|
Post by john on Jul 2, 2017 2:18:03 GMT -5
Hi Amy, Regarding the tree stump, could this be what you are trying to remember? It’s not a tree stump per se, but it is tree related. In his ‘Memorandum of Henry Breckinridge Re: Berritella Séance’, Breck says: “She (Mary) stated that near the Lindbergh house is a tree broken over. (There is such a tree in the rear of the house.)” This “broken tree” reference seems to have caught Breck’s attention. Of course, you have to wonder how many farmlands of around 500 acres don’t have tree stumps or broken trees. Also, Wayne, seance people (there has to be a better term for them than this...) are adept at intuiting things that seem fantastic that are in fact prosaic. Psychics, palm readers, etc., have a sixth sense about the kinds of people who seek them out. There have been a number of novels and movies on the subject. Nightmare Alley is one such. Anyway, a tree stump or broken tree is a good guess, kind of like saying "I see a bird in flight somewhere...no, now he's captured...". Think of all the people who keep birds as pets, or who feed birds (me, for instance) or who pay attention to birds now and again. Add wishful thinking to this,--if this was a con artist re the LKC--one could interpret the bird in flight as CAL, Jr., his being captured (unable to escape?) a sign that he's alive and in good hands. The possibilities are endless. It's fun thinking about stuff like this but I rather doubt that it's going to lead us anywhere.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Jul 2, 2017 7:52:25 GMT -5
I've also considered everything I've been able to get my hands on over the past 17 years, including all of the material in your book and that you've been good enough to share here. It's unlikely there's another person on this entire planet who has discovered more information on this case than you have, Michael. At the end of the day though, that plus two dollars will still only get you a cup of coffee unless a coherent picture of explanation that stands up to all reasonable challenges can be developed. And in that same 17 years, I haven't yet seen an explanation of events that flies so totally in the face of what we are fortunate enough to know in 2017.
I understand that at some point you have concluded this was a staged kidnapping, but this appears to be the prime motivation behind your current personal interpretation of the crime scene footprint evidence. For many years now, my belief is that this was a real kidnapping, as the entirety of the evidence, it's original and subsequent investigation and reporting both sound and flawed, speaks clearly to me of that. Holding up a sheaf of known reports of the initial investigators, inexperienced and out-of-their-league as they were, and then implying this is the best we have to work with, just doesn't cut it and the footprint evidence is a glaring example of this. The fact is we can use the reports for their essential elements of truth, while extracting and identifying the obvious shortcomings and flaws within them. Personally, I wouldn't want to conclude anything on this case without a lot of common sense logic pointing the way.
And just so you know, I have absolutely no investment in being "liked" or high-fived on this critical point. I'm only pointing out the clear inconsistencies within your explanation, which seems to begin and end with your desire to follow along lock step with certain elements of reports written by initial crime scene investigators.. investigators who were clearly not up to the task of identifying the prevailing crime scene conditions under the window with the needed level of veracity.
To be precise, the walkway in the area which you state the kidnappers stood on to raise the ladder, was a single piece of tongue-and-groove flooring of approximately 6" in width. That's it. With the known footprint having been measured at just under 12", please explain how both kidnappers managed to stay on this 6" walkway without leaving any footprint traces all around it, in this purported "mud" that you imply would have shown all footprints. That's the bottom line, Michael and I'm not interested in muddying the waters with your explanation of how they approached the area under the nursery window, as that is obvious to me, as is the fact that the very specific patches of ground walked upon did not support the production of readily identifiable footprints. The three mud smudges on the nursery floor rug and the smudge left on the suitcase, were deposited there by a thin layer of mud picked up by one of the kidnappers during his approach to the area under the window. There's nothing that has to be made up here.. all we need to follow is the reports whenever they stumble upon the truth as well as the logical "breadcrumb trail" left by the kidnappers.
It sure looks like a left footprint to me. Regardless, it's facing forward, so unless this guy is a contortionist he just doesn't make that footprint by stepping off the "walkway," which is situated between the ladder imprints and wall of the house.
The small piece of mud found on the shutter could well have been picked up by the fabric foot covering by the climbing kidnapper during his approach to the ladder or while raising it. A stray chunk of mud sitting on the ground, which temporarily attached itself to the fabric foot covering. That photo shows the state of the ground around the ladder imprints, and quite clearly how this could have happened.
