|
Post by lurp173 on Feb 14, 2020 19:33:06 GMT -5
Thanks Michael. I still follow/read the forum, and still find it very informative. I still don't have the volume of information that you, Amy, Joe and some others on the forum have, so i usually just read, attempt to gather that information and keep my mouth shut. I think you know that I don't agree with some of the current views on the forum, but I am still keeping an open mind on everything. My experience is that you can't successfully investigate any criminal case without a completely open mind and devoid of any emotional baggage as to suspects, witnesses, etc.
I find your research into Berryman' sketches very interesting and thorough.. I certainly agree with you that the sketch on the left that you posted looks like a Berryman finished product. Although this sketch looks alot less like Hauptmann than the sketch on the right, one can certainly see that they are from the same sketching sequence. The one on the left that appears to be like Berryman's finished cartoons still has the nose, jaw and face angulation of Hauptmann, but the overall look is different. If Condon was attempting to provide his best description of CJ (and if CJ was Hauptmann), why did Condon move from the sketch on the right to the "final" one on the left? To me the one on the right would prompt any competent Investigator to take a real thorough look at Hauptmann if the circumstances presented itself. So, did Condon take a look at the "transitional" sketch on the right and say "holy crap, this looks way too much like CJ" and then steer Berryman away from that sketch to produce a final one that did not as closely resemble CJ? I don't believe Condon was actively involed in the kidnapping or the ransom extortion, but he obviously did have his reasons for protecting CJ from law enforcement.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Feb 14, 2020 15:45:02 GMT -5
Amy, if I am understading you correctly (and of course I may be misunderstanding you) I see things a little differently in regards to Trooper Connell's statement as to his activities on March 5th. I don't see where anything happened in regards to Birrittella or Galvin/Fogarty until the "wee" morning hours of March 6th. In his statement Trooper Connell says that he arrived at Highfields on March 5th at 6 P.M. and did telephone duty until MIDNIGHT. That would be midnight on March 5th. He says he was then detailed (this would be sometime AFTER 12:01 A.M. of the 6th) to drive to Trenton to deliver Lindbergh's statement. He said that it was a trip of 45 miles, so even if he left at 12:01 A.M. (again, this is now the 6th), he might have made it back to Highfields by maybe 2 A.M. or so. He states that he is then detailed to drive Galvin and Fogarty to the Princeton Inn which was a 40 mile trip. So he is taking these two individuals to Princeton probably around 2 A.M or 3 A.M. on the 6th. Trooper Connell then says he returned to Highfilds from Princeton and was back on telephone duty until 8 A.M. His duty shift was from 6P.M.on the 5TH to 8 A.M. on the 6TH. His trip to Princeton was clearly in the time frame of 2 A.M..to maybe 5 or 6 A.M. on the 6TH.
Meanwhile, acording to Thomas Fensch's TOP SECRET, FBI FILES book on page 196, it is related that Breckinridge, Rosner, Spitale, Bitz and Berto (that's quite a crew to say the least!!) arrived at Highfields around midmight of the 5th.(at the time Trooper Connell was getting off of telephone duty and about to go to Trenton). This book says that Rosner and Thayer answered the phones thoughout the morning hours (which would be from 12:01 A.M, on the 6th). Trooper Connell was no longer on telephone duty as he was traveling to Trenton at this point. The book relates on page 197 that Rosner receives the telegram from Berrittella in the morning hours of the 6th. Unfortunately I can not find any source that gives the exact time that this telegram hit Highfields. Would you know what time it came in? Is it possible that it came in prior to Trooper Connell's trip to Princeton with Galvin and Fogarty? If so, could a quick decision have been made by Lindbergh and Breckinridge to get Birrittella and Cirrito to Princeton for an interview, not wanting to have them at Highfields until their info was evaluated? Thus dispatching Galvin and Fogarty immediately to Princeton to get a room for the interview. This scenerio of course depends on when (on the 6th) this telegram was received by Rosner at Highfields.
Also in the above book on page 38 it states that on March 6th (time again not stated) that Rosner privately informed Thayer that Galvin and Fogarty were "in league" with the kidnappers. It says that this statement by Rosner led Thayer to believe that Rosner was becoming "mentally unbalanced" or that he (Rosner) had some fradulent intent.
Sorry for the long post, and please correct me if I am not seeing this correctly.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Feb 13, 2020 20:33:51 GMT -5
Thanks for the information Michael. I did reread your pages on Berryman in VII, and as always in this case very little is straightforward. It is inexcusable that law enforcement didn't get a sketch of CJ out of Condon in 1932, especially after May 12th when this became a homicide investigation. For whatever it's worth, my opinion on the Berrryman sketchs is that if the "original" sketchs were part of the normal sketching process of working with the witness through many sketches, then the "originals" would be meaningless to law enforcement. Obviously it is only that "final" sketch that the witness signs off on that is relevant to law enforcement in looking for a perpetrator. Whatever happens to the first series of sketches that it took to get to the final one would be of little concern to law enforcement. So, IF those two Berryman sketches that I posted were the final ones that Condon approved of after a long sketching process, well they sure resemble Hauptmann to my eyes. From my readings on this, I just can't see a definative answer on which sketches were the "final" product. I have enjoyed reading VI, VII and VIII. Good stuff.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Feb 13, 2020 14:41:41 GMT -5
Thanks Amy. Much appreciated. I had always thought that the Berryman sketches were done in 1932. Also thanks to Scathma for the link to Michel's discussion of this back in 2014. I have seen, and utilized, many police suspect sketches in the past and some turn out to be right on target and others not so much. We all see facial features in a different light. To me, if I had these two Berryman's sketches (front and profile) in my hands when I ran into Hauptmann, I would have given him a VERY hard second look.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Feb 12, 2020 21:17:54 GMT -5
Amy, I always thought that this police skitch of CJ was made from Condon's description of him in 1932. Is that not correct. Hopefully I can get this file to attach here. Thanks Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jun 22, 2019 20:33:15 GMT -5
Amy,
I am not aware of any Old Glenmoore Road in the Mt. Rose area. As I believe Stella stated, all of the old Glenmoore area (Glenmoore Farm, etc) is located west of Hopewell off of the Hopewell-Pennington Road. I have never heard of any reference to Glenmoore in the Mt. Rose area. If Schippell's place was 1000 feet or so from the site of the baby's recovery, the reports must be in error and are actually referring to Old Mt. Rose Road. I don't know how far that road ran south off of the Princeton-Hopewell Road in those days, but it may have allowed access to Schippell's farm and thus had an Old Mt. Rose Road address. Schippell allegedly had a "40 acre" farm, so it would have encompassed a good section of that area.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jun 17, 2019 11:28:44 GMT -5
Amy, LJ,
Sorry, I missed LJ"s post of 14 hours ago. What LJ posted from Goggle street looks like the spot. Again, the pulloff was just beyond that guardrail that runs on the right hand side of the road as you are going up the hill (south). This is AFTER the curve in the road, in the "straight-away" traveling up the hill. I was always told it was in the area from the end of that guardrail through the next two telephone poles. This was pointed out to me as a kid in the 1950's by my mother. The spot was shown to her by her uncle (my great uncle) Harry Wolfe. She woud say "that's where your Uncle Haryy found the body of the Lindbergh baby". In the 1950's, Hopewell was a small community where "everyone knew everyone", and virtually anybody could point out that site on Mt. Rose hill. Unless my mind has totally turned to mush, this is how I remember it!
