Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2020 6:52:58 GMT -5
Michael,
In TDC Volume 3 Chapter 6, on pages 464 and 465, you talk about Hauptmann's small note book that covered the expenses for the 1931 California trip. The prosecution handwriting experts, Osborn, Stein, and Tyrell found that some of the handwriting in that book was not Hauptmann's handwriting!! This notebook is called "small" on page 464 and "little" on page 465. I am assuming these two descriptions are about the same notebook. The use of this notebook was warned against by Tyrell because of the different handwriting contained in this notebook. I have not yet looked at Hauptmann's notebooks at the archives. I plan to at a future time. I do have a few questions for you.
1. Was this notebook strictly about the 1931 California trip expenses?
2. Isn't this the notebook that contains the written word "Boad"?
3. If this book is only the California trip expenses, doesn't that limit who could have made entries into it to those persons on the trip; namely Richard and Anna Hauptmann and Hans Kloppenburg?
4. Did the defense ever have access to any of Hauptmann's notebooks before the trial or at anytime during the trial so they could discussion them and their contents with their client?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Mar 12, 2020 11:29:11 GMT -5
mike i said it was stupid cause it is. robert bryant didnt believe it i heard it from his own mouth when i met him. if lindbergh killed his son he must have known hauptman and we know he didnt Lots of people have lots of different opinions. Your mistake is believing Lindbergh would have to know Hauptmann or anyone else. Frankly I’m surprised that you think this way. Ever hire a contractor? If so, are you personally acquainted with the subcontractor and/or the men ultimately hired to actually perform the work? So if one of the roofer‘s men from Guatemala hits someone over the head with a hammer I’m supposed to believe he was your best friend or something? What I believed happened in this case is exactly what I wrote in V1. It was staged and there was an inside connection to this. Whateley knew exactly what happened that night. Michael, are you even suggesting no trail of evidence ultimately linking Hauptmann and Lindbergh would exist, if the latter wanted to contract out his son's disappearance and Hauptmann was involved? You're thinking pure theory here unsubstantiated by anything much from the the real world. Your example and its conclusion are wishy-washy, and you can be certain that if the guy who got hit in the head was seriously injured or died, police would be looking for a potential connection between your Mr. G and the homeowner, or anyone else along the line who might have wanted the victim harmed or killed, if the act was deemed deliberate. It's called investigation. I find there's some real irony in the fact that you're still not able to conclude Rail 16 and Board S-226 were once once and the same board. Your reason? Because it would take DNA or microscopic cellular analysis to prove this 100%. Yet you seem to enjoy hanging out in this realm of imaginative ether, when it comes to this nebulous conspiracy angle. Frankly, I'm not only surprised but shocked you haven't done more trying to establish the obvious connection that would have had to have been there if your "Lindy Did It" theory was correct, instead of continuously opting for and trying to rack up points based upon pure supposition and innuendo. The way I see it, what you've been throwing at the wall, is not sticking.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Mar 12, 2020 11:34:42 GMT -5
Michael, In TDC Volume 3 Chapter 6, on pages 464 and 465, you talk about Hauptmann's small note book that covered the expenses for the 1931 California trip. The prosecution handwriting experts, Osborn, Stein, and Tyrell found that some of the handwriting in that book was not Hauptmann's handwriting!! This notebook is called "small" on page 464 and "little" on page 465. I am assuming these two descriptions are about the same notebook. The use of this notebook was warned against by Tyrell because of the different handwriting contained in this notebook. I have not yet looked at Hauptmann's notebooks at the archives. I plan to at a future time. I do have a few questions for you. 1. Was this notebook strictly about the 1931 California trip expenses? 2. Isn't this the notebook that contains the written word "Boad"? 3. If this book is only the California trip expenses, doesn't that limit who could have made entries into it to those persons on the trip; namely Richard and Anna Hauptmann and Hans Kloppenburg? 4. Did the defense ever have access to any of Hauptmann's notebooks before the trial or at anytime during the trial so they could discussion them and their contents with their client? Amy, there is at least one other person who made entries in Hauptmann's 1931 California road trip expenses. I'd say Anna is definitely in there based on comparison to some of her other writings including the Christmas card she penned to Ludovic Kennedy. I don't know if Kloppenburg made any entries.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 12, 2020 12:22:02 GMT -5
