kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 31, 2008 6:40:50 GMT -5
That's all I'm doing , Joe. Attempting to provide an explanation for what we know occurred. It comes down to only several choices. I think one may have been overlooked. I also think it's worth a closer and open look.
BTW, I just read that you, Michael, and myself are really one in the same!! I never knew! Amazing how good some people are at being a detective! Don't you think
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jul 31, 2008 8:02:30 GMT -5
Yeah I know, I've never been part of a three-headed monster before and can you imagine the debates we'd have as to what's really right, left or centre?!
OK, I'm game to look at it, what's your idea?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 1, 2008 6:53:56 GMT -5
It's scary when you realize that they actually believe themselves!
Anyway, what if we consider the crime was not supposed to be about taking the child?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 1, 2008 7:10:15 GMT -5
I think you've alluded to this possibility before. I'm not sure exactly what would have appealed to the perpetrator other than the child, given the preparation behind the ransom note, specifically the symbol. Seems like a waste of time and unnecessary danger to pilfer the silverware and if that were the case, wouldn't he wait until everyone was sleeping and he had access to the ground level? Or are you talking straight up murder of the child here?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 1, 2008 16:14:05 GMT -5
Let me ask this (to everyone):
Since the ladder represents a great deal of preparation, what other preparation does not exist that we would expect to find considering this?
What other points shows a degree of preparation?
Perhaps we can brainstorm a list of items which show preparation and those that do not and try to qualify them.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 1, 2008 17:19:24 GMT -5
Good suggestion!
Preparation;
*Ladder *Highfields recon
Possible preparation;
*Note symbol/ signature *Ransom denominations *Lindbergh living habits
Doubtful preparation;
*Ransom exchange *Hostage care *Safe removal of child
Of course one problem is considering what the preparation is for.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 1, 2008 19:57:32 GMT -5
Here's how I would view planning for this crime.
Long Term Planning
* The Crime - targeting the Lindbergh Baby, evolving psychological motivation * Initial Research - Englewood, Mt. Rose and Hopewell (new house plan seen?) * Financial - desire to leave carpentry and attain luxury, motivated by Depression
Mid Term Planning
* Financial - decision to go ahead aided by decimation of stock value * The Ladder - design conceived based on decision to strike at Hopewell * Ransom Exchange - quick snatch and return the original plan * Caring for the Child - inner debate about whether to bring in an accomplice * Reconnaissance - Hopewell now targeted with nighttime Lindbergh routine emphasized * Ransom Note and Symbol - ego-driven symbol to prove ownership and expectation of quick turnaround
Short Term Planning
* Financial - lack of any certain job prospect, straw that broke the camel's back * Ladder - actual construction * Needed Equipment - selected for potential conditions * Revamping Entire Plan - due to Lindbergh going public * Lying Low - no desire to interact with underworld or intermediary * Second Thoughts About Intermediary - picking Condon for safety reasons due to his image and reputation * Choice of Cemetery for Meetings - designed to intimidate and keep go-between fearful * Nursery Note - to the point with enough detail - some anxiety * Ransom Note Content - extended series with careful blend of lies and truths * Improvisation - name of the game once original plan went out the window * Anna - sworn to secrecy after the fact in exchange for promise of husband's fidelity
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 1, 2008 19:59:54 GMT -5
Here's mine. I can see we're all going to have differences..... Preparation: - Location of Highfields
- Layout of Highfields
- Road Familiarity
- Proper Sense of Direction
- Location of Nursery
- Exact Height of Nursery Window
- Exact Dimensions of Shutters
- Ladder
- Location of Board Walk
- Warped Shutters
- Unlocked Window
- Knowledge of Routine
- Knowledge There Is No Guard
- Ransom Note
- Weather
- Darkness
- Gloves
- Overshoe
- Burlap Sack
- Tools & Various Items to Utilize In the Commission of the Crime
Possible Preparation: - Returning Corpse After Ransom Drop
- Additional Ransom Notes
- Lindbergh's Absence
Lack of Preparation: - Telephone Lines Were Uncut
- Care For Child/Possibility of Child's Death?
- Police Involvement?
- Intermediary?
- Dog?
