mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on May 9, 2008 7:57:02 GMT -5
"Packet": In looking at the letter with the packet directions, it just registered on me that instead of saying "a" packet. it says "one" packet. If we set aside the box/container idea for a moment , what else might "packet" amount to? Was he wanting the money to be tied or in some way banded all together which would have equated with "about" this size(?) (Am not suggesting that the money would have been carried openly as a chunk of $$$$'s ) Am wanting to think outside the "box". In the mind of a foreign language thinker, would the sleeping suit, wrapped in paper, have arrived in a "packet"(?)
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 9, 2008 8:24:45 GMT -5
It might very well be that the dimensions were approximate, however from a tradesman's perspective the drawing supersedes all else. The real point of all of this is why, in the course of writing this note with everything else to consider and the magnitude of what was transpiring, did it occur to Hauptmann to specify a "packet" in the first place? Try and out yourself in the position of writing that note. Would such a request even come up if it were not important? Important enough to drop the concealed hand and reveal a bit of his knowledge of drawing and scale. So what if the money was brought in an attache case or a paper bag? What would have occurred without this instruction? For me the answer must be connected with the dimensions given. And that clearly indicates an intent. But an intent for what reason? Once again, all that comes to my mind is that he wants the most compact package that will contain all of the money. Is that purely due to ease of mobility or is there a possibility that he intended to conceal the "packet" somewhere ? If concealment is the motive, is it related to the drop, the transport, or the destination?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 9, 2008 20:04:26 GMT -5
[Leigh Matteson Manuscript - Hoffman Files - Box 4]
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 10, 2008 6:54:58 GMT -5
Exactly. All one has to do is look at these examples of secreting things away or containing them. It's a part of Hauptmann's MO. The buried crock, the two 1 gal cans, the wood block, the space behind the door trim, the ladder that nestles, and who knows how many others. If he asked for a 6"x7'x14" "packet", then he had good reason.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on May 10, 2008 13:35:53 GMT -5
Kevin, can you then posit why there is no further mention of the specific request beyond that ransom note? Just requests for Condon to "bring the money," or have it with him "in one bundle?" I'd have certainly expected to see some kind of reminder along the course of the transaction if there really was any strategic significance at all. Yet there is nothing expressed but anticipation of the money.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 10, 2008 15:20:18 GMT -5
Who knows Joe. Perhaps he felt that one drawing was sufficient ( it was). Or perhaps he had a change of plan ( not surprising given the improvisation going on). I don't really think it changes the fact that when he wrote that note it was of some importance to him.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on May 10, 2008 18:31:59 GMT -5
OK Kevin, just count me unconvinced there was any real significance in the diagram and its specific measurements other than Hauptmann providing basic direction. That and control are also big parts of his MO.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 11, 2008 10:18:35 GMT -5
I don't know that my objective was to convince you or anyone else, for that matter, of anything, Joe. I respect your knowledge and insight and am just trying to examine different possibilities and see where they might lead. The packet drawing can never be definitively explained since the writer is long gone. But it, like so many other clues that remain are still here and I think it's worth thinking outside of the box, or packet as the case may be, to see what they may indicate regarding the planning and execution of this crime.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on May 13, 2008 6:31:15 GMT -5
I understand where you're coming from, Kevin and I too respect your knowledge and insight into this case. As I've said before, I've developed a kind of birdseye view of this case and when something of interest comes up or a part of the landscape seems out of whack, I do bore in. Your interpretation of the ransom note diagram opened my eyes to something I hadn't recognized which in turn led to another interpretation on my own part. That's the kind of synergy stuff I always look forward to in this case, regardless of source or whose idea. Identifying Hauptmann's true intent in the case of the ransom note diagram, I think takes a through understanding of his inner man and I believe we're going to see much more of it rising to the surface in the coming months.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 7, 2008 19:08:58 GMT -5
He asked me repeatedly how they could think that one man could conceive and carry out a crime like this one, - how he, or anyone else not a member of the household could know that the lindberghs would be at their home the evening of the kidnapping, - how he or any other single kidnapper could have driven up near the Lindbergh home, carried the ladder alone to the window, climbed the ladder, gotten in through the window, climbed back out with the baby in one arm, - and why any kidnapper with the baby in one arm would stop to carry the sixteen foot ladder 75 or 100 feet away from the house. Why if the ladder had been carried, - wouldn't there be footprints. Why if it was the intention to hide the ladder, would it have not been taken back to the car and taken away from the place. What could have been the point in carrying it seventy five feet away where it would have to be found. He asked me how the jury could believe that one man could take the baby, get out of the window and come down the ladder with it, after listening to the testimony of a man who had been both a policeman and a fireman and who testified that he could not climb down a ladder carrying an object in one hand because it was necessary to use both hands to negotiate the trip.
