Search Details

Word: kidnapping (lookup in dictionary) (lookup stats)
Dates: all
Sort By: most recent first (reverse)


Usage:

...escape. Lynch's attorney, Walter J. Higgins Jr., argued that Sam Bronfman did not want to wait until he was 40 to get his hands on his immense trust fund. Also, the lawyer contended, neither the 63 witnesses nor the state's evidence clearly supported the kidnap charge. Summed up Higgins: "The facts reek of reasonable doubt...

Author: /time Magazine | Title: TRIALS: Still a Reasonable Doubt | 12/20/1976 | See Source »

According to Link, Lynch's allegations that he had a homosexual affair with Bronfman and that Bronfman pressured him into the kidnap scheme by threatening to expose his homosexuality, did not play much of a role in the jury's deliberations...

Author: /time Magazine | Title: TRIALS: Still a Reasonable Doubt | 12/20/1976 | See Source »

...lawyer suggested that Sam Bronfman had a motive to plan the hoax: a desire for more money (though he received an annual trust income of $32,000). The lawyer also played one of Bronfman's tapes. He seemed to hint that Bronfman was not really a kidnap victim but just acting the part, because Sam's voice trails off in a final plea to his father-"O.K., Dad, that's it"-only to reappear a moment later saying briskly, "Do it again." Finally, the prosecution's own witnesses, two FBI agents who questioned Byrne after they...

Author: /time Magazine | Title: TRIALS: Time for Judgment: Lynch or Sam? | 12/13/1976 | See Source »

Eight months ago, a guard had found Woods and some other men digging a big hole in a gravel pit that was owned by the suspect's father. The kidnap victims were held in the body of a trailer truck half-buried in the pit, and the guard remembered the previous incident and tipped the police about Woods. Police now believe that Woods not only bought the van in which the children and driver were held but that he also purchased the two Navy surplus panel trucks used to carry them to the site...

Author: /time Magazine | Title: CRIME: They Were Good Kids | 8/9/1976 | See Source »

...Harrises, he said, were not guilty of the shooting since Patty was not authorized to use guns by the S.L.A. He also claimed that taking the four vans and cars was more like joy riding than stealing, and that the two owners had been taken along without intent to kidnap. This last argument, especially, was fairly flimsy stuff, since one of the car owners testified that he was held at gunpoint. At week's end, while the jury was still out, Judge Brandler began hearings that the defense hopes will lead to a mistrial or a reversal on appeal...

Author: /time Magazine | Title: The Law: Frustrated Defense | 8/9/1976 | See Source »

Previous | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | Next