|
Post by sue75 on Feb 23, 2013 14:49:02 GMT -5
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 24, 2013 7:57:20 GMT -5
I couldn't think of a better venue for this "theory".
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 24, 2013 10:43:45 GMT -5
I'd have to disagree Kevin.
I understand that you don't buy into it, but I've tried to impress upon whoever reads my posts that there is a ton of virgin information (perhaps what used to be) out there yet to be considered. I hold everyone's theories as valuable and should be considered. The fact you don't like this theory isn't something I quickly shrug off. It's important that you don't, because then I can use your positions to see if I can't reconcile them somehow - with the information I have discovered.
I just ask you allow room for things that may exist which you don't know about yet - and I will do the same. In fact, its my biggest hold up on getting any real progress on my book. I am so afraid of leaving stuff out or finding something after the fact.
Just last night (sound familiar?) I found document where a Judge was saying he'd like to get Lindbergh alone in a room for a couple of minutes. This is something I think never made it into the books - that many people, including Law Enforcement, believed Lindbergh was involved. Additionally, I don't think people today realize that Lindbergh could have ruined this Judge's career if he caught wind of such a comment.
Now you have Lloyd coming out with his personal beliefs. He wrote the best book on the case. He did the most research of any Author. Of course it doesn't make him right but it certainly makes him worthy of consideration.
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Feb 24, 2013 14:55:02 GMT -5
I thought Gregory Ahlgren and Stephen Monier were the original Lindbergh-Did-It theorists?
People have ripped these two guys to shreds over the years.
Weren't they saying (right or wrong) that it was Lindbergh all along?
Maybe an apology is order from a few mouths?
Maybe Ahlgen and Monier were not too far off base 20 years ago went they published The Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 24, 2013 15:44:14 GMT -5
Ignoring real evidence, or minimalizing it, and focusing instead on personality and character traits and flaws is not the stuff of quality criminal investigations. It really is more like yellow journalism. In the course of the Nova production I was able to see this first hand. It doesn't matter if it's committed by L. Gardner, Zorn, or the Nation Enquirer. Did no one learn from the Ramsey case as to what happens when motive and personality trump real evidence?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 24, 2013 16:27:46 GMT -5
Their theory involved a prank gone wrong based upon the fact Lindbergh used to hide the child in the closet then tell everyone he was kidnapped. I've certainly given them their props over the years, but I've also disagreed with some things as well. For example, there's no way Lindbergh wrote the Ransom Notes.
I guess what I am saying is that I don't believe Lloyd thinks it was a prank.
I am not sure I understand this. I like to give examples (that I don't believe anyone reads but here is goes...) to demonstrate what I am talking about:
I do not have the Garret Schenk Trial Transcipts although I have been persuing them for as long as I can remember. Why? Because I believe they could contain important information.
From them I should be able to support or disprove something.
So if someone posts on this Board and legitimately had those transcripts - how in the hell could I tell them they are wrong about what's in them? Wouldn't I at least need to see them myself first? It's one of the biggest pitfalls that exists when doing research. There is a lot of information out there. I am in my 13th year and still haven't seen all there is to see.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 25, 2013 8:06:26 GMT -5
Ok, so where is there evidence that links Lindbergh with the crime or to Hauptmann? I mean real evidence, not Lindbergh's extreme beliefs or character flaws.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 25, 2013 10:19:15 GMT -5
Alright I think you get my point. So its important to at least get the door open to considering things beyond what you've listed. That's a necessary step otherwise there is no point to continue. As you know, I am not a professional Writer so bear with me as I attempt to get my point across.
I look at things in (for lack of a better word) piles and/or heaps. There is no smoking gun. There just isn't. No one came forward as a Witness to this Event. So we are just left with circumstances based upon the facts. I've collected as many of them as I possibly could, and I group them in those heaps or piles. Sometimes I add to them and sometimes I take away from them.
Someone's extreme beliefs would add to any pile. A "character flaw" might actually take away from that heap. So for me there is a huge difference. Part of my research into any Character - any - is to understand the difference and not label it one - when its the other.
These are just one piece of the puzzle concerning anyone or anything. Piles and Heaps don't consist of negatives, or they don't exist, and they cannot stand alone.
So I agree with you there. I am also not speaking for Lloyd - I am speaking for myself. But what I saw Lloyd saying in the NOVA episode was what, in essence, pushed him over to that conclusion. For me I completely understand this to mean there's more to it then just that.
