Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Oct 8, 2018 9:02:22 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. Good one Jack! There's no shortage of inarguable fact, coincidences within the realm of possibility or just plain claptrap that the kidnapper(s) wouldn't necessarily have known about at the time, but they all sound very enticing now when lined up and enough of them can seemingly be form-fit into a highly controversial pet theory. Throw in a couple of stiff reality checks though and the house of cards comes tumbling down. That's okay though because with a little virtual manipulation, it's easy to reconstruct the next day. I have to believe that if you if you could hear Hauptmann from the other side right now, he'd be muttering, "It's nice they think I was so smart, but I didn't really know dot!"
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Oct 8, 2018 9:16:44 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. Jack, Yes, I agree with you, it does seem strange-- Are you saying Lt. Finn was put on the case because Hauptmann recommended him to the NYPD police commissioner? I'd really like to see the documentation on this.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Oct 8, 2018 11:47:40 GMT -5
Well, Wayne:
I like to document stuff so go to Fisher soft cover, page 189 and read it. A fact I don't ever remember hearing about on all the boards.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Oct 8, 2018 12:41:57 GMT -5
I didn't say he did it alone, said he could have done it alone, that it was not physically impossible to do the crime on his own. The most striking example of it being a lone perpetrator job was at the cemetery during the money hand-off. Even with only two kidnappers it would take the negotiator (CJ) approval from his pal when he dropped the amount they were getting by $20,000, almost one-third. That of course very strongly indicates only one decision maker. You can blah, blah, blah around this, and I've noticed this board especially is getting pretty good at the blah, blah, blah but it's a solid fact that can't really be attributed to Condon, the final decision was CJ's and perhaps CAL's.
You're using logic to try and answer unanswerables. We have no idea what went on for example with the footprints. Footprints are like autographs, the only way a person can be certain that they are by anyone, is if the person is seen to be writing them. Otherwise they're just hard to define marks. The only thing probably certain about the footprints is that the individual in stocking feet was probably going inside. That makes one enterer and a number of other prints that nothing can be determined about. For another thing, your logic is really just wishful thinking. For example how do you know that the broken shutter didn't stick out like a sore thumb? You don't, but you're assuming that it didn't. Also, how do you know that the window wasn't partially open and the shutter open as well? You don't, so you're concluding how you want it to be to make it nice for you. It would have been a very difficult crime, only to be accomplished by a very determined individual, as Dr. Shoenfeld pointed out early in his examination of the notes would be a trait of the kidnapper.
It seems to me that only two worthwhile investigators have looked TLC. Lt. Finn of the NYPD and Professor Shoenfeld, psychiatrist at large. Others not only didn't solve the crime, they didn't even come up with any possible solutions. I see in your examination of criminals you're down to one of BRH's relatives. It seems highly unlikely that two people would even consider this crime, much less do it, then be related and live in the same city. This was a very rare crime. Whoever committed it was out of their mind to even consider it in the first place. There is an unusual motive, which I believe was outlined by Dr Shoenfeld early on in the investigation and has not been answered otherwise.
It seems that the more people who keep looking at TLC, the more complicated it gets. Now the entire house is involved, surprising that they didn't all start crying and confess that first night that the butler did it.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Oct 8, 2018 12:43:25 GMT -5
Well, Wayne: I like to document stuff so go to Fisher soft cover, page 189 and read it. A fact I don't ever remember hearing about on all the boards. Thanks Jack. I'm looking at Fisher, page 189 of the soft cover addition, and my copy does not have Hauptmann asking the NYPD police commissioner to put Lt. Finn on the case. My page 189 has Lt. Finn searching Hauptmann's house, as he stripped "the sheets off the bed and ripped open the mattress. There was no sign of the ransom money." Can you please show me what you are talking about? Jack, as Michael keeps repeating, Fisher did not do his due diligence researching this case for his book. Case in point. Fisher's first chapter, The Crime, is a little over 6 pages long. In those 6 short pages, Fisher makes 16 glaring errors (his "facts" are all prove-ably wrong). Fisher makes 4 huge chronological mistakes relating how Betty prepared Charlie for bed. IF Fisher had simply read (and understood) both Betty and Anne's statements, he would have gotten these facts right. He did not. Oh, and Fisher begins Chapter 2 with the chisel being found underneath the south-east window. It was not. It was found ~75 feet from the house close to where the ladders. Jack, please re-read Fisher and compare the facts that are readily available on this site. Fisher should do the same.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Oct 8, 2018 12:55:06 GMT -5
Oops - page 169.
