kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 20, 2007 8:22:15 GMT -5
Why is the traditional phone call to the victim's parents forsaken here? It's more efficient and ,more importantly it conveys the urgency of the situation. It also gives the kidnapper more control over the situation. Why play around with the correspondence?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 20, 2007 10:57:17 GMT -5
While the first letter seems to indicate there will be future letters based upon the secret symbol, we can't discount the possibility that phone calls were planned. Forget for a minute the number was unlisted and they'd have to figure out exactly how...but these guys seemed to know an awful lot they shouldn't have so I'd bet they would have been able to. The 2nd note explains how, in essence, all bets are off due to the Police involvement. And so this may explain why no calls came from them to there.
If we believe Condon then he rec'd at least one call from these People so they weren't afraid to use the phone, and of course, weren't afraid to make personal contact either.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 20, 2007 15:28:22 GMT -5
But why not use the phone for the first contact? The fact that it was unlisted might be a reason, though I think in those days an operator would put you through and not having the number doesn't bode well for an insider based theory at all. The vast majority of kidnappings of the period that I have read about employed the telephone for the contact and instructions. It may, in all likelihood have kept the police out of the case for the initial time. That nonthreatening Nursery note certainly didn't.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Oct 20, 2007 17:31:58 GMT -5
I don't believe Hauptmann would have had the temerity to personally contact and talk with Lindbergh even by telephone and that he probably had considered that such a move might expose any insecurity on his part towards carrying through with the scheme.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 21, 2007 8:03:58 GMT -5
Joe
Why so? Personally, I don't see Hauptmann as fearing too much. Joe
Considering the bravado shown throughout the entire crime , where is there a hint of insecurity? In any case, the use of the telephone doesn't necessarily mean that CAL would be on the other end, in fact that would be very unlikely.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Oct 21, 2007 9:33:54 GMT -5
I don't think Hauptmann feared much as it related to the logistics of the crime. My point relates directly towards the motive for the crime and the position of awe, at the same time detestation, in which Hauptmann held Lindbergh. I believe he would have been too timid to approach him in any more of a personal way than by writing.
It's apparent at least from Condon's account of things that CJ, whom I fully believe was Hauptmann, revealed a very insecure and hesitant side in the meeting at Woodlawn Cemetery. I think Hauptmann probably reasoned he could carry off the meeting much more effectively than he actually did, but that the surprise of the cemetery guard's appearance and Condon's dour demeanour in general kept him sufficiently off-balance to reveal a decided chink in his armour.
|
|
|
Post by Giszmo on Oct 21, 2007 9:49:44 GMT -5
"...the position of awe, at the same time detestation, in which Hauptmann held Lindbergh. "(Joe) Where'd you get this from? Is it documented that Hauptmann held Lindbergh in "awe" and at the same time "detested" him? Or does this come out in his astrology chart?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 21, 2007 9:53:48 GMT -5
Hauptmann opted to go to the chair when he could have saved his own life by naming others. With this in mind - are we talking about the same guy here?
Whether you believe this was Hauptmann or not I cannot accept anything Condon said at face value. I mean he has us believing he caught CJ after he ran away from the scene at Woodlawn.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Oct 21, 2007 12:31:35 GMT -5
Well I am at least; he's the very same guy known for his consistency to be inconsistent. I don't think you can begin to compare Hauptmann's persona and m.o. before the kidnap and during the extortion with that of the desperate being on death row using all of his determination and resolve to protect the two people closest to him, at the same time playing every card he could steal to beat the chair.
That seems to have been Scaduto's and Kennedy's byline. Given this philosophy I'm not sure then how much sense can be made of the accounts related by the entire troup of characters who touched this case, each one of whom I would not be surprised to have been caught in at least one lie. Leading the list here would be none other than Hauptmann and I feel pretty confident he told the truth on occasion. I'm also surprised you would say this given your previous stance about the importance of discerning within the LKC what is truthful, what is simply embellished and what is false.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Oct 21, 2007 12:41:28 GMT -5
Sorry, I had meant to state this as opinion and not fact. Having said that though, my opinion is that I wouldn't be surprised to see it become fact.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 27, 2007 8:27:53 GMT -5
None of this changes the fact that this supposedly well planned kidnapping failed to utilize the commonly used method of telephoning. Fear of speaking directly to Lindbergh seems a bit of a stretch considering the very act of entering his house and abducting his child. The use of the telephone would also be more efficient and put more control in the hands of the kidnapper. Face it , the Nursery note is a joke, it fails on every level.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 28, 2007 9:39:34 GMT -5
That's why I believe there is more going on here then meets the eye. Regardless of whether or not this note was written on the fly - how does that eliminate the usage of a phone to facilitate the apparent goal from the crime which resulted?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 28, 2007 11:01:33 GMT -5
I am not sure I understand the question, but essentially the phone is the technological advancement over the note. It has several advantages especially in the ability to control the exact timing of events. In the case of the LKC, the initial note is so deficient of the elements required I think a telephone call could only have been superior in every sense. It could have conveyed the demands with a sense of urgency and intimidation which would facilitate a ransom payoff without the interference of the police and the public. Isn't that what a kidnapper wants?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 29, 2007 5:43:34 GMT -5
That's what's assumed they wanted. But what if the phone wasn't necessary because a Principal and/or Confederate was on the inside. Or, the note was merely intended to be a blind, bluff, or misdirection away from the original intent.
