|
Post by skeptical on Oct 5, 2022 3:03:29 GMT -5
In addition to the other problems BRH would have had, as noted above:
Modern maps show about 70 miles from the Bronx to Hopewell. In 1932 the roads were not ribbons of concrete and asphalt but dirt and gravel, most of the way. That’s two hours or more, if he didn’t have a flat.
The ladder was 38 pounds and the child 35 pounds. How does one man plan to carry even a dead child and a ladder? He can’t carry both very far.
The windows are single pane. It’s quiet as a ghost at Highfields. Every sound presents a chance of discovery.
The most famous man alive might have a dog. There was a dog, but inside. One bark and he’s discovered.
The new home is huge, with 14 rooms. Which one is the baby’s?
The yard is a sea of mud, no grass yet in March. Yet no muddy tracks in the nursery.
His car will make lots of noise, and leave tire tracks.
He will leave footprints.
And if kills the child, which he must if it’s BRH acting alone so his wife won’t know, he’s got to find a place to bury Charlie.
Yes, BRH can do all the above.
But wasn’t he reckless, to plan that?
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Oct 5, 2022 5:31:01 GMT -5
Hi Joe, I would think that any surveillance conducted as you say during the week, at weekends, day and evening and possibly over a 4 month period fully deserves to be labelled "extensive." However, as we are discussing events which may or may not have happened the choice of adjective is academic. I support the points raised by Trojanusc and Skeptical as to the sheer improbability of BRH being the actual hands-on kidnapper. In any chain of probability the overall figure is not the figure assigned to the individual probabilities but their multiple. If three related events each have a 10% chance of having happened the chance that they all did happen is not 10% but 0.1%. As Trojanusc has detailed, there are just too many improbabilities associated with BRH as kidnapper. Best regards, Sherlock
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Oct 5, 2022 6:25:30 GMT -5
Sherlock makes some good points. The kidnapping appears to have been accomplished by a few amateurish individuals who happened to escape via luck and bungling in the investigation. There must have been at least one clever individual in the group, perhaps the #1 or #2. Two scenarios indicate clever planning: the first is the contact and use of the Divine Power persons who were used to communicate with Breckinridge; the second is the elaborate scene set up at St. Raymond's cemetery as reported by the guard Uebel. In addition, the word choice and syntax in the ransom notes also indicate in some phrases some level of education and intelligence (not on the part of the writer himself, however). These are not professional kidnappers, but the planning was elaborate in some ways. The problem lies in the way the case was attempted to be solved. Someone comes up with a theory and then looks at separate details that support that theory while ignoring everything to the contrary. One needs to look at all the evidence available and then form a conclusion. It's like putting a puzzle together with having the finished cover on the box to use as a guide. The problem with the kidnapping case is that some pieces in the box which are irrelevant to the finished picture, and some pieces are yet missing.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Oct 5, 2022 6:52:13 GMT -5
hiram, I agree with the remarks in your last paragraph. The writer Ludovic Kennedy opined that a common mistake is to decide that the accused is guilty and then to interpret the available facts to support this conclusion. If one starts at the other end as it were by assessing his/her character, the circumstances surrounding the crime, and the crime scene evidence these same facts often lead to a different conclusion. I like the idea of the jigsaw containing irrelevant or missing pieces. These have occupied many researchers, including myself, over the years but of course it had to be done. Regards, Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by skeptical on Oct 5, 2022 8:37:43 GMT -5
Another and opposite danger is to be too conspiratorial minded. The widow of the doctor who killed Huey Long in the Louisiana statehouse and was left dead on the floor spent her entire life denying the obvious. The family of MLK harbored delusions that James Earl Ray was innocent. And even after DNA evidence proved an outside intruder in the Jon Benet Ramsey case there are still people trying to blame a beauty pageant mother, or even her nine year old son. The ladder evidence against BRH is so conclusive of guilt unless it’s fabricated, then he’s guilty at least as an accessory. The ransom letters and the $15,000 also put a noose around his neck. But to make the initial snatch more probable, add these unsolved mysteries: 1. Inside information would explain how the snatchers knew where and when to snatch Charlie. 2. Two men to carry a ladder and a baby makes more sense. 3. A woman assigned to care for Charley means he was dropped and killed, something unplanned. The unsolvable mystery is that under any theory somebody almost had to have driven a noisy car a few miles to attempt a hasty disposal of Charlie’s body. I own a farm five miles from any town. You can hear cars coming over a mile away. A 1932 car is narrow, and it’s noisy. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/1930_Dodge_DD_Six_Sedan_%2826558822862%29.jpg
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Oct 5, 2022 10:13:53 GMT -5
Yes, one can be too conspiratorial and select facts to fit this theory but if an objective appraisal of the evidence and circumstances leads inexorably to a conspiracy probability (I put it no higher), this has to be taken seriously. "Conspiracy theory" itself has become a derogatory label ever since the JFK shooting but it deserves serious consideration here. Regarding noisy cars: it was the proverbial "dark and stormy night" when external noises, flapping shutters etc would be expected by the folks inside the house. I strongly suspect this stormy night was chosen for that reason by someone whose career had made him particularly weather-conscious.....
|
|
|
Post by skeptical on Oct 5, 2022 13:01:55 GMT -5
Threatened bad weather is actually against BRH being the sole abductor.
A 1930 Dodge might have one hand operated windshield wiper.
The roads would be be seas of mud, if it rained.
BRH had to look out and think,,,
I can drive seventy miles, snatch a kid, bury a kid, and make it home in time to pick up Anna.
