|
Post by sweetwater on Jan 9, 2017 2:18:27 GMT -5
I am going through such a severe depression that I am having trouble absorbing some of the thoughts being expressed here, and I am so indecisive I can't decide which posts to "like"! So I will just say thank you all, those who have welcomed me back, those who gave their condolences, and those who are going forward with their theories and thoughts. Everybody, carry on!
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Jan 9, 2017 14:53:07 GMT -5
For me would be hiding behind one of St Raymond's Tombstones where the money would be exchanged. My luck I would have been shot at so I thank you for the invisible part.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 3, 2017 19:51:04 GMT -5
1. The New Jersey State Police had the correct perpetrator of the kidnapping with the arrest of Haupmann, although Haupmann was accompanied by others that night. Haupmann was definitely not at the Lindbergh house on the night of March 1st by himself. From Frank Wilson's testimony at the Curtis Trial: Q: Could not the truth or falsity of Mr. Curtis investigation have been established as to contact with the actual kidnapping gang at any time by any person, Colonel Lindbergh, the police, or anybody else demanding that he produce a writing bearing that symbol, or discontinue his activity in this case? A: No.
Q: It could not have been done? A: Why? The party may have secured possession of the baby after the original kidnapper had it.
Q: My question incorporated the words, "Kidnapping gang," will you please answer? A: All right. A part of the kidnapping gang may not have known the symbols.
Q: Mr. Wilson, how many were there in the kidnapping gang? A: I do not know.
Q: Why do you use the word 'gang' with reference to the original kidnapping? A: Because there is quite a possibility that there were more then one and possibly several in fact.
Q: Are you dealing in possibilities or with facts? A: I am dealing in possibilities brought out by our investigation.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Feb 3, 2017 22:20:08 GMT -5
Again, and again, and again, absolutely no evidence in over eighty years of intense investigation.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Feb 3, 2017 22:20:58 GMT -5
Once again Michael your extensive research and knowledge of all the players in this case allows you to put your hands on very relevant events. To say that I am impressed is a severe understatement. I think your research has clearly shown that virtually all (if not all) of the law enforcement officers involved in this case believed from the beginning that this crime was not perpetrated by one individual. I think Frank Wilson was an Agent with the IRS' s Intelligencd Unit (and later Secret Service). The IRS Intelligence Unit (later CID) has always had some of the best and brightest federal agents. I think Wilson did much of the dangerous undercover work that ultimately nailed Al Capone. I would be inclined to think that Wilson had a good "handle" on what had occurred in the Lindbergh case.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 4, 2017 8:42:07 GMT -5
Again, and again, and again, absolutely no evidence in over eighty years of intense investigation. This is absolutely incorrect. The footprint evidence alone proves there was more then one person. The reason (2) sets morphed into (1) is because of the State's Lone Wolf theory. The testimony in Flemington was fashioned to support it. It's why Authors who point to everything testified to by the State's side furthered this myth, or used it to "prove" there was only one person. We cannot look at this testimony alone, and it must be cross-referenced with all other available sources. Case in point is the Curtis testimony. We cannot point to Flemington but disregard Curtis. Yet that is exactly what I've seen done over the years. People sitting behind desks thumbing through Fisher's books and the Flemington Trial Testimony as "proof" there was a "Lone-Wolf." It's absurd. Once again Michael your extensive research and knowledge of all the players in this case allows you to put your hands on very relevant events. To say that I am impressed is a severe understatement. I think your research has clearly shown that virtually all (if not all) of the law enforcement officers involved in this case believed from the beginning that this crime was not perpetrated by one individual. Thank you. I think what we see is an "official" side of this case and a "private" side exemplified by just about every Investigator associated with it. Keaten, Lamb, Walsh, Williamson, Wolfe, Wilson, Hoover, Sisk, Mulrooney, Sullivan, Schwarzkopf (according to Keaten), etc. etc. This list never ends. All of this is coming from different sources (e.g. reports, memos, letters, and from family members.) Again, this doesn't mean Hauptmann was "innocent" as some people like to portray. It means we have more then one person involved. Trying to get past this by reading Fisher's book or accepting each and every word coming from the State's side of the trial testimony (in Flemington only), while ignoring everything else - doesn't work. BTW Lurp - I sent you a PM (private message). You can access it here: lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/conversation/5236
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Feb 4, 2017 16:20:22 GMT -5
The "footprint evidence" is not evidence. It's speculation!
The reason Bornmann brought the ladder in was because there were reporters examining it. That was before the footprints were tracked by Wolf. If reporters were unsupervised at the ladder where else were they? Certainly up by the house so now what about the footprints?
You pick out what you like and consider it Gospel.
