|
Post by wolfman666 on Aug 8, 2019 10:02:02 GMT -5
bu5t jim fisher knows the case, im good friends with them
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2019 17:33:30 GMT -5
amy fisher knew all about it. you have to read the whole ball of wax So Steve, are you saying Fisher knew that Whited was actually a liar and that he never saw Hauptmann in February 1932? So why does Fisher say Whited told NJSP troopers in the early morning hours of March 2, 1932 that on three occasions in February 1932 he saw someone near the Lindbergh home? The early reports do not show this to be true. I want to share some reports made by NJSP troopers about the night of March 1, 1932. They show that the neighbors around the Lindbergh property were awakened and talked to that night. This includes Millard Whited. I have underlined the sentences in these reports which involve talking to the neighbors on the kidnap night. Had Whited said anything like Fisher says in his book, it would have been noted in the reports for sure. First, Page 4 from Trooper Wolf's Initial report: imgur.com/R5J2sOp Link to Trooper Wolf's complete report - www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/wolf.pdfSecond, NJSP Det. Samuel Leon's report dated March 1, 1932: Page One imgur.com/axFzuIHPage Two imgur.com/sp9AveAThird, NJSP Trooper N. DeGaetano's report dated March 3, 1932: Page One imgur.com/w3W5PfwPage Two imgur.com/J6eRSGnFourth, There was an additional search made the day of March 2, 1932 that included Millard Whited residence by Trooper N. J. Nelson and others: imgur.com/FMuHG68Last, I am posting Millard Whited's April 26, 1932 statement made to Det. Coar, Jersey City Police and NJSP Det. Samuel Leon. Whited makes it very clear in this statement that in the early morning hours of March 2, 1932 when Lindbergh and NJSP Troopers spoke with him, that he saw no one. Whited also, when asked if he noticed anyone around the Lindbergh property prior to the kidnapping date, he is very clear again that he never saw anyone. imgur.com/8zSxXpcTo Fisher's credit he does mention the statement above in his book on page 253. He provides a footnote for it. However, in his opening paragraph concerning Millard Whited, he talks about Whited telling the troopers in the early hours of March 2, 1932, that he saw a strange person three different times on the Lindbergh property in February 1932. Fisher has no footnote to a report to support this whole statement. So where is Fisher getting this information from if there is no report to link it to?? Why is Captain Lamb mentioned as one of the questioners of Whited on March 2nd??? He is not in the reports I have posted here. Why doesn't Fisher give a source for something like this if we are supposed to believe its true???
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 9, 2019 6:48:16 GMT -5
amy fisher knew all about it. you have to read the whole ball of wax So Steve, are you saying Fisher knew that Whited was actually a liar and that he never saw Hauptmann in February 1932? So why does Fisher say Whited told NJSP troopers in the early morning hours of March 2, 1932 that on three occasions in February 1932 he saw someone near the Lindbergh home? The early reports do not show this to be true. Great post Amy. I am just going to come out and say it... The only person Whited saw was Lindbergh coming home. This was his only sighting and its salt in the wound as it pertains to his perjury. As far as Fisher goes... I don't think any of the Authors back then ever thought there would be this level of research and fact checking going on. So we had Scaduto/Kennedy on one side, and Fisher on the other. All made their share of mistakes because its seems obvious to me that they picked a side before beginning. When it comes to debate that is a necessary tactic, but when it comes to a book I think its the wrong approach. Next, years of study are required at the NJSP Archives for anything "definitive" to be written. A couple of weeks or a month or two amounts to only a quick "look-see" and nothing more. My issue is the "names" associated with people who don't believe a certain position. It's almost like if you don't believe "them" you're an idiot or something. Nothing can be further from the truth once considering the contents of ALL of the documentation - and not just the select few among the 1% or 2% of what's in the Archives that they happened to actually look at. Regardless, I think most of us can say that those books were the "launching" point and motivation to learn more and investigate if we might solve some of the controversial issues and/or questions that have always existed.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Aug 9, 2019 10:22:50 GMT -5
I don't think he was a liar because I think he didn't want to be involved at first. he didn't convict Hauptman the evidence did and theres plenty of it
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Aug 9, 2019 10:24:17 GMT -5
the evidence convicted Hauptman these witnesses on your side of the case were proven liars.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 9, 2019 10:37:12 GMT -5
I don't think he was a liar because I think he didn't want to be involved at first. Now you're just making things up. He said they knew he saw something but was told to keep it a secret. I have the first report where he told them what he saw. And it was Lindbergh's car he described. So pick your poison. Either he lied or saw Lindbergh.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2019 12:58:40 GMT -5
I am just going to come out and say it... The only person Whited saw was Lindbergh coming home. This was his only sighting and its salt in the wound as it pertains to his perjury. So true and well said! Whited did tell his neighbor Charles Hausenbauer about seeing a brown Lincoln car pull into the Lindbergh private lane the night of the kidnapping around 7:10 p.m. Nothing about seeing any stranger around the Lindbergh property in February 1932. Only about a brown Lincoln and nothing else. Whited confirms this sighting to the police. Again, he offers nothing about seeing any stranger on the Lindbergh property in February. Here is the report concerning this information we are speaking about: imgur.com/UKUNSCAYou explain this whole episode so well in TDC, V1, Chapter One, page 13 & 14. Your footnotes provide the information about the reports used to create this section on Millard Whited. This is just one of the awesome things about both of your books. People can use the information from these footnotes to request any police report used in your volumes concerning any topic you write about. It literally puts the archives in the hands of the individual. Millard Whited did offer false testimony at the Hauptmann Trial. Add to that the fact that Wilentz knew this, the police (including Schwarzkopf) knew this, and to top it all off, Lindbergh himself knew this while he sat in that court room and witnessed Whited's lies offered under oath. Lindbergh was at Whited's house in the early morning hours of March 2, 1932 and he knew Whited never said anything to him or the troopers that night about seeing any stranger on his property in February 1932. Talk about conspiracies! This is one for the books! Thank you Michael for revealing Millard Whited's real statements in yours!
