|
Post by bookrefuge on Apr 1, 2013 9:54:39 GMT -5
Rab. Thanks for your observations in the “Letters” thread, in which you expressed the opinion that Charlie was shot.
I am now very interested in the Lilliput, and I think it is wisest to start this as a new thread.
In the PBS Nova special, Dr. Butts argued that the small hole on the right side of Charlie’s skull explained the large fracture on the left side.
Sorry to quote myself, but it’s easiest if I paste in what I wrote in the NOVA thread:
Rab, I think you may have hit a home run when you say Charlie was shot. One of the great LKC mysteries we have been recently debating on this board is: Why did Hauptmann hide the Lilliput? It obviously wasn’t for self-defense. A gun intended for self-defense would be kept handy and would presumably be of larger caliber.
The Lilliput could very possibly explain the small round hole in Charlie’s head. Once the child was removed from the house, it would have provided a quick means of killing the child without splattering tissue everywhere (as a larger caliber weapon would have done). It would also have been quieter than a larger gun. And the Lilliput would also be extremely easy for the kidnapper to carry while traversing the ladder. In short, the Lilliput was probably, in fact, the ideal weapon for this job.
There are also a number of objections that may be raised to the theory.
(1) Above all, what happened to the bullet? I believe the skull showed no evidence of an exit wound, yet no bullet was found inside the skull on autopsy. Given the advanced decay of the body, I suppose the problem is not insurmountable, but it is nevertheless a very strong objection. Any thoughts, Rab?
(2) Of course, even if the Lilliput was small, a gunshot still makes a loud sound that could attract attention. But the shot could have been fired in a deserted area away from Highfields, presumably without grave risk of drawing attention, especially with the gale howling.
(3) Why didn’t Hauptmann then throw away the gun in a lake? Why keep an incriminating piece of evidence? I suppose he could have kept it as a bizarre souvenir of “the crime of the century”? And as you point out, he did HIDE it.
On balance, I’m surprised that Wilentz didn’t advance this theory about the Lilliput—but maybe it would have introduced some other difficulties for the prosecution. Or maybe they just didn’t think of it.
I will say that, at this moment, the Lilliput is moving me closer to conceding Hauptmann’s guilt for the murder of Charlie, a position I have strongly resisted. Michael and Rab—was any forensic testing every done on this gun to determine if it had ever been fired?
|
|
|
Post by Rab on Apr 1, 2013 12:36:26 GMT -5
BR, I think your comparison with Kennedy is a good one. Certainly it's what Mitchell thought initially. From the original autopsy report: "There was...a suspicious opening at a point about one inch posterior to the right ear; the opening was about one half inch in diameter, somewhat rounded and resembled a bullet wound...the fracture of the skull was directly opposite this opening and could have been done by a bullet entering the right side of the skull [and] striking the inner table of the skull..." In a contemporaneous newspaper interview with the Philadelphia Public Ledger, Mitchell went further: Calling attention to the "peculiar condition" of the two skull fractures, the county physician said the theory of a bullet wound was the most tenable one. He added that traces of old blood in the brain itself tended to bear out the theory that the baby was shot through the head, a single bullet inflicting both wounds.
Dr. Mitchell said the wound in the right side of the head, behind the ear, was round and large enough to admit a bullet, and that the fracture on the left side pressed the bone outward, indicating that the blow was struck from the inside. "This," he added, "could only have been done by a bullet." There is some debate on this in that same Nova thread. Michael supports the Walsh stick story but suffice to say I don't. It's a very valid question: where's the bullet? Mitchell - again in the original autopsy - offers some possible explanation: "...the bullet could have been lost in transportation of the body as the brains were exuding from the fontanelle and from the opening on the right side of the skull." However, all of the material around the body was collected and checked and no bullet was found. I think, also, we can't exclude the possibility that the bullet was deliberately removed before the body was deposited at Mt Rose. As you say, it would have been a major problem for the prosecution if there was any suggestion of the child having been shot. The capital case rested on the child dying during the commission of the burglary (of the sleeping suit). It couldn't be reasonably said that the child was shot at that point, there was no noise, no physical evidence. My personal belief is that is why there was an additional autopsy report submitted into evidence at the trial which made no mention of a bullet wound and also why the Walsh stick story had to be concocted. The one item that makes me pause is Hauptmann's very specific protestations of innocence. As has been commented before, he never says he is completely innocent. In all of his post-conviction letters etc he fudges. He says he is innocent of the crime of which he was convicted (i.e. murder). I've often thought that this was some moral get-out clause for him. He kidnapped the baby, took the ransom but didn't (deliberately) kill the child. I think even with the bullet theory we can't rule out that it could have been some sort of "mercy" killing. Perhaps the child was injured in the kidnapping itself (though I tend to agree with Kevin's theory that the ladder broke in the act of removing it from the wall, either the wind catching it or when folding it, rather than it broke under stress and caused a fall) or perhaps the child fell ill due to neglect. The lower body parts were either decomposed or missing so it's hard to say what exactly had befallen the poor child. So the bullet may have been what brought about the end but it doesn't necessarily mean the child was healthy to that point. I don't know if the gun was tested. Ballistics was a fairly recent innovation at the time. I'm sure Michael would know more. Rab
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Apr 1, 2013 13:22:20 GMT -5
Thanks, Rab. Mitchell’s comments reinforce the theory.
