|
Post by Sue on Feb 23, 2022 14:37:08 GMT -5
Mabel Greene was admitted into the Hauptmann apartment BEFORE it was searched.
Greene, reporter for The New York Sun, is featured in a few chapters of Writing Up the News. Here are some passages from pages 40-42 of the book:
"One never knows what to expect in news reporting, and I have learned that I must not question why. When the city editor says to do something I go and do my darnedest to do it.
The morning Hauptmann's arrest was announced, my city editor told me to 'run up to Hauptmann's house, look it over inside and get a story about how the Hauptmanns lived.' Just like that.
I tore up to East 233rd Street and found that the Hauptmann house was guarded. There were about fifteen New York City policemen, a dozen Jersey state troopers, and half a dozen G-men there, all ganged around the front door, the only door that led to the stairs of the second-story flat of the Hauptmanns.
Did I call my city editor and say I couldn't get in, that the nasty old policemen wouldn't let me in? I did not. I hung around in the rain--and how it rained that day--getting wetter and wetter, madder and madder. I made up my mind I was going to get into that house, and I did. I won't tell you how, because I promised I wouldn't, but I'll tell you this much--it didn't cost me a cent.
I went through the four-rooms-and-bath flat before it was searched--five days later when the press was admitted officially to the place it had been literally torn to pieces. But nothing had been searched or touched when I got there and I came out with a nice description of the home, including a detailed account of the nursery furniture that doubtless had been paid for with a part of the Lindbergh baby's ransom money.
It was a feature story and not the kind I could telephone to my office very well, so I hurried downtown and wrote it. Nobody around the office seemed surprised, not in the least. In fact, someone commented that it had taken me a long time--and it honestly didn't seem to me to be anything except routine until I went back to the house later that day and heard the G-men trying to convince my rivals that no one had been permitted to enter that house. Well, I did get in, right through the front door and up the stairs like a lady. (P.S. There wasn't any fire escape.) Just another lucky break, that's all.
It is surprising what you can do when you have to. When I was sent down to Flemington to cover the Hauptmann trial, I hadn't written anything by hand but bad checks for so many years that when I got into that courtroom and realized that I was going to have to write in long-hand I just sat there and said I couldn't do it. Well, I had to do it.
You couldn't get out of that room, or leave your press seat to go to a typewriter outside and fell any assurance that you wouldn't come back and find at least two of the sheriff's friends in your seat. Or maybe a couple of Broadway girls, dripping sable and mink, sitting in your chair.
When Anne Lindbergh took the stand I began to write. That night when I got the final edition and realized that I had written over five columns by long hand, my arm commenced to ache--bad."
*********************************************************************************
Writing Up the News: Behind the Scenes of the Great Newspapers. Top Ranking Editors and Reporters Tell Their Own Inside Stories
"Beating the Deadline"
by Mabel Greene
Edited by Miriam Lundy
1939
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Feb 23, 2022 16:22:10 GMT -5
Mabel Greene was admitted into the Hauptmann apartment BEFORE it was searched. Greene, reporter for The New York Sun, is featured in a few chapters of Writing Up the News. Here are some passages from pages 40-42 of the book: "One never knows what to expect in news reporting, and I have learned that I must not question why. When the city editor says to do something I go and do my darnedest to do it. The morning Hauptmann's arrest was announced, my city editor told me to 'run up to Hauptmann's house, look it over inside and get a story about how the Hauptmanns lived.' Just like that. I tore up to East 233rd Street and found that the Hauptmann house was guarded. There were about fifteen New York City policemen, a dozen Jersey state troopers, and half a dozen G-men there, all ganged around the front door, the only door that led to the stairs of the second-story flat of the Hauptmanns. Did I call my city editor and say I couldn't get in, that the nasty old policemen wouldn't let me in? I did not. I hung around in the rain--and how it rained that day--getting wetter and wetter, madder and madder. I made up my mind I was going to get into that house, and I did. I won't tell you how, because I promised I wouldn't, but I'll tell you this much--it didn't cost me a cent. I went through the four-rooms-and-bath flat before it was searched--five days later when the press was admitted officially to the place it had been literally torn to pieces. But nothing had been searched or touched when I got there and I came out with a nice description of the home, including a detailed account of the nursery furniture that doubtless had been paid for with a part of the Lindbergh baby's ransom money. It was a feature story and not the kind I could telephone to my office very well, so I hurried downtown and wrote it. Nobody around the office seemed surprised, not in the least. In fact, someone commented that it had taken me a long time--and it honestly didn't seem to me to be anything except routine until I went back to the house later that day and heard the G-men trying to convince my rivals that no one had been permitted to enter that house. Well, I did get in, right through the front door and up the stairs like a lady. (P.S. There wasn't any fire escape.) Just another lucky break, that's all. It is surprising what you can do when you have to. When I was sent down to Flemington to cover the Hauptmann trial, I hadn't written anything by hand but bad checks for so many years that when I got into that courtroom and realized that I was going to have to write in long-hand I just sat there and said I couldn't do it. Well, I had to do it. You couldn't get out of that room, or leave your press seat to go to a typewriter outside and fell any assurance that you wouldn't come back and find at least two of the sheriff's friends in your seat. Or maybe a couple of Broadway girls, dripping sable and mink, sitting in your chair. When Anne Lindbergh took the stand I began to write. That night when I got the final edition and realized that I had written over five columns by long hand, my arm commenced to ache--bad." ********************************************************************************* Writing Up the News: Behind the Scenes of the Great Newspapers. Top Ranking Editors and Reporters Tell Their Own Inside Stories "Beating the Deadline" by Mabel Greene Edited by Miriam Lundy 1939 Thanks Sue! Wish she had described what it was like aside from the baby furniture.
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Feb 23, 2022 18:40:22 GMT -5
Did Mabel make her employer some money by sharing her story shortly after her alleged visit to the Hauptmann apartment or did she keep it close to her vest until 1939? Did she keep her job? And why rush up to East 233rd Street when the Hauptmanns lived ten blocks down? Thanks Sue for this entertaining tale!
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Feb 23, 2022 20:40:33 GMT -5
Here is Mabel Greene's article that was published on page 2 of The New York Sun on Friday, September 21, 1934:
"Ransom Funds Furnished Home"
Hauptmann's Rooms Models of Neatness-- Wife Maintains Stolid Attitude
By MABEL GREENE
Some of the money from the Lindbergh infant's ransom undoubtedly went to purchase the dainty ivory-and-green furniture in the nursery of the four-room flat at 1279 East 222nd street, the Bronx, where the Hauptmann's ten-months-old baby spent its sleeping and many of its waking hours.
The crib, the chest of drawers, the table with its array of baby powders, [&c], as well as the other furnishings of this room are obviously new, whereas the fittings of the other three rooms, while comfortable and well-cared for, are older.
Mrs. Anna Hauptmann spent to hours there early today packing her baby's clothes and gathering together the things she wanted to take away with her. She fed and dressed the child, who was in the flat last night being cared for by neighbors during the questioning of his parents, and then, accompanied by her brother, she was taken to the home of relatives at 2701 Marion avenue, the Bronx.
Mrs. Hauptmann's appearance is not impressive at best. She is a thin-lipped woman of about 30, with frizzy light hair. Neighbors said that she kept very much to herself during the three years she and her husband lived in the Rausch house; that her husband apparently was stingy with her, making her account to him for every cent she spent. Officials say she may actually not have known that the money her husband had was the Lindbergh ransom money.
Haggled on Rent
During the time that Mrs. Hauptmann was at the house her brother, Hans Muller, who accompanied her, became ill. A doctor was hastily summoned, and he said that Muller had had an epileptic fit and had dislocated his shoulder when he fell.
Two months ago, Mrs. Pauline Rausch, the white-haired, plump, woman of seventy-one summers who owns the house, was obliged to give the Hauptmanns notice to move.
"He didn't want to pay $50 a month for the place--he was trying to make me take $10 off the rent," Mrs. Rausch said today. "I refused and took him into court, so he paid the money. But right after that some one poured motor oil on my grass and on my tomatoes and killed them. He was a hard, mean man."
