Criminology - The Abduction of Peter Weinberger

Episode Date: November 13, 2022

In 1956, Angelo LaMarca abducted Peter Weinberger and left a ransom note for the baby's parents. A cat-and-mouse game with the Weinbergers and the police ensued while 1-month-old Peter's life hung in the balance. Multiple ransom demands were made, but the drops were never picked up. Join Mike and Morf as they discuss this case from the 1950s. The Weinbergers weren't famous or rich, so in that way, this kidnapping differed greatly from the infamous Lindbergh kidnapping case. But, there were some similarities as well. The hunt for the abductor relied heavily on handwriting analysis. When the truth came out, people were horrified to learn the true details and the motive behind the abduction. LaMarca's actions devastated two families. You can help support the show at patreon.com/criminology An Emash Digital production Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Do you remember the movie Catch Me if you can? Well, apparently, a lot of people think that this movie is based on a true story, but I found out it's 98% BS. Frank Abagnale says that he posed as an airline pilot, he was a doctor, and he wrote $2.5 million in bad checks. But after doing a little digging, it turns out that Frank Abagnale's story is a lie, and I have the documents to prove it. You see, I've been trying to get Frank Abagnale on my podcast for five years now,

So if he won't come to me, well, I'll just have to go to him. Hey, Mr. Abingale. For six years, we invaded the FBI, pretending to be a pilot, a doctor, a professor. But how were you able to do that if you were sitting in prison the whole time? Just recently, I flew out to Vegas and confronted Frank Abagnale after one of his keynote speeches. This is the real Catch Me if you can. And I'm going to expose his lies one by one. and I have the police records, court records, all the documents I need to prove he's a fraud.

Look for the episode titled The Real Catch Me if you can. Only on Pretent. Criminology is a true crime podcast that may contain discussion about violent or disturbing topics. Listener discretion is advised. Hello everyone and welcome to episode 232 of the Criminology podcast. I'm Mike Ferguson. And this is Mike Morford. Morf, what is going on with you? I am sitting here ready to record this episode, energized. I just noticed that it's Veterans Day.

So just we're recording this on Veterans Day. It's going to the episode will be released after Veterans Day, but I just want to give a big shout out to all the veterans out there. Thank you for your service. Yeah, absolutely. I echo that as well. Let's go ahead and get into our Patreon shoutouts. We had Betty Steele jump out at our highest level and cameo patch.

So some great new support. We really appreciate it. Yeah. Thank you so much. We're taking the time to support the show. We appreciate it. And anyone out there that's considering supporting criminology can do so by going to Patreon.com slash criminology.

Just a reminder, CrimeCon, 2020, in Orlando, Florida is rapidly approaching. We'd love to see you there on Podcast Row. CrimeCon is happening September 22nd, the 24th. It's at the World Center Marriott. And we'd like to help save you a few bucks on your trip there. So go to crimecon.com and use our promo. code criminology to save 10% on your standard badge at checkout when you register for CrimeCon in Orlando. It's definitely going to be a lot of fun and we hope to see you there.

And speaking of a lot of fun, Mor, if you and I have decided to have a Q&A episode of Criminology or what we're calling an AMA, Ask Me Anything, where we hear from you, the listeners, and respond to your questions and comments every once in a while. People ask us when we'll be doing another one. It's been a while since our last one. Yeah, we decided to to do this episode over the holidays. And we definitely want to hear your questions and comments. So if you can get them in, we'd appreciate that. And you can ask anything you want about Mike and I, about the show, the cases we've covered,

were about us ourselves. Maybe what kind of music we like, how we take our coffee? It's totally up to you. The deadline for getting your questions and comments in is December 13th. You can hit us up on social media via our Twitter handle at Criminology Pot or on our Facebook home page or in the Facebook group criminology podcast discussion and fans. You can also leave us a voicemail, which we may play on the air by going to speakpipe.com slash criminology podcast.

So, you know, get those questions and comments in. Should be a fun episode. All right, buddy. So now that we have all of that out of the way, let's jump into this case. And it's an older one from the 1950s. It's a case of a baby boy who was abducted in New York. The saga that followed the kidnapping made headlines and shock residents there. We're discussing the kidnapping of Peter Weinberger, but also, you know, some of the forensics

involved in solving his case, but also others like his. On June 2nd, 1956, Peter Weinberger was born in New York City to Morris and Betty Weinberger. The couple was excited for the arrival of their second child. They also had a son, Lewis. reports on how old Lewis was at the time ranged from two to four years old, depending on what source you look at. The Weinberger's lived on the quiet street of Albemarle Road in the town of Westbury. The family was looking forward to spending time with baby Peter and bonding with him.

