Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Oct 8, 2018 15:30:04 GMT -5
Your personal experience and Kevin's opinion are relevant if they apply to the Lindbergh sash windows, but you seem to be making a rock solid conclusion to derail any further consideration here without really knowing that. It's similar to your conclusion about Lindbergh's call having come in at Elsie Whateley's estimate of 7:00 pm, even though no one else was able to fix a time. In any case, I believe if the unlocked windows had been a problem, ie. draftiness and noise, it seems quite reasonable to me that it would have been mentioned, similar to the entire household having been forthcoming about not being able to lock the shutters. Logically, it would seem the windows were not much of an issue when unlocked in the winter. My personal experience would only be relevant to me if not for Kevin's validation. Kevin is a Master Carpenter and has been to Highfields. I am not attempting to derail further consideration only that those windows, if not locked, would have made noise from the wind blowing that night. Any amount of wind actually but the evidence is that there was a heavy wind that night. The timing of the call Elsie took came in at that time. It's not "my" conclusion, rather, what is in the source documentation. Did they make it up or is that what she told them? You may or may not like it but there it is nevertheless, and there is nothing to upset it. Furthermore, how do you " know" that " no one else was able to fix a time?" Simply because some were not asked or that they did not offer one doesn't have the meaning you assign and/or imply. Even if one other person simply said "I don't remember" there were (3) people to ask besides Elsie. If I am wrong then list here what these three people said about the timing of that call: Lindbergh, Olly, and Anne. Let's see what their various versions were so we can compare. And there you go with the idea that "reasonableness" means something here. How many examples do you need to show that it does not? Just look at this on its face value.... There was a heavy windstorm so why weren't the windows sealed to guard from both the noise and the draft leaving them unlocked would create? Oh because no one seemed to remember that the locks were ever used? That's a reasonable conclusion? What evidence Michael.. evidence that is, that the Lindbergh windows would have had to have been locked on a windy night to stop them from making noise and being the source of drafts? You're missing the point here entirely and just assuming that they had to be locked because of your personal experience and what Kevin told you. Why? Because it gives you another virtual salvo in support of this being a fake kidnapping, ie. an easier access for the kidnappers. The household confirms the windows were not normally locked, and we both know there must have been cold, windy winter nights on previous weekends on which the family had visited. Was anyone complaining about the unlocked windows being drafty and noisy during that entire period of time between October and March? You're trying much too hard here to cement a largely untenable position into fact here. One individual in the source documentation gave the time as 7:00 pm, yet there is other evidence, without an actual time attached to it, to suggest the call could well have come in earlier than that. It's all in Mark Falzini's timeline.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 9, 2018 7:59:13 GMT -5
You are assuming that the windows were locked when you don't know that. I am not assuming anything. If you re-read what I wrote those windows would not have been sealed if unlocked and, during a windstorm, would have moved and made noise. It's indisputable. Now take that information and do anything you want with it. Ignore it or try to make sense of it. What evidence Michael.. evidence that is, that the Lindbergh windows would have had to have been locked on a windy night to stop them from making noise and being the source of drafts? You're missing the point here entirely and just assuming that they had to be locked because of your personal experience and what Kevin told you. Why? Because it gives you another virtual salvo in support of this being a fake kidnapping, ie. an easier access for the kidnappers. The household confirms the windows were not normally locked, and we both know there must have been cold, windy winter nights on previous weekends on which the family had visited. Was anyone complaining about the unlocked windows being drafty and noisy during that entire period of time between October and March? You're trying much too hard here to cement a largely untenable position into fact here. I think you are missing the point Joe. You are too busy trying to neutralize the idea of an inside job by attacking an indisputable fact as if it were conjecture. It's not. So proceed from the position of fact and truth then see where it leads you. That doesn't have to mean "inside job" but it seems to me you personally believe it might so you are trying to defeat it by saying its not a fact - when it is. Concerning "what" the household staff said... what did they say about Wahgoosh? So is that a fact or is what Lindbergh said actually the truth? Perhaps both? That's the solution isn't it? He was a barker but wasn't a barker simultaneously. How about calling to have something fixed on the house that wasn't right? Was it too new for the shutters but not too new for the weather stripping on the door? To those who don't like the appearance of an inside job the answer is "yes" to anything that makes it appear that way and "no" to anything that does not. One individual in the source documentation gave the time as 7:00 pm, yet there is other evidence, without an actual time attached to it, to suggest the call could well have come in earlier than that. It's all in Mark Falzini's timeline. You're not serious. He's providing the possible time based on what Anne said in her 3/11/32 statement. Why? Because she was not specific. She went upstairs to help Betty at 6:15 PM and came downstairs at 7:30 to listen for Lindy who she obviously believed could be home by then. Between these two times she left Betty possibly twice. I say "possibly" because both Betty and Anne claim Anne procured the thread before the trial but both say Anne did not get the thread during the trial. (Since you believe everything those occupants said then explain that one for me.) So there's your evidence which you assert ruins Elsie's direct account and timing of that call? No one ever asked Anne what time it was, and she never disputed Elsie in any source that I've seen. Look, I know you do not like the inside job position. But you are not doing yourself any favors by resisting facts as a way to get around it.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Oct 26, 2018 2:28:40 GMT -5
Excellent thinking ilovedfw. Things Elsie said should be looked at extra closely.
