Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2012 9:21:21 GMT -5
I still don’t agree that “Lindbergh paid the ransom because he had no choice. (BR)
I feel that it came down to him not having a choice but to pay it. I think that is why there were so many notes; why it was taking so long to negotiate. There was a real tug-of-war going on between Lindbergh and the extortioner to see who would give in first. When the ransom note came saying that if this wasn't settled he would raise the "ransom" to 100,000 was a clear message that there would be no backing down. And the appearance of the thumbguard really kicked it home. I think all of these things link together. Lindbergh had to pay to end this.
I think your point about the thumbguard appearing underlines this beautifully. More than the thumbguard could turn up if he doesn't pay up. Lindbergh could not take that risk. He paid up. With the return of Charlie's remains it ended it for both sides.
I am not at all comfortable about Lindbergh being involved in any way. I just think it is necessary to look at this case from all angles. There is alot to be learned about this case.
It always seemed to me that he did genuinely hate publicity, but only when it was inconvenient and intrusive, and, rather than not giving a damn about people's opinions, that he actually had a very carefully crafted public persona. (LJ)
I agree with this. I think he disliked publicity also, but learned quickly how to use it to his advange when needed. As I think is true with a lot of public figures, the public image isn't always a true reflection of the private person. John Edwards is a perfect example of this.
When little Charlie left Highfields for the last time, Lindbergh was not expecting him to ever return. That is why he didn't open the ransom note right away. Why didn't he just put on gloves if he was worried about fingerprints? Some of his actions look very suspicious when looked at from the perspective of his involvement in some manor.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
Post by Joe on Jun 14, 2012 10:17:35 GMT -5
Amy, it doesn't surprise me that the general shape of the ransom note holes from one note to the next are not always the same. The holes were formed by a relatively crude impact tool as opposed to a standardized paper punch, the latter of which would have left a much cleaner edge and more consistent design throughout. The crudeness of the improvised tool and inconsistencies within the fibrous content of the linen writing paper gives the diversity of results we see. Some of the holes are squarish or rectangular, some almost round or even heart-shaped.
From experimentation I did when first studying this case, I found the head of regular finishing nail about two inches in length most accurately reproduced the effect. When the nail is held in an inverted position, pressed against multiple layers of writing paper and a piece of softwood underneath, then impacted with a hammer, I observed a similar result to that seen in the ransom notes. For further reading, you can check out the Archive Section and my entry How Were The Holes Formed? I hope this is helpful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2012 20:21:57 GMT -5
Joe, Thanks for clearing up the variation that could happen with the holes. I didn't realize that it was linen writing paper. The fibers would create some of the differences with the holes. I also went to the archive section and read your entry on How The Holes Were Formed. That was really an eye-opener for me. The Stanley nail set when you look at the holes OUT especially looks like the ransom notes. Making a template makes so much sense. Silly me. I thought that they must of had a ruler with marked measurements to get the holes the same on each note!! My ignorance about tools and wood is almost boundless.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 14, 2012 22:26:05 GMT -5
Because I have yet to see a convincing motive for Lindy having his own son abducted, I personally dislike this “Lindbergh was double-crossed” theory we have been bouncing around recently in this thread (Lindbergh hired the abductors, who then blackmailed him into paying them the $50,000).
However, IF the theory is correct, I will say it might explain why Lindbergh hired Spitale and Bitz as his initial go-betweens. Maybe he figured having a couple of mobsters as the contact men would scare the daylights out of the extortionists, and that they wouldn’t take it any further. It’s kind of like “Don’t talk to me—talk to Killer and Butch here.” Then the extortionists foil this by hiring Condon, who, however loudmouthed he was, wasn’t about to pistol-whip them?
I’m not advocating this, just thinking out loud. Ludovic Kennedy presented another compelling reason for Lindbergh hiring mobsters—the highly publicized success of gangsters in recovering the wealthy Nell Donnelly, who had been kidnapped in Kansas City in 1931.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 15, 2012 7:09:18 GMT -5
BR, very funny, however I think Michael would actually produce a NJSP report on Dingo sightings in the area.
