jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 27, 2008 9:10:09 GMT -5
I have always felt that Betty drugged the child when she gave him the medicine - possibly why he didn't like the taste of it - then, soon after, remember she went into the bathroom next to her room to clean up his clothing, and possibly to destroy evidence. The prints inside the nursery weren't totally cleaned up, but enough so that normal fingerprinting didn't catch them. Wiping the surfaces might have been the insider's convoluted thinking to show that it was an outsider job. The note on the sill seems to indicate more of an insider than an outsider. An outsider would probably flip the note in the crib (getting that part of the task done) then pull the baby and scoot. With the insider it would be a handoff, baby for the note and some dirt for the floor. Insider leaves note on sill to get dirt with two hands (remember the dirt on blankets inside the crib?), then insider goes kinda frantic ("My God, this has happened!") and does normal maid stuff after sprinkling dirt - wipes surfaces, straightens crib and nursery. Great word Kevkon - muntin!
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 27, 2008 14:30:25 GMT -5
If there was inside help I still remain to eye Whately . He seems to have had the most free wheel and less accountability. In Demaris' account (Lindbergh Kidnapping case)Charles mentions to Anne he was going to tell Oliver to secure all the windows of the house because of the storm. Any question why he was where would be easily explained if spotted by this task. #2. THE THUMGUARD mystery ...only one of the 5 went out the front entrance between the kidnapping and the police arrival.
I do place myself in the inside cover up side but it sets up the quandary how this individual could be tied to such a criminal. The motive and gain is missing. Maybe the answer lies not in the thread of the crime as we understand it. Then again maybe Kelly screwed up the results and best explained it by inferring they were wiped down.
The kidnapper had to come with some pre-knowledge. Even if the kidnapper had some kind of construction blueprint it certainly does not answer how to choose the only Tuesday night the baby was at Hopewell.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on May 27, 2008 14:36:21 GMT -5
Hi Michael Chloroform or ether onto a gloved hand during the crime. Would the residue of either have been the solvent for a wipe-down? If so,=simple-dextrous-quick. (Am still having eye difficulty and can't do much in the way of a google search about such)
Whately says insider help. We've all heard of a criminal at the crime scene stepping forth to "help". Could this be akin to "hiding in plain view"? I can't quite give Ollie a pass, yet.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on May 27, 2008 15:37:24 GMT -5
Hi Gary And Whately knowing early on that the baby would be there on that Tues night. I wonder if the early arrival of suspicious car(s) somehow connected up with that -11th hour haste to get there.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 27, 2008 15:42:08 GMT -5
But why Jack? Do you really read the evidence in this manner? Why straighten up anything? After all one would expect a certain amount of disruption, wouldn't you?
Does it? I'm not sure. What if the note wasn't with the intruder initially? Why would an insider place the note on the sill? Is it to draw attention to the window? Then why close it? Why leave a note anyway? As an insider among such a small group, wouldn't you prefer an outside form of communication? How does all of this inside/outside activity get coordinated? How could the insider be confident of being able to meet the outsider without someone interfering? I think it's far easier said than done.
That's an awkward window for a hand out. Why? If you want it to appear to be the work of an outsider, why not pick one of the other two and break the shutter latch? How do you handle the mud without making a mess? I guess it's possible, but isn't this a force on the evidence?
That's where I'm at Gary.
How does anyone know this was a singular attempt? Who knows how many other visits were made? We can't assume it was a home run on the first pitch if we weren't watching the whole inning.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 27, 2008 19:03:18 GMT -5
For Kevkon: The reason to straighten up is because that is a maid's mentality. Probably in the case of Lindbergh she (Betty) and possibly Anne too with the child sick would do a lot of surface wiping (it is part of a maid or a nurse aid's duty) and so the room would be pretty absolved of prints anyway. I agree with you and understand about solvents, but simply wiping the oil based prints would smear the Vics prints enough to make them conform to Kelly's limited deduction, which was no prints. The real key is the note on the sill because that affirms what I said earlier about flow. The outsider leaves the note on the sill and the insider never touches the note, just accepts the dirt and leaves dirt in the crib when they straighten it. This way there is no question about the flow of the crime, while if you're considering someone climbing in the window, there are plenty of problems as you and many others have stated, including mostly, noise.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 28, 2008 6:09:19 GMT -5
Jack, I am not sure Betty as a nurse maid would have a "cleaning maid mentality". Regardless, if you believe her to be involved then follow the money! Where is it? Where is Betty's compensation for such a perilous task? How does Betty gain from assisting in the murder of a child she has practically raised? Where is the compensation for any of the other staff? I already know what is coming. Since there is no evidence of any such compensation worthy of such a crime, then some other form of compensation or motive must be created. If you don't create it then the the whole theory falls apart. So this is where the real creative process is exhibited; romance, espionage, vengeance, these are just a few of the candidates. What's your candidate for Betty's motive and compensation, Jack?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 28, 2008 8:38:10 GMT -5
I know this wasn't directed to me but one question I have is why it has to be compensation in the form of money?