The Hauptmanns home, despite its disorder as a result of the ruthless searching done by the police and Federal officers, is a clean little place. You mount a flight of uncarpeted dark wood stairs to enter it--the only doorway. Facing you as you reach the small square hallway at the top is a huge turtle's shell, varnished and decorated, supporting a stand with a vase of flowers and several pictures. On the hall walls are several pennants--Reno, Nevada, the Grand Canyon and others--evidently gathered during the Hauptmanns' travels.
A Model of Cleanliness
A second narrow hall leads at right angles to the entrance hall. At the front end is the living room and at the back is the kitchen. On the left side as you go toward the rear of the house is a spotlessly clean bathroom, and on the right are the nursery and the Hauptmann's own bedroom.
The living room furniture is of the type to be found in a middle class home--a brown overstuffed set consisting of a large three-cushion divan, and two chairs, the backs of all three displaying a neat floral pattern. There are doilies everywhere, a deck of cards is spilling from an open humidor smoking stand, and a row of plants in the three front windows are drooping for lack of water. Photographs of the Hauptmann baby are on the living room, bedroom and nursery walls and there are trinkets and knick-knacks on every inch of table space, in all the rooms.
The bedroom is fitted with a good-looking walnut set. A bow-end double bed, a vanity dressing table, a dresser and chifforobe crowd the small room to its capacity. The bed is torn up, the contents of the drawers are scattered about the room, but there's an air of neatness and cleanliness despite its disorder.
The fourth room of the flat--the kitchen--is equally well-kept, the kitchen of a German hausfrau, with dainty tie-back curtains at the windows, and shining [otlcloth] on the floor. A metal-topped ivory table just inside the door is obviously where Hauptmann and his wife had most of their meals, although there is a convertible table in the living room where they could eat on more formal occasions.
Mrs. Hauptmann's neighbors say she was not friendly, though she did pass the time of day with them when they met her taking the baby out or en route to the store.
Reseats Photographers
Today her thin, rather pale face looked weary and bedraggled and she covered her face with her hands to prevent photographers from making pictures of her. She wore a summer dress of navy blue printed crepe, with small navy blue jacket, a brown felt hat and brown and white sports shoes. She carried a green coat.
She gave no hint of what she thought or felt and her face maintained its stoical calm when she saw the crowd gathered in the street before the house. A double line of cars, filled with curious faces, passed constantly along the street, though the police stationed at all sides of the house kept them out of the yard and away from the house.
When Mrs. Hauptmann left her home, her baby in her arms, she saw the detectives still digging around the garage where the Lindbergh ransom money was found. But she gave no hint of what she thought. About her husband she would only repeat:
"I don't think he could have had anything to do with it."
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Feb 23, 2022 23:27:53 GMT -5
"233rd Street is a major thoroughfare in the New York City borough of The Bronx," according to Wikipedia.
Greene probably "tore up to East 233rd Street," because it was a main drag to get to heavily wooded 222nd Street.
Consult a 1932 map of the Bronx.
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Feb 24, 2022 7:18:58 GMT -5
Here is Mabel Greene's article that was published on page 2 of The New York Sun on Friday, September 21, 1934: "Ransom Funds Furnished Home" Hauptmann's Rooms Models of Neatness-- Wife Maintains Stolid Attitude By MABEL GREENE Some of the money from the Lindbergh infant's ransom undoubtedly went to purchase the dainty ivory-and-green furniture in the nursery of the four-room flat at 1279 East 222nd street, the Bronx, where the Hauptmann's ten-months-old baby spent its sleeping and many of its waking hours. The crib, the chest of drawers, the table with its array of baby powders, [&c], as well as the other furnishings of this room are obviously new, whereas the fittings of the other three rooms, while comfortable and well-cared for, are older. Mrs. Anna Hauptmann spent to hours there early today packing her baby's clothes and gathering together the things she wanted to take away with her. She fed and dressed the child, who was in the flat last night being cared for by neighbors during the questioning of his parents, and then, accompanied by her brother, she was taken to the home of relatives at 2701 Marion avenue, the Bronx. Mrs. Hauptmann's appearance is not impressive at best. She is a thin-lipped woman of about 30, with frizzy light hair. Neighbors said that she kept very much to herself during the three years she and her husband lived in the Rausch house; that her husband apparently was stingy with her, making her account to him for every cent she spent. Officials say she may actually not have known that the money her husband had was the Lindbergh ransom money. Haggled on Rent During the time that Mrs. Hauptmann was at the house her brother, Hans Muller, who accompanied her, became ill. A doctor was hastily summoned, and he said that Muller had had an epileptic fit and had dislocated his shoulder when he fell. Two months ago, Mrs. Pauline Rausch, the white-haired, plump, woman of seventy-one summers who owns the house, was obliged to give the Hauptmanns notice to move. "He didn't want to pay $50 a month for the place--he was trying to make me take $10 off the rent," Mrs. Rausch said today. "I refused and took him into court, so he paid the money. But right after that some one poured motor oil on my grass and on my tomatoes and killed them. He was a hard, mean man." The Hauptmanns home, despite its disorder as a result of the ruthless searching done by the police and Federal officers, is a clean little place. You mount a flight of uncarpeted dark wood stairs to enter it--the only doorway. Facing you as you reach the small square hallway at the top is a huge turtle's shell, varnished and decorated, supporting a stand with a vase of flowers and several pictures. On the hall walls are several pennants--Reno, Nevada, the Grand Canyon and others--evidently gathered during the Hauptmanns' travels. A Model of Cleanliness A second narrow hall leads at right angles to the entrance hall. At the front end is the living room and at the back is the kitchen. On the left side as you go toward the rear of the house is a spotlessly clean bathroom, and on the right are the nursery and the Hauptmann's own bedroom. The living room furniture is of the type to be found in a middle class home--a brown overstuffed set consisting of a large three-cushion divan, and two chairs, the backs of all three displaying a neat floral pattern. There are doilies everywhere, a deck of cards is spilling from an open humidor smoking stand, and a row of plants in the three front windows are drooping for lack of water. Photographs of the Hauptmann baby are on the living room, bedroom and nursery walls and there are trinkets and knick-knacks on every inch of table space, in all the rooms. The bedroom is fitted with a good-looking walnut set. A bow-end double bed, a vanity dressing table, a dresser and chifforobe crowd the small room to its capacity. The bed is torn up, the contents of the drawers are scattered about the room, but there's an air of neatness and cleanliness despite its disorder. The fourth room of the flat--the kitchen--is equally well-kept, the kitchen of a German hausfrau, with dainty tie-back curtains at the windows, and shining [otlcloth] on the floor. A metal-topped ivory table just inside the door is obviously where Hauptmann and his wife had most of their meals, although there is a convertible table in the living room where they could eat on more formal occasions. Mrs. Hauptmann's neighbors say she was not friendly, though she did pass the time of day with them when they met her taking the baby out or en route to the store. Reseats Photographers Today her thin, rather pale face looked weary and bedraggled and she covered her face with her hands to prevent photographers from making pictures of her. She wore a summer dress of navy blue printed crepe, with small navy blue jacket, a brown felt hat and brown and white sports shoes. She carried a green coat. She gave no hint of what she thought or felt and her face maintained its stoical calm when she saw the crowd gathered in the street before the house. A double line of cars, filled with curious faces, passed constantly along the street, though the police stationed at all sides of the house kept them out of the yard and away from the house. When Mrs. Hauptmann left her home, her baby in her arms, she saw the detectives still digging around the garage where the Lindbergh ransom money was found. But she gave no hint of what she thought. About her husband she would only repeat: "I don't think he could have had anything to do with it." Loved this. Thanks Sue! Does everyone believe BRH destroyed her grass and tomatoes?
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Feb 24, 2022 8:01:51 GMT -5
Fifty dollars a month for a small apartment was high rent in those days. Many apartments could be rented for half that price. Haptmann's attitude toward his landlord, as she reported in another context, was not pleasant. He may have had some problem with authority figures. Hans Mueller was Anna's nephew, not her brother as Greene reports.