That’s a fair weather job.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Oct 5, 2022 13:36:36 GMT -5
Skeptical, I don't think there are too many people on this board that think that Hauptman(or anyone) pulled this off by themselves, despite what the prosecution "proved".
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 7, 2022 6:35:10 GMT -5
Sherlock, I believe that surveillance (I didn’t say “extensive surveillance”) of the house would likely have occurred both during both the week and on weekends, up to and even beyond a four-month period prior to March 1, 1932. With the house essentially habitable at the point the Lindberghs first visited there on the weekend of October 31, 1931, most subsequent weekends were also spent there. The usual practice for the child’s movements involved a Friday or Saturday arrival and return to Next Day Hill on Mondays. For anyone watching the house on weekends, the primary time of interest of course, would have been Charlie's bedtime. Under cover of darkness, coming and going from the area by an outsider would have been less obvious to a local resident, and this would be the critical period to monitor lights being turned on and off. On weekdays, be it day or evening, whoever was watching the house would surely have seen signs of life, as Ollie and Elsie Whateley had both been full time residents prior to the Lindberghs having spent their first weekend there. Deliveries would have been made, tradesmen coming and going, Ollie driving to town, etc. It's unreasonable to believe anyone would have been "camped out" within sight of the house to determine exactly who was there at all times. Hauptmann, in financial straits, was essentially jobless from the time he returned from California, and was actively seeking work during an ever-worsening economic time, while working up his kidnapping plan. I submit he simply took whatever opportunity he could away from any job-seeking activities, with no defined schedule other than his ability to get into the Hopewell area, keeping as low a profile as possible. Watching the house on weekends, most notably at bedtime, would have allowed him to come and go relatively unseen, while mapping out the required routes would have best been accomplished during the day, at the same time allowing him to more effectively ‘blend in’ with any other traffic. He would also likely have had to consider Anna’s work schedule, and it seems reasonable to believe the best time to get away during weekdays without her knowledge, would have been during daylight hours. Recognizing Hauptmann’s socio-economic position in life relative to that of the Lindberghs, no proven or even proposed connection between him and anyone in direct contact with Lindbergh for the purpose of determining their movements and given everything he would have reasonably been to observe during his surveillance, I consider very strongly that Hauptmann simply believed that the Lindberghs were now permanent residents of Hopewell and living at Highfields. I see no evidence to even suggest Hauptmann had any kind of disloyal insider information, ie. the first Tuesday night Charlie was at Highfields, nursery location, defective shutter, unlocked window, etc. He did whatever research and homework he felt was necessary and then put faith in his own abilities and most importantly, his ability to adapt under whatever difficult conditions he probably expected to find. He knew the kidnapping and extortion were both going to be extremely risky, but he was extremely motivated by the prospect of instant wealth and he was simply willing to take the risk. For his brazen efforts, he was rewarded by great fortune, even lucky, as he found less obstacles in his way than expected. But his surplus of luck inevitably ran out. Yep seems totally logical that Hauptmann did weekday reconnaissance, where he would have observed the family wasn't home, then did some some weekend observation to realize they were home without making the correlation. Lucky for him none of the snoopy locals saw him. Then he somehow makes his way to Hopewell on the night of the kidnapping, drives ups the driveway, navigates the tiny boardwalk without stepping off it, places the ladder up in one felt swoop (only one set of impressions), then climbs it at an hour while the entire family is up/awake, without so much as stepping off the boardwalk to double check the baby is in the room and nobody else is present. Then he scales the ladder, catapults himself over a chest of drawers + suitcase without disturbing the stein or tinker toys or alerting anyone downstairs, removes the baby without making a sound, wipes down the entire nursery for prints, then rather than simply push the chest + suitcase out of the way he decides to leap over it again (while still not disturbing the array of objects on top), then scale down the ladder. Upon exiting his car is magically moved to where he takes an alternate exit route to the service road, before leaving the ladder, despite being careful enough to wear gloves and wipe the nursery down. Oh and he has a fake set of shoes to create a second set of prints as a ruse. Oh and let's not forget he probably wore a shoe size that didn't match the prints. Then he also somehow managed to get back in time to pick his wife up in the bakery where Anna and Fredericksen saw him. Anna wouldn't lie for him in other places, so no reason for her to lie here. Yep this all seems totally logical. The hoops lone wolf believers must logically jump through is astounding. Conveniently-incorrect interpretation of the real evidence, plain misinformation and no shortage of hyperbole here. And you seem to have absolutely no idea of what Hauptmann was capable of, with or without assistance.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 7, 2022 7:13:49 GMT -5
Hi Joe, I would think that any surveillance conducted as you say during the week, at weekends, day and evening and possibly over a 4 month period fully deserves to be labelled "extensive." However, as we are discussing events which may or may not have happened the choice of adjective is academic. I support the points raised by Trojanusc and Skeptical as to the sheer improbability of BRH being the actual hands-on kidnapper. In any chain of probability the overall figure is not the figure assigned to the individual probabilities but their multiple. If three related events each have a 10% chance of having happened the chance that they all did happen is not 10% but 0.1%. As Trojanusc has detailed, there are just too many improbabilities associated with BRH as kidnapper. Best regards, Sherlock Sherlock, in this case, I'd say "extensive" surveillance would refer to that which leaves little or no room for error, within the mind of the perpetrator. I don't believe that Hauptmann had achieved that level, and that a great deal of fortune smiled upon him on the night of March 1, 1932, essentially filling in the gaps. As you imply though, it's a term open to personal interpretation. Bottom line, he knew the kidnapping was going to involve enormous risk (and enormous potential reward) and probably tax his abilities to the max, but it was something he was willing to undertake from conception to execution, knowing he had already undertaken and triumphed over tremendous hardships in his life. I believe it's all laid out within the ransom note symbol, which he designed based upon his own experiences and personal feelings that he was every bit as important and worthy of recognition, albeit in relative anonymity, as Charles Lindbergh. Ben Lupica observed a vehicle that essentially matched the one owned by Hauptmann and which contained "ladders," just a few hours before the kidnapping. The nursery note was proven to be connected to the subsequent ransom note by virtue of them both having been torn from the same sheet of writing paper. Hauptmann's handwriting, even to a layman, matched that of the ransom notes, to the point he remarked to his wife that if he didn't "know better," he would swear it was his handwriting. His stamp of identity can be found all over the ladder, through the grain matching between Rail 16 and S-226, the planing striations on rail edges that line up with his own hand plane like a barcode. No one else has ever been proven to have benefitted from the proceeds of the ransom payment, although I don't negate the possibility he provided a much lesser amount to a willing accomplice at some point in the process. And I put little trust in the word of Anna Hauptmann, feeling certain she ultimately became as effective a liar as her husband. What specifically are the points in your mind, which make it improbable that Hauptmann (with or without assistance) was the actual hands-on kidnapper? I see very little to suggest otherwise, and I'm willing to systematically discuss each and every point of contention.
