|
Post by wolfman666 on Aug 21, 2020 13:34:42 GMT -5
you got it
|
|
|
Post by forensics fan on Aug 21, 2020 16:00:32 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2020 18:45:27 GMT -5
Amy: We are very excited about the endorsements, too. I think one of the reasons they found the argument so compelling is because of all the photographic content and copies of original documents they could see for themselves. I am going to love the book for sure. I am big into documentation and spend a lot of time reading investigative reports and other materials I am able to acquire. I research at the NJSP archives and understand how important and compelling documents are. I will order the kindle book as soon as it is available.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 21, 2020 19:10:30 GMT -5
Michael, your Guatemalan connection analogy has always been weak and irrelevant, because it completely overlooks how much attention and energy would have been paid to investigate the people and details in a house building vs. a murder. Sure, you might never know the guy who installed your windows under normal and mundane circumstances, but if he dropped one of those windows on a co-worker's head, I'm sure that name would be known publicly through the police investigation. They'd also want to know if the accused had some kind of motive to do what he did, and just how you might have fit into the overall scheme. There are a veritable sea of dots in this case to preferentially choose the ones that each individual likes the best. If there was a connection between Hauptmann and Lindbergh, not to mention the countless high profile individuals who would have had to have been involved in a Lindy Did It scenario, it would have come to clear light by now. I know you like both Walsh and Keaten, but both had huge and debilitating egos and neither one would have wanted to have been proven wrong. I think you are missing the point Joe. Just simply refer to those who worked on Lindbergh's house for example. This idea that Lindbergh hired Matthews Construction means he had to know who everyone was on that job is just plain silly. Speaking of which, the police immediately began a detailed investigation into everyone who worked on Highfields. This investigation extended well into the summer of 1934, they still didn't know everyone who worked on that job, and there were people they wanted to interview that were never located. So this example alone disproves each of your positions above. Next, this idea that the most famous man on the planet HAD to have been on City Island hiring Kidnappers himself in order to be the impetus defies common sense. Remember that Lindbergh went toe to toe with J. Edgar Hoover - and won. So not only was Lindbergh powerful, he knew countless other very powerful people. As a small example, look at what Breckinridge was willing to do for the man. Just toting the ransom around could have gotten him disbarred - but he did it anyway. There are many people, right now, in Federal Prisons across our country who have been convicted of participating in a conspiracy with people they did not know and never met. Some have pled guilty and admitted their roles in these conspiracies. If what both you and Steve believe is true - they are all innocent. I've missed nothing here Michael, and I'm pretty sure you have. You were essentially comparing something as routine as the building of a home with a murder for hire and now you've added the little wrinkle that the guys who built the Lindbergh house just might have been willing to spread a little inside knowledge. Good recovery. Anyway.. Lindbergh was virtually surrounded by people of relative distinction within the public eye, people who probably trusted him so that among any other personal or business-related interests, these earned reputations wouldn't go sideways and I don't think it's unreasonable to believe this applied vice-versa. But let's forget about that for a minute. Borrowing a page from Leibowitz's book here, just how do you think Lindbergh might have broached such a nefarious endeavour, with such devilish cronies you apparently believe would be at his beck and call to assist in the disappearance and murder of his son? I understand if you're not even able to produce even one plausible scenario, other than some smoky backroom setting with little detail and one that ultimately just collapses into itself, but I really think you should try based on everything you've put into print so far.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 21, 2020 19:25:14 GMT -5