More accurately, Anne Lindbergh probably weighed about 120 pounds and she wasn't wearing fabric shoe coverings, was she?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 2, 2017 9:10:19 GMT -5
I've also considered everything I've been able to get my hands on over the past 17 years, including all of the material in your book and that you've been good enough to share here. It's unlikely there's another person on this entire planet who has discovered more information on this case than you have, Michael. At the end of the day though, that plus two dollars will still only get you a cup of coffee unless a coherent picture of explanation that stands up to all reasonable challenges can be developed. And in that same 17 years, I haven't yet seen an explanation of events that flies so totally in the face of what we are fortunate enough to know in 2017. We seem to disagree about what's "reasonable" and have different interpretations concerning what we see. I understand that at some point you have concluded this was a staged kidnapping, but this appears to be the prime motivation behind your current personal interpretation of the crime scene footprint evidence. For many years now, my belief is that this was a real kidnapping, as the entirety of the evidence, it's original and subsequent investigation and reporting both sound and flawed, speaks clearly to me of that. Holding up a sheaf of known reports of the initial investigators, inexperienced and out-of-their-league as they were, and then implying this is the best we have to work with, just doesn't cut it and the footprint evidence is a glaring example of this. The fact is we can use the reports for their essential elements of truth, while extracting and identifying the obvious shortcomings and flaws within them. Personally, I wouldn't want to conclude anything on this case without a lot of common sense logic pointing the way. I've concluded exactly what the police did but weren't allowed to say officially. There's an inside job aspect and a staging event as a result. My personal conclusion is that people were hired to participate to assist in carrying this out. Whether or not someone is "out of their league" we must evaluate all known evidence then try to make the most sense of it. If, in doing this, it contradicts with other known facts it cannot work. And just so you know, I have absolutely no investment in being "liked" or high-fived on this critical point. I'm only pointing out the clear inconsistencies within your explanation, which seems to begin and end with your desire to follow along lock step with certain elements of reports written by initial crime scene investigators.. investigators who were clearly not up to the task of identifying the prevailing crime scene conditions under the window with the needed level of veracity. I never thought "being liked" was your motivation Joe so don't worry about that. You are, and always will be well liked here - that I know for sure. What I see wrong with your position seems common sense to me so I am merely mystified by "why" we aren't seeing eye to eye on this. Usually, if there's a point which is clearly debatable I will accept those possibilities but here I don't see your explanation as falling into that category. Of course that's nothing personal and it could be that I'm nutz or something but it makes no sense to me. We have a set of facts so altering them doesn't work for me. To be precise, the walkway in the area which you state the kidnappers stood on to raise the ladder, was a single piece of tongue-and-groove flooring of approximately 6" in width. That's it. With the known footprint having been measured at just under 12", please explain how both kidnappers managed to stay on this 6" walkway without leaving any footprint traces all around it, in this purported "mud" that you imply would have shown all footprints. That's the bottom line, Michael and I'm not interested in muddying the waters with your explanation of how they approached the area under the nursery window, as that is obvious to me, as is the fact that the very specific patches of ground walked upon did not support the production of readily identifiable footprints. The three mud smudges on the nursery floor rug and the smudge left on the suitcase, were deposited there by a thin layer of mud picked up by one of the kidnappers during his approach to the area under the window. There's nothing that has to be made up here.. all we need to follow is the reports whenever they stumble upon the truth as well as the logical "breadcrumb trail" left by the kidnappers. Which source specifically claims the board directly under the window was 6"? Refresh my memory because I do not recall it as I sit here. Regardless, I do believe it could still be done. First and foremost because it was as the footprint evidence reveals. Next, because if your feet can touch wood and not mud then the mud will show no prints. Step off and it does which the evidence reveals. If it's really muddy, a chunk of mud will wind up on the top of the lower shutter because of it, and mud with show in the nursery as coming from one shoe. There's no way this evidence existed if no one stepped in the mud or had a "thin layer" of mud which suddenly appears on their shoe when it's needed for a theory to ring true. The small piece of mud found on the shutter could well have been picked up by the fabric foot covering by the climbing kidnapper during his approach to the ladder or while raising it. A stray chunk of mud sitting on the ground, which temporarily attached itself to the fabric foot covering. That photo shows the state of the ground around the ladder imprints, and quite clearly how this could have happened. What did the mud jump onto the foot? No, it was picked up by a footstep into it. More accurately, Anne Lindbergh probably weighed about 120 pounds and she wasn't wearing fabric shoe coverings, was she? Exactly, now apply this to your theory about the lack of mud under the easement, and your theory about the "jumping" kidnapper then explain why Anne would leave these footprints at least 5 hours earlier? At least one kidnapper had something over their shoe and it showed in the mud. It wasn't a snowshoe and left prints just as much as any other footwear. Are you now claiming something over the shoe gave them a stealth ability to not leave prints in the mud?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Jul 2, 2017 11:52:13 GMT -5
