|
Post by zerohunter on Nov 20, 2011 21:18:57 GMT -5
I’m totally new here and also new to the whole LKC. My reason to join this community instead of remaining a contented lurker is twofold. One is to have access to all of the goodies that require membership and the other (which is the primary one) is to ask a burning question which I’m having some difficulty finding any sort of answers to without probably years of research and study. I also believe that this thread is the appropriate place to ask for this insight. I am an industrial machine designer and machinist by trade. I look at the goal that is sought and devise a mechanical method of achieving it, e.g. how all the parts and pieces must to fit together and in what order and so on. This ability also translates to other parts of life in general, such as human interactions, marketing – human perception – etc. What got me interested in LKC was the movie J. Edgar which lead to a little fact finding about him and then; ending of the Gold standard in 1933, Lindbergh’s father and The Federal Reserve, Hauptman’s “guilt”, - some fascinating reading all in all. This trail led me to an article by Eustace Mullins. www.whale.to/b/mullins23.htmlOnly few days later did I realize that he is the author of The Secrets of the Federal Reserve, which I immediately located in my somewhat extensive library of occult and obscure books that range from the lost science of Tesla to Spiritual Topics. Personally, I think that some of his ideas in that article are a little over the top, except for a few. Before I get to my central question though, as someone who has a fresh perspective and is new here, I’d like to add my own two cents worth of what seems readily apparent to me. Two things are clearly evident: 1.) There never was a kidnapping. 2.) Richard Bruno Hauptmann had to be found guilty. In my mind these two points are really separate issues that have but the thinnest of thread connecting them (Hauptman’s association/involvement with the “wrong” people…). I would like to address these two points and briefly share my beliefs about them without getting bogged down in the nuts, bolts and washers concerning each (that’s what this site is for, but not this thread…) and then lead directly into my question. 1.) There never was a kidnapping. Something bad had happened to Charles Jr., something that would be ruinous to the Lindberg and possibly also the Morrow name if it ever got out. (I have multiple theories on what that might have been which I might share at a later date.) I believe some physical injury occurred to Charles Jr as a result of some activity (nothing like Monier & Ahlgren’s) that would be scandalous if it ever were revealed. This injury probably needed medical intervention (stitches) and was life threatening for the baby boy. His condition was critical for a sufficient amount of time to allow for planning, in the event that the worst possible scenario would manifest. If the baby were to die, reporting it’s death to the authorities had an unknown and uncertain outcome with the Lindbergs having very little or no control of the situation. This had to be avoided at all cost. Creating a situation which would absolve them of all guilt and make them the innocent victims was the only sensible option… Poor Charles Jr. passed away in his crib and was buried somewhere (likely close by) until his remains would be sufficiently decomposed so that they could be “found” without any suspicion leading to the Lindbergs. That’s why we find the following: Charles takes control of investigation, shaky ladder = (planted) evidence, wiped down nursery, ransom was only 50K, ransom note debacle, etc. etc. etc… 2.) Richard Bruno Hauptmann had to be found guilty. Having to call in an expert to find the loophole in the law that allowed for Hauptman’s execution is quite telling as is having an Attorney General (Wilentz) who never before had ever tried a case, step up as the prosecuting attorney. If the crime was “kidnapping” which was not a capital offense, why not prison for Hauptmann instead of that convoluted loophole of “larceny which results in a death” that made it a capital offense? Dead men tell no tales/final closure, so prison was out. That’s why we find the following: Lindberg’s perjury, suppression of evidence, judge directed verdict of guilty to jury, etc. etc. etc… Hauptmann had to be found guilty. But why? Could it be because he was German? How significant was his “guilt” in the perception of the public’s eye as it relates to U.S. involvement in WWII. The Evil German Monster Bruno, without regard for the tender young life of Charlie Jr. the son of our National Hero = Germany is Evil? What if (please play along with me for just one more moment here) Isador Fish had been charged with the same crime, lots of incriminating evidence had been found, and let’s say he even confessed and was then executed. Would that have altered Americans’ perception of Jews, making it much more difficult for the U.S. to enter WWII? I know this is a sensitive subject for many and may also be difficult to quantify, but this would go a long way toward explaining many elements of why it was that Hauptmann had to be found guilty which I feel may be significant if it leads even indirectly to the involvement of the U.S. in WWII. I anxiously await any answers, statements, criticisms or anything else…
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Nov 21, 2011 2:07:13 GMT -5
Dear zerohunter:
Regarding the Mullins piece: I previously encountered it, in a slightly different version. It says Dwight Morrow met with Lindbergh in June of 1935, and that Morrow told Lindbergh that Hauptmann was innocent. It even gives the exact words of the conversation.
But PLEASE NOTE that Dwight Morrow died in October 1931, before the kidnapping took place. He never knew that the baby was kidnapped. So the conversation Mullins reports is a complete fabrication.
Therefore I also place no credence in Mullins' report of a conversation between Wilentz and Lindbergh, although it is possible Wilentz was may have exerted some influence on Lindbergh’s identification of Hauptmann as “Cemetery John.”
