dave
Detective
Posts: 130
|
Post by dave on Aug 19, 2016 17:21:47 GMT -5
I'm sure I'll be corrected on this. "Little pieces of paper, little pieces of wood."
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 19, 2016 17:39:49 GMT -5
Right, except in the case of the initials the British only used the characters "B, R, and H" in their analysis.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 19, 2016 18:06:16 GMT -5
Right, except in the case of the initials the British only used the characters "B, R, and H" in their analysis. That's my point isn't it? How do we get around that for the theory to work?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2016 18:18:30 GMT -5
... to "baffle" investigators. I think it was done to confuse investigators. It was an unknown symbol. They would have to formulate some possibilities about what it might relate to and hope that it might lead them somewhere. It would point them away from an insider and go along with an outside source as the kidnapper just as the ladder points to. Such a great question! Something I have thought about many times. If the kidnapping was a straight up outsider kidnapping of a living child, with Lindbergh doing what a father would have done by ripping open that note when he saw it, I don't think he would have called the police. He would have wanted to quietly get his son back without anyone knowing this happened. No police and absolutely no newspapers. He would not want to endanger the life of his son. I think he would still have called Breckinridge for advice. He could trust Breck not to say anything. Then they would have waited for the second contact (2-4 days), got the money together, and then sought to exchange the money for the child. CAL and Breck might even have quietly brought in PI's to work with them. The kidnappers would not have suspected anything because there was no police or media circus happening. The kidnappers would not need to kill Charlie. CAL might have gotten Charlie back and then had the kidnappers nabbed by PI's after they got the money. Then if CAL wanted to go public with the kidnapping, Lindbergh would have looked like a hero once again, (like he did with the Constance Morrow threat) only this time by saving his son from the clutches of criminals and nabbing the kidnappers in the process. None of us would be on this blog waiting to receive Michael's book because Michael would not have needed to spend years researching at the archives to give us all the real answers! I apologize for this post. I don't do fiction well at all.
|
|
dave
Detective
Posts: 130
|
Post by dave on Aug 19, 2016 18:25:25 GMT -5
Do you Volks really, really give any consideration to the colors/letters thing. Please tell me you don't. Please!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2016 19:52:17 GMT -5
I haven't really given consideration to the colors/letters as representing anyone's initials. I think the symbol has more meaning to it than that. Sorry!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 19, 2016 20:41:45 GMT -5
Good post's and thinking Amy! Want to start discussing Lizzie again?
In Lindbergh's questionable corner he and Schwartzkopf also commandeered the investigation that went nowhere.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 20, 2016 7:42:01 GMT -5
Do you Volks really, really give any consideration to the colors/letters thing. Please tell me you don't. Please! I might be beating a dead horse but I feel like I have to try to re-state what I've been trying to get across here. The symbol certainly could be as both Jack and Dave say. If it is then researching it further could be viewed as a waste of time. I say "could" and here is where I want to try to clear up my line of thought (sometimes I write things that sound good to me but are confusing to those who read it). idioms.thefreedictionary.com/beat+a+dead+horseLet's say the symbol is meaningless. That in fact there was nothing behind it. Okay, but if one doesn't see it that way then researching this angle must be done in order to get there. Blowing things off, or accepting someone Else's version leads many times to both mistakes and flaws. What's the harm? Perhaps time, but I would argue that's just not true. Why? Because I have found so much legitimate information by following through on my doubts. Not only about the exact subject but others as well. That's how this case worked. There's information in every place about many things. And so by pursuing one line you will not be wasting your time because you will learn new stuff about many things by doing so - even if the actual goal is not realized. I am going to go off on a tangent to explain: Even though I have a ton of information that I have discovered over the years there is plenty that I have not seen which I still would like to get my hands on. The Schenck trial transcripts are among them. I've been told they're "meaningless" because we know Schenck didn't kidnap anyone. Could they be? Sure. But not seeing them doesn't get me there. I know that Schenck was suspected for a reason and that reason is important. I know the Lanes lived next to the Lindberghs so that is important too. So in my mind there's something to be learned through those transcripts, and if there isn't then the value is that it was worth reading them to find out. However, I promise everyone there will be something in them I do not currently know. It might be trivial but then again it might not. Well back to the symbol... I'm not sure if I posted this document before but in the chance I didn't I think it's interesting to see this suggestion as a possibility to consider:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2016 10:45:54 GMT -5
This is an interesting document. It is good that they were looking into the possibility of a name connection being the source for the symbol in the ransom notes. I had run a check on the Hauptmann family name to see what the German family coat of arms looked like and there are no overlapping circles contained in that crest. So maybe we should be looking at the possibility that some of the names mentioned in that report showing overlapping circles in their family crest might be connected to the kidnapping???