But on July 4th, just after Peter turned a month old, the unthinkable happened. Peter and Betty were outside on their patio. At around 3 p.m., Betty stepped inside, leaving Peter's sleep in his carriage, which was covered with a mosquito net. Some reports say that Lewis was at home taking a nap at the time, and others say that he was out someplace with his father. But whatever the case, Lewis wasn't with Betty. Betty spoke inside with housekeeper for about 10 minutes and then headed back outside, expecting all to be well and Peter to still be napping, safe and sound.

But when she looked down at her son, she was terrified. The mosquito net was ripped open, and Peter was gone. Before she could get a grasp on what was happening, Betty found a note in the stroller scrawled in green writing. The note read attention. I'm sorry this had to happen, but I am in bad need of money and couldn't get it any other way. Don't tell anyone or go to the police about this because I am watching you closely. I am scared stiff and will kill the baby at your first wrong move. Just put $2,000 in small bills in a brown envelope and place it next to the signpost at the corner of Abermarl Road and Park Avenue at exactly 10 o'clock tomorrow, Thursday morning.

If everything goes smooth, I will bring the baby back and leave him in the same corner safe and happy at exactly 12 noon. No excuses. I can't wait. The note was signed your babysitter. So obviously more if this is every parent's nightmare to find out that your child is missing. And then to read a note that essentially. essentially says the child has been kidnapped.

You know, every time we do an episode where a note has been left. And, you know, when I read these notes, it gives me chills to think about, number one, the person sitting down and writing the note. And then number two, obviously, the person who finds it and reads it. And I just try to imagine the emotions. going through both individuals. Yeah, I think about the same thing, especially the person getting a note like this,

because I'm sure as parents, a lot of us have had that moment where we're in the store, we turn around, our child's gone, and we look around real quick, and you get that adrenaline rush, and then all of a sudden you see them, and they're in the next aisle, and you breathe easy.

But here, Betty, probably had that same feeling, only there wasn't going to be a moment where the baby was just, suddenly a 30-day-old baby just doesn't get out of the carriage. And then you have this note there. So she knew right away this wasn't a case of her child just hiding. You know, the baby was too little to hide number one. And then there's this note.

So she had to be terrified. She was terrified. And although her first instinct was to call police, she also thought of the threat to her baby. So instead, Betty waited for her husband Morris to return home and greeted him with the horrifying news. Morris frantically searched every room of their home, thinking, well, maybe someone had played a cruel joke on them, but Peter was nowhere to be found.

Morris called the Nassau County Police Department to report the abduction, despite the warning, not to tell anyone or go to the police. The Weinberger's weren't a wealthy family. The ransom demanded $2,000, which would be almost $22,000 today. It wasn't an easy amount of money to get their hands on. quickly. There have been kidnappings in the past where a large ransom demand made sense because of the family's wealthy or famous status, but that didn't fit the Weinbergers. They were just a normal family from Westbury, a town of less than 4,000 residents. In 1932, 20-month-old Charles Lindbergh Jr.

was kidnapped out of his crib in the nursery on the second floor of the Lindbergh home in New Jersey. You may remember that we covered the Lindbergh kidnapping back in episode 114 of criminology. In the Lindberg case, a ransom note demanding $50,000 had been left on the window sill of the nursery. Charles Lindberg was a well-known aviator. He was the first person to fly the 33-5-hour nonstop trip from New York City to Paris and the first person to fly across the Atlantic Ocean alone. He was a celebrity as well as a family man, an excellent target for extortion via kidnapping. The body of Charles Lindberg Jr. was eventually found in the woods near the home he was taken from. So you have the Lindbergh family who was well known.

They were in the public eye and they had money. So it seems like someone that you could see a kidnapper, a ransomer targeting. But the Weinberger's, they look like a run-of-the-mill family from a small town. The Weinbergers didn't seem like the type of family that would be targeted for a ransom. Police arrived at the Weinberger home and quickly began assessing the scene. Whoever had taken Peter had acted in the short. time that he was unattended at his own home for this reason. Some investigators felt that someone must have been stalking the family, waiting for a

moment of opportunity to strike. But other investigators felt that it could have been any child in that town and that it was just random that it was baby Peter. The first challenge was getting their hands on all of that cash. After all, it was Independence Day, a holiday. and the banks were closed, authorities were able to get a bank to open in order to get cash. The police asked the bank for $4,000 in small bills. This would have been enough for not one, but two $2,000 ransom packages.

