|
Post by Michael on Jan 3, 2022 19:09:42 GMT -5
Perhaps there was an intention of burial but to me the ransom box specifications seem to again point to just another one of the note writer's flights of fancy, adding extraneous info to put a spotlight on something unnecessary to hide what's really happening. Kind of like a magician's trick - lots of waving of a wand, fancy words and a puff of smoke to misdirect you from the assistant sneaking out the back of the disappearing chamber. In this case, so much attention and spotlight is put on the box it that one must wonder why. Condon did everything he could to hide the maker, lie about the materials use and lie about what ultimately happened to it. Why? It seems that while everyone was so focused on the box, it never left Condon's control, except in a bush for a few days. I agree with you. The drawing and specifications were designed to make it seem vitally important. And it was... as part of the RUSE. An object to focus on, stare at, while associating it with the ransom money. Box = Money. That way when the box is empty all eyes will still be on it. Whether the end result was to hide the money or not, there's no reason to believe the people collecting couldn't or wouldn't have been able to create/buy their own container if it was in fact necessary. Heck, for those who believe Hauptmann was CJ, he built a fancy inlaid box that was so well made it was placed on display - so he could have thrown something together to hold that money in about 15 minutes. Who asks for a clue to give to Authorities anyway? Unless of course it was the exact opposite of one. The fact this thing was even requested should be a red flag and once we see what really happened, well, there's your proof. This is street hustler stuff and it fooled everyone.
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Jan 4, 2022 10:20:46 GMT -5
When Hauptmann was in prison John Condon visited him, and although he called him "John," he assured Hauptmann that he would not identify him as CJ at the trial. He did so, however, three times according to the trial transcript. Condon must have had his reasons. He might have been pressured by the prosecution. He might have been threatened by the kidnappers who had their scapegoat and wanted the case closed so there would be no further investigation. If the kidnappers knew something about Condon, and they would have had plenty after the staging of the ransom transaction--"ruse" is a good word--Condon may have been left with no choice; he could not have endure the consequences if he told the truth.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jan 5, 2022 16:45:22 GMT -5
I agree with the postings of trojanusc and Michael above that the ransom box was indeed a distraction, a misdirection. I had quite a detour through various other possibilities but its the only conclusion which fits the facts as we know them.
In fact the ransom notes contain much superfluous information: “we had to bring in an extra person,” “we had to spend an extra $3..” etc which is irrelevant to their primary purpose: to arrange the delivery of the money. The whole scenario of multiple rambling ransom notes, newspaper messages etc is unnecessarily complicated. Why use notes at all as a communication medium? They are physical and handwriting can be “analysed”. At least use a second hand typewriter, later to be destroyed.
Phone calls to Condon or Breckenridge using an agreed code word to ensure authenticity would do the job. Anticipating recording of the calls, a voice over the phone can be disguised by placing a handkerchief over the mouthpiece or introducing background noise.
The unnecessary box, the unnecessary notes with their irrelevant asides do indicate planned misdirection. A deliberate seeding of the case with too many “clues.” To which, personally, I would add the Hopewell ladder and chisel, and Charles Lindbergh’s behaviour in supporting the futile efforts of the shady Spitale and Rosner while ignoring the account given by the student Ben Lupica.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 5, 2022 19:34:33 GMT -5
I agree with the postings of trojanusc and Michael above that the ransom box was indeed a distraction, a misdirection. I had quite a detour through various other possibilities but its the only conclusion which fits the facts as we know them. That was the whole purpose of the request. It relies on authorities to overthink it. Before I discovered the NJSP Memo, I was wracking my brain trying to figure out where that box might fit into just like everyone else. However, imagine for a second if something similar happened elsewhere exactly how differently we would all have reacted to it. This box request in the extortion letter is the equivalent of someone asking Lindbergh for a burlap bag before the kidnapping. No one would do that, just like no one would tip their hand like this during the extortion. And yet - they wanted everyone to think they did. Next we see that Condon lied about its construction claiming it was made of 5 different kinds of wood, was indestructible & fireproof, and could be easily identified. Then later, when authorities finally asked him who built it, he found himself in a very sticky situation. Tell them it was Samuelsohn and they'd learn he'd been lying about its description. So he named the DEAD guy " old man Peremi." Lucky for us Peremi's son steered Cops to Samuelsohn, so we learned it was a simple 5-ply maple box and nothing more. Again, a high school kid could make a box like this in shop class so this idea that the extortionists needed Lindbergh to provide it seems rather silly looking at this in hindsight. And now add in the final pieces concerning Condon's detour and Uebel's eyewitness account of someone retrieving that hidden box from the bush. Clearly, without Condon the extortion CANNOT happen like it did. A part of the puzzle is now complete. The strategies and tendencies are revealed. And we can see there was a TON of planing in just about everything they did. Nothing was accidental, nothing done on a "whim," or ad-libbed.
