Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,655
|
Post by Joe on Jun 27, 2017 15:42:39 GMT -5
Kate, and if only LE had been fortunate enough to know then, all that we know now about this case, there would be no real need for us to do what we're doing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2017 16:23:17 GMT -5
Didn't Fisch initial try to leave the box with someone else? Wasn't one of the Hauptmann's friends intimidated while on the witness stand to prevent I'm from saying he saw Fisch with the box? There were a couple of witnesses called by Reilly who claimed Fisch came to them with a box. One was Sam Streppone who had a repair shop in the Bronx and he claimed that in Mary of 1932 Fisch brought his radio in to his shop to have it fixed and also left a shoebox there with the radio. Fisch came back about 6 hours later to pick up the radio and also took the shoebox with him. Streppone testified that he never looked into the box to see what was inside. The other witness was Bertha Hoff. She claimed during either October or November 1933 a male friend of hers came by her apartment and he had Fisch with him. Fisch wanted to leave some bundles with her. As soon as Reilly asked Mrs. Hoff to describe these bundles, Wilentz objected to Mrs. Hoff answering because he felt what she had to say was not material to this case. Wilentz and Reilly bantered back and forth and Judge Trenchard ended up sustaining Wilentz's objection and Mrs. Hoff left the witness stand. Before Mrs. Hoff made her court appearance she had talked to the press and she told them that Fisch, who was a stranger to her, wanted to leave at her apartment two suitcases and two small packages. She never was able to offer this in court.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2017 16:26:09 GMT -5
By the way, if you'd like to get a better idea of Hoage's narrow sense of objectivity and apparent zest for public applause, have a read of his "The Story of Doctor John F. Condon - Egoist Extraordinary." It's quite illuminating. Sounds like it would be interesting. Is it a book that Leon Hoage wrote?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jun 27, 2017 16:43:15 GMT -5
Leon Hoage would not have had access to the depth of information and detail we have today and based on his overall observations, I take his theory of an inside job very lightly. Not to take anything away from Ellis Parker who I'm sure could have solved this case very quickly had he been the lead investigator, but he was essentially in the same boat as Hoage and came up with some very incorrect conclusions. By the way, if you'd like to get a better idea of Hoage's narrow sense of objectivity and apparent zest for public applause, have a read of his "The Story of Doctor John F. Condon - Egoist Extraordinary." It's quite illuminating. The kidnappers did not want people to know they came from the driveway? Why, what was the big secret here? Based on the fact there were no documented approaching footprints to the area under the window through what everyone else here seems to believe was 100%-uniformly-homogenous and footprint-producing-mucky mud, wouldn't this be a pretty logical conclusion for anyone? Hoage's background was as insurance fraud investigator and had access to Hoffman's files. I'm sure he also interviewed living witnesses along the way. He, imho rightfully, saw the crime scene as a staged scene where the established narrative couldn't have been borne out as it was told. He did have his issues but as a fresh, objective investigator who had a history of looking into crimes which were not as they appeared, his opinion is at least worth factoring in. I think Michael has some thoughts on him?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 27, 2017 19:08:39 GMT -5
