|
Post by Michael on Jul 22, 2016 5:40:28 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2016 22:58:36 GMT -5
Nice article, Michael. I have always considered Dr. Hudson to be one of the people who became involved because he really wanted to help solve the kidnapping. I never saw him as having an agenda, other than to offer his fingerprinting method as a tool to assist with solving the crime. He wasn't looking to "get famous" and as Dr. Hudson's letter to Schwarzkopf relates in this article, he would rather his connection be kept secret.
I believe that he thought Hauptmann was innocent because his fingerprints were not found in the nursery or on the ransom notes and most importantly, not on the ladder, specifically, in areas where only the builder would have touched. I believe Dr. Hudson also worked with Gov. Hoffman on the reinvestigation effort. Dr. Hudson was one of the good guys in this case.
Thanks for linking that story.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 23, 2016 7:06:05 GMT -5
I believe that he thought Hauptmann was innocent because his fingerprints were not found in the nursery or on the ransom notes and most importantly, not on the ladder, specifically, in areas where only the builder would have touched. I believe Dr. Hudson also worked with Gov. Hoffman on the reinvestigation effort. Dr. Hudson was one of the good guys in this case. Thanks for linking that story. Many years ago I signed up for something called "Google Notify" which automatically sends me the links to any related articles. It's a tool that I should have mentioned earlier because I am sure anyone visiting this Board would be interested in setting up. According to Hudson's daughter Margaret, he believed Hauptmann either wasn't guilty of the kidnapping, " or, certainly, did not believe that he was the sole kidnapper -- a fact in which many, many others concurred." No truer statement could be made. In all likelihood - EVERY person involved with this case did not believe he was a Lone-Wolf. In fact, I recently received an email concerning Leibowitz having quit the case because he believed Hauptmann was guilty. Yes, that is true, he believed he was involved and not being truthful about what he knew. But it's important to also point out he was quoted as saying he wouldn't believe " in a thousand years" that Hauptmann acted alone. It's how they all felt. Those involved with the case had to stick to the Lone-Wolf position because they painted themselves into a corner in order to solidify a conviction - so publicly they had no choice but to say that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2016 20:31:09 GMT -5
Many years ago I signed up for something called "Google Notify" which automatically sends me the links to any related articles. It's a tool that I should have mentioned earlier because I am sure anyone visiting this Board would be interested in setting up. Thanks for making me aware of this. I will certainly want to do this. So are you saying that Wilentz, privately, believed Hauptmann had accomplices but to get a murder conviction in this case he decided to go with the Lone Wolf position? If Wilentz could have connected an additional person to this crime, along with Hauptmann, do you think he would have handled this case differently? I know they did investigate Isidor Fisch. Was it done to try to link him to the kidnapping or was it done to prevent any possible evidence of a conspiracy being revealed?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 24, 2016 6:41:00 GMT -5
So are you saying that Wilentz, privately, believed Hauptmann had accomplices but to get a murder conviction in this case he decided to go with the Lone Wolf position? If Wilentz could have connected an additional person to this crime, along with Hauptmann, do you think he would have handled this case differently? I know they did investigate Isidor Fisch. Was it done to try to link him to the kidnapping or was it done to prevent any possible evidence of a conspiracy being revealed? Wilentz is probably the (1) person I have little to point to in that regard excepting that he was positive Hauptmann's personality would never let him admit involvement. However, there is no doubt in my mind that he believed it as well. As an example, Peacock wrote a book (unpublished) titled " Guilty As Hell" and even he told Ellis Parker that others were involved. So the "Lone-Wolf" position was a necessary evil in order to get a Murder One conviction. If, for example, the Jury began mulling over the belief others were involved they might have questioned Hauptmann's role. This would have muddied the waters, and even in his closing Wilentz seemed to be worried about that very issue. Look, the Prosecution did everything in it's power to "cheat." They were eavesdropping on Hauptmann, planting moles in the Defense, hiring a Defense Attorney away to their team, etc. etc. There's even evidence that whatever the Jury said, as heard by the Constables, would make it's way back to him so that he could make the necessary adjustments. Now does anyone actually believe this "new" book will address this stuff? No amount of spin or bluster can justify the illegal behavior of that Prosecution. Wilentz should have been dis-barred for what he did.
