|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 14, 2016 8:24:52 GMT -5
Well thank you for thanking me, Amy . The LKC is unique in its verdict, the man accused, convicted and executed for the crime, contested for so long by so many reasonable people,--and I do think most of us here and on Ronelle's forum are reasonable--and yet vigorously opposed by equally reasonable people whose sole axe to grind is or appears to be that Hauptmann Did It (And He Did It Alone). This is the easiest response, and the case against BRH is a strong one even as it's circumstantial: the guy got caught with the ransom money redhanded!
Hauptmann's a hard guy to warm to, given that he did have criminal tendencies and a shady side, to put it mildly, is something even his most ardent defenders cannot deny. He was a German speaker, just like the author of the ransom notes; he had a criminal record in his homeland; and he lived in the Bronx, close enough to Condon to have walked to the cemeteries. I'm not sure if he subscribed to the Bronx Home News, but he may as well have. He bore more than a passing resemblance to the Cemetery John as described by Condon, who eventually ID'ed him after his initial hesitation to do so.
I do think it's possible that Hauptmann could have done it alone, though he'd have needed a lot of luck on his side (picking the right night, the right window, not making noise, or not enough to arouse suspicion) even as he apparently made the error of driving south rather than north to dispose of the child's body in the woods. Still, all things considered, whether his intent was to kill the child or to hold him captive till he received the ransom money, he handled himself well whether CAL, Jr.'s death was a mistake or by design.
Yet given Hauptmann's good fortune in all this I have to wonder why he chose such a shallow grave so near the Lindbergh estate that it can be viewed from that location in daylight. This to me suggests that perhaps BRH didn't intend to kill the child after all and that he panicked, to the extent of driving off in the wrong direction, and yet this is inconsistent with the "careful planning" as stated in the ransom note. Careful planning should also have included a means of disposing of the body in a more rational way than the one the kidnapper chose,--a watery grave, the bag weighed down, in a pond or lake nearby, which would guarantee rapid decomposition--and instead the child's body seems to me like the result of poor or hasty planning.
Then again, the ransom note itself may well have been three fifths bravado to two fifths fact, thus the crime wasn't all that carefully planned, not that much thought went into it. If so,--and this plays well into Wilentz's theory--then BRH was what they used to call a megalomaniac (nowadays I suppose the word would be grandiose, or the diagnosis pathological narcissist). In other words, there was no "we", it was just Bruno posing as a gang, and as the criminal mastermind of that gang. There was surely some planning or else there wouldn't be that ladder,--heck, Hauptmann couldn't have found the Lindbergh estate at all--so he was smart enough for that much. Luck surely figured into the equation as well, as lone wolf Hauptmann was able to fool an above average streetwise schoolteacher who spoke fluent German into believing that he was a Scandanavian.
Better still, BRH was able to get away with the money, hold onto it for a decent period of time, spend the bills over long periods for the first couple of years before he went on that spending jag in the summer of '34,--a sort of WTF, I'm home free--which was his undoing. Superficially, it makes sense; and I can well imagine small time crook gone big time Hauptmann chomping at the bit after his first few months of lying low, wanting to enjoy the fruits of his labor and good fortune. It's possible, I suppose. One thing I find it difficult to buy is Wilentz's contention that Hauptmann was cold-blooded child killer. This seems way out of character for BRH, and this, in addition to the clumsy, seemingly hasty way the child's body was got rid of only makes sense if the person responsible for its death was in a panic, which is to say this wasn't part of the original game plan.
A few thoughts that work against the aforementioned: one is that if Hauptmann did the deed it's strangely sloppy the way the child's body was dealt with,--if BRH's goal was to shake Lindbergh down for a dead baby--and the way the body was so easily discoverable in the woods off the road strikes me as unprofessional even for a small timer getting into the big leagues. Either BRH knew what he was doing, in which case the body would never have been discovered, which ought to have been easy, and also Hauptmann's number one priority; or he actually dropped the child, and it died by mistake, which raises the issue of how he was going to take care of CAL, Jr. if murder wasn't in his game plan.
