Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,648
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Dec 2, 2006 9:11:37 GMT -5
Following the kidnapping, a number of people came forward to report strange vehicle sightings in and around Hopewell in the days and weeks prior to March 1, 1932. Considering Hopewell's size and the relative routine of it's locals, it's not surprising that these sightings may have seemed out of the ordinary and reason for some concern in the aftermath of the kidnapping. At the same time, Hopewell had just recently acquired a world famous new resident, so it seems reasonable that many of these sightings may have related to thrill-seekers, the plain curious and even more likely, reporters looking for a glimpse or even a story.
Here are two accounts relating to the sighting of a green Ford coupe. I'll try to add some more independent accounts of additional vehicle sightings in this thread soon and encourage others to do the same for purposes of cross-referencing. The FBI Summary Report is a great place to start.
Statement by Henry Ellerson to John J. Sweeney, Newark Police Dept., March 11, 1932:
"I have been employed for the past year as chauffeur by Mrs. Morrow at Englewood, N.J. On Tuesday, March 1, 1932 I received a telephone call from Banks, the butler in the Morrow home. I was in the garage. He just told me to take the car and take Betty Gow down to Princeton. Betty and I left about a quarter to twelve and started for Princeton. In Englewood Betty asked me to stop at a drug store where she got out and made a purchase of some candy.
We reached Hopewell about a quarter to two. When we got here we had some lunch. I stayed for about an hour and then went back to Englewood, which I reached about five o'clock. On my way out of the Lindbergh lane I noticed that a man had his car parked in the road; the car was facing toward Hopewell. It was a green Ford coupe; there was only one man in the car and although I blew my horn he did not move and had to drive my car around his to get by. I noticed nothing unusual."
Interview of William Bolmer (aka Brevoort Bollmer) Excerpt from Report of William Lewis, Detective Bureau, Trenton Station, NJSP, October 27, 1936:
"Interviewed Mr. Bolmer at his gas station near Rocky Hill on Route 31, and he immediately advised me that he had submitted everything he knew concerning the case to Governor Hoffman by mail; further that two Motor Vehicle inspectors representing the Governor's office had been to see him and taken a lengthy statement. He testified at the trial of Hauptmann, for the defense, to the effect that he had on numerous occasion served gas to a man driving a green Ford coupe, licence unknown; that this car either was travelling in the direction of Hopewell or coming from that direction; that on the night of the kidnapping, or the night before he had served gas to this man, who had a female passenger; that the green coupe had a ladder like the one used in the kidnapping and that the man when mention was made of the ladder, said, "I am working on a nursery job," whereupon his female companion gave him a startled look; that after the kidnapping Bolmer never saw the green Ford coupe again or any pictures of person who resembled the driver of this car. Bolmer is positive that neither of these persons were Bruno Richard Hauptmann or Mrs. Hauptmann."
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Dec 2, 2006 11:18:15 GMT -5
Okay, Joe.
Laura Vitray's The Great Lindbergh Hullabaloo has an entire chapter called "That Dodge Sedan," page 88, about car sightings. Any match ups?
Sue
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,648
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Dec 2, 2006 12:22:55 GMT -5
That section in Vitray sounds interesting Sue, unfortunately I haven't read her book. A few moments ago, I realized I have it on CD-Rom, so I've got the motive and means now!
As an aside note, another mention of a Dodge sedan appears in the FBI Summary Report, dated February 1934, seven months prior to Hauptmann's arrest.
