kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 13, 2012 13:18:07 GMT -5
I would not disregard such a statement, Jack. I didn't know she said that and therefore I don't know in what context it was made. Or is it the other way around
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Aug 13, 2012 14:11:23 GMT -5
not sure if this has been discussed but; by all account BRH was an outdoorsman etc. but could he have done those acrobatic feats that Cemetery John did? i have always wondered (not having yet been to those cemeteries) about all the jumping over fences, etc. sounds very physical, but could BRH do that? probably not poor Fisch? and isn't it some folks ideas that Nosovitsky is a better fit for that?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 13, 2012 15:02:59 GMT -5
Kevkon: I am trying to find that statement but so far it's like pulling nails. It is a big deal and I'll go after it. Do you have the book, "Top Secret:," it might be in there. Lotta pages and unindexed.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 13, 2012 15:14:14 GMT -5
But that's an example of things which are currently ignored. Another example - is Fisch really dead? Just the Jewish community in Germany said he was - what are they gonna say, open up an investigation? Had TB in this country for twenty years then suddenly moves to Germany and dies in two weeks? Sounds BS.
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Aug 13, 2012 15:37:50 GMT -5
Yes. Hauptmann was gymnastically inclined...according to various sources (which I unfortunately cannot recall specifically right this moment).
But that's yet another example of purely circumstantial evidence. Jd
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Aug 13, 2012 16:29:18 GMT -5
I wouldn't count on Fisch being in or out of the planning stage, but it's difficult for me to imagine a business partner and close friend of Hauptmann's between March/August of 1932 (take your pick) and December of 1933, being blissfully unaware of the source of Hauptmann's enrichment. In short, I'm sure Fisch would at least have sniffed out the dope.
I think you'll find Anne's comment that she felt her child's death was an accident, in Hour of Gold Hour of Lead. I've seen it in numerous other places but can't recall where. It seems to be a general family belief and I know that Reeve Lindbergh has stated as much publicly. Steve might know more about that.
I would fully expect Hauptmann to be able to scale the fence at Woodlawn Cemetery in the way described by Condon, despite his chronic phlebitis of the left leg, which would flare up at times.
I'm not so sure Fisch wasn't there as well, as the man seen jumping from the top of the stone colum by cemetery guard Robert Riehl, is a much closer match to Fisch than Hauptmann, in perceived height and age. I believe Riehl may not have actually seen Cemetery John when he was talking with Condon, but his accomplice instead. Actually Fisch was not quite as frail and fragile as you might imagine. He was slight in build but very lean and muscular in the upper body as seen in some of the Hunter and City Island photos.
Nosovitsky would have been about 42 years of age at the time of the kidnapping and was taller than Hauptmann with very broad shoulders, large hands and a very distinctive slim face and fairly large nose. And I think Condon's physical description of CJ would have been considerably different.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 13, 2012 16:42:10 GMT -5
I'm not going to exclude Fisch from the kidnapping and extortion, but it seems to me that if he was involved, Hauptmann would not refer to him anywhere in writing.
