jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
New
Jul 24, 2011 6:45:36 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Jul 24, 2011 6:45:36 GMT -5
Lets say you threw out the known facts and looked at the crime aknew. The more I think and feel about it, I think simply it was a crime against. Lindbergh. Now correctly people will say, "of course it was," but there is a difference here. I'm talking like a hate crime. Now who would hate him so badly? Government? Presidental threat? It certainly stopped him anyway - and there, Michael is the crux!
|
|
|
New
Jul 25, 2011 7:59:34 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Jul 25, 2011 7:59:34 GMT -5
There has been a couple of "revenge" theories out there. One was by intorduced Officer Williamson (Hopewell PD) but no one seemed to care what he thought except a few Reporters here and there.
I love looking into people in the position to know certain things who were ignored, or told to shut up.....
I personally don't understand why someone would kidnap/murder his child, as a method of revenge, then carry out risky negotiations to get 50K (an amount which was extremely meager). In fact, the Kidnappers seemed to cut Lindy slack where ever and whenever they could in my opinion.
If you're trying to "stick it to him" then I see the exact opposite happening.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
New
Jul 30, 2011 15:07:23 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Jul 30, 2011 15:07:23 GMT -5
Good points, and valid unless BRH is involved only with the procurement of the ransom money, and the actual crime was carried out by more "professional(s)" as appears to have happened. Many things to consider here including it appears to be an inside job and Richard would have no way of accomplishing the preliminaries.
|
|
|
New
Aug 1, 2011 8:26:45 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Aug 1, 2011 8:26:45 GMT -5
There appears to be some solid structure behind what happened. The only way to avoid it, in my opinion, is to conclude a high degree of luck was involved in a multitude of dates, times, and places. Once or twice, although highly improbable, I could live with - but there's too many to count in this Case.
|
|
|
New
Aug 3, 2011 12:09:34 GMT -5
Post by jack88 on Aug 3, 2011 12:09:34 GMT -5
I agree - generally a great amount of luck or coincidence in true crime turns out to be way off the mark. It means the true answer hasn't yet been found as is, I think, the case W/TLC.
|
|
|
New
Aug 4, 2011 6:04:27 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Aug 4, 2011 6:04:27 GMT -5
For me the first step is to allow oneself to consider all the possibilities despite whatever theory one has. Too often people have chosen "sides" so they won't allow anything to threaten that position into their decision making.
The clear path to the solution is to abandon any loyalty then stick to the facts. Let the facts lead you to the answers. That's the hardest part because sometimes we really don't know what the true facts are. Too often a "mistake" is taken for granted then repeated. Soon that "mistake" then become imbedded within the history of the Case when its just not true. So we must "re-learn" what we think we already know.
If you run into a brick wall then leave that question "open" until such time where a report, memo, letter, or simply somone's observation removes that obstacle for you.
There is no immediate gratification when it comes to this process. I've personally come a long way, with everyone's help here and elsewhere over the years - but its taken me over 11 years to get at the point where (I believe) I am. Sometimes things just "click" or, you think they do but find out later they still do not. You have to work through it.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
New
Aug 4, 2011 16:19:31 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Aug 4, 2011 16:19:31 GMT -5
Very wise, and apropos. Stick to facts. The first fact is that the whole thing stinks from the very beginning. CAL most likely knew his son was dead so he just screwed around. He could have raised the 50K in about ten minutes from a wide variety of sources, probably firstly his mother-in-law, if he didn't have it his own bank which I suspect he did. That stink can just be carried on and on - fingerprints, sure there were some, but a decided lack of them. A kidnapper cleanup guy? Getting the right window, the right unusual night, the perfect timing when no one is aware for a while, the clean getaway - on and on...
