|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Detective Sergeant
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 79
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 12, 2003 - 1:00 am: | 
|
Hello
Was Bruno Richard Hauptmann (Richard to his family and friends) innocent or did the police try to frame a gulty man?: One thing is certain, his trial was a travesty and a disgrace to the American judicial system.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 407
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 12, 2003 - 6:11 am: |
|
Hi Gary
I've just been reading up on this subject. One question that leaps to mind is, how much of the evidence still survives? Hauptmann's house probably, but do they still have the ladder? And how about the note?
Robert |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Detective Sergeant
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 81
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 12, 2003 - 6:47 am: |
|
Robert
I just realized that I packed up 4 or so of my books on the kidnapping and gave them to a friend to read. I'll have to get them back.
I believe the ladder and the original note may be at the New Jersy Crime Museum which I think is in Flemington N.J. Even if I'm wrong about the city I believe a great deaL of the evidence still survives.
Best
Gary
|
Martin Fido
Detective Sergeant
Username: Fido
Post Number: 80
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 12, 2003 - 7:40 am: |
|
Surely Hauptmann has to be convicted as an accomplice, the principal having escaped abroad and then died before Hauptmann was compelled to negotiate the gold certificates.
Despite the crudeness of the ladder, the wood identification evidence was very strong indeed, and to suggest that it was faked by the police is (as is often the case in such conspiry theories) to propose an implausibly large number of conspirators who all kept totally mum about it for ever. Stormin' Norman's dad doesn't come over to me as a corrupt "Let's-frame-this-Kraut" cop.
All the best,
Martin F |
RichardPDewar
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 12, 2003 - 8:58 pm: |
|
Hi all,
I have studied the Lindbergh kidnapping case for a very long time. I think most people who have given the story much study have come to the same conclusions:
1. That Bruno Hauptmann undoubtedly extorted money from the Lindberghs and may very well have participated in the kidnapping.
2. That the trial, as noted previously, was a travesty of justice. Not only was the circus atmosphere detrimental to a fair trial, but much of the evidence was distorted if not tampered.
3. The crime almost certainly could not have been carried out by one person.
At least two people were involved in kidnapping the Lindbergh baby. Bruno Hauptmann did extort money from the Lindberghs. Since one of the ransom notes sent included a portion of the baby's clothes, that appears to provide at least an indirect link to Hauptmann and the kidnapping.
My personal view is that Hauptman carried out the kidnapping with the assistance of two people - Violet Sharp (who committed suicide shortly after the crime) and Isador Fisch.
Richard |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Detective Sergeant
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 90
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 14, 2003 - 12:41 pm: |
|
Martin and Richard
Richard.
The trial was a circus and a joke. Hauptmann's lawyer was an alcoholic who was regularly drunk during the trial. He spent under an an hour
consulting with his client about the defense. He was convinced that his client was guilty and he was paid by one of the newspapers in exchange for inside stories and interviews. He failed to object to the introduction of a number of pieces of evidence that a lawyer just out of law school would have known to object to having introduced at trial. He also failed to dispute whether the baby found in the woods was the Lindbergh child. This is something that one of his junior assistants never forgave him for having done.
His nickname was "Deathhouse Reilly" for his propensity for allowing his clients to be sent to death row.
The tapes of the trial shows the prosecuter, David T. Wilentz screaming at Hauptmann with no objection from Rielly or the judge for flagrant
badgering which should have been ruled as contempt of court.
The courthouse spectators were a cheering squad for the prosecution.
I could go on, but quilty, innocent, or a party to some aspect of wrongdoing, he should have had a new trial far removed from the district in which the crime took place.
Martin
The ladder, including rail 16, the rail which may have come from Hauptmann's attic, has been called the single most important piece of evidence brought out at trial. Despite the fact that the poilice (and probably the press) nosed around Hauptmann's attic for three days before they spotted the missing rail, tracing the lumber to a small mill in South Carolina was a work of genious by the wood expert, Arthur Koehler. He taced it from McCormick, South Carolina to the National Lumber and Millwork Company In the Bronz. I live in South Carolina and I have no idea where McCormick is located.
As for the apparent crudeness of the ladder, if I were a carpenter and were building a ladder for use in a crime I would make it look as inexpertly made as possible. This could be done in conjunction with making a light easily transportable ladder, in other words, a ladder suited to my purposes but crudely fashioned.
