|
Post by Michael on Jun 10, 2014 5:32:05 GMT -5
So all this torture business is what comes out of deals made by Bleefield with Geoghan. He will support any claims made by Wendel that he was tortured. In return Bleefield will get off with perhaps a suspended sentence or some such thing? Well I finally located more about the deal which was made to Bleefeld... According to Schlossman: Murray Bleefeld tried to talk Weiss and myself into taking a kidnapping plea at this time saying that he had been promised by Mr. Geoghan a suspended sentence if he did, and he was going to plead guilty to kidnapping and walk out. He then told me he thought Mr. Geoghan would do the same for us if we would plead guilty. Bleefeld appears to have always been in the Prosecutor's pocket aside from his attempts after the first trial to reach out to the Defense. So to answer your question its hard for me to tell anyone what to believe or not to believe. I've made my mind up, and it's based upon everything being considered. When you have those who actually know what happened and others who want something specific to have happened regardless - the truth gets forever lost because whatever position one takes they have something they can point to in order to support it. Who is Jack Arbitell? Murray says this is the man who he was in contact with and he apparently worked out a deal for Bleefield to give himself up in New York. It was actually Berger who worked out the deal but its possible his contact to this end was Arbitell. I don't have John's new version of his book so I don't know what it says here. Berger was the man who had to duel role of "Special Prosecutor" and "Defense Attorney" simultaneously. Arbitell was a Trenton local who had been a boxer in his youth, and was now a Bar Owner, and knew Bleefeld. The story was the money Bleefeld used to "hightail it" originated from him. Weiss and Wendel became "chummy". Hmmmmmm. Reisinger mentions in his book on page 314 that police turned up a letter Weiss wrote on April 6 claiming that Wendel planned his own kidnapping to cover up that he(Wendel) was really the Lindbergh baby kidnapper. Would you know if such a letter existed? Yes it did. I searched and searched for it but I am now quite convinced it's not at the Archives so I've never had the opportunity to actually read it myself. This might have to do with the fact Geoghan had to be ordered to retrieve it during Parker's Trial, so it appears even the Defense had never seen it either. Reisinger also mentions on this same page and in the same paragraph that Weiss tried to hang himself with his necktie in his cell in the Brooklyn City Prison but was seen by guards and they cut him down in time. Is this true? It's what the newspapers were reporting at the time. You know, after researching this stuff for as many years as I have, I cannot believe more (if not most) hadn't killed themselves after being subjected to what they were. Weiss, for example, went from wanting to be a Cop, to absolutely thinking he had the Lindbergh Kidnapper (and still did) to being tortured to lie or go to jail for 20 years to life.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2014 17:59:01 GMT -5
Reisinger's book says that Bleefield, having heard about his father's condition worked through an intermediary to turn himself in. Bleefield, in Scaduto's book, Scapegoat (pg.255), identifies Jack Arbitell as the person he was in contact with and the lawyers were communicating to Bleefield through Arbitell. You are right that the deal was offered by Berger. Arbitell communicated it to Bleefield for Berger.
From what I have read and from what you share with me, I, personally, think that Bleefield was led to believe that he would not do jail time if he pled the way they wanted and supported the claims of torture made by Wendel. I think, most importantly to the prosecutors, was the fact that Bleefield was the only one who could provide the connecting dot to Ellis Parker Sr. I think this is why Bleefield was handled differently than Weiss and Schlossman by the prosecutors.
Reading through the trial chapters in Reisinger's book, I have a couple of things to ask you about:
1) Since Bleefield, Weiss and Schlossman pled guilty at the start of the Federal Trial and the defense position was to deny everything about the kidnapping/torture aspects, does this mean that Parker could not use things like deputizing B, W, and S. Also the fact that Wendel went willingly into NJ and was not taken across the state line as a kidnap victim, and that Wendel wrote notes voluntarily committing himself to the custody of both Wendel and Four Mile Colony?
2) Was there anything in 1930's trial law about "conflict of interest"? This element is definitely present on both sides of this case. Both Judge Clark and defense attorney George Silzer were members of the 1924 Board of Pardons that voted to pardon Wendel in his perjury conviction which cleared the way for Wendel to be reinstated as an attorney.
