|
Post by wolf2 on Aug 28, 2009 11:57:31 GMT -5
hey rab how are you? im still on the lindbergh bronx tour every year. i think fisch was broke when he left. was the medical treatment for tb better in germany at the time? i dont think so. i know the jewish society he belonged to hwere paid for his grave stone. i do not believe the nonsense of him having hot money and him giving it to hauptmann to hold.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 29, 2009 11:35:09 GMT -5
Obviously, the key is Condon. It's his "eyewitness" account and could only be disputed by CJ himself. Since to this very day we don't really know who that was, then, it stands to reason we only have Condon to rely on - so he's got us, like the Police before, over a barrel. What are our options? 1. Condon is lying. 2. Condon is telling the truth. 3. Condon is telling a mixture of both truth and lies. If Condon is lying.....
He is doing so to:
1. Protect Red Johnson.
2. Bolster his position. If Condon is telling the truth.... 1. CJ, a Confederate in this case is concerned for someone else being arrested in connection with this crime. Not only declaring him innocent but looking, in the name of justice - for "something" to be done about it. Since when does a Criminal decide to "step in" for someone wrongly accused? The mixture possibility....
1. Condon "reading" the Police to give them something he thinks they are looking for.
2. To bolster his position.
3. The best lies are hidden within the truth.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 30, 2009 8:40:41 GMT -5
As I see it, a Kidnapper would not be this conscientious about someone else (they don't even know) unless it benefits them somehow. It's usually viewed by the real Culprits as a "windfall" for them. And so, if CJ actually said this - how could this be?
1. They still don't have the money. Could it be they believe if the Police have the wrong guy but think he's the right one they won't get paid?
2. Red is involved, and part of this "gang" in one way or another.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Aug 31, 2009 2:43:04 GMT -5
Michael--if anyone thinks its bizarre that JC/JFC/CJ would give the Pope's blessing of innocence to Red Johnson well, then the same skepticism would apply doubly to Betty Gow? How did Condon-CJ know Betty Gow? [JFC]: You told me one of them was in trouble?
[CJ]: Yes.
[JFC]: What will you do with that one? Is that Red Johnson?
[CJ]: No Red Johnson and Betty Gow are innocent would you help.
[JFC]: I certainly would if they were innocent.
[Breslin]: Did he make some reference to the fact or mention that Red Johnson was getting a rough deal from the police?
[JFC]: No only rough deal, but it was so mean, and something aught to be done. I said, "John, I will tell you what I will do, I will help him by stating that you say he is innocent.
[/i] I find this just unbelievable and would really like to explore the possibilities here...[/quote] Betty Gow is the penultimate insider! She is the last to see lil CJr alive and the first Family to see him dead? - She has multiple connections to Detroit? She lives there in the Addison Hotel in 1930? With some jockey? Was he found?
- She has claimed to be married to a Scotty Gow or someone just like Violet Sharpe and George Payne? Maybe this is why Murray Garrson called her a liar? Scotty then dissapeared/to Canada?
- Some author claimed there were two or even three "Betty Gows" floating around? Betty Gruenler was travelling with Jack Warbird Marston who often used Betty Gow as an alias?
- CAL protected Betty from most interviewers and lie detectors? And she sewed the Silko blue-threaded t-shirt used to identify Cjrs remains? (but never mentioned it as an ID/marker for the kidnappers]
- Why didn't JFC/CJ exonerate others like Whately and Sharpe who ended up dead?
- Betty Gow was in the very best position to put a light in Charlie's window, hand him out the front door and scrub the nursery off fingerprints?
- Gov.Hoffman asked: Why didn't Betty turn on the light when she found CJr missing and see the note?
- Betty and Red were an item? They visited Highfields on 2-3 occasions and cased the entire house including the Nursery?
- Betty shouldn't have been down to Highfields that single nite any more than CJr or CAL? Maybe Ellerson knew that too?
- the timing of the phone call from Red to Betty was rather right spot-on too? Then Red bails for West Hartford?
- Betty should be at the top of any Prime Accomplice List...but shes no Mastermind! She played Red like a mandolin...
- Were there ever any rumors about Betty and Cal?
707
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 31, 2009 7:35:20 GMT -5
Rick,
Lot's of good things to "work out."
