Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Feb 19, 2020 12:16:46 GMT -5
Michael, I believe what Lurp is saying (I had the same reaction after reading this V3 entry) is that it's just a burlap bag and not something with a unique "fingerprint" or which is defined by a clearcut trail of custody. In Depression years, these were a very handy, serviceable and highly-desired commodity that could be picked up for nothing or next to it, and there's absolutely no question that Hauptmann liked a bargain! A burlap bag could have ended up just about anywhere, and they still do today. I also see a lot of value in Amy's post which identifies that Hauptmann seemed to be a collector of these, based on the items found in his car. I would also note here that the bags discovered in his car were not from the same origin and seemed to represent a cross-section of manufacturers and suppliers. Given the origin of the bag by the road, that should have at least registered something in the minds of investigators.. Hauptmann was essentially grabbing these bags from any source he could. And who's to say he didn't find this particular bag on one of his trips to NJ or anywhere else for that matter, in the days prior to the kidnapping? In any case, I think that limiting this bag's very existence and travels from it's origin, to it "unquestioningly" having ended up in the Hopewell area just because it was discovered there, is even more limiting in itself.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 19, 2020 12:38:13 GMT -5
Michael, I believe what Lurp is saying (I had the same reaction after reading this V3 entry) is that it's just a burlap bag and not something with a unique "fingerprint" or which is defined by a clearcut trail of custody. In Depression years, these were a very handy, serviceable and highly-desired commodity that could be picked up for nothing or next to it, and there's absolutely no question that Hauptmann liked a bargain! A burlap bag could have ended up just about anywhere, and they still do today. I also see a lot of value in Amy's post which identifies that Hauptmann seemed to be a collector of these, based on the items found in his car. I would also note here that the bags discovered in his car were not from the same origin and seemed to represent a cross-section of manufacturers and suppliers. Given the origin of the bag by the road, that should have at least registered something in the minds of investigators.. Hauptmann was essentially grabbing these bags from any source he could. And who's to say he didn't find this particular bag on one of his trips to NJ or anywhere else for that matter, in the days prior to the kidnapping? In any case, I think that limiting this bag's very existence and travels from it's origin, to it "unquestioningly" having ended up in the Hopewell area just because it was discovered there, is even more limiting in itself. These 1000 bags were unique Joe. No others had this combination of identifying information on them. That's how they were traced to begin with. It seems clear to me that Lurp assumed that among these two lots of 500 some may have been sent to places in, around, or near NYC. He can correct me if I'm wrong but that's how I understood him. Regardless, we know that wasn't the case. Additionally, burlap bags were literally everywhere as I've exemplified in my earlier post. NYC probably had more bags for every 4 blocks than anywhere in Hunterdon, Mercer, or Bucks counties combined. Next, consider how much it might have cost for a single bag. A penny .... maybe. Most likely a penny for more than one. So farmers selling their used bags would probably have to wait until they accumulated a certain quantity before they might pawn them off to a second hand type salesman. And that's if they didn't need them themselves. Hauptmann doesn't strike me as the type who would have paid for a bag his wife could bring home from the bakery - or he could obtain from literally just about anywhere else. In fact, we have proof of that. So unless this bag landed in his lap I cannot imagine, knowing what we know, how he'd come into possession of it. Driving to Hopewell before realizing he needed one, then stopping off at a local farm is just as insane as suggesting he did this alone. The other thing to consider is that police buried this evidence. No mention of this at trial and even Gov. Hoffman didn't have a clue in April 1936! Think about that. Now ask yourself "why?" Because police and prosecution knew where this bag traced back to. And that did not in any way help their case. I don't want to talk you out of your belief here, but I personally find this to be pretty powerful evidence. Consider if the tables were turned for a second... Imagine if the letter said the bags were shipped to places in New England, DE, and NYC. How would that be received? Well, I'd be the first to say it was evidence that it came from NYC given what we know. And how about you Joe? What would you say? I am guessing you wouldn't suggest someone in Hopewell got it from NYC during a trip up there. See my point?
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Feb 19, 2020 21:06:41 GMT -5
Michael, we definitely see this bag tracing results from different points of view. I would like to further explain my opinion on it, but we'll probably end up agreeing to disagree on this one. I do agree that Hauptmann, et al did not grab this bag in the Hopewell area on the night of the kidnapping. I personally think that this "Bronx gang" was extremely uncomfortable in the Hopewell area and would not have "shopped" for anything there. I will try not to repeat what i wrote in the previous post, but the following is how I see this:
Since Schwarzkopf and the NJSP had no specific kidnapping suspect at the time of this bag tracing request in 1932, it appears to me that Schwarzkopf approached both the Larrowe Milling Company in Toledo. Ohio and the Consolidated Feed & Grain Company in Buffalo, New York with this question: "we have recovered in Hopewell, N.J. one of the 1,000 burlap bags (500 to each Company) that you received from the Kraft-Phenix Cheese Company in August of 1930. Can you help us determine how it made its way to Hopewell, N.J.?
This type of request immediately set the tone for both Companies to check their records as to shipments to the Hopewell area, not provide every single company name throughout the Northeast that received these 1,000 bags. As you say on page 76 of VIII "police were most interested in those closest to Hopewell" This was logical for the limited suspect knowledge of 1932, but it in no way was an attempt to follow the movements of all 1,000 bags. When the Larrowe Milling Company said that these bags went to "many places" but could only come up with just one N.J. town which was not even close to Hopewell, the NJSP declared that "no encouraging leads were found in any of these locations (the several Pa. locations and the one N.J. location)". It appears to me that 500 bags were not traced because of the focus on Hopewell. Could any of these 500 bags ended up in a location that Hauptmann had access to? One would certainly have to at least say maybe, but the NJSP was now onto the next Company to find a Hopewell dealer.
The statement by the President of the Consolidated Feed & Grain Company (recipient of the second 500 bag load) that is on page 76 is just plain speculation on his part. Because Consolidated reshipped these bags to the Eastern States Co-Op Milling Corporation and the Consolidated President knew that Eastern "reships in small lots", he was just SPECULATING when he told NJSP that "evidently this bag was shipped by Eastern to some retailer near Hopewell." This statement is meaningless since he had no direct knowlege of where Eastern had shipped any of these bags. NJSP had told him that this bag was recovered in Hopewell, so he was just assuming that this must have been what occurred.. To me that comment has no merit.
Eastern finally determines that some of their repackaged 500 bags made it to the New Hope, Pa. area (in addition to areas in New England, Pa, Delaware). On page 77 Manager Frost of Eastern states that "customarily" these loaded bags go directly to farms. His statement as related on page 77 is once again pure speculation about the bag in question just because he had been told that it was found in Hopewell: "the empty sack in question MAY have passed to the point mentioned in your letter (Hopewell) either directly from a farm or thro the hands of one or more secondhand bag collectors." This is just his opinion, no actual trace of that individual burlap bag found on Mt Rose Hill. That "individual" bag just could not be definitively traced to any one dealer/farmer from Delaware to New England. We know the kidnappers had that bag, but whether it was Hauptmann or anyone else, we'll never know exactly where in that very large geographical area it was obtained. As you, Army and Joe have stated, Hauptmann did have burlap bags from different sources. I just can't agree that police and prosecutors knew where this one bag out of 1,000 traced back to. If I had been an Investigator receiving this trace information results in 1932. I believe that I would have just smiled and moved on. To me, those trace results had no direct investigative value.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 19, 2020 22:45:52 GMT -5
I think there’s a misunderstanding concerning the process so I want to scan Schwarzkopf’s request letter tomorrow so you can see that it doesn’t do what you think it does. Larro sent a detailed list of every shipment. As I wrote, there was only one place in NJ. There were also only two places in NY as well: one city near Albany, and the other near Buffalo. Eastern was specific concerning the shipments to consuming points in “New England, Pennsylvania, or Delaware.” Nothing about NJ or NY. Not even a hint. Since Hopewell is in NJ I dont think that possibility would be left out under any circumstance. While I do not know exactly “where” they went to in “New England,” those closest to NYC are those three mentioned in TDC nearest to Hopewell.
