|
Post by Michael on May 4, 2013 13:50:52 GMT -5
What did he experience and what did he know?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 4, 2013 17:17:24 GMT -5
However Hoffmann discovered it, personally, I think I have an idea what this "truth that will shock the world" is, but I have the feeling that you know exactly what he's talking about.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 31, 2014 14:48:48 GMT -5
Here's the "official" Hoffman position on the matter prior to the execution he was hoping to delay:
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 31, 2014 15:03:02 GMT -5
"Official"--in quotes--meaning that this was not really how he felt?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 31, 2014 18:07:37 GMT -5
"Official"--in quotes--meaning that this was not really how he felt? I'd say it's how he felt. It's toned down and simplified but true.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 31, 2014 20:32:03 GMT -5
Okay, so I'm a little confused then. Did he believe Hauptmann was guilty of something (as stated in the Lutz letter), but that there was a larger "earth shaking" truth to the case, as he describes in the previous letter you posted here (to Evelyn Walsh McLean)?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2014 20:57:11 GMT -5
So Gov. Hoffman's position was uncommitted as far as Hauptmann's guilt or innocence is concerned? Was it his belief that the whole truth about the kidnapping and death of Charlie had not been uncovered? Is that why he was doing his own investigation into the case?
From what I have read, I had the impression that Gov. Hoffman felt that Hauptmann really knew more but was not going to admit anything. So if he did indeed feel that way, couldn't that mean that Gov. Hoffman believed Hauptmann did have a role in the crime but was not necessarily the kidnapper/murderer of Charlie?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 1, 2014 5:36:20 GMT -5
Okay, so I'm a little confused then. Did he believe Hauptmann was guilty of something (as stated in the Lutz letter), but that there was a larger "earth shaking" truth to the case, as he describes in the previous letter you posted here (to Evelyn Walsh McLean)? Both are true. It was his conversation with Hauptmann that caused him to act on the doubts he had. But if you look at the dates on those letters you can see Hoffman believes he's learned something through his investigations that would cause him to express an "earth shaking" angle. So Gov. Hoffman's position was uncommitted as far as Hauptmann's guilt or innocence is concerned? Was it his belief that the whole truth about the kidnapping and death of Charlie had not been uncovered? Is that why he was doing his own investigation into the case? From what I have read, I had the impression that Gov. Hoffman felt that Hauptmann really knew more but was not going to admit anything. So if he did indeed feel that way, couldn't that mean that Gov. Hoffman believed Hauptmann did have a role in the crime but was not necessarily the kidnapper/murderer of Charlie? I'd say that I agree with you. For anyone who thinks it was his position that Hauptmann was 100% honest, or innocent, then they haven't looked into Braun's investigations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2014 11:15:42 GMT -5
So there is like over two and a half years between those letters. He must have uncovered something during his investigation or someone privately shared something of a shocking nature with him about the Lindbergh kidnapping. It is something that he, himself (Hoffman) was not going to reveal but hoped it would eventually become known. So I have to ask you Michael; did Hoffman leave any indications in his files about what that explosive angle might be? You are talking about Julius Braun here, right? He is the investigator who stayed by Anna Hauptmann and Mannfred's side for quite a while after Hauptmann's execution. What can you share about Braun's investigation work for Gov. Hoffman?
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Sept 1, 2014 11:33:11 GMT -5
Yes, it appears Hoffman was speaking about something he already knew, not something he thought might be the case. And do you have the Liberty Magazine article that Joan Walsh McLean contributed?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 1, 2014 13:51:28 GMT -5
I'd suppose that that the info that Hoffman knew would shock the world was what Hoffman's then-lawyer Harry Green told author Noel Behn decades later: there was no real Lindbergh baby kidnapping at all. Rather, according to what Behn claims that Green told him in person, the baby had been dead for a couple of days, probably killed by a psychotic Elisabeth Morrow, his aunt. Then, according to this theory, the purported kidnapping was an elaborate hoax to cover-up the powerful family's culpability in the baby's death!
