|
Post by bookrefuge on Aug 25, 2012 10:31:09 GMT -5
Kevin, facts and beliefs are intertwined. Facts about this case lead us to form beliefs (also known as “conclusions”). And this is true for all of us, including you. If I said “I don’t believe Charlie was kidnapped by a dingo,” someone could denounce that by saying “that’s only a belief, not a fact.” Yes, but it would be a logical belief, based soundly on probabilities. On a much lesser scale of probability, the same goes for what I said about Hauptmann driving to Hopewell, hoping that Charlie would be there on a Tuesday, based on LUCK rather than KNOWLEDGE. I didn’t say it was impossible that it happened by chance, just improbable, for the reasons I outlined in the post.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 25, 2012 11:53:26 GMT -5
Fair enough ( and good response)
Do you happen to have the dates from which there is no ledger entries?
They can be, but they don't have to be. I don't want to beat a dead horse here, you ( and probably most) believe the timing was an indicator of inside help or great intelligence and planning. That's fine with me, but it is an assumption. Where I part company is that I absolutely do not believe that is a fact or that it was required. Once you free yourself from that assumption you can explore other possibilities.
Anyone care to post the Huddleson report ?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Aug 25, 2012 13:04:39 GMT -5
I looked for my copy and couldn't find it but recall printing it off Ronelle's site years ago. Here is the link to her web page title Sources. For anyone who hasn't checked out this page, it's loaded with great articles, reports and features. www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/bibsources.htmlScroll about 1/3 of the way down.
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Aug 25, 2012 14:14:17 GMT -5
Has anyone ever done an actual statistical study to determine the mathematical probability of Hauptmann kidnapping the baby on the only Tuesday the family was there?
I'm serious. Totally serious. What are the statistical odds of him picking that day out of all days to kidnap the baby?
Jd
PS: The answer I expect to get is: "Jd, we have lives, you know."
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 25, 2012 15:57:56 GMT -5
What are the odds that a ship would collide with an iceberg and sink on it's maiden voyage? Luck does occur in both forms. On the other hand, what if Hauptmann didn't care if the baby was there
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 26, 2012 10:20:13 GMT -5
July 1930. Investigators had to guess at the figures.
100% for anyone who had inside help.
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Aug 26, 2012 14:23:42 GMT -5
I don't think Kev believes he did. Me? I have no idea. But I will say this...I'm inclined to believe the statistical odds of everything falling into place like this for one man are astronomically high. But I also believe it's not 100% impossible, either. Jd
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 26, 2012 16:14:02 GMT -5
Why should anyone believe it? Is there supporting evidence?
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Aug 26, 2012 17:28:06 GMT -5
Does circumstantial evidence count? It should...it's what sent Hauptmann to the electric chair.
There are only two plausible explanations for how Hauptmann managed to enter the nursery undetected, take the baby, and escape undetected.
1: Luck 2: Help
Is there any tangible evidence? Probably not, but that does not mean he didn't have help. We just don't know. We just.... don't know.
If there WERE any tangible evidence, then this board would probably shut down. Why? The case would have been solved.
Unless someone could refute that evidence. Hell of a vicious circle....
That's how I perceive this. Luck or help. One or the other. You lean toward luck. I lean toward help. It's fun, though, to bounce ideas off each other. Someone may actually change another person's mind.
Jd
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 26, 2012 20:34:04 GMT -5
I think you are misunderstanding me, I don't think it was luck that brought him to Highfields that night, though I admit it's a possibility. What I definitely do not agree with is starting with an assumption that he had to know and then constructing any number of theories from that point without accounting for the possibility that the initial assumption may be false.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Aug 27, 2012 8:23:17 GMT -5
Inside help can come in many forms but it would have been a very risky proposition to directly involve anyone at Highfields or Next Day Hill, given the enormous stakes. I have to believe the connection would come out in the wash as nothing less than obvious and would have been discounted right up front in anyone's plans. Violet Sharp, the Morrow servant, ended up taking her own life because of the pressure she felt exerted on her and it seems likely she did nothing more than share "secrets of the house" with Tom McElvie of the Daily News.
