|
Post by wolfman666 on Dec 18, 2019 11:20:35 GMT -5
amy the wood evidence has to be debated in person. that's whats missing in this case like we did in the late eighties early ninties. internet debating is so different then live.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2019 14:33:08 GMT -5
amy the wood evidence has to be debated in person. that's whats missing in this case like we did in the late eighties early ninties. internet debating is so different then live. So Steve, why must the wood evidence be debated in person? How does that impact what the reports say occurred concerning the wood evidence? What can be accomplished by a live debate that can't be done on this board? I know that you have attended live interactions among authors. Besides an audience in attendance, what would make such a debate better than talking on this board?
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Dec 19, 2019 12:54:27 GMT -5
amy a lot of dirt gets put out in a live debate with people who studied the wood and have questions for mike. people here just latch on without doing there own research. its a different animal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2019 7:55:48 GMT -5
amy a lot of dirt gets put out in a live debate with people who studied the wood and have questions for mike. people here just latch on without doing there own research. its a different animal. Hold on here! What do you mean by "a lot of dirt gets put out in a live debate"? There is no way you can be inferring that Michael has put "dirt" out on this board or in his books about the wood issue. Michael's research and knowledge are solid on this subject. You know that he has done many years of archival research into the reports and investigations surrounding this evidence. Michael has shared so much for years on this board and now in his books. All that documentation is not "dirt". People are free to come on this board and ask Michael anything they want about any topic on this case including the wood evidence. I disagree completely that people "just latch on" as if they are believing blindly. Michael's board has never operated in that manor. He has always promoted research into all aspects of this case. His books bring the archival position to many people who are not able to get there and see what those documents actually show went on with this case. People are free to contact Michael or Mark Falzini at the archives and request a report if they want to see for themselves what was documented by investigators. Unfortunately, not all authors chose to look beyond the scope of the Hauptmann trial to see what facts are in those reports, which are very revealing. All of this information needs to be out there so people are aware of it. It is valuable and it MATTERS!!
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Dec 20, 2019 10:21:13 GMT -5
amy I know what you mean but stuff in mikes book can be questioned. ive been to the archives even before falzini got there so I go way back. wouldn't you want to see I live book debate on the evidence and the crime? that's whats missing with these current authors no challenges that's all im saying
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2019 11:17:22 GMT -5
amy I know what you mean but stuff in mikes book can be questioned. ive been to the archives even before falzini got there so I go way back. wouldn't you want to see I live book debate on the evidence and the crime? that's whats missing with these current authors no challenges that's all im saying You don't specify what "stuff" you find questionable so I don't know where you are going with this statement. What I can say is that Michael presents information that provides comparison concepts and positions that are interesting and done so to stimulate further thought and research about a point. He is always clear on his facts. I suppose I would find a debate like you mention interesting. Anything that advances public interest in this case and increases real knowledge about the facts of this crime, even when those facts show the errors that exist in the historical narrative that surrounds this case, to be beneficial all around. I certainly take the time to view every program that is available to watch on this case. I am assuming, Steve, that you have read Michael's latest book, V3. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on what he wrote about the wood evidence; also your thoughts on Koehler's original findings and how he chose to testify in court regarding some of his findings.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 20, 2019 12:17:52 GMT -5
This whole idea of a live debate baffles me. If anyone has any kind of challenge what better place than a message board? Answers can sometimes take time to formulate. A live debate demands spontaneity which defeats the purpose. Unless of course the goal is to find out who the best bullshit artist is.
So whoever these people are to whom Steve refers is a mystery. And why they’d be afraid of this venue makes little to no sense if it’s about getting the facts correct. There can always be a debate about what those facts mean.
Unfortunately though, I’ve seen certain people, who falsely claim to be experts, hang on to disproven narratives no matter what the truth is. For example: the NYU dinner. These people “like” the explanation that it was missed due to a mistake involving a wrong date. And yet, in V1 I cite Special Agent Larimer’s report concerning his interview with Lindbergh and CAL told him in no uncertain terms that he missed that dinner because he “forgot.” The rebuttal? It’s either ignored, or they merely say that I’m “wrong.” No counterargument or anything new to offer. That’s either because they’ve never seen the source and/or do not have an intelligent response to make.