When you look at that overhead "hot dog stand" photo from 1932, you can clearly see where the white fence coming up the hill ends. That fence was replaced by the current guardrail at some point in time. You can also see the telephone poles at the site, and the crowd is looking into the woods near what I think is the second pole (although they are of course not the same poles today, telephone poles are normally replaced by new poles in pretty much the same spot unless the road is made wider). In this photo you can also see where at that time, storm water was being diverted under the road to avoid a road washout from the volume of water that would flow down that hill in a storm. You can also see the "ditch stream" that this created, which runs through this pull-off area (the crowd is looking across this "ditch" into the wooded site). I would certainly assume this was part of the "stream" that Trooper Carmody showed in his sketch. The grading and surfacing of Princeton-Hopewell Road has changed since 1932 and that underroad water divertion is no longer there. Any water from that hill will flow into Beden Brook near the base of the hill, but I was not aware that the "streams" in Carmody's sketch have been referred to as Beden Brook.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jun 17, 2019 8:24:21 GMT -5
Amy,
I always thought that 1932 photo of the site that you posted was a great shot of the location. That photo, along with the overhead "hotdog stand" photo very clearly shows that it is on the straight section of the Princeton=Hooewell road as it comes up Mt. Rose hill. I think the goggle photo you posted also shows the site. The side of the Princeton=Hopewell road coming up that hill towards Mt. Rose is not level and has drop offs. This is why, today, that guardrail is there, and in 1932 they appeared to have a white fence along the side of the road, which is the fence Trooper Carmody shows in his sketch (fence at top left of his sketch). The side of the road levels off where the guardrail (old fence location) ends, and I assume that was why there was a pull-off at that location (the first spot back in those days that a vehicle could pull off of the road coming up that long steep hill).
As to the streams in Trooper Carmody's sketch. Neither one is Beden Brook. That is located back towards Hopewell at the bottom of the hill (that Brook actually winds its way right into Hopewell and crosses Broad Street near Mercer Street. As a kid I used to play in that Brook for hours catching crayfish in bottles). In the Hopewell area, the water sources were called either Brooks (Beden Brook, Stoney Brook, etc.) or streams. The Brooks all had names and year round water running in them. The streams were small and not really given names. Depending on the amount of recent rainfalls, these streams could go through periods of being dry, with just small empty beds. The water that would flow down Mt. Rose hill along side of the Princeton-Hopewell Road would certainly be diverted at points into streams along side of the road. I am sure these are the types of "streams" denoted by Trooper Carmody on his sketch of the site. The two small setions of fencing on both sides of the road in the 1932 photos reflect where these "wet-weather streams' flowed near the road back then.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jun 16, 2019 19:02:41 GMT -5
Leeforman2,
I may be misunderstanding your posts in regards to where you are searching off the Princeton-Hopewell Road, but if you are near Beden Brook, Old Mt Rose Road and across from the old St. Michael's Orphanage site (now St. Michael's Farm Preserve) you are too close to Hopewell. The site is further south (towards Princeton) on the Princeton-Hopewell Road. You continue across Beden Brooks, the road bears to the right and goes uphill towards Mt. Rose. As the road bears to the right, it straightens out on the uphill climb. There is a guard rail on the right, and approximately where this guard rail ends, the site is on the right somewhat near the first telephoine pole (maybe half way up the hill before you get to Crusher Road). I attempted to attach a street goggle photo of this area but it said that the "file was too big". Sorry. The site is not across from the old St, Michael's Orphanage site.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Nov 19, 2018 8:42:51 GMT -5
Amy,
I had not seen that lab report. Very interesting. Thanks greatly for taking the time to post the lab report results.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Nov 18, 2018 19:24:46 GMT -5
I do not remember having seen the hair comparison lab report in the LKC, but I do know the following:
By 1910, Victor Balthazard and Marcelle Lambert had done extensive work on microscopic hair studies. They published their studies, and legal court cases soon followed. By the mid 1920's, Philip Gravelle, a chemist, and Calvin Goddard, a forensic firearms ballistics pioneer, developed a comparison microscope that greatly advanced forensic science (especially things like ballistics and hair comparison). Then, by 1931, John Glaister, Jr., a professor of Forensic Medicine at Glasgow University, published his extensive studies on forensic microscopic hair comparisons that could match individual human hair.
So by May of 1932, forensic microscopic hair comparisons was being used in court cases to match individual hairs. Far beyond hair color and texture.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Nov 5, 2018 20:03:17 GMT -5
Amy,
Thanks for the link to the Lindbergh house photo. Apparently I found it somewhere else as I had not seen this site before. I thoroughly enjoyed the many photos and articles on old Hopewell. The names and photos of people and places brought back many great memories of growing up in good old Hopewell. Nothing is ever perfect, but my siblings and I have always commented that we "grew up in a Norman Rockwell painting". Everyone knew everyone. Thanks for the link. You can find more information on the internet than I ever thought possible!
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Nov 4, 2018 20:34:46 GMT -5
Wayne,
I apologize, but at this moment I can't find where I obtained that AP photo of the Lindbergh house. I had actually been attempting to determine the date that the foundation of the house was formed, and when the framing construction started. As I related in one of my original posts, my grandfather was a union carpenter who resided in Hopewell and worked on the Lindbergh house (it provided much needed work for the local trademen in 1931). My grandfather was working on the house on May 30, 1931 when he had a heart attack. He expired by the time they transported him to his home in Hopewell. I'm not aware of any other worker on the Lindbergh house who died while working on it.
I have been interested in locating photos that would show what construction stage the house was in on May 30, 1931. My mother was in Nursing School in Trenton at the time, and I remember her saying that although her father was a finished carpenter who specialized in hanging windows and doors, he was working on the roof framing at the time of his fatal heart attack.
If I locate the source of that December 1931 AP photo, I will let you know.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Nov 3, 2018 19:54:38 GMT -5
Jack, you asked for evidence on co-conspirators. As soon as I can finish absorbing more of Michael's research information, I will gladly give you my two-cents worth on this. However it will certainly not contain evidence that would sustain a criminal conviction in court. I believe that unfortunately that type of strong incriminating evidence is no longer avaiable. Obviously, the time to utilize the tried and true investigative techniques (witness/suspect interviews, surveillance, informants, undercover, wiretap, etc.) has long since past in this extremely cold case. We are left with re-examining the investigative results produced by the varies law enforcement agencies some 86 years ago.
