|
Post by sue75 on Jun 15, 2012 22:04:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Jun 15, 2012 22:06:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 16, 2012 10:48:01 GMT -5
Just started reading Zorn’s book last night and a major problem jumped out at me.
The spark that inspired this book, of course, was Zorn’s father, as a teenager, having overheard his neighbor John Knoll speak in German to a man named “Bruno” at Palisades Park. They mentioned “Englewood.”
As I’ve mentioned, since Englewood is very close to Palisades Park, there would be nothing unusual about mentioning that name.
But here’s what grabbed me. Zorn says this happened “on a summer day in 1931.” His father apparently could not be more specific than that. But where was Bruno Hauptmann during the summer of 1931? On a three-month cross-country road trip with his wife and Hans Kloppenburg, to visit BRH’s sister in California. I checked Kennedy's chronology of Hauptmann’s life, and while he doesn’t give exact dates, he says the Hauptmanns departed on their trip in early July 1931, returning in late September.
Now this doesn’t eliminate Zorn’s thesis, but it certainly cuts the time frame. When would Zorn have overheard Hauptmann at Palisades Park? Late September, which is nearly October, seems too late to call “the summer.” Of course, that still leaves us late June and the first days of July. But it’s a small window.
Assuming that Zorn’s father overheard Hauptmann BEFORE his trip—is it likely that Hauptmann, already plotting the “crime of the century” with the Zorn brothers, would then go on a three-month trip? I suppose you could argue that they wanted to “wait until the baby was stronger” or something, but this whole Palisades Park business seems a stretch.
There’s much more to Zorn’s book, of course, which I have only started. But I have to ask this: Were the Zorns even aware that BRH was out-of-state during the summer of ’31? Did they even investigate the elementary matter of Hauptmann’s whereabouts at the time in question? Maybe they did, but I haven't seen evidence for it yet.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 16, 2012 12:31:02 GMT -5
I haven't read the book yet, but thanks to Sue I'm getting the jist of the theory. I do have a problem with the 3rd man being named "Bruno" for the reasons you have already pointed out BR.
The other problem is he isn't using the original CJ sketch and its probably because, like Hauptmann, he looks less like that one.
Another issue I have is that the "fleshy lump" story Condon put out there was, in my opinion, made up in order to dismiss any Suspect he might be required to name.
The question about how a Deli Clerk could afford to travel, or do anything can be answered by simply researching this Case. There are countless people who were investigated who had similiar circumstances. Most involved swindles, crimes, or borrowing - all of which had nothing to do with this Case.
I am interested to see what insight the Experts mentioned have to say.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 16, 2012 13:33:11 GMT -5
Michael, I agree with you about the fleshy lump. Condon gave so many variable details about CJ. For example, his description of the hacking cough—that one could fit Fisch. Depending on which of Condon’s details one focuses on, CJ could be quite a few people.
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Jun 17, 2012 2:40:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Jun 17, 2012 18:27:27 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2012 21:08:35 GMT -5
Michael, I am reading Zorn's book. In the chapter, Hand of the Kidnapper, it is discussing handwriting analysis. The expert Zorn used is Dr. Sargur N. Srihari, a leading authority on the application of computer technology to document analysis. Dr Srihari heads CEDAR, the University of Buffalo's Center of Excellence for Document Analysis and Recognition. He has developed a software program that can compare two writing samples side by side and determine with a 96 percent rate of accuracy if the writing samples originate from the same person. Have you ever heard of this program. Dr. Srihari worked with 4 samples of "John" written in Knoll's handwriting. The program compared them to nine samples of "John" found on the ransom envelopes addressed to Dr. Condon. The results varied based on cursive writing verses printed form. The programs opinion placed the probability that the envelopes were written by the same person (John Knoll) at 85% up to 95%. The chapter does not mention any comparisions being made to the ransom notes however. Only the envelopes addressed to Dr. Condon. I would not consider this enough proof that he wrote the ransom notes based just on envelopes. It would be interesting though to have Hauptmann's handwriting analyzed with this program.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 18, 2012 6:41:17 GMT -5