I think there are just too many reasons as to why Lindbergh could not have been involved. Perhaps the best is the profile of him.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 15, 2012 8:37:36 GMT -5
Kevin, I’m glad you mention Lindbergh’s profile. It’s easy to concentrate on his flaws (as Ahlgren and Monier did) until he starts to look sadistic and cruel. However, I recently researched Lindbergh’s life for an article commemorating his transatlantic flight, and I got to see Lindbergh’s good side. How, after he parachuted into the fog when his mail plane ran out of fuel, he still got to the wreck, recovered the mail, and got it onto a train to ensure delivery. How, at age 25, he completely designed the Spirit of St. Louis and oversaw every step of production. How, when the Paris Aero Club offered him 150,000 francs, he instead donated it to the families of the French fliers who’d lost their lives trying to make the Atlantic crossing—and how he then visited the mother of one of those fliers (Charles Nungesser), who kissed him with loving tears. How he dropped a wreath from the Spirit of St. Louis on the Belgian cemetery where the American dead from World War I lay. How, the day after the festivities in Washington, DC, he visited veterans at Water Reed Hospital. How he kept a list, which he reviewed every day, of 65 virtues he sought to maintain in life. How he refused millions of dollars in endorsement deals after his flight. How, when William Randolph Hearst offered him $500,000 to star in a movie opposite Hearst’s mistress, Marion Davies, and Hearst kept trying to force the contract on him, Lindbergh finally tore it in half. How, after pioneering a new flight path to China with Anne, they made flights to assist the Chinese government relieve flooding victims. How, in World War II, even after FDR tried to keep him out of the service, he went up in combat in the Pacific, engaging in dogfights with Japanese fighter pilots half his age. Sure, it’s possible to paint a picture that’s too bright by focusing too much on the good—but we do need to bear these qualities in mind. Charles Lindbergh was a courageous man, a “big” man in what he sought to achieve, and I really don’t see him writing the nasty note threatening Constance Morrow, or conspiring in the abduction/murder of his own son. Everyone has a dark side, and I don’t say it’s impossible, but I sure don’t see it as likely.
And by the way, you’re probably right—Michael probably DOES have at his fingertips an archive report called “New Jersey Dingo Sightings of 1932.”
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2012 10:35:09 GMT -5
I don't think Lindbergh had anything to do with the murder of his son. What really happened to CAL JR doesn't seem to be very clear either. Was it murder, was it accidental, was it a gunshot wound or wasn't it. Was it even Charlie? All of this is still questioned to this day.
How I see Lindbergh being involved with a cover-up is to protect someone, probably a family member or if Charlie's death was health related to his unpublicized physical condition then as a need to explain his disappearance. Its not a villainous role at all but quite fitting with the profile of the man we have read about.
By trying to protect someone, it made him vulnerable to just the kind of extortion that has been debated here. It also makes some of his actions, or lack there of, look suspicious in a negative way even if they were the right thing to do.
Taking a look at all the people, known evidence, and activities surrounding this crime make this board interesting, thought provoking and extremely educational (including the Dingo sightings). Just what a good blogging board should do.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 15, 2012 12:37:34 GMT -5
Well said BR, although the profile I was referring to was based more on his psychological make up. Lindbergh was methodical and obsessive about details and control. Nothing about this crime has his signature. That's not from me, but from the most respected of the FBI's behavioral science profilers. And yes, as we speak Michael is pulling the various NJ Dingo sightings of 1932 and cross referencing them. Wait a minute, what about Schippel's brother who just happened to have lived in Australia..................... ?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 15, 2012 15:15:26 GMT -5
Yes, the Aussie connection! All the pieces of the LKC are finally falling into place. Dingos steal babies..…Schipell’s brother lives in Australia… Wilentz ruins a KANGAROO court. …And those “dog” tracks near the gatehouse. Ha! Dog tracks, my eye. Obviously DINGO tracks. Boy, what a dope I was to miss this! The evidence was right there, staring me in the face all this time…But at last, I can say “BINGO!” And you know what? Hm. Bingo rhymes with dingo. Hm, hm...
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 15, 2012 16:29:50 GMT -5
I've never seen any letters/memos/reports about a Dingo but quite a few about Fox Terriers.
My question is whether or not the crime is taken as a whole when considering this. For example, if the "crime" includes only March 1st. Or through May 12th. Or all the way up to when Lindbergh flees to England while complimenting Hauptmann's genetic makeup.
This isn't directed to you Amy, rather, I am just piggybacking off of the comment.....
No one wants to believe he did. It's like driving by an accident. No one wants to look. Then they sneak a peek. "Oh that's horrible" comes the voice inside one's head. Then they slow down and look again.
If there is something in your head that says it needs to be looked at - then look. Don't talk yourself out of it because you will think badly of yourself for being suspicious. The man was an Aviator who took one of the biggest risks at the time - and got lucky. As a result he became both loved and extremely powerful. His child was taken from his home and everyone should have been thoroughly investigated. The Police omitted Lindbergh because of perception and fear. As a result MANY people and angles were ignored and/or vetoed because Lindbergh was running things.