The thoroughness of so many of the investigative reports is severely lacking. I know that in 1932 the NJSP was a very young agency with a relatively new criminal investigative division. They were overwelmed in this case, and road Troopers with little or no investigative training or experienc were conducting interviews of what I believe to be critical witnesses. As I read some of these investigative reports of witness interviews, I find myself saying "where is the rest of it". So many times during an investigation you get just one shot at these interviews, and then it's over. I look for the "who, what, when. where. how and why" in many of these reports and I just don't find it. Very frustrating.
Unfortunaytely, some of the hardcore evidence to implicate co-conspirators that I feel could have been generated is now just plain lost to history. Even the go-to gold standard of DNA that solves most cold cases will most likely never be successfully applied after 86 years.
I really believe that this case will only be "solved" (excluding that history says it was solved with the conviction of Hauptmann) on an individual basis. Each person, on their own, will look at the research of individuals like Michael and draw their own conclusions as to the "evidence". Unfortunately, at this late date that will have to involve making assuptions, interretations, speculations and outright guesses in regards to the only evidence that was sometimes awkwardly generated so many years ago. My belief is that there will never be a "smoking gun" in this case. The body of evidence is what it is.
Sorry for the long post. Just wanted to give you a feel for my thinking on the ability of providing solid co-conspirator evidence at this late date. I do believe that Michael's research of the NJSP files clearly shows that Hauptmann did not perpetrate this crime by himself.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Nov 1, 2018 20:19:09 GMT -5
Hey Jack, hope all is well with you. Although I haven't been posting, I am still following (and enjoying) the forum posts. I have also been reading both of Michael's extremely well researched books. I can see your conclusions in regards to Lindbergh and the nursery ransom note. As usual, you tell it like you see it, which is always refreshing.
I learned a long time ago that the hallmark of a good investigator is to keep an open mind on all aspects of an investigation, and I am attempting to do that on this one. When an investigator develops tunnel vision and starts to involve their emotions in regards to eidence, witnesses and suspects, they might as well find a new occupation. It just doesn't work. Having said that, at this point in time I am certainly more aligned with your interpretations of this kidnapping/murder than most of the current forum posters. I do not see the real evidence that Lindbergh faked this kidnapping to dispose of his child (although my mind is still opened to it). Like you, I see plenty of evidence that implicates Hauptmann (despite Wilentz's horrendous conduct and the tunnel vision of the NJSP after Hauptmann's arrest). Thanks to Michael's outstanding research on this case, I also am now seeing at least two prime Hauptmann co-conspirators that the NJSP could have probably jumped on preety quickly if not for the prosecutorial "lone wolf" approach after September 1934.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Oct 31, 2018 20:02:21 GMT -5
Attachment DeletedHopefully the photo I am attempting to attach comes through. It is interesting that at least by early December 1931, an AP photo with description of the Lindbergh land and house was being published. The tremendous public demand for information on Lindbergh and his family was really unprecedented for the times. The short write-up that accompanies this photo clearly comments on the size and remoteness of the property, as well as a description of the location of the Lindbergh's master bedroom. It would certainly not be a hugh leap to assume that the baby's nursery would be located next to this second story bedroom. Michael's research as set forth in both of his books clearly shows that surveillance was being conducted on the residence prior to the kidnapping. Even a minimal amount of surveillance (combined with the type of information that accompanied the AP photo in December 1931) would allow one to assume the nursury was located on the second story at either end of the central bedroom as viewed from the rear of the house.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jun 13, 2018 19:22:37 GMT -5
I also just ordered your Volume II. Athough I still do not see solid evidence of any Lindbergh involvement in the kidnapping, your research is awesome and I am greatly looking forward to reading it.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jul 6, 2017 20:01:36 GMT -5
Joe,
I have looked through some of my Hopewell keepsakes from the past to see if I had anything that mentions Doc Ashton. I did not find anything pertaining to his alleged sighting on the night of March 1st, but I have a book that does mention him. The book is "Be it Ever so Humble" by Dean Ashton (no know retation to Doc). It was written in 1947 to pay tribute to all of the men and women of the Hopewell Valley area who served during World War II. Dean Ashton was a Hopewell resident, graduate of Columbia University, and a press reporter for many years with Camden and Trenton newspapers. His final chapters in this book pertain to the Hopewell homefront during the war, and under the heading of "Railroads, Taxi and Auto" he writes three paragraphs that mention Doc (Ed) Ashton. I thought I would write out those paragraphs for you so you can at least get a slight glimpse of Doc:
★★ "Ed Ashton (the taxi operator who says that a doctor told him "better take things easy until I see you again," and then the doctor died, so Ashton still follows the doctor's advice) lost a wheel from his taxi while passing the Presbyterian Church. The taxi swerved around close to the wall on the other side of the street but a crash was avoided. Shortly thereafter, he obtained a new car. He has promised that he will drive just as slowly as ever even if it is safe to go over 25 miles an hour! (APRIL 1943)
★★ Ed Ashton has given up his taxi business. Anybody who has seen him dozing while waiting for business in front of Gebhart's hotel could tell that he was plenty tired, and that seems to explain why he has quit his old stand. Instead, he is working as a Crossing Watchman at Skillman, a job that he held several years back. Actually, he grew weary of staying in his taxicab to meet the last train about 1:38 A.M., probably taking a trip some distance from town with a patron snatching a little sleep and then getting up before daybreak to start someone else for the city. Once you've been in the taxi business, it isn't as easy to get out and stay out as you might think. Ed Ashton, who believes that nothing should be done hastily, even killing mosquitoes, has learned that. He still gets calls for taxi service, although he's been a Crossing Watchman near Skillman for a couple of months or more. The other night about 3 A.M., a lady called in distress. She said she was at Marshalls's Corner on her way to Trenton and her car had broken down. Ed Ashton explained that he was not only out of business but was home sick. With some difficulty, he persuaded her that she must look elsewhere for assistance. Taxi service is now being provided by Jose Carballal of Railroad Place. (JANUARY 1944)
★★ About once a week, Sam Little boards the 12:57 p.m. train in Hopewell and rides to Skillman. Then he walks back to the Zion "Hollow" Road to sit down for a chat with Ed Ashton, Crossing Watchman at that point. Sam used to like to ride with Ed Ashton when the latter drove a taxi around town, so the new plan permits him to keep up with his chats.
Just a quick look at Ashton, who appears to be quite the character and well liked. He was born in Somerset County, N.J. and lived most of his life in Hopewell, passing away there in 1950 at the age of 76. This would have made him 58 years of age in 1932. He was married with one son who died in ihis first year of life. If Doc was operating that taxi service in little Hopewell in 1932, the NJSP would certainly have interviewed him as to any strangers or strange vehicles in the Hopewell area in the weeks/months prior to the kidnapping.