[Lloyd Fisher, date unknown] *Note that while Fisher is crediting Hauptmann here I personally believe some of this is actually coming from Fisher himself but he's attributing it to Hauptmann in an attempt to "humanize" him. (Just my opinion)
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 7, 2008 19:55:06 GMT -5
Interesting. Could this be an admission that all three sections were indeed used?
Also, note the emphasis on carrying the ladder and child as opposed to what many usually suppose to be the real difficulty, getting in and out of the window.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jul 8, 2008 9:49:50 GMT -5
It's hard to say how accurate this less-than-first hand account really is, but the 16 foot length stated would seem to put it at about the midpoint between the second and third section. Is it possible that the 16 feet length might also equate to an optimum length, calculated during the planning of the crime and inadvertantly referred to later on? And that the expected shortfall with two sections was covered by the inclusion of a third? Speculation I guess, but there may be some significance within the comment.
Is it just me, or was almost every investigator hogtied by the notion that the kidnapper had to have negotiated the window exit on to the ladder with one hand while tucking the child under the other arm? Of course, this needn't have applied to the presence of another individual on the ladder of course, but if one man had planned and carried out this crime, then we can be sure there was a way without this kind of unnecessary ergonomic contortion. Erastus Hudson seems to take this image of a totally dysfunctional second story man to the extreme, for example, implying that if the kidnapper "wiped down" the nursery, he must have have climbed up and down the ladder with a rag in one hand and a pail of water in the other hand! I can't picture this without smiling and thinking of South Park's Eric Cartman in a recreation of the snatch, grunting his way up and down that ladder and I'm sure Hauptmann himself would have had "a good laugh about it."
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 8, 2008 12:46:10 GMT -5
You must take into consideration the loss of overall length due to the overlapping sections. Anyway, it seems a small thing, but I do wonder if BRH had stated this to Fischer.
I still find the emphasis on carrying the child and ladder together to be most interesting. Is this from first hand knowledge? I agree Joe, way too much time spent debating getting in and out. One way or another it can be done. Of course I still believe that it required another at the ladder base.
Jack, thanks for the compliments. I do hope you get a hold of Schoenfeld's book. The use of all three sections would not necessarily leave marks, at least not obvious ones. That's because the angle of inclination is steeper and the horizontal force is very little.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jul 10, 2008 7:34:05 GMT -5
Thanks Kevin, the overlap factor does put the 16 foot length into better perspective. Now if Hauptmann had planned this whole thing out to the extent of such an efficient ladder design and construction, even taking into account the width of the shutter insert, could he not then have rationalized a way to keep the ladder steady without the aid of a co-conspirator? I'm not entirely convinced he did this as the footprints evidence still seems somewhat inconclusive, but it certainly wouldn't take much to secure that ladder to the right hand shutter with a length of wire. With the ladder feet firmly embedded in the mud, it seems like a pretty pat answer to the risk of involving another individual and a potentially dangerous weak link in such a serious crime. I know a lot of this may be easier to see after the fact and he made obvious, almost unconscious errors along the way, but if I were Hauptmann, who I believe in many ways paralleled Lindbergh in adherence and persistence to the efficiency of a solitary plan, it may well have been a logical next step.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 10, 2008 20:17:09 GMT -5
Do you think that Fisher is relating what Hauptmann told him? BTW, very few do know the actual three section working length. That's why Fisher's remark stood out to me.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jul 11, 2008 7:37:02 GMT -5
Kevin, I just read in Jim Fisher's "Ghosts" that the overall three section length was about 18 1/2 feet. Is this right?
