|
Letters
Mar 20, 2017 10:18:07 GMT -5
Post by kate1 on Mar 20, 2017 10:18:07 GMT -5
Just read in the FBI files this was the name he preferred. Anna called him Richard in videos
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 20, 2017 10:26:33 GMT -5
Post by lightningjew on Mar 20, 2017 10:26:33 GMT -5
im not fooling myself I don't know what sweeny was talking about but I was there with my own eyes that you can enter the nursery with that ladder. coming down is another story that's why I think hqauptman fell. but it can be done. Without making any noise, disturbing anything in the room, and leaving an extra set of footprints behind?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Mar 20, 2017 10:57:30 GMT -5
He probably made more noise than he would have wanted to regardless of how quiet he might have been and I wonder how quiet Hauptmann was going through the second story window of the Mayor of Bernbruch while he was sleeping. Why would an athletic intruder have had to knock things over if he had a flashlight? The design of the ladder is ingenious in sheer function and form (except for the dowel hole placement) for it's intended end use. It's anything but a prop.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Letters
Mar 20, 2017 11:01:52 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Mar 20, 2017 11:01:52 GMT -5
I recall reading that his supervisor at National Millwork and Lumber Co., called him Dick.
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 20, 2017 13:56:47 GMT -5
Post by lightningjew on Mar 20, 2017 13:56:47 GMT -5
And the crime scene is anything but authentic. All the evidence left behind, gifted to police: The footprints leading out with none leading in (meaning they drove up to the house, and if they drove up, why didn't they drive out, if not to leave behind a footprint trail?), and along that footprint trail you have a ladder, a chisel, with the ransom note left on the windowsill (as opposed to in the crib, where it would've been seen much more quickly)--no, the ladder might be weight-bearing and climb-able, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was used in the way the Lone Wolfers insist. It was built to indicate the window as the entry-exit point, which wouldn't have been as convincing if the ladder had not been sturdy enough to hold someone's weight.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Letters
Mar 20, 2017 14:40:39 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Mar 20, 2017 14:40:39 GMT -5
Those footprints are not necessarily the two kidnappers. I posted earlier that one of the two footprints near the house was made by someone with just socks on - that means he'd be going into the house because it's unlikely a kidnapper just waiting on the ladder for a pass-out of the child would take his shoes off. The other prints near the house are from a man's normal shoes. That would be OK except by your theory of the two sets of footprints leaving the crime scene each had galoshes or overshoes on. It's very unlikely that a kidnapper would take his overshoes off just to walk over to the house. Especially since he might have to extract himself from the crime scene extra-quickly. Most likely those regular shoeprints near the socked ones were made by Ollie, CAL, A POLICEMAN (which I think they were), or a reporter, and near the lone kidnappers who just had socks on.
When you and many others say that the footprints going away were the kidnappers, you should point out that conclusion is speculation.
Also, it's very possible that Betty or Anne straightened up the nursery before Chief Wolfe arrived, and remember that she was a nurse (in thought if not in title) so would have been wiping down common areas of the nursery constantly as part of her job. Ask a nurse - they're everywhere - what their normal care would be, especially for a sick child. If you don't know a nurse I'll semd you over a few, but I warn you they're pretty expensive - pretty but expensive.
That may have been why Chief Wolfe and his partner thought the crime scene looked staged or phony - normal nursing duties had been performed in the sickroom.
How you been LURP? Wish the Chief would have left a report. Would be a good one for you to keep a copy as a family heirloom. I started a company called Recon USA. Can't say what we do.
Schwartzkopf complained in a letter that by midnight there were over fifty reporters at the scene (remember they would have been coming for about an hour so some probably some got there before the NJSP,) and by daybreak there were over four hundred. He says they destroyed everything clue-wise although others like to brag about how pristine the area was kept.
