|
Post by kate1 on Jul 13, 2017 6:49:50 GMT -5
Michael, I'm not sure I've seen these two reports which included statements by Doc Ashton, and which Amy previously mentioned, those being March 1932 and December 1932. I may actually have them in my files but can't locate them. Can you repost them, please? I'm particularly interested in when Doc first heard about the kidnapping. Michael, do you understand why Doc Aston's reputation was in question here?
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 13, 2017 6:44:59 GMT -5
I don't understand about the theory of dry ground next to the house. This was the first of March and snow over the winter, even if melted would have left the ground soft. Maybe this is different in NJ than Michigan but unless the temperature was well below freezing I would make the assumption that the ground would be soft enough to leave an impression near the house. Also, no one disputes there were footprints but they don't indicate, in my opinion, who placed them there. A kidnapping or a staging. The fact the ladder was removed makes me think it was part of a staging.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 13, 2017 6:16:03 GMT -5
Was the box ever found?
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 11, 2017 18:19:49 GMT -5
May have been a mutual decision but sounds like it was CAL told Anne what he planned to do. Wish I had a copy of CAL Tells All!
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 10, 2017 13:06:44 GMT -5
I'm curious, does anyone know when CAL dropped off the radar on March 1st?
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 9, 2017 19:50:11 GMT -5
It was my impression that the ashes were disposed of immediately after the cremation. Hurt, Please check out Michael's book, Chapter 15, In The Shadow of Death. On pages 319 & 320 Michael writes about the cremation and the ashes. You will read there that Lindbergh left the crematorium around 6:15 pm once the process was over. He did not wait for the ashes. He left specific instructions that Walter Swayze would be picking the ashes up and those ashes were to be released only to Walter Swayze. Just when they were picked up, I do not know. Thinking about it though, it would not surprise me if they remained either at the crematorium for a while or at the Swayze Funeral Home until a decision was made by the Lindberghs about where and when they would scatter those ashes. Scott Berg says on the 15th of August, first time in 3 months since baby was discovered, CAL flew over the Atlantic, from New Jerseey, and scattered the ashes. He told no one but Anne. Waller sasaid that the superintendent of the crematorium told CAL that the ashes would remain there until a urn was ready. Jon was born the day after that flight.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 7, 2017 5:16:22 GMT -5
I think it was strange that she had that stuff in her closet that she reportedly had brought to the Morrow house from her previous job. For someone so cheeky with the police she was certainly "sensitive" about any supposed guilt she felt. Everything I've read about Violet makes me think there is definitely something more to be investigated. She had a huge amount of money in her bank account. I think it is strange too that she would keep that polish in her personal closet. I hardly think she was in the habit of cleaning Mrs. Morrow's silver in her room. Violet did have a bank account of like $1,600. Violet was questioned about this sum. In Gardner Book, The Case That Never Dies on page 105, you can read how she explains all her saved money. Violet was very close with her sister, Edna and very protective of her. This is a relationship that needed closer scrutiny but Violet's death really hindered further investigative efforts by authorities. Violet did make a $500 deposit to her account in October of 1931 which she claimed was money that she had saved up. I have always wondered if it was not what Violet might have told but what Violet might have known that presented the real danger. Yes Amy, i agree! Her sister left for England about the time of the kidnapping. She had two trunks transferred from her former employers home (employer had died) to Englewood to Morrow home. Edna accompanied the taxi with the trunks and a friend. At that time she didn't visit with Violet. A little confusing but she told the apartment superintendent she was visiting for England but planned to return in a "few months". Wonder if Violet knew or suspected something about Edna. A fellow servant at the Morrow's told FBI Violet had an abortion and that she loved Banks. Strange about that huge bank account !
