kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 23, 2008 7:48:22 GMT -5
Forget about the ladder, wood, organized crime, insiders, and the rest. The single most important piece of evidence is that first note. It holds all of the answers.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 23, 2008 16:17:56 GMT -5
I know that Rab was interested in the fact the Lindbergh child isn't mentioned therein. Does it have anything to do with this?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 23, 2008 16:35:56 GMT -5
It's the linchpin of the kidnapping, imho. It's so different from the others in many ways. As mark has said, it's somewhat generic. More so than rail 16, it ties Hauptmann to the location and through the process of extorting the money.
I keep asking myself, if that note hadn't been left, how would the crime be viewed?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Jul 24, 2008 11:39:09 GMT -5
I'm not sure the crime would have been viewed any differently if no note was left. Is there any question about whether Lindbergh would have called the police immediately, as he did having realized a ransom note was present?
In my opinion, the note may seem generic and crude but it says everything it has to say, just as the ladder was crude but effective in accomplishing its objective. And the note does tie Hauptmann nicely into the nursery just as the ladder ties him into the nursery entry. Given the preparation and mental planning this crime would have involved, I can't see how this note would have been meant for anyone else.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 25, 2008 6:29:40 GMT -5
That's what is so troubling about that note, the lack of evidence of mental planning and preparation exhibited. Certainly almost everyone must agree that as a kidnapping this crime goes beyond financial gain. There is an ego at work here. An ego which is targeting Lindbergh. Is this note the result?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Jul 25, 2008 7:59:14 GMT -5
Kevin, the nursery note really says nothing more than it has to say and I believe there's good reason for that.
It was written by an individual who Schoenfeld had pretty well pegged right away based on those first few notes. A man of relatively inferior status who resented the worldwide accolades accorded Lindbergh and felt that he had the power within him to achieve something as great. He would deal with this resentment in a way that would not only bring Lindbergh down and demonstrate his own brilliance to the world but also take some of the superfluous riches he felt Lindbergh had no right in owning and that he was deserving of.
The extension I would make on Schoenfeld's observations and specifically relating to the nursery note, is that the writer had little confidence in having to address Lindbergh directly and personally for the first time. The brevity, overt sense of anonymity, poor English and general appearance of the nursery note all suggest this. Even the envelope is unaddressed. The entire presentation, with the exception of the symbol, is almost childish and lacks any emotion at all. Subsequent notes demonstrate a growing confidence, even an air of superiority and an often condescending tone.
That first note, with the exception of the elaborate symbol, may be a bit of a red herring, given of all the internalizing, mental strife and logistical exercises he would have had to go through to execute this crime as a whole. I believe it was one that, due to Hauptmann's discomfort in having to personally address Lindbergh through that first contact, was almost unavoidable for him.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jul 25, 2008 11:48:08 GMT -5
But then if there was inside involvement with a motive totally devoid of monetary benifit......... The ladder perp has decided to ad-lib, climbs (perhaps the 2-section ladder) and leaves the ransom note unbeknownst to the insider..... May account for the difference in that first note(?) Last minute composition(?)
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 25, 2008 16:55:00 GMT -5
Then why don't we see any indication of this resentment in any of the notes? Why would the preceding build-up to this crime not be manifested in that Nursery note? Why would an inferior man who feels superior write a note which is almost respectful in nature? Why would this first note not be better crafted? From my perspective it's a pretty paltry effort from someone who has been planning this crime for so long and who has had the time to do it right. With this ego at work, why is there such concern about identification ( the symbol and holes) ?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Jul 25, 2008 19:00:38 GMT -5
Kevin, I don't profess to know Hauptmann any better than the next researcher although I think I have got to know him much better in the past year. I'm not sure I can explain my personal position any better than in my previous post, but let me try by asking the following: - Why would Hauptmann tell Lindbergh he truly resented him, at the same time demonstrating his obvious, gross mental instability? I don't believe this particularly would have inspired confidence that Lindbergh would get his son back in good health. Did Hauptmann not have a bigger fish to fry in the collection of the ransom money than throwing an unnecessary tantrum and giving away his hand?
- Does the terse, flat and unemotional nature of the nursery note, saying only what it has to say, strike you as coming from an individual, regardless of the level of planning, at ease with having to communicate directly with Lindbergh, a national hero?
- Is this a professional kidnapper at work here or an amateur unfamiliar with the territory? Does he end up telling the truth or lying most of the time? Does his mental makeup compel him to act rationally at all times?
