|
Post by wolf2 on Jul 28, 2012 12:57:32 GMT -5
hi joe, like i said you can take anybody from the fbi suspect files in this case and inject it in a book like zorn did. as for the nova production, im not going to live or die over what john douglas thinks
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 28, 2012 14:23:53 GMT -5
I didn't know Zorn's John Knoll was in the FBI files. The Nova production is not just about what John Douglas thinks, it's a forensic examination of all available evidence done in a completely objective manner.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 28, 2012 14:45:57 GMT -5
Fair enough.. just as long as the trailer isn't trash. Regarding the non-Dingo mention.. maybe the fiance finally turned up.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 28, 2012 14:56:38 GMT -5
Hey Steve, after reading Cemetery John, I'm a little mystified as to how Zorn's suspect Knoll gets such platitudes from John Douglas. I almost get the impression Zorn has gone about skimming the cream off of the information pool his experts have offered. And I can't for the life of me understand how his handwriting analysis has concluded Knoll was a better candidate than Hauptmann. Plain silly.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jul 28, 2012 15:07:24 GMT -5
kevkon i didnt see knolls name in the fbi files, but im saying in general that the fbi has a list called suspects and subjects. as for the nova production they always do a great job in thier documentries, but i hope they dont go in a hauptmann support stupitity mode
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 28, 2012 16:34:50 GMT -5
I'll say it again, Zorn's book was the genesis for the Nova production. I won't go into detail about that, but the Nova show and John Douglas are not using Zorn's theory as a guide or as fact. What John Douglas has said about the crime can be read in The Cases That Haunt Us. What Zorn did was offer up a candidate in his subject Knoll that better fit John Douglas's profile of the kidnapper. You can decide for yourself how accurate that is. The show will include things never before seen in this case, it's up to the viewers to make sense of it.
|
|
|
Post by rmc1971 on Jul 28, 2012 17:09:02 GMT -5
I'll say it again, Zorn's book was the genesis for the Nova production. I won't go into detail about that, but the Nova show and John Douglas are not using Zorn's theory as a guide or as fact. What John Douglas has said about the crime can be read in The Cases That Haunt Us. What Zorn did was offer up a candidate in his subject Knoll that better fit John Douglas's profile of the kidnapper. You can decide for yourself how accurate that is. The show will include things never before seen in this case, it's up to the viewers to make sense of it. Do you know when the show will be broadcast?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 28, 2012 19:39:11 GMT -5
I'm told Jan or Feb next year.
|
|
|
Post by rmc1971 on Jul 29, 2012 18:56:32 GMT -5
I have a couple of questions about the book if anyone can answer:
Zorn alluded to the fact that Hauptmann had a lot of help in passing bills and converting them into unmarked currency. Anyone have a real idea on where he was going with that?
He also mentioned that the dimensions of the kidnap ladder measure nicely with the dimensions of entry to Hauptmann's attic. Any ladder experts care to comment on that?
Finally, he mentioned a few times that Huaptmann did not have a 'ringleader' mentality, and was not the leader of his 2 man crime partnerships in Germany. Is there anyone familiar with his background in Germany who can comment on this? Thanks.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 2, 2012 13:08:22 GMT -5
I imagine Zorn saw the fact that his subject, Knoll worked at a deli and thus it dovetailed with the money laundering. Just a guess.
I am responsible for the linen closet dimension/ ladder relationship. Yes it's true, though what it means I have no idea. One possibility is that the ladder started out as a means to get into the attic, which makes sense considering one had to empty the shelves and use them as steps to get into the attic.
I'm not sure about Hauptmann's leadership ability according to Zorn. More to the point, he may not have needed any.
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Aug 5, 2012 21:42:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Aug 13, 2012 17:46:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by arthur45 on Nov 7, 2012 22:07:22 GMT -5
I haven't read the Zorn book, mostly because I have no reason to buy a book that contains what I believe are ridiculous theories. Especially the speculation about one of the kidnappers going into a house he knew nothing about, full of people, and for what? To hand the baby out the window to an accomplice who had already opened the shutters and could easily get the baby himself? That theory is one I would term both illogical and crackpot and designed mostly to give some reason for the need for more than one kidnapper when there clearly wasn't any need. I have yet to see a single shred of evidence to indicate that BRH needed (or wanted) any assistance in his crime. Citing some pscho "expert" to provide "evidence" of such a need is so flimsy as to be embarrassing. I also see no significance in Knoll's returning after the verdict - if guilty , he would have only returned after the execution. Zorn also provides no "evidence" of Knoll's "sudden wealth," if one can call it that. other than his $700 tickets, if in fact that was their cost.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Nov 8, 2012 12:35:20 GMT -5
[quote author=arthur45 board=general thread=809 post=14243 crackpot arthur45[/quote] ...........crackpot? Hm-mm-m
|
|
|
Post by john on Dec 23, 2012 2:59:02 GMT -5
A fascinating discussion here, and the fleshy lump in the thumb business has always stayed in my mind regarding CJ. But then so has the hacking cough. Fisch had the cough. Could he have also had the "thumb"?
