jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 31, 2008 18:02:09 GMT -5
For Michael: Yes, parole - what else is there? You ABSOLUTELY never have to make excuses to me Michael, things are brought up on here, and some of us limitedly discuss them, but your word is fast. I hope you continue to correct me on my errors which I'm sure are many. If I seem to be contradicting you (which I don't really recall doing, I was just adding information) it is certainly unintentional. I have certainly supported you always because I really believe in you and that is corrtect here and on the other board. Salud' Jack Video: Michael and Jack shake hands Video: Michael says, "seems i lost my wallet." Video: Jack's midget friend scooting
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 31, 2008 18:11:11 GMT -5
A note to Michael - there is no good time Federal.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 31, 2008 19:34:32 GMT -5
I was just trying to clear up my position Jack...certainly not an excuse or otherwise. And of course I make mistakes too. However, on the good time issue I am quite positive. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 abolished Federal Parole for those sentenced under those guidelines. It also reduced good time amount to 54 days a year. Go to page 88 on this .pdf document which is 1-40 Section G Good Conduct Time: www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5880_028.pdfAnd if you have the time here is the Sentence Computation Manuel: www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5880_030.pdf
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 31, 2008 19:58:42 GMT -5
For Michael: Then, as usual, you are correct. Wha'd I say earlier? Seriously, and sorry to make the earlier jokes about you and Kevkon, it seems we have good discussions but just a few people. I try to liven things up, though it doesn't seem to be working - even you and Kevkon don't think I'm funny - Hi Kev - but I guess I still have my own way of mixing things and hope that's OK on this board. Again, as I said when I first came on here, I'm very very impressed, and Dave just made a comment the other day that you had more information that NJSP, and that's exactly what he said, and he certainly knows, and I can see it too. Is cool Dave or I or Joe have never said anything against you, and as I commented earlier, though you may have missed it, I wish you'd regulate Ronelle's board, although it seems to do OK by itself, but could use some new blood, and is this a long enough sentence for you to examine because a longer one would be kinda harried, although there might be so much more to say. Salud' Jack
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 31, 2008 20:25:03 GMT -5
Of course I think your funny Jack. Sometimes levity is a good thing in such an old and tired case. Honestly though, I sometimes think a few other posters are a bit funnier, though I know they have no intention of being so!
Regarding Hauptmann's criminal acts, I think the salient point is not the nature of the specific crime committed but rather the method or modus operandi. The guy is long on bravado, but a little short on planning. Then again, he may not be playing with a full deck of cards.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 31, 2008 22:59:01 GMT -5
I believe you're right Michael. I was thinking of a guy who I believed was doing Federal Time here (near me) in Wyoming, but I think it must have been State. Was murder and he got no good time. I thought it was a Federal crime if you were on an Interstate Highway, but must be State regulation. For Kevkon - I'm not sure how one modus operandi would differ from anothher. Did you read that book about talking in riddles? - perhaps you wrote it. Hauptmann certainly wasn't a very succesfull criminal in Germany, but that doesn't mean that he hadn't learned some lessons. Like you said earlier it's probable that he was relying on some unknown source of income. Even when they were both working, when his investments are factored in they were living beyond their means. As Michael mentioned, he should have come back from the vacation broke - but still spent quite a bit of money right away. I don't like to push my theory here because others have views that are certainly worth listening too, but if Hauptmann was initially paid off in good money, it would answer a lot of questions. Hauptmann quite possibly just got into a very bad scam - and once you're in there's no way out. In a big way my heart goes out to Anna and Manfred. I think there's a good chance that Anna knew what was going on and that's why the money was kept in the garage, but still she and their son must have gone through a real junk life. Strike that - no sappy here.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 1, 2008 7:35:28 GMT -5
Modus Operandi NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. mo·di operandi (md, -d) abbr. MO 1. A method of operating or functioning. 2. A person's manner of working.
