|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 6, 2021 13:12:47 GMT -5
Jeanne,
Your post concerning the possibility that the driver of the Dodge with the ladder sections was delivering the ladder and then immediately left the scene is an interesting one. In attempting to examine Hauptmann's exact role in this kidnapping/extortion plot, I have wondered if Hauptmann delivered the ladder to his 3 accomplices who then perpetrated the actual snatch of the child. If Hauptmann left the area immediately after this delivery he could have been back in the Bronx in time to pick-up Anna at the Bakery by 9 P.M. I have always believed that the evidence in this case clearly implicates Hauptmann in this crime, however there are many questions as to his exact role. I believe that Hauptmann:
** built the ladder ** was the individual that Lupica observed near the Lindbergh residence with the ladder sections on the evening of March 1st ** wrote the ransom notes ** was "Cemetery John" in the 2 cemetery meetings with Condon ** received the $50,000 ransom payment from Condon
I've considered that perhaps 3 Hauptmann co-conspirators were the actual individuals on the ground that night of March 1st, and that they were the ones to actually make the snatch of the Lindbergh child. Hauptmann's "role" was to build the ladder and delivery it to Hopewell, as well as write the first ransom note (and all others as necessary as the extortion part of the crime unfolded). Is it possible that the accidental death of the child during the snatch changed everything? Did the 3 accomplices who were at the scene that night of March 1st panic now that this snatch attempt to make some quick and easy money had quickly desolved into a murder case? Did these 3 accomplices return to the Bronx and tell Hauptmann that the child had been accidentally killed and that everything was now finished? Did they tell Hauptmann that they had disposed of the child's body in a secluded wooded area where it would not be found, and that they were not going to hang around to be apprehended and executed for the death of the Lindbergh baby? Is it possible that Hauptmann decided that since he was not involved in the child's death that night then he did not have as much to fear as the others? Did Hauptmann make the decision that he was not going to walk away from $50,000 when he had the ability to go ahead with the extortion piece of the crime? If one of Hauptmann's "job" in this conspiracy had been to write the original ramsom note and all subsequent ones as needed, then he would have had access to the note paper with pre-applied holes. He would have known the secret symbol and that was all that he needed to continue on his own. If a lookout was needed at his cemetery meetings with Condon, he could have used a close friend for this.
It is interesting to note that Condon had always maintained that one of the things C.J. (Hauptmann) asked him at the first Woodlawn Cemetery meeting was "would I burn if the baby is dead". When Condon replied "I don't know the facts", C.J. responded "would I burn if I did not kill it". Hauptmann would have know that Condon was an experienced and well educated professor, and perhaps he (Hauptmann) was attempting to reassure himself that under American law he could not be executed if he did not actually kill the child. In a way, Hauptmann would have been asking for Condon's advice, as Hauptmann had no one else to pose the question to.
I have read Hauptmann's autobiography and if nothing else he was a very determined individual. He wanted money and a high social status among his acquaintances and he was determined to have both. Hauptmann did not intend to spend the rest of his life as a "common laborer". At the time of this kidnapping/extortion crime, Hauptmann's finances were so bad that he was about to lose electricity at his residence due to failed payments. In the Spring of 1932 I can not see Hauptmann walking away from $50,000 when he was so close to getting it. He would have had the arrogance and ability to believe that he could pull off the extortion on his own.
I believe it was Forum moderator Rab who layed out a very thorough examination of Hauptmann's income/spending patterns after the ransom payment was made. I believe it provided good evidence that Hauptmann could have received the entire $50,000 which obviously would exclude anyone else participating in the extortion angle of the crime.
The evidence shows that Hauptmann did not snatch the child on March 1st by himself, yet he is "tied" to the crime scene by the evidence relating to the ladder and the original ransom note left in the nursery. In contrast, I do not see alot of definitive evidence that the extortion of the $50.000 was perpetrated by anyone other than Hauptmann (Rab's financial examinations adding additional weight to this). For me, this incongruency is in need of some fact based explanation.
