|
Post by john on Jun 18, 2016 12:52:37 GMT -5
That's interesting, Michael: does the note on the window sill being part of a bread crumb trail suggest that it was placed there deliberately so as to suggest that one thing had happened when in fact something else had? In other words, the baby was taken out the back stairs; that a member of the household staff was involved? It's a tough call as to which was more difficult, the kidnapping or the extortion. If they were done by two different people or sets of people I'd say the extortion would be riskier, especially if it's different people altogether from the kidnapping, as their knowledge of what happened the night of 3/1/32 was limited. This also raises the interesting issue of whether the extortion gang,--assuming that there was one, and that gang could be just two people--would have had to have acquired some detailed knowledge of what happened the night of the kidnapping, and have done so quickly, soon after the kidnapping.
More questions here, too, one of which is the one of whether it was possible for there to have been two different groups or gangs, one for the kidnapping, another for the extortion. It seems to me,--assuming, for the sake of argument that the Bob Mills Big Al theory is untrue--small amounts of money for the participants. That's a whole lotta risk for not a whole lotta money when you divide it two, three or more ways. Okay, fifty grand was worth far more in 1932 dollars, adjusted for inflation, than it is today, this is still a huge amount of risk for what may well be not much more than ten thousand apiece for each participant. To this one could add that some of the minor players were paid much less. Still, even in the depths of the Great Depression if they hired a freakin' unemployed actor to play Cemetery John he'd ask for far more than his usual fee. On the other hand, the economic hard times could and did turn many otherwise honest men into desperate criminals...
Another reason for my believing that the extortion to be a more difficult task, once again, to separate it from the main body of the LKC for the sake of analysis, is that extortionists would have to be guessing as to what Lindbergh and law enforcement knew every step of the way, and one false step and they'd be in deep trouble. Kidnapping is on the surface riskier, but the kidnapper (to use the singular for the sake of a thought experiment) would have many advantages the extortionists wouldn't have, one of the biggest being the element of surprise: no one was expecting a kidnapping on that godawful dark and stormy night the baby was abducted. Hopewell was, as it still is, way out in the boonies, was difficult to find and get to, on mostly unpaved roads, thus with some research and planning a kidnapper could climb a ladder, enter the house somehow, snatch the child, leave quietly, and get out of Dodge PDQ. It's outrageous, very daring, yet once done, the perp could make a clean break (as I think about it, I'm surprised he didn't cut the phone lines before he drove off).
These issues raise even more questions, of course, the biggest of which, as I see it, is whether it was possible for two separate gangs (or individuals, to keep the thought experiment alive) to have been involved in the larger LKC without the one knowing what the other was up to. I'd say the chances of that would be quite slim, especially when one adds Condon into the mix, his getting "wind" of something up in the Bronx Lindbergh related. Fair enough, but just the extortionists? That would have been impossible prior to the night of the kidnapping. It would have to be the kidnap itself, I believe, which raises yet another issue, which is how this "skinny" got around. If Hauptmann was the lone wolf kidnapper this couldn't be. He wouldn't be talking. But if there was a gang, especially one with three, four or more members (or flunkies) word might get out of one of them quitting out of fear and/or frustration, and THIS is where Condon enters the scene.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 18, 2016 14:09:25 GMT -5
That's interesting, Michael: does the note on the window sill being part of a bread crumb trail suggest that it was placed there deliberately so as to suggest that one thing had happened when in fact something else had? In other words, the baby was taken out the back stairs; that a member of the household staff was involved? I think it's up to the individual Researcher to decide. Know what I mean? It's hard for me to get into detail since the crime scene is a heavy part of my book. (Still waiting for the proof that was due back to me over 3 weeks ago). What I will say is that there's a lot of information that was missed so how does one factor in things they don't know about? That's going to change. Anyway, Ho-age's observation is just a piece of the puzzle IF it's accepted. But first of all it must be considered. In doing so one must take a look at and factor in everything else before determining whether he could be right or wrong. It's a tough call as to which was more difficult, the kidnapping or the extortion. If they were done by two different people or sets of people I'd say the extortion would be riskier, especially if it's different people altogether from the kidnapping, as their knowledge of what happened the night of 3/1/32 was limited. This also raises the interesting issue of whether the extortion gang,--assuming that there was one, and that gang could be just two people--would have had to have acquired some detailed knowledge of what happened the night of the kidnapping, and have done so quickly, soon after the kidnapping. I personally believe an Extortionist from the Bronx would feel much more comfortable operating in a familiar environment. I know I would. I guess my point is if Hauptmann was a Lone-Wolf Kidnapper