Everyone's priority was recovering the one-month-old child alive. Due to the warning in the ransom note, the police and the Weinberger asked all media not to publish anything about Peter's Kidney. Most news outlets complied, but unfortunately, the New York Daily News didn't listen, and it published the story about the abduction right on the front page. After that, there was no stopping the press, and the story spread like wildfire throughout local media and soon well beyond New York. When it came time for the money to be collected by Peter's kidnapper, tons of reporters were in the drop-off area on the corner of Albemarle Road and Park Avenue, waiting to see what happened. To police, it seemed as though the kidnapper did not know the area well and therefore may not be from

Westbury. They had demanded that the money be left at the corner of Abamar Road and Park Avenue, but the street is actually Albemarle. And there are actually two intersections of Albemarle and Park. The street is not straight and both ends curve and intersect Park. Anyone who regularly took Albemarle, would have noticed this, and would have known to specify which intersection for something so important as a ransom drop. Due to this possibility and not knowing which one the kidnapper had meant, it led the authorities to take $4,000 from the bank and prepare two ransom packages, $2,000 to leave in two separate spots. But no one showed up to retrieve either package.

It was thought that the kidnapper was spooked due to all of the media posted nearby. Investigators decided to try and trick the kidnapper and play into any emotion or conscience that they may have had. They held a press release and asked Peter's abductor to just make sure to feed him the medically recommended formula that he needed. The abductor could go into any pharmacy and get it, but without it, Peter would become very sick.

Of course, there was no medically recommended formula, and what they told the kidnapper to get at the pharmacy didn't exist. Police simply hoped that someone coming in asking for the phony formula would stand out to a pharmacist who could in turn provide details leading to the abductor. Unfortunately, no one ever attempted to get the special formula from a pharmacy. So that's pretty smart. You know, if you think about it, and I'm always amazed at some of these things that investigators have come up with over the years in different cases that we've done to try to get people to do something that will bring them out up from the shadows. You know, I'm reminded of that ploy that you've seen from time to time where police are trying to find a bunch of people with outstanding

warrants. So they run some kind of phony contest. And they say that, you say that, you're these individuals have won something of value and basically they just wait for these individuals to show up to collect their prize. Unfortunately, there is no prize and they arrest them. Brilliant. Yeah, you definitely have to give them credit, especially back then because we're talking long before there were any kinds of surveillance footage, surveillance videos, people having security systems in their front yards where they can see. who went up to the house to take this baby. They really had to think outside the box

and come up with some kind of plan to smoke him out, but unfortunately it didn't work. The Weinberger's waited anxiously, worried about their baby son. On July 10th, the kidnapper called the Weinberger's twice. And in each call, gave a location for a money drop. The first call, around 10.45 a.m., instructed Morris Weinberger to leave the money near exit 26.

of the northern state parkway. Morris did as instructed. But the kidnapper never came to pick up the money. In the afternoon, the second call was answered by Betty. The kidnapper claimed he waited for over an hour near exit 26 and no one had come. So he directed Betty to look for a blue bag right by the exit 28 sign. He claimed that inside the bag were directions to where Peter was. he told Betty she'd find her baby within an hour.

Undercover detective staked out the area. They did see the blue bag, the caller had referred to, but no one ever went to retrieve the money once the ransom was dropped. When the investigators finally looked inside the blue bag, there was yet another ransom note, but no directions to baby Peter. So more if we've got a real cat and mouse game going on here, drop the money here.

Okay, it's not picked up. Then the caller says, well, I was there and no one ever dropped the money. Now here's a second place to drop the money. I'll leave instructions. Those instructions weren't found. So the police had to really wonder, you know, what were the true intentions of this individual? And then, you know, I think about the wine burgers, this up and down roller coaster that

they're on, you know, thinking, there may be an hour or so away from getting their son back only to have their hope stashed and to get another set of instructions. You know, that roller coaster that we talk about quite a bit to me is almost unimaginable in a situation like this. Each leg of the way, they probably hoped, okay, we're going to cooperate. We're going to get our baby back. That didn't happen.

And I wonder if maybe part of it was because the abductor, was nervous about coming and said, you know what, maybe if I send the one more location after this, it'll put some distance between me. It'll be harder for them to track me. So I wonder if that was part of the reason that he didn't want to pick up that first spot and then the second spot. And then he's pushing it on and on trying to distance himself from being caught. Yeah. I mean, if you think about it and it's really backed up by every movie I've ever seen that's involved a ransom drop, that's kind of the toughest part. I don't want to downplay the abduction or anything like that.

