Ahh! I see that the film Crime of the Century was supposedly based on Kennedy's book but I don't remember it being decidedly pro-Hauptmann.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The Reid Scale: Classic Unsolved Murder Cases
Collapse
X
-
There could be another subjective element in the case of serial type murders. For example, if I consider Tabram a Ripper victim then she'd be in with the rest in what I'd consider a Level #3 case but if I thought she wasn't a victim of JtR then she would probably belong at Level #4 because there really aren't any good named suspects in her murder other than the ones for Jack, that is, unless someone can bring me up to speed. This is an inexact science.Last edited by sdreid; 08-17-2009, 12:06 AM.This my opinion and to the best of my knowledge, that is, if I'm not joking.
Stan Reid
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View PostHi Stan and Graham,
I do think Hauptmann was involved, but certainly not alone. Can you recall the name of the suspicious fellow who injected himself in the case and later wrote a book? Some suggested he was involved. I published an article with a little theory of my own. That man (whose blasted name skips me!) was an authority on symbols and their meanings. The ransom letters were all signed with a Vesica Pisces, which as you probably know, means 'fish'. Hauptmann's alleged accomplice was Isador Fisch. Unfortunately, Isador relocated out of the country and died before Hauptmann was caught. I wonder if Fisch wasn't being set up as a fall guy before he died and rendered the point moot?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
The whole case is very strange. One of the strangest things I heard was that a few months before Charles Lindbergh hid the baby and pretended it had been kidnapped.That is a very bizarre thing to do I've also heard theories that Lindbergh was behind the whole thing?
And a big celebrity like Lindbergh entrusts the welfare of his son to a stranger who writes to him????
For what it's worth I think Hauptmann dropped the baby trying to get it down that ladder
Lots of loose ends on this one
Comment
-
I don't think Hauptmann was a stupid man but I do agree that he wasn't likely the mastermind it would take to pull this sort of crime off alone and almost get away with it.This my opinion and to the best of my knowledge, that is, if I'm not joking.
Stan Reid
Comment
-
Originally posted by belinda View PostI've also heard theories that Lindbergh was behind the whole thing?
Then there was the bizarre suicide of the maid, Violet Sharp, after she'd been questioned.This my opinion and to the best of my knowledge, that is, if I'm not joking.
Stan Reid
Comment
-
At the basics, Level 0 are considered solved, Level 1 are partially resolved and Levels 2-4 are unresolved with varying degrees of suspects from good to doubtful to none.This my opinion and to the best of my knowledge, that is, if I'm not joking.
Stan Reid
Comment
-
Originally posted by sdreid View PostTo clarify, in general, those found not guilty by reason of insanity or incompetent to stand trial would fit within Level 0.This my opinion and to the best of my knowledge, that is, if I'm not joking.
Stan Reid
Comment
-
The case is primary and any person secondary so, for example, when I say Hauptmann, I'm speaking more of the Lindbergh Case in general. In that sense, it leaves open the question of other participants.This my opinion and to the best of my knowledge, that is, if I'm not joking.
Stan Reid
Comment
-
Lindbergh Kidnapping is a 0 on the Reid Scale
The ghosts of Hopewell : setting the record straight in the Lindbergh case / Jim Fisher. Carbondale : Southern Illinois University Press, c1999.
"Former FBI agent Fisher discusses the hard evidence, such as the ransom notes and the wood of the kidnapping ladder. He analyzes and debunks the various revisionist theories and presents new evidence that, coupled with the undisputed facts, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hauptmann was guilty as charged: he kidnapped and murdered the infant son of Charles and Anne Lindbergh."
I read the book and I enjoyed it and agree with it. Evidently in The 70's there was a big hoopla. The revisionists. Seems like I recall seeing a TV show or two along that line. Most of that revisionist stuff is just something to sell.
RoySink the Bismark
Comment
-
I was always fascinated by the Lindbergh Case, and when I first read it I thought Ludovic Kennedy's book totally brilliant. However, based on what I've read since, plus the more I think about it, I'm coming round to the conclusion that Hauptmann was indeed the kidnapper and that he accidentally dropped the baby whilst descending the ladder. I believe that there is now some doubt as to whether the remains found in the grounds were indeed the baby's, but again, logic kind of suggests that they were. For another dead baby to be in the vicinity kind of stretches coincidence a bit too much.
Did Hauptmann act alone? Don't know. On balance, he probably did. He was given every chance to name names, but never did, almost certainly because he had no names to name.
I also wonder how anyone could actually conceive a plan to get rich by kidnapping and ransoming the only child of the one of the most celebrated men in America... I'd have said that Hauptmann would have had a far better chance of getting away with armed robbery.
GrahamWe are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze
Comment
-
Examples-
0:
Frederick Deeming
1:
(A)Constance Kent
(B)Dr. Bennett Clarke Hyde
2:
Steinheil-Japy Case
3:
Cleveland Torso Case
4:
Wall Street Bombing of 1920This my opinion and to the best of my knowledge, that is, if I'm not joking.
Stan Reid
Comment
Comment