|
Post by kate1 on Aug 29, 2017 13:13:30 GMT -5
I remember reading somewhere that there were Windows built into the roof at Highfields that flooded the attic with light, being planned for an eventual laboratory. I also remember reading that Betty decided she wasn't happy being a maid and decided, I think while she lived in Detroit, to "read up on childcare" to seek a position as a nurse. I would think as much as Betty had charge over the baby they might have found someone with: (1. More experience with children especially babies, and (2. Someone the family knew a little more about. I would hAve absolutely never left my children at any age with someone with this little experience and about whom my family heard through the friend of a maid! They left him totally in her care when they flew around the world. Hard not to criticize their judgement. There were skylights built into areas of the roof of the Hopewell house. I have not read that these were for a future laboratory to be built up there. If you can remember where you read this, that would be very helpful. I read in Lloyd Gardner's book, The Case That Never Dies, page 13, that Betty Gow decided she wanted a position as a nurse maid in a wealthy family so she read books on child care to ready herself for such a position. She did also have charge of a child in New Jersey just before she took the job with the Lindberghs. I understand your criticism of the hiring of Betty Gow. Charlie's previous caregivers had been nurses. Betty Gow was not. So did Anne and CAL feel they no longer needed a professional to help care for Charlie? Maybe CAL didn't like clashing with nurses who had strong opinions about how to handle Charlie? Perhaps a general childcare worker would be more suitable to him? There were plenty of Nanny agencies that the Lindberghs could have contacted to find someone with experience to care for Charlie. Instead, it is Elisabeth Morrow who finds someone. I'll look for that Amy. I had forgotten about Betty working for the family as a child's caregiver. Without checking on whom you have living in your home you certainly are opening up your life (and your family's) to the outside world. Don't think that's what CAL wanted. Morrows certainly were enmeshed to some degree especially with the Lindberghs living there.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 29, 2017 15:16:22 GMT -5
Amy, absolutely right ( again)! Found in Milton's book that a 7-zone heating system and heavy-duty wiring were installed to accommodate a lab in the basement. The glass bricks were in the roof to provide the attic with natural light....doesn't indicate any use for the attic, p. 210 in Loss of Eden. Thanks for the fact check!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 30, 2017 5:11:12 GMT -5
Kate1:
Criminally switched license plates has been gone over before, see back a ways. If we go by the "likely test" then a car used in perpetrating the crime of the century would be more likely to have incorrect plates than correct ones.
The box on the back of Richard's car was a homemade addition and could have been easily removed. A novel way of establishing misidentification!
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 30, 2017 6:43:27 GMT -5
Kate1: Criminally switched license plates has been gone over before, see back a ways. If we go by the "likely test" then a car used in perpetrating the crime of the century would be more likely to have incorrect plates than correct ones. The box on the back of Richard's car was a homemade addition and could have been easily removed. A novel way of establishing misidentification! Thank you, I'm still learning. I've been trying to go back and I need a systematic way of doing this. I posted often until about 2007 so I've missed a lot. I won't say anything more about the kidnap car but seems like, if a single individual commits this crime, he/she was very careful to detail in some cases and not in big ways. Honestly I can see your arguments, but I simply think they are assumptions.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Aug 30, 2017 7:53:45 GMT -5
Kate, I'd have to agree that the last thing anyone in this position would have done would be to use his personal plates. Small town folks are naturally curious about outsiders and I have to believe the plates on the Dodge would have been stolen. Assuming this was Hauptmann alone in his vehicle, his homemade trunk was unnecessary and would only have presented more of a liability, as an additional point of identification. Consider also, he would probably have had more use for an extra tire, as was noted on the back of the Dodge by Lupica. (in addition to the spare wheel and tire on the fender) Rubber tires in those days were notoriously prone to blowouts, even on good roads, and Hopewell area had some pretty rough roads.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Aug 30, 2017 8:28:57 GMT -5
As a general comment regarding the hiring of Betty Gow as CALjr's caregiver, neither Charles or Anne, (not to mention Charlie himself, the Morrow family and any of the other staff) seemed to have any complaints at all about Betty's qualifications, based upon the quality of care she was providing their son. Where is the evidence that she was not devoted to his wellbeing or deficient and neglectful in any way? And the fact that Betty was not qualified as a registered nurse, should speak volumes about the fact that Charlie did not require special needs, which a registered nurse would have been more aware of and qualified to provide. Even his doctor described him as "unusually well developed" at his last physical. Take away the kidnapping and you have a pretty normal domestic situation and kid here. Add a traumatic life event such as the kidnapping, and I think the observer will always be able to feed on the frenzy through the filter that strikes the deepest personal response.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Aug 30, 2017 8:45:48 GMT -5
