Post by bookrefuge on Nov 28, 2011 16:38:07 GMT -5
In joining others seeking to resolve this case, I try to look for—to borrow from basketball vernacular—“high percentage shots.”
Not all eyewitness testimony is created equal. One thing that impacts the value of testimony is the amount of time an eyewitness had to observe something or someone.
To take an everyday example, at a grocery store where my wife and I shop, there’s a “sample lady” who we’ve gotten to know very well. Whenever we shop, we try her sample, and stop and chat for a while. If you asked me if I could identify this woman in a courtroom, I’d say “Yes, positively.” I know her face and voice with certainty.
On the other hand, at this same store there are cashiers with whom I’ve only interacted one time. If you asked me if I could positively identify a cashier I interacted with just once, a year ago, I’d have to say “No.”
In the LKC, there were some witnesses who testified, identifying someone they’d only seen once, fleetingly, two or three years earlier. There were other witnesses who based their identification on repeated or lengthy observations, and clearly these testimonies have greater value—they aren’t guaranteed, but I would call them “higher percentage shots.”
Falling into this category were the Mancke depositions. Michael, I realize I have posted this deposition before, but I want to use it another context. Gustave Mancke stated:
During these eight weeks and I believe on Sundays, at about 9pm or later, a man and a woman whom I identify positively from photographs as Ollie Whatley and Violet Sharpe came to my place four or five times to eat. On three or four occasions they were accompanied by a short, thin dark man who looked like Eddie Cantor only with much larger ears. He coughed badly and I slapped him on the back saying, "You resemble Eddie Cantor." His friend said, “No, His name is Fisch." I said, “Why not herring?” They laughed and went out. This man who coughed always spoke to me in German. I positively identify this man as Isidor Fisch. The man who I identify as Whatley...limped slightly and had blond hair thinning at the temples. The woman who I identify as Violet Sharpe always ordered tea and sandwiches. She was hard to please and was always disagreeable. The whispering of these people attracted my attention and the attention of my wife. The man Fisch never came to my place alone. He was there with Violet Sharpe and Whatley three or four times. None of these people above ever came back to my ice cream parlor after March 1, 1932.
One reason I value this testimony is that it was based on encounters that were repeated and were not fleeting. The Manckes saw this trio several times. Furthermore, there were around to be observed for a duration. To order tea and sandwiches in restaurant, consume them and pay the bill—you’re probably hanging out for at least a half hour, or more. This is not a one-time brief look, like Cecile Barr had at the bill-passer at the Greenwich Village movie theater. The Manckes had come to recognize these people; it sounds like they were almost becoming “regulars.”
There are additional reasons why I consider the Mancke depositions a high-percentage shot:
(1) Gustave Mancke’s deposition was corroborated by his wife Sophie;
(2) He gave a description of Violet Sharp that is consistent with what know about her personality;
(3) He gave an accurate description of the short, tubercular, German-speaking Fisch;
(4) He described interactions (like the joke about “Fisch” and “herring”) that seem natural (not artificial and made up).
(And to this I might add the unlikely coincidence that all three people named—Sharp, Whateley and Fisch—died in pretty short order after the kidnapping.)
Of course someone could say, “Well, how do you know the Manckes weren’t just artful liars?” That’s conceivable, but we could say that about any LKC witness. Before dismissing a witness as a liar, I’d want some evidence for that.
Another testimony I am gaining respect for is that of Anna Bonesteel. I am awaiting my CD-ROM of the trial so I can read what she said in Flemington entirely. Bonesteel was in a similar situation to the Manckes. She was the proprietor of a restaurant near the Alpine-Yonkers ferry, and Red Johnson was one of her regular customers, as was a German woman who described herself as a servant of a millionaire on the Palisades—possibly a reference to Dwight Morrow? This may have been Marguerite Junge, the German servant of the Morrows who was buddied up with Red Johnson.
Bonesteel reported seeing someone who looked exactly like Violet Sharp at her restaurant on the night of the kidnapping, nervously waiting inside the door with two blankets. After 90 minutes to two hours, she finally ran into a car that stopped in a dimly lit area outside.