dont buy it mike i feel nothing was staged, thats the easy way out
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 12, 2020 13:03:43 GMT -5
Michael, are you even suggesting no trail of evidence ultimately linking Hauptmann and Lindbergh would exist, if the latter wanted to contract out his son's disappearance and Hauptmann was involved? You're thinking pure theory here unsubstantiated by anything much from the the real world. Your example and its conclusion are wishy-washy, and you can be certain that if the guy who got hit in the head was seriously injured or died, police would be looking for a potential connection between your Mr. G and the homeowner, or anyone else along the line who might have wanted the victim harmed or killed, if the act was deemed deliberate. It's called investigation. What I've suggested seems plain ... well to me anyway. If I was to contract out something of this nature I wouldn't want it to lead back to me. So there wouldn't be any connection to me, my family, my friends, or my staff. That would be the whole idea. That's not to say that people who commit crimes do not get sloppy or cut corners because that happens as well. But to suggest if Hauptmann was involved that Lindbergh (if this was his scheme) had to know him somehow is idiotic. Lindbergh was the most famous man on the planet and this idea that he'd be selling his wares, personally, on City Island or where ever suggests that he was stupid or something when we know he wasn't. Next, the guy knew a ton of powerful people and when he made his acquaintance with new ones they fell over each other to impress him. That comes to his power which, I submit, was far and above what most believe. It should be remembered that he controlled this investigation and went toe to toe with J. Edgar Hoover - and WON. Who else can say that? My example is one that I believe exemplifies the possibilities. I fully expected you wouldn't "like" it, but I believe it serves its purpose in outlining the possibilities that could exist. Taking exception to the hammer scenario is silly. Make it a murder if you like - the same idea applies. And since we're talking contractors... There might be interest to know that while the NJSP attempted to investigate everyone associated with building Highfields, there were some employees that were never caught up to or interviewed. So there's your investigation you were talking about above. Now let's talk "real" world Joe.... How many Presentence Investigations have you read in your lifetime? How many OC guys do you know? Security threat groups like criminal gangs? How many convicted Felons have you interacted with, face to face, and talked about crime and their criminal conduct? Or how about actually watching them interact, react, and understanding how they think or why they do certain things? If your answer is little or none then I believe you might want to re-think your position about what's real and what's fantasy. I find there's some real irony in the fact that you're still not able to conclude Rail 16 and Board S-226 were once once and the same board. Your reason? Because it would take DNA or microscopic cellular analysis to prove this 100. Where in the hell are you getting this from Joe? I think you should have actually read V3 before writing this purposely misleading post. My books represent what my ultimate positions are - if I happen to make one. For a 100% scientific conclusion to be made certain invasive tests would need to be performed. However, as it concerns my opinon I've concluded they match based upon the totality of the circumstances/evidence. This includes legitimately explaining the true scenario which surrounds this evidence. Once armed with this knowledge the scientific certainty isn't necessary in my opinion. Again - read the book - I think that's clear (see page xii). This idea that I must say there is 100% scientific certainty when there is not just because I am sure they match shows a specific pattern of thought or mentality coming from you. I can't hide what Dr. West said or did, what Dr. Hoadley requested and why, etc. What I did was try to deliver everything I discovered from the facts contained in all legitimate sources. I'm not going to fashion or hide certain things to support what I think but instead reveal what I've found then let the chips fall where they may. Yet you seem to enjoy hanging out in this