|
Post by Michael on Mar 25, 2011 5:22:56 GMT -5
Agent Sisk, who was at the trial, made some interesting observations reflected in this Memo: Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Mar 25, 2011 6:57:38 GMT -5
alot of people didnt see the original notes. nothing new
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 25, 2011 16:13:05 GMT -5
And a lot of people did too. But that wasn't why I posted it. It was to show Sisk's trial observations from someone who was both there and being consulted by the Prosecution behind the scenes.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 12, 2015 9:26:06 GMT -5
A little more insight from behind the scenes:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2015 17:03:47 GMT -5
Michael,
Who is Agent Sandberg? What did he investigate for the B.O.I that Reilly felt he was important for the defense?
Wow!! Reilly wanted to subpoena J. Edgar Hoover for the Hauptmann Trial? Incredible!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 14, 2015 7:01:34 GMT -5
Who is Agent Sandberg? What did he investigate for the B.O.I that Reilly felt he was important for the defense? That's kind of hard to answer because these men did so much. He was assigned to the Kidnapping Investigation. I have a document that explains who everyone was, when they worked on the case, and what areas they investigated but it's not in the folder it's supposed to be in so I cannot find it at the moment. I am pretty sure he came on board in 1933 then stayed until the arrest. I know he worked with Agent Manning and that his NJ counterpart was DeGaetano, and his NY counterpart was Detective Frank Dunn. Off the top of my head he was involved concerning the "Missing" 2nd Taxi Driver investigations so that might be why Reilly was interested in him (if he knew about that). He also did Ransom Money investigations as well. While this is not anywhere as good, it helps a little in naming everyone involved from the FBI side of it. Not sure of the date but since some Agents names are missing it could be they aren't listed because they weren't working "exclusively" on the case or that it comes later on in the case. (It's not from the NJSP Archives and comes from NY): ***Update: Since it's calling the FBI the " Division of Investigation" that would mean it cannot be any earlier then July 1, 1933 since that's when they changed their name from the " United States Bureau of Investigation." They didn't change it to " Federal Bureau of Investigation" until sometime in 1935 so we have a window for when this document was created.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2015 23:36:19 GMT -5
Thanks, Michael for posting the list of FBI agents. It is helpful and I recognize most of the names on that list because of seeing those names mentioned with various reports.
Also thanks for the tip about the name changes and what dates are associated with them. I am never sure when to use BOI or FBI. Your tip certainly helps.
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Jan 3, 2016 19:09:27 GMT -5
Michael you had once posted (many years a go) that there was a PI that investigated under Sisk and then later assisted the governor. This PI had an interview with Mrs Junge. Is this interview scripted in the Hoffman collection?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 3, 2016 20:46:37 GMT -5
Michael you had once posted (many years a go) that there was a PI that investigated under Sisk and then later assisted the governor. This PI had an interview with Mrs Junge. Is this interview scripted in the Hoffman collection? I believe you're referring to T. J. Cooney who was a PI working for The Thiel Service Company. This company was reputable enough to have the confidence of the FBI who, in this case, actually hired them to investigate many of the Englewood Angles. He wrote several reports and letters. After I was able to identify his handwriting I found his notes which he wrote on paper and envelopes scattered among the different collections. Any information comes from his various sources none of which are in the form of "Statements" or "Depositions." In fact, some of the information in the various Cooney's sources are word for word written into the FBI Summary Report. The new stuff comes after that and Researchers must have both to know this. So when I see certain "people" create a false dichotomy by saying, in essence, the FBI was "good" and Gov. Hoffman was "bad" I absolutely know they don't possess the knowledge required to make such an assertion. Because if they did, how on earth can they reconcile the fact Cooney helped Hoffman during his re-investigation? Anyway my point is that most of the Jung material the FBI had came from him, and it's in the Summary Report.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2016 11:00:57 GMT -5
Michael,
I reviewed the FBI Summary on Marguerite Junge. They mention that both the Junges had been cleared of suspicion concerning the kidnapping of Charlie. However, as late as February 1934, the NJSP were still interested in Marguerite Junge. A report by Sgt. Zapolsky says that Lieut. Keaten of NJSP was having Marguerite's mail traced and reported back to him.
