|
Post by Sue on Mar 15, 2020 15:44:44 GMT -5
Is there a place on the Internet that shows pictures of ALL of the ENVELOPES that held the ransom letters?
I'd like to see these envelopes, but particularly the postage that was affixed to these envelopes.
Apparently, blemished US postage was recalled in early 1932.
According to Walter Winchell, some of the stamps that were affixed to the ransom envelopes had this flawed postage. The postage was sold at a drug store (Raabe's?) up the street from Hauptmann's house. That drug store sold about two dozen of these stamps.
Winchell brings up the topic of the stamps in his column called "On Broadway with Walter Winchell." One place that the column appeared was The Times-Union from Albany on October 22, 1952.
Winchell writes:
"One of the bits of evidence never used by the New Jersey
prosecutor was this . . . stamps distributed in the Bronx had flaws . . . They were ordered recalled . . .All of the ransom notes were mailed with
some of this blemished postage . . . The sleuths traced them to
a Bronx drug store which had sold two-dozen .. . It was located on Hauptmann's street ."
Winchell's column appeared in 1952, but apparently Winchell was informing the public about the stamps on the ransom envelopes as early as the time of Hauptmann's trial.
See Chapter 11 called "The Little Package" in Robert Zorn's Cemetery John where Zorn quotes Winchell as saying:
"To the Daily Mirror and all Hearst newspapers the other day I wired a new clue that the State has. It is a certain type of penny postage stamps, which the post office department recalled in 1932. They intended to testify--that the ransom notes contained these stamps-- and that only two in the vicinity of Hauptmann's home were late in returning those stamps to Washington. I am now informed, however, that the State will not risk using that as evidence--as it did to temporarily keep the kidnap ladder out of the record." 1
1 See chapter note in Cemetery John
(The above passage may be an audio recording from Winchell's radio program."
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Mar 15, 2020 20:46:42 GMT -5
Sue, Envelopes #2, 3, and 5:
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Mar 15, 2020 20:48:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Mar 15, 2020 20:49:44 GMT -5
Last one (#12):
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2020 12:49:56 GMT -5
Interesting post, Sue. And thanks for those envelope pictures, Wayne! I have done a little research into this stamp issue. The way Zorn writes about this in his book, it appears to be the 10 cent stamp, the one on the sleeping suit wrapper that might be a "blemished" stamp. This 10 cent stamp was produced between 1923 and 1927. So it was not a stamp commonly in the hands of people. This would mean that whoever mailed that sleeping suit would have had possession of this older stamp in order to use it to mail the sleeping suit. The other envelopes have the 1932 2 cent stamps and the Franklin 1 cent stamp on them. The 10 cent President Monroe stamp that is on the sleeping suit envelope did have a printing problem for some of them. I am not aware of a recall done on these. Here is some info on this stamp and what makes it valuable as a collector's item: www.mcall.com/news/mc-xpm-2006-09-23-3678358-story.htmlThe 2 cent stamp used on some of the ransom notes is actually a 1932 Washington Bicentennial stamp which was issued while postage was still 2 cents. This stamp would be issued a second time in July of 1932 went the price of postage was raised to 3 cents. Did the price increase make it illegal to sell the 2 cent stamps once the 3 cent stamps became available. I am not aware of any blemish for that year's stamps. Perhaps Raabe's Pharmacy continued to sell the two cent stamps when they should not have?? At the time of the kidnapping though, those two cent stamps were proper to use. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Bicentennial_stamps_of_1932What I do find quite intriguing is in Condon's May 14, 1932 statement to police, on page 21, he says that the sleeping suit package was covered in 2 cent stamps, not a single 10 cent stamp. So where does that leave envelop #9? I have seen that envelope (wrapper?) and I have wondered how a sleeping suit would have ever fit into it.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Mar 17, 2020 1:09:26 GMT -5
Thanks for putting up the envelopes, Wayne!
The stamp in question is the green one-cent Washington stamp.
I'd have to look at the stamp closer, but it appears the image of Washington is backwards.
Two one-cent stamps got a letter mailed in the early part of 1932.
Walter Winchell said it was the green one-cent stamps on the ransom envelopes that were flawed.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Mar 17, 2020 1:53:07 GMT -5
Amy,
I think you are right about the stamp being a one-cent Franklin stamp.
I wish that I could have a better view.
Walter Winchell didn't say whose image was on the stamp, only that the defective stamps were green one-cent stamps.
Those stamps might have been imperfect for any number of reasons.
