|
Post by xjd on Nov 28, 2021 10:21:09 GMT -5
hi everyone! i've spent this morning searching this board to see if there has been any previous discussion of the question i'm about to post, but this board is so massive please forgive if this has been discussed before and i missed it.
i've just read Volume IV the last chapter about Violet Sharp's suicide. it's brought up that Morrow butler Septimus Banks had a drinking problem that seemingly cost him his position several times, and was obviously eventually rehired. there is a reference here to Banks being brought home drunk more than once and "loaded into a taxicab to be taken home." is this how taxi driver Ernie got involved with Morrow staff? i would think it could be just as easy for a reporter, or potential kidnapper, to get info out of a frequently drunk butler as it would be to sweet-talk & hook up with one of the maids i.e. Violet. it was asked of Violet where Banks gets his booze, not sure why that would matter but again someone could be supplying him with drink to get him to talk. further, Banks was said to be quite talkative when drunk.
i do not have a solidified theory here, just spit-balling some questions.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Nov 28, 2021 17:01:42 GMT -5
Interesting questions. Septimus Banks was with Dwight Morrow Sr. when Morrow passed away quite suddenly in Oct. 1931 when the Lindberghs were on their trip to the Orient. Mrs. Morrow was grateful and allowed Septimus to keep his job, even though he drank. Banks' first wife died of a disease caused by drinking alcohol, and it was said that he wished to marry Violet Sharp Violet would be cautious, as her father was said to be an alcoholic and she knew what marriage to a drinker would be like. iIt was said that she would marry him if he gave up drinking for a specified time. On the night of the kidnapping Septimus Banks was in Fort Lee at the Cha-toe Restaurant and quite under the influence. Although Banks was the butler at the Morrow household, it did not appear that he actually managed the servants as a butler usually would. Banks had been the butler for Andrew Carnegie before being hired by the Morrows.
|
|
|
Post by jeanne on Nov 28, 2021 17:26:55 GMT -5
But the real question is whether Septimus Banks knew the kidnappers and was their confederate. How would he know them? Who were they, and what was his relationship with them? Would he have risked losing his job by giving them inside information? I don't think he would have wanted to incur the wrath of Mrs. Morrow. Besides, he was drunk so often he could not have been trusted to carry out a plan properly. One does not trust a drunk unless he is another drunk, or both are drunk together.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Nov 29, 2021 7:04:04 GMT -5
As to Ernie Brinkert and his taxicab business: Investigators found several of his business cards in Violet's room. Violet's sister, Emily (Edna) Sharp, had moved to Englewood from her former job and used Brinkert's taxi service in moving. Violet denied knowing anything about the cards; they were probably cards given to her sister at the time she moved. John Condon thought that Ernie might be Cemetery John as there seemed to be some resemblance in Ernie's photo. Ernie was arrested and Condon then was taken to him to identify, but at that point Condon said Ernie was not CJ. Brinkert was only five feet four inches tall, so he did not fit anyone's description of CJ. Ernie Brinkert was murdered in 1939, so he probably did associate with some questionable characters--not likely with Septimus Banks, however.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 29, 2021 18:46:45 GMT -5
This is exactly the type of discussion I hoped would arise when I wrote my books.
Banks is interesting for a number of reasons. One expect that police grilled him. They obviously spoke to him more than what's recorded in the official documentation now at the archives. This is best explained by Hoffman himself as far back as 1938 (V4/P530). I have a source that says Lindbergh actually caught "Gow" and Banks in a compromising situation. Since so many people often confused Gow for Sharp, I personally believe it was Sharp who was with Banks when Lindbergh walked up on them. If true, both could have lost their jobs right then and there. Next, it seems clear that among other things, Sharp was trying to protect Banks. Certainly, her reaction at the hospital upon learning about the baby's discovery seems to indicate whatever was bothering her had something to do with this crime so that leads to some interesting possibilities. Then we have the speakeasy proximity to the Birritella church, and the odd situation of his residence being across the street from a place Schultz lived AND the fact Schultz had the Rose Banks death certificate. His threatening suicide and checking himself into a facility on more than one occasion seems to be the actions of someone blaming themselves for Violet's death.