A common criminal with kidnapping in mind would likely buy a ladder would he not?
Best Regards
Gary |
Martin Fido
Detective Sergeant
Username: Fido
Post Number: 92
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 8:58 am: |
|
Very happy with your observations, Gary, as they all endorse the direction of my thinking, much as I regret differing from the often admirable Ludo Kennedy.
All the best,
Martin F |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Detective Sergeant
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 105
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 9:26 pm: |
|
Hi
I have some more information which I have long known about, but have been hesitant to disclose for fear it would dampen people from posting.
Most people realize that Hauptmann had a criminal record in Germany. Not many know the nature of his offenses. He was convicted of holding up at gunpoint a woman pushing her BABY in its' carriage. His other crime invoved a house burglary that was A SECOND STORY BREAK IN.
Best
Gary
|
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 92
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 - 11:14 pm: |
|
Hi Gary,
I have seen film clips of Wilentz cross - examing
Hauptmann. It is true that he is harsh and
unrelenting in his cross examination, but when you
say screaming, I question the use of that term.
A classic example of an evil lawyer screaming at
a defendant is that of the Nazi jurist Roland
Friser (I think that is his name) who tried the
various members of the Stauffenberg bomb plot in
1944. He literally screamed at the
plotters, with the full backing of Hitler's regime.
Wilentz was trained to go all out for a victory.
He was not the only good lawyer who did this.
In England, twenty years before the Hauptman trial, Richard Muir (the prosecutor of Dr. Crippen, the Stratton Brothers, and other noted
killers) had a similar overwhelming attack method.
In his essay on Steinie Morrison, Edgar Lustgarten wrote this about Muir:
"No one should underrate Muir's array of gifts: his shrewdness, his integrity, his mastery of detail. But he belonged, by legal upbringing and nature, to what is now affectionately termed "the old school." Defending or prosecuting, it made no difference to Muir; he went all out for the triumph of his side. Steinie's case, with its partisan setting and
personal antagonisms, can only have served to accentuate this tendency....
Muir did not play at once the ace that [Edward] Abinger [Morrison's barrister] had thrust
into his hand. He began instead with an enquiry, grim, harsh and undisguisedly hostile, into the
sources from which Steinie's money came. What date was the game of faro? December 1st. Had
Steinie ever been to the gaming-house before? Yes,once. Had he any witness who would say he won that money? Yes, the croupier. Had he any
witness?
"I can give you the name of the croupier,"
Steinie said.
"Have you any witness?"
This was the third time of asking, as the
tone implied.
"I tell you," Steinie repeated, "I can give you the name of the croupier."
"Answer my question," Muir rapped out sharply.
"He is trying to answer it," Mr. Justice
Darling said. "He said he can give you the name
of the croupier."
It is happily seldom that judges have to protect a prisoner in this fashion."
Basically this method of intense, partisan cross-examination is not used much these days. Juries
no longer stand it. By the 1930s a softer approach was in the offing. Instead of dramatic,
trials - as - theatre, by the likes of a Marshall
Hall or a William Fallon, you had a smoother,
softer approach, like Roland Oliver or Patrick
Hastings (in England), or (though still a trifle
dramatic) Clarence Darrow at the end of his career. But Wilentz was still in the old school
and it was acceptable. Of course, had the victim
not been the infant son of America's greatest
hero, one wonders if the jury might have been
in a less receptive mood about the way the prosecution questioned Hauptmann.
I do feel that Hauptmann was deeply involved in
the kidnapping, but that he was not alone in it.
Whether Fisch, Sharp, or Lindbergh's butler were
involved is something I can't guess at. Recently
I was thinking of the case, when last May the
Lone Eagle's grandson made a trans-Atlantic solo
flight from New York to Paris (in under one day).
It made me think of the remarkable, and contravertial career of Charles Lindbergh. I felt
that the old man would have been proud of his
grandson's flight. Possibly his uncle, Charles
Jr., would have been proud of the flight too - but
we will never know as he seems to have died in
March 1932. On the other hand, Bruno Richard
Hauptmann had a son too, who is still alive. I
wonder what he thought about the flight last May.
Jeff |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Detective Sergeant
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 106
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 8:20 am: |
|
Hi Jeff
Some very good points. The Stauffenberg bombing case was a show trial. I find it hard to watch. The pure venom and vitriol from the jurist is very hard to view for anyone, let alone those who have defended people and come to expect a fair trial.