And I've basically concluded that the thought of this kidnapping being staged is simply a misconception, one that was only magnified by the inabilities of initial investigators to satisfactorily record the prevailing and latent evidence. In a word, the footprint evidence was botched, which only left the door wide open for conspiracy theories. Let me restate that as I may not have been clear. This case and posting on it here brings me a great sense of enjoyment any time I can get on here, or just contemplating or processing it during a downtime moment during the day, so no worries there at all. The matter of being "liked" wasn't really the point and I know that the truth may not always be a popular opinion. Of course, I have never considered anything I've said here to be taken personally, nor do I take it that way in the reverse. I've come to know that in life, I'd rather be happy than right, but of course, when you can be both, it's a bonus! This crime scene photo. The one that shows the ladder imprints, footprint to the left of them, 6" tongue-and-groove flooring behind them and beyond that, the base of the wall. I believe this is the "walkway" you're claiming the kidnappers stood on to raise the ladder, while managing not to leave not one trace of a footprint around it. I didn't say the mud jumped onto anyone's foot. I said the small chunk of mud on the shutter, if even relevant, could well have been "picked up" by the fabric foot covering worn by one of the kidnappers and then have come loose from his stepping actions during the ascent of the ladder. I have no idea what you mean by a "jumping" kidnapper. On the contrary for your guy to have come off that 6" piece of flooring into a position facing the house in the way you imply, I'd have to call him a "flying" kidnapper. Anne left footprints within a different patch of ground. We know from her testimony that she walked alongside the house and stepped in the mud farther away from the house, presumably to have line of sight with Betty and CALjr at the nursery window. We also know she walked back and forth between this area and the patio at the back of the house, presumably again to do the same thing below the French window. While I don't know what type of shoes Anne was wearing, this would be very helpful to know, as any semblance of a heel or a square-edged sole would undoubtedly have left more of an impression that a soft fabric foot covering, all ground being equal. Again the paucity of good information to work with here is just another indication of the collective inabilities of the initial investigators to satisfactorily record the crime scene footprint evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 2, 2017 13:16:24 GMT -5
And I've basically concluded that the thought of this kidnapping being staged is simply a misconception, one that was only magnified by the inabilities of initial investigators to satisfactorily record the prevailing and latent evidence. In a word, the footprint evidence was botched, which only left the door wide open for conspiracy theories. You are saying that the mud was, in essence, firm is some spots to explain away the lack of prints. I see no reason to conclude this. You are claiming the police "botched" the footprint evidence that did exist? I am not sure how - in what way Joe? Let me restate that as I may not have been clear. This case and posting on it here brings me a great sense of enjoyment any time I can get on here, or just contemplating or processing it during a downtime moment during the day, so no worries there at all. The matter of being "liked" wasn't really the point and I know that the truth may not always be a popular opinion. Of course, I have never considered anything I've said here to be taken personally, nor do I take it that way in the reverse. I've come to know that in life, I'd rather be happy than right, but of course, when you can be both, it's a bonus! True that. This crime scene photo. The one that shows the ladder imprints, footprint to the left of them, 6" tongue-and-groove flooring behind them and beyond that, the base of the wall. I believe this is the "walkway" you're claiming the kidnappers stood on to raise the ladder, while managing not to leave not one trace of a footprint around it. I'd rather not get into a debate but that picture doesn't mean the board's width is 6". Certainly it could be and it does't matter if it is, yet, I'd hesitate to say it is conclusively based on the picture itself. We do know the outside of the rail holes measure 14-1/8" across to their outter most edges. Can you see exactly where that is? I can't. Plus, those holes are closer to the camera which would make the board appear smaller. Again, you could be right but I don't know how this picture proves it conclusively. I didn't say the mud jumped onto anyone's foot. I said the small chunk of mud on the shutter, if even relevant, could well have been "picked up" by the fabric foot covering worn by one of the kidnappers and then have come loose from his stepping actions during the ascent of the ladder. First question: How couldn't it be relevant? Next question: How does mud get onto a foot? I have no idea what you mean by a "jumping" kidnapper. On the contrary for your guy to have come off that 6" piece of flooring into a position facing the house in the way you imply, I'd have to call him a "flying" kidnapper. You said that footprint was only made due to the kidnapper coming off that ladder with a significant amount of force. So "falling," "jumping," or whatever adjective you like - apply my point in spades here. Anne left footprints within a different patch of ground. We know from her testimony that she walked alongside the house and stepped in the mud farther away from the house, presumably to have line of sight with Betty and CALjr at the nursery window. We also know she walked back and forth between this area and the patio at the back of the house, presumably again to do the same thing below the French window. While I don't know what type of shoes Anne was wearing, this would be very helpful to know, as any semblance of a heel or a square-edged sole would undoubtedly have left more of an impression that a soft fabric foot covering, all ground being equal. Again the paucity of good information to work with here is just another indication of the collective inabilities of the initial investigators to satisfactorily record the crime scene footprint evidence. Several times you have said that we wouldn't expect the mud to be the same consistency under the eaves of the roof or am I mistaken? Next, whatever Anne's testimony was, one either believes these prints were hers or they weren't. If not then we have a big problem don't we? If so, then these prints "speak" for themselves. I simply see you attempting to explain away the existence of real evidence. There are things we absolutely know and they must be applied. **** Getting away from the footprint issue since we're clearly at an impasse, what do you think about the explanation for the scratches on the wall I've come up with. Obviously you think they were stepping in the mud but not making prints so apply that to my idea... I'd like to hear what you think.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Jul 3, 2017 8:03:36 GMT -5
I'm not just saying it Michael, as I can also see clearly from the photo and believe that, this specific patch of clay-based ground is not as soft, yielding or capable of producing normal pressure footprints as you might think.