It really could be quite an admission on Hauptmann's part if he actually said this, considering that it might well indicate the three sections were carried intact to the location where they were found. Who would know for certain that the third section was disconnected at that spot other than the real kidnapper?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 11, 2008 15:34:41 GMT -5
Interesting observation Kevin. Keep this up.... Joe, "Ghosts" is probably one of the worst books I have ever read on this case. Fisher's primary goal is to show where everyone else got it wrong by demeaning them with supposed 'facts' that he gets wrong - seriously wrong. Most other books don't do this but rather propose a theory and attempt to back it up. It's hypocrisy at its best and it shows why even people with investigative experience need to do more then say they have the experience. A couple of days at the Archives falls way short and he has no room to put down others when his efforts were minimal to say the least. Lloyd's (Dr. Gardner) book set a new standard when it comes to this case and it clearly demonstrates why it is so important to look at everything yourself before criticizing others for doing exactly the same thing Fisher points out is wrong about the other book(s). Fisher's first book was a novel if you ask me, and his second is so full of errors I can't even count them all. Bravo to Lloyd and all of his efforts to relay to the public the true and real facts of the case so that we may decide what the actual situation may have been. If you haven't read The Case That Never Dies then you just don't know the Lindbergh Kidnapping. 165.230.98.36/acatalog/__The_Case_That_Never_Dies_1350.html#1977
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 11, 2008 15:41:00 GMT -5
Yes (actually 18'- 6 1/8"). But for all practical purposes the working height is about 16'.
If what Lloyd Fisher says is in fact from Hauptmann then it is quite interesting that the emphasis is on getting away from the house and not getting in.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jul 20, 2008 10:11:15 GMT -5
I don't think he's that bad. Yes, his books have mistakes, every book written on this case to date does, including Gardner. But there was a lot of trash on the landscape before Fisher arrived. I like his approach which is even-keeled, presents a realistic view of Hauptmann's guilt and at the same time, doesn't pretend that all of the state's evidence against him was iron-clad. Gardner seems to view Fisher's work as a previous bench mark through constant reference and rebuttal. But is there really any point to further debunking now-discredited authors Scaduto, Kennedy, A&M, etc.?
I have about two dozen books on the case, including Gardner's and I've probably read each from cover to cover ten times. This suits my personal needs as I can't really get to the Archives on a continual basis and I rarely re-read any of them without discovering new points or following up on a potential connection between them. I read Gardner again last week and he offers up many new and interesting avenues, but the book lacks coherence and in my view, ends up being more of a reference manual rich in attitude and leading question innuendo, a little too dependent on news and magazine accounts. I like it though because it's a challenging read and does create new questions about case events we may have rationalized prematurely.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jul 20, 2008 10:23:47 GMT -5
The official version of the whole exit scenario, I think was one of the points that must have driven Hauptmann around the bend. Having to listen to the prosecution argument that he was a lone perpetrator while at the same time, portraying him coming exiting the window and coming down the ladder with the child tucked under one arm. "If only I tellet Vilentz how I rely did it, but how can I and not burn?"
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 20, 2008 11:46:43 GMT -5
I'm 100% with you on the Capone/Mills conspiracy deal. Way too much prejudice toward the complex at the expense of practical reality. I think some people are just predisposed toward the complex. It can never be simple, right? I also think there's way too much thought about the Nursery entry as well. Are we talking Fort Knox here? I get the feeling that too many assumptions are made regarding the darkness ( exactly how dark was it in that room?) the noise, and the movements. You get in and you kill the kid. Done. Perhaps Hauptmann is telling us through Fisher what the real dilemma was that night, at least for one person.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 20, 2008 20:07:07 GMT -5
To each his own. Lloyd backs up his points with real sources, and sometimes with more then one. His goal wasn't to present a theory. Fisher's goal in Ghosts was to knock down other Authors of previous books who don't believe as he does with many facts which are incorrect and based upon a lack of research.
You can't make fun of someone's position by attempting to prove them wrong with information that isn't factual. You can't attempt to undermine someone's lack of research when its clear to me he didn't do enough himself. You can't be condescending toward others about being a "revisionist" when you invent dialog in a book that is supposed to be non-fiction.
All books have their shortcomings. But if you are going to point them out then yours had better be free and clear of what you accuse others of.
While Lloyd examines some of Fisher's points and discredits them with sources, he isn't doing it in bad faith or a mean-spirited attempt. He is simply trying to find the true situation and present it to the readers of his book [us] so that we may make our own decision based upon solid information.
No one pulled off this crime alone. If Fisher wants to try to discredit anyone who doesn't agree that Hauptmann did it alone then he needs to drop what he's doing and go back and do about 3 to 5 years of Archival research. I would also recommend he take The Case That Never Dies with him.
