|
Post by kate1 on Aug 30, 2017 6:43:27 GMT -5
Kate1: Criminally switched license plates has been gone over before, see back a ways. If we go by the "likely test" then a car used in perpetrating the crime of the century would be more likely to have incorrect plates than correct ones. The box on the back of Richard's car was a homemade addition and could have been easily removed. A novel way of establishing misidentification! Thank you, I'm still learning. I've been trying to go back and I need a systematic way of doing this. I posted often until about 2007 so I've missed a lot. I won't say anything more about the kidnap car but seems like, if a single individual commits this crime, he/she was very careful to detail in some cases and not in big ways. Honestly I can see your arguments, but I simply think they are assumptions.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 29, 2017 15:16:22 GMT -5
Amy, absolutely right ( again)! Found in Milton's book that a 7-zone heating system and heavy-duty wiring were installed to accommodate a lab in the basement. The glass bricks were in the roof to provide the attic with natural light....doesn't indicate any use for the attic, p. 210 in Loss of Eden. Thanks for the fact check!
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 29, 2017 13:13:30 GMT -5
I remember reading somewhere that there were Windows built into the roof at Highfields that flooded the attic with light, being planned for an eventual laboratory. I also remember reading that Betty decided she wasn't happy being a maid and decided, I think while she lived in Detroit, to "read up on childcare" to seek a position as a nurse. I would think as much as Betty had charge over the baby they might have found someone with: (1. More experience with children especially babies, and (2. Someone the family knew a little more about. I would hAve absolutely never left my children at any age with someone with this little experience and about whom my family heard through the friend of a maid! They left him totally in her care when they flew around the world. Hard not to criticize their judgement. There were skylights built into areas of the roof of the Hopewell house. I have not read that these were for a future laboratory to be built up there. If you can remember where you read this, that would be very helpful. I read in Lloyd Gardner's book, The Case That Never Dies, page 13, that Betty Gow decided she wanted a position as a nurse maid in a wealthy family so she read books on child care to ready herself for such a position. She did also have charge of a child in New Jersey just before she took the job with the Lindberghs. I understand your criticism of the hiring of Betty Gow. Charlie's previous caregivers had been nurses. Betty Gow was not. So did Anne and CAL feel they no longer needed a professional to help care for Charlie? Maybe CAL didn't like clashing with nurses who had strong opinions about how to handle Charlie? Perhaps a general childcare worker would be more suitable to him? There were plenty of Nanny agencies that the Lindberghs could have contacted to find someone with experience to care for Charlie. Instead, it is Elisabeth Morrow who finds someone. I'll look for that Amy. I had forgotten about Betty working for the family as a child's caregiver. Without checking on whom you have living in your home you certainly are opening up your life (and your family's) to the outside world. Don't think that's what CAL wanted. Morrows certainly were enmeshed to some degree especially with the Lindberghs living there.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 28, 2017 16:22:01 GMT -5
Ben Lupica's eyewitness evidence was different than the numerous car sightings. The sightings will never be proven as to who or what they were. Remember, Lupica's evidence came long before anyone ever heard of Richard Hauptmann. Ben saw a middle aged normal sized white male alone with a suit on and a slouch hat driving a blue Dodge car similar year as Hauptmenn's car (probably Hauptmann's) with a disassembled extension ladder over the seats in front of the Lindbergh residence shortly before the Lindbergh Kidnapping Crime happened. That is significant evidence of perpetration since Hauptmann also turns up later as a suspect in the crime investigation. Detractors from the "Hauptmann did it and probably alone" construction of how the crime happened should note that none of the known evidence does not point to Hauptmann! The back of the car and the local tags?