3) What can you tell me about Phillip Moses? He stood up during Silzer's closing argument for the defense and identified Wendel as one of the three men he drove to St. Raymond's cemetery the night the ransom was paid.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 11, 2014 21:06:07 GMT -5
1) Since Bleefield, Weiss and Schlossman pled guilty at the start of the Federal Trial and the defense position was to deny everything about the kidnapping/torture aspects, does this mean that Parker could not use things like deputizing B, W, and S. Also the fact that Wendel went willingly into NJ and was not taken across the state line as a kidnap victim, and that Wendel wrote notes voluntarily committing himself to the custody of both Wendel and Four Mile Colony? The Federal charges were picked up under a different position then what they had originally considered. They went with a conspiracy starting in Burlington County with the overt act taking place in New York, for ' ransom, reward, or otherwise.' Their position was Parker did it to enhance his reputation, or to obtain pecuniary benefit by and through interviews whereby his services as a Detective would be in great demand....etc. etc. etc. Part of their defense against this was having called those witnesses at his trial who testified they offered him money and he turned them down. Anyway, the Defense appealed this exact point (among others) and lost. Here's page 38 from his appeal to the 3rd Circuit ( Case No. 6500) which I post to give you an idea about the Defense position: 2) Was there anything in 1930's trial law about "conflict of interest"? This element is definitely present on both sides of this case. Both Judge Clark and defense attorney George Silzer were members of the 1924 Board of Pardons that voted to pardon Wendel in his perjury conviction which cleared the way for Wendel to be reinstated as an attorney. I believe there was but is was not as strict as it is today. I am not an Attorney but from the material I've read it was just as outrages for someone to represent both sides like Berger did. However, as you pointed out, past issues like that seemed acceptable. 3) What can you tell me about Phillip Moses? He stood up during Silzer's closing argument for the defense and identified Wendel as one of the three men he drove to St. Raymond's cemetery the night the ransom was paid. That's one of my favorite parts in John's book. It caught me by surprise because that was the first time I saw this. You know that he was a Defense Witness for Hauptmann. He was a taxi driver from the Bronx who claimed he saw (4) men at St. Raymond's the night of the ransom payoff. There was a lot of publicity surrounding him because he told Reporters he was the Defense's "Star Witness" and did a Will Rogers impersonation that had everyone in stitches. Here is a photo from the NJSP Archives:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2014 23:02:49 GMT -5
Thanks for posting that page. It is obvious that the strategy of denial of the kidnapping and torture was the plan and that Parker's upstanding reputation would make him more believable than men like Bleefield, Weiss and Schlossman who were guilty of crimes. They were hoping that the jury would decide it that way and come back with a finding of not quilty. They didn't and came back with "Guilty with a recommendation of leniency" instead.
Looking backward, I think Ellis Parker's fate was decided when he testified at the Mercer County Grand Jury who was considering whether to indict Paul Wendel for murder based on his confession. With Wendel denying everything, there was a showdown brewing. Parker decides to back away from any involvement beyond trying to staighten out a very confusing situation. Things were going to go from bad to worse but somehow I think Parker thought he would be able to keep everything under control and it would all work out. Perhaps Parker was starting to have issues with his thinking processes already and this resulted in actions that would come back to really hurt him.
When I read what you said about the Will Rogers impression, I realized I had read something about this man. I went right for my Gardner book and there it was on page 336 of The Case That Never Dies. Wilentz was asking Phillip Moses questions and one of the questions was did he do impressions. Moses was delighted that Wilentz asked him and proceeded to answer him by going into his Will Rogers impression!!! On the witness stand!!! What a disaster this man was for the defense.
The final chapter of Master Detective is heartbreaking to read. John mentions that Parker's supporters made comparisons to the 1932 Garrett Schenck case where the detectives involved in that trial received fines and no jail time. Judge Clark, who probably thought he was being lenient in his sentencing, did not appear so to the people who knew and respected Ellis Parker and his son. After a number of additional legal battles the Parkers went to jail, Paul Wendel, however, enjoyed using his "victim" status for all it was worth. Reisinger points out the irony here very well. Wendel is the one who actually made money off of this case, not Parker.
