ziki
Trooper
Posts: 44
|
Post by ziki on Feb 27, 2020 0:26:40 GMT -5
According to one article - Brinkert picked up Violet March 1, after 'scraping an acquaintance' whatever the hell that means - and getting a phone number.
From New Oxford American Dictionary: scrape acquaintance with dated contrive to get to know : aboard the ship, a nice girl scraped acquaintance with me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 29, 2020 11:11:23 GMT -5
Here is a NJSP archive report on Brinkert's apprehension: imgur.com/6xMIyLs Page One imgur.com/15GJgyg Page Two Also, here is a picture of Ernie Brinkert when he was taken into custody to transport him to the New Rochelle Police station. Can't help but notice that incredible smile on Brinkert's face! You would think he had just won the lottery!
|
|
|
Post by leeforman2 on Feb 29, 2020 17:44:26 GMT -5
Thanks Ziki - that's a new one to me.
Hi Amy - that's great stuff - interesting that the report absolves Brinkert before he is even free of the Authorities in Alpine. Love the hat - every time I see someone wearing Cemetery John's hat it just further erodes the legitimacy of that sketch for me. It's in so many of the newspaper as well.
That address was helpful - if he resided at that time at 126 Sickles - then his Green 1926 Nash that was not spotted in front of his home - and someone at the residence notified the authorities when they went to the residence of his location. His car was spotted closer to the cigar store. Still something a bit fishy on making a trace from a phone call back then - I think there is still a bit missing to the story here - but it's not relevant. Just that the call was made from a Cigar store - which sounds like it was down the street on the corner of North and Sickles. For the cops to have traced the call at 10:45pm and then made the arrest at 11:00pm - that wouldn't even happen in 2020. But the part about him smiling is interesting - as that is what the news reported - and that he exited the cigar store smiling and claiming he had an alibi. Sort of unusual.
Adding this here - Gardner appears to have been incorrect about his claim on page 108 concerning Brinkert 'cracking his rival over the head' with a monkey wrench - am not sure where he got that from. But I also need to correct my assumption about Brinkert's jail time - Gardner said this was because of a robbery - I don't know the details on that.
One additional comment - if Brinkert sold off his Taxi business - could be that one of the other drivers or the new owner simply used the business cards that Brinkert had made up - if the telephone number and operation was still being handled by the Fays.
I would like to know more about Ernie Miller - what he looked like for one.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 2, 2020 10:06:31 GMT -5
I would like to know more about Ernie Miller - what he looked like for one. I have a very large collection when it comes to Sharp so I'll try to go through all of my material tonight to see if I can't help out. I seem to remember seeing a picture of Minners, Miller, and Johnson together in a photo which I believe came from a newspaper. After a quick look I haven't been able to locate it but I'll be more thorough tonight hopefully. The problem is, for me anyway, is that I sometimes confuse Brinkert, Miller and Johnson in my head because of their first names. So any picture I did see might not be who I thought it was. However, as we can see from the expense voucher below, Miller was in attendance at the trial for 5 days. This means there has to be a photo of him somewhere because reporters were taking pictures of everyone so there's no way they didn't take his too. Here's something else... They were receiving threats just like everyone else but Albrecht's conclusion at the end of the report is something I particularly like. From New Oxford American Dictionary: scrape acquaintance with dated contrive to get to know : aboard the ship, a nice girl scraped acquaintance with me. Many years ago I downloaded a list of phrases and sayings from the internet. Here is a link to one I just found that might be helpful in the future although its quite clear this list doesn't include everything: imgur.com/gallery/RBpxX29
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2020 11:15:01 GMT -5
I seem to remember seeing a picture of Minners, Miller, and Johnson together in a photo which I believe came from a newspaper. Here's something else... They were receiving threats just like everyone else but Albrecht's conclusion at the end of the report is something I particularly like. Here are Miller, Johnson and Minners in a picture from the Chicago Tribune March 3, 1935. I apologize for how it reproduced.
|
|
|
Post by leeforman2 on Mar 3, 2020 0:58:10 GMT -5
Found another shot of Minners.
- Also found in Fisher that Fay was allegedly with Page and Brinkert on the night of March 1st playing cards. Not sure why I never saw that before. If that is true - then it would follow that there is a document someplace with Fay's affidavit? Why wouldn't Brinkert have referenced Fay as part of his alibi?
