Murray Garsson's Theory

[Michael]

I know Kevin. There has been things of this nature said about others who have been involved investigating this case. Like I said, we have to take the good with the bad. Like Kelly for example. He sold Nursery pictures through Lewis. Lewis gets fired because he didn't tell on Kelly. Does that mean everything Kelly did in connection with this case was underhanded?

Those who took bribes in the Hall-Mills Case. Do we disregard every and all reports they wrote concerning this case?

I could probably set a record with all the negative information I have on just about all of the Investigators. There were very few people of Lt. Snook's calibur for example.

Fact is, while Garsson had something negative occur in his lifetime, he had some positive indicators concerning his investigative abilities as well.

I think we're starting to beat a dead horse.... but I do see where you are coming from.

[OldeFox]

Link to Murray W. Garsson's Celeb website--check page 3 for sure:

www.weblo.com/celebrity/available/asset_image/324872/6021655/Murray_W_Garsson/

[sue75]

People in March 1932 were obviously following Murray Garsson's line of thinking -- that the body of the baby may have been thrown in the furnace. Why was this one of the important questions people wanted answered? And they were asking the question a few weeks BEFORE Garsson arrived at the Hopewell house.

This is from the San Jose News, March 10, 1932:

"Have the ashes in the Lindbergh furnace and basement been examined?"

The above quote is from the article on the left (arrow down for quote) entitled "Rumor That Baby's Found Flatly Denied."

news.google.com/newspapers?id=FCkiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=F6QFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3573,878447&hl=en

[Michael]

Sue: This is from the Q&A sessions. This was the method that both the Media and Schwarzkopf agreed upon so as not to interfere with the Investigation or intrude upon the Lindberghs.

Most Reporters got their questions from "somewhere" or "someone." Many "sources" were Cops being paid for their information. Think about that for a second.

Another important question is the 5 mile body discovery - something which seemed to continually come up before the body was found approximately 5 miles away.

[sue75]

These cops being paid for their information must have been of the caliber of Gregory Ahlgren & Stephen Monier, authors of Crime of the Century: The Lindbergh Kidnapping Hoax -- they also feel the right questions weren't asked in 1932.

Do any photos of the basement exist? Did John Hughes Curtis describe the furnace in any of his writings given he was imprisoned down there?

[wolf2]

sue moniers book is garbage. they never researched the case at the njsp

[Michael]

Sue: I'll dig through my Curtis files to see what I come up with.

Steve: Do you know, through personal knowledge, that A&M never benefited from any research at the NJSP? That is, did anyone who did research there provide documents to them?

Next, what amount of time at the NJSP Archives qualifies a book as not being garbage? 8 to 10 days? Making up conversations as to what one would consider would have happened had they been a fly on the wall?

Lloyd's book put all of that nonsense to rest the day his book came out. He spent the time necessary doing Archival research to put out a book along intelligent lines. Just looks at his footnotes. They're indisputable. No name-calling, just the facts.

You have Fisher calling people "Revisionists" when he is one himself. Lloyd's book has people angry. Why is that exactly? Because it properly disputes fiction being represented as a matter of fact by someone who claims only others do that. And Lloyd does it without calling people names - he just lets the facts speak for themselves and leaves it up to the Reader to draw their own conclusions.

The Case That Never Dies is simply the best book ever written on this crime. Hands down.

[wolf2]

i disagree being the best book ever written, mark told me monier never went to the museum. the facts still remain in this case, fisher is right to this day that hauptmann is guilty of the crime, i dont care what lyodd says in his book. to much shying away to hard evidence

[Michael]

Here's the thing Steve....

People who have never been to the NJSP Archives have actually benefited by research there. How do I know this? Because I have sent others information from those Archives as well as other sources.

Also, I have been at the NJSP Archives while other Researchers have been there. Some have told me they were "hired" to do the research so it wasn't for themselves.

Furthermore, I have also benefited from Archives I haven't been to myself. Recently, someone visited the Michigan State Police Archives then sent me everything they had there on the Lindbergh Kidnapping. I in turn sent them everything from NJSP they were looking for there - so one could argue I have never been there, and they have never been here - but in reality - did we need to be?

