Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Mar 22, 2020 10:28:03 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. Topic #1: Michael, in some way, I'm sure you do believe that Lindbergh himself believed he was so almighty powerful and beyond the reach of the law, no connection would ever be discernible between him and the perpetrator(s), if he had hatched such a scheme. As long as you keep on believing direction and instructions to commit this crime came down from him via some kind of invisible cloud platform in the midst of involvement by countless well known and respected individuals around Lindbergh who would have had to have been seriously mentally-ill to participate in something this absurd and with no evidence trail, you will only continue this general struggle with case facts and their actual relevance that seems unabated after the past fifteen or so years. Topic #2: My apologies if I'm not up to speed 100% on your evolving beliefs. It's actually encouraging to read this, but I have to say, it's still difficult at times to digest and gain a complete understanding of the message you're conveying in your books, alongside the actual facts as you've interpreted them from your collection of reports. Again, this is why I will always try to process everything you've written in a totally neutral sense. It has nothing to do with me "liking it" or not. Topic #3: See Topic #1.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Mar 22, 2020 11:24:37 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?" Okay, everything does need to be considered whether seemingly relevant or not, including Lindbergh's refusal to hire security. There are many well-known people around the world who don't desire to live within a fortress, or even behind what most would consider a modest level of protection from the public. Of course in 20/20 hindsight, you can then point to the murders of Barry and Honey Sherman in their Toronto home, or the British government official who had his house bombed because he refused to have an unlisted telephone number. At the same time, I'd also venture these people did not necessarily have an ulterior motive, wanting terrible things to come to their doorsteps. You've already stated that Lindbergh revealed he didn't want people to think he was afraid, but that doesn't seem to be good enough here and so you somehow seem to have made the leap from there that this was all part and parcel of his plan to eliminate CALjr. And yes, I do believe the Lindberghs felt that eventually the once-boiling pot of publicity, (as Berg calls it), would come to a simmer, where they were actually able to enjoy the kind of privacy they always wanted in Hopewell.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Mar 22, 2020 11:44:01 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. Hauptmann is the face of the crime? That's certainly debatable and I've always considered CALjr to be that, the common denominator so to speak. As far as me not giving enough attention to "certain things," ultimately each thing deserves the kind of attention that will accurately determine its individual weight towards ascertaining the ultimate truth. For example, it didn't take me long for my eyes to glaze over reading about the Henry Leipold and the Leonardo da Vinci angle in V3. Did I miss something here? Possibly. At the same time, I've only got so many hours in the day to study an 88-year-old crime effectively, while trying to live my life in the present for the most part.. lol.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Mar 22, 2020 11:50:13 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. I believe the kidnapping would have happened or at least, would have been attempted. If this thing really was "planned for a year" which I also believe, the ability to adapt on the fly under potentially difficult circumstances would be a necessity. I can't think of a better individual than Hauptmann to have been involved in this crime.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 22, 2020 14:32:19 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. 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? I couldn't tell you. All I've been concerned with were those who were there from the beginning and knew the most about the case. This shouldn't be ignored. Supposing some of the "hundreds of thousands" of other LE might not agree doesn't compare with the likes of Keaten, and Walsh - at least not from my perspective. It's important to note that officially they held one position, unofficially a completely different one. Even Keaten believed Condon was involved and said so. Until the trial when he towed the party line. That's how it worked unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 22, 2020 14:44:40 GMT -5
Topic #1: Michael, in some way, I'm sure you do believe that Lindbergh himself believed he was so almighty powerful and beyond the reach of the law, no connection would ever be discernible between him and the perpetrator(s), if he had hatched such a scheme. As long as you keep on believing direction and instructions to commit this crime came down from him via some kind of invisible cloud platform in the midst of involvement by countless well known and respected individuals around Lindbergh who would have had to have been seriously mentally-ill to participate in something this absurd and with no evidence trail, you will only continue this general struggle with case facts and their actual relevance that seems unabated after the past fifteen or so years. Topic #2: My apologies if I'm not up to speed 100% on your evolving beliefs. It's actually encouraging to read this, but I have to say, it's still difficult at times to digest and gain a complete understanding of the message you're conveying in your books, alongside the actual facts as you've interpreted them from your collection of reports. Again, this is why I will always try to process everything you've written in a totally neutral sense. It has nothing to do with me "liking it" or not. Topic #3: See Topic #1. 1. He had both the means and the motive in my opinion. There's three volumes of material, most of which, is highly suspicious and would have placed anyone else under a microscope. Mentally ill is your opinion Joe. We know it goes on today because many of those involved are in prisons now all over the country. If they were deemed mentally ill they wouldn't have stood trial.
2. Evolving? I know I've explained this before but I'll try again.... We debate on the Board. I've fined tuned my research by arguing many sides of an issue and by playing Devil's Advocate over the years. The books however seem to be clear where my personal thoughts lay if or when I decide to give them. And since you've read all three I am surprised to hear you've missed some of what I've written. That's exactly why I've chosen not to create any indexes. I hope that you would remain neutral but I honestly think its beyond you at this point. But that's okay Joe. There's no rule that says you must and counterarguments can always be a good thing if one is acting in good faith. Heck, I just wrote that I've done it myself.