well amy I know what your saying but nobody came forward and they couldn't connect anybody to hauptmann and the evidence pointed to him. tell me please where the evidence points to anybody else.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Aug 30, 2017 8:49:07 GMT -5
when I was at next day hill I couldn't go upstairs where the lindberghs lived there was a class going on. according to the outside measurements I was told they might have measured the wrong window I don't know how true it is. id love to do it myslelf I always thought the Lindberghs' lived in their own wing of the Englewood estate. Is that right? kate when I was there I went to the room where they were married and they told me there apt was upstairs but theres a class going on I woiuld have loved to go there. I saw two stairways I wanted to know which one did violet sharp run up or down they didn't know
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Aug 30, 2017 11:12:31 GMT -5
If Anna had truly remembered Richard picking her up that night, she would have also noted that it was very late.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 30, 2017 18:51:25 GMT -5
Ben Lupica's eyewitness evidence was different than the numerous car sightings. The sightings will never be proven as to who or what they were. Remember, Lupica's evidence came long before anyone ever heard of Richard Hauptmann. Ben saw a middle aged normal sized white male alone with a suit on and a slouch hat driving a blue Dodge car similar year as Hauptmenn's car (probably Hauptmann's) with a disassembled extension ladder over the seats in front of the Lindbergh residence shortly before the Lindbergh Kidnapping Crime happened. That is significant evidence of perpetration since Hauptmann also turns up later as a suspect in the crime investigation. All of the sightings in my book were reported before Hauptmann. Let's look at the situation as it was then.... There wasn't a car driving by in that area every 15 minutes. If one did drive by, Locals were usually able to identify it as a neighbor, or if not they took notice trying to figure out who it was and/or what they were up to. That's how the Moore family came to know Lindbergh lived nearby....they saw his car use the road in front of their house "more" than anyone else. So when on March 1st they saw a car with mud on it's lights haul ass past their house around 8:22PM it was noticed. It's also important who's car they did NOT see. When Conover saw a dodge with "wire wheels" with ladders inside the car across the seats it was noticed. But since Hauptmann's dodge did not have wire wheels should we shrug it off? So was there (2) dodges with ladders laying on top of their seats circling Highfields? And since the neighbors all believed Windling saw this same car should we disregard this too? I mean it was their neighborhood so shouldn't we consider their insights and observations? As a result all eyewitness accounts should be considered and not blown off. We don't have to "force" Hauptmann into the equation. Kate, I'd have to agree that the last thing anyone in this position would have done would be to use his personal plates. Small town folks are naturally curious about outsiders and I have to believe the plates on the Dodge would have been stolen. Assuming this was Hauptmann alone in his vehicle, his homemade trunk was unnecessary and would only have presented more of a liability, as an additional point of identification. Consider also, he would probably have had more use for an extra tire, as was noted on the back of the Dodge by Lupica. (in addition to the spare wheel and tire on the fender) Rubber tires in those days were notoriously prone to blowouts, even on good roads, and Hopewell area had some pretty rough roads. For something to apply here shouldn't it apply everywhere? Hauptmann took the trunk on his cross country drive to California. Long drive. Very long drive. So by your position he wasn't worried about a blow out then, but worried about one to Hopewell. I do agree with you and Jack that the plates might have been stolen. But stolen plates were usually reported AND Conover saw NY tags on the dodge she saw with the ladder inside. So if it was the same car, and it's hard to say it wasn't, then the tags were stolen and replaced after 3:30PM. As a general comment regarding the hiring of Betty Gow as CALjr's caregiver, neither Charles or Anne, (not to mention Charlie himself, the Morrow family and any of the other staff) seemed to have any complaints at all about Betty's qualifications, based upon the quality of care she was providing their son. Where is the evidence that she was not devoted to his wellbeing or deficient and neglectful in any way? And the fact that Betty was not qualified as a registered nurse, should speak volumes about the fact that Charlie did not require special needs, which a registered nurse would have been more aware of and qualified to provide. Even his doctor described him as "unusually well developed" at his last physical. Take away the kidnapping and you have a pretty normal domestic situation and kid here. Add a traumatic life event such as the kidnapping, and I think the observer will always be able to feed on the frenzy through the filter that strikes the deepest personal response. Hold on Joe. First of all Whateley obviously believed Betty mistreated the child in Maine because a source that said she did traced back to the Humes. Next, because you don't have a source which "complains" about Betty that means she was not only qualified but that the child was normal? Here's what "speaks volumes".... Cummings was a qualified nurse and she was FIRED because the child was DECLINING under HER care (see TDC page 94). She was replaced by Copin and the child began to improve. Improve from what? He was perfectly fine right? But Lindbergh doesn't like Copin so she's fired. Apparently the child improved at the cost of his image. What does this tell us? Well, there's something more important to Lindbergh than the child's health. So the fired Nurse is re-hired. Marie told police she didn't even want the job. After this she then gives way to Betty. What does Betty and Marie have in common?
