|
Post by Michael on May 9, 2009 7:20:56 GMT -5
And I see too where you are coming from...
But I think an argument can be made that the world, back then, (at least in the U.S.), was a "cash & carry" type one. What Hauptmann had on paper, I think, wasn't the norm. Fisch, for example, had money - yet - the actual enrichment "test" doesn't work for him. So do we dismiss what we know as fact despite his bank accounts showing a couple of dollars in them? Also, they had to literally tear apart everything Hauptmann had to find hidden stashes. Did they do that with anyone else?
In reality, I don't know who's a winner or not. The "control" for finding out proves the tests aren't exactly rock solid or to the level of reliability one would expect. We know Hauptmann had money but assume it ALL came from ransom. We don't assume other sources AFTER the kidnapping but we absolutely must BEFORE it.
Now that doesn't mean I believe either Red or Sharp were involved. I just can't shut the door on possibilities if they exist based upon the type of test you mention above. I need much more then that.
And the idea that people talk is real. People do talk. I know that first hand. We have to ask what motivates people to do that. And, we have to also understand some people do not talk or won't no matter what the situation is. I believe in today's world people talk more so then ever. But back then, you had less of that.
Case in point: The Bonanno crime family was founded in 1931. Find me someone in that Organization who was talking to Authorities and when (if) you find one give me the date.
Now let's get back to Red. Does he come out a winner? In the end I'd say yes. He has Mrs. Morrow and some very powerful people as allies - most of all either Cemetery John or Condon (pick your poison). He isn't deported, like he should have been, and is totally cleared of any wrong doing despite the FBI still saying he could have been the source for which the Kidnappers relied upon (either directly or indirectly).
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 9, 2009 8:54:46 GMT -5
I'm not so sure Red came out a winner. He was arrested, subjected to interrogation, forever cast under suspicion, and forced to leave a life in America. Not exactly my idea of a good day at the races. In any case, where is his enrichment?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 9, 2009 23:21:16 GMT -5
I'm not so sure Red came out a winner. He was arrested, subjected to interrogation, forever cast under suspicion, and forced to leave a life in America. Not exactly my idea of a good day at the races. In any case, where is his enrichment? If Reds enrichement was the issue, I would start with the 1926 green Chrysler sedan that Red bought 2 weeks before the kidnap? Red was outta work since Haloween and "claimed" he was broke on his keister and had to move back in with John to save moola....."on March 2nd 1932"? And whats all this he was cleared balooney? The Keystone cops couldnt figure out what to charge Red with...eg no witnesses, no fingerprints, whatever. You cant just ask persons if they stole the Lindbergh baby, or told their freinds the layout of Highfeilds. They wont ever confess for your convenience? They probably didnt even know the right questions to ask him? [eg clueless] And why was Red so quickly cleared by all his friends in Wash DC so he could re-immigrate at his leisure? All of a sudden Red becomes a case celeb for being falsely accused? What a big boo hoo that is? I wonder how so many persons knew for absolute certain that Red dint aide or abet? [did everyone know Red or just JFC and CJ] Considering all the sympathy Red got for jumping ship Ide say he came out smelling like a Rose--and not any shrinking Violet? Who was soon dead using the same gambit of lying thru her teeth X 3? Wink? My, how clever by half. Red and Violet were the only two to get a special invitation to visit Highfields with the NJSP? Wonder what they all chatted about down there? Wonder what CAL was worried about? Clews? CAL t;urns out to be a regular Sam Spade, and somebody elevated them to special status. And lastly, all the Truths(?) about Violet Sharpe were revealed exactly one day after her death--and Ernie Brinkerts exhoneration to boot? In spite of the facts revealed that Septimus Banks "knew the Truth" all along? And Elizabeth Minners told her story on March 3rd to the local police--90 days ago ? I was recently struck by the fact that the Germantown/Lightfoot couple were "servants" and so were Ernie and Mary Brinkert?--and they all disappeared from thier jobs "unexpectedly" on March 1st with a ladder? Only the Lightfoots business cards were not found in Violets personal effects as far as we know--and Violet did not identify thier photos on the date to one of the Oranges?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 10, 2009 6:51:46 GMT -5
So you are saying that Red's big payoff for participating in the "crime of the century" was a 6 year old Chrysler? Ok, what do you estimate that to be worth?
