|
Post by Michael on Jan 23, 2016 18:22:32 GMT -5
I am reading Fisher's book (for the first time) right now. There are errors in that book that really shouldn't have been in there. I am on chapter 3 right now and he has dates mixed up, events on wrong dates and other things that he is wrong about. He really didn't have a good understanding of this case. He should have spent more time getting the basics clear and working with people who did know the case really well and learned from them. You tried to help him, Dave. Too bad for him he didn't take advantage of your offer of help. I don't know which is worse - his first book or his second. They're both the worst books ever written on the case. Sometimes when I am looking at a specific subject I'll grab Lloyd's book to see what his perspective is. Whenever I check Fisher's I always regret that I wasted my time. It could be that Zorn's book is the worst, I don't know, I haven't read it and unless I find a discarded copy I probably never will.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2016 10:20:09 GMT -5
I also have Ghosts of Hopewell but haven't read it yet. I brought up Fisher's errors, not because I think I am smarter or just want to put him down because he believes Hauptmann did the kidnapping alone. I have learned so much about this case since I came to this board through the many great posts and the posted facts and documents you have shared and others have shared here. So now when I pick up a book to read about this crime, mistakes stand out. Some of his mistakes are just bad editing and others come from incomplete researching on a point.
I will say that I have also read some things I have not come across before that Fisher brings up in his book. So I am glad that I am taking the time to read his book.
Zorn's book is a nice tribute to his Dad. I really don't use it as a research tool, though.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 24, 2016 10:51:12 GMT -5
Fisher wrote that it's "unlikely but possible" that Hauptmann acted alone.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 24, 2016 11:03:39 GMT -5
You're right though in that Fisher tried to slant things towards the lone wolf.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 24, 2016 11:51:39 GMT -5
Fisher wrote that it's "unlikely but possible" that Hauptmann acted alone. I think his position is best exemplified from this quote on his website jimfisher.edinboro.edu/lindbergh/a1988_2.html: Did Hauptmann have accomplices? The Lindbergh kidnapping is the most thoroughly investigated crime in American history. It was investigated by the New Jersey State Police, the FBI, the New York City Police, the Jersey City Police, the Newark Police, and dozens of county detectives, private eyes, an army of scoop hunting newspaper reporters from New Jersey and New York City. From all of this, not one piece of concrete evidence suggesting an accomplice has surfaced. In fact, all of the evidence suggests that Hauptmann was a lone wolf. While he's right that all of these organizations investigated, it's complete BS that there isn't evidence of an accomplice and that it all suggests otherwise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2016 12:59:16 GMT -5
Last night I was reading Chapter 4 of Fisher's book The Lindbergh Case. On pages 41 and 42, he writes that the day after Condon's letter to the Bronx Home News appeared in the paper Colonel Schwarzkopf made a nationwide radio address. In this address Schwarzkopf made the following comments:
1) He (Schwarzkopf) had every reason to believe that the Lindbergh baby was safe and well.
2) That whatever arrangements the Lindbergh's were willing to make with the kidnappers were their own business.
3) The main purpose of everyone is the recovery of the Lindbergh baby alive and as quickly as possible.
4) We are here as the police authority and are bending every effort to that end.
5) We will make no predictions and we will make no guesses.
Fisher's source for the above radio address is his footnote #2 on page 432. He credits this information as coming from Edward Dean Sullivan's "The Snatch Racket" pages 221 and 222.
Condon's letter with his offer to help mediate the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby appeared in the Bronx Home News on March 8, 1932. Colonel Schwarzkopf's radio address done the next day would then have taken place March 9, 1932. On the evening of March 9, 1932 Condon received his response note from the kidnappers that resulted in Condon going to Hopewell and being accepted as go-between.
I find the timing of all this incredible. Condon offers to help and promises never to reveal who the kidnappers are on March 8th. You have Schwarzkopf giving a public address on March 9th that basically says we will respect Lindbergh's arrangements and try to not interfere. Condon then receives the response note from the kidnappers the evening of March 9th and the extortion goes into full swing from there. For me, all this just goes beyond coincidence.