I've stated that I have found quite a bit of new material. Of course, what that will mean is in the eye of the beholder. Some may say it doesn't hold the value I assign to it. But I absolutely know some will see what I do. Some will doubt or claim I am making stuff up or come up with some other reason to explain away what I have found. Others who know how much time I put into this will believe me, or in the alternative, go check out the sources which will back me up.
In short, I've needed every bit of time I've put into this. Having said that though, this Board is extremely important because it challenges things which leads to more research which in turn leads to more facts. When whatever I publish is finished I am hoping to address (among others):
*The Fisch Story.
*The J. J. Faulkner Mystery.
*The Inside Job Theory.
*Whether or not Lindbergh was Involved.
In addition to that, I will disprove some of the most accepted historical facts concerning this case. Some events which were supposed to have happened never did. Some people supposed to have done certain things did not. And some people existed that no one has ever heard about.
It's all important to the solution of this case. Disliking a theory then thumping it without exploring all of these avenues is a huge mistake in my opinion. Some may claim that I am biased so I am being hypocritical. I think the Rail 16 "example" disproves this. As most people know, Experts told me a conclusive match required invasive study. Coupled that with the fact the historical scenario was absurd I resisted and could not cash in my chips concerning this angle. However, once Kevin's & Rab's theory was provable - that was it for me. No one liked it but the facts prove it.
It's that type of stuff I am assembling.
|
|
|
Post by ktolks on Feb 25, 2013 14:09:29 GMT -5
If Lindbergh conspired to have his child abducted and/or killed -- as an act of euthanasia or paternal vanity -- then why is Rail 16 of the kidnap ladder found to have originated in Hauptmann's attic? Why is there ANY extortion scenario, with money ending up in Hauptmann's possession?
It's all very well to speculate that Lindbergh may have been behind the kidnaping of his hopelessly-ill child, but such speculation does not constitute a THEORY of the case. To come up with that you'd have to explain the roles of Condon, Koehler, Shoenfeld, Hauptmann, and all the other players.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2013 17:37:10 GMT -5
I see nothing wrong with examining Lindbergh for involvement in the disappearance of his son. Putting Eugenics and character flaws aside, alot of his actions from the night of March 1 and through the whole negotiation process leading up to the Boad Nelly note are troublesome. They lead to questions that need answers.
When the question is asked "where is the evidence that links Lindbergh with the crime or to Hauptmann", I have found myself asking "where is the evidence that links Hauptmann to the murder of Charles A. Lindbergh Jr "? Not the disapperance but the actual murder of the child. The ladder and the handwriting can be determined to prove he was the kidnapper but that doesn't prove that he is the one who killed Charlie. There is no blood evidence at the scene. There is no evidence of a fall off the ladder causing the child's head to be fractured. No one heard a gunshot. The bedclothes don't reflect any struggle by the child because he was being suffocated in his bed. Where is the evidence that Hauptmann murdered Charlie?
What we do have evidence of is that more than one person was on the scene that night. They walked together to a waiting car on Featherbed Lane where someone left the scene that night. A second set of tracks leads away from that area and walks to where the chicken coops are and enters another car. Charlie wasn't in both those cars! Who did he end up with? Is it possible that whoever removed Charlie from his bed handed him off to someone else and they left with him?
The same way that there is no evidence link to Lindbergh, there is no evidence link to Hauptmann murdering the Lindbergh child. It is something that is inferred but not proven.
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Feb 25, 2013 18:09:01 GMT -5
Since 1932 there have been individuals who believed Lindbergh was involved in the death of his own child.
See Noel Behn's hardcover book, page 416:
"One of the Lone Eagle's most fervent detractors was the acerbic columnist Dorothy Thompson. At the time of the kidnapping, she and her then husband, Sinclair Lewis, voiced the opinion that Lindbergh himself had killed the child."
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 26, 2013 7:20:44 GMT -5
In other words, there is no real evidence. So, belief or personal feeling trumps evidence. That's not exactly the stuff of professional investigation.