This would have been one of the main reasons the kidnappers chose this method of approach, as during their planning, they would have surmised the ground closest to the house would not have been as exposed to the elements as was the rest of the yard, and therefore not as yielding. The fact that the kidnappers wore some form of fabric foot covering over their shoes or feet, is again a direct indication of their desire to lessen their chance of detection and identification after the fact. Of course, the fabric coverings would also have come into play through their sound-deadening properties within the nursery. The sudden splitting of the ladder upon descent, it's forward momentum into the first floor shutter and the loud noise that would have made, quite possibly the same one that Lindbergh heard, the heavy step downward from the ladder onto the ground, and the trail of now-telltale footprints leading directly away from the house in an easterly direction, all point to a sudden change of plans. The kidnappers essentially abandoned their original plans to retreat along the same path as their approach and down the driveway; for them it was more a direct beeline to their vehicle on Wertsville Road, via the open field.
Initial investigators should have been able to determine this and again, if a competent crime scene investigator in his prime, like Ellis Parker, or "The Great Canadian Detective," John Murray, (1840-1906) had had control of the crime scene as opposed to a random collection of well-meaning but relatively incompetent traffic cops, we would not be debating this critical facet of the case today.
This appears to be a standard piece of 1930's tongue-and-groove flooring, which had a nominal size width of 6". I can look into this further and nail it down so to speak if you wish, but believe me, based upon a reasonable assessment of the distance, angle and perspective involved in this photo shot, it's no more than 6" in width.
My explanation for the small chunk of mud getting onto the foot of one of the kidnappers, is that he came into contact with it during his approach to the area under the nursery window or while he was there setting up the ladder. And yes, it's quite possible that this chunk of mud on the first floor shutter came off his foot during the ladder ascent, but we don't know this for certain.
I understand now, but it's important for me to stress in my own theory that the descending kidnapper did not originally intend to step down with this degree of pressure. It's also important to note that if there was someone on the ladder receiving the "baby in a bag" from the person at the window, this was most likely his footprint, based upon the presence of the print indicating the burlap bag also came down on the ground with some force.
I see no issues with the presence of Anne's footprints in my theory, as most of them would have been made further back from the ground under the nursery window where the ground would have been softer and more yielding. Where she did step closer to the house, her shoes by nature, would have been more "impressionable" than the kidnappers' flat fabric coverings.
I know I've read your explanation about the area on the wall where the scratches were found, and yes, it made sense to me. I was just flipping through your book now but couldn't find it.. what page? I'll add any comments I think might be relevant.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 3, 2017 21:37:41 GMT -5
I'll look up for 3/1/32 as far as if Fisch and Hauptmann were associated then, but I don't think officially so. The way I've looked at that is the only reason we've ever heard of Fisch is because Hauptmann brought him up and said he owned the ransom bills which were found in Hauptmann's possession. It seems the more we learned about Fisch, the earlier he wound up knowing BRH. The books claim Fisch was some kind of crook but police had never heard of him either.
Oops - my books are at a different location - moving again! I'm sure someone else knows or can quickly look it up.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 3, 2017 21:39:35 GMT -5
Above post was a response to John/s easrlier question about Fisch and Hauptmann knowing one another.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 4, 2017 9:21:30 GMT -5
I'm not just saying it Michael, as I can also see clearly from the photo and believe that, this specific patch of clay-based ground is not as soft, yielding or capable of producing normal pressure footprints as you might think. Okay. Well I am seeing the exact opposite in all of the photos I've looked at. And I combine that with all of the documentation and it is from here where my position comes from. If we see different things while looking at the very same material then I believe we'll never agree. That's certainly okay because it gives different perspectives for others to consider if they are interested to do so. The other photo about the board size doesn't work for me. If it was an overhead shot then I believe we'd know for sure. Right now it's only a possibility for me. I can't say yes and I cannot say no. Still though it isn't important for my position on the scene but I hate concluding anything without knowing for sure - and that applies to the width of that particular board. We know for an absolute fact that some of those pieces had double the width and, I assume, somewhere in between so I don't think what "standard" boards normally were matters here. I know I've read your explanation about the area on the wall where the scratches were found, and yes, it made sense to me. I was just flipping through your book now but couldn't find it.. what page? I'll add any comments I think might be relevant. It's in Chapter 14 "The Next Phase" I'll look up for 3/1/32 as far as if Fisch and Hauptmann were associated then, but I don't think officially so. The way I've looked at that is the only reason we've ever heard of Fisch is because Hauptmann brought him up and said he owned the ransom bills which were found in Hauptmann's possession. It seems the more we learned about Fisch, the earlier he wound up knowing BRH. The books claim Fisch was some kind of crook but police had never heard of him either. Oops - my books are at a different location - moving again! I'm sure someone else knows or can quickly look it up. John's question is a great one isn't it? It is one question that seems to always be asked then given a different answer almost each and every time. I am winding down with my Fisch chapter now, and I had considered tackling this question in the book. But honestly, I could write a good solid 5 pages with all of the various answers supported by the documentation but still have no real solution or an odds on favorite. So I've only "touched" on it in a previous chapter. What we have is based on Hauptmann. And Hauptmann says many different things depending on "when" he was asked. This is because he's trying to lay blame on Fisch, while at the same time exempting himself from the possibility of being involved in the kidnapping. So he has motivation NOT to know him prior to March 1st. Does that mean he did? No. But if Hauptmann cannot be trusted, and he has a reason to say he didn't know him prior, then how can we embrace any of his answers regarding this? In one source Hauptmann claims when he was introduced to Fisch by the Henkels they both got a big laugh later on about it since they had already known each other. This could be true because it's a well known fact that Fisch did not want his "friends" to know each other. But it could also be a big lie, therefore, that could have been their first meeting. So other information regarding other things must be sought out to see what the best possibilities are.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 4, 2017 13:01:27 GMT -5
Well, Fisch is the kind of enigma that you'd expect to come out of Richard.