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 30, 2017 20:06:02 GMT -5
I always thought the Lindberghs' lived in their own wing of the Englewood estate. Is that right? kate when I was there I went to the room where they were married and they told me there apt was upstairs but theres a class going on I woiuld have loved to go there. I saw two stairways I wanted to know which one did violet sharp run up or down they didn't know Would love to experience some of those spots!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 31, 2017 3:14:13 GMT -5
Well, also, Lupica could have been wrong about no box on the back of the Dodge and what the license plates were. After all, in spite of it's being kind of an unusual situation it was just another car among hundreds seen every day, and just another day. And, in fact, the police in addition said he changed his story a couple times.
All of the personal sightings, identifications, could be incorrect. That's what's wrong with that type of evidence, and the problem has been well publicized and is found as at least a notation in many true crime books probably even the Lindbergh ones.
Of course there are some speculations made, Kate1, not assumptions. If it was possible for something to have happened, such as Hauptmann taking the trunk/box temporarily off of the back of his car, he could have done it and Richard would be driving around in a car without a trunk/box on the rear end.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 31, 2017 3:18:41 GMT -5
It should be noted here because it's being used somewhat, that the lack of something is not really evidence. It creates an indication but it has no proof value.
For example, Hauptmann's fingerprints not being on the ladder does not mean that he had nothing to do with the ladder.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Aug 31, 2017 4:38:22 GMT -5
It should be noted here because it's being used somewhat, that the lack of something is not really evidence. It creates an indication but it has no proof value. For example, Hauptmann's fingerprints not being on the ladder does not mean that he had nothing to do with the ladder. I know I make assumptions continually. Mostly try to use logic but I agree that lack of evidence isn't proof. I think it's important to look at the entirety of the individuals involved when we do make judgements. Just my thoughts and jeeze its early!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 31, 2017 5:23:28 GMT -5
It should be noted here because it's being used somewhat, that the lack of something is not really evidence. It creates an indication but it has no proof value. For example, Hauptmann's fingerprints not being on the ladder does not mean that he had nothing to do with the ladder. It all depends doesn't it? If the kidnap ladder has fingerprints on it that do not belong to Hauptmann or anyone known to have handled it since it's discovery - the lack of Hauptmann's prints is evidence. A clue is a clue. Even if it's only value is that it ruins the idea that all who were involved in the crime wore gloves. Or the fact that the J. J. Faulkner deposit slip lacked Hauptmann's handwriting. That's certainly evidence because before Hauptmann, certain suspects were ruled out if their handwriting did not match. Or that Hauptmann did not have a lump at the base or either thumb. So the lack of certain things can definitely be evidence of something - even if that evidence leads to the fact that that Condon was lying.
|
|
|
Post by julie0709 on Aug 31, 2017 14:45:29 GMT -5
Hold on Joe. First of all Whateley obviously believed Betty mistreated the child in Maine because a source that said she did traced back to the Humes. Next, because you don't have a source which "complains" about Betty that means she was not only qualified but that the child was normal? Here's what "speaks volumes".... Cummings was a qualified nurse and she was FIRED because the child was DECLINING under HER care (see TDC page 94). She was replaced by Copin and the child began to improve. Improve from what? He was perfectly fine right? But Lindbergh doesn't like Copin so she's fired. Apparently the child improved at the cost of his image. What does this tell us? Well, there's something more important to Lindbergh than the child's health. So the fired Nurse is re-hired. Marie told police she didn't even want the job. After this she then gives way to Betty. What does Betty and Marie have in common? I think it was a matter of CAL's attitude toward Betty Gow, not her qualifications or unqualifications. She worked in tandem with Lindbergh and was a stand-in as it were for doing things on Lindbergh's behest when Anne wasn't available or thought otherwise. I don't believe Lindbergh thought seriously about his child and Anne was supposed to follow his lead and not be stuck taking care of their son. Some of the dynamics were typical of "upper class" families in the earlier part of the 20th cent. Hiring European bred household help was in vogue. But what of other rich families in that era? Vanderbilt, Roosevelt, Kelly's from Philadelphia? What did they have going on that was similar to the Lindbergh household?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Sept 1, 2017 4:34:00 GMT -5
The word evidence is self-explanatory. It means evident. And the lack of something is evidence, but only within it's own scope. For example, the lack of Hauptmann's fingerprints on the ladder is evidence that he never touched the ladder in a manner that would leave one of his fingerprints on it. Their lack is not evidence that he had nothing to do with building or using the ladder. Similarly for the evident footprints in the yard found after the kidnapping crime. Except for the few prints which had a sock over the foot and can logically be concluded as being entry evidence of someone's feet, for the other prints there is really no idea whose they were and whether they were connected to the kidnapping or not. Here again, they are evidence that someone walked somewhere near and away from the house, but not evidence of anyone doing or not doing anything.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 1, 2017 5:24:33 GMT -5
The word evidence is self-explanatory. It means evident. And the lack of something is evidence, but only within it's own scope. For example, the lack of Hauptmann's fingerprints on the ladder is evidence that he never touched the ladder in a manner that would leave one of his fingerprints on it. Their lack is not evidence that he had nothing to do with building or using the ladder. Similarly for the evident footprints in the yard found after the kidnapping crime. Except for the few prints which had a sock over the foot and can logically be concluded as being entry evidence of someone's feet, for the other prints there is really no idea whose they were and whether they were connected to the kidnapping or not. Here again, they are evidence that someone walked somewhere near and away from the house, but not evidence of anyone doing or not doing anything. So the lack of something we'd expect to find is evidence of something and should not be ignored. Take the double set of footprints walking away from the nursery window leading to the ladder which you mention above. This is clear evidence of two people. The absence of another set leading to the ladder is evidence too. Not that three people weren't involved, only that three did not walk from under the nursery window to where the ladder lay that night. As to the other prints leading from that ladder to where a car had been parked on Wertsville Road, I view this as evidence as well. I don't see any value in shrugging them off or attributing them to people who hadn't even been there before they were found.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Sept 1, 2017 7:31:08 GMT -5
Actually, Hauptmann's car was equipped with wire wheels, and I didn't realize Mrs. Conover had made that specific observation. I believe it was Lupica who claimed the Dodge he saw had spoke (wooden) wheels. Certainly the Hopewell locals would have taken notice of a strange vehicle in the area during the daylight hours of March 1, but then they weren't on the alert for vehicles that might have been involved in a kidnapping at that time of day either. It seems reasonable the quality of their observations would have been in line with the same kind of standard deviations experienced within a general group sighting, unless they had a specific intent to clarify what they observed.
