|
Post by bookrefuge on Dec 1, 2011 10:58:50 GMT -5
Michael, I hope your move is going well. I hope I haven’t started too many threads. I don’t mean to monopolize the board; I do want to get a better grasp of various matters. I now have my CD-ROM of the trial transcript. In reading Wilentz’s cross-examination of Anna Bonesteel (who claimed Violet Sharp was nervously waiting with blankets for two hours at her ferryside restaurant on the night of the kidnapping), it occurred to me that Wilentz may have pulled a fast one on Bonesteel. Before I discuss that, however, I want to mention that in cross-referencing this testimony on the Internet, I ran into Jim Fisher’s account of it. I found that Fisher significantly altered it. Michael, I know you have had problems with Fisher’s credibility, and now I do too. First, here is an excerpt of the actual exchange between Wilentz and Bonesteel, copied from the court transcript: Q. You don’t know that. Of course, if that were the fact, then you would appreciate that you are mistaken, wouldn’t you? A. Well, I wouldn’t say I was mistaken. Q. I want to show you exhibit 290 for identification; see if that was the other lady that was with her, or if that lady was there that night. A. No. Q. What is it? A. No, sir; that isn’t. Q. That lady? A. That isn’t the girl. Q. That was there that night? A. No. Q. Don’t you know that that was the last picture that was taken of Violet Sharpe? A. That isn’t Violet Sharpe. If it is, I can’t—her face, when Violet Sharpe came into our restaurant, twice, she had a hat and coat on and that makes some difference. Now here is Fisher’s rendering of that same exchange, p. 350 of The Lindbergh Case: “So, you have made an error, haven’t you?” “I have not!” the witness exclaimed angrily. “Miss Sharpe couldn’t have been in your restaurant at seven-thirty. You have made a mistake, haven’t you?” “She was in the restaurant at seven-thirty,” the witness replied, making no effort to conceal her hostility. “Is this the girl who was with Violet when she came into your restaurant three months before the kidnapping?” Wilentz asked, handing Miss [sic] Bonesteel a photograph. “No it isn’t,” the witness snapped, handing the picture back to Wilentz. “Please, madam, take a good look,” Wilentz said, handing the photograph back to her. “It is not the girl.” “Then who is it?” Wilentz asked. “I don’t know.” “You don’t know?” “I said I don’t know.” “Yes. Well let me tell you who it is—it is Violet Sharpe!” The witness looked surprised, then defiant. “That isn’t Violet Sharpe,” she growled. “That is Violet Sharpe, the person you said was in your restaurant at seven-thirty on the night of the crime,” Wilentz replied, looking at the jury with a boyish grin. “If it is. I can’t—her face--” Although Fisher does recapture basic elements of the exchange, he has extensively rewritten and embellished what was said. How many of his readers would know that without checking the transcript? Furthermore, note the many negative words Fisher uses to characterize Bonesteel within a short passage: “angrily” “hostility” “snapped” “surprised” “defiant” “growled” The only descriptive phrase he has for Wilentz is “boyish grin.” How would Fisher know what their facial expressions and voice tones were? Why is it that Bonesteel “growled” when she spoke, but not Wilentz? I realize authors may have to dramatize a conversation a little for the sake of reader interest, but Fisher overstepped the bounds of “literary license” right into bias. He is painting a good guy-bad woman picture. This is the only passage I’ve read in Fisher’s book, but that’s enough to make me not want to buy it. The police dismissed Hauptmann’s alibi as a “Fisch story.” I read somewhere else we can dismiss this book as a “Fisher story.” OK, now the original point I wanted to get to. It is true that Wilentz successfully made Bonesteel look foolish. Bonesteel said Violet Sharp was in her restaurant; now Wilentz hands her a picture of a woman she cannot identify, and Wilentz triumphantly announces it is Violet Sharp. The conclusion left for the jury to draw is that Bonesteel is clueless and her testimony discredited. But hold on. We’ve had some controversy before on this board about pictures of Violet Sharp. Here is the only shot of her in the Corbis historical archives: www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/U190411ACME/portrait-of-violet-sharpe?popup=1This picture looks very unlike other photos of a more delicate Violet Sharp, such as crimeofthecentury.weebly.com/uploads/3/8/9/3/3893845/7441814.jpg?231violetsharp.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/harry-walsh-article-part-1.jpg?w=450&h=705violetsharp.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/front.jpgI realize that one person can look different in different photos—many things can affect appearance, including cosmetics, weight gain or loss, emotional state, health, etc. Nonetheless, this odd photo just doesn’t look like Violet. Ronelle Delmont’s website even suggests there might be a question about the person’s gender. Corbis dates the photo from 1932. I wonder if it’s just a newswire error—they goofed and ran the picture of another person? Wouldn’t be the first time that’s happened. Even the original news caption seems messed up, suggesting that Dr. Condon gave the ransom money to Ernie Brinkert. Anyway, my question is this. When Wilentz told Bonesteel exhibit 290 was a picture of Violet Sharp, she commented with shock on “the face.” I wonder if Wilentz handed her this same “weird” photo of Violet, or one like it. If so, it’s no surprise Bonesteel wouldn’t have identified the picture as Sharp. In that same situation, I wouldn’t have either. To put it bluntly, I wonder if Wilentz set Bonesteel up. I don’t want to say that without knowing it—but I’d love to see exactly what “exhibit 290” was. My CD-ROM lists the trial exhibits, but doesn’t seem to have pictures of them. Anything you’d have a line on, Michael? Under the thread “Did the Sharp sisters pull a switch?” I raised some questions about the possibility of Violet having a “ringer.” This photograph doesn’t clarify that, but it does seem to suggest that, just maybe, there’s some puzzle in connection with Violet’s identity.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 1, 2011 19:22:16 GMT -5
This is good research. And you are right that I have been very hard on Fisher for doing this type of thing. But because I have gone after Fisher the hardest, I want to remind everyone that all sources should be looked at like this to test what they are telling us.