realm of imaginative ether, when it comes to this nebulous conspiracy angle. Frankly, I'm not only surprised but shocked you haven't done more trying to establish the obvious connection that would have had to have been there if your "Lindy Did It" theory was correct, instead of continuously opting for and trying to rack up points based upon pure supposition and innuendo. The way I see it, what you've been throwing at the wall, is not sticking. Nothing sticks if you do not "like" it Joe. That's why, and I'll say it again, if someone ever did something illegal they could only hope someone like you would be on their Jury. In fact, if the Prosecution read your posts here you'd be immediately disqualified. LOL. Regardless, you are entitled to your opinion and I've come to expect, from here on out, that you will disagree no matter what. And that's okay too of course.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 12, 2020 13:49:57 GMT -5
In TDC Volume 3 Chapter 6, on pages 464 and 465, you talk about Hauptmann's small note book that covered the expenses for the 1931 California trip. The prosecution handwriting experts, Osborn, Stein, and Tyrell found that some of the handwriting in that book was not Hauptmann's handwriting!! This notebook is called "small" on page 464 and "little" on page 465. I am assuming these two descriptions are about the same notebook. The use of this notebook was warned against by Tyrell because of the different handwriting contained in this notebook. I have not yet looked at Hauptmann's notebooks at the archives. I plan to at a future time. I do have a few questions for you. 1. Was this notebook strictly about the 1931 California trip expenses? I believe so Amy. I have a copy here in front of me which I believe is complete but its been so long since I copied it there could be a chance, however slight, that I didn't copy everything although that's a rather slim one. 2. Isn't this the notebook that contains the written word "Boad"? Yes. As you can see on page 466 Wilentz was able to use it by trying to get Hauptmann to identify the word "Boad" (or possibly "Boat" see Gardner page 210) as something he had written. So he basically cut the Handwriting Experts out of the equation here. 3. If this book is only the California trip expenses, doesn't that limit who could have made entries into it to those persons on the trip; namely Richard and Anna Hauptmann and Hans Kloppenburg? It makes sense that this argument could be made. 4. Did the defense ever have access to any of Hauptmann's notebooks before the trial or at anytime during the trial so they could discussion them and their contents with their client? I don't have Fawcett's material so I'm all ears if anyone thinks otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 13, 2020 9:06:49 GMT -5
dont buy it mike i feel nothing was staged, thats the easy way out You’re not alone on this point Steve. Some believe it, some don’t, while others are still evaluating. The third position isn’t a bad one to take since new information is out there to be discovered. Too often one cements their beliefs then finds themselves arguing against the facts in order to defend them. As far as it being the “easy way out” I’d have to disagree with that characterization. Police were immediately suspicious but did not pursue it as they should because they did not want to piss off Lindbergh.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 13, 2020 13:14:32 GMT -5
i didnt cement my beliefs is just that nothing surfaced through the years to say lindbergh was involved. you never heard of this until moniers book came out
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 13, 2020 14:22:22 GMT -5
i didnt cement my beliefs is just that nothing surfaced through the years to say lindbergh was involved. you never heard of this until moniers book came out I’d say plenty has come out, in addition to what was already known, that any reasonable person might at least consider it. Their ultimate conclusion is another matter. History has sold us a bill of goods. For example, We were told Lindbergh suffered and did everything he could to get his son back. Meanwhile, he was in a great mood pulling pranks, and deciding to play cards instead of searching. And again, he was emotionless when he strolled into the morgue and sliced open his dead son’s face. Not the emotional red faced and “hurting” father we were all lead to believe. Just the tip of the iceberg as anyone who has read my books - especially V1. And again, like I mentioned in my earlier post whic you missed .... I was hearing that he was involved my entire life. And there’s no doubt in my mind where this originated - some of the police who worked the case. Just look at what Keaton was telling his grandson. And you say ‘nothing’ has come out?
