Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Mar 24, 2017 7:37:35 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2017 7:37:35 GMT -5
I may be wrong but I don't think leobowitz was officially hauptmans attorney. wasn't he hired by walsh mclean? Steve, I don't have my Leibowitz file in front of me at the moment but I believe it was McLean who asked Leibowitz to step in and get the truth about Hauptmann and the kidnapping. In order for Leibowitz to see Hauptmann, he had to be taken on as a defense attorney, so this was worked out and he was able to visit with Hauptmann in his cell.
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 24, 2017 8:44:29 GMT -5
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 24, 2017 8:44:29 GMT -5
amy I have her bio and theres a lot mentioned about her involvement I will have to look at it again
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 24, 2017 12:05:00 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Mar 24, 2017 12:05:00 GMT -5
amy I have her bio and theres a lot mentioned about her involvement I will have to look at it again I know in the past I've tried to simplify this but, like everything else, it's a very complicated situation. Honestly it's not something that can be properly explained in a post. In order to know exactly what happened you'll have to accumulate several versions then compare them. Hicks, Mrs. Hauptmann, McLean, Hoffman, Leibowitz, Hauptmann, Fisher, etc. etc. The idea was that Hauptmann couldn't succeed with the current group of Attorneys and bringing in someone like Leibowitz could help his situation. The goal was to bring him in as Lead-Attorney but keep Fisher to assist. Fisher wasn't made aware of this originally, and was absolutely perplexed why someone who so publicly believed Hauptmann guilty would be invited into the case. (Leibowitz believed Hauptmann guilty but said " never in a million years" he did so alone). This "plan" was worked via Hicks through Mrs. Hauptmann. Leibowitz agreed to the idea but only if Hauptmann was "truthful" with him. In the end, he said Hauptmann wasn't being honest so he ended the idea after his last interview. However, the "if I did it" scenario is very interesting. In this, as previously mentioned, Hauptmann said the front door would have been used. Leibowitz didn't buy it because, he said, Lindbergh would have known if that happened. Below is a document showing Leibowitz was trying to collect fees for his involvement. However, I do believe any fees were contingent upon his agreement to take over the Defense - which he obviously did not do.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Letters
Mar 25, 2017 7:29:45 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Mar 25, 2017 7:29:45 GMT -5
Although I haven’t seen the deleted NOVA scene, I’d put far more value in seeing one or two individuals, very familiar with this ladder’s functioning and idiosyncrasies do the job regardless of weather conditions. I’ve personally witnessed one individual raise all three sections against the side of his house with very little difficulty and the ability to assemble this thing efficiently was a critical design consideration. We know the ladder was placed against the house, ie. the deep imprints in the mud and mud prints on the suitcase and nursery floor, indicate it was used to gain entry there. The fact is someone with feet, be it real kidnappers or faux kidnappers, had to get it there and clearly they took some caution to ensure they didn’t leave behind more telltale footprints and mud deposits than they had to. The walkway was used to maximum effect in their favour. Leaving the scene apparently was a different story and they seemed to be in much more of a hurry at that point. As to the ladder itself, I've never understood how anyone could simply write it off as a prop.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Letters
Mar 25, 2017 8:14:14 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Mar 25, 2017 8:14:14 GMT -5
I think a number of assumptions are being compounded here.. You've concluded that because the nursery window was not locked, it should have been rattling in the wind. But the Lindberghs were not in the habit of locking their second story windows and did not make any exceptions that I'm aware of that evening. So by your logic, all of the upstairs windows would have been rattling in the wind, yet no one seems to have noticed, or been bothered by it enough even when they were on the second floor. A closed and unlocked window will only rattle if it's not fitted properly and based on the testimony of the installer, I highly doubt they would have done a substandard job of fitting the windows. Was the nursery shutter banging around in the wind that evening? I don't recall any testimony to that effect. The shutters were very heavy and would only have banged around if they were able to travel back and forth very freely on their hinges and in sufficient wind. If there was enough resistance within the metal hinge action to overcome the effect of the wind, then they might have opened a bit as they seem to have in reality, but it doesn't necessarily mean they're going to be "banging around" all the time.