Sure, look hard at Lindbergh. I have absolutely no problem with that. Look for a linkage to a known participant. Look for forensic evidence. Just don't confuse that with behavior.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 26, 2013 8:30:19 GMT -5
If this is directed to me here is how I would answer: Negative. There is circumstantial evidence. It's the type that could lead people to different conclusions if they "like" it or "don't like it." Like with Rail 16. Some had Hauptmann crawling into his attic to saw the board. This was based upon the photos and Koehler's testimony. Some had it a total fraud. This was based upon the absurdity of the scenario, the uncertainty of a conclusive match, and the fact some NJSP were bragging the evidence had been "framed." (Framed could mean many things but most people, myself included, can sometimes jump to either black or white without considering the various shades of grey it could mean). The shade of grey being they lied about how the board was discovered and its chain of custody. The shade of grey being the Electricians removed this piece, and Hauptmann pulled scrap wood out of the basement that he had no idea came from the attic. Presto! The truth raises its ugly head - and no "Schools of Thought" are happy about it. I don't understand this. Evidence leads to personal beliefs. There can be multiple perspectives depending upon the types of evidence which exists. See the above example. I don't know what this means. I could not evaluate something I haven't seen - either way. Let me go back to my previous example: Schenck was kidnapped based upon something he saw in addition to what someone else had said against him. I'd like to see his testimony about what he saw. Until that time there is absolutely no way I can draw a conclusion on it. I have my theory, but its based solely upon what I have now. Since I know there's more then I cannot close the book on it until such time I come into possession of it. Again, if someone came here then claimed they had those transcripts there's no way I could say they're wrong or unprofessional simply because I don't like the theory that is developing from it. I'd have to leave that door open until I could see them for myself. Let's go back to the ancient argument of Wahgoosh for a second. It's undeniable that this dog was high strung and barked at any unfamiliar noise. Most books talk about this. Some use it to support an "Insider" while others say that Wahgoosh was in the other part of the house so he didn't "hear" the noise. Go to the trial transcripts where everyone, even after being prepped, said this Dog would have barked. But not Lindbergh. He directly contradicts this with his testimony. Something like that goes onto my pile for future consideration once that heap gets big enough for focus. I then rate each piece individually before doing so in the pile's totality. This piece would be a 5. Just so you know how my brain works.....Once a proper evaluation is done, other explanations for why someone would lie must also be considered. For example, I've said before that lies surrounding Elisabeth and Dwight Morrow Jr. could have been about privacy concerning personal matters. I guess my only disagreement with this is that everything should be looked at. Try equally to both build and tear down a case - instead of trying just to build one. Yes, although I wouldn't put anything aside. Pull from both the positive and negative, and don't forget the "maybe" although weak, if forgotten about could later come back to haunt you. If its a "maybe" then its unresolved. I agree with this too. In order to solve the whole thing it needs to be done. Another good reference Sue. Have you been able to find something they've written? Here is a link to her material at Syracuse University:
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Feb 26, 2013 10:35:18 GMT -5
this is an interesting thread, it's especially interesting to see that even back at the time of the crime, not everyone was as enamored with CAL as Condon, Schwartzkopf, etc.
it's been brought up the similarities of the LKC to the Ramsey case, but it's also somewhat similar to the Caylee Anthony case. where the post-"kidnap" behavior of the mother was enough evidence to put Casey on trial for capital murder. CAL of course was never close to being truly suspected as the time. if committed today, the LKC would be handled a whole lot different from the start. and it seems Anthony had a somewhat better lawyer than BRH, one who was able to raise enough reasonable doubt in the jury that they only deliberated for a relatively short time before acquitting her.
I feel very much the same about CAL as I do about Casey Anthony, there is (to our knowledge) no direct evidence pointing to them as perpetrators but their behavior is so bizarre as to make them immediately seem suspicious. And I think it's a statistical fact that in case of murder of children the majority of the time it's a parent who is responsible, so it' natural to look there.
I've wondered is BRH could have rubbed shoulders with CAL when the house was being built? wasn't some of Zorn's theory that the blueprints to the house were shown far & wide amoungst the builder community? Again, it's far-fetched to be sure, but interesting to ponder.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 26, 2013 16:46:48 GMT -5
Good post. I have to admit that I am probably the least informed on this Board about the Ramsey Case. I just know bits and pieces but have avoided it like the plague so I don't get distracted. I know that Kevin (and I believe drd) has studied it.
Your instincts above are solid. The NJSP began to immediately investigate all of the Workers and Companies associated with the construction of Highfields under this exact same premise.
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Feb 26, 2013 18:48:42 GMT -5
In one of the chapters of In Search of the Lindbergh Baby by Theon Wright. (Theon Wright was a reporter who attended the trial and who wrote Murder in Paradise about the Massie case.)