This information isn’t meant to exonerate Hauptmann. Unfortunately, despite most of us believing multiple people were involved, I think, an unconscious effort is made to place everything in his hands as a way to prevent the idea he was “innocent.” I look at the odds. What are the places where the odds are the highest this bag was acquired based upon where the company says they went? We’re only talking 1000 bags - none going anywhere near NYC.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 20, 2020 9:35:47 GMT -5
Michael, we definitely see this bag tracing results from different points of view. I would like to further explain my opinion on it, but we'll probably end up agreeing to disagree on this one. I do agree that Hauptmann, et al did not grab this bag in the Hopewell area on the night of the kidnapping. I personally think that this "Bronx gang" was extremely uncomfortable in the Hopewell area and would not have "shopped" for anything there. I think we're on the same page here. It's why police believed there was a "local connection" involved. I know that will be viewed as a distraction to this evidence, but I don't want to pretend I believe something I do not so its important for me to be transparent concerning my beliefs - and why. Since this isn't a competition I have no problem with, if in the end, I turn out to be incorrect about this and it turns out no one local was. Fact is, even the term "local" can be debated. Since Schwarzkopf and the NJSP had no specific kidnapping suspect at the time of this bag tracing request in 1932, it appears to me that Schwarzkopf approached both the Larrowe Milling Company in Toledo. Ohio and the Consolidated Feed & Grain Company in Buffalo, New York with this question: "we have recovered in Hopewell, N.J. one of the 1,000 burlap bags (500 to each Company) that you received from the Kraft-Phenix Cheese Company in August of 1930. Can you help us determine how it made its way to Hopewell, N.J.? Here are the request letters to both Larro and Eastern: This type of request immediately set the tone for both Companies to check their records as to shipments to the Hopewell area, not provide every single company name throughout the Northeast that received these 1,000 bags. As you say on page 76 of VIII "police were most interested in those closest to Hopewell" This was logical for the limited suspect knowledge of 1932, but it in no way was an attempt to follow the movements of all 1,000 bags. When the Larrowe Milling Company said that these bags went to "many places" but could only come up with just one N.J. town which was not even close to Hopewell, the NJSP declared that "no encouraging leads were found in any of these locations (the several Pa. locations and the one N.J. location)". It appears to me that 500 bags were not traced because of the focus on Hopewell. Could any of these 500 bags ended up in a location that Hauptmann had access to? One would certainly have to at least say maybe, but the NJSP was now onto the next Company to find a Hopewell dealer. Larro actually does give every single destination. Eastern does not. However, Eastern does give us PA, DE, and New England. This includes the three PA destinations closest to Hopewell. These are most likely the closest points for NYC as well although we do not know which points in New England they may have gone. We do know that thes bags contained "Animal Food" (feed mixing) and went to farms so it is quite clear they weren't delivered/distributed in a city. What Frost wrote was these bags did not " customarily" go to a feed store but rather " move directly to farms." Now should we seize on the word "customarily" and use that to abandon the worth of this investigation? I say absolutely no. All circumstances and variables should be given due consideration, and at worst this shows the man is being careful with his words which is a very good thing as far as I am concerned. So despite what's normally done, he's allowing for a possibility, however slight, so that he isn't misleading in any way. I went back through the documentation last night cover to cover. Let me reveal for the first time that the bag found on the side of the road was absolutely 100% one of only 27 made. It was those 27 that were determined to have gone onto either car mention - one to Larro and the other to Eastern. And so, in essence, we are still searching for 500 in each car but hoping to locate one of the (what's now) 26. Where did they go? We could go back to Kraft and challenge their position that any of these 27 bags were even loaded onto either of these two cars. But once again I must say that while everything should be considered I look at the odds in order to assign the weight here. Something "different" happening that was unknown here is always a possibility. This could happen anywhere right? Kraft said they could not " definitely" say but from from their production records, and methods in which they store and load the powdered milk he was " pretty sure" it was loaded on one of those two cars. A-ha! No, not really. They went on to say " these two cars are the only powder sales we had from the day this bag was produced until these cars were loaded out." So barring anything unforeseen, (again which can happen), we can say the percentages are extremely high these 27 bags are among those two 500 train car shipments. The statement by the President of the Consolidated Feed & Grain Company (recipient of the second 500 bag load) that is on page 76 is just plain speculation on his part. Because Consolidated reshipped these bags to the Eastern States Co-Op Milling Corporation and the Consolidated President knew that Eastern "reships in small lots", he was just SPECULATING when he told NJSP that "evidently this bag was shipped by Eastern to some retailer near Hopewell." This statement is meaningless since he had no direct knowlege of where Eastern had shipped any of these bags. NJSP had told him that this bag was recovered in Hopewell, so he was just assuming that this must have been what occurred.. To me that comment has no merit. Clearly he's not looking at a manifest, however, he knows where the shipments go. They go to New England, Pennsylania, or Delaware. Among those PA destinations are these three points near Hopewell. What's absent is anywhere in NJ or NY. That's kind of important if one is to say Hauptmann and his friends went places where this bag could have been picked up. Right? Since Larro was ruled out by Police, the information from Frost was what they were left with and despite being told exactly where this could be followed up they stopped there. Perhaps its a case of tunnel vision. From what I can tell, they did not see the need to track down any other destination point because obviously none of them included Hopewell, NYC, or anywhere else they viewed as possibilities. Could we fault them? Sure. But it gives us a window into their minds as to what they felt was real or important at the conclusion of this investigation. From the day of the crime extending far beyond 1932 police were of the opinion there was a local connection, but with intermediaries like Bitz, Spitale, and Madden it is quite clear they also believed NY gangsters could be involved as well. These two positions were not mutually exclusive. Someone from the Hopewell area aiding in this crime in some way could have been connected to anyone. These three destination points helped solidify what police had already suspected. And its why the bag was invisible until after Gov. Hoffman started asking questions about it. This evidence never saw the light of day for a reason. Not to go off on a tangent but it was Spitale who, while in the middle of everything, threw up his hands declaring the gangs had nothing to do with it and that this was an "inside job" before his eventual departure. This too was another common belief among many of the police. I submit that you would have considered this a little more weighty if armed with everything I've got. I'm not saying you would be 100% in but certainly not dismissing it like you appear to be. I blame myself. There's been little feedback concerning this and apparently I did a poor job properly relaying the significance concerning what I've found. It reminds me of the Koehler situation regarding Rails 12 & 13. He didn't trace these rails to National, but once it was learned Hauptmann worked there he considered the odds were high enough that he felt comfortable committing perjury. Considering all of the evidence presented against Hauptmann, we can see "why" he did that. What he should have done was tell the absolute truth and allow the circumstances to be judged on their merits - and the odds.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 20, 2020 11:56:37 GMT -5
Something else I wanted to quickly share... I was communicating with Siglinde recently and she reminded me that Anna's brother was a baker too so there's another obvious source for a burlap bag should Hauptmann have wanted one. Here is a picture of the burlap bag like the one found in Hauptmann's City Island locker (Dixon's boat house):
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Feb 20, 2020 16:07:17 GMT -5
Michael, great information and once again very excellent and thorough research. The NJSP did a much broader search for the bag than I had understood from VIII. But I think you may agree that there were many ifs, ands, and buts involved in this difficult trace. One would anticipate this just by the massive challenge of tracing (hopefully to an ultimate consumer) one burlap bag with no unique serial number, Utilizing the business records of various Grain Companies to successfully follow the movement of one out of 27 bags, in a shipment of 1,000 bags, to an area from Delaware to New England was a hugh challenge (to bad Hauptmann didn't accidently drop his 4.25 Liliput on Mt. Rose Hill!!!!!)
You are certainly currect about evaluating the odds/percentages/levels of certainty, etc.on this bag ending up at the three Pa. locations closest to Hopewell (even jurors who are the trier of the facts in a trial are allowed to consider this when evaluating evidence). I agree with your assessment of this bag trace, but I guess that I was always concerned with generating leads that would lead to concrete evidence against a defendant at trial. Because this burlap bag trace didn't produce that, I just don't see its investigative value in the case. Please correct me if I am wrong, but apparently the NJSP was unable to utilize the business records of any of the three Pa. locations that were closest to Hopewell to locate/interview any ultimate consumers of any of the identically marked 27 burlap bags. Ideally the trace would take you to let's say local Hopewell farmers who would state "yeah, I bought a burlap bag like this in 1930 and here it is" or maybe "I bought one and subsequently sold it to a German looking fellow driving a blue Dodge sedan" (or maybe "I sold it in late 1931 to a fellow who looked like Lucky Lindy"). Of course just kidding, but I guess I am just attempting to say that I don't see the investigative or certainly prosecutive value of saying the odds were high that this bag went to one of the three Pa. locations closest to Hopewell. Just not specific enough for me. If I am misunderstanding what you are saying about this trace results, please correct me.
As to the burlap bag being "deep sixed" at the time of Hauptmann's trial, I think that the primary reason was that Wilentz wanted no part of this bag because the investigations did not put it in Hauptmann's hands. This bag was certainly evidence in that it contained physcal evidence of the child's body having been in it, and of course where it was found. However, if Wilentz had introduced it into evidence the defense would have jumped all over the facts that Hauptmann's fingerprints were not on it, and a thorough trace of the bag never put it in Hauptmann's possession. This, of course, would not mean that Hauptmann was innocence, nor would it be fatal to Wilentz"s case, but it may have placed some additional reasonable doubt in the jurors' minds. This trace was definitely exculpatory evidence for Hauptmann, and we know what Wilentz did with exculpatory evidence in this case. At this trial of Hauptmann, this bag trace results would never see the light of day.