Lots to think about!
|
|
The Stones Unturned Podcast
Guest
|
Post by The Stones Unturned Podcast on Sept 7, 2023 7:49:21 GMT -5
Well, another reason for keeping an unreliable drunk around is simply that he was the Morrows' "hookup" with rum runners like Owney Madden so they could stay stocked up on refreshments to entertain their many wealthy and powerful gentlefolk. Doesn't prove anything. But, I have a a hard time believing that the Morrows were sober for all 5000 days of Prohibition. And why take the chance on getting busted yourself, when you can just ask your butler--who depends on you for a living--to "ask his friend..." Does that prove that Banks was in on the phony "kidnapping?" No. It's just anooooooooother one of those meaningless coincidences. Like, the one about Henry "Ellerson's" real name, birthdate, military record, and new job he got after the "kidnapping."
|
|
The Stones Unturned Podcast
Guest
|
Post by The Stones Unturned Podcast on Sept 7, 2023 8:28:45 GMT -5
Clearly, this was not a case of an "outside" group working with "one" inside person. Clearly, they're all (well, a lot of them) are in on it.
You know what's funny? When cops tore Hauptmann's crib apart--finding wads of ransom money stuffed here, there, and everywhere--they DIDN'T tear up the floor in the attic. Even though $30,000 worth of ransom money was "never" found. What floor? The floor where "Hauptmann" had cut away ONE floorboard to use as ONE piece of "his" ladder. You remember the ladder. The one the cops had already torn apart so they could analyze the pieces. The one where ONE of those dismantled pieces turned out to have come from the floor of the attic of the house cops had torn apart (except for the attic floorboards) looking for ransom money. Not, funny, like, the Italian Army. Funny, like, there was ANOTHER suspect, very early on, who owned a shack a few paces away from where the body was found. A shack with a bunch of lumber and scraps lying around. Lumber that examination showed came from the SAME wholesale suppliers as the lumber used in "Hauptmann's" ladder. A shack owned by a mentally deranged German immigrant. Who rented his shack to one of the possible suspects named "Gerardi" (real name Cerardi) who had employed a woman who lived at 537 W. 149th St., NYC. Which is less than 7 miles from the Morrow Estate at Englewood. A loony German immigrant carpenter and handyman who ALSO owned the SAME set of chisels that Hauptmann owned, and whose identical chisel set was ALSO missing the SAME chisel that was missing from Hauptmann's set, and which was found near the scene. A loony German immigrant who admitted dumping old baby clothes belonging to his granddaughter practically on top of where Little Lindy's discarded clothes were found.
Doesn't mean anything. Doesn't prove anything. I mean, there are SO MANY suspects...it's just funny, that's all.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Sept 7, 2023 9:26:54 GMT -5
Thanks for making these posts. Banks has always been on my radar for various reasons. I think he did have a source for acquiring alcoholic beverages as you state. According to FBI documents he also frequented a speakeasy in the Yorkville area of New York, 86th Street and Lexington Ave. From my own research, I think Banks had a lot to do with Violet Sharp's alibi concerning March 1, 1932.
I see you mention Charles Schippell whose shack they did search since it was so close to where the Lindbergh baby's body was found. There was a lot of research done on this angle and on Cerardi also. I am curious about who the woman is you say that Cerardi(?) employed and you connect to the Faulkner address. Can you share anything more about this?
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Sept 7, 2023 10:46:33 GMT -5
Thank you for your posts.
That's a great question!
Why DIDN'T they tear up the attic IMMEDIATELY to look for THE REST of the ransom money? (THEY tore up AND tore down the garage!)
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Sept 7, 2023 14:16:10 GMT -5
Were nearly all the Morrow employees alcoholics?
Chauffeurs drinking and driving? Oh, great.
Susan Hertog says that Banks and Ellerson, both drunkards, were "flirting with dismissal." (pp. 158 and 159.)
I'm not sure how much driving, if any, Banks did. He was drinking with Henry Ellerson at the Sha-Toe speakeasy in Fort Lee, New Jersey on March 1, 1932. (Loss of Eden by Joyce Milton, pp. 258 & 259)
Drunk on duty? Ellerson the designated driver? The blind leading the blind?
Did Mrs. Morrow fire ANY of those who worked for her?