With further respect to the Dodge car observed by Lupica, it is interesting to note that Dr. John F. Condon ("Jafsie"), recently informed an agent of the Division that on the occasion of his first meeting with "John", at the Woodlawn Cemetery, he observed an old Dodge car believed to be a Sedan, parked at the Jerome Avenue entrance to the cemetery. Dr. Condon does not know whether or not " John" owned or used the said car. He does not recall seeing the Dodge car on his subsequent meetings with "John" at St. Raymond's Cemetery.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Dec 2, 2006 12:53:00 GMT -5
sue and joe/ there is a funny cartoon lying around with many cars driving all over Hopewell (on every road) with a ladder sticking out the back! It going to take a bit of time to sort out the years and models: Ellerson sees a green Ford coupe in the driveway on his way back to Englewood. Ernie Brinkert has a 1926 Green Nash coach; see: disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=141545;article=35407;title=The%20Lindbergh%20Kidnapping%20Hoax%20ForumErnie Miller better have a Green sedan, but if he did then why did Violet and Edna sit in the two seats in the front? Doest add up? Henrik Finn "Red" Johnson has a green Chrysler coupe or convertible? Maybe he picked up Violet and Edna? Ellerson drives a roadster for Mrs Morrow--bye the way, who is the top dog chauffuer at Next Day? He flies below the radar....also sometimes Ellerson drives a Green Ford coupe. As for Violet Sharpe--as you can see she makes a special point of lying about the TIME that she was called by Ernie1? She says 745pm at first but after 90 days of sleuthing Walsh finds out it was right after lunch at 1pm which gives plently of time for kidnap to get rolling? Violet is rather precise in her lying? Wonder which Ernie she called at 1pm? Ernie Brinkert for example quit his job as butler that very day and then had a very weak alibi for the nite of March 1st? I would say "no alibi" at all until Wednesday nite??? But as soon as Violet dies--hes released. The weakest alibis are: Red/Violet/Ernie/Edna. - Why does it take until AFTER Violets untimely death to find either one of the two Ernies with green sedans?
- Who plants the Post Road Taxi Cards in Violets room?
- Why does Edna say Violet is married along with the Obit?
- Why does anyone say Violet is engaged to Septimus Banks?
- How does Harry Walsh miss the connection to O'brian?
- Why does the BOI keep Brinkerts name and photo away from Walsh and the cops 6 days before June 10th?
- If Violet is the accidental informant then WHO did she tell? If she is not then who is? All 29 insiders cant be vindicated.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 2, 2006 16:10:26 GMT -5
Good post Joe - let's see if we can't all generate something from it.... It does seem reasonable but I keep thinking that Lupica, who lived just down the road at Buttonwood Corners, didn't even know the Lindbergh's lived in Hopewell: He then told me about the Lindbergh baby being kidnapped and I said "I didn't even know the Lindbergh's were up here." (9-9-33) There are so many reports of strange vehicles before Hauptmann but also some after Hauptmann which were investigated during Hoffman's involvement. It's hard to know where to begin.... I believe there were at least (2) cars involved....maybe more. When I read about Ellerson's account it reminds me of Lupica's. And we know they were different cars. Why? The actions of the Drivers seem similar in that they seem to be waiting/looking for another car to approach. This is Steve Lehman's theory, which is outlined in Dr. Gardner's unpublished essay The Ben Lupica Story. hometown.aol.com/Mmel71/images/Lindy/GETTINGITRIGHT.docBolmer is interesting as well. However, the ladder he saw wasn't the ladder found so this tends to turn people off to his account. For me it doesn't eliminate the car as possibly being connected.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,648
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Dec 4, 2006 11:58:53 GMT -5
Good point, but I also wonder how many of the strange vehicle sightings actually related to people who were just out to check out the Lindberghs' new home or even get a sense of the location, strictly out of personal curiosity or a story line. I think it had been published about mid-1931 that they were moving to Hopewell, so perhaps by February 1932, there was some sense of anticipation or actual expectation by the general public that the Lindberghs were already settled in. I think thats a hard one to qualify for certain.
The issue of multiple vehicles (more than two) is starting to get a little problematic for me. If I were planning this, I would want to minimize any direct connection through eyewitness accounts on the actual day of the kidnapping, unless cover of darkness was on my side. I believe there is possible evidence of the involvement of more than two people in the Hopewell district in the days and weeks prior to the kidnapping, as a means of throwing a false trail and establishing a certain level of confusion in the minds of eyewitnesses who would later be called upon by police.
Are you sure this side mounted ladder on the green Ford coupe was discounted as having been the kidnap ladder? I know it does seem a bit odd to be flaunting a potential piece of physical evidence in this manner, unless the ladder was originally not meant to be left behind. And I suppose there exists the possibility if this couple was involved, it may have been a backup ladder. That "nursery job" quip by the driver which drew the reaction from his female companion, is a bit too ripe to resist some scrutiny, but it may well be a red herring like the green Ford coupe noted by Ellerson.
