|
Post by rick3 on Apr 19, 2009 5:31:25 GMT -5
I cant help but consider that there are far too many coincidences in Red's activities to dismiss him as a Person of Interest: - He finds Betty and Charlie Jr. up at North Haven Island summer 1931--at a dance?
- In the fall, he follows them to Englewood and Next Day.
- He becomes an insider at Next Day--playing cards with servants....clearly gets to know Violet Sharpe.
- Ellerson is his roommate in the boarding house.
- Betty and Red travel to Highfields 3 times in Spring 1932? Ollie gives them tours of the house--including Charlie Jrs nursery.
- Although he is so broke, he needs to move in with his brother in Hartford, he just bought a Green Chrysler sedan 2 weeks before the snatch? From whom did he get that new money?
- He lies 3 times before the cock crows on his activities on March 1st: went to a movie, left for Hartford Tuesday nite & iii) drove around w/ Junges? They recanted his alibis? His evening is unaccounted for? Junges leave for Hamburg shortly afterwards?
- He calls Betty Gow from a pay phone to save a nickel at just about the estimated time of Charlies' disappearance? ~8:40pm
- On March 2nd he drives from Englewood, to Bridgeport CT to his brother John's in West Hartford?
- One "Baby is safe"postcard comes from Newark, another from West Hartford--reverse Js? Such a coincidence? Long shot?
- He is arrested at his brothers on Friday? Hoards of Detectives like Shiable, Strong and Edwards from Newark travel to interview him? AG Hugh Alcorn interviews him non-stop? Red sticks to his story....."I am just a poor Scandanavian sailor"
- Then New Jersey says--"we dont want him back?" We arnt interested in Red?"
- Red is transported all the ways to Highfields by NJSP so CAL can check up his story on March 19th....after he is interviewed by Murry Garrsson(March 14th)? No transcript of CALs chat exists?
- JFC Condon enters the LKC to save Reds reputation as innocent--CJ confirms Reds innocence? How well do they know Red? Where did they meet Red/ at the Sha-toe?
- Red's deportation bail is set at an astronomical $50,000--explain this? Public Enemy #1 gets lower bail than this--its the entire Charlie Jr. ransom?
- Red has lots of friends in high places@ JP Morgan, Tom Lamont, Morrows and CAL--why is he deported? After Violet Sharpe's death. What threat does he pose to who,what,when?
- Red may not be a player--but he may know or suspect someone else? It doesnt add up? Maybe he saw or heard something quite by accident that he wasnt suppose to? Red has served on alot of yachts since 1927. Reds no shrinking Violet.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 19, 2009 8:36:10 GMT -5
#14 & #16. Very interesting points Rick.
A lot of people do seem to be very concerned with protecting and/or defending Red to include Mrs. Morrow. Why? What's the issue with letting the investigations take their course? How could anyone be so sure?
Condon's declaration that Cemetery John told him Red had "nothing" to do with this - why would he say that? When is the last time anyone has heard of a Kidnapper attempting to clear another suspect? Is Condon telling the truth? If so, was John concerned Red would distract from his Gang getting the money? How-so? I would think you use this interest in Red to send the Police off on a wild goose chase if he's not involved because ties them up with something unrelated to them.
If Condon is lying then why? Protect Red? Well, that means what exactly? This ties in a connection to the "help" and therefore the family. It's almost like anything and everything to do with the Morrows or the Lindbergh's, no matter direct, indirect, or however slight - must be eliminated from consideration even before it CAN be eliminated from consideration.
