|
Post by Jamie on Dec 24, 2020 9:43:25 GMT -5
Speaking for myself, and not on behalf of the book, the blood experiments mentioned in Parker's 1931 article may not have required experimental surgery on the donor as vivisection did, only blood draw, which is the reason I cannot rule out that Charlie could have been the 14 month old cited in this article. Parker was also a member of Carrel's team for the historic carotid artery experiment in the Spring of 1932.
|
|
|
Post by Jamie on Dec 24, 2020 12:21:55 GMT -5
We know that Lindbergh left Skean behind. That is a fact. (V1 page 58 AND V2 pages 6-7). It is speculative to suggest it was done on purpose. But upon considering the totality of all the circumstances, when considering the multiple things that Lindbergh did, by act or omission, then is it so far-fetched? No. There's a difference but context matters. How is this one or the other? As I wrote, Schwarzkopf believed the child would be dug up. Next, one should consider Lindbergh's actions at the morgue, the speed by which the child was incinerated, and Breckinridge's account of Lindbergh's reaction to it. (V1 pages 315-20) Hi Michael, Thank you for your thoughtful post. Just to add a few personal thoughts of my own. The whole chapter called "Reconstructing the Crime" where my mother mentions Lindbergh purposely leaving Skean behind, is all theoretical supported by evidence laid out in the previous chapters. My mother introduces this chapter by stating that the following reconstruction is her best guess as to what likely happened. No one alive today can say with 100% accuracy and knowledge what occurred that night nearly 90 years ago because none of us were present. And those that were present told conflicting stories. But there is supporting evidence for my mother's theory that no other author on the Lindbergh case has presented before. My mother also tells the readers when she's speculating, unlike Fisher who states things as factual when he himself knows they aren't-- an example is the dialogue he invented at the preliminary "look-see" between Mitchell, Swayze, and Van Ingen when Van Ingen didn't even arrive at the morgue until long after the look-see was completed. Instead of telling readers what to think, as Fisher and other authors like him have done, my mother has taken great pains to lay out the evidence as best she can--which includes her own expert analysis as a respected judge, researcher, and critical thinker, as well as the analysis of other experts like Dr Peter Speth (a renowned forensic pathologist whose work helped catch the Golden State Killer) and Dr. William Bass (famed forensic anthropologist and founder of "The Body Farm"-- training ground for the FBI ) and let readers determine for themselves what makes the most sense. It is my understanding that New Jersey State Law in 1932 then required full autopsies for all suspicious deaths, because the body itself would likely be the biggest piece of evidence in any subsequent trial to prove that the missing person actually died, and provide clues as to how, when and where that person died. Lindbergh had the body cremated before a full autopsy could be done to shed more light on those answers. As you mentioned in your well-researched volumes, there was some unidentified chemical substance on the body they found during the look-see, but the body was cremated before that substance could be identified. Cremation of the body while the State Police were still actively investigating the disappearance, and long before there was an official murder suspect, also helped fuel speculation that the body wasn't actually Charlie, but a substitute. In my non-expert opinion, the presence of animal hair (which could have been human, because humans are animals, too and Squibb didn't specify--which seems odd to me that they didn't at least speculate as they did in other areas of their report) doesn't in itself prove that wild animals attacked the corpse to account for removal of the missing organs. The hair, if it was non-human, could have been present in the burlap bag when it was used as a feedbag, or have just been present in the woods from the animal who attacked the bird whose remains were found nearby. Evidence of an attack by wild animals would presumably include claw marks or bite marks or blood on or around the body and the shirts on the corpse. Squibb tested for blood and found none at the scene or on the body. The shirts were also intact. In 1982, Renowned forensic pathologist and founder of the Body Farm, Dr. William Bass re-examined the bones that were picked up by the NJSP and sent to Squibb for examination. While he found that there were bite marks on the two bird bones that Squibb had examined along with the human bones, Dr. Bass didn't find any such marks on the human bones. I agree that there is evidence that a non-human animal was present in the woods where the body was found (the bird remains with tooth marks on them) but as far as I can tell, according to the experts who directly examined the bones, bag, shirts, and the area around the corpse, there's no evidence of an animal attack on the human remains.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 24, 2020 13:19:12 GMT -5
Hi Jamie.
We certainly agree on some issues. Of course, as expected, there’s some others where we do not. There’s also a few things I’m still thinking over.
