Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2017 10:25:04 GMT -5
. Here you have CAL Sr. acting in a questionable manner again. His wife is going into labor on August 15, and rather than being there with her, he goes flying over the Atlantic to dispose of CAL Jr(?)'s ashes. He did not leave her when she was in labor. I believe it was very late at night (around midnight) when Anne went into labor. Lindbergh was there. They drove into New York where Anne had Jon in the morning hours of the 16th in the Morrow apartment on 66th Street. I see nothing wrong with them holding on to the ashes until they felt ready to scatter them.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 11, 2017 15:16:21 GMT -5
Suppose it's just a matter of taste and sensibility. Most folks who have loved ones cremated do not throw the ashes into oceans.
Because of the timing, seems like Lindbergh was just throwing out the old baby as he welcomed in the new. Consistent with the cold, emotionless personality he seems to portray.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 11, 2017 18:19:49 GMT -5
May have been a mutual decision but sounds like it was CAL told Anne what he planned to do. Wish I had a copy of CAL Tells All!
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jul 12, 2017 1:23:09 GMT -5
Suppose it's just a matter of taste and sensibility. Most folks who have loved ones cremated do not throw the ashes into oceans. Because of the timing, seems like Lindbergh was just throwing out the old baby as he welcomed in the new. Consistent with the cold, emotionless personality he seems to portray. I disagree. Many folks get people cremated to spread their ashes in oceans, mountains, meaningful places, etc. What's odd about this is the timing - waiting months until your life is moments away from labor to quickly scatter them.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Jul 12, 2017 8:44:24 GMT -5
Anne was probably so upset when CAL told her he was dumping the ashes and doing it alone that it actually caused her to go into labor...
|
|
|
Post by julie0709 on Jul 12, 2017 17:57:58 GMT -5
Hi Hurtable!
I tend to agree with you about the Mt Rose remains. What I would like to see done is an examination with computer software of the police/mortuary photos compared with photos of CAL, jr. The General Ramey (Roswell) memo was examined, an alleged photo of Amelia Earhart was examined and I believe one of Butch Cassidy, too. If those items could be examined then the Mt. Rose/mortuary photos could be too. I don't think they're any less important than the others to those of us who want answers to hard questions. I would like to see compared forensic measurements of the remains with those from Dr. Van Ingen's growth chart reports. Cranium circumference, length of arm, legs and feet and the size and placement of the eye sockets would not change as well as the diameter of the fontanel. Maybe the results of such an examination wouldn't be proof positive but it's a start to answer some questions.
And the handling of the Mt Rose remains has me scratching my head! Why were the remains poked at with a stick? I can't believe that NJSP had never handled human remains before this. It would have made sense if the officer has put on rubber gloves and picked up the remains with a burlap bag and put them into another burlap bag for transport. I believe I read somewhere maybe in Gardner that it would be difficult if not undoable to poke a hole in a skull with a stick.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jul 12, 2017 21:09:56 GMT -5
Hi Hurtable! I tend to agree with you about the Mt Rose remains. What I would like to see done is an examination with computer software of the police/mortuary photos compared with photos of CAL, jr. The General Ramey (Roswell) memo was examined, an alleged photo of Amelia Earhart was examined and I believe one of Butch Cassidy, too. If those items could be examined then the Mt. Rose/mortuary photos could be too. I don't think they're any less important than the others to those of us who want answers to hard questions. I would like to see compared forensic measurements of the remains with those from Dr. Van Ingen's growth chart reports. Cranium circumference, length of arm, legs and feet and the size and placement of the eye sockets would not change as well as the diameter of the fontanel. Maybe the results of such an examination wouldn't be proof positive but it's a start to answer some questions. And the handling of the Mt Rose remains has me scratching my head! Why were the remains poked at with a stick? I can't believe that NJSP had never handled human remains before this. It would have made sense if the officer has put on rubber gloves and picked up the remains with a burlap bag and put them into another burlap bag for transport. I believe I read somewhere maybe in Gardner that it would be difficult if not undoable to poke a hole in a skull with a stick. "“A normal skull—even that of a two-year-old—would not have so deteriorated in that short a time. Down in the vaults of cathedrals are ossuaries from before the Middle Ages testifying silently to the strength of the bones of saints—but also of commoners. Intact skulls from the time of the Neanderthals tell us much of what we know about that prehistoric era.” Excerpt From: Lloyd C. Gardner. “The Crime of the Century.” iBooks. itun.es/us/oB2M9.l"
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 14, 2017 21:40:36 GMT -5
John:
Regarding the earlier conversation about when Hauptmann first knew Fisch, the statements of Fredrick Hahn to prosecutor Breslin shows that they could have been doing business together on 3/1/32. Hauptmann talked of a bag of money which Hahn saw that BRH said was Fisch's - this meeting between BRH and Hahn was in June of '32, so not long after the ransom payout. Richard was at that time bragging about making money in the stock market.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jul 16, 2017 2:51:22 GMT -5
Jack: Thanks for that. So as a hypothetical anyway Hauptmann & Fisch could have been doing business LKC-wise, whether as kidnappers or extortionists. What a freakin' unlikely duo those two must have been!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Jul 16, 2017 9:56:27 GMT -5
Fred Hahn's testimony is probably the clearest indication that Hauptmann and Fisch were in cahoots during mid-June of 1932. I'd have to think it may have been much earlier than that too, given the apparent show of trust by the time of Hahn's first visit, within a relationship that would allow for the consideration of money being held by one "business partner" for another. How interesting it would have been if Hahn had followed through on his suspicions over Richard's actions and notified the police, just a few months after the kidnapping.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 16, 2017 10:49:00 GMT -5
Well, we can always speculate, but we'll probably never know what all was going on. Hahn said he saw two 5# brown bags (lunch bags) of money stored in the new Hauptmann Victrola and Hauptmann indicated that one of the bags was Fisch's. Hahn at that time didn't know who Fisch was. I've figured they could have been one of bag of unlaundered ransom money and the other clean money that Fisch had converted to OK cash.
