|
Post by rick3 on Apr 20, 2007 9:50:22 GMT -5
Hi Michael...this might prove educational and entertaining: - m. and g. in pa. (Michael and Gary)(mic)
- signature is ______ and 4 holes?
- d. vandernaald. he ain't german and he aint Scandanavian?
- ever read mrs. h. personal diary? (hauptmann?)
- how about i.f. stuff (isador fisch?)
- "only two involved" (pick any two)
- BK SAW HIS FACE AT THE SITE (buster keaton?)
- stuff has cover letters from w.,h., i, w., s., and k. (wilintz, hoffman, irey, schwartzkopf and keaton?)
- all tested at a g. lab (government?)
- happy hunting ground (death?)
- nothing more till h.b.d. ok [any quesses?)
- hint "hb" (Henry Breckenridge?)
- "SIGNATURE" ON THE NOTES--Hugo Stockberger and I do?
- WHAT WAS FOUND IN WOLFGANG'S VAULT?
Opps--here is the link: disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=141545;article=36155;title=The%20Lindbergh%20Kidnapping%20Hoax%20Forum
|
|
|
Post by Simon Cowel on Apr 20, 2007 13:23:32 GMT -5
Educational? No, not really. Entertaining? Hardly.
Just more distraction and muddying of the waters. Waste of time and bandwith.
Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Apr 20, 2007 13:44:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rita on Apr 20, 2007 15:50:55 GMT -5
I thought it almost interesting to get into crossword puzzles, until I realized this may be just another verdict gang member of the NJSP trying to influence the site. Did you read where he wants to help administer the site to set us all right? How would the viewing detective positively know it was Charley, as it would take a computer to Analise the skull found at the site?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 20, 2007 19:51:24 GMT -5
He was one of the earliest "wave" of Researchers. I have no reason to doubt he's talked to many people that were alive at the time. - ever read mrs. h. personal diary?
I haven't and I don't think he did either. What he may be referring to is her auto-biography which I have read. - BK SAW HIS FACE AT THE SITE (buster keaton?)
This must be who he is referring to. This is in the reports and isn't anything new. - hint "hb" (Henry Breckenridge?)
Biggs made a comment similar to this, however, he is claiming Henry B so he has something I've never seen. My guess is Breckenridge. - WHAT WAS FOUND IN WOLFGANG'S VAULT?
This was a joke. He was basically making fun of everyone on the site.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Apr 21, 2007 11:08:03 GMT -5
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Apr 21, 2007 16:30:40 GMT -5
Don't forget about bait, fishing season has begun!
|
|
|
Post by Giszmo on Apr 21, 2007 17:32:34 GMT -5
I'm stunned anyone is actually putting an effort into decoding this nonsense. oh well...
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 20, 2007 10:59:45 GMT -5
Well here's a little bit of information I'll share with the board...
During my research I discovered that Bornmann had written a manuscript that he wanted to publish as a book. The reference I saw said he was working with a Researcher. I am hoping the "Researcher" was Dave and that part of his declaration he will make in November will include parts of it.
If not, the manuscript will still be "out there" somewhere waiting to be found. I usually keep quiet about things like this but I think its something at this point that should be shared.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Dec 28, 2007 13:56:54 GMT -5
If there is a A Hauptmann diary and accounts what I heard, it would answer many questions we've always asked ourselves. Truly if R Hauptmann was all over the Bronx in March/April 1932 as many have scripted there would definetely be some kind of discovery from Anna. Wouldn't it?
Dave's book if written may or may not tell the story of how many, all the whos , and whys but may be one more convincing artifact of Richard's Hauptmann guaranteed involvement. Or am I wrong?
I hope the book is written. If the the diary is authentic and for us who study the case it would be a imperative to view. Wouldn't you agree?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Dec 28, 2007 19:22:57 GMT -5
Not holding my breath.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 28, 2007 22:05:31 GMT -5
I know he exists and that a "Researcher" was assisting Bornmann in writing a book on the case. I know, through my research, that Dave Howlerda was close to Bornmann.
I don't know what else to say. I haven't seen the diary. If I did I would so say but qualify it by saying I can't comment on it (if Dave requested it remain confidential). I expect most to remain skeptical - heck - that's the name of the game here.....