Now as previously pointed out, one main disagreement is animal activity concerning this corpse. Animal hair found both in the bag and the corpse’s shirt isn’t the only proof. It’s strong enough to stand on its own (IMO) because any counter-argument is much weaker based merely on the odds alone. I realize this issue is one of the pillars on which the theory must rest so I don’t really feel comfortable addressing it on this venue by opening up the floodgates to tear it all down. In the end you won’t be in a position to agree anyway so I really don’t see the point.
In the end it’s up to the reader/researcher to decide. Fact is, the chances are really good there isn’t a book on this subject that anyone will agree with completely about everything. But even if one doesn’t agree with the theory presented, there is still something to be learned from each.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Dec 24, 2020 20:40:37 GMT -5
hi jamie happy holidays to you and your mother. i dont believe lindbergh killed his son for alot of years. moniers book to me is bad. so i dont agree with your mother on this subject. however if you look at the evidence against hauptman, lindbergh is innocent
|
|
|
Post by Jamie on Dec 25, 2020 2:05:52 GMT -5
Michael and Wolfmann Happy holidays to you as well! I understand that we will not agree on every aspect, but I really appreciate the opportunity to present alternative viewpoints. Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Dec 25, 2020 19:27:13 GMT -5
happy holidays to you as well
|
|
|
Post by Jamie on Dec 26, 2020 17:59:24 GMT -5
happy holidays to you as well Thanks Wolfman!
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Dec 27, 2020 14:59:05 GMT -5
Hi Jamie,
You know I have to ask this.
The overall premise of Suspect No. 1 is that Hauptmann was completely innocent; that he was not involved with either the kidnapping or extortion.
Assuming that Lindbergh and Carrel were responsible for the kidnapping, how does this exclusively exclude Hauptmann from being part of their kidnapping or extortion plot?
The book assumes that Lindbergh and Carrel must have had a "team" to carry out the kidnapping and vivisection.
Since Hauptmann built the ladder, wrote the ransom notes, had $14,600 of the ransom money in his garage & wallet, and was spending $10 bills of the ransom money in late December 1933, why couldn't Hauptmann have been part of Lindbergh's "team"?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Dec 28, 2020 0:54:27 GMT -5
Hi Jamie, You know I have to ask this. The overall premise of Suspect No. 1 is that Hauptmann was completely innocent; that he was not involved with either the kidnapping or extortion. Assuming that Lindbergh and Carrel were responsible for the kidnapping, how does this exclusively exclude Hauptmann from being part of their kidnapping or extortion plot? The book assumes that Lindbergh and Carrel must have had a "team" to carry out the kidnapping and vivisection. Since Hauptmann built the ladder, wrote the ransom notes, had $14,600 of the ransom money in his garage & wallet, and was spending $10 bills of the ransom money in late December 1933, why couldn't Hauptmann have been part of Lindbergh's "team"? I'll concede that Hauptmann likely had a hand in building the ladder and had the $14K in ransom money. However, what evidence is there he wrote the ransom notes? The handwriting experts are largely split on this. Even modern day technology, featured in the NOVA special from a few years back, said Hauptmann likely didn't pen the notes. The police tried to find any paper or evidence of the "singnature" but found none.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 28, 2020 7:11:58 GMT -5
As I've posted before, the autopsy findings on the child's body found in the woods, with the thorax vacated except for the heart and the abdomen vacated except for the liver, are highly suggestive of HUMAN, specifically surgical, intervention on the body at some point between the death and the discovery of the corpse on May 12, 1932. Animals left to their own devices would not be this particular about which organs would be consumed and which would be neglected.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Dec 28, 2020 10:16:46 GMT -5
Hi Jamie, You know I have to ask this. The overall premise of Suspect No. 1 is that Hauptmann was completely innocent; that he was not involved with either the kidnapping or extortion. Assuming that Lindbergh and Carrel were responsible for the kidnapping, how does this exclusively exclude Hauptmann from being part of their kidnapping or extortion plot? The book assumes that Lindbergh and Carrel must have had a "team" to carry out the kidnapping and vivisection. Since Hauptmann built the ladder, wrote the ransom notes, had $14,600 of the ransom money in his garage & wallet, and was spending $10 bills of the ransom money in late December 1933, why couldn't Hauptmann have been part of Lindbergh's "team"? I'll concede that Hauptmann likely had a hand in building the ladder and had the $14K in ransom money. However, what evidence is there he wrote the ransom notes? The handwriting experts are largely split on this. Even modern day technology, featured in the NOVA special from a few years back, said Hauptmann likely didn't pen the notes. The police tried to find any paper or evidence of the "singnature" but found none. Hi Trojanusc, I would encourage you to re-watch the handwriting analysis on the Nova special. It was done by Sargur Srihari from the University of Buffalo. All he did was compare a 2-page letter written by Hauptmann (the Begg letter) to 6 of the ransom notes (out of 15 and none of the envelopes). That's it. I've called Srihari and, to date, he will not release his work. Here is his entire conclusion for NOVA: Attachment DeletedThat's it. Does this convince you 100% that Hauptmann did not write the ransom notes?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Dec 28, 2020 10:31:43 GMT -5
