Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2018 9:31:14 GMT -5
amy the fbi said the footprint castings were inconclusive. The thing is Steve, the prosecution's position was that Hauptmann was the man (all alone) at St Raymonds, the night of April 2, 1932 and that he (alone) received that ransom money. A foot print was found of this perpetrator (so Condon claimed it was) and a cast was made. The defense becoming aware of this evidence was within their rights to request it be made available and Wilentz acknowledged the existence of this evidence and said it would be made available to the defense. If the FBI said the casting was inconclusive, it does not mean it has no value at all. It does not make it less important from a defense position. Like the lack of physical evidence of Hauptmann being on the site of the Lindbergh house (alone) the night of March 1, 1932, this St Raymonds footprint casting that was supposed to be made by CJ also creates doubt about this person actually being Hauptmann because it does not match to him. There is no physical evidence of Hauptmann being at Highfields and there is no physical evidence that he was at St. Raymonds either collecting that money. Wilentz can't use that footprint cast to prove Hauptmann was at the ransom site payoff but Reilly could have used it to create doubt in the minds of the jury because it did not match his client. It also introduces the real possibility that there was someone else involved. This is what a defense attorney should do. Its all about the jury and what evidence is given to them for consideration. Reilly's failure to follow-up about obtaining that cast and then introducing it in court so that the jurors could have considered this evidence, shows the negative bias of this attorney towards his client.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 12, 2018 9:45:12 GMT -5
To ziki:
As we have pointed out, several well-known people, with no apparent incentive whatsoever to be in on a conspiratorial hoax, reported seeing CAL Jr. alive during the 3 month time period during which you postulate that he may have been already dead from an accident. Finding a "double" to stand in for CAL Jr., one who was sufficiently like him so that the deception could go on for such a long time without these people picking up on it, would be next to impossible. Only an identical twin brother could possibly have filled that role, and there is no record of such.
The lack of available photos after the first birthday has been taken to mean that perhaps gross physical abnormalities had developed after that so that CAL Sr. prohibited photos and/or seen to it that any photos that had been taken were destroyed. As we are all aware, CAL Sr. identified with the eugenics movement, so any hint to the public that has son had some significant physical abnormality was to be avoided, even by unusual means.
I can possibly buy Behn's theory that the baby may have died the weekend prior to the day he was reported "kidnapped", but the idea that he died weeks or months before that is inconsistent with what we know occurred during that time frame.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 12, 2018 12:52:47 GMT -5
Hey - a big question. If there's a fake kidnapping being set-up, and going on, why call Betty?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 12, 2018 14:01:55 GMT -5
Sure, but she's just extra baggage to the plotters, very unnecessary. And another eyewitness. She was pretty goofed up with her date with Red too, so wasn't told anything in advance,
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 12, 2018 15:14:46 GMT -5
Sorry, Mary, but I sure can't buy any of that.!
|
|
ziki
Trooper
Posts: 44
|
Post by ziki on Dec 13, 2018 3:21:09 GMT -5
to Hurtelable and Ilovedwf: Thank you for your opinion. On the possibility of some physical abnormality of Charlie Jr. still worries me one thing: there are "several well-known people, with no apparent incentive whatsoever to be in on a conspiratorial hoax, reported seeing CAL Jr. alive during the 3 month time period" and they don’t mention this abnormality or just a "mild rickety condition". Was this abnormality visible only on a photo, not on a living child (and Dr. Van Ingen is euphemistic)? But I have to admit that facial expression of Charlie Jr. on his 1st birthday photos looks a little weird ("un-babyish") for me.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 13, 2018 9:33:05 GMT -5
Thank you for your opinion. On the possibility of some physical abnormality of Charlie Jr. still worries me one thing: there are "several well-known people, with no apparent incentive whatsoever to be in on a conspiratorial hoax, reported seeing CAL Jr. alive during the 3 month time period" and they don’t mention this abnormality or just a "mild rickety condition". Was this abnormality visible only on a photo, not on a living child (and Dr. Van Ingen is euphemistic)? But I have to admit that facial expression of Charlie Jr. on his 1st birthday photos looks a little weird ("un-babyish") for me. To first address your theory.... Obviously you've put a lot of thought into this and I am glad you've shared it. For me the idea of a "body double" would not work. But that's just my perspective so whatever you do don't let me dissuade you from pursuing it. Anyway, I come to this conclusion because, while I know Breckinridge would have assisted CAL (and did), there's no way I could ever believe he'd allow Miss Root to get involved - and if there's a "double" just by being there she is. So a death and cover-up would have to have happened sometime after her departure. In that case there's no need for a "double" in my opinion. The "lack" of recent photos "could" be because CJr.'s