|
Post by Michael on Mar 26, 2017 13:56:01 GMT -5
As I continue to write V2 some of the chapters are taking on a life of their own. As I build them I decide to add unique facts which continue beyond my original outline. I find certain things interesting that may be considered as "trivial" or "unnecessary" by some so I'm looking for feedback to see what everyone thinks. For example, on page 304 of V1 I included the fact that George Curtis was connected to the 3X Murder investigation. Does everyone think this is as interesting as I do or do you feel that something like this can be skipped in V2?
Thanks in advance!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2017 15:52:36 GMT -5
I would love to know more about George Curtis. I am always interested in anything about the 3X murders! If you decide not to use this in your second volume, I do hope you will post it to the 3X thread on this board.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 26, 2017 16:58:13 GMT -5
I would love to know more about George Curtis. I am always interested in anything about the 3X murders! If you decide not to use this in your second volume, I do hope you will post it to the 3X thread on this board. Well I'm not planning on adding more information specifically on George Curtis, I meant to ask if I should continue adding this "type" of information. But I do see from your response that we're on the same page in regard to it. Thanks for the reply!
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Mar 26, 2017 17:04:24 GMT -5
i say include stuff you think is interesting unless it makes editing or length of the book a hassle. there have been so many topics i've become fascinated with that i would never have known about if not for tidbits like this.
so looking forward to Volumne II!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 26, 2017 17:18:54 GMT -5
i say include stuff you think is interesting unless it makes editing or length of the book a hassle. there have been so many topics i've become fascinated with that i would never have known about if not for tidbits like this. so looking forward to Volumne II! Thank you and this is encouraging. I was starting to think I was wasting my time with these little "factoids" but if they are appreciated in the way I did when I discover them then that's all I needed to hear! Judging by how this book is coming along the chapters are going to be much bigger. I think I already said that I am done with the chapter on Hauptmann's closet, and in fact, knowing I barely mentioned him in V1 this time around is going to be a much different. A lot of new material to come.
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Mar 26, 2017 17:50:32 GMT -5
I am also very much in favour of the extra facts.
|
|
|
Post by daoud on Mar 27, 2017 16:13:36 GMT -5
Hi Michael, This is my first post, so first of all thanks for this treasure trove of information on the Lindbergh kidnapping, and all the knowledgeable contributors! I am nowhere near their level of knowledge, but it is a fascinating case in an interesting time in 20th century US history.
Regarding the inclusion of your "extra" facts, I say put them in! If they interfere with the narrative flow, then include them in the footnotes.
Congratulations on your first volume which was a fascinating read - a minor quibble, can you get someone to proof read the next one before you release it? It may just be me, but typos and people´s names spelled differently on the same page jar a bit.
ps in one of your posts on the main thread you mentioned in passing that you don't have a Kindle, so can't read a book you exspressed an interest in - you can download a free Kindle app for PC from Amazon.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 27, 2017 17:39:49 GMT -5
