|
Post by sue75 on Nov 3, 2009 20:35:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Nov 3, 2009 20:38:24 GMT -5
1935 Clark Sellars Lecture --
California Identification Digest --
See pages 7 and 10.
Part II will be in the next issue. Next month?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 5, 2009 19:01:18 GMT -5
Anybody know the "tool-mark expert" to whom he refers? I am not aware of any.
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Dec 3, 2009 10:18:17 GMT -5
Silly me. This link should have been placed here. This is Part 2 (November/December 2009) of the California Identification Digest's article on a Clark Sellers talk that he gave in California in 1935, I think. See pages 6, 9, 22, and 23. www.csdiai.net/Digest%20Articles/2009%2011-12.pdf
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Jan 15, 2010 22:16:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Feb 7, 2010 18:33:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 5, 2010 18:20:25 GMT -5
Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Aug 5, 2010 21:40:48 GMT -5
great he deserved it. he was supposed to be the best handwriting expert from all of them
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 6, 2010 18:55:44 GMT -5
I do believe he was good at what he did. After all, he recognized the requests had been influenced before he even examined the originals. But complaining about $7000? People were out of work, starving for work, and this was their tax money he was being paid with.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Aug 9, 2010 17:19:47 GMT -5
well mike, hauptmann shouldnt have killed the lindbergh baby for blood money
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 10, 2010 5:51:16 GMT -5
1. I've seen no conclusive evidence he killed anyone. We don't even know how, or when the child died.
2. The fees were outrages. Can you imagine if he had been on the other side? I think Trendley got $200 ( I could look this up) and then they did everything they could to make sure his reputation was ruined. No, no I'd say being picked up by the State was like hitting the lottery... It's why they put Farrar on the Witness list then hid him away. They were afraid he was going to testify for the Defense after being "rejected" by the State.
It's a tangled web - when it shouldn't be.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Aug 10, 2010 7:46:54 GMT -5
i see plenty of evidence he killed the child. what about haring?
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 10, 2010 8:51:26 GMT -5
In my opinion if Hauptmann or the kidnapper MEANT to kill the the baby the body would never have been found. If one believes the baby was not meant to be killed there would seemingly have to be someone to hide and take care of him.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Aug 10, 2010 11:15:21 GMT -5
gary how do you know that?
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 10, 2010 12:53:22 GMT -5
Again in my opinion Steve. I certainly don't know. There are certain things Hauptmann planned well. The ladder was constructed to do the job. There were sock or the like covering his shoes. etc.... .
If the plan was to kill the baby why would the baby be exposed just miles away while the ransom negotiations are going on. If my plans were to kill the baby. I would dig a 4 foot hole days ahead so to ditch him in on the kidnapping night. Baby found means no chance for a ransom payment.
Doesn't it appear more of a quick dispose of the baby as it was found ?
Now some say the baby might have been dropped off later. Its not that I can't believe that but I could never imagine Hauptmann doing that. What would it gain?
So personally I think the death was not planned. I have wondered maybe the baby was terminally injured in the getaway and perhaps there would be panic to kill the baby at that point. Unplanned murder if I can say.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Aug 10, 2010 14:12:24 GMT -5
i dont think he thought the ladder cracked and he fell and paniced. he might have thought the alarm was in effect, but it wasnt. he might of thought he had to get rid of the body
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 10, 2010 15:55:08 GMT -5
In my opinion if Hauptmann or the kidnapper MEANT to kill the the baby the body would never have been found. If one believes the baby was not meant to be killed there would seemingly have to be someone to hide and take care of him. ABSOLUTELY! And if he didn't and there wasn't, what do you have??? What you have is the answer!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 10, 2010 18:22:14 GMT -5
Steve - what evidence do you see that proves Hauptmann murdered the child?
Kevin - I have brain-freeze and can't come up with an answer.... so what is it?
Gary - You've shown us what can be true "if" Y "then" Z must be true. People like to mix and match but it doesn't work unless there's an X factor. If something doesn't seem to make sense ask yourself who benefits from that action. If the child was meant to be killed then the planning shows that would have been planned for as well. If it wasn't then it shows there were plans to take care of a live child. Next, who benefits from the child's discovery? The Kidnappers?