With a dead baby in the woods near the Lindbergh estate how could BRH have known that his meetings with Condon in the cemeteries wasn't a setup to catch him? Just because the newspapers hadn't reported the child's death doesn't mean its body had not been discovered. If Hauptmann did the whole nine yards of the Cemetery John negotiations, including the faux naïf bit about "burning" (or is it frying?) if the baby is dead, he was taking even greater risks than he took the night of the kidnapping. The police could have nabbed him at any moment. They had nothing to lose. That CJ often seemed genuinely afraid (a tough trick for a cojones of steel guy like Hauptmann to pull off) suggests that CJ was working with others. If Bruno-as-CJ was the real deal it would have been far wiser for him to have been more decisive, forceful (but not pushy), making it clear that the child was well taken care of, not acted like a scared rabbit. Against this, one could argue that it was the smart thing to do for Hauptmann to essentially "fragment" the crime even before it was committed, making him appear as a minor gang functionary if caught rather than the Big Guy himself.
To all this I can only add: the beat goes on...
To john: There are several major points in your statement here that seem highly dubious: (1) Extensive tests by law enforcement showed that it would be virtually impossible for ANYONE, especially without aid, to use the particular ladder found on the premises for entry into the nursery window, even more incredible to exit the window and get on the ladder with the baby in hand. Hauptmann himself was no world-class gymnast to the best of our knowledge. Furthermore, the cracking of the ladder would probably have sent the baby, if not both the baby and the person holding him, sprawling to the ground, and there were no markings on the ground consistent with that. (2) Condon was very inconsistent with his various descriptions of Cemetery John, so saying that Hauptmann "bore more than a passing resemblance" to CJ is very vague at best. Then, too, as you mentioned, Condon couldn't ID Hauptmann as CJ until law enforcement put extreme pressure on him to do so. (3) IIRC, the site where the body was found was north of the Lindbergh estate, nor south of it, but I don't see too much importance in these directions alone. Furthermore, no one knows if the body was placed there immediately after the child's disappearance or some time later, nor is it absolutely conclusive that the body found was that of CAL Jr. (4) Fooling Condon into thinking he was a Scandinavian would hardly be a great feat for anyone, since Condon was hardly an expert on European languages and accents, and I don't think he had ever been to Europe. (5) When you say BRH was caught redhanded with the ransom money, you're not talking about ALL the ransom money, but rather $14,000+ out of $50,000. (Remember that "J. J. Faulkner" was also caught with close to $3,000 in ransom money, but he was NOT BRH and was never officially identified.) I agree that Hauptmann was a hard guy to warm to, which aided the prosecution and the media in the case against him, much to his his detriment. But being a hard guy to warm to does not make the murder case against him any stronger, which is why Wilentz had to concoct an unreal story in or order to get a conviction from an uneducated and unsophisticated rural jury.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jun 14, 2016 11:47:21 GMT -5
Hurtelable: by all means, point out the flaws in my reasoning. My post was a deliberate attempt to look at the other side of the LKC to see if the crime could have been committed by Hauptmann and Hauptmann only, as much as a "hypothetical" as a realistic analysis, though I tired my best at that given time and other constraints. As to your response:
1.) Were those tests by law enforcement done at the time of the kidnapping? After BRH was arrested and put on trial? If so, they should have been pointed out by the defense lawyer, Reilly. But then the plaster cast taken of what was almost surely the kidnapper's footprint was mysteriously not mentioned in court; understandably by the prosecution, as it almost certainly didn't match BRH's foot size, unfathomably by the defense lawyers.
2.) Yes, true about Hauptmann's at best vague resemblance to Cemetery John; and there were issues there as well, such as the (apparent) absence of the fleshy lump near the thumb, BRH's not having a cold or hacking cough at the time of the cemetery meetings.
3.) My wrong. Furthermore, the condition of the child's body is a matter I've brought up several times over the years, mostly on Ronelle's board, and I'm surprised that the body was apparently, supposedly, where it was placed by the kidnapper inasmuch as it was not taken away that spring,--there was an over two month interval between the kidnapping and the discovery of the body--by the wild animals who feed off such things, especially given the time of year. There really shouldn't have been a body at all lying where it was found. Too many wolves, bears, hawks and other creatures. Its discovery by the truck driver strikes me as too "neat", especially as the area had been gone over by local citizens, boys scouts and the like, shortly after the kidnapping took place.
4.) On this point I disagree: Condon may not have been well traveled, but as a born and bred New Yorker, and a public school teacher, he had been exposed to people of many nationalities and accents. He spoke some German and knew words in other languages as well. As his native borough had a large number of German speakers he ought to have had a reasonable working knowledge of what a German sounds like, possibly even some sense of what region of Germany a person came from. Teachers pick up on such things. NYC also had a Scandanavian population as well, though it was much smaller than the German one, and I find it difficult to believe that Condon's sharp ear could not have distinguished between the accent of a German and that of a Swede. This is a ruse I can imagine Nosovitsky pulling off maybe, but not Hauptmann. If BRH had claimed Scandanavian nationality I can imagine Condon maybe going along with him for the sake of saving the child, but not believing him.