Another thing, if Fisch was in on the big Lindbergh plot, and knew of Richard's involvement, why tell Hahn about him? He even told Hahn where Fisch lived at that time. Just like eventually telling the police about Fisch - no one with any criminal savvy would bring up somebody, especially to the police like Hauptmann did, who could get them executed. Even if they were dead, like Fisch was, he may have said something to relatives or friends that could associate BRH with The Lindbergh Crime, especially after Hauptmann got caught with ransom money.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Jul 16, 2017 11:12:55 GMT -5
I can only speculate that Hauptmann, by virtue of his later and known business relationship with Fisch, which dealt with stocks and furs, would have already considered him as part of a future plan to "legitimize" the windfall he got from the ransom payment.
A question for you Jack: What do you make of Hauptmann freely opening up the lids on his Victrola to reveal a bag of money on either side, to Hahn? Did he do this intentionally to show off some "wealth" or might he have momentarily forgotten it was there before he opened the first lid? Either way, he seems to have stepped up pretty quickly with his explanation involving Fisch, but this might just be another sign of his ability to adapt quickly on the fly.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 16, 2017 12:02:08 GMT -5
I think he forgot the bags were there, then as you say quickly rebounded. After a few years in prison anybody would be streetwise enough to know you don't flash cash.
You're probbaly right - his bringing up Fisch meant he was going to involve him if worst came to worst all along.
As dumb as that detective described him, Richard almost got away with the crime of the century. If Fisch would have lived they, if they were in collusion, or he, BRH, probably would have gotten away with it, assuming Fisch was laundering for him.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Jul 16, 2017 13:02:32 GMT -5
His explanation of the money belonging to Fisch reminds me a little of his admission to Foley about the closet trim writing being that of his own. Of course, he recanted both admissions later. When pressed at the moment, he's just not good enough to totally deceive, and so he just seems to say the first thing that will satisfy the curiosity of the person asking to get him off his back, while maintaining some degree of reason. Later, when he realizes he said too much, he pulls out a defense and reins it in until he appears (at least to himself) to be off the hook.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 16, 2017 21:42:48 GMT -5
Right - he could never talk his way off that hook, but it seems he did have a story figured out, it just didn't work.
You have to take more than a cursory look at TLC to see how much evidence there really was against Hauptmann. A lot of things which just lead to Richard, and nobody else. Much never came out at his trial.
|
|
|
Post by julie0709 on Jul 18, 2017 11:38:24 GMT -5
Hey jack! What are you reading? It's interesting you've discovered some H stuff that hasn't been put into mainstream. I started on some of the FBI stuff but I can only get snippets here and there from searches. Thanks
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 18, 2017 15:24:50 GMT -5
Hey Julie:
Right now I'm reading Noel Behn who I havn't read in years. If you try to look at things in a different way, sometimes that works. If you watch on here you"ll see which sources are considered most reliable. FBI for example came up with lots of information, but is not considered particularly accurate. The Gardner book is relied upon as correct and has most stuff in it.
How did you get interested in the crime?
|
|
|
Post by julie0709 on Jul 19, 2017 11:22:13 GMT -5
Hi jack Yes I agree this board has lots to offer with intelligent discussion on the case of the century. I've read the books mentioned on the board and in some cases like Scaduto, Kennedy and Fisher it's a re-read to keep certain info fresh in my mind without my brain confabulating ordinary events in time line. Long boring story of how I became interested: My parents were very young adults at the time of the event and would discuss once in a while the major players without offering an opinion of who's right or wrong. I remember seeing rehashes on tv as fill-in programing on a local Phil channel late 60s. And I believe I saw Scaduto with AH on a talk show mid to late 70s when his book came out. My impression was that AH was not acting, and was sincere in her beliefs as she experienced the events. My gut impression on the tv thing was that BRH was acting, either. So that begs the question What happened and how can we seperate wheat from chaff to come to a reasonable conclusion? So here we all are 80 plus years on still looking for clues and other "fun" stuff. I found the tv movie with Anthony Hopkins as BRH, Sian Barbara Allen as AL and Joseph Cotton as Jasfie pretty well done. It's nice to finally get a chance to talk to Der Fuhrer
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 19, 2017 12:10:30 GMT -5
Hi Julie:
Der Fuhrer was a phase - yes adults can have them too. I asked Michael to keep me a corporal like Hitler was in The Great War but he said it was automatic so I've moved up. I now command thousands of soldiers and I've been looking for them.
