|
Post by Michael on Jul 4, 2008 9:47:41 GMT -5
Rosner accomplished what he was engaged for. He established direct personal contact between the family and Owney Madden, the leader of the largest N.Y. gang, Spitale & Bitz, leader of the Sicilians - They have assisted in their own way - and finally both admitted yesterday that they had no idea who had done the kidnapping, and that it was not a large gang. Rosner however persists in stating that Owney Madden knows the whereabouts of the child and who has him and that the above is simply gangland's way of concealing things until the psychological moment. [Robert Thayer (personal notes reproduced from LOC, Manuscript Division)]
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 15, 2008 18:27:07 GMT -5
Rosner put the finger on Bitz in Manney's Restaurant on Forsyth St. for a violation of the Sullivan Law and at the present time there is no great love lost between the two. Ethel Rosner says that during Rosner's connection with the case he took a big bundle of money from a covered soup tureen in the kitchen of their apartment at Chelsea Corners and took it over to Aronow's apartment at 1 Christopher St. She states that Aronow and Rosner were constant companions during the case and that she saw Rosner show Aronow the copy of the "nursery ransom note." Rosner kept this note in a safe which was built in the top of one of a pair of book-cases that he had especially constructed. [George Foster - Bergen County Police - Report to Governor Hoffman (#8 p.6, January 1935)] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Act
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 17, 2008 15:45:19 GMT -5
I have suffered the tortures of the damned in fifteen different ways. I have paid $850.00 to stool pigeons. I have done work here, and I have done good work. It would take days of testimony to really set forth before you gentlemen the work that had to be done in this case. Foolish women would have been clipped for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Men were willing to give up ransom money right and left. It was lucky that the Colonel, at least, went into that angle of the case, or there would have been murder along that line. If it was up to us, there would not have been a dollar of ransom paid. One of our men should have been the one to throw the package. We know how it should be handled. Let one of our men be the chauffeur. It seems that the best minds in the country claimed they should go ahead with the arrangements they made. What arrangements they made I don't know. [Mickey Rosner Testimony, "People vs. John Doe", June '32 Term p.31]
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 7, 2011 17:55:03 GMT -5
How Rosner was NOT brought into this Case:
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 9, 2011 8:30:32 GMT -5
For me, I think the inside information above is priceless. It explains the various behind the scenes attitudes, and perhaps gives us insight into the "whys" and "why nots" involving the various actions and personalities. Furthermore, it proves what the actual truth is and who is incorrect about it.
In the past couple of months I have rec'd some emails about my "book" which I have been working on. Without patting myself on the back (too hard) I honestly believe my 1st Chapter, although unedited and uncorrected - turns the Case on its ear. The Chapter I am working on now will blow anyone interested in this Case away from a different angle. But again, its slow going because I do have so many sources. I want to get it right, and do not want have to return to that issue other then to correct sentence structure or add a first name, etc. And these Chapters are being written not necessarily in the order I will present them. The 1st, could wind up last - if you know what I mean.
Just to give a hint concerning my mindset.... I will in the "3rd" chapter tackle the footprints and fingerprints issue. Perhaps tie them into a chapter on the crime scene itself - it all depends, but again, what you think is true, or what you think you know - isn't the real situation.
In the end its fun disproving things. What the "Pros" say happened, or jumped to conclusions about. You just can't overlook other areas then expect to know what you need to. I am rambling and I know I've said it before but its important for me to say it again - if you don't look into an angle then you miss out on huge amounts of information and data. An Investigator may head out to look into Hitner, for example, and his report crosses over into something about Peacock, Greathouse, or Condon. And that investigation may be the ONLY one to contain both unique and important information about these other subjects. So Hitner may have been a Con but that doesn't mean the reports on him are worthless.
So dismissing it before even reading it turns into a fatal flaw. One I think most people are going to regret if I can ever put this thing together.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jul 9, 2011 8:35:02 GMT -5
just prove that hauptmann was not guilty. dont dilly dally, like other pro hauptmann books
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 9, 2011 8:44:48 GMT -5
Hi Steve,
It's not going to be a "Pro-Hauptmann" book. It will be a factual one. I have been heavily influenced by Lloyd's style and approach, so I don't think I'll be telling anyone what to believe. I do, however, think the facts will speak for themselves. Of course I reserve the right to slam certain points home here and there.
You know, its a frog & scorpion type of thing I just can't help.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jul 9, 2011 12:08:57 GMT -5
great, if you need pictures or anything let me know
|
|