Yeah Rick, that's called no evidence and it usually indicates that a person is not guilty. Or do you believe that the lack of evidence is a better indication of guilt? I guess you don't think too highly of law enforcement!
Look, I understand that there is a whole host of people caught up in this crime who could be considered suspect. However, there must be some evidence of a tangible motive, connection to Hauptmann, or compensation. These are things that cannot be completely hidden.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 10, 2009 17:24:24 GMT -5
If you stand accused of the most famous case in history then I'd say having some of the most powerful people in America stand behind you, or protect you - plus either one of the Kidnappers or their Intermediary - then I'd say you come out a winner.
This was my point in my last post. You can neither prove nor disprove involvement due to bank accounts and/or inadequate investigations.
Was Fisch enriched? Hell yes he was. But what do we rely on to say he wasn't?
Also, once a heavy hitter stepped in, like Mrs. Morrow or Lindbergh, you were automatically cleared and if anyone dared to continue that line they were promptly booted, dismissed, bad-mouthed, or threatened. Since Lindbergh owned Schwarzkopf, its easy to see how the FBI were constantly at odds with them causing their eventual withdrawl, and why the NYPD were simply at their mercy.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 10, 2009 20:37:26 GMT -5
- OK Kev--where exactly do you think Red was from 6pm-midnite the nite of March 1st? At one point, we know not where, Red claimed he left for West Hartford around 9pm? Oops, his landlady saw him in Englewood the next morning? Better change alibis?
- What price did Red pay for lying? A big huge sendoff at Ellis Island? and absolution for all his sins? Violet got a pine box. Maybe Red was a tough cookie and Violet was the weakest link?
- As for the cops, well, this is Prohibition in 1932 so every cop in the tri-state area is making certain all the beer trucks get thru on time and none are highjacked. They were all bought and paid for, just like the politicians and the Federal Prohibition agents like Gaston Bud Means.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 11, 2009 6:54:33 GMT -5
That's what you call evidence? You guys are making it seem like Red won the lottery. Would you have liked to have gone through what he did? You don't need a forensic accountant to determine if someone has prospered from a crime. Just look for a sudden and major improvement in their lifestyle. Did Red exhibit this? Yes Rick, corruption among law enforcement was rampant especially in regard to prohibition. But corrupt doesn't necessarily equal incompetent. If you want to consider someone incompetent, I'd say Red as a kidnap accomplice embodies it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 11, 2009 7:28:58 GMT -5
I think this is boiling down to the criteria each of us uses as a foundation or basis to catagorize their possible suspects. In my mind I create a scale in my head concerning possibilities, and/or levels of involvement.
I don't see enrichment ($$$) as a clear indicator one way or the other. Especially in that cash & carry, wink & nod, under-the-table, quid pro quo world that existed then. And here again, the level of exactly what someone was willing to get themselve into varied considering their own moral compass. The Police included.
Next, Red was picked up before the ransom is delivered, therefore, if you believe this was their only payoff wouldn't one expect him to be less well off at the time he was picked up? I mean, planning this crime would have to incur expense would it not? So it would seem to me the exact opposite would be true. If not - then do all participants ante up or just one, or just a few? If so why?
All of these variables and circumstances run through my mind here. It's like the Rail 16 "problem." It wasn't black or white and the explanation was where no one was willing to consider. That's a lesson, I think, to be learned and applied everywhere.
He picked up John Fernino sometime after 7 AM on Wednesday while he was waiting at the Bronx Park car.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 11, 2009 7:59:21 GMT -5
I didnt know Red picked up Fernino in the Bronx? Also I thought Red left Engelwood later that same morning--didnt someone see Red at 9 or 10am?? I always thought that Reds itinery from Englewood to West Hartford might provide us some clews? - there was some similarity to the Hartford and Newark postcards saying Baby is Safe? Did Red drive thru Newark too?
