Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2016 12:06:03 GMT -5
As you can see I am not "big" on the Jennings account yet I could not omit it. The object was to both inform and inspire more research - not shut it down like Fisher's "Ghosts of Hopewell" obviously attempts to do by misinforming those who choose to read it. I am glad that you shared the Jennings account. I tend to be a bit doubtful when a sighting report has potential kidnappers asking directions to the house of the child they are going to snatch. Still, every report needs to be investigated and given due consideration. I was not aware of the Christine Thompson account on the Mount Rose-Hopewell back road. That really interests me. Having cars on this road was really unusual. I just wish she would have been able to get a better description of the cars on Sunday and Monday nights. She does say she saw a car on Tuesday night and that it was a Dodge. Charlie's body would end up in this area so I think her sightings are important. The Roscoe LaRue account is very attention getting for me. The license plate number on that car traced back to a former Morrow employee. I did some checking and Dwight Morrow's personal secretary before Arthur Springer was Mr. George Foley of Englewood NJ (Bergen Co.). He was secretary from 1911 until April 1915 when Arthur Springer took over the job. Is this who the plate number traced back to? Was it an old license plate on the car LaRue saw?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 4, 2016 12:09:46 GMT -5
I would not dismiss Hammond's sightings just because Schmitt doesn't recall seeing a certain car. The NJSP didn't seem to think it disqualified his account either. That's something else to consider. They only cut ties with him AFTER September 28, 1934. That was the day they showed him pictures of Hauptmann and Fisch. He said he didn't recognize Hauptmann as anyone he saw in the car. He did say he got a good look at the guy in the back seat and that person was the one who looked like Fisch. According to Hammond the response from the State Police was: " nothing doing." They told him he was wrong because Fisch died broke. Did the NJSP ever check on the possibility that another shift worker might have seen this car in the evening hours? At 7:15PM every evening the post was vacated and the gates were locked in the up position.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 5, 2016 5:39:36 GMT -5
I am glad that you shared the Jennings account. I tend to be a bit doubtful when a sighting report has potential kidnappers asking directions to the house of the child they are going to snatch. Still, every report needs to be investigated and given due consideration. I can't agree more. However, one of the things I was trying to avoid was creating another Jones book. I have so much material that I could have easily done so. So I just went (and am going to) with my gut. It's certainly imperfect and hopefully no one thinks anything I've excluded means it's worthless. I was not aware of the Christine Thompson account on the Mount Rose-Hopewell back road. Isn't it amazing that with all of the books written something like this has never been found? I honestly discovered this during my 2nd or 3rd visit to the Archives, and right in the State Police collection, so for me that was proof there hadn't been enough research over the years. The Roscoe LaRue account is very attention getting for me. The license plate number on that car traced back to a former Morrow employee. I did some checking and Dwight Morrow's personal secretary before Arthur Springer was Mr. George Foley of Englewood NJ (Bergen Co.). He was secretary from 1911 until April 1915 when Arthur Springer took over the job. Is this who the plate number traced back to? Was it an old license plate on the car LaRue saw? The problem for his sighting is how the Police wind up disposing of it. Because of it's nature, there just isn't much about him and when going through the State Police collection it seems really negligent that there isn't as it involves him. They see where it leads, and like anything else that points there, it's dismissed. It's a common practice unfortunately. As far as "who" this person referred to was, I have never been able to find out conclusively. I am assuming the Local Cops didn't give the name or I am certain it would have been in the documentation I located.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2016 11:26:18 GMT -5
I would not dismiss Hammond's sightings just because Schmitt doesn't recall seeing a certain car. The NJSP didn't seem to think it disqualified his account either. That's something else to consider. They only cut ties with him AFTER September 28, 1934. That was the day they showed him pictures of Hauptmann and Fisch. He said he didn't recognize Hauptmann as anyone he saw in the car. He did say he got a good look at the guy in the back seat and that person was the one who looked like Fisch. According to Hammond the response from the State Police was: " nothing doing." They told him he was wrong because Fisch died broke. You highlight something here that really caused me a lot of confusion when I really started looking into this crime. If something didn't connect to Hauptmann then it was of no value. It had no bearing on the case and should not be considered as evidence if it didn't begin and end with Hauptmann. It seems everything mattered until they apprehended Hauptmann...then forget it or bury it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 7, 2016 17:52:25 GMT -5