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Oct 7, 2022 9:05:51 GMT -5
The discussion here is very interesting with some good points made. I would like to add here one detail about the signature on the ransom note. The design and coloring may be a reference to the Red Baron in some way (Baron Manfred von Richthoven) who must have been a hero to Richard Hauptmann as he was to the German people during WWI. Tbe Red Baron brought down 80 planes for Germany before his own plane was brought down by two planes from the RAF. Lindbergh had only flown solo across the Atlantic but received much praise and publicity. Perhaps the kidnapper(s) stole the child and rejoiced in their ability to bring a hero down to his proper level by attacking him in the most vulnerable way.
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Oct 7, 2022 9:22:18 GMT -5
The spelling of the name is actually Baron Manfred von Richthofen. Hauptmann did bear some physical resemblance to the Red Baron. Perhaps this was posted before, but here are two photos attached, one of the Red Baron and a second of the young BRH as a WWI soldier. soldier.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 7, 2022 9:53:10 GMT -5
Here are what I call Ransom Note Musings that Michael placed for me in the Archives section, based on a theory I first proposed in 2002. For what it's worth.. Placed in our Archives by Admin For JoeWithin the first ransom note delivered, the relatively brief nursery note, I’ve put together some personal observations and musings, which I first posted in Dec. 2008 and have since updated. I realize that many of these may possibly be attributed, in part to what we actually know now about Bruno Richard Hauptmann, whom I believe to be the author, however many of them may serve only to reinforce these traits. With the recent discussion on the nursery note, I thought I would again throw these thoughts onto the table. Handwriting- attempt to disguise normal handwriting style - written with wrong hand and/or pen held in awkward (higher up on barrel of pen) fashion to exaggerate or camouflage stroke characteristics - first four lines in second note also penned in some form of intentional subterfuge but then abandoned - arrogance, high level of self-confidence or possibly lack of awareness in police detection methods, through decision to employ personal handwriting and not pasted newspaper letters or typewriter “Dear Sir” Salutation
– formal, overly embellished, indicates personal sense of superiority - conscious effort to establish an immediate foothold and present himself on an equal level with Lindbergh, whom the writer sub-consciously nevertheless, perceives to be of a higher caste The Symbol- punched hole locations to confirm same person identity in subsequent notes - overly elaborate and seemingly-extraneous artwork denotes level of thought given to the general plan and somewhat narcissistic tendencies of the writer - blue rings represent Hauptmann and Lindbergh side by side and equal in stature - both individuals now share the child (red sphere - blood) in the middle – distance between templated holes from left to right is approximately 27 mm and 23 mm, the years both Lindbergh and Hauptmann crossed the Atlantic (1927 and 1923 respectively) – wavy lines between holes represent the ocean crossed to get from one hole (location) to another Slurred Ink- whether intentional or not, denotes writer's desire to communicate first and foremost above and beyond a more professional presentation - same tendency illustrated in less than careful construction of ladder - someone with an Achilles Heel that he himself may have difficulty recognizing Focus on Ransom Amount- the first thing mentioned and establishes the writer's level of greed and desire for money - detail and analysis in the breakdown of the specific denominations presented indicates traits of obsessive-compulsive disorder Brief Instructional Content
- says what he has to say for the time being until he is certain that Lindbergh complies with demand to deal in discretion and not call in police - also a subconscious indication this brevity was meant to portend a quick snatch and return of the child (dead or alive) for ransom payment - not originally intended to go beyond the 2 to 4 days stated which reinforces kidnapper’s belief Lindbergh would deal with him in private - a subconscious belief on the part of the writer that the impact of the discovery would require little more said to spur the Lindberghs' actions to recovering their child in the way the kidnapper demanded - despite his general level of self confidence, an uneasiness on the part of the writer, due to his relative position in life, about directly addressing Lindbergh in this opening note Unaddressed Envelope- fatal error to the writer's plans in that he gave no outward sign that Lindbergh must deal with him in private - indication of the writer's sense of superiority in assuming Lindbergh would open the envelope without first seeking help Ransom Note Singnature Theory.pdf (120.9 KB)
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Oct 7, 2022 10:07:27 GMT -5
Here is an attachment of the insignia of the Royal Air Force. Note similarity to the "signature" symbol on ransom note. Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Oct 7, 2022 11:15:43 GMT -5
Interesting to see references to air ace the Red Baron. I admit its a stretch but the symbol resembles an airplane propeller, albeit with circular blades. The bolt holes are there at the centre to hold it onto the drive shaft and even the wavy lines either side suggest air movement.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 7, 2022 13:14:55 GMT -5