I'm just talking about, you know, if you have a ransom situation, the ransom money drop is one of the toughest parts to get away with because the police know where you said you've going to be. On July 11th, the FBI finally joined the investigation. At the time, protocol required that the FBI wait in its higher week to join a kidnapping case. if there was no clear proof that the abductor had crossed state lines. It was actually the kidnapping of Charles Lindberg, Jr. that made kidnapping a federal offense if a victim was taken across state lines, or if the abductor used the mail to demand a ransom. The Lindberg law was passed in 1932,

the same year as Charles Jr.'s kidnapping a murder. Weeks passed with no further word from Peter's kidnapper. The Weinberger anxiously awaited any news, while police pursued leads and potential suspects. They circulated copies of the ransom note to various law enforcement agencies in the state, asking people to be on the lookout for possible suspects that might be tied to the ransom note. On August 22nd, 1956, more than six weeks after Baby Peter was abducted, a U.S. probation office agent in Brooklyn, New York found handwriting that he thought was a match to the ransom note handwriting. it belonged to Angelo Lamarca of Plainview, New York. Lamarca had pleaded guilty to running an illegal still and serve some time for bootlegging.

The writing on his probation slips was notably similar to the writing on the ransom note. At the time of Peter's kidnapping, Lamarca was working as a taxi dispatcher, auto mechanic, and a truck driver. But he was not making enough money to stay afloat. He was at risk of losing the house he and his wife and their two children lived in, and a loan shark was after him for a payment. On top of this, there were other bills that he had not been able to pay. On August 23rd, agents from the FBI and officers with the Nassau County Police Department went to 31-year-old Angela Lamarca's home and arrested him. They showed him the ransom note and the probation slips that

proved he wrote both. They had combed through almost two million hand. handwriting samples, and only his was a match for the ransom note. The kidnapping of Charles Lindbergh was eventually solved using handwriting analysis as well. The FBI Laboratory in Washington, D.C., analyzed the Lindbergh ransom note, as well as the writing of the prime suspect, Bruno Richard Hauptmann, who had spent some of the marked ransom money. Comparing the two sources, investigators found, according to the FBI's website, remarkable similarities in inconspicuous personal characteristics and writing habits. and were able to conclude that Houtman had written a ransom note.

Lamarca's wife was brought into the interview room. As per a Newsday article about this case, his wife said, Angelo, did you kidnap this child? Think of that baby's mother. If you did this and I was the mother, I would want to know where he is. Furious, Angelo ordered her out of the room. He then confessed to kidnapping Peter and told investigators everything. He said he needed money and had decided that a ransom would be the quickest way to get it.

He was driving around when he saw Betty walking inside while Peter was on the patio and he took that opportunity. Sadly, he also admitted that he had abandoned Peter in the woods immediately after abducting him. It turns out that there was never any hope of an exchange or of a caring kidnapper who would get special baby formula. Instead, Lamarca admitted he left baby Peter to die in the woods on a hot summer day. Investigators were heartbroken and knew they'd have to deliver the terrible news to Peter's family that there would not be any kind of happy reunion. Lamarca also claimed the police

that he had an accomplice, a man named Joe Parisi. Authorities arrested Parisi and brought him in for questioning, but he denied any knowledge of the crime or any participation in it. Lamarca finally admitted that he had lied and implicated Perisi just to give him a hard time, and that he alone was responsible for the abduction. On August 25th, Lamarca helped investigators find Peter's body. His remains were on the side of a road under a honeysuckle vine, still wearing the same clothes he had been wearing when he was abducted. An autopsy revealed the likely causes of his death, exposure, starvation, and asphyxia had all worked together to kill the month old child. The Nassau County Medical Examiner believed that Peter could have been alive alone in the woods

for up to one week before he succumbed to his predicament. So this is an awful case. I mean, there's just no way around it. The abduction, the parents worry about what's going to happen to their son. But there was hope there, right, in the form of these ramborption. some notes. If we comply, if we do what these notes are asking us or telling us to do, there's a chance that we're going to get our baby back. But with Lamarca's admission, that all completely goes out of the window. And then obviously, once they find Peter's body,

they know 100% that Lamarca was telling the truth, what I think is extremely, tough, and I'm sure it is for everyone listening, is to think about, you know, this poor one month old baby dying all alone on the side of a road exposed to the elements, nothing to eat or drink. And then, you know, that word asphyxia was in there morph. So obviously, to me, it sounds like there was a little bit more than just leaving this baby on the side of the road. Yeah, a really, really cruel thing to do to anyone, let alone a one-month-old baby. And that changes immediately the crime because if you abducted a six-year-old and you just left them out, they might have a chance to find help to run out to a road and be found and be saved.

He knew at the time when he laid that baby there, that baby was going to die unless miraculously someone came along and found. him. So I think that changes immediately what this crime is. This is a murder. And, you know, I want to go back to what Lamarca said. He was in financial trouble, right? He had bills. He couldn't pay. He had a loan shark after him. I get all of that. People get stuck in very bad financial situation. What blows me away is that in his mind, he thought this was the answer, you know, all of his problems. And not just a ransom. A ransom where it seems as though he knew very quickly.

