kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 7, 2012 7:15:13 GMT -5
It doesn't have to be a grudge, it is actually more common for there to be an affinity of sorts. Look at many crimes involving high profile targets and you see this odd psychological relationship.
I also believe BRH had another place in regard to the ladder and I can accept that there may be another whose identity has not yet been discovered. However, the issue of murder versus kidnapping is different. There are clear indicators in this crime that there was no regard for the life of the victim. On the other hand, there is absolutely no indication of even a trace of evidence relating to the holding and caring of a small child. Think of the actual requirements for taking care of an infant hostage and the preparation that would require. There would be a trail.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2012 9:30:55 GMT -5
Kevkon, when you say there was an affinity of sorts, do you mean that their was some kind of connection to Lindbergh, either real or imagined by the kidnapper? Was the kidnapper trying to save Lindbergh from his less than perfect son? Did he think that by eliminating Charlie the world would not have to know that Lindbergh's son was impaired. He takes the child and leaves a ransom note so it looks like a kidnapping? I think there is a psychological angle wrapped up in this crime somewhere. That is why Charlie's body was returned to be found. It would end the useless search that Lindbergh was making for his son. An act of sympathy by the kidnapper. Closure for the Lindberghs.
I think that BRH built the ladder somewhere other than his house. I was reading about some of the jobs Hauptmann was doing, months before the kidnapping, for the National Millwork and Lumbar Co. Quite a few of them were along Webster Ave. He could have been acquiring wood for the ladder while he was doing this work. The soil report posted on another thread placed some of the soil particles found on the kidnap ladder coming from soil conditions along Webster Ave. in the Bronx. Could there be an unknown accomplice we don't know about? Possibly but they would have to be someone Hauptmann knew well enough that he could trust to commit this crime with him.
LJ, I agree with what you say about the ransom being low for such a high profile target. IMO it suggests that money was secondary to why the child was taken. Could it be that the planner of the kidnapping was the one with the psychological connection to Lindbergh and was never interested in any money. The ransom was for the people who would implement the plan for him. Just an idea I have been pondering.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 7, 2012 10:33:16 GMT -5
Interesting idea, Amy. Though I don't know for sure who had either grudge or twisted affinity enough for the Lindberghs to do something this. I'm looking forward to the Zorn book next week; maybe some new light will be shed on all this. Your ideas of the Fed and Warburg as the culprits are interesting, Bookrefuge, but I am left wondering why these types of conspirators wouldn't have taken out Lindbergh himself, unless the intent was to keep the baby alive and hold him hostage until they were sure Lindbergh would do (or not do) whatever they wanted. (Sounds a bit like the scenario portrayed, on a much grander scale, in the Philip Roth novel Plot Against America: CALjr. is kidnapped by Nazi agents who raise him as a Hitler Youth, holding him hostage in Germany so Lindbergh will run for President and implement Nazi policies in the US). But anyway, aviation was much riskier and more hazardous in those days, and it was what Lindbergh was known for. So, if one wanted to somehow neutralize Lindbergh, I would think it would be much simpler and less suspicious to, say, tamper with his plane and cause some sort of "accident", rather than murdering the world's most famous toddler for something his grandfather did and his father might do. But maybe I'm just not looking at everything in it's proper context.
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Jun 7, 2012 11:49:11 GMT -5
The key word in the above quote is "perhaps." Perhaps also means perhaps not. If...let me repeat that word...if...these financial and political interests HAD gotten caught, it would ruin them.
If they were that far off the radar that they couldn't get caught, why not assassinate Lindbergh? Perhaps (there's that word again) they felt they were far off the radar enough to get away with conspiracy, but not murder. Certainly not murder of the most famous man on the planet.
Okay, so the first question that pops into my mind is this: Who did they recruit to perform the kidnapping, and more importantly, HOW did they discover them to recruit?
(Sheesh, now it's beginning to sound like the LKC actually IS drawing parallels to the JFK assassination.)
