|
Post by peternsteinmetz on Sept 1, 2021 11:34:13 GMT -5
In "The Lindbergh Case" by Fischer, notes for chapter 22, Fischer states that his account of Condon's statements at the NYPD lineup come from the official New York City Police Department transcript of the event.
Does anyone have a copy of this transcript or know where it can be obtained?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Sept 2, 2021 9:52:26 GMT -5
In "The Lindbergh Case" by Fischer, notes for chapter 22, Fischer states that his account of Condon's statements at the NYPD lineup come from the official New York City Police Department transcript of the event. Does anyone have a copy of this transcript or know where it can be obtained? Peternsteinmetz, Basically what Fisher has in Chapter 22 is pretty much what is in the transcript. I have the 12-page transcript, but I'm unable to post it here because there seems to be a problem attaching files here. If you PM me with your email address, I'll be glad to email it to you. But beware - not all of what Fisher writes is accurate. For instance, at the bottom of page of page 210 Fisher writes about what Condon was thinking(!) which changes Fisher's book from non-fiction to fiction.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Romeo on Sept 6, 2021 9:56:22 GMT -5
beware of what Wayne scadutos book is got so many mistakes people protect him here. its always Jim's book that everybody has something to say. How come current authors don't debate there books they hit and run. Its apparent you never heard a live debate on this case much different then on a computer
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Sept 6, 2021 10:13:01 GMT -5
beware of what Wayne scadutos book is got so many mistakes people protect him here. its always Jim's book that everybody has something to say. How come current authors don't debate there books they hit and run. Its apparent you never heard a live debate on this case much different then on a computer Steve, I'm not 100% sure what you are trying to say, but I will tell you some facts about Jim Fisher's book (and, yes, I have said this before). Chapter 1 is 7 pages long. Fisher makes 15 mistakes in those 7 pages. Then he begins Chapter 2 claiming the chisel was found "below the baby's window." Sorry, but there is no way you can claim this is good research. With so many mistakes in the first 8 pages, how can you trust anything he writes?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Sept 6, 2021 10:34:23 GMT -5
Steve, Correction, I just found another error on Chapter 1, so Fisher makes a total 16 mistakes in the first 7 pages. On page 9, Fisher writes, " Two of the baby's windows faced south and the other east." In reality, 2 windows face east and the other (the French window) faces south. As an ex-FBI agent, Fisher should know how important it is to actually look at the scene of the crime and to get the basic facts right.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Romeo on Sept 6, 2021 10:37:32 GMT -5
what I'm trying to say scaduto and the others with there absurd theories that lindbergh did it, annes brother and sister did it, nobody has the guts to condemn there books just Jim's book. Authors in the eighties didn't have computers to look up stuff and didnt have ronnelles website that showed another person all of the pictures and peoples hard work research that people getting into the case had it easy. I praise ronnlles dedication towards this case. I know Jim a long time I trust his judgement.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Romeo on Sept 6, 2021 10:40:31 GMT -5
are you this critical of the other lindbergh books or are you afraid to step on the toes of the other authors?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Sept 6, 2021 11:18:10 GMT -5
are you this critical of the other lindbergh books or are you afraid to step on the toes of the other authors? Steve, Do the 2 windows on either side of the fireplace face south as Fisher claims? Was the chisel found below the nursery window? Did Lindbergh himself phone the Morrow home at 11:00 on Tuesday morning and "arranged to have Mrs. Morrow's chauffeur, Henry Ellison, drive the baby's nursemaid to Hopewell"? Steve, Fisher did NOT read (or understand) any of the statements made by Anne, Betty, or Lindbergh. And, of course, I call out mistakes in the other books. When did I say I didn't? Gardner calls Charlie a "two-year-old" on page 92 of The Case That Never Dies.Gardner, Scaduto, Kennedy, they all made mistakes -- none of them made 16 glaring mistakes in 7 pages. Facts do matter in a murder case, don't they? Again, was the chisel found below the nursery window? Yes or no?