I'm obviously speculating here and not saying this is what happened, but there are some facts in this case that can't be denied. Hauptmann did go to his grave ademantly proclaiming that he was innocent in the death of the child. Was this one point when he was actually telling the truth? My apologies for the long post.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 5, 2021 13:47:38 GMT -5
I am wondering if anyone has an opinion on the information DeLong reveals in his interview with Schwartzkopf as it pertains to footprints at the crime scene. DeLong refers to this interview as an "off the record chat" with Schwartzkopf at his Trenton Headquarters. It took place in June of 1932 just months after the crime occurred, and major Schoeffell was present for part of the interview. Schwartzkopf revealed alot of specifics about the crime scene, and it would appear that he (Schwartzkopf) was comfortable with DeLong's assurances that everything was off the record until the investigation was concluded. It appears to me that according to DeLong, Schwartzkopf revealed many more perpetrators' footprints (both ingress and egress) than what is normally discussed in regards to this topic. Since this interview occurred just months after the crime was committed, one would assume that Schwartzkopf would know exactly what his Troopers and Investigators had discovered at the crime scene in regards to footprints. I am attempting to attach two small sections of this interview that pertain to footprints. DeLong certainly appears to be saying that the NJSP believed the "small clump of scrub oaks" near the house was a staging point for both ingress and egress, and that three individuals were leaving footprints that night. In addition, there were also footprints that appeared to be 2 or 3 days old that indicated prior surveillance of the house. This small clump of scrub oaks that is referenced by Schwartzkopf seems to be the spot where Wolfe, Williamson and Lindbergh discovered the 3 sections of the ladder. Officer Williamson, in his statement of March 9th, indicated that 2 sections of the ladder were lying close together and 1 section was "8 to 10 feet" away. If, as Schwartzkopf seems to be indicating, an ingress to the house was made from this location, did 2 suspects decide to use only 2 sections of the ladder, thus leaving the one section at this staging point? Upon their return to this spot with the 2 sections of the ladder and the child, did they just drop those two sections and immediately make their escape via the old wagon trail to the vehicle parked just north of the Lindbergh driveway entrance? Could this explain why the 3 sections of the ladder were not lying next to each other, and that this was the staging area to perpetrate this crime? Of course once Hauptmann was arrested and subsequently refused to confess or implicate others, all of this footprint evidence at the crime scene was detrimental to Wilentz's "lone wolf" case. Although Wilentz did not have alot of trial experience (I stand to be corrected on this), he was nobody's fool. Wilentz wanted two things from this jury--a guilty verdict and the death penalty. Like all prosecutors Wilentz knew that he could not give the jurors ANY reasonable doubt on either issue. If the jurors had reason to believe the Hauptmann was not alone that night of March 1st, then possibly some jurors might think that someone other than Hauptmann actually killed the child. This kind of doubt by any juror could result in a guilty verdict against Hauptmann but with a recommendation for mercy. Under N.J. law that would mean a life sentence and not execution. I think Wilentz would have taken that verdict as a failure on his part, hence all specific footprint evidence as described by Schwartzkopf to DeLong in June of 1932 had to be avoided at all cost in Flemington in 1935. Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 1, 2021 18:57:05 GMT -5
Contributor "Kevkon" did some great research on this ladder design, and for those who haven't read his thoughts on how this ladder design failed, go to the "Archives" section under the discussion board, click on "Kevkon" then onto his post of "The Ladder Failure Theory". His summation on this post is as follows: "The nature of the ladders' condition as found and the absolute lack of any evidence of a complete failure coupled with the symmetrical quality of the rail splits gives me cause to believe that they where in fact caused by the sudden scissoring or folding together of the two sections upon being taken down. When this occurs the joint is forced to go over center binding the rail ends which results in the splits found on the original ladder." Kevkon's research on this has to be respected as he actually did some hands on work with this ladder design. However, I have always felt that there are some valuable thoughts on this topic in Delong's interview of Schwartzkop very early on in the investigation. In this Schwartzkop's interview he stated that there was a mark on the white wall of the house about 7 feet up where "something apparently had crashed against it". He stated that the NJSP made several duplicat ladders and had men of different weights ascend and decend them. Eventually the duplicate ladders did split and "buckled in against the wall". The ladders did NOT collapse and fall but threw the men on them against the wall of the house. He stated that the NJSP speculated that the child, while being carried down the ladder, could have been forced against the wall striking his head with enough force to cause serious injury or death. This "scissoring in" of the ladder would explain why there was no evidence of a serious fall off of the ladder, yet explain how the soft skull of a 20 month old child could be seriously damaged. It's easy to forget that the Lindbergh house was made with fieldstones and not the more forgiving materials of today's houses. Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Aug 31, 2021 20:31:52 GMT -5
Michael has previously posted this memo that was sent to FBI Hoover by Special Agent Lowdon:
"With reference to the footprints found outside of the window of the Lindbergh home immediately following the discovery of the kidnaping, Mr. Clegg stated that casts had been made of these prints and that it appeared that the kidnaper had worn over his shoes heavy knitted socks and that the threads of these socks were plainly visible. Mr. Clegg believe that the Division does not have any replicas of the casts made. He stated that there have been found in Hauptmann's residence several pairs of knitted socks made of thread which appears strikingly similar to the thread used in the socks worn by the kidnaper, as indicated by the impressions of the casts."
Very interesting memo.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Aug 29, 2021 12:23:23 GMT -5
In regards to the ladder design, there is a short but interesting discussion of this on the forum back in 2006. For those who haven't seen it, on the discussion board go to the heading titled "Theories" and at the bottom of page 2 is a thread titled "Lt. Finn's Position". Michael posted something stated by NYPD Lt. Finn in the summer of 1933. The ensuing comments by contributor "Kevkon" are very interesting. I've always found his posts to be very thought provoking and filled with common sense.