One thought I had, John, since you brought Fisch up again, is that as far as I know Hauptmann was the one who introduced Fisch into the scenario though he may well have come up later in the investigation. I don't believe that Hauptmann would give anybody up that had knowledge of his involvement in TLC so I doubt Fisch was at the cemetery and probably had nothing to do with the ransom money. Even dead, Fisch could have made some kind of last minute confession which was undecipherable until it was associated with BRH. So I wouldn't put Fisch into the hopper of conspirators unless there's more evidence which Michael, see above, is possibly coming up with. There were some sightings of ransom money passers which sounded a lot like Fisch - that duy with all the five dollar bills especially.
BTW: An earlier post reminded me of my favorite quote of all time. Some guy on here was trying to impress Michael by telling him that he'd known a couple burglars and Michael said, "I've known hundreds."
Michael's probably actually known thousands, and sorry if I'm misquoting but hundreds seemed to ring a bell.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jul 4, 2017 13:41:51 GMT -5
Thanks, Jack. The Fisch business is difficult to assess as to its relevance to the LKC. That there was such a man and that Hauptmann knew him, was friendly with him, is an irrefutable fact; beyond that, we're in murky waters.
Due to all the vagueness regarding Fisch and Hauptmann, together and, in the former's case especially, as individuals, it's difficult to come up with a timeline for these two. As a "couple" or team members, I mean, in the criminal sense.
Fisch was, for sure, a shady character. Hauptmann had a criminal background, but in Germany only. I think that this bears more emphasis regarding Hauptmann's behavior in the U.S. I don't that he was ever even so much picked up on suspicion of anything after his arrival in the States.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 4, 2017 14:32:09 GMT -5
Yes but it could just be that he was never caught. Almost wasn't caught for Lindbergh.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jul 5, 2017 1:46:49 GMT -5
Maybe so, Jack, but don't you think that David Wilentz went way over the line in his summation, practically calling Hauptmann a Nazi, a man with a "superman complex"; and claiming that Hauptmann was a criminal, as a matter of record, in Germany (agreed) and in America as well (questionable)? There was a good circumstantial case against Hauptmann as if nothing else a member of a gang or team of extortionists, or maybe a lone wolf with some involvement in the LKC, but that wasn't enough for the conviction he was seeking. He had to destroy Hauptmann as a human being for the jury, and based on their verdict, he succeeded.
Interesting about Fisch: if he'd regained his health, and assuming that there's some truth in the handing the shoebox to Hauptmann story, Fisch might have got caught spending ransom bills, not his friend Bruno (excuse me, Richard). Yet there's something about Fisch, from what little I know about him, that tells me that he would never have been so reckless as his friend was, that he'd have taken the half a loaf,--if even that--of the money he had, maybe split it with his friend, assuming that Hauptmann had played a part in obtaining the money, and that would be the end of it. The case of whatever happened to the Lindbergh baby would be open to this day.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 5, 2017 2:37:36 GMT -5
Interesting and good observations, John. If I may play devil's advocate though, If Fisch spent the part of the ransom money that Hauptmann didn't get caught with, why we so "sleeping on park benches" broke? I'm not trying to goof things up, it seems to me that Fisch probably had something to do with it too - possibly why the ladder was so flimsy - Fisch must have only weighed 120-30.
But unfortunately there is no evidence that Fisch ever did anything wrong in his life, just speculation that he cheated some people on investments - next time your broker sticks you with a bummer call him a Fisch.
