|
Post by lurp173 on Oct 16, 2020 19:29:00 GMT -5
Thanks Joe for the comments. I do not articulate about the LKC as well as you, Michael, Amy and others on this forum, but as I gain more knowledge on this case I can't help but to apply the concepts that I applied on a daily basis for 30 years. I am keeping an open mind on the case however I believe that the challenges and mysteries of the LKC are not about Lindbergh but rather about Hauptmann and his unknown partners in crime.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Oct 15, 2020 18:50:38 GMT -5
Michael, I appreciate your aproach of evaluating everything on the various posts here even when you do not agree with the poster's opinions. To me, that's exactly what a discussion board is all about and it allows everyone to evaluate the various interpretations of others. Your position of "never shutting the door" is a very valuable trait that from my experience makes for a good investigator. I get the impression that while in school you either were or could have been a very successful debater!
I also won't get into a philosophical debate here on presentism, but I would like to make a comment on this whole eugenics theory. (For the record I have always believed that one should NOT attempt to interpret past events, values, concepts, etc. in terms of present day beliefs). However since eugenics appears to be the central theme here in regards to Lindbergh's motive for ending his son's life, I believe that the American eugenics movement has to be closely evaluated. I am most certainly no student of that movement, but I have read articles on it due to my interest in the genetics of birddog breeding. I recently watched a documentary (I believe it was on the NOVA channel) that was titled The American Eugenics Movement. It provided an informative and extremely interesting overview on this subject and I highly recommend it. I stand to be corrected on any of the following, but it seems that this movement in this country started around the turn of the century (1900) and continued until the late 1930's/early 1940's at the start of WWII. The American eugenics movement was aimed at improving the genetic composition of the human race by selected breeding (that had been done with livestorck for centuries) and sterilization of those deemed (in the terms of the time) to be feeble minded or predisposed to criminality. It was considered to be a "pseudo-science" that gained support of highly prominent and influential people in the U.S. during the 1920's and 1930's. Most important to this discussion of a Lindbergh motive, I have seen no reliable documentation that the American eugenics movement during the 1930's ever advanced the idea of eliminating living individuals who had physical/mental deficiences. As bad as it seems to us today, it advocated a "better human population" through "superior breeding" and "selective sterilization". This American eugenics movement fell rather quickly out of favor with the disclosures that the madman Hitler and the Nazi party started eliminating living people that they thought were inferior.
Again, I stand to be corrected with documentation, but it appears that the American eugenics movement of 1932 which Lindbergh favored did not in any way advocate for the elimination of living persons. It was about breeding and forced sterilization. If Lindbergh took his eugenics beliefs to the level of arranging to have his son snatched from his house, subsequently killed, and then have the child's body tossed onto the side of a country road for animals to devour, then by most everyone's standards, either in 1932 or today, he would have been absolutely insane. And again, I personally see no instances of this kind of insantity during Lindbergh's 74 years of life.
Unless I see other documentation on the beliefs of the American eugenics movement of 1932, I would suggest that this is a very weak hatrack to hang any "Lindbergh motive" hat on.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Oct 14, 2020 20:23:07 GMT -5
Thanks Michael for the information on Wahgoosh and the house shutters. I most definitely defer to you on any documentation and recall on the position of the first story window shutters that night. I know that all the photos I have of the house that next morning show the Troopers by the windows with opened shutters. I don't recall any source document that i have seen on this. I believe my thinking about the position of the house shutters is based on previous forum discusions where most people seemed to be saying that with closed shutters at night no prior surveillances would have been successful in viewing what was going on in the house. Also I guess i had an assumption that on such a stormy night the house shutters would be closed. With the first story window shutters opened it would certainly mean any perpetrators would have to be MUCH more careful on their approach. I think it might also mean that they had some inside lights coming through the windows that gave them a better visual without flashlights. I'll have to do a little more thinking on this.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Oct 14, 2020 20:03:50 GMT -5
Joe, I enjoyed reading your last post regarding your thoughts on Lindberg and on the crime scene. Your thoughts on the LKC always provide me with some great insights on this case. As I have said before, you and Michael provide excellent contrasts in how the evidence and events in this case can be approached and interpreted. I know that I certainly benefit from your posts. I won't comment on everything in your recent post, as I totally follow what you are saying about the crime scene and Lindbergh's alleged involvement in the crime.
I've always agreed with your observations on the incongrous situation between Lindbergh's know obsession with privacy (and his apparent almost hatred of the press) and the idea that he would stage a crime that would most certainly destroy his privacy and bring the world's press to his doorstep. This is a very logical observation on your part that begs to be addressed if one is to accept that Lindbergh instigated this crime to eliminate his son from his life. This would be an example of Lindbergh doing something totally out of character with his known traits. A couple of recent posts seemed to disagree with my opinion that Lindbergh (if involved in this crime) would have done what virtually everyone else in that position has done--establish a rock sold alibi for the time of the crime. It was opined that establishing an alibi and staying away from the house that evening is something Lindbergh wouldn't do because it would be out of character due to his ego/control issues/atypical personality, etc. What is more out of character for him than losing his beloved privacy and bring in the press. To me, this is an example of what Michael has so correctly stated on numerous occasions that when viewing this case "you can't have it both ways". There must be some consistency here. Lindbergh either acts out of character or he doesn't.
For me, regardless of all the opinions we all hold concerning a staged crime scene (and whether or not Lindbergh was involved in this crime), it all really circles back to one thing--MOTIVE on the part of Lindbergh. Most people know that when evaluating the culpability of any crime suspect, three things have to be examined extremely thoroughly if there's any hope of sustaining a successful prosecution against that suspect--Means, motive and opportunity. Virtually every parent(s) has the means and opportunity to remove a child from their life. Fortunately very, very few have any motive to do so. If a very strong and convincing motive can't be tied to Lindbergh, then there is no case for this theory that he staged a fake kidnapping. It becomes a real kidnapping crime regardless of what the scene may look like. I'm reminded here of the phrase made popular by Carl Sagan "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The only motive I have heard is that due to Lindberg's personality, interest in eugenics, etc., etc., he determined that his 20 month old son's physical/mental health was so compromized that the child would not have a normal life. Most parents who have been charged in the death of their child have subsequently been defended on the basis of insanity. I think that most people would believe that for Lindbergh or anyone else to do this to their chid would have to be insane. We can all agree that Charles Lindberg definitely had an atypical personality, but to jump to the word of insane is a major, major leap. The Lindbergh's certainly had the financial resources to place the child in an institution, ala what the Joseph Kennedy family did with a daughter. We have the advantage today of looking back on the 40 plus years that Lindbergh lived after 1932, and his track record is one of having children and grandchildren, not eliminating them. His life certainly included controversies, but I have never seen instances of insanity and I don't know of any historians who say Lindbergh was insane during his 70 plus years.
