|
Post by susancandy on May 22, 2006 21:25:16 GMT -5
Just a word on the ladder. Samuelsohn did not have to turn himself in. He was not guilty of anything, but cutting the pieces of wood for the ladder. He knew in the week after the kidnapping that he had cut the wood. I have the receipt for it. He was afraid. You take a Polish immigrant, naturalized, with a wife and family and not speaking the language too well and with the political climate of the day why would he come forward with the perpetrator still at large and knowing where he was. If you recall there was a $25,000.00 reward, it was the height of the depression, yet Samuelsohn instead of collecting the reward, which he could have done, more than you know, went and sold the center diamond out of his wife's ring to get money. I know because I replace the zircon that was put in in 1970 with a diamond again. I do not have to defend Abraham Samuelsohn to anyone if you knew him, which I did. Just take a look at the Steinway in the White House. He built the "Golden Eagle Piano Legs" and the music stand for that, in addition to all the other civic "good deeds", which he did without putting his name on them. Please do not ever throw him in the mix with Condon, Hauptmann and Fisch. He doesn't belong there. He just happened to own a woodworking shop on Webster Avenue, Haputmann lived in the Bronx and so did Condon, all within a mile of each other, and Samuelsohn had a reputation for being a "great" craftsman,with pride in his work. By the time he saw the ladder in NJ it had been put together and taken apart so many times it was downright shabby. And he did identify Hauptmann in lineup. By the way, his 121st birthday was May 17, 2006. I went to the cemetary and visited with him. I miss him everyday of my life. He was short, blonde and bald, with twinkling blue eyes and a very sweet sweet nature.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 23, 2006 15:16:35 GMT -5
The Samuelsohn story is interesting, but unfortunately I can see absolutely no connection between the wood supposedly supplied by him to Hauptmann? and the kidnap ladder. The kidnap ladder is comprised of 6 rails, 2 of which are mill supplied 1" x 4" yellow pine ( 12 & 13). 3 are mill supplied 1"x 4" Douglas Fir which show previous usage ( 14, 15, & 17). The remaining rail (16) is Yellow pine 1" X 4" hand cut and planed down from the attic floorboard. The rungs ( 1 to 8) were Ponderosa pine and had been hand cut and planed from a single board. Rungs 9 & 10 are Ponderosa Pine also were hand cut and planed and possibly came from the same board. The remaining rung, 11 was Douglas fir and was missing a portion. So where does the California Pine machine ripped (and jointed?) supplied by Samuelsohn fit in here?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 23, 2006 19:25:18 GMT -5
It doesn't because Samuelsohn was mistaken calling it California Pine. The samples he turned over were the same species of pine as Rails 12, 13, and 16 as evidenced by Koehler's examination of them and noted in his report.
Susan is correct concerning Samuelsohn being afraid - its all in the source material prior to Hauptmann's arrest. He told the FBI the day they discovered he built the ransom box. There is something to this - even if the (1) or (2) pieces he identified weren't actually his work there's worth to this story and it shouldn't be blown off.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 23, 2006 19:38:11 GMT -5
The species may be the same but there is a world of difference between the actual rails (12,13,&16) and the material claimed to have been supplied by Samuelsohn.
I don't see why you think I am "blowing it off". I am simply responding to the assertion that Samuelsohn's work resulted in the kidnap ladder. Beyond that one may pursue this story to whatever end they may wish.