I’d like to add this. Hauptmann carefully hid just two items in his garage—the money and the gun. It would seem logical that if the money was hidden because it was tied to the kidnapping, that the gun was hidden for the same reason.
As likable as the idea is, I tend to doubt that the shot was fired as a mercy killing after an unintended injury to Charlie. Such an injury would be unforeseen, so if the perp(s) brought the Liiliput on the night of the kidnapping, it sounds like they intended to use it. On the other hand, if--as you also suggest--they kept Charlie for a while, a mercy killing at a later point seems possible.
It’s been said on this board that Hauptmann got the gun from Hans Mueller. Do we know when Hans gave it to him? And did Hans or Hauptmann ever give a reason why?
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Apr 1, 2013 17:24:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Apr 1, 2013 18:31:38 GMT -5
Sue, thank you for referencing that thread. In that thread, Rick said that Mitchell’s call of a gunshot wound was “trumped” by Schwarzkopf within 24 hours. I gather, in other words, that he denied there was a gunshot wound. Michael or Rab, is that correct? If so, why would Schwarzkopf do that? At this point, no one should been have worrying yet about the technicalities of needing to prosecute the perps for a murder committed during a burglary.
|
|
|
Post by Rab on Apr 2, 2013 6:53:16 GMT -5
The FBI in 1933 was still reporting the original autopsy with the bullet theory. They certainly weren't viewing it as unlikely. I don't know the basis of the Schwarzkopf story but I don't see how anything could be reasonably dismissed on the available evidence. the stick explanation, of course, only materialised after Hauptmann's arrest.
I think it's an interesting question of when the authorities formed their prosecution strategy i.e. death during the commission of a felony. I'm not aware of any discussion prior to Hauptmann's arrest but that's not to say that it hadn't been conceived previously. I suppose it would depend what evidence was found with the person(s) eventually apprehended i.e. whether there was evidence of murder as opposed to (in Hauptmann's case) evidence of extortion. One for the legal historians.
Hauptmann got the gun from Hans in 1931. He explanation was that he needed it for protection during the California trip, though given its size that seems a bit dubious. Hauptmann was a regular hunter and had been a gunner in WW1 so he was well used to firearms.
Rab
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Apr 2, 2013 17:14:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Apr 2, 2013 17:44:22 GMT -5
On a number of occasions Rick has pointed to the picture in Lloyd Gardner's book showing the decomposed body with what looks like a very noticable hole in the TOP of the head.
See the photo section, between pages 210 and 211.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Apr 2, 2013 21:04:38 GMT -5
Thank you, Sue—I see it, and it looks obvious. Why didn't Mitchell mention it? I don’t know how to square that hole with Mitchell’s report of the hole behind the right ear; this one is different. I will say that if a bullet was fired into the top of the child’s head, it could account for the bullet being missing—it could have exited through the lower body, some of which was missing when the corpse was found.
Now I find myself in an ironic position. I’ve been arguing in other threads that there couldn’t have been a sole perp, one reason being that a sole perp would not be able to care for a kidnapped child, and therefore must have intended to kill the child on the first night—and who would be crazy enough to try and collect a ransom on a dead child?
Yet the hidden Lilliput, added to Dr. Mitchell’s report of a bullet wound, raises a strong possibility that killing the child was indeed intended all along. For reasons cited above in this thread, the Lilliput appears to have been the perfect weapon for the job.
It’s hard to believe Hauptmann’s explanation that he got the Lilliput from Hans for purposes of self-defense. And with the gun concealed in the garage, the self-defense explanation pretty much dries up.
Based on the Lilliput, Rab’s summation of Hauptmann’s finances, rail 16, Kevin’s observation that the ladder was built lightweight for an easy carry, and Lupica’s witnessing of one man with a ladder in a car, one could certainly advance a theory of BRH as “sole perp.”
However that still doesn’t explain the extra footprints leaving Highfields, the cemetery lookouts, Condon lying like crazy, or knowledge that the baby would be there Tuesday evening—something even Anne herself didn’t know until that morning.
If I had to advance a theory, I DO like the suggestion one expert made in Zorn’s book—that the 3 holes with interlocking circles represented three men who had sworn never to betray each other.
And if I was going to pick the other two men? Of course, I wouldn’t agree with Zorn that they were the Knoll brothers. One candidate has to be Hans Mueller. He was the one who supplied the Lilliput. I don’t see how Hans could have believed Hauptmann wanted it for self-defense either. Thanks to Rab, we also know that Hans was living within eyeshot of Dr. Condon’s house at the time of the ransom payment. He was a sailor. Although he didn’t appear to have financial gain after the ransom payment, according to Gardner, p. 437, BRH’s connections to the Yorkville Bourse (popular German restaurant across from Steiner, Rouse) came through Hans. And since Hans took in Anna right after Hauptmann’s arrest, this would have given Hans an ear on whatever was going on in LE. The third perp—one I know Rab doesn’t go for—would be Fisch. For me, too many witnesses tying him to hot money or gold certs—Steinweg, Trost, Bruckman, Schleser’s neighbors—to ignore. I personally add the “Penn Station” man as a likely on this. Benjamin Heier may have been correct in tying Fisch to the cemetery. As I recall—memory foggy on this one—very early in the case, someone—perhaps one of the attorneys associated with Lindbergh--was approached by someone answering to Fisch’s description, concerning ransom negotiations. (Michael, do you know what I’m referring to?) And for whatever they’re worth, Condon’s description of an “Italian” lookout, the “second taxi driver,” and even—occasionally at times—CJ, could credibly be matched up to Fisch. Rab, you said there is some evidence of an early link between Fisch and Hans Mueller?