I hate getting into "what ifs" but in order to answer the question posed above that has to happen. There are, in my opinion, many differing scenarios which could exist that explain the "money" situation.
For example, what if there was an elaborate "prank" which was supposed to take place. Betty is in on the joke as are a few outsiders brought in. Lindbergh is supposed to run outside then return with the child. He runs outside, and upon returning to the Nursery sees the plan has now changed.
I am not saying that's what happened but I see the possibility in it considering Lindbergh did something like this once before.
I've also believed, and I still do, there was an amount of money which was given out upfront. Furthermore, its possible the $50 large asked for was originally part of a ruse but was never intended to be collected.
I don't know where Rick has been but I know one of his favorite series was that written by Inspector Walsh. I believe his position was that a woman would be involved for love or some other type of emotion. He also believed this would ultimately lead to the betrayal and eventual solution to the case.
Anyway, I suppose my point is that while the direct evidence is the $50K, it doesn't eliminate everyone else who was involved because we can't show they are at one time in possession of part of it.
It's like the handwriting evidence.... If it didn't match a Suspect they eliminated them. I still don't understand that since everyone involved in the investigation believed there were multiple Criminal elements existing in this crime. Wilson even testified to this at the Curtis Trial. Then comes the "J.J. Faulkner" deposit slip and they have everyone penning this out too. It didn't match the handwriting on the ransom notes and it is directly tied into the deposit of $2980 of the ransom money.
And everyone agrees it wasn't in Hauptmann's handwriting.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 28, 2008 8:49:57 GMT -5
Good question. Everyone eliminates these because no one notes the smell in the room. As to their cleaning worth - I have no idea...I've never seen chloroform in my life and the only time I used ether was to spray start my '92 Honda.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 28, 2008 10:39:32 GMT -5
According to Theon Wright, the J.J. Faulkner handwriting was "similar," per: Osborn, to Carl O. Geissler. Recall that Geissler was married to Jane Faulkner formerly of the address listed on the Faulkner payout slip. This was from Finn's detective work and he did much more(according to Wright), eventually tracking relatives of Geissler/Jane Faulkner to Ralph Hacker (altouugh Gardiner says this is not so - also unsourced), Condon's son-in-law. Bang - this investigation stopped when Hauptmann was arrested, but not before another relative, Henry Liepold, committed suicide after police interest in him - similar to Violet's suicide. My edition of Wright is not footnoted for sources or indexed (perhaps all editions weren't), but Wright was around as a newspaperman at the time of the crime and wrote much about it, so I'd guess he got it from somewhere and Scaduto who used it too may have sourced it - I havn't checked. Some of Wright's conclusions are certainly very "iffy," but he brings in lots of "facts", and it's worth reading. It seems that having a Jane Faulkner at the J.J. Faulkner address is very certainly more than a coincidence, and would be worth looking into even today. Except for the bad bill from Richard's pocket, and Rail 16, it is the most substantial lead in the case. Jim Fisher discounts most of the above as creating more questions than answers.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 28, 2008 16:05:09 GMT -5
It certainly doesn't, but usually one expects to see something of a material nature. Anyone on the inside who assisted is no longer an asset once the crime is complete, they then become a major liability. And what criminal is going to be satisfied with a promise of silence? Bottom line, show something that would motivate any of the Lindbergh staff to become party to murder. Show how their silence was accomplished. Everyone was looking and nothing was found. It would have been, simply because those types of relationships leave a lot of trails. Speaking of which, how does anyone connect any of that household with Hauptmann? Even being extremely generous here, how do you connect them to his attic floor and his tools? I have always been puzzled by the way in which the timing of the crime is interpreted as an indicator for an inside accomplice. Why? A kidnap, especially of an infant, requires a certain amount of preparation. A last minute call for the crime just doesn't make sense in this context. Nor does it bode well for the insider, who would almost certainly prefer the timing to be more in line with the normal routine. And that routine, in this case, was going to keep occurring. So what's the hurry?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on May 28, 2008 18:46:34 GMT -5
I miss Rick's input and Dena's, too. Guess life has it's way of getting busy, but hope they'll be back on board, soon.