He was never going to turn this baby over. He was going to try to get the money knowing full well that he had killed this small child. In addition to the kidnapping charges, Lamarca was charged with Peter Weinberger's murder. On September 5th, 1956, he pleaded not guilty. by reason of insanity. Defense attorneys tried to make the case that Lamarca was so stressed by the financial difficulty of caring for his wife, his nine-year-old son, and his six-year-old daughter that he had suffered from temporary insanity, a sort of nervous breakdown.

In November, Lamarca went on trial. He unsuccessfully petitioned for a change of venue. But ultimately, district attorney Frank Galada, prosecuted the case there in Nassau County. Donna Lamarca, Angela's wife, testified to a change in his personality after he bought a house in the plain view area near Long Island paying $15,000. She described their financial difficulties and how they weighed on her husband. The amount demanded in the ransom $2,000 was his debt on the house.

She argued that it was impossible that Angela wasn't insane, stating no man who is a father can let another child die unless he was crazy. Psychiatrist Dr. Ornani DiAngelo testified for the prosecution, refuting the idea that Lamarca had been insane or unaware of his actions at any time during or after the kidnapping. Ernani said to the court, I base my opinion that the defendant knew right from wrong on the fact that the act itself was so planned, so executed, and so covered up to escape detection, that only a person who knew what he was doing every second

and every inch of the way could have accomplished this fact. And to me, this part is fascinating as well. It comes up in a number of cases. You have someone who uses a type of insanity defense. But when you look back at their crime, there was so much planning. And, you know, I kind of understand what this psychiatrist is saying, that Lamarca knew right from wrong,

because everything was so planned. He had executed every step and he had covered a lot of things up to try to escape detection. Does, at least in, you know, this guy's opinion, all of those facts kind of refute any notion that Lamarca had been insane

at the time that he did what he did. Yeah, it makes sense to me that if you're covering your tracks, you're trying to evade detection and distance yourself from the authorities, you know what you've done is wrong. So, you know, I don't think they were buying this insanity excuse.

In the suburbs of D.C., a woman fails to show up for work and is found brutally murdered. I wonder which emergency. We just walked in the door and there's blood in the foyer. For the next two decades, the case remained unsolved

until new technology allowed investigators to do what had once been impossible. A new series from ABC Audio in 2020, Blood and Water. Listen now, wherever you get your podcasts. At the trial, Lamarca confirmed that he had acted alone. He hadn't been targeting the family. He just saw an opportunity and he took it.

Lamarca driving his taxi around aimlessly just happened upon the Weinberger home. The house just off North State Parkways exit 32 is on a rounded corner that is also a T intersection, making it highly visible even from a street over. The Weinberger's were just unlucky enough to live in an area that Lamarca drove through. It's frightening to think that if he had been looking the other way as he passed, or if Betty Weinberger had gone inside just a few minutes later, this might not have happened. Of course, obviously that's no blame on Betty. She had no idea that this monster was driving around at that moment. It just proves how this really was a case of the wrong

person in the wrong place at the wrong time. And I think more if these are very scary cases because these weren't bad people doing something bad, putting themselves in harm's way. And I think, I think everyone listening can probably think about this and have it scare them just a little bit, right? This is not an individual who was targeting the wine burgers. This was a crime of opportunity, and those are very scary because they're completely random, at least to me, very, very scary. Yeah, I have to agree, you know, thinking, you know, the police initially were thinking, hey, maybe this person has been stalking this family, which would be frightening enough if that was the case, but it wasn't the case. And it was just the wrong place, the wrong time, you know, something that was just not able to be controlled. And that's what's

frightening about this case is it could happen to anyone under the right circumstances. A jury of 12 men, every single one of them a father himself, found Lamarca guilty of kidnapping and felony first degree murder on December 7, 1956. They had deliberated just shy of six and a half hours. before agreeing on their verdict. On December 14, 1956, Lamarca received a sentence of death for Peter's murder. Dona Lamarca feigned and had to be carried out of the courtroom. Bettina Lamarca, Angela's mother, also feigned upon hearing the sentence.

So there's a couple of things here that jump out at me. First of all, that they were able to get a jury of 12 men. All of them fathers. That obviously was by design. I'm just shocked that they were able to do that. No doubt 12 men, 12 fathers, or 12 mothers, for that matter, if they were able to get that, they're going to look at Lamarca as even more of a monster. I think everybody would look at him as a monster, but in degrees, right?

