jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 5, 2008 11:26:53 GMT -5
Defenders of Hauptmann's innocence (especially Scaduto) use differences in the characteristics of the passed ransom bills as partial proof that he was only passing the bills given to him by Fisch a few months before his arrest. Researchers however while not going particualrly in depth about specific bills, make generalizations that most of the bills were musky. In fact, the bills which Finn sent for analysis were "mostly musky" according to Fisher. This may seem superficial at first glance, but is really a very key issue. Finn sent the bills long before BRH was drying out cash in his garage. Several more points are interesting here. Richard was obviously caught in a lie about the buried jug under the easily accessable garage floor. He built the garage over a freshly dug hole and didn't at least tamp it or investigate? Another point is, was the water in the buried jug examined chemically. It would seem that microscopically there would be evidence of money, ink partially dissolved, etc., perhaps even tiny bill parts. If this was not done you can't blame Stormin Norman Sr., was NYPD territory.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 5, 2008 17:29:35 GMT -5
Do you happen to have a page reference? I would like to research this myself because I've found Fisher to be just as likely to be wrong as everyone else about certain assertions. He just didn't spend enough time at the Archives. His first book is more like a novel....and his 2nd is full of incorrect information which he uses to dog other Authors he claims do exactly what he does.
It seems to me he could have requested certain tests to be conducted. I am quite sure the NYPD wouldn't have turned him down. Think about it - it was the FBI all of those months later who had the J.J. Faulkner slip fingerprinted. Instead of being happy about the effort (or learning from it), Schwarzkopf was pissed off thinking they might solve the case, or secure a lead, and take away the glory from the NJSP.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 6, 2008 0:03:44 GMT -5
If you're not going to accept Fisher who are you going to accept and why should I provide page numbers for something you consider extraneous? If your take is that Hauptmann was railroaded, I certainly agree. But I also think he was "guilty as hell," according to a recent post of an interview with his attorney (not Riley) on another board. You don't comment on the fact that the "jug" was probably not even checked for fingerprints which would have put BRH in a deep hole as a liar. Everyone on here is so smug about deriding the NJSP but they don't look at the bigger issue. Everybody was incompetent including CALII and Parker. And it's very interesting that in every closely looked at crime that incompetency blossoms. Look at Kennedy, Kennedy, King, OJ, Ramsey just in our lifetimes. What stands out? You tell me Michael, you tell me!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 6, 2008 0:14:38 GMT -5
And you mention the FBI - the whining FBI - they could have figured the crime out and been on BRH doorstep a year before he was finally caught - BUT THEY DIDN'T - and they just like to cry about how they were left out. The NJSP did a very good job under unusual circumstances that we don't really comprehend these days, and if the FBI and NYPD would have been more involved it would have just been more muddle - not solving a thing. You tell me what FBI or NYPD would have come up with that NJSP didn't? Either that or stop slamming NJSP and Schwartzkopf!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 6, 2008 5:48:04 GMT -5
It's not a case of whether I "accept" Fisher or not. That's awful general and not what I said. He's made many mistakes so I'd like to research this point and not accept it at face value. It's certainly nothing personal.
I don't think the term railroaded is something I would use. He's involved but at this point I don't think he's a "Lone-Wolf" or "Mastermind"....etc.
Honestly, I don't know that it wasn't and I wouldn't be surprised if Hauptmann was lying about it.
I can't agree. My respect for the FBI went up ten-fold after reading through all of the reports. Thanks to Lloyd (Dr. Gardner), I have been able to see some stuff that I don't think many have. The FBI were very professional and intelligent. It was NJ that went back on the 3-way deal of working together which caused the 1st withdrawal of the FBI. It shouldn't have mattered who solved the case if everyone was working together. The FBI didn't cry, quite the contrary.
If you'd like an example, it was the FBI who found Brinkert and their reward for doing so was Schwarzkopf crying to the U.S. Attorney General.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 6, 2008 7:17:18 GMT -5
You're including me Jack? I don't deride the NJSP nor do I lionize the BOI. They were (and are) two entirely different organizations with entirely different cultures. They both had strengths and weaknesses.