Are you able to comment on this Michael?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 24, 2016 16:28:31 GMT -5
Are you able to comment on this Michael? On 3-9-32 the Press stated that it was " reported that in a radio speech you made today, you made this statement: "We have every reason to believe that the baby is safe and well." They wanted to know what it was based on. Schwarzkopf's response was: " Statement not made." I've seen this "statement" also attributed to Gov. Moore and Captain Lamb. Regardless, Schwarzkopf denied saying it but I guess Sullivan missed that so he included it. The other thing that has been attributed to Schwarzkopf wasn't said either. Here is what he actually said: " The present condition of Mrs. Lindbergh's condition is one where we cannot interfere with their private affairs." They wanted to know exactly what he meant by that but he was unresponsive to the question answering: " You must realize that strain is terrific and has been throughout the investigation."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2016 19:50:57 GMT -5
Thanks Michael for your comments. It is so hard when dealing with multiple sources about a point of research to know if you are getting a complete and accurate picture of what was said.
Did Col. Schwarzkopf give radio broadcasts about the Lindbergh case everyday?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 25, 2016 1:50:06 GMT -5
Just to put this on topic, I'm not sure Col. Schwartzkopf would have enjoyed Denver beating New England - but I did - nyuck nyuck!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 25, 2016 6:07:43 GMT -5
Did Col. Schwarzkopf give radio broadcasts about the Lindbergh case everyday? Not that I am aware of. I've never heard the broadcast in question either (or seen a transcript of it). Schwarzkopf issued answers to Press Questions, then later abandoned that format and made Press Releases. I know he didn't like doing them at all and felt they took up time that could be better spent. Many times the Press would ask questions concerning the latest "rumor" as if it were true OR sometimes even embellish something in a question in order to try getting a more detailed response. We have to remember that Papers were at "war" with one another and the idea was to sell their copies. Sometimes the information printed was totally bogus, and sometimes it was a real "scoop." Attempting to figure out what was true, and what was not, as coming from the Press is one of the hardest nuts to crack when it comes to this case. But it's important to do so because there's a ton of information to be found from that angle, and sometimes discovering something can't be verified or even wasn't true is valuable information as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2016 18:07:23 GMT -5
I am aware of the question and answer format that was used in the early days of the investigation and the change over to press releases. This whole national radio broadcast thing I never encountered until Fisher's book. Fisher states in Chapter 5 page 63, the day after Dr. Hudson fingerprinted the ladder, that Schwarzkopf was back on the radio doing another nationwide broadcast for help. He doesn't footnote this second claim, so who knows. I just don't think it sounds like something Schwarzkopf would engage in but that is only my opinion.
Checking who Edward Dean Sullivan used as a source for the Schwarzkopf broadcasts would be helpful. The book is out of print and I believed published in 1932 so if there are copies around they might be expensive. I am not inclined to spend the money on a copy if I did find one. If I keep buying books, I will end up living in my car with a trunk full of books and two dogs!!!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 25, 2016 18:43:44 GMT -5
I am aware of the question and answer format that was used in the early days of the investigation and the change over to press releases. This whole national radio broadcast thing I never encountered until Fisher's book. Fisher states in Chapter 5 page 63, the day after Dr. Hudson fingerprinted the ladder, that Schwarzkopf was back on the radio doing another nationwide broadcast for help. He doesn't footnote this second claim, so who knows. I just don't think it sounds like something Schwarzkopf would engage in but that is only my opinion. Checking who Edward Dean Sullivan used as a source for the Schwarzkopf broadcasts would be helpful. The book is out of print and I believed published in 1932 so if there are copies around they might be expensive. I am not inclined to spend the money on a copy if I did find one. If I keep buying books, I will end up living in my car with a truck full of books and two dogs!!! I know that Schwarzkopf did make a couple of radio broadcasts to the public. I also believe Gov. Moore did too. But having reviewed what was attributed to Schwarzkopf compared to what he actually said I could see there was a difference - that's according to Schwarzkopf himself in his reply to the Press. Exactly why there was could be for any number of reasons. Combining statements made from different people, changing up what was actually said, or confusing the source. I know the Press posed the question as coming from his radio broadcast and his reply wasn't to deny such a broadcast only the statement attributed. Below is something that may have actually been the source, however, it's coming from the United Press and it's anyone's guess what their exact source was. Lamb? Moore? Schoeffel? Schwarzkopf himself? Is it completely true? Sullivan was supposed to be a Crime Author. He also wrote a column for the Washington Post. I have the Snatch Racket, and after first reading it many years ago I felt there was some valuable information there. But as I researched the case I could see much of what he's written isn't reliable. That's not to say he's always wrong but there are better sources for whatever actually did happen. There's no footnotes in my copy. Anyway, if you're looking to save money I'd say this would be one book you could afford to skip.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2016 22:49:50 GMT -5
Well, that press message sounds like some of the things mentioned in the radio broadcast I already posted. However Fisher's book has that broadcast happening on March 9. The press message is dated March 8. I am surprised about Gov. Moore's position change. He had spoken out about Lindbergh not having the authority to offer any type of immunity to the kidnappers. Now the Gov. is offering to aid the kidnappers. If true, it goes to show how much control Lindbergh had over this investigation and the people involved in it.