then he'd have been a Lone-Wolf Extortionist under those circumstances and certainly not the other way around. More questions here, too, one of which is the one of whether it was possible for there to have been two different groups or gangs, one for the kidnapping, another for the extortion. It seems to me,--assuming, for the sake of argument that the Bob Mills Big Al theory is untrue--small amounts of money for the participants. That's a whole lotta risk for not a whole lotta money when you divide it two, three or more ways. Okay, fifty grand was worth far more in 1932 dollars, adjusted for inflation, than it is today, this is still a huge amount of risk for what may well be not much more than ten thousand apiece for each participant. To this one could add that some of the minor players were paid much less. Still, even in the depths of the Great Depression if they hired a freakin' unemployed actor to play Cemetery John he'd ask for far more than his usual fee. On the other hand, the economic hard times could and did turn many otherwise honest men into desperate criminals... I've never believed the Ransom was ever meant to be collected. It's been my position for a very long time that people were hired for whatever part they played in the Kidnapping. The Extortion was most likely a rogue action by all or some originally hired. Perhaps not, but I think so. Still though, if Rail 16 is part of S-226 then we know Hauptmann is "involved" on both ends. That certainly doesn't make him a Lone-Wolf or a Master-Mind as all the other evidence clearly shows (to me anyway). Along the lines of what people will do for amounts of money consider just these two examples: First Joe Perrone. He didn't even 2nd guess bringing the note to Condon when clearly there could have been something nefarious about it. This should have given him pause instead he was more then eager to do it. And on his way a man specifically informed him that the address corresponded with the guy offering $1000 in the kidnapping case. Did he go to the Police? No, he wanted his 50 cents. Next, take a look at Police actions. As just one example, Kelly and Lewis selling crime scene photos for $50. Lewis lost his job and if he didn't keep his mouth shut Kelly would have as well. Another reason for my believing that the extortion to be a more difficult task, once again, to separate it from the main body of the LKC for the sake of analysis, is that extortionists would have to be guessing as to what Lindbergh and law enforcement knew every step of the way, and one false step and they'd be in deep trouble. Kidnapping is on the surface riskier, but the kidnapper (to use the singular for the sake of a thought experiment) would have many advantages the extortionists wouldn't have, one of the biggest being the element of surprise: no one was expecting a kidnapping on that godawful dark and stormy night the baby was abducted. That's why it's good to have a man on the inside of the situation. Someone to assist from the inside by giving bad information to the cops, throwing down road-blocks all the while providing valuable intel to the criminals whenever possible. Someone, for example, to tell them about the $50s knowing it was a Police attempt to catch these men and a safe bet it would have worked if he hadn't. The only person to have ever seen a Confederate and could be trusted not to identify them. Hopewell was, as it still is, way out in the boonies, was difficult to find and get to, on mostly unpaved roads, thus with some research and planning a kidnapper could climb a ladder, enter the house somehow, snatch the child, leave quietly, and get out of Dodge PDQ. It's outrageous, very daring, yet once done, the perp could make a clean break (as I think about it, I'm surprised he didn't cut the phone lines before he drove off). I don't think it would be as easy as you are making it out to be. It was pitch black and they're driving on unfamiliar winding back roads. They needed a lot of preparation just to find the house. One wrong turn and they are completely lost then heading in the wrong direction with the corpse of the most famous baby in the world in the back seat. Every step of the way was an odds-busting maneuver. Literally every step. Good observation concerning the phone-lines. Lindbergh said as much about the them, and the Police were confused that wasn't done as well. The lines were underground but came out of the ground and exposed on the side of the house. It would have been one of the easier things to do that night when all other actions are considered.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2016 15:59:26 GMT -5
Wouldn't the signature on the nursery ransom note unite both the kidnapping and the extortion? Doesn't it show that a rogue action was planned even before Charlie was taken since it is on the nursery note?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jun 18, 2016 17:06:58 GMT -5
Wouldn't the signature on the nursery ransom note unite both the kidnapping and the extortion? Doesn't it show that a rogue action was planned even before Charlie was taken since it is on the nursery note? Possibly, or possibly it was designed so that law enforcement and whoever else could reject any future notes not bearing that signature as illegitimate and not worth their time. If no more notes bearing that signature came in, the trail went dead. Then later, once the gang, or part thereof, figured out they have a foolproof way to identify themselves and extort some extra cash out of the deal. To be fair, it's entirely possible the rogue action was decided beforehand but I don't think it's entirely necessary.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jun 18, 2016 17:34:52 GMT -5
Perhaps Feathers knows whether a special "signature" was commonly used in kidnappings during the 1930's.