Hi Sue: I'm Judge Pearlman's daughter and her lead research assistant. There were a few other research assistants but my mother is the principal researcher and the theories and writing are her own. It was necessary to use a few research assistants because several of the archives were not easily or economically accessible. Though she did fly/drive hundreds of miles to visit many of them. Of the 20+ brick and mortar archival collections utilized, my mother personally conducted the research at the vast majority, including the NJSPM. For the ones we didn't get to directly and whose collections weren't digitized, researchers were hired to take photos of the documents we were interested in so we could analyze them. Thank you FF, and to your mother Lise in advance for all of your time and energies in researching this book. I ordered the hard cover version a while ago. First and foremost, I very much look forward to how the evidence holds up in that "cold grey light of morning." And I sincerely hope you don't take that comment in anything but true positivity. Our primary interest here in determining the absolute truth within this case should go without saying.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 21, 2020 21:45:54 GMT -5
I've missed nothing here Michael, and I'm pretty sure you have. You were essentially comparing something as routine as the building of a home with a murder for hire and now you've added the little wrinkle that the guys who built the Lindbergh house just might have been willing to spread a little inside knowledge. Good recovery. Anyway.. Lindbergh was virtually surrounded by people of relative distinction within the public eye, people who probably trusted him so that among any other personal or business-related interests, these earned reputations wouldn't go sideways and I don't think it's unreasonable to believe this applied vice-versa. But let's forget about that for a minute. Borrowing a page from Leibowitz's book here, just how do you think Lindbergh might have broached such a nefarious endeavour, with such devilish cronies you apparently believe would be at his beck and call to assist in the disappearance and murder of his son? I understand if you're not even able to produce even one plausible scenario, other than some smoky backroom setting with little detail and one that ultimately just collapses into itself, but I really think you should try based on everything you've put into print so far. Clearly you have Joe, because I have absolutely no idea what in God's name you are talking about. In supposing CAL's involvement, I've offered counter-arguments against the position that both Hauptmann and Lindbergh must have known each other previous to their involvement - or even during for that matter. It's as simple as that. Go back and reread what I've written because I think you are confused or something. Now the police were investigating the workers for multiple yet obvious reasons. Direct involvement or possible sources for information - whether that being either intentional or unintentional. My real point in bringing this up was two-fold: Lindbergh obviously did not know these men working on his home - yet he was responsible for their employment. Next, you claimed what would happen during an investigation concerning a murder - remember? But here police still weren't able to pin down the names of every worker involved with Highfields - even by the summer of 1934 - and even some of those they did were never located. So what I've done is completely blow up your position - never mind present day examples which do the same. Now you've resorted to your "Plan-B." That is to make the situation "appear" as unlikely as possible by engaging in TV type fantasy as if this silly scenario had to have been the situation... You know the " smoke filled room" and " cronies" etc. as if that neutralizes the possibility. Its entertaining, I'll give you that, but doesn't achieve the desired goal. Was there, for example, a smoke filled room when Breckinridge decided to risk his entire career in transporting a portion of that ransom money? Nope. All it took was for Lindbergh to ask him. Does this situation "collapse" on itself to suggest it occurred? No - because we know that it did. No back alley, no smoke filled room, no Tommy Gun toting thugs. You might need the theatrics but reality suggests they just aren't necessary.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 21, 2020 22:07:09 GMT -5
I totally understand where you're coming from about minimizing distraction. I can't wait for your thoughts on this book, as someone who has conducted so much of the grunt work researching this case and is one of the top recognized experts, your honest opinion will carry a lot of weight for me personally, and I'm pretty confident my mother, too. Good luck on Volume 4! Excited to read it when it comes out! For Lloyd to write this is " a myth-smashing book, beautifully written, powerfully argued" then I already know I'm going to like it.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 22, 2020 8:51:33 GMT -5
