|
Post by Nell on Jul 2, 2014 6:23:22 GMT -5
Hauptmann had a car and being involved in the kidnapping as he was would logically have driven Knoll and whomever else was involved to explore the site where the crime would occur. Although Knoll habitually rode the subway, he had to have access to a car to accomplish the kidnapping. This was just another reason Hauptmann was valuable to Knoll (or anyone else that masterminded this crime).
|
|
|
Post by deedee1963 on Jul 30, 2014 0:45:29 GMT -5
I'm puzzled about something. I have always thought of Douglas as a top notch profiler. (Although not as good as Robert Ressler). But he seemed to not probe as deeply as a profiler should be probing when it comes to Knoll. He sure missed the mark such as the many of the excellent questions asked on this thread. Such as why they would bring a 15 year old kid along when planning the crime of the century for starters. I believe that Douglas has thought for years that Hauptmann was the lone kidnapper but now when this Knoll appears suddenly he's a co conspirator in Douglas' profile. Seems to me as if Douglas was stretching the facts on Knoll to fit his belief. Which a profiler should know better than to do I would think.
But heck what do I know? Lol
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 30, 2014 8:59:16 GMT -5
I'm puzzled about something. I have always thought of Douglas as a top notch profiler. (Although not as good as Robert Ressler). But he seemed to not probe as deeply as a profiler should be probing when it comes to Knoll. He sure missed the mark such as the many of the excellent questions asked on this thread. Such as why they would bring a 15 year old kid along when planning the crime of the century for starters. I believe that Douglas has thought for years that Hauptmann was the lone kidnapper but now when this Knoll appears suddenly he's a co conspirator in Douglas' profile. Seems to me as if Douglas was stretching the facts on Knoll to fit his belief. Which a profiler should know better than to do I would think.But heck what do I know? Lol Dena, Douglas is a top-notch profiler. It's universally understood that both he and Ressler are the best out there. As it pertains to Knoll, I am probably not qualified to reply because I don't own Zorn's book, and the only reason I would ever have a copy is if I found a one discarded. And even then it would be used to better answer/respond to a post like yours above. Anyway, it's my understanding that Douglas was saying Knoll fit the profile of someone who could be involved. If I am wrong correct me. Kevin hasn't posted in a while but he'd be the best person to discuss this.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 30, 2014 9:46:56 GMT -5
Douglas appears in the PBS "NOVA" documentary on the Lindbergh case and revisits the scene of the crime at Hopewell. IIRC, he states that he always felt that no one man could have pulled off the kidnapping by himself. Also, in his book "The Cases that Haunt Us," Douglas concludes that Hauptmann was part of the crime, but isn't quite sure exactly what his role was, nor is he even sure he was physically present at Hopewell on the date of the baby's disappearance.
Note that Douglas had a commercial tie-in with Zorn's book. What influence, if any, that had on his views on the Knoll theory is anyone's guess.
|
|
|
Post by deedee1963 on Jul 30, 2014 10:36:46 GMT -5
Douglas appears in the PBS "NOVA" documentary on the Lindbergh case and revisits the scene of the crime at Hopewell. IIRC, he states that he always felt that no one man could have pulled off the kidnapping by himself. Also, in his book "The Cases that Haunt Us," Douglas concludes that Hauptmann was part of the crime, but isn't quite sure exactly what his role was, nor is he even sure he was physically present at Hopewell on the date of the baby's disappearance.
Note that Douglas had a commercial tie-in with Zorn's book. What influence, if any, that had on his views on the Knoll theory is anyone's guess. Thank you. I stand corrected then. I wasn't going off of The Cases That Haunt Us but some of his earlier work. I just watched the special on Netflix last night & I should have got up & found my references before I posted on this topic. But thank you for your responses, boys.