- Why did Red go thru Bridgeport, CT--same as Brinkert's? To drop off Fernino?
- Im pretty certain some shopkeepers identified Red stopping for milk along the ways?
- What is the Bronx Park car? Was "John" waiting there for Red? It would have been pretty difficult for Red to engineer this complex trip w/o his newly acquired 1926 green Chrysler coupe?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 11, 2009 15:57:14 GMT -5
There usually has to be something in it for someone. Anyone foolish enough to be on the "inside" of a crime of this magnitude would most certainly be due quite a reward. Then there is the lack of linkage to Hauptmann to consider. The lack of both of these in Red's case pretty much puts him off my radar.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 12, 2009 6:04:26 GMT -5
Kevin - Not to belabor the point, but we don't really know what enrichment Red may have or may not have rec'd, or if he was due one whether or not it came to him after the fact. I would assume he was out of the picture considering he had been picked up. Honestly, there wasn't the type of investigation done on him that should have been in my mind. Where would an Illegal Alien Sailor stash his loot? I haven't even seen his records investigated. Were they? We also don't know the reasons why certain people may have been involved. Take Condon. If he's brought in was it for money? Was it because he "owed" someone a favor? Was it to keep people quiet about something else? Hauptmann: Why doesn't he confess and save his life? Why doesn't he implicate others? Does he fear for his family and their lives? Is there a promise they will be taken care of? Were family members involved? Other examples come to mind here outside of the case. For example, Loeb & Leopold. They did it for the thrill. The ransom wasn't their motive. Rick - From John Fernino's Statement, 3-8-32: I stayed with my cousin Monday, Tuesday and until 7 o'clock Wednesday morning. Then took the University Ave. Str. car, and transferred to the Bronx Park car, while waiting there I motioned for a fellow for a ride and a fellow driving a Chrysler Green & Black Cpe. with N.Y. Reg. stopped and picked me up.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 13, 2009 6:38:41 GMT -5
Was Fernino waiting for Red in the Bronx? How long? Looks at first blush like a planned meeting? But what for?
The whole Red Johnson saga stretches my sense of credibilty? RJ conveniently becomes an insider at Next Day and Highfields by courting Betty Gow. Betty stumbles into her key role in the kidnap being last to see CJr and first again "dead"? But when push comes to shove RJ absolutely has to leave towne and head for Bridgeport and West Hartford, CT--abandoning his love muffin and new Family ties behind. Whats RJs big hurry to head North? And to top it off, Red's driving a Green coupe and wins a Get Out of Jail Free card from JC/CJ? That sort of gives it all away dont you think:
{BRH>>>Samuelsohn>>>Condon<<<CJ<<<RedJ}
The real problem with all the servants quilty knowledge of the crime is that CAL and Mrs. Morrow keep running interference for them? It takes 90+ days just to find out where Violet was, or where she said she was, on the evening of March 1st and the very moment Brinkert is named--Violet turns up morte? Red gets the same protection, even though he is not really employed by either CAL or Morrows? Then hes gone--forever, never to be seen or heard from again?
"Everyone is innocent, noones guilty. No interviews, no lie detectors" Thats the Lindbergh-Morrow mantra? And it holds tight for 28 months until BRH misspends a Gold Cert.
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 14, 2009 0:53:18 GMT -5
Hey Rick,
I think you left out probably the best part of Fernino's statement. He claims Red Johnson found out about the kidnapping on tuesday night from his call to Betty between 9-10 pm. If this would be true ............and only if .....and I don't know how at this point it could ever be...but if.....it would open up all kinds of possibilities.