Your mention, someone above, of stuff left at the crime scene which further reinforces the notion of just one kidnapper, unable to carry everything.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 20, 2017 16:00:24 GMT -5
Those footprints are not necessarily the two kidnappers. I posted earlier that one of the two footprints near the house was made by someone with just socks on - that means he'd be going into the house because it's unlikely a kidnapper just waiting on the ladder for a pass-out of the child would take his shoes off. The other prints near the house are from a man's normal shoes. That would be OK except by your theory of the two sets of footprints leaving the crime scene each had galoshes or overshoes on. It's very unlikely that a kidnapper would take his overshoes off just to walk over to the house. Especially since he might have to extract himself from the crime scene extra-quickly. Most likely those regular shoeprints near the socked ones were made by Ollie, CAL, A POLICEMAN (which I think they were), or a reporter, and near the lone kidnappers who just had socks on. There were NO prints leading to the house. Most importantly - NONE leading to the house from where the ladder was found. There are TWO sets leading from under the window to where the ladder was laying in the yard. There are various descriptions about those prints from the different sources who saw them. Schwarzkopf said " apparently mens." What they looked like doesn't make a damn bit of difference because they left from the same place. If someone wants to say it was one person who walked to the ladder then walked backwards to give the impression there were two people that seems to be the best explanation for a Lone-Wolf when facing this evidence. The Police saw them before the Reporters arrived. NO police source says they walked through the yard, instead, they said they walked around the yard so they wouldn't contaminate the pre-existing footprints. Police officially ruled out Olly and Lindbergh because they said they did not create them. So we are left with the only conclusions that can be drawn: Either they were the "Kidnappers" OR the Police, or Lindy, and/or Olly was lying. Since the Police lied about the number of prints in Court, I cannot think of a reason they wouldn't have told the truth in the first place. They aren't lying about the truth then lying again about the lie. There is no motive for them to lie at the crime scene but there certainly was one to support the State's theory. So our only possibility for lies comes from either Lindy, Whateley, or both, and if they are then that too proves more then one person is involved because there is no reason to mislead police other then a guilty mind. When you and many others say that the footprints going away were the kidnappers, you should point out that conclusion is speculation. Since no one was there to see these people walking away from the window, there's always a degree of speculation that could only be known by those who were there. However, injecting possibilities that have been eliminated doesn't make much sense to me. If, for example, you could cite a report that says Cops blindly walked into that yard before anyone saw prints then I'd be all ears for sure. Also, it's very possible that Betty or Anne straightened up the nursery before Chief Wolfe arrived, and remember that she was a nurse (in thought if not in title) so would have been wiping down common areas of the nursery constantly as part of her job. Ask a nurse - they're everywhere - what their normal care would be, especially for a sick child. If you don't know a nurse I'll semd you over a few, but I warn you they're pretty expensive - pretty but expensive. This is interesting. Certainly someone did some cleaning before Cops got there. But when we have Lindbergh telling people not to touch the ransom note, then how can we offer up this innocent explanation?
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 20, 2017 16:01:51 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Mar 20, 2017 16:01:51 GMT -5
The book by Kroth is on Amazon kindle. I have read it and because I'm a retired psychotherapist I enjoyed it...its full of Jungian stuff. His take on Hauptmann was very definitive. He absolutely feels it's absurd to believe him guilty and gives his reasoning. The book is titled "The Lindbergh Kidnapping" but there is a lot about CAL's personality too. Thank you. I don't have a kindle or I would certainly pick this up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Mar 20, 2017 19:16:26 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2017 19:16:26 GMT -5