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 6, 2021 12:39:01 GMT -5
Wayne you just don't like his belief in the case
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 6, 2021 12:40:42 GMT -5
I guess wayne your book is going to be perfect
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Sept 6, 2021 13:12:23 GMT -5
Wayne you just don't like his belief in the case Just the opposite. I'm 99% convinced that Hauptmann was involved in the kidnapping. I'm 99% convinced that Hauptmann had all of the ransom money. What I don't know is how Hauptmann could have done it. I've posted this before, but Hauptmann must have had intel, otherwise how did he know all of the following? He could have been lucky on a few of these, but not all.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Sept 6, 2021 13:13:21 GMT -5
I guess wayne your book is going to be perfect I promise you, I wouldn't make 16 mistakes in 7 pages. Maybe 15, but not 16
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Sept 6, 2021 13:15:34 GMT -5
Hope you guys don't mind me jumping in here just for a minute. Considering what's being discussed here, I'd have to say the thing that irks me more than author minor detail errors, are quintessential misinterpretations of the evidence without full consideration of all possibilities, which then leads to continuing and cascading support of a personal pet theory established much earlier. I'd have to say Lise Pearlman's travesty in print, "Suspect No. 1" tops my own list, with Ahlgren and Monier not far behind, Scaduto and Kennedy a bit further back.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Sept 6, 2021 13:19:13 GMT -5
Hope you guys don't mind me jumping in here just for a minute. Considering what's being discussed here, I'd have to say the thing that irks me more than author minor detail errors, are quintessential misinterpretations of the evidence without full consideration of all possibilities, which then leads to continuing and cascading support of a personal pet theory established much earlier. I'd have to say Lise Pearlman's travesty in print, "Suspect No. 1" tops my own list, with Ahlgren and Monier not far behind, Scaduto and Kennedy a bit further back. Joe, I completely agree with both your reasoning and your book list. All I am saying is this is a murder case. Facts matter. Period.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Sept 6, 2021 15:50:24 GMT -5
Great wayne
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Sept 7, 2021 8:40:20 GMT -5
Wayne you just don't like his belief in the case Just the opposite. I'm 99% convinced that Hauptmann was involved in the kidnapping. I'm 99% convinced that Hauptmann had all of the ransom money. What I don't know is how Hauptmann could have done it. I've posted this before, but Hauptmann must have had intel, otherwise how did he know all of the following? He could have been lucky on a few of these, but not all. View AttachmentWayne, a few questions and comments on your table. - Charles Lindbergh - Knowledge that Wahgoosh would not bark - Are you referencing the fact that during much of the evening he was sleeping in his basket in the Whateley's servant's quarters? Should this item not pertain more specifically to the Whateley's who arranged for this to happen?
- Charles Lindbergh - Knowledge that Skean was not sleeping in the nursery with Charlie - Are you inferring here that Lindbergh purposely left Skean behind so that he wouldn't be in the nursery while Charlie was sleeping, or just stating that Lindbergh did not bring him from Englewood?
- Betty Gow - Knowledge of dinner time that night and that Wahgoosh would not bark - Betty Gow would have been aware of both of these items, therefore she is as knowledgeable as Lindbergh for all items.
- Anne and the Whateleys would also have been privy to all of the table information, therefore you basically now have 5 adults in the house fully aware of the the items you've listed, right?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Sept 7, 2021 12:36:02 GMT -5
Wayne, a few questions and comments on your table. - Charles Lindbergh - Knowledge that Wahgoosh would not bark - Are you referencing the fact that during much of the evening he was sleeping in his basket in the Whateley's servant's quarters? Should this item not pertain more specifically to the Whateley's who arranged for this to happen?
- Charles Lindbergh - Knowledge that Skean was not sleeping in the nursery with Charlie - Are you inferring here that Lindbergh purposely left Skean behind so that he wouldn't be in the nursery while Charlie was sleeping, or just stating that Lindbergh did not bring him from Englewood?
- Betty Gow - Knowledge of dinner time that night and that Wahgoosh would not bark - Betty Gow would have been aware of both of these items, therefore she is as knowledgeable as Lindbergh for all items.
- Anne and the Whateleys would also have been privy to all of the table information, therefore you basically now have 5 adults in the house fully aware of the the items you've listed, right?
Hi Joe, 1.) In the statements and trial testimonies of Anne, Betty, and Elsie, they all said that Wahgooh would bark at noises and "strangers at the door." Only Lindbergh, in his trial testimony, changed his earlier statement and testified that: “I would not say that he particularly was a good watchdog" and when Reilly asked if there had been any indication from Wahgoosh if there was a prowler in the house on March 1st, Lindbergh answered: “No. But I would not expect any from that dog.” Anne, Betty, and Elsie thought that Wahgoosh would bark at unknown noises. Lindbergh thought, or knew, that he would not. All of this is in Michael's Dark Corners, Vol. 1, pages 59-62. 2.) Lindbergh had 3 opportunities to have Skean transported from Next Day Hill to Highfields The first was when Anne, Charlie, and Alva Root were driven to Highfields by Ellerson on the afternoon of Saturday, February 27th. According to Marguerite Junge, Wahgoosh was doing his business and Lindbergh did not want to take the time to wait and put him in the car. The seconds time was later that afternoon when Lindbergh drove to Manhatten to do some work and then pick up the Breckinridges and drive them to Highfields. All he had to do was put Wahgoosh in his car, something Wahgoosh must have been accustomed to based on the times he was taken to Highfields. The third time was when Betty Gow was asked to come to Highfields on Tuesday morning. He could have easily have ridden with Betty. Betty was aware that Skean always slept under Charlie's bed, whether at Next Day Hill or Highfields. Mark Falzini and I have noted that you can see Skean's water bowl underneath the northeast nursery window. Even Anne in Hour of Lead says that if Skean had been brought to Highfields, Charlie would not have been kidnapped. Of course, missing 3 opportunities to take Skean to Highfields could have been just 3 coincidences, but the coincidences add up quickly for that weekend and until the evening of March 1. 3) No one knew when Lindbergh was arriving at Highfields that night, including Betty, and as for Wahgoosh, Betty testified he would bark at "...strangers at the door." It's speculation on my part, but when Lindbergh finally arrived home (at 8:25) and had dinner soon afterwards (until 9:00), that would have been the perfect time to commit the crime. The kidnapper's could simply see though the windows that all 5 adults were in the dining room and kitchen area (with Betty in the servants sitting room). All 5 adults were in one confined area and as far away from the nursery as possible -- the perfect time to carry out the kidnapping. 4) The Whatelys are included in the "Remaining Servants" section. Anne and the Whately's would had yeses in every box except knowing what time dinner was and that they believed that Waghoosh would bark.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Sept 9, 2021 10:12:57 GMT -5
Wayne, a few questions and comments on your table. - Charles Lindbergh - Knowledge that Wahgoosh would not bark - Are you referencing the fact that during much of the evening he was sleeping in his basket in the Whateley's servant's quarters? Should this item not pertain more specifically to the Whateley's who arranged for this to happen?