And these are the people who should be debated live? I’d need a Mack truck to bring my sources with me and for what?
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Dec 21, 2019 11:25:43 GMT -5
cant believe a live debate baffles you? a mack truck. there are experts and dam good ones that know the wood very well. it would be a treat
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 21, 2019 12:47:53 GMT -5
And so why are you speaking for them? What will they disagree with? Will they say Rail 16 and S-226 did not match? If not then you did not read my book.
Or will they say the piece wasn’t in the basement? If so, what would it matter their area of expertise and how would that change the facts?
You see, it’s been a favorite tactic over the years for some to “pull rank” as a way to get around the facts. They make it about me and not what’s in the reports. Of course they know better. We must listen to them and ignore Koehler’s very own reports, and notes which prove beyond all doubt that he never traced rails 12 & 13 like he testified in court. So you see, it’s not about “me” or my station in life - the argument disputes Koehler himself. I’ve seen this approach happen everywhere. Certain lawyers will say I’m “wrong” about what I quote Lloyd Fisher as saying. Heck, I’m a prison guard and they are a lawyer - right? But I don’t need to be a lawyer to read something that Fisher wrote do I? It’s their only recourse - especially since they’ve never bothered to read the Fisher material in the first place. So the dispute isn’t with “me” it’s with Lloyd Fisher - who last I checked was not only a lawyer - he was Hauptmann's attorney and was actually there!
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 22, 2019 18:56:08 GMT -5
I just finished the lengthy Chapter 4 of TDC Volume III entitled "J. J. Faulkner." Michael goes into a whole bunch of individuals who were on the minds of law enforcement which seemed to take an aggressive approach in trying to identify the passer of close to $3000 of Lindbergh ransom money at the New York Federal Reserve Bank and who signed a deposit slip as "J. J. Faulkner." Yet with all these names of possible "J. J. Faulkner" suspects, the name of Jacob Nosovitsky is somehow omitted in the chapter. This omission is inexplicable, at least at first glance, because we know from Noel Behn's book, as cited in acondon's opening post on the "J. J. Nosovitsky" thread, that none other than J. Edgar Hoover, in letters in 1935 and 1936, wrote definitively that J. J. Faulkner WAS Jacob Nosovitsky! In making this identification, it should be taken into account that Nosovitsky and Hoover were far from strangers. On the contrary, the two had crossed paths many times in the past going back to about 1919. Whether Hoover's ID of "J.J. Faulkner" as Nosovitsky was absolutely on target or perhaps not, it certainly should be properly included in any lengthy chapter on the "Who was J. J. Faulkner?" issues
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 22, 2019 21:02:13 GMT -5
I just finished the lengthy Chapter 4 of TDC Volume III entitled "J. J. Faulkner." Michael goes into a whole bunch of individuals who were on the minds of law enforcement which seemed to take an aggressive approach in trying to identify the passer of close to $3000 of Lindbergh ransom money at the New York Federal Reserve Bank and who signed a deposit slip as "J. J. Faulkner." Yet with all these names of possible "J. J. Faulkner" suspects, the name of Jacob Nosovitsky is somehow omitted in the chapter. This omission is inexplicable, at least at first glance, because we know from Noel Behn's book, as cited in acondon's opening post on the "J. J. Nosovitsky" thread, that none other than J. Edgar Hoover, in letters in 1935 and 1936, wrote definitively that J. J. Faulkner WAS Jacob Nosovitsky! In making this identification, it should be taken into account that Nosovitsky and Hoover were far from strangers. On the contrary, the two had crossed paths many times in the past going back to about 1919. Whether Hoover's ID of "J.J. Faulkner" as Nosovitsky was absolutely on target or perhaps not, it certainly should be properly included in any lengthy chapter on the "Who was J. J. Faulkner?" issues I think Nosovitsky would require his own chapter considering so many people are interested in him. Unfortunately, my book was almost too big to begin with. I will definitely include it in V4 so if I ever decide to publish it then this topic will be there. I know someone was disappointed that Birritella was missing too but there's only so much I can put in one volume. On top of that, I continue to find new information, believe it or not, and so I hesitate to write before I'm confident that section would be "ready." Anyway, I ask that you absorb what is there and try not to get distracted by what's isn't. Believe me - the sky's the limit when it comes to the amount of material I have which could be written about .... so no volume will ever include everything of interest because that would be impossible. For those reading the last chapter here is a link to a picture from the Library of Congress:
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Dec 23, 2019 9:35:32 GMT -5
mike the wood is compelling evidence i firmly believe rail 16 came from hauptmanns attic. this from years of reading reports and wood articles from differnt experts. i want to hear what keraga thinks of your chapter
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 23, 2019 10:09:06 GMT -5
I still get the impression that you haven’t truly read the chapter yourself. But wanting to know what those mentioned in it think is something that makes sense. Rome wasn’t built in a day and it took everything mentioned, in totality, for me to assemble what I did. If it was just me working without the benefit of other ideas and research I wouldn’t have been able to do it. I think this chapter clearly represents that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2019 12:15:26 GMT -5
Yet with all these names of possible "J. J. Faulkner" suspects, the name of Jacob Nosovitsky is somehow omitted in the chapter. I don't find the omission of Nosovitsky from Michael's J.J. Faulkner chapter troubling. Going back to 1932 after the occurrence of this crime, Nosovitsky was being checked out after he was brought to the attention of investigators. From the report written on June 6, 1932, his whereabouts were unknown at that time and he was not known to be around areas he frequented for at least 6 months prior to June 1932. The J.J. Faulkner investigation centered heavily on the name and the address used on that deposit slip. From what I have read, investigators were looking to connect this deposit with a real individual who had the name legitimately, or to someone who was known to the Faulkners/Giesslers and would have used this name and address falsely. I do not happen to know if they considered the possibility that the name was written on that deposit slip by someone who was known to use that name as an alias. I have not yet started to read the files at the archives associated with this very extensive investigation. Here is that 1932 report I mentioned in the first paragraph. imgur.com/bPr2R6s Jacob Nosovitsky is a very interesting subject and I agree with Michael that he is worthy of his own chapter if he should be included in any book on this case.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 23, 2019 16:14:40 GMT -5
One thing you overlooked, Amy. Even if Noso "was not known to be around areas he frequented for at least 6 months prior to June 1932," that wouldn't rule him out as a possible candidate to have been "j. J. Faulkner." Remember that the "J. J. Faulkner" bank deposit didn't occur until almost a year later: May 1, 1933.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 24, 2019 16:55:31 GMT -5
Yet with all these names of possible "J. J. Faulkner" suspects, the name of Jacob Nosovitsky is somehow omitted in the chapter. I don't find the omission of Nosovitsky from Michael's J.J. Faulkner chapter troubling. Going back to 1932 after the occurrence of this crime, Nosovitsky was being checked out after he was brought to the attention of investigators. From the report written on June 6, 1932, his whereabouts were unknown at that time and he was not known to be around areas he frequented for at least 6 months prior to June 1932. The J.J. Faulkner investigation centered heavily on the name and the address used on that deposit slip. From what I have read, investigators were looking to connect this deposit with a real individual who had the name legitimately, or to someone who was known to the Faulkners/Giesslers and would have used this name and address falsely. I do not happen to know if they considered the possibility that the name was written on that deposit slip by someone who was known to use that name as an alias. I have not yet started to read the files at the archives associated with this very extensive investigation. Here is that 1932 report I mentioned in the first paragraph. imgur.com/bPr2R6s Jacob Nosovitsky is a very interesting subject and I