I am having a little trouble in posting this. If it dosn't come through in a readable form, I will make another attempt later.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Feb 21, 2020 8:17:39 GMT -5
Michael, I believe what Lurp is saying (I had the same reaction after reading this V3 entry) is that it's just a burlap bag and not something with a unique "fingerprint" or which is defined by a clearcut trail of custody. In Depression years, these were a very handy, serviceable and highly-desired commodity that could be picked up for nothing or next to it, and there's absolutely no question that Hauptmann liked a bargain! A burlap bag could have ended up just about anywhere, and they still do today. I also see a lot of value in Amy's post which identifies that Hauptmann seemed to be a collector of these, based on the items found in his car. I would also note here that the bags discovered in his car were not from the same origin and seemed to represent a cross-section of manufacturers and suppliers. Given the origin of the bag by the road, that should have at least registered something in the minds of investigators.. Hauptmann was essentially grabbing these bags from any source he could. And who's to say he didn't find this particular bag on one of his trips to NJ or anywhere else for that matter, in the days prior to the kidnapping? In any case, I think that limiting this bag's very existence and travels from it's origin, to it "unquestioningly" having ended up in the Hopewell area just because it was discovered there, is even more limiting in itself. These 1000 bags were unique Joe. No others had this combination of identifying information on them. That's how they were traced to begin with. It seems clear to me that Lurp assumed that among these two lots of 500 some may have been sent to places in, around, or near NYC. He can correct me if I'm wrong but that's how I understood him. Regardless, we know that wasn't the case. Additionally, burlap bags were literally everywhere as I've exemplified in my earlier post. NYC probably had more bags for every 4 blocks than anywhere in Hunterdon, Mercer, or Bucks counties combined. Next, consider how much it might have cost for a single bag. A penny .... maybe. Most likely a penny for more than one. So farmers selling their used bags would probably have to wait until they accumulated a certain quantity before they might pawn them off to a second hand type salesman. And that's if they didn't need them themselves. Hauptmann doesn't strike me as the type who would have paid for a bag his wife could bring home from the bakery - or he could obtain from literally just about anywhere else. In fact, we have proof of that. So unless this bag landed in his lap I cannot imagine, knowing what we know, how he'd come into possession of it. Driving to Hopewell before realizing he needed one, then stopping off at a local farm is just as insane as suggesting he did this alone. The other thing to consider is that police buried this evidence. No mention of this at trial and even Gov. Hoffman didn't have a clue in April 1936! Think about that. Now ask yourself "why?" Because police and prosecution knew where this bag traced back to. And that did not in any way help their case. I don't want to talk you out of your belief here, but I personally find this to be pretty powerful evidence. Consider if the tables were turned for a second... Imagine if the letter said the bags were shipped to places in New England, DE, and NYC. How would that be received? Well, I'd be the first to say it was evidence that it came from NYC given what we know. And how about you Joe? What would you say? I am guessing you wouldn't suggest someone in Hopewell got it from NYC during a trip up there. See my point? Michael, I think you misunderstood my point here. That bag that ended up in Hopewell had no unique identifier beyond the stenciled stock printing which appeared on it, which would also have appeared on all of the other bags. There was nothing on it to indicate that specific bag was destined for the Hopewell area. Also, it appears these bags were emptied of their powdered milk contents at the two individual feed manufacturers, one in Ohio and New York. Do you know which company stenciled "Animal Feed" on the bag? Was it one of the feed manufacturers or the Kraft-Phenix Cheese Corporation, who originally shipped the bags filled with powdered milk? I'm guessing it was probably one of the manufacturers, who refilled the bags with their animal feed, but wanted to confirm this. I'm thinking perhaps the possibility of eliminating 500 bags from the equation here might rest on this point.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Feb 21, 2020 8:49:21 GMT -5
Michael, great information and once again very excellent and thorough research. The NJSP did a much broader search for the bag than I had understood from VIII. But I think you may agree that there were many ifs, ands, and buts involved in this difficult trace. One would anticipate this just by the massive challenge of tracing (hopefully to an ultimate consumer) one burlap bag with no unique serial number, Utilizing the business records of various Grain Companies to successfully follow the movement of one out of 27 bags, in a shipment of 1,000 bags, to an area from Delaware to New England was a hugh challenge (to bad Hauptmann didn't accidently drop his 4.25 Liliput on Mt. Rose Hill!!!!!) You are certainly currect about evaluating the odds/percentages/levels of certainty, etc.on this bag ending up at the three Pa. locations closest to Hopewell (even jurors who are the trier of the facts in a trial are allowed to consider this when evaluating evidence). I agree with your assessment of this bag trace, but I guess that I was always concerned with generating leads that would lead to concrete evidence against a defendant at trial. Because this burlap bag trace didn't produce that, I just don't see its investigative value in the case. Please correct me if I am wrong, but apparently the NJSP was unable to utilize the business records of any of the three Pa. locations that were closest to Hopewell to locate/interview any ultimate consumers of any of the identically marked 27 burlap bags. Ideally the trace would take you to let's say local Hopewell farmers who would state "yeah, I bought a burlap bag like this in 1930 and here it is" or maybe "I bought one and subsequently sold it to a German looking fellow driving a blue Dodge sedan" (or maybe "I sold it in late 1931 to a fellow who looked like Lucky Lindy"). Of course just kidding, but I guess I am just attempting to say that I don't see the investigative or certainly prosecutive value of saying the odds were high that this bag went to one of the three Pa. locations closest to Hopewell. Just not specific enough for me. If I am misunderstanding what you are saying about this trace results, please correct me. As to the burlap bag being "deep sixed" at the time of Hauptmann's trial, I think that the primary reason was that Wilentz wanted no part of this bag because the investigations did not put it in Hauptmann's hands. This bag was certainly evidence in that it contained physcal evidence of the child's body having been in it, and of course where it was found. However, if Wilentz had introduced it into evidence the defense would have jumped all over the facts that Hauptmann's fingerprints were not on it, and a thorough trace of the bag never put it in Hauptmann's possession. This, of course, would not mean that Hauptmann was innocence, nor would it be fatal to Wilentz"s case, but it may have placed some additional reasonable doubt in the jurors' minds. This trace was definitely exculpatory evidence for Hauptmann, and we know what Wilentz did with exculpatory evidence in this case. At this trial of Hauptmann, this bag trace results would never see the light of day. I am having a little trouble in posting this. If it dosn't come through in a readable form, I will make another attempt later. Lurp, very well presented and I agree entirely that Wilentz would have considered the bag of no value to his case against Hauptmann. At the same time I'm pretty sure that he, as well as those who investigated it, ultimately regarded it as the kind of commodity that could have potentially ended up in a wide geographical area that included virtually anywhere Hauptmann may have traveled, prior to the kidnapping. This bag reminds me a bit of the Fred and Marie Hahn statements, which made some pretty damning indictments towards Hauptmann's involvement. At the same time, they cast an unsavory shadow on Anna, and her potential knowledge of Richard's complicity. For reasons we will never be absolutely sure of, Wilentz chose not to have them appear as Flemington witnesses. In the end, I believe he simply chose to play the odds in his favour, wherever there was the least doubt in his mind that anyone other than Hauptmann himself, would have been considered in the minds of the judge and jurors.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 22, 2020 9:34:00 GMT -5
You are certainly currect about evaluating the odds/percentages/levels of certainty, etc.on this bag ending up at the three Pa. locations closest to Hopewell (even jurors who are the trier of the facts in a trial are allowed to consider this when evaluating evidence). I agree with your assessment of this bag trace, but I guess that I was always concerned with generating leads that would lead to concrete evidence against a defendant at trial. Because this burlap bag trace didn't produce that, I just don't see its investigative value in the case. Please correct me if I am wrong, but apparently the NJSP was unable to utilize the business records of any of the three Pa. locations that were closest to Hopewell to locate/interview any ultimate consumers of any of the identically marked 27 burlap bags. Ideally the trace would take you to let's say local Hopewell farmers who would state "yeah, I bought a burlap bag like this in 1930 and here it is" or maybe "I bought one and subsequently sold it to a German looking fellow driving a blue Dodge sedan" (or maybe "I sold it in late 1931 to a fellow who looked like Lucky Lindy"). Of course just kidding, but I guess I am just attempting to say that I don't see the investigative or certainly prosecutive value of saying the odds were high that this bag went to one of the three Pa. locations closest to Hopewell. Just not specific enough for me. If I am misunderstanding what you are saying about this trace results, please correct me. We are looking at this differently for sure. I'm not concerning myself with the trial as it relates to this evidence. I'm trying to find evidence that will satisfy me as to the true nature. So if the bag came from a local farm, for example, that's very helpful to that end. This especially because police held that position before this investigation ever occurred. Your point about the investigation not going far enough is something I agree with. In fact, we could say that concerning many angles. Here, they were driving all over the place investigating and coming up with nothing when they are pointed directly to what they were looking for in the first place. Why they didn't pursue it by doing what they had already done everywhere else prior I'm not quite sure about. Certainly, as I've said before, there are reports missing