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Jul 24, 2016 12:41:46 GMT -5
So are you saying that Wilentz, privately, believed Hauptmann had accomplices but to get a murder conviction in this case he decided to go with the Lone Wolf position? If Wilentz could have connected an additional person to this crime, along with Hauptmann, do you think he would have handled this case differently? I know they did investigate Isidor Fisch. Was it done to try to link him to the kidnapping or was it done to prevent any possible evidence of a conspiracy being revealed? Wilentz is probably the (1) person I have little to point to in that regard excepting that he was positive Hauptmann's personality would never let him admit involvement. However, there is no doubt in my mind that he believed it as well. As an example, Peacock wrote a book (unpublished) titled " Guilty As Hell" and even he told Ellis Parker that others were involved. So the "Lone-Wolf" position was a necessary evil in order to get a Murder One conviction. If, for example, the Jury began mulling over the belief others were involved they might have questioned Hauptmann's role. This would have muddied the waters, and even in his closing Wilentz seemed to be worried about that very issue. Look, the Prosecution did everything in it's power to "cheat." They were eavesdropping on Hauptmann, planting moles in the Defense, hiring a Defense Attorney away to their team, etc. etc. There's even evidence that whatever the Jury said, as heard by the Constables, would make it's way back to him so that he could make the necessary adjustments. Now does anyone actually believe this "new" book will address this stuff? No amount of spin or bluster can justify the illegal behavior of that Prosecution. Wilentz should have been dis-barred for what he did. I agree - this will be a real litmus test for the forthcoming trial book. Not enough authors have recognized that Wilentz contravened fundamental principles of ethical professional conduct and that he could not have been unaware that he was doing so.
BTW, I think you are right about the pricing - from the bio for the authors it seems like they are teaching law courses, which will no doubt include the book as required or recommended reading. On the plus side, perhaps that means after the school year is done, there will be a lot of cheap copies available for resale to those interested.
|
|
|
Post by sailmd on Jan 2, 2018 12:35:39 GMT -5
I appreciate the kind thoughts about Dr. Hudson, my grandfather. We (my brother and I) never knew anything about his involvement until around 1980 when a person who believed them self to be the Lindbergh baby (a whole other story) called our mother asking if she had a copy of the Lindbergh baby's finger prints (which she didn't). Why she hadn’t told us about such an event in her life is a bit of a mystery (my brother and I were in our 20’s by this time), except to say that I believe she thought it had an extremely negative impact on her father---both personally and professionally. She recalls getting telephone calls with death threats, and afterwards he was almost black-listed around Manhattan Society. Not long after Hauptmann was executed in April 1936, my grandfather left New York altogether and moved to California. I don’t believe he practiced medicine there anymore, and according to his college 25th anniversary yearbook (Harvard ’13), he states he was working as a consultant to the Los Angeles Police Department. He died just 5 years later at the age of 55, having been in excellent health up until that time. He talks, in that 1938 yearbook, about the injustice of the entire investigation and the trial itself, about his feelings that Gov. Hoffman sacrificed his political career “committing political suicide”, in trying to extend the execution date to see if evidence could be reintroduced, all obviously to no avail. My grandfather mentions that even though he was still a consultant with the New York to Police Department, and had been given assurances of providing more laboratory space for increasing his research on finger printing and criminology, he could tell right away that he was beginning to get the “familiar run around”, which was the final reason he closed his practice and left his native New York for California.
So for our mom, as proud of her father that she was, it was an extremely painful experience for her to live through (at the time being 15-17 years old), seeing firsthand the terrible damage it was reeking on my grandfather.