If I was going to pull this job, I would want at least three people—one to go up the ladder, one to hold the ladder, and one to serve as lookout. The ladder was moved from the house about 75 feet after the job. I CANNOT see BRH, or any sole perp, having gotten the child, also trying to move that ladder.
Interesting that Alfred Hammond, the Skillman railroad watchman, saw the same car for several days preceding the kidnapping, always with three men in it. One he later identified as Isidor Fisch. The driver, he said was about 35—could have been Hauptmann. The other man he could not describe. (Hans?) The fact that Hammond saw this car several times gives his observation some extra weight.
If they were casing Highfields, they would only need one car. But on the night of the kidnapping, they would need two cars—because Hauptmann couldn’t fit both the ladder and his accomplices in one car.
So it’s also interesting that on the day of the kidnapping, besides the car Lupica spotted, there was another suspicious car spotted by Lindbergh’s immediate neighbors. Here’s what Joe posted on this board from Falzini:
Later that evening, we seem to have this same car returning, according to Falzini’s timeline:
6PM is also when Lupica sees the man with the ladder in a car. Is there a rendezvous between the two cars on Featherbed Lane?
Was Fisch the man with the “long slim face” seen by Kuchta? Was he also the man who left behind the small stocking-footed footprints, which woodsman Oscar Bush thought would fit a size 8 shoe?
Yet for the life of me—I can see one man being crazy enough to decide in advance to shoot the child. But for THREE men to agree on this? Could they all be that crazy?
But on the other hand, maybe in their minds, it wasn’t so crazy. Shooting the child and burying him would eliminate all the difficulties of caring for the child—in the Bronx!--during the long ransom negotiations. And it would eliminate the risk of being stopped by the cops with the kid in your car on the long trip back from Hopewell.
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Apr 3, 2013 7:16:04 GMT -5
wow, BR, that is a great scenario. it does seem to tie up many different aspects that at first seemed unrelated.
BRH was so staunchly silent on naming accomplices, he must have felt a deep connection to the others, I can imagine an immigrant coming to the US and feeling like that about their particular ethnic community.
perhaps the only reason he gave the "fisch story" was that Fisch was dead by then, and could not be harmed by being named.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Apr 3, 2013 9:59:42 GMT -5
Right, xjd. With Fisch dead, any mutual vows, never to betray each other, would have probably been abrogated. Fisch had no wife or family in the U.S., so it wasn't like anyone would get hurt by giving him up. Hans would have been a different story, though, being married to Anna's niece.
It’s easy to see why the prosecution didn’t advance the Lilliput theory in the courtroom. No bullet was ever found, and the corpse had been cremated. So there was no way to forensically link the weapon to the crime.
The prosecution had to argue that the child was killed during a burglary (theft of the sleeping suit). Since a shot could not have been fired in the Lindbergh home without being heard, Wilentz, in his summation, had to resort to arguing that Hauptmann bludgeoned the child with the chisel—and hope the jury wouldn’t realize this couldn’t be, since there was no blood or other signs of violence in the nursery.
Regarding the touring car, I have always felt the morning behavior of the occupants, together with its later return at approximately the same time as the “Lupica” car—just when it was getting dark—suggest a rendezvous. The drawn curtains could have been intended to conceal the child as they drove away.
But of course, the description of the occupants is extremely limited, and “slim face” could apply to millions of men besides Fisch. From the photo Rab gave us of Hans Mueller, his face could also be described as long and thin. The driver was described as having a stout face, which doesn’t fit BRH or Hans. And I certainly don’t see the impoverished Hans Mueller driving a touring car. The scant description MIGHT fit Paul Wendel, though, if we give Ellis Parker more credit than he normally gets in this case.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Apr 3, 2013 22:52:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Rab on Apr 9, 2013 8:48:18 GMT -5
Thank you, BR, for that additional newspaper link. I haven't seen it before and it's very interesting in terms of the thinking at the time, immediately following Hauptmann's arrest. What would be good to understand now - to underline the point - would be when exactly the prosecution came up with the murder in the commission of a felony strategy. My suspicion is that it was after the arrest, when there was no evidence tying Hauptmann to murder.
The suggestion of an early link between Fisch and Mueller is in the Letters thread, in terms of connections via Mrs Hile and her part ownership of a restaurant which was at a site where Mueller worked.