At the very least he was an Idiot for interfering. But what does his profile say about his intelligence? He gets no props from me nor does he deserve them. In my opinion, when he ran to the President complaining about the FBI they should have thrown him in jail for obstruction. The FBI found Brinkert when NY & NJ were at Highfields drinking coffee and smoking cigarettes. One would think Lindbergh would have been happy that at least one organization displayed some skill while everyone else were just shrugging their shoulders.
Don't read into to this too much. I just get upset when people act like Lindbergh was a Saint. He wasn't.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jun 15, 2012 18:31:10 GMT -5
At the very least he was an Idiot for interfering. But what does his profile say about his intelligence? He gets no props from me nor does he deserve them. In my opinion, when he ran to the President complaining about the FBI they should have thrown him in jail for obstruction. The FBI found Brinkert when NY & NJ were at Highfields drinking coffee and smoking cigarettes. One would think Lindbergh would have been happy that at least one organization displayed some skill while everyone else were just shrugging their shoulders. MM
Don't read into to this too much. I just get upset when people act like Lindbergh was a Saint. He wasn't. MM
[/quote]
I agree, Michael. CAL=a control freak in my view. This may have served him in his flying. I also see him as naive. The Nazis surely did work a hoo-doo on him about their air power.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 15, 2012 23:24:30 GMT -5
Well said about Lindbergh, Michael. Being no admirer of him myself, I couldn't agree more. It always seemed to me that the guy managed to be wrong about everything in his life except airplanes. I mean, the flight across the Atlantic was quite a feat for its day, but even that--well, there was a reason they called him "Lucky" Lindy. And afterwards, the biggest news about him seemed to be that he was such big news. The relevant question here, though, is whether or not he was capable of conspiring in this thing.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 16, 2012 6:11:12 GMT -5
While Schwarzkopf is always front and center when it comes to this I think we need to consider Gov. Moore in the same light. Lindbergh had control of NJ who in turn covered everyone else....even once Lindbergh backed away from forbidding the Ransom Serials because of the threat of withdrawal from the Treasury Agents - Keaton was stuck like glue to Wilson so what Wilson did Keaton did, and Lindbergh knew about every move.
But the FBI was a "problem" because they showed both skill and Independence which, as a result, was yielding results. The issue was Lindbergh had no control over them. So he took steps to ensure they marched in lock-step with everyone else who he gave orders to or they go. At the very least it showed "success" was secondary to Lindbergh's control over the matter.
I don't care what someone's personality might be, for me, if you want your son back, then you let those who know what they are doing get the job done.
The problem here was the public perception of him. We have Spider Man at the movies - they had Lindbergh. Anyone who ever spoke candidly about him said he was odd, strange, or weird. But the newspapers who were at war with one another were battling for Readers (due to the depression), and more often then not, would publish what the Public wanted to hear - instead of what was really going on. So Lindy was always wearing an "S" on his chest, which was exactly what the public demanded to see, and in turn - they loved him more and more for it.
Problem is it was all BS.
I just wanted to compliment your observation here. Now, isn't interesting that we have so much going on where there is a point of reference for it?
Was the Boy really on the Boad Nell Donnelly? Who knows.... But the more I research, the more it looks like everyone did their homework. One word comes to mind: Imitation.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 16, 2012 11:03:35 GMT -5
All BS? Michael, that’s totally over the top. Yes, there were negatives to the man, but I’ve read enough about Lindbergh’s life (from modern, balanced biographers like Scott Berg) to know that there were also people close to him who said very positive things about him. And the biographers do not rely on Hearst-type newsprint as their source materials.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 16, 2012 11:57:31 GMT -5
I am speaking in terms of his actions regarding this Case, and I stand by what I've written. In fact, whatever anyone said about him concerning anything else I would seek a second opinion. It's hard for me to believe he would act in the way I know he did only during the abduction and murder of son.
My point is that you have to look in order to find something.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 16, 2012 13:43:40 GMT -5
Speaking of obstruction of justice—it seems to me that Wilentz probably obstructed it as much as Lindbergh. And since Wilentz belonged in FDR’s political camp (which already viewed Lindbergh as an enemy before the trial), the question (to me) is whether Wilentz was protecting Lindbergh or protecting Lindbergh’s adversaries.