Thus far, I do not see that "extraordinary evidence" to support a strong motive for Lindbergh to act in an insane manner and have his son eliminated, and as you say Joe, essentially commit (felony) murder. So for me at this time I see a real kidnapping crime.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Oct 13, 2020 9:02:03 GMT -5
Michael, I just wanted to address a couple of things in your post of Oct. 11th. First I want to say that in no way I'm I attempting to change anyone's mind in regards to what they believe on the LKC. I'm just attempting to explain my thoughts on this case based on my experiences. I know that everyone who posts on the forum have their own interpretations of the evidence and events, and that most believe that Lindbergh was culpable in the taking and death of his son. Although I currently disagree with that theory, I can respect it. Most on here have more knowledge of this case than i do. As to the dogs. The photo and Chicago Bureau dispatch that I am attempting to attach certainly relates that at least one other person other than Lindbergh (who had apparently visited/stayed at Highfields) believed that Wahgoosh was worthless as a watchdog. If the below dispatch is unreadable let me know and i will write it out. I can't see why Ollie Whately's brother would have any reason to say this if he didn't believe it was true. Is it possible that Wahgoosh was one of those nervous little dogs that was an incessant barker that everyone eventually just tunes out. This would certainly make it useless as a watchdog as Lindbergh and Reginald were trying to point out. Prior surveillances of the house by the kidnappers may have allowed them to observe two dogs at the house, but more importantly they would have seen that there was no dog kept outside at night. That of course would have been a game changer. I see no way that surveillances would have allowed the kidnappers to determine that one or both of the dogs actually slept in the nursery with the child. I think this could only have been known by inside information. If they had no inside information of this, then they would have approached the house that night knowing there was no outside dog to contend with, and no real expectation that a dog would be in the nursery. If an unplanned for dog such as Skean had been in the nursery that night and started barking as the ladder climber reached the area of the window, that simply means that they would have immediately fled the scene and (as I believe Anne stated) no kidnapping would have occurred that night. The kidnappers would now know that a dog slept with the child and any further attempts to snatch the child at Highfields would not be possible. They would have come up with a different plan or abandoned it altogether and moved on to an easier target. I'm not one to believe that because Skean wasn't there, and the snatch of the child was able to occur, then the person who was responsible for Skean's absence (Lindbergh) was therefore involved in the crime. This could very well be an example of "good luck" for the kidnappers. If this "good luck" had not occurred than it simply means that the kidnapping attempt would have been foiled that night (without reading anything further into it). No criminal can foresee all the varibles that can occur when perpetrating a crime. Anyone who attempts to enter an occuppied residence during the nighttime would know that it is an extremely dangerous act. It can turn deadly in a heartbeat. One either has the mindset to do such a thing or they don't (and fortunately 99% of the population don't). The kidnapper that night of March 1st who made entry into that dark nursery would have known he was facing alot of unknows--that's just part of the deal. An unexpected barking dog would be a whole lot better than a homeowner sitting there with a shotgun. (I do understand that if one thinks that there is enough evidence to believe that Lindbergh was involved in this crime, than of course his leaving Skean at Next Day Hill was an intentional act). As to the flashlights . I always thought that the shutters on all four of the first story windows (diningroom/livingroom/library) on that side of the house were closed that night. If the shutters were closed allowing no interior lights to shine through the windows and give the kidnappers some light, than the reverse is also true--no one inside of these rooms could see the light of a 1932 low voltage flashlight/handlantern being used low to the ground by the kidnappers. Prior surveillances would have determined that there was no need to worry about any outside security guard making routine rounds that could have observed flashlights. We'll have to agree to disagree on the issue of a "staged" crime scene. We all have our own opinions and experiences on this, and at this point I know what my experiences of crime scenes (and my gut) is telling me. Attachment DeletedAttachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Oct 11, 2020 13:31:07 GMT -5
Michael, in response to your recent post where you posed some questions for me, I will make an attempt to explain my thinking on what you presented. I'll attempt to keep this short, but thus far my track record for short posts is not good!
I am a strong believer in coincidences and random luck because I saw so much of it through the years in my career. We all know that both coincidences and luck are a part of life, but I saw both occur in investigations so many times that they could never be outright dismissed. I certainly agree with you that too many incidents of "luck" need to be examined with a critical eye, however I believe that one can very easily in retrospect make too many asumptions that an event or act is based solely on luck or coincidence.
The Lindbergh house would have been a very easy place for perpetrators to surveil (especially at night) prior to executing any kidnapping. I see no reason why a good surveillance could not have revealed the nursery location and a warped shutter on one of the window which never seemed fully closed. I've picked up much more minor details on surveillances. It could have been their good luck (or prior inside information/help) that the window itself was not locked that night. Knowing the warped shutter would not be locked they could have easily approached the scene with a simple glass cutter to relatively quietly cut a small hole to reach in and unlock the window. These old style windows were most probably single pane with the simple latch type lock. Just suggesting all of this to say the perpetrators were not in fact relying on blind coincidental good luck to gain entry. The good luck here just meant they did not have to bother with a glass cutter.
I don't believe it is outragious to believe that Anne or Betty moved the toy that night in their fight with the warped shutter, and in their frustrations failed to put it back on the suitcase. Nor do I believe it is outragious to believe that the perpetrator who entered the nursery first reached in and moved the stein out of the way and then replaced it when he retreated (if I remember correctly that stein could have been reached from the window). Putting the stein back (and not greatly distubing the crib) could have been the perpetrator's attempt to leave the room looking as pristine as possible in hopes that anyone who quickly looked into the darkroom to check on the child would have been satisfied that all was well without actually going to the crib. This would buy them more time before the household actually knew the child was not in the crib.
To me, Lindbergh gave a reasonable explanation as to why he did not take the dog to Hopewell. Although in retrospect one could look at this as a very suspicious coincidence, I for one can accept the explanation. All of us who have dogs know that they can sometimes frustrate us when they are not cooperating! Lindbergh was ready to leave for Hopewell and the dog was not cooperating with him so he simply left without the dog, telling the Next Day Hill staff to take care of the situation. This absolutely turned out to be "great luck" for the kidnappers, but only becomes suspicious looking good luck if one believes Lindbergh was involved in this crime. Lindbergh gave a candid reason for leaving the dog at Englewood.
For me, many of these instances of coincidences and luck can have factual basis that in reality have nothing to do with either luck or coincidence. One does have to be extremely careful what they are looking for. I think it is human nature for most of us to "find what we are looking for". I always found that the best Agents I worked with never seemed to have that trait.
If this was a staged crime scene, i would expect to see more obvious things such as: obvious footprints and evidence of the approach to the house and around the walkway and ladder placement; much more disturbance to the nursery scene; the ladder being left in place against the house wall (I believe the perpetrators were attempting to take the ladder even when they moved to the back of the house on their panicked retreat but quickly realized they could not make the long retreat to their vehicle with that ladder). Obviously, the purpose of a staged crime scene is to create a scene that screams out to the police, press and general public that this was a real crime. This means littering the scene with everything but the proverbial "kitchen sink". One does not make ANY attempts at a clean scene. One creates as many fingerprints, footprints, disturbances etc. as possible and makes no attempts to conceal or hide.
