mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Apr 4, 2010 15:57:03 GMT -5
Hi Vovina, Your posts on linguistic analysis are so interesting to me! You've really dug into it. I very much look forward to anything further you discover on the subject (as it may shine on the ransom notes). Michael, If you were to recommend one of the Ressler books, may I ask which? I might swing for one. Good finds, Sue! Kevkon, I have my drawing supplies gathered and plan to do as you suggested. I think I recall its being said that if stacked all evenly together the holes would match straight through. Is that correct? Me thinks the perp(s) didn't expect to have to use so many, which may have meant a couple of times making a few(?) I seem to recall that being mentioned previously.
|
|
|
Post by vovina on Apr 4, 2010 16:41:46 GMT -5
Mairi - Thanks much. I will keep digging into the documents and will post anything of interest that I might find. The Ressler books are first rate. I was impressed not only by his interviewing techniques with John Wayne Gacy and Jeffery Dahmer, but by his skill at document analysis in other cases. And his prose style is very clear, easy to read, and compares well with the classic " The Badge " by Jack " Dragnet " Webb ( this last work inspired the crime fiction writer James Ellroy ).
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Apr 4, 2010 18:38:38 GMT -5
OK Kevkon - so now you have our (mine anyway) attention, how do the sigs differ?
If I'm Mark Fuhrman and notice that there is differences in the signatures I'm thinking.
But as far as we all know (except for you?) the signatures are so far all the same.
Reminds me of your test about looking at the side of the building.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 5, 2010 7:19:12 GMT -5
I would say anything he wrote is worth it. I see that many of his books are in paperback and being sold for just a couple of bucks.
The one I referenced focused on Serial Killers. What I do personally, is try to find something which I can relate to this Case. I can see Vovina doing that here with this book....
The way my mind works, until I am done working on this Case I can't start something new. I don't have the ability to multi-task in that way - there is just too much here for me to stray off course.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 5, 2010 7:38:39 GMT -5
Hey Jack. What I am referring to is that the holes in the notes were punched first, then the inked symbol was applied. Except the first or Nursery note seems to have been inked first then punched as there is no bleed thru of the red ink as evidenced on all of the other note symbols. I think this is reinforced as in the note as the reference to "especially the holes" seems like an addition. It may seem a small thing, but it could be very revealing. Why would there be a need to add these holes to an already unique signature? There has to be some good reason.
Mairi, I'm glad you are going to give it a go. I'll be interested in what you find. It's not as easy as it may seem.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Apr 5, 2010 16:35:18 GMT -5
Not small thing at all Kevkon!
You're right.
So if the holes (first note) were punched secondly it would certainly mean more than one person determining the singnature (or they were second-guessing themselves) - also if the ink was already down they had to find a pattern thing to line up with their already applied ink. Would they take apart a table thinking it might line up?
You said once your belt lined up with the holes. That would seem more likely. Readily available and easy to use. Also it would easily line up in it's way with the circles. Someone may have found over a few years that the table form matched with the holes - as many things may - and created the table hoax.
Your belt notation was perhaps the most interesting thing I've ever read about the Lindbergh Crime, but another is the table comment that BRH was innocent. Well if we wish to we can accept that, but in reality it's patently quite false as Richard had so many strikes against him Re: TLC. So if there is a bottom line, it has to be the table is BS!
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 5, 2010 20:03:37 GMT -5
So here's the $50,000 question; what made the kidnapper feel it necessary to add the extra layer of security ? Ideas anyone?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Apr 6, 2010 0:19:54 GMT -5
To match up two kidnappers? So that they both had to be presenting the notes?
This is pretty good jive.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 6, 2010 7:57:22 GMT -5
We are both thinking in similar directions, Jack. One of my thoughts on this is that perhaps Hauptmann had an accomplice whom he didn't trust and wanted an exclusive method for contact with Lindbergh. If that were the case, I know Hauptmann would have used something at hand to index the hole locations on the sheet.
Please, anyone, lets hear some other ideas.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Apr 6, 2010 15:38:50 GMT -5
I thought you were a one napper believer.
I never knew the idiosynchrasies of the ink patterns.
If the holes are later added by BRH (because of his experience w/message holes re:WWI German army) then he would seem to be the top drawer fugative, or they probably wouldn't have bothered adding them - just would figure the circles were enough.
And the belt certainly works - remember HIS belt - as his match.
Wonder if Mark has his belt - but hey, knowing you I'm sure you've already checked if it does still exist.
Problem is this could have been overridden by the exact note circulationg amongst known forgers (which is the Rosner story) but my readings, I'm sure say that Thayer (why does he keep popping up?) "copied" the note and place the sing in a different location before giving to Rosner. Remember Thayer was answering phones at L house, etc. so had some punch. So if Rosner simply wandered with a bad copy that would toss a lot of a part of the crime which so much time has been wasted on. EXTORTION IS FINALLY OUT THE WINDOW.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 6, 2010 18:02:08 GMT -5
Forgive me but I am a little slow to understand your theory. Could you explain it to me with a little more specificity?