I'm talking about degrees of how people would look at this guy and who's going to judge him more harshly than 12 guys with children. Well, you had a good point that usually when you see a jury, there's a little bit of a mix to them. And both the defense and the prosecution have a hand in picking out who will serve on the jury. So, you know, the defense had to have okayed these men. And I look at it a little bit differently. I look at it as perhaps the defense thought maybe one of these guys will know what it's like

to struggle to pay the bills to sort of. support of family and he'll have some compassion for this guy and maybe he'll be the dissenting vote that that spares this man being found guilty or ultimately facing a death sentence. Well, that's a great point. You know, we don't have all the details of, you know, the challenges and the jury selection, but you could be right. Maybe the defense gambled that they were better off with men than women because to your point, maybe one of these men for whatever reason would be sympathetic with the situation that Lamarca found himself in. But then I also want to talk about the deliberation of almost six and a half hours. It's not the longest that we've heard of, but

it's fairly long. You know, oftentimes when something seems so clear cut, you know, we're talking about 30 minutes, maybe an hour. Gibby and I did one on TCAT the other day that I think was 14 minutes, and that might be one of the fastest ones I've ever heard of. So there was some deliberation. This didn't seem to be kind of a one vote and were done type of thing. And at the time, felony first degree murder and premeditated first degree murder were separate charges with premeditated murder carrying a mandatory death sentence.

With Lamarca's charge of felony murder, the jury's decision not to recommend mercy was a deliberate choice. Lamarca's attorney asked the jury to recommend mercy and spare his client's life. But prosecutors responded by saying, what mercy was shown baby Peter when he was left in the woods? What mercy did Lamarca show then? And I think that's a great point to make by prosecutors. Okay, defense, you're asking for mercy for your client. where was the mercy on the part of your client to this one-month-old baby? It wasn't there.

On August 7, 1958, just over two years after Peter was kidnapped and killed, Angelo Lamarca was executed. His final meal was fried chicken, vegetables, French fried potatoes, ice cream, and a cup of coffee. He made no official final statement and apparently showed no remorse for what he had done. his son, Vincent Lamarca, who was just 11 years old when his father, Angelo, was executed, later became a detective. In a Tampa Bay Times news article, Vincent Lamarca said, it tore me apart when he did this horrible thing. But it taught me a lifelong lesson about responsibility.

And I became a cop so that no one could ever say one single bad thing about me and so that I could restore the family name. As much as Vincent wanted to restore his family's name, his efforts were in vain. In 1996, Vincent's son and the grandson of Angela Lamarca, Joey Lamarca, was arrested for the murder of James Winston, a drug dealer he was trying to rob in Long Beach, New York. Part of his defense was that he was genetically predisposed to murder. The 2002 movie, City by the Sea, is about Vincent's life as a detective in Long Beach, with Robert De Niro playing Vincent and James Franco playing Joey. So no doubt. I mean, this is a really tragic case all around. We talked about to torment the

wine burgers went through the horrible details of how Angelo Lamarca left baby Peter to suffer a very cruel death and how even the Lamarca family was affected by this tragedy. But I think we really need to get into how handwriting analysis played such a huge role in identifying Lamarca in this case in other individuals in other cases, it's clearly a tool that law enforcement uses, and they have for decades, but many people don't feel that handwriting analysis is a valid forensic science. In 2002 and earlier, handwriting analysis and the opinion of handwriting experts would easily get thrown out of court because the science hadn't passed the standard of admissibility set forth by the Supreme Court in 1993. There's a difference between handwritten.

handwriting analysis and graphology, which is the practice of figuring out someone's personality traits based on the characteristics of their handwriting. Handwriting analysis is concerned with the pressure used to write the letters, the slant of the pen, whether loops are left open or if they're closed, trying to discern whether the same person wrote two different things. According to J-S-T-O-R daily, graphology is the belief that you can tell what someone is like based on how they write. For example, the belief that weak-willed people cross their teas feebly, and strong-willed writers crossed their tease forcefully and firmly. In 2002, a computer program was used as a test

to see if individual characteristics in writing could really be identified consistently. With a large sample, the computer was 96% accurate, and with a small sample, it was still right more than 80% of the time. Turning to human analysts, we still see an incredible rate of action. accuracy among trained professionals. One study quoted on John Benet Ramsey.com found that professional document examiners had only a 6.5% error rate compared to an error rate of 38.3% for non-professionals. Another study found something similar, that forensic document examiners made

errors in 3.4% of their opinions. While 19,000, point one percent of the control group gave erroneous opinions. Dr. Moshe Camp, who conducted the first study we mentioned, noticed something different between trained professionals and the control group, saying it struck me very quickly that lay persons tend to see similarities and jump to a conclusion, whereas document examiners always started the analysis by trying to show me what's difference. At the end of the day, handwriting and handwriting analysis is not irrefutable or scientific evidence the way that fingerprints or DNA are. It's open to opinion of the examiner. One case that we've covered in the past extensively is the Zodiac case, and in that case,