- Charles Lindbergh - Knowledge that Skean was not sleeping in the nursery with Charlie - Are you inferring here that Lindbergh purposely left Skean behind so that he wouldn't be in the nursery while Charlie was sleeping, or just stating that Lindbergh did not bring him from Englewood?
- Betty Gow - Knowledge of dinner time that night and that Wahgoosh would not bark - Betty Gow would have been aware of both of these items, therefore she is as knowledgeable as Lindbergh for all items.
- Anne and the Whateleys would also have been privy to all of the table information, therefore you basically now have 5 adults in the house fully aware of the the items you've listed, right?
Hi Joe, 1.) In the statements and trial testimonies of Anne, Betty, and Elsie, they all said that Wahgooh would bark at noises and "strangers at the door." Only Lindbergh, in his trial testimony, changed his earlier statement and testified that: “I would not say that he particularly was a good watchdog" and when Reilly asked if there had been any indication from Wahgoosh if there was a prowler in the house on March 1st, Lindbergh answered: “No. But I would not expect any from that dog.” Anne, Betty, and Elsie thought that Wahgoosh would bark at unknown noises. Lindbergh thought, or knew, that he would not. All of this is in Michael's Dark Corners, Vol. 1, pages 59-62. 2.) Lindbergh had 3 opportunities to have Skean transported from Next Day Hill to Highfields The first was when Anne, Charlie, and Alva Root were driven to Highfields by Ellerson on the afternoon of Saturday, February 27th. According to Marguerite Junge, Wahgoosh was doing his business and Lindbergh did not want to take the time to wait and put him in the car. The seconds time was later that afternoon when Lindbergh drove to Manhatten to do some work and then pick up the Breckinridges and drive them to Highfields. All he had to do was put Wahgoosh in his car, something Wahgoosh must have been accustomed to based on the times he was taken to Highfields. The third time was when Betty Gow was asked to come to Highfields on Tuesday morning. He could have easily have ridden with Betty. Betty was aware that Skean always slept under Charlie's bed, whether at Next Day Hill or Highfields. Mark Falzini and I have noted that you can see Skean's water bowl underneath the northeast nursery window. Even Anne in Hour of Lead says that if Skean had been brought to Highfields, Charlie would not have been kidnapped. Of course, missing 3 opportunities to take Skean to Highfields could have been just 3 coincidences, but the coincidences add up quickly for that weekend and until the evening of March 1. 3) No one knew when Lindbergh was arriving at Highfields that night, including Betty, and as for Wahgoosh, Betty testified he would bark at "...strangers at the door." It's speculation on my part, but when Lindbergh finally arrived home (at 8:25) and had dinner soon afterwards (until 9:00), that would have been the perfect time to commit the crime. The kidnapper's could simply see though the windows that all 5 adults were in the dining room and kitchen area (with Betty in the servants sitting room). All 5 adults were in one confined area and as far away from the nursery as possible -- the perfect time to carry out the kidnapping. 4) The Whatelys are included in the "Remaining Servants" section. Anne and the Whately's would had yeses in every box except knowing what time dinner was and that they believed that Waghoosh would bark. 1) My read on the various accounts relating to Wahgoosh is that first of all and probably most importantly, he was not trained or expected to provide watchdog services, especially with the child in mind and given any 20/20 hindsight involved following the kidnapping. If he had have been, his bed clearly would not have been behind closed doors at the far end of the house in the Whateley’s servants quarters. I also don’t ascribe much importance to personal opinions about Wahgoosh’s tendency to bark at strange noises, as I believe this process can be an entirely selective one, and according to each individual's relationship with him. While I don’t own a yappy barking dog, I’ve been around more than enough of them to know they can almost fade into the background for someone fully accustomed to their habits, or at the other end of the spectrum, they are “barking constantly.” I also don’t really see anything particularly striking within Lindbergh’s trial testimony about Wahgoosh’s abilities as a watchdog other than that he wasn’t really a standout, good or bad. 2) Yes, there were opportunities for Skean to have been in Charlie’s nursery on the night of March 1 and at first blush, I understand why conspiratorial eyebrows get raised over the perception he was MIA, and how Charles Lindbergh tends to bear the brunt of any finger pointing here. Again though, as I referred to Wahgoosh’s role within the house, what were the household expectations regarding Skean’s normal presence in the nursery when Charlie was put to bed? Was he specifically there for some security peace of mind, in that he would have been expected to bark if someone other than a member of the household had entered the nursery? Perhaps this was the case as a kind of safeguard, given the fact it was not customary to lock the second floor windows. But if this was true, both Anne and Betty would have known this safeguard was absent that night when they put Charlie to bed, so shouldn’t they also come under suspicion, by their failure to ensure all of the nursery windows were locked? Or, and as I strongly consider, was this much more a case of Skean having been Charlie’s “buddy” for some time and that they were both happy and content to be in the same room together while Charlie slept, with little more thought given to his critical absence that night, until after the kidnapping? 3 & 4) Would it not have been known within a fairly close timeframe by all in the household when dinner was planned, based on Anne’s expectation of when Lindbergh was expected to arrive home? Preparations had been ongoing in the kitchen to ensure the Whateleys weren’t starting from scratch when Lindbergh actually got home. As for the time of the crime, I believe it was happening between the time the Lindberghs were eating dinner up to and including the crashing sound (scissored ladder on shutter) heard by Charles, while Anne and he sat in the living room.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Sept 9, 2021 14:27:48 GMT -5
Joe,
I think the most important item on the chart is Tuesday night.