It happens more often then you think.
My issue with Fisher is that he goes after people, labels them "Revisionists", but in reality is doing what he claims they are doing too....that is, changing the facts.
As to BR's post above concerning Bonesteel: I would naturally assume this information might come from an observer at the trial. It's very possible the body language, and tones were recorded by a Reporter, who was there, and made a note of it or published account of it in a newspaper article.
If this was the case I would expect that source to be cited. If its not then we can only conclude that he's doing 'it' again.
My move was terrible (!). I have my cabinet files in a closet. They are going to have to be moved somehow because that's not working for me. But I do have access to Bonesteel's file. The Report that's in it is a bad copy so it won't scan up. If there is something you need me to search for in it let me know and I will type it out for you.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Dec 2, 2011 23:33:44 GMT -5
This thought occurred to me as well—that maybe Fisher was basing his description of Bonesteel’s body language on newspaper reports of the day. However, since Fisher invented things supposedly said by Bonesteel, I have to assume he invented the accompanying facial expressions and voice tones as well. It would have been impossible for a news reporter to have recorded body language accompanying something never actually said. I suppose some reporter might have commented generally on Bonesteel’s demeanor, but then again, how much reliability can be attached to news reports coming out of Flemington, which were often hastily written and sensationalistic? Add that to Fisher’s invented dialogue, and I’m 99 percent ready to dismiss his rendering of this particular exchange.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 3, 2011 10:01:01 GMT -5
He says in the preface, I believe, that he invents certain dialogue. I've never seen such a thing in a non-fiction publication which is, by design, suppose to reveal the truth of the entire matter.
So, in his Defense, he "warns" us this may occur.
It's why I like Lloyd's book so much. It's properly researched, then he reflects on the evidence by asking intelligent questions instead of inventing things to sway our position toward whatever position he personally holds.
It's like: "here are the facts, it could mean this, or that, or possibly another thing....so what do you think?"
That doesn't satisfy those who want to be told what the solution is. It's a thinking Man's & Woman's book.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Dec 3, 2011 11:38:44 GMT -5
but gardners book proves what mike? fishers right about revisionists, they say the dumbest things to inject into the case. if you think scadutos or behns book is better then fishers your crazy. im more convinced then ever that hauptmann did it and did it alone. all i heard through the years is that the wood evidence was planted. thanks to kel, that myth is gone.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Dec 3, 2011 13:48:50 GMT -5
The main thing I want to know about Bonesteel is exactly what exhibit 290 was—if Wilentz showed her a flagrantly uncharacteristic photo of Violet, like the one noted above, then he was setting Bonesteel up. If Bonesteel was correct about what she saw at her restaurant, then we are a step closer to reconstructing events on night of the crime. If Bonesteel did see Violet Sharp run with blankets into a car around 9 to 9:30, and if that car had the baby in it, it means the snatch occurred earlier than commonly believed—perhaps as early as 7:30 to 8, very shortly after Anne Lindbergh last saw the child. If I was behind that snatch, I’d want to do it as early as possible, maximizing my getaway time before the inevitable 10 o’clock nursery visit.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 3, 2011 14:55:06 GMT -5
It proves much if you let go of any preconceived notions then let the facts he revealed lead you.
You'd have to include Fisher as a "Revisionist" since he revised some of the true situations with total fiction.
Honestly, its because of Scaduto's book that I have been pushed to do the research. I think both men believe their individual postions and that both are wrong in several places. It's just my opinion that Fisher is hypocritical by pointing fingers at others while doing what I consider exactly what he accuses them of doing.
I have no idea what you mean. Kel re-traced Koehler's steps (somewhat). Then he wrote or said what it is he liked and omitted what he didn't. Then, in Fisher's words, he became a Revisionist calling the attic Hauptmann's "special place" and that if they (Authorities), in essence, did anything out of line in this Case they were a party to murder so he couldn't believe that.
So how does one prove or disprove something without bias if they do not believe something that would need to happen if one side were true?
It's like the cigarette company coming out with report which proves they aren't addictive.
