jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 12, 2008 22:54:18 GMT -5
For Viceroy Kevkon: Superb title. You can order Governors and Presidents around. So be it.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 14, 2008 17:41:10 GMT -5
THANK YOU MICHAEL! I just noticed it. For my first time, I'm at a loss for words. Hope all's well with newlife. Jack
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 14, 2008 18:18:38 GMT -5
For Chancellor Joe: I'd be very interested in your thoughts on Ennui, as I'm sure many would. Better title might have been Enigma.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 16, 2008 17:30:48 GMT -5
For Kevkon: The only thing missing from the Rally this year will be you and Dwight Yokum and the "Buck Owens Show!" "Hey you don't know mw you don't like me..........." So they walk the streets of Bakersfield. Jack
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 16, 2008 20:09:30 GMT -5
Your right Howie. You remember when Sears started selling bell bottom pants and tie dyed shirts? Cool became just another mainstream trend. Kinda like that with the wannabe 1 percenters shipping their Hogs out and taking off from the corporation. The wild ones! Yeah, I won't be there.
BTW, I don't care for Viscount . If you can be the Fuehrer, then I want to be the Big Kahuna ( unless Michael has reserved that title for himself as he actually deserves it).
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 21, 2008 23:38:12 GMT -5
Well Kevie, now at least we know you buy your clothes at Sears. You and Hillary could get matching poly pantsuits!
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 22, 2008 5:55:41 GMT -5
Sorry Jack, that's another wrong conclusion. I lost count, how many does that make now? Perhaps playing the role of a detective is not your forte?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 23, 2008 15:03:26 GMT -5
I know - just comin back at you for the Jackie and Howie slams - but my wrong conclusions aren't really conclusions. I throw things out - I think for example that it's unlikely that Betty Gow had anything to do with it, but it's still a maybe and maybe somebody knows something. The flow of the crime, as I mentioned before, is very much smoother with Betty as the dumper. Now perhaps I'm defaming Betty, but Michael says she was uppity, and you and I have observed that ourselves, so why with total backing by CAL would she have to be "uppity?" Uppity is an interesting word, and the main psychiatrial defenition of it is defensive. Certainly people can be defensive for a variety of reasons, but in Betty's case there could be only one reason. So is "uppity" a connection, or am I reading more into this than there is? Betty is largely unlooked at by police and researchers - but remember what was looked at was very bad. So she seems to me to be a round peg!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 3, 2008 19:18:39 GMT -5
I can't remember where but I believe I promised to post this report once I found it:
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 9, 2008 19:56:40 GMT -5
Detective Smit was right! Thought so. It shows the importance of looking at the details objectively.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 10, 2008 15:21:11 GMT -5
Smit? What do tasers have to do with Hopewell, Kev? Did you see the new JonBenet DNA? Big news - especially if they match that uncooperative photographer - but I think there's very bad police, and near zaney DA in Boulder (the whole town is so liberal that if you asked the right guy for a spare quarter you'd probably get free B&B for life) and it may never happen.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 10, 2008 20:11:23 GMT -5
Tasers? Nothing. But the efforts by Lou Smit have a helluva lot! There's a lot more in common between these two cases than might appear.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 13, 2008 2:18:02 GMT -5
