|
Post by rick3 on Mar 25, 2010 8:38:54 GMT -5
Gov.Hoffman considered Harry Walsh one of the brightest cops on the case...but HW took some major hits or criticisms along the way...: - HW got blamed for planting the Post Road Taxi cards in Violets belongings? (eg how else could they get there?) duh/
- HW got blamed for browbeating Violet into suicide? [his guardian agent went AWOL]
- then...he gets tapped for poking a stick hole behind the skeletons ear on Mt Rose Hill? DYBT?
- but in his Jersey Journal series he forgets to take full credit for the stick poke?
- and he adds, quite casually, in installment #1 that "the colonel told us he had been out for a time in the afternoon, and he returned by auto about 8pm"....from Highfields on the day of the snatch! Nov 15, 1932. Inside Story by Inspector Walsh...
- So, how did this Jersey City Cop end up on the Hoffman team?
- oh, and in install #7...The Kidnappers Could Have Been Caught?....he must withhold in the interests of justice, secrets about the 14 ransom notes sent to Jafsie Condon? what could that be...that Noso wrote the notes?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Mar 25, 2010 12:56:10 GMT -5
Rick, could you explain just how Nosovitsky could have anything to do with the notes, taking into account the unique features of them?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 25, 2010 15:46:55 GMT -5
I do believe someone like Walsh would have gotten (more of) the truth out in the end. When you're jealous of someone you have to try to make them look badly.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 25, 2010 20:16:34 GMT -5
well, for what i read gov moorew and inspector walsh were friends. i met walshes grandson a few yeatrs ago i sent him some documents involving his grandfather
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 26, 2010 6:03:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 26, 2010 12:24:05 GMT -5
i agree
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Mar 26, 2010 16:20:30 GMT -5
Inspector Harry Walsh's daughter is seen with Betty Gow and others in pictures in the collection at the Jersey City Library. These photos once belonged to Lindbergh bodyguard, Det. James Fitzgerald. After Fitzgerald's death, his sister walked into the Jersey City Library and donated pictures and documents. They are among the once-lost items located in the Jersey Room of the library. One of Fitzgerald's typescript documents, regarding the finding of the baby's body, makes it sound as if though Det. Andrew Zapolsky was the stick-poker, and not Walsh. Also, there is a picture in the collection of Hauptmann sitting on a sofa with his arm around either Anita Luxemburg or Gerta Henkel. In the fingers of his other hand is a cigar. query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B02EEDA1F3CF937A25752C1A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Mar 26, 2010 16:33:29 GMT -5
V Good Job, Sue!
I wonder why the detectives were so interested in the stick poke which, you'd think would be a bad thing?
These reports are very ex-post factual as well. Like a week later somebody says somebody poked?
What if Sr. heard a gunshot and was afraid to go outside or upstairs? Then what happens to the all-American hero?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Mar 27, 2010 16:45:29 GMT -5
Hey Rick:
Is any investigator really working on their own? Walsh was just doing someone's bidding and I wish Condon would have decked him - would have been interesting and perhaps solved a little puzzle of the crime.
That he didn't when it was so obvious a solution, brings up a big question - why didn't he?
Walsh was stuck under Schwartzkopf (sp?) and did OK - but probably would rather have been NYPD or BI.
More interesting though - what do these guys really say. What are Bornmann's letters and Walsh' letters like?
Where are those investigators?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Mar 27, 2010 16:56:05 GMT -5
Lets say that Novitsky is wanted by Walsh and we. of course don't know that. So Walsh has nobody to nab and strikes on Condon! Hey Pat - wish yer grandfather would have dusted Walsh!
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Jan 8, 2017 13:22:21 GMT -5
For anyone who hasn't had a chance to read Walsh's Jersey Journal articles in full (like me), www.genealogybank.com just updated their newspaper collection to include the Jersey Journal for the relevant time period.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2017 8:25:43 GMT -5
Thanks feathers for posting this link. I have not read Walsh's Jersey Journal articles in full, just excerpts from them. I will certainly take advantage of this!!
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Apr 17, 2017 11:03:40 GMT -5
Feathers, Amy, Michael, All,
I think it’s time to take a close look at Walsh’s 8-part Jersey Journal article.
Keeping in mind that these 8-articles are coming from the co-lead detective (even though he was no longer working on the case when this series of articles was published), I can count 14 problems with the first article alone.
Take a look at the top 5 for now:
1) Walsh keeps repeating throughout his account that CAL received 14 ransom notes in total (we know there were 15). This from the co-lead detective.