Found a brief ref as to ether being both an anesthetic and a solvent. (Wikipedia) Had seen through reading that it's use was dismissed-that Betty said she hadn't smelled it. I don't know how long the oder would be there, but was considering the French window being partially open throughout, then the kidnap window open for however long (cross current), the windy night and all. Oh well, just a thought
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 29, 2008 16:12:07 GMT -5
As always its a good observation Mairi. I don't know how long it would linger but Betty was the first to discover the child "missing" so its yet another statement of significance.
And I think Jack's suggestion is also a good one. Perhaps the child was "drugged" and I have in the past suggested the dog may have been too. I got the idea because of another different kidnapping (attempt) in which a former employee drugged the family dog prior to attempting the kidnap.
Going back to motive without involving monetary compensation. There also is the possibility of Loyalty. If One believes they owe someone something or simply because they respect that person to the Nth degree. Look at Benedict Arnold, for example, the man flipped on his country for the love of his wife.
I just don't know about "nothing".... I think we have possibilities all over the place its just that nothing was developed. If say the lie detector was used on the Staff perhaps more would have been....but of course Lindbergh forbid its use. There's alot of this stuff that went on due to Lindy's meddling and "take over" of the investigation.
Depends on who you believe I suppose. Additionally, they really didn't want this connection after the trial began and there was so very little time to find out before that trial. They did pursue a link between Hauptmann & Sharp, something they obviously believed a possibility. But again, they ran out of time and abandoned the effort.
I wouldn't think anyone would have to be connected to that attic floor in order to be involved - do you? I assume each party had a role in one way or another and I can't imagine they all did the same things in order to effectuate the crime. Some may not have ever known each other.
Doesn't this apply to anyone involved? Why wasn't Condon whacked? He certainly believed he was about to be.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 29, 2008 19:16:59 GMT -5
But that still leaves nothing. Why, after all of these years and research has nothing developed? Where are the traces of money, relationships, or whatever else that would suffice to tie Betty ( or anyone else in that house) to this crime?
Of course not.
Even if it's a crime like The Thomas Crown Affair, there are still connections and there's always a weak link.
Did he? Why selectively take him seriously? The fact that he died of old age is more than enough proof that, despite his eccentricity, he was never a threat to anyone. No one involved in a criminal enterprise with this guy would ever rest easy until he was completely eliminated as a threat.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 30, 2008 1:27:38 GMT -5
Excellent point Mairi because there were open windows, and also a lot of stress at that moment and the origional officers were probably very traumitized by Lindbergh's presence, and didn't notice much of anything. I agree with Kevkon on Condon's fears. If he was really afraid he could have bailed or moved in with his daughter or serupticiously changed residences (he was a realtor) and in fact he and Charles supposedly opened the last note on the steps of one of his vacant houses. Condon is the perfect red herring, Kevkon and Michael, he will lead only to good old All-American Condon. For Michael - you know of course that the actual watch dog for CALIII was at the Morrows that weekend, at Charles discretion?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 30, 2008 1:45:05 GMT -5
Regarding your earlier post on here, Michael, I have always felt that Hauptmann was paid up front for his part in the crime (whatever that was - very likely substantial), of course in good money. That's why he could quit his job, become a speculator, etc. When he ran out of that money, and records show that he did, he dipped into his share of the bad money and, of course had no experience in how to pass it. My post was on the LKH site quite a while ago, and as usual on there drew absolutely no attention although I think somebody called me a Communist for posting it. Very nice to see that thought process - and who knows? Might be correct.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 30, 2008 5:58:32 GMT -5
While I am not saying you are wrong, I think this argument can apply to just about anyone. In fact, I think it could be said about Hauptmann. Even if the ransom notes, and ladder are directly tied to him how does all the knowledge and preparation tie in to him? The how/why/where's are unanswered. Even after his arrest, the investigations, and all the years of research. They even had to basically ignore & make some things up in order to prove their theory to the Jury.
