|
|
Post by Mbg on Dec 13, 2020 13:56:56 GMT -5
A slight correction: There was $4,740 in tens found in the garage (474 bills) and $9,860 in twenties (493 bills), bringing the total number of bills to 967 and the overall amount to $14,600, not including the $20 on Hauptmann's person. Sorry about the confusion. Thanks Mbg, for the trial reference and denominations breakdown. Regarding the “4 bundles” as Hauptmann testified to, I'd speculate here that he was probably referring to 4 stacks of bills as they would have appeared to him at first glance when he removed the shoebox lid. The attached photo shows 4 stacks of money (unknown number of packages) in a typical safe deposit box, and I show this only to demonstrate how the alleged “4 bundles” of money would probably have been oriented similarly in an average shoebox to make best use of the actual box dimensions. This safe deposit box is not as high or perhaps as deep as an average shoebox, but it’s fairly close in terms of its length. View Attachment Based on the dimensions of US paper currency of the time, (small bill size 6.14” X 2.61” initiated with the 1928 series) and when the ransom note writer specified the box dimensions to Lindbergh, he was clearly accounting for an arrangement which would have seen 5 stacks of bills oriented in similar fashion in the box. Regarding the 15 packages of money found in the garage, would these not have been individually repackaged by Hauptmann (or perhaps even Fisch?) for the purpose of more easily managing their spending? In any case, these packages which were demonstrated by authorities in the old newsreels, appear to me to have been much slimmer and more loosely packed than the very beefy and compressed packages originally assembled by the Federal Reserve. Joe, the beefy and compressed packages you refer to are the initial packages assembled by denomination: the fives, tens, twenties and fifties. From these thick stacks, the JP Morgan bankers prepared thin packages of $1000 or $500 each, depending on the denomination, to be placed in the box. They are the ones visible in the film footage. There was never any need for BRH to separate them further. All he did was wrap them in the newspaper wrappers that Michael posted on the board the other day. There were 25 packages of $20 bills (five of these were Federal Reserve Notes) at 50 bills per package = $1,000 per package; 15 packages of $10 gold certificates at 100 bills per package = $1,000 per package; and 20 packages of $5 bills at 100 bills per package = $500 per package in the box. (Since the $20,000 in $50 bills were not handed over to CJ, they are disregarded here.) The box contained 60 individually wrapped packages to a total of 4750 bills. This packaging pattern is clearly reflected in the yellow handwritten ledger pages citing the serial numbers. For example, package #1 of the $10 GC is recorded on Pages 43 - 46 in the ledger, with 29 bills on p. 43; 29 bills on p. 44; 29 bills on p. 45; and 13 bills on p. 46 = 100 bills = $1000. The pattern is then repeated on the following pages, sometimes with variations but always ending in $1000 for the tens. The packages of fives and twenties have their own pages and recording patterns. Jafsie had stated that the packages were not stacked on top of each other in the box but rather in an upright position against each other (wish I could find the statement). Hauptmann had also said he discovered the soaked shoebox on a rainy Sunday in August 1934. Mark Falzini had determined that the only rainy Sunday that month was August 12. Hauptmann had wrapped the money packages in newspapers dated June 25 and September 6, presumably all at the same time (i.e. not before Sept. 6). In the summer, it would not have taken 25 days for the money to dry, so even BRH's alleged drying timeline for the lot sounds fishy. In summary: Hauptmann kept the packages prepared by JP Morgan pretty much intact even after he wrapped or rewrapped them in newspaper (there was some minor rearrangement). Following the money is always a good idea, as it reveals a lot. |
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by Joe on Dec 13, 2020 18:17:10 GMT -5
Thanks Mbg, for the trial reference and denominations breakdown. Regarding the “4 bundles” as Hauptmann testified to, I'd speculate here that he was probably referring to 4 stacks of bills as they would have appeared to him at first glance when he removed the shoebox lid. The attached photo shows 4 stacks of money (unknown number of packages) in a typical safe deposit box, and I show this only to demonstrate how the alleged “4 bundles” of money would probably have been oriented similarly in an average shoebox to make best use of the actual box dimensions. This safe deposit box is not as high or perhaps as deep as an average shoebox, but it’s fairly close in terms of its length. View Attachment Based on the dimensions of US paper currency of the time, (small bill size 6.14” X 2.61” initiated with the 1928 series) and when the ransom note writer specified the box dimensions to Lindbergh, he was clearly accounting for an arrangement which would have seen 5 stacks of bills oriented in similar fashion in the box. Regarding the 15 packages of money found in the garage, would these not have been individually repackaged by Hauptmann (or perhaps even Fisch?) for the purpose of more easily managing their spending? In any case, these packages which were demonstrated by authorities in the old newsreels, appear to me to have been much slimmer and more loosely packed than the very beefy and compressed packages originally assembled by the Federal Reserve. Joe, the beefy and compressed packages you refer to are the initial packages assembled by denomination: the fives, tens, twenties and fifties. From these thick stacks, the JP Morgan bankers prepared thin packages of $1000 or $500 each, depending on the denomination, to be placed in the box. They are the ones visible in the film footage. There was never any need for BRH to separate them further. All he did was wrap them in the newspaper wrappers that Michael posted on the board the other day. There were 25 packages of $20 bills (five of these were Federal Reserve Notes) at 50 bills per package = $1,000 per package; 15 packages of $10 gold certificates at 100 bills per package = $1,000 per package; and 20 packages of $5 bills at 100 bills per package = $500 per package in the box. (Since the $20,000 in $50 bills were not handed over to CJ, they are disregarded here.) The box contained 60 individually wrapped packages to a total of 4750 bills. This packaging pattern is clearly reflected in the yellow handwritten ledger pages citing the serial numbers. For example, package #1 of the $10 GC is recorded on Pages 43 - 46 in the ledger, with 29 bills on p. 43; 29 bills on p. 44; 29 bills on p. 45; and 13 bills on p. 46 = 100 bills = $1000. The pattern is then repeated on the following pages, sometimes with variations but always ending in $1000 for the tens. The packages of fives and twenties have their own