Thanks for posting it Michael.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 20, 2016 12:07:10 GMT -5
This is an interesting document. There is so much on the symbol it's almost staggering. Letters to Schwarzkopf, to Hoffman, and to Wilentz. Investigations into the symbol and it's possible meaning, etc. That was just one letter. And don't forget that Rudolph Thielen went to Germany and noticed some similar items too. From a previous post:
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 20, 2016 12:20:58 GMT -5
So that's what NJSP spent a couple years doing!
Somebody must have read Michael's book by now. Comments?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 21, 2016 8:29:34 GMT -5
Here's some more on the symbol.... I've posted something in the past I wanted to resurrect. That in 9/33 Schwarzkopf mailed a letter along with a copy of the symbol to the University of Lucerne in Switzerland asking "Dr. Bishop" for the interpretation. He was apparently told that Bishop could "probably" come up with one. I've never found a reply within the files. My point here is that the NJSP is still investigating it hoping to stumble onto any clues it might yield. Also, here is a Western Union that was sent to the NJSP right after the child was discovered dead. Fisch immediately comes to mind after reading it, although it's certainly not anywhere near proof of it. Just more food for thought.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2016 11:49:37 GMT -5
Wow, Michael! It is amazing how many different ideas there are for two circles and a red dot! Fisch does come immediately to mind. Wasn't it Paul Wendel who claimed Fisch scammed him out of the ransom money? Then there is Hauptmann saying he received ransom money from Fisch. There are statements that Fisch was selling hot money. None of these things prove Fisch really had ransom money but sometimes where there is smoke, there really is fire.
I remember you posted that letter so I pulled my copy from my file. It was indeed disappointing that Schwarzkopf never received an answer. Would you happen to know who it was that suggested to Schwarzkopf to contact Dr. Bishop? The text of the letter also mentions that Schwarzkopf sent a newspaper reproduction of the symbol to Dr. Bishop. I remember seeing the symbol in an old newspaper I was reading. The symbol wasn't exactly correct. I think it looked like the one on Waller's book. The hole placement was not correct. I sure hope Schwarzkopf sent one that was accurate to Dr. Bishop. Maybe Dr. Bishop wasn't impressed with having to use a newspaper reproduction of the symbol so he didn't bother responding.
Thanks for sharing that telegram.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Aug 21, 2016 19:40:59 GMT -5
There once was a LETTER written by Lt. Robert. Hicks who ended up working for Gov. Hoffman. In that letter he called the circles and I quote "caballistic circles". Does anyone know how to find this letter...?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 22, 2016 5:04:03 GMT -5
There once was a LETTER written by Lt. Robert. Hicks who ended up working for Gov. Hoffman. In that letter he called the circles and I quote "caballistic circles". Does anyone know how to find this letter...? Hi Rick - glad you're back! Your question threw me. Are you sure it was in a letter or could it be in an article he wrote? I remember finding a document in the McLean stuff that I believe could have come from Hicks but there's no way for me to prove that. Is this the document?: From my research, ex-Secret Service Harold Keyes was the first to come up with this interpretation of the symbol. After he began to share it others jumped on board. Keyes would become angry that no one was giving him the credit for this, and frankly, I believe he was right. They were grabbing onto this idea and presenting it as their own. While Hicks came up with his own ideas, he wasn't above doing this himself. It was one of the issues among those assisting the Governor with his re-investigation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2016 21:19:09 GMT -5
Well, that is another interesting document concerning the origins for the symbol. Thanks for sharing it, Michael. In an attempt to summarize what all this reveals, the symbol could represent a person's name or a person who deals in stolen goods or an educated person with knowledge of Theosophy. Lets see how this might work out:
NAME: Blue Circles for Bruno; Red dot for Richard; Holes for Hauptmann - Bruno Richard Hauptmann
DEALS IN STOLEN GOODS: Possibly a German Jew who has experience with hot money - Isidor Fisch
EDUCATED PERSON WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THEOSOPHY; - Could this be Dr. John F. Condon.