Your ladder observations are another perfect example. What if you never came along with them? Would that then mean these facts you have exposed never existed?
See my point here?
Most of the time, I agree, but maybe sometimes there isn't or something else happened... like maybe that link did die or say - moved to Germany - or they believed their life and/or family's lives were more important?
Because he had moments of clarity. And that's why I believe he wasn't nutz, or "losin it." He sobered up real quick when he was painted into a corner.
Sometimes hired hands are paid a sum up front and the rest to be paid upon completion. The records show one thing but his actions and paying for things say another. He had money, in my opinion, that aren't recorded in the records. He planned on returning from his "vacation" and did so, not with hat in hand but paying for his furniture storage, a temporary residence, and eventually a more expensive apartment. He shouldn't have had the money to do this but he did.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 30, 2008 6:56:55 GMT -5
Yes, but even Hauptmann had undeniable traces to the crime. His new found wealth, radical change in work, ransom money, etc. If Betty or another in the Highfields staff were involved something of this nature would be apparent. It wasn't and hasn't. If I truly believed one of them were, I'd do an exhaustive study of their post kidnap finances and lifestyle. If they had anything to do with it, something would show up. As for Condon, as I said, if he was actually fearful for his safety his actions would show this. They didn't. And no harm came to him. That just wouldn't be the case had he actually been involved with the crime. In the end, he is just being Condon, embellishing his actions and heightening the drama of his involvement. Regarding the pre-payment theory, perhaps. But then again, Hauptmann may also have been enjoying the fruits of some other endeavor which we know nothing of. It's just like the assumption that the night of the kidnapping was the one and only attempt. it may be an erroneous assumption.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 30, 2008 14:30:11 GMT -5
For Kevkon: This is getting a ways off Betty, but since Hauptmann keeps popping up, I thought I'd throw it out. Are you familiar with the work of Dr. David Abrahamsen, M.D., F.A.C.Pn., etc.? He was a forensic scientist and psychiatrist who studied murderers includiog being directly involved with Leopold-Loeb, and many others, though mostly serial killers. For some reason he shied from the Lindbergh Case (?) perhaps we understand. Richard Hauptmann does not fit the profile of a murderer and that's a big part of why he's been so defended. On the other hand, he does fit - very nicely in fact - the profile of a kidnapper and habitual criminal. This really isn't even an arguable point - he certainly could have done it. Bottom line here is that Abrahamsen's studies show that under the correct circumstances ANYONE can murder. That's quite important. Couple that with the psychological "Goal Blockage Theory" which really isn't a theory anymore, but that's it's name, and you have why CALIII was killed. The kidnappers, for their own unknowntous reasons, saw the baby as too much of an obstacle to unfettered scooting, and that was the end of him. Abrahamsen wrote over fifteen books and was an expert witness in the imaginary trial of Lee Harvey Oswald, and the trials of Leopold & Loeb, and David Berkowitz. By the way Abrahamsen was the psychiatrist who determined that Berkowitz was sane, and his status overrided two other psychiatrists who said he was not. If it wasn't for Abrahamsen the Son of Sam would have walked - even after freely admitting his many murders.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 30, 2008 15:39:58 GMT -5
Jack, could you explain this? What personality characteristics of Hauptmann fit the profile of a kidnapper? I am not familiar with Dr Abrahamsen's view of him. I know this is getting off the thread, but I just don't see BRH as a kidnapper. Murder, possibly. I think he would do what it takes.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 30, 2008 23:36:05 GMT -5
Hey Kevkon. Felony crime is divided roughly into two areas, violent and non-violent. Examples are grand theft though it could be a major crime, is still a non- violent crime, while spitting on a police officer, while trivial (except to the officer), is considered a very violent crime. Hauptmann had been convicted in Germany of violent (armed robbery) and quite a few non-violent crimes. Once a criminal has committed a violent crime, he is considered (and it is very strongly backed up by statistics) that he has the potential for any violent crime. Kidnapping, of course is a violent crime, and no matter how much his defenders want to downplay it, Hauptmann was an armed robber, a violent criminal. Interestingly, if Richard's German crimes would have been committed in the U.S.A., and he would have been convicted of the extortion charge, or the hoarding charge (which he absolutely was guilty of) he would have been considered a habitual criminal and gotten life. You say "murder possibly," but not kidnapping for his potential? Hmm. But I agree - he definately would do what it takes. Salud' Jack
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 31, 2008 8:35:48 GMT -5
The totality of the (real) evidence seems to point to involvement whether it be directly or indirectly. By the same token, it also points to involvement by (an)other (yet unknown) person(s).
