|
Post by julie0709 on Aug 1, 2017 15:13:55 GMT -5
Then it's even more decisive that there was no insider. Skean should have been at the Lindbergh residence, and unusually wasn't substantially proving that the kidnapper(s) had no inside information!
We don't know for facts what went on that dreadful leapyear weekend of February March 1932 The most info we have to go on is from Lindbergh himself, LE in which Swartzkopf cannot be trusted because of his misplaced loyalty to CAL and to newshounds who want to be paid for their newspapers. What we want to look for is more information that can be sourced to more than one individual and/or back up documents. There are people who say one thing in affidavits or depositions and another at trial The Osbornes, father and son are prime examples. So I would have to look for confirmation information coming from CAL, himself.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 1, 2017 15:31:56 GMT -5
Not to change the subject but I believe the family was at Hopewell for a reason other than the baby's cold. I think the reason was something so overwhelming that the mundane was simply forgotten ( the dinner). The ladder found leading away from the house was flimsy as built for a one time use and it looks a lot like the one in the picture of the old Lindbergh homestead back in Minnesota to me
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 2, 2017 2:36:09 GMT -5
Sue, over on Hoax site has information about Skean being at the vet on and around 3/1/32.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 2, 2017 3:48:40 GMT -5
Also, to add to the "Hauptmann was in the nursery" list on the previous page:
Almost all of the nails holding the ladder together were "professionally driven." However crude, it sounds like a real carpenter put the ladder together.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 2, 2017 4:48:59 GMT -5
And Scathma, if you visit the Hoax Site, ask Ronelle how important my revelation about Charles and the first ransom note is.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 2, 2017 4:59:46 GMT -5
Sue, over on Hoax site has information about Skean being at the vet on and around 3/1/32. Is that what it is Jack? I am a huge fan of gathering all available information then sorting through it to see what the true situation was. Do that here. We see in one article Wagoosh is called "Trixie." As I've stated before, the FBI Summary filled in blanks with information they also read in the paper and this is probably why the name "Trixie" was used in that report. Barrett used to work out of St. Louis as a Police Reporter, and at the time wrote fictional pieces. So the question is: Where is he getting his information? Is he making it up? I'd say no. My guess is he is reading the paper, and in doing so thinks what he's read is something the Defense should take a look at. So now let's go to the newspaper articles themselves. Wagoosh is "gentle" and would have licked the Kidnappers feet and not bark? Sound true? Newspaper Reports are mostly secondary sources. Reporters get their information from a variety of places, and sometimes they also fill in the blanks or even made things up. There's an article I can quote right now that says Moore identified Hauptmann, but once the Police drove over to see him he flatly denied it as a lie. My guess is there is probably some truth to the article, that perhaps one of the dogs had gone to the vet sometime in the week, or weeks prior. However, Skean was at Englewood and left behind by Lindbergh on the weekend of the Kidnapping/Murder. We know that because Mrs. Jung, who was there, has given us a primary source to refer to.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 2, 2017 5:17:27 GMT -5
Perhaps so, but people should see for themselves that there may be other answers out there. Nothing wrong with looking at the newspaper article and that guy's letter to Reilley. They'll see soon enough that what's there as far as the newspaper is concerned is upside-down inaccurate.
We've been through this newspaper stuff before with the Hauptmann paying his rent in gold bills story just to name one.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Aug 2, 2017 9:36:10 GMT -5
Ladder wood, ladder nails, personal planer marks, wrote the nursery note, physical similarity to eyewitness Lupica's statement, late model Dodge sedan, ladders in the same vehicle on the evening of March 1, no solid alibi for that day or night on Hauptmann's or Anna's part. Hauptmann would be shaking his head in disbelief at how much benefit of the doubt you're willing to give him here versus, say the occupants of Highfields. You really should try exacting a more consistent level of scrutiny within this case. Lupica saw so little to put Hauptmann on the scene that he ended up as a defense witness at trial. A car with a ladder in it doesn't necessarily mean it's Hauptmann's car. And there were several defense witnesses at trial who had Hauptmann picking up his wife at Frederickson's bakery that night. Might not be an iron-clad alibi, but better than the eyewitness accounts of Hochmuth (blind) and Whited (compulsive liar). The fact is that Wilentz's theary about Hauptmann entering the nursery through a ladder was bunk, because the feat couldn't be duplicated by the NJSP. If I were a juror, I'd have to acquit Hauptmann on the murder charge, and recommend that he be extradited back to New York to face am extortion charge.