Or could the symbol stand for Charles and Anne and Charlie?
Or perhaps Charles, Alexis Carrel and Charlie?
I don't think we will ever know (unless Michael's book has the answer). This symbol is truly baffling!
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Aug 23, 2016 3:08:19 GMT -5
Hello Michael--Guten Tage and Wie Gates! Congratulations on your New Book Part one.....you have already made $5 bucks in your venture because I bought it...mail is a bit slow?
Nope, sorry but that is not the Hicks Letter(?) I am thinking of....it may have been for either Schwarzenkopff or Gov. Hoffman I suppose? I have the doggone thing, it's just that I have no filing system beyound stacks of paper? I will keep looking.....Rick Ps....it could be the one that includes his ballistic studies? Probably got it from Mark?
[Maybe folks want to take another look at Tom Wescott and the Ripper Notes instead of hooray for the Red White and Blue?]. It is easily discovered on Ronelles Hoax Board.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 23, 2016 7:22:43 GMT -5
Hey Rick - been a while.
I ordered the book too, so another fin in the bosses pocket. Talk about the company store?
The sig on the note is interesting but won't solve anything. It probably had something in its creator's mind to do with dominance over the great Lindbergh along the lines of Dudley. Or it could be nothing at all and just, as Dave said, what was handy when he made up the notes - ink bottles, etc. Lots of time was spent on that sig, but you'll notice the detectives took little interest in it. Even if we knew what it was about it probably wouldn't lead anywhere.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2016 16:30:23 GMT -5
Hello Rick.
It is nice to see you posting on this board again. I have read many of your past posts and really enjoyed and learned things from them.
I have read The Ripper Notes article on Ronelle's board in the past. I think someone made a post about this article on this board.
So are you saying not to pay attention to the colors used to make the symbol, just focus on the symbol itself? What I take from reading the Ripper notes is that the almond shaped portion that is created by the overlapping circles was known as the "fish" bladder in Christian symbolism. The article suggests that this fish bladder portion of the symbol represents Isidor Fisch who was being set up as a patsy for the crime if something went wrong.
Could it be that is why the red dot appears in this portion of the symbol; to call attention to the word "fish"? I am not sure how the fish bladder would have caused Isidor Fisch to be identified as the kidnapper though. I am not aware that there was a search being made for anyone named "Fish" because of that symbol. Being a Christian symbol, investigators would not have been looking for a jewish fall guy. I think investigators were going in so many directions trying to figure out what the symbol might connect to, that I am not sure how much time and effort was spent on a religious angle.
I am all for the involvement of Isidor Fisch in this crime. Ever since I learned that Breckinridge said a man that looked like Fisch came into his office telling him that the needs of science must be served over and above human life, I have counted Fisch in as a participant; definitely as part of the extortion, but having knowledge that Charlie was dead from a higher source who was involved.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 23, 2016 17:32:05 GMT -5
Nope, sorry but that is not the Hicks Letter(?) I am thinking of....it may have been for either Schwarzenkopff or Gov. Hoffman I suppose? I have the doggone thing, it's just that I have no filing system beyound stacks of paper? I will keep looking.....Rick Ps....it could be the one that includes his ballistic studies? Probably got it from Mark? [Maybe folks want to take another look at Tom Wescott and the Ripper Notes instead of hooray for the Red White and Blue?]. It is easily discovered on Ronelles Hoax Board. Thanks Rick and Jack. I am extremely anxious to see what everyone thinks once they read the book. You were right. It's in his Ballistics Report he sent to Wilentz on 10/15/34. I've got a copy of the original report so the page number might not match up but it's on p7: The failure of the accused to remember from note to note in his various ransom negotiations (signed with cabalistic circles and punched with three dots) of just how he disguised his handwriting, may prove the wedge authorities need to link him with the actual kidnapping. Here is the link to "Ripper Notes" located on Ronelle's site: www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/ripper%20notes.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Rick3.5 on Aug 23, 2016 21:05:31 GMT -5
Hi Amy35 nice to meet you.....yes I think you are on the Right Track.....if you put together...Vessel of the Fish, and Isador Fisch, and let's just say Vesica Piscis from the Ripper Notes.......and caballistic circles and 3 holds from Lt. Hicks....well this seems somewhat more substantive than Red, Holes and Blue? Of course that's not the dumbest theory ever proposed , it's just light years ahead of #2. My drift on Michaels preface or introduction of Dark Shadows is that half the best clues were completely overlooked and the other half missed interpreted. Maybe that's why we are all still plugging along after 75 very odd years? I just can't wait to see how MM finesses all the clues now solidified in concrete....that add up to virtually nothing of substance! Really like a cat chasing its own tail.....RGIII
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2016 21:52:26 GMT -5
Well, Rick3.5, I am counting heavily on Michael to work his magic over this crime so that I can stop tying my brain in knots trying to make sense out of all the clues that never lead anywhere. About the only living thing I haven't suspected of wrongdoing in this crime is Wahgoosh. But then, Wahgoosh didn't bark that night so maybe I should be viewing him as being in on this crime.