So far, as I understand it, you are saying the 1st symbol had the colors added first - then the later notes had the colors added after the holes were punched.
Does everyone agree with this? If so, then we can move on..... If not then we need to resolve it.
Next, I agree the "especially them holes" seems like an afterthought. But to what end? Was it simply to emphasize its importance (in case the recipient may not realize it) OR because they were added after the text was written?
Once I understand the direction of this theory a little better I may have something to offer.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 6, 2010 18:24:10 GMT -5
Check out Mark's Blog for close-ups of the "secret symbol" in the various ransom notes:
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 6, 2010 20:29:59 GMT -5
Ok, Mark's blog includes the symbol photos he sent me. Look at the back of the notes. Notice that note 1 (Nursery) is the only one where the red ink has not bled thru and around the edges of the center hole. That's despite a large splash of that red ink on the front. if that hole had existed prior to the symbol, then the res ink would bleed thru just as it did on all of the others.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Apr 7, 2010 0:19:16 GMT -5
You see, if the circles were made firstly on the first note, and the holes were added as a laterism then the origional recognition would have been by simply the circles. Now if the holes are added later (indicated by the last feature of the notes - "especially dem holes") why even add the holes if you've got a good sing in the first place? The only reason would be, as Kevkon is saying, if there were two kidnappers - covering for oneanother. Or, not really covering - making sure one didn't get the cash while the other didn't. So you really have two signatures and very probably at least two perpitrators trying to get the cash. Bottom line here is that there was by Lindbergh's testimony and Condon's that more than one person was at St. Raymond's. If we accept other testimony Condon once said there were two men in the background, the BI (at least two agents) were very close, and a taxidriver said he delivered three men to that place the night of the payoff. A lot of people possibly were at St. Raymond's. Now it comes down to who do you believe?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Apr 7, 2010 0:23:18 GMT -5
Above:
You just said it, Michael - you said "if that hole had existed prior to . . ."
But the hole didn't exist prior to!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Apr 7, 2010 0:49:29 GMT -5
Also an NYPD officer who says he was following but backed off (Ya!) - that makes possibly twenty people around St. Raymonds at the time of the payoff (including the cab driver). Now maybe they were there and maybe they weren't - BUT MAYBE THEY WERE - and what does that do to this clandestine story? Story of simply three peple?
Where there's smoke there's fire.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 7, 2010 7:29:06 GMT -5
I don't know if it's a theory, more of an observation. Adding another layer of security to an already secure note which shouldn't really need any security is very strange, to say the least. Who or what is making Hauptmann so paranoid?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 7, 2010 15:50:05 GMT -5
I think the "symbol" is something to identify the real party with. But it seems to me that it can be duplicated. Those holes however are a very different story. The Police looked for the hole maker the entire course of their investigation and just couldn't come up with it.
Mark's blog seems to show the pattern of the situation. Where the notes were "punched" in groups. This suggests whatever is doing the punching isn't something at their fingertips. This could account for "why" the holes were done first in all the rest of these notes.
But the nagging question is - why not the first? Could it be a "lesson learned" by and through the art of producing the first? This would suggest they're ad-libbing their way thru this. But how is one so prepared for the heist and so unprepared for the payoff?
Next, we should consider that CJ told Jafsie the last note was absent the symbol because the "Leader" took it away. The absence of the symbol on the last note, not just the holes, is something else to consider.
I've always felt that IF Hauptmann was the Writer of these notes, that he wasn't the Author of its content. The symbol could be the combination of such a "Team," or in the least, of the splinter group who deviated from the plan.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Apr 7, 2010 16:23:49 GMT -5
How would whoever holed the notes know so many would be needed - or were they not all pierced at the same time?
It's hard to imagine a or many perpitrators thinking from the beginning it would go on for so long.
Realistic thinking is that there was a firm pattern for the holes and that they were punched as needed.
Also very realistic thinking is that the pattern was unavailable for the Boad Nelly note or it wouldn't have been mentioned - and to think about it why even mention it - is redundant because ex post alles facto. So Condon is the one who mentioned it - is he covering for himself?
Was Condon a mastermind? It would look kinda that way.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 7, 2010 16:57:34 GMT -5
Sure, given enough time and depending on just how exact you try to be. Still seems very strange to bother with it in the first place and then to pretty much negate it by moving to an indexed trio of holes.
The punching in pairs would be expected if you were halving a full sheet. I do believe Mark was slightly biased toward the Mersman, which would be understandable. I'm probably biased toward something more mobile, or at least I was. Now I'm more inclined to believe there was something at hand where the notes were signed.
Exactly. But why, ad-lib or not , does one find the need for this extra identifier?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Apr 7, 2010 17:14:40 GMT -5
It's because Hauptmann comes into the room where they're working on the note and takes the note and punches some holes. Then he has a connection with Condon (and the primary scene) and whoever else is involved doesn't!