Thanks for posting that!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2016 11:39:22 GMT -5
So I did a little searching around based on that press message you posted Michael and I found the following newspaper article. It is coverage of a press conference that took place March 7th. and made it into the newspaper as a United Press release on March 8th. Gov. Moore is speaking and also Capt. Lamb for the NJSP. It touches on the things in the press release you posted. Gov. Moore was willing to cooperate with Lindbergh as was necessary. What was also interesting when you read this is that Capt. Lamb is saying the NJSP believe the Lindbergh baby is alive and well. A couple of short paragraphs down you have Gov. Moore saying there is no evidence that the child is alive. This is in the same press conference. At the end Gov. Moore is asked about whether there was a ransom note. Apparently even a week after the kidnapping the existence of a ransom note has never been confirmed by any officials. Is that correct? news.google.com/newspapers?id=uM4tAAAAIBAJ&sjid=WowFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5855%2C1048323
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 26, 2016 17:07:02 GMT -5
So I did a little searching around based on that press message you posted Michael and I found the following newspaper article. It is coverage of a press conference that took place March 7th. and made it into the newspaper as a United Press release on March 8th. Gov. Moore is speaking and also Capt. Lamb for the NJSP. It touches on the things in the press release you posted. Gov. Moore was willing to cooperate with Lindbergh as was necessary. What was also interesting when you read this is that Capt. Lamb is saying the NJSP believe the Lindbergh baby is alive and well. A couple of short paragraphs down you have Gov. Moore saying there is no evidence that the child is alive. This is in the same press conference. At the end Gov. Moore is asked about whether there was a ransom note. Apparently even a week after the kidnapping the existence of a ransom note has never been confirmed by any officials. Is that correct? It's important for me to point out that people in various articles had been quoted as saying some things they never said. Lupica is a perfect example of this. However, there were just as many that were quoted exactly what was actually said. It's why it takes so long to properly research this case. I have the answer to this question in my files because I pursued it once some odd years ago. Off the top of my head the NJSP didn't say a note had been found officially and the intent was to keep it a secret. I believe it was Breckenridge who accidentally let it slip but when asked officially the NJSP continued to deny it which frustrated the Press because they wanted the specifics. So they paid Troopers and other LEOs some money and were informed "off the record" until such time it was acknowledged officially. As I remember it took me a while to find out the exact timing of everything but I know I have it all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2016 18:45:47 GMT -5
I agree. Proper research is a must. I am sure you have everything there is to know about this topic. I look forward to reading it in one of your volumes. Thanks for sharing what you could.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 26, 2016 21:20:42 GMT -5
I agree. Proper research is a must. I am sure you have everything there is to know about this topic. I look forward to reading it in one of your volumes. Thanks for sharing what you could. The funny part is the question now might be what's "proper" and what isn't? I try to give advice sometimes based upon what I've learned over the years from trial and error. That in no way implies that I knew what to do from jump-street because I did not. At first I was just ad-libbing my way through things, turning over rocks that had already been turned over etc. But unfortunately that's all part of the process because one thing leads to another. Also, I don't like going from memory because it can be wrong at times. So I searched for a bit tonight and found that the Press specifically credited Breckenridge with having said " that there was a ransom note left in the nursery by the kidnappers" and further indicated that " a paraphrase of the ransom [note] was issued at the office of the Governor" but that Captain Lamb was denying it and wanted Schwarzkopf to clear it up. His reply was " the family and the police have consistently denied the existence of any note." This all takes place on March 7th. If you need me to try to find out when the Police actually conceded the note existed I will, but as of right now I don't have that information in front of me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2016 23:44:55 GMT -5
