|
Post by Michael on Feb 26, 2008 18:40:38 GMT -5
I think Hauptmann is brought in precisely for reasons that he isn't known - but could be trusted. I don't believe all parties involved knew each other either. It's like a "throw-away" piece used in a murder. If found, it traces back to no one because most likely it wasn't registered and/or the serial #s have been filed off.
I believe the actual "kidnap" involved two cars and one person on the inside.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Feb 26, 2008 19:58:51 GMT -5
Hello Michael (aka Arch Angel): - Does Duane Baker deliver the ladder to Highfields in the stolen Brown Buick?
- Is one of the two cars John Condon's green Ford coupe?
- How can BRH drive two cars at one time?
- Does the insider drive one of the 2 cars?
- Were you ever Dave Holwerda's roommate?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 27, 2008 5:48:05 GMT -5
1. While I believe Schindler's car was probably connected I haven't seen anything to sink my teeth into concerning Baker/Bacon.
2. No.
3. He can't.
4. No.
5. No. I did see his name mentioned several times in material at the NJSP before he started posting on Ronelle's board.
|
|
|
Post by rmc1971 on Feb 27, 2008 7:38:34 GMT -5
Michael - do you have strong feelings one way or the other on a particular insider being involved? Just interested to hear if you have a candidate you feel is more likely than the others to be involved.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Feb 27, 2008 11:33:26 GMT -5
Michael--thanks for playing along with my questions.... 1. While I believe Schindler's car was probably connected I haven't seen anything to sink my teeth into concerning Baker/Bacon. 2. No. 3. He can't. 4. No. #1...this represents the Bob Mills theory? Maybe you are implying there was a transfer between car #1 and car #2? or car #1 like the Ben Lupica car delivered the ladder and car #2, the Conover car, transported Charlie Jr away from Featherbed Lane? Oscar Bush called it 2 cars right away from the car tracks. See: Henry Conover by Kevin: lindberghkidnap.proboards56.com/index.cgi?board=witnesses&action=display&thread=1149602228#2 Ellerson said he saw a green Ford coupe waiting in the driveway at 3pm? Maybe it could be the Brevoolt Bolmer car with the female passerger and side ladders instead? See: Strange Vehicle Sightings Around Hopewell by Joe: lindberghkidnap.proboards56.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=11650686973# No, you are right. Do we have any evidence either ways that Fisch, the leading accomplice, could drive a car or had a license? #4 Tends to eliminate Ellerson, Ollie and CAL? The insider could be at Englewood (Violet) or at Highfields (Betty)? Red really cant be an insider?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 27, 2008 19:20:44 GMT -5
Just curious, when you say "an insider" are you talking about active participation or just info?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 28, 2008 7:43:04 GMT -5
I have "suspicions" at this point. There are some interesting things I have found that aren't in any publications but I need to work them out and follow them up a little more before I make any proclamations. I will say there is one usual suspect I find interesting and that is Betty Gow. Even if she's not directly involved I believe she may have known what really happened.
Well I suppose this comes from the "accidental informant" explanation I see tossed around as an explanation for Violet Sharp's suicide.... Whatever involvement I believe occurred did so with intent. And so I do believe that would be considered active involvement if one knows what's going to be done with that information.
It's almost like "connect the dots" isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Mar 1, 2008 12:43:43 GMT -5
1. While I believe Schindler's car was probably connected I haven't seen anything to sink my teeth into concerning Baker/Bacon Michael--you have expressed an ongoing interest in Schindlers car...but how do you think it could be "connected"? Or Why? "Your 2nd question is concerning Schindler's Car. As an "update" on the topic I placed one of my old posts in the Archive section here:" MM lindberghkidnap.proboards56.com/index.cgi?board=michael&action=display&thread=1148308705I have more on this if anyone wants to know something specific. I think this car could very well have been involved due to the weird series of circumstances but then again, we seem to have these all over the place so one never knows. "MM Yes--did anyone report seeing a similar car around Highfields on the nite of March 1st? Could it be the car the Moore family reported at 8:22pm? Does it look similar to CAL's Lincoln?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 3, 2008 9:11:24 GMT -5
Its basically for the reasons I have outlined. The items found in the car, the timing, the place it was abandoned. The Police felt the same way too but gave up on it because of Hauptmann. J.J. Faulkner wasn't Richard, and the Plymouth Apartments don't seem to connect up with him.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Mar 3, 2008 19:19:20 GMT -5
Hi Michael...well that doesn't give us too much to hang onto? In the backwards (<) direction the driver had blond hair and baggy eyes: 5'7", 30 years olde and dark complexion?
