kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 2, 2010 14:59:43 GMT -5
I can respect your opinion on that, personally I believe Scaduto, Monier, and Kennedy should be on the fiction shelf. In a way though, Lloyd is taking Fisher seriously enough to criticize. In the end, I don't think anyone got it completely right and I don't think I'm alone given the very existence of these forums. My pet peeve is innuendo. I find it insulting to have a so-called researcher taking shortcuts and essentially telling me what to think. One of the last books out was so filled with it I threw it away. Lloyd and I have had many arguments regarding this case. I don't think I have ever won any, but at the same time he always respected my position and never pushed his beliefs on me. I respect that because it shows true integrity and confidence. By the way, have you ever read any of Lloyds non LKC books? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Gardner
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 2, 2010 17:03:51 GMT -5
You're joking right? So if you type a book you are allowed to make things up? I have no idea what you mean by Lloyd being "handed" things. Each and everytime I ran into him at the Archives he was sitting quietly reading through the files. And how about Fisher? How many days at the NJSP Archives did he spend? How many things were handed to him by the Troopers working there? And that's where part of the problem lies....they were wrong at times.
I think you have your Authors mixed up.
Depends on what exactly you would be debating about. I have disproven so much of MikeK's posts that I don't even bother reading him anymore. Kelvin did a good job getting us to where Koehler got us. But we were already there - weren't we? Then he went overboard by skipping certain areas of Expertise that would be needed to go any further.
If you are going to be Scientific then you must do it everywhere. You can't do it in some places then ignore it in others - and at the same time condemn others for doing the exact same thing.
Rab & Kevin solved the wood angle - all by themselves. How'd they do it? By being neutral and having and/or holding no bias going into it.
Would you have been happy if he left these terrible mistakes uncorrected? When you write you consider all the sources and which seems to be the most reliable (or what seems to be what is relied on the most). If that one is incorrect then you fix it.
I don't see pointing out mistakes as a knock. I see it as fixing something that wasn't true. It does destroy Fisher's notion that everyone else is a "Revisionist" if he himself isn't even right about his facts.
Lloyd raised the bar when it comes to researching this case....
Once my book is out - I will correct whatever version seems to be the most acceptable at the time, otherwise, I will cite it as a source for what I am writing - if its where I get my information from. I promise what I write will hold a lot of new material - some of which absolutely will re-write history.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 2, 2010 19:46:38 GMT -5
it would have been nice if he pointed the other authors mistakes also. his research was very easy for alot of his stuff was at his door step. i still think he covers the evidence bad.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 2, 2010 19:48:24 GMT -5
fisher spent alot of time at the archive interviewed people that was involved in trhe case that was still alive. plus he had to deal withv book debates and anna hauptmanns attorney
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Mar 2, 2010 23:16:12 GMT -5
The things that you and draft dodgers have in common, Mairi, is a big mouth - so for both of yours sakes, you better close it! Or what?? Since I don't feel the least deterred-not shaking in my boots or anything-I do open my mouth to pose the following: Why (and how) does NJ have such a lock against LKC DNA comparisons? Re:the Rausch envelope to ransom envelopes (and maybe other)? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like a simple and direct path to take. If the two match, then "bingo"! If not, then wouldn't that be a pretty clear indicator that more than one perp was involved?-------How many Wilentzes still hold political sway in NJ? ______________ ______________ Very interesting Archival Ramblings------quite informative!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Mar 3, 2010 6:41:26 GMT -5
Mairi:
As far as I've been able to determine it's still Lindbergh/Morrow family interests controlling everything.
You're right, of course, but in reality (according to what I'm believing now) if I had a REALLY bad apple in my family, I'd figure the less known the better.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 3, 2010 8:22:55 GMT -5
I doubt that the access to all of the material would be open and that the archivist would be a man of Mark Falzini's caliber if there was any concerted effort to suppress investigation. That's not to mention allowing Michael to root through everything.
Good for you Mairi. My suggestion is to wait a little, given the condition of our state economy, I won't be surprised if the entire archives ends up on EBay to help pay off the state pension fund deficit.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Mar 3, 2010 14:44:01 GMT -5
Kevkon, I didn't have Mark in mind regarding (allowance or suppression of)DNA tests. But rather who has the ultimate yea or nay on the matter. Earlier requests for DNA were blocked, right? I'm wondering what makes a couple of envelope flaps so by-golly sacred? I hope the archives don't end up on E-bay, but I get your thought. An historic museum in my state is being ditched (which leaves me both and ).