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Jun 19, 2016 2:06:54 GMT -5
Perhaps Feathers knows whether a special "signature" was commonly used in kidnappings during the 1930's. Hi Stella, That is an excellent question and at this point all I can offer is an unscientific ancecdotal answer.
I would have to say no, a special signature was not used much in kidnappings in the 1930s. In fact, from what I can tell, it would be very rare. So far I have only found one incident in which a symbol was used in a kidnapping as an identification mark and that was the 1928 kidnapping of Gil Jamieson in Honolulu. The newspapers reported that the ransom notes were marked with the symbol of “the Three Kings”, whatever that means.
Symbols were occasionally used for a different purpose, however, which was to intimidate the family of the victims. Black Hand letters often included a picture of a (wait for it) black hand as well as a bloody dagger, such as the 1921 kidnapping of Joe Varotta. Anyone familiar with the Black Hand (ie Italians) would recognize the symbol and would know that they were risking the life of their family member if they went to the police. That doesn’t apply to Lindbergh obviously – since the point of such a mark is lost if the recipient doesn’t recognize it for what it is. That’s why Condon’s suggestion about the mark being the Trigumba (or whatever it was) doesn’t make much sense.
Most kidnappings were of adults, and by far the most common approach was to have the victim sign the letter themselves as a way to prove to the family that the kidnappers in fact had the victim. This tended to be the method of choice of more professional kidnappers. This was done for example in the kidnappings of Robert Fitchie (1931),Charles Urschel (1933) by Machine Gun Kelly, Charles Rosenthal (1931), Lieutenant John J. O’Connell and Edward Bremer (1934). In the case of Harry Blagden (1932), the kidnappers forced him to sign the note “Henry Blagden” which was counterproductive because no one ever called him by that name and it would suggest the note was not genuine.
Sometimes the kidnappers did not bother signing notes with any identification, such as Miss Jesse McCann (1912) or Emma Martucci (1926) – in the latter case they simply sent a telegram.
The more theatrical kidnappers used a variety of weird aliases. The kidnappers of Blakely Coughlin (1920) used “the Crank”; Marion Parker (1927), “the Fox”; Frances St. John Smith (1928), “Robert Brown”; Frank Blumer (1931), “the Unemployed Guys”; Lena Burlott (1931), “Iron Claw”; June Robles (1934), “XYZ”; John Labatt (1934, Canada), “Three Fingered Abe”; and last but not least, Charles Mattson (1937), “Tim”. Leopold and Loeb used “George Johnson” for Robert Franks (1924), but there of course the ransom was incidental. Oddly they included the initials GKR, as if the letter was typed by a secretary – those initials matched Gerrmaine K Reinhard, a friend of Loeb. In the fake kidnapping of Aimee Semple McPherson (1926), she used the pseudonym “the Avengers” for her ransom note.
A lot of kidnappings were by gangsters of other underworld characters who would not complain. There is not a lot of information available as to the methods they utilized, but I get the impression that they either had the victim write their own notes or contacted people by phone often. Other victims whose families were contacted by phone include Gustav Miller (1932) and Brooke Hart (1933).
We are of course only talking about ransom kidnappings and I think that crimes that occurred before Lindbergh are more interesting for this question, as later kidnappings may have been influenced or copying that case.