5.) Yes, but it was easy for the prosecutors to claim that Hauptmann had either spent or fenced the rest of the ransom money in the two and a half year gap between the graveyard transfer and his arrest in September, 1934. Also, he might have hidden it away elsewhere, off his property.
Again, my post was a kind of thought experiment. As I dwell on the issue of whether Hauptmann could have succeeded alone in the kidnapping and negotiations I admit that the likelihood of this strains credibility. The luck factor at both ends of the spectrum,--for and agin' BRH--is, among many other aspects of the LKC, way too large.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 14, 2016 15:24:03 GMT -5
Just for the record, I believe that the bulk of the relatively modest Scandinavian population in NYC at the time was in Brooklyn (Bay Ridge section) , not the Bronx. Furthermore, the Scandinavian languages are classified by linguists as Germanic, so there are similarities between German and Norwegian. So I still insist that it would be difficult for Condon to definitively distinguish a German accent from a Scandinavian one, and you have to factor in the possibility of CJ disguising his accent deliberately.
BTW, the German population of the Bronx at the time was concentrated in two relatively small neighborhoods, and I'm not sure if Condon's school was located anywhere near those neighborhoods. Condon probably knew a little German, but I don't think he was fluent in it.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jun 14, 2016 18:41:18 GMT -5
Of course, maybe Hauptmann could have disguised his German accent, and if he could have it would have been wise for him to have done so. As to accents, immigrants and such, New York was a city of all kinds of immigrants of which, yes, the Scandanavians were not so numerous as they were in, say, Minneapolis. However they were a presence, if a lesser one; and John Condon was a gregarious individual who liked and was familiar with all kinds of people.
Up where I live, in New England, neither German nor Scandanavian immigrants were particularly numerous even a hundred years ago or more. Yet the small city I grew up in had a small but noticeable Swedish population, even had a Swedish home or the aged. Our neighbors up the street were of Swedish ancestry, albeit wholly American (their grandmother was from Sweden, spoke with an accent). North of Boston, in Gloucester, there was at one time a sizable Scandanavian population, as I knew from biking around it one summer whereupon I ended up in a Swedish cemetery, full of Ekblads, Carlsons and Lundbaums.
I'm not getting too off track here because there's a method in what may seem to me my madness in emphasizing immigrant populations, something I know a good deal about; and things aren't always what they appear. Americans are fond of stereotypes, and certain parts of the country are or used to be stereotypically this or that as to their ethnic composition, with New York and New Jersey famously Italian, Wisconsin, German, the "bayou South", French, and so on. Boston, where I live, is famously Irish, yet its North End was once the city's Little Italy; its West End, its Lower East Side (predominantly Jewish).
To cut to the chase here, if I, a suburban, non-big city boy, born in the mid-20th century, knows all this, could, at the age of ten or twelve distinguish a Swedish accent from a German one, an Italian from a Spanish one, surely the very big city, mature and, again, street smart John Condon, born in the middle of the 19th century, and a man who "got around", ought to have been able to easily spot Hauptmann's German accent almost from the start, just as, as he was the son of Irish immigrants, he could have picked up on a Scots accent from an Irish one; and as an American he could probably have easily picked up on the at the time quite distinctive Philadelphia accent, or the Boston one for that matter, as quite different from New York. I persist in believing in the relevance of Hauptmann's accent in the Cemetery John business, especially as John Condon did actually speak a little German, and he was such an urban type. To my way of thinking this is no small matter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2016 21:26:55 GMT -5
I do think it's possible that Hauptmann could have done it alone, though he'd have needed a lot of luck on his side (picking the right night, the right window, not making noise, or not enough to arouse suspicion) even as he apparently made the error of driving south rather than north to dispose of the child's body in the woods. Hey John, You are actually correct that the child's body was deposited in a southerly direction in relation to the Lindbergh's home. The Highfields house was in the Sourland Mountain region which was North of Hopewell. Mount Rose was South of Hopewell. The body of the child was found in the woods off of the Princeton Hopewell Road which leads to Mount Rose.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2016 21:37:49 GMT -5
Hurtelable and John,
I have a question about CJ disguising his voice to fool Condon. Why would CJ bother to do that when all the ransom notes were written in the form of someone who was German not Scandinavian?
|
|
|
Post by john on Jun 15, 2016 2:03:37 GMT -5
Thanks for the reality check, Amy, as regards Mount Rose in relation to Hopewell.