As for Hauptmann's physical abilitys, have any of you ever driven a 1930 Dodge? I'm not even talking cross country. Then there is the fact that he worked as a carpenter, I can tell you that it's an occupation that requires a lot of physical dexterity. Jumping a fence is cake.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Aug 13, 2012 17:21:27 GMT -5
Kevin, are you suggesting that if he was involved, he would have been an invisible partner? In reality, Fisch was very visible in Hauptmann's business and personal affairs and I think it would have been difficult for him to fly below the radar if he was involved in the kidnapping. I believe Hauptmann was the kind of personality who required a very deep and specialized trust in those he was close to before he would draw them into his dark side, and that that would include Fisch and Anna Hauptmann. Richard may well have had many friends and acquaintances who truly believed he was innocent and who really saw nothing more in him than a fun loving ein bummel kind of a guy.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 13, 2012 22:54:16 GMT -5
Well, Joe (McGiniss?) I've personally been on the downside of "need to know" situations and I'd imagine that you and Kevkon have been too. It's just situations in military and business that you're not involved in or are involved to a limited extent. So BRH could have been on a low rung need to know and it eventually came down to the knowers dumping the hot cash on his lap and the rest is known. There are just way too many oddities for the crime to have gone down in the manner it's generally believed. Investigators say, "why didn't someone speak up at the time of the crime?" Some did and they were quickly ignored or shut up. Wolf said there were two sets of footprints leading into the woods - can't be a one man crime - ignored. Mrs. Morrow's chauffeur said he saw the bloody baby laying on the driveway - ignored. CAL was more powerfull than the President of USA at the time so for anyone to say anything against him was certainly risky. I'm reminded of a not so famous quote, "I don't want to sit with you Frank and I'm not afraid of your thugs," said by Desi Arnez to Frank Sinatra, and to my knowledge the only guy who ever talked back to Frank and lived.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 13, 2012 23:06:40 GMT -5
Joe could be right. I have a partial site where the statement is supposedly found and it's a book that includes Anne's mother. Supposedly she says it too. If this is correct then for eighty years everyone's been fishing in the wrong stream.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 13, 2012 23:25:23 GMT -5
I guess there is one picture of Anne pg carrying CAL Jr. That is the only known picture of a Morrow woman pregnant, yet they had lots of kids. Suspicious - you bet! What if's are goofy of course, but what if the child was Elizabeth's? That would answer a lot of questions.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 14, 2012 1:56:22 GMT -5
Sorry Kev, what you are all chasing is junk! The reason this particular crime hasn't been solved for eighty years is that it's been looked at incorrectly. If looked at correctly it's solved immediately, and CAL goes for life. Some will ask me how - CAL is the only person who had access to the nursery after the "crime" was discovered and could have wiped it. Cal is the only one who saw the ladder, excepting Wolfe who saw two sets of footprints leading into the woods. The ladder was placed against the house ex post facto, so there is no way of determining when the ladder was actually against the house. If this was some kind of set up it would be the ideal time to do it because CAL, for the first time in his life, missed an appointment. Many coincidences!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Aug 14, 2012 7:06:35 GMT -5
Jack, I've been on the downside of an inter-company collusive agreement of the magnitude that would have demanded a federal inquiry into automotive supply business dealings. The true LKC though, stripped of its bs factor, would still be a tantalizing read, but it's much more straightforward than all of this. The celebrity of the man whose family was violated, all of those who wanted a piece of the action and one bulky and constipated investigation leads to one big rain barrel of conspiracy theory possibilities.. and spearing fish here is easy.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 14, 2012 7:40:20 GMT -5
Jack, that's somewhat true. Unfortunately, I have the feeling that you are not following your own words. Too many complicated theories with endless participants. The truth lies in simplicity.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 14, 2012 10:03:42 GMT -5
Hey Joe - looks like you've been brushing up on unusual words. But you say it best - CAL at that time was untouchable. And yes, Kevkon, there are different directions to follow, but does anybody even care anymore? A recent study which asked about Lindbergh stated mostly that it was a kind of French cheese.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2012 11:39:03 GMT -5
The footprint evidence at the scene of two people (maybe a third) along with a ladder and chisel seems to reflect a small group involved in this crime. The more people you have the bigger the footprint and the harder it is to control the whole situation from blowing up in your face. I am of the belief that Condon's earliest description of CJ sounds more like Fisch than it does Hauptmann. Fisch is small in stature, had a pointed chin and had TB which would lend itself to the serious cough that Condon describes CJ as having. The cemetary guard at Woodlawn who saw CJ jump from the column of the gate also describes a man who is smaller and lighter than Hauptmann. When reading over Cemetary Patrolman Riehl's state about March the 12th, the description Riehl gives of the man who was taking to CJ does not fit Dr. Condon at all. When Riehl is asked if it was Dr. Condon he saw, he says no. He says that Dr. Condon is a taller man and has a mustache. The man he talked to at the gate was shorter and had no mustache! If it wasn't Condon, then who was the man meeting with CJ and then followed him into Van Courtland Park? ??
