|
Post by Michael on Oct 16, 2016 6:56:19 GMT -5
Jim Davidson mentioned Troopers Cain and Sullivan in his lecture on the Lindberghs the other night. But he also said that the place was swarming with reporters in pretty short order. I cover the Reporter angle in Chapter 12. The reason I did that was because it was always very general concerning "when" they were there, and whether or not they immediately trashed the scene. I don't think it's unclear any longer. For example, if there was any question about whether or not the Police had control of that scene then we'd have to ask why these Reporters were creating their own footprints to photograph? They knew there were prints in existence, but could not get into the yard to take them at the time. It's why I wrote up multiple versions to show it all - that way there would be no questions about it. What we have is a situation where the evidence had been closely guarded and collected. After this, and only after this, the SP decided to allow access with a walking tour of that yard. While it worked at first, it was during that time the scores of Reporters were lost control of. This occurred sometime after Kelly and Lang took the photos. As we see from my book the yard was "lost" somewhere between the hours of 10AM and 12PM. That's a far cry from "midnight" as some books have led us to believe. If we want to talk about the thumb-guard then the driveway is where we have a problem because everyone had access here at all times. Blackman actually ran down it's entire length going for a phone to verify the kidnapping to his office. That call was credited as being from the 1st Reporter on site, and the Trooper search party (with Lindbergh) was already out following the footprints at the time. The idea that Blackman arrived, walked backwards through the woods on the access road leaving prints on this road for these men to follow is absurd. His only goal was to get his paper the information as fast as he could.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Oct 16, 2016 8:02:03 GMT -5
Thanks to your research the record can finally be set straight!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 16, 2016 8:55:31 GMT -5
Thanks to your research the record can finally be set straight! Yet even with the research we see some differences from source to source. That's why it's so damn important to look at all of them. I think over time many read the most popular (or only known) version then in order to save time stop right there. I don't know how anyone could read Wolf's Major Report then ignore anything in it. That alone shows the need to scour the other reports and statements. Also, it's important to note that new material can always be found as well. I just recently came into new stuff that would have complemented some information in my first book but I did not have it at the time. As a result, I am going to make mention of the new information in Chapter 1 of Volume II. I'm told it's a mistake or that it's not normal to start a 2nd Volume in this way but I don't care about what's "normal" or what isn't. I feel like I have both a duty and obligation to make sure what I know gets out there. That way it's in a place where it can be cited, and the footnotes will prove it's real information. And as always, anyone who will claim my information is not real, simply ask them what's in the footnoted source and that will force them to either disappear or change the subject. To deviate a little from above, while ultimately I am responsible for my finished product, there were certain things that were beyond my control. Correction reversals, unapplied corrections, misapplied corrections, picture quality, and the worst being the fact that I am so familiar with the material that names that were constantly misspelled by investigators does not mean anything to me when I see them spelled in that way. Regardless, I've learned from the process and hopefully that will make this next Volume even better. I've had a couple of people say they wish there was an index. It's a fair criticism. But I purposely left one out because I knew there would be people jumping from subject to subject if one existed and that's not how this book was designed to be read.
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Oct 21, 2016 21:52:26 GMT -5
I am going to throw out another set of questions: 1. When Keaten blames Lindbergh for “all the deaths that occurred”, what does that refer to?
2. Is there any evidence to suggest whether Elsie Whateley shared whatever guilty knowledge her husband had?
3. What is the unpublished manuscript of Marguerite Junge? Was she writing her memoir? Or is it an account of the kidnapping?
4. I have to say I am unnerved that Lindbergh was informing the police that Red Johnson had VD. Setting that aside, the Lindberghs seem unusually tolerant of “scandalous” (at the time) behaviour on the part of Betty Gow. Any suggestion whether Anne was aware of any of this?
5. In the Morrow chapter, I am bit confused by the references to the night of the kidnapping and the following morning – Ellerson contacted the Morrow house at midnight so everything was technically the next day – or does the following morning refer to the day after that?
6. Also with respect to Ellerson, so he told the police that he drove Mrs. Morrow that night, but told the media that he didn’t drive anyone? 7. What was the treatment that the local people of Hopewell were bitter about with respect to the state police?
