Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2012 14:37:29 GMT -5
It hurts me to see all this effort investigating "Little-Men" like Hauptmann (Scaduto), Cemetary John (Zorn), Condon et. al. When it is a Big Crime committed against a Big Man. At the time of the crime people immediately said MOB = Big Mob, which aligns with my sense of what's logical, but when the mob was ruled out, people looked downward - to Little Men, rather than upward, to the Movers & Shakers who in New York & New Jersey are connected to & work with the mob. Why? 3 elements of the crime suggest Little-Men: A homemade ladder that breaks so you think of a carpenter, a little-man, broken-English German immigrant writing on the ransom note, little-man, & contact paper The Bronx Home News, a local little-man paper instead of the New York Times or Post or Daily News. But Big-Men hire little-men to do their dirty work. Yet little-men supply little details that you can trace, follow-up and develop. And apparently the Big Men are insulated, you can't penetrate their world so you stick with the little men. My first instinct was to look at the Biggest Man in the World, Einstein - & I found 800 pages of linking material, but the material heated-up when it connected to the Warburgs & after awhile I saw that James Warburg was the man. You should start at the top & do top-down work not trawl the bottom with the little-men who are either patsies or paid workers. The fact that the little-man cemetary John hands over a paper with James Warburg's address on it still hasn't been grappled with. It is a smoking gun & I haven't heard from the Fishers or the Zorns who have their books but have no smoking gun & nothing resembling a smoking gun. There's is REAL speculation. Face what is there in front of you, in the FBI report, in the historical world of real motives, in the ransom notes.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 27, 2012 17:48:30 GMT -5
From the Mobster who was authorized by Lindbergh to work on the case and set up contact with the Members of the Underworld who were involved:
People vs. John Doe
(Grand Jury Testimony p. 17)
Q: (Breslin) How many times would you say you were to the home out in Hopewell? A: About three times.
Q: Did you at any time question the servants at the Lindbergh home? A: The only fellow I questioned was Johnson. I questioned him after I gave up hopes of getting contact with the Underworld. I interviewed him.
Q: What did Johnson have to say to you? A: He said, "If I knew I would tell the police". I said, "Let me know somebody you know and let them come and talk to me and find out I am reliable. I don't want any information from you". He said, "I don't know nothing".
Q: From your contact with this case, what is your opinion about this job - do you think it is an inside job or outside job? A: Inside job.
Q: I suppose when you went out to Hopewell, you looked over the land? A: I would not take a baby, or even bother, knowing Lindbergh had guards on his property.
Q: You don't think any organized mob would tackle a job like that? A: I don't think any professional kidnapper would tackle a job like that.
Q: I am just asking your opinion as a man of experience? A: I have no experience in the kidnapping business.
Q: Your acquaintance with the Underworld? A: Never had acquaintance with kidnappers.
Q: (By Juror) Are there gangs who steal babies like that, or is this an exception? A: My opinion is that someone connected with one of the help around the place knows something about it. I could take them by the neck. If I got the baby I would shoot the man I got the baby from. I would have to know who they are and who their friends are.
Q: In other words, you would not have given up the money unless you know who the people were who were getting it? A: Yes, or who their friends are.
Q: (By Juror) How did the Underworld feel about this whole thing? A: They all felt like I did -- no room for such people.
Q: Did I understand you to say that the first time you went to meet Colonel Breckenridge, after Rosner brought you into the case, that they had $70,000 ready? A: Yes, and I told them they would be taken for it.
|
|
|
Post by john on Dec 29, 2012 5:06:18 GMT -5
Good points, all:
It's always easy for the law to go after the little guys. An old story, sad to say. I voted for decriminalizing the possession of marijuana in a recent state ballot initiative for this very reason: to clean out the prisons and the court system. This ran against my conviction that marijuana is a very dangerous drug and should not be decriminalized, against which was my knowledge of how the law actually works (based, sad to say, on personal experience), thus I voted yes, decriminalize.
