|
Post by Michael on Sept 4, 2014 5:24:05 GMT -5
Do you know how Dwight Jr. and Charles Lindbergh actually felt about each other? Did they have any type of cordial relationship or were they on not so good terms with each other? Would Lindbergh have felt he could turn to Dwight Jr. for assistance if he were to ever need help with a problem? There isn't much as it relates to their relationship. Bill's book is correct that CAL went to see him with the family when he was being treated. But as to what these letter writers were saying its hard to know what the exact truth was. I believe Lindbergh would have viewed Dwight Jr. as a "defective" so there's no way where I can make it work in my head that he would ever approach him or have anyone else approach him for that matter - for any important purpose.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 4, 2014 5:36:53 GMT -5
Hoffman writes to Evelyn Walsh McLean, " I know that you are in agreement with that thought". Is there anything in the articles that he is referring to, or do you think that they had private conversations about this? Excepting part nine, they are all about her connection with this case as it relates to Means. But in nine she tells about a visit with Hoffman where they both agree Hauptmann could not have done it by himself. Over the years there was a lot of communication between the two about the case just as there was with her and Hoover. In fact, Hoover used her to spy on people for him ... but that's something I'd rather not get into for the time being. I do know there was someone feeding her BS, and its in her article, Ferrell I believe, who was claiming to be Cemetery John and implicated both Whateley and Sharpe. Claimed he dealt them drugs etc. I have an affidavit she took from him, so she felt it important ... at that time anyway. She never felt the case was solved, that is for sure, and continued to spend her money trying to solve it. It's how she got linked up with Nosovitsky. After she was convinced he wasn't involved, he went to work for her as a PI to run down certain angles. Her's is a very long story involving a ton of information.
|
|
|
Post by babyinthecrib on Sept 4, 2014 8:07:19 GMT -5
I always felt the reason for not wanting Elizabeth alone with the child could have been related to her heart condition. That could very well explain the supervision if any.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 4, 2014 16:04:13 GMT -5
Relatively new to this board, but can somebody explain what the theories are for the later ransom payment if there was no kidnapping? Obviously, some believe the extortion was a separate crime (perpetrated by different individuals from the kidnapping) but the "singnature" and the fact the paper matches is what keeps me from believing this. Hello, and thank you for the post. I don't completely understand the question so its hard for me to answer it... There's both a removal of the child and an extortion which follows. Early on some believed the kidnapping and extortion were two completely separate crimes. At one time Ellis Parker believed this, thinking Wendel pulled the kidnapping but Fisch perpetrated the extortion. Others believed the symbol had been copied, which was entirely possible, or that the Gang had split up which again was possible. According to Condon "John" had told him the "Leader" had taken the "Symbol Maker" and therefore not to expect any further communications which included it. That would explain why the last letter did not have it included. This alone throws a wrench into what history would like to record. Later Condon would say "John" had been killed by his Confederates, so if one were to believe Condon then this Gang did split up. Therefore, if the paper for both the 1st and 2nd note were once the same piece it doesn't mean everyone on board in one part is still there come time to collect the ransom. It seems likely, but not necessary.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 4, 2014 16:20:39 GMT -5
Perhaps Michael might be the person to ask about this. I'd say you formulated an excellent rebuttal Amy. The more I think about it the more it occurs to me that Green might be mis-remembering his facts. They happened, but just not like he's saying they did. Of course maybe there are other events which are eerily similar and we are the one's mistaken but that's a hard pill to swallow. In any event, the explanation Jim Fisher gives is absurd because Green would have been aware of the facts Hoffman collected. But given his age it's entirely possible he's confused about the "who" when it comes to them. I can say that Ellerson was the guy informing Hoffman during his re-investigation so there's no doubt in my mind this is who Green was referring to.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Sept 4, 2014 16:23:29 GMT -5
To answer the question another way, there's also the possibility that there was no kidnapping, but there was a murder and the $50K ransom--initially just a dummy figure, never meant to be paid since the perps were already paid upfront--was extorted to keep the actual nature of the crime secret.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Sept 4, 2014 17:31:26 GMT -5
your right mike green was misremembering the facts decades later. how many times through the years a oldtimer makes claims especially journalists, that they had all these exclusives and you find out they didn't. im sure you came across these examples
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Sept 4, 2014 18:27:14 GMT -5
Thanks Michael, I think I'll get a copy of Queen of Diamonds and start there.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 5, 2014 10:55:39 GMT -5
So Noso worked for the for the elderly, very rich and loony widow as a PI? Knowing something about each of them, you can almost predict that Noso would be conning her or swindling her in some way or another, with or without her knowing about it. And, BTW, how would Mrs. McLean be convinced that Noso wasn't involved in the LKC? I don't think that Gov. Hoffman would tell her that, because the governor's own PI concluded that Noso had written the ransom notes.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 5, 2014 17:55:31 GMT -5
Impossible to tell how good or bad Harry Green's memory was at the time he met with Noel Behn. The only way to know with some degree of accuracy would be to review medical records on Green, if any exist.
