|
Post by Michael on Aug 24, 2006 20:23:49 GMT -5
I have been slowly making my way through John's book and find it very good. I am starting this thread so that I can make comments concerning items I have a difference of opinion on. Of course I won't be posting on everything - just those items I feel are important enough to make comment. I encourage discussion concerning anything I post here and also welcome similar posts on those items anyone wants to discuss that come from his book. Among his papers was document indicating he had attempted to rent an apartment in Manhattan in a phone name starting on the day of the kidnapping. This was thought to be where he intended to hold the baby. ( p.156)[/blockquote] This is incorrect. A 3/4-inch chisel had been found at the Hopewell estate and a 3/4-inch chisel was missing from Hauptmann's toolbox. (p. 162) This is incorrect. It's also important to note that both Wilentz and Koehler put on a real show for the Jury implying a (very) false scenario was real. I wouldn't expect someone studying Ellis Parker to know this type of thing but I simply wanted to point out one example of error of this type I have come across. I will be placing a post in my archives to support my position above (in the near future). On October 2, 1935, Parker sent a thirteen-page written report of his findings to Harold Hoffman.... (p169) I think its a mistake to characterize this as a "report." Written reports coming from Governor's office were sent to Parker and not the other way around. Parker simply did not write reports which were submitted to Gov. Hoffman - That's not how it worked. Generally, Parker would give oral updates to Hoffman and occasionally write letters and/or memos (sometimes even handwritten scrawls) which were informal and meant to be. This is how these two friends talked and wrote to each other. The Governor even sent copies of official NJSP reports to Parker. This is an interesting point. How could wood cut and planed at least eight years earlier have plane or saw marks identical to those left by present-day blades certainly reset and resharpened many times since. (p. 170) Both Parker and John make a mistake here while at the same time making a very valid point..... Koehler was supposed to have traced Rails 12 & 13 to National Lumber Yard. This lumber was not used in Hauptmann's house. So we're not talking 8 years. However, Parker was right that most blades are re-sharpened and/or reset at about 2000 ft. However, Koehler claimed at trial that he successfully traced a lot of approximately 2600ft from the mill (in 1931) to the yard by finding pieces (in 1933). That's not the end of it. Despite his testimony, Koehler would doubt his original findings claiming he found an additional defect which wasn't on the other pieces, but once Hauptmann was arrested he went on the stand and lied by omitting this important information in his testimony swearing to something he had questioned himself. I will be placing a post in my archives to support my position above (in the near future). Who had the gun? (p177) Cemetery John. Most important, who was "the man I have in mind"? Wendel? (p177) Yes. Parker never mentioned Wendel by name in written communication that I could find (pre-arrest). Unfortunately, he had not been able to convince the public of his professed noble intentions. Hoffman had always taken the position he had no opinion on Hauptmann's guilt or innocence. (p181) I disagree. Part of the reason Hoffman intervened was due to the enormous amount of mail asking him to do so. This, combined with his personal beliefs that this crime was not a one-man job is what caused him to act as he did. Afterwards he started to receive as much negative correspondence as he did positive. Three private detectives, William Pelletreau, George Foster, and Harold Keeves, (Keyes) were also part of the governor's team. The team was of little real value since it consisted of people predisposed to believe in Hauptmann's innocence. (p183) It's hard to characterize them as part of "Hoffman's team." It was a very complex situation which would take a book just to explain. Also, none of the above people mentioned were "predisposed to believe in Hauptmann's innocence." This statement is incorrect. Whether or not you find their information "of little value" would be up to the individual who studies and researches the case. I personally found value from each. Pelletrau was probably (of these three) the least productive in terms of what he produced - but again - that's my opinion. Thinking aloud for a minute....Hobbs was probably the only one who produced a sizable amount of investigation - who believed Hauptmann was "innocent." Again, great book and a ton of good information. I am logging off to start the next chapter now.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 25, 2006 6:29:08 GMT -5
If Parker had the Governor's support, why was he unable to get more information regarding evidence and police reports? Why did he go so wrong in the end? Please correct me if I am making a wrong assumption as I have not yet read this book. I have just heard that the Wendel fiasco was due to Parker feeling pressured to provide something before the BRH execution. If he really felt he had something with Wendel and he had the Governor's support, why wouldn't a stay be forthcoming?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 25, 2006 19:52:45 GMT -5
When the smoke cleared however, even Hoffman was convinced the board was genuine. ( p. 184)[/blockquote] I disagree. Hoffman never believed the attic scenario. He decided he would not continue his efforts to save Hauptmann. He just didn't have the ammunition. (p. 184) The Governor made an official statement which explains this (below). I think John's point above contradicts his statement, however, I believe John is giving us what he thinks the real story is..... I certainly disagree because Hoffman was very close to granting a 2nd reprieve anyway but in the end decided not to. Here's why: On January 16, when I granted the reprieve to Bruno Richard Hauptmann, I stated that would be the first and only reprieve that would be granted by me. At that time there was a discussion as to whether the constitutional provision empowered a Governor to grant reprieves for a period "not exceeding ninety days after the sentence was imposed at Flemington, or ninety days after the warrant of execution was issued by Justice Trenchard on December 13.