I have also located a five part series of articles from March/April of 1992 in the Hopewell Vally News by Douglas Shaffer concerning the Lindbergh case on the 60th anniversary. It also has interviews with some Hopewell residents who were in Hopewell at the time of the kidnapping. Most, if not all of those older residents are now deceased. I will look through it for any mention of Doc Ashton.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jul 5, 2017 20:20:02 GMT -5
Amy,
As usual your observations and questions are thorough and display your amazing knowledge of this case. Your questions to me regarding what i stated on Sharpe and the crime scene are insightful and deserve a thorough and thoughtful response. I will make an attempt to put that together-need a little time. I do have (as Michael says) my two cents worth to add on the "wiping down" of the nursery, and the idea that the nursery was free of prints.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jul 5, 2017 19:57:48 GMT -5
Lurp, smoke and mirrors seems to be a bustling enterprise here at times, but I think most of them get burned off in the "cold, grey light of reason.." I very much appreciate your thoughts and also about the "hump" at the Hopewell railway crossing.. there always seems to be one of those in every young driver's recollection! As you say, something a local would know about and appreciate for it's element of thrill, but I tend to believe Doc Ashton would have recognized this particular vehicle if it was local, and he appears not to have. And on a cold, windy Tuesday winter's night after 9:00 pm? I have to wonder how many locals would have been out there trying to impress their friends under those conditions. From your Hopewell experience, can you comment on that thought? Joe, I would certainly agree with you on this point. Even when I was growing up in Hopewell in the late 50', early 60's, everybody knew everybody. Any stranger or strange vehicle in town would stand out immediately. I'm certain that this was even more so in the 1930's with far fewer vehicles. It was just a different time that has long ago disappeared. If Doc Ashton truly observed this vehicle that was traveling too fast when it hit the outrageous crown at the apex of the railroad bridge (and Ashton did not recognize this vehicle), I would firmly believe that an "outsider" was driving it. Obviously, the apparent fact that there is no record of Ashton having related this incident to anyone at that time does call for some suspicion. However, it is interesting that this alleged sighting of a "touring car" convertible in the Hopewell area on March 1st would be the third reported sighting that day. It is probably far too late in time to ascertain the credibility of Ashton.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jul 4, 2017 21:07:09 GMT -5
Joe,
I greatly enjoyed reading your initial post here. I'm sure it will prompt some interesting comments, etc., and I look forward to reading them. I like your direct approach to this case, and you always seem to see through some of the smoke and mirrors that every criminal investigation generates. Although every individual aspect needs to be critically analyzed and pursued, I have always believed that the failure to apply Occam's Razor (or as I heard many instructors say "follow the KISS method of investigation") will in most cases take you far astray. That straight line between two points is normally the correct route.
I believe that if one can make reasonable sense of all of the vehicle sightings of March 1st, it could reveal quite a bit of what really occurred that night. Your inclusion of Doc Ashton's sighting in your timeline is interesting. Ever since I read about that, I have felt that (if he is to be believed) it could be a revealing event. If a vehicle hit that hump on the railroad bridge that night at any speed in excess of 15 mph, it would have been a stranger to the area, and Ashton certainly would have noticed it. That "hump" was known to all locals, and most 17 year old kids in Hopewell (including yours truly) with a brand new driver's license would try to impress their girlfriend by hitting that hump fast enough to get all four wheels off of the ground at once. The resulting contact with the pavement was quite jolting! The driver of the "touring" car that Ashton saw certainly didn't know about that hump. One can definitely leave Lindbergh's residence, turn left and get to the road that becomes Greenwood Avenue southbound into Hopewell. As I am sure you know, if a vehicle continues from the railroad bridge to Broad Street and turns left (eastbound), the second right is Princeton Avenue which becomes the Hopewell-Mount Rose-Princeton Road (Carter Road). About one mile out of town is the location where the child's body was found. If you continue on this road it takes you to Princeton where Route 1 can be taken northeast to NYC. When living in Hopewell I took this route to NYC many times. Although this route from the Lindbergh house to NYC is certainly not the most direct, perhaps if you have the child's deceased body in the vehicle and are panicked into finding a good spot to dispose of it before any trip back to NYC is made, one would not want to travel an obvious route. The location on Mt Rose Hill was very remote in those days, it had a pull over, and it was south of Hopewell and out of the Sourland Mountains immediate area. The facts that I have read thus far tell me that the child was most likely deceased from the beginning of the kidnapping, and therefore an extreme liability to the kidnappers. They did not need a deceased child, and certainly had no reason to risk a trip back to NYC with the body, in their vehicle. It may not have been the best location but in fact it worked. Thus far, the facts that I have read leads me to believe the child was placed at that location on Mt. Rose Hill that night, and if Allen had not inadvertently discovered it, the body would have further decomposed to the point of possibly not ever having been discovered. I believe Dr. Mitchell stated that the body had been deceased since the time of the kidnapping and that the state of decomposition was consistent with 8 to 10 weeks of exposure. I have read the theories about the child being elsewhere and then brought to the Mt Rose location later. If one believes that this was a true kidnapping, then this makes no sense to me. I can see no reason for that kind of risk and exposure. Perhaps too much of Occam's Razor in me! Just some of my thoughts as to why Doc Ashton's vehicle sighting around 9 P.M. may hold some significance. If my mother was still living, I would love to ask her about the credibility of Ashton. She certainly had her opinions on the character (or lack thereof) of the two "eye witnesses" at the trial.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jun 28, 2017 22:01:02 GMT -5
LURPS: I'm wondering how you can examine the eyewitness testimony of Ben Lupica who saw one man and determine from that there were two or more kidnappers. Lupica saw a man with the same general characteristics as Richard Hauptmann in a car the same brand and approximate year as Hauptmann's with a ladder in his car on the evening of the kidnapping across the street from the entrance to the Lindbergh residence. Jack, My answer to your question would be as follows: It certainly appears that from most accounts Lupica was a strong and believable witness in this case. It appears that he did not waiver from what he first stated, and even under great pressure did not try to identify the driver of the vehicle-maintaining that he did not get that good of a look at his facial features. If you believe his account of what occurred, then he saw a kidnapper with the ladder, and he saw that kidnapper make a very unusual maneuver with his vehicle. That maneuver had only one reasonable explanation. I believe that in his book, Michael indicated that a researcher by the name of Lehmann first offered the explanation, and I think Lehmann nailed it. For that kidnapper (just hours before the crime, and that close to Lindbergh's place) to pull in front of Lupica's oncoming vehicle and cross to the opposite side of the road and stop, thus allowing Lupica to pull up along side, well it can have no rational explanation other than the kidnapper wanted to speak with the driver of Lupica's vehicle. Why on earth would he want to speak with anyone at that time and place other than with his accomplice (s)? The only commonsense explanation is that at dusk he mistook Lupica's vehicle for that of his accomplice (s) and pulled over to the side of the road to speak with him. In my opinion, there is just no other reasonable explanation for that maneuver. In 1932, in the foothills outside of Hopewell, there would be no other way to hook up with another vehicle who was also crusing the area for whatever purpose. One would have to see the vehicle and pull over and talk to them. I do believe that much more investigative efforts should have been put into identifying and sorting out what suspicious vehicles observed that night were most likely involved in the crime. Obviously the number of vehicles that could reasonably be tied to the events of that night would at least give you the minimum number of perpetrators involved--at least one kidnapper per vehicle (unless Hauptmann had perfected the art of driving two cars at once!). Just my analysis.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jun 28, 2017 21:13:42 GMT -5