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 28, 2017 16:19:37 GMT -5
It has always been shocking to me how little checking Lindbergh did before hiring his staff. The baby's nurse wasn't a nurse and had never cared for children before. I find that odd. Whatley's seemed like nice people but they hadn't lived in this country all that long. Also, in all articles, books, newspapers I've seen that show the house plans I've never seen the stairway to the attic. It's as close to the nursery as it could be without being in the room. I have read that the attic was to be used as a laboratory in the future. What happened to it? I figure Lindbergh didn't do any checking on his own about the help he hired because he just expected someone else to do that part. As I understand it, the Whateleys came through an agency, so it seems to me that the agency should have collected and then provided the background information on the people who they sent out to be interviewed by the rich and powerful clients they are servicing. Betty Gow is a different situation. From what I have read, Betty Gow learned about the Lindberghs needing a baby nurse from her friend, Mary Beattie(Betty and Mary knew each other in Scotland), who worked at the Morrow house, specifically for Miss Elisabeth Morrow. Mary Beattie told Elisabeth about Betty Gow and Elisabeth suggested that CAL interview her for the job. So I see Betty Gow coming onto the staff as a personal recommendation and probably no background check was done at that time. I would hope that Anne discussed Betty Gow with Mary Beattie, at least! I was very surprised when I saw how close the attic stairwell was to the nursery. I never knew that before. That is why I checked with Michael about it (of course!) as soon as I became aware of it on the Historical places documents I was looking at. I wanted to be sure it was on the original plans and not something added by the state of New Jersey once they took over the ownership of the house. As far as CAL's plans for a laboratory, he definitely did plan one. However, the biological lab he wanted to put in the Hopewell house was to be done in the basement and not the attic space. Lindbergh had been using the Princeton University laboratory (by invitation) while he was living in New Jersey when the Hopewell house was being built. I cannot state whether any work had been done to develop the lab space by the time of the kidnapping. I remember reading somewhere that there were Windows built into the roof at Highfields that flooded the attic with light, being planned for an eventual laboratory. I also remember reading that Betty decided she wasn't happy being a maid and decided, I think while she lived in Detroit, to "read up on childcare" to seek a position as a nurse. I would think as much as Betty had charge over the baby they might have found someone with: (1. More experience with children especially babies, and (2. Someone the family knew a little more about. I would hAve absolutely never left my children at any age with someone with this little experience and about whom my family heard through the friend of a maid! They left him totally in her care when they flew around the world. Hard not to criticize their judgement. and
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 28, 2017 4:24:58 GMT -5
After CJ had not delivered, Lindbergh wanted to believe there was hope through Curtis, by dint of his boundless 'chutzpah,' especially within his references to the CJ Jafsie had just dealt with. As the self-admitted fake that Curtis turned out to be, what else was there for Lindbergh to ultimately realize than that he had simply been taken for a month-long ride? Curtis initially knew nothing about the kidnapping but was obviously able to gain sensitive inside information once he was "on the inside." This thing about the staff is totally a matter of how it's seen through whatever filter you wish to use. They all made statements and in an absolute sense, I see nothing within Lindbergh's actions to suggest anything other than that he basically had trust in them to the extent they would not have been involved in any kind of primary role. I'm sure though, he must have entertained thoughts about how any of them might have unwittingly provided sensitive information to someone who was involved. All of this to me illustrates that CAL wasn't as bright as was thought or he was extremely gifted at tying up an investigation. Why would anyone with his fame, wealth and intelligence (?) hire these people? Were the Whatley's a gift from the Morrows? But Betty, I don't understand...especially.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 27, 2017 13:41:01 GMT -5
It has always been shocking to me how little checking Lindbergh did before hiring his staff. The baby's nurse wasn't a nurse and had never cared for children before. I find that odd. Whatley's seemed like nice people but they hadn't lived in this country all that long. Also, in all articles, books, newspapers I've seen that show the house plans I've never seen the stairway to the attic. It's as close to the nursery as it could be without being in the room. I have read that the attic was to be used as a laboratory in the future. What happened to it?
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 25, 2017 6:19:47 GMT -5
amy he was very involved theres no real proof of anybody else I would think Fisch and J.J. Faulkner would be good people to look into. Also maybe Violet Sharpe and the crew at Junges' boarding house.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 22, 2017 14:18:47 GMT -5
when I was at next day hill I couldn't go upstairs where the lindberghs lived there was a class going on. according to the outside measurements I was told they might have measured the wrong window I don't know how true it is. id love to do it myslelf I always thought the Lindberghs' lived in their own wing of the Englewood estate. Is that right?