|
|
|
New
Aug 7, 2011 14:45:25 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Aug 7, 2011 14:45:25 GMT -5
I think Kevin's theory is something which exemplifies an effort to try to explain certain things that don't make sense. I'd like to see more of this.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
New
Aug 7, 2011 16:13:40 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Aug 7, 2011 16:13:40 GMT -5
Me too.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
New
Aug 9, 2011 9:06:14 GMT -5
Post by kevkon on Aug 9, 2011 9:06:14 GMT -5
Well, I'm not a theorist, more of a analyst and observer. I try to look at the events of that night without too much prejudice. The very first observation for me is that this is really a needlessly reckless method of abducting this child. So I start looking at kidnappings at that time. That pretty much confirms what I thought. So then the question becomes was this in fact a planned kidnapping or was there some specific advantage to the method employed? It's either one or the other. That's how logic works. Ok, so if it was a kidnapping what was the advantage behind the method? What evidence supports a planned kidnapping? Try to ask yourself these questions without the prejudice of the ensuing history relating to the trial and conviction of Hauptmann and the multitude of books and theories related to it.
|
|
|
New
Aug 10, 2011 5:53:54 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Aug 10, 2011 5:53:54 GMT -5
Kevin, could you explain this to me a little more?
Same here. What did you think, and what did you find to confirm it?
I look at it this way.... Was there a crime? Was there ANY planning involved? If so, what was the degree of planning? Is it reasonable to assume they did specific planning in certain areas but totally blew it off in others? To address the crime in one regard but totally neglect it in others? What was the advantage to the methods employed regardless whether or not it was a planned kidnapping?
The evidence for planning itself is multitudinal. Evidence for a kidnapping would have to be the indication of place of entry (whether or not its real or staged), the Ransom Note, the Toddler's disappearance, and the fact it worked. They can stand alone (especially the note) but become stronger when totaled up.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
New
Aug 10, 2011 14:48:32 GMT -5
Post by kevkon on Aug 10, 2011 14:48:32 GMT -5
How about we take your questions one at a time? Kevin, could you explain this to me a little more? Who would plan to abduct this child using such a method when there were so many other options? Using a ladder that barely supports a single person and entering a house that was occupied is about the riskiest method possible. There were plenty of opportunities to do something more tried and true. Highfields was, and still is, pretty remote. The roads are not highly travelled. There were no armed guards. A single telephone line. There just is no need to do a second story balancing act with a live child and a flexing ladder. It's like stealing the Mona Lisa by cutting it up into little pieces, what's the point?
|
|
|
New
Aug 10, 2011 19:04:29 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Aug 10, 2011 19:04:29 GMT -5
I think we're going to have to proceed from the position it was a Kidnapping in order to try to answer this.
Curtis said they used the door. Hauptmann also speculated to Leibowitz that's how he would have done it. Do we know for a fact the ladder was used both to get in and exit? If not, why was it used? So we have other options. But would it have upset the dog IF an outsider utilized one? What would have been the best ones in your opinion?
Absolutely. So what are the mitigating circumstances which allow for it to be so?
Like when exactly? Lindbergh wasn't there so there was one less person in the house. One less set of ears to hear noises which came from the Kitchen but none hearing anything upstairs above their heads.
True about the remoteness. It was hard to find. Very hard and even some locals didn't know Lindbergh lived there. The phone line wasn't cut.
But if the plan was to kidnap, what alternate version would you employ? Would you, like Hauptmann speculated, get "sweet" to one of the women who worked there? Or would you risk setting off the dog by going out the door?
It all depends on the goals and how one means to achieve it. Was it one person alone and lucky? Or did they plan and map out what they set out to do?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
New
Aug 11, 2011 9:05:49 GMT -5
Post by kevkon on Aug 11, 2011 9:05:49 GMT -5
In criminal law, kidnapping is the taking away or transportation of a person against that person's will, usually to hold the person in false imprisonment, a confinement without legal authority. This may be done for ransom or in furtherance of another crime, or in connection with a child custody dispute.
Is this what you mean by kidnapping? If it is, then no method ,ladder, front door, etc of secretly entering and exiting Highfields that night with the intent of kidnapping would work. Look, I have built and climbed the identical ladder. I know it's possible to use it as a means of ingress and egress. However, not with a live abductee. So was kidnapping the plan?
|
|
|
New
Aug 12, 2011 19:04:24 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Aug 12, 2011 19:04:24 GMT -5
Let's say despite the claim no one smelled ether that the child had been unconscious, or perhaps even dead. So the intent could have been to remove him then make it look like a kidnapping without any intension of ever returning him.
