|
Post by rita on Feb 28, 2007 23:14:39 GMT -5
New research show the attic board to have been newly made to match the attic nail holes(1).
1. In Spite of Innocence, Michael L Padalet, pg.99 KF9756.R33 1992
|
|
|
Post by rita on Mar 1, 2007 15:40:46 GMT -5
Researching in the law library I found another book on bad justice, that also refers back to the study Bedau and Radalet did in 1987 on wrongly directed capital punishment. In the Book Convicted but Innocent Ronald Huff explains that Reily was intimidated by Lindbergh's fame, and that he did the nothing to object to the most outrageous claims by Wilentz over the same investigators who found the two sets of footprints testifying Hauptmann acted alone. He also pointed out the two year memory of Lindbergh claiming to identify the distant voice as Hauptmann without objection from Reily(1).
1. Convicted but Innocent, Ronald C. Huff, pgs.8,29-32,154 KF9756.H84, 1996
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Mar 1, 2007 23:15:57 GMT -5
1 March, CNN, LAW
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 2, 2007 6:43:25 GMT -5
Rita - what's the new evidence Padalet refers to? I don't have this book. I don't think there's any question that Hauptmann did not get a fair trial, and the only way to convict him as the actual Murderer is to say no one else could have done it - something which is at variance with the evidence.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Mar 2, 2007 22:17:27 GMT -5
Radalet used information from Wilentz using an unauthenticated photo of the rail to undercut the many experts that denied rail 16 at that time, but conveniently not used by Wilentz. Radelet is referring to his research period of 87 to 92 and research by Bryan, Scadutto, and Kennedy, but also brings up the issue that Gov Hoffman had argued, and Gardner had written about when he confronted Wilentz in the Hauptmann attic the nails fit shallow in the joist with only possible explanation rail 16 was cut to fit and matched fraudulently. I think after reading how severely Gov Hoffman criticized Wilentz over the rail discrepancy he must have realized his evidence would send Wilentz to jail, and the fact he refused letting the defense examine the attic indicated deliberate attempt to deceive.
|
|
|
Post by hempstead on Mar 3, 2007 11:51:30 GMT -5
The business of nails not fitting properly has always caused problems -- but after the board was dissected it appeared that some extraneous material had been put in the holes. Does anyone have any further information on that point.
By the way, are you saying Gov Hoffman was afraid to pursue the issue for fear of sending Wilentz to jail? You're post is somewhat unclear on that issue. And if that is your point, what evidence do you have to suggest that was the case? It is a fascinating scenario, but one that needs a lot of confirmation.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 3, 2007 12:07:38 GMT -5
Once the sections of joists were cut open some fibrous material was found inside the holes which was assumed accounted for the problem in depth. Prof. Hazelton claimed it could have been caused by Gov. Hoffman's people using the probes to check the depth in the first place but books such as Kennedy's claim these fibers were 'springy' which is an indication the holes were new, therefore, were caused by Police creating the holes with nails then inserting and withdrawing them in '34.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 3, 2007 14:18:37 GMT -5
So much time and energy wasted on the floorboards. I am absolutely convinced that even if DNA testing confirmed rail 16 and S-226 to be one, there would still be some who would find a reason to dispute it.
Regarding the nail holes, there is a reason why the police could not have driven nails through the holes of rail 16 and into the joists to "phony" up the evidence. Hint; it has to do with the type of nails.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 3, 2007 15:02:15 GMT -5
I know where you are coming from since most cut nails aren't the exact same size but I think you are forgetting that the Police, etc. had been up there on several occasions. When they were there they were inserting cut nails and hammering them in - do you believe each time they were using the exact same nails?
