luf12
Trooper II
Posts: 70
|
Post by luf12 on Sept 30, 2018 20:56:33 GMT -5
I want a list of all the unanswered questions in this case.
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Sept 30, 2018 21:08:35 GMT -5
for me, one of the main unanswered questions is why were there not more recent photos of the baby? seems very strange for the first born child of an affluent family. of course the answer to that may have no real bearing on the death of the baby, but i am still curious.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Oct 1, 2018 10:21:24 GMT -5
Luf12,
On January 4, 1936, Liberty magazine published an article entitled 50 Unanswered Questions in the Hauptmann Case by Lou Wedemar.
Most (but not all) of these questions are still valid and unanswered today.
I have the 4-page article, but it's too big to attach or link here.
PM me if you (or anyone else) wants it and I'll email the article.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Oct 2, 2018 13:56:47 GMT -5
Thanks to Wayne, here is the list of the 53 questions from the Liberty article:
Question 1: Why was no evidence about “the man with a handkerchief” presented to the Hauptmann jury?
Question 2: Why did Dr. Condon follow the man with a handkerchief?
Question 3: Why did John accept $50,000, when there was $70,000 ready for 'him?
Question 4: What happened to the ransom-money box?
Question 5: What happened to the $30,000?
Question 6: Whose fingerprints are on the ransom letters?
Question 7: Who is J. J. Faulkner?
Question 8: How did the kidnaper know the Lindberghs would be in Hopewell the night of March 1, 1932?
Question 9: How did the kidnaper know where the baby slept/
Question 10: Did Hauptmann have a confederate?
Question 11: Why were no fingerprints whatever found in the nursery?
Question 12: Whose prints were on the kidnap ladder?
Question; 13: How did the kidnaper enter the nursery?
Question 14: Why was the kidnaper not heard by Colonel Lindbergh?
Question 15: Why didn't the Lindbergh dog bark?
Question 16: How was the window opened unnoticed?
Question 17: Why was the "crazy ladder" used?
Question 18: Had Colonel Lindbergh received kidnap threats which have not been made public?
Question 19: Why did Colonel Lindbergh leave the note in the nursery unopened?
Question 20: Did any one copy the signature on the first ransom letter?
Question 21: Why did the maid Violet Sharpe commit suicide?
Question 22: How was the Lindbergh baby killed?
Question 23: What is the truth about John Hughes Curtis?
Question 24: Why did Jafsie Condon fail to identify 'Hauptmann after his arrest? Or did he?
Question 25: What did Jafsie say to Hauptmann in the Fleming¬ton jail?
Question 26: Why did John compel Jafsie to put a personal ad in the paper?
Question 27: Who was the mysterious woman with whom Jafsie conferred in Westchester?
Question 28: Who was the Italian Jafsie heard on the telephone?
Question 29: Why if he is guilty, didn't Hauptmann try to implicate the innocent Jafsie?
Question 30: Why did Hauptmann "protect" Hans Muller?
Question 31: Why did Jafsie insist that the ransom John had almond eyes?
Question 32: Why was the footprint of John not shown to the jury?
Question 33: Why was the evidence about the ladder nails not used in court?
Question 34: What happened to4the missing block of wood?
Question 35: Why did Hauptmann write Jafsie’s telephone number on a closet wall of his home?
Question 36: Why did Hauptmann, if he was solely guilty, remain living in the house where huge quantities of evidence against him were easily available?
Question 37: Exactly why was Jafsie satisfactory to the kidnaper as ransom intermediary?
Question 38: Who was the “wealthy man in an expensive automobile” who called on Hauptmann?
Question 39: How was the symbol signature made?
Question 40: What was the signature's origin?
Question 41: Why did the kidnaper spend a ransom bill within twenty-four hours of receiving the money?
Question 42: How did the kidnaper get through the police cordon?
Question 43: Why did a Bronx cabinetmaker say he made the kidnap ladder?
Question 44: Why did Attorney Reilly admit the 'corpus delicti’ against Hauptmann's wishes?
Question 45: Where is the missing cab driver?
Question 46: Why did Jafsie permit John to go unchallenged when he saw him from the bus?