The closeness of the baby's dead body to the estate to me suggests either a botched kidnapping, a self-defeating masochist of a kidnapper who unconsciously wanted to get caught, or,--my take--a plant. It was placed there later for the purpose of being found. I would love to hear a lively, un-biased discussion between a forensic pathologist and a climatologist on the speed with which a decomposing human body would decay given the time of year, the temperatures and other climate factors identical to those of March-May, 1932.
As to CJ's voice, there would be no need for him to disguise it, as he was already in harm's way just meeting with for the first time John Condon, a man he didn't know, in a Bronx graveyard after dark in the dead of winter. This inclines me to the belief that CJ may well have been Nosovitsky, a far more experienced, "dangerous" and bigger league criminal than BRH ever was; and a man known for his flair for accents, for speaking as one of a nationality quite unlike his own.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 15, 2016 4:55:06 GMT -5
Doubtful Noso would have met with someone in a cemetery after dark - he had too much worldly experience. Would have realized that there was a strong possibility of getting caught. The kidnapper(s) didn't have the luxury of knowing, as we do, that Cal was running the investigation and was very concerned about getting Charley back, and didn't care if the culprit(s) were apprehended or not.
Whoever committed TLC was a true novice.
People who look at the crime must just throw logic out the window. Describing dimensions of the box to put the money in is really beyond belief, but people just accept that as what a kidnapper would do. Just about every facet of the criminal part of the crime shows amateurism, and also shows that more than likely only one person was making decisions, not two or more. The low beginning ransom and then raising it is more like someone buying a car than pulling off the crime of the century.
I think NYPD should have caught Hauptmann about a year earlier, but realistically it wouldn't have brought Jr. back.
As to "those who stubbornly stick to the belief that Hauptmann did it alone," how long do you think we should have to wait until another suspect appears? Another eighty years?
If looked at as a loner, which I don't think people even do anymore since Kennedy and what's-his-face, Hauptmann fits perfectly every category, from the timing (Anna was working Tuesday nights), to the gold bill with his license plate number noted, there's not a hint of an authentic accomplice. Not even a notation somewhere by Hauptmann, "have to get Louie that $ 5,000 by Friday."
The case is long closed and it's interesting to still have lots of different opinions. Lets say Richard would have confessed, and there are those who say he was innocent because he didn't confess, what would that have meant. It would have spared his life, but for a life of what? Nearly all of the country would have been potential murderers to him including many prison guards and wardens. Not really an option.
The LKC was not just a crime of the century, it was an insult to humanity.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 15, 2016 19:11:33 GMT -5
Thanks for the reality check, Amy, as regards Mount Rose in relation to Hopewell.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jun 15, 2016 20:33:34 GMT -5
Nice pic, Michael.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 16, 2016 7:58:22 GMT -5
Hurtelable and John, I have a question about CJ disguising his voice to fool Condon. Why would CJ bother to do that when all the ransom notes were written in the form of someone who was German not Scandinavian? There is a very straightforward answer to that one, assuming that Condon was NOT on CJ's extortion "team." A disguised voice, something that didn't sound German, could add another wrinkle to the problems facing law enforcement in trying to solve the case, perhaps leading into thinking that CJ and the ransom note writer(s) were two different individuals. Even today, that theory is still embraced by some.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 16, 2016 8:09:12 GMT -5
Yes, I tend to agree. I suppose you read Noel Behn's book describing Noso's astounding career in both the underworld and in hobnobbing with some of the elites of the era. A one-of-a-kind character!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2016 10:21:43 GMT -5
I know that there are other people who are inclined to Noso possibly being CJ. I will tell you that I am not one of them. I have read somewhere that Noso was not in the northeast when the kidnapping occurred. I know he was investigated by LE but never charged in any way with this crime. I can see a man like Nosovitsky being the planner of such a crime. Noso certainly had the right skills and knowledge of criminal types who could be hired to commit the kidnapping.
Yes, I see what you are suggesting as being a possibility. In one of Condon's many retellings of his conversation with CJ, he mentioned that he tried to speak German to him but CJ did not respond. It could give the illusion that CJ and the ransom note writer are not the same person.