Mullins makes another glaring error in this article. He claims the Republicans wanted to run Lindbergh for President in the 1932 election, and that the kidnapping was used to derail this. This is impossible. Lindbergh was only 30 years old at the time, and the Constitution mandates that the President must be at least 35. Popular though Lindbergh was, the Republicans could not have a run a candidate who was flagrantly unqualified.
Though it is possible that the kidnapping had political motives, and the article contain bits of truth, Mullins disqualified himself from any serious consideration but failing to check elementary facts and fabricating a conversation that could not possibly have taken place.
|
|
|
Post by zerohunter on Nov 21, 2011 3:18:57 GMT -5
Yes, I totally agree with your assessment of Mullin’s article which is why I state: “I think that some of his ideas in that article are a little over the top, except for a few.” Also, thank you for the clarification about the impossibility of some of the points he tries to make. The purpose of my post was not an attempt to bring awareness to this article, which I’m sure most have already read, but to get some clarity as to whether there was any significance in Hauptman’s “guilt” and his being German as it relates to the involvement of the U.S. in WWII. I was hoping that someone such as you, who seems to have a large volume of scholarly knowledge regarding events of that time period would also have some idea or feel for the mainstream “think” of those times and might choose to shed some light on my question. I do completely understand and appreciate if such subject matter is not exactly your cup of tea… In any case I would like to thank you for your response which was actually quite enlightening for me.
z
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 21, 2011 8:56:23 GMT -5
Welcome to the board and thanks for giving all of this some serious thought.
I want to first mention there was a form of "profiling" back then. The English act this way, the Germans that way, and the Italians yet another way. Betty Gow's actions were explained away because she was "Scotch" ... etc. etc. While there was some value to Law Enforcement in their investigation to consider this - it was mostly just based upon prejudice and bias.
But, in my opinion, and its just that, the German Authorities completely cooperated with this investigation in every way. The NJSP had many Troopers who were of German descent, and the Public had a mix-bag of opinions based upon many differing things. As did the State Police who really honed in on the Italians living in and around Hopewell.
In short, there is no effort to "frame" a German for this crime. If that had been the case, there were many Germans who could have just as easily been "framed" early on in the investigation. For example, there was one who was suspected by just about everyone and another who killed himself.
The "politics" occur after the fact.
What you have is someone being caught, and his involvement is provable. Since there are many levels of possible involvement, the question now becomes: to what degree? So they try to get him to talk. Nothing. So they try to make him talk. Nothing. So they resort to:
....okay, we know he's guilty, and we have "x" on him. We need to tie it together with "y." So they get the people they need to do this to say that. Suddenly something that was never proven then becomes a fact. Or something that was specifically dismissed now must be true because Hauptmann could tie it together. Or a chisel grows wings, flies out of Hauptmann's tool box, while another grows feet and walks from his trunk into the garage then jumps into that tool box. So the tools exist, but aren't exactly where they need to be in order to score the points they feel are necessary.
What you have are these leaps of "faith" occur without any guilt on their end, after all, the SOB is guilty.
And in the end, he is still handed the opportunity to save himself, which in my opinon, the Death Sentence was meant to punish him for not cooperating. Once Hauptmann makes the final decision to take this under the chin - those responsible for his conviction must proceed accordingly. To say after his refusal to talk that he wasn't alone would simply fuel the speculation he was innocent, or they were stupid. Either way that wasn't going to happen. But while that decision serves its purpose at that time, it creates a lasting and very opposite effect throughout history. It's what directly leads some people to believe he was completely innocent.
They out-thought themselves, and as a result, did create a Monster that would haunt this country to this very day.
I submit to you that if Fisch hadn't died, he would have been brought back, or have already been back - then promptly arrested. His character was only defended because he was dead and couldn't be prosecuted.
The Jewish "perception" was and would have been irrelevant. Wilentz was Jewish and was on the "right" side things. He was also openly critical of the Fisch families complaints after the trial concerning their reimbursement.
Another item to consider is Lindbergh's testimony. By your own argument, he seems to be doing something that is contrary to his own personal beliefs - that would be making it easier for our involvement in WWII.
Personally, I think you are too far ahead into the future when it comes to this theory.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Nov 21, 2011 12:24:32 GMT -5
Hi, Z: As many people recognize, in every war, propaganda is used to enflame public opinion about the enemy. I think it is pretty well acknowledged today that Hollywood created some pretty grotesque stereotypes of the Japanese and German people during World War II, and even in the time briefly preceding. Here is a link to the film Our Enemy: The Japanese, produced by the Office of War Information (which incidentally, in the context of this thread, was headed up by William Donovan and James Warburg). www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBxYy9rOVEk&feature=relatedIt is not impossible to theorize that Hauptmann was selected as a patsy in order to generate anti-German sentiment prior to the war. On the surface, this seems extremely unlikely since the kidnapping took place in March 1932, and the Nazis did not officially even come to power in Germany until January 1933. On the other hand, Hauptmann is not identified as a suspect until 1934. This is still 5 years prior to the official onset of the war (September 1939). Nevertheless, the tensions that eventually resulted in the war were already very active at the time, and my understanding of the powers that be is that they take a long view of things. I noted early in this thread the “clues” that appeared to be dropped in the ransom notes—substituting the German “gut” for “good” and “haus” for “house,” basic words Hauptmann surely would have known how to spell after 9 years in America, and him supposedly being a guy who reads American newspapers like the Bronx Home News. My own feeling is that the war was just too far away in 1932 to have been the main motivation behind the kidnapping. But perhaps after Hauptmann became the top suspect, there were those who felt his Germany identity could be exploited in the interest of fanning public opinion in the direction of war. I think you are correct to say that if Isidor Fisch had been found guilty of the kidnapping, this would have had a different sort of impact. One can be sure, for example, that it would been played up in the anti-Semitic German publication Der Sturmer. Whether or not the LKC was a politically motivated event really depends on who was behind it. If we can conclusively establish who that was, then we should be able to determine if they had political motives. Of course, some are satisfied that the case has been solved, either by the Flemington verdict, or by another theory that has since arisen. And there are those that think it will always be “the case that never dies,” but I hope that it truthfully will.