Contrary to popular opinion, only a minority of 90 year olds suffer from Alzheimer's Disease. Furthermore, with the progression of memory loss in Alzheimer's, the most recent memory tends to be impaired before the long-term memory. In the case of Mr. Green, all other factors considered, you would expect his memory to be better for events in the LKC than for most events in that era, because he was personally involved in a famous episode of American history, for either the only time in his life or one of the few times.
It's similar to elderly WWII vets today who can often tell you accurate details of battles in which they participated, because they realize that at those times, and, in mosty cases, only those times in their lives, that they were history makers.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 5, 2014 21:22:45 GMT -5
I don't think that Gov. Hoffman would tell her that, because the governor's own PI concluded that Noso had written the ransom notes. You may personally find Pelletreau as the best and most accurate source but to say the Governor did wouldn't be accurate. So I think the point you are relying on is flawed. You see, there were many people assisting the Governor during the period of his "re-investigation." Among them were those who reported very different things about the same subject matter. The personalities and abilities were a patchwork of sorts to various degrees. There were likes and dislikes among them. For example, Parker distrusted Mead, while Ho-age distrusted Pelletreau. Ho-age respected Parker, but disagreed with much of his positions. Schindler respected Ho-age but disagreed with his positions. Mixing and matching who liked who, and who believed the next guy didn't know what they were doing could take a year or more to solve. At the receiving end of their information and trying to figure out what to make of all was Hoffman. So to conclude because Pelletreau wrote a report to the Governor means those facts were etched in stone concerning his personal conclusions would be a mistake in my opinion. One does not equal the other. It could, but its only a possibility and does not hold the weight you seem to be assigning it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2014 21:45:09 GMT -5
I am not aware of how many worked on this re-investigation but from reading posts on this board, I have noted quite of few names. In his book, A Talent To Deceive, William Norris mentions that one of the things uncovered during this re-investigtion was Hockmuth's blindness. Was this important information found out while Hauptmann was still alive? Wouldn't this have been something his attorneys would have used in an appeal?
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Sept 6, 2014 2:24:18 GMT -5
they couldn't have found to much, they kidnapped paul wendel and tried to pin it on him
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 6, 2014 11:38:19 GMT -5
Was this important information found out while Hauptmann was still alive? Wouldn't this have been something his attorneys would have used in an appeal? This whole "re-investigation" is misunderstood in my opinion. I think many who read about or research the case have a misconception concerning exactly what went on. For example, the Hochmuth information came to light from letters written to the Defense in mid-1935. It was worked on and developed by PIs employed by the Defense and even Fisher himself. I believe one of the PIs was Harold Keyes. Fisher didn't bring out the specifics until January 1936 where he challenged Wilentz to charge Hochmuth with perjury after laying out all of his facts. You see, it was Fisher who turned this information over to Hoffman who in turn pursued it further. So was Fisher part of the "re-investigation?" I'd say yes he was. But to answer your question the facts concerning Hochmuth's perjury were considered by the Court of Pardons. I have the document somewhere but, as usual, can't seem to find it at the moment. Anything that was publicized by the Governor usually was included for their consideration.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Sept 6, 2014 12:52:04 GMT -5
wilentz wasn't stupid enough to put a blind man on the stand. he wasn't blind at the time of the Hauptman sighting. maybe four years later his eyes might have been worse. also hoffmans reinvestigation I think didn't turn up anything concrete, because why kidnap wendel if Hoffman discovered all this stuff?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2014 15:01:46 GMT -5
I think perhaps I am not understanding it correctly myself. Some questions:
What initially motived Hoffman to "re-investigate" this crime? Was it his jailhouse interview with Hauptmann? Was it because he felt the investigation done by the NJSP was badly bungled? Was it Dr. Condon's everchanging explanations about CJ, etc.?
What were his objectives for this investigation? To find undiscovered evidence? To find any accomplices who might have been involved? To challenge evidence he felt was false/fabricated?