Fact is, Rab & Kevin produced a theory independently which holds up to each and every test. They proved what really happened. Those who want Hauptmann to be completely innocent hate it. And those who want this silly notion that Hauptmann climbed into his attic to cannibalize the floor there hate it too - because it means they have to admit a mistake.
Something those who belong to that Granfalloon never do.
So this new theory proves evidence was framed, just not in the way we all heard it was, and that Hauptmann had no idea where that wood originally came from.
It's a perfect example concerning how schools of thought get into the way of the truth. If you proceed in good faith, then let the chips fall where they may, you discover the reality.
The black & white way of thinking is outdated in this case.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 3, 2011 15:01:40 GMT -5
Since I've researched at the NJSP for 11 years (among other places as well) I have met some really great people there over that time span. Some have been Students doing internships. One young lady put together a book on the exhibits which I believe was submitted to her Professor. I was lucky enough to get a copy. This I absolutely know its in one of my boxes and not in the filing cabinets. As I get settled I am sure I will come acrossed it then report back to you what's up with S-290.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Dec 3, 2011 16:37:35 GMT -5
the black and white way is outdated in this case? what does that mean? i read gardners book and i am baffled on where he was going. the evidence is to strong i think to many people led him in the wrong direction. to bad theres no more book debates
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 3, 2011 19:01:41 GMT -5
What's going on is we, the reader, benefit from a properly researched book. Something new pops up, you look up the footnote to a citation from a legitimate and solid source. There were a couple of times that come to memory that he destroyed certain assertions as coming from Fisher's book(s) then backs those positions up with multiple sources.
So no one is leading him astray but the research from source material is straightening out the record from which we can make an intelligent decision. This is the alternative to what we've all been used to. That is, letting someone tell us what to believe or else we're "stupid" or a "revisionist" regardless how weak or non-existent the supposed source is (sometimes a made-up conversation!!!).
One simply has to read the first post "Pebbles and Mud" on Lloyd's new blog to see how his approach works: Here is the scenario, here is what we've been led to believe, here is the evidence, here are the problems, here are the things to consider - what is your position?
So sure, I can see why someone who is used to following lock-step with a line of thought would be baffled by Lloyd's approach.
What I am saying is that you could read Lloyd's book, consider the FACTS of the situation he's truly uncovered and still come to the same conclusion as your original position. Or, you just may come to a different one now armed with new material or the real material instead of fiction misrepresented as fact.
The bottom line is its up the Reader to decide what is a revision and what is not. One cannot do that if they are expected to believe something that just isn't true or afraid of being unfairly labeled.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Dec 4, 2011 7:35:21 GMT -5
mike, you act and say like the smoking gun has been discovered. it has not. the facts still remain the fisch story is the same, the wood and the handwriting is the same. please tell me what gardner changed
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 4, 2011 8:35:41 GMT -5
I am not sure what you mean Steve. Just as an example, we were all led to believe Hauptmann only made his "x"s that way. Here comes Lloyd's book with a picture of an "x" made that way which wasn't by Hauptmann's design. It's what led me to find one just like the one in the ransom notes, again not created by Hauptmann, at the NJSP Archives. So what Lloyd did (on just this one point) is show us that what we've been led to believe as a matter of rock solid fact, is questionable. Therefore, it needs further evaluation, research, and consideration. The Handwriting was never the "same" by any testimony or report that I have ever read. Those who assert he wrote those notes weigh in several factors concluding that while those notes were disguised, there were enough similarities in other supposedly disguised handwriting exemplars to over-rule the dissimilarities. Looking at it through this lens, while still considering this false 'unique' "x" assertion, it does show the matter concerning the Handwriting is at least open to further discussion. If you believe this because of that, and that turns out to be flawed, then how does one still believe this without anything other then faith? I have never been convinced Hauptmann either did or did not write those notes. But I am not going to say I do if I have problems to resolve, or say he did not, if I have issues to reconcile on that end too. But I will fight against anyone telling me what to believe based upon a flawed position and/or one based on faith instead of the truth. Fact is, even if I do believe something and I see an argument like that to support it I will never let it stand unchallenged. It's the Frog and the Scorpion all over again, and the main point isn't to "win or lose" rather, to ensure their is a control or test to whatever someone puts forth. To blindly follow something without using your mind is a horrible mistake and leads to myths being created then accepted as fact. At the same time, stories like Lindy having illegitimate children in Germany would have been deemed outrages and a product of "Revisionists" if not for DNA. So in the end, both sides of the isle could alter the truth of history for the better or for the worse. But they must be explored then tested to ensure what's possible and what is not. What is true and what is not. I hate to rant, but we would all still believe that silly attic story if not for some trusting their common sense then finding the real solution. So yes, I am now satisfied the wood came from that attic only because that theory holds up to all tests. But I am equally satisfied that Hauptmann never climbed into the attic, so he himself didn't know that's where it came from. Additionally, there is proof positive the Police framed the situation concerning what, when, and how - just not to the extent we were led to believe from Scaduto. So while Scaduto was wrong, his position lead directly to the real solution by pushing us to either prove or disprove his position. Do you see my point? The framing wasn't designed to falsely convict an innocent man, it was to sure up their case against someone they all truly believed was involved. So both schools of thought were both right and wrong concerning their positions. It wasn't black or white but a shade of grey neither side was willing to consider. Peter H. Sommer, a fingerprint expert, testified that on the night of March 1, 1932 he saw two men on a ferryboat to New York City. When the men got off the boat they assisted a woman with a baby onto a trolley car. Sommer said the baby had blonde hair, wore a one piece sleeping suit, and looked about two-years old. The State presented Sommer with this photograph asking him if the woman in the photograph was the woman from the trolley car. Sommer could not say one way or another.