I'm not trying to be facetious here but people worked with their hands more in 1932 than they do today, whether as fur cutters, deli men, carpenters, industrial workers, farmers and, yes, carpenters. It strikes me as not unlikely that a lot of men had odd aspects to their hands back eighty years ago, especially around their thumbs. Just a though.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 23, 2012 12:17:02 GMT -5
From everything I've read regarding Condon's description of the physical anomaly at the base of CJ's left thumb, he was referring not to some kind of congenital defect as Robert Zorn so blankly states, but to a muscular growth of the thenar which one would acquire from plenty of manual labour with the hands. And I think Condon would have been qualified enough to know the difference.
As for the hacking cough, I don't know how much stock I would put in that as a means of disqualifying Hauptmann from the scene at Woodlawn Cemetery. Anyone who's had a bad cough or throat infection even temporarily, would probably agree.
|
|
|
Post by john on Dec 23, 2012 14:15:36 GMT -5
Joe: didn't someone, likely Jim Fisher, claim that Hauptmann had in fact been down with a bad cold in the winter of 1932? It's been a while since I've read an LKC book, aside from Zorn's, but I know that's in one of the books that defends the Hauptmann verdict.
Along the same lines, Fisher or someone like him, pointed out how Hauptmann's car could have been the one young Ben Lupica saw despite the apparent difference in color (Hauptmann had,--naturally--had the car painted since, or maybe before).
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 30, 2012 14:12:10 GMT -5
John, I have seen references to Hauptmann having had a cold around the time of the kidnapping that was bad enough for someone to have recalled, but can't tell you where. Unless someone has a confirmed source on this though, I would tend to dismiss it as hearsay, or weight its value fairly low. As for Hauptmann's car having been repainted after the kidnapping, again unless there is a confirmed source for this, I really have my doubts. This scenario seemed to have gained life from Hochmuth's testimony about seeing a "dirty green sedan" speeding around the corner where he lived, and subsequently identifying Hauptmann as the driver. And I think we all know how little credibility can be attached to Hochmuth's testimony. For what it's worth, here's a news item which appeared during the trial: news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1144&dat=19350112&id=gAAdAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ZY4EAAAAIBAJ&pg=1304,3538904
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 30, 2012 22:07:05 GMT -5
Thanks for this Joe. I noticed John's point about the car and wanted to at some point dig through my files to find out what that was all about. Anything mentioned in either of Fisher's books absolutely must be double checked. (I had done so years ago but I couldn't recall the specifics).
It starts with Max Frankel from the U-Drive Co. who found 2 receipts dated 4-7-32 and 4-9-32 with the name "Hauptmann" on them. He "believed" the first initial was "B."
The 4-7 bill was $25 for a "repaint job" for the fenders. The 4-9 bill was $15 for minor repairs such as resetting the springs, adjusting the brakes, and repairing one of the tail lights.
The Police then interviewed the shop Foreman, George Johnson, who remembered exactly that a man pulled up to the Chrysler Garage on 182nd Street which is directly across the street from the U-Drive. He walked out to solicit the work since that Chrysler Garage had gone out of business. Johnson identified Hauptmann from the pictures the Police had. He had a conversation with Hauptmann about how to get downtown and the best way to get back to the shop to pick up the car. The Police did not ask him about an accent. As to the car itself Johnson didn't see anything unusual about it.
The Police then tracked down the Painter who did the job, George Bauer. He remembered the job, and said the work - painting the fenders - needed to be done. He met the Owner of the car but could not remember what the man looked like due to the elapse in time.