Sure I think Wilentz went over the line and the police too with their hammers and lights out. But in reality BRH was lucky that he didn't die on the way to or in jail. Remember. from the start he was a liar and police don't like that. Hauptmann said and I don't have the exact quote right now but to the effect that he never dreamed that he had Lindbergh money. Why didn't he just take it to the bank then and tell them the truthful story of Fisch or tell that he found it, and he'd have to wait a while but then the money would be rightfully his - according to his story anyway. If you found fifteen thousand dollars would you hide it from your wife and squirrel it away in about five different cubbyholes with a gun in your garage. That doesn't look so good - I'm sure police believed almost right away that were dealing with Charlie's abductor and murderer, and treated Richard accordingly.
Yes Richard was reckless in the end with his spending and habits, but I believe he had a worsening mental disorder which possibly could be found in all the known data about him. Probably a good thing for someone to look into.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 5, 2017 4:55:27 GMT -5
Interesting and good observations, John. If I may play devil's advocate though, If Fisch spent the part of the ransom money that Hauptmann didn't get caught with, why we so "sleeping on park benches" broke? I'm not trying to goof things up, it seems to me that Fisch probably had something to do with it too - possibly why the ladder was so flimsy - Fisch must have only weighed 120-30. But unfortunately there is no evidence that Fisch ever did anything wrong in his life, just speculation that he cheated some people on investments - next time your broker sticks you with a bummer call him a Fisch. Sure I think Wilentz went over the line and the police too with their hammers and lights out. But in reality BRH was lucky that he didn't die on the way to or in jail. Remember. from the start he was a liar and police don't like that. Hauptmann said and I don't have the exact quote right now but to the effect that he never dreamed that he had Lindbergh money. Why didn't he just take it to the bank then and tell them the truthful story of Fisch or tell that he found it, and he'd have to wait a while but then the money would be rightfully his - according to his story anyway. If you found fifteen thousand dollars would you hide it from your wife and squirrel it away in about five different cubbyholes with a gun in your garage. That doesn't look so good - I'm sure police believed almost right away that were dealing with Charlie's abductor and murderer, and treated Richard accordingly. Yes Richard was reckless in the end with his spending and habits, but I believe he had a worsening mental disorder which possibly could be found in all the known data about him. Probably a good thing for someone to look into. I'm curious about the worsening "mental disorder" you see in Hauptmann. What are your thoughts about that?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 5, 2017 5:49:37 GMT -5
Do you have Dudley Schoenfeld's book about the kidnapping? I'd like to know what's really in there. Also Richard was examined by a couple of psychiatrists who said he was perfectly sane. I find that hard to believe and would like to know more about what they considered sane. What tests did he get, etc?
|
|
|
Post by john on Jul 5, 2017 11:47:52 GMT -5
Some years back on Ronelle's board the issue of Hauptmann having suffered a head trauma during the world war came up and was discussed in some detail. To the best of my knowledge nothing definitive came out of this. I believe that he had received some kind of head wound in the war but not enough is known about this to make much more than an anecdote about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2017 14:25:13 GMT -5
I really believe that Violet Sharp is a strong candidate for unwittingly passing on valuable information to the wrong person. So, Lurp, can you expand on why you believe that Violet Sharp could have unwittingly passed on valuable information? From what I know about Sharp prior to the kidnapping, Violet had never been to the Hopewell house. She would not have been able to assist with directions for finding the house. She was never inside so she would not know where the nursery was located inside the home. She would not have known about the southeast window with the faulty shutter. She would not have known that the Lindberghs did not lock their windows. She would not have known about the boardwalk to advise of its use. This is all valuable info that would have been useful to the kidnappers. It seems someone must have alerted these kidnappers to the one particular window that was prime for entering the nursery room. As far as I know there is no evidence that the kidnappers tried to use any other entry point but this one, and only this one, window. So what could Violet have passed on that would have been useful to the kidnappers? What I see her being able to pass on revolves around the day of March 1, 1932. Violet knew that Charlie would be staying overnight on Tuesday. Violet also knew that Betty Gow had been called to the Hopewell house which meant that Betty would be taking care of Charlie that night. This would mean that the bedtime routine would be in place and the timeline window of Charlie not being disturbed between 8 pm and 10 pm would be observed and this makes Charlie vulnerable and accessible...if you know where the nursery room is. Violet did pass on the info that Betty had been called to Highfields that day and would be taking care of Charlie that night. Would this info be all that was necessary to carry out the kidnapping?? Violet did tell this information to Henry "Red" Johnson, Betty's boyfriend, when he made a return call to the Englewood house to speak with Betty. So Violet knew about the stay over that night and so did Johnson. How do we know that he didn't mention it to someone? I am hoping that you might be willing to engage in just a small amount of quarterbacking. I would love your thoughts as a former investigator on a couple of points involving the nursery room and how you would have evaluated these details: 1) What would have been your reaction to the fact that absolutely no fingerprints (or partials) could be found of the people who openly admitted (Anne Lindbergh & Betty Gow) to touching and handling, just hours before, areas of the room that were processed for prints but none were found. Would you have questioned those in the household about this? Would you have found this suspicious and in need of an explanation? Would you have just blamed it on a poor job done by the print man? 2) Looking at the crib that the child was taken from, would you have wondered why there was no sheet covering the mattress? This is a well to do family and they no doubt used mattress sheets. Since this room and crib are part of a crime scene, wouldn't that missing mattress sheet cause you some concern as an investigator? Would you have asked about where it was?