I have a difficult time in attaching any suspicion of direct involvement at all to Ernest Brinkert, Ernie Miller, Red Johnson or Betty Gow. They were all very forthcoming, well checked out, held up well and I just don't see their actions as those of guilty parties, ala Hauptmann in captivity. Each and every event has it's periphery of direct circumstance beyond which usually lay some irresistibly tantalizing but ultimately disconnected prospects. I'm starting to think the green Ford coupe may be one of these.
And Violet Sharpe... I do believe there's something there but it's essentially limited to divulging and possibly selling Lindbergh and Morrow family information, of which some she later believed may have been helpful to the planning of the kidnapping. Edna? I think she knew Violet was less than private when it came to respecting the implied duties of working for the rich and famous, but not much more than that.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Dec 4, 2006 12:54:35 GMT -5
Violet's bank acct seems right plump to me. She sends money to her parents from time to time. She helps Edna with medical bills. Then there is the $500. lump deposit. As Joe touches upon, it does make one wonder if selling information about the two families may have been at play. It also strikes me that Edna places rather much emphasis on their having no friends-male or female-outside each other or other staff members. Am inclined to wonder if she may have been following a line Violet wished to promote(?) Is there much known about V's reporter friend?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 6, 2006 20:01:40 GMT -5
While there's no doubt in my mind this man was 100% sincere, I consider these facts when I say what I have above and have seen others weigh in using the same examples: - It was a Ford.
- Ladder was tied to the side of the car.
- Bolmer said he touched it with his bare hands but his fingerprints, according to Governor Hoffman, weren't on the 'kidnap' ladder.
Perhaps they weren't compared during the NJSP reinvestigation in the '70 & '80's. This investigation included the most up to date technology at the time and was able to locate Bornmann's prints on the ladder. If not then maybe I am being a little hasty in drawing a solid conclusion, however, if pressed I'd need a little more and still lean toward it being a different ladder.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 12, 2006 20:24:15 GMT -5
Another sighting to consider:
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Dec 13, 2006 11:40:42 GMT -5
michael.....not unlike the Cartoon of many cars with a ladder on every road around Hopewell in 1932 [posted somewhere on lIndykidnap.]...here again it looks like overkill to me?
How many cars does it take to kidnap a baby. Now in December in Wisconsin near the shortest day every year it is dark at 5pm. But around March 1st its still light out between 5-6pm so maybe (?) all these cars showing up want to be seen and remembered to prove a kidnap?
Also #1238 Lindy kidnap & another green car sighting:
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Dec 13, 2006 17:29:22 GMT -5
I agree, that is another sighting to consider. What puzzles me after reading it is why the police so readily dismissed it(?) For sure there would have been sight seers around and about , but what is the magic key to who was who(?) Re dismissing the guard. Have tried to find a date on that , without success. Does anyone know when or approx that was? Am trying to get some idea of how long that then gave the kidnapper(s) to scope out the house and grounds. CAL's flight to England--to Anne "Be ready on 24hrs notice" and Condon's trip to Panama do seem rather to line up with Hoffman's reinvestigation. A "reinvestigation" by it's very nature might suggest that an earwitness ID amongst other aspects wouldn't be wrapped in cotton this time round(?)
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 13, 2006 22:39:12 GMT -5
I feel the same way. I have no idea why he would draw such a snappy conclusion. Lindbergh let him go on in early November of '31. ....and after the Lindbergh's moved to Hopewell, the Senator remarked that sometime the baby would be kidnaped if they didn't have better protection. (Agent Seykora Report, 5-18-34)
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,648
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Dec 14, 2006 16:45:01 GMT -5
Here is a strange vehicle sighting by a railroad watchman named Alfred Hammond. His statement was taken 11 days after the kidnapping. According to the FBI Summary Report, this vehicle is quite possibly the same one witnessed by Theresa Dersi on February 22, a blue-green sedan with New York licence plates. The three men inside the vehicle had asked her the way to the Lindbergh home. John Dougherty, a telephone lineman and Jay Moore, a farmer's son, also claimed to have seen this automobile on the road to the Lindbergh home.