If this was a staged crime/scene, then by default Lindbergh was involved by hiring others to stage a fake kidnapping to eliminate his son from his life. In that case I would expect Lindbergh to do what virtually every "invoved victim" does---create a great alibi for the time of the alleged crime. Lindbergh had the perfect alibi that night by simply attending the event in NYC, but he didn't. He also would have made certain that he spent the day with highly respectable associates who would have vouched for his whereabouts that entire day, but he didn't. He came home and was there when this crime occurred. That's a real red flag to me. A staged crime almost always screams out with all of the above things, and thus far i am not hearing the screams.
Just my thoughts at this time Michael.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Oct 10, 2020 19:10:29 GMT -5
Joe, these are two of the photos where she is wearing those shoes, but I don't have the dates.These shoes on her are the only ones that I have seen that don't have the dress type "clunky" heels. Attachment DeletedAttachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Oct 10, 2020 17:30:52 GMT -5
Joe, I'm attempting to attach a photo of the shoes that Anne Linbergh was wearing in some of the photos I have of her. The shoes to the extreme right in the photo appear in photos of her where she is wearing pants, not a dress or skirt. If I remember correctly, it was alleged even on the night of the crime that those footprints near the house wall where made by her. I believe even Hopewell Officer Williamson referred to it on that night. One would certainly think that there is a NJSP report stating that they confirmed this by requesting Anne's shoes from that walk and comparing them directly with the footprints. That report would certainly give a description of the shoes.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Oct 9, 2020 9:43:58 GMT -5
Joe, I always enjoy reading the post exchanges between you and Michael. The 20 plus years or so that you both have devoted to the LKC is absolutely amazing. Some of the people writing books on this case would be better served if they just had a quarter of the knowledge and research you all have. The recall that you both possess concerning the documents, facts, evidence, cast of characters,etc. is second to none. I can tell that you both respect each others knowledge and dedication on this case. One can learn a great deal by reading the opposite interpretations you both have of certain evidence and events. With my limited knowledge I attempt to keep an open mind as to what actually occurred on March 1st, and the "bantering" posts between you and Michael help me to do that.
Thanks for posting the photo and link to the soil moisture article. I agree with you that the soil conditions around the Lindbergh house on March 1st are important when considering the value of the footprint evidence. Obviously crime scene evidence is crucial to any criminal investigation, and normally you only get one "crack' at it. I can see your point that the soil conditons that are very close to the house foundation can be different from the soil further away from the house (especially the side of the house that is protected from driven rain storms). I also agree that so many of the NJSP reports (though plentiful) are really lacking in the required thoroughness. Many that i have read just leave me asking "where is the rest of the information". At this point I don't know if it is possible to actually know the real soil conditions on that side of the house between the walkway and the house foundation on that night. Michael has certainly shown that there were woman's tracks in that area allegedly made by Anne that very afternoon. Additionally he has shown that virtually everyone that night attested to the very overall muddy conditions (from having grown up in Hopewell I do know that the months of March and April were always muddy affairs).
The crime scene appears to indicate no suspect footprint evidence on the approach to the house, but very muddy footprint tracks on the retreat. If this were a real kidnapping (as I currently believe), this would suggest to me that the kidnappers may have been attempting to perpetrate this crime as quickly as possible and with as little disturbance to the crime scene as possible---but something happened to change the plan. They approached the nursury window area via the driveway and then the walkway leaving no real footprints. Two suspect with the ladder and one standing back as a lookout. Having taken this careful approach to the house, I would suggest that they planned to retreat via this same route with the child and the ladder leaving very little footprint evidence, and getting back to their vehicle quickly. Something happened as the snatch was underway and they paniced (it certainly appears that at the very least one of the ladder rails split and who knows what kind of noise and commotion that created). At this point the kidnappers wanted to get away from the house quickly, and they wanted no part of retreating towards the front of the house and the driveway. They abandoned the ladder and used the much longer route of the "construction drive" to stay hidden on their retreat to the vehicle (I think they certainly could have been familiar with this rough drive). This was a wet area that night and they were forced to forget any idea of not leaving footprints.
I've always thought that reporter DeLong's confidential interview of Schwarzkopf conducted shortly after the kidnapping provided a good look at what the NJSP initially believed happened that night. Delong had apparently agreed to not immediately release any of the interview details thus allowing Schwarzkopf to be candid with his answers. Schwarzkopf clearly relates that there were three sets of footprints at the scene, two near the ladder and one standing back as if "a lookout". Investigators followed these footprints down the construction drive (one in front with two following) as they proceeded to where it came out on the real driveway at the front road entrance. They crossed the driveway and continued a short distance north past the chickenhouse (this was where the Investigators observed dog tracks along with the footprints suggesting the neighbors barking dogs had joined in). The tracks ended near the road alongside of tire tracks (at this location north of the driveway entrance, Lindbergh would never have seen the vehicle if he had come home at this time as he would have approached his driveway from the south). To me it makes little sense to believe that the kidnappers took great care on their approach to the house and then to retreat leaving that trail of muddy prints and taking a much longer route to their vehicle unless they truly paniced and feared going towards the front of the house and back down that driveway. They were committed to getting back to their vehicle so a longer muddy route was their only choice, and probably at this point they had no interest in hauling that ladder with them.
I'm just attempting (not very succinctly unfortunately) to explain some of my current thoughts on this crime scene. There are certainly many, many varibles here and I know that many posters believe that this was a staged crime scene. I have seen staged crime scenes in Arson for Profit investigations and at this time, for me, the LKC crime scene just doesn't pass the smell test for having been staged.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Oct 5, 2020 13:10:00 GMT -5
Michael, I've been following the post exchanges between you and Joe on this topic and I just wanted to post a couple of thoughts. If I were a betting man, I would say that one group of people (excluding tightrope walkers) who could successfully walk that walkway (even under low light conditions and carrying and placing a ladder), it would be carpenters. Construction carpenters become very experienced at walking on very narrow walkways including scaffoldings, foundation walls, floor joists, roof rafters, etc., and yes many times carrying a ladder. If the ladder in the two photos that I am attempting to attach are in the correct location of the ladder prints (and if the uniformed Trooper is standing on the walkway as it appears to me), then I believe that someone experienced with ladders could stand on that walkway and successfully mount the ladder. If a partner is holding the ladder from the walkway to stabilize it, then an experienced ladder climber could swing their leg around to the first rung and use his arms to complete the mount. Not a particularly easy maneuver, but I think totally doable by a strong experienced ladder climber. If the kidnappers were hellbent at this point to leave no footprints at the scene, I think this could be a way for them to do it. Is it possible that when the climber did this mount he momentarily lost some of his balance (ladder movement, etc.) and was forced to take one step back to the ground with one leg (foot) in order to regain his balance. This would result in a somewhat forceful foot impression in the mud next to the ladder. At this point the climber was committed to the climb and had to climb the ladder with one very muddy foot. Obviously these are justs some thoughts on this. Since no one confessed to this crime and subsequently cooperated, all the little details concerning the crime scene may never be totally resolved. So many times all of an Investigator's hypotheses on how a crime occurred are totally and completely crushed when listening to the defendant's detailed confession. Sometimes I would think that defendants got a great deal of satisfaction when during a confession they would hear an Agent say "oh, so that's how the hell it happened". Attachment DeletedAttachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 22, 2020 17:37:57 GMT -5
Jamie. I respect your research, and not to belabor this point, but do you really think that the one year old Charlie (in the attached photo) became the child on the tricycle in less than 8 months? Our eyes don't always reveal the truth, but they usually do a pretty good job. Hopefully the photo I am attempting to attach comes through.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 22, 2020 12:55:18 GMT -5
As usual Michael's extensive (and years) of research on this case has answered this question. As an aside, I asked my wife (who has no knowledge or interest in the LKC) to look at this photo and tell me the age of the child on the tricycle. She said probably 5, maybe a bit older. I asked her if the child could be 20 months old and she just laughed. She taught first graders for a number of years, Always trust a woman on these things.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 21, 2020 12:44:06 GMT -5
Thanks Amy for responding to my questions regarding the LKC theory that you are examining. These were just a few questions that immediately came to mind in my attempt to understand this theory that implicates Lindbergh in the disappearance of Charlie. Your answers (as always) were direct and definitely thought out. I appreciate that. Unfortunately, (as with Joe) this theory for me always creates more questions than answers, but I won't bother you with more questions at this time. I will continue to monitor the forum in an effort to get "more enlighted" on this.