I will say, if I have correctly surmised your thesis (Lindbergh hired the abductors, who then double-crossed Lindbergh---and I know you can’t confirm or deny) then it presents an interesting situation. IF this were correct, it would be mean Lindbergh would have personally known the extortionists, and probably knew where they lived. That should have made the extortionists a little nervous.
But who would Lindbergh hire to carry out such an abduction? It would have to be someone he trusted. It’s not like he could flip open the yellow pages and call “Rent-a-Kidnapper.”
The idea of Lindbergh hiring a crew that included BRH makes no sense to me. If he didn’t want the police to find the extortionists for fear of self-incrimination, and BRH was one of the extortionists, why would he testify that it was BRH’s voice at the cemetery? And if BRH was hired by Lindbergh, why wouldn’t BRH save his skin and implicate his accuser?
You know who comes to mind that might fit the thesis? Nosovitsky. Perhaps someone told Lindbergh that Nosovitsky could be relied upon for discreet work. Noso had worked for the Morrows. He was also an informant for the New York City police. These two factors might have given Lindbergh a feeling he could trust Nosovitsky. But I’ve read elsewhere that Noso nursed a grudge against Dwight Morrow, believing Morrow had cheated him out of a large sum of money owed for work he did in Mexico—was it $50,000? Noso was a sly and daring character, certainly sly and daring enough for a stunt like this, and a double-cross. And when you factor in that he has been linked to Condon, maybe he’s the “perfect storm” that fits this thesis—not that I accept the thesis.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 16, 2012 15:51:55 GMT -5
Try not to read too much into it....you will drive yourself crazy doing that. If you had, for example, said that Banks didn't have a drinking problem I would have done the exact same thing I did concerning Lindbergh.
I have always believed someone brought one or more persons into this. Think of it this way... I believe the Kidnappers brought in Condon. I do not believe, if there was a group, that they ALL would have introduced themselves to him, slapped him on the back and said "welcome to the gang." See what I mean? Let's say Ellerson was behind this. I don't see him personally hiring people to do certain things. That task is given to someone to take care of, and those people brought in have nothing to do with him. The only connection is the one person he entrusts to handle it and those people probably wouldn't even know him.
I look at Perrone being hired as an example of their tactics. He's innocent and simply looking to make a Buck. And in the end, he has no idea who the hell that guy was. He tries but he's just as bad as Condon when it comes down to it. Now think about this.... if they didn't stop him at the door, do you believe he would have come forward on his own once he found out what that was all about?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 17, 2012 12:02:37 GMT -5
The problem with that Michael is that these relationships, even if compartmentalized, still require a myriad of connections all of which leave traces. Just think of what's involved in starting this planned crime off. The only way that would even be remotely possible without leaving trails all over the place is to base it on trust. In other words one person starts the ball rolling and then entrusts the selection of others needed for the crime with the initial contact. That's where Lindbergh would fail, he could never relinquish control over such an important endeavor. Then there is the coordination required and the necessary communication. It just keeps growing and growing, each time leaving behind more traces. The bottom line is this, we have Hauptmann and there is absolutely no doubt that he is involved. To what degree doesn't really matter here. What matter's is drawing a line from him to whoever you consider. It doesn't matter if it's a straight line, a crooked line, or a segmented line. What matters is that there is a line and lines are discernible.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 17, 2012 13:58:28 GMT -5
I agree with everything you've said to a certain extent. I think I draw examples from things concerning this case and others...
Simply look at this Crime for what it is. We know there's involvement concerning Hauptmann. But where are all of these other traceable connections? And here Hauptmann isn't a man of means, wealth, or connections, yet look at all we do not know.
Consider the Mob (back when the Mob was the Mob). They figured out a million ways to kill people without it ever tracing back to them. They'd have a street level associate hire common thugs to do the dirty work. Meanwhile, the Cops were watching them while it all goes down. Best alibi in town. If the thugs screw up then they get whacked making it look like they did each other in. Clean as a whistle. Just look at the St. Valentine's Day Massacre - they say Capone was behind it but it wasn't his men who did the job.
I look at everything and I believe there's evidence of something like this going on. When Condon had said CJ was killed I absolutely believe that was a possibility.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 17, 2012 15:26:07 GMT -5
Yes, but the point is it was known when the mob was involved, there were traces evident even if they didn't specifically point to any one person. Let me ask you this, how would you propose that, say Lindbergh for example, would start this crime off? What I mean is what would be the very first step and who would that involve?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 17, 2012 18:46:22 GMT -5
I think when you're dealing with a hypothetical involving the Rich and/or Famous it pretty much applies to all as opposed to someone with a limited amount of resources - most especially in 1932. For the latter, their fingerprints should be all over the situation so its an easier task to trace. In the case where you have an abundance, avenues that do not point toward them would be purposely utilized.