|
|
|
Post by duncan on Jul 30, 2014 11:11:38 GMT -5
New here so I apologize if this had already discussed. It relates to the Zorn theory only in that it disproves it. The link is here: www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/bibsources.html#Statements to Police. There is a statement by a guard at Woodland Cemetery. The man on the pillar sounds to me exactly what might be a description of Fish. Although the other, older man described doesn't seem to fit anyone. I don't see how it could be totally discredited by perhaps reading newspapers because no one knew about the Fish possibility at the time.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 30, 2014 11:58:56 GMT -5
New here so I apologize if this had already discussed. It relates to the Zorn theory only in that it disproves it.The link is here: www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/bibsources.html#Statements to Police. There is a statement by a guard at Woodland Cemetery. The man on the pillar sounds to me exactly what might be a description of Fish. Although the other, older man described doesn't seem to fit anyone. I don't see how it could be totally discredited by perhaps reading newspapers because no one knew about the Fish possibility at the time. There's no need to apologize for any post you make. It's actually a good thing to revisit subjects especially when someone new is taking a fresh look at it. Reihl was one of those witnesses that posed a problem for the Prosecution - and they knew it. It's nice to have you as a new Member and I hope you decide to stick around!
|
|
|
Post by duncan on Jul 30, 2014 15:19:53 GMT -5
Thanks, Michael ! I was curious when I came to that statement why I had never seen mention of it before.
Usually, I am very skeptical of witness descriptions that seem to remember so much detail about someone they just pass on the street. Me, I probably couldn't tell what the guy looked like who ran over me on the street !
However, this one seemed to have a little bit of credence added by the fact this guard first noticed the guy standing on top of a column at night in the cemetery. Then jumping off it and running ! I just might notice that guy myself.
This seems like it would have been in perfect position for a lookout. However, if the one on the column just could have been Fish, who was the other ? Sounds a little like Conlon but really a little too young while too old for Hauptmann. Is this our third accomplice ?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 30, 2014 15:53:07 GMT -5
To Duncan et al:
What makes Robert Zorn's theory most unfathomable is that his father's thoughts about Knoll as a suspect only began in 1963, 31 years after the crime, supposedly inspired by reading a True magazine article about the LKC. Zorn's father would have been a very bright 16 or 17 year old when the kidnapping actually occurred and a very bright 19 or 20 year old young man during the period when Hauptmann was arrested, then tried. Robert Zorn would have us believe that his father, during that period, would probably have seen Hauptmann's face in newspaper photos and newsreels quite a number of times, and yet not recognize perhaps the most familiar face in the country at that time as a man with whom he had spent a few hours at Palisades Park several years before. Why hadn't the bright young Eugene Zorn remembered Hauptmann during that period and told people about seeing him at Palisades Park in 1931 as "Bruno"? Doesn't make sense that Eugene Zorn wouldn't have recognized him as "Bruno" when his face was all over the media, or perhaps did recognize him and was afraid to talk about it, then had to have his memory jogged by a magazine article years later.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 30, 2014 17:14:18 GMT -5
I wouldn't give too much credence to the cemetery guard's statement. His capability of describing the two men accurately was limited not only by distance and darkness, but also by the passage of time between the incident and the police interview, about 3 months. There was no specific reason for the cemetery guard to remember that incident well, since he would have no idea until months later that it had a connection to the LKC.
As for a resemblance of the man on the pillar to Fisch, I wouldn't buy that, because Fisch would almost surely not be capable of the athletic feats that CJ was. I'm not a supporter of Zorn's theory of John Knoll as CJ for other reasons, but hypothetically, I think that Knoll did possess the athletic skills to jump off the pillar and run into the park.
|
|
|
Post by duncan on Jul 31, 2014 9:51:22 GMT -5
I wouldn't give too much credence to the cemetery guard's statement. His capability of describing the two men accurately was limited not only by distance and darkness, but also by the passage of time between the incident and the police interview, about 3 months. There was no specific reason for the cemetery guard to remember that incident well, since he would have no idea until months later that it had a connection to the LKC.
As for a resemblance of the man on the pillar to Fisch, I wouldn't buy that, because Fisch would almost surely not be capable of the athletic feats that CJ was. I'm not a supporter of Zorn's theory of John Knoll as CJ for other reasons, but hypothetically, I think that Knoll did possess the athletic skills to jump off the pillar and run into the park.