Question 47: Whose was the phrasing of the ransom letters?
Question 48: What is the true story of Isidor Fisch?
Question 49: How explain the “fatal coincidence”?
Question 50: Why did Colonel Lindbergh refuse to permit a search for his son's body in the woods around Hopewell?
Question 51: How long had the baby’s body been where it was found?
Question 52: What actually happened the night of the kidnapping?
Question 53: Who was to take care of the kidnaped Lindbergh baby?
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Oct 2, 2018 15:46:37 GMT -5
The magazine offered a brief commentary on each question.
Question 49 refers to a "fatal coincidence."
"Ransom money was spent in hundreds of stores throughout the city. But the one place where the spender's auto license was noted was at a filling station on 127th Street---directly adjoining the house in which Isidor Fisch lived before he went to Europe. The writing of this auto license number on a ten-dollar bill led to Hauptmann's arrest."
This is the first I've seen of a connection between Fisch and the gas station where Hauptmann's license plate was recorded.
Is this unfounded conjecture on the part of Liberty or article author Lou Wedmar?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2018 16:15:29 GMT -5
This is an incredible list of questions! This is an article that appeared in the January 4, 1936 issue of Liberty Magazine just a few weeks before all Condon's Liberty articles started to appear.
It is very interesting to see both Isidor Fisch and Hans Mueller are mentioned. Both needed closer scrutiny, in my opinion.
Thanks to Michael's volume II we have the answer to who wrote Condon's telephone number on the panel trim.
A couple of questions I was wondering about:
#33 - Why was the evidence about the ladder nails not used in court? Wedemar wrote the following for this - A metal expert traced nails found in the kidnap ladder to the factory and discovered their characteristics were distinctive. Similar nails were found, after Hauptmann's arrest, in the garage he had built and in a keg lying in his garage. This fact was not used as prosecution evidence, possibly because of the expert's admitted inability to trace 400 additional kegs of nails, all exactly the same as those in the ladder, which were purchased by persons other than Hauptmann.
Michael, will you be covering the nail evidence in Volume III?
#36 - Why did Hauptmann, if he was solely guilty, remain living in the house where huge quantities of evidence against him were easily available? Wedemar wrote the following for this - Criminologists say the natural thing would have been for Hauptmann to move to another house after the ransom had been paid, and to buy new tools. Then it would have been harder for the authorities to link the ladder wood, the nails, and his tools to the kidnap ladder.
I have pondered this question, myself, many times. Why remain there like a sitting duck waiting to be picked off? Why not dump incriminating evidence and hide any ransom money in another location? What gave Hauptmann this sense of security that he didn't need to distance himself from any evidence? Or was he just not smart enough to protect himself?? Or was there someone who Hauptmann had to answer to?
#38 - Who was the "wealthy man in an expensive automobile" who called on Hauptmann? Wedemar wrote the following for this - Neighbors told of a wealthy man in such a car who frequently called on Hauptmann before his arrest, and went with him on hunting trips. The authorities were unable to trace this man, and Hauptmann refuses to name him.