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Jan 6, 2022 12:49:50 GMT -5
The kidnappers warned Lindbergh not to record the serial numbers of the ransom bills. The serial numbers, however, were recording after Ivey persuaded Lindbergh to allow this to happen. It's possible that John Condon was aware that this was being done since the recording of the numbers took some time and caused a delay in the transaction. Condon may well have informed the kidnappers at some point that the serial numbers had been recorded and that the bills would be checked against a list by the banks when received. The kidnappers would then be eager to unload the ransom bills as soon as the transaction had been effected and the laundering would have taken place immediately, within hours. They would not wish to have any evidence, whether ransom box or ransom money, traced to them. Condon knew this, and would have assured them of his cooperation.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jan 6, 2022 16:31:29 GMT -5
The “bait and switch” of the box/cash, the unnecessary specification of the box size, and even the use of ransom notes with their endless potential for analysis and examination are, I agree, all intended to lead investigators “up the garden path.”
This is very unusual in kidnap cases. The discourse between kidnappers and grieving relatives/parents etc is usually over the phone. A face to face handover almost never happens. Last minute instructions are given on the handover date, again on the phone, and the cash is then swiftly delivered as instructed e.g by throwing it from a moving train after passing a designated spot recently described in the last call. The operation is much “tighter” and much faster than in the Lindbergh case with its one month delay between “kidnap” and ransom delivery.
This playing with the investigators, the gratuitous presenting of false leads (notes / box) and “wanting everyone to think they were tipping their hand” as Michael puts it, surely betray the mindset of the experienced deceiver.
Practical “jokes” often hide aggression and give the perp a “power rush” and a feeling of superiority over the victim. At their core is deception, an encouragement for the victim to believe one thing while the truth is known only by the perp who has complete control over what happens. To me the similarity between the protracted ransom handover scenario with its bogus leads and the fundamental elements of the practical “joke” are striking.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jan 6, 2022 16:46:07 GMT -5
Hi Jeanne, I too would have expected the ransom money to be laundered as soon as possible after reception. Even if CJ didn’t know the serial numbers had been recorded it would be a wise move just in case they had been. So it is surprising that two and a half years after receipt around $14,000 of un-laundered ransom cash is found hidden in Hauptmann’s garage. This could represent the un-laundered residue as the rest was never found or accounted for, creative accounting by the prosecution notwithstanding. Regards, Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Jan 6, 2022 19:11:26 GMT -5
Hi, Sherlock: Your comments regarding the personality of the kidnapper in the Lindbergh case are very interesting and should be regarded with much thought. Perhaps the kidnapper(s) felt especially superior, having succeeded in victimizing Lindbergh, the American hero and someone also who delighted in sadistic tricks. When Lindbergh was in college, eg. he put kerosene into a fellow student's water pitcher, nearly killing the poor guy. The University of Wisconsin would certainly have taken action. One could wonder if the kidnapper may have been one of Lindbergh's previous victims or related to a victim.
There has been much speculation about what happened to the ransom money, as you probably are aware. I suspect that some of it was won in gambling games and escaped detection by the bank tellers. Some of it may have been "buried at the summit" ot destroyed, the ransom money in itself not being the main goal or motive in the kidnappers' action. Thanks much for your posts.
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Jan 6, 2022 19:32:03 GMT -5
Continuing on the thread: A number of likely suspects have appeared over the years, but their heads are too muddled or they do not seem clever enough to plan this intricate game. Some participants in the action did so trying to defend themselves from possible exposure for past problems, but the individual(s) who designed the plot was clever, as in moves of a chess game. I am suggesting that it may have been personal, not envy for Lindbergh's accomplishments or retaliation for anything his father did.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 6, 2022 23:06:43 GMT -5
Continuing on the thread: A number of likely suspects have appeared over the years, but their heads are too muddled or they do not seem clever enough to plan this intricate game. Some participants in the action did so trying to defend themselves from possible exposure for past problems, but the individual(s) who designed the plot was clever, as in moves of a chess game. I am suggesting that it may have been personal, not envy for Lindbergh's accomplishments or retaliation for anything his father did. I don't think it has anything to do with Lindbergh. Personally I think the extortion was largely separate from the kidnapping itself. If this were a genuine kidnapping, I don't think CAL would have spent his time "searching" by playing cards and practical jokes, nor do I think he would have done everything in his power to prevent the investigation from proceeding.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jan 7, 2022 3:42:22 GMT -5
Hi trojanusc, I’m with you in that I can’t see it as a real kidnapping. Too many things just don’t fit: failure to cut the phone line, the acrobatics needed to carry the child down the ladder, the insider knowledge of the kid’s location, and not least the needless ransom note which, if discovered promptly could have led to an immediate dragnet operation.
And I’m almost convinced that the extortion was a separate project, done by different people , than the kidnap. “Almost” because the deliberate deceptions in the ransom notes suggest the mentality of a practical joker, but this may be coincidence I admit.