amy that's a good question but police never could connect anyone to Hauptman that would have told him. we can point the finger to a lot of people but you need proof. they thought violet had something to do with it but did Hauptman know her? I get what you are saying here, Steve. Maybe it should have been Violet's sister Edna that they tried to connect to Hauptmann. Edna left for England right after the ransom was paid. I think she should have been looked at more closely by the authorities.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Mar 20, 2017 19:28:19 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2017 19:28:19 GMT -5
The book by Kroth is on Amazon kindle. I have read it and because I'm a retired psychotherapist I enjoyed it...its full of Jungian stuff. His take on Hauptmann was very definitive. He absolutely feels it's absurd to believe him guilty and gives his reasoning. The book is titled "The Lindbergh Kidnapping" but there is a lot about CAL's personality too. I have bought the kindle book and I am currently on the chapter where Kroth is reviewing the evidence against Hauptmann. The book has been interesting so far. He really makes clear the absolutely insane hysteria that took over this country and the world regarding Charles Lindbergh and his Spirit of St. Louis flight. I also found the comparison he makes between Charles Lindbergh's life and that of St. Louis the IX of France fascinating. I was wondering if you would share some of your thoughts, both professional and personal, about the book. Thanks!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Mar 21, 2017 8:44:18 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2017 8:44:18 GMT -5
(1) What specific newspaper dd that article come from? Was it a wire service story or an exclusive in one newspaper? (2) If Leibowitz was the source of that leak, shame on him! He violated the ethical principle of attorney-client confidentiality - assuming that he and Hauptmann had such a relationship at the time Hauptmann supposedly told him those things. (1) The story appeared in the Montreal Gazette on February 20, 1936. The story is coming out of Trenton, NJ. (2) As you will see, Leibowitz had quit as Hauptmann's defense attorney before he gave the interview in Trenton. I am linking the newspaper below. news.google.com/newspapers?id=cb4tAAAAIBAJ&sjid=xpgFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6558%2C2314087Hurt, I wanted to add that the Trenton Evening Times carried this story on February 19, 1936. The Canadian Newspaper reported the story on Feb. 20.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Letters
Mar 21, 2017 11:11:44 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Mar 21, 2017 11:11:44 GMT -5
Michael, from your understanding of the police reports and photos of the crime scene directly under the nursery window, were there any footprints found in the mud that one might expect to find, associated with the placement and possibly, adjustment of the ladder by one of more person(s), to its final position? Also, were there any notes made as to the consistency of the ground below the nursery window, ie. would all of the ground in that area, have yielded consistent footprints?
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 21, 2017 12:43:06 GMT -5
Post by hurtelable on Mar 21, 2017 12:43:06 GMT -5
Same comment applies. It was a serious violation of the code of attorney-client confidentiality for Liebowitz to reveal to media any details of the conversation he had with Hauptmann, especially a conversation which paints Hauptmann in a negative light. Terminating his representation of Hauptmann doesn't change Liebowitz's responsibility in this regard.
BTW, I don't recall Fawcett or even Reilly ever leaking to media anything that damaging to Hauptmann.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Letters
Mar 21, 2017 14:42:37 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Mar 21, 2017 14:42:37 GMT -5
Regarding fingerprints as mentioned above and many other times of LKC, the study of them I've seen was done by LAPD, and found that in 70% of crimes where fingerprints were sought, no usable prints were found. Further, in only 3% of the crimes investigated by LAPD, was a fingerprint of the eventual perpetrator discovered.
So not finding germane fingerprints at LKC is by far more the norm of the issue.
As far as the above goes, nobody, Hauptmann certainly included, would ever admit to the Lindbergh Crime. Further, if it was Hauptmann's initial idea (see Dudley Shoenfeld) and he mentioned it to anyone to try and recruit them as help, when the crime happened they'd certainly tell the police what they knew. No one in his right mind would participate in such an act! Reminds me of the comment made about BRH's intelligence - bovine.