If you believe a sticking front door was used to take the baby away at around 8 pm, are you not suggesting that everyone in the house at the time would have known CALjr was being taken away? That would be far more unbelievable to me, than any specific statements Lindbergh might have given about incidental repairs to his new house.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 25, 2017 8:28:48 GMT -5
Although I haven’t seen the deleted NOVA scene, I’d put far more value in seeing one or two individuals, very familiar with this ladder’s functioning and idiosyncrasies do the job regardless of weather conditions. I’ve personally witnessed one individual raise all three sections against the side of his house with very little difficulty and the ability to assemble this thing efficiently was a critical design consideration. We know the ladder was placed against the house, ie. the deep imprints in the mud and mud prints on the suitcase and nursery floor, indicate it was used to gain entry there. The fact is someone with feet, be it real kidnappers or faux kidnappers, had to get it there and clearly they took some caution to ensure they didn’t leave behind more telltale footprints and mud deposits than they had to. The walkway was used to maximum effect in their favour. Leaving the scene apparently was a different story and they seemed to be in much more of a hurry at that point. As to the ladder itself, I've never understood how anyone could simply write it off as a prop. I don't know how you can dismiss the weather. Raising a ladder like that in the high wind, by oneself, isn't like doing it on a sunny day. Next throw in that your standing on a board-walk in the dark. I don't think it has anything to do with someone's familiarity with the device just simple physics. The mud is a different story. The Police, with no evidence of a "fall," used the one footprint to imply it came from a "falling" Kidnapper. Yet, as I tried to demonstrate in my book, that footprint accounts for the mud in the nursery. So if the Police were right, the mud came after the snatch. And if they were wrong, there was no fall. Pick your poison. The other issue is the mud on the top of that shutter. This, I think, is very important in showing this whole matter was a staged event. I cannot see how the mud could have gotten there while the ladder was up against the house.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 25, 2017 8:47:58 GMT -5
I think a number of assumptions are being compounded here.. You've concluded that because the nursery window was not locked, it should have been rattling in the wind. But the Lindberghs were not in the habit of locking their second story windows and did not make any exceptions that I'm aware of that evening. So by your logic, all of the upstairs windows would have been rattling in the wind, yet no one seems to have noticed, or been bothered by it enough even when they were on the second floor. A closed and unlocked window will only rattle if it's not fitted properly and based on the testimony of the installer, I highly doubt they would have done a substandard job of fitting the windows. Joe, this is a flawed position. These locks "sealed" the windows by design. I know this through research and the fact I owed a home with the exact same widows. It may not have been a constant "rattle" but they whistled and rattled throughout the course - it's why we always kept them locked unless we had them up. If you don't believe me here is a post from Kevin (Kevkon) who we both know is a Master Carpenter and knows this stuff: So what is the problem? After all we all know the window was unlocked and therefore it is not an issue, right? The problem is that these kidnappers who have given all this thought and time to the crime could not possibly anticipate an unlocked window in early March, in a Nursery to boot. Those windows must be locked in order to effectively seal out the wind. Who would plan this crime and not at least consider a locked window at this time of the year? Yet where is there any evidence of how they would handle the window lock? And I don't necessarily mean a tool when I say this. More to the point is that when you change the role of the ladder from one of conveyance to one of a work platform, you also change the design parameters of the entire ladder. Now the height must relate to that which you must work on ( the lock). Now the rigidity and strength of the ladder must be able to withstand a person standing and moving for a longer period of time. As purely a means of ascending and descending I have no problem with the ladders' ability to perform, but to stand on the top and manipulate a lock at an awkward position, no way. So is this apparent disregard for the problem of a locked window due to oversight, optimism, or did they know the window would be open?