Michael doesn't like Fisher because Fisher sold a lot of books.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Oct 8, 2018 14:18:32 GMT -5
Oops - page 169. Michael doesn't like Fisher because Fisher sold a lot of books. Jack, Thanks. What your original post stated was that " 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." I think you meant "Lindbergh" not "Bruno", right? I also think Michael doesn't like Fisher because Fisher either (1) doesn't know the facts or (2) makes them up when he needs to. Again, he does both of these two things in the first 6 pages of Chapter One: 16 glaring mistakes. (I'd be more than happy to list them for you.) Not a good way to start for an author claiming to get at the truth, don't you agree?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Oct 8, 2018 15:05:58 GMT -5
Oops - page 169. Michael doesn't like Fisher because Fisher sold a lot of books. Jack, Thanks. What your original post stated was that " 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." I think you meant "Lindbergh" not "Bruno", right? I also think Michael doesn't like Fisher because Fisher either (1) doesn't know the facts or (2) makes them up when he needs to. Again, he does both of these two things in the first 6 pages of Chapter One: 16 glaring mistakes. (I'd be more than happy to list them for you.) Not a good way to start for an author claiming to get at the truth, don't you agree? I thought Jack was just having a little fun trying to infer that there was a connection between Harry Bruno and Bruno Hauptmann that might be believed by some...
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Oct 8, 2018 15:46:06 GMT -5
I thought Jack was just having a little fun trying to infer that there was a connection between Harry Bruno and Bruno Hauptmann that might be believed by some... Ah, Harry Bruno, CAL's former press secretary. Thanks for clarifying that Joe. And you are correct Jack. Yep, egg and my face are in alignment.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Oct 8, 2018 17:37:18 GMT -5
Hi Mary.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Oct 9, 2018 5:08:45 GMT -5
I'm correct? It was my joke!
Joe just hopped on when I gave away the answer. I doubt anyone knew that piece of trivia - I'd never heard it before. Kind of like John Kennedy's secretary's name was Lincoln or something.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 9, 2018 7:14:41 GMT -5
Oops - page 169. Michael doesn't like Fisher because Fisher sold a lot of books. I think I was in college when I first read Fisher's book. At the time I had no choice but to believe what he wrote. I think we are all at a place that is light years ahead of his books as well as the others written during that time. Why? Partially because of them. We wanted to know what was true and what was not so we pursued the facts. Wayne hit the nail on the head but there's also that tactic of labeling anyone who did not agree with, as it turned out, his completely bogus facts. We are not "Revisionists" because he's wrong. As far as book sales that's got nothing to do with it, in fact, I've always recommended people read it then bring their questions here so we can let them know where he was wrong. All of those books are completely outdated now, and I think after V3 the "rest" of the old mysteries will be finally cleared up and, like the information in V1 & V2 - we can use that information to get closer to the truth and be done with all of the false narrative distractions.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Oct 9, 2018 9:54:27 GMT -5
Well I was just kidding - I'd imagine not a lot of book sales these days, interest in the crime pretty bigly comes and goes. So nobody's gonna get rich - unless they find the missing ransom money! I always thought it would be fun to find and have one of the old ransom bills. You could have the bank list too - that would start 'em talking at the coffee table.
I think a talk of motive would be valuable. The direction you try to keep TC going, I don't see enough motive.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Oct 9, 2018 10:52:24 GMT -5
I see enough for BRH, but nobody else.
