|
Post by xjd on Aug 31, 2012 16:36:50 GMT -5
hello all.
"cards on the table" is the title of one of my favorite Agatha Christie stories and it inspired me to start this thread. in that book, there is a murder (of course) and several suspects as well as several detectives &/or experts. each of the detectives agrees to investigate their own favorite prime suspect & then pool their intel with the others.
being rather new to this board, i am still getting to know all you veteran posters & your own feelings & leanings regarding the LKC. but i thought it would be informative & enlightening if anyone who wants to would put their "cards on the table" i.e. post a synopsis of their pet theory.
the idea being not necessarily to dispute/debate (but feel free if you want to), but just to post the main facts of the case (or any other aspect) as you see it right now in your own investigation of this endlessly fascinating (IMO) case. even if there are elements of the case you are not decided about, or have just an opinion on an angle that was not followed up on, i would love to read an overview of everyone's take on this case.
thanks for reading & i look forward to reading whatever you want to put out there. i really do learn something new every time i catch up on reading this board. food for thought everyday is something i treasure!
cheers!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 1, 2012 10:25:02 GMT -5
I think a "pet" theory of mine is the one of hired hands. I tend to think people were hired to commit this crime ahead of time and that there was a degree of planning involved.
The fact they struck on the night in question indicates someone "in the know" was involved.
Knowing Condon, as I believe I do, through the material I have gathered, it is clear that some of what he says or attributes to others is based upon certain truths he's overheard or has knowledge of himself. He mixes those in with tales in order to sound more believable.
What Cemetery John "tells" him should be looked at very carefully.
Just my thoughts. Please don't let my post dissuade anyone from posting their thoughts because I am very anxious to read about them. Any particular theory you like xjd?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 1, 2012 14:56:14 GMT -5
It was probably one of the greatest crimes of improvisation.
|
|
|
Post by arthur45 on Nov 13, 2012 12:47:37 GMT -5
Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable - circumstantial evidence based on physical evidence is far better. And all the physical evidence clearly indicates a lone kidnapper (the abandoned ladder, and forgotten chisel, the lack of any evidence of more than one kidnapper, the small ransom demand, etc) and a crime that was totally botched. Any kidnapping that accidentally kills the victim, in virtually all cases, kills the prospect of a ransom. Hauptmann was simply lucky that Lindbergh falsely assumed that the presence of the baby's clothes meant the baby was alive, when all it actually proved was that the person he was dealing with had been involved in the crime. Hauptmann was also lucky that Lindbergh did not allow the police to capture CJ at any of the meetings with Condon. Hauptmann was, as always, quite stupid in physically meeting the go-between. He obviously didn't know how to carry out a ransom transaction. The notion that the kidnapper must have known the Lindbergh's routine and that they were staying over an extra day I consider implausible. I doubt that Hauptmann knew anything more than where the baby's bedroom was and the approximate height to its window. It was a crime of opportunity, for the most part. All he really needed was the ladder. The location of the Lindbergh house made it an easy target - no neighbors, a convenient dense wooded area from which to case the joint, an isolated area with few inhabitants. I believe that the only fault in the prosecution's case was their claim that Hauptmann had purposely killed the baby. Not only would that have been totally illogical, the evidence clearly indicated an accident. And Hauptmann was, once again, very stupid in not admitting his guilt and explaining how the child had died.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 13, 2012 16:35:37 GMT -5
Since Art doesn't respond to counter-arguments or rebuttals I am assuming he's just using the Board as a platform to push his ideas while ignoring the rest.
That's fine. Since he believes he has it all figured out then I'll just let him have at it and skip over his stuff.
Anyone else is free to respond or whatever....
|
|
|
Post by john on Dec 23, 2012 3:15:24 GMT -5
Michael: I wouldn't assume that a botched kidnapping suggests that the perp must be a lone criminal. Is this graven in stone somewhere? Professionals botch things all the time, from experienced criminals to top notch surgeons.
If the person who was Cemetery John was an extortionist or a peripheral player, someone on the sidelines, an opportunist, someone who really didn't know the baby was dead, then the graveyard negotiations make sense (in a criminal sort of way).
