|
Post by Michael on Mar 16, 2011 6:00:15 GMT -5
Schwartzkopf Says Hauptmann Had 'Pal' Belief that Bruno R. Hauptmann had an accomplice in passing the Lindbergh ransom money was expressed for the first time Tuesday by Colonel H. Norman Schwartzkopf [sic] of the New Jersey State Police.
Preparatory to an important conference of New Jersey officials and Bronx County District Attorney Samuel Foley on extradition of Hauptmann to this state, Schwartzkopf said he believed the accomplice knew the bills he handled were "hot." [United Press, 10-2-34]
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 30, 2011 17:13:07 GMT -5
From Schwarzkopf's File at the NJSP Archives (why did he keep this I wonder?): Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 31, 2011 18:30:17 GMT -5
Let's take a look at the sarcastic suggestions:
1. A Lone conclusive fingerprint on the crib, window, or ladder.
Ok. Absolutely no prints on the widow or windowsill area. The only time anyone EVER even suggests there was a partial on the crib was during testimony (something that should be dependable but isn't in this case), and we know there were hundreds of prints on the ladder. Some didn't have enough ridge counts, some were identified as those known to have handled it, and some were unidentified. We even have one under where the rung attaches to the rail. It was suggested by Koehler that only someone who constructed it must have made it there.
But none match Hauptmann so its ignored then hidden away from the Defense....that is until Dr. Hudson calls the Prosecutors on it. Unfortunately they are stunned at the very suggestion to turn this information over - and so he defects to the Defense. If he hadn't we may never have known the truth about the situation.
Of course none of that means Hauptmann isn't involved, but it clearly shows the Prosecution wasn't on the "up & up" as some pretend to believe.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 1, 2011 5:45:55 GMT -5
2. A moulage of the footprint in the mud.
Here again, they had one, but constantly denied it. They also had one from St. Raymond's, but the only reason the Defense knew about it was from the Newspapers. It was supposed to be brought to Flemington after they brought this fact up but strangely it never made it.
Once again, because Hauptmann's foot did not fit therein doesn't mean he's not involved, but it does show the tendency of the State to evade anything that points to something and/or someone else being involved.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Sept 1, 2011 19:49:24 GMT -5
mike i read in the fbi report that the one in st raymonds was inconclusive. ive never seen hard evidence that someone else was invloved. it dosnt mean there wasnt
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 8, 2011 18:53:24 GMT -5
NYPD Report concerning the Footprints at St. Raymond's: Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Sept 10, 2011 9:50:02 GMT -5
mike, didnt dr condons son in law make the foot impressions?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 10, 2011 11:19:40 GMT -5
I've seen a couple of sources that said he was there and actually was the one who made them. I've seen nothing to the contrary so I have no choice but to accept he did - at St. Raymond's.
I don't know who made them at Hopewell, although despite a really good attempt to keep it quiet, there's enough proof to show they were made.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Sept 10, 2011 17:21:00 GMT -5
it gets even better mike-----fbi files--- colonel breckinridge further related that shortly after the payment of the ransom in st. raymonds cemetery he personally made a plaster cast of the footprint found on one of the graves in the cemetery which was thought to have been left by the departing john on april 2nd. this cast since the time of its construction has been in possession of the njsp at trenton.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 11, 2011 6:28:31 GMT -5
Steve: is that from an actual report or a newspaper article?
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Sept 11, 2011 6:38:20 GMT -5
actual report in my fbi files
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 11, 2011 7:51:33 GMT -5
My guess is that Sisk wrote it or perhaps one of those which Lanphear told them what he knew. Do you have a date on it so that I can look it up? The odds are good that I have it. If not, I will probably stumble upon it now that I know its out there somewhere....
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Sept 11, 2011 18:45:19 GMT -5
mike im engulfed in football today i will check close tomorrow
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 24, 2011 18:27:11 GMT -5
Years ago, "someone" (Allen) once told me one had to know "how" to "read" the reports and then properly "interpret" them. He was implying that I am not smart enough and he is, therefore, I should defer to his interpretation and just let him tell me what to believe.....
I've got to tell you its still funny and it gives rise to a little chuckle each and every time I think about it.
But aside from a guy who enjoys making up dialog and misrepresenting newspaper reports as police reports, there is a little point to be had here.