Was the nursery shutter banging around in the wind that evening? I don't recall any testimony to that effect. The shutters were very heavy and would only have banged around if they were able to travel back and forth very freely on their hinges and in sufficient wind. If there was enough resistance within the metal hinge action to overcome the effect of the wind, then they might have opened a bit as they seem to have in reality, but it doesn't necessarily mean they're going to be "banging around" all the time. Of course you didn't read it in the testimony. But if you read my book, you'd see Gow told the Cops it was the only reason they shut and locked the shutters to prevent them from flapping and banging in the wind. When Wolf got there what did he see? The shutters open. So now your counter argument is on a slide-rule by saying they wouldn't have flapped or banged in the wind as an explanation. I don't think that works. If you believe a sticking front door was used to take the baby away at around 8 pm, are you not suggesting that everyone in the house at the time would have known CALjr was being taken away? That would be far more unbelievable to me, than any specific statements Lindbergh might have given about incidental repairs to his new house. What I am saying is, in the words of Dr. Henry Lee, " something ain't right."
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 25, 2017 11:08:35 GMT -5
Post by garyb215 on Mar 25, 2017 11:08:35 GMT -5
Trying to gain perspective. If: (1)the mud was placed about after the snatch. (2)The footprints in the getaway were planted. (3)The ladder is a prop. Then wouldn't everyone in the house Betty, Olly. Charles Etc....all have to be in on the hoax? Would this be like a Behn theory but with different happenings, motives, and reasons? Like Michael brings up "something ain't right" (Dr Lee) I certainly agree.
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 25, 2017 11:16:37 GMT -5
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 25, 2017 11:16:37 GMT -5
heres a quote from mcleans bio called queen of diamonds "in 1936 leibowitz sued evalyn for 15,000 dollars in fees in the matter. she vigorously denied his charges saying she was not indebted to leibowtz in any sum whatsoever. neverthe less she found herself being dragged into court and besmirched in the headlines again
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Mar 25, 2017 13:57:30 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2017 13:57:30 GMT -5
This "plan" was worked via Hicks through Mrs. Hauptmann. Leibowitz agreed to the idea but only if Hauptmann was "truthful" with him. I have found this whole segment very confusing. The letter you posted says that Lloyd Fisher was of the understanding that Leibowitz was working on a voluntary basis. I was wondering if that ties into something that Quentin Reynolds had written when his book, Courtroom, was released about Leibowitz. Reynolds said that Leibowitz was only to receive money from McLean if Sam was able to secure a confession from Hauptmann. I have not read Evelyn Walsh McLean's Liberty articles. Does she cover this in those articles?
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 25, 2017 18:46:39 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Mar 25, 2017 18:46:39 GMT -5
I have found this whole segment very confusing. The letter you posted says that Lloyd Fisher was of the understanding that Leibowitz was working on a voluntary basis. I was wondering if that ties into something that Quentin Reynolds had written when his book, Courtroom, was released about Leibowitz. Reynolds said that Leibowitz was only to receive money from McLean if Sam was able to secure a confession from Hauptmann. I have not read Evelyn Walsh McLean's Liberty articles. Does she cover this in those articles? That's a good version to read but I'd say there's more to learn in addition to it. From memory, McLean offered to pay Leibowitz if he took over the case and a fee was negotiated. There was also some newspaper money being thrown around as well. Leibowitz stipulated that Hauptmann would have to be 100% honest with him or he wouldn't do it. It all started behind Fisher's back, although, part of the agreement was that he be kept as a member of the defense team should Leibowitz decide to do it. But as history records, Leibowitz did not take the position saying Hauptmann wasn't telling him the truth, and blaming both Fisher and the Governor for enabling him. But still, Leibowitz believed there were others involved, but needed this information from Hauptmann. *McLean's Liberty Series was 9 parts. I do not see anything in them about this. Sometimes when I read a lot, like I have today, I become dyslexic then miss stuff. However, before I picked them up I didn't think so and I usually have an idea about it originally so I think we're good on this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Mar 26, 2017 8:00:04 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2017 8:00:04 GMT -5
