Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2017 9:47:06 GMT -5
NJSP Grid Searches (referencing the exact same property): (Detective Leon) John Kukuruza Property. (Lt. Keaten) Empty house, 4 outbuildings. 3. (Tpr. Stinson) Earl Cox Home with outbuidlings one of which "Andrew Skugil," "George Colomenik," and "Mike Shako" live in. Department of Labor Searches: 635 "Andrew Skugal," "George ?," woodcutters. Farm belongs to Ten Eyk Lumber Co. 636 Earl Cox. Regarding the NJSP Grid Search you mention above. All those references pertain to the John Kukuruza property. So I am assuming that Earl Cox was or had been living on this property also. It sounds from the way you noted this that Andrew, George and Mike were using one of the outbuildings on this property when cutting wood. Could this outbuilding on this property be the shanty house they all spoke about?? The Dept. of Labor Searches you note above. Are the two numbers (635 and 636) report numbers for these searches or are they grid numbers for search areas done by the Dept of Labor? Were these searches done at the time Murray Garsson was involved with the investigation in 1932?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2017 10:02:03 GMT -5
Also, I cannot locate that other Statement in my files. It's possible I didn't copy it. I've been trough every file at the NJSP Archives multiple times, and sometimes I will think I've made a copy from my previous trip which would cause me not to have it for that reason OR it's simply in a file I can't think of to search. It's unlikely I would willingly skip over it while making copies of the other ones since they all relate - it's in my nature to grab them all. Thanks Michael for searching so diligently for the George Salamik (sp?) statement. Sometimes I have trouble tracking down a document in my files which don't compare at all to what you have. I can hardly imagine what it must be like dealing with thousands and thousands of pages the way you do!!!! The report you posted does make the point that the Troopers made sure that they went into a building they wanted to access whether or not anyone was occupying it. I found this report especially interesting because of the location of the bungalow. Being on the Skillman-Hopewell Road, it takes me back to Alfred Hammond and his West Skillman Railroad crossing gate. It seems that certain areas come up repeatedly in both the sightings and reports.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2017 10:05:22 GMT -5
Why is LaRue writing a letter to Lindbergh in Jan.1935 (fn. 6) almost three years after his sighting of the strange car and when Hauptmann is already on trial? It seems to me since the tag traced back to a former employee of the Morrow's, he was being naivete by thinking Lindbergh might want to consider someone attached to the family was involved. Of course the exact opposite was true but the public actually viewed Lindbergh as a victim who wanted the truth. Since no one in the car he saw looked like Hauptmann then he believed he should write Lindbergh, Schwarzkopf, and Wilentz with the full story. Where was Roscoe LaRue residing when he wrote the letter to Lindbergh in 1935?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 7, 2017 16:52:21 GMT -5
Could this outbuilding on this property be the shanty house they all spoke about?? That's the impression I get. The Dept. of Labor Searches you note above. Are the two numbers (635 and 636) report numbers for these searches or are they grid numbers for search areas done by the Dept of Labor? Were these searches done at the time Murray Garsson was involved with the investigation in 1932? Yes. These are those searches. I have the impression they were numbering the buildings in the order they were coming across them. Two different Agencies (NJSP/DOL) with two different systems.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 7, 2017 16:53:19 GMT -5
Where was Roscoe LaRue residing when he wrote the letter to Lindbergh in 1935? 301 Pleasant Place Teaneck, New Jersey
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jan 22, 2017 13:56:09 GMT -5
To Michael:
I'm confused somewhat on your take on Lindbergh's attitude toward John Hughes Curtis and whether or not Lindbergh wanted Curtis to be held by police and prosecuted. On p. 338, Curtis is quoted from his lawyer's notes that he was told by Walsh that Schwarzkopf wanted to let him (Curtis) go, but Lindbergh didn't approve of it. Then on p. 341, you say, "Lindbergh wasn't so anxious to prosecute Curtis."