I am convinced we're dealing with several people, and I still feel a sum was paid to those involved ahead of time. The intent was to murder Charles Lindbergh Jr. and I don't believe the $50,000 ransom was ever supposed to be collected. Someone got greedy, and Hauptmann paid the price for that greed.
Even still, he went down with the ship and didn't name or tell anything to give them up, that is unless you believe the Jones Letter. I don't know - there's a weird admiration that exists for those who have (for lack of a better term) courage to "go down with the ship" rather then to tell on others in order to save their own a** and in this case his life. I think this was always one of those things the public felt fascinated by the (Mafia) OC about.
It's very rare nowadays even with Members of the (Mafia) OC.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 29, 2007 8:07:10 GMT -5
OK, I respect your position. But what would be your assessment of this if you didn't hold that view? In that case why such a completely lacking first note and why a not a telephone call?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Oct 29, 2007 10:31:44 GMT -5
Kevin--i have a couple thoughts on the phone call: - Although the nursery note is rather skimpy on details--it does contain the mysterious symbol that plays a big role down the road. It is my view that the symbol carries "information" to others.
Interlopers are a huge problem. so how would you tell who's on first after the next few phone calls from cranks?
- Although it is a new science, some phone calls can be traced.
I sure dont know which ones, but some masterminds might be concerned with this. I think Walsh was able to trace some of the calls in and out of Next Day Hill to trap Violet?
- Ransom notes are so....SOP, that everyone expects to get one in a kidnap for money. I agree that a phone call from a pay phone booth would leave less evidence.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 29, 2007 16:43:36 GMT -5
Hey Rick, I see your points. The problem as I see it is that the Nursery note is a flop. It fails on several counts. It does not convey a real threat to those who ignore the instructions. That in itself is a major departure from most ransom notes. It fails to expedite the ransom payoff by neglecting to give exact directions. It doesn't even mention the all important "packet". Why if this crime has been thoroughly thought out in advance are these instructions missing? With a kidnapping involving this particular victim you would expect the kidnappers to expedite matters, not delay them. As for the "singnature", what utility does this flourish really provide? If you have the hostage you really don't need to worry too much about interlopers,especially if you act quickly. Even then you can be confident in the knowledge that only you can fulfill your end of the bargain. As for identification, a simple alias would suffice. In regard to conveying information, to whom? Are the kidnappers not already in contact with each other? It simply doesn't wash. Also note the concern in the following note regarding the police intercepting the mail and the need to send a duplicate letter to Breckinridge. Why not use the telephone? Any real kidnapper wants to have an expeditious ransom/ hostage exchange without the involvement of law enforcement. Whether by note or telephone that objective can only be achieved by the effectiveness of the first contact. You must make it clear that the only way to get the hostage back safely is through the kidnapper and by following any instructions to the letter. Any deviation and it's game over. That is what the first contact must achieve. The use of a telephone makes that contact personal and reinforces the position of the kidnapper. Think about it, which would leave more of an impact on you, a note or a direct call from the kidnapper? Which would be more likely to leave a sense of urgency and a tangible image of the kidnapper? Look at the ransom kidnappings of the period, there is a proven formula.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 30, 2007 5:39:51 GMT -5
Kevin, you make now, and always have made, a good argument regarding the Nursery Note. The Note seems to leave this "issue" open ended.....Telling him not to contact the Police almost as if they know he will.
Honesty, the phone call would have only worked IF Lindbergh didn't call the Police. They had so many calls coming in it is possible a Confederate did call but I'm not sure if they (or we) would have known it. Heck, we're still debating whether or not the Berritellas' were solicited by them.