|
|
|
Post by chrisyb65 on Oct 29, 2018 13:51:51 GMT -5
Also, I've wondered if Lindbergh intentionally built the house in Hopewell because it was remote and would take time for the authorities to get there once they called. It was a very small very rural town.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 29, 2018 18:07:20 GMT -5
Also, I've wondered if Lindbergh intentionally built the house in Hopewell because it was remote and would take time for the authorities to get there once they called. It was a very small very rural town. I can't remember "who" but I do recall someone making a suggestion along these lines some time ago - maybe it was you? .... If not what I remember was the motivation being that it was close to Skillman so the child could be treated while being removed from the public eye and not draw attention being out in the middle of nowhere.
|
|
|
Post by john on Oct 30, 2018 14:06:47 GMT -5
Some interesting speculation here. One thing I'd like to know is whether there was any information whatsoever given out regarding the Lindbergh's new home. Charles and Ann were among the most famous couples in America. Today, or even thirty years ago, in the Lifestyles Of The Rich & Famous era, celebrity lifestyles and homes have been featured frequently on television and in magazines, including newspaper Sunday supplement sections nearly every major metropolitan newspaper has or used to have going back several decades now.
How "celebrity news" was handled back in the first third of the 20th century is something worth looking into. I know that newsreels were a big deal then; and there were essentially newsreel equivalents of those features, thus the average American likely knew a thing or two about how the young Lindberghs lived, and where. Given that this young, attractive couple valued their privacy, there was probably less known about them than about Hollywood stars, but still. Something was known. Was there ever a magazine that featured a "peek" into the Lindbergh'a new home? I know this seems unlikely, especially photographs and the like, but it might have been, as a practical matter, for Charles and Ann to have "got it out of the way" and just allowed some newspaper, magazine or newsreel people into their home, allowed them to look around, take a picture or two, and then leave. No more after that.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Oct 31, 2018 7:07:17 GMT -5
You say the windows "would have made noise in a windstorm." That's not correct, the windows if unlocked MIGHT have made noise in a windstorm. There's a big difference. I'd guess that since no one at the L home complained they didn't make any noise, and statistically, they would have been left unlocked as well as testimonially they were unlocked - so what's all the argument about? Kevin is a carpenter, not a salesman for Menards who would know idiosyncracies about windows. My parent's home had those kind of windows - I don't remember ever locking any of them, first or second floor.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 31, 2018 7:40:09 GMT -5
I know that newsreels were a big deal then; and there were essentially newsreel equivalents of those features, thus the average American likely knew a thing or two about how the young Lindberghs lived, and where. Given that this young, attractive couple valued their privacy, there was probably less known about them than about Hollywood stars, but still. Something was known. Was there ever a magazine that featured a "peek" into the Lindbergh'a new home? I know this seems unlikely, especially photographs and the like, but it might have been, as a practical matter, for Charles and Ann to have "got it out of the way" and just allowed some newspaper, magazine or newsreel people into their home, allowed them to look around, take a picture or two, and then leave. No more after that. Here is a link to the post about the "new home.": lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/post/22816Something else to consider was that Lupica didn't even know they were there at the time of his first interview. The workmen certainly did. That was why the police spend so much time looking into as many as they could locate. I think if any Reporter had ever taken pictures or toured the home I'd know about it. The Police were pretty good at identifying that stuff even finding out that the movers weren't given a map and instead had Whateley to show them where to place everything. You say the windows "would have made noise in a windstorm." That's not correct, the windows if unlocked MIGHT have made noise in a windstorm. There's a big difference. I'd guess that since no one at the L home complained they didn't make any noise, and statistically, they would have been left unlocked as well as testimonially they were unlocked - so what's all the argument about? Kevin is a carpenter, not a salesman for Menards who would know idiosyncracies about windows. My parent's home had those kind of windows - I don't remember ever locking any of them, first or second floor. Here's how this information came to me.... I always wondered because I had those same windows in my old house in Lambertville which was built in the early 40s. They rattled if the wind blew and they were not locked. I consulted Kevin, who is a Master Carpenter and someone who visited Highfields on numerous occasions. He told me that the locks would "seal" the windows and if they weren't locked they would have made some noise. I am not telling anyone what to think so if you don't want to believe it I completely understand. When an accepted narrative becomes cemented in one's brain it is hard to fully embrace anything that could possibly upset it. Even looking at what you wrote could do that. They want the child to sleep but do not take the precaution of locking the windows which "might" (your words) have made noise.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Oct 31, 2018 20:02:21 GMT -5