Michael, my brain is most likely not worth picking on in regards to this case. I promise that I will now get back on my retirement tractor and stop using up all of your posting space! Lurp, Your post is absolutely AWESOME!!! If you had been on the Lindbergh Kidnapping Case and could have avoided ending up under the iron fist of Charles Lindbergh, I think you would have been a valuable resource aiding this investigation significantly. I need to spend time going over the content of your post more closely, but I am 100% in agreement with you about Ben Lupica. He actually did see one of the kidnappers. That is why on the thread, if we could go back in time for 5 minutes, I chose to be on the road with Ben. Please make sure you allow time to come in off that tractor and contribute to this board. We all benefit from your contributions. Thank you Amy and Joe for your kind comments. I don't know whether or not I would have been of any assistance in this investigation back then, but it sure would have been interesting and fun to work. I do know that if I could time travel back then with the core group of experirnced agents I worked with, it sure would have stirred things up! I always look forward to reading yours and Joe's posts.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jun 27, 2017 21:20:20 GMT -5
My guess would be that a N.J. State Trooper in 1932 earned not much more than $1300 a year. It would take him more than a 30 year career to earn $50, 000 and of course it would have mostly been spent on raising a family. He would never have $50, 000 cash in his hands. That amount of money in 1932 would not have even been in the thought processes of any blue collar worker. I would certainly suspect that there were many men in 1932 who would have perpetrated a kidnapping to get $50, 000 in their hands. Possibly even a murder. You are absolutely right that this was a large amount and your estimate for State Trooper pay is something I agree with. So it appears you don't believe this was a "revenge" type of crime which I would agree with you also. An example of the "revenge" theory, I've read somewhere, being Hauptmann was upset that the Red Barron was shot down or something silly like that. Or at least I believe it's silly. I think when it comes to the sum of 50K the amount itself is suspicious because Highfields cost 50K and the Constance Extortion price tag was 50K. So I consider if mere threats to Constance was worth 50K then I would make the argument that the perfect son would fetch a much higher price. Certainly the family could have easily come up with very much more if demanded. Despite all of that, are you in agreement with your Uncle that more then one person was involved - at Hopewell, at the Cemeteries, or passing ransom? Do you believe there was inside help in Hopewell? Concerning Hauptmann... What do you think kept him in the Bronx, and in an apartment where he was warring with his Landlord? Just trying to pick your brain! Michael, my brain is most likely not worth picking on in regards to this case. If I ever get up to speed on all of the information, I will certainly give you my opinions (framed from my experiences). But from reading your book, this forum, and a few forum recommended books, that old gut feeling that we discussed places me very close to what my uncle Harry Wolfe believed about this case (at least for now). I have close to zero doubt that this was in fact a kidnapping with a ransom payoff as the motive. Hauptmann was involved in this thing up to his neck but he certainly didn't commit this crime by himself. The two set of footprints at the crime scene (probably what convinced uncle Harry of multiple suspects being involved), and Ben Lupica's experience two hours or so prior to the kidnapping, both show beyond any reasonable doubt that multiple suspects were at the scene that night. Dispite what I believe you said in your book about Keaton's negative views on Lupica, I think you have set forth good facts to show that Lupica was an excellent witness with valuable information. There is only one valid explanation for what Lupica observed near Lindbergh's property around 6 P.M. on March 1st. I believe that Lupica's observations of the vehicle with the ladder at that place and time confirms that he observed one of the kidnappers who mistook his (Lupica's) vehicle for that of the kidnapper's accomplice. It appears that at least two perpetrators were attempting to link up to execute their plan. No other explanation for this is even viable. I would bet that when the driver of this vehicle realized the mistake he had just made and thereby exposed his vehicle and himself to a local, it was a true "oh Sh••••t" moment. The fact that they continued with the kidnapping that night after that little episode shows me just how determined they were to execute their plan that night. In addition, the observations of multiple individuals at the cemeteries during the ransom negotiations are just another reason to believe this was not a one man show. I also believe that there is a great deal of reasonable suspicions that there was some type of "inside" information provided to the perpetrators. From everything that I have digested thus far, the actual taking of the child from the house could have been accomplished without any direct Inside assistance. Many B & E operators attempt to generate information on their targets prior to executing the crime. This kidnapping would be no exception to that, and considering the timing and location, maybe even essential to success. This information needed by the kidnappers was the type that could certainly have been obtained unwittingly. I really believe that Violet Sharp is a strong candidate for unwittingly passing on valuable information to the wrong person. It is my opinion that an experienced/veteran investigator could have obtained key information from her. As for the child's remains being that of the Lindbergh child, I would again agree with Harry Wolfe. I think that issue was settled beyond any reasonable doubt ( if not all doubt), and certainly enough to be accepted by a jury. The more I read on this case the more I see why it is still being debated/discussed today, and why it has generated so many conspiracy theories. In addition to being fascinating in and of itself, it was the coming together of a perfect storm of events: ●●an eccentric American hero of "rock star" proportions who was convinced that he knew better than anyone else how to deal with the kidnappers and get his son back. ●● a lead investigative chief (Schwarzkopf) who had no investigative experience and idolized the victim instead of contolling him. ●● a lead investigative agency that had been created just 10 years prior and was created for the purpose of providing patrol services to the thousand of square miles of rural New Jersey- not to conduct criminal investigations. The investigative Bueau was created just three years prior to the kidnapping. I'm sure they recruited excellent Troopers for the investigative slots, but they still only had three years of experience prior to this case (from my experience a good decade short of the experience needed). ●● interagency rivalry that can be deadly to an investigation. ●● having someone like Condon involved in the critical aspects of the investigation. ●● allowing the victim (Lindbergh) to control the investigation and negate the arrest of CJ at the ransom transfer. All of the above contributed to this case apparently making no headway until the lucky arrest of Hauptmann. It is no wonder that people today look at this case and see sinister motives behind every act of Lindbergh. I really try not to get involved in monday morning quarterbacking, but the vast number of law enforcement mistakes in this investigation just begs for conspiratorial plots. At this late date those mistakes make it almost impossible to ascertain a solution that will satisfy the majority of people. Just a thorough complete surveillance at the ransom exchange (and the use of an undercover agent in all dealings with CJ) would have changed the course of this case. CJ had to be apprehended on April 2nd. I'll stop now as I know I have been going on far to long on this post, but it is extremely frustrating to me to see how this investigation was handled when I know from 30 years of experience what could have been accomplished by the use of proper investigative techniques. Solving a kidnapping is not unduly complex; it is even one of the few crimes that requires the perpetrators to make contact to achieve what they are committing the crime for in the first place--the ransom money. The investigation requires good, solid and experienced investigators, but it is not brain surgery. I promise that I will now get back on my retirement tractor and stop using up all of your posting space!