There is one point I would like to make. If you believe there was aid and help within I think its best not to look at possible suspects solely how they would have crossed paths with Hauptmann. Although I believe more than likely Hauptmann is either the kidnapper or a major player we don't know if the crime evolved from a plan or idea from someone else.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 14, 2009 7:48:06 GMT -5
Hey Rick, I think you left out probably the best part of Fernino's statement. He claims Red Johnson found out about the kidnapping on tuesday night from his call to Betty between 9-10 pm. If this would be true ............and only if .....and I don't know how at this point it could ever be...but if.....it would open up all kinds of possibilities. There is one point I would like to make. If you believe there was aid and help within I think its best not to look at possible suspects solely how they would have crossed paths with Hauptmann. Although I believe more than likely Hauptmann is either the kidnapper or a major player we don't know if the crime evolved from a plan or idea from someone else. Excellent points Gary! If I am not mistaken--the now famous phone call from Red, supposedly in Englewood, to Highfields was just as CAL was getting home and eating dinner--just after 0830pm? So how could Betty have told Red CJr was missing before it happened? Maybe she is clarvoyant too? I will wager that the more carefully we look at Reds antics the more disparate clews we will discover. Red was conveniently arrested and put under wraps. I agree that it is Fools Gold to try and connect eveyone to BRH! I just wanted to "illustrate" that mostly all connections would lead thru John F. Condon....he who holds the key to BRH's cell. Conversely, noone should be summarily excluded because they dont know Bruno.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 14, 2009 15:53:48 GMT -5
So let me get this straight, you're saying that Condon is the arch villain? What, is this the Geritol gang? And if I may ask, just what utility does Red provide? I mean other than milk and a 26 Chrysler, what does he bring to the table? And is he that stupid that he calls Betty on the kidnapping night? One other thought, would an "insider" choose a night which deviates from the normal routine? Is the idea to bring attention to themselves?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 15, 2009 0:01:12 GMT -5
kevin--since none of the 3 gangs proved they really had Cjr I think it would be prudent to consider it was all designed to appear there had been a kidnap that nite? You know--like a Chinese fire drill? Red might have been an asset under that scenario? [eg: as in red herring] "Evalyn--you have been hoaxed"--Dr. Lywellen F. Barker, surgeon from Johns Hopkins University Hospital. www.flickr.com/photos/bootbearwdc/215123818/Gary--didnt JFC say at the Trial he knew too about the phone call from Red to Betty "on the nite of March 1st"? eg... he knew that nite!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 15, 2009 6:01:12 GMT -5
I would say he brings information at the very least. He may also bring a man and/or resources to assist in the "crime." The other thing is this: We always assume its a man taking advantage of a woman - in this scenario it would be Red taking advantage of Betty. But couldn't it be the other way around too? I'd say a woman like Betty could easily manipulate someone. She herself is an enigma. In one instance she's "high and mighty" looking down through her nose at the Whateleys, and the next getting caught in a public park having sex with a Sailor. Then she's in Flemington on the Stand kicking Reilly's (The NY Bull) ass. Hard to say what's stupid and what isn't. Assuming there's involvement here it didn't hurt him and he got away with it. The call itself could have been meant to prove he wasn't in Hopewell. It's something that requires further investigation/research that needs to be developed. This argument can go both ways I would guess. It's always been my position this event was planned for. If they decided to do this at the last minute on a non-weekend there had to be a reason for it. This wasn't a Lucky Strike. Again, I hold no theory which includes Red. I just can't rule him out yet.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 15, 2009 6:42:21 GMT -5
I can't see Red as much of a resource here. Anything he can provide be readily found elsewhere. It's absolutely paramount to keep in the forefront that every person brought into a crime of this magnitude means that much less reward and more importantly, that much more risk of exposure. That's why Red doesn't seem to me to be worthy of inclusion.
As for Betty, yes I agree she would seem to be the best candidate for an insider based on her knowledge and responsibility. On the other hand, I strongly doubt that she would be a party to a kidnapping executed in such a manner because it's much more like murder than kidnapping. She would have many opportunities to provide a much safer avenue for a successful abduction.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 16, 2009 8:58:32 GMT -5
I just run down different scenarios in my head to see what may "work" or not. If Betty is involved, then I see a possibility that Red would be somehow too.