Were going to have to allow for the possibility the Police were right in that at least 2 people were involved in the abduction. I think it could have been the plan to remove Charles Jr. from the premises. If two people are involved one could have handed the child out the window, or even the door for that matter.
I think of it like this..... the possibilities are like the tentacles on an Octopus. Each one represents a different set of various combinations. Some are better then others but they ALL must be explored.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
New
Aug 12, 2011 20:27:27 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Aug 12, 2011 20:27:27 GMT -5
The only reason to wipe the nursery would be to remove evidence of someone who was not supposed to be in there. Think Ollie. Any evidence of him in money trouble or relationships w/questionables?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
New
Aug 13, 2011 9:01:17 GMT -5
Post by kevkon on Aug 13, 2011 9:01:17 GMT -5
Ok, that's a possibility. But it still requires entry and egress with a body and that's really problematic with either the ladder or front door ( look at sight lines and circulation at Highfields front entry). And it still begs the question of why choose this method. In fact, if you are proposing by this a cover up of the child's death, it even gets stranger as it doesn't reduce suspicion, rather it increases it.
Ok, you are back to the inside accomplice. So, with an insider the method of abduction is even more bizarre and sure doesn't reduce the risk for the inside person, in fact it raises it.
Michael, it goes without saying that I think you are probably one of the most open minded people I know. But when it comes to this issue of the original intent of this crime I seem to sense a reluctance to look at it in a completely different manner. Once again I ask, does this really look like a well planned kidnapping?
|
|
|
New
Aug 13, 2011 11:02:21 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Aug 13, 2011 11:02:21 GMT -5
Before Hauptmann, almost everyone believed the "back" door was a strong possibility. Even Lindbergh, despite his testimony at the Curtis Trial, believed the front door could have been used.
They seemed to accept the ladder being used to gain entrance, but not to exit, unless there was someone on the inside involved. Lindbergh wouldn't allow that for a possibility, despite what he told Agent Larimer, so the idea was dropped.
I think that all relies on what really happened. It could well be that the idea was to murder the child, right from jump street, then collect on a dead baby. For me, we must cover all of the possibilities from front to back to see what works best to explain EVERYTHING.
Surely it raises it - especially with the hand we've been dealt. But when you have Lindbergh protecting everyone then there's no need to worry about it - if there was an "insider." Guys like Leon Ho-age didn't have that burden around his neck. As a Professional Insurance Fraud Investigator, he saw this as an Inside Job almost immediately... but with that position he dismissed the possibility of Hauptmann's involvement because he had the proof of coercion and evidence tampering as well. That's where I believe he made a big mistake. He got into the "Hauptmann is innocent" mode so it hurt his investigation by cutting off other important things to consider.
I am open to any scenario that works. And I believe many actually can. At that point I start to look at what makes the most amount of sense...sometimes that doesn't always hold true, I know, but its like a degree of probability. Still though, nothing is written in stone for me - yet.
Honestly yes. It looks too well planned. I mean, they used the board walk to get to the Nursery window! No footprints to that window - only away from it.
I don't see anyone planning and planning for very specific details but overlooking or blowing other important things off. It's all in or not. For me, what's not planned for wasn't because it was "covered" in another way.
Like the shutter. No chisel compromises that slide bolt. No chisel opens a locked window. Heck, it took two women to open and shut it when it was unlocked. If they didn't know it would be open and unlocked they would have needed a fireman's Axe for the shutters and/or broken the glass to the window.
So this stuff needs to be explained regardless if it was a kidnapping or anything else for that matter. The bottom line is someone took that child successfully under impossible circumstances. So we need to figure out how it happened by examining the variables and circumstances to where the combination of some make it all possible.
I am all ears for anything that does.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
New
Aug 13, 2011 12:08:03 GMT -5
Post by kevkon on Aug 13, 2011 12:08:03 GMT -5
Still begs the question, why plan a kidnap in this manner when others are available ( even more if you have inside help)? Why bring attention to a death by making it even bigger? Who could count on the amount of protection afforded by CAL before the fact?
