Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2019 16:14:03 GMT -5
I am working my way through Michael's Volume III and am currently in the JJ Faulkner chapter which I am enjoying. There is so much to talk about in this chapter alone. I read with interest the section titled "The Missing Blanket", Chapter 4, pages 131 through 137. The amount of investigation about the missing brown, fringed blanket that was recovered from the Schindler car was incredible. With all the possible persons that were checked with who would have had access to that blanket which had been in the living room and or office room of the High Field house, I did not see any reference to CAL or Breck being questioned about this blanket. Maybe they should have asked these men if they knew anything about it! It seems Lindbergh and Breckinridge made a second flight up to the Boad Nelly search area on April 4, 1932. Here is an excerpt from an article that ran in newspapers on April 5, 1932.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 4, 2019 20:20:47 GMT -5
Dear Amy35:
If you check out the excerpt of the newspaper article which you posted, it was reported that the Lindbergh party inquired about a small yacht named "Sallie," NOT "Nelly." Now were these reporters told to fabricate the name "Sallie" so as not to offend the perps and thereby possibly cause more harm to Charlie in the event he was still alive? If not, how do you think they got the name of the yacht wrong?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2019 22:41:56 GMT -5
Dear Amy35: If you check out the excerpt of the newspaper article which you posted, it was reported that the Lindbergh party inquired about a small yacht named "Sallie," NOT "Nelly." Now were these reporters told to fabricate the name "Sallie" so as not to offend the perps and thereby possibly cause more harm to Charlie in the event he was still alive? If not, how do you think they got the name of the yacht wrong? Good question. I suppose it is possible that the name Nelly was not given out to reporters right away. Lindbergh's presence was noticed when CAL, Breck, Condon and Irey took a lunch break. It makes sense to me the correct name would not have been revealed at the time the search was going on for "Nelly". I am sure this group of men did not want someone else (especially reporters) locating such a boat before they did.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2019 10:02:35 GMT -5
Michael, A question about the Schindler car talked about in Chapter 4 of Volume III. Schindler's car was recovered by the NYPD on March 2, 1932. This car was taken into custody by the NYPD and was processed as a stolen vehicle and then returned to Mr. Schindler shortly thereafter. Can you comment on what made this car so interesting to NJSP and NYPD after it had been returned? There was no Faulkner deposit slip until 1933. Was it the items found in the car or what that made these departments want to secure the car back from its owner? imgur.com/f3punED
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 5, 2019 11:04:19 GMT -5
Can you comment on what made this car so interesting to NJSP and NYPD after it had been returned? There was no Faulkner deposit slip until 1933. Was it the items found in the car or what that made these departments want to secure the car back from its owner? I don't have any one report which reveals why NY came back for the car just before NJ went to get it. I do believe that your suggestion has something to do with it since police were in the middle of investigating those items and they probably believed it was given back too soon before the conclusion of their investigations. This could also have something to do with miscommunication between the NJSP and NYPD on that end as well.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 30, 2019 16:50:19 GMT -5
Dark Corners VIII - How many will there actually be? I guessed seven to begin with - glad I'm not buying into this junk. Though I've probably missed how many cars bounced over the rail road tracks on 3/1 and 3/2 1932! What a bummer!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 30, 2019 17:14:54 GMT -5
Dark Corners VIII - How many will there actually be? I guessed seven to begin with - glad I'm not buying into this junk. Though I've probably missed how many cars bounced over the rail road tracks on 3/1 and 3/2 1932! What a bummer! You seem angry Jack. Is there something you need to talk about? Remember, we’re here for you. If not you could always decide to actually discuss the case too - but only if you feel comfortable. Just saying. Theres no hurry if your not.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 31, 2019 11:02:06 GMT -5
Well, Michael, I've discussed the case plenty - the case that never dies is a very good name for it. Officially it was solved back in 1935 that's coming up on a hundred years of further poking at it with little new information in all that time. If BRH would have had accomplices they would have been exposed long ago. I'm thinking now of just to let it be.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Dec 31, 2019 20:28:34 GMT -5
Well, Michael, I've discussed the case plenty - the case that never dies is a very good name for it. Officially it was solved back in 1935 that's coming up on a hundred years of further poking at it with little new information in all that time. If BRH would have had accomplices they would have been exposed long ago. I'm thinking now of just to let it be. I really doubt Jack is angry, Michael. More likely he and probably Steve, are as perplexed as I am that after all this time, and on this board especially, the peripheral-but-not-necessarily-related details of the case seemingly are the only ones which seem to hold sway above and beyond the actual circumstantial physical evidence which convicted Hauptmann. I'm not at all suggesting Hauptmann was without helpers at some stage or other within the kidnapping and extortion exercises. Really though, after going through the archives from top to bottom at least three times as you claim, and given the unfettered reverence you seem to accord whatever competency of investigation is in the NJSP archives as a whole, it does seem a bit of a stretch to suggest there was much more happening here than the way history has ultimately recorded this case. And it's a much bigger stretch to suggest this case will be turned on its head, sideways, upside down or whatever you've suggested over the years, because clearly that has not yet begun to happen.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 1, 2020 0:03:35 GMT -5