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 21, 2017 10:17:19 GMT -5
Michael, I have a question for you and I hope that you can help me. I was looking at a diagram of the Hopewell house and it started me thinking. Did the police ever check out the attic of High Fields? Do you know if there was a stairwell upstairs that the attic could be accessed from? Sorry that is two questions. Amy I have no way of knowing but I recall many attic rooms of old houses were where servants slept. Also didn't the same architect who designed the Englewood house do the one in Hopewell? I didn't mean to try to answer your question...just commenting here!
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 18, 2017 18:17:02 GMT -5
I think so too. No traceable call plus no one to hear what was really being discussed in that call. Those old phones were so crude, weren't they? I think the caller would have to use the line for several minutes for an operator to put through a trace And isn't it interesting that Johnsen was deported with a $50,000 bond or something? I think looking at the letter Michael posted above about the other Morrow servants that lived with Red and their long distance charges that were recorded, none were evidently traced to Hopewell. That's what makes me wonder about Red going out on a miserable night to make a phone call when Junges offered to let him use their phone. In those days all long distance calls went through an operated and were charged individually.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 18, 2017 6:26:26 GMT -5
According to Fisher there was a roof below that nursery window at Englewood which the third ladder section was meant to reach from. Until we see a photo of that nursery and the wall below it, this issue will remain unsettled. There are thousands of pictures of Hopewell, none of Englewood? Was the roof flat or slanted?
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 18, 2017 6:25:05 GMT -5
Despite the minor errors contained in Fisher's books and the probability of others involved, I believe his narrative that identifies Hauptmann as main player is much closer to the truth than what's found in the efforts of Scaduto, Kennedy, Ahlgen and Monier, Behn, Jones and Zorn. Many of the mistakes in his books go way beyond "minor" in my opinion. When the theme is to accuse others of being "Revisionists" then he had better be right about his attacks. In some cases he's very wrong, then becomes the very thing he accuses others of. Next, there are other places where he didn't even do the proper research to make any accusation at all. Speaking of which, there seems to be very little criticism of those works here on this board, even though a strong case could be made for them all being fatally flawed. You are certainly welcome to Joe. I think if anyone here has used ANY source that is wrong I am quick to point out the error. BTW - Here is one source concerning Englewood: I've always thought it was interesting that Red Johnson left the Junges' the night of the kidnapping to use a pay phone. It was rainy and windy and cold. Was it so a call couldn't be traced?
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 16, 2017 6:04:20 GMT -5
There is a time factor in all of this. Anna had to have been picked up that night. She didn't have a car. I'm assuming that the kidnapper depended on darkness to commit this "kidnapping". Anna was picked up about the same time the baby was discovered missing. Between dark about 6:30 and 10:00 pm I can't possibly believe anyone could go to Morrow's and find no baby. Drive to Hopewell and find the other home figure out which room the baby was in and miraculously get there when Charlie wasn't to be disturbed. Get the little guy, bury him and make it back to pick up his wife!. I really feel this was about a staged event.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 15, 2017 18:15:06 GMT -5
Why Richard Hauptmann was executed for the kidnapping, killing Charles Lindbergh's child in 'Crime of the Century'
www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/richard-hauptmann-executed-crime-century-article-1.794339
Richard Hauptmann was executed in April 1936 for the kidnap and murder of the Lindbergh child. Police and prosecutorial documents that have come to light in the years since have made it abundantly clear that much of the trial evidence against him was fabricated and satisfied many investigators that he almost certainly had nothing to do with the crime.