One of the problems that I always have with the Hauptmann Did It people is that they argue that on the one hand that Hauptman kidnapped the baby and either killed it or it died accidentally somehow, negotiated with Condon, got the ransom, somehow suggests that he was kind of "dumb lucky". Fair enough, and up to a point I agree that this is a possibility up till the discovery of the child's body,--but then there's that two and a half year gap between this time and Hauptmann's arrest, and I just can't buy the theory that he had dumb luck for so long a period of time.
John
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 23, 2012 9:25:37 GMT -5
Hi John:
The only thing I can say with certainty that was "botched" was Hauptmann's spending pattern (starting approx summer 1934) which led to his arrest. Anything previous I just don't know if it qualifies. We all have our own beliefs about what was a "mistake" or what wasn't. But in reality we don't know if it truly was.
I think when you see different tendencies then it usually represents different personalities at work. This is supported by the eyewitness accounts involving more then one person being involved.
|
|
|
Post by john on Dec 23, 2012 15:14:20 GMT -5
Thanks for the rapid response to my post, Michael. The Lindbergh stubborn defense of the household staff rather killed the possibility of finding out what if any inside help the kidnapper might have got the night the child was abducted. As time passed, and certainly by the time of Hauptmann's arrest, the likelihood of establishing a connection between what may well have been an innocent remark or slip of the tongue that the kidnapper somehow got wind of and the crime itself was slim. Violet Sharpe seems, on the surface, to be one most likely to have (probably unwittingly) tipped off whoever it was who stole the baby, or in league with a larger gang, as the case may be.
Once Hauptmann was arrested, and he refused to name his "accomplices", as we all know, out went the "gang theory", replaced by the lone German immigrant mastermind one. Yet the kidnap note stated that there was more than one person involved, as did Cemetery John himself. All this put aside once the law had Hauptmann in their hands. He behaved erratically during the investigation, with his (seemingly) laughable "Fisch story" his only alibi. That none of Hauptmann's friends were implicated in the crime suggests some credibility in Hauptmann's story. especially since they corroborated the person of Isador Fisch and his relationship with Hauptmann.
That Hauptmann had a criminal past in Germany was highlighted during his trial, yet prior to his arrest there was not a shred of evidence to point to his having been engaged in criminal activity in the U.S. aside from his being in possession of the ransom money.
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Dec 24, 2012 20:30:23 GMT -5
i find this case to be so thoroughly entangled, it's hard to articulate my thoughts. but here are a few things i think about;
-given Lindy's philandering, it would not surprise me if he was fooling around with some of the staff, either Betty or Violet or Breck's stepdaughter/babysitter or some such or all the above. perhaps that was the main reason he didn't want the staff interviewed? i wonder if this was also the reason he "forgot" the event in NY that night? he was with someone else for part of the evening?
-it's entirely possible that Violet was just a histrionic personality & the mere idea of police scrutiny pushed her over the edge. but still i think she might have either knowingly conspired in what was supposed to just be a quick kidnap with the safe return of CALjr, knowingly (for money) gave info to what she believed was an innocent reporter/papparazzi or unknowingly gave the same, just babbling about her famous employers etc. i think she is involved somehow.
-there seem to be too many coincidences with the Betty/Red phone calls & the timing of same. i agree they did not seem to have benefited directly for the kidnap, but i think no one planned on the child dying.
having said that, BRH has to be accounted for in some way, i just haven't quite figured it out yet. -
-possibly he was paid some money to make a ladder with certain dimensions 'no questions asked'
-considering Fisch's habit of scamming anyone & everyone, BRH could have felt entitled to spend the money Fisch left behind, which accounts for why BRH was reckless with spending the ransom once Fisch died.
to sum up my thoughts; some staff were involved Violet/Betty/Red etc., the child was not supposed to die but was to be returned quickly once payment was made, however the baby died accidentally/who knows why, the conspirators closest to Lindberghs gave up going through with the extortion. however, certain other participants decided to go ahead with the extortion anyway. certainly there are holes in my theory and unexplained bits, but this is where i am at with it now.
on the other hand, this puzzles me:
-i believe it's in "Hour of Gold..." that Anne describes her feeling when learning of the discovery of CALjr's body, that it's as if he's been dead a hundred years. this makes me ponder the accident/practical joke gone bad theory with a subsequent cover up. rather elaborate, i admit, but still her comment sounds like one who has had time to come to terms with the child's death and not a fresh grief. but of course everyone's grief is different.
anyone else want to summarize their theory?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 25, 2012 20:27:21 GMT -5
I like the way you've laid out what you consider possibilities. It's also nice to see that you allow for flexibility concerning them. Too often I notice people paint themselves into a corner then hold onto those beliefs for dear life regardless of things that "turn up" which may challenge them.