Attachment DeletedHopefully the photo I am attempting to attach comes through. It is interesting that at least by early December 1931, an AP photo with description of the Lindbergh land and house was being published. The tremendous public demand for information on Lindbergh and his family was really unprecedented for the times. The short write-up that accompanies this photo clearly comments on the size and remoteness of the property, as well as a description of the location of the Lindbergh's master bedroom. It would certainly not be a hugh leap to assume that the baby's nursery would be located next to this second story bedroom. Michael's research as set forth in both of his books clearly shows that surveillance was being conducted on the residence prior to the kidnapping. Even a minimal amount of surveillance (combined with the type of information that accompanied the AP photo in December 1931) would allow one to assume the nursury was located on the second story at either end of the central bedroom as viewed from the rear of the house.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Nov 1, 2018 11:39:54 GMT -5
Ney Lurp, hows things goin'? You maybe havn't seen this before Lurp. I determined that it couldn't have been a fake kidnapping because Charles would, of course, have to have known about a fake kidnapping, and had something to do with creating the first kidnapping note. This is very unlikely because CAL would have known that he was doing a major crime and wanted to protect himself which he didn't do. He specifically and it's well known tried to protect the integrity and original condition of that note. But if he was involved in the crime, he would want that note adulterated and possibly to have other than his or his criminal accomplices fingerprints on it which he could have easily done by opening the note and reading and handling it like most concerned dads would do. He didn't do this and he was very intelligent and famous for his "thinking ahead. But Charles really shot himself in the foot by his initial actions regarding the real kidnapping of his only son.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Nov 1, 2018 20:19:09 GMT -5
Hey Jack, hope all is well with you. Although I haven't been posting, I am still following (and enjoying) the forum posts. I have also been reading both of Michael's extremely well researched books. I can see your conclusions in regards to Lindbergh and the nursery ransom note. As usual, you tell it like you see it, which is always refreshing.
I learned a long time ago that the hallmark of a good investigator is to keep an open mind on all aspects of an investigation, and I am attempting to do that on this one. When an investigator develops tunnel vision and starts to involve their emotions in regards to eidence, witnesses and suspects, they might as well find a new occupation. It just doesn't work. Having said that, at this point in time I am certainly more aligned with your interpretations of this kidnapping/murder than most of the current forum posters. I do not see the real evidence that Lindbergh faked this kidnapping to dispose of his child (although my mind is still opened to it). Like you, I see plenty of evidence that implicates Hauptmann (despite Wilentz's horrendous conduct and the tunnel vision of the NJSP after Hauptmann's arrest). Thanks to Michael's outstanding research on this case, I also am now seeing at least two prime Hauptmann co-conspirators that the NJSP could have probably jumped on preety quickly if not for the prosecutorial "lone wolf" approach after September 1934.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Nov 2, 2018 5:31:43 GMT -5
Good time to post this:
Who is this mysterious co - conspirator of Hauptmann's, and exactly what evidence (not inclination) os there against him?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2018 21:12:10 GMT -5
Thanks to Michael's outstanding research on this case, I also am now seeing at least two prime Hauptmann co-conspirators that the NJSP could have probably jumped on preety quickly if not for the prosecutorial "lone wolf" approach after September 1934. I absolutely agree with you!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Nov 2, 2018 21:51:48 GMT -5
So who are they and what evidence is there against them? Otherwise you're all just jousting at windmills.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Nov 3, 2018 8:42:53 GMT -5
this wasn't a fake kidnapping
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Nov 3, 2018 19:54:38 GMT -5
Jack, you asked for evidence on co-conspirators. As soon as I can finish absorbing more of Michael's research information, I will gladly give you my two-cents worth on this. However it will certainly not contain evidence that would sustain a criminal conviction in court. I believe that unfortunately that type of strong incriminating evidence is no longer avaiable. Obviously, the time to utilize the tried and true investigative techniques (witness/suspect interviews, surveillance, informants, undercover, wiretap, etc.) has long since past in this extremely cold case. We are left with re-examining the investigative results produced by the varies law enforcement agencies some 86 years ago.