Today the American courts go with a much more gentlemanly approach and during the whole procedure everone who acts as an attorney or judge must conduct themselves in a fashion which brings dignity and respect upon the profession.
Perhaps screaming was the wrong word for Wilentz. We can't judge what was acceptable fifty years ago by what is acceptable by modern standards.
The crime had to involve more than one person. Firstly, because the ladder was placed beside the window and no single person could have gotten onto the ladder with the baby in his arms. The baby would have had to be handed to a second person standing on the ladder. Secondly, the family decided to stay at Hopewell at the last minute due to the baby's cold. Someone in the house or very close to the family had to convey this information to the kidnappers. The kidnapping then went horribly wrong when the ladder broke and the baby fell and fractured his skull.
I wasn't aware of the grandson having made a solo crossing.
My bone to pick with Lindbergh himself was his nazi sympathies after being accorded the royal treatment in Germany when he went over upon an invitation to inspect the Naxi airforce. He was an unwitting dupe of the regime who preached that resistance was futiile and was a person around whom rallied the American isolationists.
Of course I will restrain myself from doing more than just mentioning that Edward the VII had made an agreement whereby he was to be installed as King with Wallace Simpson as queen after the Germans took over Great Britain. Treason-anyone?
All The Best
Gary |
Vincent
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 9:45 am: |
|
"Firstly, because the ladder was placed beside the window and no single person could have gotten onto the ladder with the baby in his arms."
Tell that to a fireman.
"The kidnapping then went horribly wrong when the ladder broke and the baby fell and fractured his skull."
Where is this mentioned in direct testimony? For all we know his head was dashed against a tree.
Hauptman may or may not have had accomplices, but clearly he was involved in the kidnapping and murder of a}} child. He got what was coming to him. The only good thing you can say about him is that he wasn't a snitch (unless of course he was acting alone.)
|
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Detective Sergeant
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 109
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 3:19 pm: |
|
Hi Vincent
A fireman is skilled in the use of ladders the Lindbergh kidnapper was not likely a fireman. My main point was that a single person could not have gotten out on their own carrying the baby.
The baby likely died when the ladder broke although we will never know for sure. The main reason that it is supected that the baby died falling from the ladder was the distinctive crack of, presumably the ladder breaking that both Lindbergh's heard while sitting quietly in the study.
I agree Hauptmann was involved in some way with the kidnapping. As for whether he got what was coming to him? I would have like to have seen a properly conducted trial before an execution was carried out. Because he did not get a fair trial you will always have people who contend he was not treated fairly.
Best
g
|
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 426
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 4:59 pm: |
|
Hi all
I don't understand why the kidnapper(s) allowed the money to be paid in such an easily traceable form.
Robert |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Detective Sergeant
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 111
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 5:37 pm: |
|
Hi Robert
I don't understand that point either.
There is an interesting sidenote to the gold certificates which the kidnappers demanded the ransom to be paid in. When Roosevelt called in all the gold currency in 1933, thereby making the certificates stand out like sore thumbs, all the gold coins that had already been struck were never released: Except for one gold liberty dollar. Apparantly someone on the inside pocketed one and today that coin is the single most valuable piece of currency in the world today. Last I had heard it was valued at twenty-three million dollars.
I have been called a suppository.. er I mean, repository of useless information such as this.
All The Best
Gary
P.S. To Vincent
Regarding your point that at least Hauptmann was not a snitch.
Anna Hauptmann's world revolved around her husband and their son. I feel Hauptmann never confessed or even admitted to buying the gold certificates on the black market to spare his wife and son.
Admitting to black market activity would have been a very clever way to forestal the execution, even if it was a complete lie.
|
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 93
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 8:48 pm: |
|
Hi Gary,
Yes, Lindy's grandson did make the trip in half
the time his grandfather did. It was his way of
celebrating his grandfather's greatest moment.
Being Jewish I have peculiar feelings about the
Lone Eagle. He was remarkable as an aviator and
a writer, and demonstrated abilities as a scientist's assistant to Alexis Carrel, the French
scientist who designed an early artificial heart
device (with Lindbergh's help). His politics were
totally screwed up, possibly due to his background in the Midwest, the heart of isolationist sympathies in the thirties. As for
his anti-Semitism, check out his War Journals to
get a full face of them. I doubt if he ever changed his view about the Jews after the revelations about the Holacaust came out. He
remains a complex and fascinating and annoying
figure. He has his defenders - Wayne Cole wrote
a book about his stand as an isolationist that
applauds it and the movement.
