|
Post by rick3 on Jun 4, 2010 3:42:41 GMT -5
Yes, I totally agree, In a nutshell... I, like many of the Police at the time, believe there was an inside connection. They of course had help from the outside. Next, like I've mentioned before, I still believe it very possible that one or more of those decided to collect a ransom that wasn't ever supposed to be collected. Condon was a diversion. Whether he was doing it himself because he was afraid, or that was his intended purpose from the onset. His job was to make sure the money was paid and the Police were preoccupied by chasing their tail. Say what you like, but what Condon did was, at the very least, obstruction of justice - no matter how you look at it. Just look at what he did concerning Samuelsohn. He had the Authorities on a wild goose chase purposely. There is no doubt in my mind he knew who made the box. And if he didn't then he's so far gone there's no way he pulls off Flemington, or even understood the threats the Police had made against him. He feigns this forgetfulness then sobers up real quick once things get serious towards HIM. Condon told more lies about Abe Samuelsohn than anyone else we know--especially about the 5-ply wooden antique ballot box? [by the way, Mersman brags about its 5-ply laminated table tops] Abe is also implicated in the ladder construction by Fred Smyder the clamp salesman. Abe says BRH, or a look-alike ordered the ladder? And two young men picked up the pieces, one week before the kidnap? Abe finds work in the FDR Whitehouse? As for the insider, Betty Gow is my first choice, among others. She is handpicked by Condon according to the Jones letter? And the blue-threaded hand-made t-shirt does not come up during negotiations for CJrs return, not until AFTER the body is found on Mt. Rose Hill? Both Betty and Condon are totally protected by CAL! Betty says CAL promised her ahead of time she wont be interviewed?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 5, 2010 9:14:11 GMT -5
I think one of the things that bothers me the most is how CAL prevents investigation of his Staff, says they aren't involved publicly, but to some confides he believes its possible.
Same goes for Condon. Publicly everyone has the utmost confidence in him, and that he acted only out of the "kindness of his heart" but behind the scenes we have the Police, and even Breck saying otherwise.
How does this square with all the Court testimony to the contrary?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 5, 2010 21:44:04 GMT -5
Police didn't buy it - all were eventually questioned. The police have time on their side.
Figures somebody will loopey - Violet?
I know that you say, and I do too Michael, that if we were were investigating Lindbergh today we would do this, or that would be done, but look at recent investigations of important crimes - just as bad. A human foible it seems.
More and more it seems a simple crime - Dave and Kevkon know.
By the way Dave, where's that $ 700 I loaned you at the casino? And where are all the girls - last I saw of them they went up to your room.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 6, 2010 2:45:58 GMT -5
UUU won't listen. If CAL determined to his own mind that the event had happened because or by a thing or happinstance, he would have acted irrationally. He acted irrationally - how else can you explain that? What the mind percieves, the mind believes. (Nobody said that - me maybe)
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 6, 2010 6:57:35 GMT -5
It's not simple - if it doesn't make sense.
Jumping to conclusions either by siding with 100% black or 100% white when neither is a true representation of what happened is a huge mistake.
Rail 16 is a perfect example. Keraga "re-proved" that Dick went into his own attic, cannibalized his floor, then finished his ladder. End of story right?
Wrong.
It only proved someone working from a position of bias can agree with something he believed in from jump-street. To those people they still believe it.
But to those of us who were never willing to "shrug off" something that made no sense - Rab's theory was, in my opinion, proven by Kevin who had never heard of it at that time. Any questions left unanswered were swept out from under the carpet because I have the documentation to settle them. It's not what most want to hear (from any side of it) so it is completely ignored by most.
And so the real answer did lie somewhere in the middle, and accepting a falsity, at any level, only points you in the wrong direction (further from the truth).
Each of these battles can be won. And each is a very important piece of the puzzle. For the guy over on Ronelle's site posting as "Dave" he's got his mind made up. I can respect that. But to say I have too much time on my hands (when I don't) because we are over here actually putting in the work to solve things (most don't want solved) I wonder if that's not the pot calling the kettle black. After all, I don't have time to entertain Rita yet there he is doing exactly that.
