|
Post by sue75 on Feb 27, 2010 11:19:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Feb 27, 2010 11:20:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 25, 2010 7:07:24 GMT -5
Listed as a creative non-fiction, this book tackles the infamous Jone's letter. I would love to get some feedback/reviews from those who pick it up. No matter how you look at it - Jones needs a closer look - and this book seems to do just that. I see more debate on the horizon fueled Mr. Bahm's perspective/research.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Apr 25, 2010 7:57:41 GMT -5
i have it, didnt read it yet. im given it to sue. looks like its well written
|
|
|
Post by Reek3 on Apr 27, 2010 3:09:37 GMT -5
My first impression of this fictional account is C- or 2-1/2 stars: - Doc Condon writes all the ransom notes? for $20K...
- CAL builds the now famous Lindbergh Ladder in his garage?
- Ben Lupica sees CAL delivering the LL to himself>
- BRH and Fisch drive Violet to Hopewell, Princeton and back to Next Day "just in time for her date" to the Peanut Grill?
- Charlie _______ morphs into Charlie Schleser and wife? {They are destined to take lil CJr to Germany on vacation?} Why Germany?
- Our buddies Parker/ Wendel are no wheres to be found?
- There is no clarvoyance by Cayce or Cerrita?
- I think we need to check on the provenance of Jim Beams connection to the case--its looks an awful lot like little more than an expansion of the Jones letter sent to Gov Brendon Byrne? eg creative writing?
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on May 2, 2010 11:55:18 GMT -5
Keeping Up With the Jones Theory -- From The Washington Press Club interviews from the late 1980s, A Katherine Beebe Harris quote: "I remember the Chicago Tribune sending one of its star reporters up to check a rumor that Lindbergh had kidnapped his own baby. I said, "What are you going to do with that? See page 138: www.wpcf.org/oralhistory/beebe5.htmlAlso, see Noel Behn's hardcover book, page 416: "One of the Lone Eagle's most fervent detractors was the acerbic columnist Dorothy Thompson. At the time of the kidnapping, she and her then husband, Sinclair Lewis, voiced the opinion that Lindbergh himself had killed the child."
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 7, 2010 15:55:00 GMT -5
Apparently, "Script" posted something on Allen's bored claiming he isn't biased, and that Jones was never on Death Row with Hauptmann.
If anyone believes him, or think they would like to discuss this I'd be happy to dismantle his "theory" (for lack of a better word).
Even he is welcome to come over here and "show me up" if he'd like.
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on May 7, 2010 16:17:01 GMT -5
James Arthur William Jones was INDEED on Death Row with Hauptmann. Here's one reference: "That was the case in the successful appeal of James Arthur William Jones, Newark Negro, who until yesterday was one of Hauptmann's companions in the death house at State prison..." (For more, arrow down a little, where words are highlighted yellow.) news.google.com/newspapers?id=t3AhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HogFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3122,2135956&dq=lindbergh+arthur-william-jones&hl=en
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on May 7, 2010 16:26:00 GMT -5
Apparently Jim Fisher, also, did not know that Arthur Jones was in the Death House with Hauptmann.
See Ghosts of Hopewell, page 95:
"Assuming Arthur Jones was on death row when Hauptmann was there (there were seven men on death row, three of whom died in the electric chair before Hauptmann),...Governor Harold G. Hoffman would have been interested in the story, but Jones would have actually had to have been in prison with Hauptmann, an easy fact to verify in 1936."
Advice: Be a fact checker.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on May 7, 2010 19:23:57 GMT -5
come on sue, his testimony is shaky, dont blame jim fisher
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 8, 2010 7:47:30 GMT -5
Sue is right. If you have something you follow it up. If you are un-biased you don't stop once you hear something you are looking for.
This is one place where I can't fault Fisher. He's not claiming he knows one way or another. But Scripted does exactly that claiming he's not "biased" even though he stops short after supposedly hearing something he wanted to hear.