Edward VIII is an English equivalent, and the
increasing amount of evidence of his pro-Nazi
sympathies and plotting make me wish for a total
reevaluation of the reputation of Stanley Baldwin.
Normally considered the "best" of the three tired
Prime Ministers of the 1920s and 1930s (certainly
better than Ramsay MacDonald and Nevil Chamberlain), Baldwin is usually given a pat on the back for stage managing the quiet abdication
of Edward - which even today would be a major
Constitutional crisis in England. Now I'd suggest
that Baldwin deserves at least a statue for getting rid of this idiot before he wrecked England's war effort.
Edward did try to return to England to "lend a
hand" for his country's defense. His brother and
a now suspicious and alert Winston Churchill (who
misguidedly supported Edward's position in 1936)
sent him to the Bahamas as Governor. Westbrook
Peglar said it was like lending the former King
a useful sun lamp. Even that job turned out to
be too much for Edward. He is remembered for the
shambles he made of the investigation of the murder of Sir Harry Oakes in 1943. If Lindbergh's
and Edward VIII's politics vis-a-vis Nazi Germany
were equally discreditable, I still tend to think
the Lone Eagle was (for most of his career) a
much more useful human being.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Detective Sergeant
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 113
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 2:16 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff
You are a litlle more tolerant than I am towards bigotry and injustice and that is a positive thing because it allows for recognition of the fact that we are all very fallible creatures and capable of being products of our environment. However, all politics aside and forgetting the fact I don't care for Lindbergh personally, no parent should ever have to endure the tragedy of burying a child. I can't imagine a worse thing to endure.
Regarding Edward the VIII, he did make a shambles of the Harry Oakes case. I recall reading somewhere that a theory existed that he had something to do with having Oakes killed. I tend to put this down to the fact that he had so many detractors. I am sure he could make a shambles of the investigation without any ulterior motive.
Best Regards
Gary |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 94
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 9:05 pm: |
|
Hi Gary,
Actually I am not that tolerant, but I can recognize talent and ability. Lindbergh's flight
to Paris was the highpoint of his reputation for
bravery and organization ability, but only because that particular stunt happened to have
the attention of the globe in 1927. There had
been many potential "Lindberghs" that year, trying
to make the crossing, including Rene Fonck, Nungesser and Coli, and Richard Byrd. In fact,
the race to be the first to do it from New York
to Paris is reminiscent of the races of Peary, Cook, Amundsen, and Scott to the two poles only
two decades or so earlier (or the races to find
the source of the Nile in the middle of the
19th Century). Because Lindbergh's flight was
so strikingly successful (Byrd's plane crashed,
Nungesser and Coli disappeared, Fonck's plane
exploded, killing two crewmen), and he did it
alone, the world's admiration was tremendous.
Forgotten in the middle of it was that Alcott
and Brown had already flown their Vicky Vimmers
plane in 1919 from Newfoundland to Ireland, and
two dirigibles had crossed the Atlantic, as well
as several smaller planes making stopovers. Also
forgotten was Lindbergh's long apprenticeship flying the U.S. mails, and his subsequent serious
work (with his wife) mapping out long air routes
through Latin America for Juan Trippe's Pan
American Airways. I mentioned his talents as a
writer (WE, THE SPIRIT OF ST. LOUIS), his work
with Dr. Carrel on that heart pump, his work in
the late 1930s studying the growth of the German
air threat (whatever the bad results of this on
his politics, Lindbergh was asked to do this by
FDR), and his work in the South Pacific in World
War II. Finally his championing ecology in his
last decades. The two sore spots are the kidnap
murder tragedy (which one pities him and his wife
for) and the isolationist stand.