So when the Police tell people to shut up or forget about anything that points to the Morrow House then I say let's figure it out. Family secrets may have nothing to do with it, or rather, they may. But there's only one way to find out. Sitting on your hands won't get you there.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 6, 2010 12:53:21 GMT -5
Some questions may never be answered. Noso seems a dead end, not because there's not possible implication, but because he seems to have covered himself well. Fisch did the same and perhaps left BRH the extra cash as a simple gift, never thinking he'd burn himself. I believe this because it appears Richard had the money origionally in the "jug" and that's how it got wet - so he knew about it from day one rather than being it's uninvolved keeper. It appears Hauptmann was a minor player (perhaps only a ladder builder - that's exactly what Dave is suggesting by the way) in a major crime. Mostly the police wanted to get this mess (thousands and thousands of pages) off their desks. Whether it's Schwartzkopf of Finn or J. Edgar, they wanted it gone, so a little enhancement was in order. Means Richard got a bad rap but he knew what he was getting into as proven by some of his obscure statements. Seems the question now should be who was the mastermind? There IS evidence of Noso being around and motivation for him as well. I can't believe there isn't more somewhere on Noso, especially due to his relationship with and comments by Hoover. So is the direction of this independent investigation correct? No one who knows anything about the case is questioning the ladder anymore yet there are still many pages about that, just as one bad example. What it would be nice to see: Did Noso have kids - where are they and would they know anything. Are any of Norris' statements i.e. Fisch used R bills for passage ticket, etc., correct? Norris is not an idiot - why would he make that claim - and other claims. Did the Bureau investigate NE USA NAZIS - what did they come up with? I was thinking why wouldn't Noso simply kill DMSr. or perhaps DMjr. or CAL - hey maybe he killed CJr. He was a very bad person at the bottom line - obviously even Hoover was afraid of him. Again I think CAL suspected something which turned out to be completely incorrect and that tainted his control of the situation. It's not easy solving a perfect crime is it Michael?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 6, 2010 15:38:12 GMT -5
By "minor figure", I assume you mean he only planned and built the ladder, abducted and killed the child, wrote the notes, received the money, and spent the money? I'm surprised that DH suggests this given the contents of his diary. Are you sure about that, Jack?
Well, yes and no. I absolutely agree that way too much time is spent on the wood evidence in relation to Hauptmann's guilt or innocence. That was a done deal long ago and it really serves no purpose to rehash it. On the other hand, way too little time is spent understanding the wood evidence in relation to what it reveals about the crime and it's maker. Personally, I wish more people would concentrate on the facts and evidence as opposed to second guessing various characters and their actions.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 6, 2010 17:09:42 GMT -5
Planed and built the ladder yes. but probably not abducted and killed the child. There is only very questionable evidence to support that. What I'm saying is there had to be more than BRH involved. So big deal to the authorities - the case is over and done. But for some reason we linger wondering and it's useless to wonder about Richard - he is a page turned. So if it seems that he couldn't have accomplished it by himself the focus should be on who else was involved. I'm not for sure contributing anyone, just possibles: Betty, Red, Violet, Noso, and Isador. No one (me anyway) is insulting your intelligence regarding ladder issues (gawd you are grand) but as far as concernation goes it is beyond that. That BRH did it simply on his own is so highly unlikely that it deserves a very serious look. So we (at least Rick and I) are looking at other potential figures and throwing them out where they can be dusted or about questioned. So lets throw out Violet - in 1932 would you hold her hand and walk around the block with her? That's the point!
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 6, 2010 18:52:33 GMT -5
And what specifically leads you to that conclusion?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 7, 2010 0:18:29 GMT -5
Gawd Kevkon - do we have to go through all this again? OK - I'll buy your motif and lets see what Michael says - so BRH gets lucky on the ladder and he gets lucky on the ground and he gets lucky getting away, he gets lucky finding someone who will fill money for him and he passes $ 40,000 without a problem but he gets caught by a baddie license plate. There is something very wong here, Kevkon!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 7, 2010 0:21:09 GMT -5
For Michael: I do not want to fight with Kevkon - he is my friend. Don't set us up to fight. Jack
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 7, 2010 6:29:18 GMT -5
The reason I asked you that question, Jack, was to see what aspect of the crime you feel could not be accomplished single handily. Disbelief of this usually is due to one of two reasons (or both); the physical actions necessary in abducting the child and securing the ransom or the non-physical elements including the planning, coordination, and execution of the crime. Do you think BRH wasn't up to one or both of these? If so then it would follow that any accomplice would be a person who could do what BRH couldn't.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 7, 2010 7:02:02 GMT -5
I like how you are thinking here Kevin, however, I would ask you exactly why, if Hauptmann is the Lone-Wolf in this Crime, he is using 3rd parties on the backend if he's not doing so in the beginning....
Perrone existed. Anyone can make up any explanation they like about him. But doesn't or couldn't the same apply elsewhere? We have an event - etched in stone - it proves something - so why ignore it? By your own arguement, wasn't Hauptmann (if it was Hauptmann) capable of dropping off the note himself?