I hope you don't mind me tossing my two cents around on this point. I have often thought about this ever since you mentioned it to me a few years ago. Having extended some of my knowledge and understanding about Hauptmann since that time, I do have a few ideas as to why he might have stayed where he was. One of my favorite channels is ID Discovery. While "Disappeared" can be addicting "Fear Thy Neighbor" is one I "hate" that I like to watch. I think having trouble with a neighbor can be one of the worst experiences out there. Next, having a bad Landlord would be equally as bad. But having both simultaneously? Well, I'd expect coming into 50K frees them from that burden. Also, he's on Wall Street trying to make money. But the Kidnapping supposedly paid off much more than he could make trading stock any time in the near future. There's simply no need to trade because he's now got the money he's been trying to make by trading. Spending ransom in NYC is not safe and he knows that. So I look at the situation and determine there's got to be more going on. 5) I think that if he was partnered with someone in acquiring the ransom money then that could have entered into his staying put also. Perhaps he was not free to spend the money totally as he pleased. I like this one. When viewed from the perspective of a staged kidnapping, to cover the intentional removal of the baby, the need to rationalize Lindbergh's various idiosyncrasies and conflicting actions is unnecessary. One of the things I've learned from researching this case is that Lindbergh was all about narrative. He never wanted to be perceived as "weak." So when I read that he grabbed a gun and ran outside to search it sure sounds brave. The other thing about him is he wanted to be perceived as having a superior intellect, and so the declaration that no one was to touch the note covers that too. I mean, he's smarter than the Cops if he's got to tell them that. Yet he turns to his wife and says "Anne, they've stolen our baby". This is maybe the most famous line, the best known snatch of "dialogue" from the LKC. Before winding this up it's worth analyzing briefly the words that were spoken. To my (ex-) dramatist's eye it reads like a line from a play, and a good line, too; and it's better than what would sound more logical and is usually said in real life: "the baby's missing!", "Charlie's gone!", "The crib is empty!". And of course the " Anne, they've stolen our baby" I agree that it is something that sure sounds rehearsed. The problem is that when stories are rehearsed things are forgotten or accidentally omitted. This is where the contradictions come into play - and there's no other explanation. The Wahgoosh didn't bark is a perfect example. It's bad enough he didn't, but what's worse is Lindbergh saying he wouldn't have - when everyone else said he absolutely would. It cannot be reconciled. What if the baby CAL, jr. met his death from a fall through the window, down the stairway or some other way that was no fault of anyone? Hi Julie - glad to see you posting. This one caught my eye because someone mailed this letter to Lloyd Fisher: Hoage's background was as insurance fraud investigator and had access to Hoffman's files. I'm sure he also interviewed living witnesses along the way. He, imho rightfully, saw the crime scene as a staged scene where the established narrative couldn't have been borne out as it was told. He did have his issues but as a fresh, objective investigator who had a history of looking into crimes which were not as they appeared, his opinion is at least worth factoring in. I think Michael has some thoughts on him? One of the things Jim Fisher did was malign any investigator for Hoffman, while putting those working for the State on a pedestal. Problem is that many who worked for Hoffman worked for the State prior. So it's a contradiction of the worst kind. Ho-age had complete access to Hoffman's files and then to the NJSP Reports once Kimberling took over. I am sure there were things he didn't see, especially once he moved to Los Angeles, but there was nothing off limits to him if he truly wanted it. There's some reports he wrote that I've never seen and I am quite sure there's some new insights there. The guy was smart, and he sincerely believe the evidence he reviewed clearly indicated inside job. And we all know he wasn't alone in holding this position.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jun 27, 2017 20:06:01 GMT -5
What does the note to L. Fisher say?