This one I have never heard of before?! A wealthy man going hunting with Hauptmann?? Hauptmann would not identify him? Michael, can you comment on this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2018 16:41:20 GMT -5
Great article, ilovedfw! Interesting that you suggest Harry Whitney as that man. Whitney was related to Anna Hauptmann so it would make sense that BRH would have known him previous to the kidnapping, even. If Whitney did, indeed, like to hunt, then maybe he could have been the man who passed a Lindbergh ransom bill at the Adventurer's Club dinner meeting in NYC Oct. of 1932.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 3, 2018 7:46:47 GMT -5
Thanks for typing all of that out scathma! #33 - Why was the evidence about the ladder nails not used in court? Wedemar wrote the following for this - A metal expert traced nails found in the kidnap ladder to the factory and discovered their characteristics were distinctive. Similar nails were found, after Hauptmann's arrest, in the garage he had built and in a keg lying in his garage. This fact was not used as prosecution evidence, possibly because of the expert's admitted inability to trace 400 additional kegs of nails, all exactly the same as those in the ladder, which were purchased by persons other than Hauptmann.Michael, will you be covering the nail evidence in Volume III? That's one of those things I've considered but not high on my list. I think it was weak so Wilentz opted not to use it. I can't remember at the moment if Keith was included but Wilentz did have comments in his pre-trial notes (in places) concerning what he felt was weak. Funny that a couple of Koehler's rock solid facts Wilentz wasn't very high on.... Anyway, the nail company itself said they couldn't be traced. I probably have the most sources assembled in one place about Keith's position so if you think it's important I guess I'd be the guy to do it. I even have an original "Triangle" from the 1940s about it and to this day I've never compared what he writes there against everything else yet. #36 - Why did Hauptmann, if he was solely guilty, remain living in the house where huge quantities of evidence against him were easily available? Wedemar wrote the following for this - Criminologists say the natural thing would have been for Hauptmann to move to another house after the ransom had been paid, and to buy new tools. Then it would have been harder for the authorities to link the ladder wood, the nails, and his tools to the kidnap ladder. I have pondered this question, myself, many times. Why remain there like a sitting duck waiting to be picked off? Why not dump incriminating evidence and hide any ransom money in another location? What gave Hauptmann this sense of security that he didn't need to distance himself from any evidence? Or was he just not smart enough to protect himself?? Or was there someone who Hauptmann had to answer to? Exactly. He was glued to the Bronx for a reason. #38 - Who was the "wealthy man in an expensive automobile" who called on Hauptmann? Wedemar wrote the following for this - Neighbors told of a wealthy man in such a car who frequently called on Hauptmann before his arrest, and went with him on hunting trips. The authorities were unable to trace this man, and Hauptmann refuses to name him. This one I have never heard of before?! A wealthy man going hunting with Hauptmann?? Hauptmann would not identify him? Michael, can you comment on this? All of his hunting trips were investigated by police. They documented the who, what, where, and whens. I'm not sure if Wedemar is making a mistake or combining things mistakenly rolled up into one. Or it could be something yet to be discovered.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Oct 3, 2018 9:46:37 GMT -5
Thanks for typing all of that out scathma! #33 - Why was the evidence about the ladder nails not used in court? Wedemar wrote the following for this - A metal expert traced nails found in the kidnap ladder to the factory and discovered their characteristics were distinctive. Similar nails were found, after Hauptmann's arrest, in the garage he had built and in a keg lying in his garage. This fact was not used as prosecution evidence, possibly because of the expert's admitted inability to trace 400 additional kegs of nails, all exactly the same as those in the ladder, which were purchased by persons other than Hauptmann.Michael, will you be covering the nail evidence in Volume III? That's one of those things I've considered but not high on my list. I think it was weak so Wilentz opted not to use it. I can't remember at the moment if Keith was included but Wilentz did have comments in his pre-trial notes (in places) concerning what he felt was weak. Funny that a couple of Koehler's rock solid facts Wilentz wasn't very high on.... Anyway, the nail company itself said they couldn't be traced. I probably have the most sources assembled in one place about Keith's position so if you think it's important I guess I'd be the guy to do it. I even have an original "Triangle" from the 1940s about it and to this day I've never compared what he writes there against everything else yet. Michael, I think you nailed the nail evidence in a post from the past on Ronelle's site -- www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/iron.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Oct 3, 2018 12:46:59 GMT -5
The magazine offered a brief commentary on each question. Question 49 refers to a "fatal coincidence." "Ransom money was spent in hundreds of stores throughout the city. But the one place where the spender's auto license was noted was at a filling station on 127th Street---directly adjoining the house in which Isidor Fisch lived before he went to Europe. The writing of this auto license number on a ten-dollar bill led to Hauptmann's arrest." This is the first I've seen of a connection between Fisch and the gas station where Hauptmann's license plate was recorded. Is this unfounded conjecture on the part of Liberty or article author Lou Wedmar? Hi Scathma, Wedmar has his facts (and geography) correct on Question 49! In fact, Birrittella's Temple of Divine Power was across the street from Fisch's building. Joseph Dunniger's book Inside the Medium Cabinet has an excellent illustration and photo to help visualize the relationship between the gas station where BRH passed the last ransom bill, Fisch's building, and the Temple of Divine Power -- (And thanks for posting the questions!)
|
|
geld
Trooper
Posts: 43
|
Post by geld on Oct 3, 2018 14:58:34 GMT -5
If we assume that Condon is telling the truth, than this is what I surmise: BRH who didn't have a phone at home went to a Italian restaurant, where he was known, put 5 cents on the counter and asked to use the phone for a local call. Some of the customers were loud and brassy, speaking in Italian, and the "bartender" said STATTI CITTO, meaning shut-up someone is trying to speak on the phone.