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jun 25, 2017 20:38:50 GMT -5
Michael,
In your post of 8 hours ago I think you asked me if I thought $50, 000 would be a sufficient motive for Hauptmann to perpetrate a kidnapping. My answer would be a resounding yes. It would have definitely satisfied me as a motive if I had been on that jury in 1932. I know that it has been disscussed here that $50, 000 in 1932 would only amount to around $800, 000 in today's money and that to some forum members that would not be enough to undertake the extreme risks. I have a different perspective on this. To me, $50, 000 (cash in hand) was a GREAT deal of money in 1932. I live on a 300 acre working farm in Virginia and it sold in 1937 for $6, 000 (including a nice 1930 style house. It was purchased by an extremely successful tobacco farmer who had weathered the depression quite well. I have been told that he was the only person in the area who had $6, 000 in cash in 1937. My fatherwas born in 1902 and went through the 1930's depression years in his prime years. Having lived to his 95th year, we discussed that period of his life many times. He was an Irish blue collar worker who resided in the Pa/NJ area in the 1930's and managed to stay employed throughout the depression. However, they were very hard times for blue collar workers and he even postponed marriage and a family until 1938 when times started to improve. In addition to limited jobs and low wages, he emphasized to me many times that there was "just no money to be had". A blue collar worker did not just walk into a bank in 1932 and get a loan or credit. You lived on what you could earn with nothing to spare. These monetary conditions are difficult for all of us in the post WWII generations to comprehend. My guess would be that a N.J. State Trooper in 1932 earned not much more than $1300 a year. It would take him more than a 30 year career to earn $50, 000 and of course it would have mostly been spent on raising a family. He would never have $50, 000 cash in his hands. That amount of money in 1932 would not have even been in the thought processes of any blue collar worker. I would certainly suspect that there were many men in 1932 who would have perpetrated a kidnapping to get $50, 000 in their hands. Possibly even a murder.
I think that if Hauptmann was spending large sums of money in 1932 as an unemployed blue collar worker, it would have certainly been "ill gotten booty" from somewhere. I don't believe his mother in Germany would have been sending it to him!
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jun 25, 2017 10:02:59 GMT -5
Harry Wolfe was a very intelligent man filled with extreme commonsense, and he apparently felt that preserving the room crime scene (including the note) for latent prints was paramount. You say that the Troopers couldn't believe the "restraint" Lindbergh showed by not immediately opening the note. I'm sure those same Troopers (like most of us) couldn't believe the raw courage and fearlessness that Lindbergh displayed in his Transatlantic flight where he could have easily lost his life. Lurp, I certainly value the posts that you make on this board. Your professional background gives you an understanding and perspective on criminal activities and investigative procedures that commands respect and consideration, so I hope you will indulge me by answering a couple of questions I have about your post. I want to be sure I am clearly understanding your statements/positions. 1) What harm would it have done to the crime scene if Lindbergh had chosen to open the nursery note before the authorities arrived on the scene? 2) Am I understanding you correctly that the awestruck Troopers most likely viewed Lindbergh's act of "restraint" by not opening the nursery note to be an exhibition of the same type of "courage and fearlessness" that propelled Lindbergh across the Atlantic in 1927? Amy 35, My apologies for not responding to your post sooner. Somehow I missed it--I'm not sure how, as I look forward to reading your very informative and insightful posts. You and a few others on this forum certainly give Michael a good run for his money. As for your two questions, I would offer the following: 1.) I guess that in retrospect it would have done no harm since no latent prints were found on the envelope or note pad. But, assuming no one knew this before hand, Lindbergh could have totally destroyed the critical characteristics on any potential latents thereby rendering them useless in linking a suspect to the crime scene. I'm not saying anything new or profound here, but latent fingerprints at a crime scene were as Iimportant then as DNA is today. Even for the better part of my law enforcement career, latent prints and good old fashioned investigative leg work solved many crimes. Without latent prints at a crime scene, many cases have certainly gone unsolved. Today, the use of certain chemicals and newer processing techniques have made the retrieving of latent prints off of a piece of evidence (especially paper) a little easier. Back in the 1930's, these techniques were still being developed and refined therefore it was that much more critical to ensure that any latents were not made useless by smudging, distorting, over smearing, etc. any of the critical friction ridges that allow for exact comparisons to known prints. The proper handling of evidence (especially paper) for preserving latent prints is so critical that in the agency that I worked for, our lab technicians were always sending out bulletins and having training sessions on the "latest" methods of properly collecting evidence (today many law enforcement agencies have even created slots dedicated to nothing but processing and collecting evidence at a scene). In reality, our lab technicians would have preferred that they received the evidence without anyone other than the criminal having ever touched it! So, after all of my above pontificating, I guess I am just attempting to say that in my experience, any distraught parent that rips open a ransome note at the time of its discovery could very easily destroy any latent prints to the point that the latents could not be classified and possibly matched with a known suspect's prints. I really believe that one good latent print on that ransome note could have produced a viable suspect in this investigation prior to 1934. I also believe that by 1932 the use of fingerprints by law enforcement to "solve" cases and "capture" criminals was becoming known by the general public and I'm sure this technique captivated many people. Curious and bright individuals like Lindbergh most likely had read about it in the newspapers and magazines of the day, and many people probably thought that it was the "holy grail" of law enforcement that would solve any crime. It doesn't surprise me at all that someone like Lindbergh would be running around shouting "don't touch anything" if he thought his home had just been invaded by criminals. I would venture that today many in the general public view DNA in the exact same light. Once again, just my thoughts on the matter. 2.) A much shorter answer. I guess I am not sure what I was trying to convey other than I'm not sure why anyone would be amazed at Lindberg's self restraint and his abilities to control emotions like fear, pain, etc. If you know his background of flying during his mail carrying days and the transatlantic flight, I can't see why anyone would be amazed by this, or even frame it in the light of showing criminal involvement in the abduction. He was one strange (but bright and courageous) individual, and personal restraint was just part of his makeup. A very foreign concept in today's society. By the way, please excuse any typos. I try to find them before I hit the create buttom, but my typing speed is apparently too fast for this ipad that I am using!