I recently had the occasion to briefly visit Flemington New Jersey, where---for the first time in my life---I viewed the Hunterdon County Courthouse. It was quite an overwhelming feeling standing outside this huge facade that I had seen so many times in grainy black-and-white pictures, and even grainier black-and-white news reals. I went inside, and walking into the courtroom itself was just a stunning experience: to see the witness stand where the crux of the case was battled out; where my grandfather sat with tremendous courage to testify, alone for the defense, in the name of what he knew was true justice; before a world audience where---as he put it in his yearbook “..angels fear to tread”.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Jan 11, 2018 19:58:48 GMT -5
Thank you for posting this again, Michael. One nail hole, huh? Who was the LE that commandeered the Hauptmann apartment after the arrest? Was it Lewis Bornmann?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 13, 2018 8:50:41 GMT -5
Thank you for posting this again, Michael. One nail hole, huh? Who was the LE that commandeered the Hauptmann apartment after the arrest? Was it Lewis Bornmann? Yes, Bornmann took over the apartment for a while, and the Defense was denied access. I mean there were games being played where Wilentz gave them the "go-ahead" but once Fisher drove up to NY the Troopers wouldn't let him in. Later, during the Hoffman Investigation, the Defense and his investigators rented the apartment and even cut away parts of the joists where Rail 16 had been nailed. FYI: I don't think that one nail hole observation was correct. Nothing I have ever found supports it. It was either an innocent mistake or he did that to counter the evidence.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Jan 14, 2018 19:21:16 GMT -5
Thank you for posting this again, Michael. One nail hole, huh? Who was the LE that commandeered the Hauptmann apartment after the arrest? Was it Lewis Bornmann? Yes, Bornmann took over the apartment for a while, and the Defense was denied access. I mean there were games being played where Wilentz gave them the "go-ahead" but once Fisher drove up to NY the Troopers wouldn't let him in. Later, during the Hoffman Investigation, the Defense and his investigators rented the apartment and even cut away parts of the joists where Rail 16 had been nailed. FYI: I don't think that one nail hole observation was correct. Nothing I have ever found supports it. It was either an innocent mistake or he did that to counter the evidence. I don't doubt that there were four holes when the ladder made it to court, or that Rail 16 actually came from that portion of the attic. I do question when the board made it out of the attic and became part of the ladder. While searching for more ransom money in the attic and tearing the plaster off the walls downstairs, I find it a stretch that no one noted the missing board. That board placed Hauptmann in Hopewell I'm still very suspicious. Can hardly wait for the new book and all of the information on Condon.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 24, 2020 9:41:42 GMT -5
I've come into some new information (!!!) again. Found that Dr. Hudson actually made multiple visits into Hauptmann's attic. I wrote about the visit with Hicks in January (V3 page 346). Others include one with Hoffman, Dillon and Ho-age on March 21st, and another trip with Dillon and Ho-age again on the 23rd. This was prior to the big "meeting" which occurred up there on March 26th (Hudson wasn't at that one). My guess is that Dr. Hudson had quite a collection of personal notes concerning his involvement. His grandson (see post above) doesn't appear to have them so I can only hope they still exist "somewhere" so that one day we might be able to consider his specific thoughts and findings. I can't imagine how much we'd learn if that happened.... I am reading that he had a specific theory about the floor as it related to the nail holes in the joists. Unfortunately, there's quite a bit of reference made to his theory but nothing about what it actually was! Since Dr. Hudson met with Lloyd Fisher several times prior, my guess is his theory was what the Court of Pardons presentation made by Pope was all about although he doesn't get any credit for it (e.g. no rust and fibers "stringy" indicating nails weren't in those holes for a long period of time). See V3 pages 383-4 for reference. Pope's recollection here is not about the January 11th hearing. They met again on March 30th and this specific presentation occurred then.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 29, 2020 9:45:00 GMT -5
Since the thread is based on Hudson, I probably shouldn't post what I'm about to here but I'm afraid what's above will get lost if I don't. Among the new Ho-age material is proof that this man did a LOT more work on this case than I had ever imagined. He went through all of the NJSP reports, had possession of Hoffman Collection material which he referenced (some I've never seen and obviously do not currently reside at the NJSP Archives). He also had some of the FBI material which included Special Agent Larimer's interview with Lindbergh included in his report. He made evaluations and observations, in typed reports, letters, memos, and manuscripts that must have taken years to put together. He also made an observation concerning the points made by Lindbergh concerning proof of identification of his son written here: Hair analysis Measurements of teeth Garments worn
X NOT A THING ABOUT THE CROSSED TOES. I remember reading about someone raising this point before. I'm a little hazy on this as I sit here. Was it in a book? I cannot remember. I do seem to recall that it was on Ronelle's message board way back in the early 2000s though. Maybe Sue or Joe remembers? Or anyone else possibly? Regardless, it is an interesting point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2020 12:21:41 GMT -5