You're comparing two entirely different trips and each would have an entirely different intention here. Hauptmann took off for California with two passengers taking up interior space and the trunk would have been required for necessary camping supplies. In this case, he wouldn't have cared less if anyone had noticed his handmade, one-off trunk mounted on the rear of his vehicle. On their route, he would had handy access to full service stations in the event he needed a tire repair or replacement, and he would have had no issues about doing this. A quick look through his memorandum books and his trip log, shows he did this often. I believe the only logical explanation for him to carry an extra tire (in addition to the tire/wheel mounted on his fender) on March 1, would be so that he could avoid service stations and the risk of being potentially identified later on.
I wasn't aware that Mrs. Conover actually saw NY plates but that she thought they might have been NY plates. There's a difference. In any case, if this was Hauptmann and I feel pretty certain it was, he would have had to have swapped out his NY plates at some point. I'd be surprised if he hadn't done that earlier, away from Hopewell. Now, if Mrs. Conover was correct, this might well indicate an accomplice (from New Jersey?) who had the stolen plates for Hauptmann's vehicle, and who he met up with, somewhere around Hopewell.
What further details can you provide which indicate the child "was declining under her care?" What does that mean other than a convenient generalization? Declining in what way medically, as observed and described by a doctor?
And I assume you're referring to the fact that both Betty Gow and Marie Cummings were not difficult to look at?
Michael, what you've written sounds much like innuendo-laced distraction. During his last checkup, Dr. Van Ingen wrote that Charlie was unusually well-developed. How do you reconcile this amidst what you've written and why do you not include this observation and reporting by Van Ingen?
Out of all the so called fingerprints on the ladder, (most of them being non-descript partials and smudges) very few were actually identified as those belonging to people who had knowingly handled the ladder, and obviously a lot of people handled that ladder without gloves. Given his virtual stamp of identity all over this ladder through the establishment of the origin of Rail 16, lumber purchased at National Lumber and Millwork, identical planning tool marks, the statistically-relevant production run of PPG nails, ladder sections seen in Dodge sedan, what do you think the odds are that some of those unidentifiable fingerprint partials or smudges were not actually Hauptmann's?
Regarding the so called "lump" at the base of the thumb, there seems to be major misconception about what Condon was talking about there. He was not referring to some kind of deformity or genetic anomaly on the hand of CJ, as Robert Zorn mistakenly believed, for example. He was actually referring to the considerable development of the thenar eminence muscle group on the palm of the hand at the base of the thumb. For carpenters, plumbers, construction workers and other tradespeople whose hands are their livelihoods, this is a trademark feature. Given the fact Hauptmann was essentially a retired carpenter by the time he was arrested two and a half years after Condon had first shaken his hand, and assuming Hauptmann was CJ, it would not have been surprising for him to have lost much of that same muscular development.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 1, 2017 9:45:20 GMT -5
like I said amy they found nobody else connected to the case. you people assume to much. hauptmann was spending the money, his handwriting matched the notes even the misspellings. if you read the huddleson report Hauptman admitted he put letters that didn't belong he might have had agraphia or whatever they call it now
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 1, 2017 9:47:46 GMT -5
mike you nitpick the witnesses .you say whitehead was a liar and houchmuth couldn't see but could see then. so you cant disprove one witness and believe another. I can name a lot of witmesses that don't get attention that saw Hauptman spend the money.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 1, 2017 16:23:57 GMT -5
Actually, Hauptmann's car was equipped with wire wheels, and I didn't realize Mrs. Conover had made that specific observation. I believe it was Lupica who claimed the Dodge he saw had spoke (wooden) wheels. Certainly the Hopewell locals would have taken notice of a strange vehicle in the area during the daylight hours of March 1, but then they weren't on the alert for vehicles that might have been involved in a kidnapping at that time of day either. It seems reasonable the quality of their observations would have been in line with the same kind of standard deviations experienced within a general group sighting, unless they had a specific intent to clarify what they observed. Right, thanks for correcting this. Regardless, as you point out, one eyewitness account had wire wheels and the other had wooden. One had NJ plates and the other had NY. This was my point. So while the plates may have been switched to account for that, I think it's a stretch to say the wheels were. Both Dodges and both with ladders inside while circling Highfields via the country roads. You're comparing two entirely different trips and each would have an entirely different intention here. Hauptmann took off for California with two passengers taking up interior space and the trunk would have been required for necessary camping supplies. In this case, he wouldn't have cared less if anyone had noticed his handmade, one-off trunk mounted on the rear of his vehicle. On their route, he would had handy access to full service stations in the event he needed a tire repair or replacement, and he would have had no issues about doing this. A quick look through his memorandum books and his trip log, shows he did this often. I believe the only logical explanation for him to carry an extra tire (in addition to the tire/wheel mounted on his fender) on March 1, would be so that he could avoid service stations and the risk of being potentially identified later on.