3. See Topics #1 and #2.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 22, 2020 14:49:24 GMT -5
Okay, everything does need to be considered whether seemingly relevant or not, including Lindbergh's refusal to hire security. There are many well-known people around the world who don't desire to live within a fortress, or even behind what most would consider a modest level of protection from the public. Of course in 20/20 hindsight, you can then point to the murders of Barry and Honey Sherman in their Toronto home, or the British government official who had his house bombed because he refused to have an unlisted telephone number. At the same time, I'd also venture these people did not necessarily have an ulterior motive, wanting terrible things to come to their doorsteps. You've already stated that Lindbergh revealed he didn't want people to think he was afraid, but that doesn't seem to be good enough here and so you somehow seem to have made the leap from there that this was all part and parcel of his plan to eliminate CALjr. And yes, I do believe the Lindberghs felt that eventually the once-boiling pot of publicity, (as Berg calls it), would come to a simmer, where they were actually able to enjoy the kind of privacy they always wanted in Hopewell. I don't even see the point in responding. How in the hell do you think refusing to hire security under the circumstances wouldn't be relevant? Then you go on to assert it was equivalent to living in a "fortress." No one ever made that claim did they? So why frame your rebuttal in this way? Perhaps once the boiling pot "simmered" they could. At which time they dismiss the guard ... right? But in the meantime all of the evidence and events prove one was needed at that very time.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 22, 2020 15:00:52 GMT -5
Hauptmann is the face of the crime? That's certainly debatable and I've always considered CALjr to be that, the common denominator so to speak. As far as me not giving enough attention to "certain things," ultimately each thing deserves the kind of attention that will accurately determine its individual weight towards ascertaining the ultimate truth. For example, it didn't take me long for my eyes to glaze over reading about the Henry Leipold and the Leonardo da Vinci angle in V3. Did I miss something here? Possibly. At the same time, I've only got so many hours in the day to study an 88-year-old crime effectively, while trying to live my life in the present for the most part.. lol. I'm sure everyone has a different idea about that and that's why there are different icons/avatars among our many members. To each his (or her) own. You might think of the bright side of things... like puppy dogs, unicorns, and rainbows. I can tell you that I most definitely do not. What one considers important or decides what has weight might also be different. However, some of it seems impossible to ignore although you've done a good job of it and have proven that I'm obviously incorrect on that point. Sorry that you found the Leipold and da Vinci material boring. I thought both were interesting for different and various reasons. A landscaper selling priceless artwork seems important when considering that angle and I do not think anyone knew about this before I wrote about it. Since Leipold has been a topic of debate and interest over the years I decided to add what I could. Anyway, I do hope you found at least some of the other parts of V3 worthwhile. I don't think one has to like or agree with me to learn from the new material.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Mar 22, 2020 16:59:55 GMT -5
I also think that the kidnapping would have occurred if Dwight Morrow were still alive. What I think may have been different is Dwight Morrow may have had some influence in who controlled the investigation wrestling some of that away from the NJSP and Lindbergh. Perhaps the FBI would have had a greater role.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2020 13:48:57 GMT -5
If Ellis Parker would have been allowed to fully participate in this investigation from the beginning, his sleuthing skills would have helped to solve this crime without all the doubts we deal with today. I think this summing up by Ellis Parker in an article that appeared in the Chicago Tribune February 8, 1936 says it clearly:
"If I had had my way Col. Lindbergh and his lawyer, Col. Henry Breckenridge, never would have been allowed to run things their own way and go after that case with a brass band. I don't care who they are. It would be in justice to them to solve this right. An egotistical fellow and a corporation lawyer who don't know anything about crime detection. The case was bungled from the start."
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Apr 3, 2020 9:44:41 GMT -5
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? I couldn't tell you. All I've been concerned with were those who were there from the beginning and knew the most about the case. This shouldn't be ignored. Supposing some of the "hundreds of thousands" of other LE might not agree doesn't compare with the likes of Keaten, and Walsh - at least not from my perspective. It's important to note that officially they held one position, unofficially a completely different one. Even Keaten believed Condon was involved and said so. Until the trial when he towed the party line. That's how it worked unfortunately. Keaten and Walsh.. I had a feeling those two guys were your top dogs. And were their "unofficial positions" supported by anything that might qualify to you as conclusive evidence, or were their positions, perhaps fueled in large part by their latching on to something real or imagined and not wanting to let it go due to their own egos not allowing them to after a certain point? You've made great points in the past asserting how those two investigators and many others within the NJSP practiced all kinds of deceitfulness and double dealing in order to throw the other agencies off their investigative path. In light of the dark shadows you continually cast on Lindbergh and Condon for their perceived mistruths, why should I, or anyone else for that matter, believe that Keaten and Walsh were as objective and straight shooting as you seem to believe? I'm sure even Schwarzkopf heaved a pretty heavy sigh of relief when Walsh was sent packing back to Jersey City.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Apr 3, 2020 10:05:42 GMT -5
Topic #1: Michael, in some way, I'm sure you do believe that Lindbergh himself believed he was so almighty powerful and beyond the reach of the law, no connection would ever be discernible between him and the perpetrator(s), if he had hatched such a scheme. As long as you keep on believing direction and instructions to commit this crime came down from him via some kind of invisible cloud platform in the midst of involvement by countless well known and respected individuals around Lindbergh who would have had to have been seriously mentally-ill to participate in something this absurd and with no evidence trail, you will only continue this general struggle with case facts and their actual relevance that seems unabated after the past fifteen or so years. Topic #2: My apologies if I'm not up to speed 100% on your evolving beliefs. It's actually encouraging to read this, but I have to say, it's still difficult at times to digest and gain a complete understanding of the message you're conveying in your books, alongside the actual facts as you've interpreted them from your collection of reports. Again, this is why I will always try to process everything you've written in a totally neutral sense. It has nothing to do with me "liking it" or not. Topic #3: See Topic #1. 1. He had both the means and the motive in my opinion. There's three volumes of material, most of which, is highly suspicious and would have placed anyone else under a microscope. Mentally ill is your opinion Joe. We know it goes on today because many of those involved are in prisons now all over the country. If they were deemed mentally ill they wouldn't have stood trial.