|
|
|
Post by susancandy on May 24, 2006 1:35:22 GMT -5
Thank you, Michael. He was mistaken in calling it California Pine. He knew that years later and stated that to me. Point here being that Samuelsohn identified Hauptman to the police, not once, but at least three times that I am aware of and also Hauptmann came into his shop twice after having the ladder pieces cut. Once in May for a small job and once in July for two hours for a major job of cabinetry work for Hauptmann's house. The door to the shop was kept open and I think, personally, Hauptmann went in to the shop in May and July to see if Samuelsohn could or had identified him to the police, which Samuelsohn had not done. He didn't come forward until after Hauptmann was arrested. Even at that point he still did not feel safe. This is all dialogue I had with him and we discussed the case many times as I was very curious about it and tried to learn as much as I could from him. In the final analysis, his story was very consistent and never changed from day one that he told it. He may have been mistaken about a few minor details, but again I fall back on in 1932, he was still very much NOT in tune with the English language and did make some mistakes in his statements to the police, the FBI and the Newspapers, but all in all, the story he told remained the same until the day he died. I could never discount that. He also said that by the time he saw the ladder to identify it it had been taken apart and put together so many times, it was downright shabby.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 24, 2006 6:18:15 GMT -5
Very interesting Susan! You were undoubtedly very close to Mr Samuelsohn ( perhaps related?) and I would love to hear more about him. I know he was a craftsman who had pride in his work, as I learned first hand in building a replica of his ransom box. That seemingly simple box was made using a techniques somewhat unique to certain region and "school of cabinetmakers", which no doubt you know as he would have been quite proud of that. Where did he say he trained and apprenticed?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 24, 2006 17:29:56 GMT -5
This was a general comment made to anyone reading it which I didn't intend to be directed at you personally. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
As this "story" goes, Samuelsohn has been a "character" which represents an enigma. He fits no version of events that anyone accepts so I see what I consider efforts to ignore him because of this.
Susan reminds us that he was indeed a person. This quickly brings us out of some book or story-line and back to reality. Let's think about it for a minute....
Condon lied about the ransom box builder to the Police prompting the FBI, upon discovering Samuelsohn to question whether Condon was either involved or senile. Condon knew Samuelsohn and had been by to see him after being identified as the ransom box maker, yet, he seems to forget him, once again, on the stand in Flemington.
The Police have Samuelsohn build a replica and it turns out its nothing like the one as described by Condon.
Samuelsohn is afraid and has absolutely nothing to gain by coming forward with the additional information. What do the Police do? Why they request he build (3) replicas and go back to the Bronx and "keep his mouth shut."
During trial no one wants him anywhere near the Witness Stand. Samuelsohn continues to insist Hauptmann and others had done just as he said.
True but it must be applied to what Samuelsohn said about it. Again, a "non-match" does nothing to deflate his story in my opinion. What it does is hurt the "Lone-Wolf" theory and place Hauptmann in the middle of the Conspiracy. Most people, both then and now - want nothing to do with this.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 24, 2006 17:41:44 GMT -5
Do you believe those Police Officers put all of the prints found on the ladder? If so, why do you suspect only Bornmann's were identified?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 skeptic IV on May 24, 2006 17:52:31 GMT -5
kevin and Michale.....I still think we need a partial timeline on the emergence of Frank Samuelson into the limelight from anonimity? Condon hides his identity for a while by lying outright, but when exactly does someone bring him out of the shadows? Or does Samuelson expose himself?
|
|
|
Post by susancandy on May 24, 2006 22:37:11 GMT -5
First of all, his name is Abraham Samuelsohn, not Frank. Yes, I knew him very well. I am related, will not say how at this time. He always said that he was pushed into the background because he blew the "lone wolf" theory to bits. He could and did indentfy the two men that picked up the 22 pieces of wood on Feb. 27,1932, but declined and never would say who the woman was that originally came in with Hauptmann. He took that to his grave. All that I will say now is that he had known Condon for years and I do not think that Condon told any story twice the same way. Condon, Samuelsohn and Hauptmann all lived within a mile of each other in the Bronx. Thats all.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 25, 2006 4:54:50 GMT -5
That is good to hear Susan. Do you know where Abraham apprenticed ? I would enjoy discussing his work and shop with you.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 25, 2006 5:46:05 GMT -5
"Frank" was an editing mistake in Dr. Gardner's book. Susan makes the correction to Abraham in her post above.