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Sept 1, 2014 18:19:43 GMT -5
I suspect Hoffman had nothing, because he would have used it because of the bad raps he was getting in the papers and otherwise, and liz morrow wasn't psychotic theres no evidence at all that she did anything
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 1, 2014 19:18:55 GMT -5
It is something that he, himself (Hoffman) was not going to reveal but hoped it would eventually become known. So I have to ask you Michael; did Hoffman leave any indications in his files about what that explosive angle might be? Not in my opinion. At least not what's there now. There are indications that he (at one time) believed someone from the Morrow family was involved. It seemed to me his suspect was Morrow Jr., but there is so much material and to complicate matters - I am certain all of it wasn't recovered. Anyway, whatever his theory, he clearly believed Lindbergh was aware of what the true story was. So my guess is his "explosive" information would have involved Lindbergh's knowledge along those lines. You are talking about Julius Braun here, right? He is the investigator who stayed by Anna Hauptmann and Mannfred's side for quite a while after Hauptmann's execution. What can you share about Braun's investigation work for Gov. Hoffman? Braun's focus was on Hauptmann's friends, family, and acquaintances which was done with the full knowledge and support of Hoffman. Yes, it appears Hoffman was speaking about something he already knew, not something he thought might be the case. And do you have the Liberty Magazine article that Joan Walsh McLean contributed? I agree. Are you asking me if I have them? Anyway I do have all (9) parts. I'd suppose that that the info that Hoffman knew would shock the world was what Hoffman's then-lawyer Harry Green told author Noel Behn decades later: there was no real Lindbergh baby kidnapping at all. Rather, according to what Behn claims that Green told him in person, the baby had been dead for a couple of days, probably killed by a psychotic Elisabeth Morrow, his aunt. Then, according to this theory, the purported kidnapping was an elaborate hoax to cover-up the powerful family's culpability in the baby's death! Unless Behn made it up then I would say it should be considered. I suspect Hoffman had nothing, because he would have used it because of the bad raps he was getting in the papers and otherwise, and liz morrow wasn't psychotic theres no evidence at all that she did anything Harry Green would certainly be someone who would have this knowledge and information. So if he had this affidavit then I'd say it's evidence to be considered. Personally, I believe I can prove Elisabeth didn't do what Behn has alleged, however, there could be something else to it that we don't know about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2014 8:49:11 GMT -5
I agree. From what I have read, I also felt that Hoffman was leaning towards Dwight Jr. having involvement with what happened to Charlie. Dwight Junior's mental issues were really brought to life for me when I read William Norris' book "A Talent To Deceive". Although Elizabeth had health issues, I think a large part of them revolved around her heart condition. No doubt this had an impact on her emotional state at times but I don't think she would have killed Charlie. Would she help to cover up for Dwight Jr. if he did something involving Charlie? I think she would. She was close to him and cared for him during the first psychotic episode I became aware of which is found in Anne's diary, Bring Me a Unicorn in her early 1928 writings. The Morrows looked out for each other and worked together to protect the family's privacy. Scandal was something to be avoided.
Do you know how Dwight Jr. and Charles Lindbergh actually felt about each other? Did they have any type of cordial relationship or were they on not so good terms with each other? Would Lindbergh have felt he could turn to Dwight Jr. for assistance if he were to ever need help with a problem?
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Sept 2, 2014 9:11:12 GMT -5
Hoffman writes to Evelyn Walsh McLean, " I know that you are in agreement with that thought". Is there anything in the articles that he is referring to, or do you think that they had private conversations about this?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 2, 2014 13:26:22 GMT -5
Yes, Dwight Jr. had psychiatric problems, possibly what we would today diagnose as schizophrenia. But we now know that genetics plays a big role in susceptibility to psychoses, so a sibling of a schizophrenic or manic-depressive, say, has a much greater chance than an average person of being schizophrenic or manic-depressive.
Specifically, Elisabeth Morrow, according to what former Hoffman lawyer Harold Green told author Noel Behn decades later, engaged some weird behavior shortly before the purported kidnapping, some of it specifically directed against little Charlie. This behavior was reported to the governor's office by an anonymous Morrow servant, but only after Elasabeth had died at a young age in December 1934. As discussed in Behn's book, Elisabeth seemed to be pathologically jealous of her younger sister Anne, because Elisabeth thought at one point that she was going to be Lindbergh's bride, which was a theme frequently mentioned in the media after the Morrows had first met Lindbergh in Mexico City in December 1927. (See Noel Behn, "Lindbergh: The Crime," paperback edition, Chapter 28.)
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 2, 2014 13:48:18 GMT -5
Evelyn Walsh McLean was a very wealthy socialite, the widow of the former publisher of the Washington Post, with many political connections in the higher echelons of the Republican Party. She was interested in the LKC from the outset, and was swindled out of something like $ 100,000 by one Gaston Means, who told her he would use the money to arrange an exchange for the kidnapped baby.