Not only did Bonesteel have at least 90 minutes to observe this person—the same woman had previously been to her restaurant with the German woman, who introduced her as “a servant in the Morrow home.”
Although I do not regard Bonesteel’s identification as strong as the Manckes’, it, too, has those elements of repetition and duration that make her observations more convincing. Furthermore, from what I’ve read, Bonesteel’s family concurred that it was Violet Sharp in the restaurant that night. (Other witnesses contradicted Bonesteel by testifying that Violet was on a blind date at the Peanut Grill that evening; but under the recent thread on the Sharp sisters, I suggested that Violet’s lookalike sister Emily may have gone on that date to create an alibi for Violet.)
Another observer who has been discussed on this board, under the “Strange Vehicle Sightings around Hopewell” thread, is Alfred Hammond, a railroad gateman. I mention him in the immediate context because he made repeated sightings (at least 5) of a vehicle and its occupants. It had New York license plates and came each morning on an unpaved road from the direction of the Lindbergh estate. The passengers were definitely strangers—Hammond knew the “locals.” But they shouldn’t have been reporters; why would reporters need to check out Highfields five times? In his March 1932 statement, Hammond said the same three men were always in the car in the same positions. The man in the rear he described most vividly, saying he looked Italian, and said he was sure he could identify him if he ever saw him again. Subsequently he did identify this man as Isidor Fisch (who could be mistaken for Italian), though more than two years had passed.
This is perhaps irrelevant, but I found that one of the best eyewitnesses for the Warren Commission was Lee Bowers, a railroad worker stationed in a tower overlooking Dealey Plaza. He gave a detailed, objective description of vehicle movements immediately prior to the Kennedy assassination. I suppose being a railroad watchman, one must be alert, and also has plenty of time to notice things between trains.
One interesting thing Hammond said about the vehicle coming from the direction of Highfields (which doesn’t mean it had been at Highfields): it always came between 8AM and 9AM—i.e., it was moving in broad daylight. A thought occurred to me. The Lindberghs normally only stayed at Highfields on weekends. Was it possible that during the Lindberghs’ absence (when they were at Englewood), Whateley let the kidnap team explore the estate and rehearse the kidnapping? If I was going to carry out the “crime of the century” with maximum speed and efficiency, I’d want to engage in practices and trial runs first, just like a commando team. Nosovitsky, the British intelligence agent who has been discussed in connection with the LKC, would probably do things that way. And it would be possible with the cooperation of the British caretaker Whateley—the one Lindbergh servant whose claimed location and movements during the kidnapping have no witness verification.
In other words, could rehearsals be the key to the efficient snatch? Did the kidnappers already know every square foot of the house and the baby’s room? Did they already know, from first-hand observation, which window had warped shutters and how squeaky the stairway steps would be? Had they debated where to put the ransom note, and finally decided on the window sill to give the impression they had exited that way? Did they give Whateley a sedative to put in the baby’s milk to ensure he could be removed without crying?
Not all crimes are carried out like the impulsive 7-11 stickups aired on the TV show America’s Dumbest Criminals. The classic Jules Dassin heist film Rififi dramatized the remarkable planning and timing that can go into a criminal endeavor. (Incidentally, that film included the kidnapping of a little boy, whose rescue becomes the film’s dramatic climax.)
But I see my “rehearsal” theory doesn’t square well with Hammond’s account, for the vehicle he saw sometimes came from the direction of Highfields on days when the Lindberghs and the baby were there. Still, I wonder if this vehicle was implicated—Hammond did not see it again after the kidnapping. And I’m not quite ready to scratch the “rehearsal” theory. IF Whateley was implicated in the LKC, I do think it’s possible, if not probable, that he would have given the kidnapers freedom to roam Highfields on a day when the Lindberghs were away. It has already been said that he would give visitors unofficial tours of the estate—certainly not something the privacy-minded Lindberghs would have approved. I wonder if his explanation that he gave “tours” was not an alibi he contrived in case someone noticed him allowing strangers—i.e., the kidnappers--into the house during the Lindberghs’ absence.
