|
Post by Michael on May 16, 2011 9:17:47 GMT -5
Yes and no Sue... A number of points are made for reversal, but we find it unnecessary to decide at this time any but the first, which, in our judgment, points clearly to harmful error committed by the trial court.
Defendant is a negro. Before the jury was selected from the special panel of forty-eighth, provided by law to be selected from the general panel defendant challenged the array, in writing, "because those charged by the State of New Jersey and county of Essex with the duty of drawing such panel deliberately avoided calling any person of the colored race knowing that the defendant was colored and because of bias and prejudice against such defendant and this challenge to the array this defendant demands that the court try."
The challenge was peremptory denied by the court, and exception duly prayed and sealed.
This denial was error. [State v. Jones, Court of Errors and Appeals, 1935, 115 N.J. L., p. 257]
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 17, 2011 8:00:16 GMT -5
I think your idea of going over the letter line by line and comparing it to the letter BRH sent his Mother is the best way to put this issue to rest and move on. Can you post both?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 17, 2011 16:18:07 GMT -5
Letter to his Mother Arthur Jones Letter [/a][/center] It's important to qualify these letters, that is, in what context were they written? Hauptmann would be lying to his Mother, but telling the truth to Jones? You see how many differing combination may exist? My goal was to see if there were any "slips" like for example, when Wendel made some of the exact complaints in his "forced" confession as included in his legal action against Gov. Hoffman. People can betray themselves just like they do in their handwriting (which should be revealed within proper analysis). I want to re-read Hauptmann Biography as well to look for the same type of slip up. Next, according to the Guards, Hauptmann wrote another letter to his Mother very near to the time he was executed. I have never laid eyes on that letter. *I linked up these letters which were already posted online. Proper credit is included within the web addresses.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on May 17, 2011 18:22:29 GMT -5
mike, i have one of hauptmanns letter to his mother
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 18, 2011 5:48:33 GMT -5
Steve, if you are able to locate it, check out the date for me. I have a bad habit when I research to see things and assume I already have them. Type face, topic, and nature of the event was a way for me not to waste time on documents I have already looked at. Unfortunately, I am discovering a major flaw in this tactic recently...like the "2nd" Betty Gow Statement of the exact same date! That took me 10 years to figure out....
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on May 18, 2011 6:48:12 GMT -5
mike, the letter was written december 27, 1935
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 20, 2011 12:40:05 GMT -5
Unfortunately, that's the same letter linked up below Steve....
I have been searching for the other letters to his Mother and stumbled upon a reference to one that was written earlier. It's in a notebook so whatever I post will be what I think I see what's written there. I want to post it simply to get it out there. Still looking for the others, most especially the one the Guards say he was writing before his execution.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 20, 2011 12:59:59 GMT -5
December 12(?), 1935 Mother dear, I write this letter in the firm conviction that all will be well. Don't think I am a broken man, my clear conscience tells me all will and must go well. The decision of the high court cannot change my belief. An inner voice tells me I'll return to mine, and see happy days again. The pretty lie, factory built against me in order to sentence somebody, will smash someday. Dear Mother, I wish you and all the good to pray to God that our prayers will be heard. I am happy that I can tell you my conscience is clear and I have not deserved this suffering. So, mother dear don't lose courage I pray with you that the new year will bring all of us luck in abundance especially you.
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Sept 30, 2011 21:35:35 GMT -5
What does the former Governor of New Jersey, Brendan Byrne, know about the real truth in the Lindbergh case?
From the Sunday Star-Ledger article, "Lindbergh Trial to be Replayed Against Debate on Theories," for January 8, 1995:
"Byrne, a 10-year-old living in West Orange at the time of the trial, once received a mysterious letter from a prisoner named Arthur Jones who claimed to have heard Hauptmann confess that he kidnaped the baby at Lindbergh's request."
Byrne, says Arthur Jones had psychiatric problems.
Byrne does not believe Hauptmann was railroaded.
Byrne believes someone else gave Hauptmann the orders to do the Lindbergh crime, but the article doesn't name the person.
Byrne states: "If all you're looking at is where he was that night, did he steal the baby, that's not the mystery...the real mystery is who told him to go there that night, and why he did."
Has Byrne ever publicly stated the name or names of those others he believes were involved in the Lindbergh kidnapping?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 1, 2011 8:50:12 GMT -5
This is a good find Sue....
Assuming what is reported in this article is accurate, I think what the Governor says in this article is about as close as I have ever seen. It's kind of a "politically incorrect" thing to say especially when Col. Pagano said there was no evidence of a Conspiracy. So in saying it, it shows to me that he's looked closely at this Case then felt an over-riding factor existed to state his personal conviction about it.