Additionally, they were inserted into the pre-existing holes in Rail 16 - do you believe they had the exact nails that once made the (4) holes in that board?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 3, 2007 17:03:39 GMT -5
No, there is another reason why such an endeavor would not fool anyone. It would also cause much frustration to the cops. It has to do with the very nature of a cut nail and I think it better demonstrated than explained. Perhaps it would be best for anyone who sincerely believes in this scenario to visit the local hardware store and invest a few cents on some cut nails. Hopefully they will already have a hammer.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 4, 2007 11:18:25 GMT -5
I've actually handled and allowed these nails to fit into S-226 so as to map their angles. Some fit, others didn't, and some others fit but obviously very loosely. My argument is that Police, in taking these items back and forth to the attic for pictures and investigation, admitted to hammering nails through these holes in order to put these boards into their proper place. I don't think they used the exact same nails which originally made the holes (if they weren't the ones who made them in the first place). Therefore, I think one could argue the above point. One could also argue this was the act which 'plugged' up the holes since these nails weren't the exact ones....so this explanation could explain away circumstances without incriminating either Gov. Hoffman's men or the NJSP. The chain of custody of both the ladder was a legitimate challenge by the Defense and I often wonder if a fair trial had taken place whether or not this evidence would have been allowed. The same goes for the nails: Anyway, I believe both you and Rab have the best explanation for the true situation of Rail 16. It is both consistent and makes the most sense. It explains why the Police may have engaged in dishonest behavior without accusing them of creating an S-226/Rail 16 connection. Of course I still have a few things I may need to iron out so I don't want to dismiss things based soley upon your theory.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 4, 2007 12:55:27 GMT -5
I guess the main point to me, Michael is that these "theories" are tossed out without regard to reality. Then they take on a life of their own. I wish the original posters of this and other frame- up theories would provide a step by step detailed analysis of that which they propose. Unfortunately they never seem to do just that. I have read some pretty irresponsible postings on other boards which just adds to the general confusion that already exists with this case.
Yes, you can slip cut nails into the holes in rail 16. But just try and hammer those nails home into a piece of wood and see what happens. Then there is the staggered joist situation. So in the end we have another half baked theory with no legs and a lot of spinning wheels. And the saddest part of all of this is that other issues, including those pertaining to rail 16 and s-226, get ignored. It's no wonder to me that after 75yrs we are still in the dark.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 4, 2007 15:17:56 GMT -5
I agree that with what we do know it should be important for someone to outline how this could be done. Prior to the resurrection of Rab's theory via your independent observations I had always believed the best explanation was that S-226 had been added to the floor. I must admit that when Rab first brought this up some years ago that I didn't quite understand it, I didn't know 1/1000000th what I know now, and I foolishly accepted the ignorant rebuttal offered to counter it. I think the biggest error people make, and I have some blame in this too, is that they look at the situation from a black or white perspective. You have people on one side defending the Police at all costs to neutralize their obvious improprieties and/or illegal conduct. On the other side, those who misinterpret this malicious conduct believing it definitely means something very specific occurred without any consideration for other explanations. Let's face it, it was a time of lawlessness. The Police did not want to cross anyone in charge for fear of losing their job. Additionally, their conduct was basically guided by their moral compass. Just about everyone did something - bar none - they probably today would be in serious hot water over. The Lewis/Kelly matter is a perfect example. They sold crime scene photos. Lewis wouldn't "rat out" Kelly so he was laid off (fired) for it. But if it wasn't the Lindbergh case would anyone have cared? Corruption wasn't looked at like it is nowadays. Today, New Jersey is lucky enough to have a guy like Christopher J. Christie going after anyone stupid enough to betray the public's trust. www.spc.edu/pages/719.asp?item=1138This sort of thing just didn't go on back in the '20's & '30s because even the Prosecutor's Office couldn't be trusted. I've been doing some research recently on the Hall-Mills Case because it eventually involved the NJSP. One Trooper (Dickman) was bribed by the Prosecutor to stay out of the case. I've found documentation while researching the Lindbergh Case which shows even high ranking members of the NJSP were bribed during the Hall-Mills case as well. Let's not forget there were those associated with both cases. Anyway, I cannot accept Rail 16 was replaced. My only issue with Rail 16 are contradictions concerning how many nail holes existed in it back in March '32. This is due to Dr. Hudson's recollections, and Capt. Snook's report. I concede "more then likely" there were (4). Now if S-226 was put into the attic it would mean, in my opinion, there were neither holes in it nor in the joist it supposedly rested on originally. That now seems unlikely because of the fact we both saw the joist shadowing on that board. So this would mean it came from another attic or the like and not the basement. Too much for me to swallow......