Much more important is the provision of the sleeping suit as evidence of the bona fides of CJ. If this really was the suit the child was wearing when taken, or even the earlier one which was soiled with vomit then washed, it indicates a solid link between the abduction and the extortion. If the extortion was completely separate, how did they get the suit to send to Condon? Or was it a duplicate which Lindbergh conveniently, and knowingly, identified as his son’s?
I would appreciate your thoughts on the sleeping suit link as it has been a stone in my shoe for some time!
Regards, Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 7, 2022 4:10:57 GMT -5
Hi trojanusc, I’m with you in that I can’t see it as a real kidnapping. Too many things just don’t fit: failure to cut the phone line, the acrobatics needed to carry the child down the ladder, the insider knowledge of the kid’s location, and not least the needless ransom note which, if discovered promptly could have led to an immediate dragnet operation. And I’m almost convinced that the extortion was a separate project, done by different people , than the kidnap. “Almost” because the deliberate deceptions in the ransom notes suggest the mentality of a practical joker, but this may be coincidence I admit. Much more important is the provision of the sleeping suit as evidence of the bona fides of CJ. If this really was the suit the child was wearing when taken, or even the earlier one which was soiled with vomit then washed, it indicates a solid link between the abduction and the extortion. If the extortion was completely separate, how did they get the suit to send to Condon? Or was it a duplicate which Lindbergh conveniently, and knowingly, identified as his son’s? I would appreciate your thoughts on the sleeping suit link as it has been a stone in my shoe for some time! Regards, Sherlock My personal opinion would be there was some crossover between the "kidnap" and extortion parties. Perhaps not the entire group, but at least some of the parties being the same. How these parties came into the fold is unclear, but let's assume this was staged and the "kidnappers" were hired to stage the kidnapping and ultimately dispose of the body (either immediately thereafter or after some medical inspection took place). This people would have some awfully damaging information on Lindbergh. Perhaps some members of the gang got greedy, while still in possession of the body, and decided to extort Lindbergh for the ransom, which was never meant to be collected originally. If this were the case, the notes would have just been "for show." The sleeping suit could have been legit, as they would have had possession of the body. Ultimately once the ransom was paid, the body was dumped where it was found and that was that.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 7, 2022 11:11:53 GMT -5
Trojan and Sherlock, I think you guys more or less have it. The kidnappers would've had to have been paid something upfront, but once they had CAL Jr.'s body, I think they figured they could get the $50K mentioned in the ransom note, simply by treating this like a real kidnapping--sending more ransom notes and upping the pressure by selecting Condon as a go-between, as someone Lindbergh would have no choice but to give that money to, to then pass on to them. Maybe all of those who participated in the kidnapping also participated in the extortion, maybe some dropped out by then. Either way, I think the sleeping suit was Condon's idea. I think he found out at the first cemetery meeting that CAL Jr. was dead. Having been tricked into thinking he'd be negotiating for the return of a living child, he now needed to keep up the appearance that this is what he was doing, so he needed the kidnappers to send him something of CAL Jr.'s. The kidnappers didn't have anything on hand, so Condon told the kidnappers to ask Lindbergh for one of the child's sleeping suits. Lindbergh got this to them and they then mailed it to Condon, as supposed proof that CAL Jr. was alive and that Condon and the kidnappers were negotiating in good faith. I think the suit that appeared at Condon's home was the one CAL Jr. spat up on, was changed out of and then washed, on the night of the kidnapping--hence its stained and laundered appearance when it arrived at Condon's place. In his book, Condon tried to imply this was due to the suit having been taken off CAL Jr.'s decomposing corpse, not realizing that Anne Lindbergh and Betty Gow had changed CAL Jr. out of his sleeping suit before he was taken. The suit couldn't have left the house, then, with CAL Jr. on March 1. This would've had to have happened later, and obviously couldn't have happened at all without an insider taking it out of the house.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Jan 7, 2022 18:12:20 GMT -5
The sleeping suit was said to be a Dr. Denton's size 2, and it was new The sleeping suit used previously was being washed by Betty Gow. The Dr. Denton brand was readily available in dept. stores then and for many more years. The suit was said to have been washed prior to its return to Lindbergh, perhaps because the child died while wearing it, and if so, there would have been blood stains. Question: was the suit tested for blood or other types of stains? Perhaps the intention for the wash was not only for "proof" that the child being held was the real baby being sought and also to remove any evidence of problems. The suit the kidnappers said they had to purchase cost them $3.00. This detail was of course false since the child was dead, but may have been an effort to indicate that the child was still alive. I suggest that a woman was involved in the washing of the Dr. Denton's and one who would have knowledge of how much such a item would cost when purchased new.