Next, while I was at the Army War College Archives going through Donovan's material...I saw MANY people there. Do you think any took note of me, who I was, or what I was doing?

My point is this: I have been going to the NJSP Archives for over a decade, and here you can still see I am searching for things. Often I will admit I don't know everything or that I could be wrong. Then you have some mocking, name-calling, and degrading others based upon what exactly?

A couple of days or maybe a week at the NJSP Archives?

What? Are you kidding me?

[wolf2]

im not talking about you, moniers book is the worst out of all so whats the differnce?

[kevkon]

There always seems to be a debate over the quality of the various LKC books written. I think the best way to approach the subject is to look at the intent of the authors. If their intention is to propose a theory, new or old, then I look at it from that perspective. I expect that there may be "inaccuracies" since the author is proposing something that by it's nature rejects some of the accepted evidence.
Then there are the books that try to give an accurate accounting of the crime and the investigation which followed. I would be much more critical of these since they purport to be based entirely on fact and evidence. That's why even though I agree with most of what Fisher has to say, I think he definately created his own evidence to fill in the blanks.
Lloyd's book is a bit different than the rest in that he is a historian and not a crimonologist or crime writer. As many historians do, he often asks more questions than he answers. That may be construed by some as revisionism, but really it's just an author being dilligent with archival evidence.
I think the "perfect" book on the LKC would combine the research and talent of Lloyd with the criminal investigative experience and savy nature of Fisher.

[Michael]

For me, A&M's book isn't "bad." Like any, there is good stuff in it. It also brought out some stuff that had been known but never talked about.... It needs to be.

This thing I hate most about Fisher's "books" is his approach. The "I am right and everyone else is crazy" approach sucks - especially when he is factually incorrect with many of his assertions and/or omits things which would cast doubt upon his positions. Frankly, there isn't a fact in either of his "books" I would trust without looking into it myself. Not one.

You're idea about how a book should be written is a good one Kevin. Unfortunately, I have only the research nailed down and law enforcement experience - After that I call it as I see it. No diplomacy, no savvy, no smooth writing skills. Lloyd's skills are unmatched, and I have personally witnessed his thoughts turned into masterpieces - overnight.

I am certainly not a "real" Author, but I believe whatever I write will be a very valuable read. My only real goal is to put out there what I know in a way that makes the most sense to me.

Sue, I found something in the Curtis files. I still want to look through Lloyd Fisher's material too so please bear with me. From Curtis's notes:

...down in the cellar in the wash tub room where there was a cot and down there was the boy who had been assigned to me as my night guard.... On the wall on a rubber matting of some sort was all the exhibits of the case consisting of the little shirt-band etc., where they had been pinned on the matt to be photographed, also on the floor was a blanket rolled up as well as some crib mattings, etc. It was very damp there and the guard had lighted a sun lamp that was already there to take some of the chill of the room.

[sue75]

Very interesting. Thank you, Michael. I wonder if that's the same sun lamp that the baby had in the nursery?

[wolf2]

moniers book isnt bad? you have to be kidding. when you debate the evidence in a book debate your dead in the water. ive seen it first hand. you can go to the archives a million times, it wont change the facts in this case

[Michael]

It was Sue. I don't know when it was moved down there though. I believe its been implied in the past there was some sort of nefarious motive for it being relocated. I can't agree. The Police already knew where it had been and for what purpose. It just seems to me that the Basement was being utilized before Curtis was falsely imprisoned there, and we can see it was cold and damp. For me this explains why its where it is.

Steve: Public debates cannot be fruitful in this Case. Just look at how long it is taking me to find the information Sue has asked for. So it takes a while to properly fulfill the request. Does that mean I don't have it? No, it means I have 10 years of material I have to look through to find it. According to Fisher's 1st book he has 4 trips to the Archives worth, and 3 days of Hoffman's stuff.

It took me 3 days to search 4 boxes of Hoffman's Collection, and there are 34 boxes to look through. And that was just the first time. Each and every time I went through them I learned more and more and more. It's simply irresponsible for someone to take a meager 3 days then act the role of God when it comes to this Case.