There were several "Betty Gows." It confused investigators at first. But it appears they sorted that out. Next, Scotty Gow was another "confusing" person which seems to have been sorted out. They attempted to connect him with both Betty and the Purple Gang but in the end these efforts were discontinued because it doesn't appear either were true.
You're other points are why I believe many of us at least consider Gow had possible involvement. The blue thread was so unusual that it couldn't have been anything other when found. She could have played Red, and in fact, seemed to exhibit that type of mentality. To the other Servants she was above all of them yet, she's having sex in a public place with a Sailor.
So my point is this: Either CJ or JFC is protecting Red. Why?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 1, 2009 19:36:19 GMT -5
Michael--
I dunno for certain--but it would be a bit too obvious if CAL was trying to exhonorate Red Johnson (outsider) to the same degree as Betty Gow (insider)? [note: I always thought that JFC would hardly take any action independently w/o CAL's tacit approval][like Don Quixote and Sancho Panza]
But wasnt JFC successful in his ploy? Wasnt Red "given partial immunity"?
Self-preservation...of course!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 2, 2009 17:20:28 GMT -5
Playing connect the dots is fun isn't it? Unfortunately this works and doesn't work at the same time in just about any formula we try. But since I do think an Insider was involved I guess we have to start somewhere.....
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 3, 2009 19:00:28 GMT -5
There must have been some reason, beyond CJ, for Red Johnson to quickly become a " A cause célèbre (plural causes célèbres, French famous case) is an issue or incident arousing widespread controversy, outside campaigning ...first his bail was set a record $50,000--but later he practically recieived a gala sendoff when he left Ellis Island? Even his ban on coming back to USA was suspended? He became very poplular in Wash DC and House of Morgan. He must have seen, or known, or overheard something connected this case, CAL or The Familes? In the papers he was smiling almost as big as Ernie Brinkert?
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Sept 3, 2009 20:25:52 GMT -5
a little history for you concerning red johnson. when red was being questioned in hartford, the cop was edward hickey, who in 1944 was the state police commissioner in charge of the investigation of the tragic hartford circus fire which also made big headlines. ive tried with no luck of trying to obtain the transcripts of red johnsons grilling from ed hickey
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 4, 2009 2:16:24 GMT -5
Red was also interviewed by the Atty General of the State of Connecticutt (high profile?): Hugh M. Alcorn. In 1934 Hugh Alcorn was the Republican nominee for Governor of Connecticut, the first Suffield native so honored. He was defeated in the Franklin Roosevelt landslide by the smallest vote margin in the state’s history.
Michael--how big a net are you casting around "insiders"? Just the 5 principles at Highfields on the eve of March 1st? Weekend quests like Breckenridges step-daughter? Servants (Violet?) and family at Next Day Hill? Do you want your insider to scrub the fingerprints clean in the Nursery too? Who qualifies as a true insider...
Reading thru past threads you seem to be naming Betty Gow as your prime suspect: "An insider might have provided valuable information. They may have drawn a map, outlined the proper routes, to include the window and boardwalk below. They would ensure the window was unlocked and the "coast was clear" before possibly signaling their contacts waiting outside. We know for certain at least one criminal was there at 6PM. The insider may also have done certain things to show the route taken by the criminals such as wiping down that window area, and leaving smudges of mud in the room. There was quite a lot of discussion during the trial about the mud on the ladder rungs (or lack thereof). Ho-age would ask why there's a smudge on the suitcase but nothing knocked over and the next smudge over 6 feet away between the window and the crib. An insider may have drugged the toddler, may have made sure the dog wasn't around, or even handed the child out the window to the waiting arms of the criminals." MM
Women tend to be so good at multitasking! One author or investigator thought that John Condon hand-picked Betty for this role/ is that even possible?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 7, 2009 7:34:40 GMT -5
News to me Steve. Haven't come across this one either. Have you read Mark Falzini's research on him yet?
That door is always open however I think I know who it was at this point. The "insider" could have been one or more Employees at either place, friends of either place, or family Members.
Listen, there was information that shouldn't have been leaking out of the Morrow home which absolutely was - coming from a Family Member. Every time I stop to write I find more stuff that needs to be followed up on. This could go on forever!
