Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Bruno Hauptmann Analysis: Part Two

Part Two:  Money 

Keep in mind:  both "Interviewers" should be digging.    When a defense attorney is reluctant to dig, he sets up the scenario for the prosecutor to overwhelm the jury.  

I also remark on the questions from the perspective of Statement Analysis, that is, gathering of information.  This is to facilitate understanding of Analytical Interviewing. 

January 25, 1935. 

BRUNO RICHARD HAUPTMANN resumed the witness stand.
Direct Examination (continued) by Mr. Reilly:

 Q. The apartment from which you were arrested, what street was that?
 A. 222nd Street. 

 Q. How long had you lived in that apartment?
 A. Two years. 

 Q. You had nothing to do with building that house, did you?
 A. Nothing at all. 

 Q. Now, the time you married your wife, did she have a bank account?
 A. Yes, Central Savings Bank. 

 Q. And did she continue to deposit money in that bank?
 A. Yes. 

 Q. Do you remember the winter after you were married?
 A. Yes. 

 Q. Did you buy a lunchroom at 223rd Street and Lexington Ave.?
 A. I did. From Albert Diebig.

 Q. How much did you pay for that lunchroom?
 A. Nine hundred dollar in cash.

 Q. How long were you in business there with Diebig?
 A. Only four, six weeks.

 Q. Then did you sell it?
 A. I sold it, yes.

 Q. For how much?
 A. Thirteen hundred.

 Q. Made a profit of $400 on it, is that right?
 A. That is right.

 Q. Now at the end of 1929, including the mortgage of $3,750, how much do you say you were worth?
 A. Approximately $9,000.

 Q. What year did you enter the Wall Street market?
 A. I guess it was the end of '29.

Context:  The famous Stock Market Crash and the Great Depression. 

 Q. And you bought and sold stocks right up to the time of your arrest?
 A. Yes.

 Q. Now when did you meet Isidor Fisch?
 A. Suppose the early part of March or the early part of April, 1932.

 Q. Did he go anywhere with you in relation to Wall Street?
 A. Well, used to go to Steiner-Rouse & Co. I didn't have any account with Steiner-Rouse this time; my account was by Charleton Mott & Co., Broadway. I watched the board at Steiner-Rouse.

 Q. And by the board you mean the board in the office that shows the various changes in the quotations on the Stock Exchange?
 A. That is correct.

 Q. Did Fisch give you any money to buy stock?
 A. Yes, he did.

 Q. When was the first transaction that you recall Fisch giving you money?
 A. It was, I guess it was around August '32.

 Q. What business was Fisch in?
 A. Fur trading.

 Q. Did you afterwards become his partner?
 A. Yes. I make it half and half. We kept it this way, he kept care of his line of business and I kept care of the stock.

 Q. Did you advance him any money?
 A. I give him $600.

 Q. Did you ever receive any money from the fur business?
 A. Small sums and large sums.

 Q. What was the largest sum you say you received as your share in any one year from the fur business?
 A. I guess the largest sums, over a thousand dollars.

 Q. Do you remember when Fisch went to Europe?
 A. I do. December, '33.

 Q. And he never returned, did he.
 A. No. He died.

Note that he gave the reason for not returning the money.  It may not have produced anything, but I still would have flagged this and asked questions about the death.  Good interviewing takes time.  It might have been a dead end, or they may have been some emotional resentment in general to the death.  The prosecutor is looking for money issues and it is important to get the interviewee to go past his short answers.  This might have helped.  

 Q. Before he sailed did he leave anything with you for you to take care of while he was in Europe?
 A. He left two suitcases.

"The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth..."