|
|
|
Post by zerohunter on Nov 21, 2011 16:01:08 GMT -5
Hi Michael,
Thank you for your insightful reply.
(Still trying to figure out how to properly use this board, especially for quoting parts of other posts, so please bear with me until I figure all of that out.)
Since yesterday, it has become even more obvious to me that there never was a real kidnapping, only foreknowledge of the baby’s likely imminent death and plans to deal with that very likely outcome. Lindy hires someone to plan and then execute the elements of this staged kidnapping and extortion, likely up to six months in advance of the baby’s actual death (maybe even longer). I also believe that that someone has ties to other powerful people that have certain agendas. Mr. Someone decides he can kill two birds with one stone, plans everything out to the minutest of details as far as possible and then lets the machine of people he has put into place do their respective jobs once Lindy gives the go-ahead. Some of the people in Mr. Someone’s machine know that it’s really only an extravagant baby-body disposal and since Lindy will be in charge, there’s really nothing significant for them to worry about. Other’s in the machine aren’t in on the deal. All of that is Mr. Someone’s Bird # 1.
Bird # 2, I believe, is to create and stir up and instill negative perceptions of the Germans and Germany…
In short, there is no effort to "frame" a German for this crime. If that had been the case, there were many Germans who could have just as easily been "framed" early on in the investigation. For example, there was one who was suspected by just about everyone and another who killed himself.
I agree. I also believe that once the investigation had begun, it was too late to frame anyone. I believe that the framing of Hauptmann may have been started as much as 6 months before the actual kidnapping took place. He was played. He probably did things for various reasons which later proved his involvement in the case, at least to some degree. That he was unwittingly participating in a phony kidnapping would have been news to him is my current belief. I also would like to point out that being so new to LKC, maybe a solid weeks worth of reading, I don’t yet posses enough information to have sufficient clarity for an intelligent discussion as to the degree of his knowledge and involvement in the case. One thing stands out though and that is the Gold Note that got him arrested. He may have had criminal tendencies and also not been one of the brightest of people, but I have trouble believing he was stupid enough to blatantly pass hot money in his very own neighborhood...
The Jewish "perception" was and would have been irrelevant. Wilentz was Jewish and was on the "right" side things. He was also openly critical of the Fisch families complaints after the trial concerning their reimbursement.
My current theory is that Wilentz had directives from “above” to ensure Hauptmann would “hang”, which I currently suspect is the implementation of Bird # 2.
Another item to consider is Lindbergh's testimony. By your own argument, he seems to be doing something that is contrary to his own personal beliefs - that would be making it easier for our involvement in WWII.
I believe that at the point in time when Lindbergh reversed his testimony from the one he had made in front of the Grand Jury, the agenda to convict Hauptmann at all costs was already in place and operating. I also believe that whoever was calling the shots behind the scenes to ensure Hauptmann’s conviction, had also been told or found out about Lindy’s dark secret which he was so deathly afraid to have revealed to the world, as it would be ruinous to his name. This I believe was the lever that was used to get Lindy to dance to their tune, or otherwise they would reveal all. Not only would the real cause of Charlie Jr’s death be a scandal if it were found out, but also the fact that Lindy arranged a fake kidnapping as a means to dispose of a body to protect his families name, might actually in addition to disgrace, have carried some unpleasant legal consequences. Maybe all of this was done to undermine Lindy’s America First Group or at least counteract its impact? (I don’t know the dates that that was even started, so to some degree I’m in a little [Ha!] over my head until I get further clarity on all of this…)
I wish I had more knowledge than I do about all of the details, people, politics and agendas of various groups and organizations than I do.
I also realize that right now I should remain content with participating in this adventure by savoring this slow unfolding of history that is happening before my very eyes.
This is my ongoing reward in my attempt to come to grips as to why I believe Hauptmann had to be found guilty…
z
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 22, 2011 19:46:38 GMT -5
Firstly, there is no way anyone controlled Lindbergh. But if someone did in one place then they certainly could do it elsewhere.
Next, I think I need to point out there are varying degrees of involvement. And there are various forms of framing evidence.
As an example.... OJ is guilty - no doubt about it. But certain Authorities decide its best to lie to the Jury about various things.