No, his statement was taken on March 12, 1932. And, there was a specific reason to remember what happened. I am the most unobservant person in the world and even I would take notice when I came upon some character standing on a pretty high column at night in a cemetery. The also asked him about the lighting and he said it was good enough that he could see. The fact that at that time he had no description or way of knowing about Fish, IMO gives his statement a lot of credence.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 31, 2014 18:50:10 GMT -5
"No, his statement was taken on March 12, 1932." (Duncan)
If you review the transcript of cemetery guard Robert Riehl's interview, you will see the date of that statement in the upper right corner: July 19, 1932.
Yes, the events he is asked about occurred on March 12, 1932. But apparently he did not discuss them with any police until July. There is no way he would have left his job after observing what are almost surely CJ and "Jafsie" Condon on his watch (even though the descriptions are not very accurate). Condon had assured him that everything was OK, there was no violence or other emergency, and the night watchman had a couple of more hours to go on his shift at that point when then the two men left the area for Van Cortland Park. If Riehl had decided to report his observations to police immediately, the history of the LKC might have been a bit different.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 21, 2014 7:58:08 GMT -5
Checked this site out because I was interested in seeing why Michael and Kevkon and others disregarded Zorn's theory about CJ and found many answers (still not for sure about Michael and Kevkon though).
I looked at it from a bit of a different angle. I kind of doubt that anyone in 1932 would even consider the insane idea of kidnapping the Lindbergh's son, very much less three men in the same borough. I feel there was a different motive than the 50k and it will possibly never be known although Michael's tireless work seems to dig out new information all the time. How many people would be able to find that no ransom bills were passed in Princeton? Anybody?
It's interesting how Condon just forgot about the fleshy thumb when they cornered Hauptmann.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Dec 21, 2014 8:23:09 GMT -5
Condon obviously knew much more than he was telling. The whole thing was suspect, especially how he got involved in the case and his constant distortions. Michael made a good point in another thread that the fleshy lump was almost certainly Condon's way of creating something so that he did not have to identify a confederate, should they ever catch one.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 21, 2014 12:42:52 GMT -5
Condon obviously knew much more than he was telling. The whole thing was suspect, especially how he got involved in the case and his constant distortions. Michael made a good point in another thread that the fleshy lump was almost certainly Condon's way of creating something so that he did not have to identify a confederate, should they ever catch one. It's actually akin to the holes in the ransom note except that while the holes prove who the Kidnappers ARE, the fleshy lump proves who is NOT Cemetery John. It's within the same school of thought. He actually tried to save Hauptmann using this tactic. I am sure there will be those who disagree, however, checking the 9/20 Line-up shows its pretty obvious what he's attempting to do. First he pulls (4) men out of the line, Officer Kissane, Hauptmann, Officer Schwartzberg, and Officer Mershon and they step forward. At this point Condon says: When I saw you I gave you my promise that I would do all I possibly could for you if you gave me the baby. The only way in the world I think you can save yourself at all is to tell the truth. I gave you a promise heard that day. Follow that promise. Anyone know what the hell he's talking about? Isn't the child is dead? Yes, so this certainly appears to be a message of loyalty. Condon's next move: Would you mind if they showed me their hands?
Once Condon engages Hauptmann one on one, he seems to be feeling him out as to what he might say if proded: C: And you didn't see me before? H: No.
C: You got time to say it if you have. H: No, I never saw you before. That loyalty is reciprocated. Condon then reaches for his trusty shield once more: C: Let me see your hands. (Hauptmann held up his hands and Condon looked at them.)
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 21, 2014 12:59:28 GMT -5
If I read you correctly, you are assuming that that Condon just made up the "fleshy lump" part of his varying descriptions of CJ. True, Hauptmann did not have that "fleshy lump" on his hand (and, as Zorn emphasizes, John Knoll apparently did.) But recall that Condon couldn't identify Hauptmann as CJ in the New York police station after given an opportunity to inspect Hauptmann, including his hands, quite thoroughly. It was only months later, sometime immediately before the Hauptmann trial in New Jersey, or perhaps during the trial itself, that Condon changed his tune and decided to testify that Hauptmann was indeed CJ. One could well imagine the pressure that was applied to Condon by law enforcement to finger Hauptmann as CJ. It's very possible that Condon was threatened with charges in connection with the extortion if he didn't cooperate with the NJ prosecution which wanted desperately for him to help nail Hauptmann and (in their minds) put an end to the troubling case that had gone on nearly three years.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 21, 2014 14:17:03 GMT -5
Well, you have the only truly distinguishing characteristic that Condon came up with regarding CJ, and Hauptmann comes along and not just Condon forgets about it, but everybody does, including Reilly and the rest of Richard's attorney team.
