|
Post by Michael on May 3, 2015 7:59:27 GMT -5
Can you tell me whose idea it was to use 1928 series bills for the ransom payment? While there's no source (that I could find) which says specifically the "1928" series, Frank Wilson seems to be taking credit for them. If you look at both his trial testimony and combine this with his Collier's Magazine article, then it seems to me he's responsible. If the opened shutter was utilized to stabilize the climb, were any marks from the ladder on the shutter louvers noted in any reports? We know that marks were found on the white washed wall from the use of the two sections of the ladder. Not in any report I've ever seen. However, I don't know if I'd expect it as much as I would when looking at the white-wash color of the house. In fact, if we consider there's no report concerning the shutter itself and that we only know about Schwarzkopf having it removed because of Rosner's unpublished manuscript (see: Gardner TCTND), then it seems most likely Schwarzkopf was having it removed for the purpose you mention above. However, since we know it's value was probably nil after they accidentally dropped it then this might account for a lack of report - and the further evidence it may or may not have revealed. One thing Kevin said which I clearly remember and that was during the re-enactments, they always used BOTH 2-sections and 3-sections in their experiments. And they always had someone holding the bottom of the ladder.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2015 21:25:35 GMT -5
Can you tell me whose idea it was to use 1928 series bills for the ransom payment? While there's no source (that I could find) which says specifically the "1928" series, Frank Wilson seems to be taking credit for them. If you look at both his trial testimony and combine this with his Collier's Magazine article, then it seems to me he's responsible. I reviewed Wilson's trial testimony and he takes resposibility for giving the instructions for the handling of the money and how the serial numbers were to be recorded. Although he doesn't say he chose the 1928 series bills, you can make that assumption from his testimony. I did come across some interesting testimony by Frank Wilson during his cross-examination by Lloyd Fisher. It concerns the $2980 dollar J.J. Faulkner deposit of May 1, 1933. Trial Testimony, Pages 929 and 930:Q(Fisher) - Now Mr. Wilson, I understand you to say that a man could take gold, after the embargo was declared, to a bank and simply pass it through a window, without any formality or without writing anything or leaving any memoranda; is that correct? A(Wilson) - Yes, sir.
Q(Fisher) - And is that true of any sums of money? A(Wilson) - Yes, sir.
Q(Fisher) - Do you say that a man could take in $2,980 as much money as that and pass it across the bar without any memoranda being given or exchanged? A(Wilson) - Yes, sir, larger amounts than that.
Q(Fisher) - Wasn't it the rule that if any money over a thousand dollars was turned in, that an exchange slip must be executed? A(Wilson) - No, sir.
Q(Fisher) - Giving the name and address of the party turning the money in? A(Wilson) - No, sir.
Q(Fisher) - You say that was not the rule? A(Wilson) - That was not the rule.
Q(Fisher) - No such instructions went out to the various bankers of the country? A(Wilson) - Not -- no, sir.
Q(Fisher) - Requiring them to take a memorandum from any person who exchanged more than one thousand dollars? A(Wilson) - No, sir.
Q(Fisher) - Why do you suppose, Mr. Wilson, the Federal Reserve - why the Federal Reserve Bank require this man to make out a slip a transfer slip? A(Wilson) - They requested all people making deposits there to do so, but that was not done in other banks throughout the country.
Q(Fisher) - Well, then so far as that particular United States Bank is concerned, it was necessary to exchange a memorandum when you exchanged money, gold money? A(Wilson) - In that particular bank.
Q(Fisher) - Yes, so that there is an exception to your general rule, then, is that correct? A(Wilson) - Yes, sir.
Q(Fisher) - Well, now, how about other exceptions over the country, do you know if any other bank required the same thing? A(Wilson) - I don't know of any other banks that did that.
Q(Fisher) - But you do know this particular bank did. A(Wilson) - Yes, sir.
