|
Post by sue75 on Aug 29, 2010 6:58:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Aug 29, 2010 7:02:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 29, 2010 8:53:55 GMT -5
Good find (as usual) Sue.
I was going to print it out but as I read through it I see that he basically relies upon past mistakes, restating them as a matter of fact, then drawing conclusions based upon this type of flawed research. What he doesn't seem to understand is the vast amount of material that exists by which people can draw their conclusions. Time is a factor, of course, but research is much more important. If Waller didn't have access to the reports, and Fisher only spent what amounted to a handful of days going through them how can you compare that to the years Lloyd spent?
You can't.
Anyway, still working on Chapter 2. However, I do think my next chapter will be on Garsson (maybe). I'll just produce chapters on various subjects then either cut them out in the end or have someone direct me on how to place them into proper order.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Aug 29, 2010 11:55:02 GMT -5
lloyd spent years? oyou could have fooled me
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Aug 29, 2010 12:08:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 30, 2010 8:02:12 GMT -5
I think the sources/footnotes prove it to anyone who didn't run into him as many times as I did at the NJSP Archives. I suppose he could have just made up dialogue or wrote about things without any sources as if they were true but he took the other approach.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Aug 30, 2010 10:00:32 GMT -5
you know im only breaking your chops. his book wont work until he debates his book live. battle of the books like they did in the late eighties.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 31, 2010 17:02:08 GMT -5
I don't think there was an internet in the 80's. So now we can debate here on this board.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Aug 31, 2010 17:05:42 GMT -5
i meant for the authors
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 31, 2010 17:30:35 GMT -5
Me too. What's the point of going to a place when this venue works better. Look, the last time I was in a public situation I brought something up and I was challenged to produce my source on the spot. Well, I would need a Mack Truck to haul my sources, any one of which, I could be challenged to produce as if I were lying. And that's the idea. It's easier to pretend you've done the research then imply everyone else is a liar.
Do that here and it doesn't work.
I'll debate and win against anyone, regardless if they've been published or not. Look, I've been in collections that most Authors don't even know exist. If someone is right or could be I'll be the first to admit it but if they make some assertion like for example, Hammond wasn't interviewed by the NJSP past '33, I will crush them like a grape because I did the research which yielded proof they interviewed him in '34.
You cannot call people "Revisionists" then turn around and do exactly what you accuse these "Revisionists" of. Because guess what? I will see you, and I have the proof they are Hypocrites. Great books aren't full of holes. They aren't getting great reviews if the Reviewer actually knows its flaws.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Aug 31, 2010 21:09:33 GMT -5
liten to yourself mike, theres alot of people who know this case very well. you can bring all your sources all you want i really dont think you have the smoking gun. every book has some holes mike
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 1, 2010 6:02:19 GMT -5
I have all the resources right here.
There's a mentality out there that you don't need sources, until you're position is called into question then the "other" guy needs them.
Look at Jimmy D's posts, for example, that people insist on sending me..... He is, once again, pointing to Hauptmann's paychecks. I have proven some workers had received cash - despite the testimony given at trial. But for the purposes of HIS post, that point is omitted.
Ask yourself why someone would do that?
Well it seems to me because it proves the testimony is either incorrect or perjured. Then it allows for a possibility which could ruin his personal position. So he sweeps it under the rug and hopes no one was watching. But, you see, I was unfortunately. And so you either hate me or you like me - but if you want to debate the case just do so in good faith.
Now I'll be the first to admit it doesn't prove Hauptmann rec'd cash, but if its a possibility (as has been proven) what these people do is pretend it isn't to shore up their position. If you come here with that nonsense and you get ripped.
And so, if I went through Fisher's book, chapter by chapter, I would destroy it. It's why I can't be side-tracked with anyone claiming he's "right" about anything because most is based upon the exact things he accuses others of. And I just don't have time for that nonsense.
If there's a debate to be had - right here is the proper venue. If you want to cite Fisher then challenge me to disprove him - I will if its possible concerning that point. I won't be like JimmyD or Allen and try to disprove something I know could be right. I will present all the facts and let the individual make their own minds up. Sound like how Lloyd did things? That's the proper way. Omitting, downplaying, or shrugging things off in order to persuade someone to listen to you and only you is improper, and stifling.
People aren't stupid and can make up their own minds IF they have all of the relevant facts before them. Hiding them or pretending they don't exist is malicious.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Sept 1, 2010 8:28:14 GMT -5
to disprove fisher you have to prove hauptmanns non guilt in this case. everybody lied is not going to do it plus the wood and the handwriting is to strong. you can have all the resources you want. i still scratch my head at gardners book. what did he prove? i dont think the book is neutral at all
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 2, 2010 8:14:00 GMT -5
I don't understand your position. One thing does not equal the other. If Fisher says that Hammond was not interviewed after 1933 by the NJSP in order to insinuate something negative towards Hoffman, and I produce a 1934 Statement from him to the NJSP - then by your argument the Statement I have doesn't exist.
Fact is, Fisher was ill-equipped to make certain statement criticizing certain people, certain theories, certain ideas, because you see, he himself does exactly what he accuses them of.