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Feb 24, 2022 8:03:21 GMT -5
Some correction needed here: Hans Mueller was married to Anna;'s niece, Maria.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,648
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Feb 24, 2022 11:33:30 GMT -5
Here is Mabel Greene's article that was published on page 2 of The New York Sun on Friday, September 21, 1934: "Ransom Funds Furnished Home" Hauptmann's Rooms Models of Neatness-- Wife Maintains Stolid Attitude By MABEL GREENE Some of the money from the Lindbergh infant's ransom undoubtedly went to purchase the dainty ivory-and-green furniture in the nursery of the four-room flat at 1279 East 222nd street, the Bronx, where the Hauptmann's ten-months-old baby spent its sleeping and many of its waking hours. The crib, the chest of drawers, the table with its array of baby powders, [&c], as well as the other furnishings of this room are obviously new, whereas the fittings of the other three rooms, while comfortable and well-cared for, are older. Mrs. Anna Hauptmann spent to hours there early today packing her baby's clothes and gathering together the things she wanted to take away with her. She fed and dressed the child, who was in the flat last night being cared for by neighbors during the questioning of his parents, and then, accompanied by her brother, she was taken to the home of relatives at 2701 Marion avenue, the Bronx. Mrs. Hauptmann's appearance is not impressive at best. She is a thin-lipped woman of about 30, with frizzy light hair. Neighbors said that she kept very much to herself during the three years she and her husband lived in the Rausch house; that her husband apparently was stingy with her, making her account to him for every cent she spent. Officials say she may actually not have known that the money her husband had was the Lindbergh ransom money. Haggled on Rent During the time that Mrs. Hauptmann was at the house her brother, Hans Muller, who accompanied her, became ill. A doctor was hastily summoned, and he said that Muller had had an epileptic fit and had dislocated his shoulder when he fell. Two months ago, Mrs. Pauline Rausch, the white-haired, plump, woman of seventy-one summers who owns the house, was obliged to give the Hauptmanns notice to move. "He didn't want to pay $50 a month for the place--he was trying to make me take $10 off the rent," Mrs. Rausch said today. "I refused and took him into court, so he paid the money. But right after that some one poured motor oil on my grass and on my tomatoes and killed them. He was a hard, mean man." The Hauptmanns home, despite its disorder as a result of the ruthless searching done by the police and Federal officers, is a clean little place. You mount a flight of uncarpeted dark wood stairs to enter it--the only doorway. Facing you as you reach the small square hallway at the top is a huge turtle's shell, varnished and decorated, supporting a stand with a vase of flowers and several pictures. On the hall walls are several pennants--Reno, Nevada, the Grand Canyon and others--evidently gathered during the Hauptmanns' travels. A Model of Cleanliness A second narrow hall leads at right angles to the entrance hall. At the front end is the living room and at the back is the kitchen. On the left side as you go toward the rear of the house is a spotlessly clean bathroom, and on the right are the nursery and the Hauptmann's own bedroom. The living room furniture is of the type to be found in a middle class home--a brown overstuffed set consisting of a large three-cushion divan, and two chairs, the backs of all three displaying a neat floral pattern. There are doilies everywhere, a deck of cards is spilling from an open humidor smoking stand, and a row of plants in the three front windows are drooping for lack of water. Photographs of the Hauptmann baby are on the living room, bedroom and nursery walls and there are trinkets and knick-knacks on every inch of table space, in all the rooms. The bedroom is fitted with a good-looking walnut set. A bow-end double bed, a vanity dressing table, a dresser and chifforobe crowd the small room to its capacity. The bed is torn up, the contents of the drawers are scattered about the room, but there's an air of neatness and cleanliness despite its disorder. The fourth room of the flat--the kitchen--is equally well-kept, the kitchen of a German hausfrau, with dainty tie-back curtains at the windows, and shining [otlcloth] on the floor. A metal-topped ivory table just inside the door is obviously where Hauptmann and his wife had most of their meals, although there is a convertible table in the living room where they could eat on more formal occasions. Mrs. Hauptmann's neighbors say she was not friendly, though she did pass the time of day with them when they met her taking the baby out or en route to the store. Reseats Photographers Today her thin, rather pale face looked weary and bedraggled and she covered her face with her hands to prevent photographers from making pictures of her. She wore a summer dress of navy blue printed crepe, with small navy blue jacket, a brown felt hat and brown and white sports shoes. She carried a green coat. She gave no hint of what she thought or felt and her face maintained its stoical calm when she saw the crowd gathered in the street before the house. A double line of cars, filled with curious faces, passed constantly along the street, though the police stationed at all sides of the house kept them out of the yard and away from the house. When Mrs. Hauptmann left her home, her baby in her arms, she saw the detectives still digging around the garage where the Lindbergh ransom money was found. But she gave no hint of what she thought. About her husband she would only repeat: "I don't think he could have had anything to do with it." Great find Sue, fascinating reading and I have to wonder how Mabel managed to get into the Hauptmann apartment! Perhaps one of her roles of Fashion Editor for the New York Sun, is a clue. I can't seem to find any photos of her online. Here is the announcement of her obituary in 1977 from the New York Times: www.nytimes.com/1977/07/05/archives/mabel-greene-bean-79-reporter-and-editor-at-the-new-york-sun.htmlMabel Greene Bean, a feature writer and fashion editor of The New York Sun. died of cancer yesterday in the Ozanam Hall Nursing Home in Bayside, Queens, at the age of 79. She was the widow of Edgar R. Bean, who was acting managing editor of The Daily News when he died in 1942. Miss Greene, as she was known professionally, studied for two years at Washington University of St. Louis before turning to a newspaper career. She began covering a beauty contest for The Omaha World‐Herald and was with The St. Louis Post‐Dispatch before joining The Sun. Miss Greene covered the trial of Bruno Hauptmann for the murder of Charles A. Lindbergh's son and other sensational events of the period, as well as fashion shows in Paris. During World War II, she stressed New York's role as the center of world fashion. In 1943, she was runner‐up in the annual awards of the New York Newspaper Women's Club for her account of the rescue of survivors of a submarine attack.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 24, 2022 14:40:13 GMT -5
Does everyone believe BRH destroyed her grass and tomatoes? I'd say yes. If it actually happened that is. Hauptmann really hated her. Great find Sue, fascinating reading and I have to wonder how Mabel managed to get into the Hauptmann apartment! I agree. Not only actually finding this book, but to also follow it up by discovering her article about it. As soon as I read this, I did exactly what you did Joe and wanted to find out more about Greene. This led me to this book which is actually a good source for many different reasons: ia801605.us.archive.org/2/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.76677/2015.76677.Ladies-Of-The-Press.pdfAs far as "how" she got into the apartment I think its obvious. Most likely she promised to meet one of these men out for a cup of coffee afterwards. As a result, she was escorted into the apartment for a tour. (Don't shoot the messenger) It should also be recalled that Henry Paynter had access to the apartment as well, which gave him the opportunity to scrawl Condon’s phone number inside the closet ( see V2-C9)
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,648
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Feb 25, 2022 14:43:24 GMT -5