We have similar backgrounds regarding TLC. My dad was a navy pilot during WWII so was about the right age and aviation mentality to have an interest in the kidnapping. Other than that he didn't give a hoot about true crime, just hoped it didn't happen to him.
At that time, the country and the world were pretty convinced that Hauptmann had something to do with it, and they've been proven correct.
There's just too much evidence against Richard from cradle to gas station to not believe he was a and possibly the only one involved.
This puter's gonna' crash so I'll come back later and let you what I'm currently working on - mainly two things.
Seig heil!
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Oct 10, 2017 8:43:24 GMT -5
Have a question. Looking at pictures of the nursery and crib online I noticed a set of wheels behind the crib against the wall. Not on the legs but underneath the mattress. Just wondered if anyone has ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Oct 10, 2017 17:47:11 GMT -5
Hi Kate1, Where do you see wheels underneath the mattress? Is this the photo you're talking about: Or is it this one?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 10, 2017 17:57:02 GMT -5
Hi Kate1, Where do you see wheels underneath the mattress? Is this the photo you're talking about: Or is it this one? In the second photo there is clearly a swiveling wheel on the floor underneath the bed close to the wall (right side of photo). Pretty sure that's what she means.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Oct 10, 2017 18:44:08 GMT -5
Trojanusc, If that's what she's looking at, then it is a wheel attached to the crib itself (four posts, four wheels). I had basically the same crib for my son years ago and here's something that I've always found interesting. I don't believe whoever took Charlie from that crib had a baby or at least did not know his way around a crib. Take a look at the red arrows at the top of this photo: This is a pretty standard crib and if you simply pull the metal rods on the right and left side (the two top red arrows), then the top of the crib lowers to the green line for easy access to the baby. It takes 2 seconds top to do this and it does make things so much easier. Just a thought...
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Oct 10, 2017 18:49:39 GMT -5
And I just found a better photo of the back of the crib. Kate1, is this what you're talking about?
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Oct 11, 2017 7:33:04 GMT -5
Hi Kate1, Where do you see wheels underneath the mattress? Is this the photo you're talking about: Or is it this one? The second picture. When enlarged I see a swivel wheel against the wall on the floor in about the center of the crib. Doesn't look like part of the crib and I can't imagine what it is.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Oct 11, 2017 7:43:21 GMT -5
Actually now that I see different views it seems it is a wheel on the leg...the bar that appears to be attached is no doubt in the front of th crib and used to lower the side. This baby was so different from most 20 month olds I've known!
|
|
kdwv8
Trooper II
Posts: 95
|
Post by kdwv8 on Oct 11, 2017 12:30:32 GMT -5
This baby was so different from most 20 month olds I've known! What do you mean by that?
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Oct 11, 2017 18:41:35 GMT -5
Concerning the night (or evening) of the kidnapping, Millard Whited's account stands out. I wonder just where he was when he saw the big, brown sedan entering the Lindbergh drive at approximately 7:10. I believe his statements in the first couple of weeks after the crime are the truth and what he said a couple of years later are the lies for profit. I also believe that he was, in essence, told to keep his mouth shut about what he saw and what he told Hausenbauer. Would someone who knows the area well be able to post a map so we could pinpoint the spots where people lived (like the Conovers and Mr. Moore) and where Ben Lupica was when he stopped to pick up his mail?
|
|
geld
Trooper
Posts: 43
|
Post by geld on Oct 12, 2017 17:38:53 GMT -5
I was born on 11 September 1937 and still have my crib it is very much like the one shown. It has wheels and an iron bar to lower the side rails.
|
|
|
Post by wendyrite on Oct 19, 2017 15:03:34 GMT -5
Michael, I remembered what Whately said about Betty not helping with the housework but I know she did wash the baby's clothes. It wouldn't seem abnormal for her to disinfect the nursery because of the cold. But then why not say so. The report is interesting to me because the baby's length is listed as 29 inches again. I thought that was a printing error made when the missing fliers were put out. Someone gave that number very early it seems, which isn't even on the chart for a normal 20 month old. What’s strange to me is that I have currently have a 9 month old son who is 30 inches tall. So to have an 18 month old be 29 inches tall seems very very small for that age. Unless you consider some sort of evolutionary process that within 80 years people are generally taller on average, it’s pretty small and could have been associated with the comments about him “finally gaining weight.” It’s also incredibly bizarre that they have numerous video and still pictures of him up through a year but nothing within months of the kidnapping. I’m not sure I believe that. I bet they have pictures of other family members in that time frame so why not little Charlie?
|
|