Same guy, same car, but the difference is the distance traveled. So your point is seriously flawed at face value. Offering the general excuse of random and available service stations as a reason why it wouldn't apply on the California trip doesn't make any sense when considering they traveled roads with no such luxuries. For example, in their travels they utilized mountain passes in West Yellowstone Montana and the long hot isolated roads in Death Valley.
I wasn't aware that Mrs. Conover actually saw NY plates but that she thought they might have been NY plates. There's a difference. In any case, if this was Hauptmann and I feel pretty certain it was, he would have had to have swapped out his NY plates at some point. I'd be surprised if he hadn't done that earlier, away from Hopewell. Now, if Mrs. Conover was correct, this might well indicate an accomplice (from New Jersey?) who had the stolen plates for Hauptmann's vehicle, and who he met up with, somewhere around Hopewell.
She recalled it was NY tags but added she wasn't sure. It's typical to see this especially coming from someone who's honest. Lupica is a perfect example for this as well. Some accounts he saw a dark blue car and others it was black. He couldn't identify Hauptmann as it's driver so he refused to.
I have no problem with the idea that plates were switched but can't understand why he'd be seen prior to doing so.
What further details can you provide which indicate the child "was declining under her care?" What does that mean other than a convenient generalization? Declining in what way medically, as observed and described by a doctor? And I assume you're referring to the fact that both Betty Gow and Marie Cummings were not difficult to look at? Michael, what you've written sounds much like innuendo-laced distraction. During his last checkup, Dr. Van Ingen wrote that Charlie was unusually well-developed. How do you reconcile this amidst what you've written and why do you not include this observation and reporting by Van Ingen?
The FBI Report doesn't give a specific diagnosis and frankly they didn't need to. They found the source creditable since she was in the Morrow house and was a witness to it. Playing semantics doesn't invalidate it's significance or the fact that a real nurse was fired as a result. However, I do understand your resistance to it since it ruins your earlier point. Also don't forget that Cummings was someone that Lindbergh was quite fond of according to the Morrow Staff (TDC page 95).
Out of all the so called fingerprints on the ladder, (most of them being non-descript partials and smudges) very few were actually identified as those belonging to people who had knowingly handled the ladder, and obviously a lot of people handled that ladder without gloves. Given his virtual stamp of identity all over this ladder through the establishment of the origin of Rail 16, lumber purchased at National Lumber and Millwork, identical planning tool marks, the statistically-relevant production run of PPG nails, ladder sections seen in Dodge sedan, what do you think the odds are that some of those unidentifiable fingerprint partials or smudges were not actually Hauptmann's?
First tell me how many "so called" fingerprints were on the ladder, and how many were compared. If you don't know then your whole response doesn't make much sense does it? Next, Rails 12 & 13 were never traced to National. In fact, Koehler ruled National out and I have the documentation to prove it. He claimed it was traced only after Hauptmann's arrest and it was revealed he worked there. But before he said no and offered prove as to why it was no. Again, I have the documentation. The nails are meaningless. Rail 16 however is a different story because that ties him into that ladder no matter anything else.
How many prints would have been his? I don't know. I do know the print found in a place that only someone who made it didn't match. But of course that only proves they didn't wear gloves and not that Hauptmann wasn't involved. It could have been as Squire Johnson said but that would mean Hauptmann was wearing gloves OR that none of his prints were comparable. It's all speculation but what we do have we cannot ignore.