 Q. What else?
 A. Four hundred skins, Hudson seal.

Note the exact number known, along with the type.  Yet, the prosecutor must still continue to assume that the subject has not told all that is the truth:  

 Q. What else?
 A. And a little box.

 Q. The seal skins were purchased in your partnership between Fisch and yourself?
 A. Yes.

 Q. And did you have those skins in your possession when you were arrested?
 A. Yes.

 Q. And are they now in the possession of the New York City police?
 A. I guess they are.

 Q. Now this little box that you described, what kind of box was it?
 A. Well, I find it later out it was a shoe box.

 Q. Now will you describe to the jury under what circumstances it was that he left this shoe box with you?

 A. Well, of Mr. Fisch request it was he was throwing a party when he left for Germany, it was at his request in our house; we invited a couple of friends and about nine o'clock, Fisch came out and got a little bundle under his arm. I answered the doorbell, my wife was in the baby's room. He came out and we went in the kitchen and he said, "I leave it, I leave something, if you don't mind, keep care of it and put if in a tight place." I didn't ask what was in it, he only said that is paper in it. I thought maybe they are bills. I put it in a broom closet.

Note the vivid description of the setting, yet he did not ask what was in the box.  Does this seem congruent?

Why the need to say:
a.  answered the doorbell
b.  wife was not at door with him, but in the baby's room
c.   went into kitchen where quote is stated 

There is more to this than he has explained. That he felt the need to set up the setting makes it very important to him.  Why?

I would have asked more about the position of people, including questions about his wife hearing them, if not seeing them, talk.  

 Q. And how long did that shoe box remain there before you disturbed it?
 A. The middle of August, '34.

 Q. And what caused you to disturb it?
 A. I was looking for – it was Sunday, it was nasty weather outside – was looking for a broom. When I took the broom I must hit the box with the broom handle and I looked up and that way I saw that it is money. I damaged the box.

Note self censoring:  "I was looking for" is interrupted by the day, and the weather outside.  Even in broken English, is he telling us the reason why he went to the closet?  This is very sensitive.  

 Q. And you saw money.
 A. Yes.

 Q. What money did you see in that box?
 A. Only gold certificates.

Instead of saying "gold certificates" he shows us that he likely expected something more than just gold certificates by the word "only."

 Q. About how much?

recall his precision in description above, as well as the exact number of skins.  Note his continued detail regarding money, including how much his wife earned, apart from his "wages"; along with tips, and what was saved.  He has shown that when it comes to money, he is very observant. 

He has also been very observant about body positioning when the box was brought into the house.  

Here, the specific question is only for an "estimate" of "about how much?"  

 A. I didn't count it from the beginning.

Instead of "I don't know" he reports what he did not do.  This is an indication of deception as we observe the breaking of pattern, and the report in the negative.  

 Q. Is that the money that you afterwards started to spend?
 A. That is the money.

parroted language;  he is not on 'safe' ground here. 

 Q. Is that the money that was found in your garage?
 A. It is.

 Q. And was Fisch dead at that time?
 A. Yes.

He should have explored the death earlier.  Note the short answers.  

 Q. How many satchels did he leave with you when he went to Europe?
 A. Two.

 Q. What did you do with those satchels after his death?

 A. After his death, I opened the big satchel and searched it for bills. I couldn't find anything in there and I closed it again and left it in the garage.

 Q. While Fisch was in Germany, did he write to you?
 A. Yes.

Why no further questions here?

 Q. I am now pointing to State's Exhibit 1, which shows the estate of Col. Lindbergh as of March 1st, 1932. Hauptmann, were you ever in Hopewell in your life?

 A. I never was.

Instead of saying "no" in the yes or no question, he parroted back "ever" with "never."

This should not be considered an unreliable denial because of the word "never", since the question used "ever."  It should be set aside with the thought:

a.  it could be true
b.  it is not strong because it is parroted language. 
c.  It is less stressful to lie using the language of another. 

Here we have very important, direct questions which are all "yes or no" questions.  We note his answers to see consistency and pattern:  

 Q. On the night of March 1st, 1932, were you on the grounds of Col. Lindbergh at Hopewell, NJ?
 A. I was not.

"I was not." He does not use "no" but reflects "were you?" with "I was not."

He again avoids the direct, "no" response even though it is a yes or not question. 

With the direct questions, let's look at his responses.  