Do you guys have blinders on?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 7, 2010 18:43:19 GMT -5
Perhaps, a la your theory...one of the gang knows the symbol, and can reproduce it. This ensures no fractional force starts an independent negotiation. For my way of thinking....it makes the symbol as near forgery proof as possible. Whoever hold the hole maker - holds the keys to the ransom.
Even still though....Curtis gave it a ride simply based upon inside information. But in the end, the only "proof" is the note was in found in the room AND the symbol was on the note. But does this really prove whoever wrote it physically killed the child?
No one had the child if he's dead and buried on Mt. Rose. But was he really there, and does the symbol provide for anything excepting a ransom payoff? I am going off the subject as I usually do...but I think you see my point.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Apr 7, 2010 19:12:09 GMT -5
Is this the Michael and Kevkon Board?
No wonder no one is on here anymore!
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 7, 2010 20:40:32 GMT -5
Well you are on here, Jack. I don't get it. Here we have a topic, the nursery note, which is probably the single most important piece of evidence in the crime of century. It holds the answer to the entire crime, no doubt about it. So why waste time on this other nonsense? C'mon man, work on this angle. Maybe others will too. The answer is going to be something that is staring us all in the face.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Apr 8, 2010 3:04:23 GMT -5
OK - I agree, the answer may be there. But are you two really addressing it. I posted quite a few times about possibly (by evidence even) of their being others at St. Raymonds - possibly ten to twenty - and that was totally ignored and you guys go on about your symbolcrinicity! Hey the issue is - did BRH do it alone? Maybe he did and maybe he didn't, but if there were other baddie players at the cemetary then he didn't do it alone. And that opens up a lot of S! If an FBI agent had recognized a friend of J. Edgar's as one of the guys who picked up the 50K - what does that do to the whole crime? IT STANDS IT ON IT'S HEAD. All the years of investigation are out the window. All the thousands of pages of this site and hoax and Rita's of true knowledge are null and void! And do you think the FBI would ever tell ya?
So that's what I'm saying, that along with your bleeded singnatures comments there are other issues which you seem to be avoiding.
IMO the fact that the holes were added later to the sing means BRH wanted his own confirmation, and so added them. That is evidence of more than one napper so it's a place to start looking, and there are very many possibilities.
But for you and Michael to jaw for pages about paper idiosynchracies - reminds me of what Fuhrman was really saying, where are the detectives?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Apr 8, 2010 3:18:41 GMT -5
Further:
Rick's posts, or Rita's or Bob Mills or Anonymous or Tanialee's or EMM's are exactly as valid as yours or Michael's because in the endgame none of them mean S unless they can be substantiated. And you perhaps think you're above the fold because of your whatever, but bottom line is your thousands of comments and Michael's too are totally unsubstantiated. So lets call a spade a spade (remembering that many of my friends are brothers) and to say that your slant is preferable to Rick's or Rita's or Bob Mills is doggeral.
The Beatles said, "Let It Be," and maybe you guys should try that.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 8, 2010 6:03:56 GMT -5
Jack, this is nonsense.
You're talking Rita then the next thing I know you are talking about Bob Mills, Rick, EMM, and Tanialee. Why? They have nothing to do with this. They are all good people who's opinions I value.
As far as what is substantiated or not.... I have always said that's best left to the judgement of the person reading the material.
If you don't believe what something I post as a "fact" then I am fine with that. I've said over and over that even the source documentation can be wrong.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 8, 2010 15:06:33 GMT -5
Because of my "whatever"? I'll tell you what I think my "whatever" means; In my case "whatever" means spending countless hours re-creating wood evidence. Countless hours actually physically attempting actions of the crime. Countless hours spent reading and looking at all things related to the case. Not to mention the cost of all of this. And you know what Jack, that pales in comparison to what Michael has invested in this case.
Unsubstantiated? Are you for real? What do you think I make this stuff up? Are you saying that Michael doesn't triple check every report? C'mon get real.
I just realized that "whatever" unfortunately means spending way too much time with responses to moronic posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the case.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Apr 8, 2010 16:12:30 GMT -5
Well, get haughty! Like the guy who tried to sell me a radio which didn't work because he said it had a bad plug. I simply pointed out to him that I'd bought hundreds of old radios and that was the first time someone had told me it didn't work because of a bad plug which people who work on radios have good ones laying around all over the place. He got so mad he cancelled our transaction - I could have fixed the radio probably pretty easily, but he just got upset saying I was calling him a liar, which 95%er he was.
I am saying that all your wood analysis can actually be thrown out the window because it very could have been faked. William Norris claimed to have the joists which were examined and also that the nail penetrations appeared to be new. He gauged that by no rusting and other factors which are in his book.
So if you're analyzing fake evidence you're zero at the beginning and never going to get any higher.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 9, 2010 7:29:59 GMT -5
Jack, I could give a rat's ass about what someone said or wrote about the wood if they don't have the guts to stand behind it. End of story. Like Shane said "Prove it".
|
|