Regarding the so called "lump" at the base of the thumb, there seems to be major misconception about what Condon was talking about there. He was not referring to some kind of deformity or genetic anomaly on the hand of CJ, as Robert Zorn mistakenly believed, for example. He was actually referring to the considerable development of the thenar eminence muscle group on the palm of the hand at the base of the thumb. For carpenters, plumbers, construction workers and other tradespeople whose hands are their livelihoods, this is a trademark feature. Given the fact Hauptmann was essentially a retired carpenter by the time he was arrested two and a half years after Condon had first shaken his hand, and assuming Hauptmann was CJ, it would not have been surprising for him to have lost much of that same muscular development. There is no misconception on my end. I have ALL of his accounts and he was talking about a unique characteristic which would easily identify the man he spoke with. Dancing around what it "actually" was doesn't undermine Condon's claim to police about it.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Sept 1, 2017 16:24:57 GMT -5
mike you nitpick the witnesses .you say whitehead was a liar and houchmuth couldn't see but could see then. so you cant disprove one witness and believe another. I can name a lot of witmesses that don't get attention that saw Hauptman spend the money. Both witnesses changed their stories completely when dollar signs came knocking and the pressure was turned on. Not reliable and not nitpicking.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 1, 2017 16:32:51 GMT -5
mike you nitpick the witnesses .you say whitehead was a liar and houchmuth couldn't see but could see then. so you cant disprove one witness and believe another. I can name a lot of witmesses that don't get attention that saw Hauptman spend the money. Actually that's what you are doing Steve. If you believe Whited then he saw Lindbergh - it's in the report (TDC page 13). I didn't make it up and only searched for the early account to see why police would have told him to keep quiet like he was claiming. Again, you believed his testimony.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2017 8:31:28 GMT -5
well amy I know what your saying but nobody came forward and they couldn't connect anybody to hauptmann and the evidence pointed to him. tell me please where the evidence points to anybody else. "Nobody came forward". Steve, if you had kidnapped the Lindbergh baby would you have come forward and admitted to it??? The foots prints found at the scene, the unidentified fingerprint that was made at a place where only someone assembling this ladder could have made it, the few fingerprints that were found on a few of the ransom notes, the two casted footprints (Hopewell and St. Raymond's cemetery). This is all evidence of involvement with this kidnapping. It doesn't match up with Hauptmann, none of it. So that tells you that there are other people who were involved with this crime. Because the police were unable to identify who left these clues at the scene, it does not negate their relevant importance to this case. The very existence of these clues prove that this was not a lone wolf crime. These clues don't match Hauptmann, so there are others involved.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Sept 2, 2017 8:55:36 GMT -5
I understand the kind of eyewitness deviations expected in a situation like this, where the casual observer is going to miss or be unsure of random detail. You might say Lupica, because of his personal interest in cars, would have noted more detail than Mrs. Conover. But then, he might have been more focused on the Dodge winged emblem, the odd left-hand turn maneuver of the driver, and the ladder sections and burlap bags laid out over the tops of the seats, and he could have missed the wheels entirely. And he was also dealing with a lower light condition at dusk. In any case, I think it's highly unlikely there were two similar description Dodges running around Hopewell, one with wire wheels and one with spoke wheels. While Lupica seemed to be clear about a lot within this sighting, I believe he was wrong about the wheels.
BTW, I had a thought about that left turn maneuver. It's based on one of the accounts I read, where Lupica talks about the driver almost running into a corn field. Is it possible the driver, due to the low light conditions of dusk, thought there was a laneway he could quickly duck down to avoid being seen so close to Highfields? And then suddenly realizing it was a tractor-only entrance to a corn field, which quickly caused him to reconsider and pull back parallel to the road but now on the wrong side? What are your thoughts and do you know if there was a corn field off that point of the road?
How is my point flawed? This really has very little to do with the distance traveled and much more to do with taking what you logically need for the purpose of the trip, and what you're able to find along the way. And anyone who drives long stretches of isolated roads on vacation knows the risks they take with breakdowns. Based on Hauptmann's trip log, he had a number of tire repairs and purchases. When you're travelling across country on vacation, you want to make sure you have, at the least, a spare tire mounted on a wheel to replace by the roadside, knowing you can eventually get the flat tire repaired at a service station. If you're travelling to Hopewell where the roads are not good, to participate in the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby, and you're doing your best to avoid having to be seen, I think a larger safety margin makes a whole lot of sense.
At the same time, Lupica's description of the driver certainly doesn't exclude the possibility of Hauptmann as driver. If you're willing to conclude the kidnapping took place around 8 pm based on Wilmer Moore seeing a non-descript mud-splattered speed by his house at 8:23 pm, I don't see why you'd have much difficulty being more certain about fixing Hauptmann in the Dodge seen by Lupica.
I tend to dismiss a lot of what's written about in this case, in favor of the facts that render them in the light of being basically inconsequential. Bottom line is that there were no serious health issues with Charlie as described by his doctor, so dredging up a lot of very interesting and potentially scandalous tidbits which really have no bearing on that fact, mean very little other than having good entertainment value.
My understanding is that there were approximately 500 fingerprint markings, out of which Hudson was able to lift 7 complete latents. None of these were Hauptmann's. That leaves almost 500 print partials, markings, swipes or whatever you want to call them. What do you think the odds would be that none of those belonged to Hauptmann?