Do you know if Fisher ever did any follow-up with this particular bank to see if this was a regular bank policy or was it just required with gold deposits/exchanges?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 3, 2015 21:57:14 GMT -5
Based on all this, it would seem there are two possible scenarios: A) The ladder was assembled in the courtyard somewhere in front of the house, taken to the nursery window area by the kidnappers (who stayed on the construction catwalk, explaining the near lack of footprints). The assembled ladder was then somehow walked into an upright position on the catwalk, placed in the mud and leaned against the wall by the nursery window. The ladder was climbed, a handoff took place from the nursery window, before the ladder was taken to the backyard and thrown away. Or B) the ladder wasn't climbed at all. The top two sections were put together, stuck in the mud below the window, then tossed away into the backyard--all so it would look like an outside intruder had to break in through a window. "B" seems more likely (that is, simpler), but then how do we explain the scrape marks on the house...? Either way, in both scenarios, the rails of the top section were designed to fit into the shutter louvers to stabilize any potential climb, in case it actually was necessary to use the window for some kind of entry and/or exit. Michael (or anyone), what's your theory on how the ladder was used?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 4, 2015 5:56:24 GMT -5
I reviewed Wilson's trial testimony and he takes responsibility for giving the instructions for the handling of the money and how the serial numbers were to be recorded. Although he doesn't say he chose the 1928 series bills, you can make that assumption from his testimony. It's the totality of the sources which seem to reveal he's the one that's responsible. Early on, before his involvement, at one point they had new bills assembled. Here is what I was looking at in the article I referenced before: I purposely had them include with the Federal Reserve notes and United States notes a goodly number of gold certificates because there were fewer of these in circulation. It appears everything is being done at his direction. It seems to me if bills were assembled without his "okay" beforehand, he would have either approved of them or he would have them replaced with something different that he did want. So he's either directly or indirectly responsible for the 1928 series but I am of the opinion it's directly.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 4, 2015 6:34:09 GMT -5
Either way, in both scenarios, the rails of the top section were designed to fit into the shutter louvers to stabilize any potential climb, in case it actually was necessary to use the window for some kind of entry and/or exit. Michael (or anyone), what's your theory on how the ladder was used? Over the years my position has changed based upon our discussions and new pieces of evidence as I became aware of it. Kevin's expertise as a Master Carpenter allowed him to easily see something I never would have. He was clearly correct about the ladder design so I had to factor that in by accepting 3 sections must have been used. But the idea that BOTH 2 sections AND 3 sections were used never sat well with me. Next, once I saw the footage of the deleted scene from the NOVA episode, then I knew there was no way that ladder had been raised and taken down more then once. Even if this was staged they couldn't have done that without leaving a good amount of marks in the mud. What Kevin was explaining is what would have to happen if the intent was for someone to utilize that ladder as it was designed AND enter that window for the purposes we've all been led to believe. When I look at everything - meaning when I combine it with all things that I have or know about - then it's clear there was a lot of thought going into this thing. And not just before hand but at the scene as well. This was no sneak-thief event.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 4, 2015 7:02:20 GMT -5
Speaking of money (a few posts ago) I don't recall ever reading that the $ 100K from Mrs. McLean was recovered.
And, of course, Means got a very raw deal because he gave it to # 11 on the bridge and had nothing to do with extorting it. Was the Fox aware that Number 11 had stolen the money meant to get the Lindbergh baby back?
Can we be sure that Number 11 didn't give the money back to Evelyn or perhaps to the kidnappers and the true Lindbergh baby was given to the Olson family?
Remember, when Number 11 was standing on the bridge he was holding a lantern!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 4, 2015 11:32:46 GMT -5
Speaking of money (a few posts ago) I don't recall ever reading that the $ 100K from Mrs. McLean was recovered. No - never was. As we can see by the letter below, Whitaker was still trying to capitalize on this fact either by hustle for "expense money" or the idea of a "reward" if he were somehow able to recover it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 4, 2015 11:36:16 GMT -5
Do you know if Fisher ever did any follow-up with this particular bank to see if this was a regular bank policy or was it just required with gold deposits/exchanges? I don't, at least not specifically. I know that he had Keyes working for the Defense on certain angles among them included investigations concerning the finances which brought him to certain banks. At some point the Defense, short on cash, let Keyes go. Fisher wasn't too complimentary of Keyes's work, however, whatever he started on the "bank angle" carried over with his assistance to the Governor and actually turned something up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2015 13:43:50 GMT -5