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Dec 14, 2006 17:24:04 GMT -5
For Mairi,
From The Great Lindbergh Hullabaloo:
"Lee Hurley, fearless middle-aged resident of Hopewell, guarded the Lindbergh home throughout the time that it was building, lest mountain marauders descend in the night and make away with stone, lumber, or fittings.
When the house was finally completed in December 1931, Hurley, according to his own story, begged Lindbergh to retain him as a permanent watchman, but the Colonel assured him no guard was necessary." (page 31)
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 14, 2006 21:56:09 GMT -5
Hammond is another good one...
I believe the FBI Summary was incorrect however. Dursi's car sighting wasn't the same one Hammond saw.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,648
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Dec 15, 2006 9:09:15 GMT -5
Michael, I don't have a report on the Dersi sighting. I would have considered her information to be important as she claimed the three men in the vehicle stopped and asked her directions to the Lindbergh home.
Was there any kind of attempt that you know of at a compilation report by the NJSP, to establish any conclusions on the various sightings? I'm sure there must have been attempts made to run down some of these vehicles and question the drivers' intent for being in the area. Much of this subject seems to be one enormous loose thread that doesn't go very far.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 15, 2006 23:24:59 GMT -5
Good question Joe. The answer is both "yes" and "no." Hopefully you got a copy of the recent study guide assembled by Mark Falzini concerning the Archives. lindberghkidnap.proboards56.com/index.cgi?board=news&action=display&thread=1149348894Most of the Car Sightings are in the original NJSP files. There are (2) separate files and both usually have a duplicate set next to them. For those counting that's (4) possible folders which are supposed to contain the exact same documents. Sometimes they do but most of the times you will find more, less, and/or unique files in each. Get my drift? And so sometimes the Police would indeed staple follow-up investigations years apart to the original investigation and everything is nice and neat. However, sometimes that just isn't the case. You may find a missing piece of the puzzle in the Hoffman Collection, in the "P" files, in the Correspondence files, or a piece in each separate place...etc. etc. The Dersi sighting is one of the latter. However, I found all the reports in the various places and put them together myself so concerning this I know what's what. Oh, I forgot to mention that after Hauptmann was arrested the NJSP seemed to track down most who had seen strange people and/or strange cars and were showing them Hauptmann's picture asking if he was who they saw. These reports aren't with the originals either.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,648
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Dec 17, 2006 17:36:35 GMT -5
Yes Michael, I do have a copy of Mark's guide to the NJSP museum resources and I can see how it would be an indispensable aid to hands on research there. Mark's energy, dedication and professionalism in his role never cease to amaze me. The Car Sightings chart referenced on page 30 seems like a great place for additional information for this thread. Have you seen this chart at the museum?
The followup by NJSP in the Hopewell area with the photo of Hauptmann is something I hadn't heard of before although I've often wondered why this loose end seems to remain. Perhaps no conclusive identification?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 18, 2006 9:47:40 GMT -5
If you had to take a guess let me know what you'd say... Again, a "yes" and "no" answer. Some were saying it was him, some were saying it wasn't, and others were saying they'd have to see him. If Police were skeptical they passed on the personal ID attempt and others would see him and say they weren't sure, etc. This involved his car too... You get the picture. Those who claimed they saw Fisch were immediately dropped - I'd have to look up exactly when but Hammond was one of those. You get the picture here too... Also, I think the Police just didn't have enough time due to the date of trial. They were looking for a quick strike and it looks as though Rossiter, Whited, and Hochmuth were what they felt were the best. History, and the truth would have benefited from more time prior to the trial from both sides.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,648
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Dec 19, 2006 8:09:28 GMT -5
Michael, based on your response, I think I'd be shocked if you hadn't read the Car Sightings chart. Can you post it? I don't put much faith in the value of the Whited, Hochmuth and Rossiter accounts. I tend to lump these into a category of anything from actual sightings of some individual (which doesn't necessarily exclude Hauptmann) but embellished towards Hauptmann identification, all the way to outright fabrication for personal gain. In my estimation, a very grey and suspect area. I'd agree that the police were a little handcuffed for time as far as presenting an airtight case against Hauptmann. On the other hand, based on Hauptmann's obvious involvement to some degree, it's a shame he didn't help history and the truth out a little on his own, regardless of who he brought down with him.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 23, 2006 15:46:51 GMT -5
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,648
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Dec 29, 2006 11:49:52 GMT -5
Thanks Michael, for the Hammond statement taken just after Hauptmann's arrest. (De Gaetano Report of September 28, 1934) In my estimation it's a potentially important and revealing piece of the puzzle. Although the report seems to clear Hauptmann as the driver of the vehicle I'm more interested in what is not included. Here are a couple of observations based on this report, cross-referencing it with the original Hammond statement of March 12, 1932, as well as a later statement in 1936.