That is probably not very useful, but if I learn more, I will let you know.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jun 19, 2016 11:55:46 GMT -5
Michael: does your believing that the kidnappers never expected the ransom to be paid indicate that the kidnappers intended to kill CAL, Jr.? To me this sounds like you see the kidnapping as either an attempt to get back at Lindbergh for one reason or another; maybe,--to return to A & M's theory--Lindbergh himself orchestrating an elaborate hoax of some kind, only to have it go bad; perhaps something Elisabeth played a part in, working with others, to take revenge on her sister and brother-in-law; or maybe a personal threat, a throwing down of the gauntlet, against Lindbergh, using his son for emphasis, that CAL would himself understand and, likely, nobody else.
Yes, some people will do anything for money, and it's conceivable that many of the lesser participants in either the kidnapping or extortion, depending on how one views the LKC in the broadest sense, were paid quite small amounts, especially as some of them may not have been aware of the larger implications of the crime in which they were involved. To this it's worth adding that the Lindbergh law hadn't yet been put in effect, and a lot of the lesser players in the case may not have understood the full impact of the actions they were engaged in, thus it's not like there was a noose hanging over their heads in their nightmares. They were doing a job, got paid for their efforts, went about their business.
The drive to Hopewell that awful winter night was no easy thing to achieve, I agree; and the consequences of someone ending up in a mud puddle or a boggy or swampy place were dire, as there would be (in all likelihood) no one to call for help. Even if, miraculously, someone came by and offered to lend a hand, that would be another witness,--especially if there was a ladder in the car--thus the kidnappers, singular or plural, would have to do everything in secret till they arrived at the Lindbergh estate. This does raise the issue, for me. of whether the kidnappers had actually driven down all the way from NYC. If one can accept that Hauptmann played no actual part in the events of the night of the kidnapping the perps could have come from nearby, maybe even spent the previous night in or near Hopewell.
Could it be that the events set in motion that night involved people who were already there, if not in Hopewell, nearby, in Jersey somewhere, that they already had the ladder and the necessary tools to commit the crime? If, as you suggested, there was inside help,--I've always believed this to be the case--the actual approach to the house might not have been so hazardous than it would be if in one's mind's eye it's BRH or someone else driving down all the way from the Bronx in such inclement weather in the dead of winter. The event could have been much more elegantly planned, right down to the appearance of the crime scene suggesting that the child was taken out the window, carried down a ladder.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 19, 2016 13:28:20 GMT -5
This is the first time I've heard of someone telling Perrone on his way to deliver the ransom note to Condon that Condon's address corresponded with the guy offering $1000 in the kidnap case. This seems kind of eery.
How is this supposed to have happened? Perrone had supposedly told the man who handed him the envelope that he knew how to get to the address, so how did someone else manage to tell Perrone along the way about Condon and his address. Was he stopped by someone before he reached Condon? Did Perrone get lost somehow and had to ask for directions? As far we know, there were no passengers in his cab as he made this trip, so could there have been a passenger that we never knew about?
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Jun 19, 2016 14:11:31 GMT -5
This is the first time I've heard of someone telling Perrone on his way to deliver the ransom note to Condon that Condon's address corresponded with the guy offering $1000 in the kidnap case. This seems kind of eery. How is this supposed to have happened? Perrone had supposedly told the man who handed him the envelope that he knew how to get to the address, so how did someone else manage to tell Perrone along the way about Condon and his address. Was he stopped by someone before he reached Condon? Did Perrone get lost somehow and had to ask for directions? As far we know, there were know passengers in his cab as he made this trip, so could there have been a passenger that we never knew about? I think Michael is referring to James O'Brien, another taxi cab driver. On his way to Decatur Avenue, Perrone stopped a traffic light at Fordham Road/Moshulu Parkway, where there was a hack stand. While he was waiting for the light to change he showed the letter to O'Brien who told him about Condon.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 19, 2016 15:16:39 GMT -5