"Abundantly clear" and "nothing to do with the crime" might be a bit of an overreach... I agree. Much evidence was fabricated. The defense wasn't allow in the apartment where the wood appeared. The witnesses for the state were so tentative in their identification that it was laughable. Lindbergh testifying he could recognize a voice that spoke two words years before was, I think, the most despicable. It sealed Haiptmann's fate. Anna knew he was at the bakery that night and spent the rest of her life defending him.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 15, 2017 18:02:54 GMT -5
Jack, I don't believe he had any intention of trying to pull the job at the Morrow house in Englewood. Much too risky. That he apparently had to rush Rail 16 just before the crime, tells me he didn't really know if two or three sections would be required in Hopewell. He was covering his bases. The ladder "evidence" is shaky Sorry I couldn't resist the levity. The problem with the ladder situation is that it doesn't work. The real one held by NJSP was broken. The replica used by NJSP also broke? And the rail 16 part was never used, wasn't necessary. And is the only part that was connected by Bornmann using planks/boards from the attic. Throwing the baby out the window would have created a scene that could have been seen from inside the den downstairs and leaving a trail set in mud. I'm having a lot of trouble trying to logically equate the ladder with a kidnap. It would necessarily need another person at the bottom or inside the nursery for a hand off. That for me always points inside to one of the staff.
I agree Julie. It's one thing to climb the ladder in the daytime but another to put it up and climb into a small window. Then, not disturb anything in the room. Even if the baby was thrown out the window,which I doubt because I would think the closed head injury would have rather been a bloody gash with skin torn, I can't imagine descending out the window onto that rickety ladder. Seems impossible.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 15, 2017 7:47:56 GMT -5
He would have thrown the baby out the window and jumped. The ladder could have been a construction ladder - meant to be mounted to a wall of a structure being built - which Hauptmann adapted (not particularly effectively) to a leaning ladder. This has been gone over before. I know. I left the board in 2007. Still don't believe Hauptmann built that ladder.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 14, 2017 19:13:32 GMT -5
hi amy it was built for one time use. I don't think he could have used that third rail it would have been really shaky. it wasn't made for someone over two hundred pounds. I climbed a replica ladder Did you climb it at night? Alone? We're your shoes muddy and slippery? Just can't believe a carpenter would build something that could have easily caused him to be stranded in the upstairs with no way down. Just too risky.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 12, 2017 6:16:50 GMT -5
The ladder was designed with two goals: 1) It had to fit into the back seat of the kidnapper's car 2) It had to be built in a way so as to minimize it's weight so it could be carried by "one" kidnapper. The fewer the rungs, the less the weight. It didn't fit in the back seat but rather over the seats according to witness Lupica. A carpenter might have designed a ladder that would have been compact and reliable. And why the extra section that wasn't needed? Another thought, why leave the ladder? Why not just watch Windows for lights, then plop the baby in the car and return for the ladder? It was a dark and stormy night and we have to wonder how all this was accomplished with no light. Even Lindbergh had Ollie look for flashlights! The ladder provided another "clue" to the too perfect crime scene.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 10, 2017 6:21:42 GMT -5
Chapter 16: Wow, I never considered that as an escape route, but there is a spot on Crusher Rd (C) that you get a great view of the whole Hopewell Valley. The theory that the kidnappers stopped to see all of the lights on in the Lindbergh home never made much sense to me. They had planned the crime between 8 and 10 when the baby wasn't disturbed and at ten it would be expected every light would be on. I would presume the family was serching and there was still time to escape. Were there police sirens?
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 10, 2017 5:58:11 GMT -5
amy it would take you 9 years to read my collection I would love to see some about the ladder.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 9, 2017 17:58:26 GMT -5
There were so many thoughts and opinions about the kidnap ladder. Here is just one of many that appeared during the days after the crime occurred. Thanks Amy. I think we have to remember the defense was never allowed into that house. The phone number on the trim of the door was bogus evidence entered in the trial and probably hurt the defense. I wouldn't trust much of anything they used. Many of their witnesses were pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 9, 2017 17:57:40 GMT -5
There were so many thoughts and opinions about the kidnap ladder. Here is just one of many that appeared during the days after the crime occurred. This is what I thought. Even if he picked up the odd piece of wood, the whole ladder was built shabbily. ". It broke! So many contradictions in this case. A poorly made ladder made by a carpenter. A well planned kidnapping in which the kidnapper just happened to guess that the baby was where he'd never been on a Tuesday night. Staked out the place and knew baby wasn't disturbed between 8-10 but couldn't figure out that the family was in Englewood on Anna's night working. For 60 years Anna Hauptmann insisted her husband was innocent because she knew he was in the bakery with her. The rungs on the ladder were spaced so far apart that making descent extremely difficult. Maybe if he'd used both pieces of wood from the basement the rungs would have been closer.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 9, 2017 17:42:45 GMT -5
Still wonder why Lloyd Fisher believed in Hauptmann's innocence. There is no proof that that piece of wood was ever in that attic. Old wood is old wood. Why would a master carpenter use something that wasn't good quality to perform the crime of the century? And nails can't be traced! I guess kate you should study the wood evidence in this case a little closer. theres plenty of proof rail 16 came from the attic I remember Kevkon's opinions about rail 16. It is speculation just like Kohler. I've read everything I can find although I'm not able to access the resource some of you have.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 8, 2017 7:51:07 GMT -5
Are you saying you think the ladder wasn't made until the day of the kidnapping?