This is why the symbol is so damn important because it proves who they were. And again, it shows (me anyway) this was well planned out. Its almost as if they expected the mayhem that took place knowing this symbol would alway legitimize their identity, or in the alternative, prevent all others from making that claim.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 30, 2007 7:42:29 GMT -5
But the symbol wasn't all that well thought out. For one it failed to identify the letter containing the note from all of the other correspondence sent. If the intent of the kidnapper(s) was to have their message identified from all of the rest of the mail, meaning they realized there would be a lot of competition so to say, then why didn't they make their mark on the envelope? Also, how closely was this symbol and especially the indexed holes compared to the previous note when received? It's overkill, plain and simple. There was no reason to diligently check the alignment of those holes. My take on that is that the holes are a result of a very insecure kidnapper. Why the insecurity if he has the golden goose? Why does he put more emphasis on the "singnature" than the content of his first all important note? Had he communicated in a more threatening way, the whole issue of identification would be moot since the public and police would not have been notified. I think that we both agree on this point and I believe you see this as intentional where as I see it as a result of a compromised position. I see it that way because that Nursery note is so pitiful and as the introduction it shouldn't be. That doesn't change if you think the kidnapping a hoax since that scenario would dictate the need to duplicate a typical kidnapping and a typical note. There is, for me only one explanation for the deficiency of the Nursery note, it was written on the fly.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Oct 30, 2007 10:33:51 GMT -5
kevin--I see your dismay. Here are two questions we dont know the answer to: - Was there a phone call in addition to the Nursery Note? If in fact the ladder, chisel and NN are a blind to cover for what actually happened to Charlie Jr--eg either an inside or outside job then addtional lines of communication need to be established with CAL to effect transfer of the money for Charlie Jr. Lets say some gang or Al Capone for instance. This would help to account for the 2hr delay in opening the ransom note--its contents already known.
- Does the symbol/signature itself effect a threat? In the Liberty articles by James J. Finn (part two) there is a pictogram of the symbol under the letterhead of Harrold C. Keyes suggesting that the RED dot in the center of the symbol symbolizes "violence". This threat could only be directed to Charlie Jr. Maybe this is why Mickey Rosner reportedly shuddered when he first saw the symbol? Apparently he recognized something to be feared?
- Michael posted one copy of this pictogram under "Harold Keyes" in 2006, however the one shown in Finn is slightly different and hard to read?
- www.imagecabin.com/?view=59321058tv02iokea12QlJ
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Oct 30, 2007 15:49:48 GMT -5
Knowing the police were all over the place, might the kidnapper have been leery of having his voice recorded from the phone? The calls to Condon's house may have been timed in such a way as to preclude being recorded(?)
Ransom note #8 _ We know you have to come to us. Is this not similar phraseology to the Fisch look-alike at Breck's office-along the lines of - (Lingbergh) has to come to (or deal with) us?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 30, 2007 16:48:56 GMT -5
Well I think I question the lack of a telephone call precisely for the reasons being submitted. That is chiefly as a more effective means to achieve the priority concern for any kidnapper, keep the police out of the game by exerting total control over the situation. Control, control that is the nature of the beast we call a kidnapper. It is a crime predicated on controlling a hostage and those whom you seek a ransom from. Once that control is lost everything is up in the air. Why does this crime start out with so little control? Why, with ample time to contemplate the crime and prepare the crucial first contact, the Nursery note, is the result so lacking in the essential elements needed to gain that control? Why does the initial announcement, the one on which so much hangs, come up so short in every way? Why is it placed in an envelope away from center stage. Think of the ego required for such a brazen act, does this first note reflect it? I would think a well planned crime, be it a kidnap or something other, would incorporate a measure of absolute control in which the telephone would be expeditious. The call would be the announcement and it would reflect the power of the abductor. I will tell you what to do and I will tell you when. You will deal with me, and me alone if you ever want to see your loved one again. It's that simple. And if you are attempting to imitate a kidnapping you are certainly not going to deviate from this standard. Yet in the LKC we are left with a paltry first announcement that fails to threaten or even give complete directions. So this is the result of careful planning? So was the later demand for the "packet" an afterthought? Is this even slightly indicative of a professional criminal or gang? No, that Nursery note and the following notes are filled with elements of improvisation. The crime is evolving as events unfold. That's not control.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 31, 2007 5:52:01 GMT -5
I think the thing is this: You can't call before you have the child. You know they will discover him missing at 10PM. You have to know once the Police are called that all hell will break loose so you leave a note telling them not to call the Police.