The advice of the Attorney General was that the word "conviction" referred to the final action in the trial court. It seemed to me, however, that this would have deprived the Governor of any right of reprieve as originally contemplated by the framers of our State Constitution and exercising the powers that I felt were vested in the executive. I granted the original reprieve with a statement that would be the final act of executive clemency to be exercised by me.
More than ninety days have elapsed since December 13, and I am now without power, under my interpretation of the constitutional provision, as set out by me on January 16, to grant a further stay.
-Governor Harold G. Hoffman
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 25, 2006 20:06:19 GMT -5
Yes, but I still am confused regarding the assertions I have heard that Parker was not privy to much of the police investigation. Is this true? If it is, why couldn't Hoffman give him complete access?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 26, 2006 8:08:31 GMT -5
Without knowing what your source is I can only give you certain facts which may help to answer your question.... While Schwarzkopf was still in charge of the NJSP, he did everything he could to road-block the Governor concerning this situation - so the Governor's access and abilities were severely limited at this point. At one time Conklin wrote a memo to the Governor saying he believed there was a burlap bag found - so they weren't even aware of this evidence! What was going on involved a few Troopers leaking intel to the Governor, Lloyd Fisher was sharing some of his information, etc.. Whatever the Governor did have at this point was indeed sent to and/or reviewed by Parker. If he reviewed originals you can see his initials on those very reports. It wasn't until Kimberling was sworn in that Hoffman had full access to the material, and even then some had disappeared. This was in June of '36 and well after the S*** hit the fan as it concerned Parker. When I first started researching the case I found investigations near this time in the Hoffman Collection which seemed to never have been followed up. As time went on I discovered that post-June '36 the continuations went to the NJSP files, obviously because Kimberling had taken over and there was no need to relocate material to the Governor's office. Let me say this though.....despite the trouble Parker found himself in - he was still investigating the case (believe it or not). I have requests from him to Kimberling for NJSP reports on angles he wanted to follow-up on. Going back to John's "team" comment in his book..... There really was no "team" as it applies to the situation. Most of these people were acting on their own and most without pay. At times, if the Governor thought they may have something to add, he would send them what would equate to "meal money" from his own pocket. Most of these guys distrusted and/or disliked each other. There were times when some worked together and situations which existed, for example: As we see in William Norris's book, A Talent to Deceive, Dillion worked for Lt. Hick's, so there an independent "team" existed.... We've got Meade being added as an Employee of the Executive Staff. He was a PI who had worked for Hauck in the early stages of the investigation. Lewis went to work for Meade's Agency once he was "laid off" (fired) from the NJSP. So Lewis worked for Meade until Kimberling took over then Lewis was re-instated in the NJSP Detective Bureau. Parker neither liked Meade nor did not trust him. Parker also suggested the Governor "distance" himself from Keyes because he said he was "talking to the press." Keyes was once a US Secret Service Agent but had been fired for pulling some unethical and unsavory moves unbecoming the actions of an Agent. Keyes had worked for the Defense at one point as a PI...as did Pelletreau. Ho-age did not like Pelletreau and warned the Governor against using him. See my point? Anyway, the idea of posting my disagreements and comments concerning John's book is becoming too time consuming and causing me delay in getting through it. If anyone has any questions as it pertains to it then simply post and I will, as I hope others will, give my opinions. Kevin you really have to get a copy of Master Detective....it is a must. Last one: In the Sheepshead Bay section of Brooklyn, a newly built basement room in Harry Bleefeld's house awaited its occupant....(p190) Kings County Grand Jury Testimony [Bleefeld]: Because that partition, that room, was always there at my father's house.