There is a general dearth of information regarding Hauptmann's movements prior to the kidnapping. People whose names we should all be much more familiar with due to their association with Hauptmann over the years, were never questioned and scrutinized to the extent they should have been and so in many cases the vine just withered from lack of attention. We also have Hauptmann himself to thank for this, due to his refusal to admit anything and the ultimate decision to prosecute Hauptmann as a lone wolf. There is some light though to be shone on his general movements, acquaintances and connection to New Jersey as related by people who knew him between the spring of 1931 and the spring of 1933.
This week, I will try to post more information from the statements of Fred and Marie Hahn, who together ran a lunch bar and restaurant on Webster Ave., and which was frequented often by Hauptmann and others with him over a period both before and after the kidnapping. Perhaps other such reports will start to come out to give a more complete picture.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 27, 2012 9:50:27 GMT -5
Absolutely Joe, it still amazes me how much is not known about BRH.
Michael, are you saying that no ledger exists for that month, from that month to the kidnapping, or that a ledger exists with no entries?
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Aug 27, 2012 13:02:07 GMT -5
I consider this a very astute observation; it makes sense.
However, let's take into consideration the likelihood that whoever perpetrated the actual kidnapping was willing to deal with enormous stakes.
The stakes were incredible and enormous even if it were a lone wolf. Either way you look at it, the kidnapper(s) engaged in an unimaginable crime.
Of course, there was no death penalty for kidnapping at the time, so the kidnappers most likely didn't expect to worry about being executed for taking Lindbergh's baby.
But things apparently didn't go as planned. The baby died. Cemetery John asked Jafsie if he would burn if the baby were dead. So, that leads me to believe the baby's death was an accident.
On the other hand, we really don't know. But if the baby's death was planned, it makes the risks much, much greater.
As for the risk of a servant spilling the beans, we don't know how loyal (or, depending on your point of view, how disloyal) they were. If they were disgruntled enough, they could have run turncoat and been equally disloyal to Lindbergh and loyal to the kidnapper(s). We just don't know.
Jd
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 27, 2012 14:45:26 GMT -5
One of my initial thoughts on this whole thing was that even without the death penalty, it would've been madness for, say, one of the staff members to participate in the crime--if nothing else because that person would be part of a very small group that would be intensely focused on, and it would therefore only be a matter of time before the police turned up something on that person. On the other hand, while it's hardly impossible, the odds of the kidnappers simply lucking into that particular Tuesday, for example, still seem pretty slim, so I'd have to say I lean toward some form of inside help for now. But if we entertain any notion of inside help, it would seem that this person would, given the circumstances, have to be someone who could control things well enough to minimize risk of discovery.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 27, 2012 15:26:34 GMT -5
Here's what absolutely kills the inside help angle for me. you are planning to kidnap the Lindbergh child. You basically have 3 choices available for your target, Englewood (Next day Hill), Hopewell (Highfields), or in transit. Now if you go with the norm, you would pick in transit. It's the most insecure of the three choices and it lends itself to controlling the event. In any case, if instead you opt for Highfields then your plan would be based on a weekend date. Your insider would provide you with that info. If you choose Englewood, it would be a weekday job. Now we have a Highfields event on a weekday and the child is sick to boot. Now why would you strike on a weekday with all of your plans based on Highfields and the weekend? What you are doing is a completely unnecessary risk to your insider since that person is going to become suspect. Plus you are kidnapping a sick child, that means more work for the kidnappers and more risk to the victim. There is absolutely no sense to this insider weekday kidnapping from the kidnapper's perspective and the insider. Saturday is just a few days away. This is the chief reason that the various theories developed in which it's a phony kidnapping.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Aug 27, 2012 16:20:07 GMT -5
Kev, why would anyone abduct the child in transit? Granted, it might be a quick snatch to reach into an automobile. But even if wearing masks, the abductors would have to reveal themselves to whoever accompanied the child—if not to a parent, probably at least to a nurse and chauffeur. And there’s the risk of their vehicle being identified, plus the time of the crime is pinpointed. I think the way they did it was much less risky.