I do not see any political advantage to him doing this. So was it really all about getting to the truth of what really happened on March 1, 1932?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 6, 2014 18:39:49 GMT -5
wilentz wasn't stupid enough to put a blind man on the stand. he wasn't blind at the time of the Hauptman sighting. maybe four years later his eyes might have been worse. Exhibit #6:
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 7, 2014 7:55:44 GMT -5
I think perhaps I am not understanding it correctly myself. It's not easy to understand, and it fact, I continue to learn new things that surround it and happened because of it. The term "re-investigation" initiated by the Governor suggests structure and planning at every level. Instead it was somewhat spontaneous and many ad-libbed their way through whatever role they took on. Most especially at the beginning. There was no money for this effort, and the Governor could not trust his AG or the NJSP - so he took information from those willing to give it. To those he trusted he provided them with leads to track down for him. He asked favors from other Agencies, for example, which is why Mustoe came over to assist from Monmouth County. He was partnered up with Meade, a PI who was added to the Executive Staff as a way to justify whatever payment or role he provided. Another example would be Dr. Hudson who assisted when he could himself, but actually loaned his Secretary, Mary McGill who worked side by side with Gus Lockwood. Lockwood was basically loaned over to the Governor from the Dept. of Motor Vehicles. Parker was someone early on who filtered much of the incoming information. Of course once his efforts blew up in his face, it did not stop Hoffman from pursuing and continuing to investigate what he could where he could. Also, once he replaced Schwarzkopf with Kimberling, he then turned back to the NJSP for help where Kimberling would assign those Troopers who could be trusted. His main guy here would be Lewis, who had been re-hired, and who had been assisting from jump-street while employed with Meade's agency. Anyway, it's really hard to explain but I try so that I can at least get those who read the posts to reconsider what they think this "re-investigation" was all about. Things changed, and while there was some structure there was a lot of chaos as well. Pretty much many involved doing their own thing and helping out at various times - mostly on their own dime. Some questions: What initially motived Hoffman to "re-investigate" this crime? Was it his jailhouse interview with Hauptmann? Was it because he felt the investigation done by the NJSP was badly bungled? Was it Dr. Condon's everchanging explanations about CJ, etc.? What were his objectives for this investigation? To find undiscovered evidence? To find any accomplices who might have been involved? To challenge evidence he felt was false/fabricated? I do not see any political advantage to him doing this. So was it really all about getting to the truth of what really happened on March 1, 1932? There was no advantage and he knew this whole thing was going to hurt him politically. Once it got going, the more he learned the more he believed he was right. As a result at that point he did not care. I know there will be those who doubt this but I've read a lot of his confidential material and I am certain it was more important for him to find out what happened then what others thought. His Staff did try to mitigate the damage and draw support, but in the end one can see Hoffman worried less about that then they did. In his Liberty Articles, he claims he was originally approached by Kimberling about speaking with Hauptmann. Kimberling was someone who believed, at the very least, that Hauptmann had not acted alone. Hoffman claimed he blew this off. But the wheels began to turn when former Vice-President Charles Curtis called him to discuss the case. Curtis believed there was more to it, and this resurrected memories of Parker telling him something wasn't right about the matter. There was something about him being head of the Court of Pardons and knowing he would ultimately be involved in that process which caused him to decide to speak with Hauptmann himself. The rest is history. To steal a quote from him: " Crime is the people's buisness." His main goal was to get the rest of those involved. Here's a little Memo from behind the scenes:
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Sept 7, 2014 10:21:19 GMT -5
his eyesight wasn't totally bad. did reilly question it?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 7, 2014 18:42:47 GMT -5
To romeo12, Michael, and others:
Well, Gov. Hoffman, after the trial, got the record that Michael posted, indicating that the octogenarian, Hochmuth, was considered "partly blind" (from cataracts, in all likelihood) in June 1932. If he was partly blind in June 1932, chances are overwhelming that he was partly blind on March 1, 1932, only a few months earlier.
The presentation of Hochmuth as a prosecution witness - who would have needed good visual acuity to allegedly ID Hauptmann near the Lindbergh house shortly before the kidnapping - was indicative of how low Wilentz was willing to stoop to get a murder conviction on Hauptmann. Without witnesses who could place Hauptmann in the area on the day of the kidnapping, Wilentz's charge of felony murder against Hauptmann would have to fail if the jurors had any common sense. Wilentz's use of the elderly, visually impaired Hochmuth as someone who he alleged had sufficient vision to make a credible identification of Hauptmann was a sucker punch against the whole criminal justice system.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Sept 8, 2014 4:37:20 GMT -5
It can be argued that it was Hochmuth's (almost certainly) perjured testimony was the most damning thing for Hauptmann...