Hey look at it this way, the two people who came the closest to getting Hauptmann were not even law enforcement!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 6, 2008 9:50:18 GMT -5
Who do you mean? Finn got Hauptmann, and pretty much on his own initiative. The NJSP thought they could solve the big crime so why invite the predecessors to the FBI into the investigation when they had no authority anyway - and the same can be said about Parker. In Reality if it wasn't for Finn, probably no part of the crime would have ever been solved and we'd be thiinking it was Nazis or maybe UFOs (could have been a botched abduction). Anyway, this is from Fisher PP 179, 80. The timing is approximately May of 1933 but Michael or Kevkon may be able to pin that down more if Dr. Gettler's report could be found. " most of the ransom bills that had been recovered were in the same condition." In addition to Finn's discernment that most had the eight way fold, were passed similarly (from watch or vest pocket), "Finn sent each ransom bill to Dr. Alexander Gettler, the director of New York City's Toxicological Laboratories. Geller worked for Dr. Charles Norris, the city's Chief Medical Examiner. Gettler and Norris were two of America's most renowned forensic scientists. Dr. Gettler found particles of glycerine and EMORY on EACH BILL. He concluded that the person who had passed the currency had used an emory wheel to grind tools..... Dr. Geller also found, on many of the bills, lipstick and mascara as well as traces of blonde, brunette and red hair (were Gerta and Anna compared? Remember my post about exhuming them?). THE TOXICOLOGISTS REPORTED THAT THE BILLS HAD A MUSTY ODOR, suggesting that they had been buried or secreted in an enclosed place." (I believe the 'jug' was his first hiding place and that's where they got wet) Recall now that the Doctors are talking about all the notes, not just those laterly (is that a word Kevkon?) passed.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 6, 2008 10:10:28 GMT -5
Also along these lines (see above) according to Gardner p. 147, "these bills have been showing up right in order and they can almost tell the serial number of the next bill that will show up." While he doesn't attribute that quote to anyone it sounds like one of Finn's NYPD officers, and strongly suggests that the ransom money was not split up, or at least not split up in too many ways. This is an interesting part of the investigation. While Sisk and Hoover had tons of agents watching produce stands Finn was thinking about what would really catch the crook - and HE came up with it. At first I had less of an admiration for Finn because he did either participate in or witnessed the beating up of BRH, but the more I learn about the crime, the more I think BRH should have been beaten more, and Anna and Gerta as well. This is really just a classic crime and it contains a bunch of liars!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 6, 2008 11:23:47 GMT -5
For Kevkon: Yes I'm including you! You have been on this board for years and chasing Nostivetsky or whoever and have failed to look at basic facts in spite of your ONGOING attitude of your own brilliance and ability to look at all issues objectively. In reality that attitude reminds me of a paper-pusher who is trying to find out why mice get into a building while they are eating his shoes. You bring up issues that, while interesting to other paper-pushers have really nothing to do with anything. Have you read Steve Thayer's book "Silent Snow?" It shows how you could chase a dead-end lead (to LKC) and come up with a conclusion - wrong, but a conclusion. Look at the basic facts - they lead somewhere. Don't make such a mystery out of LKC. I havn't been on here long, but just posted something that's been ignored, and I'll post much more that's been ignored. Want a hint about who was behind LKC? Sorry - no freebies right now - ask Bob Mills, but then again you say he writes fiction. Actually Bob is so honest he'll probably come out and tell you - don't Bob - let them wonder.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 6, 2008 11:58:25 GMT -5
Sounds to me like you're a little jealous Jack. Can't wait to be enlightened by your book. Another fictional piece filled with flimsy allusions and conspiracy angles is just what we need. BTW, I push wood , not paper. Your pal the writer is the paper pusher. Better check his shoes. I hope you are better at detecting crimes than occupations.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 6, 2008 14:21:49 GMT -5
Jealous of what? Are you degrading me and Bob Mills and Dave? Did you know that one of us used to be the publisher of a one hundred year old very money magazine and another was for many years a wall street broker and another is a member of Hells Angels? Jealous - that you're a commander here? Michael says I can be der Fuehrer so watch your step. Bring me good news or get shot. I reluctantly came on this board at the advice of another, and am quickly seeing why my reluctancy was valid. There is no way to win with you people - not that winning is particularly important, but you won't even accept facts. Look at my recent posts about Fisher, and how many times has Fisher been quoted as an authrity on here - but suddenly he isn't. So you and others think of yourselves as "researchers" but you're really the problem. The solution to Lindbergh is quite simple and makes sense as opposed to lots of strangeness.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 6, 2008 14:53:56 GMT -5
And for Michael: I don't do your cute quote things, but you said " yada yada, not accept Fisher at face value" What about the hundreds of times you've used Fisher previously?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 6, 2008 15:00:58 GMT -5
That depends. Are you all in the same boat?
Wow. And that has what exactly to do with the Lindbergh crime? Sorry I don't see the connection. Only Dave has a position of respect on this score, sorry.