pages and recording patterns. Jafsie had stated that the packages were not stacked on top of each other in the box but rather in an upright position against each other (wish I could find the statement). Hauptmann had also said he discovered the soaked shoebox on a rainy Sunday in August 1934. Mark Falzini had determined that the only rainy Sunday that month was August 12. Hauptmann had wrapped the money packages in newspapers dated June 25 and September 6, presumably all at the same time (i.e. not before Sept. 6). In the summer, it would not have taken 25 days for the money to dry, so even BRH's alleged drying timeline for the lot sounds fishy. In summary: Hauptmann kept the packages prepared by JP Morgan pretty much intact even after he wrapped or rewrapped them in newspaper (there was some minor rearrangement). Following the money is always a good idea, as it reveals a lot. The detail you're providing here Mbg, makes me realize just how much I've forgotten about the ransom payment or never understood fully in the first place. And I hadn’t previously read that the bill packages had been placed in the box standing up, so to speak. Do you remember if Condon stated the bills were standing vertically on their long or short sides? Perhaps this was done intentionally to demonstrate to CJ at a glance, there was no phony paper filling underneath. Just getting back to the issue of whether or not the garage hoard ($14,600+) would have fit inside a shoebox. Based on the volume afforded by both the ransom box and an average shoebox, which would have been quite similar, and knowing the ransom box originally held all 60 wrapped packages, I don’t see Hauptmann’s claim of having found 15 packages within the closet shoebox, to be unreasonable at all. They should have fit inside such a box quite comfortably with room to spare. Of course, and if Fisch actually did leave him with the gold certificates, I don’t buy Hauptmann's claim that he had no idea they were Lindbergh ransom bills. I also believe he is referring to 4 "stacks" of money seen in the shoebox oriented similar to that in the safe deposit box photo I posted, with any given amount of packages in each stack, as opposed to a grand total of 4 "bundles" of bills. As far as Hauptmann’s claim that he had to separate the waterlogged bills to dry them out, was he then actually saying then that he only separated the individually wrapped packages of $1000 apiece from each other, when he dried them in the alleged basket? My original thinking on this was that he had opened the packages in order to separate one individual bill from another. Bottom line here for me, is that if he never actually opened the original packaging to begin with, the damning nature of any claim that the bills were individually dried out and then spent sequentially in line with the original JP Morgan packing order, is essentially neutralized. |
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Dec 13, 2020 20:59:18 GMT -5
Hope this helps visualize how 967 bills (the total number found in BRH's garage) would look like stacked one bill on top of another.
My bank tells me that 233 pristine bills will make a 1" stack.
That means that 967 pristine bills would make a 4.2" stack.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by Joe on Dec 14, 2020 8:17:45 GMT -5
Hope this helps visualize how 967 bills (the total number found in BRH's garage) would look like stacked one bill on top of another. My bank tells me that 233 pristine bills will make a 1" stack. That means that 967 pristine bills would make a 4.2" stack. Based on the ransom money having been paid in circulated bills, and assuming a thickness bulking factor of 2-3X the original thickness of pristine uncirculated examples, we'd have roughly an 8-12" stack of bills oriented one on top of another, comprised of the 15 individually wrapped packages. This of course, would also be dependent on how tightly the bills were bound by their paper wrapping, but I think it's a fairly safe bet the above packages would have fit inside an average shoebox with some room to spare. |
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Dec 14, 2020 12:19:21 GMT -5
Hope this helps visualize how 967 bills (the total number found in BRH's garage) would look like stacked one bill on top of another. My bank tells me that 233 pristine bills will make a 1" stack. That means that 967 pristine bills would make a 4.2" stack. Based on the ransom money having been paid in circulated bills, and assuming a thickness bulking factor of 2-3X the original thickness of pristine uncirculated examples, we'd have roughly an 8-12" stack of bills oriented one on top of another, comprised of the 15 individually wrapped packages. This of course, would also be dependent on how tightly the bills were bound by their paper wrapping, but I think it's a fairly safe bet the above packages would have fit inside an average shoebox with some room to spare. In looking for Jafsie's statement about the upright placement of the bundles (did not find it), I came upon some e-mails from friends about the wrapping of the money, one quoting from Fisher's book: "Bundles of the money were bound together by string. These stacks were made up of smaller packets held together by paper bands from the Morgan Bank. Samples of the string and paper bands were placed in a J.P. Morgan bank vault." Another read: "The bundles were wrapped in brown paper tied with string." This seems to indicate that the small $1,000 (tens and twenties) and $500 packets (fives) were held together by the paper bands and that these packets were likely bundled in some fashion and wrapped in thin brown paper, the kind Hauptmann described seeing in the box. One thing is certain: He saw the money in its original packaging. |
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by Joe on Dec 15, 2020 9:14:33 GMT -5
Based on the ransom money having been paid in circulated bills, and assuming a thickness bulking factor of 2-3X the original thickness of pristine uncirculated examples, we'd have roughly an 8-12" stack of bills oriented one on top of another, comprised of the 15 individually wrapped packages. This of course, would also be dependent on how tightly the bills were bound by their paper wrapping, but I think it's a fairly safe bet the above packages would have fit inside an average shoebox with some room to spare. In looking for Jafsie's statement about the upright placement of the bundles (did not find it), I came upon some e-mails from friends about the wrapping of the money, one quoting from Fisher's book: "Bundles of the money were bound together by string. These stacks were made up of smaller packets held together by paper bands from the Morgan Bank. Samples of the string and paper bands were placed in a J.P. Morgan bank vault." Another read: "The bundles were wrapped in brown paper tied with string." This seems to indicate that the small $1,000 (tens and twenties) and $500 packets (fives) were held together by the paper bands and that these packets were likely bundled in some fashion and wrapped in thin brown paper, the kind Hauptmann described seeing in the box. One thing is certain: He saw the money in its original packaging. If Hauptmann had only separated the individually wrapped packages from each other in the garage, then it should seem no surprise that the bills were passed sequentially, according to their original packing order. On the other hand, if the bills really had been saturated by rains to the extent he claimed, I can't imagine how he would have been content to just let them dry out while they were still bound together within their original wrapping. Which also tells that the shoebox, if it actually was given to Hauptmann by Fisch on the evening of his December 1933 farewell party, did not spend any considerable amount of time on the top shelf of the kitchen closet before being moved to a more secure location, ie. his garage. |