I am also very much in favour of the extra facts. Thanks - I will continue to do so for sure now. Hi Michael, This is my first post, so first of all thanks for this treasure trove of information on the Lindbergh kidnapping, and all the knowledgeable contributors! I am nowhere near their level of knowledge, but it is a fascinating case in an interesting time in 20th century US history. Thanks for your thoughts. Glad you're here and please continue to post your ideas! Regarding the inclusion of your "extra" facts, I say put them in! If they interfere with the narrative flow, then include them in the footnotes. Well it looks like a lock to add this stuff in, and great idea about the footnotes if I have trouble "fitting" any into the flow. Congratulations on your first volume which was a fascinating read - a minor quibble, can you get someone to proof read the next one before you release it? It may just be me, but typos and people´s names spelled differently on the same page jar a bit. What you point out is totally legit and I do not find it to be a minor issue at all. This issue in particular has been very frustrating for me as some here who I "vented" to know. Believe it or not I had (3) Editors. The last one edited my footnotes so I had to undo everything then thought I re-applied corrections in the actual body. Also, they knew nothing about the case so that wasn't helpful at all. Next, while I have some good things to say about the Publisher, I also had some trouble too. One thing was what wound up being published was not my final pdf version so many mistakes that had been corrected didn't wind up being published. There were also some mistakes that are completely my fault, like names being spelled differently. This occurred because that is exactly what happens in the source material. And so when I am using a particular report as a source, usually, I wrote the name as it was spelled there. I've read these reports so many times that these variations don't represent a red flag or stand out to me anymore. It's no excuse though, and I don't see it happening again since I am completely aware of it. In fact, as an example, one man's name I have included in V2 shows both spellings as a lead-in. I do this because it's spelled both ways almost equally and so if someone wanted to find information, either in a book or at the Archives, they definitely would need to know both in order to find everything. All of the problems with V1 I have learned from and they should be remedied in V2. For anything that I believed should be cleared up because of these mistakes, my 1st chapter in V2 is going to address it. Here I am adding more details to further compliment or support information in V1 as well as explaining and/or fixing some of those errors you are talking about. Of course this whole book idea was more about the facts and less about the literary experience, but some of those mistakes should never have happened.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Mar 27, 2017 19:21:41 GMT -5
Would very much like to more about George Curtis.
|
|
|
Post by sweetwater on Mar 29, 2017 23:26:28 GMT -5
Michael, I'd urge you to go with your feeling pretty much on what types of "extra" nuggets to include; this is your undertaking, after all, and you are in the enviable position of not really having to answer to anyone except your readership. I still need to give Vol. 1 a really close 3rd re-reading (my first two were pretty distracted, because of circumstances I've already explained) but I really don't remember that you branched out on tangents that were annoying or distracting. One thing I'd like to see -- and I don't know that Vol. 2 or any volume is the appropriate place for it, maybe the board would be better -- is more of what must be a load of material available at the the Archives on the kooks and/or psychics. However one views that kind of thing, there just has to be some interesting stuff there. You already know that I have a special interest in the Cayce readings about the LKC. Michael, remember: You don't need more editors...just one really good one!
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 30, 2017 10:11:32 GMT -5
sweetwater you should be mikes agent
|
|
|
Post by wendyrite on Oct 7, 2017 19:28:41 GMT -5
Do I have this right? CAL basically cut open the mouth on the corpse of his son to check the teeth?! Was this in the coroners notes or whose notes were they in? That is so macabre.
I've heard people who have been to the house say you can't help but feel it's an inside job when you physically see everything.
It's so interesting hearing the true thoughts of people who worked on the case. I bet a lot of them know exactly what happened but they can never prove it because of all the misinformation in the record as truth.
