|
Post by sue75 on May 16, 2007 5:10:49 GMT -5
Has anyone heard the story that, 4 days before the baby was found, David Wilentz represented a man who was trying to collect the ransom payment?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 16, 2007 5:29:19 GMT -5
Sue,
I believe I have a report on that... I haven't seen it in a while so I'll have to search for it. I am not sure if he represented him as far as my memory on the report holds but there's no use speculating until I find that report.
BTW - A Member of the other board just sent me an email containing a couple of bogus posts by JD3. The man contradicts himself in the worst way and its got me wanting to destroy some of his positions. If enough people want me to then I'll waste a little time showing that he isn't qualified to tell people the things he's telling them.
Mistakes, selective observation, and ignorance are not positions from which you "teach" people. Everyone wants to be an Expert without doing what is required to be one.
That's a neat trick.
A lot of people are upset by the fact Dr. Gardner disproved and called into question several of Fisher's rock solid assertions. They don't like the fact he doesn't tell people what to think but provides them with the FACTS in order for them to come to their own conclusions.
That's the thing I like most about this board - our varying perspectives on things and acknowledging we aren't all perfect, therefore, cannot possibly be right 100% of the time. If you operate from a position of "know it all" then you had better practice what you preach.
And you had better "know it all."
Checking out these posts its obvious he has a lot to learn. I've logged over 1000 hours at the NJSP Archives and I cringe each and every time I see someone who hasn't been there TELLING people how to research the case and/or what to believe as if coming from a position of EXPERT.... Or those who haven't replicated Dr. Gardner's research claiming he was wrong.
It's the height of hypocrisy.
While there's plenty of value this person can offer, by his own arguments elsewhere in his posts, he clearly shows there's absolutely no way he's in a position he's assigned himself.
Once again I'll make this statement: There is no such thing as a Lindbergh Kidnapping Expert.
Even if I logged 2000 hours someone could come along, out of the blue, and teach me something about the case and/or prove a position I have taken to either be in error or flawed some way. In order to get to the truth, we must all acknowledge we can learn from one another and continue to have an open mind concerning each other's input.
It's the only way, if we still have a chance, to solve this case once and for all.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on May 16, 2007 9:46:14 GMT -5
Michael~ Your "BTW". Go for it. I'm wit U!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 16, 2007 16:49:24 GMT -5
Thanks. I also got a couple of emails asking me to "let her rip" but I think I'll save my time for what people here think is important. If anyone reads something over there and has a question about it then simply post and I will, as I am sure others here will - draw up a response. I don't want to give weight to people who really are in no better position then the next guy despite their attempts to portray themselves as such. I rail Allen because he's an unsavory Charlatan and Snake Oil salesman. He's flat out lied to people. Some great examples would be his flashing credentials that he doesn't have. Others would be portraying Newspaper Reports as Police Reports, (Normal people would simply have said what they had) and pretended to have a copy of Hirsch's log in order to stop Rab's valuable research, etc., etc. Ever since Dr. Gardner's book came out he's blasted it by giving nonsensical and fictitious reasons. One of his favorites is that Dr. Gardner acknowledges "Hoaxies" and "Conspiracy Theorists" as if on cue to my position below: lindberghkidnap.proboards56.com/index.cgi?board=michael&action=display&thread=1175384887Now, I personally know most of those mentioned in his acknowledgment section and I can tell you no one is a "Hoaxie." Actually, Allen best fits that description because it was Allen who claimed he was a Professor - when he wasn't. There are still people around who can prove it and have proven it to me (with something in addition to words). He seems to think he's qualified to slam Dr. Gardner but simply ask him a few questions and the truth will surely come out.... or maybe it won't. He'll ignore them. Still though, ask how many hours he spent looking up Dr. Gardner's footnotes? Ask how much time he spent replicating Dr. Gardner's research and efforts spent at the NJSP Archives. You see, how can someone tell you what's in the files if they NEVER saw the files? And not only tell you what's in them but what to believe about what's in them.... It's demented. Again, the buzz-word tactic of using the term "Conspiracy Theorist" applies to each and everyone who believes more then one person was involved. Conspiracies are quite common. And while there may be a few people who actually still do believe this crime was perpetrated and carried out by an immigrant German carpenter living in