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jun 27, 2017 21:20:20 GMT -5
My guess would be that a N.J. State Trooper in 1932 earned not much more than $1300 a year. It would take him more than a 30 year career to earn $50, 000 and of course it would have mostly been spent on raising a family. He would never have $50, 000 cash in his hands. That amount of money in 1932 would not have even been in the thought processes of any blue collar worker. I would certainly suspect that there were many men in 1932 who would have perpetrated a kidnapping to get $50, 000 in their hands. Possibly even a murder. You are absolutely right that this was a large amount and your estimate for State Trooper pay is something I agree with. So it appears you don't believe this was a "revenge" type of crime which I would agree with you also. An example of the "revenge" theory, I've read somewhere, being Hauptmann was upset that the Red Barron was shot down or something silly like that. Or at least I believe it's silly. I think when it comes to the sum of 50K the amount itself is suspicious because Highfields cost 50K and the Constance Extortion price tag was 50K. So I consider if mere threats to Constance was worth 50K then I would make the argument that the perfect son would fetch a much higher price. Certainly the family could have easily come up with very much more if demanded. Despite all of that, are you in agreement with your Uncle that more then one person was involved - at Hopewell, at the Cemeteries, or passing ransom? Do you believe there was inside help in Hopewell? Concerning Hauptmann... What do you think kept him in the Bronx, and in an apartment where he was warring with his Landlord? Just trying to pick your brain! Michael, my brain is most likely not worth picking on in regards to this case. If I ever get up to speed on all of the information, I will certainly give you my opinions (framed from my experiences). But from reading your book, this forum, and a few forum recommended books, that old gut feeling that we discussed places me very close to what my uncle Harry Wolfe believed about this case (at least for now). I have close to zero doubt that this was in fact a kidnapping with a ransom payoff as the motive. Hauptmann was involved in this thing up to his neck but he certainly didn't commit this crime by himself. The two set of footprints at the crime scene (probably what convinced uncle Harry of multiple suspects being involved), and Ben Lupica's experience two hours or so prior to the kidnapping, both show beyond any reasonable doubt that multiple suspects were at the scene that night. Dispite what I believe you said in your book about Keaton's negative views on Lupica, I think you have set forth good facts to show that Lupica was an excellent witness with valuable information. There is only one valid explanation for what Lupica observed near Lindbergh's property around 6 P.M. on March 1st. I believe that Lupica's observations of the vehicle with the ladder at that place and time confirms that he observed one of the kidnappers who mistook his (Lupica's) vehicle for that of the kidnapper's accomplice. It appears that at least two perpetrators were attempting to link up to execute their plan. No other explanation for this is even viable. I would bet that when the driver of this vehicle realized the mistake he had just made and thereby exposed his vehicle and himself to a local, it was a true "oh Sh••••t" moment. The fact that they continued with the kidnapping that night after that little episode shows me just how determined they were to execute their plan that night. In addition, the observations of multiple individuals at the cemeteries during the ransom negotiations are just another reason to believe this was not a one man show. I also believe that there is a great deal of reasonable suspicions that there was some type of "inside" information provided to the perpetrators. From everything that I have digested thus far, the actual taking of the child from the house could have been accomplished without any direct Inside assistance. Many B & E operators attempt to generate information on their targets prior to executing the crime. This kidnapping would be no exception to that, and considering the timing and location, maybe even essential to success. This information needed by the kidnappers was the type that could certainly have been obtained unwittingly. I really believe that Violet Sharp is a strong candidate for unwittingly passing on valuable information to the wrong person. It is my opinion that an experienced/veteran investigator could have obtained key information from her. As for the child's remains being that of the Lindbergh child, I would again agree with Harry Wolfe. I think that issue was settled beyond any reasonable doubt ( if not all doubt), and certainly enough to be accepted by a jury. The more I read on this case the more I see why it is still being debated/discussed today, and why it has generated so many conspiracy theories. In addition to being fascinating in and of itself, it was the coming together of a perfect storm of events: ●●an eccentric American hero of "rock star" proportions who was convinced that he knew better than anyone else how to deal with the kidnappers and get his son back. ●● a lead investigative chief (Schwarzkopf) who had no investigative experience and idolized the victim instead of contolling him. ●● a lead investigative agency that had been created just 10 years prior and was created for the purpose of providing patrol services to the thousand of square miles of rural New Jersey- not to conduct criminal investigations. The investigative Bueau was created just three years prior to the kidnapping. I'm sure they recruited excellent Troopers for the investigative slots, but they still only had three years of experience prior to this case (from my experience a good decade short of the experience needed). ●● interagency rivalry that can be deadly to an investigation. ●● having someone like Condon involved in the critical aspects of the investigation. ●● allowing the victim (Lindbergh) to control the investigation and negate the arrest of CJ at the ransom transfer. All of the above contributed to this case apparently making no headway until the lucky arrest of Hauptmann. It is no wonder that people today look at this case and see sinister motives behind every act of Lindbergh. I really try not to get involved in monday morning quarterbacking, but the vast number of law enforcement mistakes in this investigation just begs for conspiratorial plots. At this late date those mistakes make it almost impossible to ascertain a solution that will satisfy the majority of people. Just a thorough complete surveillance at the ransom exchange (and the use of an undercover agent in all dealings with CJ) would have changed the course of this case. CJ had to be apprehended on April 2nd. I'll stop now as I know I have been going on far to long on this post, but it is extremely frustrating to me to see how this investigation was handled when I know from 30 years of experience what could have been accomplished by the use of proper investigative techniques. Solving a kidnapping is not unduly complex; it is even one of the few crimes that requires the perpetrators to make contact to achieve what they are committing the crime for in the first place--the ransom money. The investigation requires good, solid and experienced investigators, but it is not brain surgery. I promise that I will now get back on my retirement tractor and stop using up all of your posting space!