|
|
|
Post by julie0709 on Jul 5, 2017 14:31:20 GMT -5
Thank you kate for posting the Lloyd Fisher letter. As soon as I saw Fisher I got somewhat dejected because as we know Fisher comes into the picture at trial and after H is in Trenton, so as 'evidence" it has its shortcomings. But it is interesting; I found it hard to read because some of the words look like other words: check I see a dotted i.
Currently I'm going over Fisher's book and I have questions about some topics of discussion on this or Ronelle's board. Re the alleged photo taken at the mortuary by a photographer who sold copies at $5.00 a pop on the street. Where are these photos? Parker was alleged to have a copy but is not printed in his bio.
Has there been any testing of the police photos to compare with photos of the baby? Face recognition, forensic comparison, etc? And what of the fontenelle? What is Van Ingen's measurment of the fontenelle? The remains from Mt Rose had a measurement of approx 1" dia.
Thanks all
|
|
|
Post by julie0709 on Jul 5, 2017 14:41:28 GMT -5
And another thing regarding rereading Fisher, I was thinking of Condon and the role Rosner, Spitale and Bitz may have played in the public relations of the events as they unfolded I believe Rosner, Spitale and Bitz were brought in possibly under the advise of Donovan to pacify some of the groups who were operating illegally in the area The men from NY were used and then gotten rid of and replaced by Condon who was a pacifer in getting involved with Rosner, S&B. Condon was a kind of foil because of his age and his background as an educator, lecturer. Thanks for your input
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 5, 2017 19:15:08 GMT -5
Do you have Dudley Schoenfeld's book about the kidnapping? I'd like to know what's really in there. Also Richard was examined by a couple of psychiatrists who said he was perfectly sane. I find that hard to believe and would like to know more about what they considered sane. What tests did he get, etc? I don't have the book nor have I read it. Most psychiatrists back then were called alienist and were primarily Freudian. Schizophrenia was thought to be the result of poor nurturing by the mother. Worlds away from psychiatry today, really still in the dark ages.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 5, 2017 19:25:57 GMT -5
Currently I'm going over Fisher's book and I have questions about some topics of discussion on this or Ronelle's board. Re the alleged photo taken at the mortuary by a photographer who sold copies at $5.00 a pop on the street. Where are these photos? Parker was alleged to have a copy but is not printed in his bio. This is the "cropped version" of the photo. The actual photo showing the Reporter is in TDC on page 325. I prove beyond all doubt in this chapter that Reporters were let into the Morgue to take that picture and that Swayze and Mitchell lied about the event.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jul 5, 2017 20:20:02 GMT -5
Amy,
As usual your observations and questions are thorough and display your amazing knowledge of this case. Your questions to me regarding what i stated on Sharpe and the crime scene are insightful and deserve a thorough and thoughtful response. I will make an attempt to put that together-need a little time. I do have (as Michael says) my two cents worth to add on the "wiping down" of the nursery, and the idea that the nursery was free of prints.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Jul 6, 2017 5:21:19 GMT -5
Lurp and Amy, on the subject of Violet Sharp and if you don't mind me adding my thoughts. Violet, while quite outgoing and expressive, was also one those nervous kinds of high strung people who developed a very strong guilt complex, and took things to heart. She had reportedly been providing inside "information of the house" to Thomas McElvie, a reporter from The Daily News, whom she had also dated. McElvie stated that Violet had actually called him on the evening of March 1, with news of the kidnapping. While leaks of this nature may not be incriminating on their own, they would have been dealt with severely by Mrs. Morrow, who expected all of her employees to keep news of the house within the house. She may have also found herself ostracized by her fellow servants, who had remained true to this rule while giving up the opportunity to make some extra money on the side. I believe Violet probably came to believe in the days and weeks following the kidnapping, that she may have provided information that somehow aided and abetted the kidnappers. With the added weight of Inspector Walsh's inquiries, and her physical illness only exacerbated by this belief, she simply could not live with herself any longer. I don't believe though, that she ever would have said anything to intentionally cause harm to the child.
|
|
geld
Trooper
Posts: 43
|
Post by geld on Jul 6, 2017 11:10:36 GMT -5
What became of the "walkway,6" T & G plank"?
|
|
|
Post by julie0709 on Jul 6, 2017 13:03:04 GMT -5
Thanks Michael for printing the photo. And another one, I googled Gustav Jukatis re a NYT article circa January 1935 about a NYC unnamed detective disclosing Isidore Fisch's offering $50k in hot money to Jukatis The only hit I came up with was from the Fisher book and another siting the same info. Surely Fisch could not have $50k in hot money? There had to be a smaller amount because of the hot cash already being floated. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by john on Jul 6, 2017 13:51:22 GMT -5
Any information Violet Sharp might have passed on to a third party would have been useful for the kidnappers/in-house conspirators (take your pick), Amy.