|
|
|
Post by julie0709 on Aug 2, 2017 10:57:03 GMT -5
Ladder wood, ladder nails, personal planer marks, wrote the nursery note, physical similarity to eyewitness Lupica's statement, late model Dodge sedan, ladders in the same vehicle on the evening of March 1, no solid alibi for that day or night on Hauptmann's or Anna's part. Hauptmann would be shaking his head in disbelief at how much benefit of the doubt you're willing to give him here versus, say the occupants of Highfields. You really should try exacting a more consistent level of scrutiny within this case. Lupica saw so little to put Hauptmann on the scene that he ended up as a defense witness at trial. A car with a ladder in it doesn't necessarily mean it's Hauptmann's car. And there were several defense witnesses at trial who had Hauptmann picking up his wife at Frederickson's bakery that night. Might not be an iron-clad alibi, but better than the eyewitness accounts of Hochmuth (blind) and Whited (compulsive liar). The fact is that Wilentz's theary about Hauptmann entering the nursery through a ladder was bunk, because the feat couldn't be duplicated by the NJSP. If I were a juror, I'd have to acquit Hauptmann on the murder charge, and recommend that he be extradited back to New York to face am extortion charge. From the material I've been reading, I would have to say that the only thing BRH should have been charged with is receiver of stolen goods. It's a stretch with the extortion charge because we cannot factually connect H to making an extortion attempt. The "handwriting analysis" is only an opinion put forth by Osbornes who changed their "testimony" and the BI man whose name escapes me. The only way I could say H was an extortionist is if a postal clerk or someone else of integrity saw him put the note in an envelope lick a stamp and hand it over to clerk for mailing. Other references in the LKC books do not put forth hard evidence for extortion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2017 19:25:12 GMT -5
Not to change the subject but I believe the family was at Hopewell for a reason other than the baby's cold. I think the reason was something so overwhelming that the mundane was simply forgotten ( the dinner). The ladder found leading away from the house was flimsy as built for a one time use and it looks a lot like the one in the picture of the old Lindbergh homestead back in Minnesota to me I have seen the picture of the ladder built by CAL at his childhood home and it does look a lot like one of the sections of the kidnap ladder. Lindbergh had also built a ladder for Anne to use to get into the Sirius plane. It was nice and compact, much like the kidnap ladder. A picture of this ladder can be seen on Ronelle's excellent hoax site. Here is the link. Just scroll down a bit and the picture will be on the right hand side. www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/ladder.html
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2017 19:35:49 GMT -5
From the material I've been reading, I would have to say that the only thing BRH should have been charged with is receiver of stolen goods. It's a stretch with the extortion charge because we cannot factually connect H to making an extortion attempt. The "handwriting analysis" is only an opinion put forth by Osbornes who changed their "testimony" and the BI man whose name escapes me. The only way I could say H was an extortionist is if a postal clerk or someone else of integrity saw him put the note in an envelope lick a stamp and hand it over to clerk for mailing. Other references in the LKC books do not put forth hard evidence for extortion. Interesting comment. So, are you saying that Hauptmann received the money from Isidor Fisch? Are you talking about just the shoe box money or are you including all the money that went into various accounts that Hauptmann had over a two year period from April 1932 until he was apprehended in Sept. 1934?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 2, 2017 20:20:42 GMT -5
From the material I've been reading, I would have to say that the only thing BRH should have been charged with is receiver of stolen goods. It's a stretch with the extortion charge because we cannot factually connect H to making an extortion attempt. The "handwriting analysis" is only an opinion put forth by Osbornes who changed their "testimony" and the BI man whose name escapes me. The only way I could say H was an extortionist is if a postal clerk or someone else of integrity saw him put the note in an envelope lick a stamp and hand it over to clerk for mailing. Other references in the LKC books do not put forth hard evidence for extortion. Interesting comment. So, are you saying that Hauptmann received the money from Isidor Fisch? Are you talking about just the shoe box money or are you including all the money that went into various accounts that Hauptmann had over a two year period from April 1932 until he was apprehended in Sept. 1934? Hauptmann's brokerage firm never had any Lindbergh's goldbacks traced to them. Also he was living above his "means" starting at the end of 1931. Why was this? Additionally, there was pretty good evidence Hauptmann received a "shoebox" as described during a party by his friend, no? Given all of this there was a good case for possession of stolen property. New Jersey could clear this all up today by using Touch DNA on the still ransom letter envelopes (they were sliced open on the side). Also by testing by testing the soiled handkerchief the lookout used. Either of these could be compared to Fisch's living relatives and Hauptmann's son.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Aug 3, 2017 8:45:17 GMT -5