Was she still under (off the record perhaps) suspicion by NJSP concerning the Lindbergh kidnapping or were they interested in her for some other reason?
The FBI Summary report states that Marguerite was dismissed from the employ of the Morrow home because she was stealing foodstuffs. I can't imagine why she would need to steal food from her employer. Is this really true?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 4, 2016 19:31:22 GMT -5
The FBI Summary report states that Marguerite was dismissed from the employ of the Morrow home because she was stealing foodstuffs. I can't imagine why she would need to steal food from her employer. Is this really true? There are several sources which say she was terminated for stealing and lying. I've always believed the lying was connected to the stealing and not separate from one another but that's just my opinion and in no way do these sources 'spell it out' in that way. Now, was it true? Mrs. Jung claimed she left due to a nervous breakdown, and that she had attempted to leave earlier but Mrs. Morrow convinced her to stay on due to Elisabeth's wedding. When Springer was interviewed he contradicted two main "facts" which are given in these several other sources. The first being that she represented herself as being single when she was first hired - Springer said they knew she was married. The next being that she was fired for stealing food to bring to her husband. Springer said they knew she was bringing food to him and they did not consider it serious. The reason Springer said she was let go was because of her "objectionable habit of continually" saying she had been in much better circumstances and thinking "she was too good to work" in her current position. Since Springer was the guy who hired and fired then if he's telling the truth then I'd say there's your answer. However, he was also a "Spin Doctor" for the family and would present the termination in whatever way Mrs. Morrow wanted it framed. Many things coming from that family were presented in a way which was at variance with the facts so it's really hard to say which source I believe. There does seem to be a pattern where, even if someone is fired, the Morrow Family still "looks out for" these people in one way or another. So it's possible they didn't want word "thief" associated with her. Or maybe there was an agreement not to mention the theft if she stayed to help with the wedding before she was let go. I can't say which - all I can do is let you know what's in the various sources. They mention that both the Junges had been cleared of suspicion concerning the kidnapping of Charlie. However, as late as February 1934, the NJSP were still interested in Marguerite Junge. A report by Sgt. Zapolsky says that Lieut. Keaten of NJSP was having Marguerite's mail traced and reported back to him. Was she still under (off the record perhaps) suspicion by NJSP concerning the Lindbergh kidnapping or were they interested in her for some other reason? The Police were always mildly suspicious of Johannes Jung. They were suspicious concerning his connection with Red on the night of March 1st. They were suspicious because his Wife obtained employment while posing as single. Although they never concluded a "match," one of the Handwriting Experts said there were some similarities in his handwriting and the Ransom Notes. Perrone also said he strongly resembled the man who gave him the note to bring to Condon. They were also, at the time of the covers being asked for, taking a 2nd look at the Jung's old rooming house (96 Engle Street) and I think this might also have been a motive to trace the mailings to see who might be writing as a possible connection there. That investigation was ordered by Lt. Keaten as well. So my guess is that it was a combination of the two.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jan 6, 2016 5:13:27 GMT -5
How many other leads were LE still suspicious of and looking into? Did they try to tie the Junges to Hauptmann?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 7, 2016 17:24:07 GMT -5
How many other leads were LE still suspicious of and looking into? Did they try to tie the Junges to Hauptmann? That's a hard one for me to answer. The only way I could answer this was if it were posed specific to whoever you are considering. My mind won't allow me to throw a blanket over it in this way. As far as tying Hauptmann to Junge.... They did not, however, the fact the Junges announced they believed Hauptmann was innocent didn't help. No one who contradicted the narrative presented by the State was looked at favorably.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jan 7, 2016 21:03:27 GMT -5
Frankly, I was surprised that two years later they were still investigating anyone actively. Being the depression, I wouldn't think there would be funds enough to keep the case open for much longer. I wonder why the Junges had an opinion about Hauptman one way or the other? Did Governor Hoffman take a look at the Junges in his reinvestigation.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 8, 2016 6:42:08 GMT -5