Does everyone believe BRH destroyed her grass and tomatoes? I'd say yes. If it actually happened that is. Hauptmann really hated her. Great find Sue, fascinating reading and I have to wonder how Mabel managed to get into the Hauptmann apartment! I agree. Not only actually finding this book, but to also follow it up by discovering her article about it. As soon as I read this, I did exactly what you did Joe and wanted to find out more about Greene. This led me to this book which is actually a good source for many different reasons: ia801605.us.archive.org/2/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.76677/2015.76677.Ladies-Of-The-Press.pdfAs far as "how" she got into the apartment I think its obvious. Most likely she promised to meet one of these men out for a cup of coffee afterwards. As a result, she was escorted into the apartment for a tour. (Don't shoot the messenger) It should also be recalled that Henry Paynter had access to the apartment as well, which gave him the opportunity to scrawl Condon’s phone number inside the closet ( see V2-C9) If I remember correctly, investigators found an oil can beside the garage. And yes Michael, I'd venture as well that Hauptmann was more than capable of doing what Mrs. Rauch alleged. That book (611 pages!) finally seemed to download but the pages don't show. Were you actually able to view it? As far as how Mabel got into the Hauptmann apartment, and with all of the those investigators on the grounds, I can imagine it something along the lines of, "Okay boys, put all of your names into my hat and let's see who gets to take me out for that coffee, and a little tour of this place." Regarding Condon's phone number written under his address on the Hauptmann closet trim, I don't believe its author was Henry Paynter or Tom Cassidy, or any other reporter. Yes, I understand that you've "addressed it" in Dark Corners, but that doesn't by necessity make your findings correct. Why would anyone from the outside surreptitiously do this, when Condon's address was already there? Hauptmann was already dead to rights at "2974 Decatur." There would have been no reasonable need to "pile on" here, and at the very minimum the surreptitious author could have been charged for falsifying or compromising evidence. Edward Oehler's (whoever that was) evaluation on the handwriting is about as disjointed as listening to John Trendley on the stand, pointing out such miniscule differences as if they somehow negate and override the obvious similarities here. There's so much Hauptmann in those numerals, that "Sedgwick" is almost superfluous. BTW, I think that "k" in "Sedgwick" comes about as close to anything seen yet that aligned with that "special k" featured in the ransom notes. It's interesting to note that Lewis Bornmann, in his June 1983 audio interview with Dave Holwerda and Cornel Plebani, stated that it was he who discovered the Condon address and phone number in the Hauptmann closet. Possibly he had misremembered the event or just been mistaken, but he sounded pretty grounded and lucid at the time.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Feb 25, 2022 18:49:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 25, 2022 18:55:57 GMT -5
That book (611 pages!) finally seemed to download but the pages don't show. Were you actually able to view it? I can. Try this: "Right click" then "save as" .... and download it to your hard drive. After that open the pdf file. I'm going to boot up the desktop tomorrow and download several pages for some specific files.... One on the Hall-Mills murder because there's something in this that I never saw anywhere else before. far as how Mabel got into the Hauptmann apartment, and with all of the those investigators on the grounds, I can imagine it something along the lines of, "Okay boys, put all of your names into my hat and let's see who gets to take me out for that coffee, and a little tour of this place." There's no doubt in my mind that one of the men told her to " scram" another to " beat it" and yet another referred to her as " doll face." It's kinda funny but I'm sure the women didn't appreciate it. However, they were smart, savvy, and resourceful. They had to be or they wouldn't have made it in this profession as a female. Lots of crazy rules, both written and unwritten, because of their gender. Just as one example, its in V3 that women weren't allowed to witness Hauptmann's execution ( p591). Regarding Condon's phone number written under his address on the Hauptmann closet trim, I don't believe its author was Henry Paynter or Tom Cassidy, or any other reporter. Yes, I understand that you've "addressed it" in Dark Corners, but that doesn't by necessity make your findings correct. Why would anyone from the outside surreptitiously do this, when Condon's address was already there? Hauptmann was already dead to rights at "2974 Decatur." There would have been no reasonable need to "pile on" here, and at the very minimum the surreptitious author could have been charged for falsifying or compromising evidence. Edward Oehler's (whoever that was) evaluation on the handwriting is about as disjointed as listening to John Trendley on the stand, pointing out such miniscule differences as if they somehow negate and override the obvious similarities here. There's so much Hauptmann in those numerals, that "Sedgwick" is almost superfluous. BTW, I think that "k" in "Sedgwick" comes about as close to anything seen yet that aligned with that "special k" featured in the ransom notes. It's interesting to note that Lewis Bornmann, in his June 1983 audio interview with Dave Holwerda and Cornel Plebani, stated that it was he who discovered the Condon address and phone number in the Hauptmann closet. Possibly he had misremembered the event or just been mistaken, but he sounded pretty grounded and lucid at the time. Well let's do this then.... Why exactly wouldn't you believe it? Let's start from the "beginning." Most either accepted what Scaduto wrote without doing the research themselves, or blindly rejected it because it didn't fit in with their theory. And there it sat. Either one believed it or one did not. When I started researching it, I certainly didn't know what the true situation was. So I went to the Archives to find out, and what I discovered is in Chapter 9 in V2. No one can possibly call my research "biased" because my conclusions do not support that. I found out that Hauptmann actually wrote Condon's Address there - right? So if there was proof someone else didn't write the phone number there, I certainly would have revealed that as well. But I didn't. And why? Because Henry Paynter literally TOLD Lloyd Fisher he wrote it there. I'm certainly not making that up. Next, another counter argument I often heard was that Reporters and Police did not engage in this conduct. Well, I gave several examples to disprove that notion, one of which, involved BOTH Paynter & Bornmann when they teamed up earlier in the case to pull a fast one on Lloyd Fisher back when he represented J. J. Devine. Hell, during the Mattson case, one Reporter probably did something that got the kid killed, so please, I don't want to hear that excuse anymore. So - what we're left with is either Paynter lied to Fisher or Fisher lied when he claimed Paynter told him this. Fisher was opinionated, but not a liar. Besides, he wasn't the only source. As far as "who" made the "discovery" goes.... I addressed this as well. Bruckman testified in both the Bronx and in Flemington that HE made the discovery and Tobin's testimony in Flemington back this up. It's in Bornmann's report that Bruckman was there when the discovery was made ( p511-12).
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,648
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Mar 3, 2022 12:15:04 GMT -5
Regarding Condon's phone number written under his address on the Hauptmann closet trim, I don't believe its author was Henry Paynter or Tom Cassidy, or any other reporter. Yes, I understand that you've "addressed it" in Dark Corners, but that doesn't by necessity make your findings correct. Why would anyone from the outside surreptitiously do this, when Condon's address was already there? Hauptmann was already dead to rights at "2974 Decatur." There would have been no reasonable need to "pile on" here, and at the very minimum the surreptitious author could have been charged for falsifying or compromising evidence. Edward Oehler's (whoever that was) evaluation on the handwriting is about as disjointed as listening to John Trendley on the stand, pointing out such miniscule differences as if they somehow negate and override the obvious similarities here. There's so much Hauptmann in those numerals, that "Sedgwick" is almost superfluous. BTW, I think that "k" in "Sedgwick" comes about as close to anything seen yet that aligned with that "special k" featured in the ransom notes. It's interesting to note that Lewis Bornmann, in his June 1983 audio interview with Dave Holwerda and Cornel Plebani, stated that it was he who discovered the Condon address and phone number in the Hauptmann closet. Possibly he had misremembered the event or just been mistaken, but he sounded pretty grounded and lucid at the time. Well let's do this then.... Why exactly wouldn't you believe it? Let's start from the "beginning." Most either accepted what Scaduto wrote without doing the research themselves, or blindly rejected it because it didn't fit in with their theory. And there it sat. Either one believed it or one did not. When I started researching it, I certainly didn't know what the true situation was. So I went to the Archives to find out, and what I discovered is in Chapter 9 in V2. No one can possibly call my research "biased" because my conclusions do not support that. I found out that Hauptmann actually wrote Condon's Address there - right? So if there was proof someone else didn't write the phone number there, I certainly would have revealed that as well. But I didn't. And why? Because Henry Paynter literally TOLD Lloyd Fisher he wrote it there. I'm certainly not making that up. Next, another counter argument I often heard was that Reporters and Police did not engage in this conduct. Well, I gave several examples to disprove that notion, one of which, involved BOTH Paynter & Bornmann when they teamed up earlier in the case to pull a fast one on Lloyd Fisher back when he represented J. J. Devine. Hell, during the Mattson case, one Reporter probably did something that got the kid killed, so please, I don't want to hear that excuse anymore. So - what we're left with is either Paynter lied