There is also supposed to be a 6 paged inventory of all of Violet's personal effects assembled by NJ State Police on July 15th - but the Brinkert Post Road cards are not on that list - the 15th would be a bit late - but that's interesting. Hard to make a leap that the Police would plant cards from some unknown NY based petty criminal.
Just comparing Fisher to Gardner in 'the wink' sequence - it sounds like there was a considerable lapse of time between when the Morrow Secretary, Laura Hughes, watched Violet walking from the room and received the smile and the wink - in Gardners version - Violet 'identifies' Ernie as Brinkert from the photo - Walsh has been threatening to bring Brinkert in person, when Violet whirls from the room and delivers the wink to Hughes.
Fisher's account has Violet breaking down following Walsh's questioning - to a point where Hughes phones for the Doctor. While waiting for the Doctor to arrive [ten minutes], Hughes has her arms around Violet on the sofa - trying to calm her. Walsh is meanwhile glowering. The Doctor arrives, examines Violet - and ends the interview over health concerns - terminating it on his orders. Hughes is now seated at her desk. Walsh is having his last words, and insisting questioning continue tomorrow in Alpine. Violet gets up and walks without assistance from the room - Hughes looks at her sympathetically. Violet smiles and then winks.
Interesting - as it isn't as nefarious as I had been led to believe. As per Gardner - Arthur Springer also witnesses the wink - and believes that not only has Violet fooled Walsh, but the wink was tied to the photo of Brinkert.
One other observation - Ernie Miller makes the claim that he only stopped on Lydecker and made the 2 ladies [Violet and Emily] acquaintance, after they had hailed him - in what you would have to believe was a case of mistaken identity. Still something missing - and it also sounds if the Police noted slight discrepancies between the accounts of Elmer, Ernie and Catherine.
Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 3, 2020 13:05:56 GMT -5
Adding this here - Gardner appears to have been incorrect about his claim on page 108 concerning Brinkert 'cracking his rival over the head' with a monkey wrench - am not sure where he got that from. But I also need to correct my assumption about Brinkert's jail time - Gardner said this was because of a robbery - I don't know the details on that. Lloyd was right about this. Brinkert was in a fight and there was a monkey wrench involved. As far as I can tell he was never arrested because of that fight. The source for this was Brinkert himself. He was questioned twice, and this is in his first "examination." This is exactly why I footnote just about everything. Without them it creates a degree of uncertainty about the facts listed. Arrests: 1. Petty Larceny. Westchester County. October 21, 1922. Told to "leave town" by the judge for a period of 6 months.
2. Assault. White Plains, NY. April 17, 1926. (Assaulted a Milk-Man). Sentenced to Westchester County Penitentiary. Served 8 months and 20 days. There is also supposed to be a 6 paged inventory of all of Violet's personal effects assembled by NJ State Police on July 15th - but the Brinkert Post Road cards are not on that list - the 15th would be a bit late - but that's interesting. Hard to make a leap that the Police would plant cards from some unknown NY based petty criminal. That inventory exists and does not include the card. However, that's because Walsh had the card so it wasn't with the rest of the items at the time. Next, there is an earlier inventory in SAC Connelly's Memorandum dated May 23, 1932. That card is included on this one (at #11): 10 - A business card bearing the inscription Mangol's, the shop for values, 734 Lexington Avenue, New York City.
11 - A business card, Post Road Taxi, 50 East Post Road, White Plains, N.Y. telephone number White Plains 725.