He is now avoiding using the direct "yes or no" responses.  

 Q. On the night of March 1st, 1932, did you enter the nursery of Col. Lindbergh –
 A. I did not.

The question was "did?" and the answer was 

"I did not" instead of "no."

 Q. – and take from that nursery Charles Lindbergh, Jr.?
 A. did not.

 Q. Did you leave on the window seat of Col. Lindbergh's nursery a note?

 A. Well, I wasn't there at all.

 Q. You never saw baby Lindbergh in your life, did you?
 A. Never saw it.

1.  "I did not"
2.  "I did not"
3.   "Well, I wasn't there at all."
4.  "Never saw it."

The questions are short.  The answers are short.  Each answer reflects the question.  Each answer uses the pronoun "I" until the last question where he suddenly drops the pronoun "I" from his answer.  

He does not say "no", nor does he say "I never saw it", instead, after 5 straight answers in the same pattern with the pronoun "I", it is the seeing of the child that causes:

a.  change of pattern 
b.  dropped pronoun 

"Seeing" the baby should be considered highly sensitive to the subject and should be the focus of questioning. 

 Q. March 1st, 1932, you referred to here yesterday in a general way. Will you again tell the jury where you were from the time you got out of bed until you went to bed that night?

This is a very good question.  Even though he causes the subject to likely begin "from the time you got out of bed" it still spans enough time to get information.  Since it covers a full day:

a.  It is impossible for the subject to tell everything he did. 
b.  He should begin the statement where he was told to, and end it where he was told to, with any deviation considered very important.
c.  He will only tell us what he believes is important.  
d.  We will be on the lookout for signals of suppression of information.  

 A. Well, I wake up about six o'clock, took the wife down to the bakery between half past six and a quarter to seven.

 Q. Again, I ask you how many miles would you say it was from your home to the bakery?
 A. A good mile.

I cannot tell, apart from audio, if the subject simply stopped at "a quarter to seven" or was interrupted by the Interviewer. 

Note:  in Analytical Interviewing, we DO NOT interrupt the subject.  HE HAS the information we need and we get it only by him speaking. 

We use "impolite" and "uncomfortable" gaps of silence to cause the subject to continue to speak.  

"I'm listening..." is all that is needed.  

 Q. After Anna entered the bakery, where did you go?

Mistake.  He did not tell us that Anna entered the bakery.  Also note that he used the word "Anna" when the subject used "the wife."

Analytical Interviewing SEEKS TO USE THE WORDS OF THE SUBJECT and avoid introducing words.  If he needed to ask, "Anna" should have remained as the subject identified her with "After your wife entered the bakery, where did you go?"

This comes with training---especially interactive, 'hands on' training.  We use "the gong show" type of high pressure training.  It works.  

 A. I went right home, put the car in the garage, and went to White Plains Ave. subway station. I went to the Majestic Hotel.

The word "right" is an additional word that is not necessary.  Therefore, the gap of time that is being "denied" here is important.  It suggests that he did not immediately go, and that there is something there that should be explored.  This is not lost on the Interviewer: 

 Q. And when you arrived there, did you see anybody?

 A. Well, I went to the carpenter shop. Of course, my tools was down there already. I took the tools down the day before and was going to start work. The foreman said, I got to see the superintendent first.

 Q. Continue your movements.

This is best and similar to "I'm listening" as it does not give information (like "Anna" and the "bakery" above) 

 A. When I saw the superintendent he said I can't start. Well, I showed him the letter from the agency. He said, "I am sorry, it is filled up." So I left the tools right in the Majestic and took the letter and went down to the employment agency where I got the job trying to get them ten dollars back what I paid for it. I couldn't get it them ten dollars and he said, "Come around next day, maybe something else coming in." And after that I went to other agencies and I went over to Radio City which was under construction, trying to get a job over there, but I couldn't. And I went home around five o'clock, maybe a little bit later or earlier, I don't know.