Does anyone know what the family has done with his final bones taken out of the archive?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 8, 2017 8:22:09 GMT -5
Do I have this right? CAL basically cut open the mouth on the corpse of his son to check the teeth?! Was this in the coroners notes or whose notes were they in? That is so macabre. In answering this I am going to go into detail which I often do in order to properly explain it to anyone considering the research... When I first started going to the Archives 17 years ago, I was surprised to see how much material exists there. I thought to myself how long it would take to go through everything and wondered who before ever did. The answer was nobody. So what we have are Authors, and internet personalities TELLING everyone what to believe who have never seen all there is to see. Heck, there's even one guy on the internet who shames people into believing him when the fact is he only made one trip to the Archives and was there for a trivial amount of time when he was. It's outrages. On the other hand, I have been through each and every collection multiple times. In fact, every time I've gone through I've discovered more important material - not because I didn't see it the first time, but because each time through I've learned more and more so that certain documents became important to me as I became more knowledgeable. I was just there Monday and found 2 of the 7 things I was searching for! One would think after all of these years I'd have them already. Now, most people don't have the vacation time I did and if they did wouldn't spend it all at the NJSP Archives (and some other places). So I realize I'm a little nutty to have done that. So in the interest of time, they focus on specific aspects of the case while they are there. But this approach is problematic from just about any way you look at it. First, there are files concerning specific topics everywhere and not just in the usual places. Next, the different angles (e.g. Parker) provide information about everything as well. So by cutting corners valuable information is missed, and in the case of Lindbergh slicing his dead son's face open - lost. The source is the Mercer Country Grand Jury transcripts concerning Paul Wendel. Grand Jury testimony is secret, and the copy I have was marked for destruction. People were scared to death to say anything negative about Lindbergh, but in this environment I believe Chief of Detectives Kirkham ( see TDC p 301) felt more comfortable or simply let his guard down by testifying to it. The official narrative was that he "checked the teeth" but now we know exactly how he did that. What does it mean? Knowing Lindbergh and his desire to portray himself as "strong" and of "elite stock" then it could be he was trying to impress those in the room with this ability to do this to his own dead son. Or it could be he didn't care much about him and viewed his corpse like a dead animal laying there. Or maybe there's another explanation. The point of this new information is to provide it to those who are serious about trying to solve this case. If it's meaningless then it's meaningless. However, if everyone is under the microscope then everyone is under the microscope. This school of thought that Lindbergh should be left alone, to me, is absurd.
|
|
|
Post by wendyrite on Oct 8, 2017 16:42:45 GMT -5
I don't know anyone who would be able to cut through their dead son's corpse so be able to check the teeth. A) how would you even know how to do that? Why wouldn't you ask someone else in the room to do it for you? And B) how was this not incredibly shocking to all who who witnessed it? I couldn't watch someone cut any corpse's mouth open, let alone a child, let alone my OWN child. How would you even know the scalpel to grab or the technique to use? This is beyond bizarre to me.
Also, is there anything else you can share with us from the Grand Jury testimony meant for destruction? (Why wasn't it destroyed?) The whole Paul Wendal situation confuses me as well. Was he the one who said he burned the baby's genitals off with acid?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 8, 2017 19:31:38 GMT -5
Also, is there anything else you can share with us from the Grand Jury testimony meant for destruction? (Why wasn't it destroyed?) The whole Paul Wendal situation confuses me as well. Was he the one who said he burned the baby's genitals off with acid? Off the top of my head I know what I wrote about Moore's account ( pages 17-19) of the car driving past his house is supported by Ellis Parker Jr.'s testimony. There's quite a few pages to these so I'm not sure how to answer this... As to why it wasn't destroyed - my opinion is that it was. However, because of Governor Hoffman's re-investigation it's my belief he kept copies of things like this because there are other documents marked "Pls destroy" etc. found among his material. So you have the Governor keeping a private set which survived. Also, what he had wound up in his garage after he died then remained there until discovered in the 80s. Thanks to Governor Byrne's Executive Order, they are there for anyone who would like to read through them. The only problem is, like much of what's there, that no one ever did for the reasons I outlined above. According to the Kings County Grand Jury testimony, Wendel bragged about "emasculating" the child's corpse with acid. It wasn't Wendel himself who testified to it so it's debatable but I certainly believe he did say it. It was from researching this angle that also led me to the information about Lindbergh calling to have the front door fixed, a fact which seems to blow up his testimony about the shutters in court ( pages 39-40). If you are interested to learn more about the Parker/Wendel angle of the case John Reisinger's book Master Detective is something you'll want to read.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 10, 2018 13:27:32 GMT -5
Okay so as I continue to write, the book is already twice the size of the first. I have decided to move one of the chapters aside for V3 (Birritella). Now my question is: Should I do the same with the J. J. Faulkner chapter? I have been keeping that for last (not in the book) because I knew it would probably take the most time to complete. As I sit here now, by the end of the weekend, I should have only one other chapter to write (if Faulkner is put aside). I've kept in mind the suggestion to add the "extra facts" and it is something that is hard to predict as I write.