It seems everything mattered until they apprehended Hauptmann...then forget it or bury it. Everything mattered except something that pointed, directly or indirectly, toward the family. After Hauptmann was arrested and it became clear he was not going to implicate anyone else, they formulated the Lone-Wolf Theory then defended it against everything and anything that would harm it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2016 9:46:37 GMT -5
Everything mattered except something that pointed, directly or indirectly, toward the family. After Hauptmann was arrested and it became clear he was not going to implicate anyone else, they formulated the Lone-Wolf Theory then defended it against everything and anything that would harm it. I agree that when something pointed towards the Morrow or Lindbergh households it could not be pursued. Your first chapter contains another perfect example of this when Millard Whited mentioned to a neighbor that he saw a large brown sedan enter the Lindbergh driveway the night of March 1 around 7:10 p.m. There is no reward money being dangled in front of Whited when he tells his neighbor this, so I think this is actually a truthful statement coming from this man. Of course, this information could not be pursued because it could link to Lindbergh so that means it can have no bearing on the kidnapping. What this does is call into question Lindbergh's claim he didn't arrive home until 8:25 p.m. How have all the other researchers of this case missed information like this? Especially those who claim that they have spent years looking into this case.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 8, 2016 10:56:24 GMT -5
How have all the other researchers of this case missed information like this? Especially those who claim that they have spent years looking into this case. There's lots of different reasons.... One being if you are operating from a agenda then something like this gets ignored. In that case it's perspective. Next, it's easy to read reports looking for something specific then gloss over or jump to the Police conclusion and move on. It has to do with the interest of time. Also, sometimes one can read a report and just miss it. Still others didn't even go to the NJSP Archives so there's no way to find it if that's the case. One cannot evaluate a source if they've never seen it. Time is the biggest factor. For me, I didn't have that restriction, and it took me every bit of 15 years to learn what I have. I don't think anyone will ever replicate that. I live close by and went every chance I got. My goal was to search through each and every scrap that is down there - or anywhere else I could get information. As far as perspective goes... I remember speaking with Mark one day and he said something I will never forget... That people see things differently like, for example, something a Lawyer may not see as important a Historian would and vice versa. It's why I like this Board so much because we get just about every perspective out there.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 9, 2016 7:15:53 GMT -5
I am going to keep going with this....
As you can see from my footnotes, I used countless different sources. Many come from the NJSP Archives which we've already established hasn't been visited enough. Then add in the documentation from the other Archival Sources and I think when considering I had an open mind to the truth, and as much time as I needed, then here's where all the new truths start to come to the surface. Someone might say Grand Jury Testimony is supposed to be secret so they won't look at it. I have no such beliefs or restrictions because I'm looking for the facts and what's testified to IS vitally important. It's certainly not the only thing as some might believe, but it cannot be ignored as it has. Some might say Parker's Federal Trial doesn't needed to be reviewed because Wendel wasn't guilty. This position reveals only ignorance. Others may say the Gaston Means Trial doesn't need to be reviewed because he was just swindling Mr. McLean, or that Curtis, despite being convicted of obstruction for failing to reveal the Gang of Kidnappers he was dealing with, was actually a hoaxer so why review his trial? Just this material alone represent thousands upon thousand of pages to read. Who among us has the time to do that? As crazy as it sounds - I do. Furthermore, I have no agenda, and was never looking to write a book to make money.
And these transcripts are only (1) corner of information to be looked at.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 9, 2016 8:35:39 GMT -5
To continue....