If Hauptmann was the lone wolf kidnapper (and I'm not saying he wasn't), how to explain Tuesday night?
Wilentz didn't. Waller didn't. Fisher didn't. Cahill didn't. Nobody does.
The most they say is that Hauptmann used his binoculars and surveilled the house.
Okay, I'm good with that.
But here's the problem, and I've said this before...
The Lindberghs had been going to Highfields starting October 31, 1931 and only one weekends.
In the 18 weeks (123 days) prior to the kidnapping, the Lindberghs had spent 11 weekends (22 days) at Highfields.
If Hauptmann was surveilling the house in those 123 days, he would have never once have seen the Lindberghs there on a Tuesday night.
And prior to the kidnapping, the Lindberghs had not been at Highfields for 19 days.
Why does lone-wolf Hauptmann wake up on the morning of Tuesday, March 1, 1932 and go, "After all the surveilling I've done, today's the perfect Tuesday to commit the kidnapping"?
There has to be a reason.
There is no way that Hauptmann would go to all the trouble and planning he did (building a ladder, writing the ransom note, making the "singnature" device, figuring out where Highfields is, where the nursery is, etc.) if he's going to leave it to dumb luck to show up on a random night to commit the kidnapping.
I'm all ears, someone tell me how me picked Tuesday night.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Sept 9, 2021 14:33:24 GMT -5
Correction: The Lindberghs had been going to Highfields starting October 31, 1931 and only on weekends.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Sept 9, 2021 16:06:03 GMT -5
The ransom notes indicated that the planning for the kidnapping had been going on for about a year. This was not a one day's planning. Anne Lindbergh made her first call to the Morrow house on Monday, Feb. 29 to report that she and family were not coming back to Next Day Hill that day because Charlie had a cold, and further--she said they would not make the trip back to Englewood until the child was better. So the word was out on Monday, and the insider who had connections to the kidnappers passed the word first on Monday noon. This gave them the opportunity to make tentative plans on Monday afternoon, to finish what needed to be done in case the Lindberghs did not return on Tuesday, the following day. Anne made her second call to Next Day Hill on Tuesday morning to state that she was not feeling well, and the Lindberghs would not be coming home on Tuesday either. So the word went out: "it's a Go!." Hauptmann did not have a telephone, so obviously the insider did not call him directly, but a call would have been made to another member of the kidnapping gang who knew how to contact the others. The communication chain had already been established. This was not a last-minute business. There was an opportunity, and a window appeared. They were prepared.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Sept 9, 2021 17:49:41 GMT -5
...So the word was out on Monday, and the insider who had connections to the kidnappers passed the word first on Monday noon... Aaron, I agree with you if Hauptmann had inside help. What I am asking is for all those who say Hauptmann was a lone wolf kidnapper with no inside help, explain to me how he picked Tuesday night?