- How well does this nursery note have to be crafted? How well should the ladder have been crafted? Does each not show at least one characteristic of a significant level of planning and design and at the same time, a marked level of crudeness?
- Does the ransom note writer strike you as someone who trusts that the line of communication will stand firm, given the fact he is writing in his own hand? Does this not indicate that he felt his anonymity was safe by exhibiting such a "generic" process? Would he not know his interest in collecting the ransom would remain protected by the addition of such a distinct symbol?
What specifically are your own thoughts on the nursery note and how it relates to the kidnapping / murder? Was it intended for this job? Did the writer plan on robbery and graduate to kidnapping on the spot? Does the messy looking note indicate a lack of planning? I believe you've previously indicated elements of all of the above. Can you elaborate a bit?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 25, 2008 20:55:25 GMT -5
Joe, I greatly respect your opinion, especially regarding BRH. On the issue of this first note I know you definitely see a different picture than I do.
Why indeed. I think your position on Hauptmann's psyche and motivation makes the question relevant. I, however, don't necessarily see things this way. In other words, I wouldn't expect Hauptmann to display any resentment toward Lindbergh. However, if I believed that he was motivated by a hatred or resentment of Lindbergh I would certainly expect this to come through loud and clear. It wouldn't be something that BRH would be capable of controlling.
At ease? I don't know if there is enough there to tell. But if this is the culmination of an obsessive resentment of Lindy, I sure don't see any indication of it.
Amateur/ liar/irational
How well? Well enough to succeed in conveying a demand for payment, where to pay or contact and instill enough fear in the Lindberghs that the last thing they would consider is contacting the police.
Then why did he elaborate later? Why did he opt to meet in person ( for an hour no less!). Is not the choice of handwriting a symbol in itself? Why does he feel insecure in this regard?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Jul 26, 2008 6:43:34 GMT -5
Great discussion, Kevin. I really can't think of a more fascinating topic in this case than what it was that inspired Hauptmann and made him tick. Hauptmann had the ability to maintain a lie at the expense of all truth as he did so successfully in the long series of notes and when finally captured, look an interrogator straight in the eye while calmly denying any significance in the thick trail of evidence against him. Deception and duplicity were his middle names and I think the last thing he would have done, would be to speak candidly about any personal inner feelings over Lindbergh. Considering the position he was in, there were very few times he lost his cool. There's no obvious indication at all of that resentment in and it never came out after his capture. When you think about it, it's really not all that well hidden, even though the notes show little indication. It's the ultimate attempt to deceive. After all, why would anyone target the son of the most famous man in the world? While ego played a major role, his actions certainly weren't out of love. Do some indications of Hauptmann's mindset and plan not come through within the brief nursery note? We may have the benefit of some hindsight now but here's how I see them: - No small talk / direct to the point > lack of confidence in having to initially address Lindbergh and "breaking the ice."
- Upfront focus on the money right down to denomination > greed and materialism.
- Saying the baby is in good care > a lie aimed at inspiring confidence so that the Lindberghs would pay up - is there any need to make threats after demonstrating ability to steal into the nursery of a world icon's son?
- Contact in 2 - 4 days > need on kidapper's part to know of reaction to crime and that discretion could be maintained.
- Elaborate symbol > kidnapper's ego, personally inspired - otherwise punched holes alone would have done fine.
- No warning on envelope to advise against calling police > potentially fatal error which required review of method for further contact
I believe he later elaborated and met personally with a go-between due to his increased confidence that his plan would succeed. I really doubt he considered his choice of personal handwriting anything more than communication utility and definitely not the fatal error it became.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 26, 2008 18:35:02 GMT -5
I can't agree that he was irrational. There's too much planning that I see to include the note. There's nothing more rational from the actions we can prove occurred. Another example comes to mind was Lt. Finn's own words that Hauptmann had an explanation thought out about his possession of the money in case he had been picked up. That isn't ego at work, its someone looking at the odds and trying to be prepared for something not to go right. Think about this and apply it to the crime itself.
Here's the problem... Does the note sound like Cemetery John as recalled by Jafsie? If your answer is "no," like mine is, then we're left with only a few choices. Either CJ wasn't Hauptmann, the Author of the notes wasn't Hauptmann, or both. Or Condon was lying about the whole thing which of course makes him an accomplice - directly or indirectly.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 26, 2008 21:05:11 GMT -5
Michael, I was responding to Joe's question " Does his mental makeup compel him to act rationally at all times?". Yes, of course I think Hauptmann could be rational. On the other hand, how rational is it to pick Lindy as a target? And that is true even if you think Hauptmann was only an accomplice.