12 - An admission card to the New York Orthopedic Cispensary & Hospital, 420 East 59th Street, dispensary department, issued to Violet Sharpe, Lydecker Street, Englewood, N.J., #136869, dated March 7, 1931. Just comparing Fisher to Gardner in 'the wink' sequence - it sounds like there was a considerable lapse of time between when the Morrow Secretary, Laura Hughes, watched Violet walking from the room and received the smile and the wink - in Gardners version - Violet 'identifies' Ernie as Brinkert from the photo - Walsh has been threatening to bring Brinkert in person, when Violet whirls from the room and delivers the wink to Hughes. When it comes to Gardner vs. Fisher there really is no comparison. I think it has to do with the amount of time each spent at the Archives because Lloyd spent way more time there as well as the overall time researching the subject before he started to write. There's also the fact that Fisher seemed to include himself as an "invisible witness" in places throughout his books. Know what I mean? I believe there's a word for it so somebody help me out. He adds to the facts by inventing dialogue, expressions, and actions that never occurred as if that's what he'd have seen if he had been in the room - but there's no evidence of it anywhere in the documentation. He definitely uses "poetic license" throughout but I submit a non-fiction on this subject should never do such a thing. Furthermore, Fisher made quite a few mistakes too, and I try not to get too much into it or I'd be correcting something on just about every page.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 5, 2020 9:53:43 GMT -5
but mike gardner never debated his book like the others. so to say theres no comparison is crazy.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 5, 2020 10:43:09 GMT -5
but mike gardner never debated his book like the others. so to say theres no comparison is crazy. Steve, If something is disproven on paper what's the point of a "live" debate? Should we live debate if the world is flat too - or can that be disposed of by pictures and/or in writing?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Mar 5, 2020 13:16:19 GMT -5
but mike gardner never debated his book like the others. so to say theres no comparison is crazy. Steve, If something is disproven on paper what's the point of a "live" debate? Should we live debate if the world is flat too - or can that be disposed of by pictures and/or in writing? If I can jump in for a minute here. Debate, live or keyboard style, can still be very helpful when what's written on paper isn't always accurate. A great example of that would be the endless debate over the Bible, whichever version you want to choose to debate. Or where personal perception forms a conclusion based on what is assumed to be accurate, and which doesn't hold up under due scrutiny. Not to be a devil's advocate here, but.. We're debating here all the time and after twenty years, no one has really come much closer to the truth. True collaboration with the right people and information and less regurgitation, would have a much better chance of cleaning up this case's remaining loose ends.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 5, 2020 13:44:04 GMT -5
If I can jump in for a minute here. Debate, live or keyboard style, can still be very helpful when what's written on paper isn't always accurate. A great example of that would be the endless debate over the Bible, whichever version you want to choose to debate. Or where personal perception forms a conclusion based on what is assumed to be accurate, and which doesn't hold up under due scrutiny. Not to be a devil's advocate here, but.. We're debating here all the time and after twenty years, no one has really come much closer to the truth. True collaboration with the right people and information and less regurgitation, would have a much better chance of cleaning up this case's remaining loose ends. 1. By your very own argument, debate isn't the issue. It's a "live" debate that isn't necessary. In my opinion, Steve uses this as an excuse not to dismiss what we already know isn't true. As if in person certain errors or mistakes that were once accepted as fact, but proven false, will snap back to their original state. No - if something never happened a live debate about it will not magically make it occur. Let me give an example: Many books say that Prosecutor Marshall asked Lindbergh at the Morgue if the corpse was his son. So many that this had become a historical fact. But as I wrote in V1, Marshall wasn't even there that day. Instead, the documentation proves that it was Prosecutor Hauck who asked. So it was the Hunterdon County Prosecutor NOT the Mercer County Prosecutor. I can prove this with several source documents to include Grand Jury transcripts. All the other side has are books and newspaper articles. So should we hold a live debate about it? That would be silly wouldn't it? Of course it would. So why did this mistake occur? Someone confused one Prosecutor for the other and the rest is history because no one bothered to fact check it. I don't know about you, but a live debate doesn't solve the issue - research does. Setting up a stage to debate will NEVER morph Hauck into Marshall. 2. We've learned so much over the years that we can now debunk and point out what clearly is or is not included in the documentation. Facts aren't debateble, rather, its the interpretations and opinions about them that is. 3. I submit we are much closer than ever before. Some may not agree. Some may ignore all of the new material. Some may embrace it and use it to point it in whatever direction they choose. But without it - none of it is possible.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Mar 6, 2020 9:36:06 GMT -5
theres plenty of things in everybodys book that can be disproven or stupid. but live debates are better then the computer, i witnessed both. theres nothing like the authors defending there books in front of people that read them.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 6, 2020 9:58:11 GMT -5