The Police dropped their investigation into the matter at this point.
|
|
|
Post by john on Dec 30, 2012 23:32:31 GMT -5
You don't upset me Michael. I heard you were writing a book - where can I get it. I guess what bothers me is that no matter how bane the comentary is, you or your surrogate express their opinion. I admit that mostly you guys are correct, and I know you want to keep a discussion going, but sometimes you burn off interesting tidbits. For example, Lindbergh strangely had no relations with women until (forced marriage?) Anne. And you and Kevkon say that is normal - BS - ask anybody in the real world. Jack: what you say about men and women is maybe true for today but not for the 1920s. Things really were different back then; and no, not all young gals were flappers (i.e. Jazz Age argot for what in my generation would have been called hippie chicks). I've actually known couples of more or less my (Boomer) generation who had little if anything to do with the opposite sex till they met, got together, then married. This did and still does happen. Lindbergh came from a strict midwestern Protestant background, and Ann's family were moral and upright folk (translation: no sex before marriage ;D). Such people did exist back then and do even today, among the very religious. If you're hip, you think everyone's hip, but it ain't so. The real world isn't what we think it is (in my humble opinion). We all "project" our ideas and values onto others. This is natural. I do it myself. Just my two cents. John
|
|
|
Post by arthur45 on Jan 29, 2013 20:52:10 GMT -5
As for the intersecting circles, remember the impressive deduction that I believe Scotland Yard made of it that it represented the initials BRH, although not necessarily in that order? That sounds far more impressive than a mark of solidarity. besides, the crime scene evidence proves that Hauptmann and only Hauptmann was involved there, and the money shows that it had not been split with anyone The Zorn theory explains absolutely nothing.
|
|
|
Post by drd99 on Jan 29, 2013 21:51:49 GMT -5
I found nothing about Zorn's book illuminating but remain amazed at the knowledge on display here. For every "Expert" a contray one exists. BR you made some excellent points.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Feb 3, 2013 2:58:57 GMT -5
Jack for John: Sorry to be slow in getting back to you - hey what's half a year? Anyway, you kinda missed the point. Who cares if Anne was celibate for her twenty some years? Or Charles for that matter. The point was a possibly forced marriage by Mr. Morrow. None of her family said they ever liked Lindbergh, In fact, on thinking back do you remember anyone ever saying that they liked Charles Lindbergh?
|
|
|
Post by john on Feb 3, 2013 4:45:08 GMT -5
Wagoosh, by most accounts, liked Charles Lindbergh.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 3, 2013 7:17:53 GMT -5
That's worth 2 Karma points!
|
|
|
Post by john on Feb 3, 2013 12:25:56 GMT -5
Gee. thanks., Michael . Now let's try to come up with someone out there who likes Jim Fisher, aside from his pitbull, Steve.
|
|
|
Post by herb36 on Jun 24, 2013 8:12:44 GMT -5
Considering the critical significance that the Zorns placed on that 3rd man at the park meeting having been addressed as "Bruno", I checked the online (Ancestry.com) 1930 Federal Census to see how many other men might have "qualified" as the 3rd conspirator. I quickly learned that there were 43,537 males named Bruno living in the Bronx that year. Of those, 22,503 had been born in Germany. Of those German-born Brunos, 9,254 had been born within 2 years of Hauptmann's birth, and so would have appeared to be of a similar age. (That number, btw, did not include Hauptmann, who had been enumerated as Richard Hauptmann.) These facts merely serve to further emphasize the speciousness of Zorn's conviction that it was Hauptmann who met with the Knoll brothers to plan the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 24, 2013 11:22:42 GMT -5
Welcome to the board, Herb. Terrific research and post. I have always felt that statistics such as you cite are very significant in crime analysis, because they give us insight into probabilities. And this helps show just how low the probability was of Zorn’s “Bruno” being Hauptmann. Interesting that Zorn has gotten so much media play, given the lack of substance to his theory.
|
|
|
Post by babyinthecrib on Jul 12, 2013 22:10:45 GMT -5
I read the book also, cannot agree that Knoll was the "Mastermind" behind the kidnapping.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jul 28, 2013 12:32:10 GMT -5
As I see it, there's a fly in the ointment here as regards the Bruno or Richard business, and that's the fact that some of us are called by different names by different people. This has certanly been the case with me, and it sometimes still is within my family. It's been stated countless times that everyone who knew Hauptmann well called him Richard, that he didn't like being called Bruno, but one can't know for sure whether some people,--for various reasons, likely idiosyncratic--did call him Bruno, or preferred Bruno.
Is Hauptmann always listed as Richard in official records? I know that to the general public he was always Bruno Richard Hauptmann after his arrest, maybe to make his name sound more foreign. His various forms of identification,--driver's license, for instance--must have still read Bruno Richard rather than Richard, I can only guess, if this is how he was identified by the police and the newspapers. One cannot rule out Hauptmann being known to some people as Bruno, or simply called that for reasons of their own. Also, as Hauptmann was (presumably) engaged in shady activities from time to time prior to the LKC, it doesn't strike me as unreasonable for him to be known as Bruno to some (for,--shall we say-business purposes), Richard to others.
|
|