In regards to the dimensions of the shoe impression, I wear a men's 10 and 1/2 sized shoe/boot. When I measured the length and width of a pair they were 12 and 1/2 inches in length and 4 and 1/2 inches in width.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Aug 22, 2021 12:33:46 GMT -5
Aaron, If you didn't see it, you might want to read a post by Sue back in May concerning an article in the Baltiimore Evening Sun which details Hauptmann's Maine hunting trip with Carl Henkel and John Lister of N.J. You can find Sue's post under General Discussion, them scroll down to her thread titled "Hauptmann's Autumn 1932 Hunting Trip (Maine). She posted it on May 1st of this year. The below photo is from that Maine hunting trip. Hauptmann (on the extreme left) appears to be holding his Remington model 11 semi-automatic 12 gauge shotgun that I believe was seized from his house by NYPD during their search in September 1934
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Aug 17, 2021 13:02:21 GMT -5
Joe, Your post mentions Hauptmann's suspected weight gain from 1932 to 1934. I think this attached photo documents his propensity for weight gain/loss. Photo on right is his mug shot, and one on left is just months later with his defense attorneys at the trial in Flemington. (I would imagine that anyone in the middle of the depression in 1932 would probably have some weight gain by 1934 if they had somehow come into possession of $50,000!!!).
|
|
|
V3
Aug 14, 2021 11:34:23 GMT -5
Post by lurp173 on Aug 14, 2021 11:34:23 GMT -5
This is the photo that I have always seen of Schippell, circa 1920.
|
|
|
V3
Aug 13, 2021 13:21:18 GMT -5
Joe likes this
Post by lurp173 on Aug 13, 2021 13:21:18 GMT -5
Aaron, I agree with you completely that there is a need to keep looking for connections in the LKC, and no one can say that you are not trying. The kidnapping was certainly not a one man show. Schwartzkopf related to reporter DeLong very early on that the evidence showed the presence of at least three individuals at the Lindbergh house on the night of March 1st. I do believe that there is overwhelming evidence of Hauptmann's involvement, thus any "connections" that are being pursued have to ultimately have a Hauptmann tie-in.
However as to mobster Waxey Gordon, I can not envision him being involved in the LKC. Waxey was a typical strongarm gangster of the time who was making a great deal of money in the bootlegging/gambling (and ultimately narcotics) rackets in the NYC area. I believe that wealthy gangters like Waxey wouldn't touch a Lindbergh kidnapping caper with the proverbial 10 foot pole. Waxey was making far too much money (ultimately prosecuted on income tax evasion like Capon) to bring down all the law enforcement heat that a kidnapping of Lindbergh's son would create. I believe that Waxey's statement to reporter Clarke was simply Waxey attempting to repeat what law enforcement and the public had already thought about. Waxey was simply giving his two cents worth here in hopes of reducing the law enforcement pressure that was occurring in Waxey's area of illegal operations. Without any real details, Waxey was saying that the child is dead so stop all of this law enforcement searching, and that some crazy person in the Hopewell area committed this crime so keep your investigative activities in the Hopewell, N.J. area and not in NYC. Waxey and other NYC mobsters did not want the high police investigative activities that were occurring in the NYC area to continue. Like many mobsters of the day, Waxey was a gangster but he was not stupid.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Aug 12, 2021 13:08:18 GMT -5
Joe,
My opinion on this is that security guards like Riehl who were working a night shift would carry the old time night watchmans clock to record the time of their prescribed rounds on the property. Their primary concern was being on time for these mechanical time checks. I'm sure that failing to be on time for these "location check-ins" would result in termination of employment. Loosing a job in depression ridden 1932 was probably the last thing anyone (other than Hauptmann) would want.
In his statement Riehl does refer to making a round every hour at different box locations, and that he was due to "make the ring" at 10 P.M. at the Van Courtlandt gate. Upon seeing no obvious damage to cemetery property (and waiting 5 to 8 minutes at the Van Courtlandt gate entrance), he resumed his security round to be on time for the next box location. I would venture to guess that Riehl was probably very much relieved that he was not getting into the middle of something that would interfere with his required rounds.
I agree that Riehl's state of mind at the time of the encounter is an important element here. I can't imagine a more boring job than the one Riehl had at this cemetery on a night shift. If he was so inclined, a flask of "moonshine" would have certainly made the shift go quicker!