Also, (1) what exactly was Curtis forced to confess to and (2) can you possibly post a copy of Curtis's confession? (p. 340)
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 22, 2017 15:57:21 GMT -5
I'm confused somewhat on your take on Lindbergh's attitude toward John Hughes Curtis and whether or not Lindbergh wanted Curtis to be held by police and prosecuted. On p. 338, Curtis is quoted from his lawyer's notes that he was told by Walsh that Schwarzkopf wanted to let him (Curtis) go, but Lindbergh didn't approve of it. Then on p. 341, you say, "Lindbergh wasn't so anxious to prosecute Curtis." Yes, I tried to explain about stuff like this in my introduction. I didn't want to conclude something which would then cause me to eliminate something else, rather, I decided to put it all out there for whoever reads it to decide. It could be Lindbergh was talking out of both sides of his mouth, changed his mind, or Walsh was lying to Curtis as a tactic to get him to confess. I am sure there are other possibilities too, but it's my belief Walsh was using psychological pressure on him. Also, (1) what exactly was Curtis forced to confess to and (2) can you possibly post a copy of Curtis's confession? (p. 340)
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jan 24, 2017 18:04:17 GMT -5
To Michael:
Thanks for the post of the Curtis "confession."
I know that he was tried and convicted of something a few months thereafter. What exactly was Curtis convicted of? Did Lindbergh testify against him at trial?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 24, 2017 19:29:02 GMT -5
I know that he was tried and convicted of something a few months thereafter. What exactly was Curtis convicted of? Did Lindbergh testify against him at trial? Curtis was arrested for "Obstructing Justice" on 5-18-32. First: Curtis was never officially under arrest while being held in custody at Highfields and forced to sleep in the basement without legal process. Sounds a little like what happened to Wendel doesn't it? Second: The State's original theory was he obstructed justice by hoaxing the family but changed their theory saying he knew who the Kidnappers were, where they were, and made false statements to thwart their apprehension. Third: He was convicted of "obstructing justice." Lindbergh did testify in Flemington at the Curtis Trial (see TDC page 55).
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jan 26, 2017 10:37:16 GMT -5
I have a few problems with the book I will discuss it in time since I just got back on here. steve romeo is back.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 26, 2017 17:36:38 GMT -5
I have a few problems with the book I will discuss it in time since I just got back on here. steve romeo is back. Ready when you are Steve.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jan 29, 2017 11:49:29 GMT -5
The sham "obstruction of justice" case against Curtis could never have gone down today as it did in 1932. Due to vast changes in constitutional law with respect to criminal case procedure, Curtis couldn't be held by police in Lindbergh's basement for four days before he was arraigned without a lawyer, then charged with a crime that he probably didn't commit. Furthermore, the venue of the trial seems inappropriate, because Curtis, as far as we know, didn't do anything wrong at all in Hunterdon County.
It is sobering to reflect on how oppressive the criminal justice system could be for defendants in the United States not that long ago, and (for the most part) the vast improvements that key Supreme Court decisions brought about since then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2017 17:51:52 GMT -5
Michael,
In Chapter 15, In The Shadow of Death, page 325, I want to thank you for posting that picture of the reporter with the corpse of Charles Lindbergh, Jr. Having an adult standing near that body really puts the physical size of that corpse in perspective. So glad you included this in your book.