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Sept 9, 2021 19:11:05 GMT -5
Thank you for clarifying, Wayne. The planning and implementation of the kidnapping case seems far too complex for a Lone Wolf theory. I am not advocating any particular theory, but the complexity indicates a gang of several persons with some help from others (insiders eg.) Hauptmann may have played a part in all this, but his role is not at all clearly defined.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Sept 9, 2021 19:42:42 GMT -5
Further unsolicited comment: In the mid-twentieth century readers became intrigued with the mystery genre, especially in England and the US. Fictional mystery is not much like real crime. Take Agatha Christie, for example. The crimes in her novels are committed in highly unusual or improbable circumstances, like stabbing to death with an icicle. Her "Murder on the Orient Express" is another example of a murder strangely committed. My suggestion is that many theories regarding the Lindbergh kidnapping have arisen from those who, in the latter part of the twentieth century, have consumed many of these fictional plots and try to apply a solution more appropriate to fiction than to reality. There are a few crimes that do resemble those in the mystery genre, but those, I suspect, were committed by someone who had read a lot of mystery fiction and was trying to emulate it. The Lindbergh case was a real crime and must be treated as such. The astonishing number of peculiar theories which have been suggested in more recent times confuse reality with a fictional plot deliberately created to engage the attention of the reader who tries to guess the ending and is usually surprised by its improbable solution.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Sept 10, 2021 8:57:36 GMT -5
Joe, I think the most important item on the chart is Tuesday night. If Hauptmann was the lone wolf kidnapper (and I'm not saying he wasn't), how to explain Tuesday night? Wilentz didn't. Waller didn't. Fisher didn't. Cahill didn't. Nobody does. The most they say is that Hauptmann used his binoculars and surveilled the house. Okay, I'm good with that. But here's the problem, and I've said this before... The Lindberghs had been going to Highfields starting October 31, 1931 and only one weekends. In the 18 weeks (123 days) prior to the kidnapping, the Lindberghs had spent 11 weekends (22 days) at Highfields. If Hauptmann was surveilling the house in those 123 days, he would have never once have seen the Lindberghs there on a Tuesday night. And prior to the kidnapping, the Lindberghs had not been at Highfields for 19 days. Why does lone-wolf Hauptmann wake up on the morning of Tuesday, March 1, 1932 and go, "After all the surveilling I've done, today's the perfect Tuesday to commit the kidnapping"? There has to be a reason. There is no way that Hauptmann would go to all the trouble and planning he did (building a ladder, writing the ransom note, making the "singnature" device, figuring out where Highfields is, where the nursery is, etc.) if he's going to leave it to dumb luck to show up on a random night to commit the kidnapping. I'm all ears, someone tell me how me picked Tuesday night. Wayne, I may be misreading your intent here, but I think you may be suggesting I believe that Hauptmann could only have been a Lone Wolf. I actually believe it’s highly unlikely he was a true Lone Wolf, given all of the known evidence, including what appear to have been multiple footprint trails and cemetery lookouts. I also feel there is a more linear and objective means of looking at the circumstances that drew the kidnapper(s) to the nursery on that Tuesday night. One of them being that they came on that particular night because they fully expected Charlie to be in his crib, but not because they were specifically alerted to that fact on the same day. Sure, there could have been an information leak somewhere within the Next Day Hill and Highfields households. Just who was consorting with who in the months leading up to the crime will always be a matter of speculation, but surely if there had have been any information of such intimate and critical importance provided to the wrong person on that very day, intentionally or not, it would have been exposed in one way or another at the time of the investigation, or even decades later. No one in either household “melted down” except Violet Sharp, and that was more likely due to her incorrectly believing she may have unintentionally provided critical household information to reporter Thomas McElvie and she was a relatively unstable person to begin with. And I don’t buy the argument that Lindbergh went out of his way to hamper the process of potentially flushing out an insider, particularly at Highfields, because he was part of a conspiracy to have his son murdered. While he was naïve and awkward within many social situations and often lacked discernment of character of those around him, he trusted the people that worked for him, truly believed none of them could have been involved, and wanted to spare them what he felt would be undue suspicion and embarrassment. I fully understand that the Lindberghs were in fact only part-time residents of Hopewell at the time of the kidnapping, and that under normal circumstances, they wouldn’t have been there on the Monday or Tuesday night. So of course, this looks like a big red flag. We don’t know when key surveillance of the house, which would have allowed the surveyor to actually determine location of rooms, actually took place. I also don’t preclude the possibility something akin to a floor plan was accessed somehow. Surveillance may have happened on weekends, during the week or at both times. The Whateleys though, were full time residents of Highfields, therefore during the week there would have been a general level of activity in and around the house, lights on and off, a vehicle coming and going occasionally. So if there was some kind of surveillance going on and if it happened on both weekends and weekdays, then the Lindbergh’s usual weekends-only schedule becomes much less of a factor here. As shown in your chart, you have Lindbergh’s Yeses in red, capitalized and bolded, and it seems you’ve essentially singled him out here. As we’ve discussed though, there would have been equal opportunity for every adult member of the Highfields household to have potentially alerted the kidnapper(s) of the intention to be there on that Tuesday night. I believe the kidnapper(s) came to the house that Tuesday night because they would have had no reason to think Lindberghs did not live there full-time. If they were fortunate, they also would have noticed Lindbergh would be attending the NYU Dinner on Tuesday night. I also believe there was at least one prior attempt to kidnap Charlie at Highfields, possibly the evening before. And it was on this occasion they quickly determined that two sections of the ladder would not have been sufficient, therefore the third section, which included a discarded piece of lumber in the Rauch basement, was hastily constructed.