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 3, 2010 15:43:39 GMT -5
I am sure that Michael can answer your question better than I, but my understanding of the situation is that there are multiple reasons regarding current testing. One, the material is protected as archival and most testing requires some destruction. Two, there would probably have to be good reason to get past reason one. I don't think the state would agree that there is. Three, without some good reason the state has nothing to gain and potentially something to lose. Four, testing is expensive and at a time when the state is broke, I doubt anyone could get that by. Five, bureaucracy.
To put it in perspective, Hauptmann's tools and toolbox are slowly decaying. I offered to restore and preserve them, but Mark was not allowed to let them leave the museum. It's just the way it is. I guess it's better from the bureaucratic point of view that they rust and rot away safely in possession of the state.
Michael, I don't mean to put you on the spot, but I'm curious about your book. What do you feel is lacking in all of the books already published and in what manner are you approaching it?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 3, 2010 17:00:37 GMT -5
Mairi,
The ultimate source for this would be Mark. Having said that though here is my recollection (for what it's worth)....
When the Lindbergh's wanted certain items they were immediately granted permission to "take" them. When the offer was made by (I can't remember who) to pay for the DNA testing of the envelope the Attorney General (at the time) denied the request. I don't know why. But if we put our heads together we could probably come up with various explanations for each and every possible result. For example, if it came back positive for Hauptmann then it would seem to prove he did write the letters, but not prove he was alone. And if it came back that it wasn't his DNA then it proves another was involved....not conclusively that he was not.
Know what I mean?
Kevin,
Over the years I've always looked at solving the many puzzles within this giant one hoping the sum of the parts would equal the whole. I've found so much NEW stuff over the years. Some I've mentioned - and some I haven't. Additionally, if history records something happened, and it didn't, then I will fix that.
See where I am going with this?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 3, 2010 17:34:42 GMT -5
I was just wondering if there was some aspect of the books on the LKC that you found lacking. I guess what I'm asking is, do you feel a particular perspective has been overlooked.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Mar 3, 2010 18:12:34 GMT -5
Thanks Michael and Kevkon, for your thoughts on the DNA subject. Yes, I understand there would be various explanations for whatever results--just thought it might get us a tad more firmly toward what's what. It seems to continue to be a dead end--but then again maybe someday.
I can scarcely wait for your book to come out, Michael!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 3, 2010 19:22:22 GMT -5
Thanks! I am definitely writing. Now if it ever gets published is a whole 'nother issue. Plus its taking me forever. I have too many sources, and if I don't know the answer to something then everything is put on hold until I do.
I won't presume anything. Honestly, I like Lloyd's approach to the Case. However, I don't plan on being as diplomatic. The idea is to present anything and everything new. For example, like the new information Lloyd uncovered about the shutter, and Fisch....
Furthermore, there's just too much that has been accepted as fact which isn't. It's like one Author simply accepted the previous one's position then repeated it over and over. I will break that cycle with the true history of things. It may seem irrelevant to some - but not to me. Perhaps it won't get me anywhere, I don't know, but for me its important that what really happened is told.
Imagine, for example, that Kelly never dusted for fingerprints like every Author asserts. Wouldn't it be important to note that he hadn't? (Just a hypothetical - he definitely did).
Once my first chapter is done I will have it "field tested." If I get the thumbs down then its back to the drawing board.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 3, 2010 19:42:10 GMT -5
well mike, i offer anything you need from my stuff for your book. pictures or anything else
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 4, 2010 6:29:32 GMT -5
Thanks Steve. I appreciate the offer and all the help you've already given me.
Yes. But are they acting together or independent of one another?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Mar 4, 2010 8:27:47 GMT -5
Yo Jackson...from my vantage point all the Lindbergh/Morrows are working together "in sync". They flow back and forth between Next Day and High Fields and Europe effortlessly. Anne and Betty are way more intellegent than Slim [who was a dolt except for pumps and planes] , so he cant fool them, maybe the vesica-versus? Springer and the servants are playing out thier roles as well/ wink! The women dont seem to be in any particular hurry to get lil CJr back either--"mony is redy"?
There is a big diff between a barrel full of bad apples with one good one and the inverse? Which did Jafsies mystery woman describe on bended knees? Pray tell/r
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 4, 2010 16:08:37 GMT -5
I think you have the wrong time frame. Out of curiosity, since I think you have involved everyone in this case that I know of at one time or another as being in on the crime, who do you consider to be a good apple?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 4, 2010 17:06:13 GMT -5
One of those "things" I am intrigued about is knowing who was who. And who they "worked" for or who "brought them in." Take, for example, Fawcett and the Private Investigators he hired. I had to know who all of them were and what they investigated.