Winchell said that the stamps were recalled, and were late in being sent back to Washington.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2020 8:00:38 GMT -5
I agree Sue that it is difficult to make out images and details on just pictures of these stamps. The one cent stamps on the ransom notes are Franklin ones. This is significant though because the USPS stopped using Franklin on the 1 cent stamp after 1911. Staring with 1912, the issued 1 cent stamps all carried the image of Washington. So I guess we are looking at one cent stamps that were printed in 1911 or earlier. So who would have this many older Franklin stamps sitting around their house to use on these ransom notes? The two cent Washington stamps are all current issue for 1932. As far as Winchell goes, the only 1932 stamp recall I could find so far took place in May 1932. It was a Philippine stamp issued by the USPS. The falls picture used was not of the waterfall they labeled it on the stamps so they had to recall those. This stamp has nothing to do with the ransom notes. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagsanjan_Falls_stampI think this stamp issue is interesting. Does it point to a stamp collector being involved as Zorn suggests it might...or maybe not. I do think the use of those older 1 cent stamps and that 10 cent stamp are curious. Was the sender of the ransom notes trying to avoid purchasing stamps and sometimes used older ones he had on hand instead?? Or do we look for the involvement of a more mature person with this crime who had these stamps available?
|
|
|
Post by Rab on Mar 18, 2020 7:59:03 GMT -5
Hi Amy, A friend pointed out your post to me so thought I would drop in to respond. I'm not sure on your source for the dates of the stamps but I think you are mistaken. Both the Franklin 1c and Monroe 10c were available well into the 1930s. I know from looking at this in the past that the various different issue dates and printing dates can be a minefield. The links below show just some examples of other 1932/3 usage of those stamps: www.postalhistory.com/photo.asp?url=scans%5FM%2FMA331006Awww.postalhistory.com/photo.asp?url=scans%5FA%2FAR320205www.postalhistory.com/photo.asp?url=scans%5FI%2FIL321228www.postalhistory.com/photo.asp?url=scans%5FN%2FNY320518You can find many more examples here or at other postal history websites. There is an interesting question of whether the sleeping suit package was taken to the counter in a post office and weighed or whether the sender just guessed the postage. The Monroe 10c was the typically used for registered, special delivery or package mail but there are no postal markings on the package consistent with those classes of carriage. My personal opinion is that the sender guessed the weight. Please let me know if you have some definitive source on the dating of the stamps that maybe I've missed. But regardless, as you see, the stamps were not uncommon in those years. Cheers Rab
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2020 8:40:42 GMT -5
Hi Rab, So glad to see you post about this! I know this is an area that you are knowledgeable about so whatever you can add is important. From what I have been reading, Postage stamps are printed in series, just like money is. It seems that a series is printed for some time and then it changes or ends. The source I read says the Franklin head 1 cent stamp was replaced as a Washington 1 cent stamp in 1912. I don't know how many Franklin 1 cent stamps continued to exist by the 1930's. I am assuming that these would have been available until the supply was exhausted since there was no recall on these stamps. I am not sure why the USPS would still be printing the Franklin head 1 cent stamp if they replaced it in 1912. When going to a post office in 1932 to buy stamps, wouldn't the current Washington head 1 cent stamp have been the most likely one being supplied to the buyer twenty years later? Here is where I read about the Washington-Franklin stamp series. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington%E2%80%93Franklin_IssuesThank you for all the links for us to read. I am going to read those now and see what more I can learn. Thanks Rab. Amy
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2020 8:54:15 GMT -5
Yes! How in the world did that rather large sleeping suit possibly fit into a standard size envelope? ? The mailer for the sleeping suit was not a standard envelope. Think of brown wrapping paper. Still, when you see it you are surprised by the size when you think of a folded sleeping suit. What was most important to me was that Condon said the suit mailer was "covered" (his word) in two cent stamps and not one single ten cent stamp. He said this in May 1932. His memory should be clear on this point you would think. Since this is Condon, do we believe him when he says 2 cent stamps or what???
|
|
|
Post by Rab on Mar 18, 2020 9:23:36 GMT -5
Hi Amy, The 1c Franklin was reissued starting in 1923 and went through various reprints, take a look here. I understand it was available until 1938 but I'd have to pull out the references to confirm. I know very little about stamps other than that it's a fiendishly complicated business. But these particular stamps were not rare in 1932. Cheers Rab
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2020 9:33:16 GMT -5
Hi Rab,
So they reissued the Franklin 1 cent stamp. Thanks for sharing this. That means they were in common supply in 1932 and anyone could have purchased them.
I stand corrected!!