 Q. What time did you go back and call for Anna?
 A. I was there around seven o'clock.

[Mr. Hauptmann testified that he walked the owner's police dog and he and Anna ate supper, as usual, at the restaurant owned by the Fredricksons.]

 Q. What time did you and your wife leave there?
 A. Came before nine o'clock; it was after nine o'clock.

 Q. Did you drive your wife home?
 A. Yes.

 Q. What did you do?
 A. I went home. Took the car in the garage, went right away to bed.

 Q. And on March 2nd, 1932, what time did you get up?
 A. The same time again, six o'clock.

 Q. And did you and your wife go anyplace?

 A. I took the wife down to the bakery. After that I took the car home in the garage again and went down to Sixth Ave. In entering the subway station, I read the paper and is the first time I read about the Lindbergh case.

[Mr. Hauptmann denies writing or mailing any of the additional letters, as well as ever possessing the sleeping suit. Between March 1st and the 15th, he continues searching for a job, working on a daily basis at a lumber yard near his home. He is finally allowed to start at the Majestic Apartment on the 15th or 16th of March, 1932.
 Mr. Hauptmann denies having any familiarity with Woodlawn Cemetery, including his presence there on March 12th, 1932, at the alleged meeting with Dr. Condon. The rough distance from his house is put at 40 to 50 blocks plus the width of the cemetery. He further denies ever having been at the frankfurter stand or the shack by the bench with Dr. Condon.
 Mr. Reilly has the three sections of the ladder brought out.]

Please note that the commentaries are not from Statement Analysis but part of the existing download. 

 Q. Now, how many years, Bruno, have you been a carpenter?

Did you catch that previously he called him by his last name?

 A. About ten years.

 Q. You have seen this ladder here in court, haven't you?
 A. Yes.

Not, "Yes, I have" as in the previous pattern.  

 Q. Did you build that ladder?
 A. I am a carpenter. (Laughter)

 Q. Did you build that ladder?
 A. Certainly not.

 Q. Come down and look at it, please.
 A. (Witness leaves witness stand and examines ladder.) Looks like a music instrument.

 Q. In your opinion, does it look like a well made ladder?
 A. To me it looks like a ladder at all, I don't know how a man can step up.

 Q. Now did you take this ladder in your automobile or any automobile from the Bronx and convey it to Hopewell, NJ?

 A. I never transported a ladder in my car.

Unreliable réponse.  Even with second language, we have seen pattern of answering yes or no questions with:

a.  Yes or No
b.  parroted language.  

He was not asked, "ever" as he was previously, but employs the vague (literally) word "never" on his own. 

[Defendant denies having any dealing with the ladder: construction, conveying, or discarding. Likewise he denies owning the chisel. He additionally denies being present at St. Raymond's Cemetery and receiving the $50,000 from Dr. Condon on April 2nd, 1932, the night when he played music with Mr. Kloeppenburg, the first Saturday of the month.
Mr. Reilly re-addresses the shoe box with the gold certificates in it. The money had become thoroughly wet from a roof leak around a plumbing vent pipe; Mr. Hauptmann had complained about the leak ever since moving into the apartment. In describing the kitchen/broom closet, we find that the ice box, next to the closet, is not one of the new Kelvinators or Frigidaires, but the type holding a block of ice. The shoe box, due to about six months of sporadic wetting from the plumbing vent leak, was "practical falling apart."]

The Interviewer has struggled to avoid leading questions and is are of it:  

 Q. Now, describe to the jury without any leading from me, please, the condition of the money in the box as you saw it for the first time.

 A. Well, I – when I saw the money I took the box down and took it in a pail, because the water was running round my, down my arm in the sleeves, took it in the pail and carry it down to the garage.
 Q. Well, was the money flat, rolled up, divided, or tell us more about the condition of it.
 A. It was, it was bundle.