Condon's a tool and one who serves a specific purpose. He isn't picking anyone to commit the act. His job is to get the money to the proper party then do everything he can to prevent their capture without implicating himself as an accomplice. His "wacky" personality is part of his protection.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 7, 2009 9:23:34 GMT -5
Michael....well we will just have to put on our collective thinking caps, and work it out like Agatha Christie/Hercule Poirot! It shouldnt take "forever" to unmask the insider(s)? We can evaluate them one by one...then we can begin connecting more dots to the other insiders or outsiders! - Not every potential insider can perform all the needed actions required to send Charlie on his way and stage the crime scene@Highfields. Putting mud on carpet;leaving note on the window ledge etc. We wouldnt really expect Ollie or Elsie in the nursery...at least not in the dark?
- I think Betty Gow comes out pretty high on the list--simply due to her access to the Nursery and close responsibility for CJr.
- She becomes so key to the crime....I doubt anyone else short of Anne/CAL together could fill in for all her needed actions: especiallly considering that Betty had never stayed overnite before at Highfields? Betty shows up/ Cjr dissappears? At least this help explain why the March 1st date? Betty looks like the linchpin to me...a woman for all seasons.
- Her fate is pretty much sealed when JC/CJ confirms her innocence.
What critical information do you think was leaked from Next Day Hill before or after the "kidnap"? How did it effect the outcome? Do you mean like Betty Morrow giving Violet a free pass? In the same vein as CJ's largesse to Betty and Red? Its like playing Monopoly?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 7, 2009 10:10:26 GMT -5
In this instance I hope it's no a case of putting on Over-Thinking Caps. What evidence or actions require an insider? Why would the crime which is supposedly so well planned and orchestrated occur on a night which could not be foreseen and which would raise unnecessary suspicions about the involvement of someone on the inside? That's not to mention picking a time when the child is sick. What specific physical acts undertaken in this crime require an insider? What specific information could only be provided by someone on the inside?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 9, 2009 5:54:20 GMT -5
These are good questions Kevin and I do think it tends to Rick's erase the idea that ALL things which happened required the help of an Insider. Even so, lets say NONE required the help and so this was pulled off at astronomical odds without any.
I am not a betting man, but if I were - I would play the odds with the stakes so high.
There is a high degree of preparation. This means people were planning things out. My guess is they needed inside help even at this stage.
Next the navigation around the local roads and Highfields itself. They were using roads even the locals seldom used (or even knew about). They were also using roads anyone other then a Local would get lost on.
There's no way to know who is exactly where in that house at the moment they decide to "snatch" the child. Picking a night which isn't on the radar is a clear sign of planning then laying in wait. Exactly why this night was deemed the "go" night should be investigated further - but it was. The planning is undeniable and doesn't appear to be half-assed. Yet it would have to be brilliant and stupid at the same time - unless there was help from the inside.
Who builds a ladder like this, with perfect measurements in more ways then one but doesn't cut the phone lines? Who goes straight to the "right" window but doesn't cut the phone lines? Cutting those lines buys one a considerable amount of time and anyone familiar with crime knows this.
You see, if one picks out each and every aspect required to pull this off they may see a percentage or two of possibility of doing this without any help. But if you look at it in its totality then it begins to get quite clear that its, as Agent Sisk once strikes out in a report to Hoover after visiting the crime scene - almost impossible.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 9, 2009 7:57:38 GMT -5
Kevin--but thats not all by any means! MM has focused on the outside puzzles...picking the day, timing, getting to the crime scene, driving in the dark, finding the correct window with the "faulty" shutter in the dark. But there is even more "action" on the inside: - the words "inside job" come up over and over again..as do "staged crime scene"! By those in the know...
- Al Dunlap emphasizes that early police arrivals to the crime scene see "no clear evidence of any breakin or intruder into the Nursery"!
- nothing moved, no blood, no mud and a huge span from the window ledge over the suitcase/trunk.
- essentially, nothing is even "mussed up"--it looks like CJr just dissappeared into thin air from his covers?
- if in point of fact anyone could have climbed the ladder into the window(?) it is impossible for them to traverse the room and get out again without bumping/moving anything in the dark? Was it a moonlite nite?
- So, we are left with one of those famed "locked room mysteries": how did CJr go missing without anyone entering or leaving the Nursery by the window/ladder route?