I've missed nothing here Michael, and I'm pretty sure you have. You were essentially comparing something as routine as the building of a home with a murder for hire and now you've added the little wrinkle that the guys who built the Lindbergh house just might have been willing to spread a little inside knowledge. Good recovery. Anyway.. Lindbergh was virtually surrounded by people of relative distinction within the public eye, people who probably trusted him so that among any other personal or business-related interests, these earned reputations wouldn't go sideways and I don't think it's unreasonable to believe this applied vice-versa. But let's forget about that for a minute. Borrowing a page from Leibowitz's book here, just how do you think Lindbergh might have broached such a nefarious endeavour, with such devilish cronies you apparently believe would be at his beck and call to assist in the disappearance and murder of his son? I understand if you're not even able to produce even one plausible scenario, other than some smoky backroom setting with little detail and one that ultimately just collapses into itself, but I really think you should try based on everything you've put into print so far. Clearly you have Joe, because I have absolutely no idea what in God's name you are talking about. In supposing CAL's involvement, I've offered counter-arguments against the position that both Hauptmann and Lindbergh must have known each other previous to their involvement - or even during for that matter. It's as simple as that. Go back and reread what I've written because I think you are confused or something. Now the police were investigating the workers for multiple yet obvious reasons. Direct involvement or possible sources for information - whether that being either intentional or unintentional. My real point in bringing this up was two-fold: Lindbergh obviously did not know these men working on his home - yet he was responsible for their employment. Next, you claimed what would happen during an investigation concerning a murder - remember? But here police still weren't able to pin down the names of every worker involved with Highfields - even by the summer of 1934 - and even some of those they did were never located. So what I've done is completely blow up your position - never mind present day examples which do the same. Now you've resorted to your "Plan-B." That is to make the situation "appear" as unlikely as possible by engaging in TV type fantasy as if this silly scenario had to have been the situation... You know the " smoke filled room" and " cronies" etc. as if that neutralizes the possibility. Its entertaining, I'll give you that, but doesn't achieve the desired goal. Was there, for example, a smoke filled room when Breckinridge decided to risk his entire career in transporting a portion of that ransom money? Nope. All it took was for Lindbergh to ask him. Does this situation "collapse" on itself to suggest it occurred? No - because we know that it did. No back alley, no smoke filled room, no Tommy Gun toting thugs. You might need the theatrics but reality suggests they just aren't necessary. Do you really believe a man of Breckinridge's background, reputation and status was afraid of losing his entire career because he transported ransom money in aid of America's hero, Charles Lindbergh, when police had essentially agreed to abstain from direct involvement within the ransom negotiations, a situation that was common during the snatch racket days? You've thrown a whole boatload of darts in this case without hitting the board and obviously you believe Lindbergh himself is the nexus. I'm just curious as to how you might envision the whole thing developing in a way that is supported by not only the information presented in your books, but in light of the type of people who populated his direct circle of influence, and therefore would have had to have known something. You've stated clearly that you're now providing more of your personal opinion. I'm not trying to hold your feet to the fire here Michael, but as you've already essentially painted Lindbergh as a murderer, wouldn't it be reasonable and perhaps helpful to both yourself and others, to at least be able to discuss with the possibility of developing a working theory, that includes the names of other real people?
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Aug 22, 2020 12:38:49 GMT -5
you people still dont get it. you cant say he killed his son just because the baby is ill or is deformed or whatever with no proof at all. if he did do it he fooled alot of police and fbi people to do this act
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 22, 2020 13:47:42 GMT -5
you people still dont get it. you cant say he killed his son just because the baby is ill or is deformed or whatever with no proof at all. if he did do it he fooled alot of police and fbi people to do this act You're right Steve. He would have had to have fooled a lot of law enforcement and private detectives, and also his family, close friends and business associates, an army of newspapermen, as well as countless elected officials and heads of state. There would have been much easier ways for Lindbergh to eliminate his kid if that was his intent, without drawing the attention of the entire world into the rural setting he had established, and just as he was finally beginning to enjoy some privacy and distance from the press and public. As Major Clifton lamented in Bridge on the River Kwai, " Madness.. madness.."