When I utilized the words "Lindbergh's accomplices" in my question to you, I was thinking in terms of co-conspirators. If I am correctly understanding this theory that implicates Lindbergh in the disappearance of his son, then, of course, legally Lindbergh and ALL others who became involved in the disapperance are are accomplices and guilty of the conspiracy statutes. Legally all that is required under federal law and most State laws to sustain a conviction on conspiracy is to show an agreement among two or more individuals to commit a felony, and that at least one overt act in furthance of that agreement occurs. The "agreed upon plan" and "contracted plan" that you refer to in your post would be more than enough to suffice for the agreement element of the crime of conspiracy. Again, this theory seems to be suggesting that Lindbergh initiated the idea of removing his child from his life and then turned it over to an individual for execution. This individual then hired the "workers' to carry it out. Under the conspiracy statutes it is not necessary to prove that all the accomplices ever actually met or knew each others' identities. The agreement and overt acts are the keys. Lindbergh would have been up to his neck with all the others in being charged with conspiracy to commit a kidnapping and even felony murder.
I do have a copy of the photo you posted of the burlap bag. I was examining it when I was attempting to make some sense out of the Squibb Report. I did notice the rip/tear on the bag and wondered what the other side looked like. I was wondering if this tear was additional evidence of animal contact with the bag (not just animal contact with the child's remains). It was interesting what Forensic Chemist Lane said about this in his1977 comments. The burlap bag in the photo was certainly not in pristine condition. It had definitely seen better days!
Thanks again Amy for your post and for outlining some of your thoughts on this theory. I will continue to look at these theories that place Lindbergh as the instigator of this crime. For the moment I remain with the idea that this was a real kidnapping and the kidnapper(s) had no intentions of ever returning the child's remains once it was deceased (intentionally or accidently). It would take one crazed minded individual to possess and transport the child's remains in the Hopewell area in April when law enforcement agencies were still searching for it. Even in the theory that you are examing I don't know why anyone would be motivated to take the chance of being discovered in possession of the chid's remains and thereby face a certain date with the electic chair.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 18, 2020 12:47:06 GMT -5
Amy, in regards to the last sentence in your previous post, I would never attempt to help you to understand this case! When it comes to the LKC very few are in your league. Your knowledge of the details in this case continues to amaze me. In addition to your knowledge of it, I find that you are excellent in your deductive reasoning. I worked with many outstanding Agents in my 30 year career and you could have definitely held your own with the best. If you didn't have a previous career in criminal investigations, I believe you may have missed your calling.
You certainly appear to have a great understanding of the Squibb Laboratory Report. You picked right up on the word "overlies" in regards to the two soil types on the burlap bag. Not just two soil types on the bag but the more rich black humus type topsoil overlying the more fine, dryer and lighter reddish brown soil (both by the way are very prevalent in the entire Hopewell area). Definitely indicating a seqence in application. Thanks for providing the NJSP document describing that the reddish soil in the fruitjars was collected under the child's window at the Lindbergh residence. I believe that your last paragraph in your post is an excellent observation as to how the two soil types got on to this burlap bag. I couldn't agree more--Lindbergh's residence and Mt Rose Hill. I do believe that one has to be careful when interpreting the Laboratory Report on this bag. There could certainly be substances on the bag that have nothing to do with this crime. I was attempting in my last post to say that this bag had a "life" prior to March 1, 1932. Michael's research on the NJSP tracing of this bag was thorough and interesting, but the trace still left a time gap between whenever and whereever it was first sold at retail until March 1st. Who knows what it could have been exposed to during that time period.
In your response to Stella 7's post, you set forth some of your theory on the activities surrounding the child's remains on Mt Rose Hill. As usual, I found it very interesting. It's certainly far different from my senario, but very insightful. A couple of quick questions for you whenever you get a chance:
1. Was the child's body buried at this predetermined site on Mt Rose Hill on March 1st with the intentions that it would stay there for "eternity" and hopefully never be found, a la John Gotti?
2. Was the body subsequently removed from its buried location on Mt Rose Hill by Lindbergh's accomplices after he demanded that the body be placed somewhere for discovery to end any future bogus ransom/extortion attempts?
3. If the body was subsequently placed in the spot that Allen found it by someone involved in the Lindbergh scheme, when and how did the animal activity occur, and why would they not place the body in the bag right on the roadside or someother nearby obvious location where it would quickly be found? (sorry for the two part question!)
I am always attempting to understand this theory that Lindbergh was invoved (the instigator) of this crime, but to me the theory always results in more questions than answers. Things quickly become quite involved and extremely complicated, if not downright convoluted. That straight line of investigation that will normally bust right through to a resolution becomes quite crooked. I think the Laboratory Report, with its soil analysis and animal hair (that to me perfectly matches the color and length of hair on a bobcat's head and face), provides for a much simpler and direct scenario of events. Of course one has to believe that this was a real kidnapping to accept that explanation of events. I've observed through the years that sometimes the human brain, with its amazing ability to analize, can sometimes go into overdrive. I used to find myself sometimes having to "put on the brakes" when examining a case. As I have said in other previous posts, just my little two cents worth. Again I immensely enjoy reading all of your thoughts on this case.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 16, 2020 14:40:04 GMT -5
Thanks Amy for posting the statements of Allen and Wilson. It has been awhile since I read them. I had thought that one of them (Wilson) had stated that the body was "pretty well concealed with brush, leaves and dirt" and obviously not visable until you walked right up on it.
I certainly agree with you that the location of the empty burlap bag is a challenge. I had thought that (as you stated) neither Allen nor Wilson had mentioned seeing the bag along the roadside, I don't recall ever reading anything that suggests the NJSP ever found anyone in the Hopewell area that stated they saw the bag on or before May 12th. Of course burlap bags were very common in the 1930's in the Hopewell area, being used for many purposes (even the NJSP transported in a burlap bag the two shirts from the child's body from Mt Rose Hill to the Lindbergh residence for identification on May 12th, and they also used "five burlap bags" to transport soil evidence to the Squibb Laboratory). It is highly likely that most people in the Hopewell area in 1932 paid no attention to a burlap bag lying on the roadside. Probably a somewhat common occurence back then.