- People In The House Both Awake & Alert?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 2, 2008 7:39:32 GMT -5
Michael's List;
Preparation:
* Location of Highfields * Layout of Highfields * Road Familiarity * Proper Sense of Direction * Location of Nursery * Exact Height of Nursery Window * Exact Dimensions of Shutters * Ladder * Location of Board Walk * Warped Shutters * Unlocked Window * Knowledge of Routine * Knowledge There Is No Guard * Ransom Note * Weather * Darkness * Gloves * Overshoe * Burlap Sack * Tools & Various Items to Utilize In the Commission of the Crime
We are in agreement on the items in bold . That's pretty much the ladder, recon of Highfields, and items required to break in. The big one that I am in doubt of is that Nursery note. Now just for argument's sake, remove the note and what do we have?
Joe, I am having a hard time comparing your list since you are including motives and not just physical evidence. At what point do you see the origination of Hauptmann's "evolving psychological motivation" aimed at Lindbergh and his son and when do you think that it manifests into a plan for kidnapping? Don't you think that the minute he thought of kidnapping the child he would realize the need for an accomplice and a secret location for keeping the child? At what point do you think he decided that a quick(1 to 3 days) ransom exchange was not a priority?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 2, 2008 11:36:39 GMT -5
That seems to be a lot planning and preparation for something other than a kidnapping (alive or dead) for ransom and given the time and house location of the strike. What DO we have without the nursery note?
I believe the motivation simply had to evolve over time due to the sheer audacity of the crime. Maybe six months to a year, I don't really know. This is hardly a spur of the moment consideration and I think it was probably fed along the way through a growing resentment of Lindbergh's overstated fame and public stature.
I guess that would really depend on whether or not he planned on holding a live child or a corpse. I used to believe the death was simply accidental and that the plan was to care for the child. I'd give that possibility only about a 10% chance right now versus the appearance of a "legitimate" kidnapping.
Shortly after Lindbergh called the police in and the kidnapping became a "world affair." He had no interest in dealing with the underworld and stated emphatically he wouldn't deal with a go-between. Condon's offer made him reconsider and he jumped at the opportunity to deal with what he believed would get back to the desired level of discretion, even though the risk now of police involvement had increased dramatically.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 2, 2008 17:02:55 GMT -5
What do we have? We have a break in. Actually we have that regardless of the intent. Why are you weighing any alternative to a premeditated kidnapping against the planning and preparation? What kidnap specific planning and prep can you cite by the known evidence? it seems to me that all of the planning and preparation known to exist is relative to getting into that room. Where, for example, is there any indication of the single most important aspect of a planned kidnapping, the means to secret and care for the hostage?
Would this growing resentment of Lindbergh not be manifest in some way? Would those around Hauptmann not see some indication of such resentment? Is there any record of it?
What in earth would make Hauptmann consider a grandstander like Condon as an appropriate choice when discretion is a factor? I'm sure Condon had some good qualities, but I don't think discretion was among them. Why choose to meet in person anyway? Most kidnappers try to avoid that at all costs. Why couldn't a simple dead drop work? Wouldn't such a method be part of a planned kidnapping? What about the victim? If the plan was to kill him, would not the disposal of the body become the substitute for the care of the live hostage? What indication is there that Hauptmann had this murder thought out? it seems to me there is just as little evidence of the plan to dispose of the body as there is for any concern with holding and caring for the child. What's odd about that is that disposing of the body is a whole lot easier than keeping him out of sight and taking care of him.
Where is there any evidence that Hauptmann planned to kidnap or murder the Lindbergh child prior to that March night? Answer, there is none. The closest thing thing to any is the Nursery note. And who knows when that was created.
|
|
|
Post by Anon on Aug 2, 2008 17:32:05 GMT -5
pretty doubtful preparation-- - two dogs
- windy and muddy and rainy
- everyone up and lights on
- Green Ford coupe in driveways
- CAL comes home +/- 20 minutes
- the ladder breaks
- Benjamin Lupica sees the car and ladder
- mabye they were after the Sunlamp?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 2, 2008 20:15:07 GMT -5
Is that plain Anon or Anon III?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 3, 2008 7:13:47 GMT -5
A question for everyone;
What evidence exists relating specifically to a plan to kidnap or murder the Lindbergh child prior to 3/32 ? ( that can include anyone or any such theory including Lindbergh infanticide, mob involvement, psychic spiritualists, secret agents and what ever else one can think of) What besides the ladder and reports of strangers at Highfields is there?