Yep seems totally logical that Hauptmann did weekday reconnaissance, where he would have observed the family wasn't home, then did some some weekend observation to realize they were home without making the correlation. Lucky for him none of the snoopy locals saw him. Then he somehow makes his way to Hopewell on the night of the kidnapping, drives ups the driveway, navigates the tiny boardwalk without stepping off it, places the ladder up in one felt swoop (only one set of impressions), then climbs it at an hour while the entire family is up/awake, without so much as stepping off the boardwalk to double check the baby is in the room and nobody else is present. Then he scales the ladder, catapults himself over a chest of drawers + suitcase without disturbing the stein or tinker toys or alerting anyone downstairs, removes the baby without making a sound, wipes down the entire nursery for prints, then rather than simply push the chest + suitcase out of the way he decides to leap over it again (while still not disturbing the array of objects on top), then scale down the ladder. Upon exiting his car is magically moved to where he takes an alternate exit route to the service road, before leaving the ladder, despite being careful enough to wear gloves and wipe the nursery down. Oh and he has a fake set of shoes to create a second set of prints as a ruse. Oh and let's not forget he probably wore a shoe size that didn't match the prints. Then he also somehow managed to get back in time to pick his wife up in the bakery where Anna and Fredericksen saw him. Anna wouldn't lie for him in other places, so no reason for her to lie here. Yep this all seems totally logical. The hoops lone wolf believers must logically jump through is astounding. Conveniently-incorrect interpretation of the real evidence, plain misinformation and no shortage of hyperbole here. And you seem to have absolutely no idea of what Hauptmann was capable of, with or without assistance. Which parts do you find flaws with? From my perspective the actual source material butts up against your fictitious narrative of an all-knowing lone wolf and a grieving father whose behavior drew no suspicion from everyone around him.
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Oct 7, 2022 21:12:26 GMT -5
The insignia of the Royal Air Force plane usually appeared on the wings or the body of the aircraft. Attached in a photo of a Sopwith Camel showing the insignia on the body of the plane. Two Sopwith Camels brought down the Red Baron
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Oct 7, 2022 21:14:38 GMT -5
Baron von Richhofen's plane was red, which may have been the reason he was called the "Red Baron." A photo of his plane is attached.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 8, 2022 8:55:05 GMT -5
Conveniently-incorrect interpretation of the real evidence, plain misinformation and no shortage of hyperbole here. And you seem to have absolutely no idea of what Hauptmann was capable of, with or without assistance. Which parts do you find flaws with? From my perspective the actual source material butts up against your fictitious narrative of an all-knowing lone wolf and a grieving father whose behavior drew no suspicion from everyone around him. Which parts do I find flawed? Just about every one of them. First things first here. Time and time again, you seem to limit yourself to seeing this crime through filters which recognize only two polar options for discussion.. Lone Wolf, or, Lindy and His Gang of Fauxnappers. It’s hard to debate this case with you while you’re engaged this way. As I wrote to Sherlock, let's open up the discussion floor here a bit and at least attempt to focus on any one element at a time. No puzzle is solved by throwing down its pieces on the table, somehow hoping they will all find their correctly fitted positions by magic.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Oct 8, 2022 15:11:49 GMT -5
Hi Joe, I am reluctant to reopen the case, as it were, by engaging in a point-by-point rehash of material which has been covered so thoroughly in this forum and in Michael’s seminal books. It would be boring for the regular forum reader but my main reason comes from your recent posting above. Joe, you have been contributing to this forum for over 20 years and from the beginning you have supported the “Lone Wolf” (possibly with some cubs) theory. Your opinion now is the same as it was at the beginning. I cannot recall any concession that an opposing argument had any merit. So as regards the two polar opposites which you mention you are firmly and irrevocably invested in the “BRH did it all” version. As you say “It is hard to debate the case when you are engaged in this way.” Although I disagree with your version of events I admire the way you continue to defend your minority position on this forum. What I am missing is some movement from apparent certainty to an introduction of doubt as in: “Although I had believed it to be Hauptmann who Ben Lupica saw in the car he did say the car had New Jersey, not New York plates, he didn’t notice a prominent home made box on the back (still there from BRH’s trip), and he said the driver resembled Hauptmann in only one respect: he was white. But it was dark with poor visibility so there is doubt.” This statement in my words expresses a shift from apparent certainty, not to complete acceptance of an alternative, but to a position of doubt by conceding merit to the points raised. Instead we have “What parts do I find flawed? Just about every one of them” in your response to the points raised by Trojanusc. So for these reasons I do not, at present, see a new point-by-point debate as being fruitful. With great respect, Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 8, 2022 16:27:07 GMT -5
Hi Joe, I am reluctant to reopen the case, as it were, by engaging in a point-by-point rehash of material which has been covered so thoroughly in this forum and in Michael’s seminal books. It would be boring for the regular forum reader but my main reason comes from your recent posting above. Joe, you have been contributing to this forum for over 20 years and from the beginning you have supported the “Lone Wolf” (possibly with some cubs) theory. Your opinion now is the same as it was at the beginning. I cannot recall any concession that an opposing argument had any merit. So as regards the two polar opposites which you mention you are firmly and irrevocably invested in the “BRH did it all” version. As you say “It is hard to debate the case when you are engaged in this way.” Although I disagree with your version of events I admire the way you continue to defend your minority position on this forum. What I am missing is some movement from apparent certainty to an introduction of doubt as in: “Although I had believed it to be Hauptmann who Ben Lupica saw in the car he did say the car had New Jersey, not New York plates, he didn’t notice a prominent home made box on the back (still there from BRH’s trip), and he said the driver resembled Hauptmann in only one respect: he was white. But it was dark with poor visibility so there is doubt.” This statement in my words expresses a shift from apparent certainty, not to complete acceptance of an alternative, but to a position of doubt by conceding merit to the points raised. Instead we have “What parts do I find flawed? Just about every one of them” in your response to the points raised by Trojanusc. So for these reasons I do not, at present, see a new point-by-point debate as being fruitful. With great respect, Sherlock This is what baffles me to be honest. Michael has unearthed things which nobody had seen or known about in 80 years, which should fundamentally change their understanding of this case (Lindbergh being seeing much earlier than he claimed, Uebel, etc) yet Joe flat out refuses to alter his opinion in light of any new evidence. It’s just a “gut trumps fact” mindset that’s insulting to people like Michael who have spent countless years and tens of thousands of hours researching and bringing to light this material.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Oct 9, 2022 1:24:25 GMT -5
