|
Post by Michael on Jun 13, 2018 14:41:30 GMT -5
This book will follow the same path as volume one by continuing to explore the dark corners of the Lindbergh kidnapping. All the topics throughout this volume will be ones that were never properly examined or evaluated anytime in the past. And the facts revealed cause the historical account to become very unlikely—if not impossible—as a result. As with the first, it is an unorthodox style—a book that may not transition from one chapter to the next as is typical. There may be places where I repeat certain information and/or mention different versions which may not always match up. I do this intentionally so the reader will have all of the information necessary to draw a personal conclusion. I have been very fortunate to be able to access a number of sources that are either not well-known or privately held. Each of these has enhanced my knowledge of the case, and I have tried very hard to communicate the essential findings of each of these to you in this book. In this regard, my book is unique and should offer new information to anyone who reads it, including the most seasoned researchers.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jun 13, 2018 19:22:37 GMT -5
I also just ordered your Volume II. Athough I still do not see solid evidence of any Lindbergh involvement in the kidnapping, your research is awesome and I am greatly looking forward to reading it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 14, 2018 18:23:20 GMT -5
Thanks for all of the positive comments! This volume will follow the same style as the first, however, it is also different because of the areas I cover. I pretty much let the facts take the lead and I simply followed them. It is longer than I expected but it had to be in order to show the links and possible links which exist. As you read it will become obvious what I am talking about. I know I posted the Table of Contents above but here it is again: Acknowledgments
Introduction
1. Additions and Errata
2. The Woodlawn Experience
3. Suspicious Events and Strange Encounters
4. The Ransom Drop Ruse
5. The Skeletons In the Closet
6. Hans Mueller
7. Vacations, Finances, and Ransom Money
8. The Panel Purchase
9. The Writing On the Wall
10. Isador Fisch
Also, the preview is a little confusing so here is how it really looks in the book: Milton Gaglio & Max Rosenhain When asked, Gaglio told police the reason he was there at that time was because Condon told him that he “expected a note or a call on that night” so he remained with him that evening with his car, thinking he may have to drive him someplace.[footnoted] This is an interesting claim. How would Condon know that a communication was coming that very night if what he told police about this call was true? And if he did know then why wasn’t that information ever shared with police? Why did he tell them something much different? For those “supporters” of Condon this would be shrugged off as either a fabrication made by Gaglio or a “mistake” on his part. However, neither of these explanations are adequate. We know this because Condon told Max Rosenhain the same thing:
“I guess March 9th was on a Tuesday if I am not mistaken. Condon received a telephone call on Thursday after we came back on the same week and the telephone message was very short, I wasn’t present when it came, but Condon told me about it and said that between 8 and 9 the following night of Friday March 12th he would receive a communication or whatever it was, that he would receive a communication.”[footnoted] So it’s obvious Condon had specific information he was sharing with these men that he was hiding from the cops. It became clear that the question Gaglio posed to Perrone came from information shared with him by Condon before Perrone arrived. Gaglio’s denial he ever said it only proves that he should not have known – but he did.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jun 14, 2018 19:12:08 GMT -5
I just ordered it too. Can't wait.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Jun 18, 2018 19:44:55 GMT -5
Thanks for all of the positive comments! This volume will follow the same style as the first, however, it is also different because of the areas I cover. I pretty much let the facts take the lead and I simply followed them. It is longer than I expected but it had to be in order to show the links and possible links which exist. As you read it will become obvious what I am talking about. I know I posted the Table of Contents above but here it is again: Acknowledgments
Introduction
1. Additions and Errata
2. The Woodlawn Experience
3. Suspicious Events and Strange Encounters
4. The Ransom Drop Ruse
5. The Skeletons In the Closet
6. Hans Mueller
7. Vacations, Finances, and Ransom Money
8. The Panel Purchase
9. The Writing On the Wall
10. Isador Fisch
