|
Letters
Apr 14, 2013 13:13:07 GMT -5
Post by bookrefuge on Apr 14, 2013 13:13:07 GMT -5
Good points as usual , Amy. Interesting that Mulligan said Fisch didn’t come in with Hauptmann, and that Fisch didn’t have an account there, yet he saw Fisch with Hauptmann there five or six times. Why would someone hang around a brokerage where they had no account? (Was watching a ticker tape sort of social pastime in those days?) Rab, I’d like to make a couple of points in support of what Amy is saying here.
As you know, in the Lilliput thead, I’ve conceded Hauptmann’s guilt, and I’ve also conceded an increased possibility of his sole guilt. Here in the Letters thread, I backed off the Trost deposition when I realized it made little sense for Fisch to dispose of a big chunk of LKC cash by meeting a buyer at a poolroom that he had frequented, and where he would be known.
Nevertheless, we have a couple of other facts that are hard to get around. One, of course, is the JJ Faulkner deposit slip. If it wasn’t Hauptmann’s handwriting, it seems hard not to concede that someone else was involved in laundering the Lindbergh ransom.
Also, though I may have mentioned it too often, I’m very interested in the “Penn Station Incident” in the Ransom section of this board. Here you’ve got a man who fits Fisch’s description, slyly trying to unload a large number of $5 notes at Penn Station, at the VERY time a ransom $5 note was traced to Penn Station, and just days before Fisch departed for Germany. Did Fisch (or Hauptmann) have success with one note at the station, then Fisch came back and tried to shoot the works?
What makes this incident stand out to me is that the cashier gave his statement long BEFORE Hauptmann was arrested and Fisch’s name appeared in the papers. Therefore it is impossible that the cashier made his statement at the prompting of some investigator for Gov. Hoffman.
And so I’m not completely writing off all of those “Fisch and Fritz hot money” deponents--including Trost, whose deposition still reads with a ring of authenticity (to me, anyway). Interesting that Trost said Fisch hung out at a poolroom on East 86th, and another deponent said Izzy and Fritz approached him about hot money on East 86th (Gardner, p. 258) because the Flemington witness Amy noted—Mulligan, a State witness—said Fisch hung out at Steiner, Rouse—which was ALSO on East 86th.
We know that Fisch was clearly a schemer when it came to money. It certainly seems plausible that he was up to SOME kind of money caper in the vicinity of East 86th.
Was Hauptmann cautiously laundering notes one at time, while Fisch injudiciously wanted to deal in volume?
|
|
|
Letters
Apr 14, 2013 14:28:09 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Apr 14, 2013 14:28:09 GMT -5
I don't think he's confusing this. Gartner himself stated he went to the Federal Reserve on Nassau Street in the "latter part of March, 1934..." He also stated "that it was the last day that the gold certificates were called in."
Knowing what I do about Executive Order 6102, this assertion by both men had me scratching my head. I looked into this a little further and I believe it had to do with the Gold Reserve Act of January 30, 1934.
I am certainly no Expert on this stuff but it seems to fit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Apr 14, 2013 18:41:26 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2013 18:41:26 GMT -5
It would have been helpful if Steinweg and Gartner had been asked to provide dates with the statements they were making. We wouldn't be sitting here trying to figure out when exactly they say something occured. I had never read Executive Order 6102 before so I looked it up. This pertains to individuals having gold or gold certificates. It required that citizens turn in all gold and gold certificates by May 1, 1933. A individual was permitted to keep up to $100 in gold coins however. If you had over that amount in your possession you could face criminal charges and fines. The Gold Reserve Act of January 30, 1934 required that all gold and gold certificates held by the Federal Reserve be surrendered to the U. S. Department of the Treasury. Private possession of any gold became outlawed at this time forcing individuals who had retained $100 in gold to surrender it to the Dept. of the Treasury. Gartner paid $150.00 by check to Steinweg for some gold certificates. Do we know if Gartner bought them at full value from Steinweg? If he did wait until March 1934 to turn in the gold certs he was taking a serious risk by having in his possession an amount over the acceptable limit. Steinweg's statement implies that Gartner would come periodically to see if Steinweg had gold certificates he wanted to exchange for regular money. If Fisch had been helping to launder ransom money perhaps he had done so at Steinweg's place of business during 1933. The largest dollar amounts coming into Hauptmann's brokerage accounts takes place during 1933. Is this just coincidental or something more?