I will play the devils advocate for one question: Is it possible that Walsh has a grudge against Lindbergh because of the latter’s failure to support him with respect to Violet Sharp, or can his suspicions be dated earlier? I imagine the answer to this is all the supporting evidence of police investigators who shared his opinions without having such a grudge.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 22, 2016 8:45:30 GMT -5
More great questions.... 1. When Keaten blames Lindbergh for “all the deaths that occurred”, what does that refer to? Without his specifically saying who he means I would say it's in the eye of the beholder. It could be just a general statement, like, if not for his control over the investigation it would have been solved and less people would be dead - more like an indirect reason. Or he could be making a direct accusation like with Violet Sharp, meaning she wouldn't have killed herself if not for him. I've also seen it suggested she was murdered but now I'm going off on a tangent. In the end though it's one of those things any Researcher is going to have to interpret for themselves. 2. Is there any evidence to suggest whether Elsie Whateley shared whatever guilty knowledge her husband had? Nothing more then what I presented in the book. She seemed alarmed at what he was saying about Gow, and that seems to be an indicator. Also, he's definitely the weak-link in the house, so there's no way if his wife didn't know, that he's not sharing it with her. Besides, I don't see how it's possible she did not know - do you? What do you think? 3. What is the unpublished manuscript of Marguerite Junge? Was she writing her memoir? Or is it an account of the kidnapping? This item comes from Dick Anderson. He calls it a "diary." Marguerite was his late wife's aunt, and they discovered these items in Marguerite's Manhattan apartment after she died. He's a member of our Discussion Board and he pops in and out from time to time so hopefully he reads this so he can add more to the response. It's my impression she was writing something but it immediately stops. So she either abandoned it or the rest is missing. BTW: I use this as a source for a point I make in Chapter 7. I have another source for this same point that I am going to add to my 1st chapter in the next volume. 4. I have to say I am unnerved that Lindbergh was informing the police that Red Johnson had VD. Setting that aside, the Lindberghs seem unusually tolerant of “scandalous” (at the time) behaviour on the part of Betty Gow. Any suggestion whether Anne was aware of any of this? I have no proof of it. Mrs. Morrow obviously knew, but would she then tell her daughter? I think she would have. What I've noticed over the years with the Morrow Family was "loyalty" toward their Staff. Look at Banks for example. It's probably one of the main factors that kept the family secrets in-house, because it was a two-way street. 5. In the Morrow chapter, I am bit confused by the references to the night of the kidnapping and the following morning – Ellerson contacted the Morrow house at midnight so everything was technically the next day – or does the following morning refer to the day after that? No you are right. 6. Also with respect to Ellerson, so he told the police that he drove Mrs. Morrow that night, but told the media that he didn’t drive anyone? He's sharing this fact with Hoffman. History records she went later in the morning and not immediately that night. 7. What was the treatment that the local people of Hopewell were bitter about with respect to the state police? There were many different reasons for this. When they were doing their house to house searches, if someone wasn't home, the Police would break in. Next, if they found anything "suspicious" they took it. Also, I don't think many of them liked how they were spoken to or accused of something AND some were involved in other offenses so they did not want the Cops snooping around. Furthermore, some who disclosed information had it placed on blast which they did not view as favorable. Still others would be swarmed by Reporters after one of the Cops leaked intel to the Press (which happened often for a couple of bucks). Etc. etc. etc. You name it. So many decided just to keep their mouths shut. I will play the devils advocate for one question: Is it possible that Walsh has a grudge against Lindbergh because of the latter’s failure to support him with respect to Violet Sharp, or can his suspicions be dated earlier? I imagine the answer to this is all the supporting evidence of police investigators who shared his opinions without having such a grudge. I'd say without hesitation that he did hold a grudge, and I'd even go so far as to say they all had them to varying degrees in one way or another. It took a lot of courage for anyone to go against the grain because that was considered an affront to Lindbergh. So when these statements come out from these men it's easy to see why they make them when they do. And like you said, it seems to be both consistent and independent of one another. What I do find interesting is that no one blamed Schwarzkopf one bit. He saw what they saw but wouldn't stand up to Lindbergh, yet no one blames him for this. I think that's proof of how powerful the guy really was.
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Oct 22, 2016 18:26:01 GMT -5
To be honest, after your reading your chapter on the Whateleys I have begun to feel that I have not given them the attention that they deserved. I think you are probably right - what we can see of their personalities as displayed by their actions, suggests that Elsie was not one to be left in the dark and Ollie was not one to keep silent unless forced to. So even if she did not have first hand knowledge of events, Ollie probably would have shared it with her. More likely they both had the same knowledge from the same source.
I have a few questions generally:
1. My experience with modern police statements is that they tend to be records of the conversation the officer has with the individual, absent the questions. On that reasoning, it would be possible that the Whateleys both made the same comments with respect to Betty Gow which seem a propos of nothing in the context of their statement, but may have just responses to questions asked. So it may show the interest of the officer more than the witness. Is that possible it is what happened here?