If the answer to the above is none, then ask; why is that?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 3, 2008 8:01:21 GMT -5
I would say the ransom note signature was designed with the thought of something important in mind.
Next, the line: this kidnapping cace whas prepared for a year already which was in the 7th or 8th ransom note.
If you believe Hauptmann was involved, then one must consider he quit his job, (during the depression) bought a new car, put his stuff in storage, then took off on a country wide trip. This reminds me of someone who knows they are going to die with cancer so they take off to do everything they ever wanted to before they die. So it could indirectly show that Hauptmann was involved in the planning for this crime about a year before it happened.
My purposes for the lists above was to infer the Lack of Preparation may have been prepared for. That the phones needed to be up or in the alternative - wasn't necessary to cut, the dog had been prepared for.....bascially that people who prepare for everything else don't forget about these other things.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 3, 2008 9:29:05 GMT -5
Yes, it could. It could also be the result of many other factors in the Hauptmann's life. Point is, it's only an inference. What about the tangible evidence of planning and preparing for this crime? We can find it with the ladder, why not the other major aspects of a kidnapping ( or murder)? Why is there no trace of Hauptmann looking for a safe house? Why is there no trace ( other than the ladder drawing) of it in his notebooks? Why no evidence of purchasing some supplies for keeping the child? Usually these things are found during the course of an investigation. Sometimes they even lead to an arrest. People were looking, many people. They have been ever since. Where is it? You see what I am getting at? I'm not advocating the position that this was not an intentional kidnapping. but I am suggesting that it can be a very good idea to look at things from a completely different perspective. I am just not so sure that we can assume that this was a planned kidnapping based on the evidence ( or lack of).
|
|
|
Post by Anon II on Aug 3, 2008 12:22:50 GMT -5
"I would say the ransom note signature was designed with the thought of something important in mind"
Why no evidence of red and blue inks plus Mersman table holes?
After 30 months why did BRH forget all the gold ransom certs serial #s were recorded?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 3, 2008 12:39:50 GMT -5
I think you misunderstood my question. My point being even if the nursery note didn't exist, is there really any alternative for a perpetrator to enter a second floor nursey in the early evening while others are settled downstairs, unless he has intent to either harm the child, kidnap the child for ransom or possibly both? The fact is the nursery note was left and therefore paints a compelling picture of a planned kidnapping and ransom (alive or dead exchange) which leaves me wondering why seek to postulate around its hypothetical non-existence.
With regards to caring for the child, the aspect of this planning would fall into what I considered to be mid term planning and not necessarily what actually took place. I see some potential evidence of planned care in the Lynch and Jones rental application to Renee Hibbs from the Bronx DA's files, but it's inconclusive. It seems to me if child care ever was the plan, it was abandoned in favour of keeping an accomplice who would be qualified to do so, out of the picture.
If you're referring to Hauptmann's immediate social circle, I would not trust that cast of mute-clan characters to reveal what they really knew about any aspect of his his suspected involvement. The only ones who seemed to come close to discussing any suspicious activities were acquaintances, Fred and Marie Hahn in their testimony to Asst. DA Breslin. As to any professed resentment of Lindbergh as Schoenfeld believed, here I believe he was just being his carefully guarded and secretive self.
This is mainly hindsight given Condon's post-involvement performances and I think it's doubtful Hauptmann would have sized him up in the negative light some seem to dwell on at the expense of his then publicly-perceived character traits. Certainly Hauptmann would have considered him a much safer bet than dealing with the underworld, given the expressly stated promise of anonymity in his letter to the editor of the BRH.
Or he was extremely secretive, careful and guarded about his single-minded plans. Under what conditions are you suggesting he might have thrown this nursery note together and for what reasons, based on the fact he happened to be on the grounds of the Lindbergh Estate on the night of March 1?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 3, 2008 12:42:30 GMT -5
Sure, but look at the magnitude of his actions. It really does remind me of someone who is thinking they could be dead and wants to go on a fantasy trip before that possibility occurs. Additionally, he did plan on returning and had money that it doesn't appear he should have had.