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 4, 2007 16:44:56 GMT -5
Excellent points Michael. Unfortunately I think the same investigative errors and reporting still go on and on. I think the Ramsey case is a great example of this. Unsubstantiated allegations required to fill the public thirst and narrow minded police investigators create errors which pollute the truth. They also dilute and taint the actual evidence. It would be easy for me to post some of the things we talked about, but I feel it would be totally irresponsible to make any such claims in a public forum until they are investigated fully. Opinions and theories are fine as long as they are presented as such, but making factual claims without diligent analysis and first hand knowledge is just wrong. Ironically it usually ends up defeating the intended purpose as well. If someone wants to tell me and the world that the police whacked some nails through rail 16 in an attempt to frame Hauptmann, fine. I just ask for the integrity to provide some real evidence of such an event. Do the homework.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Mar 5, 2007 2:57:55 GMT -5
I just relayed what is written by attorney and researchers in that field who are better qualified to do just that kind of research. It has be my experience in relating this case to experts and even disinterested others that no one believes the case story or even that the court was not just biased, but untruthfull as well. There was recently a write up in a legal journal over the incredible number of issues against the courts actions and judgment.
To say there is no corruption within the law or court system one must be naive.
I do believe the wood to be false, as I have stated in the past from working with wood in sculpturing grain can be easily matched, and once outer edges are planed there is no way you can definitely say what the origin was, as the planned off end may have had jagged grain or a v shape. The interesting fact is the more planned the more likely it will match another board, and is how we match grain from different boards
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 5, 2007 6:34:17 GMT -5
People are people and there is corruption just about anywhere you find them. I am positive it was much worse back then. I also have a lot of respect for the FBI back then because they always seemed to be doing the right thing in situations where the other Police Agencies were not.
(Just a footnote here while I am thinking about it .... every Police Agency that I have encountered while doing source material research utilized PIs during their investigations. I've seen those who don't know any better insinuate the Govorners use of them was "unholy" etc. Challenge these people when they make claims such as these... Ask for their sources. If you suspect they are simply using a footnoted source and passing it off as if they actually have the document - call them on it. So often things are taken out of context and/or purposely omitted.)
Now Rita, your position that certain people "are better" qualified doesn't sit well with me. I've seen plenty of Attorneys and other Researchers who have been wrong. I've seen two of the exact same standing disagree. I've seen a QDE claim to CONCLUDE Hauptmann wrote the notes without even seeing the originals claiming all he needed was newspaper photos and Haring's book. Ask any QDE if this type of identification is acceptable. I can say with confidence that if someone, anyone, makes a statement that relates to this case I may be able to find something which could call that point into question. Of course that doesn't make them wrong, but shouldn't all circumstances and variables be considered before any solid conclusions and/or declarations be made?
Only if one wants the absolute truth. Sometimes the little details that no one bothered to look at or search for - can reveal much.
I have to disagree with you here Rita about the grain match. Perhaps handling smaller pieces of wood but in this case it's much more complex then that. I know this because I've consulted many real Experts who have been very helpful in my understanding of this evidence. However, I must also add that even today there is no evidence of a conclusive match between S-226 and Rail 16. Most Experts I've consulted believe they match but all said further examination and/or invasive study would be needed to draw a conclusion. (DNA will not work with this evidence) If anyone thinks Keraga's report "proves" it then start a new thread and I will point out his mistakes, and negligence.
However, in light of Kevin's research, this seems to be yet another variable which points to the fact they match. Once you start to get so many its hard to fit into anything other then where it fits - without going abstract.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Mar 5, 2007 7:49:49 GMT -5
Radalet would have been well advised to steer clear of Scaduto, Kennedy and Bryan, when it comes to supportive physical evidence of a non-involved Hauptmann.
In Scapegoat, Scaduto claims that Bornmann sawed a length out of the board that included S-226, laid down Rail 16 in the newly-created space, pushed nails through its already existing holes and then drove them home into the joists in Hauptmann's attic. Apparently Scaduto didn't take the time to think things through here before putting his notion into print. He simply failed to recognize that if Bornmann had have done this, he would have created another set of holes (to go with the ones already there from the board he surreptitiously removed) in the joists, an action would have effectively killed the case against Hauptmann, not to mention his own career in law enforcement.
Unfortunately, Kennedy in his book Airman and the Carpenter, simply repeated Scaduto's fatally flawed theory, which only served to misinform another hundred thousand or so readers and keep the Hauptmann house of cards standing a little while longer.
As for Robert Bryan, I believe he has been relatively silent on the LKC over the past number of years, since receiving Professor Hoadley's visual analysis report on the vital ends of Rail 16 and S-226. Could it be there's not much ammunition there for him to carry on Anna Hauptmann's fight against the State of New Jersey?