2. ok I have forgotten all my other questions.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 22, 2016 20:12:51 GMT -5
My experience with modern police statements is that they tend to be records of the conversation the officer has with the individual, absent the questions. On that reasoning, it would be possible that the Whateleys both made the same comments with respect to Betty Gow which seem a propos of nothing in the context of their statement, but may have just responses to questions asked. So it may show the interest of the officer more than the witness. Is that possible it is what happened here? Okay this is another great question, and it's one I've asked myself. One of the things I do is to check other similar sources to cross reference. For example, when I saw people making excuses as to why Kelly did not find prints in the nursery by saying he didn't know what he was doing - I looked for reports of him dusting then finding prints elsewhere. That in my mind would disprove the excuse - which it did. So I did the same thing in attempting to determine the answer to your question above when I originally had the same idea. The issue here is that Gow's March 3rd Statement is a Q&A. The same thing occurs in her May 12th Statement as well with the format being Q&A. I've also seen others where there is a beginning narrative which transitions into a Q&A as well like with Milton Gaglio's May 25th Statement. So my guess is they were told to give their version of events but may have been given some guidance as to what they were looking for in that narrative. Again, that's my guess considering how the various statements comparably demonstrate. Of course it could be exactly as you suggest but there's absolutely no way I know how to prove it.
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Oct 28, 2016 14:54:48 GMT -5
I was just re-reading Mark Falzini's chapter on the Whateleys and it is interesting that Elsie was out of the country when Ollie got sick and passed away. Maybe not having his wife with him on his deathbed made him more inclined to confess what he knew.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 6, 2016 8:12:40 GMT -5
Just a quick post to explain the "process" I go through as I continue to work on V2. Even though the 1st chapter is finished, I know I will find more to add to it as I continue to work on the others. Since I'm faced with so much material, there are things I've forgotten about over the years, or that I just missed them. An example would be that I am working on the Closet numbers/address chapter now. It won't be Chapter 2, but since I promised Feathers it would be addressed I wanted to knock that out now. As I am writing and searching for information I know is in the material, it's easy to get "side-tracked" by finding other things along the way. One thing I "accidentally" stumbled on is something I want to mention in the book - a Lawyer that was associated with Hauptmann who disappeared from the scene only to announce to the press later that Hauptmann didn't want him because he was a Jew. That may have been what he thought but it's not why they didn't use him so it's something that's been hidden in a dark corner to finally be swept out. So now, totally distracted from what I originally planned to do, I go to the Winchell files thinking there might be something on this Attorney there. And guess what I find? Something on the closet I have never seen before! All within an hours time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2016 18:34:14 GMT -5
In V2 will you cover the J.J. Faulkner investigation? Will you be saying anything about the Schindler car?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 6, 2016 19:43:42 GMT -5
It V2 will you cover the J.J. Faulkner investigation? Will you be saying anything about the Schindler car? Yes, I have completely new information (very interesting) involving the J. J. Faulkner angle, and I do plan on bringing up Schindler's car in that chapter. I think in V1 I've proven that, with Archival Research, a compelling case can be made that others were involved in this crime. It's not a hard thing to do if one is willing to spend the amount of time to do it. The information is all there. I think I've also proven this case could have been made back then as well, however, the guy running the investigation road-blocked it. So in this next volume I will continue to reveal new information that I've discovered contained in the various Archives, and some will continue on that path. Other info will simply reveal the truths no one knew existed, or answer other questions no one thought would ever be answered.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 9, 2016 18:44:04 GMT -5
Attached is an undated and unsigned document containing some of the information in Footnote #1 on Page #2. It's my best guess that someone pulled specific pieces of information from several reports in order to consolidate them in one place. So while we see the information concerning Hammond's eyewitness account, we also see information about the "Tramp" seen around the Lindbergh Estate, as well as Palmatier's eyewitness account of a someone who he claimed was either black or a mulatto, sitting in a tree looking towards Highfields. One of Lindbergh's nearest neighbors, Charles Soltesz, tried to get police to listen to him concerning a man he saw loitering near Lindbergh's mailbox on February 28th. His account was dismissed by the NJSP as being the above referenced "Tramp."
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 11, 2016 9:47:58 GMT -5
One of the things I tried to impress upon anyone reading this book was why (or possibly how) certain untruths became recorded as 'fact.' Along those lines there is something else I have encountered over the years that I wanted to make everyone aware of as well. In these situations information actually becomes "buried."