|
|
|
Post by john on Jun 28, 2017 3:06:22 GMT -5
Yet he turns to his wife and says "Anne, they've stolen our baby". This is maybe the most famous line, the best known snatch of "dialogue" from the LKC. Before winding this up it's worth analyzing briefly the words that were spoken. To my (ex-) dramatist's eye it reads like a line from a play, and a good line, too; and it's better than what would sound more logical and is usually said in real life: "the baby's missing!", "Charlie's gone!", "The crib is empty!". And of course the " Anne, they've stolen our baby" I agree that it is something that sure sounds rehearsed. The problem is that when stories are rehearsed things are forgotten or accidentally omitted. This is where the contradictions come into play - and there's no other explanation. The Wahgoosh didn't bark is a perfect example. It's bad enough he didn't, but what's worse is Lindbergh saying he wouldn't have - when everyone else said he absolutely would. It cannot be reconciled. What if the baby CAL, jr. met his death from a fall through the window, down the stairway or some other way that was no fault of anyone? Hi Julie - glad to see you posting. This one caught my eye because someone mailed this letter to Lloyd Fisher: Hoage's background was as insurance fraud investigator and had access to Hoffman's files. I'm sure he also interviewed living witnesses along the way. He, imho rightfully, saw the crime scene as a staged scene where the established narrative couldn't have been borne out as it was told. He did have his issues but as a fresh, objective investigator who had a history of looking into crimes which were not as they appeared, his opinion is at least worth factoring in. I think Michael has some thoughts on him? One of the things Jim Fisher did was malign any investigator for Hoffman, while putting those working for the State on a pedestal. Problem is that many who worked for Hoffman worked for the State prior. So it's a contradiction of the worst kind. Ho-age had complete access to Hoffman's files and then to the NJSP Reports once Kimberling took over. I am sure there were things he didn't see, especially once he moved to Los Angeles, but there was nothing off limits to him if he truly wanted it. There's some reports he wrote that I've never seen and I am quite sure there's some new insights there. The guy was smart, and he sincerely believe the evidence he reviewed clearly indicated inside job. And we all know he wasn't alone in holding this position. [/quote] What also feels rehearsed, Michael, now that I think about it is Lindbergh's conduct when dealing with Condon, by which I don't mean so much what he said but what he did and didn't do. He was was out of character downright passive where Cemetery John was concerned. Am I getting senile or did Lindbergh never even attempt to get out of the car and rush at CJ? Yes, I know that the stock answer is that his young son's life was at stake, but still. Lindbergh "controlled" (I know, no need for quotes) the investigation and yet what did he actually do, just how pro-active was he? Four colonels were involved, and look what happened. If Lindy was so brilliant, so determined to find his son why was he so easily swayed and/or duped by the likes of John Hughes Curtis and John F. Condon? He was putting himself at the mercy of charlatans, eccentrics and even criminals. Yet law enforcement professionals were out there who could have helped him. It's like he was running in the literal opposite of the right direction, away from the people who could help him most and toward those least likely to be of use to him in helping him find his son. For all this he was often praised for keeping a cool head the night of the kidnapping himself. If he'd just gone ahead and opened that envelope that night, read the note, did as instructed by the kidnappers there's no telling what the consequences would have been. He might have got his son back alive or, if not, taken the next logical step and gone to LE, tried as hard as he could to keep the crime out of the newspapers, worked with pros who knew their stuff, things would surely have gone differently. No Condon, no CJ.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,655
|
Post by Joe on Jun 28, 2017 6:09:44 GMT -5
Amy, it's a 24-page article that Hoage wrote just a month before Hauptmann was executed. It's dated March 4, 1936 and may have been prepared as part of a last ditch defense plan, although if that was the case, the obvious embellishments and tongue-in-cheek format are right out of left field. Ronelle Delmont (Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax Site) discovered this in the Hoffman Files at the NJSP years ago and actually just reposted it a couple of weeks ago. I don't think she would mind it being shared here.