Even though Banks and others may have gotten rehired by her, Mrs. Morrow probably didn't want to permanently let her employees go for fear that they would retaliate by going to reporters and the public about Morrow/Lindbergh private matters.
Mrs. Morrow protected the reputation of Violet Sharpe at the 1935 trial. She didn't want bad press to get out about any of her employees. Maybe that is why she held onto Alfred Burke?
Alfred Burke apparently had poor driving skills. Maybe his skills were impaired by drunk driving?
Burke, who was still working for the Morrows in 1940, was issued a summons for reckless driving by Bear Mountain Police.
(See page 3 of the Peekskill Evening Star for October 21, 1940, "Lindbergh Kin's Chauffeur Bailed")
Ellerson also didn't have a great driving record. Remember, he jumped out of his car and allowed it to fly driverless over the Palisades Cliffs. (Loss of Eden, p. 258) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth B. Hamilton. How They Started: Nine Famous Men Begin Their Careers, 1937.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 7, 2023 21:47:59 GMT -5
You know what's funny? When cops tore Hauptmann's crib apart--finding wads of ransom money stuffed here, there, and everywhere--they DIDN'T tear up the floor in the attic. Even though $30,000 worth of ransom money was "never" found. What floor? The cops were looking for ransom money in the attic. It was their original mission. Cramer and Enkler were there for just this purpose. The issue here is the garage floor and the attic floor is an apples and oranges situation. The attic floor didn't need to be torn up in order to see what was under it.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,649
|
Post by Joe on Sept 8, 2023 13:00:56 GMT -5
You know what's funny? When cops tore Hauptmann's crib apart--finding wads of ransom money stuffed here, there, and everywhere--they DIDN'T tear up the floor in the attic. Even though $30,000 worth of ransom money was "never" found. What floor? The cops were looking for ransom money in the attic. It was their original mission. Cramer and Enkler were there for just this purpose. The issue here is the garage floor and the attic floor is an apples and oranges situation. The attic floor didn't need to be torn up in order to see what was under it. Given Richard Hauptmann's losing record in the stock market, and the need to cover regular and luxury expenses with Anna's wages (until she stopped working) and something other than the employment wages he stopped earning the day of the ransom payment, there's not much left apart from the ransom money that was recovered in circulation, and from his garage. Which also means that between Apr. 2, 1932 and Sept. 19, 1934, there's just not a whole lot of compensation wiggle room for any other 'gang' members, real or imagined.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 8, 2023 21:27:31 GMT -5
Given Richard Hauptmann's losing record in the stock market, and the need to cover regular and luxury expenses with Anna's wages (until she stopped working) and something other than the employment wages he stopped earning the day of the ransom payment, there's not much left apart from the ransom money that was recovered in circulation, and from his garage. Which also means that between Apr. 2, 1932 and Sept. 19, 1934, there's just not a whole lot of compensation wiggle room for any other 'gang' members, real or imagined. Debunked. When it comes to ransom and investment: See V2, pages 435-479 and 564-573. See also V3 pages 573-4 and 606-623.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,649
|
Post by Joe on Sept 9, 2023 10:56:10 GMT -5
Given Richard Hauptmann's losing record in the stock market, and the need to cover regular and luxury expenses with Anna's wages (until she stopped working) and something other than the employment wages he stopped earning the day of the ransom payment, there's not much left apart from the ransom money that was recovered in circulation, and from his garage. Which also means that between Apr. 2, 1932 and Sept. 19, 1934, there's just not a whole lot of compensation wiggle room for any other 'gang' members, real or imagined. Debunked. When it comes to ransom and investment: See V2, pages 435-479 and 564-573. See also V3 pages 573-4 and 606-623. I’m game.. what exactly have you just debunked here? That's a lot of pages to have to read, in order to rebut my post which asserts there was not much to go around with other real or imagined gang members, based on the personal finances Hauptmann was holding, or had held. Could you perhaps also review in a nutshell, what you're trying to say here, as opposed to just throwing out a bunch of ‘footnotes’ as if they were scripture verses to be followed? Anyway, I did review the pages you mentioned and may I suggest you perhaps highlight a few of what you consider to be your ‘stronger’ points here. I have to admit that I just don't see anything within these same pages that comes close to debunking, or even disputing the general accounting axiom of the historical record laid out over ninety years ago, and supported in more recent times by Rab in his highly detailed and even conservative accounting analysis, which still demonstrated clearly that the Hauptmann family was enriched by over 80% of the value of the ransom payment, between April 2, 1932 and Sept. 19, 1934. What are we really talking about here? The possibility that Hauptmann may have had a bit of money before the kidnapping, because he said he did? Well, did he really? It should also be noted that apparently, Richard didn't think to avail himself of the alleged hidden satchel hoard when their power was cut off by landlord Rauch on the very weekend he testified he had been enjoying his 'Music Night' with Hans Kloppenburg, ie. the ransom payment weekend of Saturday, April 2, 1932? Maybe he lost the key to the satchel.. after all it would have been pretty dark in that apartment. Information is great Michael, the more the better of course and I don’t think anyone here will disagree with that. I do recognize that you would have preferred to find a smoking gun and warm bullet by now, something that would give your theory that Lindbergh had his son killed by a gang which included Hauptmann, some degree of credibility. But continually pushing this debate into the shallow and almost limitless end of the pool where there’s not a whole lot of tangible and conclusive material to work with, is not productive either.