amy but the problem is a piece of that ladder came from hauptmanns attic and I don't think Lindbergh knew Bruno before the crime. to me it don't matter what ladder looked like what
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Aug 3, 2017 8:50:55 GMT -5
well jack I own a lot of newspaper articles on this case I think they were on the money most of the time. but sometimes they created stuff just to hand it in. and I find nobody really didn't have a upper hand on a scoop, because years after a lot of journalists made that claim. after the crime some journalists camped out near the Lindbergh house and gave accounts of it which really didn't add up to much
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Aug 3, 2017 8:54:11 GMT -5
but mike they wernt real watch dogs anyway, you might as well have toto from the wizard of oz guarding the place. that's why I don't think its important of why the dogs didn't bark or not
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Aug 3, 2017 9:09:40 GMT -5
Good theoretical point, trojanusc, but there has to be some kind of legal case started before anyone could compel these relatives to cooperate. And there certainly isn't any desire among today's New Jersey politicos to get involved in revisiting the LKC.
Then, too, the possibilities as to who wrote the ransom notes aren't limited to Hauptmann and Fisch. Another candidate among several for this distinction is Jacob Nosovitsky.
Soiled handkerchief? Whose soiled handkerchief remains in the NJSP collection? Don't recall how they may have obtained possession of that handkerchief.
|
|
|
Post by julie0709 on Aug 3, 2017 12:10:47 GMT -5
Good theoretical point, trojanusc, but there has to be some kind of legal case started before anyone could compel these relatives to cooperate. And there certainly isn't any desire among today's New Jersey politicos to get involved in revisiting the LKC. Then, too, the possibilities as to who wrote the ransom notes aren't limited to Hauptmann and Fisch. Another candidate among several for this distinction is Jacob Nosovitsky. Soiled handkerchief? Whose soiled handkerchief remains in the NJSP collection? Don't recall how they may have obtained possession of that handkerchief. That is another thing on my LKC wishlist is dna testing of any physical evidence. It can be done but it would take a documentary producer or maybe a class action suit brought by interested parties.
|
|
|
Post by julie0709 on Aug 3, 2017 12:17:55 GMT -5
amy but the problem is a piece of that ladder came from hauptmanns attic and I don't think Lindbergh knew Bruno before the crime. to me it don't matter what ladder looked like what
Lt Bornmann had possession of the ladder from the time it was taken into the house in NJ then Bornmann accompanies Keogh up and down the east coast in search of the lumber mill. And finally holds a lease on the Rause property not allowing defense or BI agents access to the apartment While he did have 2 carpenters with him Bornmann tears up a plank from the attic by hand?! to see if the board when cut down would fit into a car?! (Gardner CND) !??!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 3, 2017 14:18:54 GMT -5
There is very significant evidence that BRH wrote all of the ransom notes. You should read "Ghosts of Hopewell" by Fisher. Also there's more to know about the ladder, nails, etc. which is covered, and lots of other information.
If tried today Hauptmann would easily be found guilty - as Michael says, the ladder puts him in the nursery.
|
|
|
Post by julie0709 on Aug 3, 2017 16:26:04 GMT -5
There is very significant evidence that BRH wrote all of the ransom notes. You should read "Ghosts of Hopewell" by Fisher. Also there's more to know about the ladder, nails, etc. which is covered, and lots of other information. If tried today Hauptmann would easily be found guilty - as Michael says, the ladder puts him in the nursery. Hi jack! Yep I've read Fisher and will re-read that volume as suggested There's always something to be gleaned from research even though I disagree with Fisher's hypothesis From what I've read from all the authors I could find on the subject there's nothing to connect H with the ladder. The BI couldn't do it from their separate investigation of the ladder and I just don't believe Keogh's evaluation of the "wood evidence" I'm no scientist but I cannot believe Keogh's connecting an individual piece of wood to an individual floor. And the sad fact still remains that the ladder in question was contaminated by handling or mishandling taken apart and put back together again. Hopefully there will come a time when new tests will be performed to prove what can be found on that particular ladder. Sans wood matching nonsense
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 3, 2017 16:40:12 GMT -5
Hi Julie:
You're doing good on here!