 Q. Describe the bundle.

Excellent:  Let the subject define 

 A. I guess it was four bundles in there. Dem, dem bundles was mostly mesh up, but must be wrapped in paper, not in thick paper, in thin wrapping paper, brown paper, and there was newspaper in the box too, I guess they wasn't filled up at all; it was empty space, there was some newspaper; I didn't look at the newspaper at all. I took the money out, squeezed the water out, put in the basket, loosened it a little bit, put it in the basket, and the rest, I mean the empty box and the paper I put in the garbage.

Note that he uses "guess" here, reducing commitment. He used this with items in police possession, which is appropriate distancing language.  Here, however, we need to find out if his "guess" is because he does not have strong memory of what he is about to describe:

a.  bundles wrapped in "paper"
b.  paper was not thick, but thin
c.   paper was brown paper
d.  newspaper included 

Note the strong detail. 

Note next he reported what he did not do:  "I didn't look at the newspaper at all"

Note next that he continues in strong detail of his actions. 

This is not consistent with the reduced commitment of a "guess"

 Q. All right. You took the money into the garage. What did you do with the money?

 A. Put it in a basket and covered it up. And then laid the basket up on the ceiling so nobody could see it – not exactly lay it on the ceiling. I put it on the upper shelf which reached the ceiling and put a nail and two strips in front of it and put another basket on top of the basket where the money was laying in.

a.  Missing pronoun with "put"reduces commitment
b.  Missing pronoun with "laid" reduces commitment 
c.  Jump in time with "And then" = missing information 
d.   Note the need to explain why he did something.  
e.  Note the pronoun comes back with "I put it"

 Q. What was the condition of your account with Fisch when he sailed for Europe?

 A. Well, when he sailed we made what you say a clean table because we didn't know where we are and so on and my account on the market was $12,000 and there was five thousand five hundred in Fisch's account.

 Q. You say your account was $12,000. Explain what you mean by that.

 A. The stock I got in possession was worth twelve thousand dollar. That was on the 25th or 26th of October, 1934.

 Q. Well, did you owe anything on that $12,000 worth of stock or was that a margin?
 A. No, that was actual money. The stock was worth more, but the rest was a margin.

 Q. And how much of that $12,000 belonged to Fisch?
 A. Only $2,500. The rest was my money.

 Q. Now you knew, did you, that Fisch was dead when you found this money?
 A. Yes, I knew.

 Q. Now, after drying it, what did you do with it then?
 A. When I took it down, I took a few of them and put in circulation.

[Mr. Hauptmann denies ever having been in Greenwich Village, at the Sheridan Square theatre and having purchased a ticket with one of the ransom bills.]

 Q. In checking my notes during the noon recess I found that the date I wanted to inquire about was November 26th, 1933, the date that Miss Barr, I think her name is, says you passed in a five dollar Federal Reserve Lindy bill to her window. I understand that you testified November 26th is your birthday. Is that correct?

 A. That is right.

 Q. Now, have you a recollection as to where you were on the evening of November 26, 1933?
 A. I was home, have a little birthday party at home there, a couple of friends present.

given the second language detail, I do not fault the verb tense, but I expected a pronoun here, particularly the pronoun "we" since it was a "little birthday party"and the detail of "a couple of friends present"

 Q. Do you recall who was present?

 A. Mrs. Miller, his little daughter, my wife, and a friend of my wife from her home in Germany and I.

Note the order. 

What information would you now seek?  The editing of the transcripts has come at some important moments particularly where it reports that the subject "denied" something, leaving us without the words used. 

[Next, Mr. Hauptmann uses memoranda he was allowed to make in jail from photostats of his accounts so as to better describe his finances.]

 Q. Let's start with August 8th. Have you got that sheet there?
 A. Yes, I got it in my hand.

 Q. The entry of August 8th indicates a deposit, does it not, of Warner Brothers Pictures? Do you recall when you purchased that?

 A. That was 51 of Warner Pictures I bought long ago, I guess about three quarters of a year ago. I didn't mark it all down here on the sheet when I bought it.