I don't agree. I believe it was apparent there was an insider involved.
Again, I am not so sure the benefit was money. If we're talking "lifestyle" then I believe many Staffers/Residents between Highfields and Next Day Hill were of questionable character who could have been involved. Roadhouses, Speak Easies, Strange Men, Selling Stories to Newspapers, Suicide, Alcoholics, Larceny, Mental Institutions, etc. etc. The Lie Detector might have really helped out here.
But he did show it. He also received threats from the Police, letters, and probably in ways we aren't aware. He was crystal clear about this when he spoke to Agent Turrou.
It was much more then that. His embellishments were road-blocks to the Investigation at times, and at others meant to mis-direct them completely. It wasn't just random acts meant to make him look good.
Certainly could have been but it also shows why all the financial info the Authorities came up with could be in error despite the missing $10,000 Rab says is unaccounted for.
But the question becomes was it really a violent crime? Hauptmann wasn't wielding the gun and according to him it was unloaded. Additionally, no one was hurt. Had someone been during any of these crimes I would agree but in reality no one was and the intent doesn't appear to have been to harm anyone.
I can't agree that Hauptmann was a violent criminal. I would agree if he had fired his weapon at someone, stabbed, and/or violently assaulted someone the odds are he might do it again. We don't have anything like that here. The opportunity existed but he didn't do it. That, for me, says just the opposite.
Its like a guy who robs a bank with a note versus a load weapon. Although the Teller has no idea when a note is produced the criminal isn't serious, he is never really in any danger. And while that's considered a "violent offense" I hesitate to say the guy with the note might kidnap and murder a baby, but the guy who came with the gun ready to shoot if they didn't do as instructed probably would.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 31, 2008 13:04:28 GMT -5
Yes, though my point is that there are traces. His actions left a trail as all human endeavors do.
I respect your belief. It's one many share and has valid reasons behind it. Nevertheless, it has no evidence to support it. That's my point. It may seem plausible, maybe even likely, but there isn't any proof of it.
I'm not stuck on the money angle, problem is there isn't any evidence of any type of compensation and only conjecture as to motive. No one is going to be party to this crime and not exhibit, in some fashion, evidence of said involvement. At some point that will become evident to anyone looking for it, and many have looked for it.
How did he respond? Did he run and hide? Did he seek constant protection? Was an actual attempt made on his life? All you have are Condon's claims which , given his history, don't add up to very much. Would he write a book on the whole affair if he was so threatened?
That's somewhat subjective. Who knows what made him tick? The fact that his claims acted as roadblocks may be true, but that may not have been the intention.
Jack, what I was looking for was the reason for Hauptmann fitting the profile of a kidnapper. I mean what specific personality traits and environmental conditions indicate that Hauptmann fit the profile of a kidnapper? Why does a person with a known and documented history of being opportunistic suddenly take on a type of crime which , by it's very nature, requires long range planning and execution? Why would a man living with his wife in a 2nd floor apartment consider a crime that requires holding and caring for an infant hostage and participating in lengthy negotiations?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 31, 2008 14:10:47 GMT -5
This is a good discussion we've got going on here....
Do they really? What if the actions which much more limited? For example, there were no pens which matched the pens used to write those notes found in Hauptmann's possession. He didn't have the inks in his desk either. They couldn't find the "hole-maker" in his possession. There were certain tools needed to build that Ladder which Hauptmann did not have. The ransom box was never found... etc. etc.