|
|
|
V3
Aug 12, 2021 12:31:05 GMT -5
IloveDFW likes this
Post by lurp173 on Aug 12, 2021 12:31:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Aug 11, 2021 18:51:23 GMT -5
Joe, I find your accounting of the Woodlawn Cemetery meeting between Condon and C.J. very interesting and informative (as usual). It certinly makes sense that C.J. would have wanted a lookout to assist him in the risky business of attempting a ransome payment in the dark of night. I believe Condon stated that C.J. was under the impression that he (Condon) would have the ransome money at this Woodlawn meeting. Additionally it appears that the gated entrance to the Cemetery is quite massive with those stone columns and heavy gate. That massive entrance and the low lighting conditions that night would certainly make it difficult for Riehl to see everything that was occurring at the entrance. The following are some of my thoughts on this: With all due respect to Riehl, he was a 54 year old cemetery security guard not a Police Officer with training and experience in the subjects of surveillance, observations and identification of suspects. It is well documented the the average person is not very accurate with identification of suspects that they observe for a very brief moment in time. In fact, in my experiences identifications are usually quite miserable! (In law enforcement training sessions for recruits, many times the instructors will have someone burst into the classroom, say and do something, and run out. The identification descriptions by trainees are always ALL OVER THE PLACE). In his statement Riehl stated that the lighting conditions that night were only "fair" and that it was too dark to see the face or color of hair of the man sitting on top of the column. Riehl describes this man as 5'6" or 5'7" but he only saw this man for a very brief moment as the man was sitting on the column, jumping and running away on the other side of the gate. I would say that under these conditions Riehl's estimate of this man's height is a wild guess at best--not worth much to me. Additionally, Riehl stated that his estimatimation of this man's age (23-24) was based on "his actions while running". Obviously this is an extremely poor method of estimating someone's age (I would guess that a 32 year old Hauptmann could certainly run like a 24 year old). For me this only leaves the description of the white shirt and no jacket (I can't remember if Condon ever said that C.J. was wearing a white shirt under his jacket that night). As to Riehl's description of the man he saw and exchanged a few words with who was standing on the outside area near the gate: First off, I believe that Alfred Reich, who was waiting in the vehicle that night, stated that he could see everything that Condon was doing while at the cemetery gate area. He could not hear conversations, but he could see. Reich stated that he saw Condon running after the fleeing man and that he saw the man stop to let Condon catch up. Unless one believes that Reich was lying (and part of a grand criminal conspiracy), Condon was at the gate area and he did chase after the fleeing man. Security Guard Rielh's description of this man was not a match for Condon, but again that description has to be looked at carefully. Rielh only saw this man for a brief moment through the heavy gate, at night, and under "fair" lighting conditions. I would submit that under these conditions it would be very difficult for the average person to accurately judge someones physical characteristics like height, weight, age, etc. Condon was fit for his 72 years and i believe could pass for someone 55 under those lighting conditions. Condon was stocky for his taller height, and Rielh did describe a stocky individual (5'6"/170 lbs.). I believe it would be easy to misjudge a man's height under those conditons that night but much easier to judge a man's build (slim, medium or stocky). Height and age are difficult for most people to judge even under ideal conditions. Rielh describes a stocky person for whatever that's worth. Rielh's description that this man was clean shaven is interesting. I would submit that again, under the conditions of that night, Rielh could have easily missed seeing Condon's white, neatly trimmed mustache. I am unfortunately the same age as Condon was in 1934 and I have a neat, closely trimmed white goatee. i can't tell you how many times that I have met up with friends that I haven't seen in months and they comment that i have grown a goatee since they last saw me (I've had this white goatee for at least 12 years now). I never had any comments like this in my younger days when I had a short dark red beard. White blends in. It just does not stand out. I am attaching 2 photos of Condon that I think illustrates this, Additionally, Riehl stated that he could not identify this man from a photo which to me shows he did not get a good view of the man's face. Riehl did describe this individual outside the gate as having a dark suit and overcoat, a tie, a black soft hat that "turned up all the way around", and that he spoke like an American. I believe that all of this does fit Condon that night. Finally, Rielh stated that he did not know Condon. Unfortunately I have been long winded on this but i just wanted to share my thoughts. I currently believe that due to the totality of all of the above, I can accept the strong possibility that Rielh saw Condon and C.J. at the Woodlawn Cemetery entrance on the night of March 12, 1932. Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Aug 10, 2021 12:33:17 GMT -5
Joe, How about the German Scheitholt??
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jul 21, 2021 12:37:19 GMT -5
Sue,
The Assistant Editor of the Police Chief Magazine was successful in locating the LKC article written in 1984 that you were searching for. She has just emailed me a 6 page PDF file that contains the complete article. The article apparently came from a workshop that analyzed how the technology of today (1984) could have been utilized to glean much more details from the physical evidence in the LKC if it had been available back in 1932. I'm not sure that there is anything new here, but it is a very interesting article.
I have been unable to attach this PDF document to this post, but if you want to email me (coveyrise1@gmail.com) I can send it to you and perhaps you will be able to post it on the forum for others to read.