I also certainly agree with you that this empty burlap bag was not on the roadside for 70 plus days. I still believe that it is plausible that the bag was in the woods and contained the child's decomposing remains for most of that time. The child's body was certainly in the bag long enough for decompostion to produce a separated toe bone. I realize that many people believe that an animal would have quickly located the bag and consumed the child's remains. However EVERYTHING in this case has to be examined through a lens of 1932. It is factual that there was far less wildlife in the Hopewell area in 1932 than in modern times. The Great Depression was in full swing and it caused many area residents to use hunting and trapping to supplement their food resources. Hunting was not for sport; it was for food. I heard plenty of stories when I was young that described how Hopewell area residents totally disregarded hunting/trapping regulations and designated hunting seasons in pursuit of wildlife. In additon, during those days every Hopewell farmer would kill any vulture, hawk, fox, bobcat, loose running dog, etc. in order to protect their calves, chickens, turkeys, etc. All of this activity really decimated the wildllife in the entire area, It took until after WWII for game populations to rebound. The depression had ended and Federal laws were passed to protect vultures and hawks, and the State began to agressively enforce the state hunting laws and hunting seasons. I even observed an increase in the Hopewell area wildlife between 1957 and 1964. I am just attempting here to show that it may have taken much longer for an animal to find that burlap bag in the woods simply because there were far fewer preditors around compared to today. Just trying to use that 1932 lens.
As to the different soil types examined by the Squibb Laboratory, it seems to me that the report is a little confusing here (I have seen much clearer Laboratory Reports). A great deal of evidence was examined and soil types are mentioned everywhere. It does seem to list a "black humus soil" on the burlap bag that is a different soil type: "sack spotted with soil common to that of immediate location and black humus soil not found on any other object examined". Of course we do not know the history of this burlap bag after the first retail purchase other than the Laboratory reporting that it contained oat hulls. A few other quotes from the Laboratory Report do show a consistant soil type to the area:
"microscopic exam of the soil adherent to the (human) bones revealed no particles not common to the soil in which the bones were found".
"dirt scrapped from the bones is seen ny microscopic exam to be characteristic of the soil in the bags and with the leaves".
The major conflict of the soil examinations that I see in the report is located towards the end of the report which is referring to soil samples from a plasterboard box containing one dozen pint ball fruitjars: "this soil was distinctly different in appearance from any of the other soils examined." As with some of the other evidence submitted to the Squibb Laboratory, I just can not see where the NJSP obtained this soil in these one dozen fruitjars.
One last comment that I can submit pertains to how varied soil types can be in any given location. My wife and I Iive on a farm here in Virginia, and we periodically submit soil samples to the Natural Resources Conservation Service. In addition I have an older report from the USDA Farm Service Agency that has a thorough examination of all of the soil types on our farm. These examinations reveal that there are dozens of different soil types on our 300 acre farm. It is amazing to see in these reports the striations and layers of soil types. One sample from a hole the size of a fence post revealed seven different soil types. I am certainly no geologist, but it is clear to me that the process that creates soils is very complicated. Just thowing this out for some food for thought on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 14, 2020 21:59:24 GMT -5
Michael,
In your post of 9/10 I believe that you asked me how comfortable I was with my explanation pertaining to the movement of the burlap bag in light of where it was found. I meant to respond to you before this. I haven't seen the exact spot that the bag was located on May 12th. The Trooper's sketch of the site on Mt Rose Hill that I have seen does not denote any bag. I do see that in Officer Williamson's statement on May 12th he stated that he and Chief Wolf found a burlap bag along the highway, about where they stopped their vehicle, directly opposite to where the body was found. In addition, the report dated May 12th by Det. Fitzgerald and Sgt. Zapolsky stated that when they arrived at the spot on Mt Rose Hill along with Wolf and Williamson, they stepped out of their vehicle and found a burlap bag "along the road". Do we know how close to the wet weather stream this was?
I do believe that the "how, when and where" the child's remains came out of that bag is one of the keys to understanding how this crime went down. The Squibb Report definitely places a toe bone from the body of an infant in the bag, and fibers from this burlap bag on the child's undergarment. If my scenario is correct (the bag going from the wooded area to the roadside) then I believe this was an actual kidnapping with the body being at the Mt Rose Hill location the entire two months. As I believe I said in my last post, no criminal kidnapper would even think about returning the child's remains to the Hopewell area in order that the parents could get some type of closure. Just being caught in possession of the child's remains was a straight and fast ticket to the electric chair. Individuals who perpetrate this type of crime are only concerned with their own self interest, period. Believe me, they are cold and calculating with no regards for others.
If your theory is correct (the bag stayed on the roadside with the child's remains being dragged into the woods) then Lindbergh was involved in a fake kidnapping. I see no other explanation for the very dangerous act of transporting the child's body to an area near Hopewell for its "discovery". Lindbergh was being extorted for alleged ransom money when no kidnapping ever took place. To end any further extortion attempts, Lindbergh told "his people" to retrieve the body and arrange for it to be discovered on a roadside near Hopewell. Since at this point I don't see the factual evidence to support this therory, I am left with finding a logical explanation for the bag being at the roadside on May 12th.
I do believe that the Squibb Report adds more credence to my belief that a bobcat removed the child's body from the burlap bag. The report in Section III stated that the "hand sewed with blue thread woolen undergarment" was plastered in mud and had white hairs shading into brown on it. The report additionally stated that one white hair and dark brown hair 1 1/8 inch in length had the appearance of animal hair. In article 8 of the report it again refers to a "few white hairs" being present on a piece of cotton cloth which was not identified as human hair. Another section of the report mentions finding black hairs. I list all of this because bobcats are variable in color, generally brown to dark brown with black streaks. Additionally they have white hairs under the chin area and the underbelly area. This hair coloring, and the manner in which the child's remains were covered and concealed, certainly leads me to highly suspect that no matter how or where it occurred, a bobcat removed that child's remains from the burlap bag.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 9, 2020 20:58:09 GMT -5
Michael,
You certainly present some interesting questions here. If the following facts are correct, the dots need to be connected in a reasonable scenario:
** The Lindbergh child went missing on March 1st ** The very decomposed body was found on May 12th on Mr Rose Hill in the woodline about 75 feet from the road ** A burlap bag containing a small bone from the child's remains is found near the side of the road, perhaps 75 to 80 feet from the remains.
I am not locked in on believing the child's body was at that spot on Mt Rose Hill the entire time. However, if this was a real kidnapping (as opposed to Lindbergh being involved) then to me it makes logical sense that the remains were dumped there on the night of the kidnapping after the kidnappers realized that the child was dead or mortally injured. I can not believe that any kidnapper(s), after receiving the ultimate goal of the ransom money, would return to the Hopewell area to drop off the remains. That's just not going to happen. Now, if one believes that Lindbergh was involved and was "double crossed" in some matter, then I guess anything is possible.