 Q. Now you traded in the market back and forth, different stocks: is that right?
 A. Well, that is with Steiner-Rouse & Co.
 Q. And did you know the customer's man in Steiner-Rouse?
 A. Yes, I do.
 Q. Did you ask him for advice at different times as to what stock he thought was a good stock to buy or to sell?
 A. Oh yes; that is the usual way you ask.

 Q. Now, Bruno, on the question of cash that was deposited by you at any time in Steiner-Rouse, was there one dollar of that cash Lindy ransom money?

 A. There was no Lindy money at all.

[Mr. Reilly proceeds to go item by item, ascertaining whence came the money for respective transactions, whether from Hauptmann's own money or from Fisch's contributions.]

 Q. There was a good deal of trading in April ['33], wasn't there? The purchases were about $10,000 and the sales were about $7,500, weren't they?
 A. It is about, yes.

 Q. Now on the 28th of April you deposited in cash, $2,500. Where did that come from?
 A. In this month I bought for Mr. Fisch a hundred New York Central.
 Q. Did he give you cash?
 A. Always in cash...

 Q. Now the trading was very heavy in May and June, buying and selling almost every day.
 A. There was buying and selling every day.
 Q. At the end of the month you had a balance of $7,973.72?
 A. Debit balance, yes.
 Q. That is what you owed the firm as against the stocks they were holding; correct?
 A. That is correct.
 Q. Now, during July, you did in that month about $49,300 worth of business on the books of Steiner-Rouse; is that right?
 A. Yes.
 Q. Where you had done the month before $50,000?
 A. Yes.
 Q. And you did in the month of August with Steiner-Rouse $75,000 worth of business, didn't you?
 A. Yes.
 Q. And through sales and profits, with no cash placed into the account at all, [through the margin account.]
    The balance stood as you and Fisch indebted to Steiner-Rouse on August 31st, $11,735.90, that you owed them.
 A. Debit, yes.

 Q. Then they were carrying quite an extensive block of stocks?
 A. Yes, quite a lot. Fourteen different corporations.

 Q. Now the 14 different blocks of stocks, were they holding 5,900 shares of stock in those 14 corporations?
 A. I count 5,700.

 Q. Is it correct that at the end of September, when the house struck a balance with you and Fisch, the balance, the debit balance had grown to $22,172.96?
 A. That's correct.
 Q. But no cash was placed in the account up to the 29th of September?
 A. That's correct.
 Q. The stock was carrying itself?
 A. Yes.
 Q. In October, you began to sell?
 A. Yes.
 Q. And your operations in buying and selling during that month?
 A. It was $46,592.93.
 Q. And your balance due the firm dropped from $22,000 to $6,000, right?
 A. No. Balance dropped to $1,380.16.
 Q. And the trading was quite active in November, was it not?
 A. Well, I don't say so, quite active, compared with the last couple of months this was.
 Q. Only did about $21,000 that month?
 A. Yes.


Anonymous said...

Hauptman was involved, though may not have directly been the murderer.

...Mrs. Miller, his daughter...

Mr. Miller was involved.
Fisch was involved.

The thin paper? Perhaps used for wrapping in clothing stores, restuarants, etc.

They were running extortion rackets. Perhaps piggy backing new immigrants into the scam as well. Where did the rest of the gold certificates go? Germany?

He had an alibi. More than one. However, it is reasonable to beleive he wrote the note.

This is a turn of the century "Dirty Harry" scenerio with a maze of drop spots, codes in newspapers, and lookouts in mysterious places.

Anyone could have known where the nursery was located,e.g., people working on the house;county records; descriptions from friends and relatives;and, of course, someone with field glasses.

Odd no fingerprints were found. Or, could it be their police didn't want to admit incompetency? What about footprints? It had just rained!

Doesn't count new found surpirse money but knows to the penny his account balances from a couple years in the past. Accounts for his savings and admits his wife's salary is for keeping the household: providing shelter, food, clothing for him and the child. (Thus, "his daughter")

He was home on March 1st.

Laughing at the ladder? If he were a carpenter, he would not go up such a rickety contraption.