Lying IS framing evidence. The design is not to get the Jury suspicious about their actions. The result is the Jury NOW becomes suspicious, because they aren't stupid, so they know they are being lied to. Now they don't trust anything - so the attempts to pre-empt an argument with lies ruins their creditability and a guilty man walks free.
In Hauptmann's case, for examples, you had perjury - on both sides. That's framing evidence. You had coercion. Yup, that's framing evidence too. You had the State hiding exculpatory evidence - that's framing evidence as well. It's for the Judge to decide what's admissible to the Jury and what isn't - not the State. So, for example, by hiding the footprint casts that did not fit Hauptmann's shoe - they framed evidence.
But why?
Because they needed Hauptmann to be a Lone-Wolf....not because he wasn't guilty of involvement.
Now that this is out of the way.....the idea that Hauptmann was picked out of a hat simply because he was German, then framed to take the "fall" for this crime as a secondary motive to killing a child doesn't seem realistic. Plus, there is no evidence of this at all. If there were, Hauptmann would have promptly been picked up. There would be no "cloak and dagger" aspect or long drawn out investigation. The guy who is telling Lindbergh what to do tells him to "back off" then Oliver has his men go to the Cemetery and pick up John.
It's that simple.
Hauptmann's arrest was collateral damage. It does no harm to anyone else involved, with the exception of Fisch perhaps, but dead men tell no tales. This idea that no one wanted to hear Hauptmann confess and name names is absurd. They beat the hell out of him trying to get those names. They threatened his Wife and Child even. He cried, but he did not talk.
So in the end, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. He could have been from Mars and the end result would have been the same.
|
|
|
Post by zerohunter on Nov 23, 2011 19:15:48 GMT -5
Michael Before addressing some of your points, I feel there has been some confusion about exactly where I am coming from and what I am trying to point out and ask. Clarity of communication is essential, otherwise we end up chasing each others tails and get nowhere. Some of the major elements in this case have succeeded in completely misdirecting people and get them stuck in the minutiae of the nuts and bolts to a degree where the major elements are no longer even considered. This is not an accident. This is by design. That this misdirection was successful and even remains so today and is not obvious to most, frustrates me. So I’m going to list what I am virtually certain of and any questions that I feel are crucial to have answered: 1.) From around August of 1931 Charlie Jr. isn’t a healthy boy and his passing is anticipated. Congenital or possibly accidental, but NO MURDER (although I can’t of course completely rule that out). 2.) Some of the staff and family out of necessity know about # 1 above. Obviously Ann and certainly also Betty Gow. Not sure yet who else, but likely it is many more. This is a tragic situation for all, an ordeal really – knowing that the baby is going to die. (There is no murder here!) 3.) Obviously at some point in the future his death will have to be officially explained to the public without the truth being revealed because the truth is “scandalous”. 4.) It is decided that a staged “kidnapping” with the legitimate body being found at a later date, is the best course of action. Lindy contacts Faux-Snatches-R-Us which is a one man “shop” operated by Mr. Someone (who I believe Lindy knows and is a friend or at least someone he trusts). Mr. Someone precisely engineers the whole job and has to contract no more than 3 people, tops, to execute the job. *1 5.) First week of January 1932 (+ / - a week or two) the baby dies. I would like to think the Lindbergs even had a small service for him. The baby is buried in a temporary grave near Highfields (although it could be somewhere else). Possibly at or near their old rental home. 6.) March 1, 1932 the faux ‘napping is implemented. Lindy has to miss a speech and Betty a date. But why that particular date and is that significant or arbitrary? 7.) The ransom notes are supposed to look like a German wrote them. Someone with woodworking skills and tools built the “prop” ladder that could “never” be tied to the builder. So we are led to believe that the evil perpetrator of this kidnapping (which NEVER HAPPENED) is a obviously a German carpenter with ransom money. Guilty, throw the switch and case closed… In Mr. Someone’s engineering of the faux napping: A.) Was it significant that that Carpenter was German and therefore the notes had a faux German slant? or, could it have just as easily been an Italian Carpenter with the notes having an Italian slant? Did nationality matter and if so why? My current ever evolving thinking is that nationality was arbitrary except for maybe that Mr. Someone’s faux German was better than his faux Italian and in those days it was probably best not to “mess” with Italians. B.) Mr. Someone needed someone who was; trust worthy, had slightly shady leanings, had “roots” (married and about to have or have children), money hungry and not wealthy, to fit the profile of his patsy. Did these attributes trump the importance of nationality? Did he already have someone with these attributes up his sleeve and all he needed to do was play him? 8.) After the ransom money is delivered, Mr. Someone’s involvement is over. Then the baby’s body is dug up and placed by the road to be found. (Not sure who does this yet…) The waiting game begins. 