For example, the FBI Reports must be understood from its proper perspective, that is, was the Agent properly informed, or in the alternative, is he guessing based upon other factors available to him? The jealousy shown towards the FBI from ALL other Law Enforcement hindered their ability to properly do their jobs. So sometimes we have reports written without even the most basic information that was available among all of the other Law Enforcement at the time except the FBI.
For example, I have (2) FBI reports concerning the footprint at St. Raymond's Cemetery. One says any shoe would fit into the cast, while the other says it was an 8-1/2 but Hauptmann wore a size 9.
Which report do we accept?
For me its the context in which it is written and also other reports from the various other sources in order to cross-reference it. As if this Case wasn't hard enough to figure out, unfortunately, there are these as well as other similiar situations we must factor in.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 24, 2012 17:53:37 GMT -5
Photo of the 1928 NJSP Pistol Team (NJSP Museum Photo):
Left to Right Front Row...
1. Trooper Charles Schwartz
2. Corporal Frank Gribbin
3. Col. Norman Schwarzkopf
4. Capt. J. J. Lamb
5. Sgt. Louis C. Salz
Back Row.....
1. Captain William J. Carter
2. Sgt. Russell A. Snook
3. Deputy Superintendent Mark O. Kimberling
4. Lt. William E. Kulp
5. Sgt. Morris Cohen
6. Trooper William Lewis
|
|
|
Post by arthur45 on Nov 7, 2012 21:30:09 GMT -5
I have my doubts that one can distinguish a "size 8 1/2" footprint" from a size nine shoe. Nor do we know whether the footprint was even made by CJ. I don't believe there is any doubt as to CJ's identity being BRH. There are simply too many other pieces of evidence showing CJ and BRH being one and the same, to include Lindbergh's identification of his voice. Lindbergh was a very precise person and he would have no motive for not telling the truth. Since there is, in my judgment, no plausible evidence indicating that BRH didn't act alone, I can't buy into any theories that require a second person in the form of CJ.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 8, 2012 16:54:00 GMT -5
Welcome to the Board Arthur.
I've cruised through your posts and I have to say that don't agree with about 90% of it. Since there is a lot I really don't know where to begin so I decided to start at your first post.
Depends on the circumstances. All of the Reports say there was a cast made. All of Hauptmann's shoes were taken (and are still at the Archives) by the Police. Hauptmann's Shoe-Maker was interviewed. This was done for a reason in my opinion. Why waste time if one can't distinguish the size? It's easy to question stuff without this information on hand.
Depends upon whether or not you trust Condon. He said that's where he saw CJ jump, land, and walk. If you trust him that its undeniable. If you don't then its absolutely in question.
I disagree. There's plenty of doubt. That doesn't mean it wasn't him but saying there's no doubt is more a method of comforting one's opinion about the matter.
This is interesting because no one at the time put any real faith in this identification - except perhaps the Jury which is why it was testified to. Next, what exactly did CJ say that Lindbergh heard? They couldn't even remember what was actually said yet you believe in that same memory identifying the voice from it?
Oh Boy. You live by the sword you die by the sword. Do you actually stand by this as a method of proving something? Let me know before I use your own argument to prove the exact opposite.
I disagree because I believe there is hard evidence that more then one person was involved.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2014 22:51:31 GMT -5
In Chapter 6 of Behn's book, Lindbergh - The Crime, Behn comes down rather hard on Schwarzkopf for failing to do things that should have been done. Some of the things he mentions are:
1) Not sealing off the grounds around the main house.
2) He rejected the suggestion of the use of bloodhounds to trace the kidnappers at first by saying there were not enough dogs available for this. He also claimed that bloodhoods were not effective on wet ground, so no bloodhounds were used.
3) He turned down the offer made by Dr. Hibben of Princeton University to have the students do a massive foot-by-foot search of the countryside.
4) Any direct actions taken by Schwarzkopf early in this case were at the request of Lindbergh and his advisers.