I still believe the symbol shows an advance planning. In my opinion, it took 70+ years before we knew where the holes came from and for others - we still don't know.
So we must focus on the first and most important note just as you have. This note specifically says there will be more notes which will be authenticated by the secret symbol. Again (for me) this suggests premeditation.
In my opinion, if something happens by chance then we don't have a symbol, and a phone call might be the first thing someone thinks about when it comes to contacting the family. I would think stumbling upon this child would cause a rush and the overwhelming feeling to snatch and grab then get the hell out of Dodge as fast as humanly possible.
I don't want to turn this thread into chaos but in reality we have very good indications that at least one Confederate is in Hopewell around 3PM and very near Highfields at 6PM. It gets dark at 6 , but they wait until 8PM to act. If this was a planned robbery then it seems the Nursery was always it original planned point of entry considering the ladder and the shutter. It also seems 8PM (or later if you have a personal theory which differs) was the intended time of entry. Why?
We have to ask ourselves what would be different at 8PM that was different then at, say, 6:30PM? And how these people would know that.....
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 31, 2007 7:49:57 GMT -5
First let me stress that I am not bound by any theory. I am simply looking at the evidence and attempting to find if there are possibilities other than those already on the table which could explain the odd circumstances of this crime. MichaelYou are assuming of course that the kidnapper knew of the 10pm deadline, I don't at all see this as a certainty. The call to the police is , of course, the one thing you want to avoid. So why is the effort to prevent this so inadequate? Concentrate on this singular point. MichaelI don't know that it matters now or then. The holes were largely irrelevant to everyone but the kidnapper. That's the important point to remember, IMHO. Why was identification more important than threat? MichaelYes, the first note is all important as it should reveal the mind of the criminal prior to the crime. Does it? here is another example of seeing the same event in a different way. You see the call for further notes as evidence of premeditation, I see it as a delaying tactic due to an incomplete plan. You see the secret symbol as an integral part of the plan, I see it as a result of insecurity. MichaelWho can possibly say one way or another? Situational awareness ( I borrowed that from the NJSP ) , the light, the movement and activities of those inside, there could be a host of reasons for the time of the entry and they could be seemingly insignificant to us. Bottom line, the Nursery note failed miserably. It failed to do that which it was intended. And the vaunted secret symbol, what would have changed had the note simply been signed with a somewhat unique name? It wouldn't matter one bit as long as that signature was not publicly known. Control is absolutely missing and that one fact should give cause for everyone to think about what's really going on here.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 1, 2007 16:47:48 GMT -5
Nor am I - especially as I learn more through our discussions and further research.
It's an inference I draw when taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration. By no means is it an absolute -but for me - I need something substantial to upset it.
Here's what I accept. It seems to me the ladder was built specifically for the Nursery. They struck right when the lights went out. They were both quick and stealthy.
The Investigators seemed to think it was important AND it authenticated the party involved. Again, I am not so sure this wasn't meant to disprove others as being the Party in question.
I am not so sure other notes were supposed to follow. I think some may have gotten greedy.
Honestly yes. A name could easily be reproduced from memory. Them three holes were a different story altogether.
I think we believe a lot of the same things but just are seeing their meanings differently.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Nov 2, 2007 8:19:20 GMT -5
Michael
Absolutely. But why is a kidnapper so concerned with this? With a hot potato such as the Lindbergh child you would want an extremely quick turnover not a protracted correspondence. Anyway the point was those holes, did everyone in receipt of a letter rush to see that they aligned?
Michael
Then the "singnature" is not necessary. And in this scenario a phone call would make even more sense.
I am sorry for harping on the issue of the Nursery note, but the more I looked at other ransom kidnappings the more that this note seemed completely wrong. Now maybe our kidnapper just got it all wrong or failed to do his homework, it's certainly possible. On the other hand this note certainly doesn't seem to me to be the product of careful kidnap planning. It's the crime of the century with the 5 minute note. And let's not forget that the note failed to deliver on almost every count. The police were called and the public was certainly notified. The area was searched. The money was not immediately put together. Other claimants were followed. The only thing the note did was authenticate the message to Condon over the phone and obviously the holes were not aligned over the telephone. The bottom line with this note is literally the "singnature" and I think we have to concentrate on why a kidnapper is so preoccupied with this identifier. Let's think about what might have occurred had Lindbergh or a household member been contacted prior to 10pm by phone or had the note been left open in the crib. Let's also assume that in either case a stern warning and threat was given. If the police had not been notified as per the kidnapper's instructions then the ransom exchange could occur with perhaps one more communication. If no one has any idea that the Lindbergh child has been kidnapped then who will be communicating about his return? So the question is, does this kidnapper expect his demand to be ignored? Because that is the only reason to be so concerned with identification.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 4, 2007 9:39:31 GMT -5
I am positive this was looked at immediately as soon as the 2nd note was received but I'll have to search for the source(s). I have been having much luck in that department lately. Stay tuned.... The Kidnapper(s) certainly pointed them out for such a comparison to occur.