This is why Scripted cannot be trusted. He's trying to put the breaks on research by declaring something as a matter of fact - when the exact opposite is true. Whatever his source its wrong.
Sue is absolutley right. Jones was on Death Row before his sentence was commuted to Life. And he was one of those on Death Row while Hauptmann was there. Some of them would even sing together. That included both Hauptmann and Jones who were among that group.
This is basic information that was proven years ago. Scripted is not only late - he's completely wrong - again.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on May 8, 2010 14:28:17 GMT -5
well jones is aliar in alaot of things he said, at least jim fisher debated his book with other authors, and he did very well. gardner would be in alot of trouble
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 9, 2010 12:11:03 GMT -5
Well, I've had my fair share of debates with Lloyd and from experience I would say Fisher would be the one to find some trouble. In any case, I don't believe that Dr Gardner does anything other than point out circumstances and facts, while letting the reader make his or her own decision on the validity of those issues. As much as I tend to agree with much of what Fisher wrote, there's no doubt that he "filled in" a lot of information that simply does not exist. If you doubt that, I suggest reading his account of the ladder climbing re-enactment. Then try to find any actual account of that event which supports what he wrote.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on May 9, 2010 12:38:48 GMT -5
well when you get to the evidence, none of these authors heldup. ive discuss the case with robert bryan and noel behn and fisher ive been around the block. the weakness of gardners book is the evidence, but thats not his fault, most pro hauptmann books get the evidence twisted into total nonsense
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 9, 2010 16:44:26 GMT -5
Steve,
While I realize you know and respect Fisher, Lloyd destroys a TON of Fisher's assertions with real evidence and source material. Sometimes with multiples sources. It's an easy thing to do when someone writes a book like he did with only a few short days of research at the NJSP Archives. If you gave me $$ for each and every mistake Fisher made that I could point out then I'd be rich.
One thing I've learned is that if you formulate your position based upon false, fictitious, or misleading facts then it falls apart like a house of cards.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on May 9, 2010 18:29:42 GMT -5
well, what did gardner do? he banked on hauptmann supporters like you, singlinde and others. ive never seen a pro hauptmann book do well in a debate
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 10, 2010 6:55:01 GMT -5
I'd have to say his book is certainly not a "pro-Hauptmann" book. It's basically a book of facts, and as Kevin said previously, the facts are laid out so that the Reader can come to a conclusion - or at least have all the facts to consider.
I don't know what you mean when you call me, Siglinde, or anyone else "pro-Hauptmann." I have in the past taken up positions both for and against him. Sometimes I'll take up a position against what I truly believe in order to work out the kinks in it.
I do believe if and when I am asked exactly what my position is you'll either get a straight answer or an "I don't know yet" type of response.
About 5 years ago I responded to an attack that I believed Hauptmann "innocent" of this crime. I responded by saying I believe Hauptmann had a role. The key is figuring out the whos, whats, whys, and whens then deciding how culpable he was in relationship to the crime. This is exactly what the Prosecution did when it formulated its Capital Murder Case against him. One stray move from their "theory" (for lack of a better word) and they don't have it. That's why all the shenanigans took place and even more shenanigans to cover up the original ones.
The problems occur (imo) when people see those shenanigans as proving him innocent and/or denying any occurred by saying they just didn't happen or by making legitimate excuses for them.
I've never been "locked" into a position and my mind has changed about several key things as I learned and continue to this day to learn about things. What confuses me the most is there are those trying to STOP people from researching by telling them they are an Authority - when clearly, very clearly - they are not.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on May 10, 2010 14:22:15 GMT -5
i think gardners book is well written, but with his facts and the way the book is written i believe it makes the reader think hauptmann wasnt guilty. also he knocks jim fishers book when scadutos behn and monier have 5 times more mistakes in it then jims.
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Apr 28, 2011 9:45:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Apr 28, 2011 9:51:12 GMT -5
Highlight, cut & paste above post.
|
|