The first mention of a kidnapping came in Maine - and that's where Betty met Red.
Everyone everywhere is always looking for a "smoking gun." They say because one doesn't exist then Hauptmann worked alone. Yet - there's gun powder everywhere, and generally speaking, there are connections under just about every rock. We must turn them over then rule out what we find. If we cannot then it must remain, however slight, as a possibility.
You've ruled out Betty based upon how it went down. For me, who is to say it went down the way it was drawn up? Was the child meant to die? Was the ransom meant to be collected? All of these mysteries need to be answered in order for the ultimate solution to be realized.
It's a huge riddle solved by answering hundreds of smaller ones.
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 16, 2009 10:48:04 GMT -5
Your approach is a good one Michael as always. Thinking how someone Like Red could have been a source. He seems to be a loner. Wanting to find stability, importance, and belonging for something good. Finds himself in amongst the circle of Lindbergh servants and thinks he has made headway. Feels honored a reporter like individual would offer him a decent money tip when the baby and mom would be in Hopewell for a lengthy time for some photo shots of the Lindberghs in a normal day at home and leisure. Mentions to approach home from baby's room side etc.... .
I know some believe or think others believe the inside source would have a prominent role. I am not so sure. Perhaps so. Theres little to show such a betrayal is possible unless retribution or blackmail involved.
I think the kidnapping didn't pan out to plan. Thats why following the leads are difficult.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 16, 2009 11:32:30 GMT -5
Sure, I do that all of the time. But I think it has to be done in totality. Also, we all have some pre-conceptions or prejudices that tend to steer our thinking. In the case of Red and Betty, I see some very major problems which for me, at least, are very difficult to reconcile. If this crime was well planned as some believe, then how is it that it occurs on a night and location where the child shouldn't have been? In that respect, Betty had very little foreknowledge that she would be at Highfields thus negating her chief utility. Another point, would Betty or the kidnappers choose to abduct a sick child given the extra risk and care that might require? And I have to believe that knowing the child was sick would increase the possibility that any normal routine would be altered. That alone should have been a good enough reason to wait another week. If that's not enough, add to it the problem of linking either of these two to Hauptmann. Finally, in what way did they benefit and was this commensurate with the nature of the crime? Anyway, that's how I approach the mystery. That's the chief reason for my skepticism regarding the many proposed accomplices brought up. They all may have something that makes them worthy of consideration, but when you go beyond just looking at them and consider the big picture the problems of their inclusion seem to far outweigh the advantages.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 16, 2009 17:45:55 GMT -5
I like this thought of Betty using Red! There might be quiet a few things she might need from Red--starting with the car and the rides back and forth to Highfields. If we ever figure out why this whole stage show was aranged for March 1st we will be half-ways there. Betty cant very well case the crime scene without Red? Wasnt their first trip around or on New Year's Day? What car was Red driving before the Green and blk coupe? If I recall, this was the first full nite that Betty spent at Highfields--even though she had her own room? And now shes a seamstress too? Apparently Betty is good at multi-tasking between 7-10pm. So, she alone has a spotty recored of keeping Charlie Jr. safe and sound--one nite and hes gone? And shes the last person to see him "alive"? Wonder just how Red got so tired out the past three nites? [Women like Betty seem to have a time honored strategy for playing men like Red for the Fool] If Red is as innocent as newborne babe, then how should we explain the reverse J, Baby is Safe postcard intercepted in Hartford, CT addressed to Chas Linberg? Not in Norwalk, or Stamford or New Haven, Connecticut...just another amazing LKC coincidence? And Red's famous phone call was before 9pm--8:47. [/b] [li] The only two persons without a bullet-proof alibi the nite of March 1st from Next Day Hill are: Red and Violet. [/li][li] Both started off thier triple-alibi-chain with " I went to the movies"? In point of fact they already know each other. [/li][li] Why couldnt Red and Violet have been out together? In certain ways thier fates seem tied together. [/li][li] Even Anna Hauptmann implied they were an item? (see Scapegoat p.433) They both earned a special trip to see CAL@Highfields? [/li][li] The Orangeburg threesome was quick to point out--the Johnson in the car was Ernie not Red? [/li][li] Could they have been out with twin-sister Edna liiving right there under our noses? (wink!) [/li][/ul]
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 17, 2009 7:39:43 GMT -5
What type of woman was Betty and how do you know?