This could be possible evidence of Hauptmann planing a murder or the fact that one of the Others involved was the person responsible for this. If all we have is Hauptmann, but proof others were involved, then we can't account for everything by and through only Hauptmann.
But at what point do we assume plans had changed? There's no evidence of a 'break-in' and that anything other then a direct route from the ground to the crib occurred. Nothing disturbed. If the child wasn't the target then how do they immediately seem to be in the exactly right place without doing anything other then going right to him and then right out? What's the note all about? What were they planning on ransoming if not for the child? Lindbergh himself perhaps?
If not a ransom, then when and where did the note come into play?
From all of the evidence in the reports, it seems to support the holes were done before the circles were added.
It's an indicator that he either got sloppy or that he may not have been passing the ransom earlier. In my opinion there were several people spending ransom and it wasn't Hauptmann until after Fisch left. That's not to say the Fisch story is 100% accurate but most lies are usually based upon some truth.
Condon and Hauptmann both did this when giving the Police their version of events.
|
|
|
Post by Anon on Aug 3, 2008 14:16:18 GMT -5
"From all of the evidence in the reports, it seems to support the holes were done before the circles were added"
No, not ON the table--I mean over at BRHs house/ garage. After all--he sure wasnt hiding much besides the Certs or they would have found it? Hes not very cautious-- more like carefree?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Aug 3, 2008 15:11:22 GMT -5
"A question for everyone" (Kevkon) Great question, Kevkon. I really like it as good food for thought. I understand that you and Joe are strongly focused on Hauptmann's guilt. That's fine with me as i respect your belief. I can't personally R/O his involvement at some level, nor do I firmly rule him in. Having said that and being mindful of your asking for evidence pre 3/32, I will venture the following: -Noso shopping for kidnappers -prominent family -New Jersey -kidnap a baby because it can't ID you -his resentment about a debt he said Morrow/Morgan owed him (said to have been visiting his brother, somewhere way off/but if mastermind what better thing to do than remove self from date and scene of crime/alibi) At least some of the above is a statement by Uncle Denny Doyle and another fellow. Some may not want to count that as evidence, but I rather do. Any one who can shoot this down, I would welcome it, because it continues to NAG MY SOUL OUT! One other thing, I can't help but think the trip to CA is being interpreted with prejudice. If accurate, the trip cost $500, split down the middle with his friend>$250/his and Anna's. That amt doesn't strike me as earthshaking . And I believe it worth noting that Europeans firmly plan for and strongly believe in "going on hols". All were still relatively new to this big country. He had a sister whom he had not seen for a long time. Don't let us forget how thrifty about some things that some .people ca be. I just don't see that the trip had some heavy-duty psychological significance .
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 3, 2008 15:28:33 GMT -5
It's difficult at this stage to say exactly how much money Hauptmann really had when he decided to take that trip. To me, it's always sounded like one of the most frugally-oriented discovery trips, with the possibility they might find an avenue for a better life somewhere along the road and take it. Remember Hauptmann's financial position, by virtue of his stocks's value, was stable but not flourishing when they left for California in the summer, regardless of how he came by that money. By the time the Hauptmanns and Kloppenburg returned, the value of those same stocks had been decimated by the Aftercrash. I'd call that a little more incentive to make back the gains and then some in an expedient way.
Although still inconclusive in my own mind, I see this line of thought supported by the Lynch and Jones rental application slip, available occupancy between March 1 and September 1.
I can understand Kevin's desire to look at this from an alternative perspective but frankly, I find it difficult to put myself in the perspective it was about anyone else than removing that child. How does a message like the nursery note, right out of Hell itself, appear as an afterthought?
I think it may well have been a combination of sloppiness, a rejuvenated confidence and just plain running out of good money. The press can also be recognized for the lid they kept on news of recent ransom bill discoveries. I find it hard to believe Hauptmann wasn't passing this stuff himself all along. The odds of being caught were relatively miniscule, particularly with the $5 notes spend almost exclusively upfront. What I see just as likely is his close friend and business partner Fisch right alongside him happily laundering larger amounts through Fisch's shady connections.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 3, 2008 17:06:42 GMT -5
You're right I misunderstood you. Yes he appears to be careless. I believe Koehler suggested the ladder had been built elsewhere due to the fact certain tools that were needed to build it weren't found among Hauptmann's possessions.