That doesn’t apply to Lindbergh obviously – since the point of such a mark is lost if the recipient doesn’t recognize it for what it is. That’s why Condon’s suggestion about the mark being the Trigumba (or whatever it was) doesn’t make much sense. Dr. Francis Nicholas of the American International Academy was one many people who assisted Hicks during Hoffman's re-investigation of this case. Something he wrote entitled " Criminal Syndicalism" always caught my attention since Condon claimed the symbol was Italian in nature/design. It was that there were (3) interlocking criminal societies in Italy: The Mafia, the Camorra, and the Mano Negro (Black Hand). He claimed these groups scarcely fought working in harmony to conduct their own specific types of crime. Don't know if it's relevent but I wanted to bring it up while I thought about it. Michael: does your believing that the kidnappers never expected the ransom to be paid indicate that the kidnappers intended to kill CAL, Jr.? To me this sounds like you see the kidnapping as either an attempt to get back at Lindbergh for one reason or another; maybe,--to return to A & M's theory--Lindbergh himself orchestrating an elaborate hoax of some kind, only to have it go bad; perhaps something Elisabeth played a part in, working with others, to take revenge on her sister and brother-in-law; or maybe a personal threat, a throwing down of the gauntlet, against Lindbergh, using his son for emphasis, that CAL would himself understand and, likely, nobody else. Since I couldn't possibly answer this question in a post I think it's best to wait until my book comes out. It will provide all the necessary information for everyone to come to a conclusion about this. At least I believe so. Certainly there will be much to talk about when that time comes. For example, there is information about something happening to that corpse that will knock your socks off! Hard to believe it was kept under wraps all these years but it was. This alone proves how information we'd expect would be common knowledge was kept quiet. One other thing to ask yourself: If the baby was alive, and the idea was to collect ransom - where was he going to go, and how was a Carpenter going to take care of him (by himself supposedly) that entire time? The drive to Hopewell that awful winter night was no easy thing to achieve, I agree; and the consequences of someone ending up in a mud puddle or a boggy or swampy place were dire, as there would be (in all likelihood) no one to call for help. Even if, miraculously, someone came by and offered to lend a hand, that would be another witness,--especially if there was a ladder in the car--thus the kidnappers, singular or plural, would have to do everything in secret till they arrived at the Lindbergh estate. This does raise the issue, for me. of whether the kidnappers had actually driven down all the way from NYC. If one can accept that Hauptmann played no actual part in the events of the night of the kidnapping the perps could have come from nearby, maybe even spent the previous night in or near Hopewell. Locals noticed everything. That's the wild-card factor. Could it be that the events set in motion that night involved people who were already there, if not in Hopewell, nearby, in Jersey somewhere, that they already had the ladder and the necessary tools to commit the crime? If, as you suggested, there was inside help,--I've always believed this to be the case--the actual approach to the house might not have been so hazardous than it would be if in one's mind's eye it's BRH or someone else driving down all the way from the Bronx in such inclement weather in the dead of winter. The event could have been much more elegantly planned, right down to the appearance of the crime scene suggesting that the child was taken out the window, carried down a ladder. My last post about the inside help was specifically meant to point out Condon. But the crime itself needed planning and assistance for sure. Look at how Hauptmann traded stock. Did he buy and sell because he liked a name or did he study the Board all day? This idea that he drove down as a knee-jerk emotional decision then ad-libbed his way through this is completely absurd.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 19, 2016 18:46:01 GMT -5
Yes, I can see how a Bronx resident like O'Brien might have remembered Condon and his address because Perrone's letter delivery occurred only about three days after Condon's "open letter" appeared on the front page of the Bronx Home News.
IMHO, Perrone being advised of who Condon was doesn't make his completion of the delivery of the letter nefarious on Perrone's part. Obviously, Condon wouldn't be thought of as anything but a patriotic American to the vast majority of ordinary Bronx people who happened to read his piece in the Home News.
Question: How did the Perrone-O'Brien conversation first come to light?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 19, 2016 19:54:15 GMT -5
IMHO, Perrone being advised of who Condon was doesn't make his completion of the delivery of the letter nefarious on Perrone's part. Obviously, Condon wouldn't be thought of as anything but a patriotic American to the vast majority of ordinary Bronx people who happened to read his piece in the Home News. Question: How did the Perrone-O'Brien conversation first come to light? To restate: I believe it should have given him pause, and that his first move should have been to the Police to avoid being a possible accessory. For me, it's an odd situation made worse by the fact it was going to Condon. Just an example of what people are willing to overlook if they want to make money. How about a white van flagging you down trying to sell you a pair of speakers. You know something ain't right but the price is awesome. It's kind of like that - excepting that the van driver didn't steal the speakers from the most famous man in the world. It's in Perrone's statement to Police about O'Brien.
|
|
|
Post by sweetwater on Jun 20, 2016 4:57:59 GMT -5
It's hard for me to get into detail since the crime scene is a heavy part of my book. (Still waiting for the proof that was due back to me over 3 weeks ago).