- Who hid the dog and who scrubed the fingerprints? No mud or rain on the ransom envelope?
- Maybe we should start alphabetically? Anne, Betty, Cal...and The Case of the Pristine Nursery?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 9, 2009 9:10:54 GMT -5
The fact is that as hard as it may be to believe, the crime as committed did not require the participation of anyone on the inside. If you consider the other ways in which thee kidnapping of CAL Jr could have been achieved, I think it becomes apparent that an insider would have provided a better and safer means of abduction.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 9, 2009 17:47:44 GMT -5
While I agree there's always a danger of over-complicating things I also believe there's a danger of doing the exact opposite as well.
I just look at it from my perspective while trying to weigh it against the time in history. Then I add up all of the things that had to occur in order for this to have been pulled off. Then I look at what these guys did vs. what they didn't do.
The totality of the circumstances tells me they had help. So convinced were the Police that a Local, an Insider, and a Woman were involved that it was basically released to the Press and it was common knowledge amongst the Investigators. Even after Hauptmann's conviction all Authorities were candidly saying more then one person had to be involved but they didn't want to upset the victory of their convicting one they knew was involved so it was always an "off the record" type comment or one they could easily deny.
So does this mean there absolutely was an Inside Connection? No, but the odds are so high I am not willing to play the long shot. For me, the idea of people pulling this off without any type of insider information is off the chart.
I may be biased because every area of this case I research where it looks crooked or bribery or the like - it turns up it wasn't by chance at all and something along those lines did actually happen.
Seriously it did, and no one seemed above the wrong-doing, however, there were varying degrees of it. These various degrees should also be considered which means an Insider may have had no intention whatsoever of being an accessory to murder.
Know what I mean?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 9, 2009 19:03:11 GMT -5
First let me qualify my position regarding an insider. I do consider it a very real possibility that information or knowledge was gleaned from someone in the Lindbergh/Morrow household. I don't think this would require criminal complicity, though. On the position that someone on the inside was involved actively in the crime, I see neither evidence or sense in the idea. You simply wouldn't pick that night. Too many other possibilities.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 11, 2009 7:41:00 GMT -5
Why wouldn't you pick that night? And what other possibilities? What aspects of this crime do you consider do not need assistance, and once each and every aspect is considered in total do you still feel it doesn't make sense they had any?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 11, 2009 17:46:31 GMT -5
I am not sure what that particular night had to offer over any other. I do know, though, that no insider in their right mind would pick it. Why would you think that with an inside accomplice anyone would choose a night that was such an anomaly? How could you make such preparations for this crime and then pick a night that the child wasn't suppose to be there? As for assistance, what was necessary for an inside accomplice? I try to think about the crime with foresight as opposed to hindsight. That's not easy given all the information and knowledge available which definitely adds to the prejudice. Still, when I do I am immediately faced with the options that were available to anyone planning this kidnapping. Two wealthy parents who travel extensively. That leaves quite a few opportunities open to someone if they have an inside accomplice. And, as I have said before, the insider is the weak link here. You would do everything possible to plan the kidnapping in such a way as to shield that insider. That just didn't happen here.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 12, 2009 8:12:58 GMT -5
It all boils down to motive, means, and opportunity.
The crime is either planned for or it wasn't. For me, the note, the ladder, burlap bags, heavy socks on the feet, and the evidence of "trial runs" shows me a very high degree of preparation.
I believe the use of those local roads - ones most of the Locals didn't use and had no care to even know about - is evidence of assistance. (Even after the crime people were still asking how to get to Highfields and consider Benny Lupica didn't even know the Lindbergh's lived there on March 1st). To know the routine, and exactly where everyone in the house was. To know the dog wasn't around. To NOT cut the phone lines. To leave behind the ladder, etc. in order to prove outsiders were there. To know the child wouldn't start screaming his head off, like he always did, unless Betty Gow was the one picking him up. To strike on a day, at the last minute, once it became known the child was left behind. Was it known Lindbergh would not be there? What does that serve if he's not? Perhaps one less person to worry about hearing them?
These guys were "circling" the estate and pulling over to be seen by those passing. Not "stepping on it" to avoid being seen. They were looking for someone, or wanting to be seen.