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 14, 2020 9:16:53 GMT -5
of the basic facts mike, i dont go into neverland in this case, ive seen to many people go on wrong roads that lead to nowhere. if you think hauptman wasnt involved in this case you have blinders on
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 14, 2020 9:22:55 GMT -5
he didnt say anything earth shattering. bett gows shirt with the blue thread was on the body what more do you want?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Mar 14, 2020 9:53:29 GMT -5
Somehow I "knew" you'd find my post objectionable. Honestly, I wasn't taking a shot at you ... its just that I know you all too well and expected in your zeal to disagree you'd come up with something to prove it. One of these days I'll get it wrong but for now I'll just take another victory lap if you don't mind. Next, I think you are misrepresenting something I've said and will continue to say. In your need to find disagreement you've either misunderstood or have taken me out of context. Unless I was talking about a specific point, what I usually say (and will continue to) is that not everything is black and white and that often times the truth lies in the middle. It would be insane for me to say that applied to everything everywhere. I've cautioned in the past that usually someone's mind will either immediately bolt to one of the two sides but forget about the middle shades of grey. And yes everything must be considered which is why I consider everything myself. That includes your posts despite the obvious entrenched positions and ulterior motives displayed throughout. Michael, you are indeed an awesome sight chugging around the quarter-mile in your 1953 Nash Metropolitan! And you never cease to amaze with your innate abilities to counter-punch with something so unrelated while claiming some kind of victory. I didn’t misrepresent anything you said my friend, but somehow you’ve found a way of “flipping the deck” while explaining exactly what my point was within my response to your original poll question.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Mar 14, 2020 10:09:09 GMT -5
For the record, no Michael, I don't think Lindbergh said to himself, "That's alright, I'm going to love him anyway" nor do I think he said "My son cannot grow up weak, I will never have a defective son. More likely, he realized with Anne, that Charlie from birth, might be in need of expert medical advice and support, which of course they would have been able to afford. And it seems pretty clear from the time of his birth, there was no sparing of expenses to ensure he was getting the best care and treatment available, something any parents in the same position would have done. At the same time, I’m sure the spectre of an entire world clamouring for photos and news of the baby, would have caused the Lindberghs, who were both painfully-private individuals to begin with, to retreat even further, while giving many the impression they had something to hide. Therein, a perfect potential breeding ground for yellow journal innuendo, speculation and one-dimensional theories. Sound familiar? Which was the reason he fled to Hopewell. Right? And yet he told Hurley he didn't want a Security Guard. This was something Lindbergh knew was needed for the above purposes - as well as many other reasons to include that his father-in-law once predicted their baby would be kidnapped if he did not. And yet he refused to hire him at that position, not because he wasn't needed, but because he didn't want people to think he was " afraid." Now why the hell did he move to Hopewell again? Divide by zero and you'll get your answer. So, you see, taking things at face value that contradict then accepting them doesn't make any sense. Surely the fact that the Lindberghs didn’t have security on site 24/7 in Hopewell ultimately was a determining factor, considering how the kidnappers were able to accomplish what they did. Your personal take and response on this issue though don't surprise me, as it represents that beloved form of simple cause-and-effect, 20/20 hindsight logic you like to employ when it serves your purpose. It’s a good thing for you that Dwight Morrow’s private opinion made it into the public domain, right? You’re simply drawing a solid line between Lindbergh’s refusal to hire full time security and his comments to Hurley, with additional reasons he wanted to eliminate his son. Straying a little outside your box here for a minute Michael, have you considered the fact the Lindberghs had actually been able to live relatively normal lives down the road at White Cloud Farm in Lawrenceville without full time security and that perhaps, they sought the same kind of privacy after their move to Highfields? Also, recall Lindbergh’s post-kidnapping comments about how safe and secure they had felt before March 1, 1932. Or their later reaction after moving to England where they greatly appreciated the fact that they were able to move about unmolested within the general public of what was arguably, a more civilized society than the one which they had left? Perhaps it was just privacy and a healthy and normal respect for their living space that they desired and expected all along at Highfields. Crazy notion, right?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2020 10:18:40 GMT -5
Amy, there is at least one other person who made entries in Hauptmann's 1931 California road trip expenses. I'd say Anna is definitely in there based on comparison to some of her other writings including the Christmas card she penned to Ludovic Kennedy. I don't know if Kloppenburg made any entries. I shall make a note to check out Anna's handwriting samples that are at the archives (I am not aware of them) and make copies to compare to Hauptmann's California expense notebook. I believe Kloppenburg's handwriting was checked by authorities as far as the ransom notes and Faulkner deposit slip goes.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Mar 14, 2020 10:19:39 GMT -5