2. Evolving? I know I've explained this before but I'll try again.... We debate on the Board. I've fined tuned my research by arguing many sides of an issue and by playing Devil's Advocate over the years. The books however seem to be clear where my personal thoughts lay if or when I decide to give them. And since you've read all three I am surprised to hear you've missed some of what I've written. That's exactly why I've chosen not to create any indexes. I hope that you would remain neutral but I honestly think its beyond you at this point. But that's okay Joe. There's no rule that says you must and counterarguments can always be a good thing if one is acting in good faith. Heck, I just wrote that I've done it myself.
3. See Topics #1 and #2. Just a note.. or suggestion Michael, on the subject of indexes or lack of them. Yes, I've read all your books from cover to cover, and yes I've probably missed a thing or two along the way. After all, it's essentially a case of "information overload" at the best of times and there's undoubtedly a lot of base material I'm not nearly as familiar with as someone who has essentially made the NJSP archives a second home. And I don't imply that in anything but a positive tone, because I'd love that opportunity myself even though I don't consider the archives be the be all and end all. I think I've made that clear previously on the legitimacy of some of the early evidence gathering. In any case, perhaps some of your information or the way it's presented, does not register as much as I would like it to. That is where I would like to be able to go to an index and thumb back to a broad topic or even a specific point that I'm considering at any given time. It would help immensely. If I were you, I wouldn't necessarily be so concerned about people buying your book and then simply "index surfing." Anyone who seriously studies this case, is also going to ready everything from cover to cover, and to be quite frank, they don't need to be guided or told how to conduct their own research. The fact that you don't have an index and that you would like people to read your books in the way you've prescribed, immediately presents it's own set of limitations for anyone whose objective is to retain their objectivity. I know it's more work Michael, but I'd highly recommend you consider adding an index to V4.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Apr 3, 2020 10:21:28 GMT -5
Okay, everything does need to be considered whether seemingly relevant or not, including Lindbergh's refusal to hire security. There are many well-known people around the world who don't desire to live within a fortress, or even behind what most would consider a modest level of protection from the public. Of course in 20/20 hindsight, you can then point to the murders of Barry and Honey Sherman in their Toronto home, or the British government official who had his house bombed because he refused to have an unlisted telephone number. At the same time, I'd also venture these people did not necessarily have an ulterior motive, wanting terrible things to come to their doorsteps. You've already stated that Lindbergh revealed he didn't want people to think he was afraid, but that doesn't seem to be good enough here and so you somehow seem to have made the leap from there that this was all part and parcel of his plan to eliminate CALjr. And yes, I do believe the Lindberghs felt that eventually the once-boiling pot of publicity, (as Berg calls it), would come to a simmer, where they were actually able to enjoy the kind of privacy they always wanted in Hopewell. I don't even see the point in responding. How in the hell do you think refusing to hire security under the circumstances wouldn't be relevant? Then you go on to assert it was equivalent to living in a "fortress." No one ever made that claim did they? So why frame your rebuttal in this way? Perhaps once the boiling pot "simmered" they could. At which time they dismiss the guard ... right? But in the meantime all of the evidence and events prove one was needed at that very time. So if security had been maintained, wouldn't Lindbergh.. being who Lindbergh was of course, have just made sure Ambrose or Hurley was given the night off on March 1, 1932?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Apr 3, 2020 10:29:07 GMT -5
Hauptmann is the face of the crime? That's certainly debatable and I've always considered CALjr to be that, the common denominator so to speak. As far as me not giving enough attention to "certain things," ultimately each thing deserves the kind of attention that will accurately determine its individual weight towards ascertaining the ultimate truth. For example, it didn't take me long for my eyes to glaze over reading about the Henry Leipold and the Leonardo da Vinci angle in V3. Did I miss something here? Possibly. At the same time, I've only got so many hours in the day to study an 88-year-old crime effectively, while trying to live my life in the present for the most part.. lol. I'm sure everyone has a different idea about that and that's why there are different icons/avatars among our many members. To each his (or her) own. You might think of the bright side of things... like puppy dogs, unicorns, and rainbows. I can tell you that I most definitely do not. What one considers important or decides what has weight might also be different. However, some of it seems impossible to ignore although you've done a good job of it and have proven that I'm obviously incorrect on that point. Sorry that you found the Leipold and da Vinci material boring. I thought both were interesting for different and various reasons. A landscaper selling priceless artwork seems important when considering that angle and I do not think anyone knew about this before I wrote about it. Since Leipold has been a topic of debate and interest over the years I decided to add what I could. Anyway, I do hope you found at least some of the other parts of V3 worthwhile. I don't think one has to like or agree with me to learn from the new material. It's all good Michael, and I wasn't belittling what you presented on Leipold. He was on my radar for many years, but I've let him go along with the other Faulkner direct relations, originating at the Plymouth Apartments. I believe their only crime was the surname and Jane and her mother having had the misfortune to live there years before. If only they'd had the prescience somehow to see the value in having the superintendent remove their name from the dumbwaiter in the basement when they left..
