Post by Michael on Apr 23, 2020 9:55:21 GMT -5
Apr 22, 2020 13:17:05 GMT -5 @amy35 said:
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 were several things that supposedly convinced Lindbergh that Curtis might be in touch which I've written about. Remember Curtis's story: The key in the pantry door. An insider involved. The front door was used. Ask yourself why Curtis wasn't immediately rejected at that point? At any time if Lindbergh believed Curtis was in touch then he's accepting this scenario as a real possibility. To me that says a ton. Especially since history recorded that Lindbergh had 100% faith in his staff, didn't want them interviewed if he wasn't around, and didn't allow the use of the lie detector. Think about this.
Apr 22, 2020 13:17:05 GMT -5 @amy35 said:
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. 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?
Great research. Lloyd Fisher made these observations as well, and as a result of finding his notes about it I tried to find this out myself. My first step was to see what Wilson was involved in immediately following the trial. That led me to two main investigations: Simek and Conroy/Sandberg. That's not to say I have "everything" Wilson ever worked on because I don't. (Example: I have references to an investigation into Condon's finances but do not have the actual report).
Anyway, my conclusion was that Wilson was probably being somewhat disingenuous. I say this because the Treasury Department could walk and chew gum at the same time. In fact, throughout the period Curtis was involved they conducted numerous interviews and investigations. It's not like Wilson couldn't have someone interviewed because of Curtis because that doesn't even make any sense. One example was that a "T-Man" investigated a nut in West Virginia during the time Curtis was involved who claimed he was under a hypnotic spell of some sort. So if they invested time into that I am quite sure a worthy matter would have gotten attention as well. We also have to remember that lead after lead kept coming in and nothing stopped because of Curtis as evidenced by the dated reports. One tip came in from SAC McQuillan to Schwarzkopf about a man named "Bushman." He worked at the Englewood Golf Club and supposedly heard talk of the German employees planing to kidnap the baby. Despite this coming from Treasury, Wilson wasn't involved, and instead DeGaetano and Fitzgerald went out to investigate.
What's really important about Wilson's testimony at the Curtis trial are things I'm writing about in V4 but I'll share it here nevertheless:
Wilson testified:
"The party may have secured possession of the baby after the original kidnapper had it."
And here:
"A part of the gang may not have known the symbols."
Once asked why he was using the word "gang":
Q: Why do you use the word 'gang' with reference to the original kidnapping?
A: Because there is quite a possibility that there were more than one and possibly several, in fact.
Q: Are you dealing now in possibilities or with facts?
A: I am dealing in possibilities brought out by our investigation.
Does everyone now see why its so vitally important to look at everything and not skip over "tangents" like Curtis, Means, Parker, etc. like so many authors of other books have?