Rick, I have that information and I will try to put something together. I have been knee-deep in researching Jack's Gow/Sharp post and I don't want to go off on something else before I am certain I can answer it.
By the way, during this research I discovered another report which claimed sections (1) & (2) were found still together the morning of the event. It was a Summary made by the FBI but after Hauptmann's arrest. Of course it can be challenged but I thought I'd mention it as another one.
Exactly. Suffice to say, he had no friends by ruining this position and implicating Hauptmann. Aside from this - he then has to fear for his life by telling what he knew. How many of us would have done what he did in this situation?
He was a very brave man.
I will say this - Governor Hoffman believed him. Most people like to paint the Governor as someone who believed Hauptmann was completely innocent and that just wasn't the case. Publicly, Hoffman had to be very careful what he was saying in order not to lose the support he had for his actions. Alot of the Investigators operating during his re-investigation were seeking lines to clear Hauptmann but others simply were looking for answers to unanswered questions and then reporting them to Hoffman. One of those PI's who interviewed Samuelsohn said there was, in essence, no doubt in his mind Samuelsohn was being truthful.
I'd love to know who this was.
Isn't that ironic? Condon constantly spewing out misinformation yet its one excuse after another for this guy. Samuelsohn stood his ground refusing to change his story which never wavered.
The more we talk about Samuelsohn the more I am interested in his life too... Even if one thinks he was mistaken about his identifying the (1) or (2) pieces of the "kidnap" ladder as it existed at the Training School, being used on (2) separate occasions by those involved with this event shows he was being used for a reason. It could have been proximity or perhaps another indirect reason we may be able to track down with answers to questions like this one.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 25, 2006 6:25:35 GMT -5
Susan...your first hand accounts give me goosebumps. Most of our conversations are educated quessing (hot air) and seldom connect to any real person's life. Your participation is a breathe of fresh aire! Yes, it must have been terrifying for Abraham (AS) to come forward and admit even a remote connection considering how eager the cops were to pin this kidnap on someone as quickly as possible.
This line of inquiry further contaminates Condons crazy testimony and inaccurate statements. Here we have one of BRHs primary accusers, yet Condon has difficulty telling the truth or any story twice the same way?
On the flip side, Samuelsons testimony pulls BRH directly into the LKC and implies that BRH is involved with some measurable gang. Why would JFC lie, over and over, if he isnt on the inside looking out? {Aside: Loss of Eden also paints BRH in a more criminal lite as well}
Who is the second man who comes into AS wood shop with BRH? I hope you know!
Did AS only make replicas of the ladder (3) or also replicas of the ransom wooden ballot box?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 25, 2006 7:53:25 GMT -5
Rick your idea for a time line would be excellent. I have to admit this whole story is very problematic to me. If anyone has cause to wonder about the likelihood of Hauptmann going up into that attic for a piece of wood ( and I do) the story of Hauptmann and/or others walking into a cabinet shop and requesting commonly available lumber prior to the kidnap dwarfs the attic story. Is it possible that Samuelsohn confused his dates? Could he be adding 2 +2 and coming up with 5? In other words, 1" x 4" lumber is extremely common and has many uses, (7' lengths are used for door casing) so perhaps someone did purchase this material but for an entirely innocent and unrelated purpose.
|
|
|
Post by mjrichmond on May 25, 2006 8:17:07 GMT -5
<<<During trial no one wants him anywhere near the Witness Stand.>>>
To me, this creates a real problem with the Samuelsohn story. What it amounts to is that Wilentz had a witness who could testify that he sold Hauptmann the wood for the ladder, that he could identify Hauptmann and the wood or even that he could identify Hauptmann as a man who bought the kind of wood used.
That being the case, I find it excruciatingly difficult to believe that Wilentz did not call him.
