|
Post by Sherlock on Jan 18, 2022 12:14:39 GMT -5
Hi jeanne, Yes, we have to be careful in interpreting statistics. After all, on average, human beings have less than two legs. This isn't lying with statistics; it is using them to mislead. However I don't see any such intention in the FBI's statistic that over 70% of child abductions, mistreatment, and murders involve a family member, a "carer," or close neighbour.
Investigation of such cases always starts by checking out the family. Only after these have been eliminated is the net widened. If this is "starting with a theory" then so be it. Obviously in the Lindbergh case the family were immune from serious investigation, especially as a family member ran the investigation.
Regards,
Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Jan 18, 2022 12:58:37 GMT -5
Hello, Sherlock: Thank you for your observations. They are always appreciated. Your comment that statistics can be "misleading" rather than the word "lying" is perceptive. The statistics that describe a situation in one era may not be representative of those collected in another. Kidnapping in the late 1920s and during the 1930s was often committed for ransom purposes. The statistics of today which indicate parental involvement could be quite different. When the Lindbergh Law was passed, the number of kidnappings declined, and the family instigations often resulted, not for ransom, but for custody. This happened in my own family when a father kidnapped a child from his mother and traveled out of state. The FBI traced his movements, recovered the child, and returned him to his mother. No ransom was extorted, nor was the child injured. If a parent is criminal, then of course the case receives greater attention. As far as evaluation of evidence is concerned, it's unfortunate that individuals tend to follow their prejudices instead of looking objectively at details involving the case. Yes, the Lindberghs were considered untouchable by many because of Charles' heroic stature. The investigator must look for validity, both in the testimony of witnesses and in the circumstances surrounding the case. I have no special theory to offer here in regard to guilt or innocence. Two scenarios stand out, however, and both were obviously staged. One involves the hypnotist and medium of the Temple of Divine Power who had seen the kidnapper or a rep. and was sent (payment made) to give information to Lindbergh through Breckinridge. The other, as you and I have both observed, was the elaborate staging of the meeting at St. Raymond's Cemetery on the afternoon of the day the ransom transaction was made and the week following. This type of staging indicates the working of a clever mind, not just intelligence, and with enough connections to draw others in. Most of the individuals mentioned in connection with the kidnapping do not appear to possess this ability, including Hauptmann and friends, Charles Schippel, Joseph Cerardi, and others. Lindbergh thought the "mob" was behind it, but this would not be the case, as the mob dealt with trading illegally in alcohol and drugs and supporting bordellos. They did not resort to kidnapping to make their money (Waxey Gordon). Lindbergh apparently did not know this for some reason. What continues to haunt us is the fear that someone with skill and position planned this crime and escaped detection. There were however, some flaws--not in the planning, but in their execution, committed by oversight or poor choice by those he (or she) engaged to participate in this venture.
Best regards, Jeanne
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jan 18, 2022 16:06:31 GMT -5
Hi jeanne, Assuming that an external “gang” or individual was responsible for Charlie’s abduction I have to disagree with your assertion that it was the execution rather than the planning which was at fault. In fact it is the series of “crazy” decisions made in the planning which lead myself and others to believe this cannot be the way it happened.
Premise: You are a kidnapper who wants a $50K ransom.
1. Choice of victim Choosing the Lindbergh child guarantees maximum allocation of law enforcement resources to solve the crime, maximum publicity, constant vigilance by the public etc. There were many other children or relatives of rich people who could be taken and the modest $50K ransom paid, and as was often the case in those times, without police involvement.
2. Materiel Choosing to make a ladder instead of buying one compromises its reliability in service and its potential traceability.
3. Method Choosing to abduct the child from his nursery bed in a house containing five adults, a dog, and firearms is madness. Why not wait for better weather and snatch both child and nursemaid Gow when Charlie was out for his afternoon airing, releasing the blindfolded maid unharmed later? Phone lines were not cut, a potentially traceable ransom note left when a phone call would do the same job.
And before even starting we have to know the family’s routine: when will they be at Hopewell? Where is the child’s room? What time is he put to bed? It is all so complicated and risky…….. there must be an easier way to get $50K.