Yes there were similarities as we've brought up before, but Smit very obviously let his personal beliefs preclude logic. I know you may pull contextural excerpts from this so I'm ready to defend everything I say, and though it isn't specifically about Lindbergh I hope that's OK with Michael. There is tough news here - especially for Smit. I also believe Smit WAS a good detective - but look what the other detectives say about him. Look what Fuhrman says about him which despite his faults, comes from perhaps the world's best detective, and Thomas, et. al., including his Captain. Smit found taser marks on the body (which surely should be conceded) and tried to show that a mature spiderweb could have been built in a few hours by an unfound spider, and that the lack of footprints in spite of contrary conclusive evidence - meant the culprit escaped on a bike (the bike has never been found nor known to exist)' in spite of nonexistant tire prints and no evidence that the bike ever existed. Initially Smit concluded that the Ramseys had most likely killed their child (I do not agree with that) and until Patsy led Smit into his van with her and John for a "prayer session" about the poor baby, he thought them guilty. Miraculously, after the "prayer session," he found all of the exclusionary evidence. Smit likes to jive - and jive is fun as far as junk goes - BUT DON"T JIVE FACTS.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 13, 2008 6:55:08 GMT -5
That's tabloid nonsense worthy of the LKC, Jack. Smit used the best tool available to a good detective, one that many who follow the LKC would be better served by employing. That is the power of observation. Smit saw what others missed. They missed it because they did exactly what you accuse Smit of, they had a belief which precluded or excluded what didn't fit that belief. Sound familiar? It should because the LKC is filled to the brim with the same. Just read the first five posts on the "Hoax" site on any given day. It should also be noted that Det. Smit pursued the clues he garnered knowing it was in total opposition to his employers official line. And he paid dearly for it. Does that sound familiar as well? If you want to denigrate a great homicide detective, I suggest you offer some specific examples of improper investigative technique.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 17, 2008 18:16:00 GMT -5
Here is a good picture of the table which was located in the Nursery between the window and the crib. I've never seen it before. Kind of makes you wonder how someone wouldn't walk into it unless they had a light source and/or being familiar with the set-up of the room..... It's on sale at Ebay. If interested, just run a search in the "search-box" at the bottom of this site.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jul 18, 2008 9:25:21 GMT -5
It was so interesting to see the nursery photo, Michael. Had often tried to visualize it in my mind's eye. Somewhere I had read that some of the rooms there were rather small. If, indeed a ladder perp entered the room, it does appear something of an obstacle course. And from this view even for a young child. There sits yet another small table. Lots of sharp furniture corners. .
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 18, 2008 15:16:21 GMT -5
Excellent photo. It does seem like an obstacle course when you include the screen and sunlamp. The apparent congestion makes me wonder all the more if that noise Lindbergh heard shortly after 9:00 pm was the sound of the kidnapper negotiating his way to the crib in the dark or distorted shadows from a flashlight beam, and bumping into the table or knocking over a chair.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 19, 2008 21:46:44 GMT -5
Joke - Joe. The baby probably would have heard anyone coming in. Very tight window opening, shutters possibly banging, flashlight, and some unknown footsteps, then, to comply with the kidnapper theory, he had to be taken somehow noiselessly out of his crib and out the window. This has been gone over endlessly, I know, but it's still the only substance we have. Tons of little and big things now lead me to believe it was Al Capone. Check with Bob Mills.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 20, 2008 9:20:18 GMT -5
Big Al is the biggest joke running, Jack - not a prayer... not even the broth made from the shadow of a starved pigeon in that one. And every other gangster and con man out there ultimately knew it. I've checked out Bob Mills' theory and recall rebutting point for point on the Hoax Board, a dozen or so of his statements which form an interesting but flawed melange of Mafia primer 101 and Joyce Milton. A nice mansion of cards in the Bob Aldinger style, with a new eloquently-stated wing of intrigue added as anything remotely connected pops up, to keep the serial running.