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Jan 7, 2022 18:46:34 GMT -5
The sleeping suit was said to be a Dr. Denton's size 2, and it was new The sleeping suit used previously was being washed by Betty Gow. The Dr. Denton brand was readily available in dept. stores then and for many more years. The suit was said to have been washed prior to its return to Lindbergh, perhaps because the child died while wearing it, and if so, there would have been blood stains. Question: was the suit tested for blood or other types of stains? Perhaps the intention for the wash was not only for "proof" that the child being held was the real baby being sought and also to remove any evidence of problems. The suit the kidnappers said they had to purchase cost them $3.00. This detail was of course false since the child was dead, but may have been an effort to indicate that the child was still alive. I suggest that a woman was involved in the washing of the Dr. Denton's and one who would have knowledge of how much such a item would cost when purchased new. metje, I like your suggestion of a woman having been involved based on the price of a new Dr. Denton's back then. A check revealed that in September 1932, cotton-wool blend Dr. Denton's sold for 85 cents to $2.25 for kids ranging from 6 months to 14 years. The $3 price stipulated by the kidnappers would have been far above the price for a suit for a 2-year-old. Perhaps the guess was made by a man after all? Or it had no relevance at all in the case.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Jan 8, 2022 2:30:47 GMT -5
Thank you for responding. The story seems fishy since it suggests that the child has been wearing the sleeping suit for a month and therefore the kidnappers had to buy another. If a 20 month old child wore one article of clothing for a month, it would be quite a mess. What about diapers? Maybe there should be a charge for those. At this point, the investigators should have suspected that the child no longer was alive. The charge of $3.00 may have been an estimate. Dr. Denton's is of a good quality and would have cost more than some other brands.The Lindberghs would have used a very good quality for their son and may have rounded the price to the nearest dollar plus the postage, of course. The point was only that a woman would have a better idea of the cost of the suit, esp. if she had children of her own or babysat kids. The idea of charging the parents $3.00 for the return of the suit may have been a joke. The kidnappers had a good time with this one. Blood does not wash out easily from cloth, so the fabric should have been tested for blood at that time. The suit was hardly proof that the child was alive and well. Quite the opposite.
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Jan 8, 2022 3:11:39 GMT -5
It's quite likely that this request for payment of the sleeping suit was all part of the staging, the game being played. No one thought seriously of adding three dollars to the ransom money. Betty Gow discovered the child's thumb guard on March 12, which was on or close to the date of the Condon's first conversation with CJ. The thumb guard may have been a taunt, or it may have been a warning to play the game. I notice that pictures of the sleeping suit show fraying of one of the sleeves and wonder if the fraying may have been caused when the thumb guard was pulled from the child's wrist and hand.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 8, 2022 3:24:14 GMT -5
It's quite likely that this request for payment of the sleeping suit was all part of the staging, the game being played. No one thought seriously of adding three dollars to the ransom money. Betty Gow discovered the child's thumb guard on March 12, which was on or close to the date of the Condon's first conversation with CJ. The thumb guard may have been a taunt, or it may have been a warning to play the game. I notice that pictures of the sleeping suit show fraying of one of the sleeves and wonder if the fraying may have been caused when the thumb guard was pulled from the child's wrist and hand. I also think it's highly suspicious Lindbergh would accept a plain sleeping suit as proof of the baby's safety and the kidnapper's legitimacy, unless he knew he was extorted so it was all just a game.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jan 8, 2022 16:27:01 GMT -5
Hi lightningjew and trojanusc,
Thanks for your analyses of the “kidnap” and sleeping suit; there’s much to digest here.
A hired “kidnap” gang Multiple footprints, strange cars seen with men inside enquiring about the Lindbergh home, CJ’s repeated references to a gang. These and other clues do suggest that a group of people and not an individual abducted CAL Jnr. In this scenario CAL hires the gang to abduct his child, the ladder is probably a misdirection, the note on the window ledge also, and the investigation is steered into blind alleys by CAL. Assuming CAL to be the originator of this plan I am not comfortable with it for the following reasons:
1. The more people in a conspiracy, the greater the risk of exposure. As trojanusc says, they would have some very damaging information on CAL. By definition only the lowest type of criminal would agree to do such a thing. Would CAL put his trust in such people? Would you? And where would he find them?
2. Lindbergh was a loner. He had few friends who were not linked to him as relatives or in a professional capacity. With enormous self confidence he steered his own path through life not caring what people thought and with small regard to moral or ethical constraints. His racism, his eugenics, his secret German family, are all evidence for this. This single-mindedness served him well in his courageous trans-Atlantic flight. He was not a team player. If he could pull off the kidnap stunt alone or with the unwitting help of Gow / Whatley he was just the guy to do it.
3. Boiled down to its basics, lifting the child from his bed, rendering him comatose (morphine?), carrying him down the stairs to the door, depositing him in a temporary pre-planned safe place (a car trunk?) does not need a gang. It can be done by one person familiar with the house routine and choosing the moment carefully. When Betty Gow asked Lindbergh “Colonel, do you have the child? Please don’t fool me.” she clearly realised that CAL had plenty of opportunity to pull such a sick “joke” while others’ backs were turned. Otherwise, she wouldn’t have asked the question.