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Dec 15, 2020 10:04:19 GMT -5
So, given that assumption Joe, we can say that Anna Hauptmann was not lying when she said she never noticed the shoebox on the top shelf of the closet because it probably wasn't there for long. I was always skeptical that she didn't see it. I still think she had to have her suspicions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Dec 15, 2020 11:04:59 GMT -5
In looking for Jafsie's statement about the upright placement of the bundles (did not find it), I came upon some e-mails from friends about the wrapping of the money, one quoting from Fisher's book: "Bundles of the money were bound together by string. These stacks were made up of smaller packets held together by paper bands from the Morgan Bank. Samples of the string and paper bands were placed in a J.P. Morgan bank vault." Another read: "The bundles were wrapped in brown paper tied with string." This seems to indicate that the small $1,000 (tens and twenties) and $500 packets (fives) were held together by the paper bands and that these packets were likely bundled in some fashion and wrapped in thin brown paper, the kind Hauptmann described seeing in the box. One thing is certain: He saw the money in its original packaging. If Hauptmann had only separated the individually wrapped packages from each other in the garage, then it should seem no surprise that the bills were passed sequentially, according to their original packing order. On the other hand, if the bills really had been saturated by rains to the extent he claimed, I can't imagine how he would have been content to just let them dry out while they were still bound together within their original wrapping. Which also tells that the shoebox, if it actually was given to Hauptmann by Fisch on the evening of his December 1933 farewell party, did not spend any considerable amount of time on the top shelf of the kitchen closet before being moved to a more secure location, ie. his garage. Joe, if this helps, here is a decent screenshot of one of the 15 bundles found in the shellac can. You can see how it is wrapped.  Mbg is right... no way did BRH separate 967 "wet" bills, then let them dry, then put them back into 15 separately wrapped bundles in the exact same order recorded by the Treasury Department. Actually, I think that Fisch might have given BRH a shoebox to keep. But it did not contain the ransom money. It contained photographs. In a 1936 deposition, Fisch's "secretary" Margarethe Hedwig Helfert claimed that 3 weeks before Fisch left for Germany he showed her "...a number of photographs that he had of his people and some friends which he kept in a shoe box with some other papers." I think it's possible that Fisch did give BRH this shoebox of photos to keep and after BRH was arrested, he fabricated the Fisch Story to explain the ransom money in his possession. Bottom line: The shoebox had photos, not ransom money. The ransom money was in the garage from April 3rd on. |
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by Joe on Dec 16, 2020 8:38:52 GMT -5
Photographs are an interesting possibility Wayne, along with the idea that Fisch might have also have had specific papers he wanted to make sure were kept safe with Hauptmann prior to his anticipated return from Germany. Kloppenburg certainly seemed to have been adamant about Isidor having brought a shoebox with him the evening of his send-off party, although I don't recall any of the other party goers seconding that specific sighting. Hauptmann certainly would have had ample time to hatch the kind of story that would explain his possession of the remaining ransom money, over the five and a half months between Fisch's death and the time of his arrest.
I’m sure Fisch was a very lovely guy. There’s no question he was extremely personable, socially engaging and a delight to be with at parties, or during a heart-to-heart conversation. His membership within the Chrzanower Association brought him into contact with dozens of young Jewish men who would ultimately vouch for his undeniable honesty, modest means and strength of character. But we also have the benefit of knowing much more than the sanitized version of his character and means, as presented by those at the time who simply wished to distance him from anything related to the LKC, and in order to clear the road for presenting the mute Hauptmann as a Lone Wolf. Fisch was an accomplished conman and a master at keeping people isolated from each other in a way that allowed him to conduct business to his monetary advantage only. I believe there is enough evidence to strongly suggest he was involved within the attempted sale of “hot money” to Arthur Trost through the contact Fritz on East 86th Ave. I also believe he could well have been the penurious-looking little guy who tried to pass off a bunch of five dollar bills to teller James McWhan at the train station counter. I don’t have the detail on that with me now, but remember the teller’s name.
Overall, and given what we have the benefit of knowing about Fisch today, I find it an absolute stretch to believe his only interest with his close friend and business partner Richard Hauptmann, whom we also know was up to his eyeballs in the LKC, was a legal venture in stocks and furs. Of course, this doesn’t mean he would have handed over almost $15,000 in Lindbergh ransom money in front of others at a party, but there is also some evidence as suggested by Agent Frank that the amount jibes nicely with what appears to be a credit towards Fisch from Hauptmann in one of his ledger books. So regardless of how it arrived in his garage or went back and forth, I keep Fisch well within my sights on that account.
Thanks for the screen shot. Those British Pathe newsreels are great, and where I first saw that footage of authorities displaying the ransom gold certificates from the Erco shellac can. Have you seen the one where Charlie Williamson of the Hopewell PD is being interviewed? He claims quite clearly that he was the one advised Charles Lindbergh not to open the ransom letter envelope shortly after he arrived at the house!