what's your theory on how the ladder was used? I certainly don't know anything about ladder design, so I am just offering up an opinion of my own here. With all due respect to those who know more than I do about wood and ladders, I cannot see this ladder being raised more than one time. I don't see any support for it being manipulated several times. That scenario would be labor intensive and take too much time. The ladder indentations in the ground under the window were not deep enough to be consistent with multiple placement and climbs. The marks on the house are evidence that two sections were definitely used. Since I don't believe that anyone entered from the window into the nursery, I think that the child was handed out the window to someone on the ladder. I can see three sections being used if someone from inside the nursery opened the window and the shutter, then the ladder was raised and climbed to receive the child who was handed out easily to the person on the ladder. During this whole process of raising and lowering this ladder the persons involved would have to manage to do all this from the board walk because you don't have the footprint evidence to show it being done any other way. I can see putting two sections up from the boardwalk position but I have real trouble with seeing three secions going up and then down from that boardwalk position. Most of the pictures I have seen show LE using three sections of the ladder when doing reenactments. I wonder if they had ever tried using just two sections?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2015 13:46:39 GMT -5
Fisher wasn't too complimentary of Keyes's work, however, whatever he started on the "bank angle" carried over with his assistance to the Governor and actually turned something up. So, Michael. Can you share what was turned up regarding this "bank angle"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2015 13:53:17 GMT -5
Speaking of money (a few posts ago) I don't recall ever reading that the $ 100K from Mrs. McLean was recovered. And, of course, Means got a very raw deal because he gave it to # 11 on the bridge and had nothing to do with extorting it. Was the Fox aware that Number 11 had stolen the money meant to get the Lindbergh baby back? Can we be sure that Number 11 didn't give the money back to Evelyn or perhaps to the kidnappers and the true Lindbergh baby was given to the Olson family? Remember, when Number 11 was standing on the bridge he was holding a lantern! Interesting Jack. Maybe Means and Nosovitsky worked together to scam McLean and they split the money 50-50 and the Fox got burned? And whats up with the lantern? Is Olsen the guy that the book "In Search of the Lindbergh Baby" is written about?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 4, 2015 14:22:40 GMT -5
So, Michael. Can you share what was turned up regarding this "bank angle"? Herman Riedrich from the Central Savings Bank had testified for the State during the Hauptmann trial. Keyes claimed that Riedrich's testimony was damaging and that Riedrich was suffering mentally knowing that he was coached by Wilentz to present a false picture of the Hauptmann account. As a result of this information, Gov. Hoffman spoke with Riedrich. While I do not have a copy of the transcript of this conversation, what I do have is a letter confirming copies of the bank records were being forwarded to Hoffman through Keyes, which was done on the heals of this conversation. Furthermore, there's a letter to the Governor from Keyes confirming his possession of these records and a comment that they should " call on the two brokerage houses that handled Hauptmann's account. According to Riedrich they were also asked to testify in a manner unfair to the Defendant." To anyone neutrally looking at the State's conduct during the trial this isn't anything new. It's only good for showing to someone who is in denial - it's another example among many.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 4, 2015 15:35:10 GMT -5
Thanks for that, Amy. I think we're basically on the same wavelength. Can I ask, if they didn't get in through the window (which I don't believe either), how do you think they got into the house?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 4, 2015 16:41:13 GMT -5
Amy:
The lantern means # 11 wasn't up to anything fishy. If you were doing something illegal would you be walking around with a lantern?
Probably why Noso disappeared with his $ 50K - how would you like to have The Fox on your tail?
Yes - The Harold Olson.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on May 4, 2015 17:42:35 GMT -5
what's your theory on how the ladder was used? I certainly don't know anything about ladder design, so I am just offering up an opinion of my own here. With all due respect to those who know more than I do about wood and ladders, I cannot see this ladder being raised more than one time. I don't see any support for it being manipulated several times. That scenario would be labor intensive and take too much time. The ladder indentations in the ground under the window were not deep enough to be consistent with multiple placement and climbs. The marks on the house are evidence that two sections were definitely used. Since I don't believe that anyone entered from the window into the nursery, I think that the child was handed out the window to someone on the ladder. I can see three sections being used if someone from inside the nursery opened the window and the shutter, then the ladder was raised and climbed to receive the child who was handed out easily to the person on the ladder. During this whole process of raising and lowering this ladder the persons involved would have to manage to do all this from the board walk because you don't have the footprint evidence to show it being done any other way. I can see putting two sections up from the boardwalk position but I have real trouble with seeing three secions going up and then down from that boardwalk position. Most of the pictures I have seen show LE using three sections of the ladder when doing reenactments. I wonder if they had ever tried using just two sections? Have you considered that the ladder was used solely for the purpose of placing the note where it was? The child perhaps handed out through adoor to the other member of the "kidnap" group? This seems the most logical to me. It both expedites the time needed on premises and Lindbergh later on seemed to on board with Curtis' account of how this happened. It also explains why the note was left where it was, as opposed to on the crib as it should have been. As you said, there is nothing to indicate the ladder was assembled and placed against the wall more than once. If anything, the evidence points away from this idea. The idea that kidnappers would take their time to place the ladder in the exact same spot once the third section was added seems a bit silly to me, especially on a gross rainy night when visibility was very low.