The funny part is the question now might be what's "proper" and what isn't? I try to give advice sometimes based upon what I've learned over the years from trial and error. That in no way implies that I knew what to do from jump-street because I did not. At first I was just ad-libbing my way through things, turning over rocks that had already been turned over etc. But unfortunately that's all part of the process because one thing leads to another. Also, I don't like going from memory because it can be wrong at times. So I searched for a bit tonight and found that the Press specifically credited Breckenridge with having said " that there was a ransom note left in the nursery by the kidnappers" and further indicated that " a paraphrase of the ransom [note] was issued at the office of the Governor" but that Captain Lamb was denying it and wanted Schwarzkopf to clear it up. His reply was " the family and the police have consistently denied the existence of any note." This all takes place on March 7th. If you need me to try to find out when the Police actually conceded the note existed I will, but as of right now I don't have that information in front of me. How proper do you consider the use of newspaper articles as a research tool? Although I enjoy searching for stories about this case and its events and people, I am concerned with how much in the stories is correct and how much is fluff to make a story interesting and to help sell papers. I see newspapers used as source material for many things written in books about this case. That March 7 press conference must have been a real interesting one. On page 63 of Fisher's book he states that Captain Lamb did deny the existence of a ransom note. According to the New York Daily News coverage (Fisher's source) Captain Lamb also said something incredible. It was that the Lindberghs' public offer of $50,000 to the baby's kidnappers had been made on their own initiative. WOW! That is the first time I have ever heard the ransom explained that way. That is some serious denial if, in fact, Capt. Lamb ever said it. You do not have to find out for me about when the Police conceded the existence of a ransom note. Some time if you happen upon it when you are looking for something else then you could post it. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 27, 2016 17:51:42 GMT -5
How proper do you consider the use of newspaper articles as a research tool? Although I enjoy searching for stories about this case and its events and people, I am concerned with how much in the stories is correct and how much is fluff to make a story interesting and to help sell papers. I see newspapers used as source material for many things written in books about this case. It's absolutely proper. However, it's important to note what you do above when considering them. I'd say they're about 50/50 on the reliability scale so one must always keep that in mind when deciding whether to embrace or reject an article as a source. There's another glaring error made by Sullivan I wanted to mention.... It appears HIS main source was the United Press. There's a story about Lamb being yelled at by Lindbergh for using his private line ( p211) that was first reported by the UP. However, when the other News Agencies asked about it Schoeffel said it was " absolutely untrue." Now of course one could argue Schoeffel could have been lying, however, based on my experience researching this case, you'll have to trust me when I say it was very common for the ranking members of the Police Force to use that private phone line AND there is no other source for this event or anything like it. Conclusion: UP got it wrong, then Sullivan repeated bad information.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2016 0:11:58 GMT -5
It's absolutely proper. However, it's important to note what you do above when considering them. I'd say they're about 50/50 on the reliability scale so one must always keep that in mind when deciding whether to embrace or reject an article as a source. Thanks for the good advice about the use of newspapers. I will keep it in mind when I am considering something they are reporting about this case. I do trust you on it Michael. I read this same event about Capt. Lamb being scolded by Lindbergh for using his phone in Chapter 3 of Fisher's book. Fisher writes it as something that did happen. Fisher's source for this item - Sullivan's book. Bad information keeps getting repeated over and over in books. Thanks to the incredible amount of research you have done on this case, we now know the truth. Two things I have read for the first time are in Chapter 5 of Fisher's book: 1) Page 65 - The day the sleeping suit arrived at Condon's home Fisher says that Breckinridge opened the package and "thought it looked like the one the baby was wearing the night he was kidnapped." WOW! How would Breck know what kind of sleeping suit Charlie had on March 1, 1932 since he wasn't there when Betty and Anne dressed Charlie for bed? Fisher has no footnote for this paragraph. 2) Page 67 - Fisher says that "Dr. Condon had urged Breckinridge to have a list made of the bills' serial numbers." Double WOW!! I thought the recording of the serial numbers was Treasury Agent Irey's idea. Fisher has no footnote for this item either. So, any idea where these revelations might have come from?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 28, 2016 17:44:05 GMT -5