Mjr
|
|
|
Post by rick3 TrooperIV on May 25, 2006 10:35:51 GMT -5
Kevin....so far I cant figure out any dates? I think the story goes something like BRH and buddy order the wood but 2 other men come back to pick it up? Or BRH and Lena Aldinger orders the wood or Gertal Henkel orders the wood and two others come back to pick it up/ I'll just bet we can assume this all happens before 1 March 32? Right? First Condon is protecting some woman and now AS is protecting another/same woman? I sure hope Izzy Fisch is the other guy--that "wood" clinch it for me! If all this time has passed and we know just one other perp then.....!@#$%^&*()_+ I'm just dumbfounded that this all hasnt come up until Today? There is one order for wood on Lindy Kidnap: "I found in the Hoffman files a receipt from Webster Lumber Company, 2369 Webster Avenue. "Sold to (handwritten:) Samuelson<br>Address...(handwritten:) shop<br><br>Handwritten: "(mark) 14- 1x12 clear $3.08. Paid." a few other words scrawled on it unreadable. Dated 2/22/32." groups.yahoo.com/group/LindyKidnap/message/3139
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on May 25, 2006 12:35:03 GMT -5
Condon vs AS. I think Susan and others are correct in pointing to the differences in their stories. We know that Condon wished not to get too close to AS at any time, yet he takes Fulton Oursler on a walk shortly before he leaves for Panama and introduces him to AS. When Fulton Oursler questions him down in Panama, his daughter intervenes to challenge the ladder story. By this time Condon gives every appearance of believing the story. Why? We can conclude that Condon simply has lost track of all his previous stories, or that he is deliberate in his obfuscations.
I argued earlier that one reason for having doubts, as Kevin now says, concerns Hauptmann's desire (or need) to order the wood from a cabinet maker who is, in fact, a skilled workman. I could see the scenario somewhat better if Hauptmann was not one of those ordering or calling for the wood. The woman angle would help if she were identified.
So I come back to the diversion thesis -- without a whole lot of confidence. Samuelsohn was a young man, presumably at the height of his powers and mental faculties. Susan says that he identified BRH three times. In a backwards sort of way, BRH coming into the store after the crime suggests that he was "watching" Samuelsohn in a kind of warning way. How else make sense of the whole thing?
Could it just be -- if we push on further -- could it just be that when CJ tells Condon that the gang had something on him (and perhaps Condon said, me, too) that he was telling the truth. And that not all the assignments were of his choosing? So in a state of some anxiety he checks up on Samuelsohn to see what the reaction would be to his coming into the store. And as things "die down" he feels relieved that AS is not going to go to the police?
At any rate, it's an idea.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 25, 2006 15:54:25 GMT -5
And it is a good idea.
However......... I still have to ask why?why? why? Why even think of going to a cabinet shop, not to mention a small local business, to purchase what you could find at any lumberyard, construction site, or attic for that matter. Speaking of attics, I would rather climb up into my neighbors attic for that wood than go to Samuelsohn's shop. I don't know about the rest of you, but I think any theories have to address why first, then move on to who, what and when.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 Detective on May 25, 2006 17:17:23 GMT -5
Susan...your first hand accounts give me goosebumps. Most of our conversations are educated quessing (hot air) and seldom connect to any real person's life. Your participation is a breathe of fresh aire! Yes, it must have been terrifying for Abraham Samuelson (AS) to come forward and admit even a remote connection considering how eager the cops were to pin this kidnap on someone as quickly as possible.
This line of inquiry further contaminates Condons crazy testimony and inaccurate statements. Here we have one of BRHs primary accusers, yet Condon has difficulty telling the truth or any story twice the same way?
On the flip side, Samuelsons testimony pulls BRH directly into the LKC and implies that BRH is involved with some measurable gang. Why would JFC lie, over and over, if he isnt on the inside looking out? {Aside: Loss of Eden also paints BRH in a more criminal lite as well}
Who is the second man who comes into AS wood shop with BRH? I hope you know!