In a forward (>) direction, in the Plymouth Apartments, we also find super Duane Charles Baker, then the Faulkners, Geisslers, Liepolds, Kirppendorf and Rodel--then Condons son-in-law Ralph Hacker in Fort Lee NJ.
So its Baker/Bacon in both directions and Mary Cerrita also "saw" a man in a vision fitting the same description was the kidnapper? With that paraphernalia in the car, how can anything but the kidnap be considered? Babysitting with a blanket?
|
|
|
Post by gary on Mar 4, 2008 11:19:21 GMT -5
hey rick,
Watched a movie over the weekend titled "seance on a wet afternoon." Couldn't help but think of the Lindbergh kidnapping here. The medium and husband kidnap a child, visit the parents, set up a seance to draw closer to the family to entice them to make the payment.
There is an extreme inconsistency:
The mystery of JJ Faulkner's transaction
Hauptmann did not use any of the funds in transactions to purchase stocks
Spending gold notes at a gas station
Whats inconsistent ? Careless vs smart
Certainly more than one is handling this money .
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Mar 4, 2008 12:30:30 GMT -5
Hello Gary--I totally agree. Its a good way to run a scam: The Extortion in the Bronx! Peter and Mary obviously have some insider information--most importantly that they can never be blamed or indicted for Charlie's disappearance. {How do they know that?} They aren't that stupid--and were'nt passing ransom notes at a gas station either? So why did the scam team head out for Princeton Junction? To obtain information about how to bring their extortion to a self-serving profitable ending and to gain needed knowledge to convince JFC that they had Charlie "when they obviously did not".
Dunninger and Wright claimed the only things that Mary ever got right in a seance were all the facts in the Lindbergh kidnap?
|
|
|
Post by kanneedwards on Mar 4, 2008 12:46:18 GMT -5
i was thinking about all the "small" characters in this crime and i think with fox, cnn and msnbc today reporting 24 hrs anything that comes to their attention this crime would have been solved. not by investigative reporting just people calling in tips. michael skakel ws convicted after a showing of unsolved mysteries. the lindberghs didnt need to lawyer up in those days either!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 19, 2008 9:18:10 GMT -5
To. Col. Lindbergh.
In as much as all afternoon newspapers using serial number story. Urge you immediately issue new signed appeal to kidnappers to disregard Treasurer Woods action and again pledging immunity. We will be happy to print such an appeal.
Signed George Clarke City Editor of the New York Daily Mirror. [Western Union To Hopewell - 4/9/32]
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 20, 2008 19:52:17 GMT -5
I began this thread with a post concerning a woman passing a possible ransom note. Here's another..... $5 United State Note - Series of 1928 - #B-15910798-A At 9:00 a. m., June 7, 1933, Harold Asmond, 530 Grove Street, East Orange, New Jersey, Receiving Teller at the Chase National Bank, Times Square Branch, 7th Avenue and 41st Street, found the above mentioned bill in a $175 deposit, $150 of which represented bills of Albrecht and Company, 1375 Broadway, dealers in ladies novelties. This money was placed in the night box of the Chase National Bank, Times Square Branch, by Sidney Jacobson, 1038 Southern Boulevard, Bronx, Apartment 15, and was discovered by Receiving Teller Asmond.