www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/egoist.pdf
disc.yourwebapps.com/Indices/141545.html
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2017 8:00:47 GMT -5
Michael, my brain is most likely not worth picking on in regards to this case. I promise that I will now get back on my retirement tractor and stop using up all of your posting space! Lurp, Your post is absolutely AWESOME!!! If you had been on the Lindbergh Kidnapping Case and could have avoided ending up under the iron fist of Charles Lindbergh, I think you would have been a valuable resource aiding this investigation significantly. I need to spend time going over the content of your post more closely, but I am 100% in agreement with you about Ben Lupica. He actually did see one of the kidnappers. That is why on the thread, if we could go back in time for 5 minutes, I chose to be on the road with Ben. Please make sure you allow time to come in off that tractor and contribute to this board. We all benefit from your contributions.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,655
|
Post by Joe on Jun 28, 2017 8:19:33 GMT -5
I heartily second Amy's statement, Lurp! The knowledge and insight acquired from your investigative years and first hand experience with one of the key players in this case, makes your contribution an extremely valuable one here. I hope you do keep posting and if you're using a mobile device, please just stay off your tractor while texting!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2017 8:59:44 GMT -5
What does the note to L. Fisher say? This is not easy to read but here is my attempt to interpret what I can of it: There is a tree stump near Lindbergh home go and check you find something. Also in ash shute in fire place and two blood spots at Bottom of stairs-
Jafsie had the sleeping suit with him when he gave up try of soften up
Please don't overlook and don't let this out or take it other _____________
The kid died 1:30 pm March 1 of Broken neck
Please don't think that ___ a m ___________
This is the best I can do at the moment. Additional information would be helpful in perhaps determining what some of the words might be - like what date this note was received. The writer is referring to Condon (jafsie). Was the handwriting checked against the ransom notes. Did LE try to follow this note up in any way? Also, I find the mention of the tree stump on the Lindbergh property quite interesting because this is not the first time I have encountered that tree stump being referenced.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2017 9:04:08 GMT -5
Amy, it's a 24-page article that Hoage wrote just a month before Hauptmann was executed Ronelle Delmont (Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax Site) discovered this in the Hoffman Files at the NJSP years ago and actually just reposted it a couple of weeks ago. I don't think she would mind it being shared here. Thanks so much for sharing this Joe. I will definitely read it later today. I had not seen it on the hoax site. Ronelle has so much great info on that site. I hope so doesn't mind you posting it here on the board.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jun 28, 2017 11:25:28 GMT -5
What does the note to L. Fisher say? This is not easy to read but here is my attempt to interpret what I can of it: There is a tree stump near Lindbergh home go and check you find something. Also in ash shute in fire place and two blood spots at Bottom of stairs-
Jafsie had the sleeping suit with him when he gave up try of soften up
Please don't overlook and don't let this out or take it other _____________
The kid died 1:30 pm March 1 of Broken neck
Please don't think that ___ a m ___________
This is the best I can do at the moment. Additional information would be helpful in perhaps determining what some of the words might be - like what date this note was received. The writer is referring to Condon (jafsie). Was the handwriting checked against the ransom notes. Did LE try to follow this note up in any way? Also, I find the mention of the tree stump on the Lindbergh property quite interesting because this is not the first time I have encountered that tree stump being referenced. Amy, thank you, again! I'd never heard of this. I wonder what Lyold Fisher did with this. I respected him so much more than most of the characters in this drama. Was Whately dead at this point? What was the note saying about Condon? What more do you know about a stump? Very interesting!