Couldn't agree more.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 9, 2022 10:23:52 GMT -5
Hi Joe, I am reluctant to reopen the case, as it were, by engaging in a point-by-point rehash of material which has been covered so thoroughly in this forum and in Michael’s seminal books. It would be boring for the regular forum reader but my main reason comes from your recent posting above. Joe, you have been contributing to this forum for over 20 years and from the beginning you have supported the “Lone Wolf” (possibly with some cubs) theory. Your opinion now is the same as it was at the beginning. I cannot recall any concession that an opposing argument had any merit. So as regards the two polar opposites which you mention you are firmly and irrevocably invested in the “BRH did it all” version. As you say “It is hard to debate the case when you are engaged in this way.” Although I disagree with your version of events I admire the way you continue to defend your minority position on this forum. What I am missing is some movement from apparent certainty to an introduction of doubt as in: “Although I had believed it to be Hauptmann who Ben Lupica saw in the car he did say the car had New Jersey, not New York plates, he didn’t notice a prominent home made box on the back (still there from BRH’s trip), and he said the driver resembled Hauptmann in only one respect: he was white. But it was dark with poor visibility so there is doubt.” This statement in my words expresses a shift from apparent certainty, not to complete acceptance of an alternative, but to a position of doubt by conceding merit to the points raised. Instead we have “What parts do I find flawed? Just about every one of them” in your response to the points raised by Trojanusc. So for these reasons I do not, at present, see a new point-by-point debate as being fruitful. With great respect, Sherlock Sherlock, I can respect your desire not to continue in what you consider to be a meaningless rehash of previous discussion and an established majority theme. I prefer to see it otherwise, recognizing enormous potential value in further running to ground many of the crass distortions, misrepresentations and omissions that pervade this discussion board. Unfortunately and as I’ve said before, it’s really the only remaining show in town, complete with it’s now apparently-adopted reference bible. And so, warts and all, it suffices. Life is not perfect.. My overall take on this case has evolved over a period of twenty-two years. I’m not sure where you’re getting your information that allows you to state unequivocally I have been a ‘Lone Wolf’ (with possible cubs) supporter for that entire time, but it’s simply not true. Chalk up one more misrepresentation here.. From the very beginning, I reasoned through my own technical background and penchant for excruciating detail, the solid connection between Hauptmann and the kidnap ladder, as established by Arthur Koehler’s brilliant analysis. Even so, I also seriously questioned whether it would have been possible for authorities to have tampered with Rail 16 within an equal degree of technical sophistication, for the purpose of “setting up” some poor illegal immigrant as a scapegoat. Kel Keraga’s excellent treatise “Testimony in Wood” finally put to rest, all remaining questions. Until relatively recently, I had retained some degree of hope that the kidnapping was intended to involve a “quick snatch and return” of the child for the ransom payment. When Lindbergh called in the police immediately, he rendered that scenario virtually unattainable. And having studied Lindbergh’s life in some depth, I wanted to fully understand whether he would have had the means, motive and opportunity to arrange for the destruction of his first-born son, as has been widely theorized here. He had none. As an aside here, I do feel a deep empathy for him and his family. Not only were they victimized in the most despicable way through Charlie’s kidnapping and death, but they have essentially had to endure the fallacious fallout of that event from then to this day by virtue of some pretty insipid ‘cause and effect’ logic. A damn shame really. Jacob Nosovitsky, Duane Baker, Hans Muller, Isidor Fisch, John Condon, (yes) have all been persons of interests in my own mind, from the roles of bit player and willing accomplice, up to and including lead conspirator. Over time, each one has fallen aside or within a lesser position for good reason, although it’s not for lack of trying to maintain them in a position of reasonable scrutiny. For the record, Isidor Fisch is my candidate for assisting Hauptmann in the laundering of ransom money after August 1932, and Hans Mueller still has my interest, primarily within the extortion process, but not outside the realm of the kidnapping itself. The jigsaw puzzle I envisioned at the beginning, still contains Hauptmann’s face, front and centre. Over twenty-two years, he continues to make that a pretty straightforward process. There are still a lot of pieces to fill in and I remain open to any and all reasonable theories, as long as they bear some connection to Richard Hauptmann, the only man who has been conclusively proven to have participated in this crime.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 9, 2022 10:48:20 GMT -5