Well, one of those chapters in Wright's book, the one on Gaston Means, mentions that Lindbergh hid the baby in the closet. Wright's book came out in 1981.
My point is this...well, let's collate. Let's collate from ALL the books, ALL these people WHO CAME BEFORE US! All these people who have ALREADY covered ground in this case. Let's give them credit! There were many voices back then saying many things that we repeat over and over again in 2013 as if it originated with us.
What about the 8-page letter from Gaston Means's lawyer that is mentioned in In Search of the Lindbergh Baby?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 27, 2013 6:30:07 GMT -5
I am a strong advocate of citing our sources. The problem here would be that I have never in my life read the Wright book cover to cover AND I found the documents in the Archives about this subject before I even knew he wrote one. Next, I trust the original documents more then I trust Wright's book. Thanks for bringing it up but I'd have to say, on this point, I know more then he did on the subject. So giving him credit here doesn't work for me.
I've got it. I also have the 14 page letter and the 26 page letter. The only thing I do not have are his Diaries which are in NY and would cost a fortune to have copied. If anyone wants to pursue this angle (Vovina) I think this would be a worthwhile endeavor. For my money they probably contain just as much misdirection as everything else he's written but there's only one way to find out.
Anyway, is there anything in that letter you'd like me to quote? Just let me know.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 27, 2013 7:24:27 GMT -5
Such as?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 27, 2013 17:09:25 GMT -5
Most of the unique material I have uncovered I plan on spreading out in at least 5 chapters. Of course the offer that I made to you last time we spoke still stands.
If I ever decide to give up on this notion then I will start posting all that I have. But as I recall Fisher's books and all of the bogus "facts" therein, I feel its almost my duty to make sure it comes out in some sort of publication.
|
|
|
Post by Rab on Mar 2, 2013 12:28:12 GMT -5
I suppose it's no surprise that I'm on the same page as Kevin on this. There is simply not a shred of evidence showing connection between Lindbergh and Hauptmann. We know Hauptmann was involved in the crime from beginning (a board from his attic as part of the ladder found at the scene) to end (his unexplained enrichment from April 1932 to the ransom money found in his garage). So any theory of Lindbergh's involvement has to show some evidence of connection between the two and also explain how Lindbergh would become not just a witness against his accomplice but arguably perjure himself to secure the conviction, apparently serene in the belief that Hauptmann wouldn't turn against him, even when his life depended on it. It makes absolutely no sense and there is nothing I have ever seen to support such a theory, regardless of the fact that a number of people I respect hold such views. To me it is a striving too much to neatly tie up all the loose ends, to explain Condon, to rationalise Lindbergh, to find in some sense a unifying theory of the Lindbergh case. Life simply isn't like that and the truth is usually banal. If we concentrate on actual evidence - not conjecture, not reaching - it's clear that this was a crime committed by Hauptmann. The remaining mysteries are (to some degree) how and whether he had any help. The rest is distraction.
Rab
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 2, 2013 15:33:17 GMT -5
I certainly respect any dissenting opinions concerning his involvement. Most especially from the two guys who solved the Rail 16 mystery.....
But I've taken all positions over the years, arguing for or against just about anything. I've researched them too. From the Whateley "did it" to Elisabeth throwing the child out of the window.
None of it, in my opinion, was a distraction. It was a necessary "evil" (for lack of a better word) because in doing so I learned much more about this crime, and the case surrounding it - then if I had not. New and unique information that puts me in a better position of knowing more and more facts. In pursuing a theory which may not have been true, there is much truth to be found among what is false.
I think the idea that everyone must know the next guy if they all have any involvement doesn't make sense. I don't even need to point to other crimes exemplify this point. Take Perrone. Did he know the Fellow who gave him a buck to deliver the Ransom Note to Condon's home? Or what about Condon? He said at times he knew one or more of them, that one or more knew him, or that he didn't know them at all. Why'd they bring him in IF they didn't know him, or he did not know them?
The answer is need. What is needed to achieve whatever end is desired. Look around at this.... Whoever brought Hauptmann in picked the right guy. He went down with the ship. And also whoever brought Condon in picked the right guy here too. He was a master of misdirection, bluffs, lies, and half truths. And he held out to the very end until such time it was either Hauptmann - or him.
|
|
|
Post by Rab on Mar 2, 2013 16:03:15 GMT -5
Michael, I'm not suggesting for a second that one shouldn't look at such possibilities. It's just that having looked at them for many years nobody has presented any evidence whatsoever of a connection (directly or indirectly) between Lindbergh and Hauptmann. I take your point that it's possible that Hauptmann was recruited by someone other than Lindbergh but then that someone could have been given up by Hauptmann. And wasn't. Who is this mystery person who connects Hauptmann to Lindbergh? I see no evidence, just the usual allusions to mysterious goings on, all of which amount to precisely nothing in terms of proof.