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Apr 4, 2020 6:25:55 GMT -5
If Ellis Parker would have been allowed to fully participate in this investigation from the beginning, his sleuthing skills would have helped to solve this crime without all the doubts we deal with today. I think this summing up by Ellis Parker in an article that appeared in the Chicago Tribune February 8, 1936 says it clearly: "If I had had my way Col. Lindbergh and his lawyer, Col. Henry Breckenridge, never would have been allowed to run things their own way and go after that case with a brass band. I don't care who they are. It would be in justice to them to solve this right. An egotistical fellow and a corporation lawyer who don't know anything about crime detection. The case was bungled from the start." Agreed Amy, if Parker had had autonomy from the beginning. At the crime scene for example, he would have told a very different story than the one put forth by NJSP traffic cops. It all began to go downhill from that very early point. Lawmakers of the day were still playing catch up enacting appropriate crime and punishment laws pertaining to kidnapping. It was not at all unusual for family to involve themselves directly with kidnappers and I believe Lindbergh felt his best chance to have his son returned was to do exactly this. I'm sure he regretted having taken this path, although he never would have admitted it. At the same time and especially after the discovery of the body, Lindbergh's original ego-driven decision and actions put himself directly in the line of fire from conspiracy theorists, who began leveraging them far beyond their real value as early as May 12, 1932.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 4, 2020 8:49:59 GMT -5
If I were you, I wouldn't necessarily be so concerned about people buying your book and then simply "index surfing." Anyone who seriously studies this case, is also going to ready everything from cover to cover, and to be quite frank, they don't need to be guided or told how to conduct their own research. The fact that you don't have an index and that you would like people to read your books in the way you've prescribed, immediately presents it's own set of limitations for anyone whose objective is to retain their objectivity. I know it's more work Michael, but I'd highly recommend you consider adding an index to V4. I both appreciate and understand your position - and you're not alone. However, I am going to beat a dead horse and try to help you get where I am coming from. First, it wouldn't be difficult at all to create an index for any book. I've done so with Waller, Whipple, B&R, the Snatch Racket, and even Wilson's "summary" report (as examples). And I did it without the use of a computer. And so, as you can imagine, needless to say the notebook where I've written them is more like shredded wheat than anything else at this point. In creating these indexes myself, I've learned more. More about the books and more about the facts and/or information in them. The real issue is as I've previously stated: "index surfing" without ever reading them as they were meant to be read. Another might be the size of it if I had ever created it. That would make it difficult and I don't see the value in an index half the size of the book itself. And finally - it defeats the purpose. Let me try this... Ever see the movie "Starfish?" It's not for everyone. So could you imagine if they told White he couldn't use flashbacks or animation? Or how about "Midsommer?" Everyone has seen that. Now ask yourself if Asher would have been involved if they told him no hyperbole, metaphor, or allegory. I don't mean this to say I'm like either of these guys but I am just trying to make a point. While some might look at something as if its the "best of both worlds," to others this might translate into no world at all. That's the bottom line for me on this subject.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 4, 2020 9:09:20 GMT -5
Keaten and Walsh.. I had a feeling those two guys were your top dogs. And were their "unofficial positions" supported by anything that might qualify to you as conclusive evidence, or were their positions, perhaps fueled in large part by their latching on to something real or imagined and not wanting to let it go due to their own egos not allowing them to after a certain point? You've made great points in the past asserting how those two investigators and many others within the NJSP practiced all kinds of deceitfulness and double dealing in order to throw the other agencies off their investigative path. In light of the dark shadows you continually cast on Lindbergh and Condon for their perceived mistruths, why should I, or anyone else for that matter, believe that Keaten and Walsh were as objective and straight shooting as you seem to believe? I'm sure even Schwarzkopf heaved a pretty heavy sigh of relief when Walsh was sent packing back to Jersey City. Joe they aren't my top dogs. Look at the May 18th conference as an example. Who did most of the talking as it related to the facts? And when it comes to Keaten, here's the guy Special Agent Sisk reported that it was absolutely clear to him he knew the most out of anyone else about the case. So with this in mind we should ignore either of them about what they said? And it wasn't just them which I believe my books make clear. Next, I have been able to document the "double dealing" because of my research and the documented proof which exists. This same documentation also reveals and supports some of the later statements. For example, when Keaten contradicted Schwarzkopf by telling Sisk about Condon. The interrogation of Condon made by Keaten and Walsh. Again - its in the books. So we can look at all sources then make a determination about what was really going on. Example: Imagine you're at work and there's a major announcement. Everyone gathers and the CEO tells about a policy change that's to take effect immediately. Everyone is dumbfounded. The question arises that if anyone has reservations to voice them before the meeting is over. You speak up. You oppose and outline exactly why the move would be counterproductive. As you look around the room everyone is nodding in agreement. Suddenly, the CEO cuts you off and tells you to "get on board or go work at McDonald's." You scan the room again and everyone looks like they are going to pass out. What do you do? You shut up. Maybe later that day you shoot an email to a co-worker you trust. You go home and vent to your wife. You go in the next day totally all in on the new policy and sign the bottom of any letter or memo indicating it. Later in life it might come up again and this time you have nothing to lose by speaking your mind to a friend or relative.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 4, 2020 9:22:41 GMT -5
So if security had been maintained, wouldn't Lindbergh.. being who Lindbergh was of course, have just made sure Ambrose or Hurley was given the night off on March 1, 1932? Let's see... If I was going to set up a crime like this I wouldn't want a security guard to get in the way or bear witness. What's the easiest way to address it? By hiring and firing, hiring and giving someone the night off for "no reason" or simply not create the position in the first place? Next, as we can see, Lindbergh may have been smart but he relied on his ego and by the overall awe of those in his presence. Just look at the stupid and contradictory reasons he gave for "why" certain things existed and/or occurred. He wasn't very good at that. But it worked because no one dared challenge him. I am going to keep it real by saying even if your above scenario did in fact occur that you would still be shrugging your shoulders and coming up with reasons to ignore the "coincidence." And so ask yourself, if I am right about this theory, why you would even bring it up?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 4, 2020 9:27:53 GMT -5