Was Schwarzkopf calling the shots here or was it really Lindbergh and his people that rejected the offers of help?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2014 15:28:00 GMT -5
There is one other incident in Behn's book that I wanted to ask you about. I do not recall reading of this in any of the books I have read so far. In chapter 11 of Behn's book he talks about Lindbergh's encased private telephone line in his home. This line was off-limits to the NJSP. Lindbergh made Schwarzkopf clear on this. Behn then goes on to say that the troopers wanted to know what was being said on this private line so the state police assigned an officer to the telephone company office in Hopewell and had this trooper listen in on the forbidden line from the main switchboard. When Lindbergh learned this was happening (Behn doesn't say how Lindbergh found this out), he drove to Hopewell, barged in on the eavesdropping trooper at the swichboard warning him not to plug into that line anymore. The young officer assured Lindbergh that he would discontinue his activity. Lindbergh then proceeded back to Highfields and found Captain Lamb to be on his private line. Lamb said it rang so he answered it. Lindbergh then made it very clear to Lamb that not he or any other policeman is to touch that phone for any reason ever.
Behn's footnote for this scenario references Fisher's first book, The Lindbergh Case. Since I do not have that book to check Fisher's source for this incident, I was wondering if you could verify that this confrontation did occur between Lindbergh and the NJSP. Who would have ordered a state trooper to do such a thing? This doesn't sound like something Schwarzkopf would have ordered done.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 9, 2014 20:16:31 GMT -5
Was Schwarzkopf calling the shots here or was it really Lindbergh and his people that rejected the offers of help? It all depends actually. I think its important to use examples in order to understand. If you recall in Lloyd's book where Schwarzkopf removed the shutter many days after the crime causing it to crash to the ground which covered it in mud.... then told a Trooper to have it rushed to Kelly for fingerprinting. This would be an example of "bungling" which can be laid at Schwarzkopf's feet. On the other hand, one to show that Lindbergh was actually running the investigation and/or calling the shots would be when Schwarzkopf approached Special Agent Merrick on April 2nd, 1932 asking him if the " Bureau could cover all Canadian border points." Merrick said this could be done. However, after the matter was discussed with Lindbergh, Schwarzkopf told Merrick the borders " should not be covered by the Bureau." Behn's footnote for this scenario references Fisher's first book, The Lindbergh Case. Since I do not have that book to check Fisher's source for this incident, I was wondering if you could verify that this confrontation did occur between Lindbergh and the NJSP. Who would have ordered a state trooper to do such a thing? This doesn't sound like something Schwarzkopf would have ordered done. The original source for this is The Snatch Racket. Behn cites Fisher, and Fisher cites Sullivan. It boils down to whether or not you are willing to accept this book as a reliable source, and if so, I would recommend reading that account as opposed to however it's portrayed in Fisher. What I know is that Hopewell 303 was Lindbergh's personal line. The Troopers were not manning this line, but men like Rosner, and Thayer would. I have evidence in the call logs to Hopewell 261, for example, that says this: 4.28 P. Mr. Fishman phoned to speak to Col Breackenbridge. Had call transferred to phone #303 J.R.G. There's one like this for Lindbergh, and another for Inspector Walsh - so it wasn't limited to just Lindbergh. 303 had been utilized for the Kidnapping and, in fact, the NJSP started to receive the bill for any Toll Calls made from that number immediately after March 1st. It was Rosner who came up with the idea to "clear" 303 by ensuring it was not "tapped" and that a "special operator" be assigned from the Phone Company not to connect anyone until it was asked for the party's name they were calling (e.g. Lindbergh, Breckenridge, Rosner) and that the name of the individual was known by these parties first before ringing 303 - anything else should be transferred to the Police wires. The Police, of course, could screen the call then transfer it to 303 as well. According to Rosner, Lindbergh approved then got to work by calling the Phone Company to make the necessary arrangements. Rosner commented this occurred "quick and thorough cooperation" made by the Phone Company. So it's possible that Special Operator informed Lindbergh that a Trooper was there listening in, and he put an end to it. The Lamb story too, possibly, could be true if Lamb was answering the phone. But it wasn't unheard of for someone like Lamb to have a call transferred to that line for him, or even make a toll call out from that line.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2014 16:06:33 GMT -5