the Bronx completely unaided and by himself - they aren't in good company with a guy like Allen making up dialog and facts as if they really happened and/or existed when they never ever did. Anyway, skim that acknowledgment section and you'll see the names of those people who have done the research Allen pretends isn't needed in order to better understand the case. Also know that none of these people would ever TELL anyone what to think or believe. Here is a true test for any Lindbergh Expert "pretender." Simply ask them who was in the Morgue when Lindbergh identified his son. Any Expert should be able to tell you. The names, who they were, and what they saw. Give them all the time they need and see if they ever get back to you. ;D OK, my rant is over - so now let's get back to the case!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 16, 2007 18:21:06 GMT -5
About five or six weeks ago I came to the Lindbergh home with David T. Wilentz an attorney of Perth Amboy, N.J. and a real estate man who is a personal friend of David Wilentz. This man's name is not known by me. The object was to find out what I could promise anybody if they did get any underworld connection. Colonel Lindbergh politely informed me that if I hadn't any definite evidence to show him that I possibly might make a connection he could not consider my proposal whatsoever. I advised Colonel Lindbergh that I did not have any definite information but that regardless of any promises of compensation I would continue to do the best I could through the connections I have with the people I meet in the underworld. Wilentz paid this man $200.00 expense money and told him to "spare no expense" and that he would "gladly finance any cost." It seems like Wilentz had a lot of faith in this guy. I don't know where you saw this reference Sue but I am willing to bet this is the guy.
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on May 16, 2007 21:10:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 17, 2007 5:26:07 GMT -5
Same guy I quoted above.... Definitely something I don't think most people were aware of.
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on May 17, 2007 7:00:26 GMT -5
Thank you for all your work in finding this, Michael.
Do you think there should have been some kind of conflict of interest, that Wilentz should not have been assigned as Attorney General because he represented Gracie in connection with this case?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 17, 2007 19:39:47 GMT -5
Of course the rules were a little different back then and Lawyers were given much more freedoms to engage in conduct which might be deemed unethical today.
Consider this: It wasn't until the year 2000 that it was decided in NJ a Municipal Prosecutor could not represent a client charged with a crime within the county he worked as Prosecutor. Sounds like common sense but the rule wasn't laid out until then because so many of these Dolts were doing it in order to pad their income.
My personal opinion is that Wilentz should not have been assigned the case if, for any reason, a conflict - or an appearance of a conflict - would occur. For example, what if Gracie had been called as a Defense Witness to testify to something he discovered while financed by Wilentz? What if he testified to something he told Wilentz, as his Attorney, but didn't reveal that on the stand?
Another example would be Lloyd Fisher. It seems to me that he should never have been allowed to Defend Hauptmann after having defended Curtis. What if Wilentz's "Plan B" went into effect and he had Curtis testify that Hauptmann was one of the men he dealt with? Fisher would then have to discredit Curtis but having represented him....then isn't information he had privileged?
As I pointed out in another thread.... Ellis Parker's Attorney had represented the guy John says Ellis had "kidnapped." This too would fall into my position of "conflict." Fortunately this helped Parker and disproved the notion.
Another would be that Reilly being paid by Hearst when his papers were all calling Hauptmann guilty. This should have been grounds for a re-trial.
The worst beyond all doubt was Judge Large being part of the Defense and then bribed over to the Prosecution bringing with him all of the Defense strategies. That should have caused an immediate mistrial and people should have been disbarred at the least.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 18, 2007 9:26:13 GMT -5
In order to better comprehend AG Wilintz's actions before during and after the LKH maybe we should take a closer look at Abner "Longey" Zwillman--Jewish mobster. - Basically he owned the pols and cops of New Jersey and was a top dignitary to the Atlantic City Conference of mobsters in 1931. Later Zwillman became one of the Big Six of the Syndicate.
- It is said that he could make or break a Governor's election and could demand choosing the Attorney General in exchange for his money and support? Did he back Wilintz?
- As a public relations gesture Abe is said to have posted "a large reward" for the capture of the Lindbergh kidnappers?
- How big a reward was offered? Likely even more than was demanded by the Nursery Note/? Were there any applicants?
|
|