I think it's also intriguing in terms of the notion of an additional car on the night, particularly the scenario in which it was necessary because Hauptmann had to transport the ladder. The evidence of an accomplice on the night is very mixed. There are some items which point to it but the evidence immediately around the house is to me more suggestive of a single person. The problem, of course, is that some much of the crime scene investigation was botched so it's hard to be sure either way. But the cemetery lookouts remain an area of real mystery. I will have to dig out the descriptions but I don't recall them resembling Fisch or any obvious accomplice candidate. Suffice to say I still don't see Fisch in the frame, I understand the desire to tie it all up with a ribbon and explain the Fisch enigma but for me there is no hard evidence.
Rab
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Apr 10, 2013 17:07:50 GMT -5
There is another factor, albeit a generalization, that favors a “lone wolf.”
25 Years ago I wrote an article for a national magazine on the Kennedy assassination. I started out by trying to figure out which conspiracy theory had it right, and my final conclusion, after exhaustive study, was that there was NO conspiracy. Despite everything that’s been said since, I believe the Dallas police successfully solved the crime on the day of the slaying. I don’t wish to debate the Kennedy assassination on this board, I only mention it to make one point:
The secret of Lee Harvey Oswald’s “success”—a word that I use with some reluctance—is that nobody knew about the plan except him. Therefore, it was impossible for any informant to forewarn the police, the FBI, or the Secret Service.
If you’ve ever seen the fine film Day of the Jackal –about an attempt on the life French President Charles De Gaulle—you’ll recall that one thing that made the “Jackal” so hard to catch was that he essentially operated solo.
I have to wonder if this principle might be relevant to the LKC. If Hauptmann operated strictly on his own, it could help explain why the case escaped resolution for so long. If only he knew what happened, then there would be no one to inform on him. No police informant could help the police, because not one of them could have known of a plan that existed exclusively in Hauptmann’s head.
For reasons cited earlier in this thread, I believe the Lilliput was used to kill Charlie, and that killing him was an intentional part of the plan. If true, then it increases the probability that Hauptmann acted alone, because I believe it would be extremely difficult to persuade partners to help murder the most famous baby in America.
There was no death penalty for kidnapping in 1932, but there certainly was one for murder. By murdering Charlie, the perp(s) became subject to the death penalty even BEFORE ONE DIME IN RANSOM MONEY HAD BEEN COLLECTED OR EVEN AGREED TO. What’s the percentage in that? I don’t believe you could find two partners crazy enough to join in such a scheme—it’s hard to believe even one man could be that crazy. Especially when you know the police would NEVER stop looking for the murderer of the son of Lindbergh, then regarded as the nation’s greatest hero.
And of course, if partners were involved, and the loot had to be split up, the reward-risk ratio would be even lower.
Yet even as the weight of evidence tightens on Hauptmann, I struggle with it. While I’ll concede that everyone has a “dark side,” and he may have been “stolid,” Hauptmann doesn’t strike me as someone who would, with premeditation, murder a baby. That is more in the realm of someone who is truly psychopathic and vicious, and Hauptmann doesn’t strike me that way.
It is hard to believe he would do this just for the money, yet ransom bills started being methodically laundered very soon after the ransom was paid. If he murdered just for money—so he could buy a radio, binoculars, etc.—that would make him very materialistic. But wouldn’t a materialistic person accept the offer that was later made--to nullify his death sentence, and have his family receive more money than even the ransom was worth, in exchange for a confession? Yet instead he chose death.
And if Hauptmann did act alone, it still, of course, leaves a number of difficult questions—not only the explanations for the apparent lookouts, the JJ Faulkner signature, and Condon’s constant lying, but the kidnapping itself: How did he know Charlie would be there on a Tuesday? Was he just lucky in going through the one unlocked window? How he could he be sure Charlie wouldn’t be awake, and cry at the sight of a stranger, raising an alarm through the house? Why was nothing in the room knocked over? How did he make that exit out the window, with the child, and still close the window, leaving the note on the window sill, even with a gale blowing and no one to help hold the ladder?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 11, 2013 5:36:28 GMT -5
Here is what I know....
On September 24th thru the 26th, Wilentz had a series of meetings with Harold H. Fisher, an Attorney out of Newark, New Jersey. On the 27th, Fisher writes a letter to Wilentz outlining the points of Law, attempting to remove doubt that "the crime in question is first degree murder, being a killing in the perpetration of a burglary...."
So its Harold Fisher who came up with this strategy on this day in writing. Next, there is a series of meetings at his office from Oct. 4th thru the 7th. Then on Oct 11th in Flemington and Nov 6th, 15th, and Dec 5th, and 15th at Trenton. More meetings on Dec 23rd thru the 28th at Newark. He also spent each and every day in Flemington during the Trial.
The bottom line is this theory, in my opinion, was developed by Harold Fisher officially on September 27, 1934.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Apr 11, 2013 8:37:37 GMT -5
Question for Michael or Rab. Looking through the list of ransom bills in the FBI files, it seems that the passer usually couldn’t be found; however, when they could be found, it appears that generally polite inquiries were made, and the person cleared of suspicion. It doesn’t seem like anyone got man-handled.
In the case of Hauptmann, however, after the Warner-Quinlan bill got passed, it seems that a virtual 1932 equivalent of a “SWAT team” surrounded his house—including the NJSP, New York police and FBI. Hauptmann was arrested in dramatic fashion—three LE cars surrounding Hauptmann’s car, and the officers running up with pistols drawn.