All these obstacles and affronts to common sense disappear if we posit an inside job.
Best regards,
Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 18, 2022 16:27:03 GMT -5
Sherlock (the name fits well) is correct. And now that we're down to inside help, setting the motive aside, who on that incredibly short list of insiders/household members had the ability to organize something like this? It's just common sense and looking at the odds.
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Jan 18, 2022 17:33:08 GMT -5
We should take a look at Lindbergh's personality traits beyond his obvious sadistic sense of humor. He appears to be persistent, physically strong, persevering. He does not appear to be particularly intelligent, however. His stay at the University of Wisconsin was short, whatever the reason for leaving. His mother was a graduate of the University of Michigan and taught chemistry at the Cass Institute in Detroit. His father graduated from the Michigan Law School. Lindbergh's parents would have expected him to get a good education since both were well educated and in professional positions. This did not happen. Even after he left U. Wisconsin, there is no record of his attempt to be admitted elsewhere. Further, he showed a lack of wisdom by building a house in a remote area and hiring no guard or protection, thinking he would be safe out in the country. This is naive, to say the least. it's likely that someone in the area, whether living or working there, took note that the house was isolated and with no protection; it was an easy target. Such a person would have connections, though, or have the ability to establish connections. Someone inside had to be connected to the plan. That much is evident. Whether it was one insider or more, possibly with relatives who would be willing to be involved, is unknown but yet necessary for the crime to be committed. Lindbergh built a house in the country, isolated, looking for privacy. A kidnapping would destroy that privacy completely. The media, photographers, police, investigators, and the curious would descend upon him and his household, and that is what happened. He abandoned the house and left the country eventually to escape the continual hounding of his family. The kidnapper(s) did take chances. They were probably accustomed to taking risks even in the face of danger. They would have been armed and would not have been afraid to use their weapons if confronted that night. Lindbergh was naive, not particularly intelligent and not very clever either, and he certainly lacked wisdom. I submit that he did not have the personal traits needed to carry out a plan for the kidnapping of his son. He was a pilot, and his interest was in airplanes.
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Jan 18, 2022 17:53:07 GMT -5
One more observation: Mrs. Lindbergh heard a car driving on the gravel driveway before her husband came home. She did not see anything, but it was already dark. The kidnappers most likely drove the car with the ladder sections near the house at that time and placed them on the ground. They then proceeded to Featherbed Lane to plan their approach. They would have known that Lindbergh was scheduled to give a speech in New York that night. He arrived home after they had dropped off the ladder sections. They might not have been aware that he had come home and so proceeded as they had planned. They would have been armed but would have thought that the only persons in the house were Mrs. Lindbergh, the butler, the cook, and the nurse, none of them a formidable adversary. OK, i'll mention the dog also before someone reminds me.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 18, 2022 19:03:57 GMT -5
Lindbergh built an isolated home and did value his privacy, but if the bottom line was that the child needed to go, that would've brought the world to his door under any circumstances; that much was a given, no matter what. And it doesn't look like to me that the kidnappers took chances. On the surface it might appear that way, but they also seemed to know that they could drive up to the house without being boxed in, that they had time to wipe down the nursery, that they had time to walk (rather than drive) away from the house, and didn't need to worry about leaving traceable footprints, etc. To me, the person in all this who was a true risk-taker was Lindbergh; the transatlantic flight shows that, if nothing else. While Lindbergh certainly lacked wisdom and foresight in many ways--his eugenicist beliefs, paling around with Nazis, and his America First involvement--I think anyone who can pull off that flight and write as well as he did shows a high degree of intelligence. He certainly wasn't a book-smart academic--as you say, he flunked out of school--but that doesn't necessarily indicate a lack of intelligence. If we assume an inside job, I'd also be suspect of people's accounts of what they were doing that night (Anne Lindbergh claiming to have heard a car, Lindbergh hearing that breaking-wood sound, the dog not barking, and so on).