I'm not pushing Knoll here - who knows what a fifteen year old kid listening to three men talking in German is apt to hear, and that's just the start of questions about Zorntheory.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 21, 2014 17:01:14 GMT -5
I agree that the Zorn theory is kind of unlikely for many reasons, the first being the very belated discovery (over 30 years after the trip to Palisades Amusement Park) by Gene Zorn, inspired by an article in True magazine, that Hauptmann was the "Bruno" they met back in 1931. As I posted earlier, Gene Zorn, who was very intelligent and eventually became a well-known economist, would have had every opportunity to identify Hauptmann from countless newspaper photos and widespread newsreel films in the 1934-36 timeframe, the period of Hauptmann's arrest, trial, appeals, and execution. But his memory about the Palisades Park incident wasn't jogged until 1963. Then again, Hauptmann was not known to be called "Bruno" in the US, but was known as "Richard" or "Dick." How strange!
I wouldn't make a big issue over what a fifteen year old kid listening to the three men talking German might be able to understand. This fifteen year old happened to be unusually bright and had heard plenty of German spoken around him, if not in his home, then in the particular neighborhood around him. So if not fluent in the German language, he undoubtedly knew some words and phrases.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 22, 2014 4:48:45 GMT -5
Regarding Michael's comment on the fleshy thumb, in the Hoax book, and I'm sure in others, Condon, while staying that night in Charlie's nursery, notices "a smudged handprint on the edge of the window frame, ostensibly left by the kidnapper when exiting out the window. ... He could discern a 'prominent and well defined mark left by the ball of the thumb' ... there is evidence of muscular development there ... the print might have been left by a painter, a carpenter, a mechanic."
Aside from the fact that it's unlikely he really saw anything like the smudge, The quote is from "Jafsie tells All" which was published in 1936, after Richard had been executed.
What is he trying to prove here - or does he just have this thumb thing on his brain?
He claims when he shook hands w/CJ after their hour meet he could feel the fleshy protrusion on or near CJ's thumb. Shaking hands is about 100% done by right hand unless you've lost that arm. Yet earlier in the dialogue (about the same cemetery 70 min. meeting) he claims to have seen the unusual feature on CJ's left hand. Does CJ have it on both hands, or for some unknown reason is Condon just overstating the thumb protrusion, growth, (?) the whatever. For what reason, ex post facto, I can't even guess, unless he's covering himself so if he's someday blamed for Richard's execution he can say, "I plainly told them CJ had a unusual growth on his thumb and Hauptmann didn't have that. It's their problem."
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 22, 2014 8:22:37 GMT -5
Well, you have the only truly distinguishing characteristic that Condon came up with regarding CJ, and Hauptmann comes along and not just Condon forgets about it, but everybody does, including Reilly and the rest of Richard's attorney team. I think you are assuming the Defense was aware of Condon's claim. Unless I've missed something, I believe they had no idea about it at all during the trial, and would later learn of it like everyone else in the general public did later on. What is he trying to prove here - or does he just have this thumb thing on his brain? It's his usual tactic. He tells certain conflicting stories. Depending on the scenario he either lies, pretends to forget or act dumbfounded, or at other times, completely embraces what he said. All this can turn on a dime once the situation dictates it must. He gets away with it, and it works for him. Not because everyone buys it (they don't) but because they must accept it under the circumstances. He makes these types of outlandish observations to somehow prove he told the truth about something previous he lied about. He's not thinking about Hauptmann when he makes it. It's more about supporting a BIG lie he told. He claims when he shook hands w/CJ after their hour meet he could feel the fleshy protrusion on or near CJ's thumb. Shaking hands is about 100% done by right hand unless you've lost that arm. Yet earlier in the dialogue (about the same cemetery 70 min. meeting) he claims to have seen the unusual feature on CJ's left hand. Does CJ have it on both hands, or for some unknown reason is Condon just overstating the thumb protrusion, growth, (?) the whatever. That's a great observation Jack and one that I've completely missed over the years. Could the implication be CJ was left-handed perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Sept 26, 2016 19:51:33 GMT -5