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 22, 2020 15:33:10 GMT -5
Do you really believe a man of Breckinridge's background, reputation and status was afraid of losing his entire career because he transported ransom money in aid of America's hero, Charles Lindbergh, when police had essentially agreed to abstain from direct involvement within the ransom negotiations, a situation that was common during the snatch racket days? You've thrown a whole boatload of darts in this case without hitting the board and obviously you believe Lindbergh himself is the nexus. I'm just curious as to how you might envision the whole thing developing in a way that is supported by not only the information presented in your books, but in light of the type of people who populated his direct circle of influence, and therefore would have had to have known something. You've stated clearly that you're now providing more of your personal opinion. I'm not trying to hold your feet to the fire here Michael, but as you've already essentially painted Lindbergh as a murderer, wouldn't it be reasonable and perhaps helpful to both yourself and others, to at least be able to discuss with the possibility of developing a working theory, that includes the names of other real people? Do "I" really believe it? Of course I do. Why? Because I've read the documentation. And I included it in V2 so that everyone could be properly informed about it. You either haven't read it, decided to ignore it, or are pretending that it's somehow insignificant. I've proven the situation by and through Breckinridge's own testimony. He lied during the Bronx Grand Jury then told the truth in Flemington. Since both testimonies are coming from the same man that means he perjured himself. Why? Well here are more of his own words which seem to explain that: Well do you mind if I saw [sic] this that I am in this peculiar situation, although frankly I must admit that it would make no difference to me if I went to jail or was disbarred, I know that it was something which a lawyer should not do in those circumstances. Apparently he DID care because he went on to say he did not handle the money but was with the people who did. He further claimed he rode with Al Reich in one car and that Lindbergh was in another. But in Flemington he admitted Lindbergh and Reich were in one car and he was alone with the 20K in another. (See V2 Pages 171-3). You calling this "common" does not make it true nor does it neutralize the facts, and its another one of your methods designed to wish it away. So here is one of those "darts" you say I've thrown that's hit dead center of the target. Instead of trying to dream certain facts away, why not at least consider them before doing so? Next, I am not in the habit of writing fiction. I find information then present it so that others, like yourself, can have the means to make an informed decision. I've given "some" of my beliefs in certain places to compliment specific finds. But what you want me to do it offer a complete theory so that you can attempt to neutralize that theory instead of dealing with the actual facts. Why? Because you cannot explain away these facts, or when you try, its like this example above which is wholly without merit. So its easier for you to achieve your "goal" through this tactic. That "goal" being to neutralize what you do not like which point to things you personally wish did not exist via assaulting a theory which is an obviously weaker target. Why is it "weaker?" Because there are so many different ways to interpret what happened. For example, some say the child was to be kept alive and some say he was meant to die. Neither can be absolutely proven beyond all doubt. I want all the information out there so everyone can make their own choices about this, as well as everything else. There's certain things that would be "easier" for everyone if they were true or not true. But that's not how it works.
you people still dont get it. you cant say he killed his son just because the baby is ill or is deformed or whatever with no proof at all. if he did do it he fooled alot of police and fbi people to do this act You are ignoring the facts Steve. Almost immediately police suspected an inside job and that the crime scene was staged. Garsson said it was an inside job. Hoover told McLean he believed it was an inside job. As the case progressed police blamed Lindbergh for its lack of a solution. The burlap bag came from the immediate area. Whateley said on his death bed that it involved an insider. After Hauptmann's execution, both Keaten and Walsh pointed a finger at Lindbergh. And so the police weren't "fooled." Not really. All of the facts point to multiple people being involved. So no matter how culpable Hauptmann was, that doesn't eliminate the fact that others were involved.
You're right Steve. He would have had to have fooled a lot of law enforcement and private detectives, and also his family, close friends and business associates, an army of newspapermen, as well as countless elected officials and heads of state. There would have been much easier ways for Lindbergh to eliminate his kid if that was his intent, without drawing the attention of the entire world into the rural setting he had established, and just as he was finally beginning to enjoy some privacy and distance from the press and public. As Major Clifton lamented in Bridge on the River Kwai, " Madness.. madness.." One has to ignore so much in order to draw a conclusion like this. Well, it looks like Judge Pearlman is about to give us even more material to consider. And judging from the reactions coming from the both of you, it appears you're trying to get ahead of it before its even out. No matter. You've shrugged off three volumes of material already, so what's another book?