|
|
|
V3
Jul 12, 2021 18:22:38 GMT -5
Post by lurp173 on Jul 12, 2021 18:22:38 GMT -5
Joe,
I assumed that Michael was referring to Oscar John Bruckman who Reilly used as a defense witness in Flemington. Bruckman stated that as a cab driver he drove Fisch around when he (Fisch) was allegedly engaged in his pie making business. On one occasion, he (Bruckman) observed Fisch produce a large roll of cash as he paid Bruckman five dollars for a cab ride. Bruckman could not testify that any of the notes he observed in this cash roll were in fact gold notes. In my opinion this was just another failed attempt by Reilly to implicate Fisch with the kidnapping and ransom money. If I recall correctly, Wilentz didn't even bother to cross examine Bruckman. I think that this was a smart move by Wilentz. Just let the jury assume that the money Bruckman observed in Fisch's possession could have come from any legal/illegal source and had nothing to do with the Lindbergh ransom money.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jul 10, 2021 11:31:13 GMT -5
I'm attempting to attach a side by side photo of Fisch and Maran. I've always thought that Fisch had such a unique appearance that anyone who had any kind of close encounter with him would have certainly been able to make a positive I.D. When one has Fisch's unusual appearance, a life of crime is not a smart thing to engage in. Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jul 1, 2021 8:27:43 GMT -5
Sue,
I have contacted an Assistant Editor of the Police Chief Magazine (a publication of the International Association of Chiefs of Police) and she is going to attempt to locate this article from 1984. They have back copies of this magazine, but she is not certain if the files go back as far as 1984. Volume 51 would cover the entire year of 1984, but she said that if she can locate the volume she could probably find this specific article. She stated that they are working with a limited staff, but hopes to get back to me sometime next week. So if you can't find it elsewhere, maybe this will help.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jun 19, 2021 15:46:51 GMT -5
Walter Winchell was being honest in regards to two of his famous quotes:
"The newspaper business is not about reporting the facts; it's about selling newspapers."
"Today's gossip is tomorrow's headlines."
Michael's books and this forum has exposed so many false and misleading newspaper stories in regards to the LKC. I think that one has to be extremely careful when evaluating the validity of these news articles. Just my opinion on this.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jun 15, 2021 12:26:30 GMT -5
Is this the photo Joe???
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on May 15, 2021 18:03:30 GMT -5
Thanks for posting this Joe.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jan 1, 2021 18:18:53 GMT -5
Joe,
Thanks for posting the link to Kelvin Keraga's excellent Rail 16 evidence report. I read this report at some point in the past and I have always considered it to be the definitive analysis on this subject. This report is not just some "fly by night" or "off the cuff" comment concerning rail 16. I believe that Keraga spent three years in this project, and I think that if one gives this report a complete and honest read, they will see that it provides the evidence to show beyond any reasonable doubt that:
1. Rail 16 was part of the "Lindbergh kidnapping ladder".
2. It came from Hauptmann's attic.
3. There was no planting or fabrication of evidence by law enforcement as to rail 16.
Keraga nails this subject; he just nails it. He clearly shows that the only way to say that Hauptmann had nothing to do with this ladder is to use the defense attorney's old standby of police corruption (and then Keraga shows the impossibility of this). When defense attorneys are confronted with a piece of overwhelming evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt level) against their client, they cry police corruption regardless of any substantiating evidence. Ala Shapiro and Cochran in the OJ trial. They hope to convince at least one juror of this alleged corruption and thereby get a hung verdict. It's just defense attorney 101 strategy; throw the spaghetti against the wall and pray that some of it sticks. Has there been police corruption in the past, and will there be some in the future--of course. However, I tend to take a personal affront to bringing this alleged level of police corruption into a case (and on a specific piece of evidence) without strong evidence to support the allegations. From my personal 30 years experience, I know that 99% plus of Law Enforcement Officers do not fabricate or plant evidence in order to obtain a conviction--doesn't happen.
I believe that In his report Keraga conclusively shows that it would not have been possible for Bornmann, Koehler or others to have created and planted rail 16 as evidence against Hauptmann. This kind of evidence planting by law enforcement is just the stuff of dream fantasies on the part of defense attorneys. Were there things done by law enforcement in the LKC that should not have been done--of course. But fabricating and then planting rail 16 was not one of them (as Keraga's report clearly shows). Any experienced Criminal Investigator knows that fabricating evidence in the manner that is suggested with rail 16 is just not plausible. The intricacies involved for a Police Officer to pull this off might make a great TV/Hollywood episode, but has no credibility in reality. I have yet to see the evidence (and I mean hard facts) to negate Keraga's report and thereby separate Hauptmann from this ladder.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Dec 20, 2020 19:50:02 GMT -5
Thanks Joe and Sue for posting the Cirillo review of Ms. Pearlman's book. In my opinion this review was excellent. As I read this book, I became so tired of highlighting words like "may have", "might have", "must have", "could have", "likely", "quite possibly", "doctored evidence", etc., etc. that I finally just stopped highlighting. Even with my limited knowledge of the LKC compared to many others on this forum, I became very frustrated with what I believe to be distortions of facts and severe speculations as to what occurred. The book was most definitely a difficult read.
I particularly take issue with some of the statements Ms. Pearlman made concerning my Great Uncle Harry Wolfe. Unless there are written statements that I am unaware of, I call major BS on the following statements that she makes:
1. Harry Wolfe was "excluded" from the investigation by NJSP/Lindbergh (pages 111 and 396) and "at Lindbergh's instigation, Hopewell's Police Chief was immediately removed from the case" (page 415). According to my mother (who, as I have previously posted, was extremely close to her Uncle Harry) he (Harry) knew from day one that this was not his investigation. He knew that his geographical law enforcement jurisdiction was the Borough of Hopewell. Although he offered all support that the NJSP needed, he never felt "excluded" or "removed" from the investigation. Nor did he ever express resentment towards the NJSP or Lindbergh.