So, assuming that this was a real kidnapping and the remains were on Mt Rose Hill the entire two months, I'll submit this senario in an attempt to answer your questions and connect the dots:
The kidnappers stopped on Mt. Rose Hill after leaving Highfields and carried the child's body contained in the burlap bag into the woodline and deposited it somewhere in the vicinity of where it was ultimately found by Allen and Wilson. The body is left at this site and it is still contained in the bag. The body immediately starts to decompose in the bag for some period of time. Turkey vultures that inhabited the Hopewell area at that time primarily use their sense of smell, not sight, to locate carrion. The woods canopy and the burlap bag prevented any vultures from detecting the remains, as long as it stayed in the bag. Turkey vultures have to get enough scent to exactly pinpoint their next meal. In addition, vultures prefer fresh meals, so after a period of time they will show no interest in carrion that is too "ripe".
At some point (after the body has decomposed in the bag enough that a small bone has become detached) a bobcat finds it and removes the remains from the bag. After eating on it, the bobcat "buries" it nearby in the location where it is subsequently found by Allen and Wilson. Although mostly extinct in N.J. since the 1970's, bobcats were in the Hopewell area in the 1930's (spending my first 18 years exploring the woods and fields around Hopewell, I saw a bobcat in 1960). The description given by Allen and Wilson as to how the remains were laying in the ground is very similar to how a bobcat stashes the remains of a kill or found carrion (bobcats do eat carrion). Bobcats create a small depression in the earth and then will use dirt, leaves, grasses, snow, etc. to partially conceal the uneaten pieces.
In this scenario, we don't know exactly where the burlap bag was originally placed by the kidnappers. If it was closer to the wet weather stream, could it have floated (after the remains were removed) out to road area near the stream? Could a dog have subsequently found it and played with it, dragging it close to the road?
I personally don't put a great deal of importance into stories by a few locals who say that if the remains were there for two months they or their dogs would have found it. When that body came out of the bag it was partially concealed in probably a 2 foot square area at most. Anyone who happened to be walking in that particular piece of woods could have easily walked right by it. Missing bodies in woods are usually found by hunters in the fall of the year. This was not hunting season with hunters running their hunting dogs. I have hunted the fields and woods all through that area in the late 1950's/early 1960's and it is a lot of acreage. I just don't put much credibility into someone telling the police or the press that "oh, I walked in that exact spot and my dog or I would have seen it".
Sorry for the long post. Just thinking out loud on how to connect those dots.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 9, 2020 13:01:18 GMT -5
I just wanted to add that Hopewell Officer Charlie Williamson gave a statement to the NJSP at 6 PM on May 12th that included the following "the body was badly decomposed, was face down and most of the flesh was gone, as though it had been eaten by animals, and the bones were exposed".
Williamson and Chief Harry Wolf had just visually examined the child's remains "up close and personal" that very afternoon. Like most Hopewell men of that time, they were both oudoorsmen and hunters. They were well experienced with seeing the remains of "critters eaten by other critters". I've seen it many times myself and it has a very distinctive look. I know that my Great Uncle Harry Wolf always believed that the body found on Mt Rose Hill was that of the Lindbergh child, and that it was deteriorated enough to believe that it most likely was there through the two previous months of March and April.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Aug 16, 2020 12:19:22 GMT -5
Thank you very much Michael and Amy. The research materal you both have on this case continues to amaze me. There are so many interesting side events in this case. Fisch was such a unique looking individual that most people would probably recall him from any previous contact. It appears from the information you both provided that this Sanborn story was examined, but in December of 1934 I would speculate that Wilentz was not interested in implicating Fisch or anyone else other than Hauptmann. At this point, I tend to believe that Fisch was involved in this crime with Hauptmann, even if it was just laundering the ransom money. Thanks again for that information on Sanborn.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Aug 15, 2020 13:04:35 GMT -5
Metje,
In reference to the last photo you posted, the man in the vehicle is identified as being Henry Uhlig.
Michael,
Did the NJSP ever put any value into Ellis Sanborn's statement as to Fisch? The most I could find was that Sanborn, a carpenter in Maine, identified Fisch from a photo spread as being the person who attempted to recruit him (Sanborn) in a kidnapping plot in June of 1933. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Aug 6, 2020 13:12:25 GMT -5
Metje, I'm attempting to attach a photo in regards to your last post.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jul 5, 2020 17:48:41 GMT -5
I found your information on Charles Palmatier very interesting. I had not been aware of his alleged sighting of Hauptmann in the Hopewell area. Growing up in Hopewell, I knew the Palmatier family. They were well thought of by the community, and known to be a good Hopewell family. Charles Palmatier, Jr. served in the U.S. Army Signal Corps during World War II, and landed on Omaha Beach after D-Day. He served all through the European Campaign until the end of the war. If Charlie Palmatier said that he saw Hauptmann in the Hopewell area with two other men, I would certainly say that he totally believed that he observed Hauptmann. He was definitely not a Whited or Hochmuth.
I would have thought that Charlie Palmatier would have made a good prosecution witness, but as with everything else during this trial, Wilentz obviously did not want to "muddy the water" by presenting any evidence to the jury that would indicate this was not a "lone wolf" crime.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Mar 28, 2020 12:42:43 GMT -5
Michael, that was an interesting letter you posted in regards to Trooper Sawyer's marriage request. That was actually a very common practice in local. state and federal law enforcement agencies right up to the 70's. It wasn't that the agencies didn't want their Officers/Troopers/Special Agents to marry, but they wanted to do a full background investigation on the fiancee to ensure she did not have a prior criminal record or was currently involved in any criminal activties--anything that could compromise the Officer or embarrass the agency. If she did, the officer was given the choice of not getting married or resigning and getting married. Different times from today!!!
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Feb 20, 2020 16:07:17 GMT -5
Michael, great information and once again very excellent and thorough research. The NJSP did a much broader search for the bag than I had understood from VIII. But I think you may agree that there were many ifs, ands, and buts involved in this difficult trace. One would anticipate this just by the massive challenge of tracing (hopefully to an ultimate consumer) one burlap bag with no unique serial number, Utilizing the business records of various Grain Companies to successfully follow the movement of one out of 27 bags, in a shipment of 1,000 bags, to an area from Delaware to New England was a hugh challenge (to bad Hauptmann didn't accidently drop his 4.25 Liliput on Mt. Rose Hill!!!!!)
You are certainly currect about evaluating the odds/percentages/levels of certainty, etc.on this bag ending up at the three Pa. locations closest to Hopewell (even jurors who are the trier of the facts in a trial are allowed to consider this when evaluating evidence). I agree with your assessment of this bag trace, but I guess that I was always concerned with generating leads that would lead to concrete evidence against a defendant at trial. Because this burlap bag trace didn't produce that, I just don't see its investigative value in the case. Please correct me if I am wrong, but apparently the NJSP was unable to utilize the business records of any of the three Pa. locations that were closest to Hopewell to locate/interview any ultimate consumers of any of the identically marked 27 burlap bags. Ideally the trace would take you to let's say local Hopewell farmers who would state "yeah, I bought a burlap bag like this in 1930 and here it is" or maybe "I bought one and subsequently sold it to a German looking fellow driving a blue Dodge sedan" (or maybe "I sold it in late 1931 to a fellow who looked like Lucky Lindy"). Of course just kidding, but I guess I am just attempting to say that I don't see the investigative or certainly prosecutive value of saying the odds were high that this bag went to one of the three Pa. locations closest to Hopewell. Just not specific enough for me. If I am misunderstanding what you are saying about this trace results, please correct me.