|
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Dec 16, 2020 9:48:25 GMT -5
Have you seen the one where Charlie Williamson of the Hopewell PD is being interviewed? He claims quite clearly that he was the one advised Charles Lindbergh not to open the ransom letter envelope shortly after he arrived at the house! Hey Joe, Yes! Here's the clip: www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z-2QLM25gYYou have to wonder if Lindbergh ever saw this and what he thought. It's mind-boggling how many conflicting versions of the same event are told in this case. At least 4 men were present when the ransom money was put into the wooden box at Condon's house. Lindbergh, Breck, Condon, and Reich. All four give different accounts. Maddening! |
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 16, 2020 11:15:24 GMT -5
As far as Hauptmann’s claim that he had to separate the waterlogged bills to dry them out, was he then actually saying then that he only separated the individually wrapped packages of $1000 apiece from each other, when he dried them in the alleged basket? My original thinking on this was that he had opened the packages in order to separate one individual bill from another. Bottom line here for me, is that if he never actually opened the original packaging to begin with, the damning nature of any claim that the bills were individually dried out and then spent sequentially in line with the original JP Morgan packing order, is essentially neutralized. There's so much to consider regarding this matter. First and foremost is that Hauptmann lied, however, he also told the truth. The trick is to determine where both occurred isn't it? We know, for example, there was a leak in that closet. Now anyone who has been following my posts over the years will know that I've consistently said good liars typically use real events to co-mingle them with their fabrications in order to sound believable. So the question for me becomes: Did any of the ransom get wet? If it did, then how was it dried out? As anyone whoever had some bills get wet knows, they must be separated to dry or they will get stuck together and have to be torn apart. So that brings me to the sometime police assertion that some of these bills had a musty/moldy type smell to them which led to the assumption about being buried in the crock under the garage floor that was found with water in it. Next, we do know that some bills were spend in their packing order. But this does not mean that all were. For example, if Joe gave me a bundle to pass, even though his method would be to pass them one after the other, I might personally choose to pull some from the middle. Since its clear (to me anyway) that others were involved in passing ransom, there's no way to know how they chose to do this. Also, the fact that certain bundles were found in Hauptmann's possession doesn't mean he was the only one to have laundered any of the money in that sequence. Think Mueller. If he was passing money then it came from Hauptmann - or at least that's where my head is at. Hauptmann is supposed to be the stock guy ... the money guy. So it makes sense that he's in charge of it. Overall, and given what we have the benefit of knowing about Fisch today, I find it an absolute stretch to believe his only interest with his close friend and business partner Richard Hauptmann, whom we also know was up to his eyeballs in the LKC, was a legal venture in stocks and furs. Of course, this doesn’t mean he would have handed over almost $15,000 in Lindbergh ransom money in front of others at a party, but there is also some evidence as suggested by Agent Frank that the amount jibes nicely with what appears to be a credit towards Fisch from Hauptmann in one of his ledger books. So regardless of how it arrived in his garage or went back and forth, I keep Fisch well within my sights on that account. Fisch was so poor that he had money to take dancing lessons? And he got so good at it that he sometimes helped teach others. A far cry from a guy who was so broke that he was supposed to be sleeping on park benches. Hard for me to picture Fisch doing he Tango but he did. And it goes against everything we're "supposed" to believe about him. From my perspective, the business partnership was created to both legitimize the laundered money and eventually make more from that clean money. In my opinion, there's no way Fisch doesn't know what's going on here. Considering the risk involved, ho much would it take to get him on board? If that amount existed, and it was in ransom money meant to be laundered, would Fisch have returned it to Hauptmann to hold before leaving for Germany? It was a pretty good partnership if you think about it. Fisch being so secretive and keeping people separated from one another and Hauptmann who went to the electric chair rather than rat out the confederates. |
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by Joe on Dec 16, 2020 11:20:51 GMT -5
Have you seen the one where Charlie Williamson of the Hopewell PD is being interviewed? He claims quite clearly that he was the one advised Charles Lindbergh not to open the ransom letter envelope shortly after he arrived at the house! Hey Joe, Yes! Here's the clip: www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z-2QLM25gYYou have to wonder if Lindbergh ever saw this and what he thought. It's mind-boggling how many conflicting versions of the same event are told in this case. At least 4 men were present when the ransom money was put into the wooden box at Condon's house. Lindbergh, Breck, Condon, and Reich. All four give different accounts. Maddening! It's a great clip, and I'd say Williamson throws a bit of a wet blanket over the popular notion that it was simply Lindbergh's steely nerve, restraint, anticipation and by extension, a willing participant within an elaborate fake kidnapping. Williamson is also the voice who recalled Lindbergh's early remark about having heard what he thought was the sound of orange crate slats hitting the kitchen floor, a memory he didn't repeat again until much later. In my estimation, a telling example of the erratic nature of human recall and omission, given the tumultuousness of events that suddenly arose that evening. |
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 16, 2020 11:33:33 GMT -5
It's a great clip, and I'd say Williamson throws a bit of a wet blanket over the popular notion that it was simply Lindbergh's steely nerve, restraint, anticipation and by extension, a willing participant within an elaborate fake kidnapping. Williamson is also the voice who recalled Lindbergh's early remark about having heard what he thought was the sound of orange crate slats hitting the kitchen floor, a memory he didn't repeat again until much later. In my estimation, a telling example of the erratic nature of human recall and omission, given the tumultuousness of events that suddenly arose that evening. Huh? You picking and choosing here kinda makes me laugh a little. No two people ever think the same thing then? So you don't believe Lindbergh? Or you do? Which is it? So Lindbergh hadn't previously decided to do the same thing, and if not, he wouldn't have done what he decided was best anyway? |
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by Joe on Dec 16, 2020 11:48:43 GMT -5
It's a great clip, and I'd say Williamson throws a bit of a wet blanket over the popular notion that it was simply Lindbergh's steely nerve, restraint, anticipation and by extension, a willing participant within an elaborate fake kidnapping. Williamson is also the voice who recalled Lindbergh's early remark about having heard what he thought was the sound of orange crate slats hitting the kitchen floor, a memory he didn't repeat again until much later. In my estimation, a telling example of the erratic nature of human recall and omission, given the tumultuousness of events that suddenly arose that evening. Huh? You picking and choosing here kinda makes me laugh a little. No two people ever think the same thing then? So you don't believe Lindbergh? Or you do? Which is it? So Lindbergh hadn't previously decided to do the same thing, and if not, he wouldn't have done what he decided was best anyway? I'll turn the Huh? around to you Michael. What am I picking and choosing here? |