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jun 28, 2017 14:42:58 GMT -5
Amy, it's a 24-page article that Hoage wrote just a month before Hauptmann was executed Ronelle Delmont (Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax Site) discovered this in the Hoffman Files at the NJSP years ago and actually just reposted it a couple of weeks ago. I don't think she would mind it being shared here. Thanks so much for sharing this Joe. I will definitely read it later today. I had not seen it on the hoax site. Ronelle has so much great info on that site. I hope so doesn't mind you posting it here on the board. I thought this was a fun read. It's tongue-in-cheek style was perhaps a bit in poor taste considering a man's life was on the line. Having said that, I don't find the exaggerations Joe speaks of. Condon deserved all of the scorn he is given in this (and more). History has been kind to him and his lies.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Jun 28, 2017 15:02:09 GMT -5
If Lindy was so brilliant, so determined to find his son why was he so easily swayed and/or duped by the likes of John Hughes Curtis and John F. Condon? He was putting himself at the mercy of charlatans, eccentrics and even criminals. Yet law enforcement professionals were out there who could have helped him. It's like he was running in the literal opposite of the right direction, away from the people who could help him most and toward those least likely to be of use to him in helping him find his son. For all this he was often praised for keeping a cool head the night of the kidnapping himself. CAL's receptiveness to drawing in and welcoming "charlatans, eccentrics and criminals" served to draw attention away from the line of investigation that this could have been an inside job, which was consistent with the primary goal that the staging and false narrative was intended to accomplish.
As pointed out above, the meager resources and neophyte investigators of the NJSP meant that they were ill prepared to chase down the myriad leads that were generated, even with a finite number of suspects. Every new character that entered the picture created new "leads" exponentially, further overwhelming the available manpower and investigative resources. The investigation still cost millions of dollars, which is one of the reasons why a rush to judgment at BRH's expense was a welcome closure to a case that had dragged on for years with little to show for it.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 28, 2017 15:22:39 GMT -5
LURPS:
I'm wondering how you can examine the eyewitness testimony of Ben Lupica who saw one man and determine from that there were two or more kidnappers. Lupica saw a man with the same general characteristics as Richard Hauptmann in a car the same brand and approximate year as Hauptmann's with a ladder in his car on the evening of the kidnapping across the street from the entrance to the Lindbergh residence.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jun 28, 2017 16:12:30 GMT -5
LURPS: I'm wondering how you can examine the eyewitness testimony of Ben Lupica who saw one man and determine from that there were two or more kidnappers. Lupica saw a man with the same general characteristics as Richard Hauptmann in a car the same brand and approximate year as Hauptmann's with a ladder in his car on the evening of the kidnapping across the street from the entrance to the Lindbergh residence. I thought in an interview he said hefelt the driver resembled CAL.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jun 28, 2017 21:13:42 GMT -5
Michael, my brain is most likely not worth picking on in regards to this case. I promise that I will now get back on my retirement tractor and stop using up all of your posting space! Lurp, Your post is absolutely AWESOME!!! If you had been on the Lindbergh Kidnapping Case and could have avoided ending up under the iron fist of Charles Lindbergh, I think you would have been a valuable resource aiding this investigation significantly. I need to spend time going over the content of your post more closely, but I am 100% in agreement with you about Ben Lupica. He actually did see one of the kidnappers. That is why on the thread, if we could go back in time for 5 minutes, I chose to be on the road with Ben. Please make sure you allow time to come in off that tractor and contribute to this board. We all benefit from your contributions. Thank you Amy and Joe for your kind comments. I don't know whether or not I would have been of any assistance in this investigation back then, but it sure would have been interesting and fun to work. I do know that if I could time travel back then with the core group of experirnced agents I worked with, it sure would have stirred things up! I always look forward to reading yours and Joe's posts.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 28, 2017 21:17:04 GMT -5
Kate1:
Where did you see that?