I do think all of us are capable of both types of actions, though.
Joe, I am still amazed at how much isn't known about Hauptmann.
Do you really see an ego in that first note?
Why the delay in the next contact?
PS, Joe, your reply or posting on that Hoax board only serves to add credibility to that which is totally bereft of any. Just my opinion. Those people are just one click away from the institution.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jul 26, 2008 21:40:08 GMT -5
[quote author=admin board=talk thread=394 post=7091 tiquote
Here's the problem... Does the note sound like Cemetery John as recalled by Jafsie? If your answer is no, like mine is, then we're left with only a few choices. Either CJ wasn't Hauptmann, the Author of the notes wasn't Hauptmann, or both. Or Condon was lying about the whole thing which of course makes him an accomplice - directly or indirectly. (Michael) [/quote]
Nothing I feel I can discern about Hauptmann makes me think he was CJ sitting on the bench for an hour or more "chewing the fat" with Condon.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Jul 27, 2008 7:37:00 GMT -5
By initial appearances, I'm not sure there is enough content within the the nursery note, other than what it needs to say, to make a conclusive connection. I do believe Hauptmann's performance as the duplicitous CJ, chock full of lies, was well rehearsed in the same mesh and spirit of his overall planning of the crime. And we know that that Hauptmann proved himself to be one of the most evasive and deceptive criminals his captors, including J. Edgar himself, had ever come across. Given the handwriting and paper connection to it and the second note, all of the other circumstantial evidence notwithstanding, I think the question should be was he capable of writing the nursery note?
Amen to how much we don't know about the man and if only Schoenfeld had been able to get to him for any length of time... but hey, we get to have that fun now. I see Hauptmann's ego coming through in the nursery note in the form of the elaborate symbol. It's like he's subconsciously saying to Lindbergh, "You see how creative and intelligent I really am? Don't you wish you knew what it means? At the same time, I'm insecure about contacting you personally and "breaking the ice," hence the brief message and I'll say only what I have to say."
Well, the nursery note writer did say he would contact Lindbergh in 2 - 4 days, a condition he met. He did this despite Lindbergh having called in the police when it appears he originally expected to deal in private, what I believe was intended to be a quick snatch and return for ransom. The longer delay following the introduction of Rosner and his cronies I think speaks of a decided hesitation on the part of the kidnapper towards his next move and his fear of getting whacked. Condon's letter to the Bronx Home News and offer to be a go-between seems to have provided the fortuitous answer to his dilemma of not wanting to deal with Lindbergh or gangsters directly.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 27, 2008 8:22:04 GMT -5
But here is the BIG problem with all of this, at least from my point of view. Let's assume this kidnapping was planned well in advance. In that case we can also assume that the Nursery note was part of this advanced planning as was the ladder. Now it follows that the demands set forth in that note are a result of this planning. In that regard we see the specific denominations of money required. We also see that the method of delivering this note was direct and immediate. Why then does the kidnapper not stay consistent with this planning and go for an immediate or quick exchange? Think about this carefully in terms of planning. Any delay, even a single day, is a disadvantage to the kidnapper. Not only do you have a child to take care of, but the likelihood of discovery and police involvement grows exponentially for every moment that passes. Now multiply this danger because of the nature of this specific target. Even if Lindbergh had not contacted the police, there is no way that news of his son's disappearance could be contained for more than a day. So why is Hauptmann, who is in no position to care for a child, encouraging needless delay?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Jul 27, 2008 9:15:34 GMT -5
Hmm, I don't see the same problems here at all, specifically as they pertain to the disappearance of Lindbergh's son. In what way would Lindbergh have been accountable to the police or press if he had decided to open the envelope and follow the kidapper's instructions for non-involvement?
Would he not then likely have discussed the situation with a close advisor like Breckinridge in private and sworn Anne, Mrs. Morrow and his personal household staff to secrecy for a few days? Would their relative isolation in the backwoods of New Jersey have made this difficult to achieve? I'm sure the kidnapper was set to monitor the papers and radio for any indication that word had somehow gotten out and he certainly reacted vehemently to Lindbergh immediately alerting the police.