In an earlier post on this thread, Jack put forth his idea that Hauptmann did the kidnapping on a Tuesday night because Anna worked late at the bakery. I have been thinking about this. If someone believes that Hauptmann did this alone, could the fact that Anna would not be at home have bearing on Tuesday March 1 as the night of choice, especially if Hauptmann had read in the newspaper that Lindbergh would be at a formal dinner that night and also not be home which would be an added plus.
Do you gentlemen have any thoughts on Jack's idea?
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jun 16, 2016 12:01:58 GMT -5
First, did Anna generally work any other evenings or was Tues always her night to work and therefor his night to do whatever he wanted. Also, did Hauptman often go out whenever he wanted, anyway? If Hauptman were the stay at home type, I could accept Tuesday night as a fortuitous time to take advantage of. But I've always seen him as someone who wasn't particularly loyal to Anna (although she was to him). Amy, I like your idea that Hauptmann read that Lindbergh was going to be in NYC that evening.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2016 13:04:19 GMT -5
First, did Anna generally work any other evenings or was Tues always her night to work and therefor his night to do whatever he wanted. Also, did Hauptman often go out whenever he wanted, anyway? If Hauptman were the stay at home type, I could accept Tuesday night as a fortuitous time to take advantage of. But I've always seen him as someone who wasn't particularly loyal to Anna (although she was to him). Amy, I like your idea that Hauptmann read that Lindbergh was going to be in NYC that evening. Besides Tuesday night, Anna's other late night was Friday night. If Hauptmann had been doing surveillance for a period of time prior to the kidnapping, he would have learned that the Lindberghs were never there on Friday evenings so Friday was not an option. I don't know if Hauptmann was a stay home every night kind of guy. I don't think he was out every night either. If he wanted to go out, I am sure he would have given Anna some kind of story and then went out. Once he had the garage he would work out there sometimes. I know that he played cards on Thursday nights. I believe Anna went along sometimes. I don't think he was loyal to Anna either. He do believe he was unfaithful to her. The idea of Hauptmann reading about the NYC dinner in the newspapers is not my idea. This connection has been one of the reasons other have given for Hauptmann choosing Tuesday night March 1 as the kidnap night. I just saw that one would compliment the other nicely and so I made that comment.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jun 16, 2016 13:20:13 GMT -5
OK, so Tuesday really was an opportune night for Hauptmann although I do think there was something else that happened that made him spring into action on that particular Tuesday night and finish making the ladder in a hurry. Learning that Lindbergh would not be there that evening may have been the impetus. This is assuming that Hauptmann was at least one of the kidnappers in Hopewell that night.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 16, 2016 16:33:51 GMT -5
To amy35 and stella7:
The speculation that Hauptmann was at Hopewell on the night of the purported kidnapping is just that: speculation. Can't see any definitive evidence that puts him there at that time. As for the possibility that Hauptmann was drawn there based on reading newspaper reports that CAL Sr. was to be speaking in NYC that night, I would say slim to none. Hauptmann didn't read English language newspapers very frequently, and German language newspapers were unlikely to cover Lindbergh's minor comings and goings. If Hauptmann did indeed know about Lindbergh's supposedly being in NYC that night, someone else would have told him. But he still would have to know that the baby was at Hopewell rather than Englewood, which again would require some "inside info." As it turned out, the info that Lindbergh wouldn't be home turned out to be false anyway (at least for the time period from about 8:30 on).