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Sept 10, 2021 9:37:28 GMT -5
Joe, I think the most important item on the chart is Tuesday night. If Hauptmann was the lone wolf kidnapper (and I'm not saying he wasn't), how to explain Tuesday night? Wilentz didn't. Waller didn't. Fisher didn't. Cahill didn't. Nobody does. The most they say is that Hauptmann used his binoculars and surveilled the house. Okay, I'm good with that. But here's the problem, and I've said this before... The Lindberghs had been going to Highfields starting October 31, 1931 and only one weekends. In the 18 weeks (123 days) prior to the kidnapping, the Lindberghs had spent 11 weekends (22 days) at Highfields. If Hauptmann was surveilling the house in those 123 days, he would have never once have seen the Lindberghs there on a Tuesday night. And prior to the kidnapping, the Lindberghs had not been at Highfields for 19 days. Why does lone-wolf Hauptmann wake up on the morning of Tuesday, March 1, 1932 and go, "After all the surveilling I've done, today's the perfect Tuesday to commit the kidnapping"? There has to be a reason. There is no way that Hauptmann would go to all the trouble and planning he did (building a ladder, writing the ransom note, making the "singnature" device, figuring out where Highfields is, where the nursery is, etc.) if he's going to leave it to dumb luck to show up on a random night to commit the kidnapping. I'm all ears, someone tell me how me picked Tuesday night. Wayne, I may be misreading your intent here, but I think you may be suggesting I believe that Hauptmann could only have been a Lone Wolf. I actually believe it’s highly unlikely he was a true Lone Wolf, given all of the known evidence, including what appear to have been multiple footprint trails and cemetery lookouts. I also feel there is a more linear and objective means of looking at the circumstances that drew the kidnapper(s) to the nursery on that Tuesday night. One of them being that they came on that particular night because they fully expected Charlie to be in his crib, but not because they were specifically alerted to that fact on the same day. Sure, there could have been an information leak somewhere within the Next Day Hill and Highfields households. Just who was consorting with who in the months leading up to the crime will always be a matter of speculation, but surely if there had have been any information of such intimate and critical importance provided to the wrong person on that very day, intentionally or not, it would have been exposed in one way or another at the time of the investigation, or even decades later. No one in either household “melted down” except Violet Sharp, and that was more likely due to her incorrectly believing she may have unintentionally provided critical household information to reporter Thomas McElvie and she was a relatively unstable person to begin with. And I don’t buy the argument that Lindbergh went out of his way to hamper the process of potentially flushing out an insider, particularly at Highfields, because he was part of a conspiracy to have his son murdered. While he was naïve and awkward within many social situations and often lacked discernment of character of those around him, he trusted the people that worked for him, truly believed none of them could have been involved, and wanted to spare them what he felt would be undue suspicion and embarrassment. I fully understand that the Lindberghs were in fact only part-time residents of Hopewell at the time of the kidnapping, and that under normal circumstances, they wouldn’t have been there on the Monday or Tuesday night. So of course, this looks like a big red flag. We don’t know when key surveillance of the house, which would have allowed the surveyor to actually determine location of rooms, actually took place. I also don’t preclude the possibility something akin to a floor plan was accessed somehow. Surveillance may have happened on weekends, during the week or at both times. The Whateleys though, were full time residents of Highfields, therefore during the week there would have been a general level of activity in and around the house, lights on and off, a vehicle coming and going occasionally. So if there was some kind of surveillance going on and if it happened on both weekends and weekdays, then the Lindbergh’s usual weekends-only schedule becomes much less of a factor here. As shown in your chart, you have Lindbergh’s Yeses in red, capitalized and bolded, and it seems you’ve essentially singled him out here. As we’ve discussed though, there would have been equal opportunity for every adult member of the Highfields household to have potentially alerted the kidnapper(s) of the intention to be there on that Tuesday night. I believe the kidnapper(s) came to the house that Tuesday night because they would have had no reason to think Lindberghs did not live there full-time. If they were fortunate, they also would have noticed Lindbergh would be attending the NYU Dinner on Tuesday night. I also believe there was at least one prior attempt to kidnap Charlie at Highfields, possibly the evening before. And it was on this occasion they quickly determined that two sections of the ladder would not have been sufficient, therefore the third section, which included a discarded piece of lumber in the Rauch basement, was hastily constructed. Hi Joe! Interesting...what makes you think there might have been an attempt on Monday night? CAL didn't come home that night. Not disparaging you, just find it interesting. Very interesting. What would have made them abort the attempt? Charlie being sick and Anne and Elsie checking on him? That's why Anne was so tired Tuesday. Gives me a lot to think about and am glad you brought it up!!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Sept 11, 2021 17:04:02 GMT -5
Hi IloveDFW, I believe there might have been a prior attempt on the nursery before the night of March 1, 1932. I have nothing to offer conclusively but offer these possible reasons:
• Rail 16 was discovered along with its connecting dowel at the same crime scene location as the other two assembled sections of the ladder. This tells me it was believed by the kidnapper(s) that all three sections might be needed that night. This would of course have depended on their understanding of the distance from ground to nursery room window ledge. If, as I believe, they had limited knowledge of this, having to instead rely upon only surveillance by binoculars and linear estimation, they would have had no firm conviction whether two or three sections would have been required. Later re-enactments of course showed that entry and exit could have been accomplished with two sections, but these of course were done with the benefit of daylight and under more ideal general environmental conditions. I speculate that the wood scuff marks on the wall may have been caused as two assembled sections of the ladder the ladder were first pushed up against the wall to determine if they alone would allow for access to the window.