Compare it with Edward. He certainly resembles his ancestor of the 1820s, George IV, best recalled for marital follies (Mrs. Fitzherbert
and Queen Caroline), family treason (George's
attempts to get that Regency set up in 1789, when
George III had his first outbreak of insanity or
porphyria), and dress reform (actually the work
of George's one time friend Beau Brummel). But
George IV did construct the Brighton Pavilion,
and was the most culturally acute of the Kings
named George (he championed the novels of Jane
Austen and Walter Scott). George IV did show a
sense of duty in being the first of the Hanovarians to make a long trip to Scotland in
1822, and using his theatrical flare there to win
popular approval for the monarchy. Edward did
nothing like that - once, visiting an impoverished
industrial district he was heard to say, "Something must be done." This impressed
many people in 1936, and some still wonder if he
might have taken an active role in reinvigorating
government care for the poor and displaced of the
depression. But he never suggested any solutions
during the remainder of his one year reign. He
did take time off to visit the Dalmatian coast with Wallace Simpson, but he did not ask Baldwin
if he should take a look at Balkan political
conditions. Actually, his reign's main feature is
based on his personal selfishness, as he wanted
to have it all, and if not he'd leave it all and
take Wallace. I hope he found the trade worth it,
though I suspect he regretted it. Alistair
Cook wrote a book of essays called SIX MEN, including accounts of Adlai Stevenson, H.L.Mencken, Humphrey Bogart, Edward VIII, Charlie
Chaplin, and Bertram Russell. He wrote a marvelous summation of Edward, to the effect that
he was only at his best (when he was the eligible
Prince of Wales) when the going was good. It is
a fair assessment.
There are several theories on the Oakes - Matigny
(spelling) tragedy of 1943. The one pushed by
the Duke of Windsor and the police was that Oakes
was shot and killed by his son-in-law. This was
defeated in court. There is one suggested by
the son-in-law that the Duke and his neo-Nazi
friends were behind it, because Oakes was preventing their schemes to use the Bahamas as
an Axis center in the Western Hemisphere. There
is also a theory that Oakes was killed by order of
Meyer Lansky and he mob, for preventing them from
turning the Bahamas into another Cuba (as it was
under Batista). In this last theory, the mob
is able to scare the Duke into collaborating in
framing Matigny as the scapegoat suspect. I believe that the book by James Leasor about the
Oakes Case is the best for the mob related theory
about the murder.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Detective Sergeant
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 115
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 9:53 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff
This is way off topic so I'll briefly mention my interest in the race for the poles. I wonder how many people know it is virtually impossible bassed on his own records and calculations, for Peary to have actually reached the North Pole.
Best
Gary |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 431
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 4:36 am: |
|
Hi all
I don't know where people get the notion that airmen are all boneheads.
I think that Wittgenstein once asked Russell to tell him whether or not he was an idiot. Wittgenstein said that if he was an idiot, he'd become an aviator!
Antoine de Saint-Exupery was another pilot of many talents - not the least of which was his writing.
Robert |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 215
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 5:45 am: |
|
Hey Robert!
I wonder what they say about airwomen? Two old girls from my daughter's school are currently British Airways pilots.
Look up 'bonehead' in the dictionary and you'll find the chap I spoke to yesterday at the passport office, asking if my daughter's current passport will be valid for a train trip to France next month. His response: "It all depends which country she is flying to." ???? 
Have a great weekend everyone.
Love,
Caz |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 433
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 6:34 am: |
|
Hi Caz
I once inadvertently tuned into one of those chat-type audience programmes. The American presenter asked a man :
"What do you do?"
"I work in a factory."
"And what do you make?"
"Tops, I make about four hundred a week."
"No, what do you make?"
"Oh! Shoes."
Robert |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Detective Sergeant
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 119
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 10:07 am: |
|
Caz
Re: "Have a great Weekend everyone"
I just questioned Bruce Paley in response to Leanne. I fear I may have some explaining to do.
Best
Gary |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 434
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 2:15 pm: |
|
Gary, our thoughts are with you.
Robert |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 95
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 2:52 pm: |
|
Hi Gary,
Compared with the search for a solution to Jack
the Ripper, the Cook - Peary embroglio is a piece
of cake. Basically severe doubts exist that either man reached the North Pole, but Cook's
marvelous ability to be exposed helped the public
to endorse Peary. I think the rough guess is that
Peary was between seventy and ninety miles of the
Pole. Cook seems to have spent the period from the early winter to the early spring of 1908 in
some Arctic islands with two inuits as companions.
Oddly enough, one Polar historian has suggested that had Cook told the true story of 1908, his
reputation as an explorer would be higher than
had he reached the Pole, because his experiences
(as told by the Eskimos) were far more exciting.