The thoroughness of so many of the investigative reports is severely lacking. I know that in 1932 the NJSP was a very young agency with a relatively new criminal investigative division. They were overwelmed in this case, and road Troopers with little or no investigative training or experienc were conducting interviews of what I believe to be critical witnesses. As I read some of these investigative reports of witness interviews, I find myself saying "where is the rest of it". So many times during an investigation you get just one shot at these interviews, and then it's over. I look for the "who, what, when. where. how and why" in many of these reports and I just don't find it. Very frustrating.
Unfortunaytely, some of the hardcore evidence to implicate co-conspirators that I feel could have been generated is now just plain lost to history. Even the go-to gold standard of DNA that solves most cold cases will most likely never be successfully applied after 86 years.
I really believe that this case will only be "solved" (excluding that history says it was solved with the conviction of Hauptmann) on an individual basis. Each person, on their own, will look at the research of individuals like Michael and draw their own conclusions as to the "evidence". Unfortunately, at this late date that will have to involve making assuptions, interretations, speculations and outright guesses in regards to the only evidence that was sometimes awkwardly generated so many years ago. My belief is that there will never be a "smoking gun" in this case. The body of evidence is what it is.
Sorry for the long post. Just wanted to give you a feel for my thinking on the ability of providing solid co-conspirator evidence at this late date. I do believe that Michael's research of the NJSP files clearly shows that Hauptmann did not perpetrate this crime by himself.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Nov 3, 2018 20:21:20 GMT -5
Hopefully the photo I am attempting to attach comes through. It is interesting that at least by early December 1931, an AP photo with description of the Lindbergh land and house was being published. The tremendous public demand for information on Lindbergh and his family was really unprecedented for the times. The short write-up that accompanies this photo clearly comments on the size and remoteness of the property, as well as a description of the location of the Lindbergh's master bedroom. It would certainly not be a hugh leap to assume that the baby's nursery would be located next to this second story bedroom. Michael's research as set forth in both of his books clearly shows that surveillance was being conducted on the residence prior to the kidnapping. Even a minimal amount of surveillance (combined with the type of information that accompanied the AP photo in December 1931) would allow one to assume the nursury was located on the second story at either end of the central bedroom as viewed from the rear of the house. Lurp, That's the earliest newspaper photo that I've seen of Highfields (completed). Where did you find it? And good job!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Nov 4, 2018 6:09:14 GMT -5
Right Lurp. From the facts which exist, and they are basically the same as they were in 1932 (or you tell me what's different) all that can be proven is that Hauptmann did it by himself. What you say is possibly true, that Michael has unearthed something which includes a co-conspirator with BRH - what is it?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Nov 4, 2018 6:14:24 GMT -5
Right Lurp. From the facts which exist, and they are basically the same as they were in 1932 (or you tell me what's different) all that can be proven is that Hauptmann did it by himself. What you say is possibly true, that Michael has unearthed something which includes a co-conspirator with BRH - what is it? How are you able to ignore the multiple sets of footprints, the lookouts at each cemetery and the JJ Faulkner slip and still say there is just one person involved?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Nov 4, 2018 13:56:02 GMT -5
Well, Wayne, the footprints are unknown origins - we do know, however, that there were reporters and policemen in the yard before reporting police, and there is no evidence, just one of those lingering LKC notions of more than one kidnapper involved. The facts are, that Hauptmann could have done it alone, physically and certainly mentally, and there's no true evidence of anyone co-conspiring with him.