Thanks for the good advice about the use of newspapers. I will keep it in mind when I am considering something they are reporting about this case. That's just my position. You may come to a different determination yourself at some point but it's where I'm at. 1) Page 65 - The day the sleeping suit arrived at Condon's home Fisher says that Breckinridge opened the package and "thought it looked like the one the baby was wearing the night he was kidnapped." WOW! How would Breck know what kind of sleeping suit Charlie had on March 1, 1932 since he wasn't there when Betty and Anne dressed Charlie for bed? Fisher has no footnote for this paragraph. As you know there are a Million sources for what Condon said and did not say. He says different things and contradicts others in almost every source. Regardless, he's very consistent in saying he opened this package then called Breckenridge. However, in Jafsie Tells All! Condon lies about calling Breck first who then comes over and opens it. My guess is this is Fisher's source here which is probably why he didn't footnote it. 2) Page 67 - Fisher says that "Dr. Condon had urged Breckinridge to have a list made of the bills' serial numbers." Double WOW!! I thought the recording of the serial numbers was Treasury Agent Irey's idea. Fisher has no footnote for this item either. This one doesn't ring a bell. In reality though it's bogus regardless what the source is. If he ever did utter those words Condon is lying yet again, and my guess would be it would have come on the heals of removing the 20K which caused the Police to believe he was involved. So by saying he was "urging" the serials to be recorded would have only come from a source after the payment. I'll look around to see if I stumble onto anything but my guess is if it were a "solid" source Fisher would have footnoted it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2016 12:05:08 GMT -5
1) Page 65 - The day the sleeping suit arrived at Condon's home Fisher says that Breckinridge opened the package and "thought it looked like the one the baby was wearing the night he was kidnapped." WOW! How would Breck know what kind of sleeping suit Charlie had on March 1, 1932 since he wasn't there when Betty and Anne dressed Charlie for bed? Fisher has no footnote for this paragraph. As you know there are a Million sources for what Condon said and did not say. He says different things and contradicts others in almost every source. Regardless, he's very consistent in saying he opened this package then called Breckenridge. However, in Jafsie Tells All! Condon lies about calling Breck first who then comes over and opens it. My guess is this is Fisher's source here which is probably why he didn't footnote it. 2) Page 67 - Fisher says that "Dr. Condon had urged Breckinridge to have a list made of the bills' serial numbers." Double WOW!! I thought the recording of the serial numbers was Treasury Agent Irey's idea. Fisher has no footnote for this item either. This one doesn't ring a bell. In reality though it's bogus regardless what the source is. If he ever did utter those words Condon is lying yet again, and my guess would be it would have come on the heals of removing the 20K which caused the Police to believe he was involved. So by saying he was "urging" the serials to be recorded would have only come from a source after the payment. I'll look around to see if I stumble onto anything but my guess is if it were a "solid" source Fisher would have footnoted it. Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me. I checked Jafsie Tells All and it appears that Fisher was paraphrasing from that book and Breck and the sleeping suit. The claim about Condon suggesting the recording of the serial numbers is not in the Jafsie Tells All book. Perhaps it is from one of Condon's liberty articles. I have not read them all yet.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on May 10, 2017 12:11:44 GMT -5
It's why the testimony there contradicted many of the Reports. Yet, we see people point to the testimony as proof the original reports were not correct despite there being no agenda at the time they were written, when clearly there was one at trial. This is reminiscent of the Warren Commission Report contradiction of facts in the JFK assassination - making the official record offered to the masses reflect the desired outcome.