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 6, 2017 19:57:29 GMT -5
Any information Violet Sharp might have passed on to a third party would have been useful for the kidnappers/in-house conspirators (take your pick), Amy. John, What do you mean that the info would have been useful to "in-house" conspirators? Who are you referring to? The information we are talking about was Charlie staying at the Hopewell house on Tuesday night and Betty Gow being sent for to care for Charlie. That's the info that Violet had to share. Maybe it wasn't a guy-thing that was behind Violet's suicide. Perhaps she had something else in her life that she didn't want revealed. One thing that has always troubled me about Violet's suicide is the fact that she supposedly drank the poison in her room and then came running downstairs. If her intent was to kill herself, why didn't she just lay down on her bed and die? Why run out of your room and down the stairs to find someone? I think it was strange that she had that stuff in her closet that she reportedly had brought to the Morrow house from her previous job. For someone so cheeky with the police she was certainly "sensitive" about any supposed guilt she felt. Everything I've read about Violet makes me think there is definitely something more to be investigated. She had a huge amount of money in her bank account.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 5, 2017 19:15:08 GMT -5
Do you have Dudley Schoenfeld's book about the kidnapping? I'd like to know what's really in there. Also Richard was examined by a couple of psychiatrists who said he was perfectly sane. I find that hard to believe and would like to know more about what they considered sane. What tests did he get, etc? I don't have the book nor have I read it. Most psychiatrists back then were called alienist and were primarily Freudian. Schizophrenia was thought to be the result of poor nurturing by the mother. Worlds away from psychiatry today, really still in the dark ages.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 5, 2017 4:55:27 GMT -5
Interesting and good observations, John. If I may play devil's advocate though, If Fisch spent the part of the ransom money that Hauptmann didn't get caught with, why we so "sleeping on park benches" broke? I'm not trying to goof things up, it seems to me that Fisch probably had something to do with it too - possibly why the ladder was so flimsy - Fisch must have only weighed 120-30. But unfortunately there is no evidence that Fisch ever did anything wrong in his life, just speculation that he cheated some people on investments - next time your broker sticks you with a bummer call him a Fisch. Sure I think Wilentz went over the line and the police too with their hammers and lights out. But in reality BRH was lucky that he didn't die on the way to or in jail. Remember. from the start he was a liar and police don't like that. Hauptmann said and I don't have the exact quote right now but to the effect that he never dreamed that he had Lindbergh money. Why didn't he just take it to the bank then and tell them the truthful story of Fisch or tell that he found it, and he'd have to wait a while but then the money would be rightfully his - according to his story anyway. If you found fifteen thousand dollars would you hide it from your wife and squirrel it away in about five different cubbyholes with a gun in your garage. That doesn't look so good - I'm sure police believed almost right away that were dealing with Charlie's abductor and murderer, and treated Richard accordingly. Yes Richard was reckless in the end with his spending and habits, but I believe he had a worsening mental disorder which possibly could be found in all the known data about him. Probably a good thing for someone to look into. I'm curious about the worsening "mental disorder" you see in Hauptmann. What are your thoughts about that?
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 2, 2017 3:55:04 GMT -5
Exactly, Amelia and her husband knew the value of PR and they both enjoyed hogging the spotlight. I think there were other female pilots far more talented than Amelia but she knew how to play the press and get in the spotlight. Watched a documentary on Amelia years ago and the various pilots, all women, didn't think highly of her and thought she believed her own press. That's where I got that from. Would love to find the documentary again. There is a hall at Purdue University named for her.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 1, 2017 11:04:19 GMT -5