9.) BRH finally makes the wrong move with the money that is in his position and gets himself arrested. The wheels of “justice” churn and he is convicted mainly for two reasons: A.) Because he doesn’t talk. Why? Either he has nerves of steel or he really has nothing to say. B.) Lindy reverses his previous testimony and unequivocally claims that RBH is CJ. Why? He either doesn’t care anymore and just wants the whole nightmare to end, or someone directs him to do so by claiming they may have some “sensitive” knowledge about his actions… (Someone or somebody leaked something.) 10.) Who has something to gain buy the conviction and electrocution of RBH – or is it just the wheels of justice getting caught up and running away with Lynch-mob mentality? These last three points (9 A, & B and 10) are what I wish I had answers to. The whole ransom thing with all its intrigue is just another diversion, for there never was a kidnapping in the first place. I think it might actually be simple; RBH has nothing to say, Lindy is sick of it, and “justice” caves to a lynch mob mentality. If this is truly the case, then the whole LKC is a HUGE tragedy all because of a very sick baby boy whose days were numbered from day one… *1: This guy is a PROFESSIONAL! He makes the NJSP and the BOI look like a bunch of girl and boy scouts with his carefully planned misdirections that persist even to this day. Do you think actual kidnappers would be driving around in circles with a ladder in their car in broad daylight the day of the kidnapping? Why do people miss this? They are driving around to be seen! The ladder is a clever prop, nothing more and yes it can be climbed (although I wouldn’t recommend it ). Everything is planned down to the last footprint, ladder marks and chisel, - except for one. They forgot to plant fingerprints in the nursery for whatever reason. Baby Charlie had NEVER BEEN in that nursery because he had been peacefully sleeping 6’ under for the last 2 months by the day the “kidnapping” rolled around. In closing, I hope I have made what I believe happened clear so that people might challenge and inform me of why it couldn’t be the way that I currently think it must have been. I’ve now learned that solving this is a long, huge and time intensive process and I am only just beginning to see the tip of the proverbial iceberg through binoculars. What I am saying is that I would appreciate it if responses were doled out in spoonfuls over time so that its not so overwhelming to for me to engage in a discourse that furthers this conversation. I’m already behind in responding to bookrefuge’s previous post which I apologize for somehow unwittingly hijacking. I believe there may have been a Connecticut connection. Its just all soooo time-consuming… Furthermore, I really appreciate this board and all of its people. What a gift to have such an incredible resource at my fingertips! And especially you Michael, who I consider to easily be the most knowledgeable person on the planet regarding this case. Actually, for about a minute, I seriously considered starting a forum called “LKC Anonymous”, before the realization dawned on me that probably the first three sentences of most posts would inevitably turn to LKC and it would be just more of the same… This is worse than any Nicotine addiction – sheees ! My solution is taking all of this one step at a time. Thank you. Happy Thanksgiving Everyone! z
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 24, 2011 7:52:46 GMT -5
Again I am impressed with the amount of thought you've given all of this. There's much I both agree and disagree with - both of which I am not the end all and can be challenged myself.
Addressing #1 I'd have to agree the child was not a healthy boy. It's a situation, not unlike Dwight Morrow Jr.'s confinement to a mental hospital, or Elisabeth's own poor health which is treated more like personal family matters, of which, the Family do their best to protect, and Staff are all sworn to secrecy and to defend from the Public arena.
But I think, aside from Dr. Baden's assertion that we cannot rule out a smothering due to the lack of certain bones found at the "grave" site, that its a legitimate conclusion he died from external trauma.
So the death is either accidental or on purpose - not one where he dies of natural causes. Now this doesn't neutralize the fact he wasn't healthy....it just eliminates the the theory he died in his sleep from, for example, pneumonia or something similar.
Saying CJr was healthy, is a far cry from pretending he was kidnapped and murdered due to a death connected directly to his health. Then to actually allow some innocent to be electrocuted for it ups those odds. But when you consider everyone who needed to be aware of, and a party to this - I think it ventures into the realm of impossible.
(I am in the process of moving. Most of my files are being packed up so it might take me a good two weeks to get back into the groove of things.)