from the NJSP Archives so that should always be a consideration. But we do not know how often, this file seems complete otherwise, and we cannot consider what we do not know. One would think they would have at least tried to find customers then work from there but unfortunately the reports stop. It could just be what it is too. Most of time these officers made during the investigations was spent driving around only to interview someone for five or ten minutes. Other times an order was given which wasn't relayed and there were so many cops doing so many things perhaps it was assumed and never took place. Sometimes it was even (unknowingly) done twice by different investigators. As a researcher you might find one report and never know that one with more information existed. So there was a lot of chaos to consider as well. So what to make of this? As I wrote earlier, there were people from one of the five boroughs who had places in Hopewell or very near. There could have been a 'staging area' which involved a local residence. So many places were "uninhabited," or rented out to people no one had any ideas about that its not out of the question. Neighbors often reported that they saw headlights and activities in places when they knew their neighbors were not home. This bag could have already been on the property so it doesn't necessarily have to be a bona fide "local" in the true sense of the word. There was one man, for example, that everyone conceded existed hanging around Hopewell and actually seen checking the mailboxes very near Highfields. Police never found him and in the end Captain Lamb shrugged it off as a "bum." That's unacceptable to me. And, of course, there could have been someone local connected in some way. Also, since many of the police (and others) believed there was an "inside connection," that could be the source as well. As I've said earlier, I have another source for the Whateley confession and its a legitimate source. Not perfect because it came in the early 1960s but I'm not going to be using "" marks anymore around the word. As to the burlap bag being "deep sixed" at the time of Hauptmann's trial, I think that the primary reason was that Wilentz wanted no part of this bag because the investigations did not put it in Hauptmann's hands. This bag was certainly evidence in that it contained physcal evidence of the child's body having been in it, and of course where it was found. However, if Wilentz had introduced it into evidence the defense would have jumped all over the facts that Hauptmann's fingerprints were not on it, and a thorough trace of the bag never put it in Hauptmann's possession. This, of course, would not mean that Hauptmann was innocence, nor would it be fatal to Wilentz"s case, but it may have placed some additional reasonable doubt in the jurors' minds. This trace was definitely exculpatory evidence for Hauptmann, and we know what Wilentz did with exculpatory evidence in this case. At this trial of Hauptmann, this bag trace results would never see the light of day. Exactly. But also consider the Defense would have never even known about this investigation to begin with. Stuff like that was never shared. Regardless, it would have the potential to muddy the waters. It's a loose end that if anyone were to pull on could harm the Lone-Wolf position. I still cannot believe no one ever did until I opened that file and its a perfect example to anyone who may want to visit the NJSP Archives that there will always be something new to discover. To be fair though, it wasn't anything on my mind which caused me to do it. It was because I decided to go through everything, file by file, that I grabbed it and for no other reason.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 22, 2020 10:03:44 GMT -5
Michael, I think you misunderstood my point here. That bag that ended up in Hopewell had no unique identifier beyond the stenciled stock printing which appeared on it, which would also have appeared on all of the other bags. This isn't correct. The numbers were specific and represented the date. Because of it they could report that only 27 of them were made and where, among others, they were loaded and distributed to. There was nothing on it to indicate that specific bag was destined for the Hopewell area. Frost's letter does indicate this. Also, it appears these bags were emptied of their powdered milk contents at the two individual feed manufacturers, one in Ohio and New York. Do you know which company stenciled "Animal Feed" on the bag? Was it one of the feed manufacturers or the Kraft-Phenix Cheese Corporation, who originally shipped the bags filled with powdered milk? I'm guessing it was probably one of the manufacturers, who refilled the bags with their animal feed, but wanted to confirm this. I'm thinking perhaps the possibility of eliminating 500 bags from the equation here might rest on this point. Kraft shipped their powdered milk. Larro Milling Company, from everything I have, seems to have resold the powdered milk still in the bags and police were going to each individual destination to see who might have emptied, filled, and resold them as animal feed. The other 500 wound up at Eastern in Buffalo. Here, they do a "re-shipping" business in small lots and according to President Eliot Mitchell: " ...this bag was shipped in an assorted car of feeds to some retailer near Hopewell." We know from Frost that on August 26, 1930, the incoming sacks were emptied, cleaned, inverted, and filled with feed, usually some kind of oats, then sent to consuming points. As previously stated, they did not go 'usually' go to a store " but move directly to farms." Now - with this in mind - go back and look at the Squibb report. Was the sack in question "inverted?" So you see, they had traced where this bag came from and the odds are insanely high that it went to one of the three points in PA mentioned - my guess is from New Hope because its the closest.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Feb 22, 2020 10:05:10 GMT -5
I believe the drawing that we are assuming to be the initial Berryman sketch, is a pretty close likeness to Hauptmann, based on photos taken in 1932 and relative to the practical value of a recollection two and a half years later by a witness in his mid-seventies. Considering on a whole, the vast number of combinations of facial recognition features, such as shape of head and jaw, eyes and distance between them, mouth line and lips, shape and size of nose, definition of cheekbones, shape and size of ears, facial hair as well as any scars or other physical anomalies, CJ could have looked like just about any other German-sounding male within his suspected age range, based on the phone conversations he had had with Condon. As it turned out, Hauptmann shared a number of the features Condon described, most notably within the shape of head and jaw. Despite the differences of opinion this subject raises, the only worthwhile exercise here is one that compares the Berryman sketches against a similar angle photo of Richard Hauptmann from the same time that Condon met an alert and rested CJ at both Woodlawn and St. Raymond’s. There’s really not much point in trying to gauge an accurate comparison between any of the Berryman sketches and Hauptmann’s post-arrest mug shot, with it’s drawn, flaccid and sleepless features.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 22, 2020 10:19:06 GMT -5
Lurp, very well presented and I agree entirely that Wilentz would have considered the bag of no value to his case against Hauptmann. At the same time I'm pretty sure that he, as well as those who investigated it, ultimately regarded it as the kind of commodity that could have potentially ended up in a wide geographical area that included virtually anywhere Hauptmann may have traveled, prior to the kidnapping. This bag reminds me a bit of the Fred and Marie Hahn statements, which made some pretty damning indictments towards Hauptmann's involvement. At the same time, they cast an unsavory shadow on Anna, and her potential knowledge of Richard's complicity. For reasons we will never be absolutely sure of, Wilentz chose not to have them appear as Flemington witnesses. In the end, I believe he simply chose to play the odds in his favour, wherever there was the least doubt in his mind that anyone other than Hauptmann himself, would have been considered in the minds of the judge and jurors. What? First of all there were holes in Hahn's story and we've been through this already so I'd rather not do a Part-Deux. So sticking to the topic I've got to say that you are undoubtedly a very nice guy Joe. Unfortunately, not everyone is as nice as you or there would be world peace. And so, in order to understand someone we must look at their other known actions. Pretending to be someone else then assigning what you would do IF you were them doesn't work. Take Wilentz (just a few examples): Bribed a Defense Investigator. Inserted a "mole" by pretending to be a Defense Witness who then reported back to the Prosecution. Hire a Defense Attorney to learn their pre-trial strategies. Pretended to have laryngitis (as one example) to avoid his obligation to the Defense. Threatened Defense Witnesses. Had Troopers eavesdrop on Hauptmann and his Lawyer which was reported back so they could adjust their arguements accordingly. Lie and deny facts, such as the beating Hauptmann took. Tamper with exhibits (e.g. tool chest), and guilty of unethical if not illegal behavior by allowing testimony to be given that he knew amounted to perjury. So one has to forget a lot in order to accept Wilentz had an innocent motive here.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Feb 22, 2020 10:37:46 GMT -5