Herein, I believe the kidnapper's biggest oversight to be his lack of identifying on the outside of the envelope, the demand for discretion which he emphasized in the enclosed letter. The floodgates were opened when Lindbergh, hesitant to touch the envelope had Whateley make that call. From that point and from all accounts, he fell hard for the claims of what he believed to be an organized gang and not a lone kidnapper and mastermind, unable to care for the child by himself.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 27, 2008 9:57:53 GMT -5
Do you really think that news of the disappearance of the Lindbergh's son could be contained? I seriously doubt that. Not with all the staff of two families and the gossip. I'd say it would be a longshot. But more to the point, why is our kidnapper raising the odds needlessly? After all this is a well planned crime, right? Why shouldn't it be over quickly? And once again, why the need for the symbol identification. Doesn't this portend a protracted and lengthy process? Why would that occur to someone who has planned to leave a note at the scene of the crime with his demands? Does he not expect Lindbergh to play ball? I know we are seeing the same thing in a totally different light here, Joe. For me, this note just doesn't square with an egomaniac who has a plan to kidnap the most famous child in the world. Nor does it seem consistent with getting it over with quickly. Does he know he will be negotiating for a corpse? Is that the plan from the get go, kill not abduct the child? Because that is the only thing that makes sense here if this was a planned kidnapping.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Jul 27, 2008 13:01:19 GMT -5
Kevin, I'll try to lay out a little more of my own theory here. I've always appreciated your thoughtful questions as I'm sure you do others' in that they promote and develop new avenues of approach and rationale, but at times I start to feel were chasing our details. I would really like to hear more of your own thoughts and theories behind the evolution of the crime, in a specific or general sense as you wish. Yes, I believe it could have been contained. Why would this have been so difficult? The Morrow household with the exception of Betty Morrow, would never have come into play. I'm not implying he would automatically have done as instructed but if Lindbergh had decided to comply with the ransom note writer's demand, he would have sworn the Hopewell staff to secrecy under the gravest of conditions and seriousness in manner. I'm sure you can picture the scene. Do you believe that Betty Gow or the Whateleys would have considered tittering details on the telephone to anyone else, knowing full well that their actions might compromise the life of the child and success of a pending ransom exchange? Would they not have understood as professional staff that failure on their part to maintain that secrecy would have meant not only loss of prime employment but also certain public disgrace and the bleakest of futures for themselves? Exactly my point, and it may well have been over quickly, ransom money for either a live baby or a corpse, IF Lindbergh had opened the envelope and complied with the nursery note writer's demand for secrecy. The writer was giving Lindbergh a few days to put together the ransom money in the denominations specified, as I think it's highly unlikely it was sitting around the house, ready to go. All bets for a quick turnaround were off the moment he deferred to immediately calling in the police and a resulting cast of thousands. It implies to me unnecessarily elaborate symbolism for the occasion, known only to the writer and a highly egotistical gesture on his part. And it implies at least one more note of specific instructions for the money drop through the need to maintain the absolute, all-important proof of ownership. The dozen or so subsequent notes and protracted negotiations are simply a product of delays on both sides. It may well have been and this is probably the one area of greatest change over the past seven years in my own outlook on Hauptmann's motives and true intent.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 27, 2008 14:31:46 GMT -5
Well, as long as we are chasing them and they are not chasing us, it's ok with me!
Details are everything and all too often overlooked or dismissed.
Anyway, as for my view or theory of the crime I am not sure I have one i am completely satisfied with. Overall, I'd say that Hauptmann is definitely guilty. But did he actually plan to kidnap and hold this child? Not so sure on that point. So I am somewhat split between an intentional crime of murder and a unintentional crime of kidnapping resulting in murder ( or to be more precise the other way around). i really do have a hard time making this Nursery note fit the bill of the magnitude of this crime. I know it works for you, but I just see a lot of problems with it. That is especially true when considering it as the product of a carefully planned crime. To me, well it's just half-assed. Of course that may be the result of a half assed-writer! Regarding the containment of the news surrounding CAL jrs disappearance, I think you are being very optimistic to say the least. bad news travels fast, especially when there is money to be had. I very much doubt that the Morrow household wouldn't be involved. Why give Lindbergh a couple of days to get the money? Many less wealthy and connected victims weren't given such a benefit. And if that is the case why wasn't the delivery method ( packet) included for preparation as well? Honestly Joe, I see more improvisation going on here than anything else. And that's strange if this was a well planned kidnapping.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Jul 29, 2008 6:20:45 GMT -5
Kevin, considering some of the details of the ransom negotiations that Lindbergh was able to keep a lid on with the press, I have to believe that maintaining secrecy over his son's disappearance within the Hopewell house for a few days would have been much easier.