theres plenty of things in everybodys book that can be disproven or stupid. but live debates are better then the computer, i witnessed both. theres nothing like the authors defending there books in front of people that read them. This makes no sense. Fast talkers are good at swindling people. Live debates can be “fun” to watch but I’m more interested in facts. If I want to listen to someone’s BS I’ll visit a used car lot.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Mar 6, 2020 10:00:09 GMT -5
Michael, I'll give you a perfect example of what I'm talking about when I reference inaccurate information that is sure to spark the kind of debate, which will in time only take us all closer to the truth. The reporting of the crime scene physical evidence, specifically that at the base of the nursery window. Because there was no mention whatsoever of gradient changes in the moisture level of the ground from a point close to the house out to where the clear trail of footprints began in what was by then, muddy and much more impressionable ground, we now have all kinds of assertions and even published conclusions about what took place within that specific area. Due to the absence of what should have been literally dozens of discernible footprints in the immediate area around the base of the nursery window that one would logically expect to see from a kidnapper or kidnappers setting up a finnicky, multi-sectioned ladder on a dark and windy night, theories that essentially ignore strict laws of Newtonian physics now seem to abound here. Essentially, the ground's consistency nearest the house and farther away from the house, are deemed by some here to be equal and with no differences = It Was Muddy. Why? Because that's essentially how it was reported in the venerated Source Documentation, in this case courtesy of those NJSP traffic cops pressed into service as forensic investigators on the night of the crime. Because that ground is now simply deemed by some to have been "Muddy," this lack of footprints now translates to a scenario where the kidnappers were perched and moved around this area like gravity-defying tightrope artists on a very narrow walkway setting up that ladder, even to the point where you've taken things to a new level by more recently speculating that someone in the nursery lowered the ladder to the ground, where it was set in place. Can you understand why I say that debate is helpful in advancing the truth when the veracity of the initial reporting of the evidence was not only questionable, but obviously inaccurate?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 6, 2020 10:46:10 GMT -5
Can you understand why I say that debate is helpful in advancing the truth when the veracity of the initial reporting of the evidence was not only questionable, but obviously inaccurate? Joe - let me start out by saying, once again, that I agree debate is good. Implying I am against it by ignoring my earlier reply to you is an ineffective strategy. So - this venue is the best platform and live debate is about the worst possible. Next, we don’t need to apply Newton’s Law once considering the true scenario. First and foremost the entire scene was examined by multiple investigators. All of these men lived in NJ and had experiences with freeze and thaw every Spring and Autumn just like everyone else. So what are the facts? There were two sets of prints in the yard. There were post holes and a footprint outside the boardwalk as well as footprints inside the boardwalk. Police avoided walking on the ground anywhere in that area was because they knew they’d leave prints if they did. So we have a ground condition consistent in all of these places that would yield prints. I submit it was one of the reasons many thought “inside job” at the time because something wasn’t “right.” This idea that a discernible footprint could exist in one place but not an inch or two away because it was frozen but then becomes muddy again where another print exists is pure fantasy. We know the range based upon the actual footprints themselves. The yard, outside the boardwalk, and inside the boardwalk were all muddy enough to yield prints - and did. Places within this area that did not have prints was because no one stepped there. There is NO report talking about frozen ground or ice or whatever in the spaces between prints or anywhere else for that matter.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Mar 7, 2020 9:25:11 GMT -5
Can you understand why I say that debate is helpful in advancing the truth when the veracity of the initial reporting of the evidence was not only questionable, but obviously inaccurate? Joe - let me start out by saying, once again, that I agree debate is good. Implying I am against it by ignoring my earlier reply to you is an ineffective strategy. So - this venue is the best platform and live debate is about the worst possible. Next, we don’t need to apply Newton’s Law once considering the true scenario. First and foremost the entire scene was examined by multiple investigators. All of these men lived in NJ and had experiences with freeze and thaw every Spring and Autumn just like everyone else. So what are the facts? There were two sets of prints in the yard. There were post holes and a footprint outside the boardwalk as well as footprints inside the boardwalk. Police avoided walking on the ground anywhere in that area was because they knew they’d leave prints if they did. So we have a ground condition consistent in all of these places that would yield prints. I submit it was one of the reasons many thought “inside job” at the time because something wasn’t “right.” This idea that a discernible footprint could exist in one place but not an inch or two away because it was frozen but then becomes muddy again where another print exists is pure fantasy. We know the range based upon the actual footprints themselves. The yard, outside the boardwalk, and inside the boardwalk were all muddy enough to yield prints - and did. Places within this area that did not have prints was because no one stepped there. There is NO report talking about frozen ground or ice or whatever in the spaces between prints or anywhere else for that matter. Just so I'm clear on your statement Michael, what prints are you referring to here when you say, "footprints inside the boardwalk?" Are you referring to the trail of prints thought to be made by a woman and later attributed to Anne Lindbergh?
|
|