Clearly Condon was being deceptive at times, most notably within the time frame of his personal involvement in the case up to May 12, 1932. He was part of Lindbergh and company’s inner circle and was not responding to direction from law enforcement at all. His actions, statements and lack of them essentially were not designed to assist law enforcement, but to help Lindbergh get his son back, period. As to why he continuously changed his stories or embellished them, certainly some of it would have been intentional, but I also believe Condon on many occasions, simply couldn’t help himself due to his mental illness and genuine forgetfulness. I’m no Psychology major but from what I’ve read, I’d say he dwelt significantly in the neighbourhood of Histrionic Personality Disorder, (exaggerated dramatic behavior designed to attract attention) with a good dose of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, (having an excessive interest in oneself and one's physical appearance) thrown in. Something which I feel may also be a significant factor at play, is memory loss due to potential brain damage sustained in his younger days through head shots received in the boxing ring. It would be difficult not to notice the attention this subject with its very sobering findings has received in recent years, especially in the sports of football and boxing. [Chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) is a neurodegenerative disease caused by repeated head injuries. Symptoms may include behavioral problems, mood problems, and problems with thinking. Symptoms typically do not begin until years after the injuries. CTE often gets worse over time and can result in dementia.] www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/chronic-traumatic-encephalopathy/symptoms-causes/syc-20370921 Condon testified in Flemington that he went back to St. Raymonds, the first occasion having been on Monday April 4, to look for the ransom note box in the event CJ had left it behind. First of all, I can’t imagine why CJ would have had any reason to leave it behind. It's a perfectly sized container for the $50,000, and he's not going to walk off with a bunch of bundles of individual bills. Even less likely to me is that Condon hid the ransom box in the boxwood bush, only later for it to be “discovered” by a man who looked like Al Reich. The implications of such a scam seem obvious in light of the fact that Lindbergh was apparently unaware of this deception, even though Henry Breckinridge and Gregory Coleman of the Bronx Home News were party to it. Something else seems to have been going on here, personally I'm just not clear on it. The only way I can see a "drop in the boxwood bush" having happened, is that Lindbergh himself knew about such a plan to aid the extortionists in making a safe getaway, but it was never revealed to law enforcement, for fear that their actions would have been construed as "helping the extortionists." Regarding the “lump” on CJ’s hand, Condon wasn’t talking about a deformity, rather a muscular development of CJ’s thenar eminence muscle group, at the base of the thumb on the inside of the hand, ie. “mutton chop” effect he described. The developed muscle from teachers “pushing chalk for years,” that he described to Lindbergh at Englewood, is located on the back of the hand in the recessed area between the base of the thumb and base of the index finger. Both are the type of muscular developments someone actively involved in the trades and working with his hands, would demonstrate. The fact that Hauptmann had not actively been involved in working with his hands from the time of the ransom payment up until the time of his arrest, when Condon found little evidence of it on Hauptmann's hand, must be taken into account here. I really wish the misinformation on this topic, especially as it relates to some kind of congenital deformity or just a plan "lump," and which has only been exacerbated by Robert Zorn in his book of nonsense, would just go away once and for all.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Feb 22, 2020 10:48:03 GMT -5
Lurp, very well presented and I agree entirely that Wilentz would have considered the bag of no value to his case against Hauptmann. At the same time I'm pretty sure that he, as well as those who investigated it, ultimately regarded it as the kind of commodity that could have potentially ended up in a wide geographical area that included virtually anywhere Hauptmann may have traveled, prior to the kidnapping. This bag reminds me a bit of the Fred and Marie Hahn statements, which made some pretty damning indictments towards Hauptmann's involvement. At the same time, they cast an unsavory shadow on Anna, and her potential knowledge of Richard's complicity. For reasons we will never be absolutely sure of, Wilentz chose not to have them appear as Flemington witnesses. In the end, I believe he simply chose to play the odds in his favour, wherever there was the least doubt in his mind that anyone other than Hauptmann himself, would have been considered in the minds of the judge and jurors. What? First of all there were holes in Hahn's story and we've been through this already so I'd rather not do a Part-Deux. So sticking to the topic I've got to say that you are undoubtedly a very nice guy Joe. Unfortunately, not everyone is as nice as you or there would be world peace. And so, in order to understand someone we must look at their other known actions. Pretending to be someone else then assigning what you would do IF you were them doesn't work. Take Wilentz (just a few examples): Bribed a Defense Investigator. Inserted a "mole" by pretending to be a Defense Witness who then reported back to the Prosecution. Hire a Defense Attorney to learn their pre-trial strategies. Pretended to have laryngitis (as one example) to avoid his obligation to the Defense. Threatened Defense Witnesses. Had Troopers eavesdrop on Hauptmann and his Lawyer which was reported back so they could adjust their arguements accordingly. Lie and deny facts, such as the beating Hauptmann took. Tamper with exhibits (e.g. tool chest), and guilty of unethical if not illegal behavior by allowing testimony to be given that he knew amounted to perjury. So one has to forget a lot in order to accept Wilentz had an innocent motive here. Michael, I'm sure you're a very nice guy as well, but to be very honest I have very little idea what you're talking about here. Somehow though, you've managed to segue the gist of the discussion into a hit list of Wilentz's misdeeds and police wrongdoings. Bravo.. if it helps your case. In the meantime, I am not accepting Wilentz had an innocent motive, so you may want to have a re-read before jumping onto your soapbox again.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 22, 2020 10:55:01 GMT -5
Michael, I'm sure you're a very nice guy as well, but to be very honest I have very little idea what you're talking about here. Somehow though, you've managed to segue the gist of the discussion into a hit list of Wilentz's misdeeds and police wrongdoings. Bravo.. if it helps your case. In the meantime, I am not accepting Wilentz had an innocent motive, so you may want to have a re-read before jumping onto your soapbox again. See that Joe? Assuming I'm a "nice" guy shows just how nice of a guy you truly are. Anyway, I didn't think I'd hit a nerve by calling you a "nice guy" Joe. I sincerely meant it as a complement. However, your response seems a bit irrational. A "hit list?" No - just facts surrounding the guy you are assigning some sort of ordinary explanation when his actual practices suggest otherwise. If you think he wasn't calculated about each and everything he did here then all I can do is hope one day, when no one is looking, that you'd revisit. You don't have to let me know if you've changed your mind once you do.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Feb 22, 2020 11:05:22 GMT -5
Michael, I always enjoy reading your posts on Condon. No one has done more research on Condon's activities in the LKC than you. You have certainly provided the research that documents Condon's deceptions and lying in this case. i agree with you that Condon could certainly have been charged with Obstruction of Justice and Conspiracy to Commit Extortion. However, one has to always evaluate the individual's motives and level of criminal intent. This is probably where we differ somewhat (alot??) in regards to Condon. For what it is worth, I'll give you my current two cents on Condon, and I will try not to be too long winded on it. To me, Condon was a product of his time, being born, raised and coming of age in the 19th century. There is virtually no one today who can even vaguely relate to the 1800"s. Our culture has changed so very, very much. Condon was definitely vain, pompous, full of self importance, etc., etc., but I believe he probably thought of himself as a Don Quixote knight ready to take on the windmills of his time. He was an educated man, intelligent with an educational career. No matter how he actually got initially connected with the extortionists/kidnappers, I believe that his motive at the beginning was to be the knight in shining armour, and to be the one to "place the kidnapped child in the arms of its mother". In his mind, it would make him a national hero and it would also be financially rewarding to him in the long run. However, Condon had zero "street smarts" and he was completely at the mercy of the extortionists from the very start. As i believe Lightningjew stated in his last post, Condon was duped from the get go. These street smart extortionists just ate his lunch. Most "normal" people have never gone face to face with a street smart hood (I know that you have Michael), and normal people outside of law enforcement just don't know how they can take someone like Condon and just destroy him (Hauptmann had tons of street smarts in my book). Condon's illusions of grandeur ended very quickly at his first meeting with CJ. From that very first meeting, Condon knew that the child was dead and that he (Condon) had placed himself right in the middle of a murder case that could have extremely dire consequences for him. The extortioists had Condon exactly where they wanted him right from jump street. They knew someone like Condon would panic and thereby provide them with protection from law enforcement and also help in obtaining the ransom money from Lindbergh. From this first meeting with CJ, Condon was now starting his pattern of lies and deceptions to protect the extortionists from being apprehended by law enforcement. Whether it was inventing false physical descriptions of CJ (deformed thumb, inaccurate sketch, made-up footprint) or removing the valuable $20,000 from the ransom payment that could be more easily traced, Condon just wanted this whole thing to be over by allowing the extortionists to get their money and fade away. I believe that Condon thought that if he could just help the extortionists get away safely they would never be caught, and the child's body would never be found. To him this whole thing would just fade away over time and his reputation (and perhaps his very freedom) would be preserved. Condon certainly knew that law enforcement and even Lindbergh were getting very suspicious of him. Condon had naively involved himself with street smart criminals who were WAY over his head, and like many people in this situation he panicked. I think his worse day was when Hauptmann was arrested after all of that time, Condon knew that Hauptmann was CJ and he had no idea what Hauptmann would say to law enforcement. It didn't take Condon too long to assess that if he didn't I.D. Hauptmann, law enforcement was going to take him (Condon) down with Hauptmann. It was totally inexcusable that law enforcement didn't come down on Condon with a ton of bricks much, much earlier in the investigation. In my view he didn't need to be charged, but he needed to see the full wrath of law enforcement back in 1932. I did get long winded in this--my apologies. At the moment these are my views on Condon. He ws totally guilty of Obstruction, but his motive very quickly became attempting to save his own buttocks from prison or worse. I have more thoughts on Condon's activities, but I'll stop here. Michael, your recent post on the sketches ended with a statement as to why the "first" CJ sketch was still currently on the FBI site. I think the reason is the last part of your sentence. From my dealings with the FBI, it would be because of a lack of proper research. You need to show them a few things about research. Lurp, I believe what you've expressed here is pretty much how it went down, at least initially and specifically in regards to Condon's initial motives for entering the case.. a sincere desire to place the child back in his mother's arms but with the added and built-in caveat of knowing he would receive not only national, but worldwide adoration and adulation if he was successful. Where I differ with your thoughts on the first