What Really Happened on the Evening of March 1, 1932
Aug 7, 2023 10:30:16 GMT -5
lightningjew likes this
Post by Michael on Aug 7, 2023 10:30:16 GMT -5
I’ll start here with your second point, ie. the kidnapper(s) knowing the Lindberghs would be at Highfields on the night of March 1, 1932. Obviously, your general conclusion omits the possibility that the kidnapper did not understand that the Lindberghs were still only part-time residents of Hopewell. Further, your black-or-white comment that the kidnapper(s) were either studying the movements and routine of the household or they were not, therefore implying they knew conclusively one way or another, does not begin to explore the potential of what took place within prior surveillance, and that which took place on the evening of the crime.
Among many other hats he wore, Dr. Dudley Schoenfeld, a well-know and respected NYC psychiatrist, would have considered what he believed to be of relevance within his work to profile the kidnapper / extortionist, based on his understanding of the ransom notes and those events which took place after March 1, 1932. Remember, he had the ear of both Lt. James Finn and Captain Richard Oliver of the NYPD, and probably learned things about the investigation that we might never know.
Regardless, I'm sure he would have been very diligent in addressing each and every one of your own concerns for their actual significance, if you'd had the opportunity to express them at the time. And while you're implying that Schoenfeld would have done everything he could to demonstrate they were absolutely correct once the time came, ie. Hauptmann's apprehension, why don't we let the good doctor speak here for himself, as he did within this memorandum to Captain Oliver and Lt. James Finn of the NYPD, dated November 10, 1932, approximately 22 months prior to the arrest of Richard Hauptmann.
Note: Third paragraph, which reads in part, “Rejection of part should no mean complete rejection of the whole.”
I leave it to the individual to determine what they feel is important from the below passage from The Crime and the Criminal, and hope it will lead to further overall discussion: (continued in next post)
If you think the kidnappers "did not understand" the family only stayed on weekends then there isn't much else I can do. This is exactly the type of information that is gleaned from watching the house: the comings and goings and routines of the occupants (among other things). What is the point otherwise? So again, they either watched the house or they did not. if you truly believe this and not just grasping at straws, I'll put you down as thinking the whole thing was pulled off based on luck - or stupidity - by blindly walking into a situation they knew nothing about.
Dr. Shoenfeld did in this case what today a John Douglas or Robert Ressler would do in this day and age. No where near the experts they are, but it was smart of NY to enlist his assistance. That aside, he got a lot wrong in my opinion, but of course that doesn't mean there was not, or is not, some value in his pre-arrest observations. Lots of things, like the idea that the ransom writer "identified himself with the baby" is quite silly, or that he was "insane" disproves the jist of his entire profile in my opinion. He got the German part right, I suppose, as it relates to Hauptmann anyway. I do like his common sense observation here:
"Let me recall his conduct with Mr. Condon. He meets him; thinks that he is being followed; runs away from him; exposes himself, not very far from the place of flight meets Dr. Condon again without any degree of fear sits down and has a prolonged conversation with him. This is a very striking situation, and calls for very serious consideration."
Of course this assumes Condon told the truth and we know he WAVERED in his assistance to Lindbergh by lying his ass off so many times its hard to keep track. So its obvious Shoenfeld is looking at things from a perspective concerning what was already "accepted" fact. Again, his sources were NY and Leigh Matteson, so he did not know what he did not know. Later observations like the Boad Nelly note having a subconscious meaning of "Nearly on the Road" seems a stretch but it is fun to at least take things like this into consideration. Sometime in later 1935, he called up the FBI because he wanted them to interview a woman who was saying she saw Hauptmann in a dodge with a woman, baby, and a small Jewish man in the backseat. I give him credit because it certainly doesn't jibe with his original positions. However, he didn't call NY, he called the FBI. To me, he did that because there wouldn't be any publicity about it.