X NOT A THING ABOUT THE CROSSED TOES.I remember reading about someone raising this point before. I'm a little hazy on this as I sit here. Was it in a book? I cannot remember. I do seem to recall that it was on Ronelle's message board way back in the early 2000s though. Maybe Sue or Joe remembers? Or anyone else possibly? Regardless, it is an interesting point. (Michael) I can't speak to what might have been on Ronelle's message board at any particular time since I did not follow that board regularly. I can say that I brought up the "NOT A THING ABOUT THE CROSSED TOES" on this board a while back. It was in relation to Walter S. Ross's book on Lindbergh, The Last Hero. Ross published it in 1964 originally. Lindbergh took exception to various points in Ross's book and submitted a list of things he felt should be changed. One of those things was about the overlapping toes. Here is what Ross published in the 1964 edition that Lindbergh did not agree with: Chapter 16 - Deaths in the Family - Page 207, The scene is at the Morgue in Trenton went Lindbergh went to identify the remains as his son. "Lindbergh stared at the body. His face flushed. He bent over, looked into the mouth, and counted the teeth. He looked at the foot with the overlapping toes."Ross's book would be republished years later with some of the changes. Here is the change Lindbergh wanted made about the morgue scene. This is the same chapter and same page number in the revised book but with the toe change Lindbergh wanted made: "Lindbergh stared at the body. His face flushed. He bent over, looked into the mouth, and counted the teeth. He looked at the foot with the turned-in toes."Lindbergh wanted overlapping toes dropped and reworded as turned-in toes. I don't know if this is what you had in mind but its the only thing I could come up with! I look forward to learning what others may remember about the crossed toes.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 29, 2020 12:46:18 GMT -5
You are probably right Amy. Sorry for forgetting your post! It's also possible others brought it up too but since yours was the most recent it must be what I had in mind. One of the things I referred to in my earlier post was what Lindbergh told Special Agent Larimer: Colonel Lindbergh said that there was no question as to the identification of the body found, inasmuch as an analysis of hair known to be that of the child and that found on the dead body established the identity, together with measurements and teeth condition, as well as a garment in which the child was garbed. Later the sleeping suit in which the child was dressed at the time of the kidnapping was mailed to Condon at his residence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2020 13:02:54 GMT -5
You are probably right Amy. Sorry for forgetting your post! It's also possible others brought it up too but since yours was the most recent it must be what I had in mind. One of the things I referred to in my earlier post was what Lindbergh told Special Agent Larimer: Colonel Lindbergh said that there was no question as to the identification of the body found, inasmuch as an analysis of hair known to be that of the child and that found on the dead body established the identity, together with measurements and teeth condition, as well as a garment in which the child was garbed. Later the sleeping suit in which the child was dressed at the time of the kidnapping was mailed to Condon at his residence. This is very interesting. Lindbergh is not mentioning the overlapping toes to Agent Larimer as a point of identification. Do you think this is because CAL did not want to speak about Charlie's toes with anyone? I know that the police had knowledge of certain identifying features that Charlie had in order to help them identify any child that was checked or presented as being Charlie. They must have known about the toe issue, right?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 29, 2020 13:37:55 GMT -5
This is very interesting. Lindbergh is not mentioning the overlapping toes to Agent Larimer as a point of identification. Do you think this is because CAL did not want to speak about Charlie's toes with anyone? I know that the police had knowledge of certain identifying features that Charlie had in order to help them identify any child that was checked or presented as being Charlie. They must have known about the toe issue, right? It seems to me that Lindbergh isn't going out of his way to point out a defect as an identifying feature. In fact he appears to be avoiding it. His target for identification in the morgue was the teeth. Police definitely knew about the toes for sure. The whole thing is odd. It seems to imply that Lindbergh was very familiar with his son's teeth in the first place - so much so that he'd be able to identify him apart from the teeth of another child of similar age.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Mar 29, 2020 17:16:49 GMT -5
Since the thread is based on Hudson, I probably shouldn't post what I'm about to here but I'm afraid what's above will get lost if I don't. Among the new Ho-age material is proof that this man did a LOT more work on this case than I had ever imagined. He went through all of the NJSP reports, had possession of Hoffman Collection material which he referenced (some I've never seen and obviously do not currently reside at the NJSP Archives). He also had some of the FBI material which included Special Agent Larimer's interview with Lindbergh included in his report. He made evaluations and observations, in typed reports, letters, memos, and manuscripts that must have taken years to put together. He also made an observation concerning the points made by Lindbergh concerning proof of identification of his son written here: Hair analysis Measurements of teeth Garments worn