This, among other facts, is an excellent reason of there being only a single kidnapper.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Mar 21, 2017 15:27:38 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2017 15:27:38 GMT -5
Same comment applies. It was a serious violation of the code of attorney-client confidentiality for Liebowitz to reveal to media any details of the conversation he had with Hauptmann, especially a conversation which paints Hauptmann in a negative light. Terminating his representation of Hauptmann doesn't change Liebowitz's responsibility in this regard. BTW, I don't recall Fawcett or even Reilly ever leaking to media anything that damaging to Hauptmann. I totally agree that it was a violation. He should have never been taken on as a defense attorney to begin with. He never believed in Hauptmann's innocence. He was in it for the glory (he thought he would get a confession) and the money Evelyn Walsh McLean was going to pay him, so he claimed she was. I have never come across Fawcett saying anything negative about Hauptmann. Ed Reilly did all his damage in the court room. Reilly actually wanted $25,000 dollars from Anna as his fee!!! Anna should have sued Reilly for malpractice, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 21, 2017 16:03:45 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Mar 21, 2017 16:03:45 GMT -5
Regarding fingerprints as mentioned above and many other times of LKC, the study of them I've seen was done by LAPD, and found that in 70% of crimes where fingerprints were sought, no usable prints were found. Further, in only 3% of the crimes investigated by LAPD, was a fingerprint of the eventual perpetrator discovered. So not finding germane fingerprints at LKC is by far more the norm of the issue. How you are characterizing this is incorrect. First - the key term is "usable." Kelly found none. " No indication of any prints." What's an indication of a fingerprint? A partial, or at least a ridge. He found none. So it was concluded by the Police at the time that the Kidnappers wore gloves. His testimony only mutated to adjust to the Defense scoring points by using certain adjectives in order to neutralize their victory on this point. Each time he's recalled his testimony changes. So if you go to the reports they back up that he found none. If you go to the other reports, they back up that he found none. It's all in my book. Michael, from your understanding of the police reports and photos of the crime scene directly under the nursery window, were there any footprints found in the mud that one might expect to find, associated with the placement and possibly, adjustment of the ladder by one of more person(s), to its final position? Also, were there any notes made as to the consistency of the ground below the nursery window, ie. would all of the ground in that area, have yielded consistent footprints? There was one print facing the house, and there was also a burlap bag mark next to that which, as I wrote in my book, was not a footprint. The yard was very muddy. The police accepted that Anne created the female prints earlier that afternoon under the window so that should be an indicator as to what the mud was like in that spot. If you ever get a chance to see the deleted NOVA scene you'll clearly see that one man could not have put the ladder against the side of the house without leaving many prints all over the place. For the show, (3) men did it on a nice sunny day, without any wind, and it looked like a Chinese fire drill.
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 21, 2017 16:51:12 GMT -5
Post by garyb215 on Mar 21, 2017 16:51:12 GMT -5
Hi Michael. I know it was difficult to open the front door and it has been hinted the front door possibly would have not been the exit of the kidnapper because of it. How difficult was it? Was it impossible.? Why would Lindbergh call it "interesting?" Even if someone could get in the room by the ladder its going to be impossible (imo) to come back down by oneself unless you threw the child down or handed the baby to someone. Then the footprints seem to confirm that it isn't just one doing this. You put both together its difficult to see why anyone would believe in the lone wolf theory .
Its funny I believe Curtis said the front door exit was used. Then I believe Wendel followed. Then Hauptmann if correct mentioned from a previous post/article if he was the kidnapper thats what he would have done.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 21, 2017 19:32:59 GMT -5
Hi Michael. I know it was difficult to open the front door and it has been hinted the front door possibly would have not been the exit of the kidnapper because of it. How difficult was it? Was it impossible.? Why would Lindbergh call it "interesting?" Even if someone could get in the room by the ladder its going to be impossible (imo) to come back down by oneself unless you threw the child down or handed the baby to someone. Then the footprints seem to confirm that it isn't just one doing this. You put both together its difficult to see why anyone would believe in the lone wolf theory . Its funny I believe Curtis said the front door exit was used. Then I believe Wendel followed. Then Hauptmann if correct mentioned from a previous post/article if he was the kidnapper thats what he would have done. Frankly, I cannot believe this issue hasn't come up earlier. I think the fact Lindbergh called to have the door fixed while at the same time proclaiming the reason he did not have the shutters fixed was because the house was "too new" is damn near unbelievable. Yet everyone, at all times it seems, gives Lindbergh a "pass" each and every time this type of thing occurs. It's all interconnected. The dog would have barked. The front door stuck and did not open easily. The shutters would not lock. There's no reasonable explanation for any of Lindbergh's tales used to explain everything away. And on top of that he accepts a theory which makes little sense if we are to believe no one in the house heard someone utilizing that door. Then later, he uses the very real reason as to why the Kidnappers could not have used the front door. Can we really have it both ways? Lindbergh believed Curtis was in touch BECAUSE of the methods he said were used - to include the use of that front door. So yes, the door could have been used, and my guess is that it absolutely was. But since it stuck, when opened, it most likely was heard by anyone on the 1st floor, and everyone who would hear Wahgoosh barking at it's use.