If someone is capable of something - it doesn't mean they don't need more hands to complete whatever goals they have outlined to accomplish. If Hauptmann is hesitant in one place, why wouldn't he be anywhere else?
The Hopewell snatch was that easy?
This was a crime which required mulitiple hands and there is evidence all over the place to support that premise. The one thing I think that can happen (and does) is that we can fall into a trap by shrugging off what we don't like, invent things, or go off on wild unsupported tangents.
For example, we cannot shrug off Lindy's eyewitness account of the "lookout" at St. Raymond's. We cannot say Hauptmann climbed into his attic to make the ladder. And we cannot say Noso & the Nazis teamed up to commit the crime.
We have many clues. Each and every clue must be examined concerning the possibilities surrounding that clue. We can't start finding clues about other clues fifty times removed before we can establish something real which that clue is based upon. But we also cannot ignore something by defying logic in order to explain it away.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 7, 2010 13:41:57 GMT -5
Michael (Deleted by Security)..... So I'm in effect saying that there possibly are more culprits and you in a thousand words or so are saying there are or there aren't?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jun 7, 2010 18:19:20 GMT -5
Dear Security,
Good on ye!!
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 7, 2010 21:40:57 GMT -5
Michael, I think you know ( I hope) by now that I don't follow any theory lone wolf or major conspiracy, regardless. Whatever sticks. I do think, however, that we should acknowledge what is possible regardless of how unbelievable we may find it. That's why I asked Jack the question, what exactly could Hauptmann not have accomplished by himself? What specifically would he have needed help with? Who could have provided that which he could not?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 8, 2010 1:14:09 GMT -5
Some questions may never be answered. Noso seems a dead end, not because there's not possible implication, but because he seems to have covered himself well. Fisch did the same and perhaps left BRH the extra cash as a simple gift, never thinking he'd burn himself. I believe this because it appears Richard had the money origionally in the "jug" and that's how it got wet - so he knew about it from day one rather than being it's uninvolved keeper. It appears Hauptmann was a minor player (perhaps only a ladder builder - that's exactly what Dave is suggesting by the way) in a major crime. Mostly the police wanted to get this mess (thousands and thousands of pages) off their desks. Whether it's Schwartzkopf of Finn or J. Edgar, they wanted it gone, so a little enhancement was in order. Means Richard got a bad rap but he knew what he was getting into as proven by some of his obscure statements. Seems the question now should be who was the mastermind? There IS evidence of Noso being around and motivation for him as well. I can't believe there isn't more somewhere on Noso, especially due to his relationship with and comments by Hoover. So is the direction of this independent investigation correct? No one who knows anything about the case is questioning the ladder anymore yet there are still many pages about that, just as one bad example. What it would be nice to see: Did Noso have kids - where are they and would they know anything. Are any of Norris' statements i.e. Fisch used R bills for passage ticket, etc., correct? Norris is not an idiot - why would he make that claim - and other claims. Did the Bureau investigate NE USA NAZIS - what did they come up with? I was thinking why wouldn't Noso simply kill DMSr. or perhaps DMjr. or CAL - hey maybe he killed CJr. He was a very bad person at the bottom line - obviously even Hoover was afraid of him. Again I think CAL suspected something which turned out to be completely incorrect and that tainted his control of the situation. It's not easy solving a perfect crime is it Michael?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 8, 2010 1:29:56 GMT -5
No one would plane four inches on that rail Kev. There is absolutely no way some idiot would do that! So something here is definately askew! So it has to have been falsely planed. Means it is a prop. I buy the ladder BS - looks like the same board to me. No way that could have been faked. Give me you address and I'll send you a nice proof dime. Free! And actually proof dimes have gone up over 60% from the current year to six months - you're getting a hell of a free deal!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 9, 2010 6:01:33 GMT -5
I know Kevin I was using the question as a lead-in. It's the way my brain works. I piggy-back off of posts concerning certain points at the time they strike me or I will forget them later. Also, I may be looking for someone to counter my point made to test the position I present.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 9, 2010 16:53:00 GMT -5
Good word, Kevkon, unbelievable, and that's what the answer has to be. So it's something which we can't even imagine which actually happened. I toss stuff out, DMJr., Noso, Fisch (everybody's tossed him out) but as the old saying goes, some of it might stick. Look at what Michael and I said about Violet - that had to very hurt - cyanide is plain acid - why walk downstairs? She had to be in a pile of hurt - but walking? Maybe she was dusted and tried to tell someone - other than that it seems she would just curl in the closit and vomit. Bad way to go. The glass ampules hit your head, not your stomach - cyanide and pure nicotine are the only quick death chemicals that occur naturally - there are new ones but they are chemical and atomic compositions.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 9, 2010 17:52:23 GMT -5
Jack, The Sign of the Four, ch. 6
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 10, 2010 17:02:47 GMT -5
Color me dense, Kevkon, I'm not following. Mafia? If it's the sign of the four why are there three circles and holes? Seems I recall the sign of the four as being a death signal - if Louey slapped you on your back four times don't go out in the street and watch out even in your house. But I don't see a relationship between the three circles and sign of the four. Are you talking Masonic four - u a Mason? I told you about all that jive. Masonic four has to do with God - so bad?