agree with Michael that he is worthy of his own chapter if he should be included in any book on this case. Thanks for linking to the Newark PD/ NJSP memo of their interview with Mrs. Sloane and their information about Jacob Nosovitsky. It turns out that Mrs. Sloane and her suspicions of Nosovitsky as "Cemetery John" are brought up in Noel Behn's "Lindbergh: The Crime." Behn's interpretation of this affair was that the NYPD, trying at that point to insulate Nosovitsky (their valuable informant) from any link to the LKC, was deliberately misleading the grieving Mrs. Sloane and NJ law enforcement by casually implying that Noso was in northern Canada continuously during the entire period of the Lindbergh "kidnap" and the ransom negotiations, and therefore could not have participated in any aspect of the Lindbergh crime. Again, recall that this document was dated June 1932, so it is not applicable to the "J. J. Faulkner" issue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2019 23:06:58 GMT -5
It turns out that Mrs. Sloane and her suspicions of Nosovitsky as "Cemetery John" are brought up in Noel Behn's "Lindbergh: The Crime." Behn's interpretation of this affair was that the NYPD, trying at that point to insulate Nosovitsky (their valuable informant) from any link to the LKC, was deliberately misleading the grieving Mrs. Sloane and NJ law enforcement by casually implying that Noso was in northern Canada continuously during the entire period of the Lindbergh "kidnap" and the ransom negotiations, and therefore could not have participated in any aspect of the Lindbergh crime. Again, recall that this document was dated June 1932, so it is not applicable to the "J. J. Faulkner" issue. What document does Noel Behn use as a source for your statement that the NYPD was misleading Mrs. Sloane or the NJSP? I don't have my Noso file in front of me but I believe it was Nosovitsky's brother, Emil who told the NYPD that Noso went to Canada. They were not creating false or misleading information. I am fully aware that the report is from 1932. This shows they knew of Nosovitsky early in this investigation. They did not see him as a person of interest then and as I mentioned in my first post to you, when the investigation was active in 1933 no one was investigating an alias user (Noso) as the deposit slip writer as far as I know. When was Nosovitsky ever a real suspect in this kidnapping case??
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Dec 26, 2019 10:56:42 GMT -5
amy don't play follow the leader with this case
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2019 12:54:43 GMT -5
amy don't play follow the leader with this case Lets see if you are playing "follow the leader" in this case, Steve. Lets start with the chisel. The Dark Corners Volume 3, Chapter 5, Wood Evidence, page 247: Michael reveals that Koehler said in his report about his ladder examination dated March 4, 1933 the following about the use of a chisel in the construction of the kidnap ladder: "The chisel used in making the mortises for the cleats evidently was a sharp chisel, since it cut the wood smoothly across along the grain and left no scratches. It is not even possible to determine the width of the chisel used." (bolding is mine) The Dark Corners Volume 3, Chapter 5, Wood Evidence, page 256: Michael shares Koehler's direct testimony at the Hauptmann Trial in Flemington, 1935: "Q. What sized chisel was used in the construction of this ladder, if you know.
A. A three-quarter inch chisel was used in chiseling out recesses for the rungs."(bolding is mine) Even if you have not read Michael's chapter on the wood evidence, it is very clear from these quotes that Arthur Koehler committed perjury by testifying in direct opposition to his own report finding about being able to determine chisel size for the construction of this ladder. There is clear collusion displayed by Wilentz and Koehler concerning the chisel found on the ground at the Hopewell house. Do you agree with the deception that was perpetrated regarding the chisel or do you think the truth should have prevailed? What leader do you follow - Wilentz or The Truth? What is your answer, Steve?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 28, 2019 18:38:18 GMT -5
Imagine if Hauptmann had worked at Ozone Park instead of National.... No doubt Koehler would have testified that’s where he traced Rails 12 & 13. In short, they pulled out all the stops. Any dirty trick or unethical maneuver would be employed without hesitation as the source material makes it so very plain to see.