In all my readings of the crime which is probably about average, but for quite a few years, I don't remember any talk of rattling windows. Sometimes Kevin has had ideas which are so great, there is nothing else. I know about windows rattling, we had them, but I don't remember them being a problem as Kevin has brought out.
I doubt the windows were locked - anyway it doesn't matter, it's what the kidnapper believed that's important. Second story burglars assume that there's a good chance that upper windows and doors will be left unlocked. In fact, as Michael probably knows, there is an epidemic currently of upper level burglaries with entry through the sliding glass door which goes out to the deck.
I've always thought that if the kidnapper had any inside information, he wouldn't have done this crime because of the situation of the dogs. Coincidence upon coincidence, the dog problem solved itself for the real kidnapper. It was really a simple crime. The more people that keep looking at it, the more complicated it gets. He lucked his way through the kidnapping and ransom negotiations and two meetings with the middle-man and since he was working alone he was able to drop the ransom payment by almost a third of money at the cemetery meeting, and he ran away all on his own feet. And he wouldn't even have been caught except that Lt. Finn kept after the ransom bills as they were received and finally a golden one appeared which had BRH's auto license number on it.
And they've never caught anyone besides Richard Hauptmann, there's never been another serious suspect, unless you consider the conveniently dead Mr. Fisch a possible kidnapper/murderer
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 10, 2018 7:16:09 GMT -5
Well I was just kidding - I'd imagine not a lot of book sales these days, interest in the crime pretty bigly comes and goes. So nobody's gonna get rich - unless they find the missing ransom money! I always thought it would be fun to find and have one of the old ransom bills. You could have the bank list too - that would start 'em talking at the coffee table. I think a talk of motive would be valuable. The direction you try to keep TC going, I don't see enough motive. Nobody is going to get rich on any book and that's certainly not my motivation. I think there could be money in a movie that accurately depicts what really happened. With so much money being wasted on really bad movies I find it hard to believe one based on the factual evidence concerning this case wouldn't draw interest - most especially because what really happened at each and every step is unbelievable. There were also ulterior motives all over the place - more lies, more crime, misdirection, and everyone was willing to stray to the certain degree their moral compass allowed. It's obvious the "historical" account is nothing more than fiction and what really actually happened is truly a case of truth being stranger than fiction. In all my readings of the crime which is probably about average, but for quite a few years, I don't remember any talk of rattling windows. Sometimes Kevin has had ideas which are so great, there is nothing else. I know about windows rattling, we had them, but I don't remember them being a problem as Kevin has brought out. It's not really like that. I suspected they would have rattled based upon the fact I had those types myself. So I consulted Kevin about it and he confirmed they would have made some noise if they were not sealed with the lock. It's really not that complicated, and why it was overlooked I cannot say. But that's the point of my books to point these things out. Like I've mentioned previously, some think if they didn't see it or read about it previously then it never happened. The only actual/real issue is how "much" noise they could have made with the wind howling through them because I do not think that can be positively established. But saying these types of windows didn't need to be sealed, or they wouldn't have moved and made noise with the wind blowing without being locked is completely false. The explanation that " they never locked those windows" does not solve the dilemma because not locking them under the conditions that existed defies common sense. After all, Betty said the shutters were closed to keep them from flapping and making noise. I doubt the windows were locked - anyway it doesn't matter, it's what the kidnapper believed that's important. Second story burglars assume that there's a good chance that upper windows and doors will be left unlocked. In fact, as Michael probably knows, there is an epidemic currently of upper level burglaries with entry through the sliding glass door which goes out to the deck. Even if these types of doors are locked they can be easily defeated with very little skill. Nowadays our biggest threat are drug addicts looking for money so they take the path of least resistance. I recommend cutting down a piece of 2x4 to size and placing it between the door and the wall so no one could ever open it from the outside while its closed without breaking the glass. Otherwise get a dog. My Jack Russell heard everything, was able to distinguish "normal" noises, and would immediately sound the alarm if it wasn't. Plus she had a lot of fight in her and would have thrown herself in front of a train to protect me despite being so small. Of course that wouldn't be necessary because these types breaking into houses like this would hear the dog and simply move on.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Oct 10, 2018 9:28:32 GMT -5