Really? What among those items is unique to a kidnapping? In fact a kidnapper is not usually concerned with covering tracks. They want you to know what happened and carry a pretty big insurance policy in that which they have.
|
|
|
New
Aug 14, 2011 9:58:02 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Aug 14, 2011 9:58:02 GMT -5
This was one of the reasons why Hoffman wanted Hauptmann kept alive.
It explains the death doesn't it? "Criminal drops child exiting...." Whether or not anyone is caught - that was the accepted position once his body was discovered. If no one is caught it still remains - Hauptmann IS caught and it still remains.
Apparently everyone. Even Hauptmann but instead of protection he got the other end of it. Yup, that was Hauptmann voice alright. That's all anyone needed to hear. Lindbergh's word was stronger then anything else.
Doesn't the missing child along with the note do that?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
New
Aug 14, 2011 15:44:47 GMT -5
Post by kevkon on Aug 14, 2011 15:44:47 GMT -5
Ok, but that really doesn't answer the question. Surely you must see the alternatives, many of which were sop for period kidnappers. So you think it makes sense to attempt a cover up by increasing the attention of the world? Do you honestly think that anyone would know prior to the event the ability of Lindbergh to control an investigation without even knowing who the investigators would be? That's an awful lot of faith for a criminal to have in CAL. No, only the note indicates a planned kidnapping. That's the funny part to me. Here you have only a pitiful note, not at all like the rest except for the symbol and holes, and yet it is the only real evidence of premeditated kidnapping. That's it, that's what everyone wants to hang their hat on, a poorly executed note which , as Mark observed, seems to almost be generic.
|
|
|
New
Aug 14, 2011 17:57:32 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Aug 14, 2011 17:57:32 GMT -5
I see a million alternatives. But this one is what it is and for all intent and purposes (it seems) - it worked. So why did it work? That's what we must work towards explaining.
I am not committed to a "cover-up" but we can pursue that line if you want to. Whatever happened before, during, or after would have been extremely big news. It involved the most popular people on the planet. I don't see how there's any getting around that.
Yes. But the question would be why he would. Lindbergh being strange and quirky then perhaps someone knowing what those oddities were could be an angle. It is possible someone on the Staff knew he would defend them to the end the way he did. This could be he was worried more about his image concerning who was around him, or perhaps the rumor of he and Gow had some truth to it and he didn't want it coming out.......Bottom line is he protected people he confided to Agent Larimer that could have been involved not only happened, he then went on to testify he trusted them in order to explain his actions. How does one make sense of someone doing counterproductive things then contradicting himself concerning his reasoning for it?
Growing up I had no idea the power Lindbergh possessed. Researching this Case I learned exactly how much. The FBI wanted to guard the Canadian Borders after the ransom drop and Schwarzkopf was all for it - until Lindbergh said "no" and that was that. The man went toe to toe with J. Edgar Hoover .... and Lindbergh won. Name me someone else who could say that. The Cops were scared as hell of him, and no one would cross him.
I can't come up with an alternative. The Symbol was an intelligent design that had to have been premeditated. And so these Criminals are carrying it around for what purpose? Maybe they set out to ransom an item but instead saw the child? That to me reaches into the realm you are protesting against. Help me make sense of it.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
New
Aug 15, 2011 10:04:57 GMT -5
Post by kevkon on Aug 15, 2011 10:04:57 GMT -5
Michael, I think the problem here is that we are on completely opposite paths, though hopefully heading in the same direction. Your path involves the acquisition and discernment of all information relating to this case. That's the scholarly approach. I am trying something much different. I'm am ignoring everything except primary evidence in an effort to eliminate as much historical prejudice as possible. Ideally, I want to be able to be the first person at the scene of the crime. I want to look at that scene and attempt to understand just what the evidence reveals and what it doesn't. It may be a pointless exercise, who knows. At this point I am questioning the very foundation of this case. There is still quite a bit of doubt in my mind that the objective of that night's actions was the kidnapping of a child. Now it could be that the intent was murder and a false kidnapping or a kidnapping gone wrong. The problem as I see it with both of those scenarios is that the physical evidence is not very strong for either. Perhaps I am emphasizing the ladder too much in this regard. I know what it can do and what it can't. It could be used to enter that second floor, however it is very difficult for me to believe anyone would think it appropriate to safely carry a unwilling hostage away. Anyway, that's what I am up to.