As I've posted before, the autopsy findings on the child's body found in the woods, with the thorax vacated except for the heart and the abdomen vacated except for the liver, are highly suggestive of HUMAN, specifically surgical, intervention on the body at some point between the death and the discovery of the corpse on May 12, 1932. Animals left to their own devices would not be this particular about which organs would be consumed and which would be neglected. Hi Hurtelable, Please explain to me how Mitchell, Swayze, and Van Ingen would have missed so many vivisection surgical cuts? And why wasn't the brain vivisected? Seems like an important organ that they would most want to explore.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 29, 2020 6:33:50 GMT -5
Hi Jamie, You know I have to ask this. The overall premise of Suspect No. 1 is that Hauptmann was completely innocent; that he was not involved with either the kidnapping or extortion. Assuming that Lindbergh and Carrel were responsible for the kidnapping, how does this exclusively exclude Hauptmann from being part of their kidnapping or extortion plot? The book assumes that Lindbergh and Carrel must have had a "team" to carry out the kidnapping and vivisection. Since Hauptmann built the ladder, wrote the ransom notes, had $14,600 of the ransom money in his garage & wallet, and was spending $10 bills of the ransom money in late December 1933, why couldn't Hauptmann have been part of Lindbergh's "team"? I'll concede that Hauptmann likely had a hand in building the ladder and had the $14K in ransom money. However, what evidence is there he wrote the ransom notes? The handwriting experts are largely split on this. Even modern day technology, featured in the NOVA special from a few years back, said Hauptmann likely didn't pen the notes. The police tried to find any paper or evidence of the "singnature" but found none. What evidence is there that Hauptmann wrote the ransom notes? Only about 90+% of the Questioned Document Examiners over the years, who have done the required depth of study it takes to make an informed decision, have concluded this. Naturally there are a few dissenting voices. It's true in any field where there is at least one element of subjectivity. It's a fact of life that there are good doctors and not-always-so-good doctors, and the same applies to expertise in the subjective discernment of handwriting traits. But if 90+% of the doctors a person went to see about a respiratory ailment concluded that person should stop smoking, I don't believe they'd be doing themselves well by continuing. Hauptmann himself said, "Dot handwriting was the worstest thing against me!" What do you suppose he meant by that statement? How difficult would it have been to toss a simple cardboard template he had used to accurately position each and every one of the ransom note "singnature" holes, into the garbage can after he wrote the last one? BTW, investigators did find some of the same brand of "Fifth Avenue" brand linen writing paper which had been used to write the ransom notes, within the Hauptmanns' personal possessions.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 29, 2020 6:45:43 GMT -5
Hi Jamie, You know I have to ask this. The overall premise of Suspect No. 1 is that Hauptmann was completely innocent; that he was not involved with either the kidnapping or extortion. Assuming that Lindbergh and Carrel were responsible for the kidnapping, how does this exclusively exclude Hauptmann from being part of their kidnapping or extortion plot? The book assumes that Lindbergh and Carrel must have had a "team" to carry out the kidnapping and vivisection. Since Hauptmann built the ladder, wrote the ransom notes, had $14,600 of the ransom money in his garage & wallet, and was spending $10 bills of the ransom money in late December 1933, why couldn't Hauptmann have been part of Lindbergh's "team"? Someday, and we can only hope someone takes up the cause, wouldn't it be nice to see an author actually expend the same level of research dedication into establishing the connection which would have had to have existed between Charles Lindbergh and Bruno Richard Hauptmann, in order for Lindbergh to have knowingly participated within the kidnapping and death of his first-born son?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 29, 2020 10:45:18 GMT -5