heres a quote from mcleans bio called queen of diamonds "in 1936 leibowitz sued evalyn for 15,000 dollars in fees in the matter. she vigorously denied his charges saying she was not indebted to leibowtz in any sum whatsoever. neverthe less she found herself being dragged into court and besmirched in the headlines again Steve, who wrote McLean's biography? I think I might want to look for a copy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Mar 26, 2017 8:05:58 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2017 8:05:58 GMT -5
That's a good version to read but I'd say there's more to learn in addition to it. From memory, McLean offered to pay Leibowitz if he took over the case and a fee was negotiated. There was also some newspaper money being thrown around as well. Leibowitz stipulated that Hauptmann would have to be 100% honest with him or he wouldn't do it. It all started behind Fisher's back, although, part of the agreement was that he be kept as a member of the defense team should Leibowitz decide to do it. But as history records, Leibowitz did not take the position saying Hauptmann wasn't telling him the truth, and blaming both Fisher and the Governor for enabling him. But still, Leibowitz believed there were others involved, but needed this information from Hauptmann. There were a number of people involved with this and yet no one seems to recall how it went down the same way! Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me on this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2017 10:17:46 GMT -5
Amy, please let me know what you think about the book. Kroth is very definitive about Hauptmann and his involvement. I thought it interesting what he said about the table at the end of the book. I began reading about the LKC when Waller's book was released (it was in my school library) and thought that was the end of the story. Working as an adult in a library I came acrossed "Scapegoat" and was hooked. Since then I've read anything I could get my hands on and in the course of working I would discuss the case with anyone from that generation, including my dad who was just a child at the time. In early 2000s found Mike's board and followed for awhile and then read his book which was great and here I am again. Remember many of the names and so admire their perserverence because this just isn't solved. Hi Kate, I wanted to get back to you about Jerry Kroth's book. I need to start out saying that I have never read a book on the Lindbergh Kidnap case quite like this one!! I spent most of last night trying to condense my notes down to a few paragraphs for this post. This book was a real challenge for me so please excuse my naivety about psychology which is going to become quite apparent in this post! My take on this book is that Kroth presents a set of psychoanalytical theories on Charles Lindbergh's life events from 1927 through 1941. Kroth calls this time period the American Dream Myth of Charles Lindbergh. He goes on to explain there is symbolism in these life events that needs to be understood in order to be able to see what this dream myth actually points to. Kroth divides up this dream myth period into 3 acts, borrowing the labeling of two of these acts from one of Anne Morrow Lindbergh's diary books. Act 1 - Hour of Gold - The Flight. This period includes the New York to Paris Spirit of St. Louis flight. The absolute mass hysteria that resulted from this leads to what he says is the deification of Charles Lindbergh. Beyond just Hero status, Kroth actually likens Lindbergh to Prometheus of Greek mythology because of the collective psychological response of the people to Charles Lindbergh. Kroth makes a great case for the crushing role of the media in building this frenzy. The Hour of Gold segment also includes Lindbergh's marriage to Anne Morrow and the birth of their first son, Charles Jr. Act 2 - Hour of Lead - The Kidnapping. The Lindberghs were still enormously popular with the American people and their son was regarded as the nation's baby. To strike at the Lindberghs in such a horrific way was the same as taking a club to everyone in America. This time period also includes the arrest, trial, conviction and execution of Bruno Richard Hauptmann. Kroth says when analyzing this portion of the dream we see all sorts of symbolism pointing to a German-Jewish subtext. Act 3 - The Death of a Hero: Exile and Infamy. This final part of the dream myth has the Lindbergh's leaving America to live in Europe and the outrage that was expressed with newspaper editorials blaming the American people for the departure of their Hero. However, there was also a negative response to the Lindberghs decision to leave America, calling it "un-American" for them to flee. This period includes the visits of Lindbergh to Nazi Germany, the presentation of Germany's highest decoration - The German Eagle - to Charles Lindbergh. Anne dubbed this decoration "The Albatross". There was Lindbergh's stance against America becoming involved in the European wars. He spoke at America First Committee rallies. No longer were all Americans viewing Lindbergh as a Hero. Lindbergh's Des Moines, Iowa speech on Sept. 11, 1941 which included anti-Jewish remarks, was so negatively received that it brings an end to the Lindbergh dream myth. Kroth says that the Hero (Lindbergh) kills himself in the eyes of the public. The American Dream Myth of Charles Lindbergh is over. Trying to sum all this up briefly and what Kroth believes the symbolism of Lindbergh's dream myth really means goes like this: 1. Each act in this life period is filled with symbolism - the swastikas(one painted inside nose cone of the Spirit of St, Louis plane for good luck and the one on the German Eagle decoration), a Jewish prosecutor sending a German carpenter to the electric chair. 