Regarding the packet, I still see that as a kind of theoretical, almost superfluous assistance exercise on the part of the ransom note writer, and in my own mind, the implication of Hauptmann's later big Fisch tale and the similar shoebox dimensions related by Kloppenburg at the trial form an irresistable connection.
I have no questions about Hauptmann having been a true master of improvisation. In his actions leading up to and after March 1, and from a kind of macroview position, I see general and specific consistencies within my own theory, but I'm also intrigued by your thoughts about any improvisation, specifically as they relates to the brevity of the nursery note vs. original crime intent. Do you believe the kidnapping and nursery note were afterthoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 29, 2008 8:27:47 GMT -5
You are hitting on some of the reasons why I believe the ransom wasn't meant to be collected. That a group of people were probably "hired" to do this. Now in my opinion there is more then one person involved, and Hauptmann doesn't even have to be in Hopewell on March 1st in order to be involved. Even so, I believe the child was either killed on purpose or was dead before they grabbed him. The toddler's health and safety don't appear to even be an issue at the time of the abduction.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 29, 2008 9:52:48 GMT -5
I don't know that I would say I believe it to be so, let's say I see it as a distinct possibility. What I find most fascinating about this is that when you give it some serious consideration ( which I admit is difficult given all of our preconceptions) elements of the crime and several aspects which have always puzzled us can be explained without the extreme complexity that seems to accompany many other "theories". At the very least I believe it to be an extremely good mental exercise. Start with asking , why not?
Then;
*Did Hauptmann's history include any crime of abduction?
*Did Hauptmann have the capability and resources to hold a hostage?
*Was the method of entry one that was appropriate for removing a hostage safely?
*Would Hauptmann assume the child was in Hopewell?
*Would Hauptmann only ask for 50k? ( I know that was quite a lot in 1932 but consider that to hold a child hostage he would almost certainly need help and whoever that would be would certainly know the score and hence the 50k is now split 2 ways)
*Would Hauptmann, given the time to consider this crime, not have a better exchange system thought out? What if Condon hadn't volunteered?
* Does not the demand to increase the ransom by 20K seem an afterthought? Obviously it wasn't all that important in the end.
* Would a planned kidnapping incorporate 2 direct contacts?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Jul 29, 2008 19:43:23 GMT -5
No previous known abductions or attempts on Hauptmann's part, but there's always the first time for any hostage taker and criminal mind.
No capability to hold the child by himself and I now see very little evidence of an involved accomplice on the face of things, hence my primary concern is murder. But that's not to say some arrangements weren't made to deliver the live child to a prearranged location and it was killed accidentally enroute.
He may well have believed the Lindberghs were full time Hopewell residents.
I believe he only asked for $50K because he believed the exchange would be a relatively quick one within the suggested original time frame for contact. That's not bad for a few days work. Didn't he comment to a friend at Hunter's Island on something along those lines? After Lindbergh called in the police and then took over the reins of the investigation, his first move was to call in the underworld. I tend to think with all of this wholly unexpected activity, Hauptmann would have been more concerned about laying low for a while until Rosner, Bitz and Spitale had worn out their welcome and proven they knew nothing. Condon basically fell into his lap and he jumped at what appeared to be his "saving grace."
I believe the increase of $20K was a definite afterthought given the talk about higher ransom amounts in the papers and Hauptmann's basically being pissed at Lindbergh for calling the world to his doorstep and not following the nursery note demand for secrecy.
Not sure what you mean by "two direct contacts."
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 29, 2008 20:12:50 GMT -5
Good point. What's to prevent a "dead drop" since we know they contacted him via phone and through notes given to him, supposedly, by neutral 3rd parties. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_dropIt seems like a need to meet Condon personally for some reason. (3) sets of footprints at Hopewell, look-outs at both cemeteries, and people in the back round telling the caller on the phone to Condon to "shut-up" concerning where he was calling from, etc. etc. There's plenty to show multiple parties are involved.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Jul 29, 2008 20:14:21 GMT -5
Even when I put Lindbergh in the worst possible light given the criticism he has taken, justly and unjustly, I cannot see him being remotely capable of sanctioning the removal of his child from his and Anne's life, alive or dead. Within Anne's diaries, there is nothing but genuine grief and longing and a running commentary on the resolve and dedication he demonstrated in trying to bring back their son. Within the case is a well documented timeline of the events undertaken by Lindbergh and many others in reaching out for any ray of hope that CALjr would be returned.