This is my reply to Question # 28!! That all they is to the ITALIAN angle. Just another of Condon ploys.
|
|
luf12
Trooper II
Posts: 70
|
Post by luf12 on Oct 3, 2018 15:55:54 GMT -5
If we assume that Condon is telling the truth, than this is what I surmise: BRH who didn't have a phone at home went to a Italian restaurant, where he was known, put 5 cents on the counter and asked to use the phone for a local call. Some of the customers were loud and brassy, speaking in Italian, and the "bartender" said STATTI CITTO, meaning shut-up someone is trying to speak on the phone. This is my reply to Question # 28!! That all they is to the ITALIAN angle. Just another of Condon ploys. Good observation! I never realized that the Italian angle could be something that Condon actually made up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2018 7:18:38 GMT -5
#36 - Why did Hauptmann, if he was solely guilty, remain living in the house where huge quantities of evidence against him were easily available? Wedemar wrote the following for this - Criminologists say the natural thing would have been for Hauptmann to move to another house after the ransom had been paid, and to buy new tools. Then it would have been harder for the authorities to link the ladder wood, the nails, and his tools to the kidnap ladder. I have pondered this question, myself, many times. Why remain there like a sitting duck waiting to be picked off? Why not dump incriminating evidence and hide any ransom money in another location? What gave Hauptmann this sense of security that he didn't need to distance himself from any evidence? Or was he just not smart enough to protect himself?? Or was there someone who Hauptmann had to answer to? Exactly. He was glued to the Bronx for a reason. Could the reason he was glued to the Bronx be John F. Condon? BRH had Condon's address written in his closet for a reason. Condon had promised he would never reveal the identity of who he negotiated with. Condon had been doing that successfully for over two years. Could Hauptmann have been trusting that Condon would always continue to be a protector as long as he remained where he was?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2018 7:24:45 GMT -5
If anyone is interested in reading Dunninger's book, Inside the Medium Closet, here is a link to an online copy of the book. Once you open the link, just put 165 into the jump box at the top and it will take you right to the chapter on the Lindbergh case. babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b4029714;view=1up;seq=5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 5, 2018 7:43:41 GMT -5
Could the reason he was glued to the Bronx be John F. Condon? BRH had Condon's name and address written in his closet for a reason. Condon had promised he would never reveal the identity of who he negotiated with. Condon had been doing that successfully for over two years. Could Hauptmann have been trusting that Condon would always continue to be a protector as long as he remained where he was? I'm open to any reasons we can come up with. First and foremost, for me, I cannot believe someone flush with cash, in conflict with his Landlords, and in the "hot" zone (Bronx) would not simply move. If he's a Lone-Wolf there is no rational explanation. With all of the complexities surrounding the crime itself, the notes, and the collection of the ransom it seems impossible that this Master Mind does not take the simple actions required to ensure he's not arrested. As I think we can all agree, both he and Mueller were ready with an explanation if he got caught. Think about that for a minute. Why put yourself in the situation in the first place?
|
|
|
Post by swick69@gmail.com on Oct 5, 2018 9:36:46 GMT -5
can you send email me the Liberty magazine article you are referring to?