That's it. Does this convince you 100% that Hauptmann did not write the ransom notes? Speaking for myself, I've never been convinced Hauptmann wrote them. I've always been about 50/50 and to this day it hasn't changed. I think people tend to be pushed off the fence by other things, like the ransom money and ladder as examples, but I don't agree with these being used as tie-breakers. One thing I am sure of and that is Hauptmann didn't think up with what's actually written there. Of course this is just my opinion and can be challenged as well. Someday, and we can only hope someone takes up the cause, wouldn't it be nice to see an author actually expend the same level of research dedication into establishing the connection which would have had to have existed between Charles Lindbergh and Bruno Richard Hauptmann, in order for Lindbergh to have knowingly participated within the kidnapping and death of his first-born son? Your position is flawed Joe. There's no "need" at all for Lindbergh to have actually known Hauptmann. I can tell you from first hand knowledge there are many people sitting in Federal Prison right now convicted of conspiracy who never actually met some of their co-defendants.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Dec 29, 2020 10:45:33 GMT -5
I just wanted to double-check Srihari's work on NOVA. Here was his conclusion: SARGUR SRIHARI: For instance, the letter, the letter pair AM or A-M has a fairly high negative score, indicating that they don't seem to be written by the same individual. There are some positives, as well. So, what matters is the sum total of all of these things. And that total turns out to be negative, indicating that it is unlikely that Hauptmann wrote the ransom notes. I am using Pierre Goudreault's state-of-the-art document examination software (Write-On 3.0) which is in use by the Secret Service among many others. When you compare what Srihari did (6 ransom notes against the 2-page Begg letter) and cross-reference all of the "a-m" occurrences, you get this: Does anyone find this comparison persuasive?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 29, 2020 14:40:28 GMT -5
Someday, and we can only hope someone takes up the cause, wouldn't it be nice to see an author actually expend the same level of research dedication into establishing the connection which would have had to have existed between Charles Lindbergh and Bruno Richard Hauptmann, in order for Lindbergh to have knowingly participated within the kidnapping and death of his first-born son? Your position is flawed Joe. There's no "need" at all for Lindbergh to have actually known Hauptmann. I can tell you from first hand knowledge there are many people sitting in Federal Prison right now convicted of conspiracy who never actually met some of their co-defendants. You might want to have another read of what you just wrote. Any one of those guys you guarded in prison who had a co-defendant guilty of being involved in the same criminal offense, has a connection to that co-defendant. They don’t by necessity have to know each other personally, and I didn’t say that Lindbergh had to have known Hauptmann for the Lindy-Did-It theory to be a sound one. In other words, if Person A with the motive, talks to Person B, who talks to Person C, who in turn talks to Person D, and Person D pulls the trigger, there is your connection. It’s called traceability and it’s what investigators look for. And again, I wish just one author would take the time to explore this concept with the same amount of resources and degree of energy that so many others expend looking for answers, just about everywhere else.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 29, 2020 16:05:15 GMT -5
That's it. Does this convince you 100% that Hauptmann did not write the ransom notes? Speaking for myself, I've never been convinced Hauptmann wrote them. I've always been about 50/50 and to this day it hasn't changed. I think people tend to be pushed off the fence by other things, like the ransom money and ladder as examples, but I don't agree with these being used as tie-breakers. One thing I am sure of and that is Hauptmann didn't think up with what's actually written there. Of course this is just my opinion and can be challenged as well. Clark Sellers article, which he wrote for the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology is an excellent read, not to mention a pretty compelling case for Hauptmann having written each of the ransom notes. scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2693&context=jclc
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Dec 29, 2020 21:30:31 GMT -5
I'll concede that Hauptmann likely had a hand in building the ladder and had the $14K in ransom money. However, what evidence is there he wrote the ransom notes? The handwriting experts are largely split on this. Even modern day technology, featured in the NOVA special from a few years back, said Hauptmann likely didn't pen the notes. The police tried to find any paper or evidence of the "singnature" but found none. Hi Trojanusc, I would encourage you to re-watch the handwriting analysis on the Nova special. It was done by Sargur Srihari from the University of Buffalo. All he did was compare a 2-page letter written by Hauptmann (the Begg letter) to 6 of the ransom notes (out of 15 and none of the envelopes). That's it. I've called Srihari and, to date, he will not release his work. Here is his entire conclusion for NOVA: View AttachmentThat's it. Does this convince you 100% that Hauptmann did not write the ransom notes? No but I have seen nothing to prove demiitnively, or even highly likely, that he wrote them. Even the Osborns didn't think so at first, until they were made aware of the other evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 30, 2020 10:55:16 GMT -5