Frankly, I was surprised that two years later they were still investigating anyone actively. Being the depression, I wouldn't think there would be funds enough to keep the case open for much longer. I wonder why the Junges had an opinion about Hauptman one way or the other? Did Governor Hoffman take a look at the Junges in his reinvestigation. Hoffman's re-investigation: This is hard to explain too. While he did ask for certain things to be looked at, it really wasn't the type of thing I think most people envision. For example, Frank Pettit, one of Reilly's original Defense PIs, started writing to the Governor and shared some of the investigations with Hoffman that he wrote for them. Some of these include Jung. Cooney too, once he reached out to the Governor, started to send him information here and there concerning Englewood angles. In regard to this type of thing he could ask them to pursue it further but he wasn't willing to pay them so it only went so far. Meade was paid, but that was because he was given a job in the "Executive Department" and Ho-age donated his time without any compensation. So Ho-age mostly acted independently, and only Meade would actually go out as directed. Most would start off saying that but in the end would be looking for money that the Governor just did not have to give. Later, once Kimberling took over, you'd have certain Troopers who would specifically investigate items - like Bill Lewis who was re-hired. There was some structure but it was a chaotic situation that was constantly changing. Once Parker got jammed up, some of the Governor's focus shifted to his plight - one was because they were friends, and two because he knew they were going after him due to politics.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2016 9:28:48 GMT -5
I wonder why the Junges had an opinion about Hauptman one way or the other? Marguerite Junge had a definite opinion about Hauptmann's guilt and was vocal about expressing it in 1935. She had not been working in the Morrow home since 1933 so I suppose she was not as concerned about sharing that opinion about Hauptmann. Here is a link to an article that appeared in the papers in January 1935 during Hauptmann's trial. news.google.com/newspapers?id=gwAdAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ZY4EAAAAIBAJ&pg=3117%2C6644357When I read articles about the servants in the Lindbergh and Morrow homes, I find myself wondering just how much the hired help knew about Charlie and his health challenges. They saw Charlie. If his condition was physically apparent, there would be no way to hide that from many of the servants. Michael, you have talked about the level of loyalty between the Morrows and their servants and how that loyalty was carried forward by the Morrows after someone left their employ. Was this sense of loyalty based on a caring interest in these servants or could it have been connected to a way to encourage the former servants to keep confidential private things they knew (or suspected) about the family?
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Jan 8, 2016 12:02:54 GMT -5
It appears Marguerite Junge always had a spoken opinion. I originally read that she had a definite opinion on why Sharp committed suicide, I couldn't find it with my previous print outs. The fact she had so many opinions I thought it interesting to read her take on everything.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 8, 2016 19:30:34 GMT -5
Michael, you have talked about the level of loyalty between the Morrows and their servants and how that loyalty was carried forward by the Morrows after someone left their employ. Was this sense of loyalty based on a caring interest in these servants or could it have been connected to a way to encourage the former servants to keep confidential private things they knew (or suspected) about the family? Well there's evidence they cared about the people who worked for them. Take Banks for example. He was a real mess yet Mr. Morrow kept him around, and he's still there after he died. So what I believe is that the answer to your question is both. The people in this family were extremely intelligent and they ensured loyalty because it was a two-way street.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 9, 2017 20:10:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 15, 2017 10:04:23 GMT -5
yes sisk was very involved with the case
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 15, 2017 10:06:41 GMT -5
I have the newpaper article that sisk was ordered to produce the footprint evidence to reilly very interesting
|
|
|
Post by Sisk on Mar 11, 2022 16:52:46 GMT -5
I am interested in Sisk, my family. What I know, is that this was a setup.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 11, 2022 20:17:04 GMT -5
I am interested in Sisk, my family. What I know, is that this was a setup. How are you related? Could you go into a little more detail and share what you know with us? Next, if you sign up you will be able to see the various attachments in this thread which I know will interest you. Also, feel free to ask about what you are looking for. We’ll all try to help out where we can.
|
|