Hi Joe, I am reluctant to reopen the case, as it were, by engaging in a point-by-point rehash of material which has been covered so thoroughly in this forum and in Michael’s seminal books. It would be boring for the regular forum reader but my main reason comes from your recent posting above. Joe, you have been contributing to this forum for over 20 years and from the beginning you have supported the “Lone Wolf” (possibly with some cubs) theory. Your opinion now is the same as it was at the beginning. I cannot recall any concession that an opposing argument had any merit. So as regards the two polar opposites which you mention you are firmly and irrevocably invested in the “BRH did it all” version. As you say “It is hard to debate the case when you are engaged in this way.” Although I disagree with your version of events I admire the way you continue to defend your minority position on this forum. What I am missing is some movement from apparent certainty to an introduction of doubt as in: “Although I had believed it to be Hauptmann who Ben Lupica saw in the car he did say the car had New Jersey, not New York plates, he didn’t notice a prominent home made box on the back (still there from BRH’s trip), and he said the driver resembled Hauptmann in only one respect: he was white. But it was dark with poor visibility so there is doubt.” This statement in my words expresses a shift from apparent certainty, not to complete acceptance of an alternative, but to a position of doubt by conceding merit to the points raised. Instead we have “What parts do I find flawed? Just about every one of them” in your response to the points raised by Trojanusc. So for these reasons I do not, at present, see a new point-by-point debate as being fruitful. With great respect, Sherlock This is what baffles me to be honest. Michael has unearthed things which nobody had seen or known about in 80 years, which should fundamentally change their understanding of this case (Lindbergh being seeing much earlier than he claimed, Uebel, etc) yet Joe flat out refuses to alter his opinion in light of any new evidence. It’s just a “gut trumps fact” mindset that’s insulting to people like Michael who have spent countless years and tens of thousands of hours researching and bringing to light this material. You're confusing disciplines of which there are many in this case. I've never had any qualms about how much time and effort Michael has put into this case, as well as his sharing of countless pieces of information which would have otherwise been difficult to acquire. Discovery and deduction do not always come together hand-in-hand though.
|
|
|
Post by skeptical on Oct 9, 2022 13:12:50 GMT -5
We all bring our own backgrounds into interpreting all the clues in this famous case, and mine is I was raised an old time Scottish tradition Christian in the Missouri Ozarks. From all available evidence today, an innocent man was crucified on Friday April 3, 33 A.D. in Jerusalem in the Roman Province of Judea. We know the name of the local Roman Praefectus Pontus Pilate from the Pilate Stone. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilate_stoneUnderstand, that’s not proof of the Crucifixion much less the Resurrection nor any miracles,,,,just that the hearsay Greek stories assembled in 325 AD and translated to Latin might be essentially true. A Christian (only, not any denomination) has faith in, but remains skeptical, about all the essential elements of the Christ story being the Gospel truth. Regardless, Christianity is the best philosophy of how to save every soul on this earth, if we can only manage to love one another, especially the least of these. So, applying this method to the Lindbergh kidnapping we have these absolute truths. A baby was reported missing at 10 pm, snatched from his crib on the second story of a brand new home belonging to an incredibly famous father. And according to newspapers, a local tracker named Oscar Bush led the father following two sets of footprints away from the scene about a half a mile down the one entrance to the new house along an abandoned road, called Featherbed Lane, to where a car had barked trees. If that’s true, we need to look for a Judas. It’s difficult enough to believe one man carried a three piece ladder a half mile alone, let alone knowing where to snatch the child from. Add knowledge of an abandoned road, a stormy night, a 140 round trip, and BRH had help, if there were two sets of tracks. Help me, please, with these issues. Because I want to believe BRH acted alone, but the evidence is he had help.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 9, 2022 13:58:48 GMT -5
A baby was reported missing at 10 pm, snatched from his crib on the second story of a brand new home belonging to an incredibly famous father. And according to newspapers, a local tracker named Oscar Bush led the father following two sets of footprints away from the scene about a half a mile down the one entrance to the new house along an abandoned road, called Featherbed Lane, to where a car had barked trees. If that’s true, we need to look for a Judas. It’s difficult enough to believe one man carried a three piece ladder a half mile alone, let alone knowing where to snatch the child from. Add knowledge of an abandoned road, a stormy night, a 140 round trip, and BRH had help, if there were two sets of tracks. Help me, please, with these issues. Because I want to believe BRH acted alone, but the evidence is he had help. You're missing the fact there was no footprint evidence approaching the house. They had to have parked in front and followed the boardwalk, then for whatever reason, left in a totally opposite direction from where they came. Plus, after being careful enough to wipe down the entire nursery for fingerprints, they drop the ladder. It makes no sense. On top of this, you have to realize that the NOVA special showed it was difficult for two people to put up the ladder on a nice day, let alone one person in gusty gross weather. Plus, the footprint evidence shows that they never once stepped off the boardwalk when raising the ladder (damn near impossible without practice) and immediately put it in the right spot, as there was only one set of ladder impressions. As I mentioned previously, the kidnappers never once stepped off the boardwalk, also, to look into the room. This was dinnertime when everyone was up and awake. There could have been the whole family in the room. During the Curtis trial, it was said the baby was handed out the front door by someone in the house. Lindbergh believed this, despite him refusing police access to interview the household staff. Then you have testimony that Lindbergh himself was in the area far earlier than he claimed, on top of the fact that he skipped a major function without so much as an explanation and was never asked to account for his day. The police buried this bit of evidence, as it directly contradicted the God Lindbergh's statement and nobody wanted to consider the obvious. This thing was as staged as it could get - but almost certainly using a third party to handle the staging and removal.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 9, 2022 14:20:26 GMT -5