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 29, 2007 8:26:49 GMT -5
It will be just one more item to argue endlessly about and ultimately nothing will change. Let's face it there is already plenty of evidence of Hauptmann's guilt. Those who believe that he was "innocent" choose to ignore it or claim falsification. This is a position of faith not reason ( or dementia as in one case). Can you imagine what will be said about a diary with this provenance? For those of us who accept Hauptmann's guilt, the issue is largely one of did he act alone in the crime and what exactly occurred that night. I doubt Anna will be of much help in this regard unless she was an accomplice.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 29, 2007 9:24:36 GMT -5
If the diary does exist, is authentic and accurately reflects some of Dave's revelations to date, then it will reveal much about the Hauptmann's true relationship.
I've always been interested in this timeline:
Hauptmann's sudden interest in Gerta Henkel and other frauleins in the summer of 1932, flush with stock market "success" and hinting to friends and associates of his mixed feelings towards Anna, while his wife was in Germany helping to pave the way for his return there. When Anna comes back, there is of course consternation on her part, but peace soon returns to the Hauptmann household, capped by Mannfried's arrival in November 1933.
What inspired this return to domestic bliss and a lifelong image of romance and fidelity that Anna later conveyed was never unwavering? From what we've been told so far, it appears Anna became aware of Richard's involvement in the crime after the deed was done. If true, could it be that the knowledge of this was being held over his head by a jealous wife who had no tolerance for philandering and as a means of ensuring he strayed no further?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 29, 2007 10:48:02 GMT -5
And the reason that such revelations would be withheld from evidence would be what? Why would a refutation of the strongest card in the Hauptmann deck, the alibi, not be played by the prosecution?
I think it can all be summed up in one word, PROMOTION. Now what is it that this guy does for a living?
More silliness on top of the mountain of s*** this case already is full of.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 29, 2007 11:18:08 GMT -5
Kevin, I'm not certain why it was never revealed, but wasn't there already enough evidence to bury Hauptmann, accomplices or not, diary or not? Doesn't this case and the trial smack of singling out Hauptmann and Hauptmann alone? The premise of this diary story is that it was known only to Bornmann and within it he viewed the possibility of the state's case solely against Hauptmann compromised through the involvement or at least awareness of others. You can believe other investigators close to the case were well aware of the complicity of others even if they knew nothing of this diary. Unil this document is branded a fake, there's just too much here that warrants continued interest.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 29, 2007 11:18:24 GMT -5
As I recall, one of the things Dave hinted at was the diary claimed Hauptmann was late in picking up Anna that night. Furthermore, it seemed to contain information which may point to female accomplice....
Normally, I don't like speculating like this without seeing the document first and I really don't know what's to be gained without doing so...
I remain convinced that multiple parties were involved in this case at one point or another so I suppose a real piece of evidence to support this is something I find desirable.
I think there is still much out there to be found... to include the Fawcett material which is currently in the possesion of someone who isn't sharing the contents. One thing could connect nicely with something else, and in the alternative, something could ruin another thing - real quick if known.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 29, 2007 16:57:39 GMT -5
What prosecutor ever has enough evidence? If that diary existed and was in Bornmann's possession and it refuted the Hauptmann alibi you can bet it would have been used even if it implicated another. I am not disputing that the diary may exist, I just don't believe it will be the book of revelations.
