|
Post by Michael on Jun 27, 2010 7:44:44 GMT -5
One of those things I like to explore, and perhaps I am not alone, is the different people who at one time or another investigated this Case. I try to trace their "roots" to where ever it began, how, and what their creds were.
Henry Kress.
Most people are probably scratching their heads and asking themselves: "who the hell is that?"
As far as I have been able to determine, Henry Kress was one of the many Private Investigators who cut their teeth on this matter by working for Fawcett. He was responsible for finding some of those interesting eyewitnesses who never were called to the witness stand to implicate Fisch. (Witnesses who didn't testify are also among my special interests)
What I see later is that he continues to "help" the Defense, free of charge then later gets picked up working for Astrology Magazine as an "Investigator" for the Case bringing in leads for stories. Hicks was also on the books for that Magazine as well (which would lead to some friction between he and Hoffman)
Once the Governor fades into the back round, the efforts to finally solve the Case do not die. Kimberling, as well as Fisher would continue to pursue whatever lines they could, with the resources they had, to search for answers.
Eventually, the efforts wane then stop.
Then come the "Lindbergh Baby Claimants" Harold Olson, and Kenneth Kerwin and the whole thing starts back up again. Most were dead or dying, and the much of the rest wanted nothing to do with it. However, a few did turn up to discuss or even help out (either side of things).
Both Hicks & Kress were among those willing to help.
As I pursue more information about Mr. Kress, I am by no means an Expert on him. Anyone who has something to add, or correct about anything I write it is most welcomed to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 22, 2017 10:21:11 GMT -5
Because of my recent response to Joe, I wanted to try to exemplify my point here. As I searched, sifted, and thumbed my way through the entire Archival collection in West Trenton I learned a lot. The next time around I discovered I had learned so much more then I knew during my first time around that I missed or didn't understand the significance of a lot of what I had been through. So by my third time I believed I had it all covered, but no, once again I continued to see things I didn't see before - not because I ignored it, rather, because I didn't have the knowledge I did at that time. This never ends, and when I return there to go through it again I am absolutely positive it will happen again.
With this in mind, there is very little concerning Fawcett in the NJSP Archives. While his files do exist (they were up for sale on Ebay about 14 years ago) they represent a gaping hole of unknown information. Now as anyone who has read my book can see, I've benefited from numerous other archival and other sources. I have been finding and picking up this and that concerning Fawcett from them. I think I mentioned in another post that by and through these sources a story emerges that he employed a small army of private investigators. This, I believe, was why he was so upset at being terminated because he was left holding the bills for their efforts. But it's their efforts I am interested about. I keep finding name after name of those he employed who's names aren't even among one scrap of source material in West Trenton. Now Kress is mentioned there in a couple of places, however, his work for Fawcett - and even after it - is something I'd like to see. I've heard people scoff or shrug saying it "doesn't matter" but I think it does. Even if it doesn't we need to see it in order to make that determination. The more the better.
Recently I've come into some material from a man who worked for Fawcett. As I often repeat, 15 years of research and I had never heard his name before. And here it is revealing information I had been seeking the entire time. No matter how much we put into this there is more to find - and to learn about. Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise doesn't know what the hell they're talking about.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Feb 2, 2017 12:30:24 GMT -5
in California ten or more years ago I was in contact with a guy who wanted to sell documents from fawcetts camp. I don't know why I couldn't get them I forgot what he did with them. I was very interested in fawcetts reaction after getting fired. I know reilly had to force Fawcett to give up some of the papers pertaining to the case but I don't know the extent of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2017 11:19:07 GMT -5
Michael,
Do you plan on creating a chapter in one of your future volumes on the unused witnesses in the Hauptmann Trial? I certainly would find that most interesting. Kress found some interesting people who Reilly did not use.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 9, 2017 12:31:38 GMT -5
Michael, Do you plan on creating a chapter in one of your future volumes on the unused witnesses in the Hauptmann Trial? I certainly would find that most interesting. Kress found some interesting people who Reilly did not use. I've thought about it Amy but I will most likely push that back to the next one. I have too much information going into V2 so I don't believe I'd have room for it. Another reason is that I hold out hope I will discover more on that end plus the way I order things in my head might not "allow" for it. For example, there was another witness who placed Hautpmann in that bakery on March 1st but the documents only call by her last name. I'd like to get a first name to go along with that. I will introduce a new name or two though - one going right in my first chapter to support something in V1. I do plan on going into the Fisch Story with new information, and as a result may introduce someone who worked for Fawcett claiming to know the identity of "Fritz" IF I can make it work. As I am sure everyone who researches this case knows - it's easy for things to snowball, and for one thing to lead into another - so I have to be careful or my head will explode.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2017 9:02:48 GMT -5
I do plan on going into the Fisch Story with new information, and as a result may introduce someone who worked for Fawcett claiming to know the identity of "Fritz" IF I can make it work. As I am sure everyone who researches this case knows - it's easy for things to snowball, and for one thing to lead into another - so I have to be careful or my head will explode. Wow! "Fritz" is one of the most mysterious shadow figures in this case. He is always attached to Fisch but never really identified, just talked about. This will be huge if you are able to put this together. I know that Kress was involved with two prospective defense witnesses who claimed they had contact with Fritz. One of them supposedly knew who he was but that information was being withheld to protect the defense case. I am so excited that this will be going into Volume II.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Feb 11, 2017 9:55:27 GMT -5
you still trying to to connect fisch with the case. it never surprises me. that's the biggest wish of many hauptmann supporters. ive never seen hard evidence that he helped hauptmann. im still believe the lone wolf theory
|
|
|
Post by thestonesunturned on Nov 21, 2023 23:41:49 GMT -5
This is also related to other posts about "Bruno."