Let me toss this out just for the heck of it...wasn't it Septimus Banks who was an alcoholic that ran the risk of getting fired numerous times if he didn't sober up? Perhaps (there's that word again) he felt animosity for having to worry about his employment? Perhaps he conspired with another staff member (i.e. Violet Sharpe) to get some form of revenge?
Just tossing things out here.... Jd
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jun 7, 2012 11:49:49 GMT -5
One could look at the grudge Noso had toward Morrow Sr., I guess. That is if Noso is considered to have something to do with the kidnapping. Money owed.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 7, 2012 14:04:22 GMT -5
JD, I plead guilty to using “perhaps,” but I think that applies to the majority of ideas floated on this board.
Perhaps (there’s the word AGAIN) they didn’t assassinate Lindbergh because Lindbergh, without knowing it, was performing a service for them by trailblazing intercontinental aviation, which was essential to their plan for a new global order. It was James Warburg who told members of Congress we would have world government by ”conquest or consent.” That last part is verifiable, it isn’t speculation. And it is possible to hurt a man (such as Lindbergh) without killing him. Killing a man’s firstborn son is a type of revenge dating to ancient times.
Of course, I absolutely don’t know. No notes would have been kept and everyone sworn to secrecy—kind of like the beginning of the film Day of the Jackal. So to try and answer your question, I could only speculate--to use that word "perhaps."
I will say that the man Mairi mentions, Jacob Nosovitsky, as a “James Bond” of his day, would be just the kind of man I’d hire to organize a job like this. Nosovitsky used the alias "JJ Faulkner," was reportedly recruiting to kidnap a "prominent" New Jersey resident, and he had established ties to the Morrows, to the Purple Gang (veteran kidnappers), to John F. Condon and (according to Condon relative Pat Doyle) to Isidor Fisch.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 7, 2012 19:23:15 GMT -5
From Hawkins's Forensic Report submitted to Col. Schwarzkopf: Examination of the samples thus collected showed that the dirt from the car contained the following characteristic materials: quartz grains, feldspar grains, zircon fragments and crystals, and tiny green crystals of the mineral tourmaline, of characteristic size, shape, color, transparency and optical properties; also brown limonite, opaque iron ore grains (ilmenite), and little rod-like diatoms, which occur in most soils. This combination of minerals occurs in New Jersey only where a soil is in the immediate vicinity of intrusive trap rock (diabase), which is found in the Palisade ridge, whose extension to the southwest forms the higher parts of Rocky Hill and of Sourland Mountain, on which latter ridge the Lindbergh estate is situated.
Examination of the dirt on Featherbed road, below the Lindbergh estate, on March 18th, showed that the minerals in it are identical in nature, relative proportions and optical properties with samples from the Lightfoot car. This would lead to the conclusion that the mud on the car was splashed onto it from Featherbed road, or from some one of the very few roads in the vicinity which may be exactly so located......
(omit)
It is therefore my expert opinion that the said car was splashed with this heavy coating of sticky yellow mud on roads in the vicinity of the estate near Hopewell. This sounds familiar BR, but I am not remembering what the source is. If anyone knows what it might be please let me know so that I can look it up. Still playing Devil's Advocate for the sake of discussion so please bear with me..... I think it could be argued that if there was a plan to care for the child it would never be realized if the child died before that part took place, therefore, there would hardly be the required level of evidence for it since it never occurred. I think what it would require is a place and someone, most likely a woman, to take care of him. The other thing I would inject is you are assuming the evidence indicates "no regard for life" when perhaps it's really no regard for a corpse instead.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 8, 2012 8:34:36 GMT -5
I wouldn't agree. The plan and requirements for holding and caring for the child would have to be fully in place prior to the kidnapping. If the child died unexpectedly it would not erase the evidence of his planned detention.