Location in Archives: Unable to locate in archives. (Source: Alfieri, Megan. A Reference Guide to the Evidence Used in the Bruno Richard Hauptmann Trial June 2007.)
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Dec 4, 2011 11:43:04 GMT -5
the baby was dead in hopewell mike, i never believed it was put back there. as far as gardners properly researched book, it was properly reseached one way. gardner is not a handwriting expert and i saw krackowskis lecture 2 years ago and he is a document examiner and his research in the handwriting is very compelling
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 4, 2011 13:57:51 GMT -5
Refresh my memory Steve.... Isn't that the same person who concluded Hauptmann wrote the notes by "examining" pictures in Haring's book? Any Expert I know about NEVER concludes anything until they examine the originals under glass.
There's many Experts who testify on opposite sides of a trial. You have to take it ALL into consideration, to include when and how they made their conclusions. It's exactly why I am undecided. I don't want to be like Osborn Jr. and say he didn't write them reverse my finding because they found ransom in his garage.
One should have nothing to do with the other.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Dec 4, 2011 17:45:36 GMT -5
the fact of the matter is hes a expert. and he did more then examine harings book
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 4, 2011 18:14:24 GMT -5
Okay, so when did he do more - before or after already drawing a conclusion? I know but I'll let you say it...
Additionally, Ana Kyle is an Expert too. So how do you believe one Expert but disagree with another? That seems to be what qualifies your position so how do you reconcile one coming from another Expert that is dramatically different?
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Dec 6, 2011 7:37:38 GMT -5
ana kyle? shes another lindbergh did it person. she thinks a guy named thomas wolf was hired by the lindberghs to bury the baby or something and that the ransom notes match his handwriting. total garbage
|
|
|
Post by zerohunter on Dec 6, 2011 11:55:27 GMT -5
Obviously in your mind anyone who thinks Lindberg might be involved is just “another Lindberg did it person” and their theories and evidence should be totally discounted because they don’t fit in with your “beliefs”?
You must be quite familiar with her works on the subject to state: “to bury the baby or something…”
It’s “total garbage” why? Because it doesn’t support your theory?
I think its blatantly obvious who’s full of “total garbage”…
Now I finally get why there is a smite button… ;D
z
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 6, 2011 17:26:51 GMT -5
Z,
Steve's a good guy. He's an "old-school" Fisher Disciple who has done quite a bit of research over the years. His perspective is good for the checks and balances I am constantly saying must exist in order for the truth to come out.
He has been kind enough over the years to meet with me and share some of what he has. He has thick skin, and will do battle to support his position most of the time.
I so "most" because I've learned he's fair game anytime except Saturday Nite - or after a Jet's loss.
|
|
|
Post by zerohunter on Dec 6, 2011 18:27:22 GMT -5
I know wolf's a good guy, for I’ve read many of his older posts. I just don’t like when someone states something as fact as if everybody agrees with it, when its really only his personal opinion that counters a professional handwriting analyst's who has studied the material for 23 years. I'm a big believer in being clear in communication, which also includes owning one's opinion as just that. Maybe I overreacted in my response, since I’m (right now at least) one of the "Lindberg did it persons". My bad…
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Dec 6, 2011 19:16:42 GMT -5
mike your so right.the jets drive me nuts. i cant get into the debate that lindbergh did it.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Dec 6, 2011 22:54:22 GMT -5
I live in New England Patriots territory, which fact alone could earn me a “smite.” Anyway, since I started this thread, I’d like to swing it back to the original line of thought. I see from the trial transcript that Sommer was shown the same photo as Bonesteel was, exhibit no. 290, as well as others. At this moment, it is apparently not possible to determine if exhibit 290 was the same weird photo of “Violet Sharp” we noted previously on this thread: www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/U190411ACME/portrait-of-violet-sharpe?popup=1However, both Sommer and Bonesteel saw a woman engaged in suspicious activities near Hudson River ferries on the night of the kidnapping, and later recognized her as Violet Sharp from contemporary newspaper photos. Yet in the courtroom, Wilentz confidently handed these two witnesses a photo of Violet Sharp that they could not identify. This suggests to me that Wilentz knew, in advance, that he was using an offbeat photo of Sharp that would make the witnesses appear uncertain in front of the jury, and look foolish about what they had witnessed. This raises a question in my mind about Wilentz’s tactics. I still have not read much of the trial testimony, but under this board’s Witnesses thread “Lights out for Hochmuth,” I noted that the courtroom lights went out (and stayed out) at the precise moment that Wilentz asked Amandus Hochmuth to identify Hauptmann in the courtroom. The defense was not yet aware that Hochmuth was legally blind, and turning out the lights could have helped disguise that fact, since any visual error by Hochmuth could have been attributed to darkness in the courtroom. Was this a remarkable coincidence or a cheap courtoom