|
Post by Wayne on Sept 21, 2021 11:14:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 21, 2021 11:51:29 GMT -5
Thanks for the heads-up Wayne. Just ordered it.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
V4
Sept 21, 2021 14:03:41 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Sept 21, 2021 14:03:41 GMT -5
Thanks for the heads-up Wayne. Just ordered it. I can only order through Amazon Canada, and unfortunately they want $56 for the one copy that is currently available here! I'll check back with them in a week or so.
|
|
|
V4
Sept 21, 2021 20:19:35 GMT -5
IloveDFW likes this
Post by lurp173 on Sept 21, 2021 20:19:35 GMT -5
Joe,
If you think Amazon Canada might be a long wait, I can always order another copy and ship it directly to you in Canada when I receive it.. Amazon here is selling it for $28 with free shipping, and they claim I will get it between 9/28 and 10/6. If you want me to do that just let me know, no problem. My email is: coveyrise2@gmail.com.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
V4
Sept 22, 2021 12:57:04 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Sept 22, 2021 12:57:04 GMT -5
Joe, If you think Amazon Canada might be a long wait, I can always order another copy and ship it directly to you in Canada when I receive it.. Amazon here is selling it for $28 with free shipping, and they claim I will get it between 9/28 and 10/6. If you want me to do that just let me know, no problem. My email is: coveyrise2@gmail.com. Thanks very much Lurp for the offer, and it's much appreciated. Looks like the price is dropping as more available. Now $40.95 CDN and I'll check back in a few days. Will contact you though if there are none or the price takes off! Thanks again.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Sept 22, 2021 14:53:28 GMT -5
Hey Joe,
Nice logo! Beauty!
|
|
|
V4
Sept 22, 2021 14:59:52 GMT -5
Wayne likes this
Post by Mbg on Sept 22, 2021 14:59:52 GMT -5
Hey Joe, Nice logo! Beauty! Indeed, Joe! Are you conceding Hauptmann's point?
|
|
|
V4
Sept 23, 2021 6:16:22 GMT -5
via mobile
obi likes this
Post by IloveDFW on Sept 23, 2021 6:16:22 GMT -5
Congratulations Michael!!!🤘👍👏
And thank you for all of your hard work.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,615
|
V4
Sept 23, 2021 8:21:12 GMT -5
Post by Joe on Sept 23, 2021 8:21:12 GMT -5
Hey Joe, Nice logo! Beauty! Indeed, Joe! Are you conceding Hauptmann's point? I'm sitting squarely in the middle of the fence right now, and my avatar photo is intended to represent the year, model and possible colour of the Dodge vehicle that Lupica claimed to have observed. Ben reminds me a lot of Condon within a tendency to change his story.
|
|
|
V4
Oct 13, 2021 7:58:31 GMT -5
IloveDFW likes this
Post by Michael on Oct 13, 2021 7:58:31 GMT -5
Hopefully its not too soon to bring this up, but I wanted to mention that there is bunch of relevant information hidden within the Nosovitsky chapter. If anything, this man's life proves that truth is stranger than fiction. It just seems to me that everything people have said could never occur as it relates to the kidnapping happened in this man's life. One might think that my writing about it before the Lindbergh kidnapping occurred isn't related but indirectly it absolutely is - aside from addressing some of the building blocks for the theory involving him itself.
I think by now anyone who has read all four volumes pretty much knows about Hoffman's investigation, understanding the chaotic "flavor" of it all. How Hoffman felt, or believed, and might have reacted when faced with certain issues or information. So when I introduce William Bell (page 333) and revealed that Harry Bennett is credited with saying that he believed it was an "inside job," Henry Ford believed Hoffman was "on the right track," and that Bennett gave Thompson the "supposed true description of the baby," there can be no doubt Hoffman would have wanted to follow this up and especially hear what the "true description" was. By now everyone "knows" this about Hoffman. Just so everyone is aware, I went through the Special Correspondence files (32 boxes) several times in search for this information (among other things of course) but never found it. I expected separate correspondence with Bennett about this but came up empty. I'm not a betting man but in this case I have no doubt that at one time what I was looking for existed in some form or fashion - or it may be there and I just missed it. Perhaps in an unsigned handwritten letter that I overlooked or one in that stupid code they sometimes used. Anyway, I'm not holding anything back and its stuff like this that drives me crazy at times.