I think it says a lot when one of the only guys mentioned in V3 to do the right thing was the Executioner. Incredibly ironic.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 29, 2019 11:11:10 GMT -5
amy don't play follow the leader with this case That's kind of a crazy suggestion Steve. I think its pretty clear that everyone posting here thinks for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Dec 30, 2019 10:16:25 GMT -5
not everybody
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Dec 30, 2019 10:19:21 GMT -5
my answer is I only care if 226 and rail 16 match and they do, I only care if the police planted evidence in the attic and its very clear they didn't. old pictures of the ladder show it was never altered thanks to kelvin keraga. as far as the chisel goes its last on my list and why did it disappear when gov Hoffman had possession of it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2019 18:34:10 GMT -5
my answer is I only care if 226 and rail 16 match and they do, I only care if the police planted evidence in the attic and its very clear they didn't. old pictures of the ladder show it was never altered thanks to kelvin keraga. as far as the chisel goes its last on my list and why did it disappear when gov Hoffman had possession of it? Steve, I want to know whether or not you think it was ok for Wilentz and Koehler to use false testimony concerning the use of that chisel on that ladder. I know how you feel about rail 16. I am interested in what you think about the other wood evidence used in this case.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Dec 31, 2019 10:21:12 GMT -5
amy, you can go all over the place with the wood. you have to concentrate on the evidence that convicted Hauptman. Koehler proved that rail 226 came from the attic along with rail 16. I have many photos of it placed where it used to be. and that's all im interested in. had many conversations with keraga and other people through the years
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 31, 2019 18:53:04 GMT -5
my answer is I only care if 226 and rail 16 match and they do, I only care if the police planted evidence in the attic and its very clear they didn't. old pictures of the ladder show it was never altered thanks to kelvin keraga. as far as the chisel goes its last on my list and why did it disappear when gov Hoffman had possession of it? It was never returned from the Court of Pardons. my answer is I only care if 226 and rail 16 match and they do, I only care if the police planted evidence in the attic and its very clear they didn't. old pictures of the ladder show it was never altered thanks to kelvin keraga. as far as the chisel goes its last on my list and why did it disappear when gov Hoffman had possession of it? Remember what I said about "how" people "get around" evidence they do not like? Well, here's a perfect example. This idea that a "conspiracy" couldn't have occurred is completely destroyed by evidence of one - so the method of those who claim one didn't happen is to ignore it, then repeat their original claim as if what they just ignored didn't really happen BECAUSE they ignored it or shrugged it off. The way to get to the truth of everything is to accept the facts in every instance about all things. The fact the boards match in no way means something nefarious couldn't have occurred. Why? My books are full of examples. If they went after Hauptmann with just the facts it was too risky. If they didn't engage in dirty tricks and tactics meant to disadvantage the Defense that was too risky as well. If neither of these things weren't true they would have NEVER manufactured S-196. The real issue is that is does not mean Hauptmann wasn't involved. But what's really going on is that those arguing against these facts don't "like" them because they are "afraid" people will use them to suggest Hauptmann was "innocent." So they fight, ignore, or shrug it off.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jan 2, 2020 7:53:06 GMT -5
Michael, with respect to the photo on p. 417 of V. III:
(1) What are we looking at in the top 80% of the photo located above the floorboards?
(2) In particular, what are those snake-like cords (with chains seemingly dangling on the right side of the photo)?
(3) Your caption under the photo reads: "Attic floor showing S-226 (left) and Rail 16 in place. The two boards were once the same piece and together represented the 27th and last floorboard. (NJDP)" Obviously, this is the Wilentz-Koehler-prosecution theory, NOT the Hoffman-Loney-Fisher-defense theory. Reading your text, I don't think you necessarily agree with that caption. So why would you use that caption in your book?