condition became more visible. I'm no doctor so I cannot say. What's a given fact is that he was not 100% healthy and had not been developing as he should have by that age. For me that's enough to believe CAL wouldn't be happy about that at all. Remember the newspapers were ranting and raving once word was out that Anne was pregnant that this child would be "superior" in every way and there's no doubt CAL believed that too. There were even bets which concerned how old he'd be once he started flying, etc. But after he's born its not looking so good... I'm not a Eugenicist so I'm not sure how they'd think about such things once it involved their own child. But I've got a "feel" for CAL as he was around that time. I also would not expect anyone familiar to comment on this at that time either. Anyone known to the family would not want to "embarrass" or do anything that led to more rumors about him - most especially after the child was "kidnapped." I think we need to look at other examples which concerned the other things they were keeping quiet to see whether or not something like this could occur. (Or any other "rich" family for that matter). Ask yourself were there "other" secrets? Did they become known because family let it out? Did their staff leak it? Their friends? If no - there's your answer. On V1 & V2: Thank you. I hope you get some time to read V2 because there's a ton of new stuff to consider. Unfortunately there's only certain places in the book you can stop reading - so its not like you can read it a couple pages at a time. On V3 I am currently pulling back the curtain on some of the fiction testified to at the Trial. No one is "safe" from the facts. Not Hauptmann, not Mueller, not Condon, and certainly not Lindbergh - no one.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Dec 13, 2018 10:42:51 GMT -5
amy maybe reilly did see it and decided he couldn't use it. the ladder puts Hauptman at Hopewell and the people who seen him there. he was identified as the passer of bills from about five people. the fisch story never panned out even today. this case is tough to clear hauptman
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Dec 13, 2018 10:45:39 GMT -5
well jack people who defend Hauptman even today are desparate. in the m90s all you heard that rail 16 was planted until pictures of it back then compared to now show that its the same board prior to hauptmans arrest. saying Lindbergh did it and the kidnapping was staged is so stupid I cant even respond
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 13, 2018 11:43:42 GMT -5
Ya WMan - I'm not responding to several on here as well! I can't believe - the people have been on here a long time too. Of course this site is nothing like it used to be. Used to be evidence meant just that - now it means anything these people can think up,
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 13, 2018 12:00:52 GMT -5
amy maybe reilly did see it and decided he couldn't use it. the ladder puts Hauptman at Hopewell and the people who seen him there. he was identified as the passer of bills from about five people. the fisch story never panned out even today. this case is tough to clear hauptman He didn't use it because he never received it. The cast did not fit Hauptmann's size, and neither did the actual measurements they took ( V2 - page 283). Those measurements and that item is something new. And before someone claims it "wasn't new" I'd wager it hadn't been seen by anyone since it was torn into two pieces and packed away in two separate locations. Even now after I brought both pieces together I'll bet no one sees it again for a very long time. Unless they pick up my book because, wouldn't you know - there it is. Name the five people who identified Hauptmann. Fisch Story: What do you think about what Frank wrote in his report about this? ( V2 pages 568-9). You see - you are repeating old information without applying the new stuff. Is that because you haven't read the book or its just easier to ignore it?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 14, 2018 3:37:53 GMT -5
For me it's havn't read the book. If it was a normal book I would have read it long ago, but like Sue said, "that's no way to write a book."
|
|
ziki
Trooper
Posts: 44
|
Post by ziki on Dec 14, 2018 4:10:41 GMT -5
Hi Ilovedwf! Thank you, I’m really interested in these pictures.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 14, 2018 4:15:41 GMT -5
As far as what Steve says about the ladder putting Hauptmann in Hopewell. the combination of facts, evidence, certainly does. There's the ladder rail 16 which it was determined it would take more than twenty federal agencies being involved to fake it. there's the nails holding the ladder together which match unusual ones from Richard's garage nail keg, there's the fact that the ladder nails were professionally driven (Hammered in) and Richard was a professional carpenter. He's perhaps the only one in the Lindbergh Crime scenario of people who could have driven the nails. Plus strongly inclined is the fact that he probably worked on the ladder the day of the kidnapping because he had to use a board from his basement woodpile rather than go to the yard where it might be noted that he was working on repairing a wooden ladder the day before one was discovered and involved in TLC. Other minor facts too, such as the ladder fits nicely in Richard's car, and Richard and his car fit nicely as the Dodge which was seen in front of L's estate on the afternoon/evening of the kidnapping. Additionally, Kohler placed the ladder wood at the same lumber yard which Hauptmann worked at and was associated with long before the ransom bill was found in BRH's possession by another investigative method.