Neither Scaduto or Kennedy seem to have had the calling to recant their malicious claims and the myths they have helped to perpetuate continually gather new steam for those pre-disposed towards an innocent Hauptmann. That's only one of the reasons I would recommend against either of these books as a first time read for anyone sincerely interested in seeking the truth in this case.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 5, 2007 9:41:39 GMT -5
I think the real issue here is why so much effort and time is expended on this subject. There are so many real mysteries to this case, mysteries yet to be solved, mysteries not given the research and energy expended on the floorboards. I have no problem with anyone questioning the evidence and conclusions presented in the LKC. But it would be nice if such questions had some basis in fact. Rita, and others, who question the validity of the wood evidence would be better served by conducting a first hand analysis of the subject and presenting the results for all to see and examine. If you claim wood grain is easy to match in all 3 dimensions and the police were capable of substituting boards, then present evidence to that effect. To date I have not seen any such research. All we get is the same old tired allegations. And as for the DNA testing, it just won't happen. That is unless, some of the people who constantly are shouting foul at the floorboard match sit down and actually do some hard work in an effort to show why DNA testing is required. Just saying you don't think the wood matches or citing questionable sources is not good enough. How about this, start by giving a detailedbrief on exactly how the alleged substitution occurred. Step by step, detail this procedure and correlate it with the various photos and reports. Report on every detail this event would have required in order for it to have succeeded. Then present to all of us for critical examination. If it has any legs, I would be the first to sign a petition for further invasive study of the wood.
As for a real challenge on the 75th anniversary of this crime, how about this. Accept that Hauptmann was involved. It doesn't matter to what degree you care to believe. Look at his actions, his friends and acquaintances, anyone whom he was associated. Look for the elusive missing link, that person, or persons , that conceived or enacted the crime or part of, with him. Who had this hold on him?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 5, 2007 19:14:02 GMT -5
As usual I will throw in my 2-cent.
You can't be serious Joe. Consider all the actions that were taken and tell me they were worried about the case getting "killed." As for Bornmann...to suggest he wouldn't engage in such a scheme implies he never lied or back-dated reports in order to hide the true situation of the matter...something we know he did.
It says exactly what I have been saying all along - for a conclusive answer there must be invasive study. The suite was dismissed before this motion was ruled on.
They may still believe it. Additionally, I see nothing malicious about their theory. Claiming they are in error is one thing but I see no evil here whatsoever. Their theory relies on S-226 and Rail 16 definitely not matching. You'd have to believe they did think they matched in order to claim malice.
Let me play devil's advocate here for a moment.... In my opinion Rita has expressed an opinion that she agrees with Scaduto. Since Scaduto has outlined his theory then I don't see much more Rita could do since they appear to be one and the same. Many people who are interested in this case don't live near the Museum so it's not such an easy task to examine the original ladder themselves. The challenge to find grain now that matches is somewhat unfair. We must consider the historical context of the southern yellow pine which existed after the turn of the century.
Let me explain....
At the turn of the Century most old-growth had been depleted from the southern states. The method of harvest was clear-cutting. So what we had by the mid-1920's was young 2nd-growth which grew back. These stands were all about the same age and subjected to the same climatic conditions. Of course there are variables such as hills, shade, streams, and lakes but I am talking generally. Mixing sometimes occurred as well at both the mills and yards but, as an Expert told me, the smaller the mill and yards the lesser of a chance for mixing to occur.
And so my point is that similar grain sequence and sensitivity could (in theory) have been found under the right conditions. A board from the same tree could also yield the same grain without having been the same board.
Now if the odds seem just a little bit too high then consider that history records Koehler "tracing" Rails 12 & 13 to the exact mill by the exact shipment. This came from approx. 2600 board feet. So its my position that if you accept this then you must be open for the other possibility because the odds are probably the same in my opinion.
But of course I do not believe Koehler traced Rails 12 & 13 because his own memos and letters prove that he lied on the stand. I can also come up with arguments as to why S226 and Rail 16 probably do match and/or other arguments to the contrary...but I suppose my point in all of this is that we need to leave no stone unturned and to find the true situation of all things so that we do not need to insert guess-work.