to Fisher or Fisher lied when he claimed Paynter told him this. Fisher was opinionated, but not a liar. Besides, he wasn't the only source. As far as "who" made the "discovery" goes.... I addressed this as well. Bruckman testified in both the Bronx and in Flemington that HE made the discovery and Tobin's testimony in Flemington back this up. It's in Bornmann's report that Bruckman was there when the discovery was made ( p511-12). While I do appreciate the level of research you’ve put into this account Michael, like most case researchers, I’m always leery about second and third-hand accounts placed beside the circumstantial physical evidence and direct testimony of those we know were directly involved. Before I forget, again, can you please provide more information on your “expert” Edward Oehler, who claims the person writing Condon’s original phone number could not have been the same person who wrote his address above, and what were his credentials? While I wouldn’t bet the farm on “Sedgwick” having been written in Hauptmann’s hand, those phone number numerals are written in Hauptmann's hand, so it stands to reason that Sedgwick is as well. Was Oehler perhaps related to John Trendley? Next, you’ve gone out of your way in this chapter to underscore how newspaper reporters of this time often lacked honesty and ethics within their enterprise to come up with a great story, so why might not Henry Paynter, (Tom Cassidy, if anyone’s still hanging on to him as a dark horse), or any one of the reporters he allegedly confided in, have been lying about the identity of the mischievous author as well? Why in this specific case would he, or they, have suddenly become vanguards of truth and justice, when you’ve just spent a bunch of pages ripping strips off their kind for their underhanded tactics? Finally, I believe you’re overlooking the stark significance of Bruckman’s “quick discovery” here in obvious support of the Hoffman crusade and its well-after-the-fact agenda to lessen Hauptmann's burden of guilt. The truth, I believe, is much simpler than what you’ve presented here.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 3, 2022 14:42:02 GMT -5
While I do appreciate the level of research you’ve put into this account Michael, like most case researchers, I’m always leery about second and third-hand accounts placed beside the circumstantial physical evidence and direct testimony of those we know were directly involved. Well, lets see... Lloyd Fisher told Governor Hoffman that Paynter admitted to him that he wrote the phone number there. Next, Hoffman documented this communication, which of course is a first-hand account of his conversation with Fisher, and there's independent and neutral first-hand accounts of Fisher telling other people that Paynter told him he wrote it there. George Hawke, for example, interviewed Fisher and wrote about what he told him in his Senior Thesis. Finally, there are several other sources that claim Paynter admitted it to them too. And so, there can be little doubt that Paynter not only told Fisher he wrote it there, but that he was telling other people he wrote it there too. Before I forget, again, can you please provide more information on your “expert” Edward Oehler, who claims the person writing Condon’s original phone number could not have been the same person who wrote his address above, and what were his credentials? While I wouldn’t bet the farm on “Sedgwick” having been written in Hauptmann’s hand, those phone number numerals are written in Hauptmann's hand, so it stands to reason that Sedgwick is as well. Was Oehler perhaps related to John Trendley? First of all, he's not "my" expert. All I know about him is what I discovered at the NJSP Archives. If that information wasn't there I'd know nothing at all and wouldn't have included it. What I am sure of is that if his conclusions backed up some position or other that you happened to like, you would be cool with him. Of that I am certain. And another thing before "I" forget ... Anyone who has read my books or my posts here know I am not very big on Handwriting Expertise as a "science." Now, upon reading Oehler's report and actually looking at his diagram, it shows he's not just spit-balling or making things up because I see what he is seeing. But that's just me. I went into this thinking it probable that a member of the NY police wrote everything there and came out with the truth. It's quite obvious I've revealed everything and I'm not trying to hide anything. I would have loved to say he either wrote everything or nothing at all. It's not my fault the actual truth lies somewhere in the middle. This never sits well with either side of an issue, I know, but I can't and won't make something up to appease anyone. Next, you’ve gone out of your way in this chapter to underscore how newspaper reporters of this time often lacked honesty and ethics within their enterprise to come up with a great story, so why might not Henry Paynter, (Tom Cassidy, if anyone’s still hanging on to him as a dark horse), or any one of the reporters he allegedly confided in, have been lying about the identity of the mischievous author as well? Why in this specific case would he, or they, have suddenly become vanguards of truth and justice, when you’ve just spent a bunch of pages ripping strips off their kind for their underhanded tactics? People who commit crimes often get caught - why Joe? Because they tell someone. People get caught cheating on their spouses - why Joe? Because either they tell someone or someone who knows about it gets jealous or angry and rats them out. Or - they screw up somehow and tip their hand. People also brag or become boastful as well. In this case it appears Paynter first brought it to the attention of Fred Pope in between court sessions. I could be wrong about that but there can be no doubt whatsoever he told people he wrote it there. Absolutely Zero Doubt. So come up with whatever reason you like, that's something you are very good at (almost legendary), so why are you drawing a "blank" here? Finally, I believe you’re overlooking the stark significance of Bruckman’s “quick discovery” here in obvious support of the Hoffman crusade and its well-after-the-fact agenda to lessen Hauptmann's burden of guilt. The truth, I believe, is much simpler than what you’ve presented here. Well, you're wrong about that too and it reveals your bias. This idea that you can somehow read my mind is a serious flaw in your position. You are countering something BECAUSE you think I think something. But I do not. This has nothing to do with Hauptmann's "burden of guilt" as far as I'm concerned. It's getting the true situation of the matter out there in print. That's all. Fact is, as you've pointed out yourself, Bornmann may have been the "first" to see the numbers and could have been cast aside by Bruckman who dismantled the cloths hangar and pulled the trim out thus claiming he was the first. Bornmann discovering it first is worse than if Bruckman made a "quick" discovery given his history with Paynter. And yet, my book never accuses Bornmann of collaboration with Paynter concerning this event - does it? But those who read the book can certainly see the possibility and consider it for themselves - or not.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,648
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Mar 12, 2022 12:07:18 GMT -5
Michael, I understand you’re only the messenger here but essentially, what you’ve documented on a first-hand account level is that Paynter allegedly told two people, those being Lloyd Fisher and Frederick Pope about this supposed misadventure. Forgive me if you’ve already covered this in your book, but what are the “other sources” that claim Paynter admitted it to them too? Can you provide additional details? Perhaps Lloyd Fisher wasn’t a liar as you point out, but he also publicly professed his belief in Hauptmann’s complete innocence, didn’t he?
I believe you’re seeing what you’d like to see here within Oehler’s analysis. His demonstration is remarkably similar to Trendley’s courtroom charade which attempted to point out trivial differences within Hauptmann’s writing and the writer of the ransom notes, when all it did really was to draw more attention to the obvious similarities existing between both. So, you’re basically overlooking the latter in favour of superfluous detail. If you really like Oehler’s analysis though and feel it fortifies your findings, then we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this.
If what Lloyd Fisher claims is true, then Henry Paynter must have been a liar, or just plain stupid. What kind of idiot would do such a thing, if Condon’s address, incriminatingly written in Hauptmann’s hand, was already there? If Paynter had actually been the first one to observe the writing on the closet trim which he would have immediately recognized as valuable to the investigation, any sensible individual in his position, would immediately have informed an investigator, thereby getting the scoop. By this so called admission to playing prankster, he would clearly have been compromising potentially-critical criminal evidence up to an including the basis for a mistrial submission. At the very least, this action could have seen him fired and run out of Flemington on a rail. Having read many of Paynter’s newspaper articles, I just don’t believe he would have chosen to be this stupid. I have to believe there is a much better explanation here, so if you’ll indulge by considering my own two cents here..