Some of the hardest files to research at the NJSP Archives are the correspondence files. I highly recommend that all NJSP Reports be looked at first. But in moving along to these other files, I've encountered problems because some are almost impossible to read. It's easy to see terrible handwriting then conclude the person was a raving lunatic simply by looking at it. And many were. However, I had to keep reminding myself there were a lot of people who didn't speak English. Also, among those who did even more were illiterate - or very close to it. That in no way invalidates what they are writing - so it's an obstacle to be overcome. Then it must also be considered exactly "who" these people were writing to. So we might have someone with information writing to the Governor who would never write to Schwarzkopf. I know I've read in most of the books many of the Locals were "distrustful" of the State Police - and that is partially correct. My position is there was a wide variety of reasons to consider. For example, Hall-Mills had many believing a wealthy family could control Law Enforcement, and the "Battle" at Jutland proved to many they could not be trusted. So when it came to speaking to Police quite a few kept quiet. There was also a culture which existed in the area to "mind one's own business." So it was mistrust, fear, and culture. About the 3rd or 4th time around for me, I started taking a closer look at the correspondence as I began to recognize the names I was seeing. For most people interested in this case - if it's not in a book, then it did not happen. But a lot happened. A lot more. Sometimes shoddy investigation was the culprit. Others would be these people kept quiet. But once it become known the Governor had defied the AG and his own SP Colonel, this opened the door for some I mention above to share with him what they (believed) they knew. Others would write to Ellis Parker instead. Parker was trusted by just about everyone, so whoever wrote him did so because of that reason.
Again, this wasn't something I taught myself from the first time around. Each and every time I read through the collections I learned. Something that seemed irrelevant, would become important by my next trip because I learned new details or facts from my previous trip through. The best part is I didn't even realize it until I would come across a letter I recognized as having blown off the last time I looked at it.
Obviously I don't expect people to invest the 15 years I have to research. But for those wanting to go, I am trying to explain what I've learned so that you can better map out a strategy for whenever you make a trip. There are many people out there who want to be considered "experts" on this case who never did any of this research. If asked they'll tell you it's a waste of time. If I was ignorant I'd probably say that too, because honestly, what other recourse do they have?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2016 9:27:46 GMT -5
So, Michael, I want to ask you about another car sighting. It is not mentioned in Dark Corners, so I am not sure if it amounted to anything, but I am curious about it and whether it was investigated or not. In the March 3, 1932 newspapers there was information coming from a man named Julius Goldberg who reported passing an automobile in the main highway of New Brunswick, NJ the night of the kidnapping. According to the newspaper report, Goldberg and his son who was with him, believed the car to be a Willys-Knight sedan with three men and a child in it. This same car was apparently seen a little while later by a Linden N.J. policeman who followed but lost it in traffic. Was this car sighting investigated by NJSP? I am interested in it because John Guinness reported to police about what he said was a Willys-Knight car trying to use a very rough dirt road that would bring a car up behind the Lindbergh estate, if a car were able to negotiate the road that far. Speaking for myself, I believe there were two cars involved in this kidnapping; the ladder car and the car that actually took Charlie from the scene. The car sighting mentioned by Goldberg is also interesting because I can see the northerly route this car is traveling that night as being similar to the way Lindbergh would return to the Hopewell house from New York. Is there anything you can share about the Goldberg car sighting? A list of stolen vehicles from New Jersey was printed in the newspapers on March 3, 1932. I don't know how many of these vehicles were ever accounted for but there is a Willys-Knight car on this list that went missing from Newark N.J.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Nov 12, 2016 14:26:18 GMT -5
Michael, didn't John Guinness own a gas station at the coner of Minnietown Rd (where Hillbilly Hall is now) which could have provided access to Highfields? Amy, Broad St in Hopewell is route 518 which meets up with Rt 27(the Lincoln Highway) and goes straight to New Brunswick, likely the way Lindbergh would travel from NYC..