My question: why this distinct response in Hauptmann’s case? Was it because, in addition to the gas station bill, he fit the description of the passers of other recent bills, so they figured “this must be our man”? I realize the dramatic arrest scene was also partly prompted by the speed of Hauptmann’s car, and they thought maybe he was trying to escape (apparently not the case).
It just seems that the police response—even though they turned out to be right about Hauptmann—was disproportionate to the way they reacted to earlier passers whom bills were traced to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2013 8:42:49 GMT -5
Hauptmann doesn't strike me as a baby killer either. If Charlie was purposely killed by a gunshot to the head, then I think it is more like a professional killing. Hired hit people don't care if you are a child or someone's granny. They will eliminate you because that is what they were hired to do. There is no emotional investment with these types of killers. Nor do they care if you happen to be the son of the most famous man in the world. You will just pay alot more for the hit. They wouldn't bother with any ransom negotiations either.
There is always the mercy killing angle. Charlie is somehow seriously injured and they can't seek help for him so he is shot to end the suffering but the decision is made to go through with obtaining the ransom payoff under the false pretense Charlie is fine and will be returned unharmed if the ransom is paid.
It seems that no matter what way you look at this Charlie was never coming back alive and well.
I think this goes to the heart of what really happened. There is nothing that suggests that Charlie was killed in that room. Wilentz's closing argument was fantasy. What he said Hauptmann did in that room was not supported by anything he presented during the trial. The only way it would work is if someone came back to the room after he murdered Charlie in his bed and then cleaned up the room. Just think about it. You can't bludgeon a child to death in his crib and leave no evidence. If Charlie died in his nursery then perhaps he had died there before the kidnapping allowing for a clean up of the scene and a dead baby being "kidnapped".
I don't think a case can be made for suffocation in his crib either. Charlie's head trauma throws that right out the window. He was alive and breathing when that blood clot formed. He wasn't shot in his bed. If Charlie was shot it must not have been at Highfields.
|
|
|
Post by Rab on Apr 11, 2013 10:51:42 GMT -5
Some really good questions here and thank you, Michael, for the confirmation on the prosecution strategy. I think it strengthens ever further the view that the bullet theory was buried after Hauptmann's arrest.
- I agree that secrecy is key and that the fewer people who know about a planned crime the better. I think in looking specifically at Hauptmann one has to say that his MO was not to be a lone wolf. Generally the crimes he committed in Germany involved an accomplice. His attempts to enter the US illegally were usually with others. His various get-rich-quick schemes in the US were with partners (even Fisch). He brought someone else on his honeymoon. He brought someone else on the California trip. Can it be coincidence that Anna fell pregnant on the only trip they ever took alone as a couple? Now, perhaps he learned his lesson and so decided to act alone on this occasion. But acting alone doesn't appear to have been in his nature.
- Was it in his nature to be a cold-blooded killer? I think when you look at the facts of Hauptmann, he was far from the hagiography painted by Kennedy (amongst others). What we think we know of him is from Anna's long life and dedication to a story much of which we know (and she must have known) to be untrue. Hauptmann was a machine gunner in WW1. He would have killed lots of people, was himself wounded and no doubt experienced things that we cannot imagine. In Germany he was a (highly unsuccessful) career criminal. In the US he worked, he married a hard worker but the desire for easy money never left him. Does any of that mean he could premeditatedly kill the child? I'm not sure it's clear either way. What I will say is that if you read his trial testimony he very obviously gets animated when talking about money, about the stock market. When asked about the child, he cuts the question off with "Never saw it". There is no emotion there.
- On the difficult questions, particularly those that pertain to either two schools of thought about the actions on the night: inside help or dumb luck. I don't see it as either of these two extremes. I also think if you look at the facts, what we think we know of luck or knowledge actually doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I've debated this with Michael and others recently offline so am happy to do so again but perhaps in a new thread.
- Why was the police response to Hauptmann so, well, definite. I think there were a number of factors at play. Firstly, I'm not aware of a single investigatory report which previously traced a ransom bill passing to what was believed to be the primary source. Certainly many individuals were investigated previously, but they were people caught up in the dragnet almost, people who might have been the source of a bill but nobody could say for sure. Secondly, the net in September 1934 was getting tighter. There was renewed vigilance at the banks and by agents on the streets. The authorities knew that the gold certificates made the passer(s) vulnerable. And as Hauptmann started to pass the bills again there were a number of reports of a man with with similar description operating in the Bronx and Yorkville. Thirdly, when they pulled Hautpmann's motor registration documents they found a German carpenter who lived in the Bronx and whose physical description matched that of the man who had been recently passing bills. So I think all of those factors combined.
- I agree, there was no evidence in the room that the child was killed there. Wilentz's summation was a somewhat desperate act to address what he knew was a weakness in his case. However, the child must have been rendered unconscious or silent somehow. The evidence is that the child was removed by his feet so it wasn't done gently. There is the fact that ether (albeit purchased after the kidnapping) was found in Hauptmann's garage. So perhaps there was a previous use. But somehow the child was subdued sufficiently for the kidnapper to escape without the alarm being raised.
Rab
-
|
|
|
Post by drw on Apr 11, 2013 11:19:27 GMT -5
Ether was a normal thing to have in the garage in the twenties and thirties.