|
|
|
Letters
Apr 14, 2013 19:42:07 GMT -5
Post by bookrefuge on Apr 14, 2013 19:42:07 GMT -5
To this it might be added that Mulligan testified that he saw Fisch with Hauptmann in his brokerage several times during the year 1933. By contrast, Trost and the “Izzy and Fritz hot money” deponents seem to be talking about 1932. Was there a change of venue for Fisch’s money operations from the streets in 1932 to the brokerage in 1933?
|
|
|
Letters
Apr 15, 2013 7:13:43 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Apr 15, 2013 7:13:43 GMT -5
What happened was that Gartner believed he could get more then face value for the Gold Bills overseas. So he paid face-value for them. Once he went to Europe, he discovered he was getting face-value there too. So his motive for getting them didn't pan out. Once he returned, he still had $100 left over exchanging that on the "last day" at the Federal Reserve Bank.
Since most people were willing to break the law if they believed they could get away with it - if they had a reason to do it then most would. Not just criminals but everyday people - Police too. Leaking stories to the press, selling crime scene photos, etc.
Look at the Battle of Jutland. The whole matter blew up because Mrs. Meaney was killed. In the end, even though two Troopers went to jail, the guy who shot her didn't - and was later promoted. Lamb embezzled $500 dollars once, got caught, and supposedly paid restitution without any other penalty whatsoever. Everyone had a "moral compass" which allowed them to do certain things they shouldn't. Some were more geared toward right then wrong and some were not. And the degrees of which varied.
So if the EO said people could only possess $100, I could see a Business Owner claim that several people paid with Gold, none over $100 each, and the sum total equaling $150 or more. There's an "out" if you get caught. Obviously in this case they tell the Treasury Agents what happened and they still aren't prosecuted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Apr 15, 2013 8:25:22 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2013 8:25:22 GMT -5
So Gartner did pay face value for the gold notes. Interesting, but ended up not being a very smart investment by Gartner. This brings me to another question about money laundering. Gold certificates, in general, became hot money if you had a lot of them after May 1933. The Lindbergh ransom money was hot from the day it was paid out. Hot money is always sold at less than face value.
When applying this thinking to the ransom money doesn't it make the $50,000 immediately worth thousands of dollars less? You could only profit at face value with this money if you spent it in small purchases like we see in the beginning when Finn started tracking the bills. It would take such a long time to launder it that way. To launder it in larger quantities you would have to sell it for less than its face value.
So my question is: Why are we expecting to see $50,000 dollars refected in Hauptmann's financial profile when getting face value for the hot money was not possible. Wouldn't the laundered gold certs have yeilded him less dollar value in clean money to deposit in his accounts?
|
|
|
Letters
Apr 17, 2013 16:24:15 GMT -5
Post by Rab on Apr 17, 2013 16:24:15 GMT -5
I think there is a misunderstanding of the Gold Reserve Act of 1934. It didn't bring into being any more restrictions on private citizens than where in place from the EOs of 1933. It completed the process of taking the US off the gold standard but there was no demand for citizens to deliver gold certificates. Gold certificates were still legal tender and it was still legal to own up to $100 worth. So I say again that Steinweg is confusing different transactions.
You are right, of course, Amy that there is a cost of laundering. There is no evidence of ransom money ever having been laundered as hot money i.e. sold for less than face value. But there was a cost of laundering individual bills, perhaps making many small purchases that weren't entirely necessary. We know Hauptmann did this because of his coin deposits.
Certainly there were times that Fisch accompanied Hauptmann to Steiner Rouse. But that is no proof of money passing between them. I think you have to look at the inherent contradiction of Hauptmann's testimony. Fisch gave him all this money yet still owed him $7,500? How is that possible? Not only did this ultra-generous Fisch account for all Hauptmann's investing, covered his excess living expenses, funded a mortgage but he also managed to get in debt to Hauptmann (who had no job or any real income) in the amount of $7,500. It's absurd on it's face and I don't know how people can persist with such nonsense.
Certainly Fisch had money at times. We know he borrowed money from lots of people, most of which he never repaid. Such is the nature of the Ponzi schemes he was running. That he appeared flush to some people and destitute to others is no mystery: he was both at different times. This is all clear from the evidence of Mrs Hile and others.