Thanks for what I bolded, Michael. I don't want to always be the one tugging at your sleeve and asking, "Are we there yet?" But, though I've not posted much lately, I'm checking in and reading and watching the pendulum swing ... and always looking for updates like that one! (Oh...and kind of holding my breath, too.)
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 20, 2016 5:31:59 GMT -5
Thanks for what I bolded, Michael. I don't want to always be the one tugging at your sleeve and asking, "Are we there yet?" But, though I've not posted much lately, I'm checking in and reading and watching the pendulum swing ... and always looking for updates like that one! (Oh...and kind of holding my breath, too.) I appreciate it. This whole process hasn't been something I've enjoyed. It's a relatively short book, but it's taken (3) editors to get that process done. I suppose I am such a bad writer it caused the last one to edit both my quotes and footnotes. That took a while to undo and now I am paranoid I missed something. So I guess it's a good thing it's taking extra time because I keep finding little things here and there that need to be fixed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2016 9:01:56 GMT -5
We are of course only talking about ransom kidnappings and I think that crimes that occurred before Lindbergh are more interesting for this question, as later kidnappings may have been influenced or copying that case. That is probably not very useful, but if I learn more, I will let you know. Hi Feathers, I found your post to be very useful information. It allowed me to compare the Lindbergh kidnapping with many other ransom kidnappings as to how communication was utilized by the kidnappers. What I noted with regard to the other kidnappings and the Lindbergh case is that the Lindbergh case utilized all three of the main elements you cover in your post. The Lindbergh kidnapping used a symbol (circles and holes), a name/alias (John), and the telephone (calls to Condon). There was also all the newspaper communications and two in person meetings that took place (Woodlawn and St. Raymond cemeteries). It makes the Lindbergh kidnapping look overdone/overkill, if you know what I mean. When researching other kidnappings for ransom, did you happen to note how many of them (if any at all) used an intermediary, like Condon was, to acquire the ransom money?
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jun 20, 2016 16:19:31 GMT -5
Thanks Feathers for your information-packed response! To my mind, the identifying signature has always indicated that this was a well-planned out scheme and that the kidnappers anticipated extortion attempts by others (Means/Curtis), perhaps because they knew how much publicity the kidnapping of Lindbergh's baby would receive. Also, as Mark Fanzini points out, the holes were punched in the notes 2 or 3 at a time. So, for some reason they thought this negotiation process would go on for awhile and would require extra stationary. It is also interesting to me that those directional notes to Condon did not have a signature as they must have felt it was not required for some reason.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jun 21, 2016 16:06:43 GMT -5
The issue of how Hauptmann was going to take care of such a young child has always been a puzzlement to me; and as he had no known partners in crime, given the condition of CAL, Jr.'s body when found, it makes his guilt all the more credible, on the surface anyway. This is not to say that I believe BRH actually did the deed, but it does make him look bad. To all this it's worth adding that the man went well over two years without seeming too bothered by this until he was, literally, arrested for possession of the ransom money.
Indeed, the condition of the body of the baby found in the woods has always fascinated me, and that there are still, for some of us, unanswered questions about it, such as, for my part, whether it was possible for it to have remained in that one place for so long given the time of year. Then there are those who believe the body wasn't that of CAL, Jr., another issue entirely so far as I'm concerned. My immense personal fondness for one of the many claimants to be little Charlie Lindbergh, Harold Olson, clouds my thinking somewhat, not a good thing in a murder case, I admit.
Another issue regarding the body,--and this is extremely relevant for the Hauptmann As Lone Wold advocates, is why BRH didn't return to where he'd left the body, found a better place to have disposed of it. As the area around the Lindbergh estate in Hopewell had been gone over with a proverbial fine tooth comb in the days immediately following the child's disappearance, Hauptmann, whose name was still not linked to the crime in any way, could have driven to New Jersey, taken a look around, picked up the body, got rid of it in some other, more efficient manner so as to ensure that it could never be discovered. This could have been accomplished in as few as two trips, three at most, to Hopewell Road, a stroll around the woods in the daytime, a pickup after dark.