Not all eyewitness testimony is created equal. One thing that impacts the value of testimony is the amount of time an eyewitness had to observe something or someone.
To take an everyday example, at a grocery store where my wife and I shop, there’s a “sample lady” who we’ve gotten to know very well. Whenever we shop, we try her sample, and stop and chat for a while. If you asked me if I could identify this woman in a courtroom, I’d say “Yes, positively.” I know her face and voice with certainty.
On the other hand, at this same store there are cashiers with whom I’ve only interacted one time. If you asked me if I could positively identify a cashier I interacted with just once, a year ago, I’d have to say “No.”
In the LKC, there were some witnesses who testified, identifying someone they’d only seen once, fleetingly, two or three years earlier. There were other witnesses who based their identification on repeated or lengthy observations, and clearly these testimonies have greater value—they aren’t guaranteed, but I would call them “higher percentage shots.”
Falling into this category were the Mancke depositions. Michael, I realize I have posted this deposition before, but I want to use it another context. Gustave Mancke stated:
During these eight weeks and I believe on Sundays, at about 9pm or later, a man and a woman whom I identify positively from photographs as Ollie Whatley and Violet Sharpe came to my place four or five times to eat. On three or four occasions they were accompanied by a short, thin dark man who looked like Eddie Cantor only with much larger ears. He coughed badly and I slapped him on the back saying, "You resemble Eddie Cantor." His friend said, “No, His name is Fisch." I said, “Why not herring?” They laughed and went out. This man who coughed always spoke to me in German. I positively identify this man as Isidor Fisch. The man who I identify as Whatley...limped slightly and had blond hair thinning at the temples. The woman who I identify as Violet Sharpe always ordered tea and sandwiches. She was hard to please and was always disagreeable. The whispering of these people attracted my attention and the attention of my wife. The man Fisch never came to my place alone. He was there with Violet Sharpe and Whatley three or four times. None of these people above ever came back to my ice cream parlor after March 1, 1932.
One reason I value this testimony is that it was based on encounters that were repeated and were not fleeting. The Manckes saw this trio several times. Furthermore, there were around to be observed for a duration. To order tea and sandwiches in restaurant, consume them and pay the bill—you’re probably hanging out for at least a half hour, or more. This is not a one-time brief look, like Cecile Barr had at the bill-passer at the Greenwich Village movie theater. The Manckes had come to recognize these people; it sounds like they were almost becoming “regulars.”
There are additional reasons why I consider the Mancke depositions a high-percentage shot:
(1) Gustave Mancke’s deposition was corroborated by his wife Sophie;
(2) He gave a description of Violet Sharp that is consistent with what know about her personality;
(3) He gave an accurate description of the short, tubercular, German-speaking Fisch;
(4) He described interactions (like the joke about “Fisch” and “herring”) that seem natural (not artificial and made up).
(And to this I might add the unlikely coincidence that all three people named—Sharp, Whateley and Fisch—died in pretty short order after the kidnapping.)
Of course someone could say, “Well, how do you know the Manckes weren’t just artful liars?” That’s conceivable, but we could say that about any LKC witness. Before dismissing a witness as a liar, I’d want some evidence for that.
Another testimony I am gaining respect for is that of Anna Bonesteel. I am awaiting my CD-ROM of the trial so I can read what she said in Flemington entirely. Bonesteel was in a similar situation to the Manckes. She was the proprietor of a restaurant near the Alpine-Yonkers ferry, and Red Johnson was one of her regular customers, as was a German woman who described herself as a servant of a millionaire on the Palisades—possibly a reference to Dwight Morrow? This may have been Marguerite Junge, the German servant of the Morrows who was buddied up with Red Johnson.
Bonesteel reported seeing someone who looked exactly like Violet Sharp at her restaurant on the night of the kidnapping, nervously waiting inside the door with two blankets. After 90 minutes to two hours, she finally ran into a car that stopped in a dimly lit area outside.
