|
Post by lurp173 on Mar 5, 2024 19:07:19 GMT -5
Interesting New York Times article on the LKC from 3/5/24. I'm not certain how to place a direct link to this article but it can be reached by the following: www.nytimes.com/2024/03/05/nyregion/charles-lindbergh-baby.htmlI have to agree with Del Quentin Wilber, the Washington Investigations Editor for the AP when he states the following in regards to Hauptmann: "They railroaded a guilty man."
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 5, 2024 19:25:55 GMT -5
Let me ask you this (and forgive me if I have in the past but I know many people change their minds about certain things over time), how many people do you believe were involved from start to finish with this thing? And do you believe anyone on the inside was involved? For example, do you believe Betty Gow may have assisted in some way?
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Mar 8, 2024 15:49:50 GMT -5
Michael,
This post is in response to the questions you asked me in your post of 3/5/24. You are definitely correct about people changing their minds over time concerning many aspects of the LKC. I've always thought of this as a good thing. For me, the key to to solving any criminal case has always been flexibility in examining new information and evidence. Although, having said this, I still believe that this crime was an actual kidnapping/extortion with the motive being financial gain. My answers to your questions will be predicated on this case theory. I'll try to keep this brief; perhaps future posts can expand on things.
Your question about how many subjects were involved in this crime from start to finish is probably one of the most critical and debated aspects of the LKC (undoubtedly at least one of the most controversal among those who have researched the case). Everyone certainly has an opinion on this question, and I personally believe that the available evidence on this 92 year old crime does not produce an absolute definitive answer that would ever satisfy everyone.
This controversy over the number of accomplices in the LKC certainly shows the critical importance of the initial crime scene search and documentation. There is only one shot at it and I'm not impressed with how the NJSP handled it. For me, your research shows the high probability that either two or three perpetrators were at the Lindbergh house on the night of March 1st. If one is satisfied that the two sets of footprints from the house to the ladder sections (and then to Amwell Road via the old abandoned road parallel to the Lindbergh driveway) as documented in one of DeGaetano's reports are not those of Lindbergh, Whateley, Police Officers or the Press, then certainly two individuals were involved in the crime that night. In addition, Schwartzkopf's alleged statements to DeLong in June of 1932 add an additional set of footprints at a location further back from the house that was presumed to be a lookout for the two perps with the ladder. For me, it is totally reasonable that three individuals could have easiy pulled off this kidnapping at Highfields that night. On a personal note, my great Uncle Hopewell Police Chief Harry Wolfe always believed in the guilt of Hauptmann, but that he (Hauptmann) was not a lone perpetrator at Highfields. Knowing the "woodsmanship" and common sense that my great Uncle possessed, this convinces me that he observed multiple sets of footprints at the crime scene (excluding those claimed by Anne) that he believed belonged to the kidnappers.
Assuming that the ransom negotiations and payoff were a normal continuation of the kidnapping, this part of the crime could obviously been conducted by these same two or three individuals. Since I do not see any evidence that more than C.J, and a "possible" lookout were involved at the two cemetery meetings, I would conclude that no more than three perpetrators were involved in this crime from the snatch of the child at Highfields through the ransom exchange and any further money laundering activities.
Having said all of the above, I have to add that I've always been impressed with the unique research conducted by Dave Holwerda in regards to this case. His many years spent interviewing and actually speaking with so many of the cast of characters in the LKC was an amazing accomplishment. The information and "gut feelings" he would have gained from this activity should be important to anyone who is attempting to analyse this case. I can't imagine conducting a successful criminal investigation without face to face interviews/interrogations of all the players involved. Police reports and statements just can't provide the same "gut feelings" and accurate conclusions. I stand to be corrected, but it's my understanding that Dave started his LKC research journey believing that Hauptmann was completely innocent of the crime, and he subsequently concluded that Hauptmann was not only the sole pertpetrator but that he (Hauptmann) was fully capable of murdering the child. For me, Dave's conclusions can not be ignored.
There are definitely exceptions to everything, but from my 30 years of experience the vast, vast majority of crimes (even conspiracy cases with multiple defendents) are simple and direct in nature. As the old time criminal investigator's saying goes "find the motive, solve the crime". Although this very old LKC is unique in many ways (and everyone here has their own definition of "simple and direct"), I try to use this concept when examining a question like the number of accomplices in this crime. For me, the motive of the kidnapping was financial gain, and in over the past 92 years only one person has ever been found in possession of any sizeable amount of the ransom money,
Sorry for such a long response to your first question Michael, but this question could be discussed and debated for days by LKC enthusiasts. Just trying to articulate some of my thinking behind my answer.
I'll submit a separate response to your other question in another post.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 9, 2024 12:48:05 GMT -5
Thank you and looking forward to it. (Please check your DM box)
|
|