Interesting too that you reference Lindbergh’s work with Dr. Carrel. However, true to form, you’ve left out a few critical details about the kind of research and development work Lindbergh immediately embraced, given his desire to assist in the treatment of his sister-in-law’s heart-related health issues, which preceded his meeting with Carrel, ie. his prior contact with Princeton's president John Hibben and Elisabeth's doctor. You’ve also omitted the fact that Dr. Flagg introduced Lindbergh to Dr. Carrel for the very purpose of attempting to discover more about how Elisabeth’s condition might be helped. It appears you've been shrugging again here, Michael. You may not be able to confirm the above information in the NJSP Archives Source Documentation. Joe - expand a little. Are you seriously questioning my ability to do research? Or suggesting I have limited myself in some way? Go back through my footnotes. I'm everywhere. And so, I've read Berg and have cited his book in places. However, there's many more sources to consult isn't there? Do people normally just "show up" one day or is there a process? Should we assume any letters between Lindbergh and Carrel are "fakes" unless they show up in a book you happen to like? Phone calls? Prior meetings? What was said? You apparently know so enlighten me/us. But let's play a little game shall we? Read your post above. Now re-read it. You seem to be making a case that Lindbergh could walk and chew gum at the same time. You also seem to be making a case that he cared about his son's condition. So, of course, you don't see any connection between the potential contact, made once speaking with Flagg after Anne's delivery - no - not possible. That will never do. It wasn't the child on his mind at that time, it was his poor sister-in-law. I'm certain you are quite sure his son never came up. Also, the Morrow/Lindbergh families have NEVER created a cover story for anything either - right? So of course if the contact between Lindbergh and Carrel was about his son that would have been front page news ... well according to you anyway. Lindbergh blamed the Morrow side of the family for whatever maladies his first born suffered. It's one of the reasons there was a falling out between them after his son's birth. Next, this idea that he would never harm his son was disproven during his trans-continental flight when he willingly harmed both his pregnant wife and unborn son. Nothing proves his attitude more than Anne's reaction to the suffering she endured. It's my opinion that he would have let her die before landing that plane. It was all about strength and weakness with him. Finally, these are posts Joe. You are free to challenge them of course, but keep in mind the whole reason I've written my books is because its impossible to write a book on a message board. Most of the time I see you asking for information or discussing things here as if they weren't already addressed in the book or that information does not exist. If you see something in one of the books you want to challenge then please do. But ignoring what's in them is a hard sell. Well, for me anyway. There's room for all opinions. What's provided above is for consideration. The problem I find is that you don't want any consideration made into this angle. You reject it before pen ever hits paper. I would never question your abilities to do research Michael, as over the years, you’ve clearly proven your determination and tenacity to discover information and bring it forward. And as I’ve said many times, your research and books represent a high watermark for factual case information. More than ever now though, you seem to have become guided by that same determination and tenacity to apply select elements of your research into this conclusion that Lindbergh conspired through a fake kidnapping to have his son eliminated. I find considerable irony in the fact that you chose to adopt as your site avatar, the rapier and dashing courtroom image of a guy who had no shortage of determination and tenacity towards proving something of his own to the world. Just an observation Michael, and I hope you're not offended by it, but I also don't believe it's a difficult one to see.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2020 10:25:01 GMT -5
if you think hauptman wasnt involved in this case you have blinders on Where does Michael say definitively that Hauptmann is not involved with this case. I am not aware of Michael saying this on the board. Could you please tell me where you read this? Wilentz used false testimony to put Hauptmann in Hopewell the night of March 1, 1932. That I know is a fact based on the police reports. So where is the proof that Hauptmann is actually the person who killed Charlie Jr that night?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 14, 2020 10:50:55 GMT -5
Could it be that CAL Sr. knew that this was NOT his son's body, even though if he went through the motions of saying that it was?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 14, 2020 18:32:29 GMT -5
if you think hauptman wasnt involved in this case you have blinders on Where does Michael say definitively that Hauptmann is not involved with this case. I am not aware of Michael saying this on the board. Could you please tell me where you read this? It just shows whats really going on here. That is a resistance against a certain belief that's "believed" I hold. It skews everything up because now there must be denials or shrugs concerning legitimate information in order to defeat that supposed position. If both Keaten and Walsh believed Lindbergh was involved that's pretty important information to consider.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 14, 2020 18:36:38 GMT -5
Could it be that CAL Sr. knew that this was NOT his son's body, even though if he went through the motions of saying that it was? Well I can't argue with that position if you could develop it. Problem is that everyone who has taken this up has failed. This includes those who claimed they were the living proof only to be proven wrong in the end. With this in mind you have a very tough road ahead.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 14, 2020 18:43:38 GMT -5
Michael, you are indeed an awesome sight chugging around the quarter-mile in your 1953 Nash Metropolitan! And you never cease to amaze with your innate abilities to counter-punch with something so unrelated while claiming some kind of victory. I didn’t misrepresent anything you said my friend, but somehow you’ve found a way of “flipping the deck” while explaining exactly what my point was within my response to your original poll question. I think you meant "flip the script."