When Parker's health started to fail in prison, Harold Hoffman had his secretary write to Gov. Moore about Parker and Harry Green began working to try and secure a pardon for Ellis so he could go home but time ran out on their efforts and Ellis died in the prison hospital. What a tragic end to the life story of a great man.
In John's epilogue he mentions that Ellis Parker Jr. received a presidental pardon from President Harry Truman on January 30, 1947. When did Ellis Parker Sr. finally receive a pardon?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 13, 2014 19:35:29 GMT -5
When I read what you said about the Will Rogers impression, I realized I had read something about this man. I went right for my Gardner book and there it was on page 336 of The Case That Never Dies. Wilentz was asking Phillip Moses questions and one of the questions was did he do impressions. Moses was delighted that Wilentz asked him and proceeded to answer him by going into his Will Rogers impression!!! On the witness stand!!! What a disaster this man was for the defense. Lloyd Fisher was furious. The final chapter of Master Detective is heartbreaking to read. John mentions that Parker's supporters made comparisons to the 1932 Garrett Schenck case where the detectives involved in that trial received fines and no jail time. Judge Clark, who probably thought he was being lenient in his sentencing, did not appear so to the people who knew and respected Ellis Parker and his son. After a number of additional legal battles the Parkers went to jail, Paul Wendel, however, enjoyed using his "victim" status for all it was worth. Reisinger points out the irony here very well. Wendel is the one who actually made money off of this case, not Parker. This is true and what I believe Wendel was after all along. In John's epilogue he mentions that Ellis Parker Jr. received a presidential pardon from President Harry Truman on January 30, 1947. When did Ellis Parker Sr. finally receive a pardon? He would have rec'd one if he hadn't passed away. At that time there hadn't been a posthumous pardon, so there was no precedent, therefore, the family was being told no action could be taken. That's why I was doing all the research for Andy to assist his application for a pardon to President Bush. I am struggling to remember everything I knew off the top of my head back then but honestly I would need about 2 to 3 solid months to get back to that level. Anyway, the door opened for Andy to get Ellis Sr. pardoned due to President Clinton posthumously pardoning Henry Ossian Flipper in 1999. Unfortunately, Andy told me the reply from the Pardon Attorney was that President Bush was not considering any posthumous pardon applications. Its sad because if anyone reads it they will know that man should be pardoned and its even worse considering President Bush did posthumously pardon Charlie Winters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2014 23:41:01 GMT -5
I think you are right. When he was being held, I think he started mentally plotting how he would use the situation to his advantage. Carving his initials into the basement door and concealing that drycleaner tag. Then whacking his own legs with his shoes. His lawyer training was working overtime during this whole event. He used his victim status to enjoy living comfortably at a first class hotel(thanks to the NY taxpayers), sold his story to publications, wrote a book, filed nmerous law suits. He even wrote to Gov. Hoffman to claim the $25,000 dollars Lindbergh Kidnapping reward money all for himself. He felt he DESERVED it! Totally outrageous!! I will never understand how that Federal jury could ever believe that Ellis Parker forced a false confession from Paul Wendel so he could be famous and profit monetarily from it. Parker only went after people who he believed were guilty and he never did it for money or fame. The Parkers should have been aquitted on this point alone. How sad! I thought for sure you would say he was pardoned posthumously. Is it possible for Andy to submit the application more than once? I really think there should be a pardon for Ellis Parker. Winters was a plane smuggler. Why would Bush choose someone like him over Ellis Parker? Let me guess......political favor perhaps? Terrible! Thanks Michael for sharing your thoughts and documents with me. It certainly helped me to understand more fully the Master Detective book and Ellis Parker.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 14, 2014 7:19:31 GMT -5