Not only did Bonesteel have at least 90 minutes to observe this person—the same woman had previously been to her restaurant with the German woman, who introduced her as “a servant in the Morrow home.”
Although I do not regard Bonesteel’s identification as strong as the Manckes’, it, too, has those elements of repetition and duration that make her observations more convincing. Furthermore, from what I’ve read, Bonesteel’s family concurred that it was Violet Sharp in the restaurant that night. (Other witnesses contradicted Bonesteel by testifying that Violet was on a blind date at the Peanut Grill that evening; but under the recent thread on the Sharp sisters, I suggested that Violet’s lookalike sister Emily may have gone on that date to create an alibi for Violet.)
Another observer who has been discussed on this board, under the “Strange Vehicle Sightings around Hopewell” thread, is Alfred Hammond, a railroad gateman. I mention him in the immediate context because he made repeated sightings (at least 5) of a vehicle and its occupants. It had New York license plates and came each morning on an unpaved road from the direction of the Lindbergh estate. The passengers were definitely strangers—Hammond knew the “locals.” But they shouldn’t have been reporters; why would reporters need to check out Highfields five times? In his March 1932 statement, Hammond said the same three men were always in the car in the same positions. The man in the rear he described most vividly, saying he looked Italian, and said he was sure he could identify him if he ever saw him again. Subsequently he did identify this man as Isidor Fisch (who could be mistaken for Italian), though more than two years had passed.
This is perhaps irrelevant, but I found that one of the best eyewitnesses for the Warren Commission was Lee Bowers, a railroad worker stationed in a tower overlooking Dealey Plaza. He gave a detailed, objective description of vehicle movements immediately prior to the Kennedy assassination. I suppose being a railroad watchman, one must be alert, and also has plenty of time to notice things between trains.
One interesting thing Hammond said about the vehicle coming from the direction of Highfields (which doesn’t mean it had been at Highfields): it always came between 8AM and 9AM—i.e., it was moving in broad daylight. A thought occurred to me. The Lindberghs normally only stayed at Highfields on weekends. Was it possible that during the Lindberghs’ absence (when they were at Englewood), Whateley let the kidnap team explore the estate and rehearse the kidnapping? If I was going to carry out the “crime of the century” with maximum speed and efficiency, I’d want to engage in practices and trial runs first, just like a commando team. Nosovitsky, the British intelligence agent who has been discussed in connection with the LKC, would probably do things that way. And it would be possible with the cooperation of the British caretaker Whateley—the one Lindbergh servant whose claimed location and movements during the kidnapping have no witness verification.
In other words, could rehearsals be the key to the efficient snatch? Did the kidnappers already know every square foot of the house and the baby’s room? Did they already know, from first-hand observation, which window had warped shutters and how squeaky the stairway steps would be? Had they debated where to put the ransom note, and finally decided on the window sill to give the impression they had exited that way? Did they give Whateley a sedative to put in the baby’s milk to ensure he could be removed without crying?
Not all crimes are carried out like the impulsive 7-11 stickups aired on the TV show America’s Dumbest Criminals. The classic Jules Dassin heist film Rififi dramatized the remarkable planning and timing that can go into a criminal endeavor. (Incidentally, that film included the kidnapping of a little boy, whose rescue becomes the film’s dramatic climax.)
But I see my “rehearsal” theory doesn’t square well with Hammond’s account, for the vehicle he saw sometimes came from the direction of Highfields on days when the Lindberghs and the baby were there. Still, I wonder if this vehicle was implicated—Hammond did not see it again after the kidnapping. And I’m not quite ready to scratch the “rehearsal” theory. IF Whateley was implicated in the LKC, I do think it’s possible, if not probable, that he would have given the kidnapers freedom to roam Highfields on a day when the Lindberghs were away. It has already been said that he would give visitors unofficial tours of the estate—certainly not something the privacy-minded Lindberghs would have approved. I wonder if his explanation that he gave “tours” was not an alibi he contrived in case someone noticed him allowing strangers—i.e., the kidnappers--into the house during the Lindberghs’ absence.