tactic? Michael, have you read the depositions of Louis Kiss and Desider Weidinger? They begin on page 1103 of Wayne Jones’s book Murder of Justice. I acknowledge that Jones is not a talented writer, but he does incorporate some relevant material into his book. Louis Kiss was a defense witness. He testified that he had seen Hauptmann at the Frederickson’s bakery on the evening of the kidnapping. There were things he clearly remembered from the bakery (which was the only time he’d ever been there), and the news of the kidnapping stamped the date in his mind. He was not an acquaintance of the Hauptmanns. I eventually grew angry reading Wilentz’ s cross-examination of Kiss, in which he asked him endlessly about where and when he had lived and worked, apparently fishing for some mistake or self-contradiction that he could seize upon to show the jury that Kiss had a defective memory—a strategy that flopped. I notice that he dragged Sommer through a similar journey--endless haggling over minute details in an attempt to generate an exploitable inconsistency. I would like to post the Kiss deposition in full when I get a chance—it is rather long—but the gist is this. The day after his testimony, a New York City attorney named Berko, who Kiss knew slightly, tried to get Kiss to change his testimony with a carrot and stick: threat of arrest and an offer of “a little money.” Berko told Kiss: “Don’t you know anything about Jersey Justice?” It developed that Berko’s legal career was going nowhere, but Wilentz offered to get him a job on Thomas Dewey’s staff if Berko could get Kiss to change his testimony. Kiss told Berko where he could go, that he had told the truth in court and wouldn’t change it to a lie for five million dollars. Kiss summarized the incident in a sworn deposition and it was corroborated in a second sworn deposition by Desider Weidinger, who had witnessed much of the exchange between Kiss and Berko. Believe who you want, but all this makes me wonder if Wilentz was playing dirty pool during the trial. Hans Kloeppenburg, who said he had seen Fisch give Hauptmann the shoebox, told Scaduto of the private talk he had with Wilentz in Flemington. He reported that Wilentz told him: “If you say on the witness chair that you seen Fisch come in with the shoe box, you’ll be arrested right away.” (Scaduto, p. 447) Is this another example of what Berko meant when he alluded to “Jersey Justice”? Anna Bonesteel, another important defense witness, received anonymous threats that her house would be blown up if she testified: fultonhistory.com/newspaper%2010/Yonkers%20NY%20Herald%20Statesman/Yonkers%20NY%20Herald%20Statesman%201935%20Grayscale/Yonkers%20NY%20Herald%20Statesman%201935%20Grayscale%20-%200235.pdfThese threats to Bonesteel cannot, of course, be demonstrated to connect to Wilentz, but it seems that a number of key defense witnesses were threatened. Add to this Wilentz’s use of discreditable witnesses—Hochmuth, Whited and Rossiter. Reilly—halfhearted and often drunk—doesn’t come off much better. What chance did Hauptmann, his command of English limited, have with this pair at the helm? My own take: I do not believe Wilentz had anything personal against Hauptmann. Any patsy would have served the purpose; Hauptmann was unlucky enough to be the man. From what I have seen so far, Wilentz did everything possible to make Hauptmann the “sole perpetrator”; he thoroughly assaulted anything pointing to conspiracy, just as thoroughly as every fingerprint was wiped clean in the nursery. He then saw to it that Hauptmann was executed as swiftly as possible, probably in hopes of forever closing the case. It is just my opinion, but I believe Wilentz was PROTECTING a conspiracy headed by someone rich and powerful. I do not believe this “someone” was Charles Lindbergh. Wilentz only looked like a CAL ally in the BRH case because he was prosecuting the alleged kidnapper of Lindbergh’s child. I do not believe that Wilentz, a Jewish Democrat, would have likely considered himself a personal ally of the conservative Lindbergh, whose family has been accused of anti-Semitism. I believe that Wilentz was protecting the real kidnappers. An hypothesis associated with this was extensively explored in my thread “A Theory in Development,” where we looked at possible connections to James P. Warburg, who is targeted as the mastermind behind the kidnapping in Dr. Alan Marlis’s forthcoming book on the LKC. Warburg and Lindbergh were adversaries, and as a member of FDR’s “Brain Trust,” Warburg fell into the same political camp as David Wilentz. Wilentz was a powerful figure in New Jersey Democratic Party politics and had been Democratic Party Chairman for Middlesex County in 1932, when FDR ran for office. In fact, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Charles Lindbergh were themselves enemies for many years. (There is a recent book out on this, Roosevelt vs. Lindbergh by James Duffy, though I have not yet read it.) Lindbergh’s Congressman father, Charles, Sr. had tried to impeach FDR’s uncle Frederic Delano, along with Paul Warburg, from the Federal Reserve Board. But I have not followed up further on this Warburg theory, as at this point I am awaiting Marlis’s book to see just how strong his evidence is.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 7, 2011 6:36:13 GMT -5
I have copies of those documents. I think this is in Kennedy's book too but I'd have to check. There is a pattern of this type of behavior by Wilentz. The problem is that we can't immediately jump to the conclusion that it means, absolutely, that what Kiss said was true. I am sure Kiss believed what he testified to, but I also believe Wilentz was afraid the Jury may have felt that way too. That's the extent of it in my opinion.