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jun 28, 2017 22:01:02 GMT -5
LURPS: I'm wondering how you can examine the eyewitness testimony of Ben Lupica who saw one man and determine from that there were two or more kidnappers. Lupica saw a man with the same general characteristics as Richard Hauptmann in a car the same brand and approximate year as Hauptmann's with a ladder in his car on the evening of the kidnapping across the street from the entrance to the Lindbergh residence. Jack, My answer to your question would be as follows: It certainly appears that from most accounts Lupica was a strong and believable witness in this case. It appears that he did not waiver from what he first stated, and even under great pressure did not try to identify the driver of the vehicle-maintaining that he did not get that good of a look at his facial features. If you believe his account of what occurred, then he saw a kidnapper with the ladder, and he saw that kidnapper make a very unusual maneuver with his vehicle. That maneuver had only one reasonable explanation. I believe that in his book, Michael indicated that a researcher by the name of Lehmann first offered the explanation, and I think Lehmann nailed it. For that kidnapper (just hours before the crime, and that close to Lindbergh's place) to pull in front of Lupica's oncoming vehicle and cross to the opposite side of the road and stop, thus allowing Lupica to pull up along side, well it can have no rational explanation other than the kidnapper wanted to speak with the driver of Lupica's vehicle. Why on earth would he want to speak with anyone at that time and place other than with his accomplice (s)? The only commonsense explanation is that at dusk he mistook Lupica's vehicle for that of his accomplice (s) and pulled over to the side of the road to speak with him. In my opinion, there is just no other reasonable explanation for that maneuver. In 1932, in the foothills outside of Hopewell, there would be no other way to hook up with another vehicle who was also crusing the area for whatever purpose. One would have to see the vehicle and pull over and talk to them. I do believe that much more investigative efforts should have been put into identifying and sorting out what suspicious vehicles observed that night were most likely involved in the crime. Obviously the number of vehicles that could reasonably be tied to the events of that night would at least give you the minimum number of perpetrators involved--at least one kidnapper per vehicle (unless Hauptmann had perfected the art of driving two cars at once!). Just my analysis.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 29, 2017 0:40:30 GMT -5
LURPS:
Just for the record, I've heard that explanation before and if you think about it, it doesn't make sense. If the man with the ladder in his car wanted to talk with Lupica in the other car, he'd stay on the correct side of the road. That way they'd talk from their cars, driver window to driver window. The way the ladder in the car driver parked when he saw Lupica, made it impossible to talk car to car - Lupica wound up on the opposite side of the road from the ladderman. Their cars were passenger window to passenger window. The only explanation for this is the ladder driver had no choice but be on the same road with Lupica, but made it least likely for him to be observed without crawling to the floor of his car which would be a very obvious and suspicious act.
I've seen your explanation made before, and it appears to be beyond speculation, rather it's fabrication - making the facts fit the researcher's crime theory - it's also known as historical revisionism.
In spite of researchers trying to create them, in 85+ years there's never been any evidence of more that one kidnapper involved with the Lindbergh Crime, probably why there are so many questions still - no finks to answer them.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jun 29, 2017 3:30:55 GMT -5
As pointed out above, the meager resources and neophyte investigators of the NJSP meant that they were ill prepared to chase down the myriad leads that were generated, even with a finite number of suspects. Every new character that entered the picture created new "leads" exponentially, further overwhelming the available manpower and investigative resources. The investigation still cost millions of dollars, which is one of the reasons why a rush to judgment at BRH's expense was a welcome closure to a case that had dragged on for years with little to show for it.