The best accounts I have read on Peary and Cook are William R. Hunt's TO STAND AT THE POLE: THE
DR. COOK - ADMIRAL PEARY NORTH POLE CONTROVERSY
(New York: Stein & Day, 1981) abd Wally Herbert's
THE NOOSE OF LAURELS: ROBERT PEARY AND THE RACE TO
THE NORTH POLE (New York: Atheneum, 1989). Pierre
Berton's study of Arctic Exploration, THE ARCTIC
GRAIL, is worthy of reading too - Berton says that
Peary probably did not make it either, but he
congradulates him for achieving the highest point
of exploration towards the Pole to that time, and
getting back alive. The Peary "system" of dogs
and sledding, and learning from the Inuits survival skills, did work.
Roland Huntford's series of biographies on AMUNDSEN AND SCOTT and SHACKLETON are worthy too.
He wrote on on NANSEN, which looks very good, but
I haven't read it yet.
If I may expand a bit - Leonard Guttridge has
written to excellent accounts of the two polar
tragedies of the 1880s, ICEBOUND: THE JEANETTE
EXPEDITION'S QUEST FOR THE NORTH POLE (Annapolis,
Maryland: Naval Institute's Press, 1986), and
GHOSTS OF CAPE SABINE: THE HARROWING TRUE STORY OF
THE GREELY EXPEDITION (New York: G.P.Putnam's Sons, 2000).
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 435
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 3:12 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff
Have you heard of an unmanned "ghost ship" floating round the arctic circle? I've read that it's seen every 30 or 40 years or so.
Robert |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 96
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 3:20 pm: |
|
Hi Robert,
I don't know how true it is, but I have heard that a vessel was found with a dead crew about the beginning of the last century, that was from
the 18th Century. I don't know how true the story
is - it was a fascinating yarn. The sort of
story that Frank Edwards would have put into one
of his "Stranger than Fiction" books. Problem with Edwards, and writers of that ilk, is that
they will sometimes push a story that is great to
read - but is not true. There are hundreds of these, and many get debunked repeatedly and to
no avail.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Detective Sergeant
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 122
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 18, 2003 - 5:36 pm: |
|
Hi Robert
Your kind wishes are gratefully aknowledged.
The ghost ship may be part of the legend of the lost Franklin expedition of 1845.
HI Jeff
I agree with all you say. People today probably find it hard to believe the amount of importance and interest placed by the general public on polar exploration at the turn of the century.
I enjoyed COOK AND PEARY;THE POLAR CONTROVERSY RESOLVED , by Robert M. Bryce. Although it is a bit of a tome at over 1100 pages and the controversy is only resoved to the extent that neither man made it. It devotes a lot of time to Cook's fraudulent claim that he was the first to scale Mt. McKinley
NINETY DEGREES NORTH;THE QUEST FOR THE NORTH POLE
BY Fergus Fleming, is well done. He states in his introduction "Was Peary the first to reach the pole as he liked to claim? Or was it forty years later when a Soviet team, shrouded in Cold War secrecy, became the first to set foot there?
I read all of Frank Edwards'' books as a teenager and found them tremendously enjoyable. Later I learned that he put a good story ahead off factual accuracy
It reminds me of the claim of Jay Robert Nash,the author of "BLOODLETTERS AND BADMEN", that when factual inaccuracies were pointed out to him he countered by saying he put them in on purpose to catch people plagiarizing. People are certainly free to form their own opinions on that.
Best
Gary |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 97
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 19, 2003 - 12:23 am: |
|
Hi Gary,
I think the fascination regarding Cook and Peary
is the total fanaticism both men had in maintaining their claim to being first. To be
fair to Peary, his four Arctic treks (and his
crippling sacrifices to frost bite) sort of give
him a degree of sympathy that is not found in Cook. Also, Cook's chequered career of lies
(Mt. McKinley, the Pole, the oil business fraud)
makes him less attractive to most people (except
those who think of him as a charismatic underdog).
[Actually, Cook did do polar services in both the
Arctic and Antarctic, serving in an expedition to
Antarctica with Amundsen in 1894.] In truth, the
glory of being first infected both men - as it did Nansen (who was seriously considering making
a journey to one of the Poles), Amundsen (who
switched from a North Pole trip to a South Pole
one when Cook and Peary made their announcements, and then borrowed the Fram from a surprised and
confused Nansen), and Scott. Actually, the only
major explorer of the Polar regions who comes out
well here was Shackleton, who turned out to have
a remarkable degree of common sense. In 1907 he
might have reached the South Pole first, but he
decided against it - he didn't want to kill himself and his companions by starvation, like
Scott did in five years. I find it fasinating that in recent years Shackleton's leadership abilities have finally won their rightful recognition, while Scott's bungling has slowly
wiped out the heroism myth that his diary built about him.