Rab
|
|
|
Post by john on Mar 3, 2013 6:20:30 GMT -5
I have a lot of respect for Ahlgren & Monier for the effort they put into their book. It was brilliantly thought out and showed far more intelligence than A & M are credited with having. My tendency with theories, however far fetched, is to listen to them respectfully, take in all aspects of the ideas being put forth, then, if it seems a bit too wild for my tastes, look for grains of truth, of reason in other words, so as to follow the logic. Sometimes the logic is impeccable but the theory is wrong. The facts don't quit fit the ideas; or some facts were ignored so at the make the theory look airtight.
My sense of A & M is that they were absolutely spot on as to Lindbergh's basic character, as borne out by things we learned about CAL later on, such as his "secret families" in Germany. To this I can't help but add "why Germany?". It was Hauptmann's homeland, our bitter enemy in the world war, and yet it appealed to Lindbergh. Did Germany appeal to CAL earlier? Well, he did go on that controversial tour before the war, met with Goering, got a medal (which he never gave back). None of this connects CAL with Hauptmann, but it does raise some issues as to the kinds of people who appealed to Lindbergh, though I rather doubt a Bronx carpenter would be among them.
I agree with you, Michael, that Lindbergh simply didn't have the time to write those ransom notes the night of the kidnapping. Also, the time line, which I studied closely while reading A & M, left him at best a tiny window of opportunity for any kind of suspicious behavior. On the other hand, Lindbergh's fondness for secrecy as well as pranks, his "compartmentalizing" nature, does raise some red flags as to his possible involvement in the Crime. I'm going beyond A & M here, as I don't think the crime was an actual prank, but it could have been an elaborate hoax (leaving aside the motive), and the hoax likely involved other people, including members of the household staff, also including some petty criminals looking for a fast buck, one of whom may well have been Hauptmann. However this is not to say that Lindbergh actually ever met with Hauptmann. The carpenter was simply on board. The "ladder guy".
As to the question of why Lindbergh wanted to plan such an elaborate hoax, I have no answer to that, though the prospect of settling down in an isolated, wooded area of New Jersey may not have appealed to him as much as many have suggested. CAL liked thrills, despite his introspective nature (or maybe because of it). Flying is thrilling. Living a sedate, family-centered life in an isolated locale may well have appealed to Lindbergh less than we may think. He was still a very young man, and that house in the woods may well have seemed like a potential trap, especially as he and Ann were planning to start a fairly large family.
Maybe the hoax, if hoax it was, was intended as CAL's Last Hurrah before settling down for good. I doubt he actually wanted his son to die as a result of the hoax, though if Lindy was behind it this may explain his hostility toward Hauptmann (whom he likely had never met) as the man who bungled the job, and worse, was still demanding payment after the fact.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 3, 2013 7:56:44 GMT -5
I completely agree with Rab. I realize that for some Lindbergh is an inviting subject to be behind this crime. So where is the evidence linking him to BRH? Think about the number of steps or intermediaries it would take for Lindbergh to hook up with Hauptmann. It saddens me that Dr Gardner has chosen to ignore real evidence and embark on a flight of fancy. It's no wonder that the National Enquirer jumped on his latest theory.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 3, 2013 9:21:13 GMT -5
This is a great way of looking at it, and I believe you have learned much from this philosophy. Each and every book should be looked at in this way - even Fisher's.
Why is it inviting? Why isn't Anne inviting? I think everyone is going to be surprised in the end. Even those who consider CAL's involvement won't see this coming....
Kevin - what real evidence has been ignored?
2
Let's say, I have a trusted resource who is - as an example - a Master Plumber. I've chosen him carefully because he insulates me from the actual crime. It may not even be known by anyone that he is a resource or ever has been in the past - may not have been. Possibly an admirer of my Father. That's the first step and the key to the entire process. Would Lindbergh know such a person?
Absolutely.
This "Plumber" contracts out specific jobs to other people. This isn't something "off the cuff" and those who are chosen were done with a specific purpose.