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Aug 13, 2019 9:21:12 GMT -5
mike, the witnesses didn't convict Hauptman the evidence did. you should study the defense witnesses and really laugh. put that in your new book
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2019 10:05:13 GMT -5
If the ladder and other evidence were strong enough on their own to convict Hauptmann, then why did Wilentz even bother putting on the stand a liar like Whited and a legally blind old man like Hochmuth?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 13, 2019 10:24:29 GMT -5
mike, the witnesses didn't convict Hauptman the evidence did. you should study the defense witnesses and really laugh. put that in your new book Steve - you've got to break out of this " us vs. them" mentality. Your assertion that bad witnesses existed for the Defense doesn't mean there weren't "bad" witnesses for the Prosecution. Next, Amy is right. The Prosecution had many witnesses but only called those they believed were needed in order to get the Death Penalty Murder conviction they sought. The evidence alone did not and could not do that. I've studied everything Steve. For example, do you know all of the PIs Fawcett employed? All the names of the Defense witnesses who were never called? How about those who offered to but were ignored? It's also worthy to note that it amazes me the Defense was able to produce any witnesses at all under the circumstances. Comparing the Prosecution to the Defense is apples and oranges. Anyway, in my last chapter I cover quite a bit, and I think it will be less funny once read.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Aug 15, 2019 13:22:20 GMT -5
amy, did all your witnesses tell the truth? I think not. that's not what convicted hauptman
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 17, 2019 15:03:24 GMT -5
Nobody seems to know what Whatley said on his deathbed, so the subject is even more stupid than the infamous "death bed confession that wasn't." This site is getting good at solving nothing and not caring if it ever does.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2019 16:17:36 GMT -5
amy, did all your witnesses tell the truth? I think not. that's not what convicted hauptman There was lying on both sides at that trial. Wilentz was first up and he put liars up first. He knew what he was doing and used them because he needed them to strengthen his case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2019 17:57:43 GMT -5
amy, did all your witnesses tell the truth? I think not. that's not what convicted hauptman I think I need to make clear why it was important for Wilentz to use Whited, Hochmuth and Rossiter at the trial even though he knew that Whited was lying, Hochmuth was confused and pressured to identify Hauptmann, and Rossiter's ID of Hauptmann and the car were faulty at best. It is very important to keep in mind that Hauptmann was being tried as the lone perpetrator for Murder during the commission of a felony, not kidnapping. Because it was a murder charge, it was positively essential to be able to place him in the vicinity of the crime. Wilentz knew this and the whole murder charge rested on Hauptmann being present in Hopewell. If he could not be shown to be there, he could not be shown to have committed the murder of the child. The ladder and the ransom notes were not enough alone to put only him physically at the scene of the crime. I am going to share a portion of Wilentz's Prosecution Strategy for the trial. Please pay special attention to numbers 5, 6, and 7. They are the foundation for Wilentz using Whited, Hochmuth and Rossiter. imgur.com/cEswkMT
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 18, 2019 9:34:28 GMT -5
Well enough jive, I'd like to see you do it again. You could just take a couple easy points - Since you seem to remember better what's been done, you choose. This started with your position that every book sucked except Fisher. So why invite Steve into it? It's like picking a fight then letting someone else step in to protect you. Nobody seems to know what Whatley said on his deathbed, so the subject is even more stupid than the infamous "death bed confession that wasn't." This site is getting good at solving nothing and not caring if it ever does. There you go again. Hopefully Steve will show up soon so you can step back and allow him to defend your position.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 18, 2019 10:19:01 GMT -5
Right, I'm too young to know what's gone on in the Fisher discussions; Steve's the man.
|
|