Also, the preview is a little confusing so here is how it really looks in the book: Milton Gaglio & Max Rosenhain When asked, Gaglio told police the reason he was there at that time was because Condon told him that he “expected a note or a call on that night” so he remained with him that evening with his car, thinking he may have to drive him someplace.[footnoted] This is an interesting claim. How would Condon know that a communication was coming that very night if what he told police about this call was true? And if he did know then why wasn’t that information ever shared with police? Why did he tell them something much different? For those “supporters” of Condon this would be shrugged off as either a fabrication made by Gaglio or a “mistake” on his part. However, neither of these explanations are adequate. We know this because Condon told Max Rosenhain the same thing:
“I guess March 9th was on a Tuesday if I am not mistaken. Condon received a telephone call on Thursday after we came back on the same week and the telephone message was very short, I wasn’t present when it came, but Condon told me about it and said that between 8 and 9 the following night of Friday March 12th he would receive a communication or whatever it was, that he would receive a communication.”[footnoted] So it’s obvious Condon had specific information he was sharing with these men that he was hiding from the cops. It became clear that the question Gaglio posed to Perrone came from information shared with him by Condon before Perrone arrived. Gaglio’s denial he ever said it only proves that he should not have known – but he did. I' m looking forward to V2 as much as I did V1. This preview just shows how your research has turned up NEW information that I can hardly wait to read. I expect many an "A-HA"! moment, just like I found in V1. Great work, Michael.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 19, 2018 7:12:12 GMT -5
I'm looking forward to V2 as much as I did V1. This preview just shows how your research has turned up NEW information that I can hardly wait to read. I expect many an "A-HA"! moment, just like I found in V1. Great work, Michael. Thanks Rebekah. There's a lot of new material for sure. I still don't have my copy yet, but LJ already received his and READ it! He seemed to like it so knowing I have his endorsement leads me to believe (most) everyone else will too.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 27, 2021 9:47:05 GMT -5
Here's a photo of Hauptmann's car at the NJSP Headquarters in West Trenton after they removed the trunk. I was going to use this in V2 but it ended up that I didn't. imgur.com/8dOyU9g
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on May 28, 2021 8:25:10 GMT -5
Great photo of the car, Michael! Here is some more info on what happened with the car:
State of New Jersey
Department of State Police
Special Report of Investigation
Report of Sgt. Fred Schultz
Date: March 2, 1935
Accompanied by Trooper Robert Benjamin
Subject: Delivery of Hauptmann's car to Troop “C” Headquarters
Instructed by Lieut. Dunn to proceed to Flemington and bring car owned by Hauptmann back to Troop Headquarters.
Tpr. Benjamin and I left this station at 4-35 P.M. and went to the Jail at Flemington and obtained the keys of the above car from Warden McCrea. We then looked the car over and found that the radiator cap, gas tank cap and three hub caps were missing from the same, and I was informed by the warden that apparently they were taken by visitors as souvenirs by sightseers visiting the courthouse at Flemington. As far as I could determine that was the only thing wrong with the car other than the upholstery, which I believe was already known to the investigators.
Tpr. Benjamin drove the Hauptmann car and I towed it to Troop “C” Headquarters arriving at about 6-45 P.M. and the car was placed alongside the Repair shop and the keys turned over to Lieut. Dunn.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on May 29, 2021 8:27:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Sue on May 29, 2021 20:24:43 GMT -5
A chemical test for blood be made on the wooden trunk that Hauptmann constructed and had attached to his car? The trunk is at the New Jersey State Police Museum. 21st Century forensics might reveal whose blood, if any, is in the trunk that was once part of the Dodge. www.newspapers.com/newspage/417816182/
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 30, 2021 9:59:27 GMT -5
ive seen that photo a few times. hey mike did mark retire yet No. I think he's active until sometime near the end of the year. However, the Archives are still closed. A chemical test for blood be made on the wooden trunk that Hauptmann constructed and had attached to his car? From everything I've seen, the trunk was never tested. Not even during the review under Pagano, so if it was they failed to document it. It could certainly be done. I took a "quick" look once searching for a false bottom but didn't find anything. I'm not completely satisfied with my efforts and want to make another go at it if the possibility ever arises again.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on May 30, 2021 14:25:25 GMT -5
The trunk, envelopes, and other items can all be tested over the course of a few days?
Get all the testing done at one time?