2. Harry Wolfe was "open to infanticide as a possible motive" (page 118). Although Uncle Harry believed that there was an "inside" aspect to this case, he NEVER expressed anything to my mother about infanticide or Lindbergh as a suspect in his son's death.
3. Harry Wolfe felt that the kidnappers "had help from locals" (page 124). Again, although Uncle Harry believed that there was an inside help/information angle, he never related to my mother that he felt locals were invoved in the kidnapping.
4. It was "unlikely" that Harry Wolfe and other LE's could identify the child's remains on Mt Rose Hill as that of the Lindbergh baby (page 168-169). As I have previously posted, Harry Wolfe went to his grave blieving that Hauptmann was guilty of the crime and that the child's remains found on Mt Rose Hill was that of the Lindbergh child.
As I read Ms. Pearlman's book, all I could think of was Dragnet's Sergeant Joe Friday's famous line "just the facts ma'am, please just the facts".
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Nov 20, 2020 13:28:41 GMT -5
Joe, I found your last post very interesting. As to Lise Pearlman, her bio indicates that her experience as a California State Judge was with the State Bar Court which involved discipline/misconduct cases against practicing attorneys in the State of California. I mention this just to indicate that her Judicial experience was not as a Criminal Court Judge who has presided over hundreds of criminal cases like the LKC. Her bio also list teaching at Stanford Law School, 13 years as a business litigator, a private arbitrator & mediator, and co-producing two films. A very talented career, but no indication of any Attorney/Judge experience in criminal law. If I am incorrect on this I'm sure I'll be corrected. Her LKC book appears to be from research, not from seeing people like Hauptmann in court on a daily basis.
I just received her Suspect No. 1 book. My plan is to read her book with an open mind, but I intend to use a yellow highlighter to highlight everything that I deem to be pure speculation. My gut tells me I may need more than one yellow highlighter while implementing this plan.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Oct 23, 2020 19:28:36 GMT -5
Michael, thanks for the information and the document. No need for you to research any further. You posted what I was looking for.
Koehler's "expert witness" qualification statement as it pertains to carpentry is what I had suspected--outragious. It contained one paragraph consisting of three sentences to explain his expertise on carpentry; and that paragraph started with "Although not a carpenter by trade". There is no way any Trial Judge should have allowed Koehler to say anything about carpentry to a jury. In addition, from the list you provided as to his prior trial experience, it certainly appears that he never provided any expert testimony on carpentry, nor was he ever involved in a criminal trial. His first experience in this was a murder trial where Hauptmann's life was on the line. Just outragious.
As I see it, this problem with Koehler's testimony that you relate in Volume III arises from the written statement that he submitted to the NJSP on March 4, 1933 in which he went beyond his expertise in wood types and declared that this ladder was crudely made with very little skill; essentially saying it was not made by any professional carpenter. This kind of subjective interpretation of a piece of evidence (while an investigation is ongoing with no suspects) should NEVER be reduced to a written statement. It just locks the potential witness into a belief that may very well come back to bite them in the rearend. This just shows me the inexperience with criminal investigations on the part of Koehler and the NJSP. Expressing this kind of opinion orally to the investigators in an attempt to help them focus in on a suspect is one thing, reducing it to writing at that point in the investigation can be disastrous.
And sure enough, Koehler makes this written statement in March of 1933 and in September of 1934 a trained and experienced professional carpenter is charged with the crime. Wilentz now has a real problem with the jury hearing his expert witness's statement about who did and didn't make that ladder. Wilentz has to convince the jury that Hauptmann made and possessed that ladder or his case will probably fail. I think Wilentz had only one solution here and that was to have his expert Koehler testify that although Hauptmann was a professional carpenter, he was a poor one and thus made this crude ladder. If (in convincing the jury that Hauptmann build this crude ladder because he was a very poor carpenter) it required Koehler to engage in some very questionable testimony, then "so be it". I can't see Wilentz letting this case be lost because of Koehler's inappropriate prior written statement. "Adjustments" in testimony was required.
I won't get into my reasonongs at this point, but I do believe that it took someone with Hauptmann's training and experience in carpentry to first create this type of ladder in his mind and to then execute the construction of it. For me, the alleged expert carpentry witness Koehler just served to muddy up the water and create confusion on this part of the ladder evidence. I believe that Hauptmann made this ladder. Just expressing some thoughts on Koehler and the ladder.