If more that one person was involved name 'em! It's been more than eighty years of investigation - name one other person that was involved in the Lindbergh Kidnapping Crime. And don't say Fisch - there's absolutely no evidence that Fisch did anything wrong including give a stash of ransom bills for Hauptmann to hold and eventually steal.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 4, 2017 18:56:50 GMT -5
The "footprint evidence" is not evidence. It's speculation! Actual physical evidence is not speculation. The reason Bornmann brought the ladder in was because there were reporters examining it. That was before the footprints were tracked by Wolf. If reporters were unsupervised at the ladder where else were they? Certainly up by the house so now what about the footprints? 1. Bornmann did not move the ladder because Reporters were examining it. 2. Once he saw people he did not know arriving he thought it best to bring the ladder sections inside. If you read my book then you would know prior to that happening, he had himself instructed a Trooper to guard the footprints and ladder. That area was under guard and remained under guard until released that late morning early afternoon March 2nd. It's in ALL of the source material, as I footnoted, and is proven by the fact the chisel still remained exactly where, and as it had been originally discovered. Since you are wrong on both counts - what about the footprints? First we were told there was only one set, now we have to hear about this bogus reason there actually were two sets. Name the Reporters who were examining the ladder before the group followed the prints from the ladder down the access road. You can't because it didn't happen. Even if DeLong was first he never went into that yard. In fact, I now have a source which claims DeLong said Blackman beat him there. Lindbergh was already gone when Blackman arrived. You pick out what you like and consider it Gospel. Actually I think this applies more to you then it does to me. I also realize you could be playing Devil's Advocate as I've seen you do in the past. I don't care really, but it's hard to debate the actual reports and what they all say. Having one, or reading an Author's opinion cannot overcome the pile of resources that, once cross referenced - say otherwise.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Feb 5, 2017 15:59:50 GMT -5
Only you would be interested in who was actually at the ladder. They'll go down in fame with the eleventh man to set foot on the moon.
I'd suspect DeLong and Dorothy Kilgallen (the woman appeared to have survived a lynching, she could probably do anything.)
The point is nobody in Hauptmann's group of people he knew is a good candidate for being another perpetrator. In fact who in the whole world would commit that crime? You'd think even Hauptmann would be smarter than that, but he did hold onto bad money which, in spite of what he said, he had to know was Lindbergh ransom cash. He was certainly an ongoing liar.
About the footprints, nobody actually saw anyone walking there so technically it's all speculation and can be interpreted in more than one way. Kinda like an autograph. Unless you actually see someone sign it, you really have no way of knowing if it's authentic or not.
The footprints that show socks are probably authentically the kidnappers.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 6, 2017 17:57:12 GMT -5
Only you would be interested in who was actually at the ladder. They'll go down in fame with the eleventh man to set foot on the moon. I don't know what you mean by this, however, I am quite sure everyone who's studied the case would be interested to know that 2 sets existed from the window to the ladder then from the ladder down the abandoned road. Since that yard had been guarded by several Police Officers from the outset, it would have been impossible for a Reporter to have even approached the yard unabated. If it had happened it would have been reported in their articles and the Trooper would have noted it in their reports that they had lost control of the yard. The Lindbergh "search party" was following those prints before Blackman got there, and neither Blackman nor DeLong were in that yard. Simply saying they were in order to explain away evidence doesn't work because that yard was under guard until late morning early afternoon the next day. I will say it again: If someone wants to explain it all away then I agree that by blaming fictional reporters is the best they'll ever be able to do - but it did not happen. The Police were told by Lindbergh those prints were not his and not Whateley's. The prints existed, and the yard was under guard before any member of the press arrived. This is backed up by the source material made immediately after the crime or within days of it. Anything that says otherwise is beyond speculation.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Feb 7, 2017 18:25:20 GMT -5
Key question regarding the footprints:
Are there any police or other documents stating that these mysterious footprints were measured and Hauptmann was definitively ruled out as a person who could have made them on the basis of a failure to match shoe sizes with the prints?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 8, 2017 18:27:53 GMT -5
Key question regarding the footprints: Are there any police or other documents stating that these mysterious footprints were measured and Hauptmann was definitively ruled out as a person who could have made them on the basis of a failure to match shoe sizes with the prints? Concerning Hopewell: There are no NJSP Reports (currently at the Archives) which mention measuring the prints. We have DeGaetano's testimony about measuring one, and we know from Lloyd's book they casted one of these prints. So they knew the measurements. Additionally, they took all of Hauptmann's shoes (which are still at the NJSP Headquarters in a crate). The logical conclusion is if any print matched any of Hauptmann's shoes it would have been introduced in court. If they were going to use testimony that they knew wasn't true then I'd like to hear how they would not use damning proof if it had existed. Like the fingerprints, they had no evidence linking Hauptmann to any of those footprints. The only counter-argument about not matching that I can possibly see is because of the fact someone wore something over the shoe which may have prevented identification.
|
|