I see enough for BRH, but nobody else. In all my readings of the crime which is probably about average, but for quite a few years, I don't remember any talk of rattling windows. Sometimes Kevin has had ideas which are so great, there is nothing else. I know about windows rattling, we had them, but I don't remember them being a problem as Kevin has brought out. I doubt the windows were locked - anyway it doesn't matter, it's what the kidnapper believed that's important. Second story burglars assume that there's a good chance that upper windows and doors will be left unlocked. In fact, as Michael probably knows, there is an epidemic currently of upper level burglaries with entry through the sliding glass door which goes out to the deck. I've always thought that if the kidnapper had any inside information, he wouldn't have done this crime because of the situation of the dogs. Coincidence upon coincidence, the dog problem solved itself for the real kidnapper. It was really a simple crime. The more people that keep looking at it, the more complicated it gets. He lucked his way through the kidnapping and ransom negotiations and two meetings with the middle-man and since he was working alone he was able to drop the ransom payment by almost a third of money at the cemetery meeting, and he ran away all on his own feet. And he wouldn't even have been caught except that Lt. Finn kept after the ransom bills as they were received and finally a golden one appeared which had BRH's auto license number on it. And they've never caught anyone besides Richard Hauptmann, there's never been another serious suspect, unless you consider the conveniently dead Mr. Fisch a possible kidnapper/murderer A very rational post, Jack. It's basically one that aligns with the historical account, although I'd offer there were others with a degree of involvement that might have even got them executed under the felony murder doctrine, had they not died, or got lost in the woodwork once the prosecution set their sights on Hauptmann. And yes, it was a much simpler crime than most here seem to believe. Of course, your post won't get you lots of likes and accolades on this board, but I'm sure you won't lose any sleep over it. I know I don't. Although I'm not a particular fan of Lindbergh, Condon and Gow, etc., it is a shame to see their names getting dragged through the mud continuously. Archives of documents is great and new information should always be welcomed for consideration.. it's the mileage you get from it that matters. The jigsaw puzzle that has Hauptmann squarely in the middle of the frame has filled in around the edges but has essentially changed very little over the past 85 plus years. But you'd never know that here.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Oct 10, 2018 9:35:07 GMT -5
I have 2 bank ransom booklists in perfect condition. have to dig them out
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Oct 10, 2018 9:38:02 GMT -5
I still believe what he wrote, to much evidence against hauptmann people try to change the case, to fit hauptmann as innocent.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Oct 10, 2018 11:11:45 GMT -5
I still believe what he wrote, to much evidence against hauptmann people try to change the case, to fit hauptmann as innocent. Steve, I don't think many here still view Hauptmann as innocent or completely uninvolved, more like an unfortunate pawn within a larger devious plan, engineered by Charles Lindbergh. Jim Fisher did say one thing that I think everyone can here can agree on, to the effect "It's very difficult to disprove a negative." And I'd add it's doubly difficult, when the negative has only perceived proof of its worth to demonstrate.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 10, 2018 11:44:58 GMT -5
A very rational post, Jack. It's basically one that aligns with the historical account, although I'd offer there were others with a degree of involvement that might have even got them executed under the felony murder doctrine, had they not died, or got lost in the woodwork once the prosecution set their sights on Hauptmann. And yes, it was a much simpler crime than most here seem to believe. Of course, your post won't get you lots of likes and accolades on this board, but I'm sure you won't lose any sleep over it. I know I don't. Although I'm not a particular fan of Lindbergh, Condon and Gow, etc., it is a shame to see their names getting dragged through the mud continuously. Archives of documents is great and new information should always be welcomed for consideration.. it's the mileage you get from it that matters. The jigsaw puzzle that has Hauptmann squarely in the middle of the frame has filled in around the edges but has