From Sinclair Lewis's 1922 novel Babbitt:
"Among the tremendous crises of each day none was more dramatic than starting the engine. It was slow on cold mornings; there was the long, anxious whirr of the starter; and sometimes he had to drip ether into the cocks of the cylinders, which was so very interesting that at lunch he would chronicle it drop by drop, and orally calculate how much each drop had cost him."
|
|
|
Post by Rab on Apr 11, 2013 13:18:01 GMT -5
Not really my area of expertise, but there are many different types of ether. The kind used to start cars is petroleum ether. Hauptmann's was purchased at a pharmacy (William Raabe, 3981 White Plains Avenue) in a 3 ounce bottle. That is not typically the type nor the amount of ether one would have in a garage. But perhaps Hauptmann was very particular about what he put in his car, nothing but the best for his Dodge.
Rab
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Apr 11, 2013 21:37:44 GMT -5
Drw and Rab, those are both great observations on ether. I’m cracking up over “nothing but the best for his Dodge.”
Rab, thanks for pointing out Hauptmann’s pattern of using partners, and not doing things solo. This shows how balanced your view of the case is.
I suspect, however, that the reason Hauptmann didn’t seek partners was: No one else would have gone along on this one.
“Hey, Hans and Fritz, want to make some big money?”
“Sure, Dick. How?”
“Well, what we do is, we kill Charles Lindbergh’s son, only we pretend like we’ve kidnapped him, see? Then we hope Lindbergh coughs up the ransom. Then we hope we never get caught.”
“Oh, good plan, Dick. Count me in!”
“Me too, Dick! That’s a winner! I’m in!”
I’m beginning to feel like one of the jurors in Twelve Angry Men—one of the last holdouts who finally gives in. Wilentz used many dishonest tactics—spying on the jury pool, using perjured witnesses (Hochmuth and Whited), threatening other witnesses to change their testimony, spying on defense witnesses, withholding evidence (e.g., Hauptmann’s chisels and footprint casts), violating jurisprudence rules, etc. And Judge Trenchard displayed a marked bias for the prosecution in both his rulings and his charge to the jury. For these reasons, among a few others, I have long suspected that there was a high-level “fix” in the justice system, with Hauptmann a patsy, framed to protect the truly guilty parties.
However, the cumulative evidence has finally turned my vote on Hauptmann to “guilty.”
Kevkon’s rail 16 evidence was impressive, but not being versed in wood and carpentry myself, I wasn’t sure if he hadn’t been mistaken somewhere. Rab’s accounting of the finances was also impressive—especially about the deposits that seemingly came from thin air. But, I said, couldn’t Fisch have given him that money?
It was the Lilliput that broke the camel’s back for me.
The logic is this:
If Hauptmann hid the Lilliput as carefully as he did, it means he didn’t want anyone to find it.
If he didn’t want anyone to find it, the gun must have had a guilty secret attached to it.
What would that guilty secret be? Since it was hidden along with money from the Lindbergh kidnapping, it is logical that it had something to do with kidnapping.
And what would it have to do with the kidnapping? Dr. Mitchell, the autopsy doctor, expressed his belief that Charlie had been shot with a small-caliber gun—and this was long before Hauptmann and the Lilliput were ever found.
Why would Hauptmann shoot Charlie? Because he had no way of taking care of Charlie by himself during ransom negotiations. And killing Charlie eliminated any risk of being stopped by the cops with Charlie in the car on the way back from Hopewell.
Why use a Lilliput? Because it’s a quick means of killing, and its tiny caliber gives you the cleanest, and—compared to other guns—quietest means of killing. And it’s so small it can easily fit in your pocket while you carry out the abduction.
I think I perhaps understand now why Hauptmann didn’t confess. The act he committed—murdering a baby—was too unspeakable. It would have brought lasting contempt and shame on his family. Someone would probably have taken potshots at Manfred, who might not have lived to “enjoy” the money offered in exchange for confession.
So refusal to confess was, I think, not necessarily selfish or egotistical—it may have in fact been altruistic. It may have even been patriotic—in the sense that Hauptmann knew the German community’s reputation would suffer from this disgrace. (Wilentz was already doing “German-baiting” in the courtroom.) I think Hauptmann’s way of atoning for this crime was to do what he did—take his punishment on the electric chair, but without dragging his family and his countrymen down into the mud.
And I suspect he privately made his peace with God before he went.
I realize there are still vexing unanswered questions about this case, and I don’t rule out accomplices, or the possibility of another explanation for the crime — but accepting Hauptmann’s guilt is a turning point for me.
|
|
|
Post by Rab on Apr 13, 2013 11:10:17 GMT -5
BR, I agree that there are many questions still unanswered. That's what still keeps me interested. I accepted Hauptmann's guilt long ago. For what it's worth, the first book I read on the case was Kennedy's (a man hugely respected in this part of the world) and I came away convinced of a miscarriage of justice. It was only when I started to dig further into the details myself - in particular the hugely neglected financial evidence - that my mind was changed.