Given your sensible approach, I am wondering what you favor as to how she might be involved. I realize you won't be committing to it but I am curious to see where you place the odds at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by john on Dec 26, 2012 1:04:10 GMT -5
I agree, Michael. Some excellent points in XJD's post. His various hypotheticals (sic) were nicely thought out, and his open ended style of writing and thinking was refreshing, to say the least, in this case that will not die.
To this I can only add something which gets touched on a lot in many LKC discussions and yet seldom dealt with as a separate issue: Hauptmann's arrest and conviction were just too damned easy. Everything about the way he was caught, from his reckless spending of the ransom money, his offhand remark at the gas station about having many more ransom notes at home, his lying, only to be proved wrong, as when all the bills were found in his garage, and of course his stubborn insistence of the truth of the story about Fisch and the shoebox, this followed by the seeming cock and bull story about the wet bills, Hauptmann's only taking "what was coming" to him. It's as if he'd been set up to be arrested and convicted for the crime of being,--forget gang theory--the sole perp in the LKC.
It has crossed my mind many times, and with various alternate hypotheses of my own, that Hauptmann was just too much of a sitting duck to be credible as the lone kidnapper. To go over some facts in the case briefly, going back to the beginning, with the ransom note apparently written by a foreigner, then Condon's out of the blue piece in The Bronx Home News, and then the response he got, the talk with Lindbergh over the phone, with those interlocking circles sealing the deal. The meetings in the cemeteries with John, who claimed to be part of a gang and who bore a superficial resemblance to the man the police arrested as the kidnapper more than two years later. The on again, off again nature of the negotiations with CJ, in the end willing for settle for less than his alleged confederates had demanded (who gave him the authority to do so?). Then there are those niggling issues such as Lindbergh's being convinced that the sleeping suit was Charlie's even though a duplicate could easily have been found.
Then there's the matter of the power granted to Lindbergh by the police and federal authorities, which should not have been granted to a private citizen. "Why delve into this?", one might ask, to which I shall answer: "because Lindbergh's involvement in the case, indeed his control of it early on, was a major factor in the kidnappers getting away". CJ should have been either nabbed or followed. Condon's behavior was peculiar, to say the least, and he was investigated and even hounded by the authorities, and yet one can't help but think, given Condon's being a lifelong resident of the Bronx, a prominent local figure, a man with some street sense,-- a flair for languages, for instance--that he was duped by the kidnappers (or extortionists, as the case may be) the way a farm boy is duped by city slickers. Yet Condon was himself a city person, fell for the kidnap scam, as did the NYPD, Lindbergh himself (a man of the world by this time) and Lindbergh's even more worldly "top of the line" friends and advisers.
Yet the diabolical mastermind behind the crime, the man who fooled them all, from experienced law enforcement officers to high placed public officials, many of whom had a high level of education, was none other than a German immigrant, a carpenter, a man not known for cleverness or guile, a man with no criminal record in the United States, a man who, when he did commit crimes in his native Germany not only got caught but got caught twice, strikes me as almost too good to be true. For the prosecutors, I mean, the authorities, as in "let's wrap this thing up real good". In other words, if one wanted to come up with an all-purpose patsy for the whole shebang, Bruno Richard Hauptmann was the perfect fall guy. Yet he didn't seem to be aware of this, which to my way of thinking suggests forces at work beyond Hauptmann, people he had perhaps known and feared (hence the Bob Mills "Mob theory"), as he must have known more than he told the authorities, more than he said on the witness stand. Yet if Hauptmann knew this he had many alternatives to choose from, to save his life or, barring that, providing for his wife and young son, but he refused them all.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 27, 2012 17:41:24 GMT -5
Well said John.
I do believe Lindbergh was "less" certain about some things he would become more certain about years later.....
Extremely good point.
Let's look at this crime. There's much we do not know. But what we do know is that NO ONE believed it was a "one-man" job.
No one.
Then Hauptmann emerges and there's evidence to suggest he has guilty knowledge of the crime.
So some would say that's because he was a "Lone-Wolf." This would mean somehow he gets smarter, working only by himself, then gets stupid again shortly before his arrest.