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 14, 2012 12:25:37 GMT -5
Excellent questions - especially who got the money? Although 50K isn't a lot considering the crime, I wouldn't mind it in my checkbook. So the enigma isn't particularly Hauptmann, he got some known and attributed cash, it's Fisch. So, if as you say above, Fisch even did the whole deed it makes a lot of sense. On the other hand though, I don't think Fisch had the connections. Someone would have had to know Betty or Violet or Ollie, and there doesn't seem to be that/those links. The reason unsolved crimes are unsolved is because they are unsolvable. If you think you're smarter than Detective Finn - take it on.
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Aug 14, 2012 12:50:49 GMT -5
I think Hauptmann is just as much an enigma as Fisch. Hauptmann's life and finances have been examined under figurative microscopes for almost a century, and yet we still don't quite know what he was up to, precisely.
I think it was Dr. Gardner who, in his book The Case that Never Dies, said something about it appearing as though Hauptmann and Fisch were conning each other. Something about the Knickerbocker Pie Company. I'll have to go back and read that section.
Fisch did appear to be quite an enigma, though, yes. He looked and acted destitute, but he was able to con a lot of people into giving him money, and at the same time, he kept all those people totally and utterly unaware of each other.
I honestly don't have a clue who Cemetery John was. It's possible Hauptmann had a fleshy lump on his thumb, from doing carpentry work, but that it healed up by the time he was caught. He didn't seem to do any carpentry work after the kidnapping, did he?
Jd
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 14, 2012 13:05:40 GMT -5
I doubt a cold case detective would agree with you, Jack. It does become increasingly difficult with the passage of time, though. We were able to prove certain things in the new Nova production, while other issues could not be resolved for a variety of reasons. Personally, I see the greatest problem with concluding the LKC as being that of looking past the evidence rather than at it. I think there is a natural tendency toward complication and most major events seem to get that response. Try and take an unprejudiced look at the very beginning of this crime and then look at the signature of the man convicted. What does the evidence and the profile of the man reveal?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 14, 2012 13:30:43 GMT -5
Well, duh, that's what I've been trying to do. And you and yours seem to not agree. There is just as much evidence that Charlie was killed a couple days before 3/1/32 as there isn't. So the actual true thing is that Ollie called the police. Then the police (Wolf etc.) and really found nothing - no child, no suspect, a ladder away from the site, and later no fingerprints, and no witnesses. Betty, Ollie and his wife along with Charles and Anne all claimed to know nothing. That sounded suspicious to Wolf and he was shut up in a hurry. Perhaps you don't recall the exacting of the crime. I guess it's stupid continually looking at the dang thing - guess I must be stupid.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 14, 2012 13:49:06 GMT -5
Detectives in Miami who have twenty unsolved murders on their desks might disagree with you Kevkon, but who am I to judge? You and Michael think that LKC is the only crime which exists and you're certainly wrong. If a case is closed that's it as far as they're concerned. Same with the prosecution. It's done and to be concluded. Nobody gave a s... about Hauptmann - they wanted just to put him away.
|
|
|
Post by GaryB on Aug 14, 2012 16:00:24 GMT -5
Dropping in here and there I find this thread a good reflection of where we are. I think Kevin is right that sometimes we look past the evidence rather than at it. Yet you know there is more to this than the evidence we have . That is clear.
Amy is right. There are too many things that make you believe there is more than one involved. Without proving it I believe without doubt there was one or more others.
CJ seems to be able to be Fisch as much as it could be Hauptmann. Thats why I consider Condon actually in contact with both and thats why I think we are blending two into one.
I am not sure if I understand Michael's view on Condon's involvement. I do believe it would be possible that he needed to prove himself as neutral. In doing so desired that the confederates get their money above anything else.
In my mind I always considered the belief this was a well thought out plan with several involved with each person a responsibility but evolved down to 2-3 because of the last minute news the Lindbergh's were staying over into the weekdays. I still believe the Samuelsohn story. I just don't think his ladder was used (obviously). The importance of that was there was a plan in construction with several involved even if that part was ditched.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 14, 2012 17:04:54 GMT -5
I totally agree.