an esteemed question documents expert named Sherwood Morrill closely examined the Zodiac letters and tied them to handwritten letters in the 1966 murder case of Sherry Joe Bates in Riverside, California. Back in the early 1970s, Morrill said that in his opinion, the Bates letter author was unquestionably the Zodiac killer. However, in recent years, Riverside Police claimed that a man came forward not long ago and admitted to writing one of the letters in the Bates case

back when he was a teenager. If that's true, he couldn't possibly be the Zodiac, which would undercut Sherwood Morrell's claim that the Zodiac had written those letters. So if someone like Sherwood Moral can be wrong, we have to be careful about relying on writing alone to solve cases. I think in many cases where handwriting analysis has been a central feature of the case, there was also additional evidence to back it up at Bruno Hauptmann's trial tool marks,

matching tools that he owned, a match between the wood used in the ladder made to reach the second floor, and the wood used in his attic flooring. And the number of the liaison between the Lindbergs and the kidnapper was found written inside his closet. All of that helped to bolster the handwriting match as proof that Helpman had written the ransom note. There was no DNA in the 1930s, but fingerprint matches did exist. So that just really backs up the fact that physical evidence is more important than handwriting examination. In fact, things like fingerprints are so important that high-profile criminals John Dillinger and Alvin Carpus, who both led gangs, in the 1930s attempted to erase their fingerprints. Carpus had a surgeon, remove his fingerprints in

34, and Dillinger paid $500 a hand to have the epidermis scraped off and the remaining skin burned with a mixture of nitric and hydrochloric acids called aqua regia named Royal Water for its ability to melt so-called noble metals like gold. A picture of the picture. A picture of Alvin Carpus holding his hands up shows that his fingerprints were not completely obliterated. They were certainly different, but not removed. Fingerprints taken at John Dillinger's autopsy almost perfectly matched previously taken prints. So I think what we're saying here is it's very hard to get rid of fingerprints. You have to wear gloves, which leave unique prints of their own, or you have to somehow avoid leaving prints altogether.

The United States Secret Service has a large library of different inks, about 7,000 different samples because they deal with identifying forgeries. An analysis of the note left in the Ramsey home at the time John Bonnet Ramsey was killed, found that the note was written with a felt tip Sharpie that held water-based ink manufactured before November 1992. The same ink that was in the three Sharpie markers in a cup on the kitchen counter near the phone. If you look at the Ramsey ransom note, many believe that the author used their non-dominant hand to change their writing style and also try to change the shape of their letters

to disguise the writing even further. A Sharpie is apparently one of the worst writing instruments for handwriting analysis because the broad tip, according to the website John Bonay Ramsey. pbWorks.com, distorts and masks fine details to an extent not achievable by other types of pen. A Sharpie also caused the stroke direction used to construct certain letters and subtle hand printing features, such as hesitations and penelifts, to be hard to discern. Another thing the Ramsey case shows is just how different handwriting experts can see the same document. According to one set of experts is detailed on John Benet Ramsey.p.bworks.com. The handwriting in the original ransom note showed consistency throughout the entire writing. and the writer does not appear to have been trying to disguise his or her handwriting.

A different expert found that the handwriting on the ransom note is a classic example of an attempt to disguise the true handwriting habits of the writer. Ted Widmer, author of the book Crime and Penmanship, believed this ransom note was written by a person who was trying to disguise their handwriting. forensic document analyst Leonard Speckin addressing the belief that John Bonnet's mother wrote the ransom note stated I can find no evidence that Patsy Ramsey disguised her handprinting exemplars. So I'll be honest with you more if I do find handwriting analysis very, very interesting. The Zodiac case, the John Bonnet Ramsey case, the Lindbergh kidnapping case. And there have been

many other high profile cases as well. But when you, you know, kind of break it down and especially when you see that experts can vary wildly on their thoughts of who wrote something, whether they were trying to disguise it, this and that. I mean, it really does come down to personal opinion in a lot of aspects. And like you said, you know, much different than fingerprints or DNA. Yeah, I think it's really just one of the tools in the tool shed. And if you ask most investigators, they'd probably love to have fingerprints, DNA, that kind of stuff. But, you know, if all they have is handwriting, you know, we've seen that it's enough to make cases against some people. It was in this case for sure. So all of the handwriting stuff aside,

when discussing the Peter Weinberger case, it seems like it's less common for a kidnapper to actually intend to return their victim after they've received their demanded ransom than it is for them to just commit murder and extort a hopeful family. One case that comes to mind happened in 1953, when six-year-old Bobby Greenlease was kidnapped

from the school in Missouri by a woman pretending to be his aunt. She claimed that his mother was in the hospital after suffering a heart attack and that she was going to take him to St. Mary's Hospital. When a nun from the Catholic preschool, he went to called the Greenlease home the checkup on Virginia, Bobby's mom. The Greenlease is both live and well called the FBI. Robert Greenlease was a multi-millionaire who owned several car

dealerships. He began receiving ransom calls demanding $600,000, which would be over $6 million today. Greenlease asked the authorities to let him pay the ransom, and he did, hoping he'd get his son back safely. But sadly, Bobby had already been murdered by Carl Hall, the partner of Bonnie Hetty, the woman who took him from the school. Hall had taken him to Kansas, shot him, and buried him in Bonnie's backyard before they ever made the first phone call to demand the ransom.