[Q]: Yes, that's true.
[Bleefeld]: It wasn't until one night that I came to my father and told him that Ellis Parker, Sr. told me that some trouble might start from this thing and that it might be best if he tore that room down. John correctly points out a similar situation concerning Bleefeld in his book concerning how and when he first met Ellis Parker. For anyone stumbling upon these posts wondering what the hell is going on I highly recommend getting a copy of John Reisinger's book Master Detective: www.amazon.com/gp/product/0806527501/sr=8-3/qid=1143247372/ref=sr_1_3/104-2622164-5857528?%5Fencoding=UTF8Read it for yourself and then jump into the debate!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 2, 2006 10:24:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 9, 2006 10:20:40 GMT -5
As I have indicated in some of my previous posts, I have been studying the Parker end of this case to pin-point as much of the truth as possible. Again, I must say that John has done a wonderful job with his book and points out some interesting things to consider. I've been asked recently why I am focusing so much attention on this angle and for me its just as much a part of the Lindbergh Kidnapping as anything else. Everyone connected to the Hauptmann angle seem to be directly or indirectly involved here and I find every move they make as it applies to the Parker angle as a very important thing to consider and apply to past, as well as future actions. Just so there's no confusion I want to outline the series of events. - Wendel, Bleefeld, et. al. Statements to Authorities.
- Mercer County Grand Jury Testimony
- Kings County Grand Jury Testimony
- Kings County Trial
- Kings County Re-Trial
- U.S. v. Parker
- Scaduto/Bleefeld interviews
Also one must consider the 'other' amounts of source material such as the reports, memos, letters, etc.... This is a ton of information and for me its important that it match up. And if it doesn't then my style is to find out exactly why.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 20, 2006 5:21:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 22, 2006 5:11:57 GMT -5
Here is another interesting fact(oid) which I just came across in a magazine article written in 1936....
The convict who escaped from Georgia, John Burns, who later became famous for his story, I Was a Fugitive From a Chain Gang then pardoned by Gov. Moore (Master Detective p87) was none other then Preacher Vincent Burn's brother.
Vincent Burns was the man who claimed he was "confessed" to by the Kidnapper and made the famous outburst in Flemington which led to his ejection from Court.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 3, 2006 20:36:13 GMT -5
I have been researching the Ellis Parker angle recently and have come across a reference to an article Alan Hynd wrote in True Detective Magazine in the June 1940 issue. If anyone comes across it please let me know. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 6, 2006 19:44:40 GMT -5
By now most people have read John's book. I would like anyone who believes Ellis Parker was guilty of 'kidnapping' Wendel to explain what evidence they rely on the most in order to come to this conclusion.
I have been doing a ton of research on this matter lately and I think I can offer an explanation concerning each and every point someone may make.
Try to stump me!
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Oct 6, 2006 22:03:12 GMT -5
Hi Michael/ are you thinking that if Ellis Parker never went to NYC and thus never grabbed Wendel or saw him in Brooklyn, then how could he thus have kidnapped him? Didnt Murray and the other boys bring him over to Parkers house in Mt. Holly in about 10 days and let him go in? Can you kidnap somebody by telephone? Maybe thats how BRH kidnapped CALjr too?
2. There was one article in the NyTimes with the headline:
"Wendel and Parker did not conspire to free BRH"
Kind of makes you wonder?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 7, 2006 10:37:58 GMT -5
When I said I have been researching the Ellis Parker angle it was a tremendous understatement. I have found and turned up so much information that I am now beginning to believe he was "innocent" of the "conspiracy" to kidnap Wendel. I am positive that with all the information I possess he wouldn't have been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in Court.