Amy
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Mar 19, 2020 8:17:03 GMT -5
Does anyone see what Winchell was talking about? Are there blemishes or flaws on the stamps?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 19, 2020 11:50:55 GMT -5
Does anyone see what Winchell was talking about? Are there blemishes or flaws on the stamps? Just from the published photos of the ransom note (or, in one case, sleeping suit) envelopes, I can't see any irregularities in the stamps themselves. The crux of the matter is the issue of whether Hauptmann was the person who applied any or all of those stamps. Just thinking that if someone in state government was of the mind to get this solved, it could probably be done by modern technology, specifically DNA testing, since the postage on these envelopes was likely affixed by licking the stamps and thereby providing a DNA residue
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Mar 19, 2020 11:52:13 GMT -5
I wouldn't know what to be looking for in the way of a blemish on these stamps, but does anyone have any ideas about the fact that whoever affixed the stamps, on a couple of occasions, didn't remove the excess gummed paper from around the edge of the stamps? And I wonder if this was ever commented on back in the day, by anyone seeking to profile the ransom note sender. I'd venture it might suggest a tendency for oversight (failure to notice detail).. or perhaps that it just wasn't an important consideration to the individual.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Mar 19, 2020 23:35:58 GMT -5
Does anyone see what Winchell was talking about? Are there blemishes or flaws on the stamps? Just from the published photos of the ransom note (or, in one case, sleeping suit) envelopes, I can't see any irregularities in the stamps themselves. The crux of the matter is the issue of whether Hauptmann was the person who applied any or all of those stamps. Just thinking that if someone in state government was of the mind to get this solved, it could probably be done by modern technology, specifically DNA testing, since the postage on these envelopes was likely affixed by licking the stamps and thereby providing a DNA residue I believe many of the envelopes were cut open on the side, with the sealed flaps still in place. Would be relatively easy to take a small sample of the flap for testing. I'd imagine if Manfred Hauptmann could likely have this done via an attorney, but he seems unwilling to have anything to do with this.
|
|
ziki
Trooper
Posts: 44
|
Post by ziki on Mar 19, 2020 23:41:07 GMT -5
I wouldn't know what to be looking for in the way of a blemish on these stamps, but does anyone have any ideas about the fact that whoever affixed the stamps, on a couple of occasions, didn't remove the excess gummed paper from around the edge of the stamps? And I wonder if this was ever commented on back in the day, by anyone seeking to profile the ransom note sender. I'd venture it might suggest a tendency for oversight (failure to notice detail).. or perhaps that it just wasn't an important consideration to the individual. Maybe was the person preparing the envelopes wearing gloves and it was too difficult to make it with no damage on stamps?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 20, 2020 10:14:32 GMT -5
Does anyone see what Winchell was talking about? Are there blemishes or flaws on the stamps? I have never seen an investigation like this in the 1600 files or Accordion Files. If one had occurred it would be there unless of course it was conducted by the FBI and withheld from, the NJSP which seems unlikely if the Prosecution had it. As far as the Prosecution goes... I have their trial preparation outlines and notes and nothing in them mentions this either. So this proves they weren't going to use anything like this at trial. For example, Dr. Christian is mentioned because they planned on using him but it turned out not to be necessary because of Reilly's stunt. Have you, Amy or anyone else seen such a stamp investigation into Hauptmann anywhere? When it comes to Walter Winchell its undeniable that he had good contacts and he did get a lot of "scoops." However, his track record wasn't anywhere near 100%. For example, he claimed inside information that Hoffman was going to be named a Vice-President running mate and that turned out to be false. Also, he was among those who scooped the Rail 16 evidence which was leaked to him. Therefore he knew the story. But yet in a 1953 article he credited an FBI search for finding this evidence - something he knew in 1934 wasn't true. I'm not suggesting he's lying just that, as can happen, his memory faded a little on the specifics. So he can be right, wrong, and sometimes a little of both. Next we have to consider that police sometimes leaked bad information to the press for specific reasons. One would be to "scare" others. For example, he once wrote that he was told police were on the verge of arresting someone else who was involved who they had been watching for quite some time. Could have been true but if not probably a warning to a potential witness they did not want to hear from.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Mar 20, 2020 20:19:27 GMT -5
Walter Winchell never should have referred to Hauptmann as a "kraut."
People should have been appalled, and Winchell would not have gotten away with saying that had he lived in 2020.
"What Winchell Knows about Hauptmann"
Radio Guide March 28, 1936 Pages 6,7,16,43.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 21, 2020 7:31:42 GMT -5
Yes, there was a lot of anti-German prejudice in the US at the time, stemming from Hitler's rise to power in Germany (which was unrelated to Hauptmann individually) and even going back to WWI. Winchell was merely trying to use this "kraut" epithet to appeal to his readers.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Mar 21, 2020 21:34:10 GMT -5
If we are understanding of Walter Winchell's anti-German use of words, shouldn't we also extend that to Charles Lindbergh?