And so, whether or not you believe his final conclusions, it doesn't mean his point by point positions are correct.
They ain't.
Lloyd presented and layed out all of the facts. He allows the Reader, armed with those facts, to make their own decisions. It's the perfect approach, although I think what I finally produce won't be as diplomatic.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Sept 2, 2010 13:19:39 GMT -5
dont agree you cant write a book on this case and just knock jims book and not the others. monier never been to west trenton museum and behns book is so dumb to think anns sister did it. i was surpised at gardner, and not talking to kel about the wood at the time of his writings
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 2, 2010 13:36:46 GMT -5
Is that what he did? I thought he simply corrected some things that were incorrect. How is that a bad thing?
A&M weren't at the Archives but did anyone give them info who were? How many days was Fisher there? Behn was getting information from Harry Green, who was a pretty good source if you ask me.
Talk to Kel? About what? He attempted to reprove Koehler's position. There's nothing new there. He even went so far as to take liberties with certain pieces of evidence, like the planer marks, and draw fantastic conclusions like....the attic was Hauptmann's "secret place." Sounds like the title to a science fiction novel....."The Secret Place." For what? The whole idea is absurd - most especially now since we know what really happened.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Sept 2, 2010 13:53:40 GMT -5
your juist a extenion of scaduto same garbage. fisher was there plenty of times so was other people. kels report is genuine and it just proves more guilt to hauptmann. i disagree that it was hauptmanns secret place because i was up there and had a better feel. i think he took that board but built it in his garage. it seems much easier then hall a three piece ladder out of that attic
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Sept 2, 2010 13:54:20 GMT -5
mike are you going to that talk in lyndhurst? im planning to go with sue
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 2, 2010 18:19:39 GMT -5
How many days total was Fisher there? I was there hundreds (maybe more) over the course of a decade, and not because Mark is a friend of mine.... Because it was necessary. And so, if someone wants to be condesending toward others, and its based upon 8 to 10 days of research at the Archives then I say they are being hypocritical and its easy to see why they made some huge mistakes.
Kel's report proved nothing really. It simply replayed Koehler's theory in color instead of black & white. One of his own sources told me his planer mark evidence was suspect. He omitted certain things. It's like the tobacco company producing something about smoking and we're supposed to accept it at face value.
I want to go but probably won't be able to under the circumstances.....
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Sept 2, 2010 21:24:30 GMT -5
proved nothing? i think kel proved alot of things, fisher was there enough times to know hauptmann was guilty and still is. i havnt seen anything blaring to convince me other wise
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 3, 2010 6:12:11 GMT -5
Kel did some good things and some bad things. But in the end, he didn't prove anything. He took Koehler's black and white photos and made them color. Nothing new, and continued to misrepresent the actual sequence of events.
Rab's position was shrugged off.... Why? Then comes Kevin, a Master Carpenter, who proves it without ever knowing Rab even presented it. And guess what? Just crickets on the other side. They simply ignore it. Again why? What is this mentality all about? Ignore the truth if it upsets what you desire to be true?
Silliness.
No, Fisher wasn't there anywhere near long enough. Steve, if I call you an idiot for being wrong about something then it turns out I am wrong too......
What does that make me?
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Sept 3, 2010 6:33:15 GMT -5
he was there long before mark got there. in fact i was there before mark. thats a long time ago. i got so crazy with this case, i named my cat sharpie after violet sharp, and my stray cat that i feed is named condon. your a good researcher, but disagreeing with you is healthy. this case is very complicated being the wendel affair is have to be added. i have met great people through this case and shared many documents and pictures. ive gone to other cases but this one is like a magnet you always seem to go back to it
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 3, 2010 17:04:39 GMT -5
But it doesn't matter if he was there before Mark or not....excepting there's more information there now then before. If you read his book, he tells you how many days he spent there.
I applaud his research. I say everyone, whether or not they've done research there is entitled to formulate an opinion based upon the information they have gathered from other sources. But I have a problem with someone name-calling other people...a name which applies to him more-so then those being attacked. And if one is going to do such a thing they had better be able to field legitimate criticism.
He did NOT do enough Archival research to make the claims and hurl the insults he does at other people. That's the bottom line.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Sept 3, 2010 17:51:16 GMT -5
i think he did. dont forget scaduto started the ball rolling with a article in the paper back then bashing fisher i have it. everybody bashed each other trust me
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 4, 2010 4:29:31 GMT -5
Kel did some good things and some bad things. But in the end, he didn't prove anything. He took Koehler's black and white photos and made them color. Nothing new, and continued to misrepresent the actual sequence of events. Most if not all the wood evidence is still open to a plethora of confounding or unanswered questions...and always without any new evidence either at the light or scanning electron microscopic level? Opps, no new wood samples can be examined? Especially since Susan Candy stepped forward with Abraham Samuelsohn's claim to the ladder wood..."with substitutions"? The only thing Kel showed me was that apparently-- Rail 16 appeared in the news photos from Highfields on March 2nd?This is in no way commesurate with a phD in wood anatomy? No 'new scientific wood evidence' was forthcoming...most wood experts have never seen the ladder wood nor have they pilgimaged to Wilburtha? Its not difficult to understand why the ladder was chosen as the "symbol" of the LKC in 1935...back in the dawning years of forensics. Trouble is--CJr wasnt killed by any ladder irregardless of who made it? Presumably, Abe Samuelsohn was an unidicted accessory to a kidnap- murder, but never called to testify?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 4, 2010 9:30:21 GMT -5
For me Rick - the Rail 16 "mystery" has been "solved" by the totality of circumstances which can now reasonably explain the actual course of events. All other SPECULATION failed to do this which let the matter open ended.
