Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Reid Scale: Classic Unsolved Murder Cases

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    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.
    This my opinion and to the best of my knowledge, that is, if I'm not joking.

    Stan Reid

    Comment


    • #32
      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


      • #33
        To 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


        • #34
          Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
          Hi 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
          I agree, Hauptmann wasn't alone he doesn't seem to have had the intelligence, also they never found all of the ransom money did they?

          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


          • #35
            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


            • #36
              He wasn't stupid but I think it was somebody elses idea and he saw an opportunity.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by belinda View Post
                I've also heard theories that Lindbergh was behind the whole thing?
                Yes, wasn't there a book based on that premise?

                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


                • #38
                  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


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by sdreid View Post
                    To clarify, in general, those found not guilty by reason of insanity or incompetent to stand trial would fit within Level 0.
                    In either case, it means they really did it but they're nuts.
                    This my opinion and to the best of my knowledge, that is, if I'm not joking.

                    Stan Reid

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      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


                      • #41
                        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.

                        Roy
                        Sink the Bismark

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          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.

                          Graham
                          We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Cases would move down in number more often than up but Sam Sheppard and Oscar Slater would be examples where the case level went to a higher number.
                            This my opinion and to the best of my knowledge, that is, if I'm not joking.

                            Stan Reid

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              I think I'd put all the Scottish "Not Proven" murder verdicts in Level 1, the second example (B Category), but I can only remember two, Smith and Monson.
                              This my opinion and to the best of my knowledge, that is, if I'm not joking.

                              Stan Reid

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                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 1920
                                This my opinion and to the best of my knowledge, that is, if I'm not joking.

                                Stan Reid

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X