I have never understood how anyone, who hasn't at least done meaningful research at the NJSP Archives, can actually TELL people what to believe or not believe. One position is to covet the sources they happen to have. Then with this source point out no one else has it, or hasn't looked at it hard enough to see what they do. Fair enough. So what about those who do have it, and have looked at it hard enough? Like me. And that's not all, I've looked beyond what anyone sitting from behind a desk can see. I've gone out looking for more. The Jury selection at Flemington for example, and the Attorney notes made in the margins of the trial transcripts as another. (Just the tip of the iceberg). That creates a problem for them doesn't it? Now what about those things they have not seen themselves? Why isn't that important to them if the actual point is to know the truth? Suddenly the material they haven't seen is meaningless. Neat trick right? To evaluate material they've never even laid eyes on and quickly dismiss it.
King Solomon weeded people like that out eons ago.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2016 9:42:36 GMT -5
I am going to keep going with this.... As you can see from my footnotes, I used countless different sources. Many come from the NJSP Archives which we've already established hasn't been visited enough. Then add in the documentation from the other Archival Sources and I think when considering I had an open mind to the truth, and as much time as I needed, then here's where all the new truths start to come to the surface. Someone might say Grand Jury Testimony is supposed to be secret so they won't look at it. I have no such beliefs or restrictions because I'm looking for the facts and what's testified to IS vitally important. It's certainly not the only thing as some might believe, but it cannot be ignored as it has. Some might say Parker's Federal Trial doesn't needed to be reviewed because Wendel wasn't guilty. This position reveals only ignorance. Others may say the Gaston Means Trial doesn't need to be reviewed because he was just swindling Mr. McLean, or that Curtis, despite being convicted of obstruction for failing to reveal the Gang of Kidnappers he was dealing with, was actually a hoaxer so why review his trial? Just this material alone represent thousands upon thousand of pages to read. Who among us has the time to do that? As crazy as it sounds - I do. Furthermore, I have no agenda, and was never looking to write a book to make money. And these transcripts are only (1) corner of information to be looked at. I think this is a great point you make about what gets researched. As your book (and footnotes) show, there are true facts to be found in other source materials, like other trials and hearings that resulted from this case, that were not looked at by other researchers. One of the more shocking examples of this is to be found in Chapter 15, page 317 when Lindbergh examines the corpse. You relate how Lindbergh used a meat skewer to open his son's mouth to examine the teeth. This fact comes from Grand Jury testimony surrounding Paul Wendel in April 1936. How many researchers would have thought to look at Wendel's grand jury hearing to learn something about Lindbergh's conduct on May 13th, 1932? This really shows how important it is to look at everything!!
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Oct 9, 2016 10:18:46 GMT -5
i'm almost done with the book. and just wanted to thank you Michael for your style of adding footnotes and references at the bottom of the pages instead of at the back. it may be an "old school" publishing style but i too hate having to flip back and forth to the back of a book to see the references. well done Michael!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 9, 2016 10:18:51 GMT -5
This fact comes from Grand Jury testimony surrounding Paul Wendel in April 1936. How many researchers would have thought to look at Wendel's grand jury hearing to learn something about Lindbergh's conduct on May 13th, 1932? This really shows how important it is to look at everything!! Exactly right. And the best part about this is these records were meant to be destroyed. I don't understand the logic that we should only read the Flemington Testimony then draw the conclusion only from that. For example, isn't it important to see where the same person testified differently about the same subject in a different trial? Why doesn't that matter? Isn't it important to see what they are testifying to isn't even true? How about if it can be shown someone was coerced? Or if someone was being told to change what they planned on testifying to? And this is just the beginning. Does it mean Hauptmann was completely innocent? I say no, but shouldn't an individual be afforded the opportunity to consider ALL the available facts before making that decision for themselves? Here is where I say absolutely yes.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 9, 2016 10:20:16 GMT -5
i'm almost done with the book. and just wanted to thank you Michael for your style of adding footnotes and references at the bottom of the pages instead of at the back. it may be an "old school" publishing style but i too hate having to flip back and forth to the back of a book to see the references. well done Michael! Thank you for that! I agree and it was one of the things I really wanted to do but wasn't exactly sure how it would be received.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 10, 2016 17:20:55 GMT -5