Hauptmann even admitted having the affliction shown in the ransom notes for all of his life. That means hard evidence, to me, but I've noticed that it's just about impossible to change people's minds on here. Party on, Julie!
Jack
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 3, 2017 18:58:38 GMT -5
There is very significant evidence that BRH wrote all of the ransom notes. You should read "Ghosts of Hopewell" by Fisher. Also there's more to know about the ladder, nails, etc. which is covered, and lots of other information. If tried today Hauptmann would easily be found guilty - as Michael says, the ladder puts him in the nursery. Hi jack! Yep I've read Fisher and will re-read that volume as suggested There's always something to be gleaned from research even though I disagree with Fisher's hypothesis From what I've read from all the authors I could find on the subject there's nothing to connect H with the ladder. The BI couldn't do it from their separate investigation of the ladder and I just don't believe Keogh's evaluation of the "wood evidence" I'm no scientist but I cannot believe Keogh's connecting an individual piece of wood to an individual floor. And the sad fact still remains that the ladder in question was contaminated by handling or mishandling taken apart and put back together again. Hopefully there will come a time when new tests will be performed to prove what can be found on that particular ladder. Sans wood matching nonsense I agree! It's so ridiculous to think a carpenter would throw together a ladder like this and use lumber from his attic. He would have had to plane the board to make it fit. Then adding to that it wasn't built to hold him with the additional weight of a child. The design worked but it also served to lead investigators away from the house. Why not just leave it at the side of the house? Why not leave the note in the crib instead of carrying it back to the window ledge with a heavy baby? The defense was never allowed into that apartment at anytime.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 3, 2017 19:19:39 GMT -5
There is very significant evidence that BRH wrote all of the ransom notes. You should read "Ghosts of Hopewell" by Fisher. Also there's more to know about the ladder, nails, etc. which is covered, and lots of other information. "Ghosts" is the absolute worst book on the subject. There's damn near one mistake per page. If tried today Hauptmann would easily be found guilty - as Michael says, the ladder puts him in the nursery. Huh? If I did show me where so I can correct whatever I said to give that impression. Rail 16 was in the Rauch basement. That leftover wood was not only accessible to Hauptmann, he used some of it for the garage. So common sense suggests he had a hand in building the ladder. Exactly where it was built is another problem to explore because it wasn't done in his garage or in his attic, and there were certain tools used that were not in his possession. However, this puts him in the works from the beginning as far as I am concerned but in no way proves he was in the nursery on March 1st. Since multiple people were involved there are many possibilities outside of Hauptmann being the "climber." but mike they wernt real watch dogs anyway, you might as well have toto from the wizard of oz guarding the place. that's why I don't think its important of why the dogs didn't bark or not Wahgoosh barked at everything. Skean would have barked if someone climbed through that nursery window while he was sleeping there.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 3, 2017 19:51:35 GMT -5
well jack I own a lot of newspaper articles on this case I think they were on the money most of the time. but sometimes they created stuff just to hand it in. and I find nobody really didn't have a upper hand on a scoop, because years after a lot of journalists made that claim. after the crime some journalists camped out near the Lindbergh house and gave accounts of it which really didn't add up to much I think Steve that any newspaper article needs to be looked at with skepticism. There were newspaper "wars" back then, and each different reporter was looking to be the first with a 'scoop.' If you read my book you will see that Reporters were barred from the yard for a time, therefore, did not have access to take pictures of the footprints immediately as their Editors demanded. So some quick thinking reporters had their own prints made elsewhere, took pictures, then sent them off to but published. Unfortunately, this led to the idea that "Reporters" actually made the real prints - because word got around about them doing this and, just like "whisper down the alley," the situation became confused and took on a life of its own. How do I know this? The source material at the Archives along with other supporting documentation. I am not saying all newspaper reports are always wrong. Some are right or "partially" right, but what I am saying is we must be careful with them. Same goes for captions attached to pictures. Reporters wrote those too, and if a Police Report says something different then it's obvious which source is more reliable.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 3, 2017 23:40:10 GMT -5
Good theoretical point, trojanusc, but there has to be some kind of legal case started before anyone could compel these relatives to cooperate. And there certainly isn't any desire among today's New Jersey politicos to get involved in revisiting the LKC. Then, too, the possibilities as to who wrote the ransom notes aren't limited to Hauptmann and Fisch. Another candidate among several for this distinction is Jacob Nosovitsky. Soiled handkerchief? Whose soiled handkerchief remains in the NJSP collection? Don't recall how they may have obtained possession of that handkerchief. The "lookout" at the cemetery encounters had a white handkerchief. Per Gardner: “As in the earlier rendezvous, a man walked by the car, coughed, and covered his face with a handkerchief as if sending a signal. The handkerchief was later picked up and today can be seen in the museum of the New Jersey State Police in West Trenton. But it disappeared from the prosecution’s case in 1935 because only one man was on trial and no one wished to talk about an accomplice or a “gang.” 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 Aug 4, 2017 2:22:11 GMT -5
I remember you saying exactly that - I figured it made sense so remembered it.