The crime was a "go." They were waiting to be told "when." The call came. People doing this degree of prep work do not blindly show up where their intended target is NOT supposed to be.
Later during the negotiations, CJ (or Condon) goes out of his way to protect both Johnson & Gow.
Anyway, in a nut shell the reasons why I firmly believe there was an Insider. Of course I have more but that's for one day in the future.....
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 12, 2009 10:44:20 GMT -5
Ok. Doesn't that fly in the face of a last minute and totally unplanned date?
Once again, doesn't this really show more lack of preparation? I would think that a highly planned kidnapping complete with an insider would insure that the phone lines were cut, there would be no dog to worry about, minimal people would be up and about, and no evidence would be left behind. With a group and an insider there are far more possibilities. You don't need to expose yourself on the road and fool around with a ladder climbing into a house with people, phones, guns, and a dog. If you lock yourself into the insider/ gang theory you invariably must start making the evidence fit and including more and more people. When , for example, was the first notice given that CAL Jr would be staying at Highfields? That's when the clock starts ticking if you believe a gang was involved with an insider. Is that really enough notice to start this whole scheme in motion and assemble all of the required elements? Doesn't seem likely to me. Of course if one is determined to adhere to this notion then the clock has to be moved back which in turn means the real decision as to CAL Jr's fate was determined earlier and that leads to the idea that Lindbergh himself was behind it. It just doesn't stop.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 13, 2009 10:07:27 GMT -5
Not in that context. When I was on SORT we trained constantly for hostage rescue and/or various scenarios which would require specific tactical skills we brought to the table. This ensured we were not only ready but sharp once the time came.
When you look at the preparation that we can actually measure then its obvious this didn't "accidentally" happen. If it did then I would have to say my observation of advanced planning would be incorrect, however, I don't see how that would be reasonable when just the ladder itself would disprove this notion.
Additionally, I think we are looking at this from exact opposite ends of the spectrum. If someone was a source of information from the inside I would think the idea would be to distract the Police away from that source. Furthermore, if very specific things are done then I accept its for a reason.
I don't advocate forcing evidence to fit into any specific theory. I simply say take each piece and offer all possible explanations for it. Then take ALL the evidence as a whole the same way you do for each individual piece. At this point, the best possible explanation is usually the correct one.
This was not an irrational operation. In my opinion several people were at work and each were responsible for their own details. Mistakes do happen, but mainly a planned event that works does so because they stuck to the plan.
So for me, what's a mistake and what was the plan?
Leon Ho-age had a specialty for insurance fraud and inside jobs. He immediately declared this an Inside Job - after Hauptmann was arrested and he was granted access to the files. He based this upon the crime scene evidence and actually visit to the Crime Scene itself.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 13, 2009 11:55:49 GMT -5
I don't see this as an either / or argument, unless one is convinced the kidnapping involved a "gang" and an insider. The ladder is proof of planning, but only of an entry. I'd prefer to think I'm in the middle I agree that distracting or protecting an insider would be paramount. So how does picking a unique night known only to a few and choosing this method of abduction work to that end? It doesn't. That's why so many instigators were convinced an insider was involved. Sounds good, but in reality we can't help but to allow our prejudices to come into play here. I would ask; What does the actual physical evidence show? Sure. I agree there was definitely planning. I am also open to more than one being involved. However, I don't see any real evidence of a large scale gang or the active participation of someone on the inside. I also see good old luck at work. That's always hard for some to swallow, but it does happen.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 13, 2009 19:34:36 GMT -5
Apparently, so do Al Dunlap and hopewell Cheif H.H Wolfe, the first cop on the scene who totallly agree w/ Ho-age: no blood on the window frame, no mud in the nursery, and the broad sill and chest....unstained and unmoved. Kid goes handed out window or front door! It hardly matters which one?
You know the olde saw: a criminal intruder always leaves something of hisself inside the house? Not in this case--in truth, even Charlie Jr and household occupants leave no traces inside the Nursery? Its as IF, the Nursery was cleaned ahead of time? Maybe by mistake? But it makes little difference to Swarzenkopf and the NJSP?