Also, I think we cannot rule out inside help just because the Tuesday snatch tended to implicate inside help. Granted, this threw suspicion on staff—but it was a big staff, with close to 30 working at Next Day Hill alone. There’s safety in numbers, as they say. Big suspicion on Violet Sharpe, of course, even though she didn’t work at Highfields.
I think Tuesday, March 1, was the absolute perfect evening to take baby Lindbergh. Why? (1) The baby at Highfields (easiest target) (2) Unlike the weekend, NO marksman Lindbergh present (or so they thought, based on newspaper accounts about the NYU dinner) (3) Presuming the plan was set in motion before Anne’s Tuesday call to Next Day Hill, the kidnappers also believed there would be NO BETTY GOW. Baby’s expected protection would be limited to Mom, a cook and a butler. It just doesn't get any better than that!
Of course, Monday evening would have worked also—I just don’t think there was time to set everything in motion that fast, once they learned Charlie was staying beyond the weekend.
So for me, they took the baby at the precise correct place and time—in a lightly protected house, right after dark, but before Lindbergh’s anticipated arrival home. The perfect snatch.
If I was going to do it, that’s how I would do it. I see planning, not luck. And I would need inside help to know about that Tuesday.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 27, 2012 17:07:25 GMT -5
Well BR, look at how the pro's went about the job. It's basic training tactics, go for the soft target. As for Lindbergh, who cares if he's around? He's an aviator, not a gunfighter. If your perfect scenario is Tuesday at Highfields then you have no concern about the fate of your inside asset. That in turn would not bode well for you.
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Aug 27, 2012 17:11:28 GMT -5
But Kev, they're ALL going to become suspect anyway! One of them committed suicide because she was suspect.
Using an insider was a tremendous risk, but it's not outside the scope of reason to believe the perpetrator accepted the risk.
Maybe it wasn't as big a risk as we think.
And there's something else to consider. This idea is out there, even I'll admit that. But...just to throw this out into the pond....what if the perpetrator was dying or really sick, and the risks didn't matter to him? At all?
Maybe the perpetrator had...oh, I dunno...maybe tuberculosis?
Nahhhhhhh......Hauptmann did it. He got blitheringly lucky.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Aug 27, 2012 17:31:50 GMT -5
Absolutely. Highfields on the evening March 1st was the softest target possible. When Lindbergh was a freshman at the University of Wisconsin, he joined the university rifle team, which ranked number one nationally that year, with Lindbergh recognized at its top marskman. He got his first rifle at age six, and as boy could shoot a duck in the head in full flight. Think he would do less to a fleeing kidnapper? He wasn’t a gunfighter by trade, but I sure wouldn’t pit my life against his skill.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 27, 2012 20:02:53 GMT -5
Have you been there?
You are arguing against yourself here, BR. Q;Where would one find CAL + Rifle A; CAL + RIFLE= Highfields
There is a huge difference, though.
I really don't understand this "insider" proposition. Was or was not this kidnapping planned? If it was, then why deviate?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Aug 27, 2012 20:54:22 GMT -5
No, I haven’t been to Highfields. But with its minimum of servants and uncurtained windows, there is a strong consensus that it was a far easier target than Next Day Hill. In fact, you yourself have been talking recently how about easy it was to scope out. As far as grabbing Charlie from an auto goes—you’re talking about a very unpredictable situation. Maybe Anne or Betty throw themselves protectively over the baby. Maybe Ellerson (or Lindy, or whoever’s at the wheel) floors the accelerator and you miss your chance. Even if you get the baby, people have seen you, they’ve seen your car. What a can of worms.