Maybe that will settle the matter...and the minds of many, once and for all.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on May 31, 2021 7:50:39 GMT -5
your right sue they should test the wood and all other things with modern up to date forensics,why they wont do it still is a mystery
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on May 31, 2021 7:54:18 GMT -5
mike nothing against you, im not buying no more kidnap books
|
|
|
Post by Sue on May 31, 2021 13:18:06 GMT -5
Luminol may still be the chemical compound of choice in determining whether blood is in or on Hauptmann's wooden car trunk that he built himself.
Luminol was used in the Lizzy Borden case 100 years after that crime was committed in 1892.
Luminol can also detect bleach or other substances that may show that a crime scene tried to be covered up.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 1, 2021 11:45:09 GMT -5
Don't hold your breath. Any kind of modern-day forensic testing would require the cooperation and and endorsement of bureaucrats in the NJ state administration and maybe even living Lindbergh relatives. Both have a vested interest in covering up embarrassing disclosures.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jun 1, 2021 17:02:28 GMT -5
thanks mike
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jun 1, 2021 19:39:14 GMT -5
True, they may want to let sleeping dogs lie.
However, the wooden trunk may yield blood stains from the baby. That would just reinforce Hauptmann's conviction.
Is part of the cover-up to hide that they did a sloppy job in investigating Hauptmann's trunk?
New Jersey stands to benefit if they do forensic testing on the trunk.
They ought do testing on the trunk, envelopes, and whatever else.
They stand to benefit if the baby's blood and Hauptmann's DNA are on these things.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 2, 2021 11:29:01 GMT -5
True, they may want to let sleeping dogs lie. However, the wooden trunk may yield blood stains from the baby. That would just reinforce Hauptmann's conviction. Is part of the cover-up to hide that they did a sloppy job in investigating Hauptmann's trunk? New Jersey stands to benefit if they do forensic testing on the trunk. They ought do testing on the trunk, envelopes, and whatever else. They stand to benefit if the baby's blood and Hauptmann's DNA are on these things. I see it a little differently and think its a "Lose-Lose" for the NJSP. Think about it for a second.... People on either side of this will use whatever findings exist to point to it as "proof" of something while the other side will always come up with an excuse or counter-argument. What good does that do for the NJSP? For example, we know that Hauptmann did not pen out the J. J. Faulkner Deposit Slip. So a fair inference would be that he did not exchange that amount of ransom... Naturally that would mean someone else did. For me, this points to the very strong possibility that others were involved. But some who embrace the "Lone-Wolf" theory all say that Hauptmann had someone else fill out and sign this slip. WALLAH! - Hauptmann is still guilty by himself. Flip this and those who believe Hauptmann is innocent will claim this proves it. But it really doesn't prove that at all. Same argument applies with the envelopes. Not Hauptmann's DNA? No problem, it means he duped someone into licking it for him. POOF! - Hauptmann is still guilty by himself. No way does it eliminate all of the other evidence that show others were indeed involved. And yet there will be some who will act like it would. So it would help "us" but not those with an agenda, axe to grind, or ulterior motive. Some people are so invested in a desired outcome that Jesus Christ himself could come down and tell them what happened and they still wouldn't accept it.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 2, 2021 11:33:55 GMT -5
To do the tests you suggest, someone would have to get a get a living Lindbergh relative to cooperate by submitting a DNA sample (for blood in the truck) and ditto for a living Hauptmann relative for a DNA sample (for the saliva on the envelope). I'm not sure if you could compel anyone to submit DNA samples.
You state, Sue, that NJ stands to benefit if these test results turn out as you suspect. But what if they don't? Wouldn't it be embarrassing to the state to have put Hauptmann to death with modern forensic evidence exculpating him on these aspects of the case? Not only that, but such a result might cause a bunch of additional lawsuits against the state.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jun 2, 2021 13:16:16 GMT -5
For the State of New Jersey to publicly agree upon a DNA-based forensic re-examination of the Lindbergh Case, would only open an absolute Pandora's Box potentially involving thousands of other questionable conviction cases that would probably see no end in legal maneuvering, at a massive financial cost. I believe that one consideration far outweighs any concerns about what actual lab test results would have concluded. Sure, I'd love to see the testing happen, but it's not a realistic expectation.