I think you are right. When he was being held, I think he started mentally plotting how he would use the situation to his advantage. Carving his initials into the basement door and concealing that drycleaner tag. Then whacking his own legs with his shoes. His lawyer training was working overtime during this whole event. He used his victim status to enjoy living comfortably at a first class hotel(thanks to the NY taxpayers), sold his story to publications, wrote a book, filed nmerous law suits. He even wrote to Gov. Hoffman to claim the $25,000 dollars Lindbergh Kidnapping reward money all for himself. He felt he DESERVED it! Totally outrageous!! There was one point in time where he was going to go after Wilentz. You see, I was in "full swing" on this matter back in '07, and aside from the Trial Transcripts I didn't have there wasn't much I didn't know. I will never understand how that Federal jury could ever believe that Ellis Parker forced a false confession from Paul Wendel so he could be famous and profit monetarily from it. Parker only went after people who he believed were guilty and he never did it for money or fame. The Parkers should have been aquitted on this point alone. His performance on the stand crushed him. I seem to recall Judge Clark asking if the Defense was declaring Parker a hostile witness against himself - it got that bad. How sad! I thought for sure you would say he was pardoned posthumously. Is it possible for Andy to submit the application more than once? I really think there should be a pardon for Ellis Parker. Winters was a plane smuggler. Why would Bush choose someone like him over Ellis Parker? Let me guess......polital favor perhaps? Terrible! I think there's probably so many applications that most never reach it to the President. I don't know, my role was doing research, explaining what I found, then providing the documentation to back it up to Andy. I believe it could be resubmitted but I may be wrong about that. I still say that if anyone actually reads it they would agree he should be pardoned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2014 11:16:34 GMT -5
Michael,
Reisinger mentions on page 240 of his Master Detective book that Ellis Parker visited Hauptmann twice while he was in jail. Do you know if Anna Bading accompanied Ellis on either visit? Did Anna Bading wear glasses?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 30, 2014 12:01:48 GMT -5
Michael,Reisinger mentions on page 240 of his Master Detective book that Ellis Parker visited Hauptmann twice while he was in jail. Do you know if Anna Bading accompanied Ellis on either visit? Did Anna Bading wear glasses? I don't have anything to show that Bading was with Parker on April 11th. I don't like saying absolutely "no" but if pressed that would be my answer. However, she definitely was with Parker during his June 5th visit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2014 12:54:18 GMT -5
I also am aware that Ellis Parker interviewed Anna Hauptmann. Did he bring Anna Bading along with him for that interview?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 30, 2014 13:48:57 GMT -5
I also am aware that Ellis Parker interviewed Anna Hauptmann. Did he bring Anna Bading along with him for that interview? Yes. That was at the Hotel New Yorker on April 20th.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2014 17:29:56 GMT -5
So Anna knew both Hauptmanns. I wonder what her take would have been on them? She was a very sharp minded lady. Did Anna Bading ever discuss her thoughts on the Lindbergh Case?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 30, 2014 18:38:26 GMT -5
So Anna knew both Hauptmanns. I wonder what her take would have been on them? She was a very sharp minded lady. Did Anna Bading ever discuss her thoughts on the Lindbergh Case? I don't recall seeing anything where she had. I could be wrong and if I stumble upon something I will post it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2015 22:01:42 GMT -5
Michael,
In Lloyd Gardner's book, TCTND, on page 42 of the paperback edition, he talks about how state officials did send for Parker the first night of the kidnapping. Gardner goes on to say that Parker was dismissed after a few words because of Parker's reputation for "dealing with suspects and getting confessions his way might recommend him to certain people--but not the Lindberghs, nor even to Colonel Schwarzkopf, at least while there was a chance the child might still be alive."