Take Springer for example, as to how he ran the Morrow household keeping all of the Servants in line concerning the personal family matters. Now imagine the guy who hired him - Morrow. What could he accomplish without the world being in the know? I'd say quite a bit.
Do you see where I am going with this?
Just look at the Case examples themselves....If something came up that pointed toward one of the two houses it was either vetoed by Lindbergh, or suddenly dropped. No one wanted to "embarrass" the Families - which translated means they were afraid to pursue it because they didn't want the wrong person upset about it. Let's say Bill Norris was right and Dwight Morrow Jr. was behind this thing. How do you prove it when every time his name came up Investigators damn near passed out from fear and if they didn't faint dismissed it as fast as humanly possible without any legitimate investigation?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 17, 2012 23:28:21 GMT -5
I think Kevin makes an interesting point here. Lindbergh was called the LONE eagle. When he flew the Atlantic, he was the only pilot who even tried it alone. And he designed the plane himself.
So, if he was really planning this abduction, it does seem that it would be “in character” for him to do it alone. It isn’t the kind of thing I can see him out-sourcing to a group of thugs--people that he knows so poorly that he doesn’t even foresee them double-crossing him.
Of course, not everything can be done alone. Even for his transatlantic flight, Lindbergh needed help—like from his St. Louis financial backers, and from the people at Ryan Aircraft who actually built the plane.
So I’m not saying this rules out Lindbergh hiring a team of abductors—but Lindy’s tendency to do things alone is, I think, something we ought to factor into our thinking if a “Lindbergh hired a team of abductors” scenario is under consideration.
Hm, I see that a “Ronelle” is the board’s newest member. So, Michael, does this mean you’ve brought in a hired gun from out of town to bolster a “Lindbergh did it” thesis? Just kidding, you guys. Welcome, Ronelle.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 18, 2012 7:03:10 GMT -5
Would you be surprised if I said I don't agree? Apply that to Lindbergh's work with Alexis Carrel. I found Friedman's book The Immortalists a worthy book.
Honestly, I believe it would be "in character" for Lindbergh to meddle and control more then he should - but certainly not do everything alone. If this was really how he was he would have never called the Police. But he called them then told them what to do.
This is your theory about my thesis BR. We could choose this path regarding anyone and I would answer it the best I could. It's good to see Ronelle, and if anyone here hasn't done so, they will want to check out her board. She has an abundance of information on her site that I often link up here. When I first got started seriously researching (way back in 2000!) it was her questions that motivated me to start looking. She's awesome!
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 18, 2012 8:06:59 GMT -5
I'm not saying Lindbergh didn't or wouldn't employ help. He certainly would as shown by the building of the Ryan aircraft. What I am saying, and there is overwhelming evidence for this, is that Lindbergh would never delegate without personal involvement. There is no way this guy would relinquish control over anything, let alone the kidnapping/murder of his son. Michael, I know what you are getting at with wealthy and influential families, but there still has to be a process involved. So how does someone like Lindbergh start off on his venture into the criminal underworld? And how does he communicate all that is required?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 18, 2012 8:25:08 GMT -5
Michael, I acknowledged that Lindbergh worked with others—just that we ought to factor in his “solo” tendency.
The reason I developed this “theory about your thesis” is that you said someone hired the abductors, and you also said the ransom note may have been a “double-cross.” I couldn’t imagine who could be “double-crossed” by the ransom note, unless you meant Lindbergh, and your recently posted comments about Lindbergh show you hold him in low regard.
But perhaps I misread your theory, so I won’t push it any further. The main reason I was exploring it is because it raises a whole set of interesting questions. For example, if Lindbergh hired the abduction team, does that mean he knew BRH? Might he have known CJ and the lookout with the handkerchief? It’s usual on this board, when someone introduces a theory, that we bounce it around and see what the implications could be. But if I’m misreading your theory, there’s no point in chasing such questions. I’ll drop it.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 18, 2012 8:56:33 GMT -5
Michael, you made some comments in this thread recently about Lindbergh’s unwillingness to work with the FBI (or BI, as it was called then). You analysis is probably spot-on, but I’m reading Zorn right now, and he says a couple of things I never heard before:
“Dwight Morrow had been one of [J. Edgar] Hoover’s harshest critics.” (p. 78)
“Colonel William Joseph ‘Wild Bill’ Donovan was an arch-nemesis of J. Edgar Hoover.” (p. 82)
So it just possible that Lindbergh’s unwillingness to work with the BI was, in part, due to the fact that he had already developed a bias against them, fueled by Morrow and Donovan?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 18, 2012 11:35:19 GMT -5
When people have a limitless network of ties, and access to a lot of money, then undoubtedly they know people who know people as well. I think you are looking for a smoking gun, like Bitz and Spitale are attributable to Rosner directly but indirectly due to Lindbergh himself.