Since I've already pushed back Birritella, and the Juror Bribe - I feel somewhat obligated to add the Faulkner material. I am still not sure what I am going to do but I wanted to get some opinions before making a decision.
Just let me know what everyone thinks.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Feb 10, 2018 16:46:54 GMT -5
Okay so as I continue to write, the book is already twice the size of the first. I have decided to move one of the chapters aside for V3 (Birritella). Now my question is: Should I do the same with the J. J. Faulkner chapter? I have been keeping that for last (not in the book) because I knew it would probably take the most time to complete. As I sit here now, by the end of the weekend, I should have only one other chapter to write (if Faulkner is put aside). I've kept in mind the suggestion to add the "extra facts" and it is something that is hard to predict as I write. Since I've already pushed back Birritella, and the Juror Bribe - I feel somewhat obligated to add the Faulkner material. I am still not sure what I am going to do but I wanted to get some opinions before making a decision. Just let me know what everyone thinks. I'm disappointed that you are not going to keep the Birritella research in, but reserve it for V3. I know that there was a thorough investigation into these people and that nothing substantial was found (or so it's been reported). However, there is SOMETHING there. I don't put much stock in so-called psychics. It's other things that keep me going back to them. Who sent them? Why were they even given any consideration? There must have been LOTS of seers trying to get their visions listened to by the Lindberghs. Anyway, I'm so looking forward to V2, Birritellas or not. Any tentative date yet?
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Feb 11, 2018 2:34:49 GMT -5
sounds like there will be more than enough material for a Volume 3, so i say release what is already written (or almost finished) as V2. of course, i might be a wee bit selfish wanting another installment of your research!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 11, 2018 9:54:10 GMT -5
sounds like there will be more than enough material for a Volume 3, so i say release what is already written (or almost finished) as V2. of course, i might be a wee bit selfish wanting another installment of your research! Thank you for the input. Keep it coming. I begin on what might be the final chapter today. After that, if it is the last one, I have to add or remove here or there. It seems that every time I pick up a report I see something new or something I had forgotten about. That leads me to include things I didn't expect to which is why this book has gotten out of hand. Out of hand for me, since it was only my intention for it to be a certain length. So I know what's in my outline as it pertains to Faulkner will grow exponentially once I start pulling files.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2018 17:51:45 GMT -5
So Michael, I thought about this for a bit before responding to your question.
First off, I think whatever you have in Volume Two, it will be awesome and eye-opening, just like Volume One. All that you share will help us to know more than we knew before and that is always a BIG plus!!!
If you aren't doing the Birritella angle in Volume 2, I guess I will have to wait until Volume Three. The J.J. Faulkner angle is something that I have been looking forward to being covered. I do hope you can include that as long as the book doesn't get too huge. It sounds like it is already jam packed with new material. I can understand the jury bribe being carried over to Volume 3.