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 18, 2022 19:35:44 GMT -5
One more observation: Mrs. Lindbergh heard a car driving on the gravel driveway before her husband came home. She did not see anything, but it was already dark. The kidnappers most likely drove the car with the ladder sections near the house at that time and placed them on the ground. They then proceeded to Featherbed Lane to plan their approach. They would have known that Lindbergh was scheduled to give a speech in New York that night. He arrived home after they had dropped off the ladder sections. They might not have been aware that he had come home and so proceeded as they had planned. They would have been armed but would have thought that the only persons in the house were Mrs. Lindbergh, the butler, the cook, and the nurse, none of them a formidable adversary. OK, i'll mention the dog also before someone reminds me. 1) The kidnappers did not approach from Featherbed, they approached from the front of the house. The footprint evidence makes this clear. To me, at least, this was to leave a breadcrumb trail for cops. 2) Lindbergh called to say he was on the way home, but was clearly already close to the house. In addition, his car was spotted far earlier than he claimed. 3) The kidnappers not only knew which room was the baby’s, they were willing to risk that the room was completely vacant, as the shutters were closed (but knew they were not locked). What if CAL was in the room with the the baby? Additionally, the footprint evidence makes it clear they did not step far back enough from the window at any point to have a good line of sight, even if the shutters were open. We know many things about Lindbergh, but prevailing are that he believed himself invincible and had disdain for the week/invalid. As has been repeated, wealthy men like Lindbergh often had their weak or cripple offspring ferried away to save face.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jan 19, 2022 15:30:31 GMT -5
The early 1930’s were in many ways a more “innocent” time than today. Social structures surrounding family and marriage were stronger, as was the influence of religion. The concept of “family” was sacrosanct with reluctance to admit that anything could be amiss within it. Consequently much wickedness went undetected and unpunished. So quite apart from Lindbergh’s heroic status protecting himself and his family from suspicion there was this widespread belief that the child’s abduction must be the work of outsiders. Anything else was unthinkable.
There were strong suspicions of an inside job with some members of the NJSP but the majority either disagreed or felt that silence was the best policy.
Even today, in spite of the circumstantial evidence pointing to Lindbergh, some students of the case cannot surmount the barrier of “no father would do that.” As we now know, Lindbergh was not your average father.
George Orwell wrote: “Whenever a husband is murdered, first suspicions naturally fall on the wife, which tells you what people really think about the institution of marriage.” G.O. “Decline of the English murder.”
Orwell’s cynicism aside, he was reflecting the great changes taking place in our attitudes to family and marriage. Some for the better, others for the worse. We live in a more loosely-bound fragmented society. Therefore I consider it likely that the FBI’s current figure of 70 % parental involvement may reflect today’s investigators being more realistic than their counterparts of the 1930’s.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jan 19, 2022 17:14:12 GMT -5
Trojanusc, you say Lindbergh called when he closer, from where do you think he did that?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 19, 2022 17:33:04 GMT -5
Trojanusc, you say Lindbergh called when he closer, from where do you think he did that? I'm genuinely not sure, but its clear he called far closer than he claimed to be. Michael does a great job of covering this in his book. Michael - do you have a guess where he was?
