Conspiracy theories alone work off an ignorant premise, that as long as we can make assumptions with no evidence, we can pretty much deny anything that has ever happened.

First, this joke of a website is disgusting. It's full of assumptions and fallacies that support a kidnapper and child killer. Actual evidence is ignored in exchange for conjecture and that's all it is.

I mean, seriously, Scapegoat provided not on piece of evidence at all. It contained no credible sources and was nothing more than a lousy book written by a lousy person to make money off a tragedy. There is no evidence in this book that is enough to get anyone to reopen the case for this because it is 100% conjecture.

Second, you claim that the Fisch story has never been proven to be false. That's an argument from ignorance. If you can assume that if a story has to be true if it cannot be proven false, then every God in every religion exists because you cannot prove that they don't. It's not up to anyone to prove Hauptmann's story is false. It was up to him to prove it was real and he failed.

And Governor Hoffman did not make any "selfless" efforts to help Hauptmann. He could have pardoned him or commuted the sentence. He did neither. He had that power and people like you claim he refused to use it for political reasons. Fact is, he could have done it with one phone call so he obviously didn't care as much as you think he did.

Ed Reilly was a respected lawyer who had won the majority of his murder trials. Not only that, but Hauptmann had three other lawyers working for him as well. The reason the defense was only about Fisch was because Hauptmann was guilty and that was the story he stuck to. His lawyers, including Reilly, appealed his sentence all the way to the Supreme Court. So your comments about him show that you are nothing more than a despicable and uneducated person.

Hauptmann did not choose death rather than lie. He chose to lie because it was his only chance. Hauptmann chose to keep up the lie rather than to admit what he did because he obviously thought people were stupid enough to believe his dumb story. Then, once he was convicted, a confession meant nothing. You cannot go back in time and make a plea deal after a conviction and this disgusting person seemed to believe he would either be acquitted or that the governor would pardon him.

Noel Behn was four years old when the kidnapping happened. He had no access to any witnesses and provided no evidence for his assertions. There is nothing he presents that leads to any possible and rational reasoning that Elizabeth Morrow killed the baby. That is complete and utter conjecture.

So you criticize Jim Fisher and say that the only people who believe his work is objective are people unfamiliar with the case. Well guess what, moron, that's exactly what you want. You want someone with no preconceived idea about what happened to look at your evidence and see it as objective. That's the entire idea behind evidence. Present it to someone who is unfamiliar with the case and convince them. He does it objectively, you don't. You offer absolutely NOTHING while he gives you facts.

Back before I knew anything about this case, I looked up his website and your website. They were the first exposure I had to the details of this crime. He cites evidence, facts and they are all documented. You, on the other hand, rely on conjecture and consider the conjecture of others as evidence, which speaks only to your lack of critical thinking. I used both of your websites to study the case and then to follow the sources to actual evidence. He had it. You don't.

As for your DNA testing, DNA testing on a tree is not advanced to the point that we could tell that a piece of wood came from a specific tree. The simplest amount of research would have shown you that. It can only tell you what kind of tree it is.

Neither Ahlgren or Monier have debunked anything. If you honestly believe that even one of those arguments are logical, than you have no understanding of logic. But then, you also committed an argument from ignorance so we already established you have no idea what logic even is.

You are completely incorrect when you claim, without evidence, that it is impossible for a person to recall a specific voice from three years earlier. I am a cognitive psychologist and I can tell you not only is it possible, but it is common. In fact, cognitive psychology experimentation has shown that you can recognize a voice for the rest of your life with only having heard two words ever spoken by that person. There are plenty of peer reviewed journals that would tell you this if you got off your dumb ass and did some research.

Occam's Razor, look it up. It means that the explanation that makes the least amount of assumptions is more likely than not the correct one. Your theories do nothing but make assumptions with zero evidence. In fact, the only evidence you cite are the books of people who said things and also provided no evidence. That is not evidence.


Should Hauptmann have gotten the death penalty? No, I think that is the one thing you are correct on. First, I do not believe in the death penalty for anyone. In fact, my uncle David Spears was murdered by Aileen Wournos almost 30 years ago. There is probably no human being in my life I have hated more than her, but I was outspoken about my opposition to her death sentence. It's wrong.
And apart from that, I do not believe Hauptmann was a murderer. I do believe he kidnapped the baby and acted alone and I do believe he killed the baby, but I believe the death was an accident.

Ronelle Delmont, you really are the scum of the earth.