Edwards is useful, as a newspaperman turned writer. He reminds us that any information in
a newspaper article must be doublechecked, because the writer is human and can slant the
article, or color it, as he or she wants. As for Nash, the best part of his books is his useful
bibliographies, for further research purposes.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Richard P. Dewar
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 7:55 pm: |
|
It is highly unlikely that the one person responsible for the Lindbergh kidnapping was Bruno Hauptmann.
For Hauptmann to have carried out the crime by himself, he would have had to know the schedule of the Lindberghs, what room the child was kept in, then had the confidence and capacity to scale a long rickety ladder, leave a note, take the baby and climb back down. . .with no one steadying the ladder on a very cold and windy night. Another key is that the police found two sets of footprints nearby the ladder.
Another problem is that John Condon, the man who delivered the ransom money, was taken to a lineup to identify Hauptmann and failed to do so. I acknowledge, that later, after he was charged, and placed on trial, Condon reversed himself and said Hauptman was the notorious "Cemetary John."
However, it should be noted that some information indicates the authorities may have threatened to charge Condon with complicity unless he identified Hauptmann.
There is no question that those who wrote the ransom notes at one time had the baby. They were able to mail with a ransom note a portion of the child's clothing.
I, for one, believe Hauptmann did write the ransom note based on handwriting analysis and that most of the ransom note's grammatical errors reflected the same speech patterns of Hauptmann. There is also the important fact that Hauptmann had some of the ransom money in his possession and had lied about it.
I do not know if Hauptmann carried out the kidnapping - there is some evidence to suggest he was at work in New York the day of the kidnapping.
Hauptmann steadfastly maintained his innocence and we shall never know for certain why. Nonetheless, those who maintain that Hauptmann acted entirely on his own fail to address the logistical challenges of carrying out the crime.
When marked ransom bills started showing up some of the descriptions of those passing the bills were different than Hauptmann. Most of the ransom money was never recovered - where did it go?
My view is that there were several involved in the kidnapping and the ransom money was divided among the kidnappers. Once Hauptmann was captured the other kidnappers ceased spending their ransom money - not wanting the same fate as Hauptmann.
Gov. Hoffman delayed Hauptmann's execution not because he thought Bruno was innocent. He did so because based on his own reading of the facts and some work by his own investigators, it seemed apparent that the crime was carried out by a group rather than an individual. He offered to commute Hauptmann's sentence if Bruno would identify his accomplices.
My own view is that Hauptmann was one of a group of people involved in the kidnapping (though he may not have been at Hopewell when the baby was taken). He was caught passing bills, refused to name his accomplices, and in a desperate effort to solve the case the police reversed their previous theory of accomplices and pinned the entire crime on Hauptmann.
Hauptmann had many reasons not to talk - especially relating to his family.
Richard
|
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Detective Sergeant
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 131
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 9:47 am: |
|
Hi Richard
There is no question in my mind that, if Hauptmann was present at the actual kidnapping he was not alone. This kidnapping was carried out by at least two and almost certainly more individuals.
Bst Regards
Gary |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 188
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 05, 2003 - 10:58 am: |
|
Hello All
I have found a book at our local library which I must have missed when it first came out. It was written by Jim Fisher and called THE GHOSTS OF HOPEWELL. Fisher, a former F.B.I. man wrote a book years ago called THE LINDBERGH CASE. I was suprised to see that enough new information has been unearthed to write an entirely new book.
Among the new disclosures, evidence which points to:
-Hauptmann showing the gold certificates off to friends as early as 1932, shortly after the ransom payoff and long before he admitted to finding them left off by Isidor Fisch.
-A marked change of lifestyle by Hauptmann and his wife after the payoff. Including the purchase of a 670 dollar radio, tailor made cloths, trips to Germany by Anna and trips to Florida by both. A one thousand dollar gift given to Anna by Hauptmann and other expenditures greatly out of line with the height of the depression and the earnings of a tradesman.
-Evidence that Anna went on a scouting mission to Germany to see when it would be safe for Hauptmann to return to Germany given his status as a wanted criminal in that country.