I agree with your reasoning about why Hauptmann didn't confess. I agree he had nothing to gain. The most he could have done was give up a minor accomplice. If that accomplice was Hans or someone close to his family then he would only be hurting them further. He had already spent a lot of his adult life in prison and as an admitted baby killer he would never have been released, even if a commutation of his sentence was ever actually offered or viable (it's often claimed that such an offer was on the table but there is no evidence of it that I have seen). I'm not sure I would agree it was entirely altruistic, though. Hauptmann's behaviour throughout was persevere with a lie - no matter how unlikely - until presented with irrefutable evidence. This is clear numerous times in his interrogations and also in his trial testimony. He was a liar, but a poor one, at least in terms of credibility.
Rab
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Apr 13, 2013 13:39:37 GMT -5
So it looks like what Hauptmann actually got was a great big dose of “Jersey Justice.” They knew they had their man, and they decided to do whatever it took to convict him. They weren’t FRAMING him for the crime, but in order to ensure conviction, they DID suborn perjury, and withheld and distorted evidence—which by the way, is also what you would do if you WERE framing someone! Small wonder this has led to confusion about the LKC. I’m against these methods — injustice should never be used to secure justice. Hauptmann could clearly see the glaring weaknesses and falsehoods in the prosecution’s case. So he capitalized on these in appealing to Hoffman. When you have Hauptmann going to the chair proclaiming his innocence, combined with the fact that Wilentz gave him an unfair trial, you now have a perfect storm that creates a “case that never dies” and an incredible mystery that begins to put spotlights on countless other suspects and circumstances. I originally suspected that the kidnapping might have been a revenge killing ordered by the “Establishment”—the powerful Wall Street interests who Lindbergh’s father had bitterly fought. I thought the justice system was perhaps being perverted in Flemington to protect these people. Others, of course, believe Lindbergh himself was behind the kidnapping, and controlled the justice system to protect his own guilt. My take is different now. Lindbergh, having married into the Morrow family, and invaluable to the lucrative burgeoning airline industry, was looked on by the “Establishment” as “one of our own”—though guardedly; they certainly didn’t want him running for President and suddenly reviving his father’s campaign against the Federal Reserve, which was their top gravy train. (For a good reference on the Fed, I recommend G. Edward Griffin's The Creature from Jekyll Island www.amazon.com/The-Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal/dp/091298645X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1365877441&sr=8-1&keywords=creature+from+jekyll+island ) If the Establishment wanted anything from this trial, I think it was to send a message: “Mess with us, mess with one of our own, and we’ll ruthlessly make you pay--no matter what it takes.” Had this happened a few years later, when Lindbergh spearheaded America First, I believe they would have looked at this case with much less zeal.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 13, 2013 15:49:41 GMT -5
It was offered. I can find the source if anyone would like me to. He was also offered a good sum of money as well.
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Apr 13, 2013 17:42:56 GMT -5
Here's the problem I have with the idea of Hauptmann shooting the child:
Where's the blood?
Jd
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Apr 13, 2013 23:39:05 GMT -5
Hi, JD. Good question.
Regarding where the blood went—
Environmentally, of course, I don’t believe the shot was fired in the nursery, so blood would not be seen there. I believe it was fired away from Highfields to avoid being heard.
Regarding blood INSIDE the skull, the Philadelphia Public Ledger stated that Mitchell (the autopsy doctor) said ”that traces of old blood in the brain itself tended to bear out the theory that the baby was shot through the head.”
Regarding blood that would have probably dripped on the outside of the skull (please pardon all this imagery), it could have been wiped off his skin, and of course, Lindbergh remarked that the sleeping suit had been laundered. Perhaps this explains why.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Apr 14, 2013 5:37:13 GMT -5
Eureka, eureka.
JD, your question has just solved one of the mini-mysteries of the LKC.
When Lindbergh received the sleeping suit, he remarked with some puzzlement on the fact that the suit had been laundered.
Question: Why was the sleeping suit laundered?
Answer: Because it had blood on it.
They’re not going to launder it just because it had some dirt on it, right?
But the perp(s) knew that if Lindbergh saw blood on the suit, he would NOT pay the ransom. Or else Lindy would demand further proof that the child was still alive—which they could not possibly produce.
JD, I believe I can now better answer your question—where did the blood go? Much of it was washed away.
I believe that the washing of the sleeping suit further affirms the thesis of murder by the Lilliput.
I believe this may even further confirm that Hauptmann acted alone. I don’t see a “gang” washing the blood away.
Shades of Raymond Burr in Hitchcock’s Rear Window.
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Apr 14, 2013 13:51:00 GMT -5
I was thinking more along the lines of Shakespeare's Macbeth, myself: "Out, out damned spot! Out I say!"
Your response brings up yet more questions. I'm playing Devil's Advocate a little bit here, so bear with me.
First of all...have you ever tried getting blood out of clothing? It's not that easy. And I'd bet there's a lot more blood on the clothing of a child who's been shot in the head than the mere cuts I suffer from chopping kale.
(The photos of JFK's clothing shows how much blood can cover fabric. Sorry for the gruesome imagery, everyone.)
So, Hauptmann would have had to wash the clothing VERY thoroughly and carefully to get it all out. I have this nagging doubt in my gut that he could have gotten it all out.
Then again, on the other hand, maybe Lindbergh detected blood on the "laundered" sleeping suit and realized his child was dead?