Scathma: thanks for the response. You are of course correct. There was method in Lindbergh's well, not madness,--avoidance?--and he did it well. I find it astonishing, though in the context of the time it makes sense, that Lindy himself did not become a suspect during his investigation BECAUSE of the way he was handling it. Looked at objectively, Lindbergh & Company were essentially doing all in their power to remove the spotlight from the Lindbergh home and staff and toward anything and everything that drew attention to those who knew and had access to the missing child.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jun 29, 2017 3:33:51 GMT -5
Amy: please continue along these lines. L. Fisher, I mean. Could you include a timeline (if possible) so as to know who/what/when? I find this all fascinating and at the same time confusing.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jun 29, 2017 7:15:39 GMT -5
In a 1992 interview with Ahlgren and Monier, Lupica said he could not identify Hauptmann as the driver of the car. He also said although he was aware Lindbergh had bought property he was unaware the family was living there; he didn't know what CAL looked like. He met him the morning after the kidnapping and that was a big moment for him. He said CAL was agitated and distraught. Not his usual composure.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jun 29, 2017 7:27:44 GMT -5
Kate1: Where did you see that? Interview with Lupica in 1992 with Ahlgren and Monier. Crime of the Century, page 272-276. He didn't saY he resembled CAL, I was wrong about that. Rather he said, he couldn't identify the driver, "it could have been anyone". A neighbor learned of the sighting and Lupica was taken to the house the following morning were he was introduced to CAL as a witness. CAL was visibly upset when he met Lupica. He said the car had New Jersey license plates.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 29, 2017 9:13:07 GMT -5
What could be the possible significance of the tree stump? Or for that matter, the ash chute?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2017 9:30:29 GMT -5
I believe you are describing this correctly. I feel that the ladder car driver moved to the opposite side of the road to make it more difficult for Ben to see him. The ladder car was traveling south on Wertsville Road toward Lindbergh Lane(driveway). Ben was headed home in a north direction towards Buttonwood Corners. The ladder car actually pulled across Ben's path on the road so that it forced Ben to pass his car passenger side to passenger side.
I firmly believe that whoever was driving the car with the ladder in it was one of the people involved with the kidnapping of Charlie, no matter who the driver was.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Jun 29, 2017 10:18:52 GMT -5
In a 1992 interview with Ahlgren and Monier, Lupica said he could not identify Hauptmann as the driver of the car. He also said although he was aware Lindbergh had bought property he was unaware the family was living there; he didn't know what CAL looked like. He met him the morning after the kidnapping and that was a big moment for him. He said CAL was agitated and distraught. Not his usual composure. CAL was upset because Lupica was a witness to a member of the staging crew that had otherwise been undetected in their preparations - he may have even worried that Lupica had seen more than just that one vehicle or knew more than he was letting on.
This is reminiscent of another time CAL "got upset" and was "agitated and distraught": when word got out that Hoffman was reviewing the investigation and CAL bundled up his family ASAP and snuck off in the middle of the night on a freighter bound for the UK...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2017 10:19:43 GMT -5
Kate, John and Hurtelable,
The letter to Lloyd Fisher that Michael posted is certainly intriguing. It is crudely written, with a number of spelling errors which we have to guess at while trying to make sense of it.
I could certainly offer some speculative thoughts on the content(what we think it might be saying), especially concerning Jafsie and the sleeping suit but it would only be my own take on the letter.
I had read something in the past about that tree trunk on the Lindbergh property(it was there in 1932), but I will have to find it again before I can say anything else about that.
In the meantime, I need a little more info about this letter in general:
Michael -
Since you posted this letter, do you know anything about where it was mailed from and when Fisher came in possession of it? Is there any date associated with this letter?
|
|