Believe it not, the two are very similar. I learned from John Douglas that the disposition of a corpse can reveal the relationship the killer had to the victim. Also, if you witness the removal of the child from that room it leaves no doubt that there was absolutely no concern for his life.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 8, 2012 15:53:49 GMT -5
I think what I am saying is there is less evidence if it never comes to pass. There is so much we do not know, however, that doesn't mean certain things did or did not happen. But I do see what you are saying - that the lack of certain things we would expect to see also holds weight as well. I just think we must be careful because this happens a lot. For example, those who wish Hauptmann was alone can't trace all of the ransom so they simply say he spent it anyway, because of course, we would expect that he had if he were alone.
I believe it and its good information to consider. However, I hesitate to assign all actions to just one person. For example, if you are expecting to deal with a live child but are handed a dead one who knows what the reaction would be. Shock could be one to consider.
Again, I am just throwing things out there. I think we both know what I think happened but still, I'd like to neutralize any counter-arguments by intelligently addressing them.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 9, 2012 10:43:26 GMT -5
I would say that the bulk of the evidence of a means to hold and care for the child would be present prior to the crime and regardless of whether it was needed and so it should be evident somewhere.
Regarding the concern for the life of the child, I think the means of abduction coupled with the disposal of the body indicates no one involved in this crime had any particular concern for his life. If you couple that to the lack of any real evidence relating to caring for him and the 2 or 3 day delay mentioned in the first note then what I see is that there was never any intention of holding him and caring for him. Another point and I admit it's somewhat subjective, the notes and subsequent actions following the crime indicate that there was a fair degree of familiarity with the crime of kidnapping and the dangers. Notice the use of blind drops at the florist and the use of meeting locations which offer cover and escape. Look at the use of an intermediary and the specifications for the money to be placed in a "packet" which exactly conforms to the size of the money, these are somewhat sophisticated techniques to avoid capture and get the ransom. Now what becomes the real Achilles heel in kidnapping is the holding and exchanging of the victim. That is completely eliminated by the murder of the child. In effect, you can walk away from this crime at any point. When you add all of this together it does not seem that there was ever any intention of committing a kidnap but rather an extortion.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 9, 2012 11:16:07 GMT -5
Laid out like this, it does indeed look like a planned murder rather than a kidnapping gone wrong. The only thing that still bothers me about that conclusion is the fact that, again, there were far more wealthy and less high profile targets than the Lindberghs, so why go after the Lindbergh Baby, thereby guaranteeing maximum attention being called to your crime (and the maximum punishment meted out should you ever get caught)? As has been said, it would seem, then, that there was either A) some sort of personal reason to strike at the Lindberghs this way, or B) the Lindberghs were the only celebrities/kidnap targets in someone's comfort zone, indicating a local was involved. But speaking of evidence of a planned holding place for the baby: Michael, I have a vague recollection (I think I read it a long time ago on the lindberghkidnappinghoax website) of Hauptmann having rented a vacant apartment somewhere in NYC around the time of the kidnapping. Is there anything to this?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 9, 2012 13:03:06 GMT -5
Your observations are quite sound. It gave me a flash-back for a minute because A&M pointed to the similarities in the Constance Morrow Extortion Plot and this Crime. So was it experience or something they picked up from looking at other crimes?
Either way, it creates a dilemma. Was this a group of Pros or a group of Amateurs hitting on all 8 by some stroke of luck?
As far as I am concerned its complete BS. The source is someone who has invented quotes then used those quotes to "prove" something else. He's been caught quoting Newspaper Reports but referring to them as Police Reports. He's made claims about what was in documents no one had at the time - so it couldn't be disputed, implying he had them, then once they were discovered showed something completely different.
Look, when you research through files you find a ton of material. If, for example, you go through the 1600 files you will find so many addresses your head will spin. For someone who has an agenda, they see an address then assign it something to which there is absolutely no evidence to substantiate - but they do it anyway thinking no one else will know any better.
I do.
Fact is, it could take someone months and months to properly go through that collection. But if one has, say 1 hour, one wants to think whatever they find is the smoking gun. And if it isn't, and one is a little "off" then their imagination may run amok and suddenly they've solved something in record time. It's outrages, and it just doesn't work that way.