We all bring our own backgrounds into interpreting all the clues in this famous case, and mine is I was raised an old time Scottish tradition Christian in the Missouri Ozarks. From all available evidence today, an innocent man was crucified on Friday April 3, 33 A.D. in Jerusalem in the Roman Province of Judea. We know the name of the local Roman Praefectus Pontus Pilate from the Pilate Stone. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilate_stoneUnderstand, that’s not proof of the Crucifixion much less the Resurrection nor any miracles,,,,just that the hearsay Greek stories assembled in 325 AD and translated to Latin might be essentially true. A Christian (only, not any denomination) has faith in, but remains skeptical, about all the essential elements of the Christ story being the Gospel truth. Regardless, Christianity is the best philosophy of how to save every soul on this earth, if we can only manage to love one another, especially the least of these. So, applying this method to the Lindbergh kidnapping we have these absolute truths. A baby was reported missing at 10 pm, snatched from his crib on the second story of a brand new home belonging to an incredibly famous father. And according to newspapers, a local tracker named Oscar Bush led the father following two sets of footprints away from the scene about a half a mile down the one entrance to the new house along an abandoned road, called Featherbed Lane, to where a car had barked trees. If that’s true, we need to look for a Judas. It’s difficult enough to believe one man carried a three piece ladder a half mile alone, let alone knowing where to snatch the child from. Add knowledge of an abandoned road, a stormy night, a 140 round trip, and BRH had help, if there were two sets of tracks. Help me, please, with these issues. Because I want to believe BRH acted alone, but the evidence is he had help. There's good reason to believe Hauptmann had some degree of assistance within the kidnapping and extortion. Most evidence indicates the strong likelihood of at least perpetrators at the crime scene. Who took home the lion’s share though? Consider: Hauptmann’s lack of verifiable employment income within the period from March 1, 1932 to September 19, 1934, despite the fact that his suddenly-extravagant personal purchases and general expenses accounted for as much as 90% of the ransom payment, while he managed to lose money in the stock market, not only demonstrates his associated enrichment but also indicates there was little to go around for accomplices. And he quit what work he had been able to get, as soon as the ransom was paid. The conclusively-proven and direct association between Rail 16 and the Hauptmann attic floor board known as Exhibit S-226, in all seeming likelihood a last minute substitution for a previous rail that was unsuitable for use, or a perceived need for a third section when only two had originally been planned. Also, Hauptmann’s hand plane was demonstrated to produce the identical planing striations on the edges of rails he had ripped to achieve their required width, three years earlier. The startling comparison, even to a layman’s eye, between his handwriting and that within the ransom notes to the degree that he himself “lamented” to his wife that if he didn’t know better, he would have sworn it was his own writing! Ben Lupica’s description of the dark-coloured Dodge sedan near the Lindbergh driveway on the evening of the kidnapping, which he claimed was a 1929 model. I’ve previously demonstrated that Lupica’s use of the winged radiator emblem to peg the date of the vehicle could have resulted in him being off by as much as 3 years forward to the 1932 model year, which retained the exact same emblem. Hauptmann drove a 1930 Dodge Model DD sedan, manufactured in January of 1931. The direct link between the nursery note and the first of the subsequent extortion notes, proven conclusively by the fact that each one’s torn edges lined up precisely with the other. This establishes the connection between the nursery intruder and CJ. Condon's physical description of CJ comfortably puts Hauptmann under suspicion here. CJ’s statement to Condon during one of the cemetery meetings, that the kidnapping was “planned for a year already,” is the same phrase found in the ransom notes, and the same phrase uttered by Hauptmann during trial proceedings. His admission to Bronx District Attorney Samuel Foley that he had written Condon’s address and phone number on the closet trim of one of the rooms in his apartment, along with the explanation that this was a peculiar habit of his and given his interest in the Lindbergh case at the time.
|
|
|
Post by skeptical on Oct 9, 2022 15:02:40 GMT -5
There's good reason to believe Hauptmann had some degree of assistance within the kidnapping and extortion. Most evidence indicates the strong likelihood of at least perpetrators at the crime scene. Who took home the lion’s share though?
—-
It’s a sad but true story, from the Bible it came,
Of a Chosen Disciple, though I mention no names
He planned with the Council, of High Priests that day
Thirty pieces of silver, was the price they would pay.
—-
If the Crucifixion story is essentially true, then one of Christ’s own disciples betrayed Him to the Sanhedrin.
They knew exactly where to go find Him, after midnight on Friday morning.
—
Multitudes came the morning of the reported snatch to Hopewell and on further to Highfields.
But only a local would have known about an abandoned road, that if Oscar Bush actually existed he also would have known about.
This minute I’m a half mile from East 360th Road in the middle of 20 acres of timber my family bought in 1876.
There is just no way somebody 70 miles from here in Joplin could know the old abandoned road they’d need to know to find this spot.
If there was an Oscar Bush, and he followed two sets of prints down an abandoned road, to where a car barked a tree—-
It’s an inside job, or they’d not know about that abandoned road.
And BRH??? and somebody else were at the Highfields, for the snatch.
And it also follows, it wasn’t planned as a murder.