2. The German-Jewish theme that passes through this dream myth and where it leads us. 3. The greatest "crime of the century" was not the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby. The greatest crime of the century was the genocide, the holocaust. 4. The symbolic crime of the century, the Lindbergh kidnapping, was pointing to the real crime of the century, World War II. 5. Kroth uses the Table Board Confession (Mersman Table) as evidence that Bruno Richard Hauptmann is not guilty of the kidnap/murder of the Lindbergh baby. This table points to those who were responsible - the N.S.D.A.P. - The Nazi Party. When Kroth ended the book this way (table confession), I had less trouble understanding the thrust of his book. I am more or less a realist and the Table gave me something solid to grasp on to. I did enjoy the book. There is so much that we could discuss. I have only skimmed the surface with this write-up. Please let me know your thoughts on the book. I could certainly use the help!!!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Letters
Mar 26, 2017 10:41:28 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Mar 26, 2017 10:41:28 GMT -5
I'm not dismissing the weather at all and agree it would have been much more of a challenge on a night like that. In fact, if this were a staged kidnapping, I think you have to ask why on earth would they have picked such a miserable night to begin with? And why a Tuesday night when the Lindberghs weren't usually there? Would these two factors by themselves not be strong indicators of a staged event and why would those involved not realize this?
I disagree with you around your point on familiarity and physics and I'd like to understand a little more about how you believe the ladder was raised against the house in the first place. Whether it was placed there by real or faux kidnappers, did they not still manage to do it effectively in the dark and under the weather conditions of that night, and only leave behind the minimal footprint evidence that was discovered? How does this footprint evidence then negate the possibility of a real kidnapping?
Next, are you concluding the mud prints in the nursery were made by someone who had climbed the ladder and gone through the window?
Finally, I'm familiar with your account of the mud on top of the first floor shutter. Are you concluding it would not have been possible for a piece of mud to have somehow found its way from the foot of someone climbing that ladder to the spot on the shutter where it was found?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Letters
Mar 26, 2017 11:16:17 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Mar 26, 2017 11:16:17 GMT -5
I have a lot of respect for Kevin's opinion as it pertains to the wood and physical evidence, but he's not talking about rattling windows here, rather sealing out the wind. Two different things. And I know this "sealing" (not as effective as today's windows of course) can only be achieved if the sash lock is able to push the window down into its final throw position firmly against the window frame. Getting back to my position, I think it would only be flawed, if it was known for certain that the windows of the Lindbergh house rattled when unlocked as you previously indicated they did. From your research on these windows, were you able to positively conclude that? Michael, I'm not harping on this point, rather developing some other thoughts unrelated to this thread. For now, my point being that the second story windows were not locked as a rule and if they did rattle as you indicated, would they not have been simply locked on a regular basis to avoid this nuisance?
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Mar 26, 2017 11:17:39 GMT -5
Thank you Kate and Amy for the outline and discussion of Kroth's book.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Letters
Mar 26, 2017 11:35:11 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Mar 26, 2017 11:35:11 GMT -5
I believe Gow is making a statement about the general tendency of the second floor shutters to flap and bang around in the wind, but I think you have to be careful about applying this generality to the nursery window shutters, Michael. Again, do you know for certain that the nursery window shutters did the same? Who in that house would have put up with the nursery window shutters banging and flapping around in the wind, especially a sleeping baby? The image is almost comical and they're only going to bang and flap if they're able to move back and forth freely on their hinges, which they don't appear to have, at least not as you're indicating. This is basic physics and while it seems clear they did move around somewhat, I think to say they banged and flapped around, is not only inaccurate but self-defeating to your original position, which essentially buttonholes Lindbergh for not having had them fixed previously.