|
|
|
Post by xjd on May 4, 2015 19:20:26 GMT -5
speaking of the Nova show, is there anywhere to see those deleted scenes? i'm still curious as to why not show the climbing reenactment? that has got to be one of the things devotees of the LKC want to see for themselves.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 5, 2015 7:00:30 GMT -5
I've always thought the note was actually left in the crib and that (windowsill) was one of the things CAL & Schwartzkopf used to weed out false kidnappers. Would be hard to find the reference because of inconsistent indexing in the books, but I'm sure CJ said crib to Condon.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 5, 2015 14:20:15 GMT -5
speaking of the Nova show, is there anywhere to see those deleted scenes? i'm still curious as to why not show the climbing reenactment? that has got to be one of the things devotees of the LKC want to see for themselves. Larry told me they had a lot of material that didn't make it into the show that he wish'd could have. What I saw was at the NJSP Archives, and one of Kevin's last posts mentioned that he was putting something together for the Board and he's been MIA ever since. I've always thought the note was actually left in the crib and that (windowsill) was one of the things CAL & Schwartzkopf used to weed out false kidnappers. Would be hard to find the reference because of inconsistent indexing in the books, but I'm sure CJ said crib to Condon. I think there are a couple of places where Condon attributed that statement to CJ. The one I have in front of me at the moment was Condon's transcript of the conversations he made at the request of the FBI: Man: We are the right person, your note has the signal on just like what we left on the baby's pillow on the 'nide' we took the baby. I've always seen this as more proof Condon was making up the dialogue.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on May 5, 2015 14:33:32 GMT -5
To Michael and All:
Can you briefly describe who this fellow Whitaker was? Also, who was the Finnegan he mentions in his letter to Hoffman?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on May 5, 2015 14:38:42 GMT -5
I know that both Means and Noso were accomplished scam artists, but is there any definitive evidence that they even knew each other? Who is "the Fox"?
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on May 5, 2015 19:46:25 GMT -5
12 hours ago jack7 said: I've always thought the note was actually left in the crib and that (windowsill) was one of the things CAL & Schwartzkopf used to weed out false kidnappers. Would be hard to find the reference because of inconsistent indexing in the books, but I'm sure CJ said crib to Condon.
I've never thought of it that way either, Jack. I also thought it was Condon making it up. But, it makes sense in that a note left on the windowsill, on a windy March night with the window open, would just blow away!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2015 21:03:49 GMT -5
Have you considered that the ladder was used solely for the purpose of placing the note where it was? The child perhaps handed out through adoor to the other member of the "kidnap" group? This seems the most logical to me. It both expedites the time needed on premises and Lindbergh later on seemed to on board with Curtis' account of how this happened. It also explains why the note was left where it was, as opposed to on the crib as it should have been. Actually, I have never considered the ladder being used only for placing the ransom note on the window sill. It could be one explanation for why the note was on the window sill. Logically, if I were the kidnapper, I would have put the note in the crib to be found in place of the missing baby. But, then, nothing about this case seems to work in a logical way. I have definitely given thought to the child being handed out of a door way. I have even considered a hand-out of the child through one of the basement windows. I think this would require the help of an inside person who is familiar with the house. There is also the dog, Wahgoosh to consider. I think the dog would have picked up on the sound or scent of a stranger in the house. It just seems easier to me that the child is handed out the window by an insider. Everything takes place in this one area without a stranger ever entering the house and moving about. Do you have a theory about how a doorway handout would work? Do you see the front door or the back door being utilized? I am not opposed to considering something like this. Anne did say she heard a car on gravel about 8:10 p.m.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2015 21:13:44 GMT -5
I know that both Means and Noso were accomplished scam artists, but is there any definitive evidence that they even knew each other? Who is "the Fox"? I don't know of any real evidence that they knew he other. I do know that both men worked for the Department of Justice for a while; Nosovitsky in 1917 and 1918 and Means in 1921 to 1923. They both had similiar skill sets but I don't know if they ever crossed paths, but anything is possible, especially when it come to this case. The "Fox" was one of the characters in Gaston Means scam of Evalyn Walsh McLean. The role of the Fox belonged to Norman T. Whitaker who was to help Means get the money. Whitaker never ended up with anything but an attempted extortion charge. Thats why I said he got burned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2015 21:26:40 GMT -5