Who else saw the suit in addition to Lindbergh? I don't recall off-hand.
I'm not saying all of the blood could not have been washed out. But keep in mind the above quote, spoken by Lady Macbeth. It makes me wonder if Hauptmann had uttered similar words.
There are other questions: If Hauptmann didn't shoot the child at Highfields, then where did he shoot him, and when? I understand the notion of him shooting the child away from Highfields so as not to have the pistol heard. But what guarantee did Hauptmann have that nobody else would hear it--or see him?
More questions: Didn't Hauptmann have to have the child in his car? If so, then where's the blood in the car? Wouldn't Hauptmann have blood on his own person? I just watched the HBO movie Phil Spector with Al Pacino, and the defense's blood spatter evidence probably would be applicable in this case, as well. Wouldn't Hauptmann have had blood on him, and in the car? How would he get the blood out of the car, and how could he be sure he got it all?
Maybe Hauptmann didn't shoot the child immediately? So, there wouldn't be any blood in the car. Maybe he changed clothing PRIOR to shooting him so he could just discard or burn his clothing, rather than wash it?
But that brings up yet another question? If he didn't shoot the child immediately, then how long did he keep the child, and where was he? Most people believe Charles, Jr.'s corpse was not placed in the woods the night of the kidnapping--it was placed there later.
If Hauptmann did shoot the child, then it seems he HAD to have put the baby in the woods that night. Otherwise, why on earth would he come back to the area at some other point in time with a dead baby in his car.
Didn't some investigators say the boy was dead for a while when he was initially examined in the woods? Where would Hauptmann keep a corpse?
So once again...where did Hauptmann shoot the child, and when? It had to be prior to delivering the sleeping suit, so where and when?
If we (not I...we) solved a LKC mini-mystery, then we've unearthed more mysteries to replace it.
Jd
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Apr 14, 2013 17:22:39 GMT -5
JD, what are you trying to do—make me do some thinking or something?
You are right—blood is hard to remove. I’m an RN, and have had my white uniform spattered with blood. Hydrogen peroxide does wonders to get it out.
But regarding this suit. I have to ask: Why would they clean it except to remove something incriminating?
However, there seem to be some doubts about whether or not this was truly the child’s suit, or just a duplicate. As I recall, the Lindberghs had deliberately given the public a slightly inaccurate description of the suit, so that they would not be deceived on this issue.
Schwarzkopf said on May 18, 1932: “This suit had one button off and it had apparently been washed and was not accepted as conclusive; it was accepted as being the same kind of suit but as for its being the suit, there was nothing to positively identify it.” (Gardner, 71).
JD, I suspect that the perp(s) had the suit, and purchased a duplicate, but dared not submit the original due to bloodstains, and that Lindbergh incorrectly inferred that it had been laundered.
JD, I am open to all kinds of answers on this, but assuming a scenario in which BRH was sole perp, I would guess he took him to a deserted stretch of road, one he knew in advance was far from houses. If he could case Highfields in advance, he could have preplanned for such an area.
Again, assuming the scenario is correct, I’m gathering he would have taken the child out of the car and shot him in the woods, to avoid leaving blood in the car. The small caliber of the gun would have minimized any splattering (the skull was not shattered) and if he did get blood on his own garment, he could, as you say, have gotten rid of the clothing (not to make this thread morbid, but people speculated that Lizzie Borden got rid of hers).
JD, I cannot imagine Hauptmann driving back to Hopewell with the body in his car after the kidnapping. And it is hard to imagine him returning to Hopewell to dig up the body THERE and rebury it. Why would he take chances like these after safely collecting the ransom? Yet many on this board, me included, think the body was re-buried. I don’t know the answer. Elsewhere I’ve raised the possibility that Charles Schippell found the body buried on his property, feared he would be accused of the kidnapping, and dragged the body at night to where it was found. I believe that Michael stated elsewhere that Schippell himself told authorities that he thought the body was re-buried.
JD, if Hauptmann was the sole perp, I am almost positive that he shot the child that night and buried it in the Hopewell area. Because as sole perp, he would have no way to care for Charlie, and he couldn’t risk being stopped by the cops on the way home to the Bronx with Charlie in the car—dead or alive.
However, if BRH was NOT the sole perp, but part of a group, this could change everything; it strongly raises the probability that the child was truly abducted, the intent being to care for it in some hideway. Rab has suggested that the child might have fallen very ill later and was shot in a mercy killing. (It’s not like they could take Charlie to the doctor). I am open to that and other scenarios. There is another scenario I am mulling over that has Charlie being shot – a “double cross” scenario-- but I’ve said enough here.
|
|
|
Post by rose21 on Apr 14, 2013 21:44:41 GMT -5
Thanks, Rab. Mitchell’s comments reinforce the theory. It would seem logical that if the money was hidden because it was tied to the kidnapping, that the gun was hidden for the same reason. This does not seem logical to me. Obviously he needs to hid the hot money, but the gun is another matter. They have a kid, so Anna does not want that gun kept in the house. He keeps it in the garage, but given the ease with which someone might break into the garage, he hides the gun. An outstanding question is why he has this gun, but I think it was not at all uncommon.
|
|