A perfect example of this was when Kevin brushed off attempts to squash his theory and basically went ahead and proved it. If not, many would still believe the nonsensical scenario of Hauptmann going into his attic and cannibalizing the floor-board. Sure it may have hurt some feelings but who cares? We want the truth and it looks very much like we now have a good start.
Actually it probably could, however, DNA is useless in this situation. The wood is too old for DNA testing. Most people aren't aware that during the NJSP review they did do invasive study - that is what is needed and will definitely yield whether or not its a conclusive match.
This is a good challenge although I don't like telling people what to think. The odds are just to high for non-involvement from my perspective. Of course I will always leave the door open and will listen to what anyone has to say.
Sometimes being wrong leads directly to the truth.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 5, 2007 20:39:42 GMT -5
I know where you are coming from. But my challenge does not require a visit to the museum. Just do a line by line analysis of the actions required to make a floorboard switch or plant, taking all factors into account. It's easy enough to just say it was "hoaxed", it's a lot harder to detail all of the required actions. As for the grain matching, yes it was not first growth. Then again neither is yellow pine you will find at the lumberyard today. What makes southern yellow pine so difficult to match to even the casual eye, is it's defects and anomalies. Basically, it's Gnarly stuff, especially the lesser quality boards. It also has distinct resin canals which are quite obvious. So I think it is perfectly fair to say that one can compare the task of matching or hoaxing S-226 and rail 16 by attempting the very same thing today. Go to the local yard and pick a board of yellow pine, then try and match it in all 3 dimensions from any of the other sticks there. Bring some lunch, some supper.........
|
|
|
Post by rita on Mar 6, 2007 0:52:54 GMT -5
When you plane wood edges it can never be fit back to the original. The Scaduto story was flawed perhaps, but there is a simple variation that work, just put original the pulled up board over the planed rail 16 useing as a template and the nail holes will match. I have spent many years in College and university studying everething from physics to electronics to medicine, and realize anything can be argued many different ways. Most evidence examined by Wilentz and prosecutors were only looked at from neccesity of guilt as they were under pressure, but I have seen each error in each arguement most posters have perpetualy made over and over. In fact most popular theories lead away from what is beleivable, and is what increasingly make the case less beleivable. The ransom notes were written by an English person either using phony German sounding words or who may have studied studied university level German, and this was supported by the German translator in the London Embassy.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 6, 2007 6:33:20 GMT -5
Today, I don't think it possible. Why? Because you have lumber coming from all over the world, from huge mills and enormous yards (and now even stores). It's not the same set of facts that existed then. The turn of the century provided a unique historical situation. Then you had clear-cutting and 2nd-growth lumber coming from a specific region growing in stands at specific times.
Your other points I agree with but stands are subjected, generally speaking, to the same conditions will yield similar growth rings.
DeBisschop did this on the stand for the Defense. He provided two pieces which were from different trees and had Koehler identify them as coming from the same tree.
The problem with S-226 and Rail 16 is they appear to perfectly match. One only needs to look at Keraga's pictures in his report for a clear view of this. But while pictures don't seem to be "enough" there are other factors to work through and there are many. On the other side are the lies and illegal conduct of the Police Authorities so we have a motive - but do they have the ability? Again, if you believe the Rail 12 & 13 story Koehler told then perhaps, but as I said he lied so it didn't happen.
My old theory used to be that S-226 had been added to the floor. I based this upon several things that I don't want to go into right now. But since the Klein-Purdy theory has been placed on the table, it fits, and stands up to just about every test. At this point when just about every Expert I have communicated with "thinks" they match but will need invasive study to prove it then it seems to me we may already have an answer to this mystery. But of course until that day of invasive study comes I suppose there's still a chance so if someone has something to offer I will certainly listen.