It's all good Michael, and I wasn't belittling what you presented on Leipold. He was on my radar for many years, but I've let him go along with the other Faulkner direct relations, originating at the Plymouth Apartments. I believe their only crime was the surname and Jane and her mother having had the misfortune to live there years before. If only they'd had the prescience somehow to see the value in having the superintendent remove their name from the dumbwaiter in the basement when they left.. I think this priceless art dealing had something to do with his suicide. Maybe it wasn't connected to this case - probably wasn't. But there's something going on here that demanded they keep going. That shows another issue doesn't it? Even if it was unrelated to this case it should have been pursued. On the Faulkner end I'm still baffled by that call from the Morrow phone to a number attached to Plymouth Apartments. They dropped the ball here too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2020 13:08:57 GMT -5
Agreed Amy, if Parker had had autonomy from the beginning. At the crime scene for example, he would have told a very different story than the one put forth by NJSP traffic cops. It all began to go downhill from that very early point. Well, we will never really know where Parker's sleuthing skills would have led him since he was not permitted to work with the evidence in the case from the start. I do wonder, Joe, if you would feel that same sense of agreement if Parker would have determined the kidnapping to be an inside job.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Apr 5, 2020 8:56:51 GMT -5
Agreed Amy, if Parker had had autonomy from the beginning. At the crime scene for example, he would have told a very different story than the one put forth by NJSP traffic cops. It all began to go downhill from that very early point. Well, we will never really know where Parker's sleuthing skills would have led him since he was not permitted to work with the evidence in the case from the start. I do wonder, Joe, if you would feel that same sense of agreement if Parker would have determined the kidnapping to be an inside job. If Parker had been given full autonomy with objective and relevant disclosure on everyone's part, yes he would have been looking very closely at the activities and backgrounds of everyone in the household for starters. In conjunction with the physical evidence, I believe he would have been able to quickly determine whether insiders were involved here and to what extent, be it intentional or unintentional. Beyond the scope of personal questioning, he would have addressed things such as the fact the Lindberghs were home on a Tuesday evening.. he'd want to know if this indicated the possibility of insider information to communicate this change in routine or perhaps not, due to the kidnappers believing the family was living there full time, ie. would the Whateley's coming and going at Highfields during the week, have presented enough proof for the kidnappers to assume permanent residence, had they the occasion to have surveyed Highfields on a week day? These are the types of questions and conundrums that survive to this day of course. I believe Parker, or any other competent investigator for that matter with some trusted assistants, would have been able to bring many of these similar scenarios to ground and conclude something concrete. In effect, we probably would have had a pretty straight beeline to the truth in a case we wouldn't have any real reason to study at this level today, as opposed to the messy hornet's nest the NJSP left us to figure out!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Apr 5, 2020 9:20:45 GMT -5
If I were you, I wouldn't necessarily be so concerned about people buying your book and then simply "index surfing." Anyone who seriously studies this case, is also going to ready everything from cover to cover, and to be quite frank, they don't need to be guided or told how to conduct their own research. The fact that you don't have an index and that you would like people to read your books in the way you've prescribed, immediately presents it's own set of limitations for anyone whose objective is to retain their objectivity. I know it's more work Michael, but I'd highly recommend you consider adding an index to V4. I both appreciate and understand your position - and you're not alone. However, I am going to beat a dead horse and try to help you get where I am coming from. First, it wouldn't be difficult at all to create an index for any book. I've done so with Waller, Whipple, B&R, the Snatch Racket, and even Wilson's "summary" report (as examples). And I did it without the use of a computer. And so, as you can imagine, needless to say the notebook where I've written them is more like shredded wheat than anything else at this point. In creating these indexes myself, I've learned more. More about the books and more about the facts and/or information in them. The real issue is as I've previously stated: "index surfing" without ever reading them as they were meant to be read. Another might be the size of it if I had ever created it. That would make it difficult and I don't see the value in an index half the size of the book itself. And finally - it defeats the purpose. Let me try this... Ever see the movie "Starfish?" It's not for everyone. So could you imagine if they told White he couldn't use flashbacks or animation? Or how about "Midsommer?" Everyone has seen that. Now ask yourself if Asher would have been involved if they told him no hyperbole, metaphor, or allegory. I don't mean this to say I'm like either of these guys but I am just trying to make a point. While some might look at something as if its the "best of both worlds," to others this might translate into no world at all. That's the bottom line for me on this subject. I'm not familiar with that movie, but I still believe an index is important within the research and study of anyone serious enough about this case to read your books. In the meantime for anyone like myself, whose interest in a subject is piqued by something else along the way, just do a Google word search including the topic detail, as well as "Lindbergh", "Melsky", "Dark Corners" and the desired reference should appear. For some reason though, the page numbers don't show, although it does indicate the Volume number.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2020 9:47:50 GMT -5
If Parker had been given full autonomy with objective and relevant disclosure on everyone's part, yes he would have been looking very closely at the activities and backgrounds of everyone in the household for starters. In conjunction with the physical evidence, I believe he would have been able to quickly determine whether insiders were involved here and to what extent, be it intentional or unintentional. Beyond the scope of personal questioning, he would have addressed things such as the fact the Lindberghs were home on a Tuesday evening.. he'd want to know if this indicated the possibility of insider information to communicate this change in routine or perhaps not, due to the kidnappers believing the family was living there full time, ie. would the Whateley's coming and going at Highfields during the week, have presented enough proof for the kidnappers to assume permanent residence, had they the occasion to have surveyed Highfields on a week day? These are the types of questions and conundrums that survive to this day of course. I believe Parker, or any other competent investigator for that matter with some trusted assistants, would have been able to bring many of these similar scenarios to ground and conclude something concrete. In effect, we probably would have had a pretty straight beeline to the truth in a case we wouldn't have any real reason to study at this level today, as opposed to the messy hornet's nest the NJSP left us to figure out! Interesting!! I don't know how much you know about Parker but I would be interested in any opinion or thoughts you might have about how Parker would have handled someone like Violet Sharp. Walsh had his hands full with her.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Apr 5, 2020 9:49:35 GMT -5