Like many, I have strong doubts about the child’s ultimate fate as described in “Suspect No 1” by Lise Pearlman but this book gives us a convincing timeline of how the abduction could be done while Ms Lindbergh took a bath, Betty/Ms Whatley discussed a dress, and Whatley read the Saturday Evening Post in the kitchen.
Extortion I agree that this is a separate operation from the abduction and probably involves at least two people. Lindbergh has to go along with it to simulate external villains being responsible. He wanted the ransom to be paid and the bad guys to disappear for ever. He argued that the serial numbers on the notes should not be recorded as “it would put my child’s life in danger.” How can this be if an exchange of the cash for the living child is anticipated? He didn’t want the extortionists to be caught by the bills being traced. He wanted them to be seen as the kidnappers.
The sleeping suit This links the abduction and the extortion. Condon claimed CJ suggested sending it as evidence of his bona fides. If only an extortionist, CJ wouldn’t have it, so either it was a duplicate bought by CJ, soiled, and laundered for verisimilitude, or it was the soiled and laundered suit the child had worn before it was replaced with a clean one. It is hard to avoid Lindbergh’s role in the second option. Either way, Lindbergh would identify the suit as genuine to hurry things along towards the ransom payment and hopefully the end of the matter.
Many cannot accept the idea of this American hero turning into “the lowest type of criminal” in abducting / killing his son. But Lindbergh, the committed eugenicist, would rationalise it as a father’s duty, an act of kindness even, in humanely ending the life of his child who he (and only his opinion counted) believed to be severely handicapped. The child’s condition could not be hidden for ever and Lindbergh’s responsibility for the trans-continental high altitude flight made against advice by himself and his wife when she was seven months pregnant with Charles Jnr would be recalled. She became unconcious from oxygen deprival and left the plane on a stretcher. With the child’s removal these secrets and connections were safe.
Best regards,
Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 8, 2022 19:27:28 GMT -5
Lindbergh was indeed a loner who did things on his own, but to pull off something like this, it would've needed to look as much like an actual kidnapping as possible. This would've required actual outsiders to come to the house and, for instance, leave behind their footprints in the mud, ones which didn't match Lindbergh or any other household member--and which were, in fact, found leading away from the house; two sets of them. Where Lindbergh would've found these people, I have no idea. There was a good deal of discussion on this board several years ago about how Lindbergh, being very well connected, could've known someone who was in a position to hire some "guys". In any case, if we assume insider coordination, which seems pretty clear given the kidnappers' incredible "luck", the only insider in a position to coordinate anything like this would've been Lindbergh, and outsiders' footprints were discovered at the house, so, if Lindbergh was involved, despite being a loner, he brought others into this.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 8, 2022 19:42:34 GMT -5
Hi lightningjew and trojanusc, Thanks for your analyses of the “kidnap” and sleeping suit; there’s much to digest here. A hired “kidnap” gang Multiple footprints, strange cars seen with men inside enquiring about the Lindbergh home, CJ’s repeated references to a gang. These and other clues do suggest that a group of people and not an individual abducted CAL Jnr. In this scenario CAL hires the gang to abduct his child, the ladder is probably a misdirection, the note on the window ledge also, and the investigation is steered into blind alleys by CAL. Assuming CAL to be the originator of this plan I am not comfortable with it for the following reasons: 1. The more people in a conspiracy, the greater the risk of exposure. As trojanusc says, they would have some very damaging information on CAL. By definition only the lowest type of criminal would agree to do such a thing. Would CAL put his trust in such people? Would you? And where would he find them? 2. Lindbergh was a loner. He had few friends who were not linked to him as relatives or in a professional capacity. With enormous self confidence he steered his own path through life not caring what people thought and with small regard to moral or ethical constraints. His racism, his eugenics, his secret German family, are all evidence for this. This single-mindedness served him well in his courageous trans-Atlantic flight. He was not a team player. If he could pull off the kidnap stunt alone or with the unwitting help of Gow / Whatley he was just the guy to do it. 3. Boiled down to its basics, lifting the child from his bed, rendering him comatose (morphine?), carrying him down the stairs to the door, depositing him in a temporary pre-planned safe place (a car trunk?) does not need a gang. It can be done by one person familiar with the house routine and choosing the moment carefully. When Betty Gow asked Lindbergh “Colonel, do you have the child? Please don’t fool me.” she clearly realised that CAL had plenty of opportunity to pull such a sick “joke” while others’ backs were turned. Otherwise, she wouldn’t have asked the question. Like many, I have strong doubts about the child’s ultimate fate as described in “Suspect No 1” by Lise Pearlman but this book gives us a convincing timeline of how the abduction could be done while Ms Lindbergh took a bath, Betty/Ms Whatley discussed a dress, and Whatley read the Saturday Evening Post in the kitchen. Extortion I agree that this is a separate operation from the abduction and probably involves at least two people. Lindbergh has to go along with it to simulate external villains being responsible. He wanted the ransom to be paid and the bad guys to disappear for ever. He argued that the serial numbers on the notes should not be recorded as “it would put my child’s life in danger.” How can this be if an exchange of the cash for the living child is anticipated? He didn’t want the extortionists to be caught by the bills being traced. He wanted them to be seen