The Lindbergh case is a different matter altogether, yet here too the emphasis was, in the end, on the "little man". Once the authorities got their hands on a little guy they went after him with everything they had. We have a history of this in our country. It was much the same with the investigation into JFK's assassination. They had a "little man", who also looked guilty, then he gets, mysteriously, in my opinion, shot and killed two days after his arrest. Yet Oswald, "little man" though he was, had had "big" friends, people he knew in high places or in places much higher than where he was.
In the end the Warren Commission found Oswald to be a lone assassin, a Lone Wolf like Hauptmann (despite his having lived a quite busy life in his twenty-four short years on this planet): he'd served in the Marines, became a Communist, learned to speak Russian, moved to the Soviet Union, married a Russian woman, then returns to the States and gets a job working for the state of Texas, hobnobs with the ultra-right White Russian community in Dallas, yet remains a committed leftist, with a job in the public sector; all this during the Cold War, a particularly difficult time in American history, when the U.S. and the Soviets were locking horns all over the globe.
Much of the aforementioned is OT vis a vis the Lindbergh case, but highly relevant as to the "little man" theory, and how easily it's accepted by the American people. But then the Law, the government, the authorities, have money, power, and now the media, on their side. Most of the rest of us are, ourselves, little men (and women); and most of us lack the resources, the education, the intellectual and rhetorical skills to take on what we used to call the "establishment".
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 29, 2012 6:29:59 GMT -5
The big question in Lindbergh is that looked at realistically (and this has to do with the big man / little man thought) CAL's actions show that he had to have known right away that Charlie was dead. Beyond just some kind of warped logic that would tell him the child would probably be killed, he had to have absolutely known. Now did some group or individual say to him,"we killed your child and unless you play ball your mother is next"? If you look at who won in the whole crisis, it leads to a very different conclusion than that which has always been accepted; though Hauptmann won, he seems to be the little man in the scenario.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 29, 2012 7:39:57 GMT -5
Good discussion going here.....
Yes and no.
Back then "yes" more so then "no", however, while examining this we must apply what facts we know to exist which may indicate otherwise. Certainly they had plenty of "little guys" they could have tied into this thing. Some of them they wanted to. But in the end they did not. That has to count for something.
While I think your intentions here are noble I don't believe it will pan out the way in which you think it will. While growing up I'd have to say of the people I saw "experiment" with Pot about 1/2 went on to bigger and better things. Next, of those who didn't, about 1/2 of them became social idiots from the effects of smoking it constantly for years. We have enough problems with DWI on the roads, we don't need these people on the road after smoking although I know we already do - I expect (know) legalizing it will cause many others to join in.
Furthermore, my experiences are that those who are in Prison are there for selling. They sell to either support a drug habit or because they would rather make the type of cash that comes from selling drugs. If you legalize Pot, they don't get out of jail then find a decent job because they can no longer sell Pot. What I am saying is this idea that they will immediately become law abiding citizens is a myth.
Finally, its a carcinogen, mind altering, and a stepping stone drug that the Government will say is okay all the while they went after the Cigarette Companies with a vengeance concerning how "unhealthy" tobacco is and how much it cost to provide health care for those so afflicted by their product. Then they take all of that money and spend it like they hit the lottery.
It's the height of hypocrisy.
Yes. They did this after being certain he was involved. What they considered "proof" of involvement is what led to Hauptmann's demise. I don't know whether or not they ever concluded, in their own minds, whether he was a "little guy" or not, they felt if he was then he also knew who were the bigger fish. But once Hauptmann made the decision to keep quiet, and the ball started rolling - it appears you are correct and the conviction became more important then the truth.
The caveat to this is Gov. Hoffman. He was absolutely part of the "Establishment" yet did everything he could to try to get to the truth. Whether you like him or not - this much cannot be disputed.
I agree Jack that Lindbergh had knowledge that wasn't shared.
|
|
|
Post by john on Dec 29, 2012 15:09:59 GMT -5
Well, we're not going to solve the marijuana problem here. I've had some experience with the homeless population, and the number of people disabled by crippling major mental illness who also happen to have been regular dope smokers is, based on my conversations with them, remarkably high. In some cases there's a family history of mental illness, thus, many argue, marijuana was maybe a trigger but not the sole cause of the mental illness; and yet in many cases there's no family history.