Equo ne credite, Teucri / Quidquid id est, timeo Danaos et dona ferentis Virgil
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 29, 2007 18:17:55 GMT -5
Wilentz wasn't taking any gambles in his prosecution of Hauptmann and was first and foremost, convinced of his guilt. He used what he had to to ensure a guilty without mercy verdict and wasn't about to muddy the waters with anything that strayed from his agenda or raised the possibility of others' complicity within the minds of the jurors. I'm not defending any implied lack of interest on his part to seek the entire truth and believe he was equally concerned about his public image and feared being remembered as the AG who let Hauptmann off the hook. The prosecution case was pared back to what it needed to succeed. And if the diary is legit and says what DH says it does, I doubt Wilentz knew anything about it, otherwise it would never have been allowed to stay in Bornmann's private collection.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 29, 2007 20:51:21 GMT -5
Unless you are saying that Wilentz ordered Bornmann to keep the diary out of sight, Wilentz has nothing to do with this affair. It would be Bornmann's decision. Why on earth would he sit on this evidence? Is a NJSP Lt. determining legal strategy? Face it, this story has as many holes as a Mersman table brace.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 30, 2007 9:07:38 GMT -5
More theorizing here, Kevin. Again, if this diary is legitimate and says what DH has already revealed, I'm looking at its value to the prosecution's case through the eyes of Bornmann, who reputedly shared it with no one until the 1980's. As a lead investigator he would have been familiar with all aspects of the developing NY and NJ cases against Hauptmann. I think a big chunk of the equation here has to be, at what point was the diary found relative to the progress of those cases? If it had been located in the first few days following Hauptmann's arrest, I'm sure it would have been used against anyone mentioned in it who might then prove to be complicit in the crime. Bornmann was on the front lines and knew the case against Hauptmann was very powerful. Let's just say I'm not ready to discount that the discovery occured after the State of NJ had officially decided to proceed against Hauptmann alone and that Bornmann recognized its contents would have been counter-productive to the state's agenda. As for the Mersman table brace, please don't get me going on that piece of cheese..
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 30, 2007 9:26:41 GMT -5
I am not sure Bornmann would have discovered this then didn't say anything to anyone of authority about it. Consider that he was under attack by the Governor for "framing" evidence and those Emissaries such as former (at the time) NJSP Trooper Lewis was attempting to persuade Kelly to roll over on him. Seems to me this diary would protect him from such claims and attacks.
I wish I could find the document in question to which I have referred so often where I read about Bornmann working on a book with a "Researcher." It may be something I didn't copy but I promise you that I did read it.
For my money it had to have been discovered after Bornmann took over the apartment. After he left it was under guard and the locks sealed with bees wax. Who would then discover this diary after the fact then deliver it to Bornmann?
What makes the most amount of sense (to me) is that if such a diary was found, and it implies Confederates existed, the Prosecution saw it as a dilemma which could confuse the jury and ruin their prospect that Hauptmann was the Lone-Wolf Kidnapper. After all, every scrap of their Ransom Money evidence was supposed to show all the money was spent by Hauptmann....even though we know today that simply wasn't the case and/or can't be proven. If one angle of evidence was to be shown to be incorrect then the Jury may assume it with other pieces as well.
It was something Wilentz didn't want to risk. He knew Hauptmann wasn't going to talk - ever - so his best bet was to take out the one they had. I look to how Wilentz handled Curtis, Samuelsohn, and even Treasury Handwriting Expert for that matter.... When something threatened his case he "tucked" it away or blocked it from the Defense.
Hauptmann involved? For me the only argument would be to what degree. So yes.
Fair Trial? Absolutely not.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Dec 30, 2007 9:28:26 GMT -5
Hi Joe--your instincts about Gerta Henkel could prove very interesting: - Gerta would have been high up on my list to travel with Uhlig and Fisch to Leipsig? JFC said a woman went along?
- After all, we are still searching for some mystery woman that hung out w/ Fisch in the Bronx and Connecticut?
- Gerta knew Fisch from thier school days in Germany and in every photo of the two of them she is hanging on his arm?
- Gerta's house was kitty cornered from the Temple of Divine Power?
- Gerta's parents lived over towne near St. Raymonds cemetery?
- Gerta's testimony was key to Fisch and BRH not meeting until after the kidnap? She knew all the players and was sweet on Fisch?