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Dec 28, 2011 21:05:15 GMT -5
Hi, kskw. If you’re still checking in on this board, were you ever you able to find anything in your files regarding those questions (i.e., whether or not your grandfather owned a green Packard, and the date and port from which he sailed for Europe?) Thanks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2012 21:19:28 GMT -5
Hi bookrefuge. I think this is a very interesting theory. I have never heard it before. Have you found out yet the date and port that the Warburgs sailed to Europe? I was reading some old newspaper clippings (1932) about the Lindbergh kidnapping and read that ransome money was showing up in England as early as April 13th 1932. One of the articles mentioned that the Cunard Liner Scythia left New York at 11 a.m. on April 2nd. The ransome money was handed over on the evening of April 2nd. The Cunard Liner Scythia sailed from New York to Boston to pick up others who were going to make the crossing. It was in Boston on the morning of April 3rd. Perhaps the Warburgs boarded in Boston. The Scythia arrived in Queenstown England on April 10 and Lindbergh ransome money starts appearing. Coincidence? Perhaps. Is there any way to check the passenger list of this ship after so many years have past?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on May 8, 2012 19:56:10 GMT -5
Amy, you get a “Karma” for figuring that out—it is the main reason I have been interested in the date. James Warburg stated in his memoirs that he sailed in April 1932, but he didn’t give the exact date, and I haven’t been able to find it out. If he sailed out of Boston on that voyage of the Scythia, it would certainly add strength to the circumstantial case Marlis has made. I too have wondered if there might be an old passenger list somewhere that could tell us. I do personally believe that the murder of the Lindbergh baby was most likely a revenge killing, disguised to look like an ordinary kidnapping. (This is a flip version of those who say the Lindberghs did it and disguised it to look like an “ordinary” kidnapping). Lindbergh’s father had been the greatest enemy of the Wall Street elite who also held a grip on our foreign policy—we’re still feeling the effects of that in a ravaged dollar and no-end Mideast wars. Not only did Fed architect Paul Warburg die less than 2 months before the kidnapping, but if you check the recent thread “JP Morgan Jr.” under the “Theories” section of this board, kjones posted that the thought that J.P. Morgan Jr. held Lindbergh Sr. responsible for his father’s death. I have published an article recently on the kidnapping, the online edition of which can be found at thenewamerican.com/history/american/item/10966-the-lindbergh-baby-kidnapping-mysteryIn the next issue of The New American I will have another article on Lindbergh’s flight itself, the 85th anniversary of which is coming up. I didn’t appreciate until researching it just how remarkable that flight was. And by what chance did Congressman Lindbergh’s only son—an unknown Midwestern mail pilot—rise from the ashes of oblivion to become the world’s greatest hero? Myself—and this is just me—I believe there was divine intervention, not the least of which was evidenced by angelic beings appearing in and around the cockpit of the Spirit of St. Louis 24 hours into the flight. When he touched down near Paris, I believe Wall Street cringed. Lindbergh could probably not be assassinated himself, because his advances for intercontinental aviation were advancing their own globalist agenda. But in terms of perpretating a revenge, his own firstborn son would not have been off-limits. My “best guess”—and I really underscore “guess”—is that: -- the murder was ordered and financed, in what crime syndicates call a “contract,” by someone in a high place, high enough to be virtually “above the law” and high enough to compromise Wilentz, Trenchard and Shwarzkopf; --that the actual planning of the crime was probably turned over to someone like Jacob Nosovitsky, the artful double agent for British intelligence; he was connected to just about everybody in the LKC from Dwight Morrow to Isidior Fisch to John F. Condon; --that the execution of the crime included household insiders and was of MI6 caliber—extremely well planned, including the planting of false clues designed to mislesad—which is one reason the case resists analysis (for a remarkable example of the intricate planning that can go into intelligence deception, check out “Operation Mincemeat” in Wikipedia); -- that the small players in the affair (such as Sharp and Fisch) were not let in on the fact that the child was to be killed; --that there were some Mob elements acting as enforcers; this is suggested by the violent threats made against defense witnesses such as Anna Bonesteel. Marlis makes the interesting observation that the son of Meyer Lanksy, the notorious mobster, was admitted into West Point as a cadet. Normally a gangster’s son would have been denied admission, but he entered in the same class as Norman Schwarzkopf’s son, who went on to be “Stormin’ Norman.” This raises the question of who vouched for Lansky’s son. --and finally, that BRH was set up as the patsy whose conviction, they hoped, would make the case all go away. That is my theory, and I can’t prove it at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2012 15:53:39 GMT -5
Thanks BR for the karma points! A passenger list would indeed be a real plus in this. I would like to know who else sailed that morning. I think someone on that ship had Lindbergh ransome money in their possession.
I don't know who Jacob Nosovitsky is. But then there is much I don't know about this case. I have much to learn. I started out reading George Waller's Kidnap book which I bought at a local library used book sale a number of years ago. I have read Ludovic Kennedy's book which provided a completely opposite view of Hauptmann's quilt. So now I am reading Lloyd Gardner's The Case That Never Dies. So much information in that book!
Thank you for the link to the recent article you had published in The New American. I thought it was well written and very informative providing much to think about. It seems that the book will never really close on this case. Good Luck with your theory.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on May 9, 2012 19:33:55 GMT -5
Amy, we have a limited thread on this board on Nosovitsky at lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=102Nosovitsky approached an associate of Dinny Doyle (a cousin of John F. Condon), regarding the kidnapping of a prominent New Jersey resident. We used to have a contributor on this board who was a relative of Doyle and Condon. Nosovitsky is discussed at length in Noel Behn’s book Lindbergh: The Crime. Interestingly, if you Google the guy, a whole bunch of stuff crops up having no relationship to the LKC. It doesn’t help that he used innumerable aliases—but one of these was “J J Faulkner”! Nosovitsky infiltrated the Communist Party for British intelligence. You had to have nerves of steel to do that, which is one reason I think he would have made a good candidate to plan and execute the Lindbergh kidnapping. He was also a master forger, making him a possible candidate for doing the ransom notes. And he had worked for Dwight Morrow at one time. I believe Michael has posted elsewhere, however, that Nosovitsky was not in New Jersey at the time the baby was snatched.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2012 10:46:11 GMT -5
BR I just read on another thread about Edna Sharpe, Violet's sister. She returned to England and arrived on April 13th. She did not sail on the Scythia however. I don't know if she was ever implicated in the kidnapping of CAL Jr. though to have had access to any ransome money. Do you know if she looked anything like Violet?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on May 11, 2012 15:24:35 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2012 9:12:06 GMT -5
Thanks for the two links BR. There are so many threads on this board to read. It is always helpful when someone offers the links to threads that speak on the topic being discussed. So many great contributions by very knowledgeable people who are willing to share what they know and what they think about this crime.