Why the upsurge in investing in 1933? I think it's an interesting question. I think personally there were two reasons. Hauptmann was flush with freshly laundered funds from the Faulkner and other exchanges, known and unknown. I also do believe he was investing on Fisch's behalf, at Fisch's urging perhaps, to a level he hadn't invested before. But, crucially, Hauptmann was investing with his own [ransom] money, oblivious to the fact that the furs he though were security against his investments were either worthless or a figment of Fisch's imagination. This is the basis of the debt he later claims, this is why he forged the partnership books, to recover the money from Fisch's family that he believed Fisch had duped him into investing. If Fisch had given it to him, there would be no debt to recover.
Rab
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Apr 18, 2013 9:26:35 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2013 9:26:35 GMT -5
As always Rab, I appreciate your responses to my questions. I am relying on you to try and understand Hauptmann's handling of the ransom money, so please bear with me here.
So you are saying that Hauptmann's way of laundering ransom was to make small and probably at times unnecessary purchases to acquire clean money. So then the coin deposits, mostly made to his Mt. Vernon account, are the proof of this laundering? Allowing for all the deposits made to this account to be laundered money it only amounts to a little over $1,700 dollars. Hardly compares to the dollar amounts being deposited into Anna's Steiner Rouse account. I can't even fathom how many small purchases Hauptmann would have needed to make to cover these deposits, laying aside the JJ Faulkner one. He had to be laundering ransom money another way besides purchases. And laundering money takes time and effort. Thats why I think he had help with this.
Besides small purchases and money laundering en masse, what are other ways to exchange ransom money for clean money in order to explain the large deposits in the Steiner Rouse account?
|
|
|
Letters
Apr 21, 2013 12:17:26 GMT -5
Post by Rab on Apr 21, 2013 12:17:26 GMT -5
Hi Amy,
I think you need to look at the $1,700 not as the totality of the money laundered by the purchase method but as the by-product of it. For example, if a $5 bill was laundered, it would result in 4 clean $1 bills and an amount of change. A higher denomination bill obviously would result in more clean bills. So, for the sake of argument, if we say that every transaction was a $5 bill and resulted in 50 cents of change then that means $13,600 in clean money would be generated ($1,700 * 0.5 * 4). Of course, the real mix of change versus denominations would have been different but you get my point.
I believe that there were three main laundering activities:
- small purchases, as mostly evidenced in 1932 and 1934; - the Faulkner and other exchanges around May 1933; - another method which I'm not going to go into as it's still work in progress in my mind.
There is no evidence of selling money at below face value. And such would have been anathema to Hauptmann, a man obsessed with money. I don't at all rule out that someone was helping him launder or that someone else had a smaller stash. I've posted in the past about bills passed after Hauptmann's arrest and whether they were by an accomplice.
Rab
|
|
|
Letters
Jun 10, 2013 23:46:44 GMT -5
Post by innocent framed on Jun 10, 2013 23:46:44 GMT -5
Hauptman was/is, innocent. I remember my parents saying (they were living at the time of all of this) that they believed Hauptman was framed. Anyone reading "The Airman and The Carpenter" would come away with the same result.
Lindberg was a practical joker and I think he had something to do with the kidnapping. The deed went terribly wrong----.
The reporters went wild, the whole thing was a circus.
Terrible, terrible miscarriage of justice.
|
|
|
Letters
Jan 3, 2015 21:41:42 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Jan 3, 2015 21:41:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Letters
Jan 3, 2015 21:44:03 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Jan 3, 2015 21:44:03 GMT -5
But many "ordinary" letters can sometimes generate interesting responses: Attachment Deleted
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Jan 4, 2015 10:25:39 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2015 10:25:39 GMT -5
It looks like Gov. Hoffman received many interesting letters while conducting his investigation of the Lindbergh case. Who helped Gov. Hoffman sort all the mail he was receiving? Did Hoffman read everything he received? The letter by Frederic Spuck is a response letter to Gov. Hoffman. I think it shows how Schwarzkopf was not investigating anything regarding the Lindbergh case even though Gov. Hoffman had asked him to do so as part of the re-investigation effort.
The Schulman letter asking for another repreive for Hauptmann is marked as "Do not acknowledge". This lady claims to know who murdered the Lindbergh baby. She says Dr. Condon is the head of a revolutionary gang and that he has assistants who hold office jobs in the city of New York. Wow! I can understand not following up on this lady's claims.