So what was the "true" description? What does that even mean? As opposed to what?
|
|
|
V4
Dec 8, 2021 23:26:20 GMT -5
Post by jeanne on Dec 8, 2021 23:26:20 GMT -5
The character of Vincent Godfrey Burns is a good choice in Michael's latest volume. Here is a man who believes that he has some important information regarding the kidnapping but cannot reveal all he knows because the confession must be kept confidential. He will not reveal the name of the man who first came to him on Palm Sunday in March of 1932 and then contacted him at a later time, as he wrote in his letter to Lindbergh (Feb.1935 after Lindbergh's ID of Hauptmann's voice). Burns' diction is of good quality; he was well educated, and his attempts at persuasion resemble those of J.J.Faulkner who wrote to Gov. Hoffman in January of 1936. While Burns does not identify the man who came to him in repentance, he does say that he resembled Hauptmann. If he was indeed the gardener in the Morrow household, he was very likely Henry Ellerson who was hired as a gardener in late spring of 1931 and took on the position of chauffeur when the season changed. Ellerson did not have a German accent, however. His father was Danish, his mother was English, and Henry was born in this country. He did frequent the Sha-Toe speakeasy in Fort Lee where Burns was minister of a church. Burns indicates in his letter to Lindbergh that the man who confessed to him on Palm Sunday was complicit in the kidnapping, not that he was a single kidnapper, however. Hoffman knew Burns and thought he was briliant. It's possible that Ellerson met the Governor through Burns in some way. Some one who had worked a long time (25 years) in the Morrow household told the FBI that she believed Ellerson was involved in the kidnapping case--her reason and name not given. In the FBI report, on March 1, the morning of the kidnapping day, Elisabeth Morrow visited a Mrs. Allerson. The FBI misspelled names on a regular basis. It's quite possible that Elisabeth Morrow on that morning visited Catherine Eilersen, the mother of Henry Ellerson (who spelled the last name differently). Mrs. Eilersen was the manager of a millinery shop in Englewood Cliffs. The visit may or may not have been innocent, but this should have been investigated. It's also possible that Isidor Fisch conducted some fur business with the millinery store. This possibility should also have been investigated. There are too many loose ends. Whatever his personality may have been, Burns statements should not have been dismissed so quickly. Of course, he should not have spoken out at the trial, but he may have been desperate at that point, having information that was completely ignored , though important to the case, and he had been silenced.
|
|
|
V4
Dec 9, 2021 0:02:13 GMT -5
Post by jeanne on Dec 9, 2021 0:02:13 GMT -5
In his letter to Lindbergh Burns wrote that the agitated man came to him on Palm Sunday which would have been March 20 in 1932. Easter Sunday would have been observed the following week on March 27. Some sources confuse the two days. In his autobiography Hauptmann presents an alibi for one of these days, perhaps to point out that he was not the man who approached Burns at that time.
|
|
|
V4
Dec 9, 2021 3:25:16 GMT -5
Post by Guest on Dec 9, 2021 3:25:16 GMT -5
In his letter to Lindbergh Burns wrote that the agitated man came to him on Palm Sunday which would have been March 20 in 1932. Easter Sunday would have been observed the following week on March 27. Some sources confuse the two days. In his autobiography Hauptmann presents an alibi for one of these days, perhaps to point out that he was not the man who approached Burns at that time. Interesting! Would you please quote the place in Hauptmann's autobiography where he presents an alibi for himself for either Palm Sunday or Easter Sunday in 1932? Anna does this for them for Easter Sunday in a different statement, saying they visited Hans and Maria Mueller on Easter Sunday to bring presents for Maria and little Ruth, Maria's and Hans' daughter, on Easter Sunday. The Reverend Burns chapter in Michael's book, like all the others, is excellent -- and funny. Michael recalls Burns and Ed Reilly, Hauptmann's drunken defense council, meeting at the Essex House on Central Park South in Manhattan for a chat and, at parting, the intoxicated Reilly bids Burns farewell with the words, "So long, you Protestant bastard."