|
|
The Stones Unturned Podcast
Guest
|
Post by The Stones Unturned Podcast on Sept 9, 2023 14:40:37 GMT -5
"They didn't need to tear up the attic floor to see what was under it." Why not? Did they have X-ray vision?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 9, 2023 14:58:27 GMT -5
"They didn't need to tear up the attic floor to see what was under it." Why not? Did they have X-ray vision? The attic floor was nailed to the joists. Police were able to look under it without tearing it up.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 9, 2023 15:22:52 GMT -5
I’m game.. what exactly have you just debunked here? That's a lot of pages to have to read, in order to rebut my post which asserts there was not much to go around with other real or imagined gang members, based on the personal finances Hauptmann was holding, or had held. Could you perhaps also review in a nutshell, what you're trying to say here, as opposed to just throwing out a bunch of ‘footnotes’ as if they were scripture verses to be followed? What the hell does this even mean Joe? Footnotes are scripture? No, they are used to demonstrate where the information is coming from. What you've done is regurgitate the State's theory about Hauptmann's work history and the amount of ransom he was supposed to have spent because you "like" the implications. You do this without source, yet, act as though using sources to counter this position is a bad thing. It's silly, if not childish. Anyway, I did review the pages you mentioned and may I suggest you perhaps highlight a few of what you consider to be your ‘stronger’ points here. I have to admit that I just don't see anything within these same pages that comes close to debunking, or even disputing the general accounting axiom of the historical record laid out over ninety years ago, and supported in more recent times by Rab in his highly detailed and even conservative accounting analysis, which still demonstrated clearly that the Hauptmann family was enriched by over 80% of the value of the ransom payment, between April 2, 1932 and Sept. 19, 1934. Read it again. Also, please show me what occurred during the time when the documentation does not exist. Also, do you agree that Hauptmann played cards or not? How much did he make or lose when he gambled? Furthermore, he also took money from people, invested it for them, then repaid them with earnings. We know of at least two people. How many others were there? Did he lose their money or make money for them? He also loaned money to people. We know of some, but were there others? How much interest did he earn from these unknown people? When both he and Kloppenburg made the stands, why doesn't that count as work and the money they made not considered in the accounting process of his finances? Were there any other money making ventures? Maybe its best just to assume none? Yes, I relied on some of Rab's research to show someone was spending ransom money AFTER Hauptmann was sitting in jail. Someone he believed was doing so in the same manner as other ransom bill passings. What are we really talking about here? The possibility that Hauptmann may have had a bit of money before the kidnapping, because he said he did? Well, did he really? It should also be noted that apparently, Richard didn't think to avail himself of the alleged hidden satchel hoard when their power was cut off by landlord Rauch on the very weekend he testified he had been enjoying his 'Music Night' with Hans Kloppenburg, ie. the ransom payment weekend of Saturday, April 2, 1932? Maybe he lost the key to the satchel.. after all it would have been pretty dark in that apartment. No, not just this but EVERYTHING. And there's a lot to consider. This includes the fact he had money previously. Agent Frank himself suggested this possibility but this wasn't mentioned at Hauptmann's trial was it? And it wasn't mentioned by you either. Why not? Again, re-read those pages again. Information is great Michael, the more the better of course and I don’t think anyone here will disagree with that. I do recognize that you would have preferred to find a smoking gun and warm bullet by now, something that would give your theory that Lindbergh had his son killed by a gang which included Hauptmann, some degree of credibility. But continually pushing this debate into the shallow and almost limitless end of the pool where there’s not a whole lot of tangible and conclusive material to work with, is not productive either. As a reminder, this was a disagreement about Hauptmann's work and finances. You now reveal your true motives that had absolutely nothing to do with this. You believe you must defy all realities if they may lead to this - right? So black will be white if you happen to think I might use that fact to show Lindbergh might have been involved. That's irrational. Getting back to the actual subject .... Wilentz didn't even believe what you allege. We know this because of what I wrote in my book as I'm sure you remember having just read the very pages its written on. He himself ASKED Hauptmann on the stand where the rest of the ransom money was, then later after his conviction sent the Trooper to ask him again where the rest of it was. Anyway, I don't know what else I can do so believe whatever the hell you want. I know you will anyway.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,649