As to the burlap bag being "deep sixed" at the time of Hauptmann's trial, I think that the primary reason was that Wilentz wanted no part of this bag because the investigations did not put it in Hauptmann's hands. This bag was certainly evidence in that it contained physcal evidence of the child's body having been in it, and of course where it was found. However, if Wilentz had introduced it into evidence the defense would have jumped all over the facts that Hauptmann's fingerprints were not on it, and a thorough trace of the bag never put it in Hauptmann's possession. This, of course, would not mean that Hauptmann was innocence, nor would it be fatal to Wilentz"s case, but it may have placed some additional reasonable doubt in the jurors' minds. This trace was definitely exculpatory evidence for Hauptmann, and we know what Wilentz did with exculpatory evidence in this case. At this trial of Hauptmann, this bag trace results would never see the light of day.
I am having a little trouble in posting this. If it dosn't come through in a readable form, I will make another attempt later.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Feb 19, 2020 21:06:41 GMT -5
Michael, we definitely see this bag tracing results from different points of view. I would like to further explain my opinion on it, but we'll probably end up agreeing to disagree on this one. I do agree that Hauptmann, et al did not grab this bag in the Hopewell area on the night of the kidnapping. I personally think that this "Bronx gang" was extremely uncomfortable in the Hopewell area and would not have "shopped" for anything there. I will try not to repeat what i wrote in the previous post, but the following is how I see this:
Since Schwarzkopf and the NJSP had no specific kidnapping suspect at the time of this bag tracing request in 1932, it appears to me that Schwarzkopf approached both the Larrowe Milling Company in Toledo. Ohio and the Consolidated Feed & Grain Company in Buffalo, New York with this question: "we have recovered in Hopewell, N.J. one of the 1,000 burlap bags (500 to each Company) that you received from the Kraft-Phenix Cheese Company in August of 1930. Can you help us determine how it made its way to Hopewell, N.J.?
This type of request immediately set the tone for both Companies to check their records as to shipments to the Hopewell area, not provide every single company name throughout the Northeast that received these 1,000 bags. As you say on page 76 of VIII "police were most interested in those closest to Hopewell" This was logical for the limited suspect knowledge of 1932, but it in no way was an attempt to follow the movements of all 1,000 bags. When the Larrowe Milling Company said that these bags went to "many places" but could only come up with just one N.J. town which was not even close to Hopewell, the NJSP declared that "no encouraging leads were found in any of these locations (the several Pa. locations and the one N.J. location)". It appears to me that 500 bags were not traced because of the focus on Hopewell. Could any of these 500 bags ended up in a location that Hauptmann had access to? One would certainly have to at least say maybe, but the NJSP was now onto the next Company to find a Hopewell dealer.
The statement by the President of the Consolidated Feed & Grain Company (recipient of the second 500 bag load) that is on page 76 is just plain speculation on his part. Because Consolidated reshipped these bags to the Eastern States Co-Op Milling Corporation and the Consolidated President knew that Eastern "reships in small lots", he was just SPECULATING when he told NJSP that "evidently this bag was shipped by Eastern to some retailer near Hopewell." This statement is meaningless since he had no direct knowlege of where Eastern had shipped any of these bags. NJSP had told him that this bag was recovered in Hopewell, so he was just assuming that this must have been what occurred.. To me that comment has no merit.
Eastern finally determines that some of their repackaged 500 bags made it to the New Hope, Pa. area (in addition to areas in New England, Pa, Delaware). On page 77 Manager Frost of Eastern states that "customarily" these loaded bags go directly to farms. His statement as related on page 77 is once again pure speculation about the bag in question just because he had been told that it was found in Hopewell: "the empty sack in question MAY have passed to the point mentioned in your letter (Hopewell) either directly from a farm or thro the hands of one or more secondhand bag collectors." This is just his opinion, no actual trace of that individual burlap bag found on Mt Rose Hill. That "individual" bag just could not be definitively traced to any one dealer/farmer from Delaware to New England. We know the kidnappers had that bag, but whether it was Hauptmann or anyone else, we'll never know exactly where in that very large geographical area it was obtained. As you, Army and Joe have stated, Hauptmann did have burlap bags from different sources. I just can't agree that police and prosecutors knew where this one bag out of 1,000 traced back to. If I had been an Investigator receiving this trace information results in 1932. I believe that I would have just smiled and moved on. To me, those trace results had no direct investigative value.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Feb 19, 2020 8:36:35 GMT -5
Michael, in regards to your question on the tracing of the burlap bag, I guess that I just see the tracing results differently from you. I believe that in your post you referred to the trace as "questionable". I do have questions on it. It was obviously not the same as tracing a firearm with a unique serial number!
If the lettering on the bag was recognized correctly as belonging to the Kraft-Phenix Cheese Corporation, then this bag was just one of 1,000 bags with the exact same stenciling. They were shipped in mid 1930 in two 500 bag cars to Ohio and New York, and then onto numerous States all over the Northeast. And then of course there was always the secondary market on these bags. At the time of this trace in 1932, the NJSP had no actual suspect to attempt to trace one of these bags to. They were just attempting to see if any of the bags may have been originally sold in the Hopewell area where it was found. Considering the very wide geographical area that these bags were shipped to, the kidnappers could have acquired the bag in many different States. Just because the kidnappers disposed of the bag along with the child's body on Mt. Rose Hill, doesn't in any way mean they acquired it in the local Hopewell area. If at the time of this bag tracing activities in 1932 the NJSP had a prime suspect like Hauptmann living in the Bronx, perhaps their tracing efforts would have been focused in that area instead of Hopewell. The distribution of these 1000 bags with the same lettering was certainly wide spread enough to to have included areas in Long Island or in that time period even the Bronx itself.
This bag tracing was a nice attempt by the NJSP, but the results just had no specificity of results. I don't see the evidence that just because one of these 1,000 bags was found in Hopewell means that it was acquired in the Hopewell area. Many of these bags appeared to go to areas where Hauptmann and/or his associates could have acquired one prior to the kidnapping. By March of 1932 these bags had "been around".
For many reasons, I just don't see any credible evidence of any Hopewell area local being involved in any aspect of this crime, Heck, it even appears that when the kidnappers needed intel on what was happening to the first two ransom notes, they sent two Bronc individuals (Birritella and Cerrita) to smoke it out. To me, the kidnappers/extortionists just appeared to have no Hopewell area contact to use for any information/help.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Feb 17, 2020 19:25:46 GMT -5
Stella,
I haven't obtained enough information yet to firm up my suspicions on Hauptmann's accomplices, but when I do I will certainly post them here to see if anyone agrees.