This is new to me - where is it from? I've got about 75 files on the handwriting and haven't come across this yet. Again, I am 50/50 on Hauptmann penning the notes and 85% he wasn't the person who decided what was to be written.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 6, 2007 7:37:49 GMT -5
Michael, I simply would like anyone who actually believes in the floorboard substitution to do two things. First, detail the exact procedure such a substitution would require and present it for critical examination. Second, try and match two different cut boards to one another in 3 dimensions. If you stay with the domestic woods like yellow pine and pick from one supplier and one bin it should be fair. See just how difficult this task is. Far more easier to just say it, than to do. If Kelvin Keraga could spend the time and effort to create a report showing a match, I simply don't see why those who believe the opposite can't do the same. Then we could compare the two, or more reports and have a real debate. Of course no one will do it. But that won't stop the assertions and wild claims. Unfortunately Hauptmann's defense is no better now than it was during the trial. And as for the actual crime and it's mystery, that gets a backseat to all of this. Too much time and energy with nonsense, especially the emotionally driven kind which usually results only in antagonism.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 6, 2007 20:33:16 GMT -5
No sense beating a dead horse but today I really believe the odds would be much higher because the circumstances are much different. Anyway, if you give me 15 to 20 years I will guarentee that I could have two boards with the exact same grain from two different trees. ;D
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 6, 2007 21:38:12 GMT -5
I will be generous and give you 30 yrs I really do think that concentrating on the idea of a potential board substitution by the police has been detrimental to the cause of further understanding of the LKC mystery. For example, there are at least three, and possibly more, aspects regarding S-226 and rail 16 that I have not seen reported or investigated. Put together, these clues can help explain just how rail 16 may have ended up in that ladder.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Mar 7, 2007 2:08:20 GMT -5
Not trying to create confusion just reported on a book written by Radalet who wrote a study in 1985 on wrongly executed also where he gained his Lindbergh case information. On interesting item he brought up is that Wilentz used an unauthorized picture of rail comparison that means no one signed for it being backed by expert opinion. If that is true it creates another issue with Wilentz prosecution.
I am not home now staying in a hotel till snow passes, so can't find the source on the ransom translation direction, but had to come from last three books read by Theon Wright, Gardner, or Berg.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Mar 9, 2007 1:29:16 GMT -5
I noticed this same use of "boad" mistake police police and Wilentz used repeatedly earning them a three star dunce cap from the world of education. During my time in the University I studied German and used the digital programing style that has English speakers practice common words from English into German pronunciation using their dialect structure, and the word "boat" would be pronounced "boot" with a "D" ending sound.
From Theon Wright's Book, In Search of the Lindbergh Baby pg. 159 "Theo Bernsen, a European writer covering the Hauptmann Case, told Anthony Scaduto he had discussed the matter of Hauptmann's writing with an expert on translating English and German writing attached to the German Embassy in London. He showed his enlarged photographs, presumably the kidnap notes, and was told these were not written by a German who had been taught English, but by a man who thinks in English and is trying to write Germanic." "The grammatical errors show it clearly, the attempt to make a Germanic construction by a man who thinks in English. He particularly stressed the word "boad" which Osborn and others claimed was German. In German it is written with a "t"--boot--and is not possible a German just learning English would make that mistake."
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 9, 2007 19:53:55 GMT -5
Rita, I took up the word "boad" in the handwriting thread due to your post....
|
|
|
Post by rita on Mar 9, 2007 23:30:58 GMT -5
That is interesting the prosecution claimed Hauptmann wrote boad once in his wrtiings, and wonder why someone writing correct German most of his life would write boad once? Wilentz realized that such an extreme, a possible plant would be viewed negatively by the jury.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Mar 10, 2007 13:36:43 GMT -5
THE KIDNAPPING PLANNED A YEAR IN ADVANCE::::::
Undoubtedly to claim Hauptmann had no part in this crime is really hard to do with obvious reasons. My evaluation that Hauptmann planned this event a year in advance and discovered this particular evening when Lindbergh was at the alumni dinner is really hard to comprehend. Such a decision would require daily intricate information that I am not sure such an individual could do. Mix in the high probability to report into work earlier in the day and then proceed with this long planned moment would just be unbelievable. Mix in the timing, the chosen entry, and many other things clearly hints planning above the essentials Hauptmann would possess.
I believe Scadutto and Jones were on the right track with the exception that they wanted to claim Hauptmann innocent. Yes they had tons of things questionable and wrong but you have to sort through this and see that there are important things they do bring up. With my study of the case I've taken in my notes so many contradictions of testimony and quotes there is a habit to ignore perhaps something very important. I've tried to follow in line where the smoke is. Jones and Behn both believe Wendel and Fisch knew each other prior to the kidnapping. I have to read Reisinger's book again. There are some important things missing in his account that Jones' mentions that led to Parker's suspicion of Wendel prior to the discovery the baby. Such a combination of Wendel and Fisch and be able to prove it in my mind would be breakthrough stuff.
|
|