I really doubt Jack is angry, Michael. More likely he and probably Steve, are as perplexed as I am that after all this time, and on this board especially, the peripheral-but-not-necessarily-related details of the case seemingly are the only ones which seem to hold sway above and beyond the actual circumstantial physical evidence which convicted Hauptmann. I'm not at all suggesting Hauptmann was without helpers at some stage or other within the kidnapping and extortion exercises. Really though, after going through the archives from top to bottom at least three times as you claim, and given the unfettered reverence you seem to accord whatever competency of investigation is in the NJSP archives as a whole, it does seem a bit of a stretch to suggest there was much more happening here than the way history has ultimately recorded this case. And it's a much bigger stretch to suggest this case will be turned on its head, sideways, upside down or whatever you've suggested over the years, because clearly that has not yet begun to happen. Interesting post Joe. I'll address it now.... Yes, I've been through the entire archives at least 3 times. Whether or not you believe me is of no consequence. Ultimately it's up to you to decide, and you have every right to believe otherwise if that makes you feel any better. The truth is that I have. In fact, I've probably gone through the Hoffman Collection about 10 times. Each time I've learned more than I did from the last. Now, what I've been able to add in my three volumes is information that upsets the historical narrative - one that I am quite sure you enjoy. I also know there are those, not unlike yourself, who would have rathered that I simply let people believe what's been falsely portrayed and accepted as historical "fact" but I happen to believe they are in the minority. Again, I haven't written what's in my footnotes, and I've made sure to document everything so anyone wishing to retrace what I've done can do so. Regardless - the books speak for themselves. And I submit that if you believe what's in them doesn't upset the historical narrative then you are most certainly on drugs. Steve once said I " was ruining the case," but I don't think documenting the facts qualifies unless it harms a specific narrative he happens to like. And he's not alone apparently.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jan 2, 2020 15:09:01 GMT -5
waiting in the mail for the new book on the hall and mills case from a guy who lives in new Brunswick and researched it he does walking tours there. his name is Richard walling and his book is called Edward & Eleanor and the wages of sin. cant wait to read it
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 2, 2020 18:50:55 GMT -5
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jan 3, 2020 7:29:53 GMT -5
I really doubt Jack is angry, Michael. More likely he and probably Steve, are as perplexed as I am that after all this time, and on this board especially, the peripheral-but-not-necessarily-related details of the case seemingly are the only ones which seem to hold sway above and beyond the actual circumstantial physical evidence which convicted Hauptmann. I'm not at all suggesting Hauptmann was without helpers at some stage or other within the kidnapping and extortion exercises. Really though, after going through the archives from top to bottom at least three times as you claim, and given the unfettered reverence you seem to accord whatever competency of investigation is in the NJSP archives as a whole, it does seem a bit of a stretch to suggest there was much more happening here than the way history has ultimately recorded this case. And it's a much bigger stretch to suggest this case will be turned on its head, sideways, upside down or whatever you've suggested over the years, because clearly that has not yet begun to happen. Interesting post Joe. I'll address it now.... Yes, I've been through the entire archives at least 3 times. Whether or not you believe me is of no consequence. Ultimately it's up to you to decide, and you have every right to believe otherwise if that makes you feel any better. The truth is that I have. In fact, I've probably gone through the Hoffman Collection about 10 times. Each time I've learned more than I did from the last. Now, what I've been able to add in my three volumes is information that upsets the historical narrative - one that I am quite sure you enjoy. I also know there are those, not unlike yourself, who would have rathered that I simply let people believe what's been falsely portrayed and accepted as historical "fact" but I happen to believe they are in the minority. Again, I haven't written what's in my footnotes, and I've made sure to document everything so anyone wishing to retrace what I've done can do so. Regardless - the books speak for themselves. And I submit that if you believe what's in them doesn't upset the historical narrative then you are most certainly on drugs. Steve once said I " was ruining the case," but I don't think documenting the facts qualifies unless it harms a specific narrative he happens to like. And he's not alone apparently. Michael, I actually do believe you've been through the archives from top to bottom three times. At the same time I’d question the accuracy of a large number of the reports, especially the earliest ones, essentially authored by NJSP traffic cops who were reluctantly pressed into service under a microscope, as investigators in a very high profile crime case. So yes, you can quote and footnote to your heart’s content, but that doesn’t necessarily identify everything as truthfully accurate, does it? From the time I began studying this case and like you, I've believed that the prosecution took liberties in presenting a case against Hauptmann which would assure them of a conviction under the felony murder doctrine. Fundamentally, that action was