|
|
|
Post by hpoirot on Apr 19, 2009 15:03:49 GMT -5
Maybe Red drove down to Hopewell to see Betty? JFC would only vouch for Betty and Red to protect himself or CAL.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Apr 20, 2009 6:49:04 GMT -5
Condon sure is an odd duck? He never really tells the truth--always some sort of half-truth he can later deny? ["Plausible deniability?"] I think he likes to stay in the public eye and on the front pages. He doesnt like to be upstaged by Red Johnson, or Curtis or anyone? Of course, he gets himself in a heap of trouble making up half-truths. Like the 5 man gang at Throggs Neck, the Tuckahoe woman, or the 3 men at St. Raymonds, or he cant remember who made the Samuelsohn-Box? He always seems to have some "insider information" and then somehow translates that into some crazy story? He always knows more than he reveals? Maybe JFC is being blackmailed into these declarations--he as vulnerable as BRH or Red? He is a conundrum and his motives are never clear? I do wonder, like vovina, if he is always just talking to hear himself talk to himself? Its always difficult to focus on JFC since he is a constantly moving target. When he mentions someone like Red, or Betty, or Peremi, you can usually bet there is some twisted motive. Its simply miraculous he didnt get arrested for perjury. Generally, it wastes alot of time trying to figure him out?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 21, 2009 19:32:05 GMT -5
There's quite a bit on Johnson spread out all over the place. He's mentioned in so many investigations that its hard to keep track. Here's an interesting "snippet" from Agent Leslie's July '34 Report: Lieutenant Keaten stated that the State Police had considered the possibility that Red Johnson or his brother might have given out information regarding the Lindbergh family, possibly innocently, and they had therefore checked on the acquaintances and friends of the Johnson brothers. However, that Red Johnson was a very close-mouthed fellow; that he was in the country illegally and was very careful with whom he associated and to whom he confided. Under questioning Red Johnson had stated that he did not confide in any of his associates that he was going out with Betty Gow.
Lieutenant Keaton further advised that Heimo Hattu, friend of Red Johnson's, was thoroughly checked out, and nothing suspicious concerning him developed; that Hattu was formerly in the Interstate Park Police Department and is now believed to be with the Englewood Police as a special officer.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 22, 2009 15:46:29 GMT -5
#15. Deportation. With the assistance of United States Senators and Conressmen, and other government and police officials (including the Director of Republican National Committee), it was arranged for "...the warrant of deportation to be cancelled upon verification of [his] departure."
The making of Red's departure voluntary rather then an actual deportation would alow him to return legally to the United States in the future. "My intention is to return legally....as soon as circumstances permit." (Falzini, Their Fifteen Minutes, pages 9&10)
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 23, 2009 5:35:54 GMT -5
A couple of observations based upon what Keaton told Leslie:
1. Red's associates did know he was dating Gow. Which knew and which didn't will take some research but just about every statement from those interviewed indicate they knew.
2. Being "closed-mouthed" actually works against Keaton's position.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Apr 23, 2009 19:12:36 GMT -5
Michael, I dont have a whole lot of confidence in a report written, or rewritten, by Buster Keaton in 1934 about Red and his friends 2 years later? Ancient history? Didnt Keaton "throw down" evidence in the Halls-Mills murder and get into a dispute with Ellis Parker? BK and his NJSP-colleques dont have a stirling reputation for sleuthing? Asking a whole bunch of persons a bunch question they dont really want or need to answer? Silence is golden. - Red seems to have more in common with his brother in Manhattan: Frederick who sails on yacht #2 The Morningstar? This yacht may be owned by Katheryn eDandransky? Reds other women friends like Edith or Dorothy Thompson dont have much motivation for answering? Why should they? What year?
- With regard to Red's roomatesc--well, there are quite a number--sometimes including Charlie Ellerson? Its hard to figure why Charlie wouldnt be staeying with his Polish wife--Ellerson is married and has 2 kids? On Marc h 1st Ellerson is hanging at the Sha-toe with a houseman froim the Morrow household named O'Shaoughnessy between 8-9pm [ssee FBI 134]. Later on in comes Septimus Banks and his buddy Brennan {Brinkert s real name is Brennan} All of them are providing each other alibis@9pm?
- As luck would have it, Red is in the same yacht as Violet Sharpe--after telling 3 lies he too has no alibi? Ooops/maybe they were together when they thought up the movie?