IIRC, Mrs. McLean did meet with Gov. Hoffman at her mansion in Washington about the case after Hauptmann's conviction and death sentence, and even funded part of the governor's investigation of the case with the goal of saving Hauptmann's life.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Sept 2, 2014 14:08:11 GMT -5
I have the book "queen of diamonds the bio of evalyn walsh mclean. she bought the hope diamond in 1911 for 180,000 dollars when she was 24 years old. ahe spent 200,000 dollars on a honeymoon in paris, and ended up with insufficient funds at a paris hotel to pay the bill. she wandered the gloomy rooms of her home imagining crawling reptiles while overcoming her morphine addiction.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Sept 2, 2014 14:18:11 GMT -5
Interesting, I knew she was swindled by Gaston Means but was not aware that she was trying to help Hoffman. Now I want to read Queen of Diamonds. Too much money!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2014 14:35:24 GMT -5
Yes, Dwight Jr. had psychiatric problems, possibly what we would today diagnose as schizophrenia. But we now know that genetics plays a big role in susceptibility to psychoses, so a sibling of a schizophrenic or manic-depressive, say, has a much greater chance than an average person of being schizophrenic or manic-depressive.
Specifically, Elisabeth Morrow, according to what former Hoffman lawyer Harold Green told author Noel Behn decades later, engaged some weird behavior shortly before the purported kidnapping, some of it specifically directed against little Charlie. This behavior was reported to the governor's office by an anonymous Morrow servant, but only after Elasabeth had died at a young age in December 1934. As discussed in Behn's book, Elisabeth seemed to be pathologically jealous of her younger sister Anne, because Elisabeth thought at one point that she was going to be Lindbergh's bride, which was a theme frequently mentioned in the media after the Morrows had first met Lindbergh in Mexico City in December 1927. (See Noel Behn, "Lindbergh: The Crime," paperback edition, Chapter 28.) I am aware of the supposed Charles Ellerson statement to the Gov. about Elisabeth Morrow being the killer of Charlie. I don't think Ellerson's allegations were ever substantiated. I also do not believe that Behn's claim that Elizabeth was "pathologically jealous" of Anne has any proven foundation. He claims because there were less letters to Elizabeth for a period of time this means there was serious trouble in their relationship. I disagree. Less letters were written by Anne to her mother at this time also. Is there something wrong with that relationship too? I think you need to look at where people were during these time periods. There are times that Anne and Elisabeth were together and they didn't need to write letters. Elisabeth had traveled with her parents to England for a bit so there was less correspondence between Anne, Elisabeth and Anne and her mother. Plus while Anne was awaiting the birth of Charlie in 1930, Anne was living at Next Day Hill from mid April until Charlie's birth. Elisabeth was there too. No need to write letters. Constance was at school so letters were written. I don't think Behn took any of this into consideration. I think it is necessary to also take into consideration that the diary books were edited. Not all the letters made it in to be published. Content and privacy issues regarding family matters influenced what was given to be published. Elisabeth and Anne had their moments of jealousy like sisters do. I see no indication that it reached a pathological level.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2014 14:42:06 GMT -5
What was this specific weird behavior and what proof is there to back up this behavior actually occured?
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Sept 2, 2014 14:48:22 GMT -5
queen of diamonds is a lot of money? your sure?
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Sept 2, 2014 15:36:40 GMT -5
No, no, no, heirs or heiresses with too much money often lead sad lives, you mentioned her morphine addiction.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Sept 2, 2014 19:26:15 GMT -5
oh I read it wrong, sorry. she did have a sad end of life the Washington post which I think her husband owned went up for auction. her son who was just a kid got killed by a automobile. this book is very good
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 3, 2014 11:52:45 GMT -5
Here are some things Harry Green, former lawyer to Gov. Hoffman, told author Noel Behn about Elisabeth Morrow's behavior many decades later. They were likely first reported to the governor's office by a Morrow family servant or servants c. 1935-36, as the Governor was re-investigating the LKC while the convicted Hauptmann was in prison awaiting the death penalty. Recall that Elisabeth was already deceased by then.
(1) Ann Morrow Lindbergh's dog mysteriously died, and Elisabeth was suspected of killing it.
(2) Once little Charlie was placed in a trash closet by Elisabeth, as if she was literally treating him as garbage. Apparently he was discovered there before he was discarded.
(3) Little Charlie was brought to the Montessori-style school that Elisabeth had started, where his mother complained that he was subject to physical abuse by older children. Apparently, Elisabeth either did nothing to stop the older children from beating up on Charlie or even encouraged them.
(4) Morrow servants eventually were warned not to let Elisabeth stay alone with Charlie.
This is all from Behn's "Lindbergh: The Crime," p. 405, paperback edition.