This sounds very negative about Parker. It seems to be implying that Parker would use unsavory methods to solve the case. Parker wasn't like that. Why do you think they saw Parker as being wrong for this case? They being the NJSP and the Lindberghs.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 15, 2015 16:57:14 GMT -5
In Lloyd Gardner's book, TCTND, on page 42 of the paperback edition, he talks about how state officials did send for Parker the first night of the kidnapping. Gardner goes on to say that Parker was dismissed after a few words because of Parker's reputation for "dealing with suspects and getting confessions his way might recommend him to certain people--but not the Lindberghs, nor even to Colonel Schwarzkopf, at least while there was a chance the child might still be alive." This sounds very negative about Parker. It seems to be implying that Parker would use unsavory methods to solve the case. Parker wasn't like that. Why do you think they saw Parker as being wrong for this case? They being the NJSP and the Lindberghs. I've read this through a couple of times Amy and I'm not exactly sure it's meant as it seems to come across. I don't want to speak for Lloyd but I do know that he was aware of Parker's non-violent psychological tactics. In fact, Parker was only ever accused of being attached to violence through the Wendel matter. So I think it's more geared toward the position that IF Parker came in he'd operate by his own direction (and methods) he therefore wasn't the type of guy to take orders or play 2nd fiddle for anyone else. That would include BOTH Lindbergh and Schwarzkopf so there's no way they'd want him involved. Additionally, Schwarzkopf had another reason not to involve him and that would be he was afraid Parker might solve the case and take all the credit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2015 18:29:50 GMT -5
Michael, I am posting a link to a book that is being offered on e-bay. It is written by Paul Wendel and the title is "The-Lindbergh-Hauptmann-Aftermath-Police-Edition". The cover picture of this book is disturbing. It is supposed to be Wendel being tortured by his kidnappers. I know that Wendel made this claim and "confessions" were obtained in exchange for sentencing deals. Otherwise, there was no proof that Wendel was actuall physically assaulted the way this picture depicts. Plus Ellis Parker was not there like is mentioned in the right-up. Also, what does it mean by "Police Edition"? Was this publication attached to or authorized by law enforcement? www.ebay.com/itm/THE-LINDBERGH-HAUPTMANN-AFTERMATH-POLICE-ED-1940-Scarce-PB-Lindbergh-baby-/261281972377?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3cd59e8099
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 22, 2015 19:00:32 GMT -5
I've never seen the "Police Edition" mentioned before. It's possible they're all like that - I don't know - because what I have is the original version before it was in book form. As a result I never felt the need to buy one of the real ones - most especially because they are rare and cost a good amount of money. As for the picture, that's supposed to be Wendel in the "spread eagle" something that was claimed to have been done at the direction of Ellis Jr. There was one specific day they claimed he was in Brooklyn when he was actually at the Sugarman Trial the entire day. Since that was held in South Jersey (off the top of my head I think it was Millville) there was no possible way that could have been true. Attachment Deleted
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2015 9:31:55 GMT -5
The item you posted is the order form for the book being offered on ebay. You could buy the book for $1.00 in 1936. Reading that order form, this police edition appears to have been used as a political tool against Gov. Hoffman. The LKC had such a negative ripple effect on so many lives and careers. Very sad. Thanks for posting that form.
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Jan 13, 2016 23:05:18 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2016 12:20:55 GMT -5
Hi feathers,
I tried your link but I couldn't get it to work. I kept getting an error message. I will try to find this myself unless you have another link. It might just be my computer not being allowed to access it.
I hope I can get to read that. Sounds really interesting. I don't recall hearing about Ellis being interested in "spiritism".
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Jan 14, 2016 12:30:14 GMT -5
Sorry about that! Here is the link to the general website - you can then search for "Ellis Parker". The PDF was too large to post. www.iapsop.com/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2016 20:13:14 GMT -5
Thanks, feathers. I am going to check out that site.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2016 9:54:32 GMT -5
Michael,
I want to touch on how Fisher characterizes Ellis Parker in his book. In Chapter 11 Fisher paints a portrait of Parker that is quite negative. He explains how Parker had developed a taste for publicity and was accustomed to being the main focus of attention in a crime investigation. When the Lindbergh kidnapping occurred, Fisher says Parker saw this case as the "chance to make himself one of the most famous detectives in the world."
Fisher goes on to say that since Parker was on the outside looking in with this investigation and Schwarzkopf was the one receiving all the attention in the papers, and through his radio messages, Ellis was "bitter and almost insanely jealous." Fisher also says that Parker was on the outs with Gov. Moore at this time and had been rebuffed by Schwarzkopf when he made overtures to assist. (underscoring is mine)
Fisher closes Chapter 11 saying, "Parker had few converts to his theory. But the world hadn't heard the last of Detective Ellis Parker. There was nothing he wouldn't do to get into the Lindbergh limelight."
Fisher has no footnotes for the quotes I have used here. I feel the context of those quotes reflects how Parker was portrayed during his trial (1937) and that is what Fisher is being influenced by when talking about Ellis in this chapter. Just my opinion.