The pictures of Violet and her sister Edna do confirm they look alot alike. The reason I asked about their physical appearance is I read your thread about Wilentz's questioning of Anna Bonesteel being challenged in her identification of Violet. Then I happened to read in Gardner's book on page 106 when she was being questioned about the business card with Ernie Brinkert's name on it she started to mention her sister and then stopped talking abruptly. After this interrogation she kills herself before the next one.
Do you think that maybe Violet killed herself because she didn't want to be tricked into implicating her sister in the kidnapping? What if it was Edna that Anna Bonesteel saw and that is why when shown a picture of Violet she couldn't positively identify her as the person she had seen?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on May 14, 2012 18:04:37 GMT -5
Hi, Amy. The possibility that Violet killed herself to protect her sister is a thought that has definitely occurred to me and to some investigators. And like you, I have wondered if Bonesteel saw Edna instead of Violet that night. However, I think the weight of facts would favor her seeing Violet—the fact that Bonesteel’s restaurant was on the ferry line directly across the Hudson from the Morrow estate and was something of a hangout for people like Red Johnsen; the fact that Violet was much more directly involved with the Lindberghs and had taken the call that day from Anne Lindbergh; and the fact that she, not Edna, was out that night and in need of an alibi—which Edna subbing at the Peanut Grill would give her (with Edna then splitting for the UK before anyone could grab her to clear up the confusion).
Still, Edna is a possibility. The fact that she lived on the New York City side of the Hudson could have had its uses in the crime’s aftermath.
|
|
|
Post by arthur45 on Jan 25, 2013 12:57:19 GMT -5
There's paranoia, and then there's deep paranoia that results in the ability to manufacture history and establish fantasy monolithic organizations that cannot be seen or even identified, but which control our destiny. Bookrefuge has made many claims, most of which are easily shredded. Since I'm very familiar with Pearl Harbor and World War I, I'll limit myself to those arenas for now. Toland's Day of Infamy is pure fantasy with no logic, no evidence worthy of the name and many claims that have been totally shredded by serious researchers, such a Prange and his associates, who deal with Toland and the other conspiracy-addled authors (such as Elmer Barnes) in The Verdict of History. I defy anyone to read their book and offer any argument in favor of a Pearl Harbor conspiracy. I'm certainly no fan of FDR , whose two New Deal programs clearly extended and deepened the US Great depression beyond that suffered by any other nation. As for the Lusitania, the ship was not "ordered into the path of German submarines" nor did the German U boat commander have the slightest idea of what the ship was carrying, much less who the ship was. His boat was returning to port with only a single torpedo and wasn't even hunting another victim. Nor is there any reason why a British ship shouldn't carry war materials to her country. The Lusitania was sunk in May 1915. The US entered the war in April, 1917, two years later and for reasons that had nothing to do with the Lusitania - two American (not British) ships were sunk and the Zimmerman telegram was publicized, both causes totally under control of the Germans , not some fantasy "Allied establishment," as claimed by bookrefuge. More later.
|
|
|
Post by babyinthecrib on Jan 28, 2013 18:25:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thewoo1 on Feb 1, 2013 11:26:15 GMT -5
Hey book refuge Without sounding crazy or paranoid , you could be right. I beileve the establisment is very real. The names you dropped have controlled our country. Their pointman is none other than George H. Bush son of Prescott who was involved with the federal reserve.This web of deceit overthrew our govt Nov. 22 1963, engineered bay of pigs, watergate break in . By the way your description of the original the man who knew too much church could it be similar to the Yale Skull and bones meeting room. Follow the big money the answers are there hidden in a vast complex arena that reveals we are not as free as we think.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Feb 1, 2013 17:52:39 GMT -5
Like your name. What ever happened to that guy from The Who who got caught peekin at kiddie sex on the internet? If it was me I'd probably be gone for seven but I suppose he got probation. Wow the conspiracies are unleashed! Roosevelt could have done it and got it done. But nada evidence.
|
|
kdwv8
Trooper II
Posts: 95
|
Post by kdwv8 on Oct 19, 2013 14:38:49 GMT -5
BR, I was curious if you still feel the same as you did when you started "A Theory In Development" on 11/7/11?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Oct 21, 2013 10:34:50 GMT -5
Hi, kdwv8. Just saw your question—the answer isn’t a short one. Will post it in a day or so.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Oct 22, 2013 11:52:29 GMT -5
Hi, kdwv8. I would have to say my views have changed.
There were several things that provoked me to start this thread: the antipathy between the Lindberghs and the “Establishment” and especially the Warburgs; the remarkable circumstantial evidence that pointed towards James Warburg that Alan Marlis pointed out; the extremely unfair trial given Hauptmann, complete with perjured witnesses—pointing to a frameup; and the enduring fight of Anna Hauptmann.
