kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 5, 2013 7:26:02 GMT -5
Regarding the "frame-up" theories. Been there done that. It's a lot easier to propose it than it is to do it.
Regarding the " smoking gun". Probably one of the worst things one can do is believe that a mystery or crime can or will be solved by the discovery of a single nugget of evidence. Crime detection is a cumulative process.
Michael, I didn't think you had that linkage and I know Dr Gardner doesn't either. So why slander someone and propose a theory without real proof?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Mar 5, 2013 11:14:34 GMT -5
john, liked your last post. rather a lot I agree with. i'm not throwing out the fisch/money story for one thing. would also like to see a good study on wilenze,s political goals.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2013 13:30:25 GMT -5
Reflecting back on the posts made to this thread, I now find myself in a quandary about this case. Am I to consider only the evidence used by Wilentz to be the only real evidence of this case? Do I disregard the other real evidence that exists in the reports at the NJ archives because the prosecution chose to ignore it? Does that mean there is no evidentiary value in any of it? Is evidence only real evidence if it is used to prosecute a case? Sorry about all the questions. I feel like I am back at square one yet again.
|
|
|
Post by john on Mar 5, 2013 13:38:42 GMT -5
I appreciate that, Mairi. Hauptmann looks guilty as hell in so many respects, but the law bungled, messed up, showed malice, from the day of Hauptmann's arrest (the brutal beating he received) to the end. It's like they wanted it neat and tied up, and their man wasn't giving that to them. My best guess is that the case wasn't neat, couldn't be solved as the prosecution would have wished, and that Hauptmann may not have spilled the beans because he had no beans to spill. Sure, he held back, but he didn't give them the "big picture" because there wasn't any, or not one that he knew of, and he didn't want to incriminate others, possibly out of fear for his family, also because he maybe didn't want to drag others into the mess.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 5, 2013 17:31:22 GMT -5
Amen.
The first thing I would say is to re-read your quote above. Next, I'd say about 95% of those who study this Case believe there were at least (2) people involved. This venue talks about the options, evidence, and ideas about this.
I don't believe suggesting that Lindbergh be considered a Suspect as slander. I personally believe its somewhat negligent if one does not consider him. Now, if someone researches it, then concludes he should not be suspected, I can completely understand. However - how then could this same Researcher claim "slander" against those who have followed suit but haven't come to that conclusion?
What I have both found and developed lead me to believe Lloyd is absolutely right to suspect Lindbergh in some way. Of course its taboo to say this.... it was then just as it is now. It's why most Investigators who believed this came out with it confidentially or years after the fact.
Certainly not Amy. I say consider ALL of it. Cross-reference it. Consider the circumstances and the variables. It's a process. Even though the Prosecution was willing to do some unsavory things, like steal Large away from the Defense or tamper with Witnesses, there still was legitimate evidence presented on their end.
John,
I like Fisher's creds and respect them. But on this case he dropped the ball. I guess my biggest complaint is that while he slams other Authors for being wrong - he is badly wrong on many points too. That doesn't fly with me.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 8, 2013 19:49:52 GMT -5
for gardner to stick his neck out on national tv and say lindbergh was involved or might be involved is crazy and is a insult to all great researchers in the case. i see no evidence of that at all.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 8, 2013 22:27:19 GMT -5
Like who? And have you been searching for evidence that Lindbergh was involved?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 9, 2013 7:35:43 GMT -5
Why would anyone look for evidence that he was involved unless they already felt he was? You know the old saying; if you look hard enough, you will find what you are loking for. I'm afraid Dr. Gardner has fallen into that trap.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 9, 2013 7:54:04 GMT -5
This is kinda apples and oranges, however, I will address both the apple - and the orange.
Steve claimed he never found anything connecting Lindbergh to the crime. So I asked whether or not he's looked to see how much weight I can assign to this statement.
For example, there is supposed to be gold buried on Bowman's Hill. I read about this in a very old Bucks County History Book that I have. So is there gold buried there?
How would I know? I never looked.
The trap of looking would be if I fell down the Copper Mine shaft, which was mentioned in that same book and I did happen to find.
Can you guess how? You got it - I looked, and I certainly didn't expect that it would be there or that I would find it if it were.
Now, to the other point.... I've searched for information on just about every theory out there. Is this because I wanted to find information? Yes, so Kevin you are absolutely right. I did want to find that information so that's why I looked.
So did Elisabeth throw the baby out of the window? Not from what I've found. Did Al Capone arrange this event? Not from what I've found. Any time I read something in Fisher's books I would research it to make sure. And I would find that he was wrong many times. So this idea that looking is a bad thing doesn't work in my opinion.