What's to be unsure about , Jack? No riddles. Do you see Hauptmann's MO? Is it one that exhibits extensive planning and coordination? Is this the nature of the beast? Look, I don't pretend to be an expert on Hauptmann( or anyone else in this case). But I have a certain affinity regarding him. I have built what he created, handled his tools, we share a common background, and a few other things. Bottom line, I understand and know him in part. The guy is a very good improviser. He makes do with what is available and he takes advantage of the situation at hand. Just take a look at his method of hiding the money. Not ingenious, but simple and somewhat effective. He uses common articles and converts them for his purpose. It works for a casual inspection, but a concerted search by the police revealed it. Now I know Hauptmann was behind this crime in a major way. Therefore any theory as to what actually occurred in the commission of tis crime must take into account his MO. And that's where I think many of the theories proposed fall apart. If it doesn't take into account Hauptmann's MO, it's probably not workable.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 1, 2008 7:54:46 GMT -5
FYI: A little known fact is that once Gow returned to Glasgow, Maj. Schoeffel wrote a letter to the Glasgow Police asking for them to discreetly observe her movements. Excerpt from one such report: With reference to the attached letter from Charles H. Schoeffel, Major and Deputy Superintendent, New Jersey State Police, U.S.A., dated 27th September, 1934, relative to the above-named person, I have to report that as requested discreet observations as to the movements and associates of Betty Gow, since the receipt of the letter here on 5th ult. have been made.... (Det. Lt. Innes, Glasgow C.I. Dept. 11-5-34)
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 1, 2008 13:30:49 GMT -5
And what suspicious behavior did they observe?
Regarding the report you posted referring to Betty and Red's after hours parking shenanigans; Is it likely that two people planning for a major crime would be dumb enough to call attention to themselves repeatedly by the police? it is another wonderful example, though, of the thoroughness of investigation conducted since the crime. If we know even about Betty's park dates with Red, why would you suppose we wouldn't have even a hint of the "conspiracy"? Everything leaves a trail, even a couple in a local park.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 1, 2008 17:39:13 GMT -5
You see, what it tells me is that she is a "risk" taker whose reputation is suspect. That little "act" could have easily gotten her fired. Let's not forget she had been rejected by her boyfriend who she thought was going to be her husband.
The document I posted is written by Winslow Humphry someone assisting Gov. Hoffman with various "independent" investigations on the case. I have a folder just on him. It's why I am sometimes slow in finding things because there are so many files that could contain so many differing topics.
Since I moved I am having a hard time finding all of the Glasgow reports. When I do I will try to post what I think is relevant. But it does seem to indicate the NJSP weren't absolutely certain she was 100% squeaky clean.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 1, 2008 19:25:36 GMT -5
Parking with a boyfriend makes her a "risk taker" ? Don't you think that the fact that Red And Betty obviously cared little about drawing attention to themselves with the police is a lot more revealing? Are these the actions of would be kidnappers? If the Scottish police observed anything of significance regarding Gow, we probably wouldn't be discussing any of this now.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 1, 2008 21:35:48 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong, Kevkon, I agree with you, it just seems some things, such as "long on bravado" are kinda farfetched for what is known, and M.O. is usually used pertaining to similar crimes. If a bank robber wears red tennis shoes and uses a chromed .45 in the robbery and escapes in a small green car with a midget driving, and is caught for one crime, and seven prior primes were committed in the same way, that will be a factor in his being accused of all the crimes (at 30 each) and will be considered his M.O. If Hauptmann had any consistency to his criminality, in Germany anyway, it would be that he wasn't very successful, similay to Red and Betty and their parking forays (you'd think they could have found a different place). The major point, of course, was that Hauptmann from his history, statistics, and his psychological make-up (though that's not 100% proven), had the potential for being the most violent of persons. Now that can't be said about very many in the general population. Betty also showed, and Red, potential for "risk taking," as Michael said (great work Michael - I'd like to see all of those reports - did you notice a ways down in the one shown it said they had been "picked up" on "several occasions"?) which is also off-mainstream, especially at 4:00 in the morning. I always felt there was more to Hoffman's downfall than what we've been told. I mean, big deal, so a Governor visits a condemned-to-death inmate! But, if you'll recall, all hell broke, of course coupled with the reprieve (which is done every day everywhere). Perhaps Hoffman was getting a little too close to the truth - from Michael's post above we can see he was looking very closely at Bessie Mowat Gow - why?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 2, 2008 5:45:57 GMT -5
In 1932 while in the employ of the Morrow/Lindbergh families? I'd say it does.
I don't think they expected to draw anyone's attention to what they were doing. That's the risky behavior here in more ways then one for Betty.... Especially since Red had VD.
I don't know how to answer this really. It's very possible its the actions of someone willing to take a chance for emotional reasons. Just my opinion, I am not on the "Betty did it" bandwagon yet.
Or it could be that very few people have done the research I have. Certainly Fisher never even came close. But my point is that with all the investigations - the NJSP weren't sure - were they? And why not? Kind of like the fact they were actively looking for a Sharp/Hauptmann connection in the weeks before the trial despite preparing for a Lone-Wolf Criminal.
They just weren't sure. And if they weren't sure how can we be?