Now, at least for me, I can put to rest certain questions that were NEVER competently answered.
With this information we can now explain the Police actions and why that nonsense occurred. It also explains how Rail 16 appeared to match S-226 without Hauptmann having to empty his closet, disassemble the shelving, crawl into the attic, then saw the flooring, then come down, reassemble the selves, put the items back in, then bring the board into his garage.....just the noise of the sawing up there would have been heard by the nosy Mrs. Rauch & anyone else in that house at the time.
Or, as the evidence now proves, someone at one time went into the Rauch basement and took that board never knowing that it came from the attic in the first place.
Now I move on to the next step.
It's why you "hold out" when something just isn't right. Never accept something merely because you want it to be true.
Samuelsohn is an enigma. Something went down there. Exactly what I think is different then whatever he produced being that ladder found on the Estate. However, for a guy who's mind was as sharp as a tack....dates, names, prices, people....when it came to the ransom box. So much so that Condon didn't want anyone anywhere near him. There's something there - just what however - I am still trying to determine.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Sept 4, 2010 11:09:32 GMT -5
well as far as rick3 i disagree, i think kel did more then compare pictures if you read his full report. as far as hearing hauptmann saw the wood, he could have done it when mrs rauch wasnt home, or maybe you cant hear it being downstairs. i thought of that when i was in the attic. it would have been a good experiment to try. mike what evidence do you have that the wood was in the basement?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 4, 2010 11:11:38 GMT -5
Hi Michael....wow I must have missed something along the road?
Does this also include "throwing it down, or up, into the attic on the end of S-226? Now who would go to all the trouble to fake that? And how exactly or who proved it....Rab and Kev?\
2. With regards to Abe Samuelsohn, JFCs BFF, it seems unlikely he was lying from stem to stern about the ladder wood? Since he received "death threats" is it possible he was threatened unless he did lie? Maybe by BRHs best friends or Condon? He also made trips to the State Police barracks to examine the ladder. I cant see why the NJSP would threaten him to testify that he made the ladder wood, or some of it? Too wierd. His testimony wouldnt have done BRH any harm under the circumstances, but it sure would have blown Wilintz's case out the water. Its such an odd coincidence that he also made the magic ransom box? Part of the answer could lie in the fact that AS ended up in the FDR White House making piano legs? Didnt Deathhouse Riley tell Thomas F. Rice....."Im not getting FDR mixed up in this case"? [Abe surely would have made an interesting witness under oath.]
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Sept 4, 2010 14:58:13 GMT -5
i have stuff on samuelson, but at this moment cant find it. one of my favorites transcripts i got im sure mike has this is a meeting march24,1936 at wilburtha nj, with gov hoffman,schwarzkopf, hoge, captain snook, lt keaton, and borneman about the wood evidence
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 4, 2010 16:24:32 GMT -5
Steve & Rick - I've posted all of this before....From memory let me try to summarize: 1. Rauch said all leftover material from the contractors was placed in the basement.
2. Hauptmann was given permission to use any of that material during the period of time he built the garage.
3. Everyone had access to the basement, regardless, including Hauptmann.
4. Miller backs up Rauch's assertion about the material claiming he saw such things down there during his visits to make various repairs.
5. It is likely the Electricians removed a piece of the attic flooring, which had been laid before their work there, in order to run their wiring. If this happened, that piece would have gone out the window and into the basement with the rest of the leftover material. The way S-226 had been sawn is indicative of someone unfamiliar with wood having made this cut. (See Koehler's own Trial Testimony on this point)
6. Miller also claimed he told Rauch to build a shelf for his Mother. One such account has Rauch telling Miller he has a whole attic of wood on the floor that is going to waste because no one uses the attic. Other accounts have Miller saying he saw wood with nail holes down there. Which came first I don't know but it only matters if you are trying to determine who actually removed it (either Rauch or the Electricians). Now if you consider this along with the evidence Kevin has presented then the Purdy/Klein Theory is far more likely and/or convincing then all of that other rubbish that's been passed off as what happened over the years. As far as Mrs. Rauch hearing the work.... She claimed to have heard Hauptmann talking about burning down the house for the insurance money on March 1st through the walls. If she could here people talking I am quite sure she'd here the sawing going on. Also, anytime an investigator, mail man, or reporter had been to that house - Mrs. Rauch was always there. Steve, I do have that interview. I have most of what everyone is looking for. The problems are what I am always complaining about.... a filing system where I will know where everything is - that's almost impossible.
|
|