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 26, 2017 13:06:33 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Mar 26, 2017 13:06:33 GMT -5
I'm not dismissing the weather at all and agree it would have been much more of a challenge on a night like that. In fact, if this were a staged kidnapping, I think you have to ask why on earth would they have picked such a miserable night to begin with? And why a Tuesday night when the Lindberghs weren't usually there? Would these two factors by themselves not be strong indicators of a staged event and why would those involved not realize this? Let me try to understand you here. Are you attempting to say it wasn't staged because it was a miserable night? If so, what choices do we have left? By your own argument and in addition to others, there is even less of a chance the Kidnappers would pick this night. I disagree with you around your point on familiarity and physics and I'd like to understand a little more about how you believe the ladder was raised against the house in the first place. Whether it was placed there by real or faux kidnappers, did they not still manage to do it effectively in the dark and under the weather conditions of that night, and only leave behind the minimal footprint evidence that was discovered? How does this footprint evidence then negate the possibility of a real kidnapping? Here again you are comparing apples and oranges. Someone sneaking around without light, unfamiliar with that house, where everyone was, where the dogs were, unfamiliar with the yard, in the dark with no lights under these weather conditions are far more handicapped. Next, are you concluding the mud prints in the nursery were made by someone who had climbed the ladder and gone through the window? I didn't offer a conclusion. Finally, I'm familiar with your account of the mud on top of the first floor shutter. Are you concluding it would not have been possible for a piece of mud to have somehow found its way from the foot of someone climbing that ladder to the spot on the shutter where it was found? It's not "my" account - it's the Police account and the mud is still at the NJSP Archives. The place where that mud was found is very problematic. The Police concluded someone stepped onto it. That cannot be done with the ladder in position. I've considered that someone may have placed their leg through the rungs to wipe their foot off on the shutter but I honestly don't know if that was possible. As to mud falling onto it from above - no - I don't see that as a possibility.
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 26, 2017 13:23:39 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Mar 26, 2017 13:23:39 GMT -5
I have a lot of respect for Kevin's opinion as it pertains to the wood and physical evidence, but he's not talking about rattling windows here, rather sealing out the wind. Two different things. It's not different. According to Kevin, by necessity there must be some play to allow easy operation with the changing humidity and paint build-up. And so in the cold weather, like on this night, there was "play" that could only be remedied by a locked window. In the summer, of course, the wood will swell making it less likely as a result. So what we would have that night was both a draft and rattling windows. Less wind, less rattling but this night was extremely windy. Maybe it might be worth your while to consider the possibility?
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 26, 2017 13:42:22 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Mar 26, 2017 13:42:22 GMT -5
I believe Gow is making a statement about the general tendency of the second floor shutters to flap and bang around in the wind, but I think you have to be careful about applying this generality to the nursery window shutters, Michael. Again, do you know for certain that the nursery window shutters did the same? Who in that house would have put up with the nursery window shutters banging and flapping around in the wind, especially a sleeping baby? The image is almost comical and they're only going to bang and flap if they're able to move back and forth freely on their hinges, which they don't appear to have, at least not as you're indicating. This is basic physics and while it seems clear they did move around somewhat, I think to say they banged and flapped around, is not only inaccurate but self-defeating to your original position, which essentially buttonholes Lindbergh for not having had them fixed previously. Forgive me Joe but saying Gow was being "general" doesn't make sense to me. Either it was true or it wasn't. If it was then it means if the shutters were opened they were banging in the wind. Perhaps the kidnappers shut them once they entered then shut them again upon leaving so they wouldn't. But Wolf saw them open upon his arrival so if the Kidnappers didn't leave them open then we must conclude someone in the house opened them. This would have to be after the note was discovered if it was of no significance. So here are our options. I do not believe anything I post is "self-defeating." I am laying out the facts to get to the truth and not the other way around. Obviously if the shutters were banging then they heard them. For me, that isn't comical but a point of fact to consider. I don't believe that Betty would have left those shutters un locked or secured as they would bang against the window in the wind thus waking the baby. So what I believe she did when she said "fixed as best as possible" is to slide the bolt only partially into place. That does effectively secure the shutters, though not as well as getting the bolt completely in place.