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 12, 2016 14:27:00 GMT -5
So, Michael, I want to ask you about another car sighting. It is not mentioned in Dark Corners, so I am not sure if it amounted to anything, but I am curious about it and whether it was investigated or not. Is there anything you can share about the Goldberg car sighting? One of my biggest fears is that because I didn't include a sighting in the book that might lead others to disregard those like the one you mentioned above. It's important for all information to be given consideration because, since we all see things differently, there could be value in places others (myself included) have missed or mistakenly ignored. I do remember seeing this, but so far I've only found reference to the call made to the Milltown Barracks on March 3rd. It mentions the eyewitness account of A. Dunham Jr. who reported seeing a Willys Knight four door sedan with a woman, man, and a baby in the car pull out of the woods near George Road. He believed the baby looked "something" like the Lindbergh baby. State Police informed the New Brunswick police that it would be investigated. This means there is a real report on this somewhere. Michael, didn't John Guinness own a gas station at the coner of Minnietown Rd (where Hillbilly Hall is now) which could have provided access to Highfields? That's him. He's referred to as both "Don" and "John" Guinness in the various reports. In his statement he signed his name "J. D. Guinness" so I guess that explains it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 18, 2016 21:12:58 GMT -5
On page 13, I go into the information I had on Whited and offered an explanation for why he originally claimed he didn't see anything. I've been looking for feedback on this possibility. Any thoughts?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2016 14:33:31 GMT -5
On page 13, I go into the information I had on Whited and offered an explanation for why he originally claimed he didn't see anything. I've been looking for feedback on this possibility. Any thoughts? You must be referring to Whited claiming he was told to keep secret about what he saw. My thinking is that Whited did see a brown car pulling into Lindbergh Lane the evening of March 1, 1932. Whited did mention it to his neighbor Charlie Hausenbauer, who then told it to the NJSP, who then went to Whited (March 15, 1932) and they talked about what he saw. Perhaps the officers did tell Whited at that time not to say anything about seeing that car as it was not significant to the kidnapping. I do not think that the "keep it secret" has anything to do with Whited seeing Hauptmann. Whited clearly states to Det. Coar on 4-26-32, when asked directly if he (Whited) "noticed any persons walking through the woods in the vicinity of the Lindbergh home before March 1st, 1932, that acted in a suspicious manner?" Whited responded "No I have not."Apparently the only thing Whited was claiming to see in March of 1932 was a big brown car that pulled into Lindbergh's private drive at 7:10 p.m. March 1, 1932. Michael, does Trooper N.J. Nelson's 3-2-32 report give any details about Whited being questioned during that early morning canvassing? Did he deny seeing any suspicious persons or vehicles when questioned?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 19, 2016 14:59:26 GMT -5
Michael, does Trooper N.J. Nelson's 3-2-32 report give any details about Whited being questioned during that early morning canvassing? Did he deny seeing any suspicious persons or vehicles when questioned? Great question, and I can see you are definitely doing your homework! Here is a copy of the Report you mention (below). I've got Trooper Nelson's Report in a file I've labeled "Secondary Reports." Okay, so in reading it, I then searched out the Reports written by the other men mentioned in it. Trooper Roller's Report (see below) was written 7 days later so it had to be searched for. And based on it's contents I've placed that one in my Lupica File. Just a little more of my experiences with these files to explain why it took as long as it did for me to complete my research (although I do continue to find new stuff so I guess I'll never really be done).
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 20, 2016 8:11:37 GMT -5
Not to beat a dead horse, and I know I've mentioned this in the past - look at Tpr Nelson's spelling of "Kristofeck's" name in his report where he spells it "Cristopik."
This type of thing gave me fits early on because I'd look in the index cards thinking I'd found all there was to find. Then later, as I read certain reports, I knew there had to be others out there to find that were not in listed on those cards. Here is a great example why. So this is another pit-fall to consider and it's what made me abandoned the indexes to simply go report by report. Sounds like a lot of "work," and it is, but after the first time I did it I realized how necessary it was - then did it again. During the 2nd time through I found stuff I "missed" the first time. Why? Sometimes it's just oversight, however, a lot has to do with "learning" during the researching process. Facts, dates, people, places. Once enlightened things that seemed irrelevant become more interesting if not important. Then there's learning about the files themselves. Call me crazy, but I can identify certain handwriting just by looking at it. For example, Cpl. Horn was a lefty who's style is unmistakable, and his notes don't have his name on them. Or if I found a report that should have a follow-up but did not, where to look in another place to possibly find it.