However, evidence has gradually been pulling me away from this to accepting Hauptmann’s guilt, and some of the threads I more recently started on this included “How Hauptmann Knew about Tuesday,” “Did the Lilliput Kill Charlie” and “Thumb Guard.”
Charles Lindbergh’s father was unquestionably an enemy of the Establishment, and Lindbergh became one himself when he joined America First. However, in 1932, I believe Lindbergh was in an interim “honeymoon” period with the Establishment. He was (however unwittingly) helping their plans to globalize the world through his pioneering flights; he had married the daughter of a J. P. Morgan partner; he worked with Establishment figures like Guggenheim; and his name was worth gold to the new airline industry.
I think the only thing they might have feared about Lindbergh in 1932 was that he might someday run for President, and if he did, suddenly revive his father’s opposition to the Federal Reserve, which has been the biggest golden goose Wall Street ever had. But in 1932 Lindbergh was still thinking mostly about airplanes, and he was still five years too young to run for President.
If you read Ferdinand Lundberg’s classic America’s Sixty Families, he talks about the double standard of justice we have long had in this country. A guy will go to jail for years for sticking up a gas station for a hundred bucks, but a Wall Streeter can bilk the government for millions and get away with it.
Let me give you an example from experience. My mother was a painter, and had a patron who was from one of Ferdinand Lundberg’s “Sixty”—a famous wealthy American family. One day he was on drugs, and killed some people while driving his car. He laughed about it and told my mother he’d never go to jail—that his lawyers would see to that. And my mother was very shocked when his prediction came true—he got off; maybe his family settled with the victims, I don’t remember, it was about 30 years ago. But if he had been POOR, you can bet he would have gone to jail for life.
I don’t mean the rich never get convicted, but there is great inequity in the system. Someone like Hauptmann really never had a chance. However, I no longer believe evidence was tampered with to FRAME him. I think they knew they had the right guy, but didn’t have sufficient evidence, so it was tampered with to NAIL him. Cal Jr. wasn’t just a Lindbergh; he was a Morrow. I think this was the ruling class sending a message: “You don’t mess with the Establishment. Mess with us, we’ll make you burn, whether we have enough real evidence or not.”
I don’t rule out that someone like Warburg could have bucked the trend of the Establishment’s honeymoon with Lindbergh, and gone after Lindbergh for personal reasons. But the longer I have looked at it, the more Hauptmann seems truly guilty—there was the wood evidence, there was the money evidence, but it was Liiliput that finished him for me—the autopsy doctor thought he saw a small bullet hole in Charlie’s head. Two years later, they found the little Lilliput pistol in Hauptmann’s garage, hidden along with the ransom loot. If he was framed, it was the best frameup ever.
Of course, there are still many nagging and difficult unanswered questions about the case.
|
|
|
Post by fireballemc on Oct 22, 2013 14:12:43 GMT -5
Bookrefuge, you feel the Establishment was warming to Lindy - but NOT the Jewish Establishment. Remember Rabbi Wise's explosive letter to Strauss Jr. about Lindbergh shunning Jews at his 1927 NYC parade & festivities. Snubbing the likes of Morganthau, Lehman, Warburg et. al. in their own lair makes blood enemies. And Dwight Morrow being Herbert Hoover's chief advisor & largest campaign contributor MIGHT pique Herbert Lehman who was Al Smith's finance manager & largest campaign contributor of his campaign in 1928. And Paul Warburg blames Lindbergh in print for the profusion of fly-by-night air plane companies & stocks that he claims will & did cause a "crash". And there is Lindy's Fascist personality that Pearl Buck writes about in 1931 - her husband a Morganthau employee. My book "The Lindbergh Baby Kidnap Conspiracy" shows the constant discomfort Lindbergh's existence brought to the Jewish-American world beginning with his father & not ending - to this day!
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Oct 22, 2013 19:39:49 GMT -5
I hear you on this, Alan; that’s one reason I say I don’t rule out Warburg. However, the problem comes when trying to connect Warburg to Hauptmann. Same issue arises when Lindbergh is accused of the crime—no one has ever been able to connect him to Hauptmann. And Hauptmann has a ton of concrete evidence very definitely linking him to the crime—wood, money, and (in my own opinion) the Lilliput.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 9, 2018 5:49:43 GMT -5
lotta typing< YOU GUYS COULD PROBABLY GET A JOB!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 9, 2018 11:19:27 GMT -5
Hi Michael. The Houston Public Library just purchased a book on Warburg and I picked it up and looked through the index just to see if CAL was mentioned. He was on one page, one sentence - regarding his WWII statements. Nothing else about CAL's father, the kidnapping - NADA. Just that one sentence. I've only ever stumbled onto his name a couple of times. Whatever is in his book is coming from a source outside of the NJSP Archives. I've never read it so I really can't comment other than to say I don't plan to.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on May 15, 2018 8:17:10 GMT -5
Anne felt that if her child had died as the result of an accident during the kidnapping, it somehow lessened the pain of having lost him. This was the police theory based on the broken ladder, and Lindbergh having hear the sound around 9 pm. One has to wonder though what the kidnappers' original intent was based on the facts the child was not heard to cry out and the way in which it was apparently yanked out of the crib.
|
|