Okay so I had a really nice meeting with a good friend of mine yesterday and he told me I had to get started right away on Volume II. So today I've begun Chapter 1. True to form it will be an unusual one. I am using this chapter to supplement certain information to specific chapters in Volume I. I am also going to explain and/or correct a couple of "errors" as well. I've let a few people know previously that one of my Editors corrected the mis-spellings in my quotes and footnotes which caused me to undo those corrections. In doing so it looks like I may have also undone a previous correction that I made which I did not want to do. Nothing earth shattering, but in explaining why it was wrong in the first place I believe there's a lesson in research there as well. So from my perspective it's a win-win. Not usual I know, but neither is Volume I and I think from all the feedback - it works. Also, in doing the research for this 1st Chapter I came across the "new" Gow Statement I mentioned some time ago. From what I remember I promised LJ I would upload it after the book came out. It's not as I remembered so I expect everyone might be disappointed. It's only one page with slight differences then page 1 ofher March 10th Statement. However, I don't think anyone has ever seen it before so here it goes: Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Oct 10, 2016 20:48:09 GMT -5
To Michael:
Seems as if there has to be one or more additional pages to that Betty Gow statement of March 3. It couldn't logically end at 6 PM on March 1. It has to go on at least to the time when the baby was missing. Do you have the additional page or pages, and if so, are you able to post them?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Oct 10, 2016 21:39:24 GMT -5
I have to say, my views on Betty Gow have done a complete turnaround since reading Michael's book, so maybe that's influencing my view here, but she seems more detached in this statement than in her others. I realize it's not a tape-recording or anything, but calling CAL Jr. "it"? "I let 'it' play on the nursery floor..."? Strange. I mean, again, maybe I'm reading too much into this, but it reminds me of Lindbergh's name for the baby--"Little It". Based the impressions and implications raised in 'Dark Corners', I wonder if Lindbergh referred to the child as "it", like an object, but this later had a "little" added to it, to make it sound like an endearing nickname. Also, for those who haven't read it, I can't recommend Michael's book highly enough. I've read it three times now, and it's absolutely fascinating. I can only hope it gets a wide audience.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 16:00:07 GMT -5
Michael,
Who is Nelson Wyckoff? In Chapter One, Strange Vehicles, this man is the person who tells the NJSP about the Conover sightings and also the Wendlin sighting. Did the Conovers and the Wendlins not come forward on their own with what they saw?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 11, 2016 16:57:32 GMT -5
Who is Nelson Wyckoff? In Chapter One, Strange Vehicles, this man is the person who tells the NJSP about the Conover sightings and also the Wendlin sighting. Did the Conovers and the Wendlins not come forward on their own with what they saw? He was with the Troopers acting as a guide when they went to the Wendelin's. I cite his Statement because this is where that information is contained, however, the State Police were the one's asking the questions and getting the information with him overhearing it. There is no NJSP Report currently at the Archives about it although there is a note of it written in Lt. Keaten's notebook. The Police were informed about the Conover sightings by Nelson before they were aware of it themselves. His information is what led the Police to get their eyewitness accounts.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 11, 2016 17:01:44 GMT -5
To Michael: Seems as if there has to be one or more additional pages to that Betty Gow statement of March 3. It couldn't logically end at 6 PM on March 1. It has to go on at least to the time when the baby was missing. Do you have the additional page or pages, and if so, are you able to post them? I expect that you're right and I believed it myself when I found this document. However, there was nothing else there. This has happened to me before with other things. Sometimes the rest is a few documents later, or sometimes in a completely different place. I once found the 2nd half of a major report in a cardboard box not even included in the collection where the 1st half was found. But I am confident after all the years of looking, and looking everywhere there is to look - multiple times - I can say with confidence if it did exist then it's not there now.
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Oct 11, 2016 17:24:55 GMT -5
I think, Michael, you asked for suggestions for future topics to cover. How about the identity of the person who put Condon's phone number in Hauptmann's closet? You have said before on the board that it was not Tom Cassidy, but was put there by someone other than Hauptmann. I'd be interested in that.