In general (for whatever it is worth) my opinion is that this kidnapping was a Bronx, N.Y. crime. That is, it was conceived, planned and executed from the Bronx by Bronx perpetrators. I think that Hauptmann and just a few others from the Bronx carried out this kidnapping and extortion. They saw that others in the criminal world were getting "easy" money from the snatch racket at that time, and they wanted in. The snatch racket was a relatively quick and safe way to get some easy money (and in 1932 I believe that Hauptmann wanted money). As you know, back then there was no Federal statute on kidnapping, and most State laws on kidnapping (as in N.J.) were weak. If the kidnapped victim could be returned very quickly and safely with NO police involvement, the risks to the perpetrators were minimal and the rewards big. At that time, I think that it would be a tempting thing to try for some people.
It is my view that no local Hopewell area resident was involved in this crime. If someone from the Morrow/Lindbergh staff was an inside participant (witting or unwitting), it was someone the Bronx kidnappers generated through social contacts in northern N.J. or the Bronx. These Bronx kidnappers would have been fish out of water in the rural central N.J. area of Hopewell/Princeton in 1932. They only went there to get the child, and that proved to be a disaster for them. My experience is that small time criminals, as this group would have been, do not like to operate out of their comfort zone--in this case that would have been the Bronx. When the police (NJSP) got quickly involved and the ransom negotiations immediately became complicated, there was no way that they were going to conduct any negotiations in N.J. It would be in the Bronx.
To me, this also applied to the kidnappers recruitment of Condon. They were not going to use anyone outside of the Bronx. Condon was certainly well known in the entire Bronx community, and if the kidnappers had gotten wind that Condon wanted to get involved to help return the kidnapped Lindbergh child, he (Condon) fit their bill. Condon's general reputation would give him some credibility with Lindbergh, and the kidnappers could keep everything in the Bronx. I can't say that I have any valid explanation as to what exactly happened to put the kidnappers onto Condon, but suffice to say, it worked for them.
I definitely believe that if this entire crime had occurred in the Bronx and the NYPD had been the investiating Police Department, things would have been different. The NYPD would have been able to apprehend this group of Bronx kidnappers relatively quickly. In my opinion, this motley group of Bronx perpetrators would have been no match for NYPD Bronx Detectives on their home turf in 1932.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Feb 17, 2020 14:18:11 GMT -5
Amy, why do you say that Lindbergh knew on the 5th that Birritella was coming to Princeton to be interviewed.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Feb 16, 2020 19:29:22 GMT -5
Michael,
I always enjoy reading your posts on Condon. No one has done more research on Condon's activities in the LKC than you. You have certainly provided the research that documents Condon's deceptions and lying in this case. i agree with you that Condon could certainly have been charged with Obstruction of Justice and Conspiracy to Commit Extortion. However, one has to always evaluate the individual's motives and level of criminal intent. This is probably where we differ somewhat (alot??) in regards to Condon. For what it is worth, I'll give you my current two cents on Condon, and I will try not to be too long winded on it.
To me, Condon was a product of his time, being born, raised and coming of age in the 19th century. There is virtually no one today who can even vaguely relate to the 1800"s. Our culture has changed so very, very much. Condon was definitely vain, pompous, full of self importance, etc., etc., but I believe he probably thought of himself as a Don Quixote knight ready to take on the windmills of his time. He was an educated man, intelligent with an educational career. No matter how he actually got initially connected with the extortionists/kidnappers, I believe that his motive at the beginning was to be the knight in shining armour, and to be the one to "place the kidnapped child in the arms of its mother". In his mind, it would make him a national hero and it would also be financially rewarding to him in the long run.
However, Condon had zero "street smarts" and he was completely at the mercy of the extortionists from the very start. As i believe Lightningjew stated in his last post, Condon was duped from the get go. These street smart extortionists just ate his lunch. Most "normal" people have never gone face to face with a street smart hood (I know that you have Michael), and normal people outside of law enforcement just don't know how they can take someone like Condon and just destroy him (Hauptmann had tons of street smarts in my book). Condon's illusions of grandeur ended very quickly at his first meeting with CJ. From that very first meeting, Condon knew that the child was dead and that he (Condon) had placed himself right in the middle of a murder case that could have extremely dire consequences for him. The extortioists had Condon exactly where they wanted him right from jump street. They knew someone like Condon would panic and thereby provide them with protection from law enforcement and also help in obtaining the ransom money from Lindbergh.
From this first meeting with CJ, Condon was now starting his pattern of lies and deceptions to protect the extortionists from being apprehended by law enforcement. Whether it was inventing false physical descriptions of CJ (deformed thumb, inaccurate sketch, made-up footprint) or removing the valuable $20,000 from the ransom payment that could be more easily traced, Condon just wanted this whole thing to be over by allowing the extortionists to get their money and fade away. I believe that Condon thought that if he could just help the extortionists get away safely they would never be caught, and the child's body would never be found. To him this whole thing would just fade away over time and his reputation (and perhaps his very freedom) would be preserved. Condon certainly knew that law enforcement and even Lindbergh were getting very suspicious of him.
Condon had naively involved himself with street smart criminals who were WAY over his head, and like many people in this situation he panicked. I think his worse day was when Hauptmann was arrested after all of that time, Condon knew that Hauptmann was CJ and he had no idea what Hauptmann would say to law enforcement. It didn't take Condon too long to assess that if he didn't I.D. Hauptmann, law enforcement was going to take him (Condon) down with Hauptmann. It was totally inexcusable that law enforcement didn't come down on Condon with a ton of bricks much, much earlier in the investigation. In my view he didn't need to be charged, but he needed to see the full wrath of law enforcement back in 1932.
I did get long winded in this--my apologies. At the moment these are my views on Condon. He ws totally guilty of Obstruction, but his motive very quickly became attempting to save his own buttocks from prison or worse. I have more thoughts on Condon's activities, but I'll stop here.
Michael, your recent post on the sketches ended with a statement as to why the "first" CJ sketch was still currently on the FBI site. I think the reason is the last part of your sentence. From my dealings with the FBI, it would be because of a lack of proper research. You need to show them a few things about research.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Feb 14, 2020 20:58:38 GMT -5
Thanks greatly Joe. I knew that either you, Michael or Amy would know the exact time of the Birrittella telegram. I am surprised that it arrived that late on the 6th when everything that I have read says Birrittella telephoned around 2 P.M. and said that he was in Princeton. He and Cirrrito certainly arrived very quickly in Princeton from the time of sending the telegram. I do think that one needs to determine the circumstances of why Gavin and Fogarty left Highfields and went to the Princeton Inn at 3 A,M or so in the morning hours of the 6th. If Rosner made the allegations against those two on the 6th as presented in Fensch's book TOP SECRET: FBI FILES, was it that early on the 6th and did it prompt Gavin and Fogarty to leave in a huff or Lindbergh to believe Rosner and send them away from Highfields?. Do you know what became of Gavin's and Fogarty's involvement in the case immediately after the 6th? Did they return to Highfields on the 7th after the Princeton Inn room was used for the Birrittella/Cirrito interview or were they "outcasts" after Rosners allegations on the 6th? Thanks.
|
|