|
|
|
V4
Dec 9, 2021 3:32:18 GMT -5
Post by Guest on Dec 9, 2021 3:32:18 GMT -5
In his letter to Lindbergh Burns wrote that the agitated man came to him on Palm Sunday which would have been March 20 in 1932. Easter Sunday would have been observed the following week on March 27. Some sources confuse the two days. In his autobiography Hauptmann presents an alibi for one of these days, perhaps to point out that he was not the man who approached Burns at that time. Interesting! Would you please quote the place in Hauptmann's autobiography where he presents an alibi for himself for either Palm Sunday or Easter Sunday in 1932? Anna does this for them for Easter Sunday in a different statement, saying they visited Hans and Maria Mueller on Easter Sunday to bring presents for Maria and little Ruth, Maria's and Hans' daughter, on Easter Sunday. The Reverend Burns chapter in Michael's book, like all the others, is excellent -- and funny. Michael recalls Burns and Ed Reilly, Hauptmann's drunken defense council, meeting at the Essex House on Central Park South in Manhattan for a chat and, at parting, the intoxicated Reilly bids Burns farewell with the words, "So long, you Protestant bastard." Make that "counsel." Sorry.
|
|
|
V4
Dec 9, 2021 8:19:41 GMT -5
Post by jeanne on Dec 9, 2021 8:19:41 GMT -5
To clarify, Vincent Burns said in his letter to Lindbergh that the man who came to confess was complicit in the kidnapping, not that he was the kidnapper. Henry Ellerson could not have been Cemetery John, for example. He would not have had a German accent, nor would he have written the ransom letters. His part, if he indeed had participated, could have been a tip to the kidnappers that the Lindberghs were in Hopewell on Feb. 29 and March 1. He could have let them borrow his car the evening of March 1. Burns might well have been given that information, but he could not in all good conscience as a minister betray a confession given to him in confidence. All he could do was try to persuade others about the consequences of executing the wrong man. He does this in his letter to Lindbergh, just as the "J.J. Faulkner" does in his letter to Gov. Hoffman. In both letters the author indicates that he cannot tell the whole story but tries to appeal to the conscience of the recipient if they assist in the case and send the wrong man to his death. The intent of the earlier post was to explore the possibility that Ellerson or his mother may have known Isidor Fisch through his fur trade, or perhaps that Elisabeth Morrow might have inadvertently told another party (Mrs. Allerson/Eilersen?) that the Lindberghs were staying in Hopewell yet another day. It's unfortunate tht Vincent Burns was not taken seriously enough.
|
|
|
V4
Dec 9, 2021 9:08:30 GMT -5
Post by jeanne on Dec 9, 2021 9:08:30 GMT -5
Several posts have been made on the Board regarding the accident near the Palisades that destroyed Ellerson's car by fire. it's been suggested that the car was burned in order to conceal evidence that the dying child was carried in the trunk after the kidnapping. The accident occurred several weeks after the kidnapping. It's possible that Henry Ellerson could not bear the memory of what had happened. Each time he drove or even saw the car, it was a reminder of his role in this case and so he destroyed the car in part to rid himself of the memory.
|
|
|
V4
Dec 9, 2021 17:34:54 GMT -5
Post by Michael on Dec 9, 2021 17:34:54 GMT -5
To clarify, Vincent Burns said in his letter to Lindbergh that the man who came to confess was complicit in the kidnapping, not that he was the kidnapper. Henry Ellerson could not have been Cemetery John, for example. He would not have had a German accent, nor would he have written the ransom letters. His part, if he indeed had participated, could have been a tip to the kidnappers that the Lindberghs were in Hopewell on Feb. 29 and March 1. Just as a reminder, one of the State's handwriting experts, Harry Cassidy, actually said Ellerson " could have" written the ransom notes (V3,P457). This, of course, was before Hauptmann was arrested. As anyone who has read my books already knows, I'm not "big" on handwriting experts so I mention this for what its worth. My main point for putting it in the book was to demonstrate the reliability issues that exist.
|
|
|
V4
Dec 12, 2021 7:20:58 GMT -5
Post by jeanne on Dec 12, 2021 7:20:58 GMT -5
Thank you for commenting, Michael. I am not a graphologist and have not been able to observe any report written by Ellerson. it did not appear likely that he wrote the ransom letters since his father was Danish and his mother English. He was born in this country, so I presumed that English was his native language and that he did not know German. The ransom notes appear to be written by someone whose native language is German and a person who has not mastered the English language--and has some problems with the German as well. In his letter to Lindbergh Burns indicates that the man who came to him to confess was guilty of "complicity" without mentioning in what way. Burns was not likely to invent such a story, but he could not tell all; so as a minister he tried to appeal to the conscience of the person whose testimony helped lead to the conviction of Hauptmann. it's quite possible that the man who confessed to him also gave him information about those who were responsible and explained what Hauptmann's role was in the case. My point was that unfortunately Burns' story was not investigated further, even though he might not have wanted to violate the need for confidence in the confession.
|
|