Wow again. Hey, I'm always available
Bullshit and you know it. What "facts" are you alluding to anyway? Sorry Jack, but I have a hard time believing that facts are important to anyone posting on that other site and even a harder time when they espouse an author who makes an art of ignoring them.
I don't quote anyone as an authority, Jack.
Please don't tell me what I think, Jack. I have never claimed to be a researcher.
Great. I like simplicity. I also like sense, especially the common kind. Start making some.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 6, 2008 15:04:47 GMT -5
I don't see too many people in total agreement about anything here. That's what I like about the board. We can go back and forth without any hard feelings. And we will go back and forth - make no mistake. I believe Fisher is getting this information from Finn's articles " How I Captured Hauptmann." When I get time I will double check. But in the meantime, where did the myth that the bills found on Hauptmann had the 8 folds? Next, I don't recall ever referring to Fisher. I had been reluctant to "go after him" but started to do so in 2005 once I felt comfortable doing so... From some of my notes and old posts: Take Dr. Gardner's proving where Fisher made mistakes in his books. He does this with at least one piece of source material but most of the time with several. I've done it myself on several occasions and POSTED the documents for all to see that Fisher was wrong. Just as a quick example:
The files of the New Jersey State Police show no contact with Hammond after May 1933. (Fisher GOH pg 90)
Fisher didn't spend enough time at the Archives where I found this:
img343.imageshack.us/my.php?image=blk087iy2.jpg
It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
I have all the source material because I searched all the files looking specifically for Hammond - that's why I had the statement, etc. and Fisher didn't - he obviously didn't bother to look. That's why it's so damned reckless to say what he did (and does). And so when I see someone writing a book to bash other books, and this is their course of action, I feel the need to comment on the hypocrisy supported by the true facts. Remember - this isn't being presented as speculation.
If I can do what I just did on these few pages can you imagine what I could do to the whole book?
My overall point is to be careful not to accept information as factual no matter who it is coming from unless their sources are acceptable to you. Fisher obviously has done some quality research, but in my opinion, he hasn't done enough and the above is a perfect example.
I have always been horrified from the contents of Fisher's introduction in The Lindbergh Case. What he calls the use of narrative technique and dialog amounts to nothing more then fiction.
The dialogue reflects my idea as to what was said and by whom, based on my reading of the primary sources (p. 6)
That's what Writers do in novels, however, I do give him credit for letting us know that he did this. It was obvious to me the 2nd time around but not the 1st because I wasn't as knowledgeable as I am now. And so I point these things out so we can be informed. This is something I feel very strongly has no place in non-fiction material.
I have been holding my tongue about Jim Fisher's books as best as I could up till now, however, I can no longer do so. The Ghosts of Hopewell, the sequel to (what I consider a novel) The Lindbergh Case is supposed to be a rebuttal to the "Revisionist" books and proving they are bogus. Yet, his book is simply filled with mistakes and relies on, time and time again and again - 2nd and 3rd party (re)sources most which contain mistakes and/or inaccuracies. It's embarrassing actually and is there any wonder why Dr. Gardner's book, The Case That Never Dies, exposes a myriad of Fisher's mistakes?
Let's take a look at just these few pages....
On pg. 87 Fisher references a "Pennsylvania Brakeman" who reports to police about two men and a women. One man "nervously asked" when the next train to NYC was due. When we check the footnote we see Fisher referring to this event as an example of "false leads and wild-goose chases" (pg. 171). Now that's a powerful statement coming from an Ex-FBI Agent. So what exactly is his source? Why its Sullivan's book - The Snatch Racket.
For me, if one is to mention this statement as some sort of example to support the position of one's book they might want to actually use the primary source documentation. If he did he would see that Mr. Stash never ever said anyone "nervously asked" him anything. Additionally, I don't see any evidence whatsoever that this account was fraudulent as insinuated and it appears to be something which remains in the unknown category - not the category Mr. Fisher seems to assign it.
So why didn't Mr. Fisher do the source material research and instead choose to rely on this 'book' as his primary resource? My guess is he didn't expect anyone else to do so - so he cut corners. A-hem, someone needs to tell him you can't 'cut corners' when you research this case.....
Regardless, it exposes Ghosts as being somewhat reckless and not so reliable in its presentation of proof.
Continuing on with his information concerning Hammond.... He is obviously making the case for Hammond being a 'liar.' Look at how he frames this information.