Here is what I find troubling with all this. Fisher is putting Parker's primary motivation for involvement with the Lindbergh case as seeking recognition as one of the greatest detectives ever. Therefore he would do anything to get that recognition. This sounds unbelievably selfish for Ellis Parker and not a good representation of who Parker really was. Parker loved to solve crimes, first and foremost. I always thought this was why he wanted a shot at this case. The publicity would be secondary to the solution. He wanted to see those responsible for Charlie's murder brought to justice.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 14, 2016 17:31:52 GMT -5
I want to touch on how Fisher characterizes Ellis Parker in his book. In Chapter 11 Fisher paints a portrait of Parker that is quite negative. He explains how Parker had developed a taste for publicity and was accustomed to being the main focus of attention in a crime investigation. When the Lindbergh kidnapping occurred, Fisher says Parker saw this case as the "chance to make himself one of the most famous detectives in the world."Fisher goes on to say that since Parker was on the outside looking in with this investigation and Schwarzkopf was the one receiving all the attention in the papers, and through his radio messages, Ellis was "bitter and almost insanely jealous." Fisher also says that Parker was on the outs with Gov. Moore at this time and had been rebuffed by Schwarzkopf when he made overtures to assist. (underscoring is mine) I don't agree with any of his positions and it's easy to see why there are no footnotes. Parker already was one of the most famous Detectives in the world. Next, it was Gov. Moore who asked Parker to get involved in the case. Parker did criticize Schwarzkopf at times, but what he said was spot on. As one example, he pointed out that keeping the kidnapping headquarters at Highfields was counterproductive. Next, after being asked for his help by Moore, he requested copies of the Ransom Notes from Schwarzkopf who denied the request. Of course he'd be a little miffed at this. The FBI was giving him information on Ransom Money details and it was during this cooperation he learned from Hoover about Schwarzkopf concealing information from the FBI too. One time the FBI was arranging to have Parker talk to Condon but the NJSP nixed it. Parker acquiesced saying he didn't have jurisdiction and wouldn't take it any further. In the meantime the NJSP had a Mole working with Parker in case he cracked the case they could swoop in and use his information to solve it themselves. His original position was that all Agencies should be working together by sharing whatever they had. In fact, whatever he found early on in 1932 he turned over to the Prosecutor's office. Calling Parker's attitude "insanely jealous" is a mis-characterization.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 16, 2016 17:51:21 GMT -5
Not able to "work" his way into some of the "limelight" because he was on the "outs" with Gov. Moore? Like I said earlier, it was Moore who invited him in:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2016 22:52:15 GMT -5
Not able to "work" his way into some of the "limelight" because he was on the "outs" with Gov. Moore? Like I said earlier, it was Moore who invited him in: Indeed, Parker was asked by Gov. Moore to look into the Lindbergh kidnapping. I do not like the way Fisher explains Parker in his book. He makes Parker look bad in every chapter that he includes him in. I started looking ahead to the chapters where he brings up Parker and I now have to ask you another question about something Fisher says. In Chapter 41 on page 387, Fisher is talking about Gov. Hoffman and the investigating Parker is doing with Hoffman. Fisher says the following: "Parker had tried to get attention by claiming that the corpse on Mount Rose Heights wasn't the Lindbergh baby. He was now convinced that Hauptmann had been railroaded, and was investigating the case on county time for the defense. It seemed that the taxpayers of Burlington County had paid Schwarzkopf and Wilentz to investigate and prosecute Hauptmann and were now paying their chief detective to get him off." Fisher points out that Parker is paid by taxpayers. Was it proper for Parker to do this investigating work for Gov. Hoffman on county time?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 17, 2016 6:19:29 GMT -5