Investigation conducted by Lt. Finn at the Albrecht and Company store at 1375 Broadway, indicated that Jacobson had received this bill for a pair of gloves valued at 59 [cents] about 3:00 p. m., on the afternoon of June 6, 1933. The reason given for his remembering having received this bill was that he closely scrutinized the bill upon receiving it before placing it in the register and the woman who tendered it looked at him in a very suspicious manner. However, Jacobson was unable to furnish a description of this woman. Lt. Finn has requested him to make an attempt to recall this particular woman with a view to furnishing a description. [Special Agent J.J. Manning Report - 8/22/33 - p41]
|
|
|
Post by AA for Jack on Sept 3, 2008 19:57:37 GMT -5
I believe the amount in the garage was Fisch's. It probably started out as a batch of $15,000. I am also a firm believer in whoever was involved in this was paid up front for their troubles and the ransom probably wasn't meant to be collected. And so the idea (for me) to try and fit $50,000 into all and every expense will never work because there are more monies involved then just the ransom. Both NY and FBI...
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 4, 2008 2:26:30 GMT -5
Michael--please clarify(even just a little):
1. Do you surmise it's Fisch's gang (BRH, Tuckahoe woman, cabbie, scissor grinder etc?) that is paid in advance? (Or the kidnappers?)
2. What are other possible "endgames" if the so-called ransom in the Nursery note is never supposed to be collected? (eg Charlie Jr is then found unharmed up at North Haven Island in Maine like Constance?)
3. There is an uncertain disconnect between 1. and 2. above?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 5, 2008 5:30:22 GMT -5
There are a lot of things I do on this board which I find as a very useful tool. Sometimes I throw ideas out there to see what kind of reaction I get. Other times I float questions to see what various answers might come from within our differing perspectives. Then I have ideas and next theories. Since nothing yet is written in stone, sometimes people here inject thoughts I have never yet considered which causes me to re-think a position.
Get my drift?
The idea that a group of people were hired to do this job is a theory of mine (and I believe Gary has indepently suggested this as well). That the ransom and the note were merely supposed to be used as a blind to what the real event actually was. That this "group" had been paid upfront money then the rest upon completion. The actual collection of the ransom (extortion) was something certain of those did on their own and it wasn't part of the original deal.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 5, 2008 6:38:16 GMT -5
Ever consider that someone was into Hauptmann in a big way?
Also, is there a complete recording of all of Hauptmann's stock transactions (32-34)?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 5, 2008 17:08:59 GMT -5
Not sure what you mean here but I am listening.....
I believe so - as far as in both his and his wife's name.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 5, 2008 19:49:50 GMT -5
So what's Hauptmann's investment strategy and how well does it work?
I don't know Michael, but I always look for connections. For example, the ransom amount of $50k and , more importantly the specific request of the 3 denominations. Why? Is some for play and some for play? Does he have a large debt that must be paid?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 7, 2008 6:57:47 GMT -5
I am assuming you consider Lindbergh having been at the helm of this scheme. I think it might have been the Daily Mirror that first alluded to the notion that the child was in some way defective and that Lindbergh decided to have the child removed. Does your theory contain a motive, substantiated by the actions of Lindbergh and those around him in the months immediately before and after the kidnapping?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 7, 2008 18:25:57 GMT -5
Joe, this "rumor" started even before the child was born. And it came in from all directions. Once the child was born it was constant. Then when he was alive, despite a perfect diet and the luxury of the silver spoon, he suffered from what the public was told was "rickets." His corpse tells a story that at best, is a little worse then that. What someone claims is "defective" is in the eye of the beholder I suppose.
But what was CAL? Really what was he? A Eugenicist whose child was supposed to represent perfection coming from the union of what Americans considered not only Royalty but genetically perfect.