On what did Koehler base his conclusion to rule out National? He found the mill planing marks on lumber there and the board width cut sizes fit.. what was not right? This is news to me. The nails are hardly meaningless based on the very specific production die lots, their distinct markings found on both the ladder and his keg, and this very tight range of characteristics found within the almost countless number of nails produced by PPG even over a relatively short time frame. Keith's work is right on the money. Please validate your conclusions with some facts.
I'd like to know more but I believe what you've concluded from your sources may be incorrect. What is the description of this unique characteristic, as claimed by Condon to police?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2017 9:25:33 GMT -5
Here's what "speaks volumes".... Cummings was a qualified nurse and she was FIRED because the child was DECLINING under HER care (see TDC page 94). She was replaced by Copin and the child began to improve. Improve from what? He was perfectly fine right? But Lindbergh doesn't like Copin so she's fired. Michael, in your book, The Dark Corners, you don't say who fired Marie Cummings. I just assume it was Lindbergh alone who decided to fire her. I have thought that besides being women who CAL thought attractive, he also gave preference to Cummings and Gow because they would follow his rules about how Charlie was to be handled. The "failure to thrive", as it would be explained today, because the child is not gaining weight normally as it should, could have had an emotional cause as well as a physical cause. When Annette Copin came on the scene she did not follow Lindbergh's strict rules about how much attention should be given to the child. Copin, being more emotionally responsive to Charlie. brought about a period of improvement for Charlie while under her care. I believe Copin's care shows that Lindbergh's rules were actually having a negative effect on Charlie. So Copin gets fired!!!! In her diary, Anne is so happy with how Charlie improves, yet she accepts the firing of Copin, deferring all child care decision making to CAL.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 2, 2017 10:21:23 GMT -5
I understand the kind of eyewitness deviations expected in a situation like this, where the casual observer is going to miss or be unsure of random detail. You might say Lupica, because of his personal interest in cars, would have noted more detail than Mrs. Conover. But then, he might have been more focused on the Dodge winged emblem, the odd left-hand turn maneuver of the driver, and the ladder sections and burlap bags laid out over the tops of the seats, and he could have missed the wheels entirely. And he was also dealing with a lower light condition at dusk. In any case, I think it's highly unlikely there were two similar description Dodges running around Hopewell, one with wire wheels and one with spoke wheels. While Lupica seemed to be clear about a lot within this sighting, I believe he was wrong about the wheels. I wanted to thank you once again for pointing out my dyslexic moment. Since I began writing it's happened a couple of times where Amy was also nice enough to point out. It's important these facts don't get jumbled in this way so please continue to point them out if I do it again. I see it differently. Lupica would be the person I trust more about those wheels. If you don't trust Conover about the plate how can you then give more value to her observation about the wheels? What they do agree on is it was a Dodge with a ladder on the inside, and the accounts both help to create a solid time-line. BTW, I had a thought about that left turn maneuver. It's based on one of the accounts I read, where Lupica talks about the driver almost running into a corn field. Is it possible the driver, due to the low light conditions of dusk, thought there was a laneway he could quickly duck down to avoid being seen so close to Highfields? And then suddenly realizing it was a tractor-only entrance to a corn field, which caused him to reconsider and pull back parallel to the road but now on the wrong side? What are your thoughts and do you know if there was a corn field off that point of the road? There was a space on that side of the road that allowed the vehicle to pull into: " At that point, where he pulled in, there is an entrance into a field and that gave him sort of a cut-off of the road if he crossed to go in and he pulled into an angle between the field and the road and stopped, turned his wheel so as to be on the road after I passed him. He did leave the place after I passed him. There was plenty of room on the road for us to pass." So what we have is a road wide enough for both cars to pass but the Dodge opted to pull into a space off of the road and stop. Steve Lehman's theory makes the most amount of sense to me and it always has. How is my point flawed? This really has very little to do with the distance traveled and much more to do with taking what you logically need for the purpose of the trip, and what you're able to find along the way. And anyone who drives long stretches of isolated roads on vacation knows the risks they take with breakdowns. Based on Hauptmann's trip log, he had a number of tire repairs and purchases. When you're travelling across country on vacation, you want to make sure you have, at the least, a spare tire mounted on a wheel to replace by the roadside, knowing you can eventually get the flat tire repaired at a service station. If you're travelling to Hopewell where the roads are not good, to participate in the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby, and you're doing your best to avoid having to be seen, I think a larger safety margin makes a whole lot of sense. My point is there was never more of a need for an extra tire then this cross country trip. We do know whoever was driving this car had the ladder on the inside to (we all assume) assist in concealing it, yet, it didn't stop Lupica or Conover from both seeing it. And while the crime was being committed, at least one of the cars (possibly the Dodge) was parked on Wertsville road, and that it wasn't "concealed" there. At the same time, Lupica's description of the driver certainly doesn't exclude the possibility of Hauptmann as driver. If