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jan 19, 2022 17:38:55 GMT -5
Yes, I've read all Michael's books and that's one point that trips me up in this theory.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 19, 2022 18:59:27 GMT -5
There was that restaurant in Hopewell, where Condon stopped for directions on his way to Highfields. I bet there was a pay phone or something in there, but at this point, I don't know how it could be determined from where Lindbergh called. Michael covers Englewood/Next Day Hill phone records in V4, but was anyone ever able to get ahold of the Highfields phone records?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 19, 2022 19:22:25 GMT -5
Michael - do you have a guess where he was? That's a tough one. Mrs. Whateley said Lindbergh called at 7PM on March 1st to say he'd be a little late. And yet he called the night before, according to both Anne and Mrs. Whateley, at 7PM as well - but at that time said it was "too late" to drive down to Hopewell. And so, it stands to reason that if on one night its "too late" when he called at 7PM then it should be the same situation the next night at the exact same time - unless he was closer to the house when he called. Next, Whited claimed to have seen the " large brown sedan" enter the driveway at 7:10PM. Police believed this was Lindbergh's car and told him to keep quiet about it because it didn't match up with what Lindbergh was telling them about when he actually came home. Perhaps he called at 6:50PM, in which case there's now a 20 minute difference. Or maybe Whited saw the car at 7:20PM. In short, I really don't know. Who can we actually trust about anything here? If the entire family was sold a bill of goods that the child was being removed to be cared for in a "home" then no one there can be trusted to tell the truth either. I happen to believe Whited because it was his first eyewitness account, he claimed to have been home by 7:30, and in bed by 8:30PM. Since he had no idea what Lindbergh was telling the Cops at the time, what would be the point in lying about the timing - or a car he obviously had no idea was Lindbergh's? There's also the wild-card information that Michael Keaten provided by saying his Grandfather told him Lindbergh was originally saying he didn't get home until 9:30 but changed it to 8:30 later once he found out everyone in the house was saying he came home an hour earlier. Anyway, I've taken a wild guess in the past suggesting Princeton and I know we've had a debate about how long it would take to drive from "Point A" to "Point B" from various locations. However, after re-reading Rosner's manuscript, I'm not sure anymore. He claimed it almost took him almost an hour to drive about 4 miles (V4,P487) and damn near destroyed his car on those roads in Hopewell/Mount Rose at the time so if that was truly the case I'd say Princeton is off the table. Needless to say there's a lot to think about.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 20, 2022 9:49:06 GMT -5
There was that restaurant in Hopewell, where Condon stopped for directions on his way to Highfields. I bet there was a pay phone or something in there, but at this point, I don't know how it could be determined from where Lindbergh called. Michael covers Englewood/Next Day Hill phone records in V4, but was anyone ever able to get a hold of the Highfields phone records? I don't believe there is an actual call sheet from Highfields for March 1. I've got most of the phone records that exist at the NJSP Archives. Some are together while others scattered among the various collections. They are sometimes contradictory. For example, in one place it might say they no longer existed but in another it seems they have them. Regardless, the NJSP somehow were able to obtain out going calls from Hopewell exchanges to NY then investigated them. Again, I don't remember seeing anything specifically from Highfields except the State Police logs recording the calls to them. They did investigate the Operators who handled those calls though which I found interesting. As far as incoming calls, as I sit here I don't believe they had that capability back then. I could be wrong but everything appears to be records of outgoing calls. There's so much to remember that sometimes I forget so I have to be careful what I say. As an example: They investigated Phone No. " Hopewell 160-R-2." That belonged to Percy VanZandt of Blawenberg. They started with all toll calls made from this exchange starting on 2/23 ending on 3/3. Then they interviewed VanZandt who accounted for each. Meanwhile, they contacted the NYSP and had them run out and do investigations of those called. There's absolutely nothing about calls coming in to that number.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Jan 20, 2022 11:29:54 GMT -5
At that time phone calls made through a phone booth would need to go through an operator who would then place the call, so there would be a record of calls placed at that public phone. How long the records would be kept would be another story.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Jan 20, 2022 12:14:33 GMT -5
Clarification: The records of any phone calls from a phone booth would have been in the files of the telephone companytos and would have had to be accessed by the investigation at that time. The operator would not necessarily know the identity of the person taking the call but would retain the number (Lindbergh's residence) for a time. If Lindbergh made the calls on the road, he most likely used a phone booth and placed the call to his home through the operator. The time the phone called was made would also be posted on the record. (My sister was a telephone operator during this time.)