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 16, 2020 14:14:22 GMT -5
I'll turn the Huh? around to you Michael. What am I picking and choosing here? How does this "throw a wet blanket" on anything? Anything at all? It was Williamson who testified that Lindbergh told everyone who entered the nursery " not to touch anything" because he did not want them to " obliterate fingerprints if there were any." I would expect, after being given these instructions, that Wolfe and Williamson both agreed with this suggestion. It wasn't like Lindbergh saw the letter, rushed over to tear it open like any normal father would hoping to learn the location of his son, and Williamson stopped him. |
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by Joe on Dec 16, 2020 15:47:01 GMT -5
How does Lindbergh telling everyone who entered the nursery not to touch anything negate the significance of Williamson advising him and Anne not to open the envelope? Is it possible Lindbergh was actually heeding some advice from the local police he had specifically requested be called in, or would such a scenario be anathema to you? Yet again, you precariously towards another piece of "compelling evidence" as you seem to see these things, and which demonstrates just how Lindbergh stepped up from the get go to summarily "lay down the law" so that he could intentionally misalign, confuse and generally screw up the investigation from its beginning. In this case, it's simply based on something he didn't do that you would have done. This is a technique that Pearlman employs in her book in royal spades and honestly, it gets tiring very quickly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 16, 2020 16:55:07 GMT -5
How does Lindbergh telling everyone who entered the nursery not to touch anything negate the significance of Williamson advising him and Anne not to open the envelope? Is it possible Lindbergh was actually heeding some advice from the local police he had specifically requested be called in, or would such a scenario be anathema to you? Yet again, you precariously towards another piece of "compelling evidence" as you seem to see these things, and which demonstrates just how Lindbergh stepped up from the get go to summarily "lay down the law" so that he could intentionally misalign, confuse and generally screw up the investigation from its beginning. In this case, it's simply based on something he didn't do that you would have done. This is a technique that Pearlman employs in her book in royal spades and honestly, it gets tiring very quickly. Looks like you are projecting again Joe  You search and search until you see something, anything in fact, that you can point to in order to disqualify certain possibilities you do not like. Problem is what was said in this clip does not for many reasons to include what the very real testimony I quoted above proves. My position that a normal parent concerned for their child would have wanted to open that letter immediately not withstanding. So what Williamson said threw a “wet blanket” on what again? The answer is nothing. Fact is that Lindbergh did immediately lay down the rules concerning this nursery. Think about this for a second. Worried about fingerprints? The note could have said the child was tied to a tree a mile away. And yet, he resisted recording the serial numbers on the ransom because he didn’t want to break his “word.” Again - think about this. The child is secondary in both events. The serial numbers would help catch the culprits, and yet, so would the fingerprints. It’s a contradiction until - SURPRISE - there were no fingerprints. |
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Dec 17, 2020 8:58:13 GMT -5
It's difficult to determine what is "normal behavior" in certain circumstances, especially in emergencies for which we are
totally unprepared. Lindbergh's reaction, upon recognizing that his child was taken, was to tell the butler to call investigators and
grab his gun and go looking for his child and the kidnappers. If they were still in the vicinity he would have been able to
rescue the child immediately. The ransom note was, at this point, secondary to his attempt at rescue. He could not have
anticipated that there were no fingerprints on the note. The note itself does not address him directly except by "Dear Sir"
and, as is usual in these situations, warns him not to call the police. He had already instructed his butler to make the call,
and that led to serious problems as identified in the second ransom note. In kidnapping cases, the parents are warned
not to call the police, or the child may be harmed. Some children who were taken were found dead or "disappeared"
for good. If Lindbergh had not called the police and had been able to pass the ransom money to those holding the
child in three or four days (as they had probably anticipated), he might have been able to get the child back--if the
child had survived the snatch. Lindbergh's actions delayed the situation to the frustration of the kidnappers who upped
the amount as a warning signal. The child died, whether by accident, deliberate action, or illness ( perhaps pneumonia).
Lindbergh, who placed his trust mainly in his own opinions and prided himself on his self-control, contributed to the
bungling of the case, and by his actions caused delay in responding to the kidnappers. If the child died by accident
on the night of the snatch, it would have made no difference. If the child survived that night, Lindbergh's actions
contributed to the confusion and the child's death.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Dec 17, 2020 13:00:08 GMT -5
It's difficult to determine what is "normal behavior" in certain circumstances, especially in emergencies for which we are totally unprepared. Lindbergh's reaction, upon recognizing that his child was taken, was to tell the butler to call investigators and grab his gun and go looking for his child and the kidnappers. If they were still in the vicinity he would have been able to rescue the child immediately. Agreed, but you know what bothers me? When Lindbergh found the ransom note on the window sill, why didn't he look out the window? Just as you said, on the off chance that the kidnapper(s) were still in the vicinity. Also, I've checked with a FBI archivist in Washington, D.C. and asked, since the 1932 Lindbergh Law, how many parents who have received sealed ransom notes did not open them until law enforcement showed up? In thousands of kidnapping cases since 1932, he was only aware of one case where a ransom note was not opened the second it was found. |
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Dec 17, 2020 16:52:22 GMT -5
Well, it's ten o'clock at night, and that means it's dark outside. If you look out the window at that time of night in an
unlighted place, you won't see much. Grabbing the gun was Lindbergh's first reaction, and he went to see if the kidnappers
and child were in the vicinity. He was known to be a good shot, and he would have been able to "persuade" the
kidnappers to return the child when they saw the weapon. Of course, we know that they were long gone, but he
would not have known that. He told the butler to call authorities while he was doing that. Opening the letter and
reading it would take some time away from the search and calling the police who would respond immediately.
Perhaps other parents would read the ransom letter immediately, but if the kidnappers were still in the area,
then Lindbergh could well have decided that it would be more important to rescue the child, catch the kidnappers,
and take them into custody.