(4) BTW, in that caption, there is no mention of the small segment remaing after S-226 was broken off. I think there should be unanimous agreement that it too was part of floorboard #27. Approximately how long was it?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 2, 2020 8:36:25 GMT -5
Michael, with respect to the photo on p. 417 of V. III: (1) What are we looking at in the top 80% of the photo located above the floorboards? (2) In particular, what are those snake-like cords (with chains seemingly dangling on the right side of the photo)? (3) Your caption under the photo reads: "Attic floor showing S-226 (left) and Rail 16 in place. The two boards were once the same piece and together represented the 27th and last floorboard. (NJDP)" Obviously, this is the Wilentz-Koehler-prosecution theory, NOT the Hoffman-Loney-Fisher-defense theory. Reading your text, I don't think you necessarily agree with that caption. So why would you use that caption in your book? (4) BTW, in that caption, there is no mention of the small segment remaing after S-226 was broken off. I think there should be unanimous agreement that it too was part of floorboard #27. Approximately how long was it? When it comes to photos, the captions are sometimes harder for me to write than anything else. The thousand words they represent are rather difficult to condense into just a handful. Also, I want more than anything to keep in line with the title and use photos, if I can help it, that aren't the usual ones. Here though, as you can see, I had no choice. 1. There are many photos of the attic, and its floor at the NJSP Archives. I chose the two I believe best exemplified the scenario that's described in the book. I don't know how else to better explain it without re-writing everything. 2. Those are the BX cables that the electricians ran. 3. Again, the captions are incredibly difficult for me, but since just about everyone reading these books is familiar with the case, I relieve myself of the duty to re-explain it all. Frankly otherwise there's a small book to write here too. See my point? It's definitely confusing, I admit, to refer to the toe-board, or first board laid, as the "27th" board but that's how the documentation refers to it. And so, the first board is referred to as the last as far as the numbers go. This is done because of Hoffman's theory. This shows 27 boards creating an uncentered situation. He couldn't argue the point, I suppose, by referring to it as "1." Anyway, before I even put pen to paper on V1 I had a lot of people telling me I had to give the basics as well but could you imagine the size of these books if I did? 4. True. But this is in line with what I've written above, as well as the fact its mentioned elsewhere. Same with the missing small piece between S-226 and Rail 16 as well as the small missing piece off the back end of Rail 16 as well. When you ask how long "it" was what are you referring to?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jan 3, 2020 9:21:47 GMT -5
Michael, I don't quite grasp the significance of Det. Bornmann's lying on the witness stand in the Hauptmann trial about the date pf discovery of the missing board in the attic. Now he stated that what became S-226 was noticed and sawed off and removed on Sept. 26, while you point out that it was actually noticed and sawed off on Oct. 9, 1934. I'm probably missing something here, but please spell out for me the advantage to the prosecution of fudging the date of the attic discovery and the sawing off of what became S-226.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 3, 2020 9:40:36 GMT -5
Michael, I don't quite grasp the significance of Det. Bornmann's lying on the witness stand in the Hauptmann trial about the date pf discovery of the missing board in the attic. Now he stated that what became S-226 was noticed and sawed off and removed on Sept. 26, while you point out that it was actually noticed and sawed off on Oct. 9, 1934. I'm probably missing something here, but please spell out for me the advantage to the prosecution of fudging the date of the attic discovery and the sawing off of what became S-226. He back-dated the official discovery. This created the chain of events which led to all of the controversy. I've suggested that while he "may" have noticed it on the 26th, it wasn't viewed at that time (if he did) as important (this could have been the basis for "why" he felt comfortable saying it actually was discovered then). The reasons "why" he backdated it was, in my opinion, more about convenience and to keep it less complicated. The same thing occurred with the bracket which was actually discovered on the 27th. It's not as "messy" if everything was originally immediately found and not all the way into October. So we see the signatures on the exhibits themselves, like on the bracket and the flip side of S-226, could be written after the fact to support the upcoming testimony that was eventually agreed upon. No one can read those reports and say Koehler was aware of anything before getting to that apartment himself. He lies about it later but the reports themselves clearly demonstrate he had no clue. Bornmann's reports make it clear as well, that is, up and until he wrote later reports which included that date that changed the events. So there's many lessons to be learned from this - the most important being that real evidence can also be staged. It was a very stupid thing to do, but it came with the idea it would somehow assist and wouldn't be discovered. After all, it was going on all over the place to include in the courtroom so it wasn't uncommon. Regardless, it clears the whole situation up, and the debate about S-226 and Rail 16, having been fully explained, should be settled. Of course I don't expect it will be for some, and that will lead to debates about it - of that I am sure. But for me its clear what happened and what the truth is. You have to view this as a group who believed they absolutely had one of the guys involved. The beating for example. While they denied that it occurred it clearly happened. Did the beating have anything to do, in their minds, with trying to frame an innocent man? No. It was because he was guilty and they hoped to round up the others by beating the hell out of him so he'd squeal. So they felt justified. Unfortunately, you have certain people nowadays who deny the beating occurred because they see it as a spring-board for those who wish Hauptmann had no involvement. So its easier to simply deny it occurred. All of this is related. The best thing for anyone to do is step back and accept all that happened then use it to completely solve this thing.
|
|