Anyway Joe, I would never take a shot at someone who offers up ideas simply because they haven't been to the Archives. That wasn't my point. I feel lucky to have the time and be in the location to research as often as I have and will continue to do.... But I certainly don't think because of it I am above being wrong.
That's where people get into trouble.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jul 21, 2008 12:26:19 GMT -5
Just curious---why are Scaduto and Kennedy considered dis-credited authors? Am not asking for a comprehensive analysis . I wouldn't ask anyone to have to do all that typing. Am sure they didn't get everything correct, but the "dis-credited" description "puzzled me up" abit. Ransom Notes: In the Jones book, he speaks of a man just released from jail who turned over (I think) $1,000 in ransom certs. This was , if I recall, near to or right after Hauptmann's execution. If accurate, that's a right tidy sum, huh? Berg book: He writes that a postcard arrived very early after the kidnap, only several lines, no singnature, BUT has the sentence "Act accordingly". It appears that Cerrita asked Breck more than once if any other note had arrived. She then tells him to be at his office and indeed another ransom note arrives. Then at some point a Fisch look-alike arrives at Breck's office. I know we've worked over much of this, but it continues to nag me as to whether it could only be coincidental. Forgive me if I'm being too much of a hardhead .
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 21, 2008 16:16:01 GMT -5
I'm sure Joe can go further. I'd just say because they built their house on a rotten foundation.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 21, 2008 18:15:51 GMT -5
I know I don't speak for anyone but myself but I don't think the term "discredited" is the right verb. I think there are certain assertions they've made that are based upon faulty ideas.
But they aren't alone in this.
Take Rail 16 for example. Scaduto and Kennedy both say it was 'framed' and that it never came from that attic. I've personally done my best to get to the bottom of finding out what proves a conclusive match and found it to be invasive study. Nevertheless, you have Fisher asserting that Hauptmann, who was a Lone-Wolf in this whole matter (despite all the evidence and eyewitnesses to the contrary) crawled into his attic and sawed this piece of board from the attic flooring. Heck, you even have Kelvin Keraga supporting this conclusion based upon his recent report which was outlined on CourtTv.
Unfortunately it seems to me, that Kevin's & Rab's theory solves the entire matter and disproves everybody's position above. That means EVERYBODY was wrong. Therefore, being wrong about something doesn't discredit everything they say. So while its clear to me that Hauptmann's hands weren't unclean in all of this, it's equally clear that others were involved. This means Scaduto, Kennedy and Fisher all are wrong when it comes to their theories on the crime.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jul 21, 2008 18:49:49 GMT -5
Thank you for your input. Have not read those books for awhile, but will go back soon and take another look.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jul 23, 2008 6:39:21 GMT -5
Mairi, I used the term "discredited" because all of those authors jumped on the same gaudy bandwagon. The one which had been steadily rolling along over the previous decades trumpeting Hauptmann as some unfortunate and bewildered innocent, murdered by the state to satisfy a nation's bloodlust. Every one of those authors by choice, chose to ignore the totality of the incontrovertible circumstantial evidence that will forever hold Hauptmann accountable for his crime.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jul 23, 2008 9:55:35 GMT -5
Thanks, Joe. I appreciate your courteous reply. I wish I were able to access records. I would love that. All I can do is read all that I can. Of books written about the case, is there one you see coming the closest? There surely was a blood lust, along with political ambitions and law enforcement long on the hot seat.Whatever one may believe of Hauptmann's guilt/lone guilt, I believe evidence was skewed and something of the snake oil tactics of the prosecution, and the Reilly nondefence I find shameful. And that the death penalty was used, bothers me much.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 23, 2008 16:15:15 GMT -5
I agree with you Mairi. There was for some odd and unknown reason a rush to execute Hauptmann. Hoffman was of the opinion we could find out more about the others and the methods if he were kept alive and couldn't understand it either.
Not only that, what troubles me the most was the Prosecution willing to basically do anything to win the trial and everything to prevent him from living. It's why all the suspicion rightfully exists within most of the Authors with a theory to promote. It's believable when you have the AG bribing people, threatening witnesses, and "hiring" away Defense Attorney for $8000 dollars in order to learn everything about the Defense strategy.
The list goes on and on......
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 23, 2008 16:38:01 GMT -5
I wonder if 2 1/2 years of frustration hadn't gone by if the prosecution would have proceeded differently?
|
|