As in the Zodiac killer, many names embedded in code that had been convicted of something. Someone kept the note writing ongoing. Why? Why not just telephone Lindberg?

Fisch leaving a box at the radio shop. Looking for one person to get caught with the money? Only $14,000...a small price for them to close the case.

"his daughter" was next........

Anonymous said...

any thoughts on Boston Bomber trial. Lawyer for accused asked that the "outrageous conspiracy theorists" not be allowed to protest outside courthouse. for fear defendant be perceived as aligning with them.

I find it odd - that demonstrators holding signs are seen as even worse than accused bomber.

jenny StMaire said...

O/T Chelsea Hoffman did a podcast with Elaine Redwine this week and, after Mark Redwine failed to get it stopped or call in whilst Elaine was on the air, he couldn't resist calling once she had left (to trash her) and ended up proclaiming that he was the last person to see Dylan alive.

Anonymous said...

It's bizarre. I guess they won't be going the "insanity" route, if they don't want him to be associated with them.

I don't even understand what their defense could possibly be. I understand he's entitled to a trial, it's our legal system, and all that, but what possibly can the defense be? Unless they're just looking for a lesser sentence? Which that I don't understand either. Isn't he proud of what he did, in the name of Allah?

Anyway, the conspiracy theorists are pretty nuts. How do they explain ALL the injured, limbs lost, deaths, etc., all the law enforcement involved, etc.? There's way too many people involved for a conspiracy theory to even be possibly considered, in my opinion.

Anonymous said...

I enjoyed reading these statements. I like older cases. I liked reading the Lizzy Borden statements.

Regarding his memory of the money, I thought he was asked if he had the paper to look at while being questioned, which seemed to refer to some sort of record of money? Or am I mistaken? When pressed further, it wss stated that he'd need a record book of some sort, to discuss further.

Also, I noticed the change from yes/no answers, as opposed to detailed answers, but I couldn't really find a rhyme or reason. Early on, he went into detail about his type of work, even though only asked if he worked, but it wasn't noted in the analysis.

I think he knew it was "dirty" money, but I'm not positive if he knew where exactly it came from, at least not at first. I don't know a lot about the case. How did they know it was the ransom money? Was it marked or something?

GetThem said...

I'm going to post on this at another time, but I wanted to let you know that I won't be using GetThem because someone keeps using my name and putting up random and rude posts.

I am not posting those rude comments.

Consider "GetThem" as gone.

Thank you.

Peter Hyatt said...


the comments are deleted.
don't change your name.
don't signal your plans to her. She does it to get under your skin.


GetThem said...

Thank you Peter, I'll try. Peace of mind is pretty valuable to me though.

In reading this the second time tonight, I found it interesting that more than once, he refers to his wife as:

"the wife" -- He says "I took the wife down to the bakery."

Almost like she's a pet dog or an object. Examples: I took the dog to the park. I took the extra set of keys with me to the store.

He never uses her name once during the posted testimony. Maybe it's because his attorney continually does it for him making BH's responses acceptable in responding only with "she" or "her." I don't even think I saw "my wife."

Another weird thing is when he says:

"I didn't look at the newspaper at all."

Why one earth would looking at the newspaper be so sensitive to him? I would have been curious to ask for more details!

Anonymous said...


Former Boulder police chief Beckner participated in a Reddit "Ask Me Anything" session about the Jon Benet Ramsey case yesterday. He now claims that he didn't realize it would be open to the public, and his comments have been deleted from Reddit. However, there are several places online where people have posted Google-cached copies of the entire conversation.

Sus said...

Here is the entire cached version, and wow! It is fascinating.

Lemon said...


“We’re a nation of laws, but we’re also respecting the fact that we’re a nation of immigrants.
- Barack Obama #ObamaTownHall

Cracking down on illegal immigration at the border
Deporting felons, not families
Holding accountable certain undocumented immigrants by requiring they pass a background check and pay taxes

Buckley said...

I love how the ads up top on my phone are for German-made closet ladders!