More than common sense tells us he built the ladder. It was his wood, some even from his house. His nails from his keg in the garage, wood was planed with his large plane (his smaller one was at the Majestic Apartments with his other tools,) and the nails holding the ladder together were professionally driven - the ladder was built by a genuine carpenter.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 4, 2017 4:12:25 GMT -5
I remember you saying exactly that - I figured it made sense so remembered it. More than common sense tells us he built the ladder. It was his wood, some even from his house. His nails from his keg in the garage, wood was planed with his large plane (his smaller one was at the Majestic Apartments with his other tools,) and the nails holding the ladder together were professionally driven - the ladder was built by a genuine carpenter. Meanwhile, his fingerprints were nowhere to be found, even in places the man who built the ladder (and were inaccessible to the elements (under the rungs, etc). would have had to touch. Perhaps he wore gloves, but it seems unlikely the gloves were worn at every step of the way from lumber purchasing through construction.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 4, 2017 5:01:03 GMT -5
I remember you saying exactly that - I figured it made sense so remembered it. Unless it was a typo I never wrote that. I know I've written, repeatedly, that even if he wrote those notes (I'm 50/50 on that), and built the ladder it does not place him in that nursery. More than common sense tells us he built the ladder. It was his wood, some even from his house. His nails from his keg in the garage, wood was planed with his large plane (his smaller one was at the Majestic Apartments with his other tools,) and the nails holding the ladder together were professionally driven - the ladder was built by a genuine carpenter. "His" wood? Debatable. You mean Rails 12 & 13? Koehler himself disproved this before Hauptmann's arrest. So we have to believe him and not believe him simultaneously. Or ignore what we don't like. The nails? Debatable. The manufacturers said they weren't possible trace. Keith said it was. So again, we have to ignore what we don't like. Rail 16? I am satisfied it had been removed by the electricians, and that Rauch placed it in the basement with the other leftovers. So Hauptmann had access to it. This shows me that he most likely had a hand in building the ladder. Where? No one knows. It wasn't in the attic, and it wasn't in his garage. Find out where and we'll have another huge piece of the puzzle to discuss. On his tools: He never left any behind at Majestic. The police interviewed just about everyone (save one that died and one or two who moved away) and no one saw him building a ladder there. Meanwhile, his fingerprints were nowhere to be found, even in places the man who built the ladder (and were inaccessible to the elements (under the rungs, etc). would have had to touch. Perhaps he wore gloves, but it seems unlikely the gloves were worn at every step of the way from lumber purchasing through construction. It's a great point when considering the specific print found mostly under Rung 11. It was not Hauptmann's. So maybe he did wear gloves - but the other guy did not.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 4, 2017 7:06:47 GMT -5
Michael did you discuss the attic board in your book?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 4, 2017 10:48:26 GMT -5
You may have said it on the hoax site but it was when you were talking to a guy who claimed there was no evidence against Hauptmann except for extortion and you popped that line. Not particularly important.
How do you know BRH didn't build the ladder in his garage?
I think his tools were at the Majestic. Look at what you've got as far as him and Anna and witnesses to where HE was on 3/1/32, much less his tools. A mishmash of huhs.
The reason you're not getting anywhere after years of poking is that he did it alone so there was nobody to snitch on him. And the little things that have been learned over the years such as that the attic wood was removed by electricians and further fingerprint analysis have pointed straight at Richard Hauptmann.
|
|