Honestly, the investigation really lacked organization because of the fact the Governor couldn't pay these people (most). It was more like an "every man for himself" type investigation were anyone and everyone simply tried to come up with something on the case. Usually people like Leo Meade, PI who was given temporary employment by the State and used as an investigator, were at odds with other Investigators, like Ellis Parker who completely did not trust him.
It's hard to explain but there is a group of investigations on Gow in Hoffman's collection.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 2, 2008 7:09:40 GMT -5
Your right Michael, there was a risk in what Betty did with Red. But, I do think it's one to be kept in perspective. And it does sound like one or both of them may have been aggressive with the park cop. It's obvious from that report that they stood out and pushed the limit. That's what really sinks the idea of either of them heaving been involved with the kidnapping, for me anyway. You just wouldn't needlessly risk standing out to the law if you were contemplating the kidnapping.
Of course Betty continued to be investigated. If you don't believe Hauptmann did it, or did it alone, then you must start looking for accomplices. And Betty is a logical choice. She always was and that's why she was looked at so closely even despite CAL. But all that really matters is, what was found? Where is her comp? Where is her connection to Hauptmann?
Jack, I know what you are saying but when I talk about MO I am referring to the manner in which one approaches a job. It may not matter if the bank robber uses a chrome plated gun. What may matter is how he picked his target and how he planned to carry out the crime. I guess what I am trying to say is that the often recited story of Hauptmann using a ladder in a robbery in Germany is not as significant as how he planned to get away with the crime. One the other hand, if it were found that he used this method of entry more than once, it's value as an indicator of his MO would rise significantly. Unfortunately, I just haven't seen enough detail involving his criminal past to make any real judgments.I do see a lot of is his actions in the USA, however, and they do reveal a pattern or MO. Take a look at his trip to the coast, for example.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 2, 2008 18:33:27 GMT -5
Kevkon: The Betty/Red problems in the park were quite a while before the kidnapping event. If anything, it seems, as you are saying, rather than them being worrying about calling attention to themselves (which they sure don't seem to be) it drew the attention of someone else, and a few months later the crime happened. In those months, somebody may have gotten to them because of their past behavior (I suspect photos, or documentary evidence of VD), and secured insider help for the crime. In 1932 if a woman was known to have gonorrhea (to say nothing of syphlis) she was an outcast, and the concept still exists today, though not so strongly for clap. Now, you're going to say that there's no proof of that, but in fact there is no proof of Condon giving anyone any money in the cemetary either, and there is no proof that Anne stood in the mud (A Vallor {was she Vallor?} anyways highbred Eastern girl would do that?) to throw pebbles at the window, so we are always assuming and speculating things - some more likely than others. I mostly agree on Hauptmann's MO though there are really no similar crimes I wonder if Larry and Curly felt kind of jealous when the MO term became so popular because of police movies and TV shows. Probably not - Moe is Moe. Which brings up that a good way to get information out of people is to hit them with a shovel. Haupmann does show a brazenness by what we do know of him. The bills I believe he passed, he was pretty strongly saying take the gold bill or else. I don't understand the Westcoast trip having pertinance, though taking your boyfriend along on a trip with your wife seems awfully scurrilous. Bottom line is, and I posted it a short while ago, the crime has been looked at for so long by so many solid people, that something very seems to be still missing. Is Betty the jigsaw jewel? In spite of you're saying "it's a simple crime," we're talking odds, percentages of hapinstance here, and they expound very greatly. Sure it's possible that someone could just happen up to the correct window, especially after some observation on 3/1/32, but then the odds start to drastically accumulate against them. They had to open the window and get into the correct room fairly noiselessly while four other alert people are normally drifting. They had to lift and quickly silence a terrible two year old who didn't like (according to testimony) and certainly wasn't accustomed to starngers - again noiselessly. They had to leave, again via window, and find the ladder quite below, again noiselessly (though the ladder may have upgoofed) and then have the blatency to most likely kill the child, and make it back where, depending on timing, there could have been roadblocks, etc. Then there's the completely smooth ransom payment and not much heard until A GUY PAYS FOR GAS DRIVING HIS OWN EASILY SEEN LICENSED CAR WITH A BAD BILL? Come on.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 2, 2008 20:04:13 GMT -5
Gawd Kevkon - I just saw you misspelled something - first I've seen in at least a hundred posts - compliment. Jack
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 2, 2008 21:07:58 GMT -5
Jack, I'm not asking for proof, just evidence. Yes, Betty makes for a very tempting inside accomplice. But there is no evidence to that effect. None, Nada, Zip. Events don't occur without leaving evidence, no matter how little. So if you are stuck on the Betty the insider theory, then you are done. Because after all of these years with no evidence of her complicity being found, it's not likely any ever will be. Personally, I don't believe it's possible for her to have been a part of such a crime and yet leave no trace. So as much as you may feel it goes against the odds, I think it's better to look elsewhere.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 3, 2008 6:37:48 GMT -5
Oops - Vassar - sorry girls, bad hairday on the keyboard. You're right Kev - zero evidence.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 3, 2008 19:20:42 GMT -5
Was Bessie Gow using an alias when she employed as Betty Gow? Who gave who VD? Sure there's no evidence, but there is a reality. Something may come out. Generally Betty and Red were pretty unsmart, so there may be a slipup. Probably especially with Red - few illegals were actually deported, so something more there? Kevkon, your earlier post I see on rereading was a typo - not bad - I noticed an earlier one long ago, but not bad - many many posts! I'm not a good spleler (haha) so I keep looking up time and again - mess sometimes. I've never noticed a typo or spelling error on Michael's posts. Amazing.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 4, 2008 6:13:58 GMT -5
I will really have to think about that one Jack! (Is that original or did you borrow it from the Bush Iraq war briefings?)