Would you know what criteria Hoffman used to decide what should be followed up on and what shouldn't be? Wasn't his focus on finding who the others were that he believed helped Hauptmann?
|
|
|
Letters
Jan 4, 2015 11:04:31 GMT -5
Post by romeo12 on Jan 4, 2015 11:04:31 GMT -5
a lot of the letters were quacks. don't forget gov Hoffman had his eye for the white house, ellis parker was going to be the head of the fbi if he got in. if Hoffmans investigations were so great, why did ellis parker kidnap and torture paul wendel and made him make a false confession?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Jan 4, 2015 11:55:03 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2015 11:55:03 GMT -5
a lot of the letters were quacks. don't forget gov Hoffman had his eye for the white house, ellis parker was going to be the head of the fbi if he got in. if Hoffmans investigations were so great, why did ellis parker kidnap and torture paul wendel and made him make a false confession? I am sure Hoffman did receive many crazy letters just like the Lindberghs did. That is why I asked about what his criteria was when deciding what to give consideration to and what to toss. Some of the letters were easy decisions, others not so much. From what I understand, Gov. Hoffman believed Hauptmann was involved, but that he had help. He was hoping to find out who Hauptmann's accompliance(s) may have been. Ellis Parker believed that Paul Wendel was the kidnapper of the Lindbergh baby. Parker felt that Wendel would eventually confess to that. I don't think it was part of Ellis Parker's plan for Wendel to be tortured. That was not the way Parker did things. I don't think it was ever proven that Wendel was actually tortured. Is there photographic evidence or a medical report that validates Wendel's claims of torture?
|
|
|
Letters
Jan 4, 2015 12:09:43 GMT -5
Post by romeo12 on Jan 4, 2015 12:09:43 GMT -5
of course ellis knew wendel was being tortured, how were they going to get a phony confession out of him. you have to read some of the trial transcript. it showed what ellis parker really was. his son did jail time also for this and a few others. gov Hoffman thought he had help but so did many others, nobody at the time could find solid proof of this
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Letters
Jan 4, 2015 12:45:17 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Jan 4, 2015 12:45:17 GMT -5
If we can believe Scaduto,(in spite of being a very experienced crime reporter I have a good example that you can't believe him if anyone is interested) according to the people he was talking with Wendel was kept safe and well fed. Problem is he was left in the care of criminals with only Ellis Jr. around to supervise, and sounds like he wasn't around much.
It's a real horror story. Ellis Sr. had absolutely no evidence that I can discern and just had an inclination that Wendel had done it. Of course he did confess - probably after some knee cap surgery - but the original story was as incredible as the LKC itself. Can you imagine bringing the kidnapped Lindbergh baby home and asking your wife and daughter to take care of him? He changed his story later, but to me Scaduto's "interviews" appear to come from his own imagination. I havn't done a letter frequency check on his hot information yet because I don't think it's particularly important, but if some Scaduto fans come on board I will.
|
|
|
Letters
Jan 4, 2015 12:56:46 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Jan 4, 2015 12:56:46 GMT -5
Who helped Gov. Hoffman sort all the mail he was receiving? Did Hoffman read everything he received? It was a joint effort with everyone working on his Executive Staff screening letters. If they felt if necessary for Hoffman to read them then they were sent over. If they felt it required a response to either a compliment or criticism then a letter was typed up for the Governor's signature, or in cases of severe criticism - someone like Conklin or Lutz would personally respond themselves to BLAST the Letter Writer. The letter by Frederic Spuck is a response letter to Gov. Hoffman. I think it shows how Schwarzkopf was not investigating anything regarding the Lindbergh case even though Gov. Hoffman had asked him to do so as part of the re-investigation effort. Agreed. It's why there's a note at the bottom " show the Governor." The Schulman letter asking for another repreive for Hauptmann is marked as "Do not acknowledge". This lady claims to know who murdered the Lindbergh baby. She says Dr. Condon is the head of a revolutionary gang and that he has assistants who hold office jobs in the city of New York. Wow! I can understand not following up on this lady's claims. Perhaps her Daughter would like to write a book about the subject of her letter as the "real kidnapper." Why not? There's a book behind every letter - just look at Zorn's for your example. Would you know what criteria Hoffman used to decide what should be followed up on and what shouldn't be? Wasn't his focus on finding who the others were that he believed helped Hauptmann? There wasn't anything written down. Those reading them pretty much knew what the Governor did, and what he was after. So they used their common sense and their "gut" feeling about which to refer and what not to. There were also a lot of people offering to "help" investigate. They tried to screen them too, for example, they had the Former Chief of Detectives from Nassau County offer his services gratis. He went to Germany, on his own, and developed promising leads extending into other countries. In order to follow them up he needed expense money as his personal funds dried up - and that was the end of that.