And so this is what he was willing to do in order to neutralize it. It's Witness tampering to be sure, but from the research I've done, I am confident Wilentz isn't doing this to send an innocent man to the chair. It's to preserve his strategy which was always hanging by a legal thread right from jump-street.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 7, 2011 16:59:00 GMT -5
Below is S-291 which is in Ms. Alfieri's guide. However, the photocopy in it is very poor so Mark Falzini was kind enough to email me a scanned copy..... Exhibit Number: S-291
Peter H. Sommer, a fingerprint expert, testified that on the night of March 1, 1932 he saw two men on a ferryboat to New York City. When the men got off the boat they assisted a woman with a baby onto a trolley car. Sommer said the baby had blonde hair, wore a one piece sleeping suit, and looked about two-years old. The State presented Sommer with this photograph asking him if the woman in the photograph was the woman from the trolley car. Sommer could not say one way or another.
Location in Archives: Lindbergh Evidence Box 3.
(Source: Alfieri, Megan. A Reference Guide to the Evidence Used in the Bruno Richard Hauptmann Trial June 2007.) [Photo (below) courtesy of New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives, West Trenton, New Jersey]: Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Dec 7, 2011 21:50:17 GMT -5
Wow, great detective work, Michael! Rates an “exalt.” A tip of the hat to Falzini also. I assume this is a group of Morrow servants? I wonder if that is Septimus Banks, second from the right. Now here is something interesting. Here is the exchange between Wilentz and Bonesteel, copied from the trial transcript:
Q: Will you see if you can pick out any one of the ladies that were in your place that night. A: (Examines photograph) Yes, I believe it is this one (indicating). Q: Just put a little X or something there. A: (Marks on photo). I believe it is this one. I wouldn’t be sure. Yes, I believe it is that one.
Michael, looking closely at the photograph, it appears that the woman in the center—who also looks the most like Violet Sharp—has what appears to be an “X” across her lower body. Was this the “X” Wilentz asked Bonesteel to put on the picture? I should also mention that exhibit 291 was not the one that tripped Bonesteel up. It was the photo called “exhibit 290,” which Wilentz showed her before 291. It is exhibit 290 that triggered this thread and that I would most like to see. It was apparently an individual photo of Violet. But even if we never find it, locating 291 is a terrific achievement. Postings such as this give us a distinct advantage over pre-Internet LKC investigators. Good work!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 8, 2011 6:22:46 GMT -5
BR, Megan did all the work. It's extremely convenient to have a guide like this at your finger-tips. I am not sure if that is an "X" or not. Could be.... either way I hadn't noticed it before you pointed it out. Is it in the record whether or not Wilentz attempted to have her ID Sharp from S-291? According to the guide, Sommer couldn't ID her from either S-290 or S-291. It looks to me that Sommer's testimony could be undermined by failing to identify her in S-291. Not that he is lying.... but its Sharp in that picture to be sure. Here's a Police photo of Banks in Mark's Blog Post on him:
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Dec 8, 2011 13:54:34 GMT -5
Michael, in the trial transcript (p. 3396), it says the photo that Bonesteel was shown and marked with an “X” was immediately after referred to by Wilentz as exhibit 391, not 291. However, I believe it was probably the same photo you have posted (291) for several reasons: (1) from the questions asked by Wilentz, it is evident the photo showed several women, like 291; (2) in his attempt to challenge Bonesteel’s ability to identify Sharp, Wilentz had previously shown Bonesteel 290—and 290 and 291 were the same set of photos he announced when challenging Sommers’s identification of Sharp; (3) 291 may (or may not) show the “X” which Bonesteel marked on the photo.
It is my conclusion therefore that the identification of the photo as 391 in the trial transcript is either a typographical error, or, perhaps due to some courtroom regulation, the photo was relabeled 391 after Bonestool put her “X” on it. I doubt the latter, however.
Here is something again a little interesting. In the court transcript (pp. 3330-3333), when Wilentz is cross-examining Sommer, the court reporter ANNOUNCES exhibits 290 and 291 for identification. But Wilentz only hands Sommer 290. (This photo tripped Sommer up, exactly as it did Bonesteel. This is why I am so eager to see 290—to see if it is a truly weird shot). If you keep reading the transcript, it never mentions that Wilentz showed Sommer exhibit 291 (the one you posted above). However, he did show him a group picture that was announced as exhibit 301.
This gets things pretty confusing, and raises the question if 291, 301, and 391 were all the same photo? Were they relabeled for some judicial reason? Are these numbers transcription errors? Or are these three different photos –with perhaps Wilentz even playing a shell game, reshuffling pictures to keep the witnesses off balance?