The current catchphrase "alternative facts" aptly describes both situations...
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 11, 2017 2:36:10 GMT -5
Right Scathma!
Most of the information we're now subject to regarding TLC is just on and on gabbing and doesn't really mean anything. The case was decided in 1935 and the only thing of interest to come along since then is about rail 16 which explains how Hauptmann came to use that particular board.
In Bugliosi's big book about Kennedy towards the end there's a couple of paragraph statement about why big true crime cases (he's thinking mainly about JFK) get hooked with conspiracy conclusions. Works for Lindbergh and several others I can think of as well.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,654
|
Post by Joe on May 11, 2017 8:08:23 GMT -5
Agreed Jack, that there's not much new under the sun which significantly shapes the end result. One exception would be the demolition of the Fisch Story. Hauptmann claimed to have pulled the soaking wet shoebox down from his closet and dried the bills after spreading them out in a basket in his garage. The only problem with that explanation was that many of the bills retrieved before August of 1934, the date of his supposed "shoebox discovery," were originally passed in the same order in which they were assembled for the ransom payment. And these passed bills were also assembled close to the grouping found in Hauptmann's garage. So what would be the odds that whoever was passing them would then put them back in the same order after they were dried out? Hmmmm.. The information about the order of recovered bills can be found in the FBI Summary - Part 1, but it's interesting that Wilentz never confronted Hauptmann with that fact and drove it to a conclusion at trial. That would have ended things right then and there. I believe it was researcher Robert Purdy who furthered that connection to the point of modern day discovery. As an aside, I'd also call the discovery of the 3 oz. ether vial in Hauptmann's garage and the Huddleson Report as items of much interest which help to further our understanding beyond what was known back then.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on May 11, 2017 8:24:07 GMT -5
Right Scathma! Most of the information we're now subject to regarding TLC is just on and on gabbing and doesn't really mean anything. The percentage of Americans that believed the Warren Commission Report dropped steadily from it's release until by the mid-Seventies, the majority of people believed there was a conspiracy and that Oswald did not act alone... some might argue that the "on and on gabbing" in that case was reflected in this shift of public opinion.
The existence of this board and the numerous books on the LKC reflect the same criticisms that the official explanation of the event is not without suspicion of some type of alternative theory, cover-up or conspiracy. Perhaps in time, public opinion will evolve on this case, as well.
One explanation of why conspiracy theories develop is the notion that people cannot accept that a relative nobody (Oswald/Hauptmann) can damage an icon (Kennedy/Lindbergh) and, as a result, "hurt" the general public indirectly. Therefore, there must have been a "larger power" behind the act with a hidden ulterior motive that the government is complicit in covering up.
In my opinion, both events have what appear to be major issues with the credibility of the official record. I don't have to be a "revisionist" (to use Fisher's term) to want to examine these discrepancies - I am fully aware that I cannot change the past but I would like to understand why these discrepancies were identified and how they might be explained.
To that end, I find "on and on gabbing" to be part of the learning process and therefore meaningful in it's own right...
|
|
geld
Trooper
Posts: 43
|
Post by geld on May 11, 2017 17:59:09 GMT -5
This all started with the LINCOLN assassination. Where there reality was an conspiracy.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 11, 2017 22:39:25 GMT -5
Well, it keeps discussions interesting, but look what happens when one of these notions is looked at by someone who really knows what they're talking about - see Joe's repost of Bookrefuge's earlier post that is now in the euthanasia column. That means lots of previous words about it don't really mean much.
I brought up that ether find earlier and no one seemed interested. To me it looked like he might be ready to do another one - needed money to head for Germany. Was a killer find anyway.
Weren't the bills analyzed and found to have the same substances on them as the remnant water in the jug under the garage? He was adamant in denying the bills were there, probably because it too would have made the Fisch Story more unlikely. Nothing in LKC is particularly simple because he was trying not to get caught and just about didn't.
I have a problem with the note handwriting, but mostly it fits Richard. He even said to Anna that it looked like his writing. Why would somebody forge his style of handwriting in the ransom notes, and not turn him in as a part of the crime? They could anonymously say they saw someone building a ladder just like the one in the newspaper in his garage, and on and on.