How could it?
The more information the more of an opportunity there is to solve this thing. Not less. You cannot be "afraid" that you will find something you don't currently "like." You research then let the chips fall where they may.
For what its worth.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 9, 2013 8:03:25 GMT -5
I also want to add an addendum to my post above and say that much of what I have found which caused me alarm concerning Lindbergh wasn't done intentionally. It would be that I was reading something concerning something else, then find it there.
I think I've preached on this point in the past. Say for example, you want to learn more about Sharp. Naturally, you go to the Sharp Files in the NJSP Collection. But there are files on her in the Hoffman Collection and other Collections too. Then there are the important facts you may "stumble" on in the files concerning someone/something completely different. You would never find these facts UNLESS you happen to be looking for something different at that time.
Anyway, there is never a time that I would advocate not looking. For me that's just not logical.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 9, 2013 8:48:23 GMT -5
your right kevcon, gardner did fall into a trap. thinking lindbergh was involved is laughable, mike plenty of researchers know he wasnt involved. there isnt one shread of evidence. good luck
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 9, 2013 12:07:02 GMT -5
I'll take that as a "no" Steve.
Well, circle the wagons and get ready for "damage control." That is, unless you think I'm a complete Idiot.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 9, 2013 13:27:04 GMT -5
no i dont think your a idiot, but missled on this lindbergh was involved nonsense
|
|
|
Post by Rab on Mar 9, 2013 16:22:08 GMT -5
Michael, I don't think it's about circling the wagons. There are plenty of open-minded people about, I'd like to think I'm one of them. I haven't spent years at the archives like you have but I've yet to see a shred of evidence that Lindbergh was involved. In fact, all the available evidence, when assessed with an open mind, shows the exact opposite. Is there evidence that Lindbergh was a very strange man indeed, that he probably perjured himself, that he was flawed? Lots of it. But nothing has come to the surface to suggest his involvement. I think when people start putting forward the view that Lindbergh was involved then there is the basic requirement to provide some evidence to support that position. Like many others, I'm all ears.
Rab
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 9, 2013 19:14:23 GMT -5
This wasn't directed to you or anyone else that has an open mind. It was merely a response to Steve, and all of these other Researchers he knows who find the idea "laughable."
I have said numerous times that I know its impossible to argue against something someone has not seen. Obviously that applies to me and whatever I have. I get that. And its exactly why I am trying to assemble the best possible way to present my unique material. In my mind that method is a book. I am convinced of that moreso now then ever due to the HUGE resistance to any theory and/or suggestion Lindbergh did have involvement.
In fact, I need a book to do it. This isn't something which can be done in post or two. It will require (and I am quite sure demanded) documented sources.
So its important to do it right. Once the presentation is done properly if you or anyone else thinks I am wrong I will have no regrets. Take for example a recent discovery I've made concerning J. J. Faulkner. I am in the middle of following that up and reasonably believe I will be able to tie it into something else. The judgment should come and be made on that final product.
The hard time I have is watching those slam any efforts to do so. I don't understand it frankly and I am doing my best to attempt to explain the process in hopes of jogging lose some semblance of neutrality.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 9, 2013 19:43:03 GMT -5
Let me further add to why I think a book is the best method.....
Hypothetically speaking - let's say I decided to back up Lloyd because of all the crazy talk directed at him. And so I outline that I have about 50 Facts. I begin with Fact #1. Let's say that is Lindbergh lied about what time he came home.
I give my first point to back that up. Steve jumps in to say that all of the Researchers he knows find it laughable that anyone would believe Lindbergh was involved. Someone else doesn't like the source. We debate. I am ridiculed. About a month later I move on to an eyewitness who saw him. Steve jumps in to say that all of the Researchers he knows find it laughable that anyone would believe Lindbergh was involved. Another thinks this Eyewitness may be lying. We discuss this for a month. I then move on to my third point to back up my original "fact" that Lindbergh lied about what time he came home. At this point lets say you are finally beginning to come around asking why so many things are starting to back this up...
However, by now anyone who even bothered to follow the first two points are long gone, and someone like Zorn writes a book that his Father, while a child, overheard some people talking to some other people and the world thinks he's solved the Case.