But his past practices showed that he would be involved with someone else, then once he got caught, could keep his mouth shut.
|
|
|
Post by john on Dec 29, 2012 4:16:59 GMT -5
Thanks, Michael. What you stated is, in a nutshell, the problem with the American criminal justice system: they are less interested in finding out the truth than they are in arresting and convicting someone of a crime, thus they essentially take the easy route, the obvious route. In some cases, such as the recent Newtown massacre of twenty-eight innocent people, there's no doubt as to who the perp was. But many (most?) cases aren't so easy. We have a serious problem with our system, adversarial at the core, less interested in the truth than in conviction. I'm not well versed in the law, know even less about European law but I read somewhere that in Europe they have what they call a magistrate, a person with no dog in the fight (other than finding out the truth of what happened in the commission of a crime), who is neither on the side of the police nor the defendant (if there is one). In other words, someone looks into what happened and draws conclusions based on the facts, which may or may not favor (or "favor", as the case may be) the person who has been arrested.
Of course, if there is a defendant, a guilty seeming person against whom the police have gathered evidence, who, if guilty, he is in roughly the same position as he would be in our legal system. In Hauptmann's case there was no such "neutral party". It was essentially the State vs. Hauptmann, with the latter having to cough up his own money, hire his own detectives and lawyers (which of course he couldn't afford) so as to present his side of the story to the State. This is dreadfully unfair to the accused, stacks the deck against him from the outset. Hauptmann had a good deal of the ransom money in his possession, he'd lied to the authorities at first about this, both of which are "strikes" against him. On the other hand, given what he was accused of, and also the fact that his hoarding of gold certificates, whether LKC related or not, was illegal, this is understandable. It doesn't make him look good but it's no smoking gun, either.
To give Koehler his due, let's assume that evidence was not planted, that all the "wood evidence" against Hauptmann was valid, while it establishes a connection between boards found in Hauptmann's home and the kidnap ladder, still doesn't prove that Hauptmann was involved in the kidnapping. It doesn't look good, and it surely raises suspicions, but still, he could have made the ladder for someone else, been a minor participant in the kidnapping who didn't even know he was a participant, or he simply could have been unlucky. That Hauptmann resided in the same borough of New York City as Condon in no way makes him the likely perp; nor should his nationality have been a factor. It's true that Cemetery John met with Condon in the Bronx graveyards for his negotiations, and that he had a foreign accent (which Condon, who spoke German, didn't recognize as German), but this should not in itself be evidence against Hauptmann. Bronx is a huge borough of well over a million people, has (or had) a large German immigrant and German speaking population. Hauptmann was just one of many foreign born Europeans living in the Bronx, tens of thousands of whom could easily have fit Condon's general description of CJ.
That the law enforcement officials were, in 1932, as you mentioned, near unanimous in their opinion that the Lindbergh kidnapping could not have been a one man job, had to be the work of a gang, then did a complete turnaround once Hauptmann was arrested and refused to name his "accomplices", makes these upholders of the law look bad in my humble opinion; maybe not as bad as Hauptmann, but unprofessional and intellectually sloppy. The one doesn't necessarily lead to the other. To wit: Hauptmann has a lot of ransom money in his possession; he lied to the police about this and many other matters; and some wood found in his attic matches some of the wood in the kidnap ladder; he's foreign born and bears some vague resemblance to the man Condon met in the cemetery,--does this therefore make Hauptmann the sole kidnapper of the Lindbergh baby, the man who planned it all, cased the house, carried the baby down the ladder, either murdered it or allowed it to die from wounds it received in a fall, and then, knowing that there was a gigantic manhunt for the kidnapper, make deals with Condon in his own neighborhood (!), then go free for two and a half years, only to get caught due to an offhand remark to a service station attendant? I think not.