Isn't that a contradiction? It's been over 75yrs and God knows how many people have looked at these two and their actions. What was found regarding criminal intent or action? On one hand you are saying they were not smart and on the other hand you're saying they managed to successfully hide any trace of their involvement from all these eyes.
Are you kidding? Who the **** cares?
Check your sources and facts here, Jack.
Jack, I think you usually come up with interesting posts and info so don't think I'm picking on you here. It's just that I think you're forcing that square peg into the hole and this is always what happens as a result. I admired you for asking awhile back for resolution to certain issues. Jack, how can anything ever get resolved if evidence, or in this case the lack of, gets subjugated to a theory or idea?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 4, 2008 16:46:06 GMT -5
Link to original Report: www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/wolf.pdfAdditionally, I found this interesting part in Trooper DeGaetano's report: Colonel Lindbergh and Miss Gow informed the investigators of what had occurred and then conducted us to the nursery which is located on the second floor at the northeast corner of the main building.
The undersigned observed that the contents of the nursery consisted of a crib and other child's furniture. Miss Gow stated that she discovered that the window to the right of the fireplace on the East wall had been opened and also added that the shutters on this particular window would not close due to being warped. The undersigned observed that on the sill of this particular window there was an envelope, also approximately in the center of the room there was a muddy impression on the rug which was apparently made by a shoe.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 4, 2008 18:18:15 GMT -5
Michael, Have you ever seen any more description of the two sets of footprints? Great stuff. Jack
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 4, 2008 19:23:28 GMT -5
As mentioned in the reports you have (3) separate sets of footprints. (2) men and (1) woman. The small ones were leading toward the window and to the back of the house. Now if they weren't Anne's, were consistent with the proper direction for Featherbed. Then we have (2) sets leading toward the ladder. Wolf's report mentions the two sets of fresh prints leading southeast, and also, according to Lt. Lang, (2) sets of footprints led away from the nursery to where the ladder was found. There is only one print which faces towards the house found at where the base of the ladder would have been if leaning towards the Nursery. For me this proves that no one approached the house from anywhere in the yard. They must have used the both the driveway and the boardwalk. A very tricky endeavor without a light source AND knowing your way around. Would a kidnapper be so calm and collected as to place a ladder against the window, enter the room, take a 30-pound baby, push back the large toys from the window, get back on the ladder, and then take the trouble to close the window before descending with the baby? Or did the kidnapper leave by way of stairs in the house? If the kidnapper was so calm and collected, and assuming that he left by way of the window, was not the child choked or smothered first? What assurance did the kidnapper have that the baby was asleep or would not awake if asleep? (R.G. Harvey, Special Agent - Memo to Sisk 5/34)
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 4, 2008 23:21:56 GMT -5
If there was no more description of those going away, can it be assumed they were mens? Would Anne be into the mud at the back of the house?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 10, 2008 5:18:37 GMT -5
The "double set" of footprints were larger then the one set that walked past the Nursery window toward the back of the house. One person of who I have been reading alot from his reports is Leon Ho-age. His claim to fame was an Insurance Fraud Investigator, and he was brought in by Governor Hoffman to assist completely at his own expense. He believed there was an inside connection beyond all doubt. In an undated evaluation of the case, he goes over all of the evidence and points out what he thinks was staged or wasn't consistent with the State's position concerning Hauptmann as the "Lone-Wolf" kidnapper. Concerning his "Insider" theory he seems to favor Gow, but does not overlook Whateley as a possibility. He believed there would have been prints on the inside of the window and also agrees that a Kidnapper would not have been the one to wipe them down if he wore gloves AND he wouldn't have touched the inside of the window in the first place in Ho-age's opinion so even if he wore no gloves an Outsider would open the window from the outside and close it from the outside. He also doesn't understand why they didn't dust the other windows. He then goes into "dust disturbance" on the sill. He believes