Also I just read the Ken Magazine article on the subject - do you think it is reliable at all?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 11, 2016 18:24:27 GMT -5
I think, Michael, you asked for suggestions for future topics to cover. How about the identity of the person who put Condon's phone number in Hauptmann's closet? You have said before on the board that it was not Tom Cassidy, but was put there by someone other than Hauptmann. I'd be interested in that. Also I just read the Ken Magazine article on the subject - do you think it is reliable at all? I appreciate the suggestion and I will absolutely solve this in my next volume. I have a unique item that only one other person has - the person who allowed me to copy it. That's it. And he granted me permission to use it years ago when I got it. Since I am going to write this thing up I would rather not discuss anything tied to it yet if that's okay.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 11, 2016 19:00:55 GMT -5
I wanted to make a quick point about my book. While it's not perfect, it does reveal countless new facts which are completely undeniable. To one point, while I disagree with many of the assertions made by Richard Cahill in his book Hauptmann's Ladder, I respect the research he's done and the amount of time it took him to put this book together. For example, his idea that Capt. Oliver was the Look-Out was an awesome suggestion and despite the fact I don't agree, as a Researcher, I really appreciate the suggestion. It was both unique and thought provoking.
I think we all know what I mean.
Now, he happens to be an Attorney and from what I've read a damn good one. So when comparing his facts against mine, on the surface, it would appear I don't stand a chance. As an example, take his position that when Dr. Mitchell testified in Flemington "he never expressly lied" and his agreement with Fisher's position that "he kept within the letter it not the spirit of the perjury law". (HL page 246)
Now we go to my book. I don't beat around the bush because I clearly say he lied. (TDC page 278)
So who would anyone want to be standing next to in Court if one was charged with perjury? A great Lawyer or a Prison Guard? Me too. However, we must look at the footnotes concerning this point. Richard isn't taking into consideration anything other then the Flemington Trial when making this point. While I still don't agree with splitting hairs about this specific testimony I believe all of the other sources destroy the point he's tried to make. Again, look at the footnotes. So here is a case where the Prison Guard is actually right. Of course if anyone thinks I'm wrong I'm open to discussion about it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2016 18:01:12 GMT -5
Michael,
In Chapter 12, The Crime Scene, starting on page 137, you begin a timeline for the night of March 1, 1932 after the discovery of Charlie being missing. You note the following:
10:10 PM Betty Gow rushes downstairs to tell Whateley that Lindbergh wants him.
Whateley goes upstairs and to the nursery immediately.
Lindbergh tells Whateley to go and call the Hopewell police.
Whateley then runs back downstairs and calls the Hopewell police.
10:22 PM The Hopewell Police receive Whateley's call asking them to come because the child is gone.
Whateley then returns upstairs where he and Lindbergh start searching the house.
10:25 PM The NJSP log says they receive a call from Lindbergh reporting his son missing.
When you look at the times you have shared it seems very odd that there is 12 minutes between the time Gow summoned Whateley and the time he actually placed that call. It does not appear to be so hurried as the statements suggest it was.
What is even more odd is that Lindbergh makes his call to the NJSP only 3 minutes after Whateley places his call to the Hopewell police. Both Whateley and Lindbergh say they searched the house before placing the call to the NJSP. The call timeline hardly allows for any search of the house or anything else. It seems more like these two men are together with Whateley placing his call first and then Lindbergh placing his call next.
Plus the whole episode where Lindbergh has Betty Gow get Whateley to come upstairs just so he can tell him (Whateley) to go back downstairs and call the police seems rather odd. Why the heck didn't Lindbergh just tell Betty Gow to tell Whateley to call the police and report the kidnapping. Whateley could have placed that call at 10:15 instead of later.