And so I suppose my point is that if his role were to require possession of just one of these items he wouldn't have been connected up.
Circumstantial evidence doesn't always prove something but it can be a strong indicator. In this case I believe its irresistible. Even IF the crime wasn't originally supposed to be what it turned out to be.
While I see your point I am not sure I agree. What if someone was involved for psychological reasons? For example, one theory has Morrow Jr. involved for either his hatred of CAL or his disappointment in not being included in the Will. Some of us may indeed accept there is evidence that he did hate CAL.
I think we'd be surprised to find out what the motives were if we had discovered a real Confederate in addition to Hauptmann.
Another example is Fisch. Hauptmann did name him. Does anything show his involvement? Possibly. Problem is this guy was knee-deep in criminal activity AND had a lot of "spin" going on. So was he involved or wasn't he? Can anyone say for sure he wasn't?
What about Violet Sharp? Did she "off" herself - just because? If not what's the evidence show which could indicate the reason? If we don't know why isn't the evidence there that should show us it? Where is it?
He claimed he would be killed. Remember, he was forced into this identification with the threat of arrest. Next, he travels to Florida looking for the kidnappers - make any sense? What's he doing? I believe it directly relates to this. Later, he flees Gov. Hoffman's efforts by taking off to Panama! He then flees Panama because of Dutch's arrival there.
Now as to his identification of Hauptmann. Hauptmann was not going to tell - that's obvious. Next, if Condon lives through the testimony, and Hauptmann is going to the chair with his mouth closed - it wouldn't make sense to kill Condon. Hauptmann's death then ends it all. What exactly does Condon's book do which hasn't already been done up to that point?
I have always believed there was communication with Condon outside of the ransom notes. Of course its just a theory.
Just my position based upon the research I've done. His identification of Hauptmann proves this to me because he was doing his best not to do this. That's a major road-block if it was Hauptmann. Then to say it was after saying it wasn't. As I said before, he would incorporate things he heard Police say into his stories in order to make them more believable. There again, is a mis-direction done on purpose. You either know something or you don't. Trying to build a story into something more believable is an act employed by Criminals.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 31, 2008 16:16:53 GMT -5
Kevkon! And Michael - right, nice discussion. But we're kinda far off Betty which in reality was perhaps a good way to stay. Regarding TLC nobody saw anybody kidnap anybody, and there are those that even say it never happened, although Rail 16 should (but it never will) silence them, so we're left with just speculation. Unfortunately that includes the opinions of psychiatrists and profilers (a way to get a great job without going to college) which I only halfheartedly believe in. Hauptmann could have done the crime by physical and psycholigical evidence. How many others could have done the crime though, remembering he was caught with some of the money? At that time, as now, a fraction of a percent of the population fit that violent crime profile, and then, as now, that small percentage was 60% black and about 20% other nationalities, though that part (other nationalities) of the equation has grown since then. Statistically, Hauptmann could have easily been the only one in the Bronx that fits that profile, in fact he might have , statistically, been one of only two in all of New York. Again, I don't accept this profile/psychiatrist analysis jabberwalk, but what else is there? After eighty years of scrutinization do you think there might be something missing? Regarding Michael's comments, if you and I walk into a bank with intent to rob it, even if you are unarmed, you are guilty of armed robbery, and if I bump a guard or a teller, you are guilty of felony first degree murder, even though that was not your intent. The law is very specific in not looking at the rights of the criminal regarding intent (in spite about what people constantly whine about on Court TV) but looks (the law does) at the situation of the person harmed.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 31, 2008 16:41:49 GMT -5
Two things here. One, had the arrest occurred much sooner those items may very well have been found with Hauptmann. The second, and perhaps more important, even after 2 1/2 years there was still a good deal of physical evidence and activity by Hauptmann evident which connected him to the crime. Had another 2 1/2 years gone by, there would probably still be evidence to be found. Now looking at the Lindbergh household staff, what evidence of any nature was found ?