Interesting thought Amy. It could have been a woman. I've always thought it was Nostovsky. Still wasn't there a connection to Faulkner and a son-in-law of Condon or am I thinking of someone else ? So I have been burning the midnight candle on this whole Faulkner deposit slip/Old directory enteries theory. According the the directory entries, Jane is the widow of a James Faulkner. So maybe the JJ Faulkner actually stands for James and Jane Faulkner. This Jane Faulkner would remarry in 1921 to Carl O. Giessler. John J. Faulkner, Condon's student, was the nephew of a James Faulkner who lived on Balcom Ave. behind St. Raymonds Cemetery. John J. can be found living with his Uncle James in the 1910 Federal Census and is 10 years old. John J. is part of the 1920 census living with his Uncle James on Balcom Ave. also. John J. is 20 at this time. The interesting thing that comes up in this is that Uncle James Faulkner has a daughter named Jane (also called Jennie) who is John J.'s cousin. We are dealing with a lot of J.J. Faulkners, both male and female. So why does the depositor of the ransom money select the widow Jane Faulkner's address when filling out that deposit slip? Well, perhaps that depositor did know Jane Faulkner when she lived at 537 W. 149th Street and had also lived at the same apartment building at some time. This person would not need the old directories to look up that address. Or is that address being used to purposely misdirect any investigation that might occur because of that deposit away from making any connection to the Balcom Avenue family?? No matter how that name and address was chosen, I don't think it was random. According to the 1930 and 1940 census info John J. Faulkner was a patrolman, was married to a teacher and lived in Queens, New York. Wow Amy! That is good stuf!! I don't think it's a coincidence either. It's Carl O. Giessler im thinking of...ill be looking that up right now. Thanks for this great response.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 1, 2017 10:58:56 GMT -5
Micheal this such an interesting discussion and it helps visualize what could have happened.. I'm wondering if this was omething orchestrated by CAL if perhaps the ladder was set up before that night and maybe even rehearsals done of the "kidnapping. The rain could have ruined any trace of foot prints from the days before....just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 1, 2017 8:36:23 GMT -5
The theory being the Author of the deposit slip specifically looked up the Balcom Ave. Faulkner then used the first address they saw below his name. Interesting theory. Going with this thought, wouldn't the deposit slip author have needed access to old NYC directories to find these listings? Or perhaps know someone who did have old directories around or worked someplace where there might have been such directories. There is always the public library as a possible source for the old directories. Then choosing the specific name of Faulkner and using the female entry for the address. Perhaps the deposit slip author was a woman. Interesting thought Amy. It could have been a woman. I've always thought it was Nostovsky. Still wasn't there a connection to Faulkner and a son-in-law of Condon or am I thinking of someone else ?
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 1, 2017 8:32:15 GMT -5
Eric Rudolph almost did! A stolen license plate wouldn't have surprised me but a local one caught the attention of, a local. Enough to assume a first he was a window washer and how odd that was in the horrible weather that time of the year!
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jun 30, 2017 19:59:26 GMT -5
Thanks Michael, could the lights from the house have provided enough light to illuminate the narrow walkway? I don't want to talk anyone out of an alternate theory but there's just nothing out there from anyone who said this area wasn't muddy. It's not a knock on Joe, he's thinking outside the box, but if this were the case then it would have come up somewhere. It is exactly why the boards were there - because it was muddy. Now other areas outside of this yard weren't like this. Take the abandoned road - the Kidnappers' prints showed there, but they could have walked in an area that did not show them. In fact, there was a patch of land where these prints disappeared before re-appearing. So this area and the road would fit the criteria Joe suggests. But that yard was a whole different situation. Of course everyone is free to disagree but I think it would be unconscionable for me to stand mute on this subject knowing what I do. I believe if the shutters were open and the lights on - it would cast some light on a section of a board immediately in front of it - but to walk the entire lengths would require a flashlight at a bear minimum in my opinion. I was thinking about this and I think somewhere I read the door to the study was closed and that room and a quest room overlooked that end of the house where the nursery was. I don't think there would have been any light coming from those windows at the time of the kidnapping. I've never heard of any kind of flood lights on the house and the garage was at the other end. Just my thoughts here.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jun 30, 2017 18:17:20 GMT -5
License plate is the easiest thing to switch for a B&E crook. Just about always done. Rural county....did anyone report a stolen plate? On a wet night it's surprising mud didn't cover it. The picture shows a large and easy to read plate.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jun 30, 2017 13:48:16 GMT -5