• Rail 16 by it’s very nature, ie. a scrap piece of wood which had prior usage, as opposed to a new piece of construction lumber like it’s sister rail (left side) of the third section, indicates to me that the entire third section may have been a hurried and final addition to the ladder, and that its builder settled for whatever could be found at the time, and given the perceive need to strike on the evening of March 1.
Having said that, I also consider that if the actual staging point for the assault on the nursery was the small clump of bushes where the ladder sections were discovered, this then points to the possibility that the kidnapper(s) assessed from this location that only two sections would have been required, therefore the third section and dowel were left behind unused at the staging point before the the assault on the nursery.
On the other hand, if the staging point was somewhere near the house and driveway and the approach was made alongside the east side of the house as is commonly believed, then the third section was certainly brought to the point beneath the nursery window and intended to be used. But of course, whether it actually was used or not, I don’t believe can be conclusively determined yet from the current discussion.
In any case, I hope this offers some more food for thought.
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Sept 12, 2021 16:04:24 GMT -5
Wayne, I may be misreading your intent here, but I think you may be suggesting I believe that Hauptmann could only have been a Lone Wolf. I actually believe it’s highly unlikely he was a true Lone Wolf, given all of the known evidence, including what appear to have been multiple footprint trails and cemetery lookouts. I also feel there is a more linear and objective means of looking at the circumstances that drew the kidnapper(s) to the nursery on that Tuesday night. One of them being that they came on that particular night because they fully expected Charlie to be in his crib, but not because they were specifically alerted to that fact on the same day. Sure, there could have been an information leak somewhere within the Next Day Hill and Highfields households. Just who was consorting with who in the months leading up to the crime will always be a matter of speculation, but surely if there had have been any information of such intimate and critical importance provided to the wrong person on that very day, intentionally or not, it would have been exposed in one way or another at the time of the investigation, or even decades later. No one in either household “melted down” except Violet Sharp, and that was more likely due to her incorrectly believing she may have unintentionally provided critical household information to reporter Thomas McElvie and she was a relatively unstable person to begin with. And I don’t buy the argument that Lindbergh went out of his way to hamper the process of potentially flushing out an insider, particularly at Highfields, because he was part of a conspiracy to have his son murdered. While he was naïve and awkward within many social situations and often lacked discernment of character of those around him, he trusted the people that worked for him, truly believed none of them could have been involved, and wanted to spare them what he felt would be undue suspicion and embarrassment. I fully understand that the Lindberghs were in fact only part-time residents of Hopewell at the time of the kidnapping, and that under normal circumstances, they wouldn’t have been there on the Monday or Tuesday night. So of course, this looks like a big red flag. We don’t know when key surveillance of the house, which would have allowed the surveyor to actually determine location of rooms, actually took place. I also don’t preclude the possibility something akin to a floor plan was accessed somehow. Surveillance may have happened on weekends, during the week or at both times. The Whateleys though, were full time residents of Highfields, therefore during the week there would have been a general level of activity in and around the house, lights on and off, a vehicle coming and going occasionally. So if there was some kind of surveillance going on and if it happened on both weekends and weekdays, then the Lindbergh’s usual weekends-only schedule becomes much less of a factor here. As shown in your chart, you have Lindbergh’s Yeses in red, capitalized and bolded, and it seems you’ve essentially singled him out here. As we’ve discussed though, there would have been equal opportunity for every adult member of the Highfields household to have potentially alerted the kidnapper(s) of the intention to be there on that Tuesday night. I believe the kidnapper(s) came to the house that Tuesday night because they would have had no reason to think Lindberghs did not live there full-time. If they were fortunate, they also would have noticed Lindbergh would be attending the NYU Dinner on Tuesday night. I also believe there was at least one prior attempt to kidnap Charlie at Highfields, possibly the evening before. And it was on this occasion they quickly determined that two sections of the ladder would not have been sufficient, therefore the third section, which included a discarded piece of lumber in the Rauch basement, was hastily constructed. Hi Joe! Interesting...what makes you think there might have been an attempt on Monday night? CAL didn't come home that night. Not disparaging you, just find it interesting. Very interesting. What would have made them abort the attempt? Charlie being sick and Anne and Elsie checking on him? That's why Anne was so tired Tuesday. Gives me a lot to think about and am glad you brought it up!!