I don't think there would be any direct documentation, though, of any of this information, because the Morrow servant or servants reporting the info to the governor's office would have requested confidentiality to preserve their employment status with the Morrows. But Harry Green, though elderly when he met with Behn, was not senile, and he probably remembered what the servant(s) told him well, because it was a very important matter at the time.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Sept 3, 2014 15:22:32 GMT -5
I really cant go by what harry green said decades later. you cant prove it one way or another and some of the claims are stupid
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2014 20:02:49 GMT -5
Here are some things Harry Green, former lawyer to Gov. Hoffman, told author Noel Behn about Elisabeth Morrow's behavior many decades later. They were likely first reported to the governor's office by a Morrow family servant or servants c. 1935-36, as the Governor was re-investigating the LKC while the convicted Hauptmann was in prison awaiting the death penalty. Recall that Elisabeth was already deceased by then.
(1) Ann Morrow Lindbergh's dog mysteriously died, and Elisabeth was suspected of killing it.
(2) Once little Charlie was placed in a trash closet by Elisabeth, as if she was literally treating him as garbage. Apparently he was discovered there before he was discarded.
(3) Little Charlie was brought to the Montessori-style school that Elisabeth had started, where his mother complained that he was subject to physical abuse by older children. Apparently, Elisabeth either did nothing to stop the older children from beating up on Charlie or even encouraged them.
(4) Morrow servants eventually were warned not to let Elisabeth stay alone with Charlie.
This is all from Behn's "Lindbergh: The Crime," p. 405, paperback edition.
I don't think there would be any direct documentation, though, of any of this information, because the Morrow servant or servants reporting the info to the governor's office would have requested confidentiality to preserve their employment status with the Morrows. But Harry Green, though elderly when he met with Behn, was not senile, and he probably remembered what the servant(s) told him well, because it was a very important matter at the time.
Maybe I can shed some light on a few of these items you mention. 1)About Anne Lindbergh's dog: Anne speaks about this in her diary (Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead) in a letter dated March 5, 1931, written from Englewood to her mother-in-law, "P.S. Little Daffin (the white dog - the most courageous, gayest one - Con's and mine) was killed by sightseers right here in the front court. They drove in (very fast), swirled around the court, left a howling crippled dog, and rushed off - never stopped at all. It makes me boil with anger." Elisabeth did not kill Daffin. 2)About Charlie in the trash closet: I have heard this incident being attributed to Charles Lindbergh as well. There is nothing to support this event happening that I know of. Perhaps Michael might be the person to ask about this. 3)Charlie at Elisabeth Morrow's Little School - Anne talks about Charlie going to school in her diary (Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead) in a letter dated November 16, 1931. She writes, "Oh Con, you should see Charlie going to school. The first day he went the children all made a great fuss of him, crowding around, and the littlest boy who hitherto had had a fuss made of him punched him (Charlie) in the back. Charlie sat down and cried. He was utterly bewildered; that anyone should hurt him purposely - that hadn't entered his life before. The teacher and children tried to keep Donald from Charlie, but he ran around and as soon as Charlie stopped crying he would hit him again, take his shovel away from him, and pull his hair. I saw him do it five times. They're all fascinated by his curls. One little girl tried to scrape them off like effervescent golden froth, with a trowel. Consequently Charlie cried most of the first three days. When I suggested he might be too young (he's a month and a half younger than Elisabeth takes them, and six months younger than any child there) the whole staff of the Little School got on its mettle, working on schemes to give Charlie individual attention. Four teachers stood out in the yard watching him and a conference was called with Dr. David Mitchell." It is clear that Elisabeth's staff did become proactive in caring for Charlie. There was no encouragement by the staff or Elisabeth to have or let Charlie be mistreated. 4)About Elisabeth never being allowed to be left alone with Charlie: I cannot find any basis for this in any of the books I have. Unless Michael has some documentation for this, I think it is just a nasty rumor or lie. No doubt Harry Green may have been aware of Gov. Hoffman having these claims made by servants investigated but they probably were not able to confirm or document any of these allegations. Why Behn chose to use these and other unsupported claims, I just don't understand. In Behn's book, Green makes it very clear to Behn that there is no proof of the things he is sharing. Green doesn't even have the affidavits these claims were taken from to show to Behn. All Green has is what he remembers. And that does not work for me at all.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Sept 3, 2014 21:42:32 GMT -5
I'm not sure I buy it either, but remember the Morrows are a very secretive family.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Sept 3, 2014 22:53:00 GMT -5
I met noel behn, I had questions about his book. I was interested at that time about his new York city sources which I wanted to see but he died the next year or a year after that
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Sept 3, 2014 23:55:13 GMT -5
Relatively new to this board, but can somebody explain what the theories are for the later ransom payment if there was no kidnapping? Obviously, some believe the extortion was a separate crime (perpetrated by different individuals from the kidnapping) but the "singnature" and the fact the paper matches is what keeps me from believing this.
|
|