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 8, 2017 7:43:07 GMT -5
Investigation seems to have ended when Hauptmann was arrested? Very thorough and interesting. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 6, 2017 12:31:05 GMT -5
Amy thanks. What is The Purdy Klein theory? I think the best explanation of the Purdy-Klein theory about rail 16 is one that Michael wtote in a post he made July 8, 2010 when asked about how this piece of attic wood ended up with Hauptmann. Here is the quote from that post which comes from the Ransom/Finances section; BRH Ransom Yes-Kidnapping No thread: Michael How could rail 16 be from Hauptmann's attic and not know it? (Gary)
I have to give credit to both Rab AND Kevin for this one. They suggested (independently of one another) that board was cut by the Electricians to run the wiring.
Investigating this theory, I discovered the floor was laid before the electricians ran their wiring - some of which ran directly under where Rail 16 would have been. Electricians also would have sawn that board the way it was, that is, left extending past the joist (hanging off) and not flush, which according to Koehler's own testimony a Carpenter would have done. I also discovered that any left over materials were placed into the basement by Rauch. Kevin & I together at the NJSP Archives took a look at Rail 16 to see if the shadowing that existed on S-226 appeared on Rail 16. It didn't.
So it all fits, and makes perfect sense. Hauptmann went into the basement and removed any wood and/or items he wanted for his garage. This board finds its way into the ladder - just as Hauptmann suggested it would have since he had boards in his garage. The idea was nutty to him, and anyone else that he would go into his attic when boards were available in his garage.
I hope this helps, Kate! Oh yes Amy. Thank you! I remember Gary too. It is speculation though which is what we all do here somewhat.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 5, 2017 11:44:52 GMT -5
Amy, where did the info about the ladder wood being in Hauptmann's basement come from? The Hauptmanns moved into the Rauch apartment building in October of 1931. A licensed master plumber named Gustave Miller serviced this apartment building for Mrs. Rauch. Here are excerpts of his testimony from the Hauptmann trial. Trial Transcript Pages 3736 & 3737 - Direct examination by Defense Attorney Edward ReillyQ(Reilly) Now you had been down in Rauch's cellar many a time, hadn't you? A(Miller) Righ Q(Reilly) Did you see any boards down there in Rauch's cellar? A(Miller) Yes, I did.
Q(Reilly) When? A(Miller) When I first went down there?
Q(Reilly) When was that? A(Miller) 1931
Q(Reilly) Will you please -- A(Miller) November, I went down; in November.
Q(Reilly) What was the occasion of your going there in November 1931? A(Miller) I was called by Mrs. Rauch.
Q(Reilly) And was it necessary for you to go into their cellar then on that visit? A(Miller) Yes.
Q(Reilly) Now what kind of boards did you see in the cellar please? A(Miller) Well, they looked to be about five inches, five or five and a half. There was two of them. They were on a slant.
Q(Reilly) Was the cellar divided into rooms? A(Miller) Well, you could really call one of them a room.
Q(Reilly) One was a room. Now, where did you see the two boards? A(Miller) Right in under the stairs.
Q(Reilly) Do you know anything about wood? A(Miller) Well, a little bit.