Did AS only make replicas of the ladder (3) or also replicas of the ransom wooden ballot box?
|
|
|
Post by susancandy on May 25, 2006 20:38:01 GMT -5
Hi Guys, what I know and what I will tell are two different stories at this point. Suffice to say, yes, I do and no, I will not. And I will also put the questions back on you guys, Was Condon involved or just a silly old man, I have my feelings and what I was told on this one. I would like to hear what you have to say. One thing I will say is that from what I do know it would have taken more than one person to put all of this together, the kidnapping, I mean and I feel that Hauptmann was not that man. Samuelsohn was told by the police, by the FBI(Bureau of Investigation) to stay quiet and so he did. Why did Myra Hacker tried to steer everyone away from AS. I think I know, what do you think. This case is more complex and has more layers as far as I can see and we haven't even touched the surface. I think you have to know these principles very well, get into their heads as to what they were thinking, know the time period and where they all came from and take all of this into account before any judgments are made, however at this late date, there will be no definitive revelations, nothing earth shattering unless someone who was there comes forward or a diary, account of Kidnap is found. Do I think that BRH was involved, yes I do, but not to the extent that is public knowledge. What was it that Oswald always said, "I am just the patsy", perhaps BRH was involved, not the the extent that also is supposedly common knowledge and took the fall, not willingly but because very simply the kidnappers did not expect to get caught and he did get caught spending "gold certificates". I, personally, would like to hear what you think about this. Also I would remind you that AS was a real person, so were the Lindbergh's, Hauptmann, Condon, Gow etc and after this period of time things tend to become exaggerated or put in "fairy tale" status. All of these people, with the exception of Lindbergh, were plain everyday working folks that were trying to get through the Depression and live and make a living as best they could.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 26, 2006 5:38:54 GMT -5
Susan, well you have a right to be skeptical of all our motives! Many spend nite after nite digging up BRHs bones and retrying them as The Lone Woof!
I like to refer to Condon as the Don of Cons! He was big and loud and garroulous and led everyone involved in Wild Goose Chase after Wild Goose Chase. He talked in riddles and half truths and if you tried to pin him down he wiggled away like a snake. Mark Falzini is trying to track how and why he changed each and every story he ever told over time. Only someone desperate or insane would send him out to bargain for his first borne son? Most of Condons Tall Tales have not been proven or disproven? They are all so convoluted that noone knows where to start. For 30 months Condon was the Prime Suspect? It might have all just blown over if BRH didnt spend the Gold Cert for gas? In William Norris' recent book Talent to Decieve, he pegs Condon as a known quantity to the Morrow family for covering up an illigimate son? So he is picked for his secrecy talents. But also, he may have been pre-ordained since he is named by Mary Cerrita in her March 6th seance as "JFC". On different occasions JFC describes CJ as a Norwegian sailor, or Fisch-like, or John Gorch/Wendel-like. Later he says he can never call BRh as CJ? Its hard to say how many lies Condon gets caught in? But two of the most blatent involve Abraham Samuelson. Condon says the now famous ransom ballot box is to be made from 5 rare wood species by ....Frank Perini..but Frank was dead for 5 years? (Gardner,Case that Never Dies page 375) Both dead wrong--it made from plywood by AS! Later, Jafsie actually takes a reporter to interview AS about the ladder boards? All this is quite astounding..but thats not all. Michael has additional evidence that Condon ditched the wooden box in the bushes at st. Raymonds and went back for it a few days later? Even more unbelievable is that the ransom note never askes for any wooden box? It only asks for a "packet" so this appears to be at first blush another Dumb Criminal Story. But CAL gives JFC a pass to get out of jail free along with Curtis.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 26, 2006 6:12:15 GMT -5
I personally believe Condon was "brought" into this thing by one or more of the actual participants. He was purposeful in leading Investigators away from certain areas or like a squid - squirting ink in their faces when they got too close. Use whatever excuse you want for the guy, when push came to shove he then suddenly became very sober and coherent. He did not want the Police to find Samuelsohn and absolutely knew who he was and that he did build the ransom box. After the Police did find him, Condon would "drop" by to chat with him. For me, I think he was worried about something.