I have that of course, but I didn't know it was available on the web so I'm glad you linked that up for everyone who may not. Anyway, I refer you to V3 pages 459-61 for a little more information which concerns Sellers. Also the rest of the chapter concerning the handwriting in this volume as well as in V2. Check out the Haring info where I was able to demonstrate that he lied in his book about his entry into the case.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 30, 2020 11:01:43 GMT -5
You might want to have another read of what you just wrote. Any one of those guys you guarded in prison who had a co-defendant guilty of being involved in the same criminal offense, has a connection to that co-defendant. They don’t by necessity have to know each other personally, and I didn’t say that Lindbergh had to have known Hauptmann for the Lindy-Did-It theory to be a sound one. In other words, if Person A with the motive, talks to Person B, who talks to Person C, who in turn talks to Person D, and Person D pulls the trigger, there is your connection. It’s called traceability and it’s what investigators look for. And again, I wish just one author would take the time to explore this concept with the same amount of resources and degree of energy that so many others expend looking for answers, just about everywhere else. Linking the head of a Cartel to a mule, or a street corner drug dealer peddling his wares in NYC can hardly be done today. Its why the laws changed so they could slam low-level people with high sentence conspiracy charges in order to get them all to cooperate. But anyway, glad you cleared up your position. What you are basically suggesting is what we are all already doing. I know that I look at everything everywhere I possibly can. In fact, you have been the most vocal critic of this strategy. So maybe you could make up your mind perhaps?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 30, 2020 16:06:09 GMT -5
You might want to have another read of what you just wrote. Any one of those guys you guarded in prison who had a co-defendant guilty of being involved in the same criminal offense, has a connection to that co-defendant. They don’t by necessity have to know each other personally, and I didn’t say that Lindbergh had to have known Hauptmann for the Lindy-Did-It theory to be a sound one. In other words, if Person A with the motive, talks to Person B, who talks to Person C, who in turn talks to Person D, and Person D pulls the trigger, there is your connection. It’s called traceability and it’s what investigators look for. And again, I wish just one author would take the time to explore this concept with the same amount of resources and degree of energy that so many others expend looking for answers, just about everywhere else. Linking the head of a Cartel to a mule, or a street corner drug dealer peddling his wares in NYC can hardly be done today. Its why the laws changed so they could slam low-level people with high sentence conspiracy charges in order to get them all to cooperate. But anyway, glad you cleared up your position. What you are basically suggesting is what we are all already doing. I know that I look at everything everywhere I possibly can. In fact, you have been the most vocal critic of this strategy. So maybe you could make up your mind perhaps? I've been a vocal critic of the strategy to attempt to determine a connection between Charles Lindbergh and Bruno Richard Hauptmann? No. The only real criticism I can impart in relation to that strategy, is that you've been probably the most vocal one on this board in the innuendo, assertion, inference and insinuation industry that Lindbergh was behind the abduction of his son, continually coming up short in actual and verifiable proof that he was. If you have read everything within the archives from top to bottom three times and I don't doubt that you have, do you not think you might have found something a bit more solid by now than cremations, meat skewers in the morgue, or brown hats thrown into the ocean?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 30, 2020 17:57:52 GMT -5
I have that of course, but I didn't know it was available on the web so I'm glad you linked that up for everyone who may not. Anyway, I refer you to V3 pages 459-61 for a little more information which concerns Sellers. Also the rest of the chapter concerning the handwriting in this volume as well as in V2. Check out the Haring info where I was able to demonstrate that he lied in his book about his entry into the case. What you've written here has absolutely nothing to do with the fact Sellers or Haring have both demonstrated convincingly Hauptmann wrote the ransom notes. Why are you even attempting to impart this kind of bogus revelation in the first place?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Dec 30, 2020 22:56:21 GMT -5