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 21, 2017 19:38:51 GMT -5
Post by hurtelable on Mar 21, 2017 19:38:51 GMT -5
Agree that Reilly's competence as chief defense counsel for Hauptmann left much to be desired. Probably alcoholism contributed toward that. Also, we know that Reilly died from disseminated syphilis about six years after his representation of Hauptmann, which was perhaps another factor causing impaired brain function at the time.
Now you say that Reilly wanted $ 25,000 from Anna as his fee. I was under the impression that the Hearst newspaper organization had found Reilly as a lawyer for the Hauptmanns and that Hearst had agreed to pay Reilly for his services. Then again, it was said that Hearst himself believed Hauptmann to be guilty, and so Reilly, being paid by the Hearst organization, would seem to have had a conflict of interest,
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Mar 21, 2017 21:25:10 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2017 21:25:10 GMT -5
Now you say that Reilly wanted $ 25,000 from Anna as his fee. I was under the impression that the Hearst newspaper organization had found Reilly as a lawyer for the Hauptmanns and had that Hearst had agreed to pay Reilly for his services. Then again, it was said that Hearst himself believed Hauptmann to be guilty, and so Reilly, being paid by the Hearst organization, would seem to have had a conflict of interest, According to Ludovic Kennedy's book "The Airman and the Carpenter" page 354, Reilly only received a $7,500 retainer fee from Hearst. Money was coming into the Defense Fund for Hauptmann so Reilly asked for $25,000 from that money. Kennedy says that Anna did give Reilly $5,000 from that fund previously. Apparently, Reilly felt he should receive more for all his work on Hauptmann's defense.
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 22, 2017 9:46:04 GMT -5
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 22, 2017 9:46:04 GMT -5
it can be done Hauptman was very lucky he wasn't seen in the house, that would be a great experiment to do at the house with a replica ladder
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 22, 2017 9:49:24 GMT -5
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 22, 2017 9:49:24 GMT -5
amy this is the only case ive studied that people go around in circles with everybody. reilly made that mistake to the reporters saying he could connect whatley to condon and nonsense like that. if edna knew Hauptman im sure the police would have found out
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Mar 22, 2017 15:31:51 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 15:31:51 GMT -5
amy this is the only case ive studied that people go around in circles with everybody. reilly made that mistake to the reporters saying he could connect whatley to condon and nonsense like that. if edna knew Hauptman im sure the police would have found out I understand what you are saying about going in circles. I certainly feel that way a lot about this case!
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 22, 2017 18:18:14 GMT -5
Post by garyb215 on Mar 22, 2017 18:18:14 GMT -5
Thank you Michael. You make a very strong point about the front door and how everyone should have heard it in its use. With that in mind can you think its possible that movements can be undetected purely on the standpoint that it appears everyone is doing their thing. We don't know this but maybe a right moment to do it was there and we'll never know when that moment was. With an exit out the window I can only vision legs dangling reaching for a rung in the ladder. As much as one can say you can get in the room by way of the ladder it has to be double hard to exit the same way.