I think a lot of the suspicion evolved from his seeming lack of initial parental feelings towards his son in an era that was still greatly Victorian and that he was generally unprepared for fatherhood, especially in the public eye. But he came around to the kid and as far as I can tell from all accounts, mainly Anne's and his close friends, truly loved him. I just see no evidence of anything untowards against his own child and believe he was truly devastated by the crime, absorbing almost the full blow on the inside.
On the subject of the ransom payment, I find it difficult to believe anyone would have participated in a plan to eliminate the child at Lindbergh's request and then even attempted to collect further. If Lindbergh was desperate enough to have engineered the disappearance of his son, would he not then have done the obvious to cover his tracks? The fact that Hauptmann would then have been permitted to spend two and a half years flourishing in the Bronx without being eliminated himself stretches belief.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 29, 2008 20:16:31 GMT -5
I mean that he needlessly met in person with Lindbergh's agent, Condon.
I know you are comfortable with the answers to the questions I posed , Joe. I am not. It just doesn't wash. You have to have it both ways to make this work. Is it well planned in advance or not? And what exactly is the point of that Nursery note? Is it to spell out the monetary demands? But then this changes dramatically, doesn't it? Is it to warn Lindbergh not to notify the police? Doesn't work. Is it to reassure the Lindberghs that the child is in "gut care"? Lie. What's the point?
There is just too much improvisation going on here. Why is that with all the time spent planning? There were many contemporary kidnappings Hauptmann could have learned from.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Jul 30, 2008 12:12:53 GMT -5
Kevin, Hauptmann would only have had to meet once with Condon if the latter had brought the money to Woodlawn. He would have been faced with 8 days of delay brought about by the introduction of the underworld - laying low for that period and then latching on to Condon - if all goes well at Woodlawn, payment within 2 - 4 days - objective met. You know, I can't express my own thoughts unequivocally on Hauptmann's original planning vs. the specific dynamics of change and how each was met with improvisation, because I don't know for sure. But I do know this happened on both sides, specifically with Lindbergh keeping more than one iron in the fire, ie. Underworld, Condon, Walsh-MacLean and Curtis. Would this not have affected Hauptmann's best laid plans?
The fact that improvisation took place in the ransom negotiations does not necessarily mean the original plan was not well thought out. On the contrary, any well conceived plan has a requisite expectation of contingency, that supports the objective and what is at stake. Hauptmann might not have seen all of his personal contingency requirements, but he dealt with each situation or setback successfully during the negotations, and got what he wanted. Why would anyone adhere dead nuts to an original plan, as well thought out as it might be, when to do so in the face of unexpected and repeated change, would only compromise or defeat the objective?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 30, 2008 16:11:14 GMT -5
I don't know Joe, sounds to me like you are trying to make the puzzle pieces fit!
I agree that a good plan incorporates room to maneuver. In this case though, it just doesn't appear to me as planning as much as making it up as you go. If Hauptmann wanted a quick payoff while mitigating risk, he sure went about it in a strange way. it's also difficult for me to see what plan he was following. Was it always his intention to have a personal exchange? If so, was it to be with Lindbergh? If not, then whom would he find? As for not expecting Lindbergh to contact the authorities, I think that die was set when the nursery note was conceived. Even if Lindbergh had not called the police immediately, I doubt that the Nursery note would have been sufficient in nature to allow anyone the confidence of waiting for further contact.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Jul 30, 2008 19:09:12 GMT -5
It's not so much a matter of trying to make the puzzle pieces fit all the time, Kevin as simply trying to provide a rational explanation for what we know actually tool place, be it planned or unexpected. When it comes down to those intangibles and you strip away the hoaxes, red herrings and grand conspiracies, the pathway, at least the one I see is a much easier one to follow. I do know this case doesn't keep me up at night any more. We'll probably never know if a dead drop was originally intended and it may well have been the originally intended method of exchange, if Lindbergh had complied with the demand for secrecy. All of that changed when the police and then the underworld were called in. The introduction of Condon was in the form of a "go-between" even though the ransom note writer originally specified he would not accept one. Is it not likely however that a generally well known and reputable Bronx resident like Condon who expressly offered his personal services, would suddenly begin to sound much more appealing to the obviously-agitated writer than the spectre of being set up and iced by gangsters? And considering time was marching on and the prospect of a live return would seem less likely to the parents with each passing day? Condon was literally leapt upon and embraced by Hauptmann.
|
|