I look at it with certain facts in mind. One being it was the depression and he actually had work. Two that his finances didn't look so good on paper. Three, he went out and bought a new car with the little money he had left. Four, it doesn't fit in with Hauptmann's nature from my perspective. Five, when he comes back he appears to have funds which aren't listed in any of his notebooks.
Frugal trip when considering the above? He quit his job and bought a new car. Next, there is no evidence whatsoever they weren't coming back. According to both Anna and Kloppenberg they were coming back and the fact Hauptmann's belongings were all placed in storage supports this as well.
It was a vacation.
Lynch and Jones were real people, there's nothing to show Hauptmann knew them, and there's nothing to connect Hauptmann to this slip. Again, if there were it would have been used during the extradition hearings. There are tons of receipts and things of this nature at the NJSP Archives that have nothing to do with Hauptmann. The Police Report it was probably attached to would explain what it is - its been my experience they always do.
I agree Joe. Rab once said it may have been a generic note meant for several targets which could be used at any location. It could be someone else was the target. But I think if this was an "after thought" it would just take too much time to create under the circumstances. I will try to keep an open mind here and definitely listen to what Kevin has to say.
He's been right too many times to shrug off anything he has to offer.
So why were some people nervous passing them? But why did Hauptmann argue that the money was good when questioned? It just seems to me that his methods weren't consistent with failing to draw attention to himself.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 3, 2008 17:11:16 GMT -5
I think you have all brought up some very interesting ideas. Having said that however, I still have to ask the question; Where is the evidence of premeditation? Where is the residue from all of this planning? Why has none of it come to light with so many diligent investigators and researchers on the case? It just isn't there.
And btw, that also pertains to anyone else considered suspect. All actions leave traces. Some are lost forever. But some are always present. That's what often trips up the most capable of criminals. I see the evidence with the ladder. The tools, nails, attic board, National Lumber, etc,etc. How can it not exist for other aspects of the crime?
Yes, indeed. But given the fantastic breadth and nature of some of the alternatives, ie; spies, hoax, eugenics, etc., is it really so fantastic to consider that note a reaction to an event gone wrong? Is the Nursery note so complex in nature and grand in scale that it is inconceivable to consider it as anything other than part of a well planned kidnapping? That's the $50k question.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 3, 2008 19:38:15 GMT -5
It certainly doesn't speak volumes about group participation, does it? Or even just one other person before the fact, unless that person possessed the same degree of iron resolve and mutism that Hauptmann demonstrated. Those dominant personality traits coupled with his powerful self-determination which he exhibited in his post-capture questioning, tell me more and more it was Hauptmann alone at the helm from the beginning, basically casting himself into a somewhat intentional and ironic parody of Lindbergh's own qualities.
Certainly all of the physical evidence left at the scene and connected to his dwelling, the money in the garage, contents of his notebooks, the writing in the spare room closet will forever damn Hauptmann in the commission of the crime and how he benefited.
Does not the sheer enormity of this crime in itself and the certainly-expected challenges bespeak more than a passing thought or sudden whim? What else would have taken him to Hopewell on the dismal night of March 1? Of course there is no outright paper trail of evidence suggesting a long term planning process to convict him. But even if there had have been something to hold up and say "Aha!" would it not then have been roundly considered, as totally out of character for such a secretive and guarded individual?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 3, 2008 20:12:06 GMT -5
I tend to believe anyone would have been very nervous about knowingly passing a Lindbergh ransom note, even one of the "first up" five dollar bills. Despite that fear, Hauptmann certainly seemed to have no difficulty acquiring luxury items from a financial enrichment which he suddenly acquired on or about April 2, 1932.
Why wouldn't he have stated the money was good at the gas station? After all he was in the act of attempting to pass it to someone who certainly would have been expected to know about the status of gold certificates. Hauptmann was basically out of good money, probably a bit desperate and at the same time emboldened by the lack of news of any recent ransom note discoveries. He obviously attempted to soothe any concerns Walter Lyle would have had about getting stuck with it. Are you suggesting Hauptmann had no idea he was passing Lindbergh ransom money?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 4, 2008 7:06:38 GMT -5
No, it doesn't. That's probably the reason that I can't see a great conspiracy or gang at work here. The more complex the operation, the more evidence is left to reveal it. That's why spontaneous crimes can be almost impossible to solve without the aid of witnesses or forensic evidence. But regarding Herr Hauptmann, shouldn't there be some remains to be found if this was planned "for a year already"? There is not. So my point is that when you remove personal belief and prejudice and look at this crime objectively, you must consider the possibility that the crime was not a planned kidnapping.