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Aug 22, 2020 18:54:31 GMT -5
i just pre-ordered it too, looking forward to reading it very much.
Also, Judge Pearlmans book "Call Me Phaedra" sounds very interesting, i need to get that one too!
|
|
|
Post by forensics fan on Aug 22, 2020 22:20:50 GMT -5
Hi Sue: I'm Judge Pearlman's daughter and her lead research assistant. There were a few other research assistants but my mother is the principal researcher and the theories and writing are her own. It was necessary to use a few research assistants because several of the archives were not easily or economically accessible. Though she did fly/drive hundreds of miles to visit many of them. Of the 20+ brick and mortar archival collections utilized, my mother personally conducted the research at the vast majority, including the NJSPM. For the ones we didn't get to directly and whose collections weren't digitized, researchers were hired to take photos of the documents we were interested in so we could analyze them. Thank you FF, and to your mother Lise in advance for all of your time and energies in researching this book. I ordered the hard cover version a while ago. First and foremost, I very much look forward to how the evidence holds up in that "cold grey light of morning." And I sincerely hope you don't take that comment in anything but true positivity. Our primary interest here in determining the absolute truth within this case should go without saying. Joe -- Thank you! What you are suggesting is exactly what we want. Honest, critical review from knowledgeable people like yourself and the other enthusiasts and researchers on this forum who will look at the evidence and theories presented and judge for yourselves whether its compelling or not.
|
|
|
Post by forensics fan on Aug 22, 2020 22:27:32 GMT -5
i just pre-ordered it too, looking forward to reading it very much. Also, Judge Pearlmans book "Call Me Phaedra" sounds very interesting, i need to get that one too! XJD -- Thank you so much! My mom will be very glad to hear that.
|
|
|
Post by forensics fan on Aug 22, 2020 22:39:15 GMT -5
Amy: We are very excited about the endorsements, too. I think one of the reasons they found the argument so compelling is because of all the photographic content and copies of original documents they could see for themselves. I am going to love the book for sure. I am big into documentation and spend a lot of time reading investigative reports and other materials I am able to acquire. I research at the NJSP archives and understand how important and compelling documents are. I will order the kindle book as soon as it is available. Amy -- Great! I'm a total documentation geek, too. The publisher recently informed us it should be available by September 1 release date, but we don't know if it will be available to pre-order before then.
|
|
|
Post by forensics fan on Aug 22, 2020 22:50:46 GMT -5
I totally understand where you're coming from about minimizing distraction. I can't wait for your thoughts on this book, as someone who has conducted so much of the grunt work researching this case and is one of the top recognized experts, your honest opinion will carry a lot of weight for me personally, and I'm pretty confident my mother, too. Good luck on Volume 4! Excited to read it when it comes out! For Lloyd to write this is " a myth-smashing book, beautifully written, powerfully argued" then I already know I'm going to like it. Michael -- Thanks!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Aug 23, 2020 8:15:26 GMT -5
And so what exactly is your point Michael, in Breckinridge apparently feeling he is risking his career by being part of the transportation of ransom money? Are you demonstrating in some roundabout way that if he was willing to do this, he was willing to do anything that Lindbergh asked him, including participation in the elimination of his son? If you’re claiming to have hit the target dead centre here, well sorry but I’m just seeing a big case of apples and oranges instead.
And yes, I’ve read every word on every page in every book you’ve written, trying to digest it all objectively without continuously running headlong into your personally-inspired narrative and the power of suggestion. It’s not easy though to find points of discussion when you reference them without a volume and page number, due to you having designed your books to be read the way that you saw fit.. and the fact they have no freaking Index! (hint, hint)
I did not ask you to present a complete theory as to how Lindbergh engineered and accomplished what you claim he did. I’d just like to know more about how you believe this might have been initiated and carried forth in the hope it might eventually begin to show as something that was even doable or not. Maybe.. just maybe, such a simple and reasonable process potentially leading into continuously unfolding discussion, might lend itself to less of this ongoing point-blank suggestion, speculation and finger-pointing that has accomplished little in the way of tangible results over the past twenty.. make that eighty-eight plus years.