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jun 16, 2016 18:11:17 GMT -5
I'm not sure either, I believe both Amy and I are speculating.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 17, 2016 8:01:43 GMT -5
Yes, Noel Behn states that Noso was not in the Northeast on March 1, 1932. Even if he were around Detroit (where he spent some of the years of his youth and where he still had family), he could have arrived in New York by railroad as early as the following day, more than enough time to view the initial ransom note as it circulated through the New York underworld, and (as a master forger with a knowledge of German) to have copied the writing and style to get into the extortion game. We also know that Noso had a good familiarity with the Bronx and might even have known Condon, since he knew Condon's cousin, "Dinny" Doyle, from their previous incarceration together. He also had an unusual ability to fake accents and had used a number of aliases with the name "John." None of this rules him out as CJ.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 17, 2016 8:24:44 GMT -5
CJ had to have been the kidnapper and not an extortionist because he (CJ) knew that Charley had a sleeping-suite on, and sent it to Condon as I.D., hence when found, the body had no sleeping-suite on.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 17, 2016 9:37:45 GMT -5
CJ had to have been the kidnapper and not an extortionist because he (CJ) knew that Charley had a sleeping-suite on, and sent it to Condon as I.D., hence when found, the body had no sleeping-suite on. Disagree. CJ could also have heard about the sleeping suit, directly or indirectly, through underworld figures such as Rosner, Spitale, and Bitz, all of whom were close to Lindbergh in the days immediately following the purported kidnapping. Another, less likely, source for CJ regarding the sleeping suit might have been Betty Gow or some other Lindbergh/Morrow servant(s) or through a chain originating with a Lindbergh/Morrow house staffer. Furthermore, it's possible that some newspaper account(s) mentioned a sleeping suit the child was wearing.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 17, 2016 11:44:55 GMT -5
CJ had to have been the kidnapper and not an extortionist because he (CJ) knew that Charley had a sleeping-suite on, and sent it to Condon as I.D., hence when found, the body had no sleeping-suite on. This is a flawed position. First and foremost is that Condon lied about what Cemetery John said. Next, by your own argument, even if Condon was telling the truth that would mean Cemetery John could not have been "the" kidnapper. According to Condon Cemetery John told him that " We are the right persons, your note has the signal on just like what we left on the baby's pillow on the 'nide' we took the baby." The note was left on the window sill.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jun 17, 2016 12:24:59 GMT -5
Yes, I've read Behn's book, Hurtelable, more than once. Nosovitsky is a fascinating and elusive figure, and I can't help but wonder if his not being in the northeast was a ruse or well constructed alibi.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 17, 2016 15:12:07 GMT -5
So, Michael, in your opinion Condon and Lindbergh gave $ 50,000 cash in a box to an unknown man who said that he left the first kidnapping ransom note in the wrong place in the nursery? I always wondered why Charlie got killed.
Perhaps you don't even know about this issue.
Is anyone knowledgeable on here who will discuss false clues in TLC?
|
|
|
Post by john on Jun 17, 2016 15:38:58 GMT -5
Could it be, Michael, that the nursery note had been moved by whoever it was cleaned the nursery of fingerprints? I believe it was Lindbergh who first saw the note. Or someone who entered the room with Lindbergh, so CJ could have been telling the truth as he knew it. The question remains: why was the nursery fingerprints clean right after the kidnapping? I suppose there's a remote possibility that CJ forgot where he left the note, however this seems unlikely. More likely (maybe): he was testing Condon, or maybe Lindbergh through Condon.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 17, 2016 15:53:45 GMT -5
So, Michael, in your opinion Condon and Lindbergh gave $ 50,000 cash in a box to an unknown man who said that he left the first kidnapping ransom note in the wrong place in the nursery? I always wondered why Charlie got killed. No. As I previously stated, it's my opinion that Condon was lying about what CJ said. It seems to me you are the one who believes him, and if that is that case - then you cannot play both ends of the stick. If you believe what Condon said then it "proves" CJ did not leave the note in the Nursery, therefore, he's simply cannot be the Lone-Wolf Kidnapper you claim exists. By the way, I also believe Condon knew who he was dealing with. And for those who do not then it seems obvious it's the symbol which proves CJ is a Confederate. Perhaps you don't even know about this issue. Which issue? Could it be, Michael, that the nursery note had been moved by whoever it was cleaned the nursery of fingerprints? I believe it was Lindbergh who first saw the note. Or someone who entered the room with Lindbergh, so CJ could have been telling the truth as he knew it. If the note was moved then it was not CJ and somebody was lying. If so, this disproves the Lone-Wolf theory as well. The question remains: why was the nursery fingerprints clean right after the kidnapping? I suppose there's a remote possibility that CJ forgot where he left the note, however this seems unlikely. More likely (maybe): he was testing Condon, or maybe Lindbergh through Condon. That's a new one for me John. I don't see any point in a test of that nature. He's trying to collect the money, and giving bad information for a meaningless test doesn't seem to lead to that end.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jun 17, 2016 21:09:46 GMT -5
The ransom note moving was more likely something forgotten, not a trick of some kind. If one subscribes to Jack's line of reasoning it would have to be so as to make CJ and BRH one in the same. The note moving,--assuming that it was moved--is an issue worth pondering. I'm inclined to think maybe it was moved; and yet CJ was so specific. If it was, the kidnapping had to be at the very least a two man (or two people) job.