from his interview with Bornmann that the sill was examined and that there was no dust disturbance there. I've read that interview and Bornmann does say this but I am not confident (believe it or not) that Bornmann quite understands what he appears to be saying. Just a judgment call on my part. He attacks the position that someone used only (2) sections of ladder to gain entrance to that Nursery. Yet another reason to accept Kevin's theory... And here's something else I found interesting: In all our experience - which has been considerable - we have never heard of anyone after "loot" - be it goods or baby - removing his means of entry - yet the kidnaper was supposed to have carried his ladder 70 feet from the house. When the villain gets his "loot" his one thought is to get away as quickly as possible. He doesn't care if it is known how he made his entry. He is more particularly anxious to get away when the members of the household are up and about. Why this fellow put the ladder with the other section and the chisel - has never been explained Just tidy - we suppose. (p25) The authorities (omit) ask us to believe that after he fell from the ladder - killing the baby - and leaving no mark in the soft mud - he, in utter disregard for the time and his safety - carried the ladder 70 feet and carefully lays it down beside the unused third section and the chisel. Seemingly afraid the investigators will not realize they belong together. (p41)
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 10, 2008 6:38:51 GMT -5
I am still not sure that I see the advantage of an insider when weighed against the possible liability. If you are saying that the insider was only used for info, that might be a different story. But really, what does this person facilitate that couldn't be done by the intruder? The handling of the child?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 11, 2008 13:06:12 GMT -5
Kevkon's thinking is good, and thought provoking, but within perhaps too narrow of a window. If the LKC was instigated by either organized crime or was internationally political, they would leave no physical or mental trail. If Betty Gow or Ollie (pretty unlikely) were involved, and if this was a professionally done operation, they would only know why personally they were involved, not an overall knowledge of the intent. It brings to mind Lee Harvey Oswald and James Earl Ray, who were each obviously involved in major crimes, but under questioning (especially Ray who was probably hooked up to a lamp more than once) revealed nothing because they didn't know anything. Pawns. Ray especially looks like the government might have been behind his crime because he was, in spite of Federal capital murder conviction, sent to a minor league prison which he escaped from! Insider: - Whereabouts of CALIII - Whereabouts of CALII (he was supposed to be late 3/1/32) - Correct window - Use of the faulty (? a carpenter who installed the shutters said there was no way one could have been warped out in less than a year) shutter as an excuse/story? - Very limited inside noise with insider - Possible drugging of target by insider - NO SOUNDS by target - if we're going by percentages, you're correct Kevkon, this is like a 90 percenter - No noise in or out by outsider - Cleanup by insider - this really makes it look like an outsider entered, and tried to obfuscate his/hers presence - As Michael quotes above, and I've referred to previously, an outsider would never take the time to wipe. So that fact alone means there was an insider. In my opinion there are a couple of involved people who are spaced out on cocaine, Betty Gow and Richard Hauptmann, who are being used by a factor who wanted the crime as a message - and the message was sent. In reality Lindbergh tried to get Al Capone out of jail and he was thwarted, and in ex post facto (as Dave would say) CALII DID become a supporter of the emerging Third Reich. So perhaps TLC accomplished it's ends because the family was very much left alone afterwards. In fact, the world knew approximately where he was always and in spite of for many years being the ultimate target - he was never touched!
|
|
|
Post by weebetty on Jun 16, 2008 12:12:35 GMT -5
For any interested party living in or near the Pittsburgh area, there will be a reading of a new play by William Cameron about the Lindbergh kidnapping (Violet Sharp) on Tuesday June 17, 2008 and Friday June 20, 2008. Both showings are at the Bricolage Theatre (937 Liberty Avenue) at 7 pm. If at all interested in the Lindbergh kidnapping and especially Violet Sharp's role in it, this reading is a must see!
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Dec 17, 2009 12:18:11 GMT -5
Photo of Betty: www.spaarnestadphoto.nl/component/option,com_memorix/task,topview/searchplugin,simple/Itemid,60/lang,en/mrxpopup,1/CollectionID,1/PhotoID,SFA022002390/RecordID,189875/ResultRecord,2/
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Jan 3, 2010 13:28:31 GMT -5
|
|