|
|
ziki
Trooper
Posts: 44
|
Post by ziki on Dec 14, 2018 9:39:48 GMT -5
Thank you, Michael. Because I still know a minimum of facts (for example don’t know when Alva Root first time did her “babysitting”), it was possible for me to think, that Miss Alva Root wasn’t aware of that the baby she is taking care for is a double… So Miss Root went to Highfields for the “last” weekend just to show that everything is as usual. CAL Sr. looks like a person capable of anything for me. I accept your point of view about loyalty of the staff, friends, family members etc. and the secrets hidden behind the walls of residences. Because this secrets usually remained kept, the wildest speculations can occur, ranging from “common” such as suicide from a family member to phantasmagorical such as Charlie Jr. having a half-sibling/half-cousin of about same age (sorry for this outburst of imagination). I agree why no one mentioned Charlie’s “imperfectness” back then, but I had in mind primarily the decades passing (and no one letting slip: The Baby was disab… er… as sound as a bell…). I’m looking forward to learn more about Hauptmann’s real involvement in this case, for me he’s no saint, but also not a single perpetrator.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 14, 2018 10:37:18 GMT -5
They sure don't listen to reason. They're like the Vikings football fans believing Zimmer when he says the big loss to SeaHawks was the fault of their new coach - so that's the guy who got canned - idiots are everywhere I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 14, 2018 18:29:39 GMT -5
I accept your point of view about loyalty of the staff, friends, family members etc. and the secrets hidden behind the walls of residences. Because this secrets usually remained kept, the wildest speculations can occur, ranging from “common” such as suicide from a family member to phantasmagorical such as Charlie Jr. having a half-sibling/half-cousin of about same age (sorry for this outburst of imagination). I agree why no one mentioned Charlie’s “imperfectness” back then, but I had in mind primarily the decades passing (and no one letting slip: The Baby was disab… er… as sound as a bell…). I’m looking forward to learn more about Hauptmann’s real involvement in this case, for me he’s no saint, but also not a single perpetrator. Right - this wasn't the first time she had watched the child. But hey - I am just letting you know why I may or may not agree - so its not designed to stifle any ideas you might have regardless of my observations. We are definitely in agreement that there's more than one perpetrator involved. Absolutely agree and the facts support it.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Dec 15, 2018 10:51:42 GMT -5
well the fbi said it was not accurate casting so I think reilly read it and didn't want to use it as far as the people who identified Hauptman you know there was about five people who did identifiy hauptman as passing the notes. I never seen anything concrete that fisch was involved its been dilly dallied for years
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Dec 15, 2018 10:53:47 GMT -5
but mike Hauptman was a big liar the evidence points to him I don't care how many books you write you cant change the case
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 15, 2018 12:17:44 GMT -5
well the fbi said it was not accurate casting so I think reilly read it and didn't want to use it as far as the people who identified Hauptman you know there was about five people who did identifiy hauptman as passing the notes. I never seen anything concrete that fisch was involved its been dilly dallied for years I know everything there is to know about the cast. It's in the book. And if one wants to ignore the cast regardless - I've proven they cannot ignore the measurements. They did not fit Hauptmann's size. So this eliminates your argument. Now in light of the other information I've revealed what does it tell us? So you see you need to know the facts that are in my book in order to figure that out for yourself. I know its easier to just ignore it so that one can simply embrace what they are most comfortable with. But that's like getting your car stuck in the mud and just spinning your wheels. You won't get anywhere, you'll get dirty, and you'll probably blow your rear. but mike Hauptman was a big liar the evidence points to him I don't care how many books you write you cant change the case It's all in the book. When evaluating information its best to take it all into consideration. Context, cross-references, and all variables. Apply it to new information to see where it leads you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2018 8:55:37 GMT -5
On V3 I am currently pulling back the curtain on some of the fiction testified to at the Trial. No one is "safe" from the facts. Not Hauptmann, not Mueller, not Condon, and certainly not Lindbergh - no one. In Volume Two, you shared some of your own thoughts and opinions about the facts you were sharing concerning the investigation. Will you continue to do this in Volume Three? Concerning the trial, I was wondering if there are any facts you will be sharing about the attorneys in this case (both sides), good or bad, concerning their conduct in pursuing "justice" in this case. I am also looking forward to what unknown facts you have to share concerning the Flemington jury.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Dec 18, 2018 9:46:12 GMT -5
i don't ignore nothing. agent sisk was suppose to give reilly the casts and the phono record of condon ordered by hoover. do you know for sure that reilly never got it? I don't think the castings were accurate either way.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Dec 18, 2018 9:47:42 GMT -5
I don't go by your books only what I learned since 1992.hink you try to change the case a little bit when the facts remain.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Dec 18, 2018 9:49:38 GMT -5