Yes, I believe the red flag and key to this whole account is Bruckman’s “quick” discovery. Someone informed him about the closet trim writing, and perhaps that person was Henry Paynter. But Paynter did not write Condon’s phone number there. The “3-7154” are in Hauptmann’s hand, Edward Oehler notwithstanding. Now, if Paynter had somehow gained access to the Hautpmann apartment and been the one to discover the writing, then it would have been he who told Bruckman about it, and by doing so, probably would have expected at least some of the credit. When Bruckman reneged and took full credit, as he clearly appeared to do, I’m pretty sure Paynter would have none too pleased, and his reaction might well have been to find some way of getting back at Bruckman. Could the alleged story have been part and parcel of that? In any case, it really matters little in the light of Hauptmann clearly admitting his direct involvement to Foley and then exercising damage control realizing he was “in the bag,” as he put it on another occasion when caught dead to rights. Anyway, those are my thoughts on this whole scenario.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 12, 2022 15:32:49 GMT -5
Michael, I understand you’re only the messenger here but essentially, what you’ve documented on a first-hand account level is that Paynter allegedly told two people, those being Lloyd Fisher and Frederick Pope about this supposed misadventure. Forgive me if you’ve already covered this in your book, but what are the “other sources” that claim Paynter admitted it to them too? Can you provide additional details? Perhaps Lloyd Fisher wasn’t a liar as you point out, but he also publicly professed his belief in Hauptmann’s complete innocence, didn’t he? Let's start by looking at what Scaduto wrote. Do you think both Fitzpatrick and Hopstatter were lying to him? Or do you believe Scaduto made it up? Since its hard to believe that two separate reporters were running around admitting to this then I'm quite sure by the 1970s they were telling the truth but merely mixed up the name of the reporter. Next, George Clarke said the "Editor" mentioned in the Ken story was Howey. I chose not to beat a dead horse in the book but I researched more than I wrote. I'll limit it here because I already know it won't make a difference to you no matter what I reveal so I'll save some time and just say that Howey was a big shot advisor to Hearst and oversaw his NY papers. Among them was the New York Journal - the one who employed Paynter at the time of Hauptmann's arrest. So, once again, we have to believe the two men who were responsible for the article were lying about what Howey told them. George Clarke of the NY Mirror at the time, also wrote to Gov. Hoffman and said he was also told Paynter wrote the number there by multiple sources. The Mirror, by the way, was another of Hearst's papers. There's more, of course, but I'd have to go research this again and that would take up some time. And for what exactly? I already know it won't make a damn bit of difference to you. In the end, I don't know how many people would have had to lie about this event but it was many if Paynter wasn't telling people he wrote it there. As I sit here there's no way I will ever believe that under the circumstances. And so, I suppose, your best position would be to simply claim you believe it was Paynter who was lying. I believe you’re seeing what you’d like to see here within Oehler’s analysis. His demonstration is remarkably similar to Trendley’s courtroom charade which attempted to point out trivial differences within Hauptmann’s writing and the writer of the ransom notes, when all it did really was to draw more attention to the obvious similarities existing between both. So, you’re basically overlooking the latter in favour of superfluous detail. If you really like Oehler’s analysis though and feel it fortifies your findings, then we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this. There you go again Joe. You believe you can read my mind THEN formulate a rebuttal to this mistaken position. I've already admitted what I "wanted" to find but you simply jump over it so that you can try to score a point. Again, I wanted to find evidence that he either wrote everything or nothing at all. Finding what I did wasn't expected - at all. It makes the whole situation rather messy and is not something I "like" but it is what it is. Upon reviewing his report and chart/picture I can see what he was seeing. I'm not going to pretend I do and I'm not going to pretend I did not. How does that even make any sense? Fact is YOU don't like the conclusions so you resist them. It's kinda the pot calling the kettle black if you think about it. If what Lloyd Fisher claims is true, then Henry Paynter must have been a liar, or just plain stupid. What kind of idiot would do such a thing, if Condon’s address, incriminatingly written in Hauptmann’s hand, was already there? If Paynter had actually been the first one to observe the writing on the closet trim which he would have immediately recognized as valuable to the investigation, any sensible individual in his position, would immediately have informed an investigator, thereby getting the scoop. By this so called admission to playing prankster, he would clearly have been compromising potentially-critical criminal evidence up to an including the basis for a mistrial submission. At the very least, this action could have seen him fired and run out of Flemington on a rail. Having read many of Paynter’s newspaper articles, I just don’t believe he would have chosen to be this stupid. I have to believe there is a much better explanation here, so if you’ll indulge by considering my own two cents here.. These are two separate issues. One is if he wrote it there. The next is why. If he didn't write it then the second issue is answered. But he did. And not knowing or understanding why doesn't mean he did not. There's a ton of examples of stuff like this going on and not just the ones I used in my book (which you seemed to have ignored). We could ask why as it concerns each and everyone of them. To us, none of their reasons would be appropriate. Just look at Hearst's involvement: Hiring Reilly. Trying to pay for Hauptmann's confession through Reilly and later offering money to Fisher for the same reason. And after Fisher refused threatening him with bad press for rejecting their offer. Paying Anna under the pretext that they would give her husband positive press but did just the opposite. Then there's all kinds of other accusations leveled at them concerning other cases as well. Palmer mentioned a few that I wrote about in V4. For whatever reason, he obviously thought it would make a better story if Jafsie's phone number was there too. Why? I don't know because I do not have a source for it. If he was alive you could ask him. Yes, I believe the red flag and key to this whole account is Bruckman’s “quick” discovery. Someone informed him about the closet trim writing, and perhaps that person was Henry Paynter. But Paynter did not write Condon’s phone number there. The “3-7154” are in Hauptmann’s hand, Edward Oehler notwithstanding. Now, if Paynter had somehow gained access to the Hautpmann apartment and been the one to discover the writing, then it would have been he who told Bruckman about it, and by doing so, probably would have expected at least some of the credit. When Bruckman reneged and took full credit, as he clearly appeared to do, I’m pretty sure Paynter would have none too pleased, and his reaction might well have been to find some way of getting back at Bruckman. Could the alleged story have been part and parcel of that? In any case, it really matters little in the light of Hauptmann clearly admitting his direct involvement to Foley and then exercising damage control realizing he was “in the bag,” as he put it on another occasion when caught dead to rights. Anyway, those are my thoughts on this whole scenario. It's not just Oehler Joe, but all I can do is lead a horse to water. If there isn't enough for you or you simply are too invested in your present beliefs to change your mind so be it. Honestly, I wouldn't want to if you weren't comfortable with it. I do want you to consider it though because that's what the documentation shows. But alas, I think that might be asking too much since you are an old dog at this point ... I don't expect you to learn any new trick anytime soon.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 12, 2022 22:41:58 GMT -5
And to address your point about Fisher that I didn’t earlier: Fisher always believed Hauptmann was either a party to the extortion or involved with the ransom money in some way (V3 / P 628-30)
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,648
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Mar 13, 2022 13:28:23 GMT -5
Well Michael, this old dog certainly has a nose for stories like the “Henry-Did-It” one as smelling “off,” with the water you’re attempting to lead to here included. This not even considering full value of the circumstantial physical evidence which clearly identifies the phone numerals as being written in Hauptmann’s hand. Not to mention that Hauptmann admitted as much, before his classic backpedaling acts with Foley, and then in the courtroom with Wilentz. What I’ve offered here is a plausible scenario to address and advance discussion of the “sudden discovery” of the closet trim writing by Bruckman, in that someone, possibly Paynter or Cassidy or whoever, was the very source of the discovery and related this to Bruckman about it, who then took full credit for the discovery. This is something you appear to have your head stuck in the sand over, as if it’s just an irrelevant fact. So instead of even considering any merit here, you simply steamroll over what might well be valuable insight, in favour of adhering to and keeping your scriptures intact. I’ll not waste any more of your time here, as you may want to pursue more examples of “who-told-who-told-who,” something you often refer to through your own meme as “whisper down the alley.” And I’d take a bet that by Dark Corners V, you should have “Henry-Did-It” cemented into “fact,” as you’ve previously done with your “ransom drop ruse.” Just be careful you don’t get your feet stuck. There are certainly other ways of advancing this case beyond the relatively-stagnant pond it’s become here, as long as insights that provide a potentially-more inclusive view of it are not encouraged or even considered to be worthy of discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 13, 2022 16:35:36 GMT -5