Funny, when I first read your post I was thinking how easy it would be to use the exact reasoning with a different prejudice and apply it to Anna and Richard. You know Anna as "that type of woman" playing her husband for a fool. It would certainly explain a lot of things. But now I see you have surpassed that point and provided the long sought after link to BRH. So Anna Hauptmann knew Red and Violet? Great research Rick! Great job!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 18, 2009 7:12:06 GMT -5
This is a good point.
Retribution AND blackmail are both good motivators for involvement for ANYone who may have been involved don't you think? Many "whys" can be answered with either of these two as an explanation can't it?
Let's look at the reverse angle for a minute... Look at all of the evidence which shows how everyone wanted to help Lindbergh. Schwarzkopf would have done anything for him and did everything Lindy told him to do during the investigation. He had stars in his eyes from jump-street and Lindbergh, due to this power he had over just about the whole country at the time, was able to run the investigation. Who in the history of Law Enforcement Investigations was able to frustrate J. Edgar Hoover to the point that he constantly attempted to withdrawal from the case? His Agents were totally disrespected and bad-mouthed with Lindbergh's blessing and sometime by Lindbergh himself.
It shows that Hoover, a powerful man, wasn't nearly as powerful as Lindbergh was. People keep viewing him as an "Aviator" but he was much more then that.
The Junges are good enough, in my mind, to back up Red on the night of March 1. Unless you have them involved..... And I am not saying they too aren't above suspicion.
Never have I seen anything in the files that even suggest this as a possibility. Red was involved with other women though, and I think Betty was involved with someone else as well - but I can't tie him into a relationship with Violet.
You'd have to outline a theory like this with something which covers all of the basics. I don't think it could work but I am willing to listen.
I think, for me, its all from what I've read in the source documentation. Her back round, the impression of the other people working or socializing around her, etc. She's a woman scorned who was "played" by someone she expected to marry in Detroit. She's refusing to do certain work that is "beneath her" and considered "uppity" by other Staff. She's the "coolest" of the lot as noticed by Police. And she's caught by Police in an embarrassing state with a Sailor in a public place. It's easy to draw conclusions when you have so much about one person in such a short period of time. It's also easy to be wrong too. That's why it takes time and effort to tie everything together. It's also why our board is so important and the differing perspectives, ideas, and approaches serve to test or act as a "control" to the theories that arise from our points of view.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 18, 2009 16:58:16 GMT -5
I think it's very important to remember that blackmail is an enormous threat to anyone who 'recruits" others. Anyone taking part in this crime or even having knowledge of it carries another's life in his pocket forever. It's one more reason for me to seriously doubt a lot of theories that incorporate a group of amateurs under the direction of a "mastermind". No one could ever be certain that another wouldn't talk. I understand what you are saying about Betty. Honestly, I think almost anyone is capable of extreme actions given the right conditions. My point was more general in that I don't think it's very constructive to look at various characters and ascribe criminal intent to their actions even if they appear suspicious. Better to start with something tangible first, imho.
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 18, 2009 22:38:08 GMT -5
Kev,
Concerning the "mastermind" and amateurs you have valid points. I thinks it may be a waste of time considering a "mastermind" on the sidelines. Then allowing Hauptmann to make the ladder and write the notes and collect the ransom. It makes no sense if one is in control of the kidnapping and allowing the sequence to be in the hands of such an individual. It has always been my suggestion the possibility that there was a mastermind other than Hauptmann but not in the equation when the kidnapping took place. This is a lot of assumption on my part and I do not make theory from it but consider the following thoughts
#1. I know you hate Samuelsohn but could there have been 2 ladders. One that was originally planned and Hauptmann's ladder the one used. I find Samuelsohn's story believable yet as you pointed out not likely for the real ladder.