essentially changed very little over the past 85 plus years. But you'd never know that here. I don't agree. Also, I think just about everyone who read Jack's post took it all in. You see, one has to go where the facts lead "them" and that doesn't necessarily mean where they lead Jack, you, or me. Heck, we could all be in three different places after seeing the exact same information which I think is actually the case. But first things first and that is to develop or learn what information existed during the actual investigations and what might have come to light since. We cannot become so emotionally attached to the specific characters that it gets "upsetting" about what was developed and/or where that information could lead. Sometimes where there's smoke there's fire and sometimes not. But how to know if certain information isn't allowed because there's an emotional connection to that person in some way? For example, when I learned that Hauptmann and Mueller seemed to have the exact same "excuse" for his possessing ransom money, was I supposed to ignore that because I didn't want to drag Mueller's name "through the mud?" Or is that okay because he doesn't happen to be on your personal list of "untouchables?" What I learn or read isn't something I am making up. Like I've said previously, I've had several personal theories smashed by the documentation I've found in the Archives. Nothing should be ignored, in fact, everything should be explored to get to the bottom of this thing. If something doesn't hold value for you that doesn't mean it should be buried or that it might not be viewed differently by someone else.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 10, 2018 13:20:05 GMT -5
Michael - was killing the baby planned or an accident do you think? This is a great question and one that we've been debating since the beginning. Jack and Steve were here before me, and Joe and I showed up at virtually the same time and its one of those things that eventually comes up - and it should. Because there is no way to know for sure. My personal belief is that he was probably dead before he left the house but if not it was part of the plan that he be killed. I'm open to any theory about it but that's where I am presently at.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Oct 13, 2018 9:27:43 GMT -5
A very rational post, Jack. It's basically one that aligns with the historical account, although I'd offer there were others with a degree of involvement that might have even got them executed under the felony murder doctrine, had they not died, or got lost in the woodwork once the prosecution set their sights on Hauptmann. And yes, it was a much simpler crime than most here seem to believe. Of course, your post won't get you lots of likes and accolades on this board, but I'm sure you won't lose any sleep over it. I know I don't. Although I'm not a particular fan of Lindbergh, Condon and Gow, etc., it is a shame to see their names getting dragged through the mud continuously. Archives of documents is great and new information should always be welcomed for consideration.. it's the mileage you get from it that matters. The jigsaw puzzle that has Hauptmann squarely in the middle of the frame has filled in around the edges but has essentially changed very little over the past 85 plus years. But you'd never know that here. I don't agree. Also, I think just about everyone who read Jack's post took it all in. You see, one has to go where the facts lead "them" and that doesn't necessarily mean where they lead Jack, you, or me. Heck, we could all be in three different places after seeing the exact same information which I think is actually the case. But first things first and that is to develop or learn what information existed during the actual investigations and what might have come to light since. We cannot become so emotionally attached to the specific characters that it gets "upsetting" about what was developed and/or where that information could lead. Sometimes where there's smoke there's fire and sometimes not. But how to know if certain information isn't allowed because there's an emotional connection to that person in some way? For example, when I learned that Hauptmann and Mueller seemed to have the exact same "excuse" for his possessing ransom money, was I supposed to ignore that because I didn't want to drag Mueller's name "through the mud?" Or is that okay because he doesn't happen to be on your personal list of "untouchables?" What I learn or read isn't something I am making up. Like I've said previously, I've had several personal theories smashed by the documentation I've found in the Archives. Nothing should be ignored, in fact, everything should be explored to get to the bottom of this thing. If something doesn't hold value for you that doesn't mean it should be buried or that it might not be viewed differently by someone else. There's no emotional investment towards those players here in my camp, Michael. And I think you understand that what I am saying is there is no proof of any connection between Lindbergh, Condon and Gow and a plot to have Charlie kidnapped, unless