Looking forward to what you will be posting in the future. I know that you are very knowledgeable about this case. Michael's book will give us all a lot to talk about!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,655
|
Post by Joe on Aug 28, 2016 9:32:49 GMT -5
The idea that Scotland Yard came up with 'BRH' from Blue Circles, Red Dot and Holes seems such a long shot as to be ridiculous, and I highly doubt this happened before Hauptmann was nabbed. More like an ideal 20/20 hindsight observation. Why would they put the initials in that particular order and as Michael notes, there are many aspects of the symbol that could also have been included. Wilentz was grasping at straws he didn't have to by referencing this during the trial. The same might be said about my and most interpretations of the symbol based on what we know about the guy who came up with it but for what it's worth, I'll stand by my own theory. Since I latched onto this case about fifteen years ago, I've always felt I was born with it in my bones, and I believe the same holds true for a lot of people who are unreasonably passionate about this case!
Amy, and again for what they're worth, my thoughts: I agree that the kidnapper fully expected Lindbergh to open the envelope and not call police, based upon his well known desire for privacy. Everything within the Nursery Note points to that, including the 2 - 4 days time frame as you point out and the warning not to call police. I believe this was always intended by the kidnapper to be a "quick snatch and return" of the baby (dead or alive) for ransom, and that the original plan which probably involved others, was for the baby to be kept alive during that time frame. Reading the archival newspaper accounts from the first few days after the kidnap shows that the Lindbergh house was fully lit up each night, and that it was presented as a sign that the Lindberghs anticipated some kind of direct and immediate gesture from the kidnapper(s). As far as the plan unfolding, something changed dramatically and it could have been before the launch, when Hauptmann realized he didn't have the support and resolve of others, and that killing the baby was the only way to ensure he could carry out the exchange for ransom.
I'd like to know yours and others' thoughts about what the original plan was and how the shifting dynamics might have altered that in the days leading up to, and what actually happened to the baby, during the kidnapping?
Dave and Rick, great to see you posting again!
Michael, very much looking forward to your book!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2016 20:52:15 GMT -5
Amy, and again for what they're worth, my thoughts: I agree that the kidnapper fully expected Lindbergh to open the envelope and not call police, based upon his well known desire for privacy. Everything within the Nursery Note points to that, including the 2 - 4 days time frame as you point out and the warning not to call police. I believe this was always intended by the kidnapper to be a "quick snatch and return" of the baby (dead or alive) for ransom, and that the original plan which probably involved others, was for the baby to be kept alive during that time frame. I agree that the kidnappers would expect Lindbergh to open that note right up and follow those instructions. I think the note is clearly in favor of a quick turn around of child for money with no police involvement. Sounds simple enough right? Lindbergh says "Anne, they have stolen our baby." He acknowledges his child has been kidnapped. This is clear to him. So why doesn't he open the note? How can he place fingerprint protection above the need to know what the kidnappers have to say about getting his son back? I have never read any explanation from any source that justifies Lindbergh's failure to do what a caring parent would do when he finds his child missing. If the original plan was to keep the baby alive for 2 to 4 days, that all fell apart when Lindbergh failed to read and heed that note. Once the police and media circus started, there was probably panic and then anger by those who had Charlie. There was a decision to kill the child, resulting in a split in the group. Charlie was dead and buried before the March 4 letter was written and mailed. The plan was adjusted. The kidnappers would have to bring someone else into the equation to help them acquire the ransom since this cannot be done in a direct manor anymore. Dr. Condon becomes their "man of the hour" and gets that money for them and gives Lindbergh the Boad Nelly note. Charlie's body eventually goes to the Mount Rose woods and is found by William Allen. Personally, I think that there was never a plan to keep Charlie alive. His murder was part of the original plan. The nursery note was to be a cover for an intended killing and the $50,000 was supposed to be just a figure in the note and not really collected. I think that is why Lindbergh didn't bother opening the note. However, someone decided to do otherwise and went forward with an extortion of that money. That's how I see it right now...until Michael's book arrives.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Aug 30, 2016 18:29:20 GMT -5