#2. Connections to inside help. I find it hard to believe Hauptmann could have crossed paths with such a connection. Could someone other than Hauptmann attain such a link and then Hauptmann just maintain it.
#3. As much as anything is unlikely I find Hauptmann to carry this whole thing out on his own baffling. From the approach to the house and the exit in full concert to the only way it could be done. The right night and the right timing is just so freakishly bizarre. Certainly there were amateurish things along the way but the plan overall was spectacular. The bumbling comes more in the ransom notes and the money exchange in my evaluation.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 19, 2009 6:42:14 GMT -5
Hey Gary Yeah, I just don't see a "mastermind" allowing any of these characters to walk around for very long. Dead men tell no tales!
Regarding Samuelsohn and the ladder story, I don't hate him or the story. When I first heard it, I looked into it and spent quite a bit of time looking at the possibility of him having anything to do with the actual ladder. It's one of those rare things in this case in which the proof is 100% that he didn't. Still there a few who love to throw out this story as fact despite proof to the contrary. You, on the other hand, are proposing something that could certainly be possible. I can't say that I have any idea as to why 2 ladders would be built, but I sure can't say they weren't. Do you have any suggestions?
As for the "inside connection", I am not as convinced as most that there was one. I am not saying there wasn't, just that it doesn't seem certain or a requirement to me. I do see your point and I agree that it's a good possibility if inside knowledge was used. Maybe I am alone in the belief that the night of the kidnapping was not necessarily chosen with the help of an insider for the purpose of a kidnapping. That just doesn't seem to make sense to me.
You are certainly not alone in your skepticism regarding Hauptmann pulling this crime off by himself. I'm open to the idea that he had help. I just think it's important not to allow that belief ( or the opposite one) to ignore the evidence. I also think it is wise when proposing various accomplices to think it out in real terms.
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 19, 2009 17:46:43 GMT -5
Thanks Kev,
Just so you know where I was heading with all this I was refering the mastermind divorcing himself or broken off entirely before the kidnapping. Then there would be (I think) little reason to clean up . Especially if this mastermind lost purpose or even in prison.
Participants in crime being knocked off so they don't talk is a worthy consideration as necessary but I often remember the St. Valentines massacre. We might know who launched it but the gunman to this day are not known.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 23, 2009 10:06:56 GMT -5
Excellent point Gary. And there wasn't just one person involved here either.
I think most conspiracies fail because someone talks. The Law of Averages shows the more people - the more likely a leak about it can occur. Therefore, it stands to reason that less is better when it comes to keeping the actions quiet.
However, for those crimes that remain unsolved, there's never any way to prove a conspiracy existed other then to look at all of the facts which suggest one did. If Hauptmann was alone, he could of made up any story, or simply confessed to acting alone, not only to save his life, but to support his family financially forever. Instead he chose to proclaim his innocence, and refuse to even make up a story.
He wasn't insane. He was doing this for a reason. And if he is involved, which he was no matter to what extent one wants to assign him, then there's only one reason that can be.
|
|
|
Post by Rab on May 23, 2009 11:36:12 GMT -5
Michael, you mention Fisch's enrichment. What have I missed in terms of this because I don't recall any evidence of him being enriched? I recall evidence of him scamming people and to my mind he was scamming Hauptmann on the whole quid pro quo of their supposed fur and stocks business, but I don't recall any evidence of him being in possession of or benefiting from unexplained sources of income.
I do side with Kevin in this discussion. It comes down to cui bono (who benefits). Of all the players, Hauptmann is the one who benefits and he benefits to a major degree. Doesn't mean that he didn't have help - as I've suggested myself over time - but it doesn't mean he did either. I don't see anything about the crime that required inside help but I can see the benefit to having an accomplice, perhaps even after the fact.
Rab
|
|