wrong. On the other hand, Hauptmann clearly was very deeply involved as a principal player and throughout the vast fabric of lies he wove, did nothing to reveal even one iota of personal knowledge or accountability. Fundamentally that action was just as wrong. Has anything yet come to light to demonstrate conclusively that Hauptmann, through his muteness was protecting anyone other than the people who were closest to him, his family and friends? No. Regarding his fate, that is up to the individual to decide for their own whether justice was done or not. Personally, I don’t lose any sleep over it. You're not “ruining the case” for me and anyone else who possesses a well-founded and factual baseline of understanding for it. I consider each and every one of the accounts you’ve selected in your books, from a personal viewpoint which I know is a more informed one than the general understanding of someone new to this case. I very much enjoy reading your books and regard them as a high watermark reference for case-related information. Your books and your message are also becoming more and more reflective of a seeming agenda to tie what you’re selectively presenting, into a neat package that ultimately pronounces Charles Lindbergh to have been the real mastermind behind his son’s kidnapping and death. I believe what Steve and others may be referring to, is the not-so-subtle marketing exercise you’re invested in within the pages of your books and discussion board posts. And I’d also venture you haven’t invested the past twenty years of your life by presenting the information you’ve selected, solely for the consideration and benefit of anyone interested, to make up their own mind. Where those drugs might perhaps come into play for yourself is within the belief that no one else has noticed this.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 3, 2020 9:02:24 GMT -5
Michael, I actually do believe you've been through the archives from top to bottom three times. At the same time I’d question the accuracy of a large number of the reports, especially the earliest ones, essentially authored by NJSP traffic cops who were reluctantly pressed into service under a microscope, as investigators in a very high profile crime case. So yes, you can quote and footnote to your heart’s content, but that doesn’t necessarily identify everything as truthfully accurate, does it? Honestly you are making my points for me by asking this question. If you've read my books, and I believe you have, I make that point myself. It's why everything must be read, and cross-referenced. And yet, those who have not are usually the one's to use a slide-rule when it comes to what they believe or do not. See how that works? I'd like to think I've had the benefit of actually doing so. And its that experience, as well as others to include our discussions and debates here, that I've been able to present information that I believe needs to be considered. Never once have I ever suggested that people stop researching - in fact I do just the opposite. Strangely, if what you wrote above is how you truly feel what's the point of doing any? From the time I began studying this case and like you, I've believed that the prosecution took liberties in presenting a case against Hauptmann which would assure them of a conviction under the felony murder doctrine. Fundamentally, that action was wrong. On the other hand, Hauptmann clearly was very deeply involved as a principal player and throughout the vast fabric of lies he wove, did nothing to reveal even one iota of personal knowledge or accountability. Fundamentally that action was just as wrong. Has anything yet come to light to demonstrate conclusively that Hauptmann, through his muteness was protecting anyone other than the people who were closest to him, his family and friends? No. Regarding his fate, that is up to the individual to decide for their own whether justice was done or not. Personally, I don’t lose any sleep over it. This is the crux of the matter isn't it? Where anyone happens to think the new information in my books leads. "Who" Hauptmann was protecting is an important discussion to have, but I say your conclusions are very debatable. What you think or do not matters but it doesn't mean you are correct. How do we get to the point where its known? Research. Discussion. Debate. Revealing what's actually in the source documentation is a good thing - not a bad. Knowing exactly how the Prosecution conducted themselves means what exactly? If they are doing it in places we know about could there be places we do not? Sugar coating it, or acting like it has no bearing is insane. Funny part is that over the years "some" tried to shut down this conversation claiming it was nonsense. Now that its an absolute fact its shifted into the category of "trivia." No its History. Its Facts. The truth about anything is not a distraction, and in fact, the real versions lead to even more information as it should. Since this was no lone-wolf crime, I submit, we need all of it. To argue against it like its a bad thing or pretending its meaningless is baffling to me. You're not “ruining the case” for me and anyone else who possesses a well-founded and factual baseline of understanding for it. I consider each and every one of the accounts you’ve selected in your books, from a personal viewpoint which I know is a more informed one than the general understanding of someone new to this case. I very much enjoy reading your books and regard them as a high watermark reference for case-related information. Your books and your message are also becoming more and more reflective of a seeming agenda to tie what you’re selectively presenting, into a neat package that ultimately pronounces Charles Lindbergh to have been the real mastermind behind his son’s kidnapping and death. The books are based upon what I've discovered. I see no point in re-writing Gardner, Waller, or Scaduto. However, because of the "questions" and "mistakes" of the past, its important that I present the documented information that can be used to answer or clear them up. The title is the " Dark Corners of the Lindbergh Kidnapping" for a reason. Again many, including iUniverse, suggested I give the basics within the text