2) Walsh claims he learned of the kidnapping while he was at the “police station at 11 o’clock on the night of March 1, 1932. From my office on the floor above I heard the youngster’s shouts.” The “youngster” was a newsboy shouting “Extra! Extra! Lindy Baby Kidnapped!”
We all know from Mark’s book that the first teletype was sent out by the NJSP at 10:46 PM.
No way did the kidnapping news make it to the newspapers on the street in 14 minutes! (Sounds like Walsh and Condon had the same newspaper boy, huh? )
3) Walsh reveals 2 new things about CAL’s missing the Waldorf engagement:
“Lindbergh told us he overlooked an appointment to speak in New York that night.” Lindbergh was a “guest of honor” along with 16 others that night. He was not a speaking guest. Why did CAL claim he was to speak? Where was his speech?
Even more confusing. Walsh says that CAL told him that “He remarked that he had forgotten the appointment and immediately telegraphed word of his inability to attend.”
Anyone heard this before?
4) And it just gets stranger…
The “crate-breaking” noise that CAL heard somewhere around 9:15?
Walsh reports this: “Lindbergh asked Mrs. Lindbergh, he told us, whether she heard the noise. She said she did.”
This “fact” is repeated 4 times in the first article.
5) And maybe the strangest of all…
CAL told Walsh that Anne was downstairs in the living room at 10:00 when Betty came rushing in with the news that Charlie was gone:
“At about 10 o’clock, the colonel said, Betty Gow came into the living room and asked in a rather excited way whether Mrs. Lindbergh had taken the baby.”
These are things CAL told Walsh.
Can anyone explain these to me?
(And that's just the tip of this Lind-berg)...
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 18, 2017 5:08:11 GMT -5
I think it’s time to take a close look at Walsh’s 8-part Jersey Journal article. Great job Wayne. This is the way in which (I believe) we should look at everything. Here's some of my quick thoughts: 1) Just as a guess I'm thinking he's not counting the "receipt" or, and I haven't looked up the timing yet, perhaps the note Condon didn't turn over until later? 2) I cannot think of anything. Unless there's something we don't know it doesn't look possible. I do believe he heard about it from the extra but not at that time but later. 3) A. This one is tricky. I'd say he was the guest of honor. Perhaps not officially but rather indirectly. Let's face it, he was the most famous man in the world at the time so no matter where he was to be publicly he was who people wanted to see. B. He's softening up the potential controversy/rumors by making it sound like he let them know earlier then he did. He did, but it wasn't until he got home once Anne supposedly let him know he missed the dinner. 4) Damage control. 5) He's probably mis-remembering Anne for CAL.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Apr 18, 2017 11:35:44 GMT -5
hi mike, while reading a book on the hall and mills case I think I read that gov moore sent walsh to that case also in the 20s. I guess that was his boy
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2017 13:17:25 GMT -5
From Chapter One of Harry Walsh's Jersey Journal series:
"Colonel Breckinridge on his arrival in Hopewell immediately communicated by telephone with Edgar Hoover, chief agent of the United States Department of Justice at Washington. Hoover was his friend, they having become friends while Breckinridge was in Washington as assistant secretary of war in the Harding cabinet.
Hoover told Breckinridge to sit tight and that the next morning he would send the best informer at his command to the Lindbergh home. The following morning one Morris Rosner, a known character in police circles for shady transactions in the stock market, a known "stool" and informer under indictment at the time for connection with a bucket shop, arrived."
So, Michael,
I always thought it was Robert Thayer who brought Rosner into the case. I have also seen Colonel Donovan's name and Congresswoman Ruth Baker Pratt named as being responsible for Morris Rosner's involvement with the kidnapping case. Now Walsh adds J. Edgar Hoover to this mix.
Can you set the record straight on this, please. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Apr 18, 2017 14:18:35 GMT -5
Hi Amy,
Those were the next two items on my list! I think Walsh was mistaken on both of these claims you just brought up:
1) Breckinridge apparently did not call Hoover and was upset that Walsh had claimed he did (I'll double check this to see if it's in a statement).
2) Nowhere else do you find Hoover sending Rosner into the case. Thayer (in his unpublished manuscript) says he read about the LKC first thing Wednesday morning on this way to work at Donovan's office and immediately thought of Rosner who had offered his dealings with the underworld in the past. But you are also correct that Congresswoman Ruth Pratt is said to have been the conduit to Rosner. This comes from both the May 18, 1932 police conference and the FBI summary (Schwarzkopf is quoted as saying: "They baby was kidnapped on a Tuesday night. On Wednesday, Ruth Pratt, Congresswoman, got in touch with Colonel Donovan and said, "You must put Morris Rosner on that case."