Per the Gardner book, getting the ladder admitted into evidence proved to be a frustrating task for Wilentz. Finally on the third try, the trial judge admitted it, since Hochmuth ID'd Hauptmann and testified he saw a ladder in the car with him. Thus his testimony provided the needed link and allowed what is arguably the most damning piece of evidence against Hauptmann into the trial.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Sept 8, 2014 9:09:40 GMT -5
well he was a witness and he told a trooper in 1935 that he was the man in the car. the ladder was puit into evidence and it was damaging. it was a task for wilentz but I think he expected it. everything was damaging to Hauptman because all the evidence points to him
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 8, 2014 16:06:26 GMT -5
well he was a witness and he told a trooper in 1935 that he was the man in the car. the ladder was puit into evidence and it was damaging. it was a task for wilentz but I think he expected it. everything was damaging to Hauptman because all the evidence points to him Let's look at Hochmuth's Trial Preparation Statement taken on 1-6-35. Here are some interesting excerpts: Q[Peacock]: Would you say Hauptmann was the man? A[Hochmuth]: I can't say that. I can't say that. The face that looked and stopped he looked up at me it was red face the features were the same he looked as if he had seen a ghost- he stopped and looked at me for about fifteen seconds.
Q: What did he do then? A: I made a step towards the car and he started again.
Q: You have seen Hauptmann at the jail? A: I could not say exactly.
Q: Have you seen him any other place besides the jail? A: No, I can't say. I have been thinking it over if I had seen him.
Q: You will be asked the question "Was Hauptmann the man" and you will have to answer yes or no. A: I can't say it was and I can't say it was not. Here's where Peacock tries to tell him what to say - notice what Hochmuth says in reply. It compliments what Lupica told A&M when he was interviewed for their book "The Crime of the Century"....... Q: You must remember this - We know he is the man. We know other people saw him in that neighborhood. People right up above you saw him there. We know a man saw him because he gave a description of him that night, the same night of the day you saw him. This man gave a description of him and this description tallies exactly with the picture you picked out.
A: There is another man who saw the car as far as I know- that student. He saw the car more. The way I heard that he saw the ladder in the car too. My daughter tells me he was on the corner there- my daughter picked him up and took him up where he wanted to go.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Sept 8, 2014 16:17:30 GMT -5
i think he saw Hauptman like others did. his eyes wernt bad as people think at the time of the sighting. reilly-why do you wear glasses?hochmuth- at a distance yes, for reading I read without glasses. he had better eyes then I do, I have to wear distance and reading. I could've saw that jerk from my porch
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Sept 8, 2014 16:51:22 GMT -5
Either way, the IDs were totally flawed. Once they showed him the photo of Hauptmann before the lineup, his ID was tainted. End of story.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2014 17:50:38 GMT -5
Thanks Michael for your comments on Hoffman and for the Harry Green memo. I feel I understand a little better now what Hoffman was trying to accomplish. He clearly believed more than one person was involved with this crime and wanted to see them all brought to justice. He did as much as he could and was willing to risk his career to do this.
The trial preparation statment concerning Hochmuth is very telling. Hochmuth is clearly not sure he saw Hauptmann. He can't even provide a real description of the man in the car - red face and white as a ghost - that is not a physical description of Hauptmann or anyone else. Plus Hochmuth said the car he saw was green. Hauptmann's car was blue. I think Hochmuth's ability to see was impaired in 1932. That would account for that poor physical ID of the man he saw. Hochmuth knows he didn't get a real good look at that driver. It is shameful the way he is being manipulated into identifying Hauptmann.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Sept 8, 2014 17:57:43 GMT -5
I think hochmuth saw Hauptman in fact he saw him twice.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Sept 9, 2014 10:55:59 GMT -5
I forgot I have a old true detective magazine with a article "Lindbergh case secrets from gov hoffmans private files" by alan hynd. one of hoffmans investigators said hochmuth couldn't see elephant tracks in the snow.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 9, 2014 14:24:57 GMT -5
To romeo12, Michael, and others:
Hauptmann may have been a jerk, but that doesn't imply that a purported visual identification from a "partly blind" old man from a distance should carry any weight in court. And remember, too, that Hochmuth received a small amount of reward money as an enticement to testify the way the DA wanted him to.
BTW, romeo, I'd be pretty darn sure that your current vision now, even without your glasses, is better than Hochmuth's was in 1932.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Sept 9, 2014 14:27:07 GMT -5
you don't know how his vision was in 1932. I think it was good enough to see a mans face in a car. I agree his vision wasn't great but doable
|
|