Regarding my post above which makes it very unlikely that the kidnapper was "waiting for an accomplice," it seems the guy in the car with the ladder got himself into a bad spot. To continue he'd have to pass a local (Ben Lupica) driver window to driver window with his head and face uncovered and there'd be a solid identifier witness to The Lindbergh Crime unless he wanted to look more suspicious by hiding his face, so he took his only option of driving to the wrong side of the road which made him least observable with the ladder even partially hiding him. His doing that is the reason Lupica could never identify him. To reexplain this as you always do Amy, you might throw in the kind of car which ladderman drove (same as Hauptmann's) and maybe his hat. He said he definitely saw a New Jersey license plate. By the amount of numbers it was local.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jun 30, 2017 4:49:46 GMT -5
Siglinde (a good friend of mine and a fellow researcher) recently shared a discovery she has made. It is very interesting and I just don't what to make of it so she's unselfishly given me the green light to share it here... She was going through the various NYC directories and saw that in the 1916 through the 1920 years that Condon's former pupil, "Jas. J. Faulkner" of Balcom Avenue, was listed directly above "Jane Faulkner" of 537 W. 149th. The theory being the Author of the deposit slip specifically looked up the Balcom Ave. Faulkner then used the first address they saw below his name. Examples below are 1917 and 1918: Interesting theory and I'm wondering what would cause someone, who knew what the notes were, to use their own names, especially when the address was not correct. I didnt know Condon had a student named JJ Faulkner.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jun 29, 2017 18:06:50 GMT -5
Kate: wasn't Lupica interviewed late in life, said he was unhappy with how the trial went? I remember reading that somewhere. From what I recall, Lupica seemed lucid, with a good memory. Absolutely. In 1992 by Gregory Ahlgren and Stephen Monier for their book. He had retired after 37 years as a research chemist. At the time he had Parkinson's Disease but memory was very clear. He was disgusted by the trial especially Lindbergh sitting at the prosecution table as well as press misquoting him. He was a witness for the defense and knew Hochmuth and Whited, both whom he stated testified for the money.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jun 29, 2017 7:27:44 GMT -5
Kate1: Where did you see that? Interview with Lupica in 1992 with Ahlgren and Monier. Crime of the Century, page 272-276. He didn't saY he resembled CAL, I was wrong about that. Rather he said, he couldn't identify the driver, "it could have been anyone". A neighbor learned of the sighting and Lupica was taken to the house the following morning were he was introduced to CAL as a witness. CAL was visibly upset when he met Lupica. He said the car had New Jersey license plates.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jun 29, 2017 7:15:39 GMT -5
In a 1992 interview with Ahlgren and Monier, Lupica said he could not identify Hauptmann as the driver of the car. He also said although he was aware Lindbergh had bought property he was unaware the family was living there; he didn't know what CAL looked like. He met him the morning after the kidnapping and that was a big moment for him. He said CAL was agitated and distraught. Not his usual composure.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jun 28, 2017 16:12:30 GMT -5
LURPS: I'm wondering how you can examine the eyewitness testimony of Ben Lupica who saw one man and determine from that there were two or more kidnappers. Lupica saw a man with the same general characteristics as Richard Hauptmann in a car the same brand and approximate year as Hauptmann's with a ladder in his car on the evening of the kidnapping across the street from the entrance to the Lindbergh residence. I thought in an interview he said hefelt the driver resembled CAL.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jun 28, 2017 11:25:28 GMT -5
What does the note to L. Fisher say? This is not easy to read but here is my attempt to interpret what I can of it: There is a tree stump near Lindbergh home go and check you find something. Also in ash shute in fire place and two blood spots at Bottom of stairs-
Jafsie had the sleeping suit with him when he gave up try of soften up
Please don't overlook and don't let this out or take it other _____________
The kid died 1:30 pm March 1 of Broken neck
Please don't think that ___ a m ___________
This is the best I can do at the moment. Additional information would be helpful in perhaps determining what some of the words might be - like what date this note was received. The writer is referring to Condon (jafsie). Was the handwriting checked against the ransom notes. Did LE try to follow this note up in any way? Also, I find the mention of the tree stump on the Lindbergh property quite interesting because this is not the first time I have encountered that tree stump being referenced. Amy, thank you, again! I'd never heard of this. I wonder what Lyold Fisher did with this. I respected him so much more than most of the characters in this drama. Was Whately dead at this point? What was the note saying about Condon? What more do you know about a stump? Very interesting!
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jun 27, 2017 20:06:01 GMT -5
What does the note to L. Fisher say?