|
Post by Joe on Sept 16, 2023 16:38:33 GMT -5
I’m game.. what exactly have you just debunked here? That's a lot of pages to have to read, in order to rebut my post which asserts there was not much to go around with other real or imagined gang members, based on the personal finances Hauptmann was holding, or had held. Could you perhaps also review in a nutshell, what you're trying to say here, as opposed to just throwing out a bunch of ‘footnotes’ as if they were scripture verses to be followed? What the hell does this even mean Joe? Footnotes are scripture? No, they are used to demonstrate where the information is coming from. What you've done is regurgitate the State's theory about Hauptmann's work history and the amount of ransom he was supposed to have spent because you "like" the implications. You do this without source, yet, act as though using sources to counter this position is a bad thing. It's silly, if not childish. What I meant was your contentment within the cavalier trotting out of a bunch of references that of course have the unmistakable flavour and spice of your own leanings, as if they were 'footnotes of fact.' Not only childish, but demonstrates your inability to stop being so cagey and just lay it on the line. You wanted suggestions for V5 and have previously claimed people want to know more of your opinions. Well, let's hear about it in a dedicated chapter, without beating around the bush so much.Anyway, I did review the pages you mentioned and may I suggest you perhaps highlight a few of what you consider to be your ‘stronger’ points here. I have to admit that I just don't see anything within these same pages that comes close to debunking, or even disputing the general accounting axiom of the historical record laid out over ninety years ago, and supported in more recent times by Rab in his highly detailed and even conservative accounting analysis, which still demonstrated clearly that the Hauptmann family was enriched by over 80% of the value of the ransom payment, between April 2, 1932 and Sept. 19, 1934. Read it again. Also, please show me what occurred during the time when the documentation does not exist. Also, do you agree that Hauptmann played cards or not? How much did he make or lose when he gambled? Furthermore, he also took money from people, invested it for them, then repaid them with earnings. We know of at least two people. How many others were there? Did he lose their money or make money for them? He also loaned money to people. We know of some, but were there others? How much interest did he earn from these unknown people? When both he and Kloppenburg made the stands, why doesn't that count as work and the money they made not considered in the accounting process of his finances? Were there any other money making ventures? Maybe its best just to assume none? Yes, I relied on some of Rab's research to show someone was spending ransom money AFTER Hauptmann was sitting in jail. Someone he believed was doing so in the same manner as other ransom bill passings. Hauptmann played cards and gambled? What are you trying to say here? That his nickel ante pinochle habit would have tipped his financial picture one way or the other? Speaking of nickels, you're only nickel and diming the import of his $50,000 windfall, courtesy of his crime against Charles Lindbergh. Get real.What are we really talking about here? The possibility that Hauptmann may have had a bit of money before the kidnapping, because he said he did? Well, did he really? It should also be noted that apparently, Richard didn't think to avail himself of the alleged hidden satchel hoard when their power was cut off by landlord Rauch on the very weekend he testified he had been enjoying his 'Music Night' with Hans Kloppenburg, ie. the ransom payment weekend of Saturday, April 2, 1932? Maybe he lost the key to the satchel.. after all it would have been pretty dark in that apartment. No, not just this but EVERYTHING. And there's a lot to consider. This includes the fact he had money previously. Agent Frank himself suggested this possibility but this wasn't mentioned at Hauptmann's trial was it? And it wasn't mentioned by you either. Why not? Again, re-read those pages again. There's not much need to Michael, when Hauptmann didn't have the funds to have his lights turned on for the weekend of the ransom payment. No wonder he felt like getting out for a cemetery stroll and striking it rich, rather than flub his ukelele chords in the dark with Kloppenburg. Information is great Michael, the more the better of course and I don’t think anyone here