Now going back to Kevin's question as to 'why' Hauptmann would utilize Samuelsohn. I am 100% positive Samuelsohn is being completely honest, therefore he is only incorrect if its an honest mistake. However, one has to consider the 'mistake' would have to be two-fold, that is, both concerning Hauptmann and the style in which the lumber was made & cut. The combination of the two PLUS the timing of the order are simply too much for me to shrug off as a simple mistake. Furthermore, I am quite sure Samuelsohn himself would like to have talked himself into believing it was a mistake because he was afraid for his life and for good reason. Yet - no, he is so positive that he risks everything by doing "the right thing" and telling his version of events despite his original hesitation.
We have to remember these were the years of lawlessness... I found several reports indicating that even certain Police Officers had criminal records so this should put things into proper perspective.
The amount of lumber that Samuelsohn cut is very curious because it obviously amounts to much more than what winds up in the kidnap ladder. I have been thinking on this for a while now and, as a guess, think it may have something to do with Jim Fisher's theory concerning Next Day Hill.
Both Inspector Walsh and Springer claimed the ladder found at Highfields was too short for Englewood because the baby's nursery was on the third floor there. However, a (4) sectioned ladder of the same design.... see where I am going here?
Another thing is the assumption that Hauptmann is the "master-mind" therefore would have not ordered this from Samuelsohn but would have built it himself. Let's suppose the "master-mind" has Hauptmann doing other things and/or is bank-rolling the heist. This person would be the one directing them to purchase these pieces from Samuelsohn.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 26, 2006 7:02:01 GMT -5
Rick, you have it backward. The "Lone Wolf", "VD'er" or any other silly moniker you care to apply is a conservative position which is quite comfortable with leaving Hauptmann's bones or anyone else's where they lie. It is the litany of conspiracy theories which constantly seek to disrupt the bones of the dead. Just one visit to another forum that I won't mention will give ample proof of this grave digging and treachery. Mr Samuelsohn's reputation as an honest craftsman is only threatened by those who wish to cast the net of conspiracy further adrift. For my part I consider him to be completely outside of this crime and above reproach.
Michael, that is a good attempt at the "why" question but is has several major problems. First of all I thought this was a well staged and planned event. Are you saying that the location for the kidnapping and all the logistics was up in the air until almost the last minute? Second the 4 stage ladder will not work, for several reasons. This is due to the joint connection and method used to erect the ladder. There is also a structural problem with 4 sections, though I would allow for the ignorance of the builder on that point.
I would also re-emphasize the fact that 1" x 4" material is an extremely common building material and was even more so in the 30's.
Susan, I would still love to hear about Mr Samuelsohn's training and his work ! Please! ( you can send me a personal message if you are uncomfortable with a post)
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on May 26, 2006 8:32:04 GMT -5
Why was AS not called as a witness? That is where I think we have to begin any evaluation of the story, much less its importance. He was not called because he could do irreparable damage to either side. It is that simple. The NY Times articles point to that conclusion, and that seems conclusive to me.
I think Michael and I are on the same wave length on this. Who is to say why BRH was ordered to do this. Could it be that the idea was to suggest that BRH was involved in building a project -- in case the iearly nvestigation focused too closely on a ladder? In short is the AS ploy a deliberate red herring? I simply don't know, but we have to work back from the AS story. Of all the people in the case, he has the least reason to lie. Sure he could be mistaken, but there is documentary proof of the pieces being ordered -- and collected.
We will await Susan's "book" (?) to hear more of the story, and I think we will be impressed.
Those are some brief thoughts on what has become a very important thread.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 Skeptic4 on May 26, 2006 9:32:40 GMT -5
Michael....one clever ploy that comes immediately to mind is that the real "Mastermind" --most often named as:
Isador Fisch (and/or Paul E. Wendel)
could have been sending BRH all over towne on little jobs like the lumber...BUT....maybe (?) BRH thinks the lumber will be used for a totally differerent purpose.....legal or illegal. Maybe he doesnt discover the true purpose until Sept. 1934?