Here are a few questions that come to mind. Is this sleeping child on some kind of string pull, ready to scream at the sound of a misplaced step? Would the windy and calamitous night outside not serve as a kind of white noise baseline and natural backdrop for a child who needed his sleep after a few fitful previous nights and who by the account of his nursemaid, went right to sleep with no difficulties? Do intruders, spiked on adrenaline or whatever their influence of choice, ever bump into things? Realistically, would it have taken a skilled intruder armed with nothing more than mayhem, any more than ten seconds to locate a soundly sleeping child and silence it one way or another?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 21, 2008 23:03:23 GMT -5
Crimes can be looked at from several angles. My method is initially to observerve asking what I call shoulda/woulda/coulda, and take it from there, as opposed to Detective Smit (mentioned otherwheres) who solves from clues. I am certainly not unique - many work from the top of the pyramid down - Mark Fuhrman is a good example. Looking at Lindbergh from shoulda/coulda/woulda leaves a lotta holes. Taking either Hauptmann alone, or Fisch and Hauptmann (two footprints away from Lindbergh house) leaves a real lot of questions. The ladder and all that junk has just been gone over so much that's it's just become stupid - I don't mean identity of the ladder - why a three section should have been brought, etc. Hauptmann does not confirm the s/c/w test. He doesn't fit either area. He was doing fine at the time - showed no emotional problems - and was being a good U.S. citizen. Al Capone, however had problems, and fits the s/c/w test perfectly. It would have been easy to find that Hauptmann was an illegal immigrant, and a good crook, so he was used for the extortion along with Fisch. /c/ But working for Al Capone, who would ever tell? I don't really have time to go back to your questions of Bob, point by point, but if you bring them up now they will be addressed. I certainly agree with you that, for example, getting out in about ten seconds was the plan, but then why, along with the "french Window" which they didn't use, was the window they did use left unlocked (that lock is in every book!) when Whateley supposedly by orders locked all windows earlier on 3/1/32? How could the plan have been so short if they didn't even know how they were getting in? Al Capone did it - the Nazis at that time were a bunch of bunglers - Al was never caught for it - and did you notice about a week after it happened Al shut up about it (long before everyone else knew the baby was dead - but Al did) and Al and his friends and Bruno Richard Hauptamnn and Isador Fisch took it to their graves or else!
|
|
hey guys entertain me
Guest
|
Post by hey guys entertain me on Jul 22, 2008 3:22:29 GMT -5
i throw the subject, you guys throw the remarks.
how did brh know they should not have been there that night?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 22, 2008 6:36:17 GMT -5
Way, way too many assumptions. That's what plagues these discussions. An argument or theory based on assumptions. Such as; Was Hauptmann a well adjusted law abider prior to 3/32? Did Hauptmann know "they" wouldn't be home that night? Was it easy to "find" or select Hauptmann as a patsy/participant? Was the intention to actually conduct a kidnapping with an exchange? Does this crime really require more than two or three participants? Would organized crime undertake such a kidnapping, particularly in this manner?
Jack, not to belabor the point, but any good detective worth his salt sticks with the evidence. What if and who could are a sure recipe for wheel spinning unless they are anchored firmly to the facts and evidence.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 22, 2008 14:04:50 GMT -5
I'm so glad you responded to this Kevin, because it can start a point by point dessertation which hopefully others will join in on. We can begin with your excellent presumptions.
Point by point, ad nauseum:
"Was Hauptmann a well adjusted law-abider (I believe that's hyphenated, Kevin) prior to 3/32?" Is there any evidence that he wasn't - up to the time when he very quickly constructed the ladder?
"Did Hauptmann know "they" would be home that night?" Fits exactly with an insider - beyond Hauptmann and Fisch capabilities, but within range of Capone.
"Was it easy to 'find' or select Hauptmann as a patsy/participant? Probably not, but with Fisch's underworld dealings, Hauptmann was probably into the logbook.
"Was the intention to actually conduct a kidnapping with an exchange?" The evidence strongly suggest that the baby was to be kept alive. Negotions went on long after the body could have been possibly been found.
"Does the crime really require more than two or three participants?" No, but one would have to be on the inside or it wouldn't have worked. Again that is clearly beyond Hauptmann or Fisch's reach, if for no other reason, by proximity.
"Would organized crime undertake such a kidnapping particularly in this manner?" No, but Al Capone would considering his uniquely unusual circumstances.
And, Kevin, stop lecturing me! I am a valid contributer here, and since you havn't come up with anything new in about five years lay off me or I'll complain to the boss.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 22, 2008 16:29:43 GMT -5
I do agree with Kevin that sometimes theories get out of hand or a bit silly because there is absolutely nothing to support some of them. I think the cause can be an emotional one or the mere fact the main thing that makes the case so interesting is the - oh so many - unanswered questions....