Shouldn't we all be held to the same standards?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 24, 2020 8:21:59 GMT -5
If we are understanding of Walter Winchell's anti-German use of words, shouldn't we also extend that to Charles Lindbergh? Shouldn't we all be held to the same standards? In order to analyze the writings or actions or speeches of people in an earlier era, you have to have some knowledge of the zeitgeist of that era. What was acceptable and common in the 1930s is not necessarily acceptable or common in today's American society and vise versa. I happen to be an American history buff, and am especially up on the 1930s, which is a major reason I got into the LKC. That interest was enhanced by first-hand stories from my late parents, who grew up in that era, and my late grandparents, who lived as young adults during that time frame.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Mar 24, 2020 19:09:25 GMT -5
Why is Walter Winchell given a free pass when he uses words like "kraut"?
I don't remember Lindbergh calling people nasty names.
So what, Noel Behn calls Lindbergh "regionally bigoted."
I understand Winchell figures into the series: "The Plot Against America."
Will Americans understand that this is a novel?
I don't think so.
They understand the story of the Titanic through the Leonardo DiCaprio movie.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 26, 2020 8:33:02 GMT -5
Lindbergh's infamous 1941 Des Moines speech, where he singled out American Jews among all ethnic groups and chastised them as a group for their eagerness to enter a war against Nazi Germany, was rightfully construed by many as evidence of bigotry on his part, more so when one considers Lindbergh's hobnobbing with Nazi Germany honchos a few years earlier.
However, Behn's use of the adverb "regionally" to describe Lindbergh's bigotry is very questionable. Wish Behn were alive today to try to explain that, since antisemitism was not a rare phenomenon in any region of the US during that era.
As for Roth's "The Plot Against America," it is important to note that Lindbergh's Des Moines speech came in 1941, NOT during the 1940 election campaign. And Roth himself shows his bigotry against the Republican Party of 1940 by suggesting that Lindbergh could have been its presidential nominee. In real life, the Republican candidate for president that year was Wendell Willkie, who was NOT a bigot and NOT opposed to entering a war against the Germans if the situation warranted it.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Mar 27, 2020 21:03:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 28, 2020 13:35:36 GMT -5
Couldn't have said it any better! As a regular viewer of the "Jeopardy!" television quiz show, I notice that that many of the younger contestants, although seemingly brilliant in categories relating to, e.g., pop culture, do poorly in history, especially American history. Just last night, for example, the "Final Jeopardy" question was: Who was the first president whose State of the Union Address was televised.? To arrive at the correct answer, you didn't have to have had any memory of that event nor the content of that speech. But you had to know the years of each presidential term and the approximate years when television became a common fixture in American homes. None of the three contestants was able to deduce the correct answer. Yes, this was only one instance but from my experience, it seems like it is representative of a general trend. As to the issue of WHY Americans ore "woefully uneducated" in history, one of the main reasons is that the educational establishment is ever-increasingly under control of (for the most part) individuals with a leftist political orientation. These people understand intuitively that if today's youth are denied an understanding of true American history, they are far more likely to advocate and vote for policies which destroy the bedrock principles on which the country was founded.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Apr 4, 2020 9:18:55 GMT -5
Hurtelable:
I like that you shared about the show "Jeopardy!"
Many young people have a good grasp of contemporary popular culture, but are deficient in historical facts.
Learning about facts can be very boring for young minds.
I suppose that it does not help when students get planted in "social studies" classes.
Why is this so?
I have heard it said that people who thoroughly learn a certain era in history have a better understanding of the whole history of the world.
For instance, someone like you has studied the 1930s because you ENJOY doing so!
Someone who has a good understanding of WWII will have a REFERENCE POINT for understanding events BEFORE and AFTER WWII.
Having a natural interest is the key.
Facts are nice, but I think it is better when facts are acquired as a by-product of enjoying reading and learning about historical events.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2020 11:05:28 GMT -5
Have you, Amy or anyone else seen such a stamp investigation into Hauptmann anywhere? Michael and Rab, I have not come across a formal stamp investigation by authorities. However, I did find the following opinion about the one-cent stamps used on the ransom envelopes. The source for this is the handwriting report done by Elbridge Walter Stein, dated June 24, 1932. I am posting page 14 from this report. The final paragraph talks about the stamps. imgur.com/ubFH7gpIf Stein happens to be correct in his evaluation of those stamps, depending on the plating series of the ones on the envelopes, they could be worth not much to quite a lot!
|
|