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 14, 2020 18:59:00 GMT -5
Surely the fact that the Lindberghs didn’t have security on site 24/7 in Hopewell ultimately was a determining factor, considering how the kidnappers were able to accomplish what they did. Your personal take and response on this issue though don't surprise me, as it represents that beloved form of simple cause-and-effect, 20/20 hindsight logic you like to employ when it serves your purpose. It’s a good thing for you that Dwight Morrow’s private opinion made it into the public domain, right? You’re simply drawing a solid line between Lindbergh’s refusal to hire full time security and his comments to Hurley, with additional reasons he wanted to eliminate his son. This seems to be a hostile response to just one suspicious fact. And frankly, your explanation doesn't make any sense either. Lindbergh supposedly moved there to get away from people. History records that he sought privacy. Dwight Morrow's prediction supports the idea that he should have had security. Even what Lindbergh said to Hurley supports it. Did he say "I don't need it...?" NO. He said he didn't want people to think he was afraid. So he built a home in the middle of nowhere but didn't want people to think he was afraid? Makes no sense no matter how you try to spin it Joe. It doesn't serve "my" purpose, its just that I don't shrug something like this off because it does not - like I see you doing. And by the way, its not just this one thing you are shrugging off. There's a whole lot of information that must be ignored. I think too much not to at least consider the possibility. And for anyone who refuses to consider it, flat out, I definitely think they are making a huge mistake. Straying a little outside your box here for a minute Michael, have you considered the fact the Lindberghs had actually been able to live relatively normal lives down the road at White Cloud Farm in Lawrenceville without full time security and that perhaps, they sought the same kind of privacy after their move to Highfields? Also, recall Lindbergh’s post-kidnapping comments about how safe and secure they had felt before March 1, 1932. Or their later reaction after moving to England where they greatly appreciated the fact that they were able to move about unmolested within the general public of what was arguably, a more civilized society than the one which they had left? Perhaps it was just privacy and a healthy and normal respect for their living space that they desired and expected all along at Highfields. Crazy notion, right? Yes it is a crazy notion. This post collapses upon itself once considering what I wrote about on pages 30-31 in V1. Both Anne and Keyhoe believed they needed a Security Guard. Whateley told Thayer (and police) that he was chasing away intruders two or three times per week. Is this what they had in mind once they decided to move in order to get "privacy?"
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 14, 2020 19:19:42 GMT -5
I would never question your abilities to do research Michael, as over the years, you’ve clearly proven your determination and tenacity to discover information and bring it forward. And as I’ve said many times, your research and books represent a high watermark for factual case information. More than ever now though, you seem to have become guided by that same determination and tenacity to apply select elements of your research into this conclusion that Lindbergh conspired through a fake kidnapping to have his son eliminated. I find considerable irony in the fact that you chose to adopt as your site avatar, the rapier and dashing courtroom image of a guy who had no shortage of determination and tenacity towards proving something of his own to the world. Just an observation Michael, and I hope you're not offended by it, but I also don't believe it's a difficult one to see. You don't like the avatar? I chose it because Hauptmann is the face of the crime. If you thought he was too "dashing" in that photo I wish you would have told me and I would have let you pick one out for me. I'm a tee-shirt and jeans kind of guy so things like this quite often get by me. I'm not offended Joe. I've tried to offer information that's new no matter what it is. Some of it could actually be used to counter this consideration you hate so much and I do that because I want everything out there to be considered. But I also understand that I can't make everyone happy. Some say its too much. Others want more of my opinions, and others, like you, would like to see less. So, in the end, I do what I feel is best and/or comfortable with. There's always room for debate, in fact I encourage it and will continue to. I never ever want to tell anyone else what to believe or not believe, rather, I'd prefer they see the information, consider it, then draw their own conclusions. With this in mind, I have no intention of trying to change your mind. In fact, I have no problem that you are against it truth be told. I can't imagine being motivated to research if everyone saw things exactly the same way. My only complaint, if you can call it that, is I don't think you are giving certain things the attention they deserve. You know, I've said it all before so I'm not going to beat a dead horse. But in the end there's been quite a bit of information that has come from you and many others that has helped me see things a certain way and pushed me to research to find the answers and/or information that was out there to be discovered.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2020 21:27:36 GMT -5
