|
Post by sue75 on Apr 19, 2011 10:10:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 19, 2011 16:21:30 GMT -5
Nice find Sue....
I have a report on this if you are interested.
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Apr 19, 2011 17:07:52 GMT -5
Yes, I am interested in that report.
Thank you very much, Michael.
Many witnesses claimed to have seen "suspicious" people like Henry De Siena in and around Hopewell in the weeks leading up to the kidnapping. We should look through the Lindbergh kidnapping books and documents, and draw up a list or start a new thread. Maybe a discussion on these suspicious pre-kidnapping Hopewell sightings already exists on your board?
I wonder if De Siena's film of the Lindbergh house & grounds still exists?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 19, 2011 18:31:22 GMT -5
We do have a thread about "Strange Vehicles" somewhere....
This particular investigation involves many things. Dersi (Dursi) for one, who was a Hopewell native working at Guiness's Gas Station. Many things inter-connect and at the same time go in different directions. It's why its so hard to create files on various people, topics, dates, or items.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 20, 2011 5:35:08 GMT -5
I think this one example underscores the position that Hauptmann didn't simply drive down to Highfields then commit this crime. It's been said he was "angry" that he didn't get to work on the 1st, as expected, and needed money so badly this was his alternative.
Just finding the property was a chore.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Apr 20, 2011 6:29:53 GMT -5
thats why he scouted it out before the crime. i believe he was in hopewell before march1
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 20, 2011 15:34:54 GMT -5
Steve,
How many times? When? Who do you think directed him to the Home? Obviously, even these (3) men had trouble - with help from 2 different sources.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Apr 20, 2011 19:32:15 GMT -5
your right it is trouble. the night of march the first a old timer told me the njsp had to stop at the only place open the bakery to ask where the lindbergh house was. thats why i firmly think hauptmann scouted out hopewell. how many times? who knows
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 21, 2011 5:55:29 GMT -5
It's important to know. Why? Because if someone is "scouting" a house which is impossible to find, out in the middle of nowhere, and pulls this off with the precision they do - you can bet your Government Pension it was all mapped out.
And so why, if Hauptmann is the "Lone-Wolf," does he plan to and shows up to WORK on March 1st? Why does he go when the family is NOT supposed to be there?
Unless someone else is involved, then your position of "scouting" doesn't work for Hauptmann as the "Lone-Wolf" does it?
Nope. Because if he scouted then he doesn't go until the day he planned for it AND he doesn't go on the day his scouting proves they won't be there. But let's remember these guys don't cut the phone wires, and accidentally leave behind some evidence to prove it wasn't an "inside job."
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 21, 2011 7:42:56 GMT -5
Maybe because that was the idea. If you accept the recon then you MUST accept the results. And that is not exclusive to BRH.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 21, 2011 14:45:02 GMT -5
That definitely works if there isn't a plan to kidnap the child and/or no one on the inside involved.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Apr 21, 2011 18:49:46 GMT -5
thats all well and good, but there still isnt any solid proof he had help
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 22, 2011 7:17:00 GMT -5
I am pretty sure a look-out, who wasn't Hauptmann, qualifies as "help" especially if Hauptmann was involved in the process.
That's just one example.
Then you guys forget about the case you make for the panel board purchase where Hauptmann and a Confederate "beat feet" because they see Cops. I guess his Companion is only visible when the point Hauptmann is trying to pass ransom is made - but completely vanishes into thin air when "help" is mentioned?
You cannot have it both ways.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Apr 23, 2011 8:03:10 GMT -5
pretty sures, mights, and maybes are the problem with this case. ive never seen credible evidence that he had help. just the way the case unfolded i dont believe he did. it dosnt mean im right
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 23, 2011 8:12:49 GMT -5
Another problem is starting out with a conclusion and then setting out to prove it's right.
Also, the term help is relative. Help to do what? Help with the knowledge of what?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 23, 2011 9:17:17 GMT -5
I think if you consider everything then you have to draw up a theory, at least, then work from there. It's important to be "honest" about it and not force a round peg through a square hole, omit, evade, or shrug off what doesn't fit.
I would submit to you that there are many "steps" to this crime. At each there may a degree of help necessary to complete it.
Is the help innocent? (Perrone)
Is it Semi-Innocent? (Paid to do something they know is illegal but just don't know what).
Is it the work of a Confederate?
Is information needed, and how was it obtained?
|
|