- It is just as odd that Red's deportation was revoked, for no apparent reason, as it was that he was forced to leave the US on April 11th? Wonder what Murray Garrsson thought of all this?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 25, 2009 7:39:56 GMT -5
Red's alibi, the Jungs, were eventual supporters of Hauptmann. Both believed he was innocent and had a terrible opinion of the Police handling this case. They blamed them for the death of Sharp, and felt abused by their tactics. They did or try to do the same thing with me and I was nowhere connected with hit. This, what I am telling you is the truth, that when they had me over in Newark questioning me, I heard it with my own ears. A group of Detectives were standing together and the news came in that they were going to take "Red Johnson" to Trenton, and one of them said: "Why in hell don't you shoot him on the Road, and say that he did himself while being taken over to be questioned." When I saw that they would not let up on me, I said: "Why don't you men go out and work amongst the gangsters." What I said to you about "Red Johnson" is the truth for I heard it with my own ears, that is the method used by the Jersey Police, they were willing to do anything as long as they could clear this up." [Pettit Detective Agency - (Pettit to Reilly Report), 12-18-35)]
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Apr 29, 2009 6:25:00 GMT -5
MM--it sure is tempting to connect Margarite and Johanson Junge to the Mersman table. Here we have the Scandanavian sailor of Jafsie Condon, driving around with 2 natives of Hamburg on March 1st apparently providing each other an alibi? Then recanting? Especially since Johanns only arrived in US in Dec 1931? His timing is as odd as Edna Sharpe? Trouble is, its not so simply to connect them all to the signature-symbol and the 3 holds? Only Joyce Milton calls our attention to the strange activities of the servants at Next Day Hill? They have the means and opportunity--but a motive is sorely lacking? How could they all get involved in this confusion? It looks like a case of quilt by association? Red previously lived with the Junges at 96 Engle Street, Englewood (see FBI files 416-417) and shared a room with Charlie Ellerson. (FBI 137)
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 30, 2009 5:49:50 GMT -5
Great way to put it Rick. That's the problem. There is, and usually its just the opposite. It's not like one or two people connect up. They all do. And as Kevin points out - everyone can't be involved or know of the involvement or the case would have been solved long ago.
Red could have told someone what he knew. Red could have been involved. But was he in Hopewell? I think its clear he wasn't at the time of the Kidnapping.
Why was either CJ or Condon trying to spare Red? Got to be a reason here somewhere. But just like your quilt analogy, this happens alot in this case. Take Gaglio asking Perrone where he received his note as just one example.
I personally believe if the Jungs knew more it would have come out. They had suspicions, just as everyone else did, but in the end I don't see them having any involvement either.
Of course I am open to anything anyone has to offer up.
|
|
|
Post by hpoirot on Apr 30, 2009 21:36:40 GMT -5
yes--since it is unlikely all the servants are guilty--then its more likely they are all innocent with alibis? [That would be "innocence by association"] In the Kidnapping of Johnny Waverly it turned out to be the Dad...
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 1, 2009 7:29:52 GMT -5
Michael--it feels more like quilty knowledge than guilty participation? There is a big difference/ all you have to do is not reveal something you are told or paid not to reveal? [wink?] If somethng "weird" or "untoward" happened to Charlie jr. all they would have to do is shutup. I wonder who suggested to the servants that they all create an iron-clad bullet-proof alibi for the nite of March 1st. Previous nites they all played cards at Next Day? Mrs Morrow? Albert Springer? Septimus Banks? They all left Engelwood on that particular evening and came back late? We really dont know where exactly Red was? And Ellerson was missing a few hours as well up to 9pm?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 1, 2009 11:58:08 GMT -5
I wonder who called up National lumber and ordered a custom three section ladder and a carpenter with criminal experience to go !
|
|
|
Post by hpoirot on May 1, 2009 18:28:17 GMT -5
Maybe Abraham Samuelsohn.....?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 1, 2009 19:18:40 GMT -5
Wrong stable, Hercule.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 2, 2009 7:17:23 GMT -5
This is something else to consider... Or that they believed they knew but didn't want to reveal. But they could have been wrong about that.
Take DMJr. for example. I am quite sure there was a basis for all of that talk. He may have threatened to do something, especially in that embarrassing state - but that was "personal family" business the Employees were trained never to talk about. So their loyalties wrestled with their conscience. Soon little "tales" began to surface and go in eight different directions.