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jan 20, 2022 12:19:52 GMT -5
Lindbergh was one of the most recognizable people in the world, would he risk being seen at a nearby restaurant or other public place to make that phone call? Michael's scenario is more plausible if they all knew and were all in on it and there was never a phone call.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 20, 2022 12:45:25 GMT -5
Personally, I tend to lean in that direction--but didn't somebody think they saw someone in his car on the road that evening? He didn't identify that person as Lindbergh, but the description fit, without the person being recognized as Lindbergh.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 20, 2022 17:41:05 GMT -5
Lindbergh was one of the most recognizable people in the world, would he risk being seen at a nearby restaurant or other public place to make that phone call? Michael's scenario is more plausible if they all knew and were all in on it and there was never a phone call. Just trying to throw all of the options out there. I still think its possible he called from a phone booth since it seems to have been a quick call - especially if it wasn't necessary to enter an establishment because it was definitely dark an hour by 7PM. If in Princeton, there's no doubt he knew people there too so a call could have come from a residence of an acquaintance. Also remember that Curtis used Ruth Gay to call his room so that he could pretend it was a call from the kidnappers - so there could be a situation like that going on here as well. The bottom line is the documentation indicates he made two calls on consecutive nights BOTH supposedly made at 7PM. On one night he was too far away to come home, and on the kidnap night he claimed he'd only be a little late. Next, the official version is that he came in about 8:25, but we have Whited's account of seeing his car enter the private lane at 7:10PM. All the while we're supposed to believe that Lindbergh "forgot" about his obligation to attend the NYU dinner on the very night his son is kidnapped. Throw in that it was Lindbergh who left Skean behind, falsely testified that he didn't expect Wahgoosh to bark, refused to get the shutters fixed, etc. etc. etc., and that snowball that came rolling down the hill becomes an avalanche real quick.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 25, 2022 14:20:03 GMT -5
Indeed. I work in film. If I hired a screenwriter to go through the source material and write a script based solely on what the documentation says, not how history recorded it, it would get laughed out of every studio's office as "too obvious and "very unrealistic." I read this back when you wrote it but this took a while to sink in. I know "True Crime" and that truth being stranger than fiction seem to be on people's watch list nowadays. This case satisfies both. Of top of that, I've seen so many bad documentaries, series, and movies that I'm often scratching my head wondering how its even possible someone would actually get behind them in the first place. The fact no one would want something that you could come up with here scares the hell out of me.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 25, 2022 15:49:30 GMT -5
Indeed. I work in film. If I hired a screenwriter to go through the source material and write a script based solely on what the documentation says, not how history recorded it, it would get laughed out of every studio's office as "too obvious and "very unrealistic." I read this back when you wrote it but this took a while to sink in. I know "True Crime" and that truth being stranger than fiction seem to be on people's watch list nowadays. This case satisfies both. Of top of that, I've seen so many bad documentaries, series, and movies that I'm often scratching my head wondering how its even possible someone would actually get behind them in the first place. The fact no one would want something that you could come up with here scares the hell out of me. I think they absolutely would if it was done in the right way, but my point was more that Lindbergh's behavior was seemingly so obvious, once you remove the veneer of celebrity and hero, that it wouldn't really make for a compelling mystery. It would be obvious in the first 5 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Jan 25, 2022 16:10:12 GMT -5
Hi Jeanne, Ref your posting Jan 18: I don't know much about the Temple of Divine power angle but could the emissary allegedly sent by the kidnappers to see Breckenridge have been Isidor Fisch? Didn't he live close to the Temple? Breckenridge received a strange visitor shortly after the "kidnap" who rambled on about the case and "the needs of science being served" etc. Although Breck didn't make a big deal of it at the time he was almost sure the guy was Isidor Fisch but this only came out after the trial if I recall correctly. Best regards, Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Jan 25, 2022 17:11:29 GMT -5