Aimee, is this where your father was treated for tuberculosis as a child? Interesting that it's not that far from the Elizabeth Islands where Charlie was supposed to be on Boad Nelly. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seaside_(Waterford,_Connecticut) Sorry, I went back and read your original post and he was in Meriden. I guess there were quite a few of these sanitoriums, people, children included, were removed from the home for treatment, a lot different than how we view disease and treatment today.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2016 20:23:53 GMT -5
I guess there were quite a few of these sanitoriums, people, children included, were removed from the home for treatment, a lot different than how we view disease and treatment today. It is interesting that you bring this up Norma. Over the course of the last 4 years, I have looked at various things that could have affected Charlie. We know that he was being treated for what everyone thought was rickets, possibly vitamin D resistant rickets. One of the complications of vitamin D deficient rickets can be the development of tuberculosis. If a child is deficient in vitamin D the body's immune system is compromised. They can develop TB. It is something I have given consideration to as far as being one of Charlie's issues. Normally white blood cells convert vitamin D that your skin produces from proper sun exposure into an active form that produces a protein that kills TB bacteria. However, the more severe the vitamin D deficiency is, the higher the risk is of developing an active case of tuberculosis. Sun lamps were a very important tool in treating TB and also preventing it. In the case of a vitamin D resistant condition, however, they would not prevent TB from developing. Here is an interesting link to pictures of children being treated with light for TB. mashable.com/2015/08/07/sun-therapy-children/#QmBTc2jWkkqh
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Aug 30, 2016 20:39:44 GMT -5
Interesting Amy, I know that lack of Vitamin D can cause psoriasis as well. We take a lot for granted now like our milk being fortified with vitamin D, juices with vitamin C and flour with vitamins and iron. I have a friend who was being treated for her psoriasis with Ultra Violet light in the mid-seventies. She was always super tan!
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Aug 31, 2016 9:01:53 GMT -5
So this is mind-blowing, apparently one of the treatments at Seaside for TB was to play outside or ice-skate in shorts in the middle of winter! I'm sure today we would view this as abuse. It's hard not to view the LKC through modern eyes and remember that people lived differently in 1931.
If you are on Facebook there is a great site called Photographic History of Connecticut that has some great pictures with historic description.
|
|
|
Post by sweetwater on Aug 31, 2016 20:19:25 GMT -5
So this is mind-blowing, apparently one of the treatments at Seaside for TB was to play outside or ice-skate in shorts in the middle of winter! I'm sure today we would view this as abuse. It's hard not to view the LKC through modern eyes and remember that people lived differently in 1931. If you are on Facebook there is a great site called Photographic History of Connecticut that has some great pictures with historic description. You know, it's probably totally unrelated, but... what this immediately brought to mind for me was CAL putting Charlie outside in the chicken-wire pen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2016 23:42:46 GMT -5
So this is mind-blowing, apparently one of the treatments at Seaside for TB was to play outside or ice-skate in shorts in the middle of winter! I'm sure today we would view this as abuse. It's hard not to view the LKC through modern eyes and remember that people lived differently in 1931. Isn't that incredible that the children would be out with most of their skin exposed in the middle of winter when there was ice and snow everywhere!! Being exposed to sunlight was crucial in treating TB in the 1930's so outside the kids went to take in the rays of the sun. It was a different time for sure! Now there are antibiotics to treat TB. I am going to post a link to a picture of the kids at Seaside Sanatorium outside taking in the sunlight while they are in the snow. You probably saw this picture Norma but others my find it quite surprising that this was how TB was treated at that time. thedreamyidealist.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/seasidesanitorium.jpg
|
|