decided to misread what I said?
There is no evidence that he was physically involved with the kidnapping.
You have chosen to exclude any scenario that has Hauptmann making ladders and receiving ransom money without knowledge of the actual Linbergh kidnapping (or indeed any crime).
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Apr 4, 2012 3:15:26 GMT -5
"So what" means that there are scenarios and explantions that you are not considering, indeed that you have already decided about.
"So what" means that the point on it's own is meaningless without context and full exploration of the possibilities.
What I'm seeing is a lot of emotional investment in the wood in the cellar theory and a shutdown of consideration of the full range of possibilities.
The fact that you are saying Hauptmann let Fisch in on the secret is a case in point. There is no evidence for that viewpoint.
None!
You guys have possibly been looking at this TOO long and want a "simple" explanation - you've grasped it and are running with it.
|
|
|
Post by johndoe on Apr 4, 2012 3:17:24 GMT -5
Actually it's not me who wants Hauptmann to be clever and stupid - as I pointed out in another thread.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 4, 2012 10:44:00 GMT -5
Who the hell are you to make a statement like that? Is that conclusion the result of your mastery of logical thinking? Many on this board have gone over the very evidence you challenge and have done so with diligence. The fact that you don't like the conclusions is too bad, so do your own research and see for yourself. Every time someone tries to give you answer you find some reason to discount it. Perhaps if you showed some respect to those that have worked this case for years instead of denigrating that knowledge as prejudiced and simplistic you might find that most here genuinely want to help others. It's also not the best idea to start with a conclusion and then attempt to make everything fit. You don't think BRH took part in the kidnapping? Fine, your not the first or the last to take that position. I nor anyone I know of can say that's not true with 100% certainty. On the other hand, the evidence in totality would indicate pretty strongly that he was.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Apr 4, 2012 17:04:40 GMT -5
"You guys have possibly been looking at this TOO long and want a "simple" explanation - you've grasped it and are running with it." JD
Have you considered setting up your own forum, Doe?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 4, 2012 20:10:24 GMT -5
But that isn't what you wrote. You said "aware of" or.....
Was Hauptmann in Hopewell? It's possible either way. But not being there doesn't make him innocent beyond any stretch with all of this we now have against him.
If Hauptmann merely possessed ransom then I think that's an after the fact possibility. Perhaps even an "oh sh*t" moment when finding out what it was - perhaps. But building the ladder changes all of that because its a before the fact. It's called the law of averages. Look, long-shots do win from time to time but if they win all the time they are no longer considered long-shots. You just can't have coincidence after coincidence, and excuse after excuse concerning each and every major point of evidence which points directly at Hauptmann.
I employ this exact same logic when considering all of the "luck" Hauptmann would need without any inside information or assistence from someone else on site. This isn't a "one-man" job.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Sept 17, 2014 23:46:54 GMT -5
I've tried pretty hard to wrap my hand around the ladder evidence. While I understand that most experts agree the rail came from the attic floorboard (which at this point seems like it was cut out by electricians and kept in the basement), but that further evidence would be required to conclusively prove it was actually that board, is there any other honest evidence that truly links Hauptmann to the ladder?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 18, 2014 19:00:56 GMT -5
I've tried pretty hard to wrap my hand around the ladder evidence. While I understand that most experts agree the rail came from the attic floorboard (which at this point seems like it was cut out by electricians and kept in the basement), but that further evidence would be required to conclusively prove it was actually that board, is there any other honest evidence that truly links Hauptmann to the ladder? What's out there aside from this would be Keith's assertion that the keg of nails in Hauptmann's garage matched those used in the ladder, as well as the rest of Koehler's assertions. In my opinion there's nothing conclusive about any, and in fact, some are extremely weak and needed "fudging" or perjured testimony in order to make them look better then they were. But the odds look more appealing once one considers the most likely scenario which actually intelligently explains how it could have happened (which you mention above). And so we really don't need the idea that Rails 12 & 13 were milled from the same shipment winding up at National Lumber Yard. Or the idea that Hauptmann's plane was used in it's construction, or that his saw was used, etc. That evidence looks stronger regardless if its true or not - based upon the real possibility instead of an imagined one... like what history records concerning the silly idea that Hauptmann cannibalized his own attic floor for a piece of wood.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Sept 18, 2014 22:54:58 GMT -5
Has anyone else taken notice of the difference in the bottom section of the ladder when compared to the two upper sections, especially the risers? Those two sections appear to be constructed by a real carpenter, while the bottom section is so amateurish. (I could have built it. lol) If Hauptmann, indeed, built it, I can understand why he would deny it, but not for that reason. The money found in the garage was bad enough for him. Suppose he had loaned the ladder to someone without any knowledge of what it was going to be used for? He could hardly admit that it belonged to him, or that he'd built it. I also find it suspicious that Bornmann spent so much time alone in the attic. His handling of the evidence he found was appalling.
|
|