Exactly. And what I SAID was, they probably picked that Tuesday because they expected that crack-shot Lindbergh would NOT be at Highfields due to the NYU dinner. Therefore I have not argued against myself.
Now, maybe I DO argue with myself during my wild binges of a paranoid schizophrenia, but this wasn’t such a episode.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 28, 2012 9:06:50 GMT -5
Too bad you have never been to Highfields, even today one can see exactly how easy it would be to carry out an abduction on those rural back roads. In fact, even the driveway would be inviting.
Anyway, it seems that the Tuesday /Highfields / insider theory is too inviting for many to get past despite the very obvious faults. Or perhaps it is fundamental to some larger theory.
Time to move on.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Aug 28, 2012 10:13:52 GMT -5
Here's my simple read on all this, for what it's worth.
There was no inside help here other than a possible slip of information which might have inspired someone very early on to even consider such an outrageous kidnapping plan. Here, I think of possible locations for that slip have been the Temple of Divine Power in Harlem, the Plymouth Apartments on West 149th St. and the Sha-Toe speakeasy in Fort Lee NJ, which was frequented by many of the Morrow servants.
I also believe the kidnappers had come to understand that the Lindberghs had taken up permanent residence in Hopewell, and had decided to strike on Tuesday, March 1 upon realizing that Lindbergh would probably be arriving home late after attending the NYU dinner. As far as reconnaissance goes, it would take a couple of actual visits to become familiar enough with the location during the day, in addition to more detailed information on the house interior.
Regarding the house layout, I think I would tend to focus on any official plans which might have been published in the papers, although I have never heard of the winning Chester Aldrich design having been made public. Also, the Lakewood, NJ district, where there was a large number of skilled Germans who had emigrated there after WWI for work on the zeppelins housed at the nearby Lakehurst Aerodrome, one of whom might well have worked on Highfields during construction. Hauptmann had an admitted connection to this area as early as 1924 and was a regular visitor here and other parts of NJ with his wife later on.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 28, 2012 11:21:55 GMT -5
I find it interesting that in June of 1923 Hauptmann is again arrested for theft of leather drive belts. These are valuable and essential parts of any machine at the time. The thefts occurred at (3) separate factories in Kamanz. What I find interesting is Hauptmann's explanation for having possession of these belts as well as the fact that the police quickly focused on him. His explanation; a friend who replaced the belts took the old ones and gave them to Hauptmann. Hauptmann claimed he didn't know they were stolen. So, again we have Richard as the hapless recipient of stolen property and a friend who left him with the bill.
Another oddity, and I confess this is pure speculation, Hauptmann was arrested for the first time for the (3) burglaries and (1) armed robbery in 3/1919. Four years later in 6/1924 he is charged with stealing the (3) drive-belts. Eight years later in 3/1932 we have the kidnapping. I can't but wonder if something else occurred in the eight year span ( 1928-1930), something that might explain some enrichment.
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Aug 28, 2012 15:11:50 GMT -5
I realize the above quote was not directed at me, but just to throw in my two cents....
I've been to Highfields--I live just outside of Princeton, New Jersey--and I've been on all those back roads. It's pretty desolate out there. I can only try to imagine what it would have been like on a dark, blustery night...80 years ago.
I'm not 100% sure I know what you mean, though, when you say even the driveway would be inviting. Would you be willing to elaborate on that? I've stood in that driveway and shot a few hoops with some caretakers there. (I am terrible at that, by the way.)
Incredible....80 years ago, and books are still being written about it. People are still debating it. New information (or should I say alleged new information) is still surfacing.
Kev, if you ever plan on going to the Archives in the near future, I do hope you'd be willing to let me know. I've only been there once, by myself, but I'm sure I'd find it incredibly intriguing to see how an experienced researcher goes about his (or her) business there. If you wouldn't object too severely if I asked to join you.
Michael, that request goes to you, too. And a Bobby's Burger Palace just opened up in Princeton on Route 1. Killer food.