will disagree with that. I do recognize that you would have preferred to find a smoking gun and warm bullet by now, something that would give your theory that Lindbergh had his son killed by a gang which included Hauptmann, some degree of credibility. But continually pushing this debate into the shallow and almost limitless end of the pool where there’s not a whole lot of tangible and conclusive material to work with, is not productive either. As a reminder, this was a disagreement about Hauptmann's work and finances. You now reveal your true motives that had absolutely nothing to do with this. You believe you must defy all realities if they may lead to this - right? So black will be white if you happen to think I might use that fact to show Lindbergh might have been involved. That's irrational. Getting back to the actual subject .... Wilentz didn't even believe what you allege. We know this because of what I wrote in my book as I'm sure you remember having just read the very pages its written on. He himself ASKED Hauptmann on the stand where the rest of the ransom money was, then later after his conviction sent the Trooper to ask him again where the rest of it was. Anyway, I don't know what else I can do so believe whatever the hell you want. I know you will anyway. I know you don't get it at the present time, and will leave this for you to figure out on your own.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 16, 2023 21:50:30 GMT -5
I know you don't get it at the present time, and will leave this for you to figure out on your own.Figure out why Wilentz wanted to know where the rest of the money was? Seems pretty clear to me. The real question is why you don't seem to understand.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,649
|
Post by Joe on Sept 17, 2023 7:57:09 GMT -5
I know you don't get it at the present time, and will leave this for you to figure out on your own.Figure out why Wilentz wanted to know where the rest of the money was? Seems pretty clear to me. The real question is why you don't seem to understand. How much do you believe he was looking for? Are you referring to the difference between what was found in Hauptmann's garage and the $5200 or so that was recovered from circulation, subtracted from the $50,000 ransom payment?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 17, 2023 8:41:24 GMT -5
Figure out why Wilentz wanted to know where the rest of the money was? Seems pretty clear to me. The real question is why you don't seem to understand. How much do you believe he was looking for? Are you referring to the difference between what was found in Hauptmann's garage and the $5200 or so that was recovered from circulation, subtracted from the $50,000 ransom payment? Use your common sense. He was looking for the rest of unrecovered ransom money. This clearly upsets his own witness's testimony, something you have bought into lock, stock, and barrel. It proves, beyond all doubt, that Wilentz did not even believe it.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,649
|
Post by Joe on Sept 17, 2023 8:57:08 GMT -5
How much do you believe he was looking for? Are you referring to the difference between what was found in Hauptmann's garage and the $5200 or so that was recovered from circulation, subtracted from the $50,000 ransom payment? Use your common sense. He was looking for the rest of unrecovered ransom money. This clearly upsets his own witness's testimony, something you have bought into lock, stock, and barrel. It proves, beyond all doubt, that Wilentz did not even believe it. You really must try to get ahold of your habit of speculating on these kinds of subjects. Your above response is along the same lines as what we find on virtually every second page of your four book series, ie. waving and not even pointing your finger at something or someone you can't really see clearly enough within another dark corner. It's what you did with the Marguerite Junge account of the Lindberghs' travels to Hopewell on Saturday, February 27, 1932, as just one example.
Now, if you're really so sure of yourself to state that "beyond all doubt," Wilentz didn't believe Hauptmann had turned over all the ransom money he had, how much more of it do you believe Wilentz, or anyone else for that matter, really expected to find in Hauptmann's custody?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 17, 2023 9:04:18 GMT -5
Use your common sense. He was looking for the rest of unrecovered ransom money. This clearly upsets his own witness's testimony, something you have bought into lock, stock, and barrel. It proves, beyond all doubt, that Wilentz did not even believe it. You really must try to get ahold of your habit of speculating on these kinds of subjects. Your above response is along the same lines as what we find on virtually every second page of your four book series, ie. waving and not even pointing your finger at something or someone you can't really see within another dark corner.
