Post by Michael on Mar 24, 2006 15:41:35 GMT -5
[Originally posted: February 07, 2005]
Unless you've been on another planet, or are one of the very few who are in denial (for whatever personal reason), you'll agree that Dr. Gardner's new book is a ground-breaking source for new (and old) valuable information.
One such piece of information is on page 319:
Dr. Gardner cites the New York Times article, and Mark Falzini's great discovery concerning the inventory he found which reads:
This is extremely important information for several reasons. We know that cast at St. Raymond's did not fit Hauptmann's shoe, that it was not produced at trial in Flemington, and that even when it was promised for the Defense - it failed to be admitted. It was supposed to be the footprint of "Cemetery John" and if it was and it didn't fit Hauptmann, well then it could be reasonable enough to conclude John wasn't Hauptmann. But now, as a result of Mark's discovery, and Dr. Gardner's hard work, we see the print in Hopewell was molded too. But in Flemington during the trial, the Police were saying they didn't know of such a cast being made. We are lead to believe the grounds were trampled by Reporters and the prints which had existed were destroyed excepting some pictures which weren't to scale.
So history concludes there was no cast, and obviously if there was, then it shows once again the Police were hiding exculpatory information and lying under oath in order to secure a conviction.
I set out to find what I could to shed some more light on this possibility. I have a copy of Mark's discovery and it is completely as described by Dr. Gardner and compelling. However, I can see an argument being formulated that maybe this was a "mistake" of some sort. I continued my search and discovered this in a memo from Hoover to Tamm:
***So now we have more proof a cast was indeed made, but now the waters start to get muddied by the allegation that a Reporter made the print. I have seen this allegation elsewhere as well concerning a footprint in Hopewell. The problem here is communication. Once again, if the FBI had been informed properly, Agent Sisk would have known prints were both found and guarded before the arrival of the first Reporters - that's assuming one of these prints were the one that was casted. I think its a reasonable inference, however, since the Police took steps to hide this evidence, there is really no way to know beyond all doubt. I then stumbled upon this Memo from Special Agent Lowdon to Hoover:
***So it appears undeniable that a cast at Hopewell was made - maybe more. Was there any reference to this/these casts in the Hoffman re-investigation?
Yes. Leo Meade, Private Investigator of the Meade Detective Bureau, (also worked on the Curtis case for the Prosecution) wrote the following "reminder" to Governor Hoffman:
***All indications are that is was determined, and as a result, among other things, Governor Hoffman requested this cast be turned over to Albert Hermann, Clerk of the Court of Pardons as evidence to be considered by them. When these requests were turned over, copies were made and the person assigned to gather or find the items made copies of the request and used them as a check list of sorts - sometimes making comments in the margin just as indicated by the inventory Mark found. For example:
All reports concerning "Red" Johnson, including reports or statements said to have been taken at Ellis Island.
In the margin there is a (check mark).
The chisel alleged to have been found upon the Lindbergh property and which was introduced as evidence in the trial of Hauptmann
In the margin there is (bank vault).
Reports or statement submitted by a Mr. Garsson of the United States Department of Commerce (?).
In the margin there is (nothing in files).
Different and next notation in the margin (reported directly to Dept. of Labor).
***Side note: This is BS by the way because I found his reports within the State Police Files.
Now concerning the cast at Hopewell. I think what I have found in the margin is pretty important and now proves this cast did indeed exist:
There are (3) notations within the margin and I will list them in the order I believe they were made. I determine this by their position in the margin. The 1st is directly next to the request (as is all that have only one notation). The 2nd is just below it (as is the case with the 2nd notation concerning Garsson's report), and the 3rd is above the original and in darker ink.
***This is but one small example of what can be developed by following up on Dr. Gardner's facts found within his book made by both his hard work and meticulous research.
Special thanks to Dr. Gardner, for sharing his unpublished works with me and allowing me to post them in a public forum, & to Mark Falzini, for his professionalism and due diligence.
Unless you've been on another planet, or are one of the very few who are in denial (for whatever personal reason), you'll agree that Dr. Gardner's new book is a ground-breaking source for new (and old) valuable information.
One such piece of information is on page 319:
In fact, a plaster cast was taken of this footprint.
Dr. Gardner cites the New York Times article, and Mark Falzini's great discovery concerning the inventory he found which reads:
Two plaster of paris casts of footprint, and in pencil, "One taken at Hopewell & the other at St. Raymond's Cemetery.
This is extremely important information for several reasons. We know that cast at St. Raymond's did not fit Hauptmann's shoe, that it was not produced at trial in Flemington, and that even when it was promised for the Defense - it failed to be admitted. It was supposed to be the footprint of "Cemetery John" and if it was and it didn't fit Hauptmann, well then it could be reasonable enough to conclude John wasn't Hauptmann. But now, as a result of Mark's discovery, and Dr. Gardner's hard work, we see the print in Hopewell was molded too. But in Flemington during the trial, the Police were saying they didn't know of such a cast being made. We are lead to believe the grounds were trampled by Reporters and the prints which had existed were destroyed excepting some pictures which weren't to scale.