you're willing to conclude the kidnapping took place around 8 pm based on Wilmer Moore seeing a non-descript mud-splattered speed by his house at 8:23 pm, I don't see why you'd have much difficulty being more certain about fixing Hauptmann in the Dodge seen by Lupica. It's the context of the sightings by uninterested parties. Look at the totality of these sightings. Look at the time-line. Look at how the locals reacted toward seeing unusual cars. Also consider Parker's record for solving cases and his techniques for doing so in conjunction with the NJSP's theory that this crime occurred before Lindbergh got home (see TDC page 54) as well as Lindbergh's own testimony at the Curtis trial which obviously allowed for it. However, with that said, I do not know who that driver was, and the indications it could have been Hauptmann is because it contained the kidnap ladder and it was a Dodge. Neither bode well for him, however, Anna testified he was in the Bronx. So we have a real difference when comparing the two. No one ever doubted the car Moore saw was connected to the earlier sightings. The fact it only came out in my book is because I've done WAY more research than anyone else - not that no one believed it - they simply never knew about it so it was for this reason it was not considered. Obviously those with their minds made up resist the new material because it upsets their narrative. Believe me there is much more to know, and I am doing everything I can in the best way I know how to get it out there as I continue to write. I tend to dismiss a lot of what's written about in this case, in favor of the facts that render them in the light of being basically inconsequential. Bottom line is that there were no serious health issues with Charlie as described by his doctor, so dredging up a lot of very interesting and potentially scandalous tidbits which really have no bearing on that fact, mean very little other than having good entertainment value. Huh? I certainly did not write it or make it up. The FBI investigated. In doing so they spoke with someone who was there and who they deemed creditable. This is what was said, and no one disputed it. Whatever you like or don't like or choose to ignore is up to you. Cummings, a trained nurse, was fired because the child declined under her care. Do you have something to contradict it? Where was Dr. Hawks or Dr. Van Ingen asked why Cummings was terminated? I am interested to see this if you know. You see we have to go by what we have and know. What is known is what the FBI reported. It's like the end of a Phillies game... We may "like" it or we may "hate" it but there it is nevertheless. My understanding is that there were approximately 500 fingerprint markings, out of which Hudson was able to lift 7 complete latents. None of these were Hauptmann's. That leaves almost 500 print partials, markings, swipes or whatever you want to call them. What do you think the odds would be that none of those belonged to Hauptmann? What is your source for this? On what did Koehler base his conclusion to rule out National? He found the mill planing marks on lumber there and the board width cut sizes fit.. what was not right? This is news to me. The nails are hardly meaningless based on the very specific production die lots, their distinct markings found on both the ladder and his keg, and this very tight range of characteristics found within the almost countless number of nails produced by PPG even over a relatively short time frame. Keith's work is right on the money. Please validate your conclusions with some facts. Koehler based his conclusions on planer marks. The nails are meaningless because the manufacturers themselves said they could not be traced. I'd like to know more but I believe what you've concluded from your sources may be incorrect. What is the description of this unique characteristic, as claimed by Condon to police? Here's the thing Joe... You, along with many others, have over the years claimed Hauptmann didn't work or did very little priorthereto. Now you have him with these steroid-esque thumb muscles from all the carpentry work he performed but that they vanish by the time of his arrest. And the dumbfounded Dr. Condon hasn't a clue. It's all one big mistake. It's like Hauptmann limping from a fall off that ladder but the fact Cemetery John was climbing, vaulting, and running away like a gold medal Olympian.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 2, 2017 10:25:10 GMT -5
Michael, in your book, The Dark Corners, you don't say who fired Marie Cummings. I just assume it was Lindbergh alone who decided to fire her. The source doesn't say unfortunately. My opinion is that Lindbergh acquiesced. Just look at how fast she came back once Copin left. And who created that vacancy? I have thought that besides being women who CAL thought attractive, he also gave preference to Cummings and Gow because they would follow his rules about how Charlie was to be handled. The "failure to thrive", as it would be explained today, because the child is not gaining weight normally as it should, could have had an emotional cause as well as a physical cause. When Annette Copin came on the scene she did not follow Lindbergh's strict rules about how much attention should be given to the child. Copin, being more emotionally responsive to Charlie. brought about a period of improvement for Charlie while under her care. I believe Copin's care shows that Lindbergh's rules were actually having a negative effect on Charlie. So Copin gets fired!!!! In her diary, Anne is so happy with how Charlie improves, yet she accepts the firing of Copin, deferring all child care decision making to CAL. Great observations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2017 9:02:07 GMT -5
The source doesn't say unfortunately. My opinion is that Lindbergh acquiesced. Just look at how fast she came back once Copin left. And who created that vacancy? Acquiesce is an intriguing choice of word, Michael. It implies he was going along with Cummings being relieved of her position. If that is the case, then there must be someone else who was not happy with Cummings. Since this happens at Englewood, might it have been Betty Morrow who was not pleased with Marie Cummings? Wasn't Marie Cummings recommended by Dr. Hawkes, a very trusted family physican?
|
|