It simply seems to me to prevent others from obstructing whatever it is their goal was. Not only that, for me, I believe there were multiple players involved - so what the symbol does is even prevent actual Confederates from double-crossing the Symbol Maker.
Agreed. The longer the "negotiations" the worse off it is for the Perpetrators. Yet, they seem to be stupid, sloppy, doing things which would get them caught - YET - become invisible to the Police by and through Lindbergh & Condon's "roadblocks." Again, what if no turn over was ever meant to occur?
The phone call would have had to occur immediately after the abduction before the crime went over the wire. I see the symbol as preparation. And I agree the NN is lacking but it seems to be to be intentionally so. If people think Hauptmann wrote these notes, then how is he penning out the NN in his car? Does anyone believe he could have known and used the word "indications" in proper context plus spelled it correctly? This shows forethought and not spontaneity in my opinion. Even still - does one suppose Hauptmann brought along a dictionary in his car?
Funny isn't it? The "outside" note didn't have the symbol. This is the one Condon had opened originally - yet he described the symbol on the sealed note that he supposedly had not opened. Neat trick isn't it?
See above. I don't think their concern was about the ransom only to reveal the true identity of the party in question to keep the "Chiselers" from getting money off of this "snatch." It also points away from the home as a source of the crime. Think about why the corpse was "returned" to a spot very near the house. This too fits.
|
|
|
Post by Rab on Nov 4, 2007 12:17:18 GMT -5
Well this discussion hits on a lots of points that have exercised me in the past:
- That the kidnapper(s) would plan to phone I don't find strange given that Condon was called at least once. But he was in the book. I'm not sure how easy it would have been to get the Lindberghs' unlisted number. But let us suppose that was possible. Do we know for sure that that there was no call? I imagine all sorts of crazies tried to get in touch in the days following the kidnapping, who is to say that an attempt was made but it got lost in the "noise". The one advantage of the letters was that at least there was an identifying symbol; what could one say with certainty on the phone to ensure that the call was believed and that it was acted upon?
- I have always maintained that the crime was unplanned and I stick to that. That is not to say that there weren't elements of foresight (I think the symbol for one shows some semblance of that) but overall I don't see months or years of planning. As I've said in the past, the nursery note is completely generic, no mention of name, age or gender. It could have been written for any kidnapping. Perhaps off-topic but in my opinion the ladder is also generic, not built for Hopewell, but built to provide some level of flexibility in terms of height while still being portable.
- As the historian F.W. Maitland once cautioned, we should always be aware that what now lies in the past, once lay in the future. Which is to say: did the kidnapper(s) really expect that the instructions - as they were - in the nursery note would be completely ignored? Lindbergh's decision to call the police before opening the note has been commented on previously. But would the kidnapper(s) expect such an action? Perhaps only in retrospect does it seem so. So whatever plan might have been in place - and I tend to think it was a fairly fluid plan, if there was one at all - evaporated as soon as Lindbergh called the police. Some of the later letters express frustration and anger at this action, as if it was totally unexpected.
- I do agree with Kevin that there was a great deal of flexibility in the plan. There is no mention of a go-between until Lindbergh makes such an offer through the newspapers. Condon seems - perhaps debatedly - to have stumbled in at the right time to satisfy the need for a go-between. If he hadn't offered his services, what other options were there? The flow of letters seems in paraphrase to be saying: there's no rush, we can wait, let things die down. There is a battle of wills in terms of a COD transation which the kidnapper(s) won but again at St Raymond's there is seemingly a lack of preparedness when a note is requested. But when the note comes it seems to have such specifics, compared to the ambiguities of earlier notes.
- And I think there might be some mileage in Michael's point about the symbol being just as important to the kidnappers (and let us here assume there was more than one) as it was to the parents and the authorities. It both gave the notes an authenticity and also served perhaps as a mechanism to enfore cohesion amongst the kidnappers. If there was indeed a template then at least amongst the kidnappers it gave them some level of power to communicate with Lindbergh. Let me pose this: if a ransom letter arrived with completely different handwriting from the other, earlier notes would it be ignored if not for the symbol? I would say yes, so the symbol in effect gave a gang a means to communicate, rather than just an individual. And if it was difficult to replicate - in that it required a template - then it enforced some level of control within the gang (if indeed there was a gang).