Violet's suicide is striking to me also. High strung she may have been, even under intense police pressure,--and indeed she was--taking her own life the way she did strikes me as extreme if she had nothing to hide. If it was just a guy,--an occasional "boyfriend", a one night stand--that shouldn't have been the trigger. This could have been explained, and the police would have understood, especially if verifiable.
Admittedly, Violet would have suffered potential humiliation, and if LE was in a mean mood whatever she did confess to other than being a "player" in the kidnap scheme, would have hurt her reputation, but she was still a young woman, and a vivacious one.
As I think about her she impresses me as rather the other side of the coin Isador Fisch figure of the Lindbergh side of the kidnapping. Not so prominent inasmuch as there's not a shred of evidence that ties her to the crime, but in her being dead prior to Hauptmann's arrest, the lingering doubts in the minds of some that she may have been involved, if only in a minor, desultory way in the kidnapping; and in the way she chose to die. But maybe I'm getting a bit too "literary" here, viewing the LKC as a work of art rather than a crime. There are times when I find this irresistible. If this offends or annoys some on this board, I apologize in advance.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 6, 2017 16:00:14 GMT -5
Thank you kate for posting the Lloyd Fisher letter. As soon as I saw Fisher I got somewhat dejected because as we know Fisher comes into the picture at trial and after H is in Trenton, so as 'evidence" it has its shortcomings. But it is interesting; I found it hard to read because some of the words look like other words: check I see a dotted i. Currently I'm going over Fisher's book and I have questions about some topics of discussion on this or Ronelle's board. Re the alleged photo taken at the mortuary by a photographer who sold copies at $5.00 a pop on the street. Where are these photos? Parker was alleged to have a copy but is not printed in his bio. Has there been any testing of the police photos to compare with photos of the baby? Face recognition, forensic comparison, etc? And what of the fontenelle? What is Van Ingen's measurement of the fontenelle? The remains from Mt Rose had a measurement of approx 1" dia. Thanks all As you probably know, Ellis Parker (known as a "master detective"), was firmly of the opinion that the body found in the woods was NOT that of CAL Jr. I've read through Dr. Van Ingen's letter to Mrs. Morrow, describing his last physical exam of Charlie, and compared it to the coroner's report on the body found in the woods. There is a very important discrepency between the two. The overlapping toes on the right foot are NOT the same anatomically in those two reports. The only conclusion one can draw from that, assuming that neither Dr. Van Ingen nor the coroner made a sloppy error in their reports, is that the right foot found with the body in the woods was NOT Charlie's. which leads to the conclusion that the remains found in the woods were almost surely NOT those of Charlie, but those of another child - perhaps with some features similar to Charlie's, but not a match. As you probably also know, Dr. Van Ingen, despite intense pressure, refused to positively identify the body as that of Charlie. So there is good evidence for the proposition that the body wasn't Charlie's at all, despite all the "party line" of law enforcement and the media to the contrary.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2017 16:46:27 GMT -5
Thanks Michael for printing the photo. And another one, I googled Gustav Jukatis re a NYT article circa January 1935 about a NYC unnamed detective disclosing Isidore Fisch's offering $50k in hot money to Jukatis The only hit I came up with was from the Fisher book and another siting the same info. Surely Fisch could not have $50k in hot money? There had to be a smaller amount because of the hot cash already being floated. Thanks Julie, I hope you don't mind me jumping in here. I believe the detective's name is Henry Kress. He found a number of very interesting people who had contact with Isidor Fisch. Gustav Lukatis is one of those people. He claimed that in late April or early May 1932 he was approached about hot money that Fisch had for sale. Here is a portion of the article that appeared in the Jersey Journal, January 16, 1935. Is this what you are referring to or was it different?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2017 17:01:06 GMT -5
Any information Violet Sharp might have passed on to a third party would have been useful for the kidnappers/in-house conspirators (take your pick), Amy. John, What do you mean that the info would have been useful to "in-house" conspirators? Who are you referring to? The information we are talking about was Charlie staying at the Hopewell house on Tuesday night and Betty Gow being sent for to care for Charlie. That's the info that Violet had to share. Maybe it wasn't a guy-thing that was behind Violet's suicide. Perhaps she had something else in her life that she didn't want revealed. One thing that has always troubled me about Violet's suicide is the fact that she supposedly drank the poison in her room and then came running downstairs. If her intent was to kill herself, why didn't she just lay down on her bed and die? Why run out of your room and down the stairs to find someone?
|
|