Anyway, I would believe Robert Aldinger was the Lindbergh Baby before trusting anything that comes from the person who made this claim. It's the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" all over again but this time he's been eaten a long time since.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 9, 2012 13:52:13 GMT -5
Thanks Michael for clearing up that apartment rumor. I would very much doubt that midtown Manhattan would be an ideal hideout for the child. LJ, I hear what you are saying about the target and I think on one level or another it is something that bothers all of us. I can only say that crimes, particularly the sensational ones , don't always conform to what we would call logic. There is always the possibility that Lindbergh was targeted because he symbolized or represented something to those involved which we are not aware of. There certainly have been a number of crimes perpetrated against famous individuals that have the most bizarre motives at their root. Then again, it may not have been Lindbergh at all instead some other reason such as the vulnerability of the location. Criminals are often opportunistic in their actions and a lone unsecured house in the wilds of NJ may have been the key. In a strange way I think I gravitate to the latter because the note is as Mark Falzini said, anonymous. There just isn't any type of direct anger or dialog directed at Charles Lindbergh in those notes except for the bit about warning you to make anything public.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 9, 2012 14:38:17 GMT -5
Another thanks to Michael for clearing up that apartment rumor. I didn't think Manhattan (or anywhere else in NYC) would be a good place to hold a child, and neither was I definite that there ever was such an apartment rumor to begin with. It struck me as vague BS too, but I just wanted to make sure. And Kevkon, I completely agree that such a vulnerable location as Highfields would be absolutely perfect for an opportunistic criminal. The target is inviting, to be sure, but the aftermath would make the attempt tantamount to suicide (especially if the intention was to kill the baby). That, at least, would be my take if I were going to do this, but, at the same time, I understand what you're saying too. These sorts of things don't always conform to logic, and, what with Lindbergh being such a private, standoffish person, whoever did this might've assumed he'd do his best to keep it quiet and not go public.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 11, 2012 5:49:03 GMT -5
I hate to beat a dead horse, but I think its important for everyone to know certain things. If you go to an Archive holding material on this Case then sift through boxes you are going to find all kinds of things. A rental application like this would most likely be attached to a Police Report. But in some cases it could just be a loose document. It is beyond speculation to suggest that one like this was Hauptmann's. The problem is this comes from a web-site where you have the guy telling people what to believe and in a way in which he sounds like an Expert. This same person once told me that I don't know how to properly "interpret" the documents.
The bottom line is that you have to find the documents, all of them, in order to know what's going on. Sometimes they just aren't there. Things could be in a collection for many reasons: Sometimes you might even find something about a completely different case, or its a follow up to an anonymous letter that was written implicating someone simply because they don't like them and want to cause trouble. It could be due to something connected to a name which is connected to another name. In short, there are a millions reasons why that document could exist in that box. I could go to the NJSP Archives today, pull out something similar then "make up" a story behind it.
I guess I am just trying to warn everyone about the certain personalities that are out there under the guise of being an Authority of some sort. Do not be misled, and by all means if you see something that is questionable then ask. I don't know everything which is why this Board exists. Between all of the intelligent people we have here I am sure we will get to the bottom of it.
Did anyone ever wonder why they would assume this? That's one hell of an assumption taken by a group that seems to know much more then they should.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 11, 2012 9:53:26 GMT -5
Oh, I'm not definite on that assumption, by any means. It was just a possible explanation, and I agree it's a hell of an assumption on the part of the kidnappers. Striking at the high profile Lindberghs still seems pretty nuts to me, and the possibility of the kidnappers assuming the Lindberghs would keep it quiet because of their aversion to publicity--to my mind, that does not conclusively explain away the criminals taking that risk. As I said, it was just a thought, a possibility. If, however, the kidnappers did assume Lindbergh would keep it quiet, it could suggest a familiarity with Lindbergh, the family, and the personalities involved. It might also suggest that there was something else going on here that the kidnappers knew about and thought Lindbergh wouldn't want anyone else to know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2012 9:56:13 GMT -5
I have wondered why they would assume Lindbergh would not want to go public. I have also wondered about how they knew that the baby's health has been a concern since he was an infant. They reference this in one of the kidnapping letters when they say this was planned for a year already but were afraid the boy would not be strong enough. Sounds like someone on the inside was a party to this kidnapping or the kidnapper(s) had a connection to someone who worked for the Lindbergh/Morrow families.