I heard of this type of technology almost 6 years ago. I am not sure if its the exact same one or developed by the same person. Here is an old link about it: www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5348920I am going to hazard a guess and say that QDEs are going to hate this. Still though, I am not surprised by those percentages. I've seen so many samples of handwriting that would probably fall within this range - to include some of Hauptmann's. Now this is coming from me, and while I've learned a ton about Handwriting Analysis through study over the years I am absolutely no Expert. The only real skill I have developed that you can count on in this field is to show legitimate counter-arguments against anyone's conclusions. It seems to me that if you don't have a "slam-dunk" then some science is applied while whatever is left is based upon guess-work. The more respected a QDE is the more that guess-work is accepted as a matter of fact. Take this software for example. Let's say its perfect and there are no flaws. 85%-95%? We already see there is a 10% margin. For me that's a big difference right from jump-street. I would use it to include this person in a list to be looked at more closely and that's about it. For all of the criticisms about the NJSP, they operated in a similar procedure. They would send any handwriting to Snook, who had abilities as an examiner, then he would review it. If he felt there were enough similarities, it would then go to Osborn. And quite a bit went to him.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 18, 2012 8:13:57 GMT -5
I still look at any type of handwriting analysis as a quasi-science which can be useful but has limitations. Since I have known about this newest analysis for some time I would probably only say that it is more interesting in regards to whom it gives a low percentage to as the note writer. I don't think it looks at syntax and grammar though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2012 19:43:49 GMT -5
Thanks for the link Michael. It appears to be the same type of technology used in Zorn's book. Your point is well taken that it can be used to identify people who should be given a closer look. Like Kevkon says, it has its limitations.
In Zorn's book, his chapter entitled "The Victim" is about Charlie's remains being discovered. Zorn says that a state trooper and a detective discovered a burlap sack lying several feet away from Charlie's corpse and that the burlap sack was stained with blood. I didn't know it was stained. He didn't have a footnote reference for this statement so here I am bringing it to you verification. I figure if there is a source for this you will have it.
Zorn also brings up Dr. Philip Van Ingen who had examined Charlie ten days before the kidnapping and had at that time recorded a number of measurements of Charlie in connection with his treatment for rickets. The final sentence in this paragraph is what bothered me. It says that Dr. Van Ingen observed that the corspe's skull, teeth, and toes were identical to those of his patient. Again there was no source reference for this paragraph. Is there a statement by Van Ingen saying all this? I thought he couldn't positively identify Charlie's remains.
There are some other interestng statements in this chapter but I realize I can't put everything on your plate. Its ok if you don't want to comment on any of the above items.
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Jun 18, 2012 20:37:35 GMT -5
Amy,
Robert Zorn references A. Scott Berg in Cemetery John. According to Zorn, Berg even called Zorn's father in the 1990s.
I always wondered how Berg knew there was blood in that burlap bag. Where is Berg's source for this, though?
See page 271 in Berg's book. "Upon exiting the car, two of the officers observed a burlap sack --worn and bloodstained--on the ground just off the side of the road."
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 18, 2012 21:00:54 GMT -5
It wasn't. There was no blood found on that bag.
He said they "conform" to his measurements. "Apparent" length, "general" size of the head, etc. He also states positive identification was "impossible."
While combing through the Hoffman Collection, I saw a Memo regarding the bag in which either Hoffman or Conklin referred to a newspaper report that claimed a bloodstained bag had been found. This was early and when Schwarzkopf was still in so Hoffman told Conklin to get with Lloyd Fisher to find out the details.
Because of this, my guess is that Berg's source is a newspaper report - which was incorrect. I don't know if the Reporter did that on purpose or not but either way its wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2012 9:49:05 GMT -5
Sue, thanks for your response. I didn't see a footnote for the comment. I have Berg's book here (in my to read stack) so I will check it out when I finish Zorn's book. I wanted to say that you always provide great links to so many topics concerning this kidnapping. I always check them out and learn interesting things. Thanks for all the research you do on this topic.
Michael, Thanks for your comments on the bag and Dr. Van Ingen. The corspe measurements conformed generally. That is not the same as identically. If there had been blood on the bag, would they have been able to make a positive ID from it? Thanks for the clarification on these points.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 19, 2012 19:46:06 GMT -5
The only blood evidence that I recall now being involved in this case was found on some of the ransom bills. I know that it was never "compared" to anyone. I could be wrong but I believe we could determine blood types back then but not much more then that.
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Jun 20, 2012 3:46:37 GMT -5
Thanks for your kind words, Amy.