If Hauptmann has the cojones to abduct the child, kill it, pass himself off as Cemetery John to Condon, surely that brief, literal walk in the woods, should not have been too risky by, at the earliest, late March, at the latest, some time in the second half of April.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 22, 2016 5:21:41 GMT -5
The issue of how Hauptmann was going to take care of such a young child has always been a puzzlement to me; and as he had no known partners in crime, given the condition of CAL, Jr.'s body when found, it makes his guilt all the more credible, on the surface anyway. Another issue regarding the body,--and this is extremely relevant for the Hauptmann As Lone Wold advocates, is why BRH didn't return to where he'd left the body, found a better place to have disposed of it. Your post is full of things that should always be discussed. If things don't make sense, especially in the context of the accepted version of events - then shouldn't there be a discussion about how it may have happened? I think so. Many who worship the Lone-Wolf theory usually shrug their shoulders, say " it doesn't matter" or try to sweep it under the rug. Is that how real life works? Food for thought: I've always believe the child was not where he was originally discovered the whole time. I've seen others suggest he did return to the corpse to get the sleeping suit.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jun 22, 2016 10:40:51 GMT -5
I'm of the same opinion regarding the child's body, Michael. It strikes me as nearly impossible for it to be in the condition it was in when it was discovered given the time of year. There are those who have suggested that truck driver William Allen may have been paid or tipped off to use that particular spot on the Hopewell Road to relieve himself. This strikes me as far fetched, and yet the timing was so perfect, the place where the body was found so convenient, as to give me pause. It's like someone needed "closure".
As to "Lone Wolf Hauptmann", his behavior makes no sense if murder was in his heart all along, as Wilentz insisted in his summation to the jury. Fair enough, but his cleverness, as Wilentz defined it, failed BRH when it came to the body of the small child he was planning to kill to begin with. Every bit as crucial as the crime scene ladder is the matter of the vat of acid or whatever Hauptmann ought to have brought with him to destroy the body of his victim as quickly as possible, then drop it off somewhere where it could never be recognized.
The nearness of the baby's body to its home suggests to me not a lone kidnapper from the Bronx but someone involved in the crime working or living nearby.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 23, 2016 5:46:32 GMT -5
The nearness of the baby's body to its home suggests to me not a lone kidnapper from the Bronx but someone involved in the crime working or living nearby. The key to the whole thing follows the "if - then" principal. If Hauptmann is a Lone-Wolf then..... But what we see happen is it's explained by the fact it was an accident. But when faced with the question as to how he'd take care of the child then it slides into murder. But when faced with other entanglements then back again to accident. It's done at will, and if there's going to be made sense of this that type of thing can't happen. We have to find situations where the facts can be properly explained. Tackling each individual problem with scenarios that cannot co-exist in the bigger picture is how this entire crime has been looked at by just about everyone over the years - then actually accepted as fact. But one cannot be true if the other is. The only exception is The Case That Never Dies by Lloyd Gardner. His approach to the case is how this whole thing should be looked at. Many don't like that because it threatens their personal theory - no matter what it is - and they want a book that supports it. Either Hauptmann is "innocent" or "guilty" by himself. Anything in between is unacceptable. I guess it has to do with how people think - I don't know - but it is very wrong if the goal here is the truth. The nearness of the body is a real clue no matter how one looks at it, and it's irresistible not to suggest someone nearby. Not only that, but the timing of the situation. Without a body Lindbergh could have been sailing off the coast searching for his son for the rest of his life - as well as facing countless more extortion attempts. Despite the fact that he actually did like playing cards with Curtis during that time, I believe he had a conclusion in mind, and no plans for that type of future activity. So it all worked out once the body suddenly turned up.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jun 23, 2016 11:55:54 GMT -5
Yes, Michael, and thank you. It was so convenient for whoever dropped the body off in the woods that Lindbergh was out looking for his living child, not even on dry land at the time. There's something strangely,--serendipitous?, not quite right--maybe just plain appropriate in the timing of this, as Lindbergh is himself safely away from home.
I don't see how the body could have been there for long. There were too many "ifs" unless it was done at the proper time; and an especially big "if" could have happened had there been a particularly hungry mother bear in the area looking to feed her cubs, who could easily have dragged the body away, leaving no evidence.