|
|
|
|
Post by trojan on Dec 18, 2020 3:41:51 GMT -5
Well, it's ten o'clock at night, and that means it's dark outside. If you look out the window at that time of night in an unlighted place, you won't see much. Grabbing the gun was Lindbergh's first reaction, and he went to see if the kidnappers and child were in the vicinity. He was known to be a good shot, and he would have been able to "persuade" the kidnappers to return the child when they saw the weapon. Of course, we know that they were long gone, but he would not have known that. He told the butler to call authorities while he was doing that. Opening the letter and reading it would take some time away from the search and calling the police who would respond immediately. Perhaps other parents would read the ransom letter immediately, but if the kidnappers were still in the area, then Lindbergh could well have decided that it would be more important to rescue the child, catch the kidnappers, and take them into custody. What? Even after Lindbergh returned to the house he told everyone to wait for the authorities to open the note. On one hand, he makes this hasty decision to be a father in dire need of rescuing his son. On the other hand, after returning from his cursory search in the dark, he has all the time in the world to wait for the fingerprint analyst. What if the note said "meet us in one hour or your child dies"? Then what? This is just one aspect in a series of bizarre acts by Lindbergh over the course of the investigation. The man never showed a semblance of caring about his missing son, having a grand old time instead by playing practical jokes and clowning around. |
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by Joe on Dec 18, 2020 7:04:10 GMT -5
How does Lindbergh telling everyone who entered the nursery not to touch anything negate the significance of Williamson advising him and Anne not to open the envelope? Is it possible Lindbergh was actually heeding some advice from the local police he had specifically requested be called in, or would such a scenario be anathema to you? Yet again, you precariously towards another piece of "compelling evidence" as you seem to see these things, and which demonstrates just how Lindbergh stepped up from the get go to summarily "lay down the law" so that he could intentionally misalign, confuse and generally screw up the investigation from its beginning. In this case, it's simply based on something he didn't do that you would have done. This is a technique that Pearlman employs in her book in royal spades and honestly, it gets tiring very quickly. Looks like you are projecting again Joe You search and search until you see something, anything in fact, that you can point to in order to disqualify certain possibilities you do not like. Problem is what was said in this clip does not for many reasons to include what the very real testimony I quoted above proves. My position that a normal parent concerned for their child would have wanted to open that letter immediately not withstanding. So what Williamson said threw a “wet blanket” on what again? The answer is nothing. Fact is that Lindbergh did immediately lay down the rules concerning this nursery. Think about this for a second. Worried about fingerprints? The note could have said the child was tied to a tree a mile away. And yet, he resisted recording the serial numbers on the ransom because he didn’t want to break his “word.” Again - think about this. The child is secondary in both events. The serial numbers would help catch the culprits, and yet, so would the fingerprints. It’s a contradiction until - SURPRISE - there were no fingerprints. I think you might have things a bit backwards when it comes to projection, my friend. Child tied to a tree a mile away? Really.. who on earth would have done this? The gang that couldn’t kidnap straight.. or were they possibly union kidnappers who had to take a break at that particular time of their getaway.. lol? And perhaps you have a whole list of things a normal parent would do under the same circumstances you’d like to share here? Regarding the Williamson early on-camera statement, under your normal operating conditions and if you felt it would score points for your purposes, you would point to this and say, “There, you see? Evidence from the very beginning that Lindbergh might have been in some way influenced by Williamson’s advice not to open the envelope, but of course by the time he got to trial he had changed his tune.." Alas though it does not agree, therefore it must be explained away. I think the real problem for you here is that this little candid moment suggests Lindbergh might have been reacting more humanly and spontaneously than the robotic way you would have him carrying out a predetermined plan of action to support some grand fauxnapping scheme. Lindbergh by nature, took charge of a situation that ultimately proved to be well beyond his control. His immediate actions speak of someone who had little interest in standing around trying to decide what a normal parent would or wouldn’t do. He grabbed a gun in order to try and intervene if the kidnappers were still on the property, had Whateley call the police, and then realizing the kidnappers were long gone, had the presence of mind to insist that the integrity of any of the physical evidence within the nursery not be compromised. As far as Lindbergh not wanting to record serial numbers of the ransom bills, did he ever prove himself to be inconsistent regarding his reasoning behind this? Throughout the ransom negotiations, he maintained that he didn’t want to heighten the possibility of his child being harmed, which he felt might happen if the kidnappers realized the numbers had been recorded. Is this action really treating the child as secondary? |
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by Joe on Dec 18, 2020 7:13:23 GMT -5
It's difficult to determine what is "normal behavior" in certain circumstances, especially in emergencies for which we are totally unprepared. Lindbergh's reaction, upon recognizing that his child was taken, was to tell the butler to call investigators and grab his gun and go looking for his child and the kidnappers. If they were still in the vicinity he would have been able to rescue the child immediately. Agreed, but you know what bothers me? When Lindbergh found the ransom note on the window sill, why didn't he look out the window? Just as you said, on the off chance that the kidnapper(s) were still in the vicinity. Also, I've checked with a FBI archivist in Washington, D.C. and asked, since the 1932 Lindbergh Law, how many parents who have received sealed ransom notes did not open them until law enforcement showed up? In thousands of kidnapping cases since 1932, he was only aware of one case where a ransom note was not opened the second it was found. Wayne, it's a great question to ask someone in the know. But I find the answer you claim to have been given a very tough one to believe. Are you telling me that in the thousands of kidnapping cases from the time of the LKC, not one parent given the many potential avenues and conditions of discovery, called the police right away and were told to not touch anything including a possible ransom note? |
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by Joe on Dec 18, 2020 7:28:45 GMT -5
Well, it's ten o'clock at night, and that means it's dark outside. If you look out the window at that time of night in an unlighted place, you won't see much. Grabbing the gun was Lindbergh's first reaction, and he went to see if the kidnappers and child were in the vicinity. He was known to be a good shot, and he would have been able to "persuade" the kidnappers to return the child when they saw the weapon. Of course, we know that they were long gone, but he would not have known that. He told the butler to call authorities while he was doing that. Opening the letter and reading it would take some time away from the search and calling the police who would respond immediately. Perhaps other parents would read the ransom letter immediately, but if the kidnappers were still in the area, then Lindbergh could well have decided that it would be more important to rescue the child, catch the kidnappers, and take them into custody. What? Even after Lindbergh returned to the house he told everyone to wait for the authorities to open the note. On one hand, he makes this hasty decision to be a father in dire need of rescuing his son. On the other hand, after returning from his cursory search in the dark, he has all the time in the world to wait for the fingerprint analyst. What if the note said "meet us in one hour or your child dies"? Then what? This is just one aspect in a series of bizarre acts by Lindbergh over the course of the investigation. The man never showed a semblance of caring about his missing son, having a grand old time instead by playing practical jokes and clowning around. So if Lindbergh's in on this thing from the ground level as part of a self-engineered grand fauxnapping as you and many here seem to think, wouldn't his first demonstration of feigned innocence and caring for his son, have been to open the envelope? Would this have "normalized" him in your mind, or would it have just inspired more suspicion? |
