|
Post by kate1 on May 5, 2017 13:49:01 GMT -5
I don't think it's laughable at all and how do you know I wasn't there? Did you know RBH? How do you know what he did? You read about about the case and looked at some buildings? Exactly! Just like the rest of us.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on May 5, 2017 13:54:45 GMT -5
I don't think it's laughable at all and how do you know I wasn't there? Didn't you know RBH? How do you know what he did? You read about about the case and looked at some buildings? Exactly! Just like the rest of us.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on May 8, 2017 8:47:42 GMT -5
I know you wernt there either was I. maybe he had no wood laying around and he did the fast thing. he knew the layout of the attic and grabbed a piece. that's my theory maybe its wrong but to say wood was laying around to question his motives for going into the attic we don't know that.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on May 8, 2017 13:12:31 GMT -5
He didn't just grab a piece. It would have been planed after being sawed. Why all that work when there were lumber yards close? I don't think he made that ladder; he was a carpenter. If he had broken the rung he could have seriously injured himself and been unable to escape. He knew how to build and knew the weight of a baby because he had a little boy. Also the ladder is the one thing that debunks ( in my mind) the theory that Lindbergh planned the kidnapping. I think there was a ladder outside the house that could have been conviently used. The ladder was almost a joke. Someone went to a lot of trouble to build a piece of junk. Baffles me.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on May 8, 2017 21:19:30 GMT -5
He didn't just grab a piece. It would have been planed after being sawed. Why all that work when there were lumber yards close? I don't think he made that ladder; he was a carpenter. If he had broken the rung he could have seriously injured himself and been unable to escape. He knew how to build and knew the weight of a baby because he had a little boy. Also the ladder is the one thing that debunks ( in my mind) the theory that Lindbergh planned the kidnapping. I think there was a ladder outside the house that could have been conviently used. The ladder was almost a joke. Someone went to a lot of trouble to build a piece of junk. Baffles me. One little discrepancy here: Hauptmann's boy hadn't been born yet at the time of the purported kidnapping.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on May 10, 2017 8:48:12 GMT -5
don't forget kate he had to build it to fit in his car
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on May 10, 2017 10:59:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mufti on Jan 28, 2018 1:45:51 GMT -5
No, it doesn't. That's probably the reason that I can't see a great conspiracy or gang at work here. The more complex the operation, the more evidence is left to reveal it. That's why spontaneous crimes can be almost impossible to solve without the aid of witnesses or forensic evidence. But regarding Herr Hauptmann, shouldn't there be some remains to be found if this was planned "for a year already"? There is not. So my point is that when you remove personal belief and prejudice and look at this crime objectively, you must consider the possibility that the crime was not a planned kidnapping. Joe, here's an irony; If you could prove somehow that the Nursery note could not have been constructed on site, then the case is closed as that obviously proves premeditation. So if that Mersman was the template it would strongly suggest that the note was not constructed on site! Unfortunately , you and I know from experience that the Mersman holes just don't work as a template. The more complex a crime is, the more chance for evidence to be around, sure. Which is spread out over many people. Then you wonder why there is so little evidence found for hauptmann even though he seems utterly careless. you just ignore other suspects and oddities like faulkner knowing something hauptmann obviously did not and suddenly passing a bill at a gas station after carefully exchanging them at banks til then. You will really risk a death sentence to fill the tank with gas? The mastermind who baffled police and made a fool of Lindbergh? So no, it makes no sense to have so little evidence if Hauptmann did it all. There should be either none for someone totally innocent or else much more if he did it all, considering the carelessness he shows. Obvious solution is that he was a bit player, or perhaps even had nothing to do with it at all and was just set up to take a fall. All the police evidence is kind of ridiculous honestly. Writing incriminating things on the walls? Why? And if it IS real, then again it seems wildly unlikely that he would leave such blatant damning evidence and yet have no trace of evidence of preparing so many other things like the signature and so on. In this very thread the Mersman table is dismissed, but some hole that was supposed to prove the board comes from hauptmann's attic is supposed to be taken at face value. Of course no mention that anyone could have used the board from his house even without his knowledge, or the more obvious that the police could just put it there to help their case along, or he could have made the ladder but not had any real involvement or even knowledge of the crime.
|
|
|
Post by mufti on Jan 28, 2018 1:54:58 GMT -5
He didn't just grab a piece. It would have been planed after being sawed. Why all that work when there were lumber yards close? I don't think he made that ladder; he was a carpenter. If he had broken the rung he could have seriously injured himself and been unable to escape. He knew how to build and knew the weight of a baby because he had a little boy. Also the ladder is the one thing that debunks ( in my mind) the theory that Lindbergh planned the kidnapping. I think there was a ladder outside the house that could have been conviently used. The ladder was almost a joke. Someone went to a lot of trouble to build a piece of junk. Baffles me. Unless it was built just to frame him. Ladder has always seemed the weirdest part of the kidnapping to me.
|
|
|
Post by mufti on Jan 28, 2018 2:08:12 GMT -5
not if you needed one quick. we wernt there so its laughable when people question what Hauptman did when they wernt even there He might have brushed his teeth with a board from the attic, too, but he probably didn't.
|
|
|
Post by mufti on Jan 28, 2018 2:16:19 GMT -5
I think the "symbol" is something to identify the real party with. But it seems to me that it can be duplicated. Those holes however are a very different story. The Police looked for the hole maker the entire course of their investigation and just couldn't come up with it. Mark's blog seems to show the pattern of the situation. Where the notes were "punched" in groups. This suggests whatever is doing the punching isn't something at their fingertips. This could account for "why" the holes were done first in all the rest of these notes. But the nagging question is - why not the first? Could it be a "lesson learned" by and through the art of producing the first? This would suggest they're ad-libbing their way thru this. But how is one so prepared for the heist and so unprepared for the payoff? Next, we should consider that CJ told Jafsie the last note was absent the symbol because the "Leader" took it away. The absence of the symbol on the last note, not just the holes, is something else to consider. I've always felt that IF Hauptmann was the Writer of these notes, that he wasn't the Author of its content. The symbol could be the combination of such a "Team," or in the least, of the splinter group who deviated from the plan. The holes are probably used to make the signature in the first place otherwise you are just eyeballing. First the holes then the yods which were used as guides. The bleeding is probably nothing to do with the hole punching but to do with handling before it was totally dry.
|
|