My guess is that,--and excuse my grisliness in this--the body had to be attended to, so to speak, so as to ensure its eventual discovery. And who better to do the "attending" than someone who was either employed at Lindbergh's estate or had easy access to it? I wonder if it could have been "treated" so as to repel wild animals, or to discourage them. That would have made it safer to leave it where it was, though what chemicals were used in the treatment could have been found on or in the body, but that's assuming someone was looking for something.
As I think on this I find myself getting angry and wondering why none of this was raised in Hauptmann's defense. The case against him was an "all or nothing at all" affair; thus one false move on the prosecution's part and he could have been found innocent. Yet Wilentz was so sure.
At this juncture other "ifs" could easily have been raised, yet they probably wouldn't have come up due to the time frame of over two years. Still, Reilly or someone on his team could have pressed the issue of the location of the child's body as in itself a defense point in the unlikelihood of BRH being the sole perp, guilty of murder.
As the child's abduction was on a particularly rainy, windy night, the ground would have been mud. Could that little grave been dug or hollowed out under such conditions, the body neatly placed inside, and everything still in place more than two months later? From all descriptions of the body and its discovery I've read it was found as if there had been no rain, no storm at all, as if in a kind of time capsule vacuum.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 23, 2016 14:53:02 GMT -5
The body couldn't have been there that long or turkey vultures would have been circling it and caught somebody's attention.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2016 10:23:38 GMT -5
I wonder if it could have been "treated" so as to repel wild animals, or to discourage them. That would have made it safer to leave it where it was, though what chemicals were used in the treatment could have been found on or in the body, but that's assuming someone was looking for something. You made some very interesting posts with much to think about in them. So, John, are you suggesting that the body had been embalmed or purposely preserved through the use of chemicals, slowing the decomp while negotiations for the $50,000 were going on? No teeth marks from animals were found on any of the human bones recovered from the gravesite. Dr. Mitchell never mentions in his autopsy that there were teeth marks on the bones of the corpse when he examined it. No tissue samples were obtained from the corpse so we have no forensic testing to review. If embalming fluid or another type of chemical were used to slow the decomposition then perhaps animals would not bother with the body once it was placed in the woods. Once on the surface the body would, of course, break down quickly in May temperatures. If you are just an ordinary kidnapper, out for the bucks, why would you even go to the trouble of preserving the body in any fashion???
|
|
dave
Detective
Posts: 130
|
Post by dave on Jun 24, 2016 10:40:03 GMT -5
Get the Squibb Report from the 80's.
Once again 21st century thinking! 84 years ago , simple crime, simpler time. Prime example of over thinking the case. He dug a hole and buried the body. Then he finds he needs the sleeping suite. He came back, took some b---s, and dug up the body and didn't bury it very well. In a hurry! You damn well know animals messed with the body.What body parts were missing? Another week or so you have found nothing. Nothing a trucker would have chanced upon!
It was 1932! Don't over think it!!
Now I'll sit back and just wait for all the "Pros" to weigh in.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 24, 2016 10:57:00 GMT -5
Maybe it was in the trunk of a car instead of in the woods.
The crime is really pretty simple - investigation has made it complex.
|
|
dave
Detective
Posts: 130
|
Post by dave on Jun 24, 2016 11:17:29 GMT -5
Hey Jack,
Are you and I the only ones who can see what is in plain site? Sherlock Holmes said many times - "We see but we do not observe !"
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 24, 2016 11:50:15 GMT -5
Ya - I guess.
NOBODY is so stupid that they'd meet with Condon without knowing where the body was!
How you been? I almost told Corrine not to be afraid of you, then I wasn't so sure - haha.
|
|
dave
Detective
Posts: 130
|
Post by dave on Jun 24, 2016 11:57:19 GMT -5
It 's like a great man once said - "The only thing we have to fear is, Jack and Dave!"
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 24, 2016 12:05:14 GMT -5
Havn't heard that in a while. I talked to R - still going to school - unbelievable.
Still got a bike? I let my license go but just have to take written to get it back. Here you have to have insurance even if you don't own one. Commies.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 24, 2016 16:15:08 GMT -5
It was 1932! Don't over think it!! Now I'll sit back and just wait for all the "Pros" to weigh in. What do you think about James Walsh's Report he gave to Fawcett? That was written in 1934.
|
|