Giving those times in your book really puts a different spin on how this scene is unfolding!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 14, 2016 18:34:20 GMT -5
Giving those times in your book really puts a different spin on how this scene is unfolding! That was the idea. I don't think anyone else went to the phone logs and crossed them with the reports before like I have. As I've said, most people who write books don't have the time to invest to do something like this. It seems like common sense but the Archives can be overwhelming with the amount of material, and nothing about it is "quick" so the phone logs didn't get much attention. I really encourage everyone to take a close look at the footnotes to see what I've done. I did my best to leave no stone unturned and used sources I just don't think anyone thought to look at before. Look at all the testimony that's out there, yet, the majority of people just focused on Flemington. That never made sense to me. So I'm glad I did because many of the blockbusters are revealed because of them. If you continue on in that chapter you'll see the mention of those boards in the board walk. This, along with the photo on page 190 seem to show how doubtful that scenario really was. Their approach HAD to be from either the front or the back. If from the front they walked inside that wall in the driveway. And why didn't they leave the way they came in?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2016 9:47:00 GMT -5
That was the idea. I don't think anyone else went to the phone logs and crossed them with the reports before like I have. As I've said, most people who write books don't have the time to invest to do something like this. It seems like common sense but the Archives can be overwhelming with the amount of material, and nothing about it is "quick" so the phone logs didn't get much attention. I really encourage everyone to take a close look at the footnotes to see what I've done. I did my best to leave no stone unturned and used sources I just don't think anyone thought to look at before. Look at all the testimony that's out there, yet, the majority of people just focused on Flemington. That never made sense to me. So I'm glad I did because many of the blockbusters are revealed because of them. If you continue on in that chapter you'll see the mention of those boards in the board walk. This, along with the photo on page 190 seem to show how doubtful that scenario really was. Their approach HAD to be from either the front or the back. If from the front they walked inside that wall in the driveway. And why didn't they leave the way they came in? I don't think anyone else checked the logs and compared them with the statements either. Everything you included in your book is so revealing and makes it absolutely necessary for the reader to re-evaluate what they know or have read in the past about March 1, 1932. The scope of your research is unmatched in this case by anyone. I plan to look very closely at this whole chapter (whole book actually, chapter by chapter). Your book is not something to just read and put aside. It needs to be studied like a text book in order to understand and apply all the facts in it. A quick question so I am clear on something. In your footnotes in this chapter (and others) you mention the NJSP Training School. Is the training school the NJSP Headquarters in Trenton? What is Wilburtha and Alpine then in relation to NJSP headquarters? Sorry if this question seems silly! Just trying to understand how these places go together.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 15, 2016 10:45:37 GMT -5
A quick question so I am clear on something. In your footnotes in this chapter (and others) you mention the NJSP Training School. Is the training school the NJSP Headquarters in Trenton? What is Wilburtha and Alpine then in relation to NJSP headquarters? Sorry if this question seems silly! Just trying to understand how these places go together. The Headquaters was made up of (4) substations, and the training school. Wilburtha is also the Headquaters, which is sometimes referred to as West Trenton or Ewing Township. Alpine was the NJSP Barracks closest to Englewood at the time of the crime and investigation.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Oct 15, 2016 16:16:47 GMT -5
Thanks, I knew where Wilbertha was but not Alpine.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 15, 2016 17:31:54 GMT -5
Thanks, I knew where Wilbertha was but not Alpine.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2016 18:43:30 GMT -5
Thanks for posting that map of the police locations. That is very helpful!!
In Chapter 12 page 140, you bring up two NJ State Troopers I could not find mentioned in other books. They are Trooper Cain and Trooper Sullivan who were the first to arrive after Trooper Wolf did. This is really important because these two troopers were put on guard duty by Wolf when they arrived on the scene; one at the entrance to Lindbergh's private drive and the other to keep people away from the house in order to protect the clues.
Richard Cahill's book never mentions this at all. His position is that no one was protecting anything. Jim Fisher never mentions this either. He has Bornmann and DeGaetano as the next officers on the scene arriving at 11:15. I guess these two authors missed Charles Williamson's statement of March 9, 1932 that mentions the arrival of Cain and Sullivan before Bornmann and DeGaetano.
You clearly show here that the NJSP did protect the grounds not long after arriving on the scene. This is great!
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Oct 15, 2016 22:19:14 GMT -5
Jim Davidson mentioned Troopers Cain and Sullivan in his lecture on the Lindberghs the other night. But he also said that the place was swarming with reporters in pretty short order.
|
|