It seems the more you find out about this case the more confused you get. It is like the mother of all jigsaw puzzles. Just trying to find and connect all the edge pieces is difficult. Filling in the middle so that you get the complete picture seems impossible.
Michael, I hope that your book will, once and for all, tie up all the loose ends in this case and finally put it to rest!
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 11, 2012 10:12:19 GMT -5
A possible explanation for assuming Lindbergh would not want to go public may be in the ransom notes: (paraphrased) "Is it really necessary to make a world affair out of this or to get your boy back as soon as possible?" But again, I'm not saying this is what I believe; just trying to examine all possibilities. I agree it's quite an assumption on the part of the kidnappers to think Lindbergh wouldn't go public. It's certainly not a risk I'd be willing to take, unless I had some sort inside information or assurance that he wouldn't. As for the note saying that the kidnappers would've done this sooner but the baby "wasn't strong enough"--I always felt that this was a reference to the baby's age (newborns and infants being more delicate and all) and not necessarily to any potential health problems the baby had. But, no, that's a good point; it could very well have been a reference to health issues, and, if so, how did they know without inside information...? And I too hope Michael's book will shed new light. I'm also looking forward to seeing what the Zorn book has to say when it comes out this week.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2012 10:50:48 GMT -5
The kidnappers take Lindbergh to task over this issue of making it into a world affair in several of the notes. If the child had problems that the family was trying not to have publicized, (this requires inside knowledge), the kidnappers would have assumed that Lindbergh would have wanted a quiet, unpublicized event. In 2-4 days the note says, he would be told where to deliver the money. Should have been very quiet and very quick. But Lindbergh didn't open the note (another thing I wonder about) for several hours afterwards.
Perhaps they were waiting for the child to get older so they could return him in good health. How many times did they repeat that in the ransom notes! But Charlie ends up dead instead.
The desire to keep Charlie's condition secret would also make Lindbergh vulnerable to just such an extortion plan. So why didn't they ask for a higher ransom then? So many things don't make sense.
The only things not called into question in this case are little Charlie went missing and money was paid because of it. Everything else seems to be in play.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 11, 2012 12:43:51 GMT -5
True. Lindbergh called the police, making this into a "world affair", before he ever opened the note and read anything about "In 2-4 days we'll tell you where to deliver the money and this'll all be over, quickly and quietly. Do not go public or call the cops." So maybe, in calling the cops before reading the note, he screwed up the kidnappers plans by acting contrary to any preconceived assumptions they might've made about his reactions. Either way though, to make an assumption that Lindbergh would open the note before calling the police is a fair one (opening the note would be the first thing I'd do), but thinking that he would necessarily listen to instructions about not contacting the authorities or going public is quite a leap. Personally, I wouldn't expect him to actually heed that particular warning (at whatever point he happened to read it), so we're still left with the question of why risk going after someone like this in the first place, what with all the subsequent publicity and attention that would certainly be called to the crime. As to the ransom: Yeah, as has been said, it seems low. To me, it indicates that money was not the object, or, if it was, that these were pretty small-time operators for whom $50K would've been a huge sum. And as for Lindbergh not opening the note right away--hmm. I can see how this could've honestly been an example of his famous self-control, of not wanting to disturb a crime scene, etc., but, at the same time, he didn't seem too concerned with people mobbing the house outside, disturbing (if not destroying) that crime scene. (At least, I've never heard any account of him saying anything like "Uh, shouldn't we get all these people out of here and away from the house...?" I could be wrong about that, though.) In any case, not opening the note right away, wanting to wait for the police to do it, could indicate that Lindbergh somehow already knew what had happened--that it was something more than what it seemed on the surface--and wanted the police to come to the "correct" conclusions themselves. I'm not saying Lindbergh was the culprit here; I don't think he was. I'm only suggesting the possibility that there was more here than met the eye, and that, from the outset, Lindbergh may've known what that "more" was, hence his apparent lack of urgency in opening the note.