as the kidnappers. The sleeping suit This links the abduction and the extortion. Condon claimed CJ suggested sending it as evidence of his bona fides. If only an extortionist, CJ wouldn’t have it, so either it was a duplicate bought by CJ, soiled, and laundered for verisimilitude, or it was the soiled and laundered suit the child had worn before it was replaced with a clean one. It is hard to avoid Lindbergh’s role in the second option. Either way, Lindbergh would identify the suit as genuine to hurry things along towards the ransom payment and hopefully the end of the matter. Many cannot accept the idea of this American hero turning into “the lowest type of criminal” in abducting / killing his son. But Lindbergh, the committed eugenicist, would rationalise it as a father’s duty, an act of kindness even, in humanely ending the life of his child who he (and only his opinion counted) believed to be severely handicapped. The child’s condition could not be hidden for ever and Lindbergh’s responsibility for the trans-continental high altitude flight made against advice by himself and his wife when she was seven months pregnant with Charles Jnr would be recalled. She became unconcious from oxygen deprival and left the plane on a stretcher. With the child’s removal these secrets and connections were safe. Best regards, Sherlock Lindbergh was indeed a loner who did things on his own, but to pull off something like this, it would've needed to look as much like an actual kidnapping as possible. This would've required actual outsiders to come to the house and, for instance, leave behind their footprints in the mud, ones which didn't match Lindbergh or any other household member--and which were, in fact, found leading away from the house; two sets of them. Where Lindbergh would've found these people, I have no idea. There was a good deal of discussion on this board several years ago about how Lindbergh, being very well connected, could've known someone who was in a position to hire some "guys". In any case, if we assume insider coordination, which seems pretty clear given the kidnappers' incredible "luck", the only insider in a position to coordinate anything like this would've been Lindbergh, and outsiders' footprints were discovered at the house, so, if Lindbergh was involved, despite being a loner, he brought others into this. I do not think that Lindbergh himself hired these people. I believe that Lindbergh probably was there to oversee it or be "on site," but that the gang came via Dr. Carrell, who absolutely probably knew about this. Both men were diehard eugenicists who believed that the weak and invalid should essentially be killed off. At that time, lots of medical schools and labs used shady figures to obtain cadavers and other products necessary for study. This is likely how the gang was located. Dr. Gardner told me his research points in this direction too. It was crucial for Lindbergh to keep a buffer between himself and whoever was hired. Also they may not have all known each other (one person could have built the ladder, while two others were hired to stage the scene, etc). Whoever did this did have something on Lindbergh and did extort him for the ransom, which was never meant to be paid.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 8, 2022 20:04:15 GMT -5
Agreed. And I also think this started with Carrel, with a diagnosis from him--correct or not--that there was something seriously wrong with CAL Jr. and that he'd never be a normal, healthy adult. The idea that the kidnap gang came from him is interesting. I don't necessarily think the body was used for study, but people connected to Carrel who knew how to obtain bodies could've been used. What did Dr. Gardner say about this?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 8, 2022 22:20:10 GMT -5
Whoever did this did have something on Lindbergh and did extort him for the ransom, which was never meant to be paid. They had the body. As long as they had it, they held all the cards. I'm not sure what everyone else believes, but CAL certainly wasn't experimenting on the child after the kidnap. For me, the whole situation was designed to have the child destroyed because he was "abnormal" - just as Scotland Yard suggested (V4/P45). The opportunity presented itself under the circumstances for some of these people to collect an additional 50K and they ran with it. The most amazing part was they actually returned the body basically living up to the agreement in exchange for the ransom. I use the term "basically" because there is no doubt in my mind that CAL knew the child was dead - as evidenced by the vacation he took with Curtis. As it relates to CAL hiring anyone, I refer to the Nosovitsky chapter once again. There's quite a bit of information that I didn't point out (hoping everyone would see it on their own) that indirectly relates to this case. The fact that Russell hired Nosovitsky, and Van Ness Harwood hired Russell, exemplifies the possibilities. Harwood never told Russell who hired him, and Russell didn't tell Nosovitsky about Harwood. So who hired Harwood? " Wall Street people" is all the information that was ever revealed - so Harwood was the middleman. And the only reason Nosovitsky found out about Harwood was because he followed Russell (V4/P261). So, in reality, Russell was the middleman between Harwood and Nosovitsky. If not for Nosovitsky's suspicions, we would never have known about Harwood's connection - ever. How's that for a conspiracy? And all this was about was to ruin La Follette's candidacy.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jan 10, 2022 3:21:21 GMT -5
Those who have murdered, robbed while armed with automatic pistol or machine gun, kidnapped children, despoiled the poor of their savings, misled the public in important matters, should be humanely and economically disposed of in small euthanasic institutions supplied with proper gasses. A similar treatment could be advantageously applied to the insane, guilty of criminal acts. Man the Unknown by A Carrel 1936
(t)he German government has taken energetic measures against the propagation of the defective, the mentally diseased, and the criminal. The ideal solution would be the suppression of each of these individuals as soon as he has proven himself to be dangerous. ditto German edition only 1936
Nice guy, huh?