Q(Reilly) Could you give us a better description of the kind of wood you saw? A(Miller) Well, to tell you what I call floor roughing; roughing it is plain, ordinary wood.
Trial Transcript - Page 3738 - Attorney Reilly shows Miller a picture of board 226. Q(Reilly) Was that the board you saw, the two boards in the cellar or either one of them, in Rauch's in November 1931? A(Miller) It is a hard thing to say if that was the board.
Q(Reilly) I didn't ask you if that was the board. I asked you if that was of the same general description as that. A(Miller) Yes. They were rough. That is what you call rough flooring. There was a bead on it. It is something like that.
Q(Reilly) A bead on rough flooring? A(Miller) Yes, some of it have an L-lap.
Q(Reilly) And were the boards that you saw in November, 1931, in Rauch's cellar similar in appearance and description to this board that I show you? A(Miller) Right. It is about six-foot high, isn't it?
Q(Reilly) It is a little bit higher than that. A(Miller) Yeah.
Miller saw rough flooring boards in the cellar in 1931. You couple this with the Purdy-Klein theory and I think it explains how Hauptmann came to have attic wood available to him. Amy thanks. What is The Purdy Klein theory?
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 5, 2017 11:44:29 GMT -5
Amy, where did the info about the ladder wood being in Hauptmann's basement come from? The Hauptmanns moved into the Rauch apartment building in October of 1931. A licensed master plumber named Gustave Miller serviced this apartment building for Mrs. Rauch. Here are excerpts of his testimony from the Hauptmann trial. Trial Transcript Pages 3736 & 3737 - Direct examination by Defense Attorney Edward ReillyQ(Reilly) Now you had been down in Rauch's cellar many a time, hadn't you? A(Miller) Righ Q(Reilly) Did you see any boards down there in Rauch's cellar? A(Miller) Yes, I did.
Q(Reilly) When? A(Miller) When I first went down there?
Q(Reilly) When was that? A(Miller) 1931
Q(Reilly) Will you please -- A(Miller) November, I went down; in November.
Q(Reilly) What was the occasion of your going there in November 1931? A(Miller) I was called by Mrs. Rauch.
Q(Reilly) And was it necessary for you to go into their cellar then on that visit? A(Miller) Yes.
Q(Reilly) Now what kind of boards did you see in the cellar please? A(Miller) Well, they looked to be about five inches, five or five and a half. There was two of them. They were on a slant.
Q(Reilly) Was the cellar divided into rooms? A(Miller) Well, you could really call one of them a room.
Q(Reilly) One was a room. Now, where did you see the two boards? A(Miller) Right in under the stairs.
Q(Reilly) Do you know anything about wood? A(Miller) Well, a little bit.
Q(Reilly) Could you give us a better description of the kind of wood you saw? A(Miller) Well, to tell you what I call floor roughing; roughing it is plain, ordinary wood.
Trial Transcript - Page 3738 - Attorney Reilly shows Miller a picture of board 226. Q(Reilly) Was that the board you saw, the two boards in the cellar or either one of them, in Rauch's in November 1931? A(Miller) It is a hard thing to say if that was the board.
Q(Reilly) I didn't ask you if that was the board. I asked you if that was of the same general description as that. A(Miller) Yes. They were rough. That is what you call rough flooring. There was a bead on it. It is something like that.
Q(Reilly) A bead on rough flooring? A(Miller) Yes, some of it have an L-lap.
Q(Reilly) And were the boards that you saw in November, 1931, in Rauch's cellar similar in appearance and description to this board that I show you? A(Miller) Right. It is about six-foot high, isn't it?
Q(Reilly) It is a little bit higher than that. A(Miller) Yeah.
Miller saw rough flooring boards in the cellar in 1931. You couple this with the Purdy-Klein theory and I think it explains how Hauptmann came to have attic wood available to him. Amy thanks. What is The Purdy Klein theory?
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 5, 2017 5:49:09 GMT -5
When the board from the attic (rail 16) was removed and where BRH exactly got it from weren't known at the time of Richard's trial. This is the only place I've ever seen that....not in any of the books I remembered. My impression was the landlady didn't like the Hauptmann's very much.
|
|