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jun 27, 2017 15:10:51 GMT -5
Lindbergh called this right from the get-go, They have stolen our baby. He knew it was a kidnapping and when he did see that note he knew it was a ransom note. It didn't need anything on the envelope announcing to Lindbergh "ransom note enclosed". So you are saying Lindbergh would have compromised the crime scene if the envelope had wording on it? If Lindbergh was so concerned with preserving evidence that he didn't open the note, where was this concern when he went running outside searching for his son. He could have been destroying important physical evidence out there that might has been helpful. If your primary interest is preserving the crime scene then you just call the police and stay in the house. Then you skip over opening the note and wait for the fingerprint man before you read the ransom note. If CAL was willing to risk destroying exterior evidence to possibly rescue his son, then he should have been willing to open that ransom note to save his son. I see CAL's actions as being self-conflicting not logically sub-divided. When viewed from the perspective of a staged kidnapping, to cover the intentional removal of the baby, the need to rationalize Lindbergh's various idiosyncrasies and conflicting actions is unnecessary. The immediate summoning of law enforcement was simply to establish the crime as a kidnapping. Without validation from the authorities, the child's disappearance lacks the necessary criminal intent required to account for the baby's absence. As much as Lindbergh claims to loathe the press, he is media savvy enough to understand the maelstrom that will result once it is learned that the baby has gone missing, especially under nefarious circumstances (versus, say the child wandering off into the night on its own, which would generate significantly less sympathy from an adoring public.) The declaration " they have stolen our baby" was intended to establish the false narrative that outsiders (and numbering more than one, hence the choice of "they" versus "someone") have come into the home and carried off the baby; this is the first layer of insulating the obvious suspects that the occupants of the home would surely become in the course of the expected investigation. He didn't open the note right away because he knew the gist of the message contained therein. It's much easier to demonstrate what will be perceived as great self-restraint or prescient knowledge of police procedures and the desirability of preserving fingerprint evidence if one already knows the envelope's contents and the reasonable certainty that usable prints will never be obtained. As for accessing the "Lindbergh armory" and dashing into the yard without benefit of a portable light source, this posturing (that some rationalize as "classic Lindbergh") is merely intended as play acting meant to demonstrate the proactive inclination that he fashions has become a hallmark of his reputation and fame. When police arrive, he wants to be seen as a "man of action" looking for clues and ready to use deadly force to retrieve his kin, not sitting in his library in a smoking jacket puffing on a pipe when Whatelely announces their arrival and shows them in. Since this thread has focused extensively on footprints, I ask this question: Where are Lindbergh's footprints from the alleged canvassing of his property, rifle in hand, searching for the kidnappers? Did he confine himself only to the driveway? The boardwalk? The "firm parts of the yard" that refused to accept footprints of parent and kidnappers alike? The absence of his footprints to me indicates that his search was nothing more than a performance intended to bolster the buy-in by law enforcement that an actual crime perpetrated by outsiders had actually just occurred... And a lot of LE didn't buy it.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jun 27, 2017 9:44:29 GMT -5
Amy, I think having a family was influential to RBH. He said he had started saving to build a house for Anna to surprise her. Also the money was Fisch's technically and he knew Anna would object to him keeping it. A reason not to spent it. He seemed to be a very attentive father building furniture for the baby and singing him lullabies at bedtime. German people are usually industrious and ambitious so these characteristic would have made Anna and Richard compatable. Also I think he lived in a German section of the Bronx didn't he? No doubt spoke Germany a majority of the time which would be a reason to stay put. Kate, I know that in court Hauptmann claimed that the money found in his garage had belonged to Isidor Fisch. When asked why Hauptmann didn't tell Anna about the money he had found and then hid, he said something about not wanting to get her excited about it and that he kept it secret because he wanted to surprise her with a house. I can look up the exact wording in the trial transcript if you would like. Both Richard and Anna blamed Fisch for what was happening to them. I agree that culture and language would have been another good reason for Hauptmann to stay living where he was. He felt comfortable and safe there. Thank you Amy. Didn't Fisch initial try to leave the box with someone else? Wasn't one of the Hauptmann's friends intimidated while on the witness stand to prevent I'm from saying he saw Fisch with the box?