|
|
|
Letters
Jan 4, 2015 13:12:29 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Jan 4, 2015 13:12:29 GMT -5
a lot of the letters were quacks. don't forget gov Hoffman had his eye for the white house, ellis parker was going to be the head of the fbi if he got in. if Hoffmans investigations were so great, why did ellis parker kidnap and torture paul wendel and made him make a false confession? There's no evidence Hoffman was looking to be President. Next, there was a lot going on during this period of time and there's much information that had been brought out which leads to the solution of the crime which would never have been revealed without them. Parker did not torture Wendel, and no one "made" him confess. Read those confessions and its quite clear they are by his own making. The only evidence concerning a "beating" comes from the admission that he was struck after bragging about emasculating the child. There was also a scratch on his earlobe that he claimed was a result of the "beatings" but that others believed had more to do with a shaving mishap. Once at New Lisbon they had to take his shoes away because he was caught hitting himself with them attempting to leave marks behind.
|
|
|
Letters
Jan 4, 2015 13:21:37 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Jan 4, 2015 13:21:37 GMT -5
Ellis Parker believed that Paul Wendel was the kidnapper of the Lindbergh baby. Parker felt that Wendel would eventually confess to that. I don't think it was part of Ellis Parker's plan for Wendel to be tortured. That was not the way Parker did things. I don't think it was ever proven that Wendel was actually tortured. Is there photographic evidence or a medical report that validates Wendel's claims of torture? No physical evidence of torture. What you had were men who picked Wendel up being promised immunity if they gave certain testimony. Even then they balked at supporting most of what Wendel was alleging. During the Grand Jury testimony they implicated Parker Jr. as showing them how to use a "spread eagle" on Wendel then said it was used. But again, I'd say without this immunity deal, which by the way was lied about later on - this testimony would not exist. By all accounts Wendel and Bleefeld were seen during the trial recesses laughing and joking or huddled up whispering to one another. of course ellis knew wendel was being tortured, how were they going to get a phony confession out of him. you have to read some of the trial transcript. it showed what ellis parker really was. his son did jail time also for this and a few others. gov Hoffman thought he had help but so did many others, nobody at the time could find solid proof of this Parker Sr. would never ever, even in that mental state, have been a part of torturing someone. I've got most of the transcripts for all of the trials and Grand Jury testimony so give me a page number and I will see what you are talking about.
|
|
|
Letters
Jan 4, 2015 13:34:00 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Jan 4, 2015 13:34:00 GMT -5
If we can believe Scaduto,(in spite of being a very experienced crime reporter I have a good example that you can't believe him if anyone is interested) according to the people he was talking with Wendel was kept safe and well fed. Problem is he was left in the care of criminals with only Ellis Jr. around to supervise, and sounds like he wasn't around much. What Scaduto writes about concerns his interviews with Bleefeld. There's no doubt this is what he was told. Now the question becomes whether or not Bleefeld was telling him the truth. People who want him lying to Scaduto will say it's not true, but then must face the music about whether or not he told the truth elsewhere. It's a two-way street unless one has something to show otherwise. It's a real horror story. It's a horrible story. That's about it. Ellis Sr. had absolutely no evidence that I can discern and just had an inclination that Wendel had done it. Of course he did confess - probably after some knee cap surgery - but the original story was as incredible as the LKC itself. Can you imagine bringing the kidnapped Lindbergh baby home and asking your wife and daughter to take care of him? He changed his story later, but to me Scaduto's "interviews" appear to come from his own imagination. I havn't done a letter frequency check on his hot information yet because I don't think it's particularly important, but if some Scaduto fans come on board I will. They aren't imaginary because I have documentation that is in line with what Bleefeld is saying. Still that doesn't make it true, however, it shows Scaduto isn't inventing it. Wendel was a crook, a con-artist, and a hustler. He made every effort to make Parker believe he had been involved without ever coming right out and saying it. One one occasion, and before Parker ever mentioned him as a Suspect, Wendel announced to his companion "they think I am the Lindbergh Kidnapper." This was all one big attempt at Wendel getting his hands on money in some way.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Letters
Jan 4, 2015 13:49:14 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Jan 4, 2015 13:49:14 GMT -5
Sr., Jr., Bleefeld. and one or two others went to prison. Were they convicted of JUST kidnapping?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Letters
Jan 4, 2015 14:50:26 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Jan 4, 2015 14:50:26 GMT -5
And if you think Scaduto is so reliable, read p. 304 of "Scapegoat," then try and find that "report."