I find it interesting in the March 12, 1932 report that Hammond seemed to be far more focused on the man sitting in the rear seat, describing him in considerable detail.
No. 1 - The Driver - American, Age about 35 years, medium built, wore a dark cap.
No. 2 - Sat alongside the driver. No description other than that he wore a dark cap.
No. 3 - Sat in rear seat. Italian, age about 25 to 28 years, medium built, dark complexion, smooth shaven, wore a dark suit and dark cap. (Hammond can positively identify if seen again.)
According to Jim Fisher in Ghosts of Hopewell, Hammond ultimately did identify the man in the rear seat. In a statement given to Ray Lyons, one of the members of Governor Hoffman's investigation team a month prior to Hauptmann's execution, Hammond claimed the man was Isidor Fisch, based on photos shown him by detectives after Hauptmann's arrest. Hammond also added that the police who questioned him then seemed to discourage him from maintaining this claim.
Fisher then claims that according to a spokesman for the NJSP, no photos of Isidor Fisch were ever shown to Alfred Hammond. This seems almost inconceivable, based on Hauptmann's exposed association with Fisch via the shoebox story, well prior to the September 28, 1934 Degaetano report.
Yet here in the same September 28, 1934, report there is no reference at all to Isidor Fisch. It is a terse and direct statement whose main purpose seems to be the distancing of Hauptmann from this vehicle observed by Hammond at the Skillman railroad crossing in the days immediately before the kidnapping. In it there are no attempts made to identify the other occupants of the vehicle, despite Hammond's original claim that he could later identify the man in the rear seat.
This may be a case of a botched or incomplete piece of police work, which we know must have happened frequently due to the sheer volume of information taken. At the same time I'm very leary of accepting that DeGaetano's report summarizes the full extent of Alfred Hammond's requestioning after Hauptmann's arrest. I also can't preclude the possibility of Fisch being the rear seat occupant.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 29, 2006 21:41:10 GMT -5
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. I agree with you Joe - although this Statement does not include everything Hammond claimed went on during his interview - is there any doubt in your mind more was said then just what was in his statement? 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.
|
|
|
Post by rick cub reporter on Dec 30, 2006 9:46:30 GMT -5
New York Times/ March 17 1932: Reports of a blue-green sedan with NY license markers seen in the vicinity of the Lindbergh home several times immediately before the kidnapping: - Teresa Dersi (19) living near Feather bed Lane saw this sedan with 3 men on Feb 22nd--the men asked the was to Highfields
- Alfred Hammond, the watchman at Skillman for 5-6 days each morning between 8-9am
- John Dougherty, a telephone lineman on the road near the lane to the house
- Jay Moore, a farmer's son indicating that the car may have returned by the north route to Zion.
- Mrs Rebecca Bush, east of the Zion postoffice.