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jun 27, 2017 9:40:48 GMT -5
The problem I've always had about the spur of the moment prank by CAL ( and he knew they would be at Highfields) was the ladder. It only had to serve one purpose but I don't believe he spent the afternoon of March 1st building it. Could be though since he was never very specific about where he was that day. Don't imagine he ever expected to be questioned about it either.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jun 26, 2017 18:09:18 GMT -5
Concerning Hauptmann... What do you think kept him in the Bronx, and in an apartment where he was warring with his Landlord? I hope you don't mind me tossing my two cents around on this point. I have often thought about this ever since you mentioned it to me a few years ago. Having extended some of my knowledge and understanding about Hauptmann since that time, I do have a few ideas as to why he might have stayed where he was. 1) He had no intention of spending any of the money on new housing. He wanted to keep household expenses as cheap as possible, even if he had to put up with a landlord who disliked him. The money was for other purposes that were important to him. 2) He wanted to concentrate the bulk of the money on the stock market and what he thought was a fur business venture with Fisch. In short, Hauptmann wanted a different career path. He didn't want to be a carpenter. He wanted to be a successful Wall Street investor. He would spend the money on living that part with tailored suits and monogramed hankerchiefs to complete that image. This was important to him. 3) He wanted very much to return to Kamenz, Germany to show everyone there that he had become a successful business man in America. He wanted his mother to see what a great man he had become so she could be proud of him. This was important to him. 4) Hauptmann felt secure living in the Bronx in that apartment. It was a safe base of operations for him and Fisch. 5) I think that if he was partnered with someone in acquiring the ransom money then that could have entered into his staying put also. Perhaps he was not free to spend the money totally as he pleased. I think BRH got involved with this crime because he needed a large enough money stake (whatever share he was promised) that would allow him to make large stock investments and allow him the free time to spend working in his "new office" as an investor. It also allowed him to make some pleasure purchases such as the radio and the canoe, etc. I don't think changing his residence was ever part of his plan. Amy, I think having a family was influential to RBH. He said he had started saving to build a house for Anna to surprise her. Also the money was Fisch's technically and he knew Anna would object to him keeping it. A reason not to spent it. He seemed to be a very attentive father building furniture for the baby and singing him lullabies at bedtime. German people are usually industrious and ambitious so these characteristic would have made Anna and Richard compatable. Also I think he lived in a German section of the Bronx didn't he? No doubt spoke Germany a majority of the time which would be a reason to stay put.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jun 26, 2017 9:07:44 GMT -5
Intent and form can be two very different things. I say the kidnappers did a bad job of communicating their intent, as firstly, the ransom note was in a sealed envelope with nothing on the outside, and secondly, it was not left in the most likely place for it to have been immediately seen, ie. the crib. Perhaps if they had simply stated on the outside of the envelope, "Warning - Do Not Call Police If You Want To See Your Child Again!" and placed the envelope on the pillow, Lindbergh's actions may have been different. All of that goes for naught of course, as Lindbergh's first reaction was to have the police called and try to physically intervene with his gun, I believe before he even saw a note. In my opinion, those first actions of Lindbergh, are a very powerful indicator of his innocence, ie. immediately recognizing the gravity of the situation and that despite his aversion to publicity, calling the police was something he knew would compromise his privacy but also something he felt he had to do.
Amy, I'd have to say the form demonstrated by Lindbergh in the following cases was Logical - Action, sub-divided into 1) Immediate Intervention, as shown in grabbing his gun and running outside, and that this was probably heightened by an emotional response as well, 2) Planning, in calling the police, and 3) Highly Restrained, in not touching the ransom note. I know this might sound somewhat clinical but I can't think of a better person this type of thinking process might have applied to.
I do believe the kidnappers originally intended this to be a "quick snatch and return" of the child (dead or alive) for the $50,000. It seems the best information we have is that the child died from sudden external violence, either an intentional or unintended blow to the head or possibly a gun shot wound. The very act of removing the child from his crib would not have been done kindly for starters, and at worse would have necessitated smothering the child or rendering it unconscious to keep it from crying out. That the child was clearly, already dead during continuous ransom negotiations, demonstrates this was a pretty heartless individual who in my opinion, would have had no difficulty making sure the child was not a hindrance towards his plans of getting the money at any time, including the very beginning of the process. Who do we know that was somewhat "clinical" (unfeeling at best, eugenicist at worse)? I'd say close to antisocial personality myself.
|
|