Keaten and Walsh.. I had a feeling those two guys were your top dogs. And were their "unofficial positions" supported by anything that might qualify to you as conclusive evidence, or were their positions, perhaps fueled in large part by their latching on to something real or imagined and not wanting to let it go due to their own egos not allowing them to after a certain point? You've made great points in the past asserting how those two investigators and many others within the NJSP practiced all kinds of deceitfulness and double dealing in order to throw the other agencies off their investigative path. In light of the dark shadows you continually cast on Lindbergh and Condon for their perceived mistruths, why should I, or anyone else for that matter, believe that Keaten and Walsh were as objective and straight shooting as you seem to believe? I'm sure even Schwarzkopf heaved a pretty heavy sigh of relief when Walsh was sent packing back to Jersey City. Joe they aren't my top dogs. Look at the May 18th conference as an example. Who did most of the talking as it related to the facts? And when it comes to Keaten, here's the guy Special Agent Sisk reported that it was absolutely clear to him he knew the most out of anyone else about the case. So with this in mind we should ignore either of them about what they said? And it wasn't just them which I believe my books make clear. Next, I have been able to document the "double dealing" because of my research and the documented proof which exists. This same documentation also reveals and supports some of the later statements. For example, when Keaten contradicted Schwarzkopf by telling Sisk about Condon. The interrogation of Condon made by Keaten and Walsh. Again - its in the books. So we can look at all sources then make a determination about what was really going on. Example: Imagine you're at work and there's a major announcement. Everyone gathers and the CEO tells about a policy change that's to take effect immediately. Everyone is dumbfounded. The question arises that if anyone has reservations to voice them before the meeting is over. You speak up. You oppose and outline exactly why the move would be counterproductive. As you look around the room everyone is nodding in agreement. Suddenly, the CEO cuts you off and tells you to "get on board or go work at McDonald's." You scan the room again and everyone looks like they are going to pass out. What do you do? You shut up. Maybe later that day you shoot an email to a co-worker you trust. You go home and vent to your wife. You go in the next day totally all in on the new policy and sign the bottom of any letter or memo indicating it. Later in life it might come up again and this time you have nothing to lose by speaking your mind to a friend or relative. And perhaps their investigations as intimate as they had become, allowed them into the kind of world where in a general sense, one could look at the picture and see both a beautiful woman or an old hag, depending on their perspective. Those situations clearly arose in a case of countless leads, where there was enough to pursue an adversary rightly or wrongly. The suicide of Violet Sharp or the treatment of Condon at Alpine and its resulting debacle, arguably can be attributed to Walsh's methods. I also believe both Keaten and Walsh suffered from massive and almost debilitating egos, which had no business being involved in any major decision making processes that affected the outcome of this case. You reap what you sow and they probably would have been among the last two guys I'd want investigating anything of this importance. If they'd had jurisdiction, I'd have taken Thomas Sisk and Leon Turrou over them in a heartbeat, or just about anyone else from the FBI for that matter. Throw Ellis Parker (in his prime) and James Finn with Dudley Schoefeld into the mix and I don't think many would argue about the possibility of success here.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Apr 5, 2020 10:57:41 GMT -5
So if security had been maintained, wouldn't Lindbergh.. being who Lindbergh was of course, have just made sure Ambrose or Hurley was given the night off on March 1, 1932? Let's see... If I was going to set up a crime like this I wouldn't want a security guard to get in the way or bear witness. What's the easiest way to address it? By hiring and firing, hiring and giving someone the night off for "no reason" or simply not create the position in the first place? Next, as we can see, Lindbergh may have been smart but he relied on his ego and by the overall awe of those in his presence. Just look at the stupid and contradictory reasons he gave for "why" certain things existed and/or occurred. He wasn't very good at that. But it worked because no one dared challenge him. I am going to keep it real by saying even if your above scenario did in fact occur that you would still be shrugging your shoulders and coming up with reasons to ignore the "coincidence." And so ask yourself, if I am right about this theory, why you would even bring it up? It was tongue in cheek Michael, hence the wink. Such an event if it did actually happen, would have to be considered in the light of full transparency and objectivity.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Apr 5, 2020 19:47:12 GMT -5
If Parker had been given full autonomy with objective and relevant disclosure on everyone's part, yes he would have been looking very closely at the activities and backgrounds of everyone in the household for starters. In conjunction with the physical evidence, I believe he would have been able to quickly determine whether insiders were involved here and to what extent, be it intentional or unintentional. Beyond the scope of personal questioning, he would have addressed things such as the fact the Lindberghs were home on a Tuesday evening.. he'd want to know if this indicated the possibility of insider information to communicate this change in routine or perhaps not, due to the kidnappers believing the family was living there full time, ie. would the Whateley's coming and going at Highfields during the week, have presented enough proof for the kidnappers to assume permanent residence, had they the occasion to have surveyed Highfields on a week day? These are the types of questions and conundrums that survive to this day of course. I believe Parker, or any other competent investigator for that matter with some trusted assistants, would have been able to bring many of these similar scenarios to ground and conclude something concrete. In effect, we probably would have had a pretty straight beeline to the truth in a case we wouldn't have any real reason to study at this level today, as opposed to the messy hornet's nest the NJSP left us to figure out! Interesting!! I don't know how much you know about Parker but I