Its more likely the perp climbed the ladder and pushed the ransom note thru the crack in the window onto the ledge and left before the rickety ladder collapsed under his weight? Note:the insiders can plan for days weeks or months--and then spring the deed when it becomes convenient to themselves?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 14, 2009 7:44:41 GMT -5
The thing about these Reporters is they rely on their informants and/or contacts. They also want to sell their papers/magazines. Ho-age didn't rely on anyone else. The Governor basically let him sift through what he wanted. There was mud in the Nursery. Smudges in a couple of places where I would expect to see more then that if the Criminals approached through the mud. But I don't believe they did. The no mud on the ladder comes from Reilly in Court. His proof are the pictures. I have always reserved comment on this until I had the opportunity to search everything I have - which I still have not. Here's the evidence of Nursery intrusion: "Smudges" of mud in I think 2 places. Missing child. Ransom note. Evidence of ladder propped up against house. Chunk of mud on top of bottom shutter. Footprints lead aways from house to ladder and unused chisel. I think we have several scenarios to consider. Especially if one considers Kevin's theory that this ladder was used in both 2 and 3 sections (and I do). - It broke on the way up (and when).
- It broke on the way down.
The constant, in my opinion, is that it will not be used once it breaks. Yes. Does one plan to this degree "only of an entry?" I say no. You don't do this degree of planning to get in and nothing along these lines concerning anything else. To me that just doesn't make any sense. Everyone had their price then. I've learned this by and through my Research. Everyone did something shady in one way or another for either money, fame, or personal reasons. Having inside help isn't like trying to convince Mother Theresa to get on board with the crime. Look, everyone has Violet Sharp as some innocent victim, yet, consider the confidentiality "rules" in that Morrow home which Springer enforced. Sharp was selling information to a Reporter anyway. What about this night is different and why? You certainly don't prepare for a crime then show up when your target isn't supposed to be there - which is obviously known by those who prepared enough to build a unique and very specific ladder. Knew enough to follow a board-walk on approach - in the pitch black night. I could go on..... So what makes more sense? In my opinion, a slow, methodical, well planned event. When I see what appears to be "mistakes" I conclude were planned for. Even the ladder break I have been considering may have been broken on purpose. Still not sure about that. It depends on what you define as a "large scale." Does this means the number of people? I don't think we'll ever agree on the Insider but I do belief someone in the "know" was involved from inside the Morrow/Lindbergh Family and/or Employee. I agree a degree of luck happens and is even sometimes necessary. But when I see the need for luck to occur for each and every step then I revert back to the most logical explanation. Hitting the lottery is impossible but it happens. But could you imagine playing the lotto ten times and hitting it ten times in a row? That's when you check the balls for gas. It's how the casinos find the guys counting cards.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 14, 2009 19:58:50 GMT -5
Michael--to put is simply: all in all this is pretty slim pickens! - Are the "smidges/smudges" of mud in the room center? Howd the perp cross the sill and chest w/o mud there? Ouch!
- No mud on ladder or above the lower ledge? Ouch!
- Unused chisel left behind speaks volumes in a certain language! Ouch!
- Amatuer sleuths could have staged this crime more convincingly?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 15, 2009 7:24:05 GMT -5
How much would you expect from such a brief incursion? If the scene hadn't been polluted and the forensic capabilities were on par with today, there's no telling what treasure trove of evidence may have been collected. Just a single hair coupled with DNA testing might have closed the mystery for good.
So wouldn't "staging" a crime entail leaving very definite clues behind ? I don't understand the reasoning here. You are doubtful that the crime occurred as explained because of a lack of clues? If there was more evidence , would that make it more likely? Wouldn't that be more "staged".
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 16, 2009 19:38:51 GMT -5
They could get DNA from the sealed envelopes even today. Yet, there are those, like with the J. J. Faulkner deposit slip, who would claim if it didn't match Hauptmann that he had someone else lick the envelope.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2016 16:29:25 GMT -5
Michael,
Part of the record for the evening of March 1 is the phone call Henry "Red" Johnson made to the Hopewell house that evening to talk to Betty Gow. Both Betty and Elsie mention this phone call in their statements to the police. Oddly, Ollie Whateley, who Betty and Elsie say answered the call, does not mention answering a phone call from Johnson in his statement which was taken by authorities on March 3, 1932. Did he not remember answering the phone that night or maybe just didn't bother to mention taking that call from Johnson? Did Ollie make any other statement where he says he took that call from Johnson?
|
|