Carrel was the closest Lindbergh ever came to having a soul mate. If loner Lindbergh trusted anyone it would be Carrel. I agree that CAL Jnr’s condition would have been discussed between these fellow eugenicists and that if help was needed in the plot Carrel would be the first in line, followed by Breckenridge, also a committed eugenics fanatic. However I don’t support the experimentation/vivesection ideas advanced elsewhere. Carrel’s lab would be a convenient source of anaesthetic if needed in the operation.
Carrel who would have been almost 60 years old in 1932 has only a walk-on part in the Lindbergh case literature. Apart from his scientific work we know little about him or where he was on March 1st 1932.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Jan 10, 2022 9:25:04 GMT -5
Alexis Carrel advocated capital punishment for criminals. The crimes listed include those who kidnap children, so he is not supporting euthanasia of the mentally defective. I am not supporting capital punishment here or defending the theory that the Lindbergh child was defective. My point is that Carrel has not been correctly understood. He wrote further that we cannot "destroy sickly or defective children as we do weaklings in a litter of puppies." He wrote that a better civilization would be created when those with potential are educated ,regardless of their class or the position of their parents in society. He wrote, " By making the strong still stronger, we could effectively help the weak." Carrel is not suggesting that we murder the weak or defective, but improve our society by educating the stronger and those with potential. The gassing he mentions is intended as an end for violent criminals who cause personal injury and harm the whole of society by their actions.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Jan 10, 2022 10:09:47 GMT -5
Lindbergh's relationship with Dr. Carrel began when Lindbergh became concerned about Elisabeth Morrow's (his sister-in-law) heart condition. Together he and Carrel made a better pump for heart circulation and then worked on other similar projects. Though much as been made of Lindbergh's beliefs in "preserving the best" traits in human beings, he was not alone in this side of the Atlantic in advocating these theories. I am not defending these ideas at all, but the US government hired Lindbergh as a consultant to the manufacturing of airplanes during WWII. At that time he moved to Detroit (Grosse Point) and helped to supervise the building of B-24s and later B-26s in the bomber plant at Willow Run which is located between Ypsilanti and Wayne, Michigan. The US hired two consultants for this work: one was Henry Ford, who was the first to build automobiles on the assembly lines, and the second was Col. Lindbergh for his knowledge of flying. Henry Ford, by the way, also shared Lindbergh's beliefs and had been honored by Germany for his accomplishments.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 10, 2022 13:31:56 GMT -5
Alexis Carrel advocated capital punishment for criminals. The crimes listed include those who kidnap children, so he is not supporting euthanasia of the mentally defective. I am not supporting capital punishment here or defending the theory that the Lindbergh child was defective. My point is that Carrel has not been correctly understood. He wrote further that we cannot "destroy sickly or defective children as we do weaklings in a litter of puppies." He wrote that a better civilization would be created when those with potential are educated ,regardless of their class or the position of their parents in society. He wrote, " By making the strong still stronger, we could effectively help the weak." Carrel is not suggesting that we murder the weak or defective, but improve our society by educating the stronger and those with potential. The gassing he mentions is intended as an end for violent criminals who cause personal injury and harm the whole of society by their actions. That's not exactly what he proposed. Here's an abstract from a detailed biography on Carrell: While expressing his views on spirituality, it also reinforced his belief in the Darwinian principle of ‘survival of the fittest’. This group, according to Carrel, did not include minority groups and was exclusively white!
This alone was sufficient to brand him a racist, but pales into insignificance with his views on the less fortunate members of society.
He then goes on to offer a ‘humane’ and economical solution. Rather than build bigger and more comfortable prisons, he suggested that they should be ‘disposed of in small euthanasic institutions supplied with proper gases. A similar treatment could be advantageously applied to the insane...’
Also let's bear in mind that if he is voicing these extreme views in a published book, imagine what his private beliefs are?