So you don't rule it out - just the possibility of trouble being ruled in?
That is the crux of the matter isn't it? It's what we see or, in the alternative, what we are willing to accept as real evidence.
I certainly believe so. But based upon the intelligence of the board, along with our differing personalities and diverse opinions - I'd be willing to bet it would be debated (as it should if it is debatable). Anyway, I see evidence that his expenditures aren't solely based upon his view of them. Of course that's not to say he would spend money on things he didn't want, but we must look at everything he did then its fairly obvious there are other factors in play. One of the purchases that got him in trouble, for example, were the $5 pair of fancy shoes he bought Anna. So he'll buy her these shoes but won't take a boat ride while in Georgia (vacation), that she was begging him to take - because it cost too much?
In my opinion there just cannot be a generic answer for his pattern both before and after the crime.
Well, there is missing documentation. Next, his actions suggest he has money he did not have previously.
They might. Then again, they might not. Or they may conclude he was just in on the extortion. In fact, there is a lot which one may conclude if they look and search through everything.
I can't agree. How does one reconcile the fact Hauptmann prepared for this cross country trip in the past - but didn't go? What is different between his failed trip and the successful one? What held him back? Was he worse off financially?
So you have no problem whatsoever with his actions immediately prior to his cross-country trip considering his is supposed to be "broke?"
Here is my mind-set, and I am not pinning any of this on you or from your perspective, rather, I am trying my best to explain where I am coming from by addressing counter-arguments, etc.......
I don't know how much he had in '31 but something happened to make him act like he hit the lottery before the crime. Next, his actions, even after the crime, aren't always 100% consistent and I submit to you there is a reason for that. Suggesting everyone is unique as an explanation isn't evidence and is counterintuitive. His reasons may be unique, but there must be reasons nevertheless. Suggesting its because of how he views the purchases doesn't jibe with what he does when considering the totality of his actions.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 14, 2012 17:47:17 GMT -5
Mark Twain wrote a story about the world's most beloved person who was eventually thrown out a window. That story was prior to CAL, but very similar in nature, and I imagine there were many including FDR who wished the same fate for Charles.
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Aug 14, 2012 19:10:40 GMT -5
A very famous and highly respected award-winning actor, whose name you'd know and whose work you've probably seen or heard of, was friends with my grandfather.
My grandfather once told me a story about the actor's encounter with Charles Lindbergh. The actor told my grandfather what his impression of Lindbergh was.
According to my grandfather, the actor said, "He's a no-good son of a bitch."
Jd
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Aug 14, 2012 19:26:32 GMT -5
;D jd
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 14, 2012 19:41:45 GMT -5
Good post JD!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 14, 2012 19:43:40 GMT -5
Let me try to clear up my position.... I think Condon was brought in by a Member of the "Gang" who knew him. Condon's "job" was to get them the 50K (or 70K if he wanted his cut) all the while running interference and providing them information to prevent their apprehension.
Anyway, I think you have a reasonable explanation concerning his actions. I think a man professing to be on the side of good wouldn't be able to act as both good and evil - simultaneously. I say this because he continued his ruse even after the body of the child was found.
Hopefully you'll stick around or sign up so we will benefit from more of your thoughts!
I believe it JD. I've seen a lot of this stuff over the years about him.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 14, 2012 19:58:08 GMT -5
In these long years I have not gon for or against the person of CAL, and surprisingly Michael and Kevkon have resisted that notion as well. But in reality he comes down to be just a jerk. My father didn't know him but he was a wingwalker and knew of him. My dad told me that he (CAL) would dump planes rather than fly into storms - that sounds logical I guess, but planes cost money and pilots were cheap. My dad said that Hauptmann probably had something to do with the crime, but that was all that he would say about it. Said he remembered that morning on the radio.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 15, 2012 1:01:20 GMT -5
I see Travis is doing some good shows now - "here's a quarter please find me some underwear."
|
|