PS--i wouldnt trust Lewis J. Bormann as far as I could throw him/
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 30, 2007 9:56:49 GMT -5
I would agree with Michael. Bornmann is a cop. He is also a detective that has been frustrated for 2 1/2 years. Now he supposedly finds a diary by Anna in the apartment. Think about it, is he going to keep it quiet? Of course not. His job is not to determine a prosecution case against Hauptmann, it is to detect and find evidence. It's a no brainer that he will report this important find. Now if at some later point when the prosecution team is assembled and a strategy is developed the "diary" is found to be counterproductive to the case against Hauptmann, I could see it being squashed. But remember at that point this "diary" would already have been recorded as evidence so there would have to be a lot of back tracking to do. Another point here is that if the diary in any way cleared Hauptmann or weakened the prosecution's case one has to wonder why Anna never mentioned it's existence to the defense. Bottom line is this, the alleged diary would help or hurt one side or the other and more importantly it would clarify the actions of BRH and the events surrounding the crime. There was always a desire by the state to find out if others were involved and the offer to Hauptmann to do so proves this. So why would such a document be kept secret by Bornmann and the state? Sadly I think this whole affair is nothing more than a classic "bait and switch" stunt feeding on the desire to know more about the events surrounding this case.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 30, 2007 10:10:00 GMT -5
Rick, there are interesting coincidences relating to Fisch and Gerta. From what I know of Hauptmann's philandering, Gerta Henkel is only one of a number of women whom Hauptmann suddenly felt inclined to advance on in the summer of 1932. His inspirations to do so may well have had something to do with his sudden affluence, apparent stock market "successes", feelings of superiority in pulling off the Crime of the Century, both being false extensions of his basic greed. Add to this, Anna's extended absence and feelings that she was now less desirable, all of which would have served to raise his stock in the eyes of attractive, single women friends. In time, Anna's awareness of what he had done would have presented the perfect bargaining chip for a lifelong secrecy pact and a return to domestic solidarity.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 30, 2007 15:41:52 GMT -5
I believe the stronger impetus would be to keep such a document away from Hoffman. The governor, by the eve of the execution, had dug a huge hole for himself by publicly denouncing his own state police force as incompetent bunglers and being viewed in the public eye as Hauptmann's biggest defender. He was desperate for any grasp of consolation which you can be sure would have included the mere mention of anyone who was complicit, which only put his own state's official resources further out of reach. I'm pretty sure Bornmann would have been quite content to sit on what he had and watch Hoffman stew in his own juice.
No argument there. I wonder too if he did mention it to someone higher up, would he have simply been told to dispose of it? I think Bornmann, like Condon, may have been a "collector" whose desire to have something so intimately connected with the LKC overrode his professional duties. That seems to have been the case with a number of other state troopers who ended up "liberating" many of Hauptmann's possessions.
I guess that's why the story, Bornmann sitting on his secret, appeals to some of my most basic beliefs about the Hauptmanns' relationship and Anna's involvement. I've always hoped for something like this, even a dark horse, to come out of that part of the picture that's just out of focus enough to always keep you coming back to try and figure out more. At the end of the day I know it's still only speculation, but I sure like the sounds and signals I'm hearing as this thing heads towards a showdown to determine its legitimacy.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 30, 2007 17:31:41 GMT -5
The problem with this whole scenario is that it just doesn't fit into the real world, then or now. Lt. Bornmann would have a limited time after Hauptmann's arrest to both discover and secret the diary as Michael has pointed out. Think about this situation. There is no plan for Hauptmann's trial as of yet. This is still a police investigation and as such a detective is going to do exactly what he is paid and rewarded to do, discover evidence. Finding anything else in that apartment is just one more feather in Bornmann's cap regardless of whether it ultimately helps or hinders the eventual prosecution of Hauptmann. Actually the only way I can see him hiding this discovery from his superiors is if it contained evidence that Hauptmann was not guilty of the kidnap and honestly I don't see what that could be in this case. Here we have another one of those ironies in this case, some who believe Hauptmann innocent see Bornmann as fabricating evidence ( the floorboard) and now he is supposed to have kept a piece of damning evidence from sight. Like it or not, I think that this whole diary affair is folly.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 31, 2007 19:43:26 GMT -5
Just as a matter of reference - Bornmann paid Pauline Rauch $40.00 rent for the apartment on November 21, 1934.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Dec 31, 2007 21:13:14 GMT -5
If that's when Bornmann took possession, the agenda to hang Hauptmann alone had been well established long before that point. Do you know if he spoke or understood German to the point he could have understood a diary written in that language?
|
|
|
Post by Giszmo on Dec 31, 2007 23:21:40 GMT -5
It's bizarre how you people are so obsessed with an object that you don't even know actually exists! I mean, so far, there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that it does or ever did exist (just the word of some rambling nut on another website who claimed he would show it to the world on 26.11.07 but didn't), yet you're wasting all this time and "graymatter" trying to figure out what the *so far* non-existent item means.
Why don't you wait until you actually get the damn thing and in the meantime go back to discussing/arguing/debating something more meaningful like you guys used to do. You guys are way too smart for this. It is a waste of your time and talents.
|
|