account, is over the matter of financial reward. Based on his track record, Condon was much more about fame and recognition as opposed any obsession with money. His letters to the Bronx Home News, lifesaving citations, charitable behaviour, record of community and municipal involvement speak of someone who thrived on not only of paying forward and giving back, but also receiving the appropriate level of praise for his actions. And I really can't imagine he would have publicly offered the kidnapper, $1,000 of his own savings, if one of his main motivations was necessary pecuniary reward. In the tried and true old-fashioned and honorable ways of his own upbringing that you allude to, I believe he just felt that by being a "good deed doer, " good things would come his way.. the universal axiom of "What goes around, comes around." I know I'll probably get roasted here by the gang that sees Condon as little more than a lying, deceiving S.O.B. kidnapper confederate here.. lol, but I guess such are the perils of tying to maintain perspective. Secondly, and with the matter of CJ questioning Condon if he would burn if the baby was dead.. "if I did not kill it." Certainly this would have alarmed Condon, even though CJ did follow immediately with news that the baby was alive and well. Condon, as a matter of fact, seems to have no hesitation in passing along this account to the inner circle during the debriefing after his Woodlawn Cemetery rendezvous, so he seems to have accepted it in stride, whether true or not. So why did CJ even mention this? I believe it's because he wanted to insert an elevated level of urgency into the equation, a partially-veiled threat of sorts in order to hurry up the payment, (even though he knew the child was dead) however misguided and potentially fatal to the negotiations such a statement could have been. As far as who had the upper hand, I'd have to call it a saw-off. Hauptmann as you say with his street smarts but moreso his wartime and post-wartime experiences and personal struggles, as well as a highly developed criminal mind coupled with extreme perseverance. Condon with his self-professed expertise in the specifics of human nature based on his long career in public education, experience at being able to negotiate settlement, and even his ability to talk condescendingly to others at times when he felt it necessary.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 22, 2020 11:19:15 GMT -5
Clearly Condon was being deceptive at times, most notably within the time frame of his personal involvement in the case up to May 12, 1932. He was part of Lindbergh and company’s inner circle and was not responding to direction from law enforcement at all. His actions, statements and lack of them essentially were not designed to assist law enforcement, but to help Lindbergh get his son back, period. As to why he continuously changed his stories or embellished them, certainly some of it would have been intentional, but I also believe Condon on many occasions, simply couldn’t help himself due to his mental illness and genuine forgetfulness. I’m no Psychology major but from what I’ve read, I’d say he dwelt significantly in the neighbourhood of Histrionic Personality Disorder, (exaggerated dramatic behavior designed to attract attention) with a good dose of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, (having an excessive interest in oneself and one's physical appearance) thrown in. Something which I feel may also be a significant factor at play, is memory loss due to potential brain damage sustained in his younger days through head shots received in the boxing ring. It would be difficult not to notice the attention this subject with its very sobering findings has received in recent years, especially in the sports of football and boxing. [Chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) is a neurodegenerative disease caused by repeated head injuries. Symptoms may include behavioral problems, mood problems, and problems with thinking. Symptoms typically do not begin until years after the injuries. CTE often gets worse over time and can result in dementia.] Certainly something to consider right? But I have a hard time with it because he always seemed to "snap" out of it or "sober up" once it didn't appear to work during the times he was challenged. To me, his actions were deliberate and he knew exactly what he was doing. Plus, he sometimes formulated his lies based upon certain police investigations. It's almost a skill. Condon testified in Flemington that he went back to St. Raymonds, the first occasion having been on Monday April 4, to look for the ransom note box in the event CJ had left it behind. First of all, I can’t imagine why CJ would have had any reason to leave it behind. It's a perfectly sized container for the $50,000, and he's not going to walk off with a bunch of bundles of individual bills. Even less likely to me is that Condon hid the ransom box in the boxwood bush, only later for it to be “discovered” by a man who looked like Al Reich. The implications of such a scam seem obvious in light of the fact that Lindbergh was apparently unaware of this deception, even though Henry Breckinridge and Gregory Coleman of the Bronx Home News were party to it. Something else seems to have been going on here, personally I'm just not clear on it. The only way I can see a "drop in the boxwood bush" having happened, is that Lindbergh himself knew about such a plan to aid the extortionists in making a safe getaway, but it was never revealed to law enforcement, for fear that their actions would have been construed as "helping the extortionists." Exactly Joe. WHY would CJ leave it behind? Can't think of a reason? Try the one I've outlined because it makes perfect sense once considering ALL circumstances. Next, considering Uebel's eyewitness account that box WAS left behind. Maybe you're not seeing the bigger picture but I am certain most are - or will. It's a classic " bait & switch" and makes perfect sense. Next, Breckinridge doesn't have to be involved at all. And while we know Uebel appears to be identifying Coleman's car, we certainly don't know he was involved either. I've considered the possibility that his car may have been borrowed for that pick up - or of course he may have actually assisted in order to protect his friend so it doesn't have to be for nefarious reasons. There's more than one possibility. I've also considered that Lindbergh knew too, however, it wouldn't make sense for him to describe Condon's movements in the way he did. It clearly cast suspicion on him at the time and Lindbergh was the only witness to it and it was because of this, I believe, that Uebel's account was considered creditable - and absolutely should be. Especially because Condon was clearly worried about it and making these stupid references to the box and money becoming separated. He's tipping his hand by engaging in damage control. Regarding the “lump” on CJ’s hand, Condon wasn’t talking about a deformity, rather a muscular development of CJ’s thenar eminence muscle group, at the base of the thumb on the inside of the hand, ie. “mutton chop” effect he described. The developed muscle from teachers “pushing chalk for years,” that he described to Lindbergh at Englewood, is located on the back of the hand in the recessed area between the base of the thumb and base of the index finger. Both are the type of muscular developments someone actively involved in the trades and working with his hands, would demonstrate. The fact that Hauptmann had not actively been involved in working with his hands from the time of the ransom payment up until the time of his arrest, when Condon found little evidence of it on Hauptmann's hand, must be taken into account here. I really wish the misinformation on this topic, especially as it relates to some kind of congenital deformity or just a plan "lump," and which has only been exacerbated by Robert Zorn in his book of nonsense, would just go away once and for all. I've considered your "theory" Joe but there's nothing to support it. Condon is crystal clear about what it was, and you seem to be trying to find a way "out" of it for him. The guy was a teacher for how many years? And yet he's not smart enough to know what this lump was? Of course he was. And, in fact, he was smart enough to invent a way to disqualify someone who was actually guilty if they had been picked up. It was one of the first things he did concerning Hauptmann but by then Police were wise to him and he was, in the end, left no choice.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Feb 22, 2020 12:07:14 GMT -5
Michael, I'm sure you're a very nice guy as well, but to be very honest I have very little idea what you're talking about here. Somehow though, you've managed to segue the gist of the discussion into a hit list of Wilentz's misdeeds and police wrongdoings. Bravo.. if it helps your case. In the meantime, I am not accepting Wilentz had an innocent motive, so you may want to have a re-read before jumping onto your soapbox again. See that Joe? Assuming I'm a "nice" guy shows just how nice of a guy you truly are. Anyway, I didn't think I'd hit a nerve by calling you a "nice guy" Joe. I sincerely meant it as a complement. However, your response seems a bit irrational. A "hit list?" No - just facts surrounding the guy you are assigning some sort of ordinary explanation when his actual practices suggest otherwise. If you think he wasn't calculated about each and everything he did here then all I can do is hope one day, when no one is looking, that you'd revisit. You don't have to let me know if you've changed your mind once you do. Michael, you're not hitting a nerve with me at all, and I can assure you I have no horse in the race here. I endeavour to consider all of the participants and their actions within this case, in a truly neutral sense, period. Where that might appear to some to deviate at times, is probably due to nothing more than the lack of personal investment I have in this case, and the humour I throw in from time to time. This case is not exactly current and relevant news in today's world, so perhaps a little perspective is called for before people get too wound up over it. At the same time, I sunk my teeth into it a long time ago and I enjoy it immensely. Essentially I'm agreeing with what you have said about Wilentz's not-so-innocent motives relative to his probable action regarding the burlap bag.. you remember that thing we were talking about before this section of the thread got somewhat derailed? Just getting back to the subject of nerves though.. for some reason, you seem to have become highly sensitized towards any comments that relate to how the prosecution presented its case against Hauptmann. We're all very aware they took great liberties at at time in history when the tables in general, were tilted in their favour. You've suggested many times, how I seem to have an emotional attachment to some of the characters in this case. Again, I assure you I don't. Based on the content of much of your writing and conclusions over the years though, I believe what you may be recognizing here, is your own emotional attachment to the sorry plight of Richard Hauptmann, only projected outwards onto others. You may want to consider this a possibility, as it relates to your own pursuit of this case reaching an eventual and truthful conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 22, 2020 12:38:35 GMT -5