So history concludes there was no cast, and obviously if there was, then it shows once again the Police were hiding exculpatory information and lying under oath in order to secure a conviction.
I set out to find what I could to shed some more light on this possibility. I have a copy of Mark's discovery and it is completely as described by Dr. Gardner and compelling. However, I can see an argument being formulated that maybe this was a "mistake" of some sort. I continued my search and discovered this in a memo from Hoover to Tamm:
Mr. Sisk further stated that the State Police made a plaster cast of the footprint found at Hopewell, but he today learned from a reporter of the New York Daily News that this print was made by a newspaper reporter, although the State Police do not know this. Mr. Sisk said a lady reporter of the News advised him of this fact, stating that she thought she could save the authorities a lot of trouble; that she could not disclose the reporter's name, but she would furnish proof to him that the footprint was made by a reporter.
I inquired as to who made the mold of the footprint found at the cemetery, and Mr. Sisk said this was made by Mr. Ralph Hacker, who is a son-in-law of Dr. Condon. When Mr.Hacker made the mold the police, as well as Dr. Condon, and Detective Compton of the Bronx, were present. Mr. Sisk said this information had been brought to out attention, and it was estimated that the size of the foot was about 8-1/2. Hauptmann wears size nine shoe.
***So now we have more proof a cast was indeed made, but now the waters start to get muddied by the allegation that a Reporter made the print. I have seen this allegation elsewhere as well concerning a footprint in Hopewell. The problem here is communication. Once again, if the FBI had been informed properly, Agent Sisk would have known prints were both found and guarded before the arrival of the first Reporters - that's assuming one of these prints were the one that was casted. I think its a reasonable inference, however, since the Police took steps to hide this evidence, there is really no way to know beyond all doubt. I then stumbled upon this Memo from Special Agent Lowdon to Hoover:
With reference to the footprints found outside of the window of the Lindbergh home immediately following the discovery of the kidnaping, Mr. Clegg stated that casts had been made of these prints and that it appeared that the kidnaper had worn over his shoes heavy knitted socks and that the threads of these socks were plainly visible. Mr. Clegg believe that the Division does not have any replicas of the casts made. He stated that there have been found in Hauptmann's residence several pairs of knitted socks made of thread which appears strikingly similar to the thread used in the socks worn by the kidnaper, as indicated by the impressions of the casts.
***So it appears undeniable that a cast at Hopewell was made - maybe more. Was there any reference to this/these casts in the Hoffman re-investigation?
Yes. Leo Meade, Private Investigator of the Meade Detective Bureau, (also worked on the Curtis case for the Prosecution) wrote the following "reminder" to Governor Hoffman:
Further, it is claimed that impresses were made of these prints but were not used because they did not match the Hauptmann footprints. Is this to be checked.
***All indications are that is was determined, and as a result, among other things, Governor Hoffman requested this cast be turned over to Albert Hermann, Clerk of the Court of Pardons as evidence to be considered by them. When these requests were turned over, copies were made and the person assigned to gather or find the items made copies of the request and used them as a check list of sorts - sometimes making comments in the margin just as indicated by the inventory Mark found. For example:
All reports concerning "Red" Johnson, including reports or statements said to have been taken at Ellis Island.
In the margin there is a (check mark).
The chisel alleged to have been found upon the Lindbergh property and which was introduced as evidence in the trial of Hauptmann
In the margin there is (bank vault).
Reports or statement submitted by a Mr. Garsson of the United States Department of Commerce (?).
In the margin there is (nothing in files).
Different and next notation in the margin (reported directly to Dept. of Labor).
***Side note: This is BS by the way because I found his reports within the State Police Files.
Now concerning the cast at Hopewell. I think what I have found in the margin is pretty important and now proves this cast did indeed exist:
Moulage, or plaster cast, of footprint found outside nursery window of Lindbergh home.
There are (3) notations within the margin and I will list them in the order I believe they were made. I determine this by their position in the margin. The 1st is directly next to the request (as is all that have only one notation). The 2nd is just below it (as is the case with the 2nd notation concerning Garsson's report), and the 3rd is above the original and in darker ink.
First notation: Vault
Second notation: ruined
Third notation: only photo followed by a (check mark).
***This is but one small example of what can be developed by following up on Dr. Gardner's facts found within his book made by both his hard work and meticulous research.
Special thanks to Dr. Gardner, for sharing his unpublished works with me and allowing me to post them in a public forum, & to Mark Falzini, for his professionalism and due diligence.