No way Jose.

[kevkon]

Out of curiosity, how much time did A&M spend at the archives?

Michael, don't cut yourself short. You have a lot of savvy and a helluva a lot more exposure to criminals than any writer I know of. In fact, I would go so far to say that any lingering doubts I may hold as to Hauptmann's guilt are due to the sole fact that with all of your experience, you still seem unconvinced.
As for Lloyd, what can I say other than he is one of the most intelligent men I have ever met. I think in some ways though, that can be a handicap when dealing with the depths of human actions. There is such a thing as over thinking something, especially if the subject is actually simpler than everyone believes it to be. I suspect that if we were ever to discover who the Ripper really was, many would be dissapointed to find that he was just another twisted soul.

[wolf2]

mike public debates are very fruitful i disagree with your assertion. have you been to one pertaing to this case? jim isnt acting as a role of god, he thinks hauptmann was guilty like i do. the problem is you made to many trips to the museum and havnt proved anything

[Michael]

Thanks Kevin.

Don't get me wrong, I do have an ability (in the environment I am in) but people still can and do get over on me from time to time.

It's important to note that I am through debating like I did when I was in college. That is, picking a side and arguing it forever.... I've learned all I can from that. At this point its the degree of guilt, and/or involvement. I don't want to say never, but I don't think I will ever buy into the Lone-Wolf theory of this crime.

I agree that sometimes it isn't black or white but sometimes different shades of grey. Also, it could be something unrelated that we are trying to assign weight to as it pertains to our situation. Over-thinking could be bad but so could simplifying something that isn't, or worse yet - shrugging it off completely.

Lloyd's book, to me, presents facts which may or may not be considered. But they are presented nevertheless so that we may make an informed decision. Choosing not to consider something exists only when its there to disregard in the first place.

Know what I mean?

I don't know about how much time A&M spent at the NJSP Archives. Steve says they didn't go, and I have no reason to doubt him. However, they obviously benefited from them because Bornmann's Reports are footnoted in the book, as well as credit going to other Archives such as the Bronx, Milton Mass, Jersey City, NYC, RISP, NJSP etc. As I demonstrated above, its very possible they hired Researchers find material they were looking for - they got the material some how regardless.

[feathers]

Hi everyone!

I am brand new to the board and am very impressed with the depth of knowledge I have seen displayed by you all in your discussions. At the risk of resurrecting the dead horse, I just thought I would chime in here with what I know about Murray Garsson from my research.

First of all, I agree completely with what Michael wrote about not dismissing the evidence accumulated by Garsson because of his record and also about not judging him by what he would end up doing in his future. However, I am a stickler for accuracy, so I am offering this for what it is worth.

Murray Garsson was one of several brothers who ran into trouble with the law. One brother, Irving Garsson was a prohibition agent in the early 1920s. In the summer of 1922, Murray Garsson arranged a "loan" of $100,000 to Ralph A. Day, the prohibition director of New York State at the time (to be distinguished from the Supervising Prohibition Enforcement Agent - generalizing Day was responsible for permits for producing alcohol, not for enforcement of the Volstead Act). The allegation was made that this loan was a bribe by Garsson for bootlegging purposes (ie to obtain permits). The evidence was put before a grand jury, which demanded to see Day's financial records. Day refused and was forced to resign. A indictment was made of Day for a minor matter (but that is a whole other irrelevant story). Irving Garsson and several other agents were fired for corruption. Irving later said his firing was a "political" attack.

Murray Garsson shared an office with Morris Sweetwood, who was partners with Mannie Kessler, one of the biggest bootleggers at that time. Murray was also alleged to have ties to Owney Madden (which may be of interest given Madden's role in the LKC). The allegations of his ties to Madden extended right into 1932, when he was alleged to have assisted Madden to avoid getting deported. He also was later said to have ties to Dutch Schultz.