steve wick
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 5, 2018 10:18:51 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2018 13:17:14 GMT -5
As I think we can all agree, both he and Mueller were ready with an explanation if he got caught. Think about that for a minute. Why put yourself in the situation in the first place? As we see per your Volume II, Hauptmann and Mueller both had the same "explanation" about why Hauptmann had gold certificates. Also by your Volume II on page 421 of Chapter six on Hans Mueller, when police spoke with Martin Kunz who had worked with Mueller at the York Bar and Grill, Kunz told the police that Mueller, along with another waiter named Paul entered into negotiations to buy the York Bar and Grill. Kunz then claims the following about Mueller: Mueller had "between one and two thousand dollars on his person which Mueller contended came from his rich uncle who was speculating in stocks."This shows Mueller is using the same explanation for Hauptmann's wealth that Hauptmann has been using to all his friends; that his (BRH) affluence is because of his stock market trading. Both explanations are cover stories about the ransom money. So is Mueller "in the know" about the true source for his uncle's deep pockets or are these explanations to protect both of them or just BRH?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2018 10:23:44 GMT -5
Another of the questions from Wedemar's article that is very intriguing is number 47
#47 - Whose was the phrasing of the ransom letters? Wedemar wrote the following for this - Authorities were unanimous, before Hauptmann was arrested that the ransom letters were penned by an ignorant person and dictated by an educated one.
So, unanimous is an all inclusive word. Were all those involved in the case (NJSP,NYCP,FBI,etc.) really of this same opinion? My own opinion has been and still is that someone was involved with the creation of these notes besides Hauptmann. I think the notes reflect the influence of someone who knew or had more knowledge about both the Lindberghs and the Morrows. The phrasing, especially when it moves beyond some of the standard wording used in each note, exhibits the thinking of a well educated person.
A point that was brought out by defense attorney Pope during the time of the trial was the frequency that some statements are repeated from one note to the other. Pope suggested the possibility of a form letter being used for the composition of these notes. I think this possibility is extremely interesting. I wonder also if a form letter would make it easier to disguise someone's handwriting when creating these notes.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Oct 6, 2018 14:14:35 GMT -5
For reference, please indicate the incriminating evidence (why you're looking at him) accumulated on Mueller to date. Also what information of the Lindberghs and Morrows is shown in the notes
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2018 22:33:42 GMT -5
For reference, please indicate the incriminating evidence (why you're looking at him) accumulated on Mueller to date. I think I need to be clear that I have been suspicious about Hans Mueller since 2013 when I learned that the Liliput gun Hauptmann had in his possession came from Mueller. Talking with Rab on the board about this in 2013 he shared a list of other reasons to be suspicious of Hans Mueller. This list has helped to keep Mueller on my "person of interest" list. Here is the list that Rab shared with me in 2013 about Hans Mueller: So, reasons to be suspicious of Hans:
- He had an epileptic fit when the authorities first came to him with news of Hauptmann's arrest. This might explain somewhat why they went relatively easy on him later. - He lived a block and half from Condon's house. - He spent a lot of time on City Island where he was involved in running a party boat. It seems likely he knew Condon who, of course, ran a real estate business there. - When Hauptmann got into the accident with Begg, Hans was in the car with him. That same day Hauptmann had made a substantial coin deposit to his laundering account at Mt Vernon Trust. It can't be said that Hans was with him all day but it's a very suspicious incident. - In the jailhouse conversations between Hauptmann and Anna, Hauptmann constantly asks about Hans coming to see him. It was never allowed. - Hans had been a sailor before he jumped ship to live illegally in NYC. The Nelly note contains maritime references which it's hard to understand Hauptmann knowing. - Hans was constantly in need of money. - His notebooks contain many references to places connected with the case. Of course, he has a German immigrant so it's not strange that he would frequent some of the same places as Hauptmann. - He supplied Hauptmann with the gun. - He was from Hamburg. Remember the tableboard.Then couple all of the above with Michael's Volume II chapter on Hans Mueller which also includes how Hauptmann and Mueller had the same alibis for how Hauptmann came to have so much money plus why Hauptmann would have gold certificates in his possession should he ever be caught with them. All of this provides a good basis for suspicion of Mueller. I do not believe that Hauptmann worked this crime alone. I see his keeping silent and not revealing accomplices was an act of protecting someone. Perhaps that someone was Anna Hauptmann's niece's husband, Hans Mueller.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2018 23:21:51 GMT -5
