|
Post by Michael on Mar 2, 2006 17:23:39 GMT -5
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Mar 2, 2006 21:33:15 GMT -5
Right off the top, its preface makes it sound like another piece of trash for the bookstore bargain bin, but it's only fair to give it a good read for anything of incidental value. Looking forward to it! Joe
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 3, 2006 6:40:50 GMT -5
I have read the 1st version of the book (I am told this newer version has some changes in it). I really enjoyed it.
For all of the time I spent researching this case and diving into the Hoffman Collection it was great to finally see someone attack this from that angle....and Bill definitely does. This isn't just a "here and now" book because Bill has been researching this case for a very long time. Gov. Hoffman was very suspicious of DMJ and he seems to be the "secret" figure in this case.
I have been holding off discussing the book until everyone has had a chance to read it.
I have also learned that even if a book postures a position which is contrary to your personal position its crazy not to read it. For example, both of Fisher's books are basically saying Hauptmann did it all by his lonesome (which I cannot accept) and they sit on my shelf - having been read and/or to be picked up for future consideration in conjunction with any fact. Thankfully Dr. Gardner's book corrects most of his errors so we can use The Case That Never Dies as a measuring stick.
Anyway, I am very much looking forward to re-reading the new version of A Talent to Deceive and will start as soon as I get it.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Mar 3, 2006 9:15:33 GMT -5
Any book on this case is worth reading for what might be learned, a seemingly-insignificant piece of connecting information, newly-discovered report, name from a photograph, personal author insight, window into another time, etc.
I've read most of them, but I think we can all agree the pickings for suspects are becoming slimmer with each new publication... for me the image of Hauptmann with a mischievous smile on his face ("the book will never close") comes to mind every time.
I'm looking forward to Norris' book and I do hope he has a well thought out and comprehensive review of the physical evidence, in relation to the involvement by Hauptmann and any other identified candidates. The last couple of books on this case have failed miserably in that regard. Thanks to Kel, the record relating to the wood evidence has been set much straighter and the bar well raised.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 3, 2006 21:10:08 GMT -5
Joe,
Do me a favor and post in the Wood thread what you think Kel did exactly to staighten out the wood evidence. I agree there is some good information but there are also some uneducated observations there as well. Unfortunately if you read his report each and every point relies on the other.
|
|
|
Post by kanneedwards on Mar 4, 2006 7:08:16 GMT -5
michael, I've read Bill's book twice and also enjoyed it greatly. Involving someone other than CAL with the set-up certainly goes a long way in explaining the families unlikely behavior. It puts a whole new perspective on JFC. I wish we knew a little mnore on Hoffman's research but Bill did an exceptional job. We should all be grateful (and he seems like such a nice guy!)
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Mar 4, 2006 11:55:36 GMT -5
The premise of oversight, omission and assumed conclusions should be applied impartially towards every author who has written about this case. A simple case in point would be Gardner's erroneous interpretation of Anna's remark to the Fredericksen's about the issue of him not calling when they have a telephone. I'm sure you are aware of other such examples, and I think it's only fair to weigh these and highlight them without bias for the benefit of all.
Kel's report is a distillation of three years of intensive first hand analysis. It's a highly visual exercise that bridges the gap between the oft-confused and time-muddled detail of the wood forensics and a universally understandable conclusion.
I firmly believe Kel's discovery of the machine planer defect patterns represent a true "smoking gun" linking Rail 16 not only to S-226 and other boards in Hauptmann's attic floor. In light of all of the other proven connections between Rail 16 and S-226, I find his conclusions overwhelming and they have only reinforced my own convictions, (originally based on Koehler's own findings) towards Hauptmann's involvement in the construction of the ladder.
Joe
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 4, 2006 17:30:33 GMT -5
Joe explain your position concerning the example you shared. I don't understand it as it stands. I do say that all mistakes in every book should be pointed out if you believe they are meaningful - regardless of who the Author is.
I know....you believe Kel "found" the planer marks some 70+ years later after alterations, neglect, and abuse when he wasn't looking for them but Koehler did not only 5 to 6 years later when he was looking for them.
If that isn't enough you must take into consideration that you can not identify planer marks simply by looking at them or pictures of them despite his position, or apparently his position you can.
You can't.
Next look at the quick dismissals of those points raised which seem to cast doubt upon his research. Kevin's observation concerning the Electrician and S-226 for example. If S-226 was an original part of that flooring this makes perfect sense. But Kel points to Rauch's testimony - something which is completely false in one part and unreliable in another. Why? Because it challenges his conclusions. Now ask him how much study or research he did concerning this area.
I'll bet very little or he wouldn't be misdirecting Kevin.
Kel's own report shows things that create problems for his conclusions. (3) wire nails in the joist under where Rail 16 was supposed to be put down? The joist, and the floorboards were brand-new.
Etc., etc.