Both Hall and Hetty were executed the same year of the kidnapping. Bonnie Hetty is one of only four women executed in the federal system in the United States. Just as in the Greenlease case, Angelo Lamarca abandoned a month-old infant in the woods right after he abducted him, leaving him to die.

There was never any real, intent to return Peter safely, just like there was never any intent to return Bobby Greenlease, this may be why proof of life demands are now so important in kidnappings for ransom and why many go unpaid. Another thing that these cases seem to have in common was the very quick speed at which the convicted kidnappers were executed. Bobby Greenlease's killers were executed just months after his murder. And Lamarca, despite his appeals, was executed just two years after the murder of Peter Weinberger. And I think, you know, this was a reflection of the values of society back then. There wasn't a lot of messing around. There were no second chances. People were executed very quickly

back in, you know, the 40s, 50s. Now, today, if we had the same two cases, they obviously would not be executed anywhere near as quickly as they were back then. It does really seem as though, you know, back in the day, kidnapping sometimes seemed to carry even harsher consequences than some other murders. In 1936, Arthur Gooch was executed for the kidnapping of two police officers in Texas. The officers are in Baker and HR marks were let go alive in Oklahoma. Baker was injured when he was pushed into glass that broke during the kidnapping, making it a capital offense. I think the abduction of children for profit is especially disturbing to people, and it's not a new phenomenon.

In fact, on July 1, 1874, the very first kidnapping for ransom in the history of the United States happened when two brothers, named Charlie and Walter Ross, who were four and six years old, were taken in front of their family's mansion. Walter was dropped off by his abductors at a store, but Charlie was never seen again. Today in 2022, abduction of children, whether for ransom or not, is sadly all too common. The abduction and murder of Peter Weinberger resulted in changes, and President Eisenhower took action after Peter's murder. He signed legislation that ended the seven-day waiting period for the FBI and instead allowed them to join an investigation. after just 24 hours. In 1998, the Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act

entirely ended the waiting period for the FBI to investigate the kidnapping of a child. Today, the FBI's website states that agents will initiate a kidnapping investigation involving a missing child of tender years, even though there is no known interstate aspect. In this case, tender years means 12 and under. If Peter Weinberger were alive today, he'd be 66 years old. Perhaps he'd have children or grandchildren of his own.

Instead, in 1956, his life came to an end as Eli helpless, unattended in the woods during a hot New York summer, all because of one cold-blooded and desperate man, Angela Lamarca, who saw an opportunity to make some money and took it. In the end, he didn't get a cent. instead he destroyed the Weinberger family and his own family and paid with his life in the electric chair. So more if as we wrap up this case, obviously it's just an incredibly sad one. And you just mentioned it.

So many families destroyed. Generations destroyed. Really, if you think about it and to what end to try to get $2,000 to pay off some debt? You know, as we do these cases, there's no doubt. It's very hard to make sense of the actions that some people take, the decisions that they make, to make the conscious decision that you're going to kidnap a one month old child to try to get $2,000 with no intention whatsoever of keeping that child a lot. I just don't see how anyone can mull it over in their brain and think,

think, yes, this is the right course of action to take. I just don't see how people get there. I understand frustration, I understand desperation, but I just don't see how people can think that this is the right way to go. I think like in the case of Lamarca, we try and put ourselves into, or at least I'm trying to put myself into his mindset at the time. And I, it, It makes no sense what he did to just steal that child and leave him there to die just to make a few bucks. It's, you know, disgusting. Well, I think that's part of true crime and the fascination around true crime. Understanding or trying to understand these individuals and why they do what they do or how they came to make the decisions that they did.

I think the struggle more often than not. is that it's just impossible for most people to make sense of it. You just can't do it. But that's it for our episode on the kidnapping of baby Peter Weinberger. If you love the show and you haven't done so yet, take a minute, go out, give us a five-star rating, leave a review. Keep telling your friends. That word of mouth about the criminology podcast really helps us out. If you want to find us on social media, we're on Twitter with the handle at Criminology Pod. You can also find us on Facebook by searching for criminology podcast or by joining our Facebook discussion group, criminology podcast discussion and fans.

So we finish another episode of criminology, but we'll be back with everyone next Saturday night with a brand new episode. So for Mike and Morph. We'll talk to you next week. Take care, everyone.