Michael, you're not hitting a nerve with me at all, and I can assure you I have no horse in the race here. I endeavour to consider all of the participants and their actions within this case, in a truly neutral sense, period. Where that might appear to some to deviate at times, is probably due to nothing more than the lack of personal investment I have in this case, and the humour I throw in from time to time. This case is not exactly current and relevant news in today's world, so perhaps a little perspective is called for before people get too wound up over it. At the same time, I sunk my teeth into it a long time ago and I enjoy it immensely. Essentially I'm agreeing with what you have said about Wilentz's not-so-innocent motives relative to his probable action regarding the burlap bag.. you remember that thing we were talking about before this section of the thread got somewhat derailed? Just getting back to the subject of nerves though.. for some reason, you seem to have become highly sensitized towards any comments that relate to how the prosecution presented its case against Hauptmann. We're all very aware they took great liberties at at time in history when the tables in general, were tilted in their favour. You've suggested many times, how I seem to have an emotional attachment to some of the characters in this case. Again, I assure you I don't. Based on the content of much of your writing and conclusions over the years though, I believe what you may be recognizing here, is your own emotional attachment to the sorry plight of Richard Hauptmann, only projected outwards onto others. You may want to consider this a possibility, as it relates to your own pursuit of this case reaching an eventual and truthful conclusion. I think you are projecting Joe and exactly what you've written above is part of the "problem." Maybe its me, but I believe you are formulating a position against whatever bias you think I hold. That's a helluva way to do things. Personally, I read your posts and judge them on a case by case basis. I don't, for example, assume an emotional attachment prior to reading them. However, if you're making what appears to be an emotional response and/or excuse for Condon then I cannot deny what I am reading. See the difference? Similarly, if I read something free of this I find that I can learn quite a bit from those posts. It's your neutral perspective that I find the most impactful. Now that's not to say I am completely free from certain prejudice in places. We all are because our very own life's education and experiences are hard to scrub from our minds. So yes, I am going to have a certain amount of bias based upon my experiences. What I try to do is detach myself from that thought then instead treat and judge fairly based upon what facts and documentation I find. When it comes to bias sometimes we can overcome it and sometimes we are influenced. But what's important is being open to other suggestions and doing the best we can to consider them. In the end, I stand by what's in my books. The only "emotional" attachment to anything I've written is getting the unknown material out of files and into the sunlight. It's those truly emotional people who get upset about that.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 23, 2020 9:54:21 GMT -5
I've been talking a lot about "missing" material in my posts lately, so I wanted to highlight something as an example. Take Andy Dutch. He was heavily involved in Gov. Hoffman's efforts to investigate this case. And yet, the Hoffman Collections contain almost nothing about him. One might think that means his role was exaggerated but it was not. What it means is that his material (hopefully) is in a family member's attic waiting to be discovered. I've attached a page from his "outline" concerning what would later become his book. Fortunately, Sam Bornstein donated a ton of his personal collection to the NJSP Archives and this item was located among that collection: Attachment DeletedThe oft mentioned Fawcett Material is something else that is still "out there" and one day, maybe, we'll get lucky and it will be donated to the Archives too. There's also the the Noel Behn materials that are located at another Archive: oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt0g5030ww/entire_text/ as well as additional Leon Ho-age material at UCLA: oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt4580136c/entire_text/ Material like this, their contents anyway, could already be included in items already at the NJSP Archives but its hard to know without going through it all. But there could be "missing" files and/or material in those collections which could fill in certain gaps or actually be the missing documents themselves. Another "batch" I wanted to mention were FBI documents, memos, and reports that were turned over to Wilentz before the trial. Agent Sisk went over everything with Joseph Lannigan and there was quite a bit. One item in that material included information about Robert Thayer's PI who was assisting him during the time he was involved with the case. Since I think very few people are even aware that Thayer had such a person helping him then this item seems interesting if not important. Unfortunately, NONE of these documents are at the NJSP Archives. So, in my opinion, someone related to Wilentz or Lannigan, Hauck, etc. will probaby (again hopefully) find all of this "lost" material in an attic one day. And of course there is material referenced by other reports that just does not currently exist within the NJSP Archives such as an interview with Banks about Violet Sharp. Etc. etc. etc.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Feb 24, 2020 10:56:40 GMT -5
i had a shot at fawcetts documents the guy didnt sell it to me. i think he decided to keep it. i dont think it ever was sold
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 24, 2020 12:39:51 GMT -5
i had a shot at fawcetts documents the guy didnt sell it to me. i think he decided to keep it. i dont think it ever was sold They were on ebay once upon a time. I think '01 or '02 maybe? I remember each report started at $25 and bidding on one report, PI Martin's interview with Mrs. Fredriksen I think, went beyond that but in the end it didn't even meet the reserve. That's when I knew none were going to sell. I emailed the seller asking if he'd consider selling xerox copies. He said he'd get back to me, however sad to say, never did. Haven't seen any trace of them since. Pope's documents didn't sell either, but Rob was nice enough to give me copies. One of those documents is in V1 on page 254 which he was kind enough to let me use there. As exemplified in this document, Pope did NOT believe the ladder was actually used to remove the child from the nursery.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Feb 25, 2020 9:03:06 GMT -5
Sorry to drift off the subject being discussed, but who were Fred and Marie Hahn, and what were the gists of their statements?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Feb 25, 2020 10:17:57 GMT -5
Michael, you're not hitting a nerve with me at all, and I can assure you I have no horse in the race here. I endeavour to consider all of the participants and their actions within this case, in a truly neutral sense, period. Where that might appear to some to deviate at times, is probably due to nothing more than the lack of personal investment I have in this case, and the humour I throw in from time to time. This case is not exactly current and relevant news in today's world, so perhaps a little perspective is called for before people get too wound up over it. At the same time, I sunk my teeth into it a long time ago and I enjoy it immensely. Essentially I'm agreeing with what you have said about Wilentz's not-so-innocent motives relative to his probable action regarding the burlap bag.. you remember that thing we were talking about before this section of the thread got somewhat derailed? Just getting back to the subject of nerves though.. for some reason, you seem to have become highly sensitized towards any comments that relate to how the prosecution presented its case against Hauptmann. We're all very aware they took great liberties at at time in history when the tables in general, were tilted in their favour. You've suggested many times, how I seem to have an emotional attachment to some of the characters in this case. Again, I assure you I don't. Based on the content of much of your writing and conclusions over the years though, I believe what you may be recognizing here, is your own emotional attachment to the sorry plight of Richard Hauptmann, only projected outwards onto others. You may want to consider this a possibility, as it relates to your own pursuit of this case reaching an eventual and truthful conclusion. I think you are projecting Joe and exactly what you've written above is part of the "problem." Maybe its me, but I believe you are formulating a position against whatever bias you think I hold. That's a helluva way to do things. Personally, I read your posts and judge them on a case by case basis. I don't, for example, assume an emotional attachment prior to reading them. However, if you're making what appears to be an emotional response and/or excuse for Condon then I cannot deny what I am reading. See the difference? Similarly, if I read something free of this I find that I can learn quite a bit from those posts. It's your neutral perspective that I find the most impactful. Now that's not to say I am completely free from certain prejudice in places. We all are because our very own life's education and experiences are hard to scrub from our minds. So yes, I am going to have a certain amount of bias based upon my experiences. What I try to do is detach myself from that thought then instead treat and judge fairly based upon what facts and documentation I find. When it comes to bias sometimes we can overcome it and sometimes we are influenced. But what's important is being open to other suggestions and doing the best we can to consider them. In the end, I stand by what's in my books. The only "emotional" attachment to anything I've written is getting the unknown material out of files and into the sunlight. It's those truly emotional people who get upset about that. Michael, I understand where you're coming from but I believe what this basically comes down to is where our positions of understanding are relative to each other. And I'd say they're pretty far apart! Your current position appears to me to be, that Lindbergh was responsible for the kidnapping and killing of his own son. I believe he had nothing to do with it, but that Hauptmann was involved from the outset, possibly in collusion with others but that he then adopted the primary role when the others got cold feet. You also seem to believe that Condon was a willing confederate of the kidnappers, where I reject that idea outright. How we seem to be at such polar odds I think speaks in great part, to the incredible scope of evidence and how it can subjectively be interpreted by the individual. I don't get upset or excited because you disagree with me and vice-versa. There are many points where I agree almost entirely with you. The debates over Prosecution tactics, the cemetery lookouts, Hauptmann's beating.. of course they happened. Were they unfortunate, or denied? Absolutely yes. Do I feel those events are relative to the issue of Hauptmann's guilt? Primarily not, for the simple reason they happened after the fact. The only place that Hauptmann really got shortchanged was within the prosecution's decision to abruptly terminate the investigation into the involvement of others, so that they had an iron-clad case against him to pretty much guarantee a death sentence. At the same time, Hauptmann admitted nothing in the light of a mountain of circumstantial physical and testimonial evidence against him. He went to his death swearing to his God and accusers he was absolutely innocent of all charges laid before him. I know why he felt he was essentially forced to do that, but it still doesn't make his actions right.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 26, 2020 8:54:43 GMT -5