Also what information of the Lindberghs and Morrows is shown in the notes I don't think all the notes suggest references that can relate to the Lindberghs and the Morrows. I currently think two of the notes do this. The first one is the very first note - The nursery note. I believe that the ransom amount asked for ($50,000), was low. The most famous baby in the world, son and grandson of two very rich families, and all that is asked for is fifty thousand dollars?! I think this amount was not chosen by the writer of the note but by whoever the mastermind/planner was of this kidnapping. The ransom amount has a history attached to it that is shared between the Morrows and Lindbergh. 1) The extortion attempt on Dwight Morrow through his daughter Constance. The amount asked for was $50,000. 2) Lindbergh was paid $50,000 dollars by the Guggenheim Foundation to make the 48 state tour with the Spirit of Saint Louis in 1927. 3) Lindbergh hand wrote his first book "WE" in 1927. This book was about his Spirit of Saint Louis flight. Putnam took Lindbergh's hand written manuscript of this book and had it made into two leather bound volumes. Putnam received an offer from a collector for these volumes for $50,000 dollars. It is my belief that the ransom amount asked for in the nursery note has a symbolic meaning. That is why the amount is so low. The other note that I believe suggests a Morrow and Lindbergh symbolic meaning is the Boad Nelly note. I wrote about this back in 2015. Here is that explanation about the Boad Nelly note: I wanted to share some of my thoughts on the Boad Nelly note and how it might be more personally connected.
1) The name Nellie - When the U.S. government began awarding Contract Air Mail routes, Robertson Aircraft Corporation won the CAM-2, Chicago to St. Louis run. They readied 5 mail planes for this run. Lindbergh was taken on as the chief pilot for this contract. Lindbergh was given the task of selecting the two pilots who would be sharing the route with him. Lindbergh chose two of his friends from his days with the Army Air Service. Lindbergh chose Philip R. "Red" Love and he also chose Thomas P. "Nellie" Nelson.
2) A small Boad 28 feet long - Lindbergh's Spirit of St. Louis plane (air boat) was just shy of 28 feet long.
3) Location of the Boad Nelly - The area designated as the location of the boat is part of the route sailed by Charles and Anne on their honeymoon.
4) Eliz(s?)abeth Island - Perhaps a reference to the Morrow family; Mrs. Elizabeth (Betty) Morrow, Anne's mother and Miss Elisabeth Morrow, Anne's sister.
We all know that this note was bogus as far as being about Charlie's true location. The writer knows this too. So could this note reflect a more personal connection to Lindbergh's life and the people in it? It is my own personal belief that there was someone else involved with the creation of those ransom notes working along with the person who penned them.
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Oct 7, 2018 8:35:43 GMT -5
this friend BRH went hunting with; "hunting" would be a great cover story for poking around the area of the Lindbergh estate. did they ever find out where those guys went hunting? previously i've only felt Richard was more of a background person in this case (built the ladder, collected ransom money, wrote notes) never was sure he was one of the ones at the house that fateful night. but for the first time, i'm wondering if Hauptmann could have been reconnoitering the house as others have speculated.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2018 18:19:54 GMT -5
this friend BRH went hunting with; "hunting" would be a great cover story for poking around the area of the Lindbergh estate. did they ever find out where those guys went hunting? previously i've only felt Richard was more of a background person in this case (built the ladder, collected ransom money, wrote notes) never was sure he was one of the ones at the house that fateful night. but for the first time, i'm wondering if Hauptmann could have been reconnoitering the house as others have speculated. To date, I am only aware of two hunting trips; one to Maine and one to New Jersey. The New Jersey trip was after the kidnapping. I think the one to Maine was also after the kidnapping. However, I do believe that there were early reconnoitering trips done by the persons hired to do the kidnapping. Edmund DeLong' interview with Col. Schwarzkopf in June of 1932 mentions Schwarzkopf saying this. Plus Michael Melsky's TDC Volume I in the first chapter, Strange Vehicles, page 3, mentions the car sightings of Christine Thompson. These could tie in with advance planning also.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Oct 7, 2018 19:57:15 GMT -5