Yet this is precisely the case prosecutor Wilentz made to the jury in Flemington. I still wonder how he got away with it. Well, the only answer to is that he had hundreds, maybe thousands, of people, working with or for him, officially and unofficially. Wilentz or something in league with him clearly bribed witnesses Whited and Hochmuth. Condon was intimidated into testifying against Hauptmann, which, if he'd refused, as he did in the police line-up (he was clearly ambivalent early on), would have made Lindbergh's "hey, doc" testimony far less credible. If Condon couldn't positively ID Hauptmann, by voice or by appearance, I don't see how Lindbergh could very well have essentially contradicted Condon and said yes, that was Hauptmann's voice I heard four years ago. When the jury was interviewed by reporters later on most stated that Lindbergh's testimony was what swayed them the most. My best guess is that so far as Lindergh testifying that he heard Hauptmann's voice that this was set up by the prosecutors in advance. Maybe Lindbergh believed that the voice he heard was Hauptmann's,--we'll never know for sure--but my guess is that where his testimony against Hauptmann was concerned it came down to "no Condon, no Lindbergh voice ID". I doubt that Lindbergh would have testified as he did without Condon as a "backup". It was all planned in advance. These things usually are.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 29, 2012 9:22:30 GMT -5
I don't think so. I apply it to this case, certainly, but I would be extremely reckless to say that about the entire American Criminal Justice System in general. I think things need to always be taken, case by case, to see if mistakes or omissions weren't made in any situation. I believe major improvements that have been made over the years, at least from my perspective, are the diversity among the ranks. Training can only get you so far, but by pooling perspectives it helps prevent one-sided rushes to judgment. It's why I would say the most injustices probably happen nowadays in these local towns where the Police, Prosecutors, and Judges are all just "co-workers" to one another. But in the bigger picture, Agencies like the FBI have far too many checks and balances to prevent what happens in those situations - as it pertains to their investigations. Obviously nothing/nobody is perfect, but if I am innocent and accused of a crime - then I would certainly want their involvement. (I would also want Robin Lord as my Defense Attorney - just in case).
We absolutely do and it shows what can happen when a problem is ignored. Certainly a discussion should occur concerning clips and the types of weapons people think, or don't think, should be sold to its Law Abiding Citizens. But what scares me the most are these Letters to the Editor written by people in New Jersey demanding "gun control." Trenton should be the shining city which is pointed to as an example of the fruits for gun control.
How's that working out?
Instead, because N.J. basically has stripped the 2nd Amendment to its bare minimum, only the Criminals and what few Cops are left seem to have them. So its not the Gangs, who exist because these kids are seeking the families and support groups they've never had .... its the guns.
Most especially the ones sold to people who respect the law.
I never saw much about this in the papers, and I don't know why, but after Sandy many of the shore communities were being robbed and looted. What stopped much of this were the Neighbors guarding their communities with their personal weapons. We've seen this before - Katrina, Homestead, L.A., etc. etc.
Like I said, there needs to be a common-sense discussion. One cannot argue they want kids safe then rant against Teachers being trained and armed in order to protect them. I get that some people don't want guns to exist. But that's their personal Utopia which isn't real, and if it could be, my version of it would simply require everyone to be responsible. But I know these very same people would cry out that I have no right to ask for that.
I believe there are varying degrees of "guilt." Take for example, what role a person played in the offense. Exactly how culpable were their actions?
Since this has taken a philosophical tone (maybe in my imagination only) I'll throw something else out there. I disagree with Entrapment. Hypothetically speaking, let's say there's an Insurance Agent who gets caught bribing people. In order to cut a deal they say there's a friend who always helps out because of that friendship - who is now currently in need of money. So the offer of money comes up in the space of an offer of help, which would have come regardless, and now this other person is guilty of a crime which really now only exists because the original culprit was arrested. If they weren't, then this new crime wouldn't have been committed.
Or how about if someone robs a bank? Do you want them armed with a note or with a weapon? Shouldn't the person with the note get some consideration for not bringing a weapon? I say yes.
Anyway, enough about this.
As I've pointed out before, sometimes the truth lies in the middle. If you see something wrong most immediately conclude its either "black or white." Sometimes its a shade of grey. So when we see tampering it could be for various reasons and not just the one that seems the most obvious.
In my opinion, that ladder, by design, was meant for this crime. If Hauptmann had a hand in building it then there is your nexus for him to its commission. He doesn't have to be in Hopewell. Now an argument could be made that he "didn't know" what the board was for or that he didn't know what the ladder was for, but only if he isn't caught with ransom money. That places him in both a before and after scenario.
You're right. I do not believe Hauptmann was Cemetery John. Of course this can be challenged, but that's where I am.
I couldn't agree more.
He tried this many times. Sometimes he was unsuccessful. He arm twisted Lupica somewhat. He threatened Kloppenberg. He threatened Kiss. He bribed Foster off the case.
There are examples after examples of this stuff just about everywhere you look. But the key is that you have to look. The other key is that you cannot conclude, because he did this, that he believed Hauptmann was innocent - because he did not.