I have that of course, but I didn't know it was available on the web so I'm glad you linked that up for everyone who may not. Anyway, I refer you to V3 pages 459-61 for a little more information which concerns Sellers. Also the rest of the chapter concerning the handwriting in this volume as well as in V2. Check out the Haring info where I was able to demonstrate that he lied in his book about his entry into the case. What you've written here has absolutely nothing to do with the fact Sellers or Haring have both demonstrated convincingly Hauptmann wrote the ransom notes. Why are you even attempting to impart this kind of bogus revelation in the first place? Hi Joe, While you might be right, I just want you to know that I am working with a document examiner with over 50 years of experience plus a state-of-the-art document examination software (Write-On 3.0) and for the first time ever we are going word for word, chart by chart through all 9 of the handwriting experts' trial testimony. With a completely open mind. I haven't gotten to Sellers' testimony yet, but I will soon. 1) I will tell you this, Osborn Sr. told an outright lie in one of his charts that he knew the defense would not catch. In fact, it's taken 85 years to discover. I will post it soon. Also, when asked how many words in the ransom notes that Osborn Sr. compared to BRH's samples, Osborn said "...two or three." Osborn also repeatedly stated there were 14 ransom notes (there were 15 as you know). 2) Elbridge W. Stein fudged one chart and mis-labeled 10 words on 3 charts. Again, the defense would not have been able to catch these 11 mistakes. The judges I've spoken with said both men's testimony should have been dis-credited and their testimony stricken. Like I said I am totally on the fence right now with the handwriting, but these are just the facts. I will keep you posted on Sellers' testimony. I'm looking forward to reading it.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 31, 2020 8:00:13 GMT -5
What you've written here has absolutely nothing to do with the fact Sellers or Haring have both demonstrated convincingly Hauptmann wrote the ransom notes. Why are you even attempting to impart this kind of bogus revelation in the first place? Hi Joe, While you might be right, I just want you to know that I am working with a document examiner with over 50 years of experience plus a state-of-the-art document examination software (Write-On 3.0) and for the first time ever we are going word for word, chart by chart through all 9 of the handwriting experts' trial testimony. With a completely open mind. I haven't gotten to Sellers' testimony yet, but I will soon. 1) I will tell you this, Osborn Sr. told an outright lie in one of his charts that he knew the defense would not catch. In fact, it's taken 85 years to discover. I will post it soon. Also, when asked how many words in the ransom notes that Osborn Sr. compared to BRH's samples, Osborn said "...two or three." Osborn also repeatedly stated there were 14 ransom notes (there were 15 as you know). 2) Elbridge W. Stein fudged one chart and mis-labeled 10 words on 3 charts. Again, the defense would not have been able to catch these 11 mistakes. The judges I've spoken with said both men's testimony should have been dis-credited and their testimony stricken. Like I said I am totally on the fence right now with the handwriting, but these are just the facts. I will keep you posted on Sellers' testimony. I'm looking forward to reading it. Thanks Wayne, and I'm very interested to see your results. I know there were liberties taken by both sides during the trial and feel pretty confident you’re going to find many more within the handwriting evidence. The requirements of disclosure being what they were at the time seem to have only elevated the hyperbole of the "us against them" relationship that existed between prosecution and defense. In general I don’t think there’s a lot to be celebrated within this process of jurisprudence, one derived in large part from the adversarial English Common Law, even today. It’s a big reason I’ve never put a lot of stock in the Hauptmann Trial process itself, much preferring to interpret the circumstantial physical evidence and eye/ear witness claim testimony through my own eyes. Having said all that, I’m still convinced the sum total of what the handwriting experts did exhibit, clearly demonstrates Hauptmann wrote all of the ransom notes. And again, his comment, "Dot handwriting was the worstest thing against me" is pretty telling in itself. Hauptmann seemed to have two relatively distinct forms within the scope of his handwriting. Clearly, he possessed a higher degree of penmanship when he took his time and wished to communicate more formally, but from which he allowed the process to devolve most of the time into the form seen in the ransom notes, thereby providing more visual exposure to himself. And in his letters to Governor Hoffman, where he apparently took the time to present a more attractive, consistent and stylized form of his writing, he did something he normally didn’t do, which only exposes his true intentions more.. he spells everything correctly and dots all his “i’s” and crosses all his “t’s”. His letters to Mrs. Begg, the agreement of loan with Reinhold Haberland and his mini-autobiography to lawyer James Fawcett in my mind, are clear giveaways. There are so many points of direct comparison here, I find it inconceivable the ransom notes were written by anyone else. On a side note, I find it very interesting that Hauptmann actually took the time to rewrite so many of his memo book entries, essentially converting the more irregular and disjointed form of his writing into the higher degree of penmanship evident within his letters to Governor Hoffmann. I’m not sure when he did the re-writing of these memo book entries. Do you happen to know? I’ve often wondered if this did occur after the series of ransom notes, was he perhaps starting to feel that things were closing in on him a bit too much for comfort, noting that the newspapers were publishing samples of the ransom note writings? Then again, why would he have felt compelled to keep the original memo book writings?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Dec 31, 2020 9:39:18 GMT -5