Admittedly my little informal "polling" of people I knew was unscientific, anecdotal, I suppose would be the word for it, yet there are some statistics that back my observations up. Tobacco is, of course, another matter, but seeing the tragedies of so many good, often intelligent, decent people unable to function, is heartbreaking, and there's so often a "dope backstory". I cannot help but connect the dots. There's an epidemic of drug abuse in our society that isn't being seriously dealt with, and the roots of it are social in my opinion, and stress related, as it's become increasing difficult for many people who in the past could have functioned well enough, albeit at a lower level than their potential would suggest, due to economic forces, which in turn lead to psychological difficulties, hence self-, that are well beyond the scope of this discussion. But I digress,--majorly, I admit.
To get back on topic: indeed, Gov. Hoffman was Hauptmann's virtual guardian angel for a spell, and the one man in a high place who took a special interest in the case beyond merely issuing a public statement. He gave Hauptmann a fair hearing, went out of his way, to the point of jeopardizing his political career, to save the man, thus going way against public opinion. His later political and financial problems cast a shadow over Hoffman, whose conduct, during the final phase of Hauptmann's ordeal was a true profile in courage. But Hoffman was swimming against the current, and in the end he merely delayed the inevitable; however his legitimacy, as governor of New Jersey, and his personal popularity, makes him a fascinating figure in the case. Hauptmann's prison cell plea to the governor makes for interesting reading, as his words do not strike me as those of a guilty man. There is, even in just reading the transcripts, a brooding, heartfelt quality to the way he spoke to Hoffman.
One last point about Hauptmann's "little man" predicament: he was, prior to his 1934 arrest, a social man, had a wife and young child, and many friends in the German-American community; all of them, of course, were "little men", too. Yet not a one of them was tied in any way to the LKC, and God knows, the authorities tried. They were good, upstanding citizens and loyal friends. Hans Kloppenburg was by later accounts literally intimidated by the police, lest he be dragged into the case, thus hampered as to what he could say in his testimony. My point here is that Hauptmann had limited resources and, among his known friends and acquaintances, he had no connections to the criminal world, thus he'd indeed have had to have been quite the Lone Wolf to have carried out the kidnap plan without anyone knowing about it. And finally, FWIW, the Fisch handing Hauptmann the shoebox story was vouched for as true by Kloppenburg even as he was compelled, of necessity, to testify that it was merely a box.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 29, 2012 16:14:36 GMT -5
I believe its already solved and has been. The "social idiot" comment was just my experiences with people I met in College my Freshman year then watched them mutate into what they'd become by Senior year. Certainly nothing scientific by any stretch of the imagination. It's how I can now quickly identify someone as a "Pot-Head" without ever seeing them actually smoke.
Yikes! Now I am way off on a tangent.
I just want to point out that he wasn't alone. Many who helped him believed in his cause. That's important I believe. Kimberling, for one, was a significant figure on his side. I believe he was swimming against the current because of the timing of his involvement. If he had been Governor before the Trial I think certain attitudes may have been different.
But like you said, they hit the point of no return and it was too late. It's unfortunate.
There's a lot that can be learned from the written word. Most especially from this case. However, its a slippery slope to determine truth from fiction concerning things like this letter. There are good liars and there are bad ones. There are some who look like they're not telling the truth when they are. If you give someone the benefit of the doubt, and they are a good liar, then you are likely to fall for it. If you are doubtful and they look guilty then they don't have a chance even if they are telling the truth.
Without being able to consistently interact with someone, we must look at everything and cross reference it with everything else in order to come to any reasonable conclusion.
I am not saying you are John, but I just wanted to point out the dangers (IMO) of giving one thing too much weight.