- I'm not aware of specific reports of the hole alignment being checked on the notes. It seems to be the major identification was visual on the overall symbol itself. But certainly the kidnapper(s) thought the alignment, or spacing or some characteristic of the holes important - "specially them holes" - because attention was drawn to it. So that to me is meaningful, even if the importance of it was lost on the Lindberghs and the authorities.
I suppose my position remains that a kidnapping was planned, but not necessarily this kidnapping, not necessarily the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby. And I don't think March 1 was chosen, I think a series of events led to a rough plan being put into motion on that day and that probably only on that day was the decision made, borne out of frustration and financial necessity.
Rab
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Nov 4, 2007 15:42:55 GMT -5
This is the problem from my point of view regarding the whole method of contact and the "singnature"; as Rab has pointed out there is ample evidence found in the following notes that reveal a frustration or anger at Lindbergh for having contacted the authorities and hence the public at large. So clearly the instructions in the Nursery note were expected to be sufficient and more importantly, to be followed. This is an important point, perhaps the most important one because if the kidnapper actually believed that the instructions would be followed he would obviously have little concern over being identified as the actual kidnapper. Nobody but the Lindberghs and their closest associates as well as the kidnapper know about the kidnapping so who can be contacting them regarding the return of CAL Jr but the kidnapper. So for me their are only two possibilities as to why the kidnapper felt compelled to incorporate an unique signature on the note. One, there are others involved whom he does not trust ( no honor among thieves) and he wants to be distinguished from any attempts they might make to garner the ransom. Two, the kidnapper needs, or feels he needs, this signature to substitute for not actually having a live hostage. I think I tend to go with the second option because I feel that an actual kidnapper has a pretty strong hand, the hostage, and as such he has little reason to worry about not being taken seriously. This is also reflected later in the notes when the writer dismisses Lindbergh's efforts to deal with other "kidnappers". In any case I definitely see a lot of improvisation at work which ironically has it's advantages over a well planned crime. In fact I think it is still hard for many to believe that a crime this sensational was being winged.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 5, 2007 6:28:36 GMT -5
Have you gone over Kevin's ladder research? I believe after reviewing his observations you will come to the irresistible conclusion this ladder was built for this job.
I've said this before and do believe its a valid point. I often wonder, even now, if calls were dismissed which would have led directly to the Kidnappers, or in the alternative, investigations closed which were actually on the right track. There were so many calls and letters coming through that I just don't know how they could have possibly done the proper investigations into each. However, there were times the Police would investigate, close the matter, and then investigate AGAIN because somehow the communication broke down and certain people such as Keaton and Lamb weren't informed what the next guy ordered and/or simply didn't know. So - I suppose my point is the exact opposite could have happened as well. And when, after reading Dr. Gardner's book, The Case That Never Dies, we see that Authorities in other Agencies were competing with one another (sometimes hiding information) and other variables such as Capt. Oliver not making reports on certain investigations - it all seems to insinuate this is quite possibile.
However, the notes all seem quite clear on one thing and that is they will be the method of communication. And again, I do think the Berritellas were recruited so while other methods were employed it seems clear the main avenue of communication (intended) were the notes.
Not that Rab needs me to back him up but he has always maintained this. I think knowing that both he and Kevin came to similar conclusions - independent of one another - holds some serious weight. However, for me I think there are too many circumstances (for example: Kevin's ladder research) which point to this Kidnapping. This note is a valuable clue so perhaps with everyone's varying input on the interpretation of it we may be able to get somewhere.
Another excellent point. What exactly does it mean? Why the need for such a transaction anyway?
Exactly. And so why leave the note where there is absolutely no guarantee it will be read before the Police arrive? If I look and see the child is gone from the crib do I look for a note on the window sill? No. Perhaps that's why they supposedly find it after the fact and missed its existence in the first place. So - the Kidnappers seem to undermine their own plan just from the placement of the note.
I can't help but believe this was done on purpose and even suspect the note may not have been left there at the exact time the individuals in question came and went.
This is exactly why brilliant minds like Ellis Parker believed there were two separate crimes: Kidnapping AND Extortion.
I believe the extortion was "winged" but the crime itself was not only planned but carried out with perfection.
|
|