Have you weighed in yet as to who you think Cemetery John was, Michael? If it wasn't the guy Zorn named,--and I did enjoy his book immensely, it was as good a read as Behn's--I can only guess that it was Nosovitsky even as I know that he was apparently out of town at the time. But then if he was CJ he'd have arranged to make it appear that way, yes?
The entire what role did Hauptmann play in the LKC is perplexing if one doesn't buy him as a lone wolf. It's like "he probably made the ladder, on short order maybe" but "it couldn't have been him in Hopewell on March 1st", on the one hand; and then there's "Cemetery John's a distinct possibility", but "who was he working with to get the information he had to pull off the extortion?", on the other.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 17, 2016 21:50:27 GMT -5
The ransom note moving was more likely something forgotten, not a trick of some kind. If one subscribes to Jack's line of reasoning it would have to be so as to make CJ and BRH one in the same. The note moving,--assuming that it was moved--is an issue worth pondering. I'm inclined to think maybe it was moved; and yet CJ was so specific. If it was, the kidnapping had to be at the very least a two man (or two people) job. Everything is worth being (and should be) pondered. And I do mean everything. My position is the note was never moved. I believe Leon Ho-age was absolutely correct when he described the scene as a bread-crumb trail. The note was on that window sill to lead everyone to the conclusion that particular window had definitely been used to both enter and exit. Have you weighed in yet as to who you think Cemetery John was, Michael? If it wasn't the guy Zorn named,--and I did enjoy his book immensely, it was as good a read as Behn's--I can only guess that it was Nosovitsky even as I know that he was apparently out of town at the time. But then if he was CJ he'd have arranged to make it appear that way, yes? I've never weighed in on the identities of either Cemetery John or the Look-Out. I am absolutely certain neither was Nosovitsky. I don't know who Zorn claims CJ was because I haven't read his book and don't intend to. An entire book based upon a child hearing the word "Bruno," when no one called Hauptmann "Bruno," was what did it for me. But in the end, Condon was trying his damnedest to protect Hauptmann. Now we can look at this one of two ways: 1. It was because Hauptmann was not Cemetery John.
2. It was exactly because Hauptmann was involved (regardless if CJ or not). The entire what role did Hauptmann play in the LKC is perplexing if one doesn't buy him as a lone wolf. It's like "he probably made the ladder, on short order maybe" but "it couldn't have been him in Hopewell on March 1st", on the one hand; and then there's "Cemetery John's a distinct possibility", but "who was he working with to get the information he had to pull off the extortion?", on the other. I think it's crystal clear someone (at least) is helping somebody else (at least) during the extortion. Now, which do you think was harder to pull off? The Extortion or the Kidnapping? Furthermore, why would someone use help in one aspect but absolutely none in the other?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 18, 2016 5:28:18 GMT -5
Yes, I've read Behn's book, Hurtelable, more than once. Nosovitsky is a fascinating and elusive figure, and I can't help but wonder if his not being in the northeast was a ruse or well constructed alibi. As for Behn's statement that Nosovitsky was not in the Northeast on March 1, 1932, I don't think it's documented by any end note. That leads the reader into speculating how Behn arrived at that conclusion. Perhaps from Noso's police records? I don't think that Behn would have made that statement based solely on what Noso himself may have said, given Noso's reputation for fraud and chicanery.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 18, 2016 7:47:48 GMT -5
Yes, I've read Behn's book, Hurtelable, more than once. Nosovitsky is a fascinating and elusive figure, and I can't help but wonder if his not being in the northeast was a ruse or well constructed alibi. As for Behn's statement that Nosovitsky was not in the Northeast on March 1, 1932, I don't think it's documented by any end note. That leads the reader into speculating how Behn arrived at that conclusion. Perhaps from Noso's police records? I don't think that Behn would have made that statement based solely on what Noso himself may have said, given Noso's reputation for fraud and chicanery. It's from the both the NYPD and NJSP Police Reports. He had been "missing" from his usual haunts for six months by the time Police started investigating him in June of '32. They had sources indicating he went to Canada. One source was his very own brother Emil who was only too glad to tell Police anything he knew since he believed his brother had disgraced the family name. Once Nosovitsky's name came up again in '36, it was a Canadian source which led Police to Los Angeles where Noso was living with Esther Levine - his current spouse at the time.
|
|