John, do you believe the Fisch Story then?
|
|
|
Post by john on Dec 30, 2012 3:21:48 GMT -5
All true, Michael, as regards lying and the various shades of gray (as well as our own personal baggage) that we bring even to what we feel are our objective observations of others. My sense is that Hauptmann, who was in such a desperate predicament, went back and forth, was all over the map as to truth telling. My best guess: he told many lies, yet he also spoke the truth some of the time; while at other times he told half-truths and half-lies; and occasionally, when it suited the moment, he made things up out of whole cloth. There was a slippery quality to him; however, it's my opinion that there are slippery aspects to us all, that we have all, whether or not we care to admit it to ourselves, have at times behaved as Hauptmann did.
What makes Hauptmann exceptional is that he was on trial for a capital offense, that he had a criminal past, thus he had a history as a "bad actor", as distinct from the rest of of us, who tell little fibs now and again to save face, or evade the truth, make something up, so as to avoid embarrassment, not to deceive in a pathological sense. There's a difference (in my mind anyway) between what one might call "benign evasion" and outright shiftiness, and yet they come from the same place (in the brain, I mean),--yes?--thus criminals are not a million miles from good, decent law abiding people, they're just more extreme. I hate lying, hate having to lie, am, fortunately, as I see it, bad at lying, thus I seldom do lie. What I'm trying to get at here is that Bruno Hauptmann was as human as the rest of us, and I occasionally try to cut him some slack for this if for no other reason.
I don't see Hauptmann as a monster. Nor do I, as many on the other Lindbergh kidnap forum do, see him as a total victim. He was a player in the case alright, was caught red handed with the ransom money. That he was a German immigrant links him, albeit loosely, to the author of the ransom notes, whom most of us would agree was either German or someone doing an excellent job of impersonating one on paper. His being foreign born and bearing a vague resemblance to Cemetery John doesn't help matters. He was a carpenter; and the planks found in his attic apparently matched up with the kidnap ladder, thus he could have built the ladder. Hauptmann was in a jam, and he was squirming, lying, telling stories, some perhaps true, others half-true, from the time of his arrest to the day he was found guilty by the jury in Flemington.
No, Michael, I'm not buying into every word Hauptmann said in his defense, or even most of them. Yet I have my doubts, serious doubts, that he was the monster Wilentz made him out to be (Wilentz even went so far as to at one point state that not only did Hauptmann have a criminal record in Germany but he had always been a criminal, was criminal by nature, including all the time he spent in the States). I'm trying to take a balanced view of what is in many respects an unbalanced case due to the way Hauptmann was prosecuted and convicted as the lone perp, which I don't believe he was or could have been. As to the Fisch Story, I think that the bare bones of it are true, which is to say there was a shoebox, it was full of money, Fisch was in debt to Hauptmann, the money was water damaged... on the other hand, I think there's much more to Hauptmann's dealings with Isador Fisch than what Hauptmann told the authorities. I think that Hauptmann did some major editing (and adding on, to make himself look good) when he told the Fisch Story, which I believe has more than a few grains of truth in it, but which I also believe is riddled with lies. I believe some of the Fisch Story but not the whole thing.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 31, 2012 17:30:04 GMT -5
I agree with your strategy. I also agree that Hauptmann, or anyone else for that matter, could not have been alone in this. The only person that was left on the Planet who could have conclusively answered this question for us recently passed away: Chiaravalli, it should be recalled, told Lloyd that although Pope got into the Case for publicity - believed Hauptmann was being Rail-Roaded ( Gardner p268). I have some unique material on the "Fisch Story" that I hope one day will answer some questions. I believe it will shut one door while opening a new one. That's a theme I have become familiar with while researching this case over the years.... Still though, the truth is the truth so if solving one mystery creates another - then so be it.
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Jan 1, 2013 13:13:18 GMT -5
In light of all said in this thread the question I have ...What was going on in Hopewell to open such a great opportunity ? Who had the ability. courage, knowledge to do this? If you stop only at Hauptmann you will come short of practicality. Field all the alarming inconsistencies and the deepest questions you come back to home base.