And I haven't even finished Fact (1) out of (50) yet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2013 21:55:44 GMT -5
I was reading the Summer 2012 Hopewell Valley Historical Society Newsletter yesterday and the issue featured Jim Davidson's article titled "Hopewell Was Like A Roman Circus" Search for a Hero's Son. It retold the crime and how everything progresssed up to the trial of Hauptmann. Then in the text of the closing paragraph I read the following, "The Lindberghs never stayed at Highfields again, but the house was occupied by caretakers for many years afterward. In 1939, Lindbergh and Dr. Alexis Carrell visited the house to see if it would make a good place to set up a eugenics lab but the outbreak of WWII in Europe ended that idea". I was shocked when I read that!! Is this true? ?
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 10, 2013 12:18:32 GMT -5
mike you can back him all you want, you know theres problems with that scenerio of lindbergh being involved.
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Mar 10, 2013 12:24:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 10, 2013 13:25:51 GMT -5
Yes. This was in 1939. There are several sources for this. I believe its in most books. Off the top of my head.... Loss of Eden (I think), but I am positive its in The Immortalist. When it comes to Carrel, a lot of material comes from: The VD Hospital for Women was a proposal made in late 1942. I don't think this ever happened.
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Jun 22, 2013 9:28:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 25, 2018 13:21:48 GMT -5
Granted that CAL did have time to write the ransom note(s) during that time period. But there is no one who would rationally claim that he did write any of the ransom notes. His handwriting would not match the handwriting on the ransom notes, nor would the German spelling and syntax be something that CAL would be familiar with at that point in his life.
Another possibility would be that CAL had a person with German background write the nursery note and perhaps the later notes for him. He might have been able to arrange this using people from Breck's law firm, some of whom obviously had contacts in underworld circles. We have no evidence that any of Breck's people knew Hauptmann, but it is possible that one of them knew Hauptmann through some career criminal that had been a client of the firm or a friend of such a client.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Dec 29, 2018 0:31:44 GMT -5
Granted that CAL did have time to write the ransom note(s) during that time period. But there is no one who would rationally claim that he did write any of the ransom notes. His handwriting would not match the handwriting on the ransom notes, nor would the German spelling and syntax be something that CAL would be familiar with at that point in his life. Another possibility would be that CAL had a person with German background write the nursery note and perhaps the later notes for him. He might have been able to arrange this using people from Breck's law firm, some of whom obviously had contacts in underworld circles. We have no evidence that any of Breck's people knew Hauptmann, but it is possible that one of them knew Hauptmann through some career criminal that had been a client of the firm or a friend of such a client. Hurtelable - I agree - you are correct. I think CAL had someone else write the notes. I think he spent Monday, Monday night, and Tuesday arranging the "kidnapping". Was Betty a pawn or part of the plot? I'm always reminded that the cops saw a dowel that matched the ones in the ladder on a shelf in Lindbergh's study, only to see it disappeared the next day. I forget if this was in Michael or Dr. Gardner's book.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 29, 2018 9:47:49 GMT -5
Granted that CAL did have time to write the ransom note(s) during that time period. But there is no one who would rationally claim that he did write any of the ransom notes. His handwriting would not match the handwriting on the ransom notes, nor would the German spelling and syntax be something that CAL would be familiar with at that point in his life. Another possibility would be that CAL had a person with German background write the nursery note and perhaps the later notes for him. He might have been able to arrange this using people from Breck's law firm, some of whom obviously had contacts in underworld circles. We have no evidence that any of Breck's people knew Hauptmann, but it is possible that one of them knew Hauptmann through some career criminal that had been a client of the firm or a friend of such a client.
I do not believe CAL wrote any either. I think that idea doesn't work from any angle. After that, as I've said in the past, I am 50/50 on whether or not Hauptmann wrote the Ransom Notes. I do not believe he thought up "what to write" even if he did. Next, he definitely did not write the "J. J. Faulkner" deposit slip. As to "who" could have written them I'd say if not Hauptmann take your guess. I've been interested in Mueller's handwriting ever since Lloyd's book, and I think what I've written in V2 doesn't throw any cold water on that idea. I personally don't see Breck ever allowing anyone attached to him being involved like this in any way - most especially writing the notes. But again - that's where "I" am at so its up to you to pursue anything you think might bear fruit regardless.