first. Many want me to create an index. So there's always someone who isn't going to "like" certain things. I think I've said this before but I'll say it again - I do not care. The facts I've discovered are real. Consider them - or don't. But this idea that they do not advance the case or somehow aren't useful is absolutely nutz. Look, I get that certain families aren't going to be happy. But sadly, what Condon did needs to be exposed. The fact that this celebrated jury had someone among them who sold out to the press blows up the whole historical narrative. A distinguished Lawyer acting unethically for $$$. So, in essence, celebrated as almost hero-like but to be revealed as something quite the opposite is hard to digest for many. But its true, and needed to be out there to correct history. Ignore it, or consider it. But there it is. However, to somehow suggest that "I" am doing something I shouldn't be, for whatever reason, is merely a distraction and debate tactic of the worst kind. I believe what Steve and others may be referring to, is the not-so-subtle marketing exercise you’re invested in within the pages of your books and discussion board posts. And I’d also venture you haven’t invested the past twenty years of your life by presenting the information you’ve selected, solely for the consideration and benefit of anyone interested, to make up their own mind. Where those drugs might perhaps come into play for yourself is within the belief that no one else has noticed this. Marketing exercise? Is that a joke? You have no idea how much free marketing I've been offered and I've declined it all. Sometimes I think there's a couple of marbles lying around on the floor somewhere. What I've invested has to do with both interest and wanting answers. Message board posts are fine but they are quickly forgotten. My original intent was to put everything together in a source that could be referenced - for the Board Members here. Fortunately (or unfortunately) they sell and many who have read want to know more. It's generating new interest. It's creating a group of people who are now among our ranks that do research. The more the better. Some of what they find might call even more into question - including me. So you are most definitely incorrect in your assertion that it doesn't have to do with people making up their own minds. I've added plenty in all three volumes that I did not want to omit or hide and brought out for the purposes of discussion and additional research. I believe anyone reading them can plainly see that. What your last sentence attempts to create gets lost once anyone reads the books so I think its more about "you" or what certain unnamed "others" happen to believe. Maybe its me Joe, but it has occurred to me that someone might be assisting you, now and then, with your replies. And while you seemingly have rallied around Jack and Steve, I'd venture a guess to say its neither of them and probably among those " no one else who noticed this" which you referred to above. Do me a favor and tell them to get bent. Or they can come here and post instead of using you as a proxy and I'll do it myself.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jan 3, 2020 9:56:53 GMT -5
thanks mike
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 3, 2020 10:13:51 GMT -5
Thanks for lettings us know. I had no idea, and now I plan on buying a copy.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jan 6, 2020 13:21:35 GMT -5
It's just me here Michael, and Harvey The Rabbit doesn't exist.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 6, 2020 14:01:09 GMT -5
So to whom were you referring as those others “noticing” something? Don’t they exist either? Were you just guessing? Anyway, I’ll let it go. But please encourage anyone who has an opinion to post it - you know, just in case...
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jan 19, 2020 12:25:37 GMT -5
Strictly and always speaking for myself Michael. I don't put words into anyone else's mouth and would never allow myself to be the conduit for others' opinions.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 14, 2020 9:19:32 GMT -5
mike did you read wallings new book on the hall and mills case? very good. he does a tour on the sites of the case, sue and i have been to most of them
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 14, 2020 18:27:06 GMT -5
mike did you read wallings new book on the hall and mills case? very good. he does a tour on the sites of the case, sue and i have been to most of them Not yet. I will but I have to wait until I'm done with my first draft so I don't loose my train of thought. I've got some material on this case as well as 3X and I have all of the books on the case too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2020 21:33:49 GMT -5
mike did you read wallings new book on the hall and mills case? very good. he does a tour on the sites of the case, sue and i have been to most of them Not yet. I will but I have to wait until I'm done with my first draft so I don't loose my train of thought. I've got some material on this case as well as 3X and I have all of the books on the case too. Well, does this mean you are hard at work on another book?!! Maybe a book on the Hall-Mills case? This would be so awesome!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 15, 2020 8:41:23 GMT -5
Well, does this mean you are hard at work on another book?!! Maybe a book on the Hall-Mills case? This would be so awesome! Just V4. I’m going to have to leave the hard work to others as it concerns Hall-Mills and 3X. I’m just a weird guy when it comes to information .... I can’t let information from another case co-mingle in my brain right now. I’d wake up in the morning confused. I have enough trouble trying to track down information I know exists so the last thing I need is to run around chasing ghosts. A day will come when I read that book and compare it to the material I have - that’s for certain ... My main focus would be to see what I could learn there which might apply here. Know what I mean? Kind of like what I did starting in V2. I have to give credit to Feathers for that approach because I wasn’t sure until his encouragement pushed me off the fence in that regard.
|
|