The lookouts are suspicious, but could have been anybody. Homosexuals are/were known to approach cars containing male occupants, and using a handkerchief drop as a signal to get together.
If the Faulkner money exchange was a clue to anybody, the police on the spot didn't catch anybody. The only effective policing of the LKC was Lt. Finn of NYPD in conjunction with Dr. Shoenfeld who was looking at the crime on his own but was somewhat approved by CAL. The best description of the Faulkner exchange and accompaning Faulkner letter to the governor was that it was a hoax of a hoax. In crimes like this, researchers like to think that the perps. want to advertise themselves for some reason. In real life that isn't so TLC was very unusual because of so many notes between the kidnapper and CAL. You could throw almost all of the notes away and it wouldn't make any difference at the bottom line of the crime. Back to Faulkner though, since the active police couldn't come up with anything regarding that clue, why do independent investigators think it will mean something 90 years later?
There is no evidence of more than one criminal here but plenty of evidence for one kidnapper, so why are you throwing out the existing evidence and going some new way that you are creating?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Nov 4, 2018 18:00:07 GMT -5
Well, Wayne, the footprints are unknown origins - we do know, however, that there were reporters and policemen in the yard before reporting police, and there is no evidence, just one of those lingering LKC notions of more than one kidnapper involved. The facts are, that Hauptmann could have done it alone, physically and certainly mentally, and there's no true evidence of anyone co-conspiring with him. The lookouts are suspicious, but could have been anybody. Homosexuals are/were known to approach cars containing male occupants, and using a handkerchief drop as a signal to get together. If the Faulkner money exchange was a clue to anybody, the police on the spot didn't catch anybody. The only effective policing of the LKC was Lt. Finn of NYPD in conjunction with Dr. Shoenfeld who was looking at the crime on his own but was somewhat approved by CAL. The best description of the Faulkner exchange and accompaning Faulkner letter to the governor was that it was a hoax of a hoax. In crimes like this, researchers like to think that the perps. want to advertise themselves for some reason. In real life that isn't so TLC was very unusual because of so many notes between the kidnapper and CAL. You could throw almost all of the notes away and it wouldn't make any difference at the bottom line of the crime. Back to Faulkner though, since the active police couldn't come up with anything regarding that clue, why do independent investigators think it will mean something 90 years later? There is no evidence of more than one criminal here but plenty of evidence for one kidnapper, so why are you throwing out the existing evidence and going some new way that you are creating? Right, blame the homosexuals instead of what the facts bare out.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Nov 4, 2018 19:42:18 GMT -5
Maybe homosexuals did it - they're people too, FYI.
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Nov 4, 2018 20:34:46 GMT -5
Wayne,
I apologize, but at this moment I can't find where I obtained that AP photo of the Lindbergh house. I had actually been attempting to determine the date that the foundation of the house was formed, and when the framing construction started. As I related in one of my original posts, my grandfather was a union carpenter who resided in Hopewell and worked on the Lindbergh house (it provided much needed work for the local trademen in 1931). My grandfather was working on the house on May 30, 1931 when he had a heart attack. He expired by the time they transported him to his home in Hopewell. I'm not aware of any other worker on the Lindbergh house who died while working on it.
I have been interested in locating photos that would show what construction stage the house was in on May 30, 1931. My mother was in Nursing School in Trenton at the time, and I remember her saying that although her father was a finished carpenter who specialized in hanging windows and doors, he was working on the roof framing at the time of his fatal heart attack.
If I locate the source of that December 1931 AP photo, I will let you know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2018 22:34:13 GMT -5
Lurp, That's the earliest newspaper photo that I've seen of Highfields (completed). Where did you find it? And good job! Wayne and Lurp, I hope you guys don't mind me jumping in here. I have seen this picture in the past and this is a link to where I saw it. I don't know if this is the same place that you might have found it, Lurp. Here is my link: glover320.blogspot.com/search/label/HOPEWELL
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 5, 2018 7:54:22 GMT -5
Well, Wayne, the footprints are unknown origins - we do know, however, that there were reporters and policemen in the yard before reporting police, and there is no evidence, just one of those lingering LKC notions of more than one kidnapper involved. The facts are, that Hauptmann could have done it alone, physically and certainly mentally, and there's no true evidence of anyone co-conspiring with him. The FACTS are that no Reporter beat the police to the home. Between V1 & V2 this fact was proven. We even know the exact time the first one got there. So what you are doing is ignoring this fact and instead repeating a Lone-Wolf talking point that I've already debunked. The lookouts are suspicious, but could have been anybody. Homosexuals are/were known to approach cars containing male occupants, and using a handkerchief drop as a signal to get together. You do realize that your "standards" just went out the window right? So you want facts but when you get them and they are obvious your rebuttal is to quickly dismiss them with absurdities? Imagine if I used this "excuse" for anything ... you'd agree right? No, you'd go up one side then done the other - and you'd have every right to do so. Speaking for myself its kind of hard to debate anyone in good faith who uses arguments on a slide-rule in order to "support" or "disprove" what they do not "like."