Bottom line here is that I do believe there was an "inside" connection. That includes the Morrow House too.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 2, 2009 17:20:24 GMT -5
Michael--does Red rise to level of "insider" in your book or would he have to work thru Betty Gow or Violet Sharpe? If I were Red(?) and was headed for West Hartford on Wed--well, I would have driven down to Highfields for a rendezvous with Betty. After all she is usually "free" from 7-10pm each nite?
Kevin--if Abe Samuelsohn says he made the LL--then using your logic of not putting ones own self at risk unnecessarily (eg JFC), then he probably did! Fred Smyder, from Maspeth L.I., the clamp salesman clamped his clamp onto the LL in Abes storefront on Feb 25th 1932! And Condon/Riecht look-alikes were there at the time? Maybe thats why Myra Hacker did not want Abes name bandied about as an olde friend of JFC who made the Ransom Box as well? [Condon couldnt remember his name under oath?] Doesnt Abe Samuelsohn quarantee Condons involvement?
There is an another non sequiteur--even though Abe's name was made public during the Trial (NYTimes)--Myra Hacker was still covering up Samuelsohn's involvment in Panama in 1936? It was the first time JFC was mute?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 3, 2009 7:36:24 GMT -5
That's quite a perversion of logic ,Rick. Why, might I ask, would you choose to abandon known fact and evidence to embrace a story which cannot withstand the slightest scrutiny? Do you have some objective or reason which makes the obvious weakness of the Samuelson story worth overlooking?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 3, 2009 7:52:38 GMT -5
I don't count Red as an "insider." If Red is actually in Hopewell then there's too many people lying. And if they are lying then there's alot of people involved in this conspiracy.
I find Samuelsohn interesting, and his connection to the Case must be figured out. Unfortunately, everytime I try I come out worse for it.
Condon lying about him tells me he didn't want the Cops anywhere near him.
I do agree with Kevin when he says Samuelsohn didn't build the ladder found in Hopewell.
Devil's Advocate: Let's say he did build a "ladder" for Hauptmann. He cuts everything to spec and its handed over like he said. What happened during its assembly where only Rails 12 & 13 can possibly be the only pieces which came from his shop? And even so - what was eventually the "ladder" was a hodge-podge of replacement parts and not what he handed over.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 3, 2009 9:26:52 GMT -5
K&M...lets begin with the olde saw "a lie is as good as a confession" and work with what we think we know: - Red lied 3 times: he went to a movie (with Violet?) Nada
- Red then said he left for Hartford Tuesday nite? Nope
- Red finished up with riding aroung with Junges? Not
- So, where exactly was Red Johnson driving on Tuesday nite?
- Margarite Junge was angry with Violet for noting when she came back to Next Day, eg 11:15pm? How angry?
- What motive does Abraham Samuelsohn have for lying his way into the Lindbergh case,by saying he cut the ladder wood, in January 1935? AS even went to NJSP@Wilburtha to examine the LL. He built at least one replica? AS attended the Trial!
- Maybe death threats had an impact on Abe's memory? Maybe BRH/Fisch gang threatened AS to say BRH didnt pick up the wood?
- There was a 2 and 1/2 year hiatus (or more) when substitutions to the original ladder wood could be added or subtracted? The chain of custody for the LL was rather flimsy? [no pun intended]
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 3, 2009 10:03:33 GMT -5
A confession of what? You are really on a slippery slope when you try to ascertain the motivations behind lies. And it only gets worse when one tries to ascribe them to some criminal intent. A crime of this magnitude and the subsequent investigation is sure to uncover many things completely unrelated to the crime itself. It should be no surprise that some would initially try to keep these things hidden from the public. And then there is Mr. Condon, a man whose need for self aggrandizement is only surpassed by his ability to exaggerate every action he undertakes. Like Michael, I don't know or understand what Samuelsohn and Condon were up to, let alone why. What I do know is that their story can not be supported by the evidence, that is fact. I don't know that the chain of custody regarding the ladder was "flimsy". Regardless, it's a moot point. There is sufficient documentation of it's construction to rule out any major changes or substitutions to it's composition.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 6, 2009 19:59:43 GMT -5
A confession of what? You are really on a slippery slope when you try to ascertain the motivations behind lies. And it only gets worse when one tries to ascribe them to some criminal intent. A crime of this magnitude and the subsequent investigation is sure to uncover many things completely unrelated to the crime itself. It should be no surprise that some would initially try to keep these things hidden from the public. And then there is Mr. Condon, a man whose need for self aggrandizement is only surpassed by his ability to exaggerate every action he undertakes. Like Michael, I don't know or understand what Samuelsohn and Condon were up to, let alone why. What I do know is that their story can not be supported by the evidence, that is fact. I don't know that the chain of custody regarding the ladder was "flimsy". Regardless, it's a moot point. There is sufficient documentation of it's construction to rule out any major changes or substitutions to it's composition. - kev--we really wouldnt care who or what Red was doing the nite of March 1st if i) he hadnt cased Highfields 2-3 times with Betty Gow ii) if he didnt have any date with Betty that Tuesday nite and iii) he hadnt phoned up Hopewell at 8:40pm or; headed to West Hartford with milk bottles the next day in his new green Chrysler coupe?