Thanks Wayne, and I'm very interested to see your results. I know there were liberties taken by both sides during the trial and feel pretty confident you’re going to find many more within the handwriting evidence. The requirements of disclosure being what they were at the time seem to have only elevated the hyperbole of the "us against them" relationship that existed between prosecution and defense. In general I don’t think there’s a lot to be celebrated within this process of jurisprudence, one derived in large part from the adversarial English Common Law, even today. It’s a big reason I’ve never put a lot of stock in the Hauptmann Trial process itself, much preferring to interpret the circumstantial physical evidence and eye/ear witness claim testimony through my own eyes. Having said all that, I’m still convinced the sum total of what the handwriting experts did exhibit, clearly demonstrates Hauptmann wrote all of the ransom notes. And again, his comment, "Dot handwriting was the worstest thing against me" is pretty telling in itself. Hauptmann seemed to have two relatively distinct forms within the scope of his handwriting. Clearly, he possessed a higher degree of penmanship when he took his time and wished to communicate more formally, but from which he allowed the process to devolve most of the time into the form seen in the ransom notes, thereby providing more visual exposure to himself. And in his letters to Governor Hoffman, where he apparently took the time to present a more attractive, consistent and stylized form of his writing, he did something he normally didn’t do, which only exposes his true intentions more.. he spells everything correctly and dots all his “i’s” and crosses all his “t’s”. His letters to Mrs. Begg, the agreement of loan with Reinhold Haberland and his mini-autobiography to lawyer James Fawcett in my mind, are clear giveaways. There are so many points of direct comparison here, I find it inconceivable the ransom notes were written by anyone else. On a side note, I find it very interesting that Hauptmann actually took the time to rewrite so many of his memo book entries, essentially converting the more irregular and disjointed form of his writing into the higher degree of penmanship evident within his letters to Governor Hoffmann. I’m not sure when he did the re-writing of these memo book entries. Do you happen to know? I’ve often wondered if this did occur after the series of ransom notes, was he perhaps starting to feel that things were closing in on him a bit too much for comfort, noting that the newspapers were publishing samples of the ransom note writings? Then again, why would he have felt compelled to keep the original memo book writings? Hi Joe, As the news people say, there is a lot to unpack here. Speaking of BRH's notebooks, have you seen this? We all know that Wilentz found an entry for "boad" in one of them. But what's weird is that 2 pages past that entry is the word "boat" spelled correctly in the same notebook. What gives?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Dec 31, 2020 10:07:05 GMT -5
Thanks Wayne, and I'm very interested to see your results. I know there were liberties taken by both sides during the trial and feel pretty confident you’re going to find many more within the handwriting evidence. The requirements of disclosure being what they were at the time seem to have only elevated the hyperbole of the "us against them" relationship that existed between prosecution and defense. In general I don’t think there’s a lot to be celebrated within this process of jurisprudence, one derived in large part from the adversarial English Common Law, even today. It’s a big reason I’ve never put a lot of stock in the Hauptmann Trial process itself, much preferring to interpret the circumstantial physical evidence and eye/ear witness claim testimony through my own eyes. Having said all that, I’m still convinced the sum total of what the handwriting experts did exhibit, clearly demonstrates Hauptmann wrote all of the ransom notes. And again, his comment, "Dot handwriting was the worstest thing against me" is pretty telling in itself. Hauptmann seemed to have two relatively distinct forms within the scope of his handwriting. Clearly, he possessed a higher degree of penmanship when he took his time and wished to communicate more formally, but from which he allowed the process to devolve most of the time into the form seen in the ransom notes, thereby providing more visual exposure to himself. And in his letters to Governor Hoffman, where he apparently took the time to present a more attractive, consistent and stylized form of his writing, he did something he normally didn’t do, which only exposes his true intentions more.. he spells everything correctly and dots all his “i’s” and crosses all his “t’s”. His letters to Mrs. Begg, the agreement of loan with Reinhold Haberland and his mini-autobiography to lawyer James Fawcett in my mind, are clear giveaways. There are so many points of direct comparison here, I find it inconceivable the ransom notes were written by anyone else. On a side note, I find it very interesting that Hauptmann actually took the time to rewrite so many of his memo book entries, essentially converting the more irregular and disjointed form of his writing into the higher degree of