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Nov 5, 2018 8:39:42 GMT -5
The point is they could have just been people near a cemetery or just people - you're (or whoever answered the post and called them lookouts) the one who's assuming they are "lookouts." I'm trying to point out that they probably weren't lookouts. You're the one assuming something - maybe they were just people, maybe they hang around graveyards. I'll admit I don't know who the extra people at the cemeteries were but my first guess wouldn't be to call them lookouts. I didn't "quickly" dismiss them - we've been having these discussions and the footprints, etc. for years. Check out Fisher if you want better answers to your bold assumptions.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 5, 2018 9:01:04 GMT -5
The point is they could have just been people near a cemetery or just people - you're (or whoever answered the post and called them lookouts) the one who's assuming they are "lookouts." I'm trying to point out that they probably weren't lookouts. You're the one assuming something - maybe they were just people, maybe they hang around graveyards. I'll admit I don't know who the extra people at the cemeteries were but my first guess wouldn't be to call them lookouts. I didn't "quickly" dismiss them - we've been having these discussions and the footprints, etc. for years. Check out Fisher if you want better answers to your bold assumptions. You can check out any outdated book based upon invented dialogue needed due to lack of research you like. If you believe that undermines my cited documentation then its your choice to make. Next, we have documentation to consult. What were the descriptions of events? Actions? Timing? Context? Certainly Condon, Reich, and Lindbergh could have ALL been lying but if that's what you believe you are going to have to state that or make your case.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Nov 5, 2018 13:32:56 GMT -5
I have no case, but whoever calls them lookouts is assuming something that is really unknown. If you won't admit that then we'll never agree with one another, and I'm surprised you've ever agreed with anyone. Maybe you havn't - there are a lot of overly long posts which come out of your office which I'd say were nothing more than doubletalk. Yes that's a correct word, it means it takes you a long time to say nothing. Big words help. As to the people on here who are outstanding as to your research, I say "show me the beef." I've asked on recent posts of these ascribers of yours just to give me one name of a suspected co-conspirator of Hauptmann's and your followers have come up with absolutely nothing/nobody - no names no facts, that's where you and your buddies are after 90 years. So don't be haughty with me - you have a long way to go before you're considered by the real investigators on here who don't agree with you - How about asking Steve Romeo who's been at this even longer than you), and Joe what they think you've proven in two books. See what they honestly have to say and listen - you can save yourself a lot of work and troubles by not publishing any more of what other authors have not considered important enough in their opinion to publish. Who cares and what does it matter if there was seven cars driving around the Lindbergh dome on the day of the kidnapping, or what's the difference if there were seven hundred driving aroung. You don't know whose they were any more than anyone else does so it, like an unmatched footprint, means nothing - just like most of the typing on this website, typing including my own. It never will prove anything re: TLC - so be it!
Just one co-conspirator's name, and his name somewhere in Hauptmann's notebooks
Just one fact attributed to a co-conspirator.
After 90 years you guys have none!!!
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Nov 5, 2018 14:44:55 GMT -5
The "Member Block List" feature is handy so one isn't forced to endure the addled ramblings of illiterate drunks...
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Nov 5, 2018 20:03:17 GMT -5
Amy,
Thanks for the link to the Lindbergh house photo. Apparently I found it somewhere else as I had not seen this site before. I thoroughly enjoyed the many photos and articles on old Hopewell. The names and photos of people and places brought back many great memories of growing up in good old Hopewell. Nothing is ever perfect, but my siblings and I have always commented that we "grew up in a Norman Rockwell painting". Everyone knew everyone. Thanks for the link. You can find more information on the internet than I ever thought possible!
|
|