The insider might take 30 pieces of silver for a kidnap, but to murder a baby?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 9, 2022 15:31:20 GMT -5
There's good reason to believe Hauptmann had some degree of assistance within the kidnapping and extortion. Most evidence indicates the strong likelihood of at least perpetrators at the crime scene. Who took home the lion’s share though? —- It’s a sad but true story, from the Bible it came, Of a Chosen Disciple, though I mention no names He planned with the Council, of High Priests that day Thirty pieces of silver, was the price they would pay. —- If the Crucifixion story is essentially true, then one of Christ’s own disciples betrayed Him to the Sanhedrin. They knew exactly where to go find Him, after midnight on Friday morning. — Multitudes came the morning of the reported snatch to Hopewell and on further to Highfields. But only a local would have known about an abandoned road, that if Oscar Bush actually existed he also would have known about. This minute I’m a half mile from East 360th Road in the middle of 20 acres of timber my family bought in 1876. There is just no way somebody 70 miles from here in Joplin could know the old abandoned road they’d need to know to find this spot. If there was an Oscar Bush, and he followed two sets of prints down an abandoned road, to where a car barked a tree—- It’s an inside job, or they’d not know about that abandoned road. And BRH??? and somebody else were at the Highfields, for the snatch. And it also follows, it wasn’t planned as a murder. The insider might take 30 pieces of silver for a kidnap, but to murder a baby? You’re missing the obvious - that a staunch eugenicist Nazi couldn’t stomach having a disabled son and this was all about removing in the easiest possible way that would create public sympathy. It was not uncommon at the time for wealthy parents, particularly in Europe where eugenics was big, to have children “disappear” to avoid embarrassment. This possibility was quite literally the first thing Scotland Yard asked when consulted on the case. It was assured the NJSP had investigated the state of the child’s health, but they did not.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 9, 2022 16:21:04 GMT -5
A baby was reported missing at 10 pm, snatched from his crib on the second story of a brand new home belonging to an incredibly famous father. And according to newspapers, a local tracker named Oscar Bush led the father following two sets of footprints away from the scene about a half a mile down the one entrance to the new house along an abandoned road, called Featherbed Lane, to where a car had barked trees. If that’s true, we need to look for a Judas. It’s difficult enough to believe one man carried a three piece ladder a half mile alone, let alone knowing where to snatch the child from. Add knowledge of an abandoned road, a stormy night, a 140 round trip, and BRH had help, if there were two sets of tracks. Help me, please, with these issues. Because I want to believe BRH acted alone, but the evidence is he had help. I hope you guys don't mind if I interject, but I think these comments are worthy of further questioning and discussion. You're missing the fact there was no footprint evidence approaching the house. The kidnapper(s) wore soft shoe coverings which would not have left obvious prints, especially given the firmer soil conditions along the lee-protected east wall of the house. The crime scene photograph of the ladder imprints demonstrates this clearly.
They had to have parked in front and followed the boardwalk, They didn't have to do anything of the sort, if they had previously dropped off the ladder and associated supplies and then parked on Hopewell-Wertsville Rd. They simply walked up the driveway to accomplish the kidnapping. then for whatever reason, left in a totally opposite direction from where they came. They would have retreated back down the driveway but the ladder unexpectedly cracked, throwing them into a state of controlled panic. Their instinct now demanded flight and getting away from the house first and foremost. Plus, after being careful enough to wipe down the entire nursery for fingerprints, they drop the ladder. It makes no sense. They didn't wipe down the nursery, and the ladder was only left behind after it became apparent it was more important to get away, had anyone in the house been alerted by the cracking of the ladder and its impact against the house.
On top of this, you have to realize that the NOVA special showed it was difficult for two people to put up the ladder on a nice day, let alone one person in gusty gross weather. Kel Keraga was able to set up all three sections of his accurately-constructed replica ladder and place it against a wall in under a minute. Plus, the footprint evidence shows that they never once stepped off the boardwalk when raising the ladder (damn near impossible without practice) and immediately put it in the right spot, as there was only one set of ladder impressions. Clearly, they would have stepped off the narrow boardwalk within their approach in the dark. Their soft foot coverings and the firmness of the ground directly alongside the east wall of the house would not have registered these 'step-offs' though.
As I mentioned previously, the kidnappers never once stepped off the boardwalk, also, to look into the room. This was dinnertime when everyone was up and awake. There could have been the whole family in the room. The kidnappers chose to strike during the noise created by downstairs movements, as opposed to a time when the house would have been silent and the Lindberghs likely sleeping in the next room. Both choices would have been risky, and it seems like six of one, half dozen of the other.
During the Curtis trial, it was said the baby was handed out the front door by someone in the house. Lindbergh believed this, despite him refusing police access to interview the household staff. Lindbergh was searching for answers and although he felt Curtis could be lying, was still willing to consider his story.
Then you have testimony that Lindbergh himself was in the area far earlier than he claimed, Whited's testimony was never verified. Could he have been off by a couple of days, which would have seen Lindbergh driving in with the Breckinridges on Saturday evening or returning from the Princeton Railroad station on Sunday evening? (on top of the fact that he skipped a major function without so much as an explanation and was never asked to account for his day. The police buried this bit of evidence, as it directly contradicted the God Lindbergh's statement and nobody wanted to consider the obvious. He said he forgot, and he did call Henry Breckinridge right away to explain. I tend to think he may have just used that as an excuse to get out of an engagement he didn't want to attend.
This thing was as staged as it could get - but almost certainly using a third party to handle the staging and removal. You're laying this at the doorstep one of the most shadowy of shadow groups. Very convenient.
|
|