The term "conspiracy" is one of those 'buzz' words which gives an inference that someone holding this belief is somewhat unbalanced. The fact of the matter is that a conspiracy is two or more people planning a crime with the intent of carrying it out. This is a crime - whether or not they actually do doesn't matter. And the role, regardless if its major or a minor one - you have still entered into the conspiracy.
If people think conspiracies are rare then I would ask them to look at the statistics concerning those currently incarcerated in US prisons.
So to answer your question Rick - yes - Parker could have been involved in a conspiracy to commit kidnapping either by phone or a previous meeting. However, I do not believe knowing that Wendel had been snatched or would be if it wasn't at his direction is a crime. He didn't have jurisdiction in NY.
Let me give you a little sample:
In US v. Parker et. al. Murray Bleefeld testified that he met the Parkers and Anna Bading on 1-29-36 and that he met Ellis Jr. the following morning on 1-30-36 but later testified this meeting was on 1-31-36. As the Defense testimony would show, Ellis Jr. was involved in the Sugarman Trial, a criminal case that he had been involved in as Investigator for the Motor Fuels Division of the State Tax Department of New Jersey. Among many others, the Prosecutor, Thomas Tuso testified this trial took place in Bridgeton, NJ and ran from 1-27-36 through 1-31-36 and Ellis Jr. personally assisted him in the preparation of the trial and that he saw him from 10AM to 4PM each day during the trial. Ellis Jr. even testified and sat immediately behind the Prosecutors table each day during the trial.
This proved completely that Bleefeld was unreliable if not a liar.
Quinn attempted to neutralize this testimony by asking whether or not these Defense witnesses saw Ellis Jr., in essence, at all times, and then inferred they were lying.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Oct 7, 2006 14:59:27 GMT -5
Well Michael, are you suggesting that the three amigos/ eg Murray Bleefeld, Schlossman and Weiss (all good jewish names?) kidnapped Wendel on thier own or with direction from Wendel or others like the mortal enemies Wilintz and Schwartzkopf? Although Ellis Parker claimed his innocence, he never put up a defense and said he was framed? Then again neither did BRH? Ergo, the two Lindbergh kidnaps? The alternate first title for Johns book/
Page 873 of Murder of Justice: Wendel tells Ellis Parker that he knows that the baby is still alive--"a fact the detective already knew"? This would neutralize your "dead in the nursery theory" all to hell unless there are two babies? [there are a whole cast of characters whose fingerprints should not want to be discovered in the Nursery over the long weekend--Lizz, Dwight, Wild Bill, Alma Root, Breckenridge, Ellerson et al]
I agree with you that the threat posed by Ellis Parker is serious and palpable: everyone else can play dumb and bury any and all conflicting evidence and leads so Ellis Parker alone is capable of solving the case. So Ellis has to go directly to Federal Court and jail? Its surprising that Parker was so quiet until BRH wins the death sentence....this sets him out again at full speed.