Apply your very own standards above to your observations concerning Kel's report would you?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Mar 4, 2006 19:58:45 GMT -5
"He (Breslin) did elicit from Christian that Richard did not call for Anna every single night, and that when that happened she would become annoyed and say something like, "I can't understand why he didn't phone. He could at least call up because we have a telephone.""
The Hauptmann's did not have a telephone, so Christian was wrong about that."
The Case That Never Dies pgs. 180-181
Gardner is wrong about what Anna was implying here. She was talking about the Fredericksen's phone, which Richard could have called to let her know he would be late or not coming.
It's not a big deal, but it does point out the kind of oversight that sometimes results from not thoroughly measuring and objectively interpreting the evidence, in favour of impressing the reader with a personally-designed "revelation." In general, I find Gardner's book heavily-laden in personal tone in his support or dismissal of many other points.
I'll try to repond to the other points on the wood evidence later on that thread.
Joe
|
|
|
Post by STEVE FOR JOE on Mar 13, 2006 11:13:05 GMT -5
ITS SCARY THAT MIKE THINKS GARDNERS BOOK IS A MEASURING STICK FOR ANYTHING.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Mar 13, 2006 16:39:16 GMT -5
Steve, I haven't read a definitive book yet on this case and I doubt we'll ever see one. In my opinion it's mainly about Hauptmann and the baseline is his participation from start to finish. But I can't fathom how Fisch or Anna or even some of his close acquaintances could have been oblivious to the kidnapping agenda, in light of the extortion process, ransom note writing and the laundering required to live a life of luxury in the Depression.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 13, 2006 16:49:34 GMT -5
Joe, Steve I wonder if anyone could or would write a book which would explore Hauptmann and those closest to him as opposed to the more sensational material involving important figures as potential participants. Unfortunately I doubt it would sell many copies as people are so fascinated with celebrities and their short comings.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 13, 2006 20:01:38 GMT -5
Gardner is wrong about what Anna was implying here. She was talking about the Fredericksen's phone, which Richard could have called to let her know he would be late or not coming. (Joe) ***Joe, I've been meaning to ask how you know this is what Anna was talking about? You are saying here that Dr. Gardner is wrong and you are right. Therefore you MUST know FOR A FACT that this is what she was talking about. How do you know?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Mar 14, 2006 12:06:19 GMT -5
Michael, first off, Gardner in his book, states that Christian Fredericksen was wrong, based on Anna's statement to her employer over her husband's occasional lack of integrity. It seems obvious that in this case, Anna is referring to the Fredericksen's Bakery phone and not a phone at 1279 East 222nd St. How could she have been referring to her own phone when they didn't have one? If you have a plausible explanation to support Gardner's observation, please post it. I may be totally missing something here. It does happen in this case. Joe
|
|
|
Post by gary on Mar 15, 2006 10:45:06 GMT -5
Norris' book is a must read for the Lindbergh kidnapping researcher, hobbyist, or whatever. His story is a hands on account of his research. I was totally on the edge of my seat in many situations especially in situations as his trip to find Betty Gow, to the college, etc etc. . I never get hung up with people that have a different viewpoint. For enjoyment its A+. Only negetive which many will not like is his investigation goes to a point seemingly to come to a conclusion and then you are left not knowing where he stood about it.....such as JFC and the actress' account of an overheard conversation.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Norris on May 30, 2006 11:02:12 GMT -5
I have to declare an interest: I wrote "A Talent to Deceive." When I began the task, some 15 years ago, I confess that I was quite a fan of Charles Lindbergh. As a pilot myself, I was deeply impressed by his New York-Paris achievement of 1927. But alas, the deeper I delved into the story of his son's kidnapping, my respect turned to something approaching contempt. Being a brilliant pilot and being a decent human being were clearly two very different things. From the start, I had always doubted Hauptmann's guilt, and as my research progressed that doubt became a certainty. Yet proving that the wrong man was executed, as others had done before me, was a long way from tracing the identity of the real killer. To do so took time, patience and, to be frank, a lot of luck. My conclusion will no doubt be controversial. So be it. All I ask is that you read the book and, unlike the Hauptmann jury, come to a fair verdict on the basis of the evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 30, 2006 19:05:03 GMT -5
After reading Bill's book, I was impressed with the skill he shows as a Writer. When he writes about his adventure in tracking down information, leads, and facts you feel as though you are right there next to him while he undertakes his journey.
Next - there are many new and interesting facts revealed in the book. For me, I can never have enough new material to consider and apply to what I know (and what I don't).
Furthermore, I am very happy to see someone finally tackle the "shadowy figure" that so much talk was centered around yet no one ever dare to truly investigate. Throughout Governor Hoffman's re-investigation I have discovered he was always convinced there was inside help and was very suspicious of a particular person.
He also was convinced the Morrow's, Lindbergh's, and some of their Staff knew more....
|
|