|
Post by Michael on Apr 17, 2011 10:36:01 GMT -5
One of these Investigators, George H. Foster, had volunteered his services in the hopes of getting on the New Jersey State Police after the governor fired H. Norman Schwarzkopf. The governor's investigation went nowhere, he was ruined politically, and although he fired Schwarzkopf, George H. Foster didn't get a job with the New Jersey State Police. [Fisher, The Lindbergh Case, p.244] Sounds terrible doesn't it? Look at how Foster is represented. Also, look at how Hoffman and his re-investigation is represented. It's appears to be as Fisher would want it to be - not as it actually was. I have a real problem bending the circumstances to fit a particular theory. It gets worse in his 2nd "book" Ghosts of Hopewell where he represents just about every Investigator who assisted Hoffman as among a Motley Crew of misfits. You simply cannot include someone like Foster in that light, yet Fisher, a former FBI Agent, does just that. Why? In my opinion its to further an agenda that Hauptmann worked alone. He does this by and through a smear campaign against everyone and anyone who says any different. If it happens that one of his favorites says something to the contrary then he either isn't aware of it and/or he simply ignores it. Being ignorant but claiming information doesn't exist because you did not do an thorough investigation is a "sloppy" position at best. Additionally, ignoring facts, circumstances, or variables that do not fit so that you can simply evade them is also an ugly way to solve for an unknown. Yet, that is exactly what I see going on. For example, Foster worked for Fawcett. He was owed quite a bit of money. Wilentz, who seems to be one of Fisher's all time favorites, approaches Foster with a proposition: He'll pay Foster what Fawcett owes him, with the State Taxpayers Money, if and only if he stays off the Case. Then Wilentz writes a letter of recommendation for Foster. Why is that if Foster is among this Rag-Tag bunch of clowns? As as we see in the report below, Foster is now a member of the Bergen County Police. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Apr 18, 2011 18:49:25 GMT -5
well mike, there is no real evidence that he had help. gardner couldnt prove it, in fact gardner says in his book " many neglected files in the njsp museum". can he be specific? even thopugh many great reaseachers in the 80s and 90s combed through it. then he says " narrowness of window which would have enter and exit difficult. is he kidding? its not difficult. gardner ignored great research like kelvin on the wood. i think fisher is right, theres no real evidence that hauptmann had help. i believe he did it alone
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 19, 2011 16:19:09 GMT -5
We both know there's plenty of it. Problem is, since they couldn't get Hauptmann to talk then in order to convict they needed to prove he was a Lone-Wolf or else they would ruin their grey-area legal rangling.
Just go to his footnotes and look them up. Steve, there were files I've been through that Mark had told me I was the only one he ever saw go through them at the time. I promise you that someone who has only been to the Archives a handful of times hasn't seen 10% of what's really there. Especially now since there is much more then before.
Think about that.
And also consider that I have been through everything, and every time I go through again I learn something new. This is coming from someone who has gone through each and every collection about 10 times (if not more). Now consider NEVER going through it.
There's nothing in Keraga's report that isn't in Koehlers. And in the end, Keraga was wrong in his scenario - as both Kevin & Rab has proven.
He is entitled to his opinion. But its based on conjecture and ignorance. The exact same thing he accuses others' of. That's the part that "gets" me.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Apr 20, 2011 6:34:58 GMT -5
i think enoughs been studied at the museum to prove hauptmann didnt get railroaded. i see no solid evidence that hauptmann had help. i look at the make up of the crime. who in there right mind would talk at a cemetery to get the money? i look at ficsh, this hot money claim dosnt have any basis or solid proof
|
|
|
Post by vovina on Apr 20, 2011 8:33:28 GMT -5
If one hypothesizes Bruno as " the lone wolf " then by what process does Means and Whitaker come to know the exact date of the " kidnapping " ? The only option here is that Bruno, for whatever motive, contacted them in advance. As I have suggested in an earlier post, it may be the case that Bruno met with the dynamic duo in Chicago during the bizarre cross-country vacation. So, independently of other suggestive evidence that Hauptmann was working with others, the " lone wolf " theory has to either claim the Means/Whitaker operation was just a random con job ( and dismiss evidence to the contrary ) or try to account for the connective evidence in some other way. And I've seen none of the " lone wolf " theorist do either.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 20, 2011 15:57:08 GMT -5
Really? So is that why someone like Fisher resorts to these tactics I mention above? What's the need? It's exactly the lack of research that leads one to defend a position such as this.
The mere fact that Judge Large "switched" sides is enough to prove he did not get a fair trial. Just this point alone. It was unethical and malicious - yet it happened. Just like the bribery attempt of Foster. Bribery? Why is that needed? How about the threats and coercion of Kloppenberg? Wilentz effectively changed his testimony. Why are these things okay and not considered examples of railroading Hauptmann?
Is it because you think he was ultimately guilty, and therefore, this illegal conduct was justified as a result?
I've spoken to some OC guys who told me that if you want to speak in confidence, both a cemetery and the subway platform, are the two best places.
I am not making that up.
I've mentioned them before and I have never seen you offer an alternative explanation for any of them.
I believe there's proof. You just have to know where to find it. (It took me about 7 years).
That's the issue with Means which makes him an interest. There's evidence to show he knew ahead of time. It's why we need an Expert on him, as you have shown yourself to be, in order to figure whatever it is that is attached to him.
Since I believe there were others involved, it just doesn't have to be Hauptmann who was the one to tell anyone. It could have been someone else in the know. Involving Means in some way is almost as brilliant as involving Condon.