It is considered significant this car has not been seen since Turesday morning March 1st.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 31, 2006 13:45:16 GMT -5
We can delete Dursi's sighting from consideration. These men were reporters.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Dec 31, 2006 13:49:36 GMT -5
thanks Michael/ I just found that in the NYTimes. Maybe we were all smarter last year?: Name: Michael (152.163.100.195, 152.163.100.195) Subject: Re: Curtis Mon, Dec 19 2005 at 11:03 am [ Email Msg | Invite ] Message: Joe's theory is an interesting one, and Steve's question to follow-up his theory is good too.... Joe, do you think there was an inside connection to this -even if it was an unknowing one? I personally think that each person involved had a specific function or goal to perform. It could be the ladder was left behind on purpose as a prop. I still believe the child could have been removed via a door in the house and its obvious Lindbergh believed this was possible too. If this happened then obviously the ladder may have been a "prop" just as both Schwarzkopf and Mulrooney believed in the beginning. It could also be the person assigned to carry it could not get the dowel out of the hole to "nest" it back together. There's no way, having walked in myself, that someone would want to carry that thing back to either Featherbed or Wertsville-Hopewell Road without it being nested. I think Kel or Steve or someone said it wasn't that bad carrying a replica ladder but I have to disagree because it was bad without one. I can only imagine in a wind-storm near 32 degree weather in the pitch-black. Now I through this thought out because the chisel was left behind too next to the ladder. Why was the chisel out here? An accident? I've guessed it could have been out to try and knock the dowel out of the hole by using its handle. When it didn't work they just said "F" it I'm waisting time and left both where they lay. end quote/ and Joe: web.archive.org/web/20061231185131/http://forum.onecenter.com/cgi-bin/forum/forum.cgi?c=msg&fid=yz12&mid=11066
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 31, 2006 14:11:27 GMT -5
I think as time progresses our positions may change or tighten up, etc.. Certainly Kevin's input has drastically changed my position on the ladder. My points stated in this post you quoted concerning the child exiting the door is a perfect example, although that's not to say it still isn't in the back of my mind concerning the possibilities that exist.
Having walked from both Featherbed and H-W Road to and from Highfields I have a hard time believing anyone carried the ladder this distance and this is from someone who runs 5 mi a day and used to dressed out in full gear. My position on this point is more solid then ever. The direction to Featherbed is from the back of the house and whoever approached the window must have used the board-walk. When they left, one or more went in the direction of the old road. The woman's footprints, if they weren't Anne's, were consistent with the proper direction for Featherbed.
For me that means those with the ladder had chosen a path in a different direction for a reason.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,648
Member is Online
|
Post by Joe on Jan 1, 2007 9:19:08 GMT -5
Michael, I appreciate your viewpoint on Fisher's books. Ultimately, I can't comment on the complete factualness of everything he says, or any other author concludes for that matter. I think we always have to be mindful of how information is gathered and presented and our reaction to it based on how we've approached the same subject, in a way that doesn't overlook the possibility the real truth may simply lie somewhere in the middle. After my own 5 years of interest in this case, it's one of the largest truths I've discovered.
Do you know for a fact that Lyons wasn't working for Governor Hoffman? The timing, just prior to Hauptmann's execution seems to smack of Team Hoffman here, but I don't discount there well could have been other politically motivated agendas involved in attempting to uncover some nugget of truth that at most might overturn the verdict, or at least draw some publicity to those involved.