What I've found over the years is that most people who want to be considered "Experts" are the ones who refuse to do research. It's a very odd thing. So they'll tell you they have all the answers in order to dissuade people from finding their own way. By contrast, I want people to go to the Archives to research! The more people going through these files the better! I can guarantee that anyone who goes to the Archives - if only for an hour - will open a file, read some reports, then will be dying to get back to go through more. It's not "work" - it's really a learning experience that anyone interested in this case will love.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2016 23:29:21 GMT -5
Here is a copy of the Report you mention (below). I've got Trooper Nelson's Report in a file I've labeled "Secondary Reports." Okay, so in reading it, I then searched out the Reports written by the other men mentioned in it. Trooper Roller's Report (see below) was written 7 days later so it had to be searched for. And based on it's contents I've placed that one in my Lupica File. Just a little more of my experiences with these files to explain why it took as long as it did for me to complete my research (although I do continue to find new stuff so I guess I'll never really be done). Thanks for posting both those reports. I did not expect that. Trooper Nelson's report does not give any specific statement about talking to Whited but it does say they were at his place. Trooper Roller's report gives the time of this search as being between 7:30 a.m to 1 p.m. He also states that they were unable to obtain any information about cars or persons being in the area of the Lindbergh home the night of March 1. If Whited were home at the time of this particular search, then it appears he had nothing to tell these men. Focusing on the Lindbergh search party in the early morning hours the night of the kidnapping, Whited was supposedly awakened and questioned at that time. Trooper DeGaetano was part of this group. Does his report of March 3, 1932 or the one of March 9, 1932 mention Whited being asked if he had seen any persons or cars in the vicinity of the Lindbergh estate?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 21, 2016 17:44:09 GMT -5
Focusing on the Lindbergh search party in the early morning hours the night of the kidnapping, Whited was supposedly awakened and questioned at that time. Trooper DeGaetano was part of this group. Does his report of March 3, 1932 or the one of March 9, 1932 mention Whited being asked if he had seen any persons or cars in the vicinity of the Lindbergh estate? DeGaetano wrote Reports for March 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. The March 9th document is a Statement. None mention Whited. As I wrote in my book, I don't believe DeGaetano actually went to Whited's place. I base this on the various reports which specifically name the men who went there and surprisingly none mention DeGaetano (see footnote #26 on page 13 AND footnote #466 on page 157). Before reading them I always believed he was there also. If anyone can think of a source which names DeGaetano as actually being present when Whited was questioned that night please let me know so I can look into it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 22, 2016 10:13:47 GMT -5
I don't want to send the message that DeGaetano wasn't part of "the" search party, because he certainly was, but he claims they made a "hurried search" of the vicinity. Whited claimed (5) men were at his home at that time. These (5) men are named in several sources none of which were DeGaetano. So in light of this I've always considered it possible the men may have split up or while some were at Whited's house others were searching different nearby buildings or areas. For example, Leon made a general statement that they "canvassed all the neighbors in the near vicinity, searched shacks in woods" and he was a part of the "search party" as well. I've also considered that both Detective Lewis, and Lt. Wallace confused DeGaetano for Sgt. Haussling, but that seems highly unlikely since both worked on this case in it's early stages as well and both knew Haussling & DeGaetano. There is a letter written in '36 by Bill Conklin to Gov. Hoffman which omits Horn and Haussling but adds Leon. Since Leon was part of the search party as well, I've always considered he was with DeGaetano when the others went to speak with Whited so Conklin doing this makes sense but is at variance with the other two NJSP reports.
There might be a source to explain this better but either I haven't seen it or can't remember seeing it. If none exists then I have to stay where I'm at. If one does then I'd have to compare it to the others to see where it lands.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2016 17:51:04 GMT -5
I appreciate your efforts to help me understand about Whited's questioning and whether DeGaetano was involved. I think I may just be confusing DeGaetano's presence in this early morning search due to the fact that he was involved with Lindbergh's search team in following those boot prints down to the chicken coops and I thought he also went on with him searching the nearby neighbors also.
My main interest is whether or not Whited is in any report of that early morning search led by Lindbergh, telling officers that he didn't see anyone or any vehicles. Did any of the troopers (or other authorities) who were with Lindbergh write a report that specifically references that early morning search? The two reports you posted (Trooper Nelson and Trooper Roller) are actually about a search that takes place between 7:30 a.m and 1 p.m. on March 2. Nelson's report states that he and Tpr. Green were detailed by Capt. Lamb along with Tprs. Roller and Watkins to search the woodland and farms north of the Lindbergh estate, one of which was the Whited property. At least that is how I am interpreting those reports. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Whited claims he was questioned in the early morning hours of the night of the kidnapping. On page 13 of The Dark Corners you write the following:
"Around 3:30 AM on March 2nd, Whited said he was woken up by the sound of his dogs barking. A plainclothes trooper confronted him, asking how many children he had and whether he had seen any suspicious vehicles in the area. He told them, "No."
This quote refers the reader to footnote #27 which is Millard Whited's April 26, 1932 statement made to Det. Robert Coar, Jersey City Police and Det. S.J. Leon, NJSP.