I also agree that Ellis Parkers cases crack the LKC. I'm wondering if that isn't what Fletcher Pratt was thinking in 1935 in the Cunning Mulatto? My question is: Was Dinny Doyle suggesting that Doc Condon's grandfather was jewish too? last name.....Cohn? or Conhn? Strange at best? We all have a tendency to overlook the obvious: the Purple Gang was Jewish thru and thru! A perfect fit for CAL and Ford in Detroit?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 8, 2006 8:17:04 GMT -5
I don't think Wilentz and Schwarzkopf had anything to do with this until after the fact.... Honestly, I really didn't know how to attack this situation. I had a ton of information but there are a lot of holes to fill in. Then John's book came out and put much into its proper perspective and shows exactly what a person looking at the matter seriously might conclude. John doesn't stop there. Just like Dr. Gardner does in his book, he raises some questions that don't fit into the puzzle or make sense of the accepted situation then supports these questions with solid information. (For those who haven't read the book I will hold off on posting this now). Once I digested Master Detective I was able to look at the material I had from more angles that I had previously. I can see some explanations and you would be surprised at the various wrong-doings that went on in during this fiasco! Hauptmann's trial may have been a worse example but some of this stuff went on here too. John was right when he wrote that Ellis Parker would be willing to help anyone. There are so many examples of this I cannot count. (His reputation for being honest and keeping his word was legendary and would assist him in obtaining confessions.) If he told someone he would do something then he always tried and since he was such a respected person most followed his advice. Bleefeld wanted to help his brother and Parker said he'd see what he could do. John Reisinger's book Master Detective: www.amazon.com/gp/product/0806527501/sr=8-3/qid=1143247372/ref=sr_1_3/104-2622164-5857528?%5Fencoding=UTF8
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 12, 2006 18:57:17 GMT -5
Michael, I know you have really been doing a lot of Parker research as of late, so I thought you might answer a few related questions. How do you think Parker would have handled the LKC had he been the lead investigator from day one? What attributes or character traits`do you feel where most important to Parker as a detective? How do you think Parker would approach the case today?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 13, 2006 5:50:45 GMT -5
It's hard to give specifics but I can promise he wouldn't have let Lindbergh take over the investigation or allow him to veto his decisions in any way. He would have done all the things (big and little) we are today scratching our heads as to why they weren't done.
For example, he would have checked the footprint casts against all those in the house. He wouldn't simply take their word for it.
When the opportunity presented itself, he would have used the lie-detector on the Morrow/Lindbergh Staff. He probably would have used this as a psychological advantage in order to get people to divulge information they were holding back - kidnapping related or otherwise. One of the main reasons information did not come out was due to the fear people had. Parker always kept his word and would assist people if they told him the truth. He was famous for this and people trusted him - even criminals.
He would never have allowed the ransom drop happen the way it did....etc. I believe to this day he pinned down the timing of the "Kidnap" with nothing more then his ability at his disposal AND he had to plead with them to look at Lupica more seriously. He also believed the child had been placed in the spot he was found after the fact which today I think most of us now believe to be true.
Now of course there was his health to content with and exactly when he may have started his slide, however, his crime reasoning abilities still seemed very sharp at this time.
It's hard to place an adjective here... Think of it this way: In our discussions we all sometimes look at things from different angles and didn't consider what the next guy suggested until they lay it out. At times when we combine our ideas we find a little bit of all the ideas bring us to the probable truth of the matter.
Parker had the uncanny ability to do all of this himself.
Again, that's hard to say. He was set in his ways, and part of the reason he was so effective was the fact he was born in this era.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 13, 2006 15:00:24 GMT -5
Thanks Michael I will definately read the book. In the discussions between Lindbergh and Breckinridge was there a consideration of employing Parker? Was there a specific reason he was on the outside?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 14, 2006 17:48:27 GMT -5
Not really....
Parker had a conference with Col. A. J. MacNab, Jr. on March 8th to discuss his letters he wrote to the press immediately after the crime. MacNab wrote Parker a letter the next day explaining he spoke with Lindbergh who didn't have a problem with him if he carried out his investigation in terms with their published statement. The letter basically explained the many requests for signed letters by Lindbergh authorizing negotiations but said there were too many and the statement to the press would suffice.
(The Parkers used this letter as Defense Exhibit D-17)
To make further comment about your first question (above). I definitely think if Parker "ran" the investigation the Violet Sharp mystery wouldn't be a mystery.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 14, 2006 20:21:36 GMT -5
It's my opinion he was on the 'outside' due to Lindbergh's loyalty to Schwarzkopf, or, Schwarzkopf's loyalty to Lindbergh. Basically, Lindbergh did what he wanted or told Schwarzkopf how it was going to be and Schwarzkopf complied.
No one else would have allowed this.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 15, 2006 8:26:00 GMT -5
Ok, I am game. Why?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 15, 2006 8:36:46 GMT -5
His approach was exactly opposite of Walsh's tactics and it was his 'gift' to get people to open up and tell him what they knew. I am quite sure he would have interviewed everyone and found out the details of the most well kept secrets of the Morrow/Lindbergh families.