|
|
|
New
Aug 16, 2011 16:24:37 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Aug 16, 2011 16:24:37 GMT -5
I think its a great position. I also do not believe its pointless. In fact, I'd like to be able to help if there is something you want to know more about as it concerns a certain piece of evidence. I am good at pursuing things, then finding them. As it concerns this Case I can find both pros and cons for just about anything. So while I may not even personally believe a certain assertion, I can (and have) supported it by finding information to compliment the idea.
So what ever you do - don't think I won't help out with something you have a line on because you might think I am going in a different direction. I most certainly will.
Definitely would have been unwilling. Unless he wasn't in a position to act in that way. The ladder is one of the most strongest pieces of evidence. Whether it was used or not - it has a lot to tell us about what happened and/or how many people were involved.
Anyone who has researched this Case has been conditioned to accept certain key facts, many of which, are just not true.
For example, during the "on again - off again" working relationship between the NJSP and the FBI Lt. Keaton confided some things to Agent Sisk. One of those was that Keaton (although forbidden by Lindbergh to consider someone on the inside helped) told Sisk his position was that (2) people committed the crime. This was in 1934. And for those wondering, the Investigation hierarchy went exactly like this:
1. Lindbergh 2. Schwarzkopf 3. Keaton
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
New
Jun 16, 2012 5:53:41 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Jun 16, 2012 5:53:41 GMT -5
How about trying not to go twelve miles out of your way to agree and adress a simple point I made at the beginning of this jibberish. Do you think that CAL would have had any problem raising 50K on the morning of 3/2/32 or not?
|
|
|
New
Jun 16, 2012 12:00:18 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Jun 16, 2012 12:00:18 GMT -5
I am not sure if this is directed to me or not - but if I know you - this question isn't really meant to be answered because you have a point you want to make about it. Why not spare me the 4 hours or so of research I would need to intelligently answer the question and just cut to the chase?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
New
Jun 22, 2012 22:40:20 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Jun 22, 2012 22:40:20 GMT -5
Four hours of research? This guy is like the Beatles of 1932 - he could have got anything he wanted, and when it came to whether his son would survive he should have = but he didn't!! That is the whole crime in a nutshel Michael.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
New
Jun 22, 2012 22:58:24 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Jun 22, 2012 22:58:24 GMT -5
What you don't know don't hurt you. Confidential police files show that most unsolved crimes are results of prostitution, illicit homosexuality, or personal aids contamination. The police will never tell you - so what does a criminalist really know? What if Lindgergh was a closet homosexual? And the investigation of his son's kidnapping would reveal that? That would explain a lot of things - including the insider knowledge and the paltry ransome payment. I'm not sure of the motive and we'll probably never be, but the only one who gained besides the German Hauptmann was Nazi Germany.
|
|
|
New
Jun 23, 2012 7:15:40 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Jun 23, 2012 7:15:40 GMT -5
I took your question literally and if I were to research his finances that would probably be the figure. But I am glad I didn't because I now see what you mean and I agree with your point.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
New
Jun 24, 2012 0:01:47 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Jun 24, 2012 0:01:47 GMT -5
You have to admit, Michael, that the whole situation is upgoofed if Cal somehow knew his son was dead or it was an irretrivable situation. Thence he would be reluctant to pay any ransom. I think he was told hey, we can get anybody - your kid will be first, then your mother and your wife and maybe you although they needed him. So at first he didn't play ball and the phony kidnapping happened, and after that he did play ball. Too bad that the child died, but to a malicious person Jr. would just have been a nusance. Of course, why not go to the police - perhaps he did - look what they got him in the reality of TLC. "Jeez, i forgot to stop at every gas station on the East coast and tell them to look for Lindbergh bills that he didn't want us to take note of in the first place," said officer Schwartzkopf.
|
|