Amy: The lantern means # 11 wasn't up to anything fishy. If you were doing something illegal would you be walking around with a lantern? Probably why Noso disappeared with his $ 50K - how would you like to have The Fox on your tail? Yes - The Harold Olson. In Gaston Means scam, number 11 was supposed to be Mrs. McLean. Means claimed that a car with a man in it said "number 11" to him so he gave this man the $100,000 dollars. I guess Means thought the man was sent by Mrs. McLean to retrieve the money for her. Why would anyone believe that story! I would be more inclined to believe that Noso picked up Means and the money; they split it and went their separate ways. Harold Olson is the man whose story is in that book. I will have to read that sometime.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2015 21:36:34 GMT -5
So, Michael. Can you share what was turned up regarding this "bank angle"? Herman Riedrich from the Central Savings Bank had testified for the State during the Hauptmann trial. Keyes claimed that Riedrich's testimony was damaging and that Riedrich was suffering mentally knowing that he was coached by Wilentz to present a false picture of the Hauptmann account. As a result of this information, Gov. Hoffman spoke with Riedrich. While I do not have a copy of the transcript of this conversation, what I do have is a letter confirming copies of the bank records were being forwarded to Hoffman through Keyes, which was done on the heals of this conversation. Furthermore, there's a letter to the Governor from Keyes confirming his possession of these records and a comment that they should " call on the two brokerage houses that handled Hauptmann's account. According to Riedrich they were also asked to testify in a manner unfair to the Defendant." To anyone neutrally looking at the State's conduct during the trial this isn't anything new. It's only good for showing to someone who is in denial - it's another example among many. I read through Riedrich's testimony. Riedrich had all the account records with him when he testified. I did think his testimony was damaging to Hauptmann when you look at the balance figures for the end of 1932 and then into 1933 when neither of the Hauptmann were employed and their balance had swelled to $5,040.85. Have you seen these banking records at the archives to verify what Riedrich testified to in court? I don't put anything past Wilentz when it comes to intimidating witnesses.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 5, 2015 21:54:50 GMT -5
Hi Stella:
Yes, the crib seemed more correct to me for placement of the ransom note. I don't know why Condon would make something like that up especially when it contradicted what Lindbergh said.
I wonder, and would like to know what you think about why Gaston Means didn't just run away with all that money.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 6, 2015 17:54:08 GMT -5
Actually, I have never considered the ladder being used only for placing the ransom note on the window sill. It could be one explanation for why the note was on the window sill. Logically, if I were the kidnapper, I would have put the note in the crib to be found in place of the missing baby. But, then, nothing about this case seems to work in a logical way. It was Leon Ho-age who said it's placement on the sill was an intentional effort to say they went this way in an attempt to distract Police from an "Inside Connection" to the crime.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 8, 2015 7:59:48 GMT -5
Also, who was the Finnegan he mentions in his letter to Hoffman?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on May 14, 2015 14:36:56 GMT -5
One interesting theory Ronelle presents toward the end of her interview with Mo Banshee (in her armchair psychoanalysis of Cal Sr.): CAL Sr. knew that he had to lie at the Hauptmann trial to save his own skin at the expense of putting a German man who was innocent of the purported kidnapping to death. So years later, in order to compensate for the death of a German man which he had caused, CAL Sr. went to Germany to father a bunch of German children out of wedlock.
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Feb 5, 2016 21:35:28 GMT -5
Either way, in both scenarios, the rails of the top section were designed to fit into the shutter louvers to stabilize any potential climb, in case it actually was necessary to use the window for some kind of entry and/or exit. Michael (or anyone), what's your theory on how the ladder was used? Over the years my position has changed based upon our discussions and new pieces of evidence as I became aware of it. Kevin's expertise as a Master Carpenter allowed him to easily see something I never would have. He was clearly correct about the ladder design so I had to factor that in by accepting 3 sections must have been used. But the idea that BOTH 2 sections AND 3 sections were used never sat well with me. Next, once I saw the footage of the deleted scene from the NOVA episode, then I knew there was no way that ladder had been raised and taken down more then once. Even if this was staged they couldn't have done that without leaving a good amount of marks in the mud. What Kevin was explaining is what would have to happen if the intent was for someone to utilize that ladder as it was designed AND enter that window for the purposes we've all been led to believe. When I look at everything - meaning when I combine it with all things that I have or know about - then it's clear there was a lot of thought going into this thing. And not just before hand but at the scene as well. This was no sneak-thief event. just wondering once again about the Nova episode's deleted ladder scene. i gotta think seeing a reenactment would be helpful. Michael, is there anyway for us to see that film?
|
|