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Jun 11, 2012 15:15:32 GMT -5
But what's odd about this is that he didn't call the police FIRST. He called Henry Breckenridge, his attorney, first (if I recall correctly)!
I can't possibly be the only person who thinks calling your attorney before reading a ransom note, or calling the police before reading a ransom note, is odd.
(Unless you already KNEW what the ransom note said.) Jd
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 11, 2012 16:06:12 GMT -5
To correct a common misconception, Lindbergh had Whateley call the local police while he searched the grounds. Later Lindbergh called his attorney. It is technically true that the first call Lindy himself made was to his attorney, but the first call out of Highfields WAS to the police, via the butler. Michael, correct me if I’m wrong on this.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 12, 2012 9:36:13 GMT -5
It is also important to remember that kidnapping in itself was not a crime and that it was fairly common to resolve a kidnapping without the involvement of the police. The issues I have always had with the notes are found in the first or Nursery note. - Why is it so generic with no mention of Lindbergh?
- Why does it not contain the usual specific threats to the hostage?
- Why the 2-4 day delay instead of an immediate exchange?
- Why is it so short when obviously the writer had no problem with lenghty notes as the later ones exhibit?
- Why does it seem so sloppy?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 12, 2012 10:25:28 GMT -5
What might explain a lot of these points--why certain things were left out, why this first note is so short and sloppy--is that it was written in a hurry. I've heard it suggested it was written in a car, but it doesn't seem likely that that symbol (whether the table base was used or not) could've been made in a car--unless the symbol was made at the bottom of the page before the note was written, but I'm not sure why this would've been done. In any event, the note looks (and sounds) to me like it was written in a hurry, and that there was an attempt to disguise the writing (such as a right-handed person writing with his left or vice versa). Now, as to why the note would've been written in a hurry, why a 2-4 day wait period was stipulated for the ransom payment--it could be that, as you've suggested, the crime was much more opportunistic than has been assumed, so the note had to be written quickly, more or less on the spot, and 2-4 days was then needed to prepare, to find a good ransom drop, etc. Still, creating that symbol on the note would require at least some premeditation.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 12, 2012 10:45:14 GMT -5
Kevkon, I have no problem with the 2-4 day delay, because I assume they expected it would take Lindbergh time to collect the money, especially in the requested denominations.
However, I think you are making an excellent point about the brevity and sloppiness of the note. It seems that the crime itself was well-planned in advance. Why, then, would the note be short and sloppy? Presumably they had plenty of time to draft it in advance—of all the elements of the crime, the note is the one part that you would think DIDN’T require haste.
Somewhere else Michael posted a copy of the letter threatening Constance Morrow, and as I recall it was quite neatly and carefully written.
I suppose one possible explanation of the sloppy note is that we have a gang of true professionals who want to LOOK unprofessional, so that any investigators would be thrown off their scent.
Though I haven’t specifically mentioned it before, there is another possibility that has been bugging me for some time, ever since I began the thread “Did Lindbergh’s arrival alter the kidnapping?” This is the possibility that the arrival of Lindbergh—famed as a crack shot—caused one of the kidnappers to flee the scene, leaving his cohorts to finish the crime alone.
IF that was the case, and the man who fled had the ransom note on him, it might have forced his accomplices to write a hasty duplicate.
As to who the man who might have fled the scene was (if that was the case), my thoughts have been on Paul Wendel, the man suspected by Ellis Parker. Parker felt Wendel—reputed as a man who never DID finish anything-- knew too much about the crime. Having fled the scene, Wendel’s accomplices would have cut him out of his share of the loot. Wendel, then having regrets about having missed out, approached Parker, dropping hints that he knew about the kidnapping, still hoping to salvage something from his lost opportunity. Just thinking aloud here.