Well Michael, this old dog certainly has a nose for stories like the “Henry-Did-It” one as smelling “off,” with the water you’re attempting to lead to here included. This not even considering full value of the circumstantial physical evidence which clearly identifies the phone numerals as being written in Hauptmann’s hand. Not to mention that Hauptmann admitted as much, before his classic backpedaling acts with Foley, and then in the courtroom with Wilentz. This has all been addressed in V2 Chapter 9. I specifically preempted any potential counter-arguments before they were actually made. Which of course is exactly why you are ignoring it all by pretending I never did. Or perhaps you have forgotten or maybe even never read it at all. It's the easiest way to hold onto your positions. And you've proven my point that by giving you even more information would have met with the exact same response regardless. What I’ve offered here is a plausible scenario to address and advance discussion of the “sudden discovery” of the closet trim writing by Bruckman, in that someone, possibly Paynter or Cassidy or whoever, was the very source of the discovery and related this to Bruckman about it, who then took full credit for the discovery. This is something you appear to have your head stuck in the sand over, as if it’s just an irrelevant fact. So instead of even considering any merit here, you simply steamroll over what might well be valuable insight, in favour of adhering to and keeping your scriptures intact. Believe me Joe, I am reading what you've suggested. I have. Certainly Paynter may have tipped off Bornmann. Or he may have been working with him - AGAIN. Or he may have told Buckman he found it "as is" as well. There's lots of different scenarios to run down. But there is one thing that is absolute and that's Paynter was telling people HE wrote the phone number there. It's what the documentation shows. I am the first to reveal it because, apparently, I'm the first to bother to actually go to the archives with the intent to look into it. Others merely accepted either Fisher or Scaduto without doing any of the work themselves. When I see something I want the answers to I pursue it myself. But because of the number of questions involved with this case combined with the enormity of the NJSP Archives itself, it can take a while to put everything together. So most like the shortcuts better. It's how, over time, mistakes get solidified as facts. I'll not waste any more of your time here, as you may want to pursue more examples of “who-told-who-told-who,” something you often refer to through your own meme as “whisper down the alley.” And I’d take a bet that by Dark Corners V, you should have “Henry-Did-It” cemented into “fact,” as you’ve previously done with your “ransom drop ruse.” Just be careful you don’t get your feet stuck. I'm sorry you don't think memos and letters written by Gov. Hoffman and his secretary that recorded what Fisher (Hauptmann's Lawyer) told him are legit. Sorry that you don't think George Hawke's interview with Fisher, which he recorded in his Master Thesis, is reliable. That's your cross to bear. Honestly, if not these sources then what? In fact, just these things alone show Paynter told Fisher he wrote it. Hawke didn't read the Governor's documents because they hadn't even been discovered yet. That makes these sources independent. And so, one has a decision to make... Was Fisher lying, was Paynter lying - or was Paynter telling the truth? That's it. Claiming its " whisper down the alley" or a " he-told-who-told-who" is disingenuous and doesn't apply here. Try as you might, for whatever reason, it just isn't true. The bigger question to be asked is why you feel the need to counter it in this way? In the end, the other source documentation and research answers one of those questions above: Fisher wasn't lying. And if he wasn't lying then we don't have to wonder about everyone else involved with a story or recollection about it. The only mistake was that Scaduto was given the wrong name. There are certainly other ways of advancing this case beyond the relatively-stagnant pond it’s become here, as long as insights that provide a potentially-more inclusive view of it are not encouraged or even considered to be worthy of discussion. Everything is welcome Joe. Whether you think the discussions have become stagnant or not, I don't know, but again - I'm not going to pretend something is or isn't true for the sake of making it less so. I'm nobody's clone and certainly not a lemming. So if I agree then I agree. If I don't then I won't. Everyone is welcome to agree, disagree, or remain unwilling to draw a conclusion. But what's going on between us now is disagreement and nothing more.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,648
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Mar 19, 2022 7:45:38 GMT -5
Again Michael, I understand what you're saying, and yes, I've read V2:C9. But thanks again for reminding me where I can again find the information in your books (approx. 2000 pages worth) that contain no reference-assisting index. I know you've just reported what you've found and at the same time, respect the level of research involved in pulling this account out of the ground, in light of the misinformation that existed in Scaduto's day. But the account itself is almost laughable when examining the circumstantial physical evidence and Hauptmann's known documented writing, which is not subject to this level of hearsay. And I think we need to examine more fully, would Paynter really have resolved to manufacture additional incriminating evidence against Hauptmann, when Condon's address was already there? You and I both know that seeing what he might well have on that closet trim, would have had him on a beeline for the first investigator he was chummy with. As a news reporter, he would inherently have seen the primary value of reporting Condon's address and it making made a far "better story", even a "front page" one, as opposed to the scenario where he turns himself into a mindless moron, fabricating something that was entirely unnecessary and at odds with all common sense. My point simply is this. This "Henry-Did-It" account and its malodorous nature left unchecked, has far too many issues surrounding around it, to simply accept as mere "archives scriptures."
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 19, 2022 10:49:53 GMT -5
Again Michael, I understand what you're saying, and yes, I've read V2:C9. But thanks again for reminding me where I can again find the information in your books (approx. 2000 pages worth) that contain no reference-assisting index. I know you've just reported what you've found and at the same time, respect the level of research involved in pulling this account out of the ground, in light of the misinformation that existed in Scaduto's day. But the account itself is almost laughable when examining the circumstantial physical evidence and Hauptmann's known documented writing, which is not subject to this level of hearsay. And I think we need to examine more fully, would Paynter really have resolved to manufacture additional incriminating evidence against Hauptmann, when Condon's address was already there? You and I both know that seeing what he might well have on that closet trim, would have had him on a beeline for the first investigator he was chummy with. As a news reporter, he would inherently have seen the primary value of reporting Condon's address and it making made a far "better story", even a "front page" one, as opposed to the scenario where he turns himself into a mindless moron, fabricating something that was entirely unnecessary and at odds with all common sense. My point simply is this. This "Henry-Did-It" account and its malodorous nature left unchecked, has far too many issues surrounding around it, to simply accept as mere "archives scriptures." There are two issues here. Since the first plays directly into the second, I am going to address that now. There is no index because it defeats the purpose. I designed these books for people like you. That is, those who are already versed in the subject. So what I've written spans throughout the volumes. All information needs to be read then digested. To surf the index defeats the purpose. For example, who would know I am showing that Crepeau probably actually knew what happened - or knew what did - to Francis St. John Smith UNLESS they continued and finished "False Prophets?" Or that Stroh was really talking about Rosalind Lapnore but when an investigator suggested a different name "he went with it." This is exactly why, as an interviewer, you should never suggest anything. There's a lesson to be learned here as it relates to Condon as well. And so, while I may not specifically point these things out - they are everywhere throughout. I even use things in previous volumes to do this. Even the ransom letters in this case Daley thought were actually written from a REPORTER. They weren't but why oh why would he think this?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 19, 2022 19:04:17 GMT -5
Again Michael, I understand what you're saying, and yes, I've read V2:C9. But thanks again for reminding me where I can again find the information in your books (approx. 2000 pages worth) that contain no reference-assisting index. I know you've just reported what you've found and at the same time, respect the level of research involved in pulling this account out of the ground, in light of the misinformation that existed in Scaduto's day. But the account itself is almost laughable when examining the circumstantial physical evidence and Hauptmann's known documented writing, which is not subject to this level of hearsay. And I think we need to examine more fully, would Paynter really have resolved to manufacture additional incriminating evidence against Hauptmann, when Condon's address was already there? You and I both know that seeing what he might well have on that closet trim, would have had him on a beeline for the first investigator he was chummy with. As a news reporter, he would inherently have seen the primary value of reporting Condon's address and it making made a far "better story", even a "front page" one, as opposed to the scenario where he turns himself into a mindless moron, fabricating something that was entirely unnecessary and at odds with all common sense. My point simply is this. This "Henry-Did-It" account and its malodorous nature left unchecked, has far too many issues surrounding around it, to simply accept as mere "archives scriptures." Moving on to the 2nd... Okay so you've examined the molding - or a picture of it? Had to be a picture because only the numbers of the phone listing is visible now. I've looked at both the actual closet trim and the various pictures. I've looked at the chart Oehler created and I agree with what he wrote. It's all in the book so I won't restate it here. Next, your reasoning for dismissing it is flawed. Yes, the address was already there. And yes, among those to whom Paynter confessed was Hauptmann's attorney Lloyd Fisher. So once again, I'm not going to restate what I've already posted. Neither you nor I would have done this. But would a reporter covering a major crime back during this era? Of course! The examples prove this, but for some reason you ignore them. Why? I'll answer that... Because you think applying it to today's standards will resonate with anyone who hasn't read my book. It has nothing to do with common sense. Even as far back as 3X the police suspected the notes were being written by a Reporter. Again, as with the St. John Smith extortion letters: Why would police suspect such a thing if it's " at odds with common sense" as you assert? So its not just a suggestion. The man was telling people he did it. There's more, of course, but I'm not going to waste my time since it will not matter to you what it is.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,648