Hello, Sherlock: Thank you for your recent post inquiring about Isidor Fisch. Fisch lived in Manhattan at the time of the kidnapping and did not move into the apartment building near the Temple of Divine Power until June 1932, approximately three months after the kidnapping. The visit by Birrettella and Cerrito was made in early March shortly following the kidnapping. The kidnapper((s) had sent them on a mission to ensure that Breckinridge and Lindbergh received the next ransom note. This scenario took some detailed planning.Mary's prediction that "Breckinbridge" would receive a note at a specific time did occur, and the note was sent to the misspelled "Breckinbridge". Clearly they were being used by the kidnapper or a rep. Isidor is a puzzle. He was an observant Jew who should not have had any connection with "spirits" as mediums are specifically forbidden in the Old Testament. (Remember the story of the Witch of Endor and King Saul who wanted to communicate with the spirit of the prophet Samuel." Witches were stoned to death or exiled if they were lucky.. Now one could argue, I suppose, that Isidor did not believe in any of the divine powers Mary was said to possess but was willing to make use of them. Question, however, why would he and Violet Sharp visit the temple on Thursdays? Could they have been misidentified? A man resembling Isidor did visit Breckinridge who recalled the meeting quite later. Again, one could argue that few persons resembled Isidor Fisch, but the man who met with Breckinridge wore glasses. Isidor did not wear glasses. If we take a look at Joseph Cerardi, who was Italian and not Jewish, we do see some resemblance between Joseph and Isidor. Also I did find a picture of Cerardi wearing glasses. Cerardi had been a boxer. He may well have been the number 2, the man CJ said knew John Condon. Witnesses who "saw Isidor riding near Hopewell in the back seat of an automobile" may have actually seen Cerardi instead. I am not arguing that Isidor was innocent by any means. He very likely had a role, and I suggest that he had been contacted to launder the ransom money. His fron tman Fritz, the man with the blond side-boards, would have known of Isidor's role, and it's quite possible that Hauptmann did also have some information. The two scenes, one involving the Temple of Divine Power hypnotist and medium, and the one involving Coleman at the St. Raymond's cemetery, indicate that someone with a clever mind, one capable of detailed planning and with some connections, was involved with this. Hauptmann does not strike me as clever, and I also doubt that he woud have "connections." Was Isidor elever? Did he have reliable connections? I submit that we wtill need to keep looking. Best regards, Jeanne
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Jan 25, 2022 17:19:49 GMT -5
One additional detail. I read that Isidor Fisch was evicted from his Manhattan apartment in June 1932 because he could not pay the rent. Sorry that I do not recall the source of this information. Perhaps Michael would know.
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Jan 25, 2022 19:40:38 GMT -5
One additional detail. I read that Isidor Fisch was evicted from his Manhattan apartment in June 1932 because he could not pay the rent. Sorry that I do not recall the source of this information. Perhaps Michael would know. That's wrong. Fisch moved into the rooming house where the Henkels lived in May 1932. He hadn't been evicted from his previous place.
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Jan 26, 2022 6:11:44 GMT -5
Families did try to hide children and spouses with physical and intellectual problems back then. Joe Kennedy had his daughter, Rosemary, lobotomized without his wife and other children knowing. He told them she had been sent to a convent, but not that she had had her brain probed. Jackie Kennedy's grandmother was locked in the attic of their mansion with a nurse and most people did not even know she existed.
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Jan 26, 2022 8:07:27 GMT -5
Possibly Isidor did move into the Kohl's rooming house in May of 1932 and not June of that year. My point was that the move occurred after the kidnapping which happened on March 1. I will have to find the source of his eviction and will post it if I find it since it could be important to the case. The ransom money was spent early in two separate areas, one area located near Isidor's then apartment and the other in the northern area of the Bronx where Hauptmann lived.
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Jan 26, 2022 11:48:00 GMT -5
Possibly Isidor did move into the Kohl's rooming house in May of 1932 and not June of that year. My point was that the move occurred after the kidnapping which happened on March 1. I will have to find the source of his eviction and will post it if I find it since it could be important to the case. The ransom money was spent early in two separate areas, one area located near Isidor's then apartment and the other in the northern area of the Bronx where Hauptmann lived. Fisch wasn't evicted. He moved into the Kohls' rooming house on May 12, 1932, after having closed out his electricity account on his own the day before. Ransom money wasn't discovered in the Bronx until June 9, 1933, when a $10 gold certificate showed up at the Fordham Branch of the Irving Trust Co. Almost seven months would elapse before a second bill from the ransom was discovered at the Corn Exchange Bank. There was no ransom spending pattern observed in the Bronx in either Fisch's or Hauptmann's vicinity in the early months after the kidnapping, as evidenced in the FBI Summary Report, the most reliable source regarding discovered ransom money. It details every bill discovered between April 2, 1932, and February 1, 1934. (The report was issued before Hauptmann's arrest.)
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Jan 26, 2022 12:41:52 GMT -5
Acccording to the FBi report, the ransom money began turning up almost immediately following the kidnapping. I will check this out and make a full report and post it here.
|
|