would be interested in any opinion or thoughts you might have about how Parker would have handled someone like Violet Sharp. Walsh had his hands full with her. Amy, I've read Reisinger's book on Ellis Parker which I really enjoyed, and I've always had an interest in investigators that stood out in their field, especially within their use of psychology, human nature and sheer science as common denominators to advance their understanding. In Canada, I'd have to call John Wilson Murray, the one who exemplified the detective with that essential "full kit of tools" and whose approach essentially mirrored that of Parker's, albeit a few years earlier. He was instrumental in the eventual establishment of the Ontario Provincial Police. (OPP) I would venture that Murray's very brief and apparently-disarming interview with the wife of Reginald Birchall, the man suspected in the murder of Fred Benwell, (about twenty minutes from where I live) was the linchpin that cemented his belief that Birchall was indeed guilty of first degree murder. Of course, he didn't accomplish that by intimidating witnesses or trying to impress a room full of his peers and perceived underlings, as Walsh attempted to do with Condon at Alpine. I know I'm not kind towards ham-fisted approaches, especially with guys like Walsh, and I make no apologies for that. For all their ego-fueled bluster and presumption, both Walsh and Keaten fell miserably short in establishing the right kind of communication with those they felt were worthy of being considered. Violet Sharp, while she might have felt understandable angst about her relationship with reporter Thomas McElvie and potential repercussions with Betty Morrow or Lindbergh, was essentially an innocent victim of this crime. Parker would have had her very quickly thinking he was her only friend in the world at that time. That's when the truth, relevant to the case or not, would have come tumbling out.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 7, 2020 10:23:22 GMT -5
I'm not familiar with that movie, but I still believe an index is important within the research and study of anyone serious enough about this case to read your books. In the meantime for anyone like myself, whose interest in a subject is piqued by something else along the way, just do a Google word search including the topic detail, as well as "Lindbergh", "Melsky", "Dark Corners" and the desired reference should appear. For some reason though, the page numbers don't show, although it does indicate the Volume number. You never saw Midsommer? Put it on your watchlist. After its over, think about everything for a day or so to let in sink in before deciding whether or not you liked it. And perhaps their investigations as intimate as they had become, allowed them into the kind of world where in a general sense, one could look at the picture and see both a beautiful woman or an old hag, depending on their perspective. Say what?
Those situations clearly arose in a case of countless leads, where there was enough to pursue an adversary rightly or wrongly. The suicide of Violet Sharp or the treatment of Condon at Alpine and its resulting debacle, arguably can be attributed to Walsh's methods. I also believe both Keaten and Walsh suffered from massive and almost debilitating egos, which had no business being involved in any major decision making processes that affected the outcome of this case. You reap what you sow and they probably would have been among the last two guys I'd want investigating anything of this importance. If they'd had jurisdiction, I'd have taken Thomas Sisk and Leon Turrou over them in a heartbeat, or just about anyone else from the FBI for that matter. Throw Ellis Parker (in his prime) and James Finn with Dudley Schoefeld into the mix and I don't think many would argue about the possibility of success here. Your point here is always a two-way street. Of course everything should be considered - to include ego. But Keaten helped "solve" the case. He is celebrated, even to this day, as having been a huge part of the solution. How does having a big ego contribute to undermining that success by offering a different position after the execution and later on in his life? It was tongue in cheek Michael, hence the wink. Such an event if it did actually happen, would have to be considered in the light of full transparency and objectivity. Whoa!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2020 21:47:34 GMT -5
Amy, I've read Reisinger's book on Ellis Parker which I really enjoyed, and I've always had an interest in investigators that stood out in their field, especially within their use of psychology, human nature and sheer science as common denominators to advance their understanding. In Canada, I'd have to call John Wilson Murray, the one who exemplified the detective with that essential "full kit of tools" and whose approach essentially mirrored that of Parker's, albeit a few years earlier. He was instrumental in the eventual establishment of the Ontario Provincial Police. (OPP) I would venture that Murray's very brief and apparently-disarming interview with the wife of Reginald Birchall, the man suspected in the murder of Fred Benwell, (about twenty minutes from where I live) was the linchpin that cemented his belief that Birchall was indeed guilty of first degree murder. Of course, he didn't accomplish that by intimidating witnesses or trying to impress a room full of his peers and perceived underlings, as Walsh attempted to do with Condon at Alpine. I know I'm not kind towards ham-fisted approaches, especially with guys like Walsh, and I make no apologies for that. For all their ego-fueled bluster and presumption, both Walsh and Keaten fell miserably short in establishing the right kind of communication with those they felt were worthy of being considered. Violet Sharp, while she might have felt understandable angst about her relationship with reporter Thomas McElvie and potential repercussions with Betty Morrow or Lindbergh, was essentially an innocent victim of this crime. Parker would have had her very quickly thinking he was her only friend in the world at that time. That's when the truth, relevant to the case or not, would have come tumbling out. Thanks for sharing all this. I do think Parker's approach would have been different than the one Walsh used. I don't consider Walsh as being ham-fisted with Violet. I think he was typical of the New Jersey police officer of his time. He did manage to get information from Violet Sharp but I bet it took a lot of patience on his part to get what he did. No police officer likes being lied to and she certainly did some of that!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Apr 12, 2020 17:41:10 GMT -5
I'm not familiar with that movie, but I still believe an index is important within the research and study of anyone serious enough about this case to read your books. In the meantime for anyone like myself, whose interest in a subject is piqued by something else along the way, just do a Google word search including the topic detail, as well as "Lindbergh", "Melsky", "Dark Corners" and the desired reference should appear. For some reason though, the page numbers don't show, although it does indicate the Volume number. You never saw Midsommer? Put it on your watchlist. After its over, think about everything for a day or so to let in sink in before deciding whether or not you liked it. And perhaps their investigations as intimate as they had become, allowed them into the kind of world where in a general sense, one could look at the picture and see both a beautiful woman or an old hag, depending on their perspective. Say what?