-As per the above trip to Gemany- -Evidence indicating that Hauptmann was planning on fleeing to Germany when the statute of limitations ran out on his crimes.
-Evidence that Hauptmann had a girlfriend and may have been planning on leaving his wife to flee the country with the above mentioned woman.
-Evidence that Hauptmann's extravagant depression era spending was explained away by Hauptmann as having been made possible by his shrewd dealings in stocks, when in actual fact he lost many thousands of dollars on the stock market.
-Evidence that Hauptmann was clearly seen by a man and his son driving with two other men near the Hopewell estate shortly before the kidnapping; and that the father did not wish to get involved and told the son not to speak of it after the kidnapping.
-Evidence that Hauptmann may have been planning another kidnap around the time he was arrested.
-And on and on.
Fisher concludes that Hauptmann acted alone. I find this is possible since it is extremely difficult to keep a conspiracy quiet. Hauptmann may have obtained information from disclosures by the household staff. Particularly suspicious were the actions of Violet Sharp who was consorting with some odd types around the time of the kidnapping and was very much the party girl. She may have inadvertantly given the information about the childs whereabouts on the night in question to some strangers. when the baby was found dead she took her own life.
It is however, hard to believe that Hauptmann was able to take the child from the room and climb down the ladder which reached only thirty inches below the edge of the window . There is also the evidence, if it is to be believed, that he was spotted by two previously unknown witnesses driving near the home. Nevertheless, people have accomplished greater physical feats then it would have required to get the baby down the ladder.
As I stated in a previous post Hauptmann probably could have cut a deal and saved his own life if he disclosed any accomplices had there been any.
Best Regards
Gary |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 190
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 05, 2003 - 12:34 pm: |
|
P.S. Speaking of the F.B.I., I also got hold of a book that promises to be critical of J. Edgar Hoover's overall handling of the Bureau.
There had better be something in there about Hoover mincing about in womens clothes and frilly underthings, or I won't consider the book complete. |
Allen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 10:24 pm: |
|
Here is a great discussion board concerning this crime if interested:
http://forum.onecenter.com/yz12/
Each of you here could fire up the debate there. |
David Andersen
Sergeant
Username: Davida
Post Number: 14
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 9:05 pm: |
|
As Sugden undoubtedly is to the Whitechapel murders, so Scaduto is to the Lindbergh case. I would reccomend 'Scapegoat' by A. Scaduto. Sorry I cant give the date my copy is at home. I am not.
Regards
David
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 84
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 12:26 am: |
|
David,
You might be interested to know that I've penned an article entitled 'Jack the Ripper, Jesus Christ, and the Lindbergh Tragedy' which, hopefully, will appear in the October issue of Ripper Notes (subscribe now, because the July issue looks like it will kick!).
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 364
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 11:45 pm: |
|
Anthony Scaduto's book about the Lindbergh Kidnapping was written in 1976. That year NEW YORK MAGAZINE had an article about his book, in which he brought out his points regarding Hauptmann's innocence. If read carefully you quickly learn that Mr. Scaduto has been opposed to capital punishment ever since he was a kid, and heard about the Sacco - Venzetti case. I bring this out to show that he was already biased against the verdict because it was a prominent execution sentence. Two other books opposing the verdict are by Ludovic Kennedy (THE CARPENTER AND THE AIRMAN)and Noel Behn (LINDBERGH THE CRIME). Both are full of errors and unusual assumptions (Behn suggesting the baby was murdered by a sister of Anne Morrow Lindbergh, who covered up for her). I'd stick with Fisher.
The problem with the case is that the Lindbergh case involves a national hero as one of the victims, so it is a big case - and big cases never die. It not only generated a manhunt, and major trial, but a slue of national kidnapping (or "Lindbergh" Laws), and much literary effect (such as Agatha Chrisie's MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS, where the conspiracy to kill the "victim" is actually a conspiracy to execute the mastermind of the kidnapping murder that destroyed a hero's family). Also, Charles Lindbergh's subsequent political views became so controvertial that sympathy for him deflated a bit. Odd too, as Hauptmann was German.
Jeff
|
James Jeffrey Paul
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 11:43 pm: |
|
Former FBI agent Jim Fisher knows more about the Hauptmann case than anyone alive. His two books, THE LINDBERGH CASE and THE GHOSTS OF HOPEWELL are highly recommended--and devastating. They nail Hauptmann to the wall. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