So, Michael, what does give with Walsh?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Apr 18, 2017 16:06:37 GMT -5
Congresswoman Pratt was Thayer's mother-in-law, so it's possible that Pratt recommended Rosner's services to Thayer, who was working as a lawyer in Donovan's law firm at the time. At any rate, Rosner's services proved useless in solving the case (perhaps by design?).
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 18, 2017 16:09:27 GMT -5
hi mike, while reading a book on the hall and mills case I think I read that gov moore sent walsh to that case also in the 20s. I guess that was his boy As I recall, Gov. Moore appointed a State Senator from Jersey City named Alexander as special prosecutor. I am almost positive he was the one who brought Walsh in.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 18, 2017 16:24:01 GMT -5
So, Michael, I always thought it was Robert Thayer who brought Rosner into the case. I have also seen Colonel Donovan's name and Congresswoman Ruth Baker Pratt named as being responsible for Morris Rosner's involvement with the kidnapping case. Now Walsh adds J. Edgar Hoover to this mix. Can you set the record straight on this, please. Thanks! Attachment DeletedSo, Michael, what does give with Walsh? I think these discrepancies prove, like just about everything else, these sources need to be closely looked at and scrutinized. Anything written for a newspaper or magazine should always be crossed referenced. Once it gets to that medium people are trying to make money so facts can be embellished or dressed up to be more appealing. Just look at how Lindbergh was portrayed versus how he actually was! Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Apr 19, 2017 17:57:07 GMT -5
Thanks for the 2 docs Michael! That's what I was talking about!
To me this begs the question, why did Walsh get so many things wrong?
Here's a simple one. In the May 18, 1932 conference, Walsh says: "The house is a big house and it is an easy matter for anyone standing just a short distance from the house to conceal himself and become acquainted with the movements of the family by reason of the fact that no window in the house has shades or curtains."
I don't know how to attach it, but I have a photo taken of the front of the house and you can clearly see curtains on the pantry and kitchen windows.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 20, 2017 19:04:33 GMT -5
Here's a simple one. In the May 18, 1932 conference, Walsh says: "The house is a big house and it is an easy matter for anyone standing just a short distance from the house to conceal himself and become acquainted with the movements of the family by reason of the fact that no window in the house has shades or curtains." I don't know how to attach it, but I have a photo taken of the front of the house and you can clearly see curtains on the pantry and kitchen windows. My "take" on this thing is that the Police had two versions of the crime. One was the "official version," that is whatever Lindbergh was pushing at the time. The other was the unspoken version. So the official position was to support whatever version they had agreed to go with. Like I wrote in the book, no one could see through closed shutters so what's the point of even bringing that up if it were true? Answer: To explain it away.
|
|
|
Post by babyinthecrib on Apr 21, 2017 14:01:35 GMT -5
Hi everyone, its been awhile since I have been here. Hows everyone?......Glad to see your discussing the Jersey City angle. From the beginning I believe Mayor Hague had a interest in this case for a reason. Moore being a Hague boy made it easy to slip in on the investigation. Why......only god knows!
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Apr 22, 2017 19:22:21 GMT -5
Just found Baby in the Crib! Trying to find info on Marguarite Junge and her involvement. All the Morrow servants seemed to have some kind of past.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Apr 20, 2020 12:21:51 GMT -5
well, for what i read gov moorew and inspector walsh were friends. i met walshes grandson a few yeatrs ago i sent him some documents involving his grandfather Wolf2, Are you still on this board?
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Apr 20, 2020 16:31:44 GMT -5
well, for what i read gov moorew and inspector walsh were friends. i met walshes grandson a few yeatrs ago i sent him some documents involving his grandfather Wolf2, Are you still on this board?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Apr 20, 2020 19:59:45 GMT -5
Wolf2, Are you still on this board? Hi Wolf, Did you ever hear back from Walsh's grandson?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2020 9:35:31 GMT -5
Michael and Wayne,
In Walsh's Jersey Journal article dated November 18, 1932, he brings up the Curtis hoax. Here are a few quotes from that article about the Curtis angle:
Walsh gives his opinion that, "his (Curtis) deceit could have been quickly exposed - long before he was able to do the harm he did - by ordinary detective methods in checking up his fantastic yarns. But Colonel Lindbergh demurred. He would not allow any intervention that might have caused the kidnappers to take fright and harm the child."