The best place to look for a "hint" concerning what you are asking is to pursue Lloyd's line on p.401 of his book (The Case That Never Dies). Dig here and I think you might find some more about it. The other way might be to contact the Governor and simply ask him... (You'd be surprised how many people have spoken to me when I called, or written back to an email I've sent)
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Oct 1, 2011 9:04:04 GMT -5
mike, isnt byrne on one of the old documentrys on the case? i only heard him say that when forensics advances, the evidence can be retested
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2015 23:25:36 GMT -5
I was recently doing some research on Egbert Rosecrans, one of Hauptmann's attorney when I came across this news article. Rosecrans talks about how Hauptmann is passing some of his time while waiting for his appeal hearing. This article mentions there is a negro on death row with Hauptmann. It reminded me about the book Beneath the Winter Sycamores and the Arthur Jones letter that was the basis for that book. Could the negro mentioned in this article have been Jones? news.google.com/newspapers?id=ILFQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=8SEEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2789%2C6944612
|
|
|
Post by scathma on May 25, 2017 12:16:00 GMT -5
Can someone post the Jones letter or a new link to it please... the State of New Jersey website link above is broken.
Any new thoughts on this topic since the last post?
I've read all the results from a search of the board - was something discovered to quash further speculation on this letter?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2017 12:46:55 GMT -5
Here is a link to the Arthur Jones letter (theory) that Jones claims was shared with him by Hauptmann while they were both on death row. I will need to read this again myself before I can make any posts on it. www.nj.gov/state/archives/guides/sintr003image24.pdf
|
|
|
Post by scathma on May 25, 2017 13:56:49 GMT -5
Thank you Amy for your prompt reply!
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on May 26, 2017 9:35:28 GMT -5
Here is a link to the Arthur Jones letter (theory) that Jones claims was shared with him by Hauptmann while they were both on death row. I will need to read this again myself before I can make any posts on it. www.nj.gov/state/archives/guides/sintr003image24.pdf(1) What was Arthur Jones's status as a prisoner in 1956 when he wrote that letter to prison authorities claiming Hauptmann had told him how the purported kidnapping had gone down? (life sentence?) (2) Do you think Jones expected leniency from state authorities in exchange for his "information"? (3) When was the first time that the existence of Jones's letter became public through a news media report? (4) Does anyone think that Jones is honest in his letter? (In particular, it would seem odd that Hauptmann would tell his story to Jones in prison and not to Gov. Hoffman, who seemingly would have commuted his sentence if he ratted on other people involved.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2017 22:03:41 GMT -5
1. In 1956 Arthur Jones was serving out a life sentence at the New Jersey State Prison Farm in Rahway N.J. 2. In my opinion, Jones was not expecting anything from state authorities or anyone else. He wanted people to know the truth about the Lindbergh kidnapping as it was shared with him by Hauptmann. For Jones, it was all about justice. 3. I believe the Jones story went public in 1976 when, on his deathbed, Jones shared his story with Jeffrey A. Newman who was a journalist with The National Enquirer at the time. Newman went on to become a powerful lawyer. Before that Jones was trying to get the state of New Jersey to re-examine the Lindbergh case based on what Hauptmann had told him. Jones was writing to the different governors of New Jersey trying to get their attention. Jones was not doing any of this for money or personal attention. 4. Arthur Jones spent 6 months on death row with Richard Hauptmann. It is possible that Hauptmann could have told Jones things. Arthur Jones gave a letter about what Hauptmann told him to a Trenton State prison guard in 1950 and hoped he would get this story out. This guard never did but the guard's son published this letter in a book he wrote that came out in 2010 titled "Beneath The Winter Sycamores" by Jim Bahm. I encourage anyone who wants to know more about the Arthur Jones letter to read Bahm's book.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on May 27, 2017 10:53:16 GMT -5
1. In 1956 Arthur Jones was serving out a life sentence at the New Jersey State Prison Farm in Rahway N.J. 2. In my opinion, Jones was not expecting anything from state authorities or anyone else. He wanted people to know the truth about the Lindbergh kidnapping as it was shared with him by Hauptmann. For Jones, it was all about justice. 3. I believe the Jones story went public in 1976 when, on his deathbed, Jones shared his story with Jeffrey A. Newman who was a journalist with The National Enquirer at the time. Newman went on to become a powerful lawyer. Before that Jones was trying to get the state of New Jersey to re-examine the Lindbergh case based on what Hauptmann had told him. Jones was writing to the different governors of New Jersey trying to get their attention. Jones was not doing any of this for money or personal attention. 