And he was a Champion to these exact thoughts himself. Read American Axis. Read The Immortalists. Hell, read The Autobiography of Values.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 7, 2008 20:04:15 GMT -5
At the risk of getting into the middle of this, I have a few questions. If CAL the eugenicist believed his offspring was genetically deficient, whose genes would be suspect? And why then, after determining to eradicate his imperfect son, would he not do the same to the woman who bore him and carried another potential genetic embarrassment?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 8, 2008 7:05:48 GMT -5
The rumours came from all directions because Lindbergh was being Lindbergh. Not wanting his child to be some kind of poster boy that the press of the day seemed to believe would have a magical ameliorating effect on all of America's Depression woes. Lindbergh's desire for privacy and his withholding of the birth information spawned only the most vicious of tactics employed by the day's yellow press. That's where the real sickness started and remained ingrained for years. Because Lindbergh was being Lindbergh. Do you think he really gave a rat's @$$ about what the press wanted to make of the event? Do you believe the same man who recognized his sister-in-law's genetic-based illness would have been instrumental in designing the perfusion pump, a device that provided the hope of life, not to mention marrying into the Morrow family in the first place? Was that part of the plan too?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 9, 2008 7:16:25 GMT -5
Kevin, if CAL used the "snatch racket" to get rid of his child, I don't see how he could touch his wife after what happened. Its a whole different ball game even before this event. There is a source which said he did blame the Morrow family for CJr.'s deficiency. However, and again I disagree with Joe, the "rumors" came from CAL's dangerous and selfish actions. I am certain he knew who was to blame.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 9, 2008 7:39:21 GMT -5
It would have been easy enough to do. In fact it could have been accomplished with only a slight change in the plan. The main point is that a Eugenicist looks to the root cause and as such, he could not possibly overlook his wife's deficiencies and the those of the unborn child she was carrying.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Sept 9, 2008 19:01:56 GMT -5
The rumours may in part have arisen from some of Lindbergh's actions, a tempermental form of social awkwardness and reception to the press. There was absolutely no call though for the over-the-top trash printed by yellow rags such as the Daily Mirror. These papers had mastered a kind of warped caricature of a sickly American society and probably only half realized the lack of social conscience in their ugly exposes on the Lindbergh child.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Sept 10, 2008 10:36:34 GMT -5
Just a small voice in support where Michael is going. I definetely believe there is inside help ( I am not sure who but have my suspect). That said and have this cross and enter the life of a small time carpenter in the bronx is just odds on remote. Yet at the same time Hauptmann would be a perfect choice to be hired to have a part of the crime. #1 he could be trusted. In order to befriend the likes of Fisch one can easily look away from law abiding in getting an edge on life. #2 Hauptmann had talents. In making the ladder and any other props needed required these skills.
I wrestle with the idea that originally Hauptmann had a designed part in the crime and no more. Then with the plan dissolved or considered unable to continue decided on his own to take it to the next level on his own. With Fisch by his side and the ability to keep the inside help intact.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 10, 2008 13:01:52 GMT -5
Gary, the greatest problem I see with the idea that Hauptmann is but a hired hand is the added complexity and the lack of any evidence revealing such. The questions it raises are staggering when you consider the realities of such an action. Here's what I mean, let's suppose he is hired to do this job as you and Michael propose. Think about the connections involved in the chain from someone like Lindbergh down to the obscure Hauptmann. How many layers of people do you suppose that would entail? How many communications would be required in the search, proposal, acceptance, planning, and so forth? How would all of this be accomplished? By personal contact, by phone, or by mail? How much monetary compensation would be in order for all of these different players all looking for a cut? What would be the odds that no word of this proposed murder/abduction would get out given the nature of the characters? Who would Lindbergh contact first? Who would know of Hauptmann and, more importantly, how would they know he was interested and capable of such a brazen act? Remember, for a job like this, you can only ask once. Would Lindbergh be involved in the actual planning? Would he accept a date which is not in the normal High Fields schedule knowing the red flags it would raise? If it's not Lindbergh, then who and why? Because only 50K is demanded in ransom it's a sure bet that with all these additional hands in the pot there must be a motive beyond ransom kidnapping. Just what would you expect a job like this to cost? The list just keeps going on and on. Now weigh this against the fact that no reliable evidence of additional participants has surfaced though there has been no shortage of qualified people who have looked. Then consider an alternative; if Lindbergh really wanted to get rid of his son it would be a relatively easy matter. Sudden infant death would be at the top of my list. Suffocate him and put his head in the blanket. I doubt it would cause widespread suspicion and the nation would pity the Lindberghs for their loss. There's probably a dozen other ways the child's death could be accomplished without raising too much suspicion. Weigh that against the complexity of inventing a phony kidnap and inviting the press and investigators into your home. Bottom line, conspiracy sounds simple but in practical terms it requires lots of actions which leave distinct trails.
|
|