penmanship evident within his letters to Governor Hoffmann. I’m not sure when he did the re-writing of these memo book entries. Do you happen to know? I’ve often wondered if this did occur after the series of ransom notes, was he perhaps starting to feel that things were closing in on him a bit too much for comfort, noting that the newspapers were publishing samples of the ransom note writings? Then again, why would he have felt compelled to keep the original memo book writings? Hi Joe, As the news people say, there is a lot to unpack here. Speaking of BRH's notebooks, have you seen this? We all know that Wilentz found an entry for "boad" in one of them. But what's weird is that 2 pages past that entry is the word "boat" spelled correctly in the same notebook. What gives? View AttachmentView AttachmentYes, I've seen that Wayne! I have a lot of his writings and the one thing I've come to accept, is the truly mercurial nature of his spelling. As if he's always a little unsure about the correct spelling, even within simple words he didn't have to dictionary check. But he just barges ahead and writes them in the form he's thinking about at any given time. The ransom note writer does this all over the place. I think this speaks very much to Hauptmann having been in America for a shorter time relative to his formative writing years in Germany, coupled with his arrested development in speaking and writing in primary school. I think a good case could also be made for one of those apparent "t's" to actually have been an intended "d" with an unclosed circle formation. There's also some good discussion here on "boad": lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/thread/146/boad
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 31, 2020 10:49:33 GMT -5
I've been a vocal critic of the strategy to attempt to determine a connection between Charles Lindbergh and Bruno Richard Hauptmann? No. The only real criticism I can impart in relation to that strategy, is that you've been probably the most vocal one on this board in the innuendo, assertion, inference and insinuation industry that Lindbergh was behind the abduction of his son, continually coming up short in actual and verifiable proof that he was. If you have read everything within the archives from top to bottom three times and I don't doubt that you have, do you not think you might have found something a bit more solid by now than cremations, meat skewers in the morgue, or brown hats thrown into the ocean? That's really interesting Joe. If this is all of what you've retained from my books than you must be dyslexic or something. I am happy that you remember the brown hat episode though because its one of my favorite examples that shows how little Lindbergh cared about searching for his son. So there's that at least. Also for Lindbergh to treat his son like a dead animal - that's pretty important too so I'm glad you retained that as well. Your strategy is to embrace what you like and disregard/attack what you do not. Okay, so there's no rule which says that's illegal. I have always considered everything I find and will continue to. Some things develop, some do not, and others we still don't know about. Take Hauptmann's connection to Condon. Everything you demand is contained within the pages of my books. However, you don't seem to remember any of that all the while making demands that it be done elsewhere? It's there. You either want to consider it or you do not. Look at Rail 16 for example. By not accepting what didn't make sense and considering Rab's theory instead of laughing it off like most did, I was able to finally put it all together to the point where it all now makes sense and solves the issue. That is apparently the strategy you now reject.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 31, 2020 10:54:05 GMT -5
What you've written here has absolutely nothing to do with the fact Sellers or Haring have both demonstrated convincingly Hauptmann wrote the ransom notes. Why are you even attempting to impart this kind of bogus revelation in the first place? 1. It is related. 2. It's not "bogus." 3. Neither have done so "convincingly." Not to me. Again, I consider everything. That's not just the report that is supposed to show he wrote them - but everything else I can get my hands on - which as I sit here is a lot.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 31, 2020 11:03:42 GMT -5
1) I will tell you this, Osborn Sr. told an outright lie in one of his charts that he knew the defense would not catch. In fact, it's taken 85 years to discover. I will post it soon. Great approach to this Wayne. Most either believe he wrote them or he didn't. So they take everything at face value. By digging deeper you'll find more and more of this stuff. I remember seeing almost immediately that Osborn either lied or was an idiot when he got called out on the stand about the hyphen he claimed was an identifier. No one wants to take the time to meticulously go through this piece by piece so its really nice to see you doing this. Experts must have integrity to be believable. Nothing should motivate them outside of the truth. But we have that issue right from jump-street don't we? Next, once honesty is established, we then have only the "science" to question and consider. Here, I have a major issue with the science itself too. Blindly ignoring these concerns leads to what exactly? Nothing good as far as I can tell.
|
|