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jun 24, 2017 20:01:22 GMT -5
I never heard anyone (family or acquaintances) of my Uncle Harry ever say that he felt that he was "pushed aside" by the NJSP. To me, it is quite apparent that he knew that this crime was outside of his jurisdiction and that it was a matter for the NJSP and its relatively new Investigative Bureau. As far as I know, he assisted the NJSP with anything they requested; he never sought fame or publicity by speaking with reporters; and never felt that he had received any kind of "raw deal". I think I was just trying to point out that he knew from the beginning that this was not his investigation, but during those 25 minutes or so prior to the arrival of Trooper Wolf, Lindberg was not"pushing around" Harry Wolfe on the issue of the note. I think it's important to dispel that false narrative which has often been repeated over the years. I absolutely hate when fiction becomes fact because of nothing more than people repeating things over and over throughout the years. With this in mind, I believe there was no one to "push around" because they were simply observing and waiting for the State Police to take over. Preserving the crime scene is a normal reaction - for Police. Now to speculate for a second... Let's say your Uncle WAS in charge and Lindbergh tried to do to him what he did to Schwarzkopf... At the first contradiction or challenge the facts seem to indicate Lindbergh would do what he did to Mulrooney when he suggested watching the mailboxes, or what he did to Garsson. These types of examples are all over the place. So it's obvious to me he would have quickly called Governor Moore and Chief Wolfe would have been quickly removed. Harry Wolfe was a very intelligent man filled with extreme commonsense, and he apparently felt that preserving the room crime scene (including the note) for latent prints was paramount. You say that the Troopers couldn't believe the "restraint" Lindbergh showed by not immediately opening the note. I'm sure those same Troopers (like most of us) couldn't believe the raw courage and fearlessness that Lindbergh displayed in his Transatlantic flight where he could have easily lost his life. The point is that Lindbergh was a rare individual-- a VERY strange duck whose actions can be totally foreign to the rest of us. On a personal note, I served with a few men like this in Vietnam, and the "word" on them was always "don't even try to understand them, just follow them". They, like Lindbergh, were just a different breed of cat that most of us will never understand. They just don't react to things like most people do. I believe that if one trys to interrupt Lindbergh's actions that night in terms of what a "normal" father would have done, you will come up short. Lindbergh obviously had it in his mind that latent prints could possibly identify the kidnapper (s) and help in locating his son. In theory, he was absolutely correct. Wolfe, Williamson and Trooper Wolf obviously agreed with him at that moment in time. If latent prints had been found on that note and a kidnapper subsequently identified, Lindbergh would have been the hero in the case, not the goat. It's interesting that two people can agree about something but see it differently. I agree that Lindbergh was a "strange duck." No doubt about it. But that is a two-way street. It could mean that an Aviator studied police procedure because he was weird, or it could mean something else. If an eccentric guy would immediately consider fingerprints, wouldn't he also be the type to do something else we may not understand? If he was "fearless" as he displayed when crossing the Atlantic - does that mean he's only "fearless" if or when we can use it to explain away suspicious activities? As I have stated in a previous post, my Uncle Harry went to his grave believing certain key points about this case, but I never heard anyone ever suggest that he believed Lindbergh was involved in the abduction of his child. The key points being in agreement with just about every other cop who was there. At least two people involved, with a suspicion there was an inside job. I think my perspective is, especially when considering all the facts I've included in my book, that Lindbergh should not be excluded when taking a closer look at this thing. Michael I am sure your perspective on what would have happened had this crime occurred in the Borough of Hopewell and my uncle Harry had been in charge is correct. Lindbergh obviously had the "juice", but I would have paid big money to have watched Lindbergh's first confrontation with Harry Wolfe. It would not have ended well. I agree with you that two people can view something somewhat the same, yet end up with different interruptions. And that, I believe, is the inherent problem with examining each and every act by Lindbergh that took place during this investigation and then trying to ascertain if it was "just Lindbergh's very uniqus and different character traits" or actually something sinister and loaded with criminal suspicions and intent. I personally believe that when someone does that with Lindbergh in this case they are just heading into that proverbial investigative boxed canyon and just spinning wheels. I agree that Lindbergh's possible criminal involvement in this case needs to be examined (and should have been more closely looked at back then), but if someone is going to accuse a father of abducting his son, it has to begin and end with motive. Motive is always a factor in any crime, but it is absolutely essential with this allegation. Unless a rock solid motive with hard fast evidence to support it is developed, there just is no case against Lindbergh regardless of what his specific actions may "look like". I know that various motives have been discussed in certain books and here on the forum (some very interesting theories and speculations), but unless I have really missed something I have seen no evidence that any prosecutor could be successful with in front of a jury. Speculations are fine to discuss and attempt to develop, but obviously a jury would need a lock tight motive to be convinced a father would abduct his child. I just don't see it. Perhaps after 85 years it is too late to develop such a motive--the facts may simply not be there to collect. I'll add this for what it is worth (and I can be dead wrong). My 30 plus years working criminal investigations as a street agent has given me a gut feeling on this angle of Lindbergh being criminally involved, and it screams no. My eyes see a lot of meaningful theories on this but also a great deal of wheel spinning. Just my opinion, and that's not even worth the price of a cup of coffee! I greatly enjoy this forum and I am continually impressed with the insight of so many members. I'll continue reading and you all just may prove me wrong on Lindbergh. I am looking forward to your next book Michael.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jun 24, 2017 7:50:51 GMT -5
Michael, can you explain the fact there was only one footprint observed within the immediate vicinity of the ladder, which was raised by at least two kidnappers? Let me start by pointing out that Lt. Keaten told Agent Sisk in the summer of 1934 that the NJSP were " reasonably certain" two people committed the crime. One climbing the ladder and the other at the base of the ladder. Sisk called him the most knowledgeable person about the case he had ever spoken with. (see TDC page 349). So with this in mind, did Lt. Keaten think they floated? Or perhaps he believed they walked backwards? No. They carried the ladder, two people, walking on the boardwalk without stepping off. When Wolfe and Williamson arrived at 10:30 P.M., they were in charge of that scene. Although being Hopewell Borough Police Officers and outside of their geographical jurisdiction, they were the closest police officials in that rural area and thus responded in their official capacities while awaiting the arrival of the NJSP. Lindbergh made both Wolfe and Williamson aware of the existence of the note almost immediately. Although it appears from all of the subsequent investigative statements that Lindbergh was instructing everyone not to touch anything until the NJSP arrived, I can state with absolute certainty that if Harry Wolfe had thought it was in the best interest for the safety of the child to immediately open and read the note, THAT NOTE WOULD HAVE BEEN OPENED. No one, and I can't over emphasize the words no one, intimidated my great Uncle Harry Wolfe. I am going to give you my two cents here so please comment on my perspective.... There have been portrayals over the years that these men got there, thought they were in charge, but were then pushed aside by the NJSP upon their arrival. This is a false narrative. It appears to me Wolfe and Williamson were immediately advised that the State Police were on the way. In my mind they knew it wasn't their jurisdiction, wouldn't want to be in charge of this, and were probably relieved to hear the Troopers were coming. If you read Williamson's testimony in