In Chapter 14, The Next Phase, page 242, you have a section labeled William Diehl. I was familiar with his name because he testified for the defense regarding Millard Whited and that Whited was known as a liar in the Hopewell community. You mention that Diehl had actually worked at Highfields while it was being built and even was inside the house helping Whateley move some furniture. Did Diehl work for one of the subcontractors on the house? Did the NJSP check all the employees of the subcontractors? Would it have been possible for someone to mix in with the workers while really not being employed gaining access to the house to check it out if planning a kidnapping? There were a lot of workers doing a lot of things working for various businesses. How many workers would have really been paying attention and have noticed someone who "didn't belong", especially if this person wasn't there more than an hour?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 13, 2017 9:23:27 GMT -5
In Chapter 15, In The Shadow of Death, page 325, I want to thank you for posting that picture of the reporter with the corpse of Charles Lindbergh, Jr. Having an adult standing near that body really puts the physical size of that corpse in perspective. So glad you included this in your book. It was a "must" in order to support my findings which proves both Swayze and Mitchell were lying to police about letting the Reporters in. Whatever conclusions anyone wants to draw from this fact is up to them. However, over the years I've seen the "Lone-Wolf" position consistently say no one who testified for the State would lie - it's a historical belief they would never let go because their position crumbles when considering anyone was willing to be untruthful. Most especially when a staple of their argument is the Defense Witnesses were all liars. In Chapter 14, The Next Phase, page 242, you have a section labeled William Diehl. I was familiar with his name because he testified for the defense regarding Millard Whited and that Whited was known as a liar in the Hopewell community. You mention that Diehl had actually worked at Highfields while it was being built and even was inside the house helping Whateley move some furniture. Did Diehl work for one of the subcontractors on the house? Did the NJSP check all the employees of the subcontractors? Would it have been possible for someone to mix in with the workers while really not being employed gaining access to the house to check it out if planning a kidnapping? There were a lot of workers doing a lot of things working for various businesses. How many workers would have really been paying attention and have noticed someone who "didn't belong", especially if this person wasn't there more than an hour? According to Diehl - no. He had at one time worked for Kise's lumber buisness which had a strip of land near the Lindbergh Estate. Around the time of the kidnapping he was among the crew who was chopping and hauling wood to the mill. His work on the actual property came when Whatelely went to the Hausenbaur home looking for someone to do what looks to be "odd jobs" for a couple of days. The investigations into the construction workers started almost immediately then spanned well into the summer of 1934. It never actually ended truth be told. They created a list and never did find each and every person known to have worked there - but for sure they tried. One big problem was, as we see with Watson, is the actual questioning. There was information to learn from these men they did not bring out. Look at Jammer. They interviewed him, but nothing about his observation is included in those reports until the Wendel matter. Both of these men possessed facts that are absolutely priceless if one wants to solve the case. Now to answer your question.... It was possible. Did it occur? I don't know. I do know that at least two separate men claimed someone "working" there made a claim the child would be kidnapped. Police never located anyone who was claimed said this. In one case, they didn't pursue the matter until after Hauptmann was arrested, where they were hoping the man could identify him as the truck driver who made the comment. Lot's to consider: Among them being whether or not these witnesses could be trusted. And another being that I would expect many people looking at the situation might think what was said to have verbalized.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Feb 24, 2017 10:01:54 GMT -5
mike I love the way you say these people were liars when Hauptman lied every day.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 24, 2017 17:50:06 GMT -5
mike I love the way you say these people were liars when Hauptman lied every day. Sure he lied. But how does that invalidate what other people did?
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Feb 27, 2017 9:50:56 GMT -5
when Hauptman was taken a lot of things didn't matter anymore. I never saw a connection with anybody helping him from lindberghs staff. Lindberghs involvement in the crime is very absurd to me. no real evidence that fisch was involved
|
|
I Love Dallas-Ft. Worth
Guest
|
Post by I Love Dallas-Ft. Worth on Oct 9, 2017 10:16:12 GMT -5
When is Volume II going to be out???
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 9, 2017 19:11:07 GMT -5
When is Volume II going to be out??? It's hard for me to predict. My goal was this year but that's not going to happen. I want to say I am half way there but I keep deviating from my outline. It's difficult to explain but I am finding myself adding material that I originally didn't expect to. One thing for sure is that it's already the size of V1 so it is going to be a much bigger book. Also, I know I will need to get back to the Archives because there are still a couple of things I read there previously that I want to re-find so I can properly cite them. Sometimes that can take longer than expected. For example, Monday I spent 6 hours there and only found 2 of the things I was searching for. Something else that has haunted me for quite some time is reference to a 4th set of Bronx Jury Testimony that I have never found. Sounds crazy but the idea of writing without it if it actually does exist does not work for me. So I need to recheck everywhere it could be to be certain that it does not exist.
|
|