Whited says it was an officer in plainclothes. Could this have been a detective and not a trooper that spoke to him at 3:30 in the morning? If no officer put this early morning conversation into any report, then all we have is Whited claiming this conversation occurred.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 22, 2016 20:49:39 GMT -5
I appreciate your efforts to help me understand about Whited's questioning and whether DeGaetano was involved. I think I may just be confusing DeGaetano's presence in this early morning search due to the fact that he was involved with Lindbergh's search team in following those boot prints down to the chicken coops and I thought he also went on with him searching the nearby neighbors also. He definitely did, but like I say, it's hard to know specifically where he was when the men were actually speaking to Whited. My main interest is whether or not Whited is in any report of that early morning search led by Lindbergh, telling officers that he didn't see anyone or any vehicles. Did any of the troopers (or other authorities) who were with Lindbergh write a report that specifically references that early morning search? The two reports you posted (Trooper Nelson and Trooper Roller) are actually about a search that takes place between 7:30 a.m and 1 p.m. on March 2. Nelson's report states that he and Tpr. Green were detailed by Capt. Lamb along with Tprs. Roller and Watkins to search the woodland and farms north of the Lindbergh estate, one of which was the Whited property. At least that is how I am interpreting those reports. Please correct me if I am wrong. 100% correct. This was a different search. I posted it because you were asking about it and not to imply it was the same search. Whited says it was an officer in plainclothes. Could this have been a detective and not a trooper that spoke to him at 3:30 in the morning? If no officer put this early morning conversation into any report, then all we have is Whited claiming this conversation occurred. They were all in plainclothes except for Cpl. Wolf. There's nothing written at the time. It's all the general searching nearby neighbors type of thing. There's no doubt in my mind they went there though and I will tell you why.... First, no one disputes it. Next, Detective Lewis's report relies on his interview with Wolf: "the night of the crime he was with a group consisting of Colonel Lindbergh, Lieutenant Keaton, Sergeant Haussling, and Corporal Horn who visited the Whited home in an effort to learn if any strangers had been seen in the locality. Corporal Wolf being the only man in uniform had knocked on at the door and announced the identity of the party, whereupon the others had entered the house and talked to Whited and so far as Corporal Wolf knew, gained no information of any value. Corporal Wolf did not prepare a report in this matter, but believes that it was prepared by some one in the party." A couple of things.... Firstly, as I wrote in my book, Whited thought he was about to be arrested for "stolen tires." So it's probable he did not say anything (forgetting or being scared after being woken up) until the date I wrote about what he actually did see (page 15). Or it could be (although I seriously doubt it) that he told them what he saw and was told to keep quiet for the same reason I explain in the book.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2016 10:11:36 GMT -5
Whited says it was an officer in plainclothes. Could this have been a detective and not a trooper that spoke to him at 3:30 in the morning? If no officer put this early morning conversation into any report, then all we have is Whited claiming this conversation occurred. They were all in plainclothes except for Cpl. Wolf. There's nothing written at the time. It's all the general searching nearby neighbors type of thing. There's no doubt in my mind they went there though and I will tell you why.... First, no one disputes it. Next, Detective Lewis's report relies on his interview with Wolf: "the night of the crime he was with a group consisting of Colonel Lindbergh, Lieutenant Keaton, Sergeant Haussling, and Corporal Horn who visited the Whited home in an effort to learn if any strangers had been seen in the locality. Corporal Wolf being the only man in uniform had knocked on at the door and announced the identity of the party, whereupon the others had entered the house and talked to Whited and so far as Corporal Wolf knew, gained no information of any value. Corporal Wolf did not prepare a report in this matter, but believes that it was prepared by some one in the party." A couple of things.... Firstly, as I wrote in my book, Whited thought he was about to be arrested for "stolen tires." So it's probable he did not say anything (forgetting or being scared after being woken up) until the date I wrote about what he actually did see (page 15). Or it could be (although I seriously doubt it) that he told them what he saw and was told to keep quiet for the same reason I explain in the book. Thanks for hanging in here with me on this, Michael. I am truly not meaning to belabor this issue. I am just seeking the assurance that Whited from day one was saying he did not see anything suspicious. He never claimed to see anyone in the woods or such. I feel this is very important because it goes to the point that you make in The Dark Corners about Whited claiming he was told to keep secret what he saw. It is obvious that the police were not telling Whited to keep secret that he didn't see anything suspicious. So it does validate that Whited was told to keep secret what he really did see as you explained in your book. I do hope in Volume II, you can explain how this whole scenario developed that Whited saw someone twice around the woods of the Lindbergh estate before the kidnapping occurred. There were officers who knew Whited never claimed this in 1932, yet somehow this falsehood became fact without a documentable foundation. Thanks for that quote from Det. Lewis's report. It was very helpful to me. I still stand amazed by the amount of research and time it took for you to put all these documents in context so that a point can be clearly made and understood and then applied to what we have read about this case.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 23, 2016 11:12:57 GMT -5