Flemington he testifies that, in essence, he did not have experience in taking fingerprints etc. I agree that when Lindbergh announced nothing was to be touched, these men were probably in agreement with this position. What Cop wouldn't be? But that's not the issue. The issue is that Troopers couldn't believe the "restraint" Lindbergh exemplified by not immediately tearing it open. Then once it is dusted there's no prints. Next, once the State Police did arrive, both Williamson and Wolfe assisted by following Cpl. Wolf's instructions. They weren't "cast aside" and in fact, these men continued to assist with the Hopewell area searches and investigations. I certainly wouldn't disagree with your perspective on this Michael. I highly respect your knowledge and years of research on this case. A few comments: I never heard anyone (family or acquaintances) of my Uncle Harry ever say that he felt that he was "pushed aside" by the NJSP. To me, it is quite apparent that he knew that this crime was outside of his jurisdiction and that it was a matter for the NJSP and its relatively new Investigative Bureau. As far as I know, he assisted the NJSP with anything they requested; he never sought fame or publicity by speaking with reporters; and never felt that he had received any kind of "raw deal". I think I was just trying to point out that he knew from the beginning that this was not his investigation, but during those 25 minutes or so prior to the arrival of Trooper Wolf, Lindberg was not"pushing around" Harry Wolfe on the issue of the note. Harry Wolfe was a very intelligent man filled with extreme commonsense, and he apparently felt that preserving the room crime scene (including the note) for latent prints was paramount. You say that the Troopers couldn't believe the "restraint" Lindbergh showed by not immediately opening the note. I'm sure those same Troopers (like most of us) couldn't believe the raw courage and fearlessness that Lindbergh displayed in his Transatlantic flight where he could have easily lost his life. The point is that Lindbergh was a rare individual-- a VERY strange duck whose actions can be totally foreign to the rest of us. On a personal note, I served with a few men like this in Vietnam, and the "word" on them was always "don't even try to understand them, just follow them". They, like Lindbergh, were just a different breed of cat that most of us will never understand. They just don't react to things like most people do. I believe that if one trys to interrupt Lindbergh's actions that night in terms of what a "normal" father would have done, you will come up short. Lindbergh obviously had it in his mind that latent prints could possibly identify the kidnapper (s) and help in locating his son. In theory, he was absolutely correct. Wolfe, Williamson and Trooper Wolf obviously agreed with him at that moment in time. If latent prints had been found on that note and a kidnapper subsequently identified, Lindbergh would have been the hero in the case, not the goat. As I have stated in a previous post, my Uncle Harry went to his grave believing certain key points about this case, but I never heard anyone ever suggest that he believed Lindbergh was involved in the abduction of his child.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jun 23, 2017 13:26:59 GMT -5
It never seemed like CAL was in much of a hurry to get his son back. There is: Calling police before opening note. You don't really have to know anything about kidnapping to be aware that a ransom note might have specific instructions about your now missing relative. The initial note which wasn't quickly opened. No matter whose idea not opening it was, Charles was clearly in charge of the note. The long series of note exchanges where neither Lindbergh nor Breckenridge tried to speed things up. Something like an ad in the paper, "we'll do anything - just say when & where." Lindbergh really stalling in raising the $ 50K and $ 70K - though it looks like he had it earlier than has been previously reported, why didn't Condon have it? I've always felt that Charles could have raised the $ 50K in about ten minutes on the phone - and probably had it delivered! CAL going along with Condon and withholding the $ 20K - that alone could have gotten Charlie killed. Sorry - this stuff has been gone over so much, but funny how it keeps coming back around. One thing interesting though, LURPS, with what you found regarding the Williamsen comment about waiting for the fingerprint man, it certainly puts a new twist on the crime as far as Lindbergh's callousness is concerned! Jack, In regards to all of the suspicions placed on Lindbergh for not opening the note immediately (or as some have said" for hours") I just wanted to make a couple of comments. I don't have the incredible knowledge and years of research that so many on this forum have (and believe me I am impressed), so if my comments do not seem very valid, I will not be insulted in the least if you just want to hit the old delete button! It appears that the timeline of events for the night of March 1st has Gow notifying Lindbergh of the child being missing at 10:10 P.M.; Chief Wolfe and Officer Williamson arriving at 10:30 P.M.; and Trooper Wolf arriving at 10:55 P.M. Thus, Lindbergh had roughly 20 minutes prior to the arrival of the first law enforcement officers Wolfe and Williamson. Lindbergh did not open the note in that time period, but he apparently spent much of that time with Olly searching inside and outside of the house (to my way of thinking a perfectly logical thing for a parent to do). When Wolfe and Williamson arrived at 10:30 P.M., they were in charge of that scene. Although being Hopewell Borough Police Officers and outside of their geographical jurisdiction, they were the closest police officials in that rural area and thus responded in their official capacities while awaiting the arrival of the NJSP. Lindbergh made both Wolfe and Williamson aware of the existence of the note almost immediately. Although it appears from all of the subsequent investigative statements that Lindbergh was instructing everyone not to touch anything until the NJSP arrived, I can state with absolute certainty that if Harry Wolfe had thought it was in the best interest for the safety of the child to immediately open and read the note, THAT NOTE WOULD HAVE BEEN OPENED. No one, and I can't over emphasize the words no one, intimidated my great Uncle Harry Wolfe. During his entire life he was a man who possessed outstanding character and humbleness, but he backed down from no one. You would have had greater success confronting a brick wall than going up against Uncle Harry. Lindbergh may have subsequently dominated/controlled this investigation when Schwarzkopf took it over, but for those 20 minutes that first night before Trooper Wolf arrived, I can assure you that Harry Wolfe would have made any decision he saw fit in regards to the safety of the child. The fact that ths note was not opened in those 20 minutes tells me that Wolfe and Williamson were in agreement with Lindbergh to wait for the NJSP to arrive. They all knew that thd NJSP were on the way and that the NJSP had the expertise to handle the note correctly. I'm sure they all thought that the note would be opened very quickly upon the arrival of the first Trooper, not knowing that they would have to wait another hour for an examiner (Kelly) to get there. I once again apologize for the long post, but I'm just trying to point out that I believe Lindbergh really had just 20 minutes (10:10 to 10:30 P.M.) where he had complete control over opening that note. I have personal knowledge over the kind of person Harry Wolfe was, and for me the fact that he obviously agreed with Lindbergh to wait the additional 15 to 20 minutes for the arrival of the NJSP before opening the note, takes a lot of suspicion off of Lindberg in regards to the note. Although, as I believe Joe has indicated in this thread, every action of Lindbergh during the course of this case can be viewed through vastly different lenses depending on your "leanings".
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jun 22, 2017 13:29:57 GMT -5
I agree with Amy’s observation of CAL’s lackadaisical “delay, delay, delay” attitude. There’s another example of CAL’s actions that I find mystifying and disturbing. On the morning of March 16th Condon receives the Dr. Denton sleeping suit. Around 10:30 pm, Breckinridge calls CAL at Highfields to let him know the suit is at Condon’s house. This is the first time in 15 days that CAL has a tangible link to his missing son. What does CAL do? He drives to Condon’s house to identify it. So, what’s the problem? He arrives at Condon’s house at 1:30 AM. It took him 15 hours to make the drive! WTH was he doing that was more important than making a beeline to Condon’s house? Who on this board would have waited 15 hours? Am I misunderstanding you. Breckinridge calls Cal at Highfields around 10:30 P.M. on March 16th, and Cal arrives at Condon's house at 1:30 A.M. on the 17th? That's 3 hours, about the time it would take to get there.
|
|