4. Arthur Jones spent 6 months on death row with Richard Hauptmann. It is possible that Hauptmann could have told Jones things. Arthur Jones gave a letter about what Hauptmann told him to a Trenton State prison guard in 1950 and hoped he would get this story out. This guard never did but the guard's son published this letter in a book he wrote that came out in 2010 titled "Beneath The Winter Sycamores" by Jim Bahm. I encourage anyone who wants to know more about the Arthur Jones letter to read Bahm's book. I can't agree that Jones "was not expecting anything from state authorities or anyone else." So you think that Jones, a man who was serving a life sentence, which I assume was his sentence for a homicide of some sort, was merely an altruist acting pro bono in delivering Hauptmann's purported take on the LKC to authorities? The major piece of Jones' theory that doesn't pass the smell test is putting Dr. Condon at the head of a kidnapping ring. Condon was an elderly man with no criminal history at the time of the LKC and with a good reputation in his community. If not wealthy, he was certainly certainly well-to-do enough so that the money to be had from a kidnapping ring wouldn't be worth the risk. And Condon had shown no signs of being a eugenicist, so there would be no ideological motivation for him to work out a scheme with CAL Sr. to remove CAL Jr. from the household. As the head of the kidnap ring (as per Jones's theory), it certainly seems strange that there would be no ransom money to ever be found in Condon's possession (other than the money he gave over to CJ), despite at least one incident where police ransacked Jafsie's house specifically looking for ransom loot. Furthermore, how would Jafsie have ever met CAL Sr. in the first place so as to mastermind a plot like this? Who would have introduced them? Seems like the two of them traveled in different circles before March 1, 1932.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2017 14:24:10 GMT -5
I can't agree that Jones "was not expecting anything from state authorities or anyone else." So you think that Jones, a man who was serving a life sentence, which I assume was his sentence for a homicide of some sort, was merely an altruist acting pro bono in delivering Hauptmann's purported take on the LKC to authorities? I stand by my opinion based on what I have read. Had Jones been interested in a commuted sentence or money, he wouldn't have waited until he was on his deathbed to reach out to a media source. This is not my theory so I have no intention of arguing the Jones letter. This is Hauptmann's story via Arthur Jones. If Hauptmann actually shared this with Jones, what do you think Hauptmann's motives might have been to create such a scenario. Lindbergh and Condon are acting together according to Hauptmann/Jones.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 27, 2017 15:01:13 GMT -5
For what it's worth, I think Jones was correct, insofar as, very broadly, Condon and Lindbergh were indeed acting together. Not that they were both in on the same conspiracy or cooked something up together, but to the extent that they both had the same general purpose: For their own different reasons, they were both trying to cover the kidnappers' tracks.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on May 28, 2017 15:45:17 GMT -5
Just went over Jones's letter again, and come away thinking even more strongly that his theory of the LKC was confabulated by himself, and was not based on what Hauptmann may have told him.
Even generally speaking, it looks inauthentic, as the writing is done at a higher level of skill than what would be expected from an author who admits (in the content of the letter) that he was illiterate when he supposedly encountered Hauptmann in prison. So this raises the question of it being written by a ghostwriter.
Yes, prisons can make strange bedfellows at times, but one wonders why Hauptmann would get friendly enough with with Jones to confide in him such secretive and sensitive matters that he would not even tell authorities or his own lawyers in order to save his own life. You have to bear in mind that the two came from different cultures, races, and nations. As far as we know, Hauptmann had had no black friends or acquaintances prior to his imprisonment.
As to how Charlie died, Jones's story of death from non traumatic causes would be inconsistent with the skull trauma seen on the corpse found in the woods. And, of course, it would have upset the entire legal rationale used by Wilentz to to bring a murder prosecution against Hauptmann.
Furthermore, Jones implicates Red Johnson as being in the getaway car transporting Charlie away from Highfields. It would seem as if Red had a solid alibi for the night of the purported kidnapping which was well checked out by law enforcement before he was released from police custody.
Notice that all the characters mentioned in Jones's theory - except for "Charlie" and his wife, whose last name Jones conveniently blanks out on - were well known to the public as possible suspects and could have been known to Jones with or without Hauptmann telling him anything.
|
|
An unimpressed relative
Guest
|
Post by An unimpressed relative on Oct 4, 2018 7:47:03 GMT -5
The person you mention...where you spell Zeid is spelled incorrectly. The correct spelling is "Zied". His whole name was Charles Zied, and he was charged with a crime he did not commit, that being the crime of killing a Camden detective when there was a raid on a house in New Jersey. My uncle was outside when that detective was shot and killed. There were witnesses. However, it is believed that Charles Zied might have had something to do with the Lindbergh kidnapping. Please spell his name correctly the next time you refer to him. Thanks. I do know that his name was spelled incorrectly by the newspapers.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 4, 2018 8:16:15 GMT -5
The person you mention...where you spell Zeid is spelled incorrectly. The correct spelling is "Zied". His whole name was Charles Zied, and he was charged with a crime he did not commit, that being the crime of killing a Camden detective when there was a raid on a house in New Jersey. My uncle was outside when that detective was shot and killed. There were witnesses. However, it is believed that Charles Zied might have had something to do with the Lindbergh kidnapping. Please spell his name correctly the next time you refer to him. Thanks. I do know that his name was spelled incorrectly by the newspapers. Thanks for correcting the spelling. Unfortunately most sources I have spell it "Charles Zeid." In fact, I am looking at a document right now written by Lloyd Fisher and he spelled it that way too so it's not just the newspapers making this mistake. So who did your uncle say actually murdered Detective Feitz?
|
|