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 18, 2020 12:34:52 GMT -5
I think you might have things a bit backwards when it comes to projection, my friend. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.  Child tied to a tree a mile away? Really.. who on earth would have done this? The gang that couldn’t kidnap straight.. or were they possibly union kidnappers who had to take a break at that particular time of their getaway.. lol? Are you kidding me right now? Since he had hidden the child and pretended he was kidnapped - twice - perhaps the note would reveal it was a joke? My point being that he "supposedly" didn't know what it said. And it was the only direct link to his location. So if the "goal" was to find the child, like his supposed effort by grabbing the rifle, running outside potentially trampling the crime scene, in a supposed effort save his child - then opening the letter seems to be even more logical. And perhaps you have a whole list of things a normal parent would do under the same circumstances you’d like to share here? Where appropriate I will. Its up to those who read it to draw their own conclusions. I suppose you are going to tell me you wouldn't have? If so, I call BS so don't even try it. Regarding the Williamson early on-camera statement, under your normal operating conditions and if you felt it would score points for your purposes, you would point to this and say, “There, you see? Evidence from the very beginning that Lindbergh might have been in some way influenced by Williamson’s advice not to open the envelope, but of course by the time he got to trial he had changed his tune.." Alas though it does not agree, therefore it must be explained away. Say what? So let me get this straight: You don't like when I suggest what I consider "normal" behavior and YET here you are telling me what my "normal operating conditions" are? If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is. And you say its me who is projecting? What I actually do is accumulate ALL sources for the event. Pile them to the ceiling if need be. Once I am satisfied I have everything I can possibly find I then sort it all out. Concerning this event what do we have? Lindbergh telling everyone not to touch anything. Wolfe's statement. Williamson's statement. Lindbergh's testimony. Williamson's testimony. Etc. So here you are willing to disregard it all. And what do you rely on this instead? Why? Because you want so desperately to neutralize what you don't like about it but will be sure to use it elsewhere when it appears to help a position that you do. As far as Lindbergh not wanting to record serial numbers of the ransom bills, did he ever prove himself to be inconsistent regarding his reasoning behind this? Throughout the ransom negotiations, he maintained that he didn’t want to heighten the possibility of his child being harmed, which he felt might happen if the kidnappers realized the numbers had been recorded. Is this action really treating the child as secondary? You mean like when he told the men on the Catchalot " to hell with" [searching for his son] " let's play cards" ... like that? Anyway, here's something else you do. If your rule is that no one is allowed to suppose what a normal person would or wouldn't do then how in the hell do you expect to get away with this? Not "liking" what the evidence shows, or what Lindbergh himself said, you come up with an alternative by offering up something Lindbergh did not say instead of what he actually did. So don't believe him about what he was thinking, rather, believe YOU about what he was thinking! Lindbergh said no. And when confronted he told Irey he didn't want to " break his promise..." Not that he was afraid the child would be harmed. Nope. Irey called it " extraordinary ethics" (V2 page 233). The man said it himself as to exactly why he did not want the serial numbers recorded - whether you like it or not. |
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by Joe on Dec 20, 2020 8:25:59 GMT -5
Child tied to a tree a mile away? Really.. who on earth would have done this? The gang that couldn’t kidnap straight.. or were they possibly union kidnappers who had to take a break at that particular time of their getaway.. lol? Are you kidding me right now? Since he had hidden the child and pretended he was kidnapped - twice - perhaps the note would reveal it was a joke? My point being that he "supposedly" didn't know what it said. And it was the only direct link to his location. So if the "goal" was to find the child, like his supposed effort by grabbing the rifle, running outside potentially trampling the crime scene, in a supposed effort save his child - then opening the letter seems to be even more logical. If Lindbergh had have been part of a fauxnapping, would he not have immediately opened the letter, dealt with the kidnappers privately in a way that was clearly demanded in the ransom note, in order to keep a lid on things for the time being and thus allow more distance between the kidnappers and his involvement? Instead, this painfully-reclusive individual instantly throws his front door open to the police, press and the entire world. You’ve consistently related through message boards and books, this same theme about how he was protecting the kidnappers and extortionists at every turn. Why then not at this most critical and formative stage? Instead you now point to the spontaneous action he took to attempt to save his child by running out into the night, and then castigate the man for potentially compromising footprint evidence in the desperation of the moment! Clearly, Lindbergh understood the kidnappers were long gone at that point, so does opening the letter now really help, knowing the police are already enroute? (Joe)And perhaps you have a whole list of things a normal parent would do under the same circumstances you’d like to share here? Where appropriate I will. Its up to those who read it to draw their own conclusions. I suppose you are going to tell me you wouldn't have? If so, I call BS so don't even try it. And I call BS on any armchair or keyboard observer / critic who thinks they know exactly what they would have done under the very same circumstances, in the absence of any prior knowledge about what actually took place here. (Joe) Regarding the Williamson early on-camera statement, under your normal operating conditions and if you felt it would score points for your purposes, you would point to this and say, “There, you see? Evidence from the very beginning that Lindbergh might have been in some way influenced by Williamson’s advice not to open the envelope, but of course by the time he got to trial he had changed his tune.." Alas though it does not agree, therefore it must be explained away. Say what? So let me get this straight: You don't like when I suggest what I consider "normal" behavior and YET here you are telling me what my "normal operating conditions" are? If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is. And you say its me who is projecting? What I actually do is accumulate ALL sources for the event. Pile them to the ceiling if need be. Once I am satisfied I have everything I can possibly find I then sort it all out. Concerning this event what do we have? Lindbergh telling everyone not to touch anything. Wolfe's statement. Williamson's statement. Lindbergh's testimony. Williamson's testimony. Etc. So here you are willing to disregard it all. And what do you rely on this instead? Why? Because you want so desperately to neutralize what you don't like about it but will be sure to use it elsewhere when it appears to help a position that you do. You're getting hung up on variations in the English language here. Try substituting the word “standard” in “your normal operating conditions”, and you may see my point. Another thing, and