C. Raymond Lyons was a former Assemblyman and full-time Attorney. I have no idea what Fisher means when he says Lyons sometimes "worked" for Hoffman. Joe Runkle and William Thomas, another Attorney, were there too....does this qualify them as sometimes working for the Governor as well?
On pg 89 Fisher says Hammond was shown a picture of an "African American" who was caught "sitting in a tree looking in the direction of the Lindbergh estate." This is yet another mistake. A picture of the said man did not exist and the eyewitness to this event, Judge Palmatier couldn't even furnish a description of the man aside from him being a "Negro."
Isn't this fun?
On pg. 88 referencing the report Joe posted above, Fisher quotes the section which indicates the plate #s offered weren't connected with anyone that could be linked with Hammond's sighting... But if Mr. Fisher did just a little more research he would have found out that Captain Oliver indeed did have a suspect with tags "2Y".
Again, you cannot rely on one report without doing follow-up research on later reports.
Probably the worst piece of mis-information is on pg 90:
(The files of the New Jersey State Police show no contact with Hammond after May 1933.)
Is that so? Hmmmm. Well the statement I posted in the Member's Section tells a different story doesn't it? So much for Hammond being a story-teller and Fisher writing a reliable book.
This occurred concerning others as well and we can see the idea of Hammond not being interviewed after 1933 because he wasn't given money is complete BS.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 6, 2008 16:16:47 GMT -5
That's certainly interesting, Michael, and you and your friend have now derailed Fisher and you can add it to your list of Schwartzkopf and Hoover and others, but where do you talk about the issue I brought up? I don't want to go through junks of books to find that the early passed bills were musky - but that's what Finn said they were! Do you guys not like Finn? The musky issue was long before Aug. '35 and you should be abled to check that easily - or it looks like you don't want to - rather bring up Elisabeth or something! Now you guys will just ignore this or misdirect it - I've seen it before - THIS IS AN ISSUE YOU ARE IGNORING! And it's nothing personal - although Kevkon seems to think I'm cute - stop that!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 6, 2008 16:29:57 GMT -5
Actually I do like Finn as well as Walsh. Did Finn like Schwarzkopf?
I will look into the note post and get back when I can.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 6, 2008 16:48:30 GMT -5
Respectfully: It took a while for you to figure out Finn's importance. Ask Dave about Walsh - that's his corner. You still havn't resolved musky bills - are you avoiding it? Does it embarass you? I have more embarassing things for you if you don't answer that. And tell Kevkon to stop brushing my butt! Jack7
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 6, 2008 17:18:38 GMT -5
I think Finn did like Schwartzkopf and you'll notice that as soon as NJSP were "forced" (by what writers say) to work with NYPD they certainly did. There is really no evidence that NJSP didn't work with the Federals or NYPD - just that they wanted to respect eaches boundaries. Wouldn't you? If you had a chance to solve a monster case why invite the FBI into it? That's why Walsh and Bornmann were very good detectives. And Schwartzkopf was a good leader under unusual circumstances. Things would have been different of course if the crime would have happened in New York, but they would have also been different if it had happened in Peoria. I'm cool with everything, but please tell Kevkon to stop staring at my ankles.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 6, 2008 17:26:15 GMT -5
Jack, that's not me brushing your butt. It's that bug up your ass! Calm down. I don't dismiss any evidence. Hey look I even wore Joe out with the "packet" dimensions. I agree about the money and if you look through the past posts I know we discussed it at length. I think you will also find some posts regarding Hauptmann's drawing which I proposed was a way to conceal something in the garage.
BTW, I wasn't referring to Fisher.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 6, 2008 17:44:09 GMT -5
There you go - talking about my ass on here and even mentioning it. Is there a regulator on here? Besides that I have some bones to pick with you. You say "I don't dismiss any evidence" well lets go beyond the money. I've seen your take on shoenfeld and that he is the looney. How could he predict almost exactly BRH almost two years before he was even arrested? Further how can you and your "friend" be so supersmart to predict that it was a one man crime? No evidence shows it was a one man crime. So here we stand each of us thinking the other is an idiot, but lets ask (your friend) Michael what the facts are.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 6, 2008 17:46:51 GMT -5
And Joe is a friend of mine!
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 6, 2008 19:13:56 GMT -5
Sorry Jack, I didn't know who was talking, you or your ass.
Then you might want to get some glasses. That is certainly not my take on Schoenfeld. I just stated several posts ago that the two people who got closest to Hauptmann were not LE. Who did you think I was referring to? Have you even read The Crime And The Criminal ?
Who might that be , Jack? One man crime??? huh??