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 27, 2017 8:51:01 GMT -5
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 27, 2017 8:51:01 GMT -5
amy mcleans greatgrandson wrote some of the book and mcleans bio is reprinted. she was the longest private owner of the hope diamond. her son got killed by a car and her daughter later in life overdosed. that diamond might have been cursed
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 27, 2017 9:40:25 GMT -5
Post by kate1 on Mar 27, 2017 9:40:25 GMT -5
Amy, OMG what a through summary of Kroth! I thought the dream stuff was interesting but was mostly interested from a psychotherapeutical point of view! Really the points he made about Hauptmann's innocence was what I focused on. I think the "crimes" Hauptmann committed in post war Germany can not be considered in outside of the conditions in the country at that time. Germa people were sending their children to homes in other countries so they wouldn't starve ( The Hiding Place about Corrie Ten Boom). The two instances of the theifs there just don't mean anything to me because of circumstances. I think a study of Hauptmann's upbringing would be insightful. The personality attributes that the prosecution gave Hauptmann were not demonstrated by his interactions with others while in this country, at least to me. Thank you so much for taking time to discuss this with me!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Mar 27, 2017 21:24:39 GMT -5
xjd likes this
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2017 21:24:39 GMT -5
Really the points he made about Hauptmann's innocence was what I focused on. I think the "crimes" Hauptmann committed in post war Germany can not be considered in outside of the conditions in the country at that time. Germa people were sending their children to homes in other countries so they wouldn't starve ( The Hiding Place about Corrie Ten Boom). The two instances of the theifs there just don't mean anything to me because of circumstances. I think this is where you could be of real help to me. I do realize that conditions in Germany, post WWI, were deplorable. There were very few jobs, inflation had made money worthless, food was scarce. People did commit crimes that they normally would not have. Hauptmann came home from the war facing these very bad conditions. As a soldier Hauptmann and the others had to steal food to keep from starving. Is it possible that being in desperate conditions for a period of time can cause psychological changes in a person's mind that can be triggered if they find themselves in a similar way at a future time causing them to revert back to certain past behaviors? Have you read Hauptmann's autobiography? I agree with you. The way Wilentz vilified Hauptmann was appalling and unjust. I, personally, don't see anything in Hauptmann's background that would even suggest the possibility that he would be capable of murdering a child.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Apr 2, 2017 6:32:52 GMT -5
Amy, I don't think I have read Hauptmann's autobiography but I do remember reading something about his childhood. He was especially close to his mom? Was he gassed during WWI? His brothers died in the war? Definitely believe horrific events can cause PTSD. People's coping skills differ so greatly and personality disorders are formed in childhood but don't appear until an individual is an adult, but that said I agree. I think what Hauptmann did throughout his life ( what I know about it!) was cope with whatever he had to deal with. He married, had a child, had friends and worked. No crimes committed in US. I don't see anything except hoarding gold notes. Many Depression survivors here hoarded most of their lives! Nothing that would lead me to think he had any psychopathology.