BR made a point I've always held. Why exactly they would be brought in.... Don't mark the money. Don't watch the mail boxes. Don't guard the borders. Supposedly this shows bad faith and will upset the Kidnappers who might harm the child. But do bring in a couple of high profile murderers who have ZERO tolerance for Kidnappers so they can convince this Gang to hand over the child? It would have the effect of bringing in Jason from Friday the 13th to act in that role.
I'm okay with it, and its a position which should be explored. There's no reason to drop it. Whether or not its my personal theory is of no consequence. Nothing is or should be off the table.
I hold several people in low regard. But even so, I will never try to push that with bad information. I try to call it as I see it as best I can. I think a double-cross could be extended to someone else too. I read in many places about a "revenge" theory. If so, who ever hired people wouldn't care about the money and that would be a blind for the real motive.
I would need to see his sources. Hoover's power was criticized by many people. Donovan really didn't have much to do with this case personally. And he would become one of Lindbergh's harshest critics.
I've got quite a few Memos, Letters, and reports written by the FBI. They often have harsh words for a lot of people. To the best of my recollection nothing negative about Morrow was in them. Believe me, if Hoover didn't like someone he usually scrawled something at the bottom to which that could be inferred.
My original point is that the FBI drew negative attention when they were being successful. Before that no one had a problem.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 19, 2012 7:47:38 GMT -5
Ok, just for argument's sake we say that Lindbergh or Morrow was behind all of this. You are absolutely correct that they have the wealth and power to utilize another to make arrangements and take care of business. That arrangement is also convenient for avoiding direct contact or maintaining plausible deniability as so many politicians often do. The problem is that there still is a trail and there still are the same requirements regarding organization, planning, communication, etc., just that now it's with this second. So now I would ask, where is the line from Hauptmann to this manager? Just as a side note, I know there is and will be more discussion regarding the new book by Bob Zorn. There are certainly many aspects of his story that I have problems with including ones I had some input on. The real importance of this book however, lies not with the specifics but rather with the focus on the Hauptmann connection. Any hope of ever coming up with an accomplice, gang, ringleader, or mastermind is only going to come from looking at every detail of Hauptmann's pre- LKC life. No matter who you may think was involved or what you may think happened, there will be a linkage to Hauptmann. That's why I find Zorn's book to be a step in the right direction.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2012 9:37:36 GMT -5
Kevkon, I had a questtion about something you revealed in Chapter 19, page 169 of Zorn's book. You explain how the ladder just fit the linen closet that provided access to the attic space. Is this ladder portion what would be the bottom portion of the kidnap ladder? Also, is the type of wood used in the bottom ladder section of a different type than what comprised the other two sections? Is it possible to tell if the second and third sections of the kidnap ladder were made at a later time than the bottom section? I hope I am asking this clearly enough. I am not a wood person. Sorry!
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 19, 2012 15:56:32 GMT -5
Amy, I had always been puzzled by the odd dimensions of the ladder and so I was always looking for something in the way of criteria that Hauptmann may have used for the design. I was looking at a photo of the Linen Closet in Hauptmann's apartment which has a scuttle or hatch opening into the attic. I wondered how he would get up there without emptying all of the shelves and using them as steps. I did some research and discovered that the door opening to that closet is only 3/8" wider than the ladder. That might in itself not seem like much until you consider that the door to that closet is an extremely odd size. Going further I found that the first and second section fit through the hatch with the top of the first section hitting the top shelf perfectly and the section section continuing through the hatch. Added to this, the space between the front of the shelves and the door trim is almost a perfect fit for the ladder in it's nested position so it can be stored there with no interference to the shelves. I can't say what all of this means only that it seems to me to be far more than a coincidence. Regarding the ladder construction, the top or third section is different from the bottom two in that it contains a mix of wood, one yellow pine rail ( the attic floorboard), one doug fir rail, 2 ponderosa pine rungs, and 1 doug fir rung. In addition it has a very different joint connecting it to section 2.
|
|