I don't think you're an idiot, Jack. Just a little confused.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 6, 2008 19:54:35 GMT -5
It did? I don't know how anyone could say that. BTW, I will ask Dave next time I am on the other board.
With all due respect Jack, something like this could take a solid week to research, plus, I was recently married and my new wife has threatened me with divorce so many times I've lost count. If anything - that's what I am embarrassed about.
If Fisher was right I would never be embarrassed. I am looking for facts not "victories" or anything like that. I want to know the true situation - I am not in a contest or anything like that. I think you misunderstand me.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 6, 2008 20:51:08 GMT -5
Congratulations, Michael - where do I send the champagne? I was just talking with my daughter who was wondering about global warming or something, and told her to worry about her own problems first. Seriously, congrats! I just talked to Dave and he will be on here soon, so you and Kevkon can check with him yourself. Did you guess which one he is of the three amigos - publisher, stock broker, or serious biker? And then there's Joe - who is all three - probably better!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 6, 2008 22:04:06 GMT -5
Another way (gift) for Kevkon and Michael to solve the crime. OK Michael - lets make a deal. First no swearing (who does?). Fisher and Falzini say eight fold for all is true. Dave says it's not true. Bob Mills has no opinion to date. No opinion from Joe yet. Jack believes they were not all eights or Finn would have mentioned it in testimony. The BRH bill which Fisher claims was eight fold came out of his wallet (a secret or special compartment - I don't remember which). The wallet is in Trenton or was and a photograph of it is. Finn says it came from secret pocket but doesn't testify eightfold. Now, as the czar of all researchers find out how big that compartment was and how small the bill would have to be to get in there and you've solved the crime. For Dave - Do you believe how you have to hold these peoples hands to succeed? Deal is - you get to be the premier figureouter and hey, you can't lose because you already are, and you already said it - my title is der Fuehrer. Win Win only you mostly win and can't lose. Let me go over it for you slowly - IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU NOT TO FIGURE OUT because there is no question - so start posting me as der Fuehrer. You see - win-win!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 7, 2008 18:00:41 GMT -5
The strong odor or stench said to have been noticed on the 2980 amount when it was discovered in May 1933 was not detected on any of the money at the time it was received by the Laboratory.
It is believed that the creases indicating the three-way fold of some of the bills, are without any particular significance because they have been noted on bills in general circulation, however this is only an opinion. (FBI Lab Report, August 1934)
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 11, 2008 4:17:29 GMT -5
For Michael: For the important part of my supposition you have supported it, but have shown no source. You are saying that there is ( I never even stated that ) a musky odor to the bills earlier passed (2980). I never said that and you just did. But you don't attibute any source. Is that the way you usually do things? I claimed there was a musky odor to the later bills (and importantly middle bills passed) passed and you refuted that. I think for all of the musky bill issue you have just blown your case and we should call in an independent person to resolve it. Salud' Jack
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 11, 2008 14:35:56 GMT -5
Falzini never said it was true.
If you are talking about my post above, and its in the quote, then I cited the source. Now whether or not I supported your "supposition" is a different story.
No Jack I never said that. I quoted the FBI report which says what it says. And what it says pretty much mentions a very general claim, attributed to no one, then seems to disprove it in my opinion.
Are you kidding me?
You'll have to explain what you mean by this...
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 11, 2008 15:04:30 GMT -5
This is def Fuehrer speaking: OK I'll explain. Look above and YOU are saying by way of several sources that there is a musky odor to the bills, and this is far prior to those bills passed according to Hauptmann just a few months before his arrest. Now why can't that issue be resolved, and if it can be by you, then there is a commonality to all of the ransom bills passed and it is much more of a nail in Hauptmann's coffin than even the board. Maybe Kevkon can channel in the ghost of J. Edgar Hoover (i've never trusted people who use an initial as their first name) to solve this, and, similar to other boards, it will just keep being an unsolved which people can still be talking about in sixty more years. My main point is that things should be determined here. Resolve something. Admit that the bills were musky by evidence long before Hauptmann's leak got them wet. Then look at the crime from that perspective. That weeds out tons of junk, and would be a certain step towards solving this crime instead of just continual sidestepping.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 11, 2008 15:24:55 GMT -5
The only odor reference to bills being passed that weren't found in Hauptmann's possesion appear in the Finn articles. The FBI report I cited above says, in essence, if they smelled this way earlier they didn't smell this way now.
And so what does that prove?
Especially when the bills found in Hauptmann's garage did still smell that way... Am I missing something? If so please show and/or correct me.
|
|