As far as Elmer Irey's comments on Garsson go, I would take them with a grain of salt. Irey's Intelligence Unit was involved in the initial investigation in 1922, so Irey would have viewed Garsson as a scoundrel who got away with it. Hence his pleasure at purportedly getting Garsson fired (which he didn't - Garsson was let go in 1933 after a new Secretary of Labor was appointed0. I might generally say that I find Irey's recollections to be a bit unreliable.

Garsson's firing from the Department of Labor may have just been the turnover from a Republican to Democratic administration, but there appear to have been some innuendo that he was "shaking down" people.

So right up to the time of the kidnapping there were allegations of Garsson's corruption. That said, I find it difficult to see that he had any ulterior motive in his involvement in the LKC (I suppose he could have been looking for hush money from Lindbergh, but he doesn't seemed to made such demands). It may be of interest to know that there was a report that Murray's own daughter was said to have been kidnapped and returned after payment of a ransom. So he may have had personal reasons to volunteer his help.

My apologies if this is all old news to everyone!

[Michael]

Dec 7, 2014 1:34:13 GMT -5 feathers said:

I am brand new to the board and am very impressed with the depth of knowledge I have seen displayed by you all in your discussions. At the risk of resurrecting the dead horse, I just thought I would chime in here with what I know about Murray Garsson from my research.

Thank you so much for sharing your research! This is great stuff and I really appreciate it. Nothing is ever a "dead" subject, and sometimes bringing it up again rejuvenates the topic which then gives rise to new and interesting ideas. I always held out hope that I'd come across the Dept. of Labor's "Lindbergh File" but so far it's one collection that has evaded me. I can only imagine, if it still exists, what's in that!

[Deleted]

Hi feathers and welcome to the board.

You made a great post about Murray Garsson. Thanks for sharing it on this board. I don't know very much about Garsson. He is not mentioned in most of the Lindbergh books I have read.

What I do know about him is that he apppeared at the Hopewell house at like 3 a.m. the night of March 22 and caused quite an upset to Anne, Mrs. Morrow, Betty Gow and the Whateleys. My understanding is that Garsson had talked to Lindbergh about 1 a.m. and was given permission to go to the Hopewell house. Would you happen to know what it is that he discussed with Lindbergh that caused Lindbergh to ok this visit?

Would you know what Garsson's theory of the kidnapping was? He checked the ashes of the heater at the Lindbergh home looking for evidence of Charlie. Wow!

[feathers]

No, I am sorry, I have had no luck either locating the report yet. I will keep looking though.

The Department of Labor records from this period are very scanty. I am not sure why that is.

There does appear to have been some sort of main report. In a report from the AG (so likely the FBI) to a Congressional Committee for Investigation of the National Defense Program in 1946, in referring to Garsson's background, it says "It was alleged that in the reports submitted by him concerning this investigation [the kidnapping], he manifested he was of the opinion that Colonel and Mrs. Lindbergh might have been involved in the disappearance of their child."

So by 1946, the FBI had still not seen the report.

But it appears that Garsson's theory was indeed that CAL was involved, as Garsson's actions demonstrated.

I am not sure that Garsson actually did talk directly to CAL to get his permission. I am just going from memory here but Irey said that Frank Bartow of JP Morgan approached CAL on Garsson's behalf to get permission. I could be wrong about that.

In her reminiscences (which kevkon referred to earlier), Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins said that after she fired Garsson and his men in 1933, she later found them one night raiding the files in the office. She stopped them, but admitted that they may have taken some with them in their pockets. So there is a chance that the report is no longer in ANY archive.

Also, it is unlikely the report is with Garsson's family. He died homeless and alone.

I haven't given up though, and will let you know if I find anything. Most of my files are packed away right now, but when I get them out I may be able to follow some other leads.

BTW Erwin Brown was apparently the nephew of Secretary of Labor William Doak.

[stella7]

Very interesting, Feathers, so it looks like Garsson was willing to ask the questions that probably everyone was thinking but were too afraid of Lindbergh to ask. Interesting too, that he included Anne in his suspicions.

[feathers]

Since Dark Corners devotes a chapter to Garrson, I thought I would post my remarks over here.