- Wow--now Condon and Sameulsohn are in some sort of conspiracy? You could have fooled me? Sameulsohn admitted knowing JFC at every interview? It was a unidirectional conspiracy on the part of JFC to conceal the name of Abe making the wooden ransom box? Do you really think Condon is a rogue elephant without checking in with CAL? like on the hot 50s?
- And last--dont count too much on Art Koehler for chain of custody--he didnt even enter the crime until March 1933? For some days the ladder lanquished in the Lindbergh garage before it started touring the USA? How many times was it taken apart and put together and by whom? Charles Enkler signed the attic board after BRH was arrested--but thats about the extent of the custody battle?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 6, 2009 21:53:19 GMT -5
Rick, I really don't care at all about Red. He was investigated and cleared, milk bottles and all. Hey, if you have something on the guy that everyone else missed, go for it.
Sorry, I thought I was clear regarding the nutty Samuelsohn story. I don't know what it's all about and frankly, it really is of little interest to me. Whether or not Condon is involved, I don't know and again, I really don't care.
Chain of custody? And what manipulations do you propose were performed on the ladder while it was so carelessly guarded?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 7, 2009 6:09:18 GMT -5
I am definitely interested in anything concerning involvement from others. I am certain Hauptmann did not work alone. In the end Red was cleared but Police were suspicious that someone may have gotten information from him - indirectly. Condon's involvement, if properly explained, would blow the whole case wide open.
As far as the Chain of Custody concerning the ladder. It was broken. It was a point in the Errors addressed by the Defense and the State actually lied in its response. The problems exists due to the early pictures of Rail 16, and reports BEFORE Hauptmann is known. The picture Hoffman claimed to have had is missing. Dr. Hudson's testimony is all we have to dispute the nail holes at this point but again, in June of '32 Betts proves they were there.
When considering the greater weight of evidence - especially the Kevin/Rab research, I feel comfortable with this evidence after all of the years looking at it from every angle. I do believe I left no stone unturned but that doesn't mean others shouldn't continue to scrutinize until they themselves are satisfied.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 7, 2009 9:08:31 GMT -5
The point of my post before Rick's re-interpretation was simply that people will and do lie or evade the truth for all sorts of reasons that may have nothing to do with the actual crime being investigated. Some of these LKC characters had it pretty good, that is until Herr Hauptmann put together his ladder. Literally overnight their lives were transformed. All of a sudden every action and relationship they had was being scrutinized. I don't think it's hard to understand, especially if we try to imagine ourselves in such a situation, why thy might not want some of their personal activities revealed to the public and their employers. The trick for the police then and us now is not to ascribe criminal intent to every action or lie told. As for Condon, I disagree, but everyone sems to see this guy in a different light. Show me the money or the evidence and I'll be glad to look at him in a different light.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 8, 2009 4:40:34 GMT -5
The point of my post before Rick's re-interpretation was simply that people will and do lie or evade the truth for all sorts of reasons that may have nothing to do with the actual crime being investigated. Some of these LKC characters had it pretty good, that is until Herr Hauptmann put together his ladder. Literally overnight their lives were transformed. All of a sudden every action and relationship they had was being scrutinized. I don't think it's hard to understand, especially if we try to imagine ourselves in such a situation, why thy might not want some of their personal activities revealed to the public and their employers. The trick for the police then and us now is not to ascribe criminal intent to every action or lie told. As for Condon, I disagree, but everyone sems to see this guy in a different light. Show me the money or the evidence and I'll be glad to look at him in a different light. Kevin--you are only missing two main points: - It was an INSIDE JOB--it is extremely unlikely that this crime could have been committed by any single lone wolfe--either from an inside or outside perspective....eg there are unindicted co-conspirators--some insiders and some outsiders.