Now, in the beginning of this Case there were "people" in the backround. So who were they? Who brought them in? Galvin, and Fogarty were brought in by Breck and the Morrows. But later I see some changes that I don't think is coming from the Morrow Family. Nope, I surely do not.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 4, 2010 17:31:22 GMT -5
What about Hearst?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Mar 5, 2010 7:39:51 GMT -5
Michael....my first thought is to take a look at Col. William "OSS" Donovan...he nominates Mickey Rosner...and Robert Thayer from Wash DC?
One of Rosners first power moves is to get rid of Fogarty and Galvin...and Rosner trys to usurp Maddens influence as well? I think this undermines Breckenridge? There is definitely some pushing and shoving for CALs approval going on?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 5, 2010 11:44:13 GMT -5
Hearst was all about making money. He worked both sides of the street for these purposes.
I believe Rosner was accusing one of them as being in league with the kidnappers. He may have actually believed this, trying to get people to stop listening to his calls and/or interfering, or both.
From everything I could tell from all the research I've done - Thayer was 100% on the level with no motive other then to assist. I can't say the same about Rosner.
|
|
|
Post by gap0003 on Mar 9, 2010 22:42:56 GMT -5
I thought I read that Hauptman's original time sheet was found in Wilent's files 40 years later. Does anyone know for sure? If they were, wouldn't that prove that he was framed?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 10, 2010 6:28:57 GMT -5
This is a good question. Here is the a previous "discussion" on the matter. There are: - Time Cards
- Payrolls
- Complaint Sheets
- Employment Cards
- Checks
We never found the Time Card for the time period in question. I did a lot of research on this so if you are confused about it then let me know and I will try to explain it further. lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=money&action=display&thread=424
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Mar 10, 2010 14:11:21 GMT -5
I was glad to read the previous discussion on the time/payroll sheets. Thanks for posting that link
Here's something else I'd like to ask or be directed to: I believe it was Scaduto (and I know his book is fairly dismissed) who found the big envelope/pkg containing BRH's three quarter inch chisel and seems like one more tool. If correct, what are we to make of it? Especially as it relates to the tool box "performance" at trial.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 10, 2010 19:35:37 GMT -5
I believe Scaduto about this. His book is right on about what he knew about. What he's wrong about comes about from further research beyond what he did.
So if he's going to lie about this discovery then he'd certainly would have lied about other things. But he didn't.
It's further evidence of the charade put on that stand for the purposes of getting a conviction.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Mar 25, 2010 23:42:32 GMT -5
Well if this is such a haughty thing (among you who even agree about it) why is it so settled?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Mar 26, 2010 8:44:06 GMT -5
On the other side of that coin, why wouldn't Hauptmann stand up for himself and say "that's bunk" all my chisels were there. I've read tons about this crime and possibly missed it, but TMK he never said that.
Also about the writing on the linen closet door. If you had commited a felony (10 years) by interferring with evidence in a capital case would you go around bragging about it? Cassidy was just another oddball who is probably lucky he didn't get himself into trouble from his antics, but certainly wouldn't have written junk on a door (how would he even know what Hauptmann's writing was like - and Richard said "that looks like my writing"). He may have bragged that - but didn't write it. What about the bill numbers? Seems they were checked and came up dollar bills or something.
Looking at likelihoods, if I was in Hauptmann's position, inmongst negotiations, I might have written something on an obscure door then forgotten about it. It's a possibility. I think if I tried to have gotten it wiped out I'd have done the job though, so there always seems to be those little questions about Lindbergh.
|
|
|
Post by seteshI on Mar 26, 2010 19:51:57 GMT -5
hasone it occured to anybody that BRH knew JFC before kidnap(?)
and wrote the phone # in the closet himself...
|
|
|
Post by rmc1971 on Mar 26, 2010 21:00:47 GMT -5
hasone it occured to anybody that BRH knew JFC before kidnap(?) and wrote the phone # in the closet himself... I wouldn't discount the possibility of Hauptmann at least knowing of Condon before the crime.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Mar 26, 2010 21:49:45 GMT -5
Good thinking seteshI, and then with the normal use of the door being it's "possibly wiped" surface.
The Lindbergh crime needs more detectives with thinking like yours!
Jack
|
|