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Mar 20, 2022 8:51:52 GMT -5
Again Michael, I understand what you're saying, and yes, I've read V2:C9. But thanks again for reminding me where I can again find the information in your books (approx. 2000 pages worth) that contain no reference-assisting index. I know you've just reported what you've found and at the same time, respect the level of research involved in pulling this account out of the ground, in light of the misinformation that existed in Scaduto's day. But the account itself is almost laughable when examining the circumstantial physical evidence and Hauptmann's known documented writing, which is not subject to this level of hearsay. And I think we need to examine more fully, would Paynter really have resolved to manufacture additional incriminating evidence against Hauptmann, when Condon's address was already there? You and I both know that seeing what he might well have on that closet trim, would have had him on a beeline for the first investigator he was chummy with. As a news reporter, he would inherently have seen the primary value of reporting Condon's address and it making made a far "better story", even a "front page" one, as opposed to the scenario where he turns himself into a mindless moron, fabricating something that was entirely unnecessary and at odds with all common sense. My point simply is this. This "Henry-Did-It" account and its malodorous nature left unchecked, has far too many issues surrounding around it, to simply accept as mere "archives scriptures." There are two issues here. Since the first plays directly into the second, I am going to address that now. There is no index because it defeats the purpose. I designed these books for people like you. That is, those who are already versed in the subject. So what I've written spans throughout the volumes. All information needs to be read then digested. To surf the index defeats the purpose. For example, who would know I am showing that Crepeau probably actually knew what happened - or knew what did - to Francis St. John Smith UNLESS they continued and finished "False Prophets?" Or that Stroh was really talking about Rosalind Lapnore but when an investigator suggested a different name "he went with it." This is exactly why, as an interviewer, you should never suggest anything. There's a lesson to be learned here as it relates to Condon as well. And so, while I may not specifically point these things out - they are everywhere throughout. I even use things in previous volumes to do this. Even the ransom letters in this case Daley thought were actually written from a REPORTER. They weren't but why oh why would he think this? Okay, I don't remember the survey that attempted to determine whether or not an index might be a benefit to readers. Of course, I'm kidding but consider this. If we are the people you designed your books for then you already know we're going to read them from cover to cover, and not just "index surf." As I've said before, you've published approximately two thousand pages spanning four books, much of it reported but relatively unknown information, that may or may not even be relevant in some cases. You've obviously made the personal choice as to what you want to present and I'm sure you would comfortably be able to put out four more books of facts about this case, given the massive amount of general information available at the archives. You've been through the same archives from top to bottom three times and have probably committed a sizeable percentage of this to memory and a specific location in each book due to your sheer familiarity with the subject matter. I'm being completely honest with you when I tell you I've read each of your books from cover to cover without stopping. Generally speaking though, and other than finding out from you or someone else here who just happens to know, I have little idea where to reference a subject or point that I'd like to return to. And of course, this has brought out the trolls here who accuse me of arguing with you while not even having read your books. I suggested before your last book, that if you at least subdivided your Table of Contents further into the sub-titles you present within each chapter, it would be extremely helpful towards benefitting those who would like to return to previously read passages. Perhaps you just ignored my suggestion or it was too late to do that. In any case, I guess I'll just have to keep bothering you to tell me where I can find the information I'd like to revisit.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,648
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Mar 20, 2022 9:02:28 GMT -5
Again Michael, I understand what you're saying, and yes, I've read V2:C9. But thanks again for reminding me where I can again find the information in your books (approx. 2000 pages worth) that contain no reference-assisting index. I know you've just reported what you've found and at the same time, respect the level of research involved in pulling this account out of the ground, in light of the misinformation that existed in Scaduto's day. But the account itself is almost laughable when examining the circumstantial physical evidence and Hauptmann's known documented writing, which is not subject to this level of hearsay. And I think we need to examine more fully, would Paynter really have resolved to manufacture additional incriminating evidence against Hauptmann, when Condon's address was already there? You and I both know that seeing what he might well have on that closet trim, would have had him on a beeline for the first investigator he was chummy with. As a news reporter, he would inherently have seen the primary value of reporting Condon's address and it making made a far "better story", even a "front page" one, as opposed to the scenario where he turns himself into a mindless moron, fabricating something that was entirely unnecessary and at odds with all common sense. My point simply is this. This "Henry-Did-It" account and its malodorous nature left unchecked, has far too many issues surrounding around it, to simply accept as mere "archives scriptures." Moving on to the 2nd... Okay so you've examined the molding - or a picture of it? Had to be a picture because only the numbers of the phone listing is visible now. I've looked at both the actual closet trim and the various pictures. I've looked at the chart Oehler created and I agree with what he wrote. It's all in the book so I won't restate it here. Next, your reasoning for dismissing it is flawed. Yes, the address was already there. And yes, among those to whom Paynter confessed was Hauptmann's attorney Lloyd Fisher. So once again, I'm not going to restate what I've already posted. Neither you nor I would have done this. But would a reporter covering a major crime back during this era? Of course! The examples prove this, but for some reason you ignore them. Why? I'll answer that... Because you think applying it to today's standards will resonate with anyone who hasn't read my book. It has nothing to do with common sense. Even as far back as 3X the police suspected the notes were being written by a Reporter. Again, as with the St. John Smith extortion letters: Why would police suspect such a thing if it's " at odds with common sense" as you assert? So its not just a suggestion. The man was telling people he did it. There's more, of course, but I'm not going to waste my time since it will not matter to you what it is. With all due respect, given what you've just posted, I think I'll just leave it up to others to decide for themselves whose reasoning might well be flawed here, as well as the veracity of Edward Oehler's findings. This is probably my clearest photo of the closet trim writing:
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 20, 2022 9:42:19 GMT -5
Okay, I don't remember the survey that attempted to determine whether or not an index might be a benefit to readers. Of course, I'm kidding but consider this. If we are the people you designed your books for then you already know we're going to read them from cover to cover, and not just "index surf." As I've said before, you've published approximately two thousand pages spanning four books, much of it reported but relatively unknown information, that may or may not even be relevant in some cases. You've obviously made the personal choice as to what you want to present and I'm sure you would comfortably be able to put out four more books of facts about this case, given the massive amount of general information available at the archives. You've been through the same archives from top to bottom three times and have probably committed a sizeable percentage of this to memory and a specific location in each book due to your sheer familiarity with the subject matter. I'm being completely honest with you when I tell you I've read each of your books from cover to cover without stopping. Generally speaking though, and other than finding out from you or someone else here who just happens to know, I have little idea where to reference a subject or point that I'd like to return to. And of course, this has brought out the trolls here who accuse me of arguing with you while not even having read your books. I suggested before your last book, that if you at least subdivided your Table of Contents further into the sub-titles you present within each chapter, it would be extremely helpful towards benefitting those who would like to return to previously read passages. Perhaps you just ignored my suggestion or it was too late to do that. In any case, I guess I'll just have to keep bothering you to tell me where I can find the information I'd like to revisit. I think its the reason why you did read it cover to cover. It's human nature to "cheat" when possible. Or to get a little anxious and want to skip to something deemed more interesting. But in doing so the bigger picture of it all can get completely lost. Especially in my books because, as I've attempted to exemplify, there are, for lack of a better term, "easter eggs" all over the place. It's more of a style although I realize its unusual. Maybe it was the wrong strategy but its how my brain works and I do it on cruise control whether I like it or not. To protect that, I cannot create an index or I am defeating a major part of its purpose. What I did do is create various sections within chapters that can be used as bookmarks. I also even suggested in V3 to take notes or jot down pages for future reference. I am going to be honest and say that if not for the Wayne Jones index I probably wouldn't even open it. There are books I've stopped reading even though they have one because I didn't want to flood my head with bad information. So, I rely on their indexes to look up various topics so I can address their mistakes specifically.
|
|