- We have all been solde a huge bill of goods that the LL is the single key to the entire case AND that rail 16 from up in the attic proves this? BRH already had $14,900 in marked ransom money and he is passing out gold Certs. So we already know hes involved but to what degree? 25%? 50% We dont know--maybe just the Extortion in the Bronx? Surely Condons gang never had Charlie Jr--just a similar sleeping suite? It is just a convenient lie that BRH was CJ?
- For instance, Violet Sharpe may have tipped "somebody" the Charlie Jr. was staying over in Highfields--but Violet had never been to Highfileds to case the crime scene vis-a-vis the servants, the nursery, the shutters and the DOGS? So Red Johnson stays in the mix? Getting cleared by the NJSP in 1932 means zero--everyone interviewed was "cleared"? But only Red was "arrested and deported"?
- All three main go-betweens: Condon, Curtis and Means were dealing with a complex gang of more than 5 persons? Where did all those gangs and potential defendents go after BRH was nabbed?
- Sure, everyone in this case is lying "about something" but some of them are lying outright about the LKC specifically--we already know that some have quilty knowledge and some of them are servants. The problem with them of course is, they ALSO have other knowledge about CAL, Lindberghs, Morrow families that all want to keep concealed.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 8, 2009 7:27:03 GMT -5
Sure Rick, I understand your points. It is also very clear that they are completely based on prejudice or personal belief and not fact. We all do this to some degree. The problem with what you propose is that the list of participants required keeps growing and growing. That, in turn, creates a whole new set of problems. People ( especially of the criminal kind) don't generally do such things for nothing. So where is the money trail? Whose finances dramatically changed for the better ? Who paid ? Why can't you find any direct links to or from Hauptmann? How do all of these people keep silent?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 8, 2009 15:39:51 GMT -5
For the sake of an argument.....
What do we know about Sharp's contacts? I mean really know.... Here's what we do know: See gets "picked up" by a man named Ernie - a complete stranger to her. Next thing we know the Police are looking for Ernest Brinkert - someone who has nothing to do with the event in question.
So here we not only see Sharp keeping her mouth shut - she's implicating someone who has nothing to do with the investigation. And why is that? To protect people who have nothing to do with the kidnapping? Does that make any sense or fall in line with the set of unofficial guidelines outlined that must exist for a Conspiracy to occur? Remember, if you believe Sharp had nothing to do with the kidnapping she's lying, misleading, and pushing herself toward insanity for a reason(s) much less then being involved in the Crime of the Century.
So what would those do who were?
You see, despite being picked up by Ernie, strangely enough, Violet is out on a date, not with him, but his friend Elmer Johnson. Huh?
Violet begins to lose her mind and the course of events, simple interrogation concerning her movements on the day in question, lead to her untimely death.
Death? Yes, she's dead. So with this is mind, how do we then question the fact people aren't talking?
And as far as Violet goes - this is what we do know. What don't we know? Can we assume we know everything? Honestly, do we know ANYTHING? And again, if you've written her off your suspect list - she's not even involved.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 9, 2009 6:54:26 GMT -5
I understand what you are saying Michael. I just don't see where it will get you, other than endless speculation. Before I would spend needless time and energy attempting to understand the personal motivations which cause a person to do this and that, I would like to see something tangible in the way of evidence. There has to be communication and exchanges between those involved and there has to be a trail, no matter how slight. There also has to be compensation for any involved and that definitely leaves a trail. We can see that very clearly with Hauptmann. Did Red come out a winner? How about Violet?
|
|