So what if they have psychological reasons? There might be motive, but what traces of their participation are evident? I know I keep saying this but the more involved, the more traces of actions are going to be evident. When you start including big fish ( no pun intended) like Morrow or Lindbergh, then you have to start increasing the number of those involved. How would they interact with a Hauptmann, a Fisch, or a Condon? There would have to be intermediaries. That's just that much more traces and trails left. Theories are all fine and well, but if they don't incorporate the realities of human actions then they ultimately collapse under their own weight. For all of the people that must be involved or at least be complicit in order for a conspiracy to work it becomes a sure bet that at least some of their actions and interactions will come to light. To date, there is no tangible evidence of that. On the other hand, a crime involving only one or two individuals might not leave such a large footprint and thus may remain undiscovered, particularly if one or both are dead. This is why I cannot accept an insider at work at Highfields. It's not that I don't think any of them capable, I don't know them well enough to say one way or another. But I do know that Hauptmann is involved deeply and that no direct connection to him with those insiders is present. Nor would it be likely. That means more participants and that just makes that many more footprints to discover and follow. And there certainly were enough people looking for them.
I can't agree here. If Condon is in anyway involved, he's a liability regardless of what Hauptmann does or doesn't do. And with his boastful ways and advancing senility, that makes him a serious liability. As for the book, can you imagine what that would mean to other gang members upon hearing of his intention? It wouldn't be a smart move on Condon's part unless he was in the witness protection program.
Just don't say that to Hillary Clinton! ( Damn, I may have just made your point!)
Jack, I am really interested in hearing what made Dr Abrahamsen feel Hauptmann fit the profile of a kidnapper.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 31, 2008 16:43:34 GMT -5
Also for Michael, if you pass a note to a teller that says for example,"Give me the money." armed robbery is assumed and you get Federal Armed Robbery whether they give you the money or not. Federal means no good time so if you get twenty you do twenty. If you show a gun they will tack on felony posession even though you weren't a felon at the time, you become a felon when you commensurate the crime, and that's another twenty federal or ten if you're a nice person. I guess the philosophy here is to not hang with bank robbers or kidnappers - probably wise. There have been three cases of people who claimed they weren't aware of a crime being committed who drove a second party to a kidnap site, and a kidnap happened. Now I don't see how you could be driving someone around and that person comes back on board with a screaming individual, but in one case they got away with it - two were sentenced for kidnapping - which isn't really life or death - seems to me they did five.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 31, 2008 17:09:47 GMT -5
For Kevkon: As far as I know Dr. Abrahamsen never analyzed Richard Hauptmann, I could be wrong on that - I don't particularly have time for this stuff (of which a lot of stuff turns to junk) but what interested me about it was that he looked at Leopold-Loeb (he actually met Leopold {maybe Loeb too, I don't recall} - says he/they were erie ) . I brought Abrahamsen up because he was an analyzer at the time of the crime, but for some reason it seems he (to my knowledge) never looked at Lindbergh. Leopold-Loeb was before Lindbergh, and Berkowitz was after - so why not fill in. I didn't want get into this but you're (not badly) bringing it up. For one thing these guys (accredited psychiatrists) are really interested in sexual junk (Abrahamsen very included) and Leopold-Loeb were, though you perhaps don't know, faggots. So the crime against the little boy was far more that just an attempt at a perfect crime which the newspapers of the time led people to believe, it was also a homosexual bash. That doesn't have much to do with Betty Gow, but it does tell you that if you look into Abrahamsen you'll find some very unusual things about people you thought were straight.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 31, 2008 17:16:55 GMT -5
For Kevkon: Just noticed that post - Hillary is here in SD - Lookin pretty cute. Go for her Kev - who cares if she's 30 million in debt - hey she can make it up in Amway in a couple weeks, and Bill probably wouldn't care! Salud" buddy, Jack
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 31, 2008 17:40:27 GMT -5
Real quick...
Jack,
I was simply making a common-sense point concerning what Hauptmann did in Germany vs. what happened here and why I didn't think one translated into the other. I know the Bank Robbery by either method is considered a violent offense because of the "fear" of injury that exists by those in the Bank. My point being intent of the one who brings the note vs. the one who brings the gun. To take it a step further maybe a fake gun or one that's unloaded. I see those who do this consider their victim's lives as worth something.
Not exactly. I know we're going off on a tangent but it would be Federal Offense, however, there is "good time" of up to 54 days a year. I think what you mean is Parole because that no longer exists for Federal Offenders unless they are still serving time under the "old law."
|
|