Walsh clearly says it was Lindbergh who allowed this hoax to be perpetrated. Walsh then tries to defend Lindbergh doing this when he says the following, "In justice to Colonel Lindbergh's attitude concerning Curtis, I will state that the colonel did not take any stock in Curtis until after the $50,000 ransom payment through Jafsie failed to return the child. Even then, Lindbergh did not himself "fall" for Curtis but was "sold" on the hoaxer by a friend of both men."
So, according to Walsh, there was a third person who is responsible for Lindbergh taking to the seas in search of his son. Walsh goes on to semi identify this third person. He says, "It was at this time, when the best trail seemed cold and bitter disappointment must have wracked his mind and heart that Lindbergh allowed an Elmira man to convince him that he should meet and talk with Curtis."
Walsh leaves this mutual friend unnamed. Is this Elmira man, Edmund Bruce? If so, why doesn't Walsh say so and how did Curtis ever sell Mr. Bruce on his story about the kidnappers? How good a friend was Edmund Bruce to Lindbergh that Bruce could have that much influence over him? Are we supposed to believe that Lindbergh is so desperate he could be led this way?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 22, 2020 9:19:11 GMT -5
Walsh then tries to defend Lindbergh doing this when he says the following, "In justice to Colonel Lindbergh's attitude concerning Curtis, I will state that the colonel did not take any stock in Curtis until after the $50,000 ransom payment through Jafsie failed to return the child. Even then, Lindbergh did not himself "fall" for Curtis but was "sold" on the hoaxer by a friend of both men."So, according to Walsh, there was a third person who is responsible for Lindbergh taking to the seas in search of his son. Walsh goes on to semi identify this third person. He says, "It was at this time, when the best trail seemed cold and bitter disappointment must have wracked his mind and heart that Lindbergh allowed an Elmira man to convince him that he should meet and talk with Curtis."Walsh leaves this mutual friend unnamed. Is this Elmira man, Edmund Bruce? If so, why doesn't Walsh say so and how did Curtis ever sell Mr. Bruce on his story about the kidnappers? How good a friend was Edmund Bruce to Lindbergh that Bruce could have that much influence over him? Are we supposed to believe that Lindbergh is so desperate he could be led this way? He must be referring to Bruce. I've never completely understood this. It was Bruce who was most skeptical of Curtis and actually called out the discrepancy in his story in front of Lindbergh concerning the ransom money. From what I remember there was a big blow-out between Bruce and Curtis as a result. Bruce testified at the Curtis trial and so did Walsh. I am having a hard time finding Walsh's testimony and I don't believe I ever had Bruce's - at least I haven't found it and I do not remember reading it. So as I sit here I don't know, for example, if there was testimony from Bruce that might have led Walsh to write this. But I do know what's in CAL's testimony: I could offer no distinct reason for believing that Mr. Curtis had not been in contact with these people and according to the information he had given me, in my mind, he certainly was either in contact directly or indirectly with people who had possession of our child. (see V1 page 55) Lindbergh obviously wasn't talking about Bruce in this quote. So it could be that Walsh was simply trying to make Lindbergh look good in light of the situation. Then we have both Keaten and Walsh blaming Lindbergh for holding up/obstructing the investigation (See V1 page 339). Although Curtis himself is the source, we can see from later sources this is how these men actually felt. It's pretty clear to me that Lindbergh made this decision himself based upon everything I've written (see V2 pages 9-10 as one example).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2020 13:17:05 GMT -5
He must be referring to Bruce. I've never completely understood this. It was Bruce who was most skeptical of Curtis and actually called out the discrepancy in his story in front of Lindbergh concerning the ransom money. I have been reading what I can find on the Curtis trial. I learned that Curtis owed a debt to Edmund Bruce. So I am wondering if this could be why Bruce joined in with Curtis to begin with. Lloyd Fisher brought out some interesting points during his cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. Lindbergh testified that it was Curtis saying he had seen the ransom money that made him think Curtis was in touch with the real kidnappers. Up to that point, Lindbergh testified, he was skeptical of Curtis having any real contact. There is another point that came out of Fisher's cross examination of witnesses that I wanted to ask you about. Special Intelligence Agent Frank J. Wilson testified at the Curtis trial. During Fisher's cross of Wilson something came out about an unnamed person (Wilson refused to name this person) that had been brought to the investigator's attention by Curtis. Here is the cross examination excerpts regarding this testimony. This is from a New York Times article published June 30, 1932: imgur.com/tLpSJZU Page 1 imgur.com/t4EyJg8 Page 2 imgur.com/CQkiEjv Page 3 Any idea who Agent Wilson might have been referring to but left unnamed? Would something like this have worked in Curtis favor as having had a connection with the real kidnappers?
|
|