Well - no one person pulled this off alone. Nobody believed it then, but because they went forward with that theory there are those who trust it now. But once you start turning over rocks you see the very people who presented it did not believe it themselves.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Apr 20, 2011 19:30:02 GMT -5
well, all the hauptmann supporters books has so many mistakes. how can you tell me it took you 7 years mike about fisch? please enlighjten me. fisher used tactics? then sacduto should have snowed him during there book debate, but he was creamed i have it on tape. i dont think means had anything to do with the crime. for what i read he used it to swindle mclean out of money like he did to other people. as far as dealing in a cemetery, your right it is a good place for crimes to evolve, but not at the magnitude of this case at that time. to risky
|
|
|
Post by vovina on Apr 20, 2011 21:32:16 GMT -5
Greetings Wolf;
If Means didn't have " anything to do with the crime " and was only using the crime to swindle McClean out of money, then how does one account for both the Thomas F. Rice materials and the fact that Whitaker got himself jailed in Florida on the day of the kidnapping providing a potential location alibi ( and, from Whitaker's correspondence, we know he hated jail time ! ). There are other bits of evidence from the Means/Whitaker trial records to show foreknowledge, but one has to do some careful reading there to separate fact from fiction so such evidence would rank lower than the first two sets. Again, if Means is just running a random scam, isn't one forced to discount the Rice materials simply because they raise inconvenient questions and to discount the Whitaker arrest as being just a coincidence ? As a documents historian, I need some other compelling evidence to discard the two sets!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 21, 2011 6:14:21 GMT -5
As opposed to Fisher's? It's the pot calling the kettle black. His first book is full of INVENTED conversations. And Ghosts has probably gotten an error on just about every page.
Look at what he said about Hammond. That's an extremely bad mistake - most especially because, as he commonly did, use it to belittle someone else's position.
And so you make someone else look bad by saying something which is completely FALSE.
Take the inference that the Investigators Hoffman used were ALL incompetent. Then you either, by ignorance or design, claim they were all nutz thereby making the Governor look like an idiot.
Yet, Breckenridge used Keyes. Breck used Roberts (of Foster & Roberts) as did Mrs. Morrow - to investigate the Governor! The FBI used some of these guys to help them out with other unrelated cases at times!
And just how do I know this? Research. Not 5 or 10 days of it in the Archives - over 10 years - and I still hesitate to claim someone is wrong about something until I research it fully. I don't simply invent facts or conversations then claim someone is mentally lacking.
Because you cannot visit the "Fisch" folders then expect to learn everything there is to know about him. You must visit each and every folder in the entire Archive, because, there are Reports, Memos, Letters, and Notes scattered across each and every collection. I've been lucky enough to visit each, create my own Fisch file, which consolidates them. What I am saying is I believe I can tie Fisch to ransom and it took me about 7 years to get there.
Steve, just the Cuban Angle alone took me a good 8 years to find and finish. Do you know there is something about that in the Ransom Files, The Governor's Correspondence, The Hoffman Collection, the NJSP Files, Osborn's Files, and the Hick's Files?
Think about this for a minute.
And so if I bring it up would it be quickly shrugged off by someone who wasn't willing to spend the time to put it all together. They may claim that Dr. Castellanos was a "racist" or "imbecile" but the facts remain that after this Case the FBI work closely with him on many other Cases. So just by those actions alone, it proves him a worthy source.
Hoffman would most definitely feel your pain. He would read over everything coming from Means carefully but was AFRAID to touch even what he believed was true. Because, knowing Means, he would see that it was accepted then come out and claim he lied, even if it WERE true, just to make someone a victim.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Apr 21, 2011 18:51:30 GMT -5
gov hoffmans investigation went nowhere, thats why his buddy ellis kidnapped and tortured wendel because he had nothing
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 22, 2011 7:31:17 GMT -5
Gov. Moore invited Ellis into this Case. Parker followed the line his mind told him to follow. Wendel wasn't "tortured" and I think that's provable. It's all in the other threads.....
Hoffman's re-investigation did go somewhere and thank God for it. It shows how much BS occurred. The only way to undermine it is to say something negative. Surely, there is some to be had but there is also a lot of good stuff to be found there too.
It's like throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. Much did stick and its still there for anyone to look through if they like. I think that would be the proper course of action rather then simply be told "there's nothing there."
There is something. Many things. I know, because I have gone through each of his collections so many times I've lost count. If it were garbage I would say so.
Now if there are certain sections you'd like to discuss I am all for it. Even Zoe Hobbs, who did embarrass the Governor, had some information worth reading. She wasn't a real Investigator so much of it is just useless. But in reality, the Governor simply told her he would read whatever she came up with. It was her choice to brag to the press she was an "Investigator" for the Governor. A lot of people who wrote in telling Hoffman they had something to share would get a letter in reply to send it along. Some would flash this letter to people then claim they worked for him.
So this all has to be looked at in its proper context. But if you wish the re-investigation did not take place, you simply slime the Governor and say it went nowhere then cross your fingers people listen so they don't go check it out themselves.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Apr 23, 2011 8:04:22 GMT -5
its provable that wendel wasnt tortured? id love to hear this one
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 23, 2011 9:23:56 GMT -5
I've posted it all before. It's in the King's County Grand Jury Testimony. It's in the U.S. v Parker testimony. It's in the affidavits.
Wendel was "struck" once for bragging about emasculating the child with acid. That wasn't a forced confession which was proven by that independent and repulsive admission. It upset Schlossman (who had children) so much, he slugged him.
That's it. There's your "torture."
After that, while at New Lisbon, Wendel realized he had no marks on his body so he started to hit himself in the face with his shoes, etc. in order to try to make himself look "roughed-up."
Yes, truth is stranger then fiction - but its true nevertheless.
|
|