Michael, glad to hear that you are making progress on Volume IV. I didn't realize that the Archives in West Trenton was still closed.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Oct 22, 2020 18:41:51 GMT -5
It's hard to know exactly what Koehler meant when he said the ladder was the work of a poor carpenter. The design and function were deadly effective, considering it could be extended to 18-1/2 feet, weighed only 38 lbs and its sections could be nested into one unit that fit into Hauptmann's car. On the downside were the nails used to fasten the rungs to the rails, where screws could have been used to increase load capacity. The real Achilles Heel though was the dowel holes drilled into the rails, which were not reinforced at their very ends. I often wonder how things might have turned out much differently, if Hauptmann had wrapped a 2 or 3 foot length of steel wire around the ends of each rail to lessen the possibility of splitting along the grain. Maybe Koehler should have termed it more like an innovative carpenter prone to taking stupid shortcuts? I think the answer to this question is obvious. If I were to say that you, Joe, were a "poor" driver how would you take that? Would that mean you were good but liked to take shortcuts? No, it would mean that your driving sucks. Anyway, there's a whole entire chapter in V3 that pretty much explains Koehler's position. And here is something from his report that I quoted on page 247: The construction of the ladder in general is very crude, showing poor judgement in the selection of the lumber and in the design of the ladder, and poor workmanship. For a job that was to pull down $50,000, it showed poor workmanship. Michael, I have read your discussion of Koehler in VIII, and it states that Koehler was on loan from the Forest Products Laboratory in February of 1933 to examine the ladder. I assume this was for the purpose of assessing the various types of wood (forest products) in the ladder with the hope this examination could assist in the ongoing investigation. Your extensive and damaging discussion of Koehler's subsequent conduct and trial testimony as an expert witness was extremely interesting and it prompted a couple of questions. I may have missed this, but what background/training/experience did Koehler have in carpentry that allowed the Trial Judge in Flemington to admit him as an expert witness on carpentry, and make statements to the jury as to what does and doesn't constitute a good or poor carpenter? Knowledge of "forestry products" is one thing; carpentry something else. Do you know if Koehler had ever testified as an expert witness in any other prior trial(s). I realize that this trial was in 1932 and this Trial Judge made many questionable decisions, but I have personally testified in federal court as an expert witness on federal firearms investigations, and one's curriculum vitae has to be extensive and spot on for the court to allow someone to address a jury as an expert. If I missed this in VIII, just give me the page number and don't bother to take the time to respond here in writing (I want you to finish V IV as many are looking forward to getting it!!)
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Oct 22, 2020 8:40:56 GMT -5
Thanks Michael for your alert on the PBS Walter Winchell documentary. I found it to be very interesting and informative as I had not previously known too much about Winchell's life and career. I couldn't help but notice the comment made by the documentary's commentator during the short segment on Winchell's coverage of the Hauptmann trial. The commentator stated that (when it came to Winchell's reporting style) Winchell had decided that "facts were irrelevant". It made me think about your numerous past warnings not to assume that all of the published newspaper articles during the time period of the Lindbergh kidnapping were actually based on facts. It appears that Winchell discovered very early in his career that gossip was much more financially rewarding than facts. He appeared to be a smart man, but also quite the windbag.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Oct 20, 2020 12:50:58 GMT -5
Michael, once again, your last post in response to mine was very informative as to how you approach the LKC. I, for one, believe that it is important to understand your approach in order to see how you are attempting to utilize the vast amount of reseach that you have produced and examined. I would agree that due to the numerous unknowns, gaps and holes in the 1932 investigation, it is necessary to examine everything and to consider all possibilities (including any involvement by Lindbergh).
Your examples of how all of Lindbergh's actions/statements during the time period prior to and during the kidnapping can be interpreted in many different ways (both nefarious and harmless) thereby causing me to question their evidentiary value. For me this lessens their face value as evidence. All of these "suspicious" actions on the part of Lindbergh would only become great corroboratory evidence against him ONCE a serious and provable motive is established. Quite obviously if Lindbergh had a motive to end his son's life then all of these actions by Lindbergh can be built upon one another for very good corroboration of his guilt. Conversely, if there is no motive on Lindbergh's part then all of his actions that you mention (regardless of the high number) can be reasonably viewed independently and attibuted to how Lindbergh, in his own strange way, was reacting to the situations at hand.
I understand your concerns about the number of these suspicious points that your reseach has revealed. It is only human nature to at some point consider everything in totality and see the "quacking duck" adage. However, at the risk of being repetitive here, for me when it comes to Lindbergh as a suspect in this crime, it is first and foremost about motive. Everything else follows; nothing else leads.
I imagine that I should read Lise Pearlman's new book as it appears she is attempting to prove a strong motive for Lindbergh.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Oct 18, 2020 12:54:02 GMT -5
Michael, your last post in response to mine was excellent in explaining your position here--very thorough. You most definitely showed me what "channel" you are on.
I agree with your correct approach to NOT taking a theory and then working backwards, thereby forcing the evidence to fit the theory. This is very unproductive to an investigation. However (yes I know that my responding posts to yours are always filled with howevers!) I believe that at some point the information pointing to guilt has to coalesce into a theory that provides specificity as to exactly how the crime was perpetrated. All of the chips of reading, debating. researching, etc. have to eventually not only point to a guilty suspect, but to me these chips must fall into a logical and provable scenario that explains how the suspect (in this discussion Lindbergh) actually implimented the crime. Otherwise for me the theory and chips fail.