I do hope in Volume II, you can explain how this whole scenario developed that Whited saw someone twice around the woods of the Lindbergh estate before the kidnapping occurred. There were officers who knew Whited never claimed this in 1932, yet somehow this falsehood became fact without a documentable foundation. Thanks for that quote from Det. Lewis's report. It was very helpful to me. I still stand amazed by the amount of research and time it took for you to put all these documents in context so that a point can be clearly made and understood and then applied to what we have read about this case. Thanks Amy. As you can tell I am still wrestling with the fact DeGaetano was with the search party but not at Whited's place - so even with all the available documentation it isn't always crystal clear. It's filling in those gaps where we can solve unknowns, or run into trouble with incorrect assumptions. To your point about "the time it takes" I wanted to give another example about research... I am still working on the Closet chapter. Sometimes I will consult the various books on the subject when I write to see if they are right or wrong so that I can highlight a point to compliment or destroy the idea. If it's something new that I learn from one of them I will cite it as a source but if I had or knew the information previously I do not. Now, I usually only open one of Fisher's books so that I can correct his mistakes. In his book he says the closet discovery was on September 24th. Richard's book says the same thing. Now while I'm not saying that he piggybacked this date from Fisher, I think many Authors do this to save time. They assume something is correct, then continue on without making sure it's right. If we go to Lloyd's book we can see he got the date correct. Fact is, Bornmann was in New Jersey taking Statements from potential witnesses the entire day on the 24th and it's while he was doing this that Capt. Lamb called him telling him to report to the Bronx the next day. I point this out not to try to make anyone look stupid, because no one is above making mistakes (my book isn't perfect) but to educate Researchers that the "facts" in the books should never be taken as being absolutely correct. They need to be double checked. Next, this specific mistake it isn't a huge error unless one is attempting to put together a complete timeline and/or interested in knowing what happened as it actually did.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 25, 2016 16:46:19 GMT -5
Not to belabor the point but I wanted to bring up another example....
I may have mentioned this before but I keep getting questions as to why I made it a point to mention that Prosecutor Marshall was not present when Lindbergh identified his son's corpse (page 316). While it may seem trivial to some, I think it's important in light of the fact that just about every book on the case has him there AND the one asking Lindbergh if that was his son. So by pointing this out, it corrects a "rock solid" fact that was never true.
The question now becomes - how (or why) did all of these Authors get it wrong too?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Nov 29, 2016 16:48:27 GMT -5
To Michael and amy35:
Why all this discussion about Millard Whited? Hasn't it been pretty well established that Whited saw nothing and heard nothing in the days leading up to and including March 1, 1932, but then, after Hauptmann's arrest, was more than willing to make up stories and testify against Hauptmann - at the Bronx extradition hearing, at the Hunterdon County grand jury, and at the trial - in exchange for money? Can we concede that Whited was known, even by relatives, to be a compulsive liar? This part of the case should not be so complicated. Or am I missing something?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2016 20:55:07 GMT -5
To Michael and amy35: Why all this discussion about Millard Whited? Hasn't it been pretty well established that Whited saw nothing and heard nothing in the days leading up to and including March 1, 1932, but then, after Hauptmann's arrest, was more than willing to make up stories and testify against Hauptmann - at the Bronx extradition hearing, at the Hunterdon County grand jury, and at the trial - in exchange for money? Can we concede that Whited was known, even by relatives, to be a compulsive liar? This part of the case should not be so complicated. Or am I missing something? Speaking for myself, it was important for me to know for sure that he did not say he saw anything or anyone suspicious to police during that early morning search that was led by Lindbergh the night of the kidnapping. No official report was written about this early morning questioning so I am very happy that Michael could provide a quote from Det Lewis's report that talked about the questioning of Whited and that they learned nothing useful from him. So when Whited told a neighbor shortly after the kidnapping that he saw a large brown car turn into Lindbergh's private drive around 7:10 p.m the evening of March 1, 1932, I believe that he was being truthful about seeing that car. When the police questioned Whited about seeing this car, he told them honestly what he saw and they told him to keep it secret. There was no reward money dangling over Whited's head when he spoke to the police about that brown car. I believe what he said was truthful. I also find the timing of 7:10 p.m. interesting. Henry Conover had observed the headlights of a car on the dirt road that ran between the Conover home and the Lindbergh house. This was at 6:30 p.m. on March 1. Could the Conover car sighting and the car turning into the Lindbergh drive 40 minutes later be the same car or possibly could both cars be involved in the kidnapping?
|
|