I do my best to tie things in or to float ideas out there to hear the diverse opinions this board seems to draw out. It's a good thing to be criticized and/or scrutinized and I for one welcome it as it applies to me.
Speaking of facts, I found something recently which proves that two distinct sets of mens footprints existed at Highfields. It's mentioned in Duch's book and I now have his source. And so what does this evidence tell us? What doesn't it tell us? And finally, are we sure its telling us what we think it is?
Someone went to great lengths to buid that the ladder specificly the way the builders did. They were very prepared AND planned out this crime by factoring in the height of the Nursery window, the weight of the Climber and child combined, the shutters width, and the size of the car which it could be contained in to transport. Not only that, it could be carried once nested, and the two sections could be employed specifically to drop off the note.
Now looking at it through this lens, is it acceptable to believe these people weren't sure the baby was there? They weren't sure if there was a Security Guard? Weren't sure the window was unlocked and the shutter unlocked?
It's only in the movies where people are very smart and then when someone is hiding in the room become extremely stupid. And so that means to me the chisel had a specific purpose just as the ladder did or they wouldn't have brought it.
Now the ad-libbing or "luck" occurs when something unexpected occurs....like being noticed by someone sitting on their porch, or mistakenly pulling over for a Confederate only to find out its a local on his way home from school. Or maybe not.
Maybe that was by design to be noticed....kind of like not moving out of Ellerson's way.
There's also emergencies....say....accidentally speeding past a cop, or something of that nature that wasn't or can't be planned for.
One of the reasons J.J. Devine picked up Schenck was because bloodhounds supposedly tracked from Highfields to Lane's woodpile. Schenck was staying with the Lane's. I believe a lot of us think the child was somewhere else before being found.
Again, would someone who designed that ladder ditch the child where it was found and still negotiate for the ransom without knowing if he had been found? I say no. But then again, that's speculation on my part because in the absence of knowledge we have only educated guesses based upon what we do know.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 22, 2008 16:40:12 GMT -5
A question for a question? You made a definitive statement about BRH. Where is your proof? What do you base that statement on?
Huh? How does that answer the point? Your making an assumption based on an assumption because it fits a preconceived idea. It fits because you want it to not because the facts and evidence reveal such.
[/quote]
You got me on that one, Jack. I didn't know Fisch was part of the "underworld". Any particular gang?
What evidence would you be referring to Jack? The secret place the child was to be kept? The person who was to care for him? The supplies bought for him? What is your source for this? Or are you saying that because negotiations went on while the baby was dead that somehow is proof that he should have been safe and sound? Check the history of kidnappings, quite a few entailed a negotiation period even though the victim was dead on day one.
Again an assumption based on an assumption.
Is that a yes or a no? And would Alphonse get involved with a couple of knuckleheads from the Bronx with all that is at stake?