Finally Michael, I’m very much looking forward to reading Lise Pearlman’s new book and have pre-ordered it through Amazon. And again, I can assure you that I've done no "shrugging off" when it comes to your own books.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 23, 2020 12:17:31 GMT -5
And so what exactly is your point Michael, in Breckinridge apparently feeling he is risking his career by being part of the transportation of ransom money? Are you demonstrating in some roundabout way that if he was willing to do this, he was willing to do anything that Lindbergh asked him, including participation in the elimination of his son? If you’re claiming to have hit the target dead centre here, well sorry but I’m just seeing a big case of apples and oranges instead. Honestly Joe, my "point" has already been made previously in this very thread during our discussion. I mean, is it me? Am I going nutz or something? And so I just went back and reread what I've written and there it is right there. No more - no less. Stop worrying so much about what you think someone else may or may not believe because of it. Simply accept the facts then apply them accordingly to your own position. Or not. That's the beauty of thinking for oneself. And yes, I’ve read every word on every page in every book you’ve written, trying to digest it all objectively without continuously running headlong into your personally-inspired narrative and the power of suggestion. It’s not easy though to find points of discussion when you reference them without a volume and page number, due to you having designed your books to be read the way that you saw fit.. and the fact they have no freaking Index! (hint, hint) I understand there's a lot - and therefore much to remember. Believe me. I re-read them myself and re-discover somethings I forgot what I've written. I did not ask you to present a complete theory as to how Lindbergh engineered and accomplished what you claim he did. I’d just like to know more about how you believe this might have been initiated and carried forth in the hope it might eventually begin to show as something that was even doable or not. Maybe.. just maybe, such a simple and reasonable process potentially leading into continuously unfolding discussion, might lend itself to less of this ongoing point-blank suggestion, speculation and finger-pointing that has accomplished little in the way of tangible results over the past twenty.. make that eighty-eight plus years. I can only suggest that you re-read the three volumes, and what I've written in this very thread. Once considering it all then its undeniable that it was doable. Of course that doesn't mean that's what happened but to say he couldn't have been behind it shouldn't even be a question. The real question should be whether or not he was - not if he could have made it happen because he absolutely could have. It's undeniable. So we must look at the facts and circumstances. That would include the things I've written above which point directly to the possibility. Again, you have concluded he wasn't involved, and I have no problem with that. In fact, as long as you are armed with all the information I've discovered and still feel comfortable with that conclusion allows me to feel at ease. But remember, what exists demands consideration. This crusade you seem to be on to dissuade or shame others into NOT considering it is the only issue I have with your position. Finally Michael, I’m very much looking forward to reading Lise Pearlman’s new book and have pre-ordered it through Amazon. And again, I can assure you that I've done no "shrugging off" when it comes to your own books. Good to know. As I wrote earlier I've pre-ordered it as well. I keep seeing the word "forensic" attached to it so its irresistible for my mind not to wonder a bit. As I wrote in Chapter 2 in V3, I wanted others to expand upon those certain questions that I believe could be answered. I am hoping some of that is what is contained in Judge Pearlman's book. Regardless, I know there's going to be new material to consider nevertheless. At this point I'm ready to shut down what I'm doing now and start reading! Here is the link again for anyone who may have been distracted by this discussion:
|
|
|
Post by forensics fan on Aug 28, 2020 13:54:59 GMT -5
Hey all The Lindbergh Kidnapping Suspect No. 1 -- The Man Who Got Away kindle edition is now available to preorder via www.lisepearlman.com or Amazon.com Amazon says if you pre-order the kindle edition, it will be auto-delivered on the release date: this Tuesday September 1.
|
|