I'm always reminded that the cops saw a dowel that matched the ones in the ladder on a shelf in Lindbergh's study, only to see it disappeared the next day. I forget if this was in Michael or Dr. Gardner's book. I am not sure if this is mentioned in Lloyd's book. I remember he went into certain details about the dowels but not about this specifically - but he certainly could have. I know that I go into it in V1 on pages 213-223 and then I supplement it in V2 on page 21.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jan 11, 2019 9:44:27 GMT -5
mike I think I saw that statement in the squire ladder report about the dowel pin being in lindberghs shelf
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jan 11, 2019 9:46:02 GMT -5
I have the audio tape of jim fisher and monier debating on the case on the radio
|
|
|
Post by john on Jan 31, 2019 3:37:31 GMT -5
Their theory involved a prank gone wrong based upon the fact Lindbergh used to hide the child in the closet then tell everyone he was kidnapped. I've certainly given them their props over the years, but I've also disagreed with some things as well. For example, there's no way Lindbergh wrote the Ransom Notes. I guess what I am saying is that I don't believe Lloyd thinks it was a prank. I am not sure I understand this. I like to give examples (that I don't believe anyone reads but here is goes...) to demonstrate what I am talking about: I do not have the Garret Schenk Trial Transcipts although I have been persuing them for as long as I can remember. Why? Because I believe they could contain important information. From them I should be able to support or disprove something. So if someone posts on this Board and legitimately had those transcripts - how in the hell could I tell them they are wrong about what's in them? Wouldn't I at least need to see them myself first? It's one of the biggest pitfalls that exists when doing research. There is a lot of information out there. I am in my 13th year and still haven't seen all there is to see. Michael: One thing about the prank business in all this is the possibility, admittedly remote but worth a "ponder", that Lindy's "faked kidnappings" were in fact a warmup for the Big One that this time was for real. This is, I admit, wholly speculation on my part, but then Lindbergh was of nothing else the real practical joker in those "jokey" faux kidnappings. That those earlier practical jokes actually happened speaks of Lindy as a somewhat eccentric but loving father, thus not to be a suspect in the real kidnap case. It's like proof, for the average person, that Lindbergh, who had returned the child in his phony joke kidnappings would have to be innocent of any involvement in the real one. To which my response is that quite the contrary: that it showed that Lindbergh had kidnapping on his mind. Yet I cannot explain the ransom notes, haven't a clue as who Lindy worked with to help him. I doubt it was a one man job. Also, if Lindbergh was behind the kidnapping this hypothesis of mine explains why he was so "gullible" (really?) when Condon jumped into the act (or is "jumped" the right word?); maybe brought into the kidnap scheme to be conned into engaging in one of his many patriotic and altruistic schemes, of which there were so many, and getting his name in the history books. No, I don't suspect Condon of anything but of being an easy fish to catch. As to Hauptmann, he got work, did his job, knew nothing about kidnapping, was paid off somehow, with Fisch maybe being a player, and who then, out of the blue hands all that money over to his friend. John
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 31, 2019 11:14:22 GMT -5
John -
Everything you mention above are things we all think about right? I know it upsets some to work through "certain" facts but I don't see how else a solution can be reached. Part of the importance is the FACT that Lindbergh did hide the child at least once - maybe more - I believe he did it twice when one considers what Whateley told Garsson. Point is that we cannot begin to consider or evaluate those actions unless we know they happened. As one of the people who has been around as long as I have (and maybe longer) I think you'll remember a time when there were those who said it NEVER did occur and was not true. And so by revealing the truth it begs the question as to "why" they tried to get people to stop thinking about it by telling them it did not happen AND explains "why" they might be unhappy that it gets discussed.
So once we get past all of the interference that is caused by and through either a lack of research OR an ulterior motive, we can finally get to the possibilities. No matter what one believes his motive for what he did by hiding Charles in the closet was, your point that Kidnapping was "on his mind" is irrefutable.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 31, 2019 11:43:34 GMT -5
I am going to keep going with this while I have some thoughts in my head about it....
I think we should all consider what someone with the FBI investigating a "kidnapping" would think today. Put out of your mind for a moment this specific case. Now who among us do not think they would want to know that the Father hid the infant/toddler in a closet pretending it had been kidnapped? If told about it do you think it would be disregarded, shrugged off, or laughed at? Of course not. And if this fact were omitted do you think they'd be happy - or suspicious? This stuff is common sense so when I see certain people try to "shame" others for doing exactly what should be done I suppose you could say that I'm baffled by it.
The other thing is this.... As everyone knows I had a Jack Russell. And I also have what some might call a strange sense of humor. Knowing her personality, I would play jokes on her all of the time. And YET - I would have never locked her in a closet or EVER put her in a situation where she even had the potential of being afraid or panicked for the sake of a joke. And I'm talking about a DOG. And not only one that was "tough" but beyond tough.
In short, apply any excuse one wants for "why" Lindbergh did that to his child. But there's no way someone who formulates that "joke" then actually carries it out doesn't think "in a way" that makes him a suspect. It absolutely does. Of course that doesn't mean he "did it" but ignoring what's in front of us is counter-productive if the truth is what we seek.
|
|