Exactly my point, and it's the lack of information, the seeming avoidance of what should have been the hot buttons of interest to investigators. By the end of September 1934, I believe Hauptmann had been marked for being tried alone and DeGaetano's Sept. 28, 1934 report is simply one of many affirmations by official police report to align the necessary forces without detracting from this agenda. Of course, Hauptmann with his lies, deceptions and reticence to that point, can be held fully accountable for his own actions here as well. I believe it was this kind of "karmic imbalance" created by these two dissolute forces and punctuated by the official court verdict that set the stage for the neverending nature of this case that we're left to deal with today.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 1, 2007 10:08:06 GMT -5
I think you could. If one has the documentation then its easy to see where someone went wrong. Let's say a new book comes out with a section on Nosovitzky. Without the documentation you have, and the knowledge you possess - from the amount of research you have done - You will know immediately if they know what they're talking about and by checking the footnotes have a good idea if they did the proper research. 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 just don't know what he means by this. In my opinion he mentions this to give the appearance of influence on Hammond. Not knowing the NJSP did have contact due to his lack of research would give rise to this belief. Lyons was friends with Hoffman, as were many people at the time, and there were the occasional friendly letters etc. Lyons gave Hoffman some information on the famous Meany situation....etc. etc. Another example would be that Harry Green wanted to meet with Lyons to bounce some ideas off of him concerning the Civil case where Hoffman was suing the Trenton Times... Again, does this qualify him as working for the Governor? Harry Green? I have searched and searched trying to find out why these men interviewed Hammond instead of one of those who actually were on Hoffman's 'team' (and again I use this term loosely), or a freelancer who was, and I have come to the personal conclusion that someone may have actually represented Hammond or looked at him as a potential client. It could be that Lyons ran down there as a personal favor to the Governor but my experiences with matters such as these tell me the Governor more likely would have sent a man like Bill Lewis.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 8, 2007 10:51:08 GMT -5
Since this thread began I have been taking a closer look at my files concerning these sightings. I had them in chronological order but find this to be a poor system for this subject. I have begun putting them together as they pertain to a specific related sighting. However, (of course) this now leads me to the possibility that I could be wrong about an association and therefore lose potentially 'new' information by making a wrong assumption. One thing I had been doing is to mentally disregard Cars seen with ladders "sticking out" of a car and/or on the side of it. I think most of us believe Lupica saw the culprit with the ladder and it wasn't in any way on the outside of the car. And while I think there were Confederates I do not believe an 2nd ladder would have been brought....especially one which didn't show the careful construction of having it fit inside of the cab. However, I as begin to read through the various accounts in an effort to 'clean up' my files, one such account has captured my attention and has me rethinking that position a little. What if the ladder is on the outside while more people are in the car? The idea is that these people are dropped off the the ladder is 'concealed' within the cab... One sighting which had alot of Police attention was by a man named Haver. He was the local tax collector in Quakertown, N.J. In a nutshell he saw a dark blue or black dodge headed in the direction of the Lindbergh home (5) straight days in a row. On March 1st at approx 4:30PM he saw the Dodge followed by a Ford with a ladder tied to the outside. Later that night he saw this car wizz by at a high rate of speed this time without the ladder. The Dodge had (4) people in the car and he got a good look at one man, without the ladder, as being "German or Scandinavian" 35 years old. Unfortunately there was a ton of drama involving this account. Constable Saunders had originally refused to work this angle out with the NJSP because he didn't 'trust them' so they appear anxious to discredit this account in order to discredit Saunders. They would show Haver the model of the ladder and Haver identified it. Then he seemed confused as to whether there were actually 2 or 3 sections he saw when they were nested. However, in 1934, the NJSP were "balling the jack" in their Police Cars in order to get to Haver and show him pictures of Hauptmann to see if he could identify him. www.wordorigins.org/Words/LetterB/ballingthejack.htmlNext - Rick listed a good number of sightings one of which I quickly dismissed. I wanted to offer proof of this (as I should have) by posting one the various reports I have on that subject. It can be found in the Member's Section in this thread: lindberghkidnap.proboards56.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=source&thread=1163811243&page=1I think its important to note that Theresa Dersi's original interview did not include this sighting but another one - yet - this did occur and is a reminder not to completely disregard information as being 'bogus' as coming from the locals as an afterthought and/or remembering something. It's also important to apply this information to other sightings and cross reference to see if this account applies to other witness accounts of strange car sightings. These guys were strangers stood out as one can plainly see after reviewing these reports. Now in line with my original views, I have found an interesting report concerning another sighting which includes the ladder being inside of the car but with it containing 2 people. I was wondering if this was possible? What does everyone think? Now I am being careful about this information because of the time-frame but this guy doesn't seem to be looking for publicity and/or creating a wild tale or anything of that nature. It seems to me that if what he says is true it gives us more on the timing, adds another person, and positions this car in a specific area. I'd like to find an old '32 map of the area and make a chart like Finn did concerning the ransom money recovery. It just might reveal the actual path both to and from the scene that night. Or it might be a big waste of time but I like to give it a try. Anyone have such a map?
|
|