I have no interest in lecturing anyone. But debating is another story. Sorry that I haven't come up with anything new, though. Maybe because too much time is wasted on the same old crap.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 25, 2008 13:14:57 GMT -5
Most researchers exclude what they consider extraneous possible conclusions. For example, most would say that Franklin Roosevelt could not have climbed the kidnap ladder and taken the Lindbergh baby, and that would certainly be a valid, though negativistic assumption. By doing this redlining however, the researcher is excluding 99.9+% of possible conclusions, and so, by simple deduction, is probably excluding the correct (though perhaps unlikely) solution. Open-mindedness is a wonderful thing, from what pair of shoes one wears each day to who they vote for as a leader. It means though that if something has remained unsolved for many years in spite of drastic examination, the force creating the unsolved had to have been very unusual. Other researchers write downgradingly of "assumptions" while never admitting that, regarding the Lindbergh Crime, over 90% of the accepted conclusion is based on assumption. So the accepted conclusion is very very weak, and from the above statistics, is probably incorrect. Consequently, to factor in the notion, "who could create an unsolvable crime?" quickly excludes Hauptmann, Fisch, and in the case of Kennedys, Oswald and possibly Sirhan. Researchers look at minor things statistically, while ignoring their own tools on the major points. Statistically it is impossible for someone to happen in the correct window when noone was around and luckily get away with it, and statistically it's impossible for about twenty, many illegal immigrants and at least two on terrorist lists to be allowed on planes on the morning of 9/11, but each thing actually happened. Consequently, something is violently nudging the statistics which is unknown. Instead of constantly looking at what is wrong with others beliefs, which is simply more of a downward road, researchers should try to build upon what is correct about those beliefs however silly or zaney they may be, and by all working together come to some kind of conclusions. For example, look closely at Condon - the man was unquestionably crazy - so he should be excluded from any kind of inspection, but while Breckenridge thought he was nuts, Lindbergh considered him mostly viable, so it's really Lindbergh that should be looked at - Condon is just a waste of time. To make a long story longer, if the concept of Al Capone's involvement is brought up on this board as a possibility, it should be considered instead of reviled, and if any of the "Monday morning Lindbergers" knew for sure who climbed into the window that night they certainly wouldn't be hanging around here.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 25, 2008 16:38:58 GMT -5
That's a lot of typing Jack! But what does it amount to I wonder. You want to consider the big man from ChiTown as the force behind the crime? Fine by me. Hey you can add bugs bunny to the ever growing list of "suspects" for all I care. And guess what, you can even post that. What's the point? Where and how does the knowledge of this case get advanced by indefensible claims? There's another board which seems to revel in such things. How's that going?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 26, 2008 1:36:22 GMT -5
Hey Kevin. Ya I got into the middle of all that and thought all this jive and there is no story which I usually like to tell, so here's a little story: I was kinda bored last nite so I walked downtown to check out the prices at various bars and sports emporias on bloody marys (can range from $2 to $20). After the first price check I found an Indian (Native American type) sleeping on steps, and woke him up and explained he was jail bait if he didn't get scooting. He agreed with me but couldn't move too well but I got him to a picknik table, and went looking for someone to give him a ride to his hotel. I found some people in front of a winery joint and figured I'd join the action. They sell bottles of wine and police allow drinking it on the street. So I went in to get some Lambrusco, but the movie "Mama Mia" is playing in town and Lambrusco is outsold so I had to settle for Brachetto - but ack - $ 32.00 a bottle. So I get my bottle of vino feeling like I am back in Milano but with bad tables outside so I stand around with these folks. This girl I'm next to looks exactly like a girl I ran with when I was twenty, and I accused her of being a reincarnate but she said no, so I asked her what she thought about Lindbergh. She said "wasn't he a pilot or something?" Anyway the girl was with this band "Abbey Road" who are Beatles impersonators, and they were there too, but nobody would give the brother a ride, and when I last looked for him he was gone, so hasta. She was right, and it shows very much how interested the average person is about the Lindbergh Crime. I remember when John Lennon died, one of my secretaries said, "wasn't he a Beatle or something," and realizing at that time that I was the one out of touch, not her. On LKHF there are two people ongoingly arguing over which one is the actual Lindbergh child, and one is a woman who is at a disadvantage, but who knows, the baby was very cute.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 26, 2008 13:01:34 GMT -5
For Kevin (carpenter story): I've watched several garages being built on properties next to where I was living. The best was two good carpenters who put up the whole structure except for finishing in less than a day. They never even spoke - I actually saw one of them look at the other, and the ground guy threw him a six foot level, which was what he needed. They seemed to instinctively know what was happening. The garage I'm watching being built now has one carpenter and it looks like a couple free help guys from the rez. Lotsa yelling, but what made me think of the situation vs. the other garages was when the carpenter topside was looking for a black bag in the truck (I heard him ask four times for it), and he says to the rezzer, "do you want instructions in braille?"
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 26, 2008 21:16:21 GMT -5
Hey Jack, good stories. Maybe that carpenter should learn Injun.
|
|