The best way to resolve this would be to view exhibits 290, 301 and 391, along with 291 which you have posted. Michael, is Ms. Alfieri's guide to the trial exhibits available for purchase? It seems to me like an essential companion piece to the trial transcript. It’s kind of like what vendors used to shout at the baseball park: “You can’t tell the players without a scorecard!”
By the way, while on the subject of Wilentz, Sommer and Bonesteel, I want to quote something Wilentz said to Sommer in his cross-examination (pp. 3312-13). He accused Sommer of being a “professional witness” and then the exchange continued:
Q: Do you testify in court for a price? A. Why, I have not spoken about any price. Q: I know you haven’t. You answer the question. Don’t you come to court on occasions and testify for a price, for a reward, for money? A: No, sir, I do not.
It is true that Wilentz was able to develop that Sommer had testified in a couple of previous cases, (including the Hall-Mills case), both of which had been tried a good number of years before Flemington. These appearances were not so surprising, since Sommer was a professional fingerprint expert. But Wilentz made a hullabaloo over this, trying to make the jury believe Sommer was some sort a mercenary who would go around selling testimony for a price. What irritates me about this is that Wilentz had stacked his own deck with highly paid professional witnesses. Wilentz’s handwriting experts alone submitted bills totaling over $30,000 (more than half a million in todays’s dollars) (Scaduto, pp. 183-84). Surely such rewards—which Hauptmann’s defense could not afford to pay—provided greater incentive to testify for the prosecution than for the defense. Add to this Wilentz’s witnesses such as Cecile Barr, Amandas Hochmuth and Millard Whited, receiving $1,000 apiece in reward money (well over $15,000 in today’s dollars). So accusing Sommer of being a “professional witness” and seeking “a reward” seems quite hypocritical of Wilentz.
Apparently such accusations are a common courtroom tactic. One of my favorite trial movies is the Paul Newman classic The Verdict. In that film, Newman’s character hires a doctor to testify on his client’s behalf. The opposing attorney (played by James Mason) smirkingly says to the doctor on the stand: “Engaged to render an opinion. For a price. Is that correct? You're being paid to be here today?” The doctor looks the attorney in the eye and says: “Just as you are, Sir.”
I think that doctor's reply helps summarize this matter aptly!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 8, 2011 17:19:54 GMT -5
I hate that my TT CD is still packed away, but there's nothing I can do for now so I'll just have to wing it...
I know that my copy has some really bad pages in it. Sometimes when I go to cite the page I actually have to go back or forward many pages in order to read one then count them out. I think this might be the problem you are having here too but its just a guess.
There is no State's Exhibit 391, and S-301 was a piece of wood used when examining Defense Expert Charles DeBisschop.
Megan had the benefit of using the actual copies of the Trial Transcripts, therefore, wouldn't encounter these issues we are having. In fact, I remember that the yellow covered copies at the Archives include more then what is in ours.
Actually that trial was in Somerset County Court (Somerville, N.J.). I've studied this Case some due to those involved, State Police methods, etc. I've got some source material on this one too....
I do think it was a valid point to bring up to Sommer, however, there were two sets of rules: One for the Prosecution and one for the Defense.
That I have a problem with.
Like "hiding" a Handwriting Expert away from the Defense, or "hiding" John Hughes Curtis away from the Defense, or "hiding"the footprints casts, etc. etc. etc. in addition to intimidation tactics or certain embellishments and/or lies that were winked and nodded at.
How in the hell do you bring charges against Heir and not Whited, or Hochmuth? Well I guess if they brought it against them they would bring it on themselves too since they were behind the lies which these men told.
My memory isn't what it used to be, that is for certain, but I remember this project being part of her grade, and I also recall asking for a copy before her internship was over. It is quite possible that a copy resides at the NJSP Archives. If there is - I am not sure what its "status" would be. If I were you, I would call Mark Falzini then inquire about how you might obtain a copy. If its there, and its releasable, I am sure he will explain what steps you will need to take to get it.
I think people are reluctant to contact him because when you hear the word "Archivist" people envision a pipe smoking know-it-all who doesn't want to be bothered. Mark is just the opposite, that is, He enjoys helping people learn about the Case.