I also agree with you that there has always been complex criminal conspiracies that were carried out by multiple layers of co-conspirators that make the cases difficult to unravel (and in rare cases never successfully solved). But I always found that by appying hard work and the proper techniques, these conspiracies would lose that complex look and the "mastermind" was never as isolated from the crime as they thought. If the investigation just made these conpiracies look more complex and more convoluted, then I found that meant the investigation was on the wrong track.
I do realize that most people would say that "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a friggin duck. However this can be dangerous in any criminal investigation. I have seen numerous times when that duck turned out to be a loon or a coot.
I am keeping an open mind here that your extensive reseach shows Lindbergh to be that friggin duck. But I do see the possibility of some loons and coots here.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Oct 17, 2020 18:46:27 GMT -5
Thanks Michael for your response to my last post. We definitely do have different perspectives on this theory, but as you say, one can always attempt to learn from these differences. My problem with this theory is that (as I mentioned in a response to one of Joe's post) I can't help but to evaluate this theory in the manner that I approached things on a daily basis for 30 years. The focus on cases was never to solve/complete the case with an arrest. It was always about perfecting a criminal case report to sustain a conviction/guilty plea in court. This of course required having an obsession with gathering provable facts/evidence to meet the very high standard of proving a crime beyond all reasonable doubt. If an Agent told a Prosecutor that he/she had speculations about something in a case, the Prosecutor would just laugh and tell the Agent to go out and prove it with facts. Of course today, no one on this forum is attempting to prove this theory in order to convict Linbergh or anyone else in court, so perhaps I should tone-down my obsessive search for facts in this theory and look for less demanding evidence (although to be honest here that's probably not going to happen!).
This theory creates many questions for me as to the "mechanics" of it all. I have numerous questions on how this theory deals with how Lindbergh expected to play-out this entire fake kidnapping scheme if the alleged "double-cross" that involved the extortion had not occurred. Quite frankly, the more I attempt to understand the totality of this theory, the more complex, involved and convoluted it becomes.
I know that you are attempting to finish your book so I will withhold asking all of these questions and reserve them for another time..
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Oct 16, 2020 20:26:13 GMT -5
Michael, you asked me if I doubt that Lindbergh wouldn't get "rid" of his "defective" son. At this point Michael I do doubt that he was predisposed to getting rid of his son in the absolutely discusting manner that it occurred. This is not to even mention what he would have been doing to his wife. Anne has to live not only with losing her beloved first born son, but with the guilt of not protecting her son from such a horrid death. She would have to live her entire life with this tragedy and with the images in her mind of animals feasting on her son's remains. I maintain that if Lindbergh did this to his son and wife then he was an insane monster with few equals. And as you know, I don't believe his life supported such a vision of a monster.
I see so much speculation here on the two critical things that either establish his motive and guilt or they dont: Did Lindbergh elevate his beliefs in the concepts of the 1932 American eugenics movement to the extreme concept of murdering physically/mentally deficient individuals? AND did young Charles at 20 months of age really have such a condition? Speculations can be useful in stimulating discussions on a topic, and subjective interpretations of facts are normal, but one has to be very careful that speculations are not used to substantiate claims. I would like to see more facts as to Lindbergh's alleged beliefs in eugenics that elevated them far beyond the beliefs of the AEM of 1932 (contempory writings/speeches that espouse his beliefs that permit killings in regards to eugenics, documented conversations with associates on this belief, etc.). One can speculate from his personality that "he could easily hold these beliefs" but that's not enough for me in regards to these serious allegations.
Also in regards to the child's health, where are the facts (physcian reports, testing result reports, documented Lindbergh conversations with family/associates where he expressed concerns that his 20 month old son's health was so compromized that the child would not live a normal life, statements by family/friends that the child was in such bad health, etc.). The allegations in this theory are not referring to a cold or rickets, they allege that Lindbergh knew the child was seriously defective.
For me, this is such a serious allegation against Lindbergh that I need facts not speculations on these two crital points. If the facts aren't there, then the case against Lindbergh fails.
Michael, you state that the callous acts on Lindbergh's part during the period of March 1st through May 12th are not the normal acts of a concerned and loving father hence these acts are additional evidence that he would get rid of his son. I think this is speculation as one could also speculate that these acts were the result of the unfathomable stress Lindbergh would have been under if this was a true kidnapping. It could be speculated that his admittedly strange personality was coming out under heavy stress during the snatch of his son, ransom negotiations that failed to return his son, the awful manner in which the child's remains were discovered, and his failed attempts to locate his son. I would venture to say that if one were to run all of this by present day psychiatrists/psychologists they would all diagnose Lindbergh with severe PTSD. I just bring this up to point out that speculations can run the entire gamut of ideas on any given situation. I just can't see the evidentiary value of Lindbergh's callous acts.
I am still keeping what you so aptly called "an open mind" on everything, but I have to confess that this "Lindbergh involvement theory" sometimes appears to me to have alot of speculative bias against Lindbergh the man as opposed to factual evidence against Lindbergh the criminal.
|
|