If you are smart enough to have an iron-clad alibi for the night of March 1st 1932....even unto death....then you are likely smart enough to start setting up the Patsy.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 26, 2006 10:07:59 GMT -5
That would or could support my idea regarding the selection of perceived non-traceable wood in the ladder. Still I find it hard to believe.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 26, 2006 10:45:07 GMT -5
Michael....here is a post on Abraham Samuelsohn from your dark nemisis on Lindy Kidnap: "Sure, "catering and sausages" - don't they always go together? Recovering the past is not safe when this kind of suggestion is offered as serious analysis. But wait - maybe the whole book is really a spoof, with its 6 different definitions of what was entailed in a felony murder charge? Indeed, after making fun of Condon for not remembering the name of the kidnap-box cabinet maker, Gardner invents yet another individual, "Frank Samuelsohn" - by merging two other people, and actually indexes him at the back: on p. 477, the man is listed as being in the book four times, but actually, FS neverexisted. What can one say? It is almost as good as Gardner's Index Entry for a telegram about "gold notes" between Hoover and Schwarzkopf in March 1935, when that description was also quite non- existent. Can we explain all of these errors as simple typos? I wish I knew...Allen groups.yahoo.com/group/LindyKidnap/message/8076
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on May 26, 2006 10:48:34 GMT -5
Kev, I agree that this is "hard to believe." We have two outstanding choices in this case, (and no doubt more). To wit: Is this a lone wolf? I think we agree that is a hard case to sell as well. If not, then things open up a bit. The idea of creating a false lead could have been also connected to the "Italian" that Condon heard in the background. Thus the idea of bogus ladder pieces could also fit in to such a scheme. But AS's story, while not compelling, requires very concerted attention. My fear is, however, that, as it might have been planned, there will be no more evidence surfacing. The exception? This new development with Susan. God-speed Susan. We will all be in your debt.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on May 26, 2006 12:10:50 GMT -5
I've been following this topic with a lot of interest, although it does seem there is very little solid foundation to the account to date. Here there is plenty of fertile ground for echo and distortion involving people with good intentions at the time and after the fact, who may genuinely have been mistaken about some very important primary facts. I certainly appreciate Susan's efforts to bring forth the information and help to set the record straight.
The date of Samuelsohn's initial contact as he stated, Feb. 27, 1932, with the three individuals, whom he said later included Hauptmann and a woman, is the key to this entire story. Is there an actual hard copy receipt of this request for wood of a type that would be suitable for constructing a ladder? I find it almost beyond comprehension as to why anyone would feel the need for a cabinetmaker's services in building a potentially crucial piece of evidence such as rough and ready kidnap ladder, let alone choosing to stray so carelessly outside what would certainly have been a very tight ring of conspiracy.
On the other hand, there are key elements of the story implying the upfront involvement of others which seem to jibe in principle with my own theory that Hauptmann was conscripted into participation, at the risk of having his illegal alien status revealed. The fact that Samuelsohn never testified in Flemington may well have been a result of the prosecution and defense wishing to pare away any references, real or imagined, to the involvement of others, and Hauptmann's presence as a player, respectively.
If there is truth to Samuelsohn having been approached prior to March 1, 1932 by anyone ultimately involved in the kidnapping as he stated, I would have to believe it was never intended for the ladder to have been left behind on the grounds of Hopewell for later display and identification.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 26, 2006 12:42:30 GMT -5
All very good points and one has to wonder about this episode. If I might make a suggestion which I think may help clarify the situation, at least from my point of view, I think that we must get a better picture of the nature of Samuelsohn's business. Did he specialize? Did he advertise? What size was his shop and how many employees did he have? Was it an "open" or "closed" shop (trade only)? How long was he in business at that location? These may seem like unimportant particulars, but to me the answers could be enlightening in regard to why he became involved with this mystery.
|
|