|
|
|
Letters
Apr 2, 2017 10:06:02 GMT -5
Post by hurtelable on Apr 2, 2017 10:06:02 GMT -5
Amy, OMG what a through summary of Kroth! I thought the dream stuff was interesting but was mostly interested from a psychotherapeutical point of view! Really the points he made about Hauptmann's innocence was what I focused on. I think the "crimes" Hauptmann committed in post war Germany can not be considered in outside of the conditions in the country at that time. Germa people were sending their children to homes in other countries so they wouldn't starve ( The Hiding Place about Corrie Ten Boom). The two instances of the theifs there just don't mean anything to me because of circumstances. I think a study of Hauptmann's upbringing would be insightful. The personality attributes that the prosecution gave Hauptmann were not demonstrated by his interactions with others while in this country, at least to me. Thank you so much for taking time to discuss this with me! You're obviously confused about the history, kate1. Hauptmann committed those crimes in Germany somewhere in the 1919-1923 period. Yes, those may not have been the most prosperous years in Germany, but at least they had republican form of government (Weimar Republic) and respected civil liberties to some extent. There was no major trend in Gernams sending children to foreign countries during this time frame. The Corrie Ten Boom story, caring for German children, was a phenomenon of the Nazi era, which started with the rise to power of Adolf Hitler in 1933. It was predominantly German Jewish families who sent their children to other countries, like the Netherlands, in the 1930s. What precipitated this was not so much poverty, but the anti-Jewish policies and environment in Germany created by the Nazi regime. Yes, in some cases German Jewish families sent their children to live abroad in the 1930s with caring families who took them into their homes. And in other cases, like the Frank family, both parents and children left Germany for a new life in another country (in the case of the Franks, they moved to the Netherlands). The key point here is that this phenomenon occurred a decade or more after Hauptmann had arrived in the United States, so it had nothing to do with Hauptmann's crimes in Germany.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Apr 3, 2017 9:10:22 GMT -5
I think people were starving in Germany after WWI. One of the children the Ten Boom's cared for later became a Nazi. I also believe the economic climate post WWI lead to the rise of Fascism. The Hiding Place, written about the Ten Booms clearly states these children were sent abroad because their families were unable to feed them...the Ten Boom's were not prosperous either but there was a contrast between the countries
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2017 13:21:47 GMT -5
I think people were starving in Germany after WWI. You are correct that hunger was a huge issue in post WWI Germany. After the war ended Germany had lost everything. The country was in deplorable conditions. The lack of raw materials, food, and that civilian manufacturing had been decimated resulting in very few job opportunities. The Treaty of Versailles was nothing more than a punishment of Germany for WWI. Germany would have to pay reparations for WWI. The crushing amount that would need to be repaid would result in an outbreak of hyperinflation. German money was worthless. You would need a whole suitcase of money just to buy a loaf of bread. These were the conditions that faced Hauptmann and other soldiers when they returned from the war front. It was a very bad time for the people of Germany. Out of these desperate conditions there would rise the most evil man of the 20th century - Adolph Hitler.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Apr 3, 2017 17:44:38 GMT -5
Hate to play the devil's advocate here, but poverty and hunger have been present in just about every human society from the dawn of time. It varies in degree with time and place. Post WWI conditions in Germany might have been bad, but they improved for a few years in the mid to late 1920s, before growing worse again with the worldwide Depression.
Just throwing this out for comparison: No matter how bad conditions in Germany were in the immediate post WWI era, that was no comparison to conditions in Germany in the immediate post WWII area, in the wake of the Allied bombings of WWII. And IMHO, those bombings of WWII were, for the most part, richly deserved by a population which supported Hitler's war machine and atrocities against defenseless civilian populations around Europe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2017 21:12:29 GMT -5
Hate to play the devil's advocate here, but poverty and hunger have been present in just about every human society from the dawn of time. It varies in degree with time and place. Post WWI conditions in Germany might have been bad, but they improved for a few years in the mid to late 1920s, before growing worse again with the worldwide Depression. I appreciate your comments, Hurt. It is true that poverty and hunger have been part of human existence throughout time. However, it was much worse for Germany during this time period. The British Naval blockades prevented goods from entering Germany during the war years so the starvation of the German people was already at serious levels by the time the war ended. Things went from bad to worse. It is the world Hauptmann came home to in 1919. By the time things started to improve Hauptmann had already been out of Germany for several years living in America.
|
|