X NOT A THING ABOUT THE CROSSED TOES. I remember reading about someone raising this point before. I'm a little hazy on this as I sit here. Was it in a book? I cannot remember. I do seem to recall that it was on Ronelle's message board way back in the early 2000s though. Maybe Sue or Joe remembers? Or anyone else possibly? Regardless, it is an interesting point. I don't recall anything about Dr. Hudson discussing points of identification for the child, but I well could have missed the thread back in the day. He was certainly on the forefront of the introduction of silver nitrate fingerprint detection, at least as it applied to this case. His successes here certainly seemed to make him much more vocal about his participation in the case and his findings, despite him initially trying to downplay his involvement. His adamant claim that Rail 16 had only one cut nail hole for example, only to be proven incorrect through the Springfield photos, I think shows he may have been a bit overwhelmed by being thrust into a spotlight he wasn't prepared for. After all this time and with everything we know, I don't really understand the claim by some that the corpse found on in Mount Rose was not the child.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 29, 2020 18:05:23 GMT -5
I was asking whether or not you remembered a discussion about this having occurred on Ronelle’s board over 15 or so years ago. It has nothing to do with Dr. Hudson. Sorry about the confusion, I was worried about that when I posted this here. Although I do believe there is more to be discovered about his involvement in this case once Hoffman got involved. As to his recollection concerning the one nail hole in Rail 16.... He either actually remembered it that way OR tried to level the playing field knowing the State was hiding exculpatory evidence, manufacturing evidence, using perjured testimony, and engaging in other dirty tricks. There’s no doubt in my mind what Kelly said Keyes reported to Hoffman was true. (See V3 page 327 concerning what Mary McGill was told and Mrs. Hudson overheard).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2020 9:42:23 GMT -5
[It seems to me that Lindbergh isn't going out of his way to point out a defect as an identifying feature. In fact he appears to be avoiding it. His target for identification in the morgue was the teeth. Police definitely knew about the toes for sure. The whole thing is odd. It seems to imply that Lindbergh was very familiar with his son's teeth in the first place - so much so that he'd be able to identify him apart from the teeth of another child of similar age. I agree that for CAL the most important point of identification was the oral condition of the corpse and what it would reveal to him as evidence that the body was that of his son. Dental issues arise with rickets and other conditions that impact healthy bone formation. Charlie's diet, as Anne published it in newspapers, was mostly soft foods that would require minimal chewing activity by the consuming child. Perhaps there had been some type of dental procedure that had been done not long before the kidnapping. Could Lindbergh's aggressive examination of Charlie been done in order to check for the evidence of it? Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Mar 30, 2020 16:23:35 GMT -5
[It seems to me that Lindbergh isn't going out of his way to point out a defect as an identifying feature. In fact he appears to be avoiding it. His target for identification in the morgue was the teeth. Police definitely knew about the toes for sure. The whole thing is odd. It seems to imply that Lindbergh was very familiar with his son's teeth in the first place - so much so that he'd be able to identify him apart from the teeth of another child of similar age. I agree that for CAL the most important point of identification was the oral condition of the corpse and what it would reveal to him as evidence that the body was that of his son. Dental issues arise with rickets and other conditions that impact healthy bone formation. Charlie's diet, as Anne published it in newspapers, was mostly soft foods that would require minimal chewing activity by the consuming child. Perhaps there had been some type of dental procedure that had been done not long before the kidnapping. Could Lindbergh's aggressive examination of Charlie been done in order to check for the evidence of it? Just a thought. Wasn't there an unusual teeth abnormality? I remember Dr. Gardner commenting on it in his most recent book.
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Mar 30, 2020 19:09:02 GMT -5
Yes, Charlie's canine teeth were growing toward his incisors.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2020 19:44:53 GMT -5
Wasn't there an unusual teeth abnormality? I remember Dr. Gardner commenting on it in his most recent book. As was mentioned by the guest poster, Dr. Gardner did mention in his most recent book what Dr. Mitchell noted about the teeth during the autopsy. Charlie's teeth were revealing abnormal development. The two lower canine teeth were turned towards the incisors next to them and these canine teeth were below the line of the other teeth. There was also a problem with the upper incisors. Although being well formed they do not protrude. This type of abnormal tooth development is consistent with rickets and other conditions that affect bone health. Lindbergh could have been looking for these issues when he examined the teeth of the corpse to be sure it was his son.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2020 20:13:04 GMT -5
Just to add to the above, when Betty Gow went to the morgue to ID the corpse as Charlie, she also used the teeth as a point of identification. The police report notes an unusual condition of some of the teeth. imgur.com/OwFZ6Wx
|
|