1. "Bruno" would be good for a typical "cover" name. It's never something cheesy like "Condor." A code-name like "Condor" is mostly for internal documents. Not for going up to a guy in a bar and saying, "How's it hanging, Condor?" for the simple reason that, in real life, bystanders notice that kind of thing. Not to mention friends. "Why did he call you Condor?" BUT--if anyone ever overheard anyone ever calling Bruno "Bruno" and asked him, "Why did she call you Bruno?" then Bruno could just say, "Well, Bruno is my real name. She knows my sister..." etc. See? But, Bruno would KNOW that, anyone in America (or even maybe back home) coming up to him and saying, "Hey! Bruno! How's it hanging?" would KNOW who he was. And he would know what they wanted. And it wouldn't sound the least bit odd to bystanders. See?
2. Apparently, and I'm sure y'all know this already, Wilentz had spies of his own present themselves to Reilly as "defense witnesses." Then they would keep their ears open and ask innocent questions and peek into file folders and notice who came and went whilst (snicker) they were there, and then report back to Wilentz. You know. The way Lou Smit "volunteered" to "help" the Boulder DA and then resigned in "protest" and started cashing checks from the Ramseys, instead. SOP. As I'm sure you already know. So, was the whole Fawcett debacle the same kind of thing? Wait and see what his private snoops snoop up? You may find this hard to believe, but private snoops are not above selling the same snoops to two different "clients."
3. As an illegal immigrant facing deportation not only back to the Reich, but to a prison sentence in the Reich, a Reich which likes to fish experienced WWI machine gunners out of the pen for "special aktion" on the Eastern front, not to mention, as an illegal immigrant with vulnerable relatives living in said Reich, not to mention, vulnerable relatives living in the USA (like the sister he suddenly visited after 12 years) Bruno would be a prime target for Abwehr/SD/Gestapo/NKVD/FBI recruiters. THOUSANDS of German Americans (including Jews from Germany, Hungary, Austria, Czechoslovakia, etc) were thus "recruited." There is simply no way Bruno and Anna weren't at least looked into by SOMEBODY. And he was very blatantly laundering money for SOMEBODY. SOMEBODY was laundering a LOT of money for the Abwehr, Gestapo, Etappendienst, and NKVD. Money raised by the Bund, etc. Money pipelined into the USA for years from the Bahamas, Sweden, Switzerland, etc by Gaston Bullock Means...well, you get the picture. They need LOTS of fronts to launder that much money. Not to mention, they don't put all their eggs in one basket.
4. So, what? Well, Bruno was not only framed, they went out of their way to show everybody they were framing him. They rubbed it in everybody's faces. Why? Well, remember, the Bund, the Nazi press, and others were screaming that Bruno was being framed "by the Jews." But, he wasn't. He was being framed by Bund poster boy Charles Lindbergh, Sr (real name, Charles Mansson, Jr) and his pet police official, Colonel Schwarzkopf. Yeah, Wilentz was a Jew. But my point is, you can't blame "the Jews" for framing Bruno unless you can prove he was framed. Which is hilariously easy to do, if you take a second look at ANY piece of "evidence" against Bruno. Again, they were publicly FLAUNTING how fake this case was. Why? so they could blame "the Jews" for doing the framing.
5. So, what? Well, remember, Lindy ANNOUNCED TO THE MEDIA that he had gone STRAIGHT to Mickey Rosner--a notorious Jewish gangster--on the obvious (to the public) assumption that it was assumed that "Jewish" gangsters had taken the kid. Then, it turns out that, if anyone looks at her twice, they notice that Betty Gow is a member of the Purple Gang, led by and mostly consisting of Jewish gangsters. And there is plenty of evidence to frame Betty with. PLENTY. Does that prove she's guilty? It doesn't matter. It implicates the "Jewish" Purple Gang. Hence,the logic in reaching out to Jewish gangster Mickey Rosner. I mean, from the get-go, Lindy is framing "the Jews." And THEN, his pals in the Wolfie Shickelgruber Admiration Society frame "the Jews" for framing Bruno. You know. So no one notices that Lindy and Schwarzkopf and their friends are doing the framing.
6. So, how did they randomly pick Bruno to frame? They didn't. He was laundering the money. Or, at least, some of it. He wasn't "innocent." But, he WAS framed.
7. I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, "That's the kind of crazy (bleep) that only Gaston Bullock Means would try to pull off! And he's nowhere near this ca.......Oh. Hmmm."
Google "Murder of Mary Phagan." Google "The Strange Death of President Harding." Google "My Life with Gaston Means." Google "Lindbergh Kidnapping." See?
|
|