Sorry to drift off the subject being discussed, but who were Fred and Marie Hahn, and what were the gists of their statements? There's been plenty of discussions here over the years about them. Try starting here: lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/thread/837/hahn-testimony I would also use the "search" feature above to find even more because I seem to remember that Amy did quite a bit of research into this angle as well.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 26, 2020 9:13:12 GMT -5
I understand where you're coming from but I believe what this basically comes down to is where our positions of understanding are relative to each other. And I'd say they're pretty far apart! Your current position appears to me to be, that Lindbergh was responsible for the kidnapping and killing of his own son. I believe he had nothing to do with it, but that Hauptmann was involved from the outset, possibly in collusion with others but that he then adopted the primary role when the others got cold feet. You also seem to believe that Condon was a willing confederate of the kidnappers, where I reject that idea outright. How we seem to be at such polar odds I think speaks in great part, to the incredible scope of evidence and how it can subjectively be interpreted by the individual. I don't get upset or excited because you disagree with me and vice-versa. There are many points where I agree almost entirely with you. The debates over Prosecution tactics, the cemetery lookouts, Hauptmann's beating.. of course they happened. Were they unfortunate, or denied? Absolutely yes. Do I feel those events are relative to the issue of Hauptmann's guilt? Primarily not, for the simple reason they happened after the fact. The only place that Hauptmann really got shortchanged was within the prosecution's decision to abruptly terminate the investigation into the involvement of others, so that they had an iron-clad case against him to pretty much guarantee a death sentence. At the same time, Hauptmann admitted nothing in the light of a mountain of circumstantial physical and testimonial evidence against him. He went to his death swearing to his God and accusers he was absolutely innocent of all charges laid before him. I know why he felt he was essentially forced to do that, but it still doesn't make his actions right. I don't think there's anyone here that believe everything exactly like the next. So at some point or another we're all going to disagree in some places. Honestly that's a good thing because it leads to more research. So - that isn't my issue. As I've written in my books, some people tend to resist certain facts because they believe it will "assist" a position they reject (the opposite can occur too where something is embraced only because it appears to support a conclusion one holds). I say that's very dangerous to the ultimate solution - whatever that may be. Like I wrote previously, I don't consider your conclusions unless that is part of the debate. So, for example, whenever you post something on Condon, I read it free from the idea that I "must" counter it IF your point assists to that end. I don't care about that - all I care about is the validity of the point itself. And so - if I agree I agree and if I do not then I don't. That doesn't mean anything other than that. It's important to get the facts right - all of them regardless of where they might or might not lead. A perfect example would be back when HRO was still alive and posted on our Boards. Of course I never believed he was the Lindbergh Baby. However, if he made a legitimate point then I agreed with him. I didn't argue against a fact because I thought it might lead someone else to believe he could be correct about who he was. Another example might be what I wrote about the activities of foxes concerning the corpse (about the toes). I found this information and rather than "hide" or "bury" it I decided to add it despite the fact I do not personally believe that was the cause. Why? Food for thought. It's not up to "me" to decide for anyone. Regardless, I cannot tell anyone how to debate or discuss this case. If that's the approach one wants to take then it is. There are no rules to prevent it and frankly there shouldn't be. I just happen to think it is a mistake. I used to play devil's advocate often, and I believe that helped me to adjust and balance certain positions. Also, I learned a lot about counter-arguments and solutions to them because of it. Perhaps I'm wrong but that's not what I see going on. What I think I see is a posture being taken solely to dispute someone's conclusion and nothing more. Again, far be it from me to tell anyone how to debate/discuss but I think that is a terrible path to take.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Mar 1, 2020 15:54:00 GMT -5
I understand where you're coming from but I believe what this basically comes down to is where our positions of understanding are relative to each other. And I'd say they're pretty far apart! Your current position appears to me to be, that Lindbergh was responsible for the kidnapping and killing of his own son. I believe he had nothing to do with it, but that Hauptmann was involved from the outset, possibly in collusion with others but that he then adopted the primary role when the others got cold feet. You also seem to believe that Condon was a willing confederate of the kidnappers, where I reject that idea outright. How we seem to be at such polar odds I think speaks in great part, to the incredible scope of evidence and how it can subjectively be interpreted by the individual. I don't get upset or excited because you disagree with me and vice-versa. There are many points where I agree almost entirely with you. The debates over Prosecution tactics, the cemetery lookouts, Hauptmann's beating.. of course they happened. Were they unfortunate, or denied? Absolutely yes. Do I feel those events are relative to the issue of Hauptmann's guilt? Primarily not, for the simple reason they happened after the fact. The only place that Hauptmann really got shortchanged was within the prosecution's decision to abruptly terminate the investigation into the involvement of others, so that they had an iron-clad case against him to pretty much guarantee a death sentence. At the same time, Hauptmann admitted nothing in the light of a mountain of circumstantial physical and testimonial evidence against him. He went to his death swearing to his God and accusers he was absolutely innocent of all charges laid before him. I know why he felt he was essentially forced to do that, but it still doesn't make his actions right. I don't think there's anyone here that believe everything exactly like the next. So at some point or another we're all going to disagree in some places. Honestly that's a good thing because it leads to more research. So - that isn't my issue. As I've written in my books, some people tend to resist certain facts because they believe it will "assist" a position they reject (the opposite can occur too where something is embraced only because it appears to support a conclusion one holds). I say that's very dangerous to the ultimate solution - whatever that may be. Like I wrote previously, I don't consider your conclusions unless that is part of the debate. So, for example, whenever you post something on Condon, I read it free from the idea that I "must" counter it IF your point assists to that end. I don't care about that - all I care about is the validity of the point itself. And so - if I agree I agree and if I do not then I don't. That doesn't mean anything other than that. It's important to get the facts right - all of them regardless of where they might or might not lead. A perfect example would be back when HRO was still alive and posted on our Boards. Of course I never believed he was the Lindbergh Baby. However, if he made a legitimate point then I agreed with him. I didn't argue against a fact because I thought it might lead someone else to believe he could be correct about who he was. Another example might be what I wrote about the activities of foxes concerning the corpse (about the toes). I found this information and rather than "hide" or "bury" it I decided to add it despite the fact I do not personally believe that was the cause. Why? Food for thought. It's not up to "me" to decide for anyone. Regardless, I cannot tell anyone how to debate or discuss this case. If that's the approach one wants to take then it is. There are no rules to prevent it and frankly there shouldn't be. I just happen to think it is a mistake. I used to play devil's advocate often, and I believe that helped me to adjust and balance certain positions. Also, I learned a lot about counter-arguments and solutions to them because of it. Perhaps I'm wrong but that's not what I see going on. What I think I see is a posture being taken solely to dispute someone's conclusion and nothing more. Again, far be it from me to tell anyone how to debate/discuss but I think that is a terrible path to take. Michael, we can sit here an debate all day about the best path to take, and at the end of the day we'd probably both just realize we take all kinds of paths to get where we're going. I'm always open to new ideas in an attempt to clean up loose ends, but as I see it, the narrative in this case was established a long time ago and really hasn't changed much. It's a jigsaw puzzle that first really took shape over 85 years ago with Hauptmann's arrest and very little since has threatened to move him from his position of responsibility and accountability in the centre.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 2, 2020 9:51:36 GMT -5
Michael, we can sit here an debate all day about the best path to take, and at the end of the day we'd probably both just realize we take all kinds of paths to get where we're going. I'm always open to new ideas in an attempt to clean up loose ends, but as I see it, the narrative in this case was established a long time ago and really hasn't changed much. It's a jigsaw puzzle that first really took shape over 85 years ago with Hauptmann's arrest and very little since has threatened to move him from his position of responsibility and accountability in the centre. Gee whiz Joe ... either you did not read what I wrote or I am a really hard guy to understand. Perhaps the latter but of course its not always the "other" guy. Then again - it could be right? (Sigh)
|
|