amy theres plenty of evidence that he was there. rail 16, the witnesses who saw them there. its easy to say whitehead and others didn't see him. you cant change the case
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 18, 2018 9:55:48 GMT -5
In Volume Two, you shared some of your own thoughts and opinions about the facts you were sharing concerning the investigation. Will you continue to do this in Volume Three? Concerning the trial, I was wondering if there are any facts you will be sharing about the attorneys in this case (both sides), good or bad, concerning their conduct in pursuing "justice" in this case. I am also looking forward to what unknown facts you have to share concerning the Flemington jury. Yes - I am going to have to. There's things certain people did that were "good" and some things "bad." So I think its important to qualify the difference. Of course that will be coming from my perspective so it won't mean others won't see it differently. There's actions where I clearly see what was said about "what or how" something was done was NOT true. But that doesn't disqualify the end result and it's probably "why" they went ahead and lied. Doesn't make it right but it explains "why" it occurred. There then might be some who would ask "what difference does it make?" My answer is that it upsets any excuse or denial about this type of thing going on elsewhere. If it happened "here" then it could happen "there." So this idea that it never happened is over. But honestly - I think I've proven that already in the previous volumes but its important to show each and every person who was willing to indulge.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 18, 2018 10:04:33 GMT -5
i don't ignore nothing. agent sisk was suppose to give reilly the casts and the phono record of condon ordered by hoover. do you know for sure that reilly never got it? I don't think the castings were accurate either way. Everything about it is in the book. Breckinridge said it was good. So you are giving more credit to someone who wasn't there when it was made? So there's a debate to be had right? They took Barry's shoes to compare to the cast. Why if it wasn't any good? Perhaps they were comparing them to the actual measurements - because we KNOW they were good - and there's a picture in my book to prove it. Why did they confiscate all of Hauptmann's shoes? According to you they didn't have anything to compare them to. But they did - didn't they? And there wasn't a match. So it goes back to what I said originally. If Condon was lying it doesn't matter. But you need him to tell the truth right? So pick your poison and be done with it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2018 17:01:28 GMT -5
amy theres plenty of evidence that he was there. rail 16, the witnesses who saw them there. its easy to say whitehead and others didn't see him. you cant change the case "Its easy to say whitehead and others didn't see him." Its Whited and Hochmuth's silence in 1932 about ever seeing Hauptmann near the Lindbergh estate that tells the truth of the matter. Its not me just saying something. These two men are not on record as having seen Hauptmann in the area in 1932. Right after Hauptmann's arrest in September 1934, BRH's photograph was carried by NJSP troopers and detectives all over Hopewell and vicinity and also around to residents who lived near Lindbergh's Hopewell home and no one could positively identify having seen Hauptmann in the area. The same thing was happening when Assistant Chief Williamson spoke to the majority of the residents in Hopewell who had seen Hauptmann's picture in the newspaper. None of the residents recalled seeing BRH. All this is from official reports and statements. I know because I have seen and read them. Just so you know, I am not reading selectively. I am reading each and every report in the folders. We can't change the trial as it was done in 1935 but we can look at all the documentation and see what facts/evidence was changed, ignored or hidden in order to create the way the prosecution shaped the case to convict Hauptmann as a single perpetrator which he clearly was not. This is why Michael's books are so very important. They give us all a look at facts that are significant and that change the historical picture of this case which is so much more than just that 1935 trial.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Dec 19, 2018 10:50:10 GMT -5
but amy theres also people said they did see him. I don't think mikes book are important its his opinion. nobody debates there books anymore, at least jim fisher Robert bryan scaduto went after each other in the late 80s early 90s. id love to see mike debate his book with cahill the newbes go at it.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Dec 19, 2018 10:51:18 GMT -5
ive picked many poisons since 1992
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Dec 19, 2018 11:28:08 GMT -5
but amy theres also people said they did see him. Hi Wolf, Do you include Hochmuth as a viable witness who saw BRH on March 1? I'm curious if you've read Hochmuth's trial transcript? Hochmuth testified not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, but five times on the witness chair that the car he saw was "green'. Hauptmann's car was blue. Also, have you read the statement Hochmuth gave to Peacock three days before he (Hochmuth) testified? Hochmuth said he saw a "two-seater...green" car. It's there in black and white, in Hochmuth's own words. That would mean he did not see Hauptmann's blue, six-seater Dodge sedan. Also if you take a look at the last couple of pages of Hochmuth's statement to Peacock, you can see that Peacock is leading Hochmuth, telling him that BRH is guilty so he might as well testify that he saw him on March 1. Again, all there in black and white -- Attachment DeletedI'm curious, which of the witnesses do you believe placed Hauptmann in Highfields on March 1?
|
|