I suppose they could have used the handwriting style as a sort of fail-safe if they needed for BRH to get caught - it could just be another clue against him. Again though, this kind of thinking is really more of a long shot than his doing it alone. Many people would have to be involved (Perrone above also?) and that wouldn't have worked.
That balance is the main reason stated by Bugliosi in the quote he used - about why conspiracy.
Note in the Lincoln Conspiracy - they hung 'em and shot 'em quick!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 12, 2017 6:45:12 GMT -5
Well, it keeps discussions interesting, but look what happens when one of these notions is looked at by someone who really knows what they're talking about - see Joe's repost of Bookrefuge's earlier post that is now in the euthanasia column. That means lots of previous words about it don't really mean much. According to Bookrefuge. It's a counterargument made by someone who doesn't like the idea. So look at his points carefully. Can they be countered too? If you decide he's rock solid right, for example his personal diagnosis of the hair condition, then your conclusion is the correct one for you. But last I checked, he's not a Doctor and neither am I, so how in the hell can anyone outside of a professional make that determination? The answer is they cannot. The bottom line was CJr wasn't healthy. That Lindbergh was a Eugenicist who believed he was of superior stock. That IF he's involved then the logical theory is the two are connected. Would the family know more then we do about his health? Of course. Do we know everything? Not by a long shot. I brought up that ether find earlier and no one seemed interested. To me it looked like he might be ready to do another one - needed money to head for Germany. Was a killer find anyway. I'm all ears why someone with $14,600 of ransom needs to commit "another" kidnapping so he can fund a trip costing a couple hundred dollars to Germany. A place where laundering the ransom would have been a much easier task then it was here. And why? Because they found ether? You see how the logic doesn't add up? But a man who believed he was Superior because of his DNA wouldn't mind raising a sickly, weak, or "different" name-sake? He should have landed the plane. In fact, she should have never gotten into it. But for Lindbergh, being strong was more important then anything else. Weren't the bills analyzed and found to have the same substances on them as the remnant water in the jug under the garage? He was adamant in denying the bills were there, probably because it too would have made the Fisch Story more unlikely. Nothing in LKC is particularly simple because he was trying not to get caught and just about didn't. There are conflicting reports as to whether or not the J. J. Faulkner lot smelled moldy. If it did then it was obviously wet at one point. I have a problem with the note handwriting, but mostly it fits Richard. He even said to Anna that it looked like his writing. Why would somebody forge his style of handwriting in the ransom notes, and not turn him in as a part of the crime? They could anonymously say they saw someone building a ladder just like the one in the newspaper in his garage, and on and on. The handwriting is similar. I've seen some handwriting at the Archives where the "Pros" said that was similar too but this was before Hauptmann. Did Hauptmann write those Ransom Notes? For me it's hard to say conclusively but knowing he's involved seems to be the deciding factor right? Yet, if others are involved, especially from Germany, then it could have been someone else. The Pros all said that someone disguising their handwriting always screws up because they cannot remember that disguise from one writing to the next. But whoever wrote these notes remembered. No one ever addresses this. That balance is the main reason stated by Bugliosi in the quote he used - about why conspiracy. Conspiracies are extremely common. Two or more people deciding to commit a crime is a conspiracy. In this case EVERYONE knew there was more then one person involved but since Hauptmann wasn't talking AND they wanted the Death Penalty they came up with the Common Law Burglary and Lone-Wolf theory in order to make that happen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2017 10:20:15 GMT -5
I brought up that ether find earlier and no one seemed interested. To me it looked like he might be ready to do another one - needed money to head for Germany. Was a killer find anyway. I did take an interest in what you speculate in your post. My position at the time was that the ether could have belonged to Fisch. Hauptmann had stored the personal items Fisch gave to him in the garage. Fisch was sick with TB. He could have been using it to help him get to sleep. Like Michael said in his post. Hauptmann had money in the bank. He didn't need to do another kidnapping for funds to return to Germany. He had the financial means already. Finding the ether in the garage proved nothing. This find never made it into the courtroom. Just another thing that we get to speculate on!
|
|