Joe, here's an irony; If you could prove somehow that the Nursery note could not have been constructed on site, then the case is closed as that obviously proves premeditation. So if that Mersman was the template it would strongly suggest that the note was not constructed on site! Unfortunately , you and I know from experience that the Mersman holes just don't work as a template.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 4, 2008 8:02:05 GMT -5
Well, you've just discombobulated me for the day, Kevin by mentioning Mersman and template in the same sentence, thanks for that..
It would be difficult to prove unequivocally that the nursery note was previously constructed off-site, but I think there are plenty of leading indicators to strongly suggest this.
For one, how does the perpetrator duplicate the hole spacing of the nursery note in the second ransom note, without a template or some means of providing the exactitude? Is he in the habit of carrying something like this around with him in hopes it might come in handy during some job? And red and blue ink as well as something to create the circles?
The symbol itself is not a design that would have been easily created on the fly and would require the designer to sit down and spend time with it, allowing the multiple ink applications to dry before attempting to write in the space above it afterwards. Is our perpetrator willing to do this and does he have the time and security to undertake something this elaborate under the conditions?
I think you're a bit hung up on the brevity of the missive in the nursery note and lack of any clear evidence of previously laid out plan. Perhaps I'm at the opposite end, quite comfortable and maybe too much so, that it says everything it has to and Hauptmann was just very careful and commited the entire plan to memory. (with the exception of what I consider to be his fatal flaw - not addressing the outside of the envelope with a demand and incentive for Lindbergh not to involve the police)
I continue to wonder where you're coming from in this exercise, how Hauptmann found himself at the Lindbergh estate on the night of March 1 and how the nursery note demonstrates improvisation and deviation to you from a previously established plan. Surely you have a working theory around this. Can you possibly elaborate and lay it on the table?
|
|
|
Post by Anon I on Aug 4, 2008 8:04:05 GMT -5
"You're right I misunderstood you. Yes he appears to be careless. I believe Koehler suggested the ladder had been built elsewhere due to the fact certain tools that were needed to build it weren't found among Hauptmann's possessions"
Nor in point of fact the inks of ransom notes? So wasnt JFCondon interested in colored inks and mixing them? Isnt it easy to find multiple links between JFC and BRH all along the way--including the writing of the phone # in the closet? Another link is Abe Samuelsohn.........but there are more.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 4, 2008 8:04:16 GMT -5
Well, you've just discombobulated me for the day, Kevin by mentioning Mersman and template in the same sentence, thanks for that.. It would be difficult to prove unequivocally that the nursery note was previously constructed off-site, but I think there are plenty of leading indicators to strongly suggest this. For one, how does the perpetrator duplicate the hole spacing of the nursery note in the second ransom note, without a template or some means of providing the exactitude? Is he in the habit of carrying something like this around with him in hopes it might come in handy during some job? And red and blue ink as well as something to create the circles? The symbol itself is not a design that would have been easily created on the fly and would require the designer to sit down and spend time with it, allowing the multiple ink applications to dry before attempting to write in the space above it afterwards. Is our perpetrator willing to do this and does he have the time and security to undertake something this elaborate under the conditions? I think you're a bit hung up on the brevity of the missive in the nursery note and lack of any clear evidence of previously laid out plan. Perhaps I'm at the opposite end, quite comfortable and maybe too much so, that it says everything it has to and Hauptmann was just very careful and commited the entire plan to memory. (with the exception of what I consider to be his fatal flaw - not addressing the outside of the envelope with a demand and incentive for Lindbergh not to involve the police) I continue to wonder where you're coming from in this exercise, how Hauptmann found himself at the Lindbergh estate on the night of March 1 and how the nursery note demonstrates improvisation and deviation to you from a previously established plan. Surely you have a working theory around this. Can you possibly elaborate and lay it on the table so that all things can be weighed and considered equally?
|
|