it's ever proven that key information was disclosed intentionally or unintentionally by any one of them. That includes the entire household and anyone in a position of influence at Englewood or elsewhere. Now you introduce Mueller, and certainly you have my attention, as you would with virtually anyone else within Hauptmann's family and social circle. Mueller has been on my radar as a suspect for a long time, as are Isidor Fisch, Anna and a list of Hauptmann friends and acquaintances who at least knew or suspected him of having been involved. And there's good reason for that, isn't there? Hauptmann is head and shoulders above all, the primary suspect, albeit his status is a bit exaggerated by the fact that avenues which might have led elsewhere within his circle of influence, were essentially shut down a few days after his arrest and his stonewalling of investigators. Like you, I've long considered the possibility of Lindbergh's involvement, but there are far too many real evidence red flags and reality checks that tell me almost simultaneously he was entirely unaware of the kidnapping plans that led up to the evening of March 1, 1932. And while I'd love to be able to discuss each and movement and moment in time that you've written about to date, I just can't spare the time right now at least. While I thoroughly enjoy studying this case, none of the above represents any kind of an emotional investment towards any LKC player. In my books, it's just common sense and logic within the framework of this having been a simple crime, before it was first twisted and began it's rise to becoming the bloated entity it is today.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 13, 2018 12:15:36 GMT -5
There's no emotional investment towards those players here in my camp, Michael. And I think you understand that what I am saying is there is no proof of any connection between Lindbergh, Condon and Gow and a plot to have Charlie kidnapped, unless it's ever proven that key information was disclosed intentionally or unintentionally by any one of them. That includes the entire household and anyone in a position of influence at Englewood or elsewhere. If you say there isn't then there isn't, and I only counter with that because it appears that way to me. Also, I would never want to change your mind if you do not see what I clearly do. I also want to address what else you wrote about Condon, Gow, and Lindbergh.... Condon is obviously connected to the Extortionists in some way. That certainly doesn't mean he must be connected to Gow or Lindbergh during the Kidnapping (although he does make an effort to shield Gow much like he did with Hauptmann). There are red flags that exist concerning both Lindbergh and Gow. One can choose to ignore them or pursue them. There are a string of them concerning Lindbergh so its not just like there's one "coincidence" that we're talking about here. I see only two possibilities: One is that he knows what took place, and the other being what Jack suggested. Regardless, can anyone doubt (and I do mean anyone) that the police in this day and age would have treated him much differently if armed with these facts concerning him? Anyway, as I hope you see, I've revealed all of the information I've found. Look at what I've written about Hauptmann and there's nothing that makes him look "innocent." Just much more information and facts I am quite sure most if not all haven't seen before. Now that lastest review on Amazon has me a little shook up because I would not expect someone buying my book because they thought they'd be "entertained" or that I would hedge, omit, or avoid anything simply to make what I happen to personally believe clear. Since just about every Author has already done that (either by lack of research, specific intent, or a combination of both) it would defeat the purpose. I am now working on Rail 16 in V3 believe me when I say there is absolutely nothing "entertaining" about it. What is entertaining is, after reading everything I provide, coming to a personal conclusion about the truth of the situation. To me that's the exciting part and not some BS narrative about Anna thinking about a future with Richard as she walks through a garden of roses when she suddenly spots the kidnap ladder hidden among the bushes and exclaims " mein Gott!" etc. etc.. Sure that's entertaining, and its something Fisher nailed down - but I am not writing that kind of book.
|
|
|
Post by julie0709 on Oct 13, 2018 12:44:16 GMT -5
Hello all on the forum I've been out of the loop for some time but I'm back reading again. Thank you Michael for your excellent book V1 I read it in one sitting and found some interesting info in both V1 and the preview to V2
I'm curious about BG's statement to the Federal investigator Garrson that she claimed that Lindbergh would protect her. Could it be that Gow was anxious about her immigration status? And also Johnson's immigration status and Violet Sharpe's. There is that bit in the V1 about Johnson having STD and Gow visiting a student at Princeton. Were these three people under a watch by Immigration Service because of alleged promiscuity?