Mark W. Falzini Archivist NJ State Police Museum 609-882-2000
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Dec 9, 2011 14:35:18 GMT -5
You are quite right, Michael—the photo could neither have been S-301 (wood) nor S-391 (nonexistent), so these are errors in the trial record. (I would have realized this sooner had I consulted the listing of exhibits on my CD-ROM of the trial.) It is evident that the item being referenced is always S-291, which is the photo you posted. And this raises the question of why exhibit 291 is twice mentioned in the trial record with the wrong number—“301” and “391.” I can think of three possibilities: (1) The court stenographer misunderstood what Wilentz was saying. I find this hard to believe, however. When you say, out loud, “301,” it sounds very different from “291.” (2) The court stenographer understood what Wilentz said, but accidently hit wrong keystrokes. I could accept that—but TWICE for the same exhibit? (3) The court stenographer accurately recorded what Wilentz said, and Wilentz HIMSELF was mis-identifying the exhibit numbers. I personally find this last possibility the more believable of the three explanations. If the latter was the case, why would Wilentz do that? An honest mistake? Again, I could buy that once, but not twice. Wilentz wasn’t stupid. Wilentz had no difficulty in correctly labeling the photo called S-290— the picture of “Violet Sharp” that tripped Bonesteel up. However, it appears that Bonesteel correctly picked Sharp out of the group of women in S-291, the photo you posted that may (this isn’t certain) bear Bonesteel’s “X” mark on the image of Sharp. Is this why Wilentz then mis-identified it as “391”? Is it because he wanted to confuse any future appeals court, just as these mis-labelings create confusion for us? Is it because he didn’t want it known that Anna Bonesteel could identify Violet Sharp? But here is the really critical question. Do we have a copy of S-290, which is the picture that started this thread? Would it be in your collection, Michael? If not, I will ask Mark Falzini if he has a copy he can scan for us. S-290 is important because Bonesteel could not identify it as Violet Sharp, even though she was able to pick Sharp out of S-291, which you posted. If S-290 is a clear picture of Sharp, then it could cast doubt on Bonesteel’s statement that she saw Sharp nervously waiting with blankets in her restaurant on the night of the kidnapping. But if it is a weird, uncharacteristic photo such as www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/U190411ACME/portrait-of-violet-sharpe?popup=1 then it suggests Wilentz was pulling a fast one to discredit Bonesteel. It would swing the pendulum of credibility from Wilentz to Bonesteel. If Violet Sharp was in Bonesteel’s restaurant on the night of the kidnapping, that could help explain why Violet didn’t know to tell the police she had been at the Peanut Grill instead of the movies during her first police interrogation. And if Violet was waiting at Bonesteel’s restaurant, and ran into the kidnappers’ car, we have established an important step in reconstructing the crime. Was this a step that Wilentz was trying to conceal? Bonesteel received anonymous letters, threatening violence if she testified, which may underscore the importance of what she witnessed. Last night, for the first time, I visited Lloyd Gardner’s blog caseneverdies.blogspot.com/I was fascinated to read there that the story of Anne Lindbergh throwing pebbles to hit the nursery window did not exist in any of the original police reports. It did not surface until three years later at the Flemington trial. This raises the possibility that it was “inspired” by the prosecution. The story was crucial, because it was supposed to explain why there were extra footprints where the ladder had been placed. The “pebbles story” claimed that, earlier in the day, Anne Lindbergh stepped off the planks and into the mud, to throw pebbles at the window, and this was where the extra footprints came from. Thus was the “lone wolf” theory protected. I’ve said this before, but a man would be a fool—as stupid as Shemp Howard--to climb a rickety ladder, in the dark, and with a strong gale blowing, especially with the expectation that he could then climb back onto it from the window, from the side and while carrying a child. That ladder would very likely tip over. It would have been vital to have someone at the bottom, securely holding the ladder. The footprints that might have corroborated this person were explained away in Flemington by the “pebbles story.” Gardner’s blog made another interesting observation: In the trial, just when Betty Gow was discussing the pebbles incident, Wilentz asked that the proceedings be halted so that noise outside the courtroom could be dealt with. When the testimony resumed, no further mention of the pebbles was made. (In my CD-ROM of the trial, huge smudges obscure this part of the transcript, so I am relying on Gardner’s account here.) But I call attention to it in connection with something I mentioned earlier—that at the precise moment Wilentz asked the legally blind Amandus Hochmuth to identify Hauptmann in the courtroom, the courtroom lights mysteriously went out. Taken together, these two events raise the question if Wilentz was not only a master of witness interrogation and exhibit identification, but also a master of manipulating the courtroom’s physical environment to suit his purposes. I’m not saying anything is proven here--but I’m looking at trends. I still need to do a lot more reading, but from my perspective so far, clouds are beginning to gather over Wilentz.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 9, 2011 15:36:55 GMT -5
Here's the problem. I may have that photo, but it obviously wasn't in the Evidence Boxes so if I do - then its not labeled - so I wouldn't know that it was.
I do think if the Exhibits number was screwed up in its reference here or elsewhere that its just a mistake someone is making. Wilentz enjoyed a carte blanche of sorts in that Court Room so I don't see him calling an Exhibit by a different number, if that's what he did, as something nefarious here.
I know that one of the Defense Lawyers did complain about a picture of Fisch that the State used to trip up someone although I cannot remember exactly at the moment where or when that was.
It's very possible that S-290 was a difficult one to identify. But we must consider the value of S-291 regardless. This is Sharp, looks like Sharp, and the Prosecution introduced it.
This is a good observation. But I believe Wilentz did this more then a couple of times. Like, for example, when he yelled at Goodspeed after he asked for the charts to be moved (from the audience) so he could see them. I think we'd have to search for, then see if the subject changed everytime this happened to see whether or not it was an actual tactic he was employing.
Thanks to Lloyd, we have some things to think over for a bit. The footprints