Fisher points out that Parker is paid by taxpayers. Was it proper for Parker to do this investigating work for Gov. Hoffman on county time? Parker wasn't the only person to believe that corpse might not be the Lindbergh baby and it was a combination of things that created doubt in his mind. He's making it sound like the doubt was designed to gain attention but I would disagree with that. Next, your question is an interesting one that I've wondered to myself ever since I read a couple of similar questions being posed to Gus Lockwood in the Parker Trial Transcripts about his working for the Dept. of Motor Vehicles while working on this case... I am not sure what the law was at the time, however, it appears the Governor had the power to request assistance from other New Jersey Law Enforcement and/or Officials working in any State Agency. For example, we see that with Squire Johnson who assisted Schwarzkopf while on the State Payroll for the Construction and Architecture. Here Governor Moore seems to be the one who makes this happen. Later once Hoffman began his "re-investigation" of the crime, Monmouth County "loaned" him Detective Mustoe exclusively for a time. Another interesting piece of information I found from reading Parker's transcripts was that Lloyd Fisher offered Parker money from the Defense fund to investigate some leads for him. That wouldn't seem legal or proper either but since Fisher asked then testified to it there must have been an "acceptable" way for this to occur. The two biggest problems to understanding this question is the date (1930s) and that fact we have a sitting Governor who did not trust either his State Police Head or his AG. In fact, if the Governor was acting in lock-step with either of these men there is no controversy whatsoever about these matters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2016 11:53:05 GMT -5
Parker wasn't the only person to believe that corpse might not be the Lindbergh baby and it was a combination of things that created doubt in his mind. He's making it sound like the doubt was designed to gain attention but I would disagree with that. You are right! That is exactly what Fisher does whenever he brings up Parker. Fisher makes it all about Parker doing everything just for attention. Nothing could be further from the truth about Parker. You bring up the crux of my original question with this comment. Mustoe was given permission to work with Gov. Hoffman so doing so on the tab of Monmouth County doesn't come into play here. When applying your example to Parker, is Parker actually working for Gov. Hoffman as an active member of the "re-investigation" team or is he working independently when investigating the Lindbergh case and just sharing things with Gov. Hoffman on his own and not from the capacity of his county office? Parker would have every right to look into the Hauptmann case privately, wouldn't he? Knowing and understanding the New Jersey 1930's laws is very important in order to evaluate whether activities fall within the perimeters of existing law. With the prosecution and conviction of Hauptmann, the state of New Jersey considered the Lindbergh case closed. Since we know that Gov. Hoffman was not in lock-step with Wilentz and Schwarzkopf, and Hoffman feels that more investigation should be done to find the others who were involved with the kidnapping and death of Charlie, did the laws of New Jersey, at that time, support this re-investigation of a closed case? Don't misunderstand me, I am in agreement with Gov. Hoffman wanting to investigate more thoroughly the kidnapping/murder of the Lindbergh child. I just want to be clear in my understanding about this re-investigation. Does it re-open the Lindbergh case in the eyes of the law? Lindbergh and Condon got out of town quick when Hoffman decided to take a deeper look at the case.
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Feb 18, 2016 11:06:33 GMT -5
The merit and substance of Parker's theory on Wendel all gets washed away because of the abduction and means Bleefield got a confession. I know the thread here is more on a Fisher viewpoint of Parker and/or Schwarzkopf vs Parker but I wanted share my disappointment how Parker's theory is accepted as only another looney detour from the facts. Even in Reisinger's book although a very good book IMO reflects very little on the specifics that made Parker truly believe Wendel was the guy. I know Parker believed or at least at one point believed Wendel was on the ladder. I don't believe that and I am sure most people wouldn't even consider it but there is a part of his theory that is most interesting to me.
Keep in mind there are several references that Wendel had represented Fisch on a narcotics case. I know that hasn't officially been confirmed but I am laying it out there. Then we know Wendel had contacted Capone and definitely wanted to impress him. All I am saying is there is substance of something to at least be looked at but never really was because of the way the false confession and abduction of Wendel turned out.
Who first brought up the idea the kidnapper went out the front door. Was it Curtis or Wendel?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Feb 18, 2016 14:12:29 GMT -5
Though this is the Parker site, it involves Hoffman, and regarding him, in reality you don't just wake up one day and decide you're going to embezzle a ton of money. From the look of him and his Saints and Sinners Club I've always thought that he may have been blackmailed, and it could have been going on for a long time. Reasons are not stated here because I don't want to offend a powerful segment of the population.
Are all of the files on the eventual Hoffman investigation public information?
Did he take on The Lindbergh Crime as an all or nothing way of possibly absolving him in the public eye of another serious matter?
|
|