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Sept 12, 2021 20:48:03 GMT -5
I believe the kidnapper(s) came to the house that Tuesday night because they would have had no reason to think Lindberghs did not live there full-time. If they were fortunate, they also would have noticed Lindbergh would be attending the NYU Dinner on Tuesday night. I also believe there was at least one prior attempt to kidnap Charlie at Highfields, possibly the evening before. And it was on this occasion they quickly determined that two sections of the ladder would not have been sufficient, therefore the third section, which included a discarded piece of lumber in the Rauch basement, was hastily constructed. Joe, I've also felt that it was a good possibility that the kidnapper(s) tried the kidnapping on Monday night, but after opening the shutter discovered that Anne had left her connecting bathroom door open to the nursery and that was enough for the kidnapper(s) to pass that night. I've always wondered why the kidnapper(s) didn't pick Sunday, February 28th for the kidnapping. At 8:00 that night, Charles and Anne were driving the Breckinridges to the train station. The Whateleys, alone in the house, would never have disturbed Charlie during the 8 to 10 lockdown. It really seems that it was important to have Lindbergh in the house between 8 and 10. With Lindbergh there, no one was going to check on Charlie until 10:00PM. As I said, the previous night (when Lindbergh did not sleep over), Anne had left the doors to the nursery open and had checked on Charlie "throughout the night". When Lindbergh was in the house, that would never happen. I just need someone who believes that Hauptmann was the lone-wolf kidnapper who had no inside help, how he woke up Tuesday morning and decided that was the day to commit the kidnapping. I really would like to know this.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Sept 13, 2021 8:18:10 GMT -5
I believe the kidnapper(s) came to the house that Tuesday night because they would have had no reason to think Lindberghs did not live there full-time. If they were fortunate, they also would have noticed Lindbergh would be attending the NYU Dinner on Tuesday night. I also believe there was at least one prior attempt to kidnap Charlie at Highfields, possibly the evening before. And it was on this occasion they quickly determined that two sections of the ladder would not have been sufficient, therefore the third section, which included a discarded piece of lumber in the Rauch basement, was hastily constructed. Joe, I've also felt that it was a good possibility that the kidnapper(s) tried the kidnapping on Monday night, but after opening the shutter discovered that Anne had left her connecting bathroom door open to the nursery and that was enough for the kidnapper(s) to pass that night. I've always wondered why the kidnapper(s) didn't pick Sunday, February 28th for the kidnapping. At 8:00 that night, Charles and Anne were driving the Breckinridges to the train station. The Whateleys, alone in the house, would never have disturbed Charlie during the 8 to 10 lockdown. It really seems that it was important to have Lindbergh in the house between 8 and 10. With Lindbergh there, no one was going to check on Charlie until 10:00PM. As I said, the previous night (when Lindbergh did not sleep over), Anne had left the doors to the nursery open and had checked on Charlie "throughout the night". When Lindbergh was in the house, that would never happen. I just need someone who believes that Hauptmann was the lone-wolf kidnapper who had no inside help, how he woke up Tuesday morning and decided that was the day to commit the kidnapping. I really would like to know this. Wayne, I agree that with Anne frequently checking on Charlie and his then still active cold on the Monday night, it could well be this level of activity was discerned by periodic light in the nursery any time from the kidnapper(s) approach to the staging area, right up to the actual assault on the nursery. As dictated by the kidnapper(s) actual availability, I believe that any evening on that weekend could have represented equal opportunity to strike, because they would have had no specific knowledge about who would have been there as a permanent member of the household, or as a guest. Clearly, they had no hesitation in striking on the Tuesday evening, understanding that adults would be circulating on the main level and possibly going upstairs at any given time. And this is something I feel would have had to have been fully accepted on the part of the kidnapper(s). With the reward of a large ransom payment, came as a necessity, this extremely high degree of risk. As for Lindbergh’s presence between 8:00 and 10:00 pm, again I don’t believe the kidnapper(s) would have even known about the practice of not disturbing the child between those hours. Inside information is one specific aspect of the case that Hauptmann certainly would have regarded as having been helpful during the planning of this crime, and I believe this is specifically on his mind when he answers Leibowitz’s question about how he would have done it, by saying he would have gotten “sweet” with one of the women looking after the child. In other words, he didn’t do this but he would certainly had had cause to think about it. All in all, I have to say I’m becoming more and more focused on the actual staging area for the crime. Was it an off the driveway a bit north-east of that corner of the house, or was it by the clump of scrub oaks? I feel the actual location will help to further clarify more in terms of the numbers of kidnappers and which ladder sections were used. The apparent lack of any observed footprints leading up to the scrub oaks, could mean this was not the actual staging area. Or it could be that the footprints leading to it were not observed or did not register in that specific section of ground. Again the NJSP crime scene investigation team comes up miserably short in its non-determination of the movements of the kidnappers(s). Something else I feel warrants consideration. If there had been a group plan to commit this crime and everyone was all in until the death of the child, after which only Hauptmann remained, what does that say about the upfront and expected reward for each member? Because the nursery note was written before the death of the child, it would mean a group of kidnappers were asking only $50,000. I just can’t see that.. such a low ransom payment considering the recognition and stature of the victim in relation to his father. The way I see it, it means that if there had ever been a group plan at any given time, the others opted out for their own wellbeing, before the nursery note was written. Perhaps CJ was alluding to the original plan when he told Condon there were multiple participants.
|
|