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Mar 10, 2011 19:48:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rmc1971 on Mar 11, 2011 23:11:17 GMT -5
Michael, I think you know ( I hope) by now that I don't follow any theory lone wolf or major conspiracy, regardless. Whatever sticks. I do think, however, that we should acknowledge what is possible regardless of how unbelievable we may find it. That's why I asked Jack the question, what exactly could Hauptmann not have accomplished by himself? What specifically would he have needed help with? Who could have provided that which he could not? I agree with the whatever sticks theory. However, to me, what sticks in my mind is that Hauptmann worked closely with a partner in the past - whether it was his crimes in Germany or whatever monkey business he had going on financially in NYC. I'm not sure he could have broken form and done all this on his own. Is there one certain thing I think he couldn't carry out? No. But he hadn't shown a propensity in his past for carrying out his crimes and shady dealings on his own, either.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 12, 2011 10:02:23 GMT -5
True, but what must be acknowledged is that we simply don't know the full extent of Hauptmann's criminal undertakings. Especially in the post Germany period. Therefore, making assumptions based on what little we do know can be flawed. I do tend to agree with you, though that Hauptmann seems inclined to partner up.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 13, 2011 8:39:04 GMT -5
Not to be a "board hog" but I just wanted to throw in my two cent here.....
A "hanger-on" or "wanna-be" is a follower. They are usually accompanied by other followers all the while taking orders or directions from one or more people. Some of these people are content in their role while others want to be a "Boss" someday.
A "Boss" is someone who may be a singular Leader or in a partnership with other Leaders. They may also have a "Boss" of their own. They will always have at least one "hanger-on" but usually more.
A "Lone-Wolf" is someone who acts, plans, and commits everything alone. Rarely do they share anything as it relates to whatever they are doing.
We do not know what other crimes Hauptmann committed in Germany that he may have gotten away with. This is true. But we know what happened to force him to flee to America. Partnered up, not very sophisticated, and not ratting anyone out.
Next in America he is either "straight" or getting away with his crimes. I would submit that he would break the law for easy money, but at the same time, he isn't good at breaking the law so I would think he's either lucky, drastically improved his techniques somehow, or linked up with others who were more skilled.
Fisch is a perfect example of someone skilled at ripping people off. And where do we find Hauptmann? Linked up, in the end, with Fisch. And so, while in some Cases you have Hauptmann playing the role of the Godfather of the Stock Market, he's also at times, actually bragging about his partnership with, and the wealth of - Fisch.
These are not the actions of a "Lone-Wolf."
As I researched this Case I've noticed patterns. And I've also noticed breaks in these patterns. Each time I see a "break" it makes me think of causes for it. Sometimes if someone different is doing something then this is an explanation for that break.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 13, 2011 15:33:25 GMT -5
Just to make it clear, my point was that though it may seem unlikely, it would be possible for BRH to act alone in the initial crime. I think you have to start with that possibility rather than dismiss it due to disbelief.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 14, 2011 8:55:16 GMT -5
Honestly, I have considered it. You have a professional jewel thief, like Arthur Barry, then it shows someone who meticulously plans, plots, and carries out the specific goal of robbing someone can happen. This fact hasn't been lost over the years as Barry was at the time, and later down the years, considered a suspect. He was eliminated officially when Condon said he wasn't "John." Sound familiar? But whoever did this wasn't stealing jewels. There is a huge difference, and I don't think a Professional, like Berry, would have even considered such a crime because of its risk and complexities. But with all of his skill could he have pulled this off initially without any help? A definate "maybe". But is Hauptmann at the level of an Arthur Barry? Then we must consider all of the circumstances we do have to factor in. For me, it points to at least 2 people at the scene.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 19:27:28 GMT -5
Here is a newspaper article on the accident that took the life of Henry Breckinridge's daughter from his first marriage. This is July 1934.
|
|
ziki
Trooper
Posts: 44
|
Post by ziki on Mar 12, 2019 6:22:41 GMT -5
I am confused now, which daughter from H. Breckinridge actually died in this accident?
|
|