I
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Oct 15, 2006 8:47:50 GMT -5
How do you think he would have faired with BRH? Would he have used Schoenfeld's suggested method?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Oct 15, 2006 9:06:19 GMT -5
I agree Parker's general approach would have been ideally suited towards the investigation of Violet Sharpe's activities at this relatively early stage in the case. And it's not too much a stretch to believe that if she had told everything she knew, the case might well have unravelled enough to provide a far more direct line pointing towards those responsible.
At the same time, I believe Parker's ever-growing preoccupation with Wendel as perpetrator might well have clouded his reasoning even if Parker had had unfettered access to Hauptmann, in light of the latter's remarkable but now well-proven ability to withhold the truth of his actual involvement. It's clear that Parker didn't gain much from his questioning of Hauptmann at Trenton State Prison.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 15, 2006 17:15:23 GMT -5
It's hard to say how much "clouding" took place when Parker interviewed Hauptmann in '35. I truly believe Parker's health began to gradually take its toll on him - exactly how much and when would be an important question to answer... One thing for sure is that by the time of the Grand Jury in Mercer County he was in no way himself.
I am not sure about this, or maybe I don't understand your point. You can see this is an important interview which contains what I believe to be information of value. Now once the Governor re-opened the investigation, Parker had access to what the Governor did at the time. While I do know some of what Parker looked over I am not sure what he didn't see before this interview. Additionally, his memory would lapse and sometimes he became forgetful (some days being better then others).
I know he came away from it believing Hauptmann hadn't been the one to actually kidnap the child but he never completely ruled him out as having involvement.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Oct 17, 2006 17:42:34 GMT -5
Michael. Just finished Master Detective. When I Rec'd the book I jumped over to the kidnap involvement first and found myself rather dismayed by the things he did, after hearing him discussed so favorably. Then I began at the beginning and could then see such a difference in what seemed his personality. This is to say I agree with you about his thinking and actions seeming to become "cloudy". Things really don't seem to be "him" later on. I must say though I didn't find much if anything to say Wendle was involved in the kidnap. I will want to study the book more though. Don't you wish Parker had been put on the case from the beginning?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 19, 2006 16:00:25 GMT -5
There's more to it then just what's in the book so its hard to draw any inferences outside of what you can read there. There's alot of this in Scaduto's book too as coming from Bleefeld and John uses this as one of his many sources. My position concerning is health is that we have one of the most brilliant minds in crime solving starting to slowly erode as time goes on. This did not turn him into a criminal, mark my word, but it didn't help once the turn of events took place meant to trap Gov. Hoffman.
I am convinced that if Parker was as sharp as he once was he would never have been convicted regardless of the deals made to Bleefeld by Prosecutors. Parker would have never leaked his suspicions to Bleefled in the first place.
Now the more I dive into this the more evidence there is to show Bleefeld himself came up with the idea snatch Wendel then sell his confession. When that didn't work he went to "Plan B" which was turning to to Parker.
I think I know something that no one else does and I am now going to share it with the board.... Wendel sent the Justice of the Peace letters asking him to prepare complaints against Marshal, Wilentz, and Schwarzkopf. The idea seemed to be that if he was ever brought back to NJ he would swear them out and sign them.
Well actually he was just not in the way he should have been.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Oct 20, 2006 16:16:40 GMT -5
Michael~Thanx for your information. Not knowing many Wendle facts, I'm sorry, I don't quite follow the part where you speak of swearing out complaints. If you would please clarify what the complaints were and what they would have worked for.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 22, 2006 21:05:30 GMT -5
The whole matter was a like a game of "Let's Make A Deal." The crimes Wendel was wanted for in Mercer County were serious. He was turned over to Kings County as a courtesy because he was needed as a material witness. The deal was that he would be returned to Jersey to stand trial for these charges once his testimony was concluded.
What I have is the Justice of the Peace on record discussing Wendel's letters to him in which he requests complaints to be drawn up against those I mentioned saying he would swear them out upon his return to Trenton. Exactly what the charges would have been are not mentioned specifically but he seems to be taking a preemptive step to insure against his return and/or promises made to him by those individuals.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 7, 2006 18:50:57 GMT -5
|
|