Lindbergh had several families. He was a man of secrets and agendas. On this night he missed his only ever scheduled engagement. He was on top of everything including the discovery and the investigation. He was a very courageous and knowledgeable man.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 2, 2013 14:40:06 GMT -5
I think your point is a good one, and it was made by many people who wrote Gov. Hoffman (excepting the secret families - that we know about).
It's important, in my opinion, to consider all of the possibilities. So many dismiss things simply because they don't like how it sounds or the perception of it. Certainly write off what doesn't "work" for you but ask yourself whether or not you have a good enough reason to do so. If not, its okay to leave it open until you get to that point.
I guess what I am trying to say to everyone is to resist the emotional response. Let the facts lead you.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jan 12, 2013 1:47:04 GMT -5
I wonder how well known Lindbergh's secrets were in 1932. The press and the public knew he was "tight lipped" and circumspect about what he told people about himself, but it was usually written about in terms that made Lindbergh look good (as in nobody's fool) rather than sneaky and elusive. Imagine one of Hauptmann's attorneys trying to bring any of this up at the trial, say to the father of the murdered child "as we all know, Col. Lindbergh, you're a pretty sneaky guy yourself...". Lindbergh was like a god back then. After a remark like that the jury would probably have wanted to strap the lawyer into the electric chair, too .
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 12, 2013 9:22:41 GMT -5
By CAL's actions, it's obvious that he wasn't telling the truth. For a couple of examples, when your child's life is at stake raising the ransom money is of the prime importance, and it doesn't matter where or how you get it. Nothing else really matters and Charles could have raised the cash instantly with a phone call. Instead he plays humble poor and takes a lot of time putting the money together. Also he accepts unwise advice and spends valuable time constructing a box the details of which are well known. For some reason he doesn't want to keep track of the serial numbers of the bills. For some reason he rejects the offer of having young people thoroughly search the surrounding area of the crime scene. He doesn't open the ransom note for hours. I'm sure the list could go on. It all comes down to somehow he had to know his child was already dead.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jan 13, 2013 2:46:20 GMT -5
I'm curious, Jack, as to your concluding that Lindbergh knew his child was dead from the moment he saw the empty crib?. Or maybe it was a good guess (given that little Charlie had a cold and all). Still, this was his son, his at the time only son, and Lindbergh was of a patriarchal temperament. Is there any consensus as to when the ransom note was noticed? I know that it took forever for it to be read, but was it even seen? This wasn't a wise thing for the kidnapper (assuming it was an outside job) to do. It would mean that Lindbergh would likely act contrary to the instructions and scew up the whole deal. CJ told Condon the note was left in the crib. Was it moved? When a child's life is at stake, as in a kidnapping, it's unwise to do the one thing that might save the child: go against the wishes of those who did the abducting. There's something wrong with this picture. On the other hand, given who he was,--the most famous man in America--Lindbergh probably figured that the word would get out soon enough. Yet you seem to be suggesting a fatalism on Lindbergh's part that cuts much deeper. Maybe a kind of midwestern, gun totin' country boy rod and reel kind of "epiphanal" moment: yup, he's dead alright. No question about it. If so, Lindbergh had amazing intuition. Or had he perhaps caught wind of a potential kidnapping scheme beforehand. Maybe suspicious things had been happening that he kept to himself and then, out of the blue, he got it. What we'll never know,--unless some old letter is found--is what (if anything) Lindbergh might have known or suspected prior to the kidnapping that caused him to act the way he did afterward.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 13, 2013 7:02:44 GMT -5
NO. I'm not talking intuition - he had to know at the point of time of his realizing there was a crime that the child was dead. Someone had to have gotten to him that the child had been killed during the workings of the crime, or, the unlikely alternative but one that has been advanced, that somehow he or someone he knew (one theory says Charles, one says Elisabeth) killed the child. The only inkling I've ever heard of from either CAL or AML is that in one of her letters (Joe or Michael would probably know which one - perhaps it's in "Hour of Gold") - Anne wrote to her Mother that "it was an accident." I don't look into this stuff any more and don't have her books so I've never searched for it, but it might be a worthwhile thing to do.
|
|