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Jan 10, 2022 15:35:52 GMT -5
What Carrel proposes is that children who show intelligence and potential be taken from their families and educated separately to help them develop their leadership in society. His comments indicate his belief that poorer families or those of the lower classes tend to be less intelligent or apt to improve their society. Criminals, however, emerge from all classes, and wealthier families do have children of low intelligence. I have a problem with his idea of removing a child from the family in order to give him/her a better education. The child should not be separated from the family; there are many lessons to be learned here. Also, in his comments regarding beatings and other punishments in hospitals, upon which he does not elaborate, he does not understand the concept of rehabilitation--which was introduced a little later here in the US under the administrator of James V. Bennett, the head of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, who in the late 1930s introduced vocational training for inmates in prisons of medium security. The word "gassing" in his statement regarding criminals may arose some memories, but gassing was a form of execution here in the US for a time. Lindbergh's association with Carrel produced some good surgical techniques which are still used today. If Lindbergh was involved in the plot to kidnap Charlie, then he would have been a criminal in Carrel's definition. I am not trying to defend Carrel or his beliefs, but he may have been misinterpreted. Every person in a society regardless of class, wealth, or background, has the ability to contribute something and should be encouraged to do so, and this is the point that he misses. If Charlie had a disability (and I am not sure that this was so), this does not mean that the child was therefore criminal who should be done away with. This is not Carrel's argument.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jan 10, 2022 16:56:38 GMT -5
It is hard to read that “the German government (Nazi, 1936) are taking energetic measures against the propagation of the defective, mentally diseased and the criminal. The ideal solution would be the suppression of these individuals….” without substituting “continuing hereditary reproduction” for “propagation,” and “humane killing” for “suppression.”
Much of Carrel’s philosophy was concerned with selection of the talented (as defined by whom?) and their encouragement as aaron says. And the quotation about puppies does contradict the above extract. However if Lindbergh did ask for his help Carrel may have bowed to the father’s wishes. He would not see it as a crime in the sense of a regular kidnap for ransom, but the desperate act of a caring father.
Carrel seems to take a broad brush approach to all those who, in his view, menace the betterment of society. So criminals and those perceived as mentally defective are seen equally as candidates for elimination.
We do not know for sure that there was anything wrong with CAL Jnr more serious than rickets and a bad cold. But there are so many persistent rumours and anecdotes together with the secrecy and lack of recent photos from the family that strong suspicion remains. Long-lived rumour on this scale about the child of a celebrity is unusual and as Michael points out it was the first thing Scotland Yard suggested as a motivation for potential parental involvement in the “kidnap.”
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 10, 2022 17:15:30 GMT -5
It is hard to read that “the German government (Nazi, 1936) are taking energetic measures against the propagation of the defective, mentally diseased and the criminal. The ideal solution would be the suppression of these individuals….” without substituting “continuing hereditary reproduction” for “propagation,” and “humane killing” for “suppression.” Much of Carrel’s philosophy was concerned with selection of the talented (as defined by whom?) and their encouragement as aaron says. And the quotation about puppies does contradict the above extract. However if Lindbergh did ask for his help Carrel may have bowed to the father’s wishes. He would not see it as a crime in the sense of a regular kidnap for ransom, but the desperate act of a caring father. Carrel seems to take a broad brush approach to all those who, in his view, menace the betterment of society. So criminals and those perceived as mentally defective are seen equally as candidates for elimination. We do not know for sure that there was anything wrong with CAL Jnr more serious than rickets and a bad cold. But there are so many persistent rumours and anecdotes together with the secrecy and lack of recent photos from the family that strong suspicion remains. Long-lived rumour on this scale about the child of a celebrity is unusual and as Michael points out it was the first thing Scotland Yard suggested as a motivation for potential parental involvement in the “kidnap.” But we do know something was wrong. The skulls of thousands of children buried in the catacombs of Paris and Prague do not "come apart like an orange" after the slightest bit of post-mortem prodding. His head was far too big and the fontanelle being unclosed was definitely problematic. Also rickets is typically linked to malnutrition, but this child was certainly not hurting for food. To quote Dr. Gardner: “When all these characteristics are considered together, they indicate a malformation of the skull, either “luckenschadel” or, more associated with hydrocephalus, a condition known as “copper beaten” skull. Reilly’s “diagnosis” had perfectly described Charlie’s condition, but his apparent assumption that the skull had deteriorated in this fashion because of exposure to the elements was wrong. A normal skull—even that of a two-year-old—would not have so deteriorated in that short a time. Down in the vaults of cathedrals are ossuaries from before the Middle Ages testifying silently to the strength of the bones of saints—but also of commoners. Intact skulls from the time of the Neanderthals tell us much of what we know about that prehistoric era.” Also, as Michael and Dr. Gardner have both pointed out, the idea of "eliminating" a member of a high profile or influential family who was less than perfect was somewhat common in Europe at the time. It was literally the first thing Scotland Yard asked about, so given how many of their cues on eugenics were coming from Europe at the time, it would not be surprising that both Lindbergh and Dr. Carrell would have heard of or considered this type of action towards Charlie.
|
|