So is the main topic of Volume 2 going to be your research on John F. Condon? Can you give a little hint about what else you might be including in Volume 2? I can hardly wait until it comes out. I know I will be, once again, in awe of your research and so ever grateful that you are sharing it with us and all true crime readers everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 12, 2018 10:36:36 GMT -5
So is the main topic of Volume 2 going to be your research on John F. Condon? Can you give a little hint about what else you might be including in Volume 2? I can hardly wait until it comes out. I know I will be, once again, in awe of your research and so ever grateful that you are sharing it with us and all true crime readers everywhere. Thanks Amy. My original plan was to write (3) small volumes all packed with new material. The first book was about the size I had in mind for all three. So I had an outline, but as I accumulated the material I realized both new and some of the old needed to be included to complement the points. As I mentioned before there is a "snowball" effect. I also look at how one thing overlaps into another. I find myself not wanting interfere by putting something between them. My goal of getting the new material out there is what's most important but it has to be done in such a way that "works." Of course what I found about J. J. Faulkner is something I want out there. The Jury too, especially since there's already people saying it is not true (as if they'd have any idea). I am also looking at the size of this thing and it is way bigger than I ever anticipated it being. I never wanted to write so much about Condon. I had a few things that needed to get out there. But it totally took off when I realized I had more than I originally believed. That material overlaps into Hauptmann's arrest. Once into that I had to bring out the new material concerning what is mentioned in just about every book that everyone wants to know the answers to. So I provide new facts about those.... Like who "Fritz" was. Lastly I go into Fisch, where again, there are new facts to consider. I don't want to get specific because there are people out there who will try to read between the lines then post everything they can find about it.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Feb 12, 2018 17:06:36 GMT -5
While I would love to read a Volume 2 that includes your research on Birratella and JJ Faulkner, if it is going to delay it I would rather you push both subjects to Version 3. I can hardly wait for a more of your research and insight to read!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 17, 2018 21:03:38 GMT -5
Getting near the end. Anyone have any suggestions for a Publisher please send me a PM or an email. I have one in mind but it's not set in stone and I want to explore my options!
BTW, I will absolutely have enough new material for a V3. Anyway, if you liked V1 than you will definitely enjoy V2 - lots of new facts. A LOT of new facts.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Feb 26, 2018 14:17:57 GMT -5
Since you asked for our opinions - though you probably don't want mine - I'd advise you to wait until you had some real evidence before writing another drivel book. Hope you're not too offended, but maybe the truth hurts.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Feb 26, 2018 15:14:47 GMT -5
Jack, I found Michael's first book to be chock full of new evidence. I think there's a lot more to this story than Hauptman did it by himself. Not sure of my conclusions yet, and maybe I never will be, but why ignore all this new information. Who's book do you consider better researched and rely on to support your conclusions?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 26, 2018 17:32:03 GMT -5
Since you asked for our opinions - though you probably don't want mine - I'd advise you to wait until you had some real evidence before writing another drivel book. Hope you're not too offended, but maybe the truth hurts. Not offended at all. If you didn't learn anything from the first book then V2 isn't for you.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Feb 26, 2018 18:59:37 GMT -5
Since you asked for our opinions - though you probably don't want mine - I'd advise you to wait until you had some real evidence before writing another drivel book. Hope you're not too offended, but maybe the truth hurts. You probably don't want my opinion of your opinion, but . Drivel book, you say? Well, I, for one, can't wait to get my hands on Drivel, Volume 2. When is your book coming out?
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Feb 26, 2018 19:04:46 GMT -5
Hi, Michael! I am itching to get into Condon's timeline, but I don't want to start a discussion before your book comes out. I would like to ask one question, though. When, exactly, did the lady come to his house, crying and carrying on and needing his help? (The lady whose name Condon promised to take to his grave?)
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 26, 2018 22:05:35 GMT -5
Since you asked for our opinions - though you probably don't want mine - I'd advise you to wait until you had some real evidence before writing another drivel book. Hope you're not too offended, but maybe the truth hurts. You probably don't want my opinion of your opinion, but . Drivel book, you say? Well, I, for one, can't wait to get my hands on Drivel, Volume 2. When is your book coming out? Good one
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 26, 2018 22:44:41 GMT -5
Hi, Michael! I am itching to get into Condon's timeline, but I don't want to start a discussion before your book comes out. I would like to ask one question, though. When, exactly, did the lady come to his house, crying and carrying on and needing his help? (The lady whose name Condon promised to take to his grave?) Hi Rebekah. Condon told O'Sullivan this story on May 14th. He claimed it was what brought him into the case, however, he did not give him the date it occurred. But "if" Condon was telling the truth about it causing his entry, that clue gives us a really good idea about when it would have occurred. I try to cover this with everything I've got in the upcoming volume. Hopefully how I wrote it "works" like I believe that it does. Everything ties together and seems quite obvious after reading what I've assembled.
|
|