It just shows whats really going on here. That is a resistance against a certain belief that's "believed" I hold. It skews everything up because now there must be denials or shrugs concerning legitimate information in order to defeat that supposed position. If both Keaten and Walsh believed Lindbergh was involved that's pretty important information to consider. I have noticed this. It seems like if something factual is shared that goes against the "historical" presentation of this case, it automatically means that the person who shares this information believes Hauptmann 100% innocent of the entire crime. I am really troubled by this kind of thinking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2020 7:40:12 GMT -5
Michael, Amy: do you think if Dwight Morrow had not died that the "kidnapping" would have happened? I can only speak for myself. My opinion is, Yes. This kidnapping would have happened even if Dwight Morrow Sr. was still living at the time.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 16, 2020 8:58:34 GMT -5
Michael, Amy: do you think if Dwight Morrow had not died that the "kidnapping" would have happened? I can only speak for myself. My opinion is, Yes. This kidnapping would have happened even if Dwight Morrow Sr. was still living at the time. This is a great question and one that I have never considered. After thinking about it, I agree with Amy. The real question is how he would have reacted. For example, would he have hired his own people to investigate? Would he have blamed Lindbergh for ignoring his advice? Lots of things to consider but in the end it’s all just guess-work but I do think it’s safe to say he would have handled it differently had he been alive than his wife did alone.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 16, 2020 10:00:52 GMT -5
The timing of Dwight Morrow's death is interesting: If Lindbergh had been planning to get rid of CAL Jr., while this would've been in the works for awhile, maybe Morrow's death just five months before the kidnapping finally took the handcuffs off. Morrow was a very energetic, outspoken, incredibly influential, and well-connected guy who certainly would've tried to "interfere" with Lindbergh's handling of things, in that he would've insisted on doing productive things towards getting CAL Jr. back: Letting law enforcement do its job, culling out crackpots like Curtis, etc.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 16, 2020 11:32:08 GMT -5
I almost included Condon, who certainly was a crackpot, but when he showed up in Hopewell with a note containing the same unique symbol in the nursery note--meaning that he was in touch with the right parties--on what basis could Condon be rejected as a go-between? Even if the symbol leaked (some thought it did, some didn't), I don't think he could've been dismissed based on that alone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2020 11:52:22 GMT -5
Although I understand Dwight Morrow's strong position and ability to bring people into this, I do not think CAL would have been concerned about this. This was to take place on his (CAL's) home turf and he would be the one there controlling an investigation that would come under the NJSP. CAL had the power to squash any agency he did not want involved with the case. CAL had stood his ground with Dwight Morrow over the inheritance Morrow wanted for his daughter, Anne. In my opinion, I don't think a Senior Morrow would have been a deciding factor for CAL over what he did regarding this kidnapping.
This is really an interesting question to ponder!
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 16, 2020 23:03:42 GMT -5
I don’t think it would’ve been a matter of Lindbergh not standing up to Morrow; more that Morrow would’ve been a serious thorn in Lindbergh’s side had he been alive at the time of the kidnapping.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Mar 22, 2020 9:57:40 GMT -5
Where does Michael say definitively that Hauptmann is not involved with this case. I am not aware of Michael saying this on the board. Could you please tell me where you read this? It just shows whats really going on here. That is a resistance against a certain belief that's "believed" I hold. It skews everything up because now there must be denials or shrugs concerning legitimate information in order to defeat that supposed position. If both Keaten and Walsh believed Lindbergh was involved that's pretty important information to consider. Michael, how many other investigators and higher-ups from the hundreds and possibly thousands within the NJSP, FBI, NYPD and Treasury Department, as well as countless agencies across the country and around the world, shared this belief (your word) that Lindbergh was involved? Shall we entertain a little perspective here?
|
|