I see what you are saying about determining who might be responsible for something. Since you brought up the shutter, I do have a question about the warped shutter. Were any official reports ever made about the nursery window shutters and their condition? Since the claim was made that the southeast corner window shutters were warped and would not latch securely, wouldn't they have been examined to see if this is so and how serious the warping was? Lloyd mentions in his book on page 412 that David Watson a contractor on the Lindbergh house and the man who hung those shutters, read the news accounts of the warped shutter and contacted the NJSP on March 2, 1932 saying that the shutters were not warped. Wouldn't a contradicting claim like this cause Schwarzkopf to have the shutters on this window examined?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 10, 2014 19:35:43 GMT -5
Were any official reports ever made about the nursery window shutters and their condition? Since the claim was made that the southeast corner window shutters were warped and would not latch securely, wouldn't they have been examined to see if this is so and how serious the warping was? Lloyd mentions in his book on page 412 that David Watson a contractor on the Lindbergh house and the man who hung those shutters, read the news accounts of the warped shutter and contacted the NJSP on March 2, 1932 saying that the shutters were not warped. Wouldn't a contradicting claim like this cause Schwarzkopf to have the shutters on this window examined? I have copies of that Report concerning Watson calling in. It's in a place where those who aren't going to research for an extended period of time won't find it - which is exactly why Lloyd was the first Author to mention it. It's too important to ignore isn't it? So what does Zorn's book say about it? How about Richard's? Anyway, to answer your question: The only mention of these shutters being examined in anyway is what Rosner mentioned as cited in Lloyd's book. That's all that exists at the NJSP Archives now anyway. It's possible there was something else. If so, perhaps it didn't survive or is in someone's attic right now waiting to be discovered, but as someone who has gone through each and every document there, multiple times, I can say with 100% conviction I didn't miss anything related to it. So in its absence the easiest thing to do is conclude nothing ever existed, but I hesitate not to include the above as possibilities - however slight they may be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2014 10:58:15 GMT -5
I think the whole warped shutter issue is too important to be ignored. It is because of shutter warping that the kidnapper of Charlie was able to gain access to that room, isn't that how the story goes? Warped shutter, unlocked window equals kidnapping of Charlie. Wouldn't the shutters on this room be evidence proving this is how the crime was really committed and that it could be done without inside help.
Both shutters were removed from the entry window. Mark Falzini has a picture in his excellent book "New Jersey's Lindbergh Kidnapping and Trial" on page 31 showing both shutters had been removed by the NJSP. Schwarzkopf must have realized this was important evidence. They must have examined these shutters in a lab for more than just fingerprints. They would have looked for warping too. They would have checked the bolt action between the shutters, I would think. This would be important proof if the shutters were truly warped.
So what happened to the two shutters removed from that window? The warped shutters are talked about during the trial but they are never physically entered into evidence to help prove Hauptmann entered the nursery through that window.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2014 17:49:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 19, 2014 19:16:35 GMT -5
Like you say, it is possible this did happen!! Knowing this phone was used prior, and continued to be used after, I am skeptical of the specifics reported because Cops were still using that phone at will. Something may have happened to cause this report but this story cannot be exactly right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2014 8:17:52 GMT -5
Understood. You mentioned that Hopewell 303 was Lindbergh's private line. Did Anne have her own phone line? I have read that Aida Breckinridge was handling Anne's calls. Was she doing this from the same line - Hopewell 303?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 20, 2014 8:38:03 GMT -5
Understood. You mentioned that Hopewell 303 was Lindbergh's private line. Did Anne have her own phone line? I have read that Aida Breckinridge was handling Anne's calls. Was she doing this from the same line - Hopewell 303? If Snatch Racket is an independent source for this event then I'd think the retelling is probably more accurate. But if it's source is the newspapers then I worry there might be more to it. For example, I've seen some really nasty letters alleging wrong-doings by Troopers which appears to have been motivated by Reporters being told to " scram" or " beat it" by Police trying to keep them away. Some had their film removed from their cameras or even the camera itself taken or smashed. So who knows? My best guess is that Lindbergh did scold someone relating to his phone, and it was probably Capt. Lamb. It actually might have been due to monitoring his personal line. How it leaked out is also an important tid-bit. But its all guess-work thrown into flux due to the Reports I have concerning the use of that exact phone. As far as Anne goes, I have nothing to indicate she had her own personal line. I am reasonably certain that anyone calling her would call "Hopewell 303" due to the fact I have seen Elisabeth calling multiple times for her Mother on that line.
|
|