If you're so sure of yourself to state that "beyond all doubt," Wilentz didn't believe Hauptmann had turned over all the ransom money he had, how much more of it do you believe Wilentz, or anyone else for that matter, really expected to find in Hauptmann's custody?You are starting to worry me Joe. Take a deep breath and go back and reread what I've written. What did Wilentz ask Hauptmann on the stand? What did Trooper Smith ask Hauptmann in the jail cell. Now use your common sense. If you do, you cannot get around the implications. Next, how could Hauptmann have answered besides saying he told all he knew? Well, there's plenty of options from where i sit, but you are too blinded to even consider what they may have been.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,649
|
Post by Joe on Sept 17, 2023 9:46:01 GMT -5
You really must try to get ahold of your habit of speculating on these kinds of subjects. Your above response is along the same lines as what we find on virtually every second page of your four book series, ie. waving and not even pointing your finger at something or someone you can't really see within another dark corner.
If you're so sure of yourself to state that "beyond all doubt," Wilentz didn't believe Hauptmann had turned over all the ransom money he had, how much more of it do you believe Wilentz, or anyone else for that matter, really expected to find in Hauptmann's custody? You are starting to worry me Joe. Take a deep breath and go back and reread what I've written. What did Wilentz ask Hauptmann on the stand? What did Trooper Smith ask Hauptmann in the jail cell. Now use your common sense. If you do, you cannot get around the implications. Next, how could Hauptmann have answered besides saying he told all he knew? Well, there's plenty of options from where i sit, but you are too blinded to even consider what they may have been. I've stopped worrying about you Michael, because I've come to understand this is simply the way you deal with the tough questions. Every time, it seems. Then you just compound things by asking further vague questions as opposed to drilling down into issues layer by layer.
For my and everyone else's benefit, kindly tell me first, "What did Wilentz ask Hauptmann on the stand? What did Trooper Smith ask Hauptmann in the jail cell?" Fully explain yourself, stop trotting out these vagaries and we may actually start getting somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 17, 2023 11:27:43 GMT -5
I've stopped worrying about you Michael, because I've come to understand this is simply the way you deal with the tough questions. Every time, it seems. Then you just compound things by asking further vague questions as opposed to drilling down into issues layer by layer.
For my and everyone else's benefit, kindly tell me first, "What did Wilentz ask Hauptmann on the stand? What did Trooper Smith ask Hauptmann in the jail cell?" Fully explain yourself, stop trotting out these vagaries and we may actually start getting somewhere. This is beyond frustrating. Maybe this is a joke perhaps? It must be - right? Please tell me it is. Because you are asking me these questions which are answered on the pages of my book that you claimed to have read. Clearly you did not and instead are choosing to "debate" me in bad faith. Why is this necessary? For the benefit of those who do not own the book, here is the exchange between Wilentz and Hauptmann during the Flemington trial: Q. You didn't collect the 50,000 either? A. No.
Q. You got part of it didn't you, who got the rest? A. The-
Q. Who got the rest of it? A. I don't know anything about it. Please see pages 573-4 in Volume III for everything to include the cited sources.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Sept 17, 2023 11:32:04 GMT -5
For those who are following along here, as I am, the information about Trooper Smith asking Hauptmann in his jail cell, 30 minutes after the verdict in the trial had been rendered, where the other $35,000 of ransom money was, can be found in Michael's V3, Chapter 6, page 573.
What AG Wilentz asked Hauptmann on the witness stand about where the rest of the ransom money was can be found in the Trial Transcript, Day 19, page 2681. Michael gives you this excerpt in his V3, chapter 6, page 574. I will quote that excerpt here as it appears in the transcript and in Michael's book:
Q {Wilentz} You didn't collect the $50,000 either?
A (Hauptmann) No.
Q (Wilentz) You got part of it, didn't you? Who got the rest?
A (Hauptmann) The -
Q (Wilentz) Who got the rest of it?
A (Hauptmann) I don't know anything about it.
Hope this is helpful for others.
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Sept 17, 2023 11:33:13 GMT -5
Sorry for repeating Michael's answer!
|
|