Hi. First time commenter who has always been interested in this case but would consider myself more of an "expert" on Jack the Ripper or Zodiac in terms of unsolved/mysterious crimes. For me the Cemetery John book is probably the most convincing theory I have encountered so far. I think Zorn has a far healthier skepticism than most authors who aren't "experts" on this sort of thing - far more healthy than the countless "my dad was the Zodiac" or the "my dad killed the Black Dahlia" writers. There are holes in his theories but I never felt he was grasping at straws - he acknowledges these holes, attempts to explain them in a couple of simple ways (he never tries to force the jigsaw piece in - he accepts that there are a few missing) and then moves on (which is all you really can do and is what John Douglas would recommend). I think the OP is putting a little too much stock in the encounter Zorn Sr. had with Knoll and "Bruno". This is hardly the crux of the case. This is merely a jumping off point, something that stuck with his father but after more research into Knoll more things do start to fall in place. He never explicitly states that Walter was the 3rd accomplice either - this is conjecture and a theory and he acknowledges we don't know enough about Walter - the book is about the ringleader. Knoll fits JFC's description perfectly in my opinion - the only actual eyewitness testimony I think is worth anything. He knew he was meeting a criminal and sat with him for over an hour and resolved to remember details rather than someone who just saw a man drive by with a ladder unaware the Crime of the Century was being committed. I still don't think he answered the HOW well enough with his theory of how it went down (crucially missing out how the kidnappers would've known they were staying at Hopewell - I would've liked to hear something more about Violet Sharpe here too but I'm not convinced her interrogations and suicide aren't a huge red herring anyway) but I think he does a good job with the WHO and WHY and there is some very good circumstantial evidence (deli paper, animal grease, stamp collecting, cachets, handwriting, influxes of cash, suspiciously timed trips especially that struck me). The OP also ignores an important aspect of why BRH didn't give up his accomplices that Zorn did in fact provide a good explanation for. I don't believe Zorn ever suggested that BRH and Knoll were good drinking buddies. BRH was a carpenter who had in the past built ladders to burglarize homes (a parefct accomplice!) who apparently had mutual acquaintances - Zorn enlisting him for the crime makes sense to me. Furthermore, he gave a perfectly good explanation for why BRH wouldn't give him up - he had his own young son and it seems reasonable that the understanding would be that "I will hurt your family if anyone rats on me". I think the OP is asking for too much evidence that we don't have and that we'll never have. I think what we do have is a good fit and there's certainly enough to bring him in and at least ask him a few questions about his whereabouts etc. Anyway, I don't claim to be an expert on the case but this book is more convincing than anything else I've read on the subject and more convincing than many similar books about other crimes. I would recommend it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 26, 2016 22:32:26 GMT -5
I think the OP is putting a little too much stock in the encounter Zorn Sr. had with Knoll and "Bruno". This is hardly the crux of the case. This is merely a jumping off point, something that stuck with his father but after more research into Knoll more things do start to fall in place. Thanks for the post Chris. This is one of the only books on the case I do not own. Honestly, I won't be buying it, but if I ever stumble onto a free copy I probably still won't read it. While I do give credit to Zorn for going to the NJSP Archives (although I've never spoken to him I've seen him there myself twice), if he truly believes in this theory I have no idea what the hell he's looking at while he's there. The very first problem I see is that the "jumping off point" is irrational. How can anything fall into place if no one ever called Hauptmann " Bruno?" The source material at the Archives absolutely proves this. It was when Hauptmann was arrested and the newspapers flashed the name "Bruno Richard Hauptmann" that Letters came in about "Bruno" this and "Bruno" that - but that's exactly what told me it was either fiction or it wasn't Hauptmann. So if this child did hear that word, Knoll was obviously talking about someone else so why pursue it any further? In the 15 years I've been going there the closest name mentioned in any of the files is Steve Knolls. The Archives are completely chock full of letters from people reporting to Schwarzkopf, Wilentz, Gov. Moore, Gov. Hoffman, etc. etc. all kinds of things they overheard as being related to this case and some even talking about a "Richard" or "Dick" (both names Hauptmann actually did use). Any one of these letters could be taken then turned into a book which is similar in nature - and there'd actually be something at the Archives to point to as a place to start. Not trying to talk anyone out of reading it but....