The Palisades tie-in to Zorn's father's story is intriguing. Henry Ellerson (who drove Betty Gow to Highfields earlier in the day on March 1.)...Well, Ellerson's car went zooming off the Palisades Cliffs (near Fort Lee, New Jersey.) Was it, like some say, to destroy forensic evidence? Ellerson jumped out just in time, he claims.
Ellerson, Banks -- all those Morrow drivers liked to drink, and they were at the Sha-Toe speakeasy on March 1 in Fort Lee. Fort Lee -- what about Presbyterian minister Burns who had a church near the Palisades? He's the one who interrupted the court proceedings in Flemington to say a man confessed to the crime on Palm Sunday at his church.
I wonder if these events in Fort Lee and the Palisades area relate to the Eugene Zorn theory?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jun 20, 2012 7:55:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jun 21, 2012 9:45:30 GMT -5
Speaking of books, does anyone know when Gardner's new edition of Case That Never Dies will be coming out? I have a copy, but, according to his blog, this new edition has an Afterward that explores his theory of what happened.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 21, 2012 19:48:24 GMT -5
I asked him about this earlier and I thought I posted it. I can't remember what he told me and I can't find where I posted it. When I see him I will ask him again.
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Jun 23, 2012 9:08:34 GMT -5
I think this is live, today, Saturday, June 23, 2012.
Listen live at 2PT, 5ET as Robert Zorn clears away decades of ungrounded speculation surrounding the case. Inspired by his father’s relationship with the actual accomplices –including the mastermind –he presents the clearest ever picture of a criminal partnership, which would shake every class and culture of American society.
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Jun 23, 2012 9:12:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Jun 23, 2012 9:27:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Jun 30, 2012 19:10:42 GMT -5
The Kidnapping of the Lindbergh Baby (working title)
NOVA reveals in this film new evidence about the 1932 kidnapping and death of 18-month-old Charles Lindbergh Jr., featuring compelling evidence that the man who was electrocuted for his murder, Bruno Hauptmann, did not act alone. The film will include experimental reenactments of the crime at the original Lindbergh home as well as insights from an ex-FBI profiler John Douglas.
February 2013
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Jul 6, 2012 12:10:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sonofjack on Jul 17, 2012 14:50:29 GMT -5
I just read the book cover to cover last night. For me, that's a testament to Zorn's writing ability. He's good. However, I estimate that 95% of of the book rehashes the same key facts that are discussed here and in other known sources, so there's nothing new in terms of facts. The other 5% is the theory that Knoll was Cemetery John, and Zorn does a decent job of building a case. Unfortunately, the "evidence" is not strong enough in my opinion. The handwriting analysis mentioned in this thread is one example. Evidence is just not compelling enough. There are many POIs out there, but in order to move beyond speculation when asserting a specific POI, the evidence needs to be compelling. Here, Zorn falls short. Additionally, I got the impression that he was leading the experts down the path he wanted them to go. Still, for the overall effort of encapsulating the key facts, telling the story, making the book interesting, and integrating "experts," he gets an A for effort.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 17, 2012 15:09:14 GMT -5
Hi sonofjack. To a large extent, I agree with you. I thought the writing was very good, very elegantly concise, but the more I think about this Knoll as the mastermind of the whole thing... I don't know. I still think he's a good candidate for having been involved somehow (he seems to fit the profile of someone who would be), just maybe not to the extent Zorn portrays. Either way, I agree; A for effort on Zorn's part.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 26, 2012 20:21:29 GMT -5
Robert Zorn, author of “Cemetery John,” a book that introduces a new perception of the Lindbergh Kidnapping and the events leading up to it, will be rendering a book reading, slide show and question and answer period referencing those events.
The dates and times are as follows: Sept. 28 and 29, from 7-9 p.m.
The Flemington Business Improvement District strives to recruit, retain and revitalize businesses in an effort add to the quality of life for residents in Flemington and the surrounding areas. For more information on this event or future events, please contact FBID Executive Director, David M. Rucki at (908) 617-3243, by email director@flemingtonbid.com, or online at their website flemingtonbid.com.
Again, this program is being presented at the Historic Courthouse, Main Street, Flemington, is open to the public and is free.
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Oct 5, 2012 19:51:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Oct 7, 2012 22:05:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Oct 19, 2012 21:12:54 GMT -5
|
|