The fact there was no barking by wahgoosh at all that night doesn't it appear the dog was controlled? Regardless of what time the kidnapping was accomplished the dog should at one point been going crazy. Not one peep. I am very suspicious something is succeeding inside the house that makes all this possible.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 22, 2017 18:49:30 GMT -5
Thank you Michael. You make a very strong point about the front door and how everyone should have heard it in its use. With that in mind can you think its possible that movements can be undetected purely on the standpoint that it appears everyone is doing their thing. We don't know this but maybe a right moment to do it was there and we'll never know when that moment was. With an exit out the window I can only vision legs dangling reaching for a rung in the ladder. As much as one can say you can get in the room by way of the ladder it has to be double hard to exit the same way. The fact there was no barking by wahgoosh at all that night doesn't it appear the dog was controlled? Regardless of what time the kidnapping was accomplished the dog should at one point been going crazy. Not one peep. I am very suspicious something is succeeding inside the house that makes all this possible. If the dog did not bark.... That's what was told by everyone right? But was it true? If it was, then what can be the explanation? Certainly not that door opening and shutting. We have to remember the wind. That good ole' wind. The windows. When locked they formed a seal. But the "kidnap" window was not locked. No lock - no seal. So we have BOTH a window rattling AND a shutter banging in the wind. It's an undeniable fact. Nevermind the dog - PEOPLE should have heard both. Now let's assume the front door opens. That would cause BOTH a noise AND negative pressure inside the house. Most dogs notice that stuff. But Wahgoosh wasn't most dogs was he? He was the high strung barking type. And so, by all accounts (except Lindbergh's) Wahgoosh absolutely would have. So why did Lindbergh call to have that door fixed again? And why didn't he call to have those shutters fixed? Most people who just paid 50K in 1932 for a new home would call demanding everything that was wrong be fixed right? So why was he selective? Next, everyone in the house says Wahgoosh would have barked, but isn't it starting to now make sense as to why Lindbergh said he wouldn't have?
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 23, 2017 6:26:49 GMT -5
Post by kate1 on Mar 23, 2017 6:26:49 GMT -5
Amy, please let me know what you think about the book. Kroth is very definitive about Hauptmann and his involvement. I thought it interesting what he said about the table at the end of the book. I began reading about the LKC when Waller's book was released (it was in my school library) and thought that was the end of the story. Working as an adult in a library I came acrossed "Scapegoat" and was hooked. Since then I've read anything I could get my hands on and in the course of working I would discuss the case with anyone from that generation, including my dad who was just a child at the time. In early 2000s found Mike's board and followed for awhile and then read his book which was great and here I am again. Remember many of the names and so admire their perserverence because this just isn't solved.
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 23, 2017 8:56:30 GMT -5
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 23, 2017 8:56:30 GMT -5
I like going to the sites ive been to almost all of them including being lucky enough to walk around hauptmans attic and apt
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 23, 2017 8:58:57 GMT -5
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 23, 2017 8:58:57 GMT -5
I may be wrong but I don't think leobowitz was officially hauptmans attorney. wasn't he hired by walsh mclean?
|
|
|
Letters
Mar 23, 2017 13:01:05 GMT -5
Post by kate1 on Mar 23, 2017 13:01:05 GMT -5
Very lucky!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2017 7:32:37 GMT -5
Amy, please let me know what you think about the book. Kroth is very definitive about Hauptmann and his involvement. I thought it interesting what he said about the table at the end of the book. I began reading about the LKC when Waller's book was released (it was in my school library) and thought that was the end of the story. Working as an adult in a library I came acrossed "Scapegoat" and was hooked. Since then I've read anything I could get my hands on and in the course of working I would discuss the case with anyone from that generation, including my dad who was just a child at the time. In early 2000s found Mike's board and followed for awhile and then read his book which was great and here I am again. Remember many of the names and so admire their perserverence because this just isn't solved. Hi Kate, I finished Kroth's book last night. I will put something together about this and hopefully get it posted over the weekend. I began learning about this crime through Waller's Kindnap book. Ended up with questions about the players in this case, etc. Then I read Kennedy's The Airman and the Carpenter Book which gave a totally innocent view of Hauptmann. Needless to say, you know from that point, that the full story about this crime has not been told. I didn't find Michael's born until 2011 and then read it heavily until I finally got brave enough to join and make a post here! You have certainly been looking at this case longer than I have so I look forward to learning from you as I have learned so much from the veteran researchers who post on this site.
|
|