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Aug 10, 2010 19:20:36 GMT -5
MIKE ITS THE WHOLE TOTAL PACKAGE. THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING. THERES NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT ANYBODY ELSE DID IT. EVERY AVENUE LEADS TO HAUPTM,ANN
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 11, 2010 5:57:11 GMT -5
The totality of the evidence in no way proves murder. It implies he could have been the one who did it but that's it. You have physical evidence of multiple people being involved, and eyewitness accounts of more then one person having a hand in this. Which one killed the child? Did anyone kill him? We just don't know because there's no evidence.
If the greater weight of evidence was the burden of proof for murder there'd be a ton of people in jail right now who are out and about. It doesn't work that way - even now.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 11, 2010 8:50:12 GMT -5
Kev ...I think you are saying formulating IFs and then a logical THEN solves nothing.
Michael.... ok I hear what you are saying. Who would benefit from the finding of the baby? A coup ? Family? Someone involved but who didn't want the ransom paid?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 11, 2010 15:49:20 GMT -5
Gary:
I think what we'd have to do is run down each and every scenario because I each of us is likely to disagree about what the most likely would be. Know what I mean?
Was this crime planned for or wasn't it? And if so - to what degree?
If the child was placed in this "spot" later then it serves the Family. Without the body they could continue to be "hoaxed" for an eternity. CJ seems to have a conscience, that is, if you believe JFC (e.g. Red, Betty, and CAL's extra $20K) So if JFC is truthful about this then it seems he would likely be worried about getting the child back to a place where he could be found. "X" marks the spot where the burlap bag is dropped on the side of the road like a beacon or neon sign.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 11, 2010 17:26:42 GMT -5
Kev ...I think you are saying formulating IFs and then a logical THEN solves nothing. No Gary, I'm saying it solves everything. The problem is that logic is sometimes relevant in respect to the thinker or in this case the criminal.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 13, 2010 21:44:11 GMT -5
I think ditching the baby was not planned based on how it was found. Yet if it was ditched after the ransom was paid then it could negate that. What scenarios would you start with? I think it is interesting you mentioned originally a local suspect was a strong consideration. Does anyone think Schipell was overlooked? Does anyone believe the diaper found by the pig lady is something not to forget?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 14, 2010 10:09:09 GMT -5
Gary,
I think its possible that someone was attempting to frame Schippel. Waxey Gordon told George Clarke the child was dead having been murdered by a "local mad-man" BEFORE the child was discovered.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Aug 14, 2010 11:04:47 GMT -5
your relying on waxey gordan a criminal? the mafia angle in this case never panned out
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 14, 2010 11:25:33 GMT -5
Firstly, I am not "relying" on anyone. What I am doing is injecting a thought based upon what Gordon told Clarke.
Next, I am not going to discount anyone who is a reliable source of information specifically because the NJSP couldn't develop a connection between Hauptmann and the mob.
It is quite possible that Gordon had information. That doesn't mean he was involved or knew who was, in fact, he's blaming it on a "local mad-man" not anyone connected to the Underworld.
One of the "pit-falls" the NJSP fell into here was to create an artificial test that had to be met in order for a more detailed investigation to be considered or pursued. For example, they were looking for multiple people but eliminated those whose handwriting wasn't similar to the notes. But Experts said one hand penned them all so this approach seems flawed. Then later, they eliminated based upon the J. J. Faulkner deposit slip. But the slip didn't match the notes..... see what I am saying? I see no evidence they went back for a re-examination once this deposit slip turned up as evidence.
And so, when Bitz & Spitale failed to connect up the "Mob" with this kidnapping, it certainly did not mean other connected people did not. We don't know what they turned up. But here Gordon says something that, based upon future events, is uncanny.
Many in that world kept their mouths shut no matter what the circumstances. And so while Gordon seemed to provide intel before hand that comes to pass Spitale was convinced it was an "inside job." I say think about what is said, then take it into consideration before making the same mistakes the NJSP did here.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Aug 14, 2010 14:35:08 GMT -5
im saying that in my studies, mobsters said alot of things and it amounted to nothing
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 14, 2010 15:51:39 GMT -5
Surely.
A lot of what was said amounted to nothing. Almost all of what Condon said for example...
Yet, when someone says something that does amount to something, or at least appears that it could have - then I take note.
|
|