Condon may have been testifying truthfully, but only if he was lying to the Police earlier. Pick your poison. Lindbergh testified to the Grand Jury that, in essence, he wouldn't be able to identify a man by that voice.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Dec 29, 2012 14:32:13 GMT -5
Personally, with regards to Hauptmann, I'm somewhere in the shades of gray Michael refers to. I believe there are far too many circumstantial coincidences for Hauptmann to have been completely innocent of any involvement in this, but by the same token, I think the crime scene, just on its own, makes it virtually impossible for him to have done this by himself. Further, the crime scene says nothing, one way or the other, about whether Hauptmann was actually present during the commission of the crime. The footprint evidence is fuzzy, and seems to have been either glossed over entirely or interpreted along the lines of "Well, there's room for the possibility that Hauptmann's shoes and the prints in the mud at Highfields are the same size, so we're just going to say they more or less match..." I like John's suggestion (it's one I've entertained myself) that Hauptmann may very well have been a rather peripheral figure in the original plot: "Build a ladder, no questions asked; we'll make it worth your while." But either way, I think once the police happened to stumble across somebody--anybody--they needed to conclusively and definitively close the case by making that person look as guilty as possible (just to save face if nothing else; it was something of a national embarrassment that the killer of America's Baby hadn't been caught). None of this means Hauptmann was innocent, but neither do I believe he was death-house guilty either. The one thing I'm having trouble with in all this is Hauptmann's (seeming?) lack of discretion subsequent to the crime: While he never seemed to be a particularly successful criminal, he still seems smarter than to do things like quit his job right when the ransom was paid and flash around unlaundered ransom bills. It's almost like he was purposely, flagrantly trying to draw attention to himself and get caught. But maybe he was doing just that for some reason, with some kind of assurance or foreknowledge that he wouldn't ultimately go to the chair...? Dunno.
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Jan 14, 2013 19:37:21 GMT -5
I have wondered about BRH's refusal to confess &/or implicate others. He seems very prideful, so that could be one reason. Also, if he was part of a gang, he could fear reprisals against his family. However, on one hand if a gang were at work the extortion part was extremely messy/amateurish; on the other hand, only Richard went to the chair! the rest of the gang presumably got away with the crime. or maybe died in Germany of TB...
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 15, 2013 19:57:38 GMT -5
It looks like there were multiple reasons why he didn't name names (although I do believe he considered it). Of course he named Fisch, but that's the "safe" name. Condon brought his Specter in too although that's seldom mentioned. Speaking of Condon, he definitely feared reprisal, something which, if Hauptmann was a "Lone-Wolf" could not have been possible.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jan 15, 2013 23:58:24 GMT -5
I can't help but think that Hauptmann feared reprisals against his family if he named names. In this I'm in agreement with Bob Mills in his mob theory. Whether the reprisals would have come from Al Capone or someone working on his behalf is another matter.
Since Hauptmann was scheduled to die he had nothing to lose and, arguably, something to gain, if only posthumously. However that can cut both ways. His posthumous gain may well have cost the life of his wife and young son, and while Hauptmann could face his own death bravely, it was unthinkable for him to say or do anything that would endanger his wife and child.
In his mind, I can well imagine Hauptmann seeing himself as a tragic hero, dying for a higher cause (his family) at the expense of his own public image. "A far, far better thing to do...", to paraphrase Sydney Carton from A Tale Of Two Cities. If this was how Hauptmann was thinking it may well be the key that unlocks the riddle of why he said "this case will never die".
|
|
|
Post by ktolks on Feb 25, 2013 19:04:00 GMT -5
I think we should develop a "form" for classifying our theories. It would have the name of each player on it and a separate column to describe what that person actually KNEW and DID in the LKC, according to the particular theory.
Thus, we might have a theory in which LINDBERGH "hired Hauptmann to kidnap his child", and where HAUPTMANN "was hired by Lindbergh to kidnap Lindbergh's child, but then decided to extort $$ from Lindbergh", and where CONDON "was contacted by Hauptmann to play the role of go-between, and later turned around and IDed Hauptmann", and so on....
By this means, we could eliminate "theories" which were not complete (in the sense of assigning a role to each of the personalities in the case), and we would easily be able to compare theories to see if they assigned the same or different roles to those personalities.
|
|