From what Michael has revealed, it is apparent that Garsson made great headway in his questioning of witnesses and was not the buffoon portrayed by Irey in Tax Dodgers.  Irey of course was writing contemporaneously with the fraud case - otherwise he probably would not have mentioned Garsson at all.

Garsson is actually a fascinating character - to many at the time he was regarded as an ace investigator.  There is an interesting article in Real Detective in July 1933 that is very flattering - no mention of the Lindbergh case, but instead about the alien shakedown racket.  Garsson was also entangled in a number of scandals as early as the 1920s.  Garsson tried to portray many of these as politically motivated attacks.

Personally I think that the evidence he uncovered is not particularly tainted by that.  I think it is entirely possible he was hoping to blackmail the Lindberghs, but the witness statements Michael refers to stand independently of that.  Certainly, Garsson was no respecter of civil liberties.

I do find it interesting that Garsson acted fearlessly and that he was backed by Doak all the way.  As I mentioned before Brown was a relative of Doak.  More interestingly, Frances Perkins claimed she was given suggestions that Garsson had blackmail material on Doak himself and that was how he managed to stay on despite complaints.  Then as Michael points out, it took Hoover himself to have Garsson removed from the case.  Interestingly though, the episode did not harm Garsson's career at all.

I have the labor department employment file on Garsson, but there is nothing on the Lindberghs there.

[feathers]

One thing I should point out for accuracy purposes. Murray Garsson was not the Special Assistant Secretary to the Department of Labor. He was a Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Department of Labor. Garsson often claimed to be the former and even signed letters like that. It was a real source of aggravation to other government officials. But his position was a contract position directly to Doak, the Secretary of Labor. An Assistant Secretary would be a high level appointment involving Congress, I think. I will try to find the relevant documents from his employment file and post them.

[Michael]

Oct 11, 2016 17:21:15 GMT -5 feathers said:

One thing I should point out for accuracy purposes. Murray Garsson was not the Special Assistant Secretary to the Department of Labor. He was a Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Department of Labor. Garsson often claimed to be the former and even signed letters like that. It was a real source of aggravation to other government officials. But his position was a contract position directly to Doak, the Secretary of Labor. An Assistant Secretary would be a high level appointment involving Congress, I think. I will try to find the relevant documents from his employment file and post them.

You just taught me something new. Thank you for this because it's important to not only get it right but to also know the story behind it.

[Michael]

[Michael]

Risking the possibility of repeating myself, Garsson really did descend on Hopewell with a small army of investigators. I've noticed they were referred to as "Special Investigators," or "Inspectors" - and also referred to as "G" men by the public and reporters. Every time I pick up one of the Department of Labor reports it's by a different man. Also, they covered a lot of ground in the short period of time they were there and conducted countless investigations and interviews. Here is one of their reports on Antonia Cholewsky, dubbed the "Pig Woman" by the Press, written by Special Investigator Harry Tetlow:


Attachment Deleted

[Deleted]

Did Garsson (or any of his men) ever interview Cholewsky? This lady thought one of her cabins might have been used by the kidnappers. I know the police did interview her but they did not seem to think the cabin had been used recently enough to be connected to the kidnapping. Here is a newspaper picture of Cholewsky.

[Michael]

Oct 20, 2016 0:13:07 GMT -5 @amy35 said:

Did Garsson (or any of his men) ever interview Cholewsky? This lady thought one of her cabins might have been used by the kidnappers. I know the police did interview her but they did not seem to think the cabin had been used recently enough to be connected to the kidnapping. Here is a newspaper picture of Cholewsky.

There was a lot of interest in this woman early on. Due to the popularity of Jane Gibson in the Hall-Mills Murders, the Press referred to Cholewsky as the "Pig Woman" despite the fact she did not have any pigs, in order to generate interest and sell papers. And it worked with the nickname sticking to her like glue. As I wrote in my book, the Police always believed there was a local connection, and as I researched I looked into the possibilities which obviously included this woman. She was interviewed by so many people it's hard to keep track. Special Investigator Tetlow definitely interviewed her. Garsson himself took a lengthy statement on March 30th where Tetlow, Contract Labor Investigator Hoover, Trooper Bornmann, and Special Investigator Brown were all present for.