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Sept 27, 2016 12:51:37 GMT -5
Chris, I don't know if you are local to Hopewell but Robert Zorn will be at the Hopewell Train Station on Thursday Oct. 20th.as part of the Sourlands Conservancy lecture series:
Thursday, October 20, Cemetery John – From presenter, Robert Zorn: “Long story short, as a 15-year-old boy growing up in the Bronx, my father unwittingly witnessed his German immigrant neighbor John Knoll planning the kidnapping with Hauptmann. Not until decades later did my dad realize the significance of what he’d seen and heard one day at Palisades Amusement Park nine months before the crime took place. Knoll was never caught.” From the Kirkus Review: “Debut author Zorn makes a compelling case that the 1932 Lindbergh kidnapping was orchestrated by a Bronx deli clerk who got away with the crime scot-free.”
|
|
|
Post by AJ on Sept 21, 2023 13:31:43 GMT -5
Great points. Zorn's book does not hold up. His made up account of Hauptman creeping into the house and handing off the baby just does not hold up as likely. One point he makes that may be worthy of notice is that the ladder may have cracked when it was tossed on the ground. Zorn also does not address the fact that no one heard the child cry out yet he has the kidnappers placing the child in a burlap sack and handing him through the window. At one point, he actually writes in his surmisal that the child cried out when in fact, we know no one hear the baby cry out. Zorn's scenario is created to fit the evidence such as the undisturbed Noah's Ark lid and suitcase directly under the window and the ladder being too short for someone to get into the nursery from the outside. Zorn also regurgitates unfactual information such as the nursery window shutters were warped and would not close. Closer examination revealed a bolt had been removed from the shutters causing them not to close. The carpenter who built the shutters was very clear that he checked them repeatedly and they were in working order. The missing bolt firmly places a finger in the direction of Lindbergh. One of many facts in the case that Zorn ignores. Zorn heroizes Lindberg who has been thoroughly debunked since as an unabashed Nazi sympathizer, eugenist, who intentionally got German women pregnant to spread his DNA. Introducing Knoll is definitely an interesting tidbit, but Zorn surmises way too much from something that can easily be something quite innocent.
|
|
|
Post by AJ on Sept 21, 2023 14:13:47 GMT -5
Douglas is overrated and trying to still be thought of as relevant. There is so little to do on with Knoll. And, so many unknowns in the case. The fact profilers like Douglas time and again give Lindbergh a free pass as an American hero - fffttttppp~!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 22, 2023 7:51:52 GMT -5
Douglas is overrated and trying to still be thought of as relevant. There is so little to do on with Knoll. And, so many unknowns in the case. The fact profilers like Douglas time and again give Lindbergh a free pass as an American hero - fffttttppp~! Personally, I would never go that far. We are all human and no one on the planet is above making mistakes. Having said that, I would definitely want Douglas to offer me his opinion about any case. The overall problem here is, a Profiler can only come up with something based on the information they are given. If what they rely on is lacking or flawed then clearly their profile will be as well. I'll give you a little story.... A bunch of us sat down to dinner with someone who I believed at the time actually knew about the case. Turned out he knew only what Fisher and some of the other authors wrote. So when I shared some of what I found at the Archives, I was dismissed as bringing up information that was " at variance with the facts." This coming from someone who I think may have logged one or two visits (if any) at the Archives telling someone who the Troopers joked lived there because I was going so often. So I knew immediately this guy was ignorant, but what if others, like I had previously, actually thought he was a reliable source? So, once again, it may not be the actual person but the information they are given. And once a decision is made, they are very unlikely to back peddle when new information is discovered or revealed that calls their position into question. It's human nature. Back in 2000, there were people still saying A&M were "wrong" or merely relied on Hynd's articles, who they claimed "made it up" concerning Lindbergh hiding his child in the closet and pretending he was kidnapped. For me at the time, I found this rather important and wanted to know what the truth actually was. That truth was revealed by the source documentation at the Archives. However, once the truth came out those who fought so hard to invalidate it immediately shrugged it off as a means to neutralize its impact against their position.
|
|