However, I do believe that there were early reconnoitering trips done by the persons hired to do the kidnapping. Edmund DeLong' interview with Col. Schwarzkopf in June of 1932 mentions Schwarzkopf saying this. Plus Michael Melsky's TDC Volume I in the first chapter, Strange Vehicles, page 3, mentions the car sightings of Christine Thompson. These could tie in with advance planning also. Amy, This is how truly strange the "reconnoitering trips" become: Anne, sister Elisabeth, their mother,and Charlie spent the first weekend at Highfields on the weekend of October 31/November 1, 1931 (without CAL). The first weekend that CAL, Anne, and Charlie spent the weekend at Highfields together was the weekend of November7/November 8, 1931. In the 4 months between October 31, 1931 and March 1, 1932, there are a total of 18 weekends. Of those 18 weekends, CAL, Anne, and Charlie spent 11 weekends at Highfields. If the kidnappers had reconnoitered Highfields for the entire 123 days (from 10/31/31 to 3/1/32), then they would have discovered that the Lindberghs were there only 27 nights. If the kidnappers had reconnoitered Highfields the entire month of February, the month before the kidnapping, then they would have discovered that the Lindberghs were there only 5 days out of 29 days. If the kidnapper(s) did not have inside help, they were the luckiest criminals in history to pick that one and only Tuesday night. I just don't see it. If anyone wants the calendar dates of the Lindbergh's visits to Highfields, let me know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2018 20:16:09 GMT -5
If the kidnapper(s) did not have inside help, they were the luckiest criminals in history to pick that one and only Tuesday night. I just don't see it. If the kidnappers had been reconnoitering even part of the time you show that the Lindberghs were at the Highfield house they would have known that the Lindberghs never stayed past Monday. They would never have expected CAL, Anne and Charlie to be there on a Monday night or a Tuesday. It proves there is no luck involved. The kidnappers had advance information and only needed a few advance trips to get down exactly what they would do. It was an inside job utilizing outsider assistance.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Oct 7, 2018 21:04:00 GMT -5
If the kidnappers had been reconnoitering even part of the time you show that the Lindberghs were at the Highfield house they would have known that the Lindberghs never stayed past Monday. They would never have expected CAL, Anne and Charlie to be there on a Monday night or a Tuesday. It proves there is no luck involved. The kidnappers had advance information and only needed a few advance trips to get down exactly what they would do. It was an inside job utilizing outsider assistance. I agree with you Amy. Also, doesn't it seem like the kidnapper(s) had all the intel they needed prior to March 1, 1932, then immediately after the kidnapping took place, they seemed completely clueless on intel (see Ransom Note 2)? Again, unless they were just lucky, here's what they seemed to know: 1) The location of Highfields 2) Location of the nursery on the second floor in the south-east room 3) Knowledge of the un-latchable shutter (because there were only two ladder holes in the mud, the kidnapper(s) knew exactly which window they were going to use) 4) Knowledge of CAL's 8-10PM ‘lockdown’ when the baby was never to be disturbed 5) Knowledge Charlie was there on a Tuesday night 6) Knowledge that Wahgoosh would not bark 7) Knowledge that Skean was not sleeping in the nursery with Charlie (Skean always slept under Charlie's nursery; CAL had two chances to bring him from Englewood to Highfields on Saturday, February 27, but both times he didn't. Also CAL could have asked Betty to bring him on March 1. He didn't.) Could anyone be this lucky?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Oct 7, 2018 21:50:53 GMT -5
Hauptmann could have done it alone. That said, great post about Mr. Mueller, Amy.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 8, 2018 1:08:59 GMT -5
Hauptmann could have done it alone. That said, great post about Mr. Mueller, Amy. It's not troubling to you that literally every single person involved from Day 1, literally every first-hand witness, knew multiple people were involved and nearly all believed there was inside help? It was not until Hauptmann's arrest that logic went out the window for the sake of a conviction. This is forgetting the fact that the footprint evidence clearly shows there was more than one person involved.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Oct 8, 2018 5:39:33 GMT -5
It seems to me that you're getting "Monday Morning Quarterbacks" mixed up with investigators. It seems strange to me that no one on this board has ever commented on the fact that Bruno recommended Lt. Finn of the NYPD to the police commissioner, and he was put on the LK case.
|
|