One big fat problem with my thesis above is that “signature”—there seems to be some consensus that it came from the Mersman table template, and (as LJ has just pointed out), I don’t see how they could have “improvised” THAT SIGNATURE in the midst of the kidnapping. Oh, well, back to the drawing board—no pun intended.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 12, 2012 11:02:27 GMT -5
Strangely, the note sequence in this case is the opposite of the norm. Usually the very first note or communication is the longest and best composed. That would seem logical as the writer has time and is attempting to put the fear of God into his victims. This is the only shot at keeping the police out of the crime. BR, I agree about the signature. If not for that I would believe that note was written at the site. The Mersman is not the note template. I have tried with a similar block and you simply can't make the holes that appear on the notes. I have often wondered given that our kidnapper seems inclined toward adaptation, whether or not the holes and ink signature were not pre-existing for some other reason and were pressed into service as the ransom notes.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 12, 2012 11:53:42 GMT -5
Yeah, there’s something really not right about that note. When you think about the time put into building the kidnap ladder—as you have pointed out, for example, the widely spaced rungs making it light for a rapid carry—why not put time into the ransom note, which was so much easier to create than the ladder? It’s hard to read that thing, and with $50,000 at stake, you’d think they'd want to take no chances that their demands were misunderstood. It seems like something went wrong here—maybe even something as simple as the gale blowing the original note out of the kidnapper’s hand and into the dark night, and him having to wing another one. Yet we DO have the continuities that exist between the first ransom note and the later ones, especially the signature. Thanks for your remarks on the Mersman.
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Jun 12, 2012 15:53:47 GMT -5
For what it's worth.....
A few years ago, I visited the archives in Trenton. (I live in New Jersey, about half an hour from Hopewell.)
Mark Falzini was kind and gracious enough to let me inspect the table and the ransom notes (although I never physically touched anything--he and he alone handled everything).
The ransom notes all lined up with the table perfectly. There wasn't even as little as a millimeter's misalignment with any of the notes' holes.
This may or may not be significant. I do not know if any similar tables were tested compared.
Also, I have not decided, personally, whether or not the so-called table confession is legitimate or a hoax, which I believe it was deemed to be.
But damn, the ransom note holes lining up flawlessly is compelling.
Jd
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 12, 2012 15:59:28 GMT -5
Yeah, I thought that the nails in the Mersman table lined up perfectly with the holes in the paper...?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 12, 2012 16:39:09 GMT -5
In Lindbergh's Statement he says he told Whateley to call the Sheriff then once he found out the lines weren't cut called Breck.
I don't believe the ransom was ever meant to be collected. So, there was to be no follow up, and I don't think the child was to be found or heard from again. So my theory would be its supposed to be the first and last note.
Thanks Amy & LJ. I must admit I am beginning to get discouraged. I had (3) very knowledgeable people read this now infamous 1st Chapter. They all told me "you definitely have a book here" but that it was necessary to "clean it up to make it more readable to the general public."
I have finally come to the conclusion that I don't have that ability. And so this 1st Chapter absolutely turns the Case upside down, but isn't written in a way that's professional enough to turn out. I continue on the 2nd, which doesn't add to the solution of the Crime, rather, its just something shocking no one knows about which must be told. The 3rd will address the actual crime but will require introductions and explanations so that I can tie everything together with many facts I am quite sure are completely unknown. They are all important by themselves but when presented together should create quite a controversy.
So I think what is going to happen is that one day, when I die, someone will find what I've written, read it, then say something like: "Holy S, he solved the Case.....too bad he didn't know how to write."
They do line up perfectly, and I agree that its hard not to believe it was used after seeing the notes over top of the holes. I also know the Authorities suggest something of this nature was out there to be found and searched to no avail. This is why I have a hard time with a Hoaxer being able to do it.
Still, Kevin has always challenged the idea with a simple question:
"If it was used then show me how."
I haven't been able to do that.
Still though, I don't think I'm ready to dismiss that it was used somehow or in someway. It's possible I am just being stubborn but there's something that won't allow me to let go yet.
|
|