Jd
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 28, 2012 16:56:08 GMT -5
Hey JD, What I mean by inviting is that any car is extremely vulnerable to a hijack. It's a helluva lot better than fooling around with a ladder. Look at the 1000 plus kidnappings of the period or even today.
JD, send me your contact info via pm. I may be visiting Mark soon on something new.
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Aug 29, 2012 9:38:32 GMT -5
Kev,
The info has been sent. Jd
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Aug 30, 2012 9:53:44 GMT -5
in a response to my first post on this board, jdanniel said
"Unless you knew someone in the area who could show you around...someone who lived close enough to Highfields to be familiar with the roads, but just distant enough for you to drive to his/her/their place and not draw so much attention to yourself."
which i think is very interesting. a local who functions as a look-out could perhaps provide much of the same info as a servant. but i'm sure the locals were at least looked at by police at least initially and up to when they nabbed BRH. who among the other residents of this area would be the best candidate for spy?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Aug 30, 2012 11:09:42 GMT -5
xjd, This is why I was hoping to find out more about Hurley, the (former) watchman. Have not been able to see a police interview of him.He certainly did kinow the house/grounds layout- also the broader local area. Something from Lupica's description suggests that the ladder-car may have seemed to be watching to meet someone.Although the police search was wide, it seems to me a local could have outwitted that search.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Aug 30, 2012 12:24:01 GMT -5
xjd, the idea of a local asset is a very intriguing one. He could have served important functions, one of which would of course be “eyes and ears” on Highfields. There was an episode of Kojak (one of my favorite old shows) called “Both Sides of the Law.” It had a parallel I’ll mention. In this episode, priceless paintings were stolen from a gallery. The police caught up with the suspected thieves, but could not turn up the paintings, whose location was a complete mystery. It finally turned out that they had never brought the paintings out of the gallery—they had burned the canvasses inside the gallery, then buried the ashes in the pebbles of a deep standing ash tray. They had been hired by the owner of the paintings, who wanted to collect insurance on the loss.
So where’s the parallel? Well, my thought is that maybe the kidnappers never intended to “escape” from Hopewell with Charlie. Perhaps they intended to kill him immediately, then deposited the corpse with their “local asset.” who had a grave ready and waiting behind his shack. The body would be deposited in the grave, maybe even inside a coffin to eliminate odor, then quickly buried. The kidnappers could then drive back to New York at a leisurely pace, knowing that if the cops stopped them, Charlie wouldn’t be in the car.
It is somewhat hard for me to believe that Charlie’s body was originally deposited where found. It would have been extremely risky for the kidnappers to negotiate in the Bronx, not knowing if the body had been discovered. If it had been found (but not made public) a dozen law enforcement agents could have seized CJ at the cemetery—he’d get the chair and no $50,000.
So it seems to me possible that, after the ransom was paid, the body was dug up, and re-deposited where found, a sort of “in your face” to Lindbergh. Anyway, IF the body was moved, moving the body at night in Hopewell seems less risky than driving all the way back with it from New York.
As to who this local asset might have been, Charles Schippell has always rated high on the list, for a number of reasons (off the top of my head): --lived a few hundred feet from where the body was found --had previously rented his shack out to Enrico Gerardi (alias Maran) who also lived near the Lindberghs at both Englewood and North Haven, Maine --was known to dislike Lindbergh --had relatives in the Bronx --was of German extraction --owned burlap bags and a set of Buck Brothers chisels (of which the ¾ inch was missing) --was known as somewhat psychotic
However, as Michael has noted, Schippell had an alibi for the night of the kidnapping, and I believe he was eventually pretty much written off by police.
On the other hand, I do recall reading somewhere that Schippell started to go beserk when he heard Hauptmann was getting the chair. Can’t remember where I read this, and if true, I don’t know if it reflected delusions or true feelings of guilt.
The possibility that Schippell was being set up to “take the fall” has also occurred to me. If Schippell reburied the body, he’d be pretty dumb to leave it so close to his home.
|
|