I was intrigued by the note of the autopsy physician that the remains that were brought to Trenton had an acid residue and it could have been embalmed. I don't believe that the remains discovered could be proved to be the child. If grave vandalism was a cause for the remains to be cremated then another such grave of an unknown child could have been vandalised, too. The clothing remnants allegedly on those remains could have been a plant by the persons involved with dumping those remains. I haven't read about any definitive evidence that the Lindbergh child was really kidnapped and murdered. I won't go so far to say Lindbergh murdered (killed) his son or BRH was guilty of murder. I'm speculating at this point the boy could have been institutionalized as a John Doe or abandoned by those involved with his disappearance. Isn't it also curious that under Gov. Byrnes administration the physical remains that were housed by NJSP were returned to the Lindbergh family just as DNA processing was being advanced as a determining tool? Thank you all for your input on the board.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Oct 13, 2018 14:38:57 GMT -5
Mueller could have been simply repeating what Hauptmann told him about why he had money - how he bought the radio, sent Anne to Europe, etc. Nothing special there.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 16, 2018 7:19:58 GMT -5
Hello all on the forum I've been out of the loop for some time but I'm back reading again. Thank you Michael for your excellent book V1 I read it in one sitting and found some interesting info in both V1 and the preview to V2 Thank you Julie! I'm curious about BG's statement to the Federal investigator Garrson that she claimed that Lindbergh would protect her. Could it be that Gow was anxious about her immigration status? And also Johnson's immigration status and Violet Sharpe's. There is that bit in the V1 about Johnson having STD and Gow visiting a student at Princeton. Were these three people under a watch by Immigration Service because of alleged promiscuity? I've never read anything that lead me to believe this. It's possible Red was worried because he had been here illegally but Gow and Sharp were both legal. Gow was thrown out of Princeton because the University complained. I have only one source for this but its a good one. I was intrigued by the note of the autopsy physician that the remains that were brought to Trenton had an acid residue and it could have been embalmed. I don't believe that the remains discovered could be proved to be the child. If grave vandalism was a cause for the remains to be cremated then another such grave of an unknown child could have been vandalised, too. The clothing remnants allegedly on those remains could have been a plant by the persons involved with dumping those remains. I haven't read about any definitive evidence that the Lindbergh child was really kidnapped and murdered. I won't go so far to say Lindbergh murdered (killed) his son or BRH was guilty of murder. I'm speculating at this point the boy could have been institutionalized as a John Doe or abandoned by those involved with his disappearance. Isn't it also curious that under Gov. Byrnes administration the physical remains that were housed by NJSP were returned to the Lindbergh family just as DNA processing was being advanced as a determining tool? Thank you all for your input on the board. The idea the body had been "embalmed" I found mentioned "here and there" and I often wondered what the source for it was. What was testified to at the Grand Jury seems to show where it originated from. It's coming from the cops who saw the body. Later Wendel said he emasculated the child with acid. What's important to note is that Wendel was getting information from the Trenton PD. With this in mind it could simply be he "borrowed" it knowing what they were saying about the condition of the corpse. In the end I believe Dr. Mitchell would have known if this was the case and I've found nothing to show he did. So while I'm curious I cannot say there is anything beyond that. The idea that the corpse was not CJr. has always been a topic for discussion. While I am convinced it was him, there are definitely some here who do not agree with me.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Oct 20, 2018 19:41:35 GMT -5
Mueller could have been simply repeating what Hauptmann told him about why he had money - how he bought the radio, sent Anne to Europe, etc. Nothing special there. Although that wouldn't surprise me Jack, I think Hauptmann may well have provided some inkling to Mueller after the fact. Let's face it.. he knew so much he couldn't tell, it would have almost killed him not to. Mueller could have been one of his relief valves.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Oct 22, 2018 11:35:37 GMT -5
Bringing these people up is pretty futile anyway. What happens if some one of them is suspected? Interview their spirit at the cemetery? Some will say that's not true, but I don't see any way of developing anything useful from it.
|
|