|
|
|
Letters
Jan 4, 2015 14:53:12 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Jan 4, 2015 14:53:12 GMT -5
Sr., Jr., Bleefeld. and one or two others went to prison. Were they convicted of JUST kidnapping? (2-11-36 @ Page 586)The law is that the crime of Kidnapping competent, the defendant may be charged either in the County where the kidnapping took place, or any County through which the person taken into custody is brought or any County in which he is confined. That gives this Court jurisdiction of the kidnapping charge, and on the second count int he indictment charging the Defendants with Assault in the Second Degree on Wendel, the complainant, with the intent of committing the crime of kidnapping. But the evidence in this case if there was a kidnapping it was completed int eh County of new York, and the Assault with intent to kidnap was committed in New York County. This Court has not jurisdiction of that count. The kidnapping was completed and the subsequent detention in this county merely goes to prove that took place, and the Court has dismissed the second count. (2-12-36 @ page 587)[Berger]: If, Your Honor please, I wish to withdraw the plea of Not Guilty to the first count charging kidnapping, and plead him guilty of that count. I ask Your Honor to accept that plea. (2-12-36 @ page 588)[The Court]: I understand there are two indictments against the defendant.
[Geoghan]: One was a superceding indictment contained the name of Harry Bleefeld who is now dead.
|
|
|
Letters
Jan 4, 2015 15:03:44 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Jan 4, 2015 15:03:44 GMT -5
And if you think Scaduto is so reliable, read p. 304 of "Scapegoat," then try and find that "report." Think he's reliable? About what? Pretty important to note what he's reliable about and what he isn't. I would never say that because someone is right about one thing that means he's right about everything. By the same argument, I would never say someone wrong about one thing would be wrong about everything either. As far a page 304 goes, please tell me exactly what you referencing. I have Agent Larimer's Report, and I also have the source for Condon claiming CJ told him the Colonel was wasting his time with the people from "down soud."
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Letters
Jan 4, 2015 15:06:34 GMT -5
Post by jack7 on Jan 4, 2015 15:06:34 GMT -5
Does it mention Curtis?
|
|
|
Letters
Jan 4, 2015 15:48:53 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Jan 4, 2015 15:48:53 GMT -5
There's nothing I have that quotes Condon as saying CJ specifically said "Curtis" by name. It could be from an FBI or NY Report that I do not have. Or it could be that he is combining various sources into one, and if so, it would be improper and should not be quoted the way it is. For example, Condon testified before the Bronx Grand Jury that CJ told him the baby was not in " Norfolk Virginia" and in JTA! specifically claims the reference in that Ransom Note refers to " Curtis", etc.
|
|
|
Letters
Jan 4, 2015 16:04:01 GMT -5
Post by romeo12 on Jan 4, 2015 16:04:01 GMT -5
im sure ellis knew he was tortured his son called him a lot of times, I would find it hard to believe that he didn't know. ive read through the years he was eyeing the whitehouse. I can see that he was
|
|
|
Letters
Jan 4, 2015 16:23:14 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Jan 4, 2015 16:23:14 GMT -5
im sure ellis knew he was tortured his son called him a lot of times, I would find it hard to believe that he didn't know. ive read through the years he was eyeing the whitehouse. I can see that he was Parker's entire career was based on the fact that he solved all of those cases not only without using force, but speaking out against it. His son idolized his Father, and there is no source anywhere on the planet that either men ever harmed a fly. So the question now begs where on earth would Parker Jr. have learned the 'spread eagle' to the level where he is now giving lessons to those who believed they were going to be Police Officers once Wendel was brought in? They knew he was being held, but as far as torture goes I don't believe it for a minute. Did Wendel get kicked after bragging about burning off the child's privates? Yes, I believe that happened. But it was because they were outraged, and not because they told him to say that. And so someone being forced to confess something says that? All the men involved believed Wendel was guilty - at first because of what Parker told Bleefeld, but later because of what Wendel was telling them - and not the other way around. There is too much material that no one has ever bothered to visit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Letters
Jan 4, 2015 16:27:31 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2015 16:27:31 GMT -5
I did not realize that someone attached to Hoffman's re-investigation went to Germany checking out leads. There were some very sincere people working for Hoffman who believed in what Hoffman was trying to do.
Could you tell me if Gov. Hoffman ever looked at Schwarzkopf's reports on Violet Sharp? Did Hoffman ever offer an opinion about Sharp and whether she might have been involved with the kidnapping?
|
|