Those situations clearly arose in a case of countless leads, where there was enough to pursue an adversary rightly or wrongly. The suicide of Violet Sharp or the treatment of Condon at Alpine and its resulting debacle, arguably can be attributed to Walsh's methods. I also believe both Keaten and Walsh suffered from massive and almost debilitating egos, which had no business being involved in any major decision making processes that affected the outcome of this case. You reap what you sow and they probably would have been among the last two guys I'd want investigating anything of this importance. If they'd had jurisdiction, I'd have taken Thomas Sisk and Leon Turrou over them in a heartbeat, or just about anyone else from the FBI for that matter. Throw Ellis Parker (in his prime) and James Finn with Dudley Schoefeld into the mix and I don't think many would argue about the possibility of success here. Your point here is always a two-way street. Of course everything should be considered - to include ego. But Keaten helped "solve" the case. He is celebrated, even to this day, as having been a huge part of the solution. How does having a big ego contribute to undermining that success by offering a different position after the execution and later on in his life? It was tongue in cheek Michael, hence the wink. Such an event if it did actually happen, would have to be considered in the light of full transparency and objectivity. Whoa! 1. It sounds like my cup of tea if you're talking about Midsomer Murders, and not if you're talking about Midsommar. You seem to have presented a bit of a hybrid here in Midsommer. 2. 3. I wonder why Keaten would not have made more hay about this "different position" after the trial, especially during the war years when Lindbergh had fallen so far from grace. Personally, I put little value in these kinds of offhand remarks that totally fly in the face of the experience, deductive abilities and beliefs of dozens of competent investigators who were privy to the same quality of information and clearly never saw this. Knowing more than anyone about the case as you imply Sisk believed of Keaten, doesn't necessarily make Keaten the sharpest knife in the drawer when it comes to the problem solving part of it, does it? And I'd be tempted to leave Walsh out of the drawer entirely. 4. I take it you don't agree with my statement.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Apr 12, 2020 17:44:45 GMT -5
Amy, I've read Reisinger's book on Ellis Parker which I really enjoyed, and I've always had an interest in investigators that stood out in their field, especially within their use of psychology, human nature and sheer science as common denominators to advance their understanding. In Canada, I'd have to call John Wilson Murray, the one who exemplified the detective with that essential "full kit of tools" and whose approach essentially mirrored that of Parker's, albeit a few years earlier. He was instrumental in the eventual establishment of the Ontario Provincial Police. (OPP) I would venture that Murray's very brief and apparently-disarming interview with the wife of Reginald Birchall, the man suspected in the murder of Fred Benwell, (about twenty minutes from where I live) was the linchpin that cemented his belief that Birchall was indeed guilty of first degree murder. Of course, he didn't accomplish that by intimidating witnesses or trying to impress a room full of his peers and perceived underlings, as Walsh attempted to do with Condon at Alpine. I know I'm not kind towards ham-fisted approaches, especially with guys like Walsh, and I make no apologies for that. For all their ego-fueled bluster and presumption, both Walsh and Keaten fell miserably short in establishing the right kind of communication with those they felt were worthy of being considered. Violet Sharp, while she might have felt understandable angst about her relationship with reporter Thomas McElvie and potential repercussions with Betty Morrow or Lindbergh, was essentially an innocent victim of this crime. Parker would have had her very quickly thinking he was her only friend in the world at that time. That's when the truth, relevant to the case or not, would have come tumbling out. Thanks for sharing all this. I do think Parker's approach would have been different than the one Walsh used. I don't consider Walsh as being ham-fisted with Violet. I think he was typical of the New Jersey police officer of his time. He did manage to get information from Violet Sharp but I bet it took a lot of patience on his part to get what he did. No police officer likes being lied to and she certainly did some of that! I think you said it well Amy, that Walsh's approach was typical of the New Jersey police officer at the time. As a collective group, I'd also say the NJSP were unqualified to take on a case of this potential complexity. Not that it was necessarily a complex case when it began, they just ultimately made it much more that way.
|
|