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Jun 3, 2021 18:59:37 GMT -5
What trunk are we even talking about, the car trunk or Anna's featherbed trunk? During one of their jailhouse conversations Hauptmann had the following exchange with Anna, as overheard and recorded by Hugo Stockburger:
Hugo Stockburger on Dec. 17, 1934: "Hauptmann talked about a trunk. He stated: "You walk past the shop (possibly the baker-shop) and there is a gasoline station on the left, and the garage is on the same side, owner lives over the garage. I had it made there. He is German.""
Hugo Stockburger on Dec. 19, 1934: "Richard: Did you see that man in New York about the trunk?
Anna: No, I didn't have time, I am always so busy.
Richard: You should take care of these things, because it is very important and we haven't much time anymore.
Anna: Suppose I tell Hans [Kloppenburg] to take care of it.
Richard: Yes, you can do that.
Anna: I am going to write to him as soon as I get home and tell him were to go. All you want is a verification that you had the trunk made by him.
Richard: Yes, that will be alright."
Stockburger on Dec 22, 1934:
"Richard: Did you write to Hans about seeing the man that made the trunk?
Anna: Yes I wrote to him."
Did Hauptmann build his own car trunk or did this mysterious German build it? And why was this trunk in question so important in Hauptmann's defense?
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jun 3, 2021 19:16:35 GMT -5
Might there be a "back door" answer, without the forensic testing becoming a pandora's box?
Maybe the Lindbergh case falls under a special circumstance category because of its huge historical significance?
One or more of the Lindberghs may be interested in the testing, perhaps because they believe Hauptmann was guilty or they've always harbored doubts that Hauptmann had anything to do with the Lindbergh crime.
If I were from the Lindbergh or Hauptmann family, I would want the forensic testing done.
Maybe Manfred will come forward to offer his DNA before he gets any older?
Maybe people shouldn't be fearful of what the results of the test may show.
And, can Manfred Hauptmann retrieve his dad's home-made ladder?
That ladder must be worth a fortune!
Can Manfred also get the wooden trunk?
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jun 3, 2021 21:43:59 GMT -5
In October 2020, the New York Post was the only newspaper in the United States to report on Hunter Biden's laptop. Is it also true that the New York Daily News, in December of 1934, was the only newspaper to report on the finding of blood in Hauptmann's car? www.newspapers.com/newspage/417816182/
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jun 4, 2021 19:26:39 GMT -5
For the State of New Jersey to publicly agree upon a DNA-based forensic re-examination of the Lindbergh Case, would only open an absolute Pandora's Box potentially involving thousands of other questionable conviction cases that would probably see no end in legal maneuvering, at a massive financial cost. I believe that one consideration far outweighs any concerns about what actual lab test results would have concluded. Sure, I'd love to see the testing happen, but it's not a realistic expectation. Convictions with reasonable doubt should be questioned and examined, no matter how many there are. It's better to have ten guilty men go free, than one innocent man in jail. Granted Hauptmann isn't alive anymore, but if the results here mean freeing other people who may still be, then great.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jun 5, 2021 9:33:35 GMT -5
For the State of New Jersey to publicly agree upon a DNA-based forensic re-examination of the Lindbergh Case, would only open an absolute Pandora's Box potentially involving thousands of other questionable conviction cases that would probably see no end in legal maneuvering, at a massive financial cost. I believe that one consideration far outweighs any concerns about what actual lab test results would have concluded. Sure, I'd love to see the testing happen, but it's not a realistic expectation. Convictions with reasonable doubt should be questioned and examined, no matter how many there are. It's better to have ten guilty men go free, than one innocent man in jail. Granted Hauptmann isn't alive anymore, but if the results here mean freeing other people who may still be, then great. Not disagreeing with you at all in theory, but how do you justify doing this for a case that's going on 90 years old, that probably 99.9 plus percent of the people in the State of New Jersey would prefer just went away, and one that has sustained numerous appeals and lawsuits up to and including an executive order to open the state case files? In the position of Governor, would you then agree to open this one case to DNA-based forensic re-examination, above all others where questionable conviction was a reasonable inference? I can pretty much guarantee that after the floodgates opened and scuttled your budget for generations to come, you'd probably be drummed out of office or at the very least, not invited back. There's good reason most people with an avid interest in discussing this case are probably talked about behind their backs! Then again, and according to Monty Python, "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about.. and that is not being talked about."
|
|