I'm not really sure why you find this whole nursery scene and the dynamics that played out, so odd. Lindbergh, exerting his influence as perceived head of the household, is telling everyone else in the household not to touch anything in the nursery, in order to preserve the integrity of physical evidence. And you seem to find this strange and unusual behaviour because..? (Joe) As far as Lindbergh not wanting to record serial numbers of the ransom bills, did he ever prove himself to be inconsistent regarding his reasoning behind this? Throughout the ransom negotiations, he maintained that he didn’t want to heighten the possibility of his child being harmed, which he felt might happen if the kidnappers realized the numbers had been recorded. Is this action really treating the child as secondary? You mean like when he told the men on the Catchalot " to hell with" [searching for his son] " let's play cards" ... like that? Anyway, here's something else you do. If your rule is that no one is allowed to suppose what a normal person would or wouldn't do then how in the hell do you expect to get away with this? Not "liking" what the evidence shows, or what Lindbergh himself said, you come up with an alternative by offering up something Lindbergh did not say instead of what he actually did. So don't believe him about what he was thinking, rather, believe YOU about what he was thinking! Lindbergh said no. And when confronted he told Irey he didn't want to " break his promise..." Not that he was afraid the child would be harmed. Nope. Irey called it " extraordinary ethics" (V2 page 233). The man said it himself as to exactly why he did not want the serial numbers recorded - whether you like it or not. Lindbergh naively believed the kidnappers would honour their part of the bargain and he was consistent within that theme, even when Condon questioned it time and time again. Here is another great example of how you project, that by not wanting the serial numbers recorded, Lindbergh was by intent now trying to protect the extortionists when he was only agreeing to their demand, and by doing so, believing they would return the child unharmed. (Joe) |
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 22, 2020 12:08:09 GMT -5
If Lindbergh had have been part of a fauxnapping, would he not have immediately opened the letter, dealt with the kidnappers privately in a way that was clearly demanded in the ransom note, in order to keep a lid on things for the time being and thus allow more distance between the kidnappers and his involvement? Instead, this painfully-reclusive individual instantly throws his front door open to the police, press and the entire world. You’ve consistently related through message boards and books, this same theme about how he was protecting the kidnappers and extortionists at every turn. Why then not at this most critical and formative stage? Instead you now point to the spontaneous action he took to attempt to save his child by running out into the night, and then castigate the man for potentially compromising footprint evidence in the desperation of the moment! Clearly, Lindbergh understood the kidnappers were long gone at that point, so does opening the letter now really help, knowing the police are already enroute? (Joe) There you go again Joe. According to your "rules" no one is allowed to do what you just did without getting verbally reprimanded by you. Can we now agree its okay to do this? Without doing so the playing field will never be level. Lindbergh wasn't consistent and I see his actions as a contradiction. Either he wants to find him or he doesn't. Again, the note would appear to hold the answers he sought by running outside with his rifle. Running around blindly in the dark searching for the culprit are never good odds. But reading a note left by them are.
To answer your question "no." Assuming he wasn't being sincere, by pretending to believe there were prints, he effectively delayed the process and, in his mind, very likely put himself in a position to appear ignorant once no prints were found anywhere. After all, it was his idea to preserve the evidence so it might seem like a good move to do this to those who aren't usually involved in crime. For those of us who've dealt with it - not so much. For example, whenever anyone ever gave me information about someone/something nine times out of ten they were engaged in illegal conduct themselves - perhaps even worse. It's how certain brains work and why legitimate experience counts. And so, I am suspicious concerning just about every move this man took - or rather - claimed to have taken. And "clearly" what? Need I say it? To hell with it I will: There you go again! If he believed that, and I actually agree that he did (in fact I believe he knew it), then why the "show" by walking around and going neighbor to neighbor and door to door searching for him? See above for the answer. And I call BS on any armchair or keyboard observer / critic who thinks they know exactly what they would have done under the very same circumstances, in the absence of any prior knowledge about what actually took place here. (Joe) So that's what you think of me then? And I've noticed you didn't claim that's what you would have done. Know why? Because you would have opened it just like everyone else. Even I know you are troubled by this but won't let on because it undermines your position. It's okay Joe, your secret is safe with me.  You're getting hung up on variations in the English language here. Try substituting the word “standard” in “your normal operating conditions”, and you may see my point. Another thing, and I'm not really sure why you find this whole nursery scene and the dynamics that played out, so odd. Lindbergh, exerting his influence as perceived head of the household, is telling everyone else in the household not to touch anything in the nursery, in order to preserve the integrity of physical evidence. And you seem to find this strange and unusual behaviour because..? (Joe) Hung up on the English language? I'm not getting hung up, you're getting hung up. Why is it always the other guy who gets hung up? I saw that line on SNL back in the 80s when I still watched it and have been dying to use it ... so thanks for that. Go back to your original point please because you seem to have forgotten what this was all about. Lindbergh naively believed the kidnappers would honour their part of the bargain and he was consistent within that theme, even when Condon questioned it time and time again. Here is another great example of how you project, that by not wanting the serial numbers recorded, Lindbergh was by intent now trying to protect the extortionists when he was only agreeing to their demand, and by doing so, believing they would return the child unharmed. (Joe) " Lindbergh naively believed...." Oh boy. Joe - there you go again.  |
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,743
|
Post by Joe on Dec 29, 2020 6:47:30 GMT -5
Michael, you've been researching this case for far too long without a break, and I don't believe anyone will be too upset if you cap your series at Volume No. 4. Inspiration rarely comes to those whose nose is worn down from the grindstone. You need some Michael time, my friend. |
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 29, 2020 10:39:55 GMT -5
Michael, you've been researching this case for far too long without a break, and I don't believe anyone will be too upset if you cap your series at Volume No. 4. Inspiration rarely comes to those whose nose is worn down from the grindstone. You need some Michael time, my friend. I could stop now Bro. I'm sure there's nothing in the 60+ pages I've written (so far) on Nosovitsky that you'd have any interest in - right? The only reason I write is to provide information to those who want to see new material. And if I don't do it then it will never see the light of day (of that I am quite certain). Have you read the Doherty book yet? Please do. It will teach you a valuable lesson, and once finished you'll be begging me for another volume! Just know that I purchased it thinking I was actually going to learn something new. |
|
|
|
Post by leeforman2 on Dec 29, 2020 12:11:17 GMT -5
Hi Michael, Found this one reference intriguing - I managed to find a number of photos which contain Fisch's lapel pin - but nothing of the sort of quality needed to get a very good look at it. I did attempt to match it roughly against a large number of Masonic pins - without any success. Any ideas on this one? Attachments:
|
|