A crime is committed.
I am not only NOT a Suspect, but I actually run the investigation determining and/or vetoing everything the Police run down or suggest. I don't allow the Cops to ever get near the Master Plumber. One of the guys he hired gets caught, but by design - never talks. Since I know he will never talk, and the State is looking to end the case, I assist in the attempt to brand this a "Lone-Wolf" crime by contradicting my earlier testimony before the Grand Jury.
No one will ever question this contradiction because they never question me about anything. It's an unwritten rule that is strictly adhered to by everyone. (Even today)
If Lindbergh wanted this crime solved he would never have gone with the Lone-Wolf Theory. He would have demanded they get, at least, the other guy HE saw at St. Raymond's Cemetery.
That Lindbergh actually saw another person is the fact which is ignored. And this is just one. There are a myriad of them that pop up here, there, and everywhere. I think saying they shouldn't be looked at, pursued, or even mentioned is counter-intuitive.
If Governor Hoffman didn't do what he did none of the facts that were waiting to be found never would have been uncovered.
The Police wanted to find out. But Lindbergh forbid it.
|
|
|
Post by john on Mar 4, 2013 4:47:02 GMT -5
Thanks for that, Michael, and yes, Jim Fisher's books on the LKC are persuasive. His ad hominen put-downs of A & M puts me off ("the New Hampshire men" and all that), but he's a pro, he's done his homework.
One book I've never been able to lay my hands on in Theon Wright's. I became enormously fond of Harold Olson on the other forum, and while I never bought his claim to be the Lindbergh baby I found his personality delightful.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 4, 2013 7:31:43 GMT -5
Ok, so you have direct evidence of this two person linkage ?
As for what evidence has been ignored, I should have said downplayed or minimalized. You have been present at some of the discussions where this happened. There certainly has been a prejudice against Lindbergh. Not saying he doesn't deserve it, but it can certainly result in false trails.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 4, 2013 17:52:30 GMT -5
No. You presented a good question, and I answered it with what I thought was possible. My example was merely meant to exemplify my reply.
There is no smoking gun - yet. But I search for it every day because I am convinced its in the files. Just let me add that what I do have, in my mind at least, is a "slam dunk" to which there is no other rational explanation. I am quite convinced some will try to come up with one though so I continue on piling it up, sometimes by accident, which will make that task more and more monumental when the time comes.
And it will.
Governor Hoffman predicted that day would come but I don't think this is what he had in mind.
We agree here. But sometimes you have to travel down those paths in order to eventually find your way along the right one.
|
|
|
Post by ktolks on Mar 4, 2013 19:12:50 GMT -5
Will the smoking gun be found among the mass oif investigative reports (either NJSP or HGH's), or in the interpretation of something very familiar that we need to look at in a new way?
Take Rail 16, for example. Kelvin Keraga showed us contemporary photos that show its grain and thereby prove that it was not substituted by Bornmann to make the Flemington exhibit. But how do we know that it was definitely BRH who removed it from the attic -- and NOT someone else who was working to frame him? If we go down this road -- for the sake of argument -- we begin to imagine a frameup of Hauptmann by a group of people who were REALLY behind the kidnaping -- a very interesting and potentially powerful idea. In that case, Rail 16 would be the "smoking gun"...
|
|
|
Post by john on Mar 5, 2013 0:55:24 GMT -5
ktolks: I wonder about the same thing as to how the rail was obtained and by whom. To the best of my knowledge no one has come forth with any evidence that I know of as to suggest foul play on the part of LE, at least as regards the wood in Hauptmann's attic.
It all seems too neat to me, but I'm a suspicious fellow. The thing is, so much else is messed up in the LKC: Condon's initial reluctance to finger Hauptmann, lying witnesses Whited and Hochmuth, the conflicting reports of handwriting analysts as to whether Hauptmann wrote the notes, Anna's insistence that Richard picked her up at the bakery the night of 3/1/32, and that's just for starters.
There's a ton of evidence against Hauptmann, starting with the ransom bills he kept stashed away. The Fisch story is a hard sell, though I give him points for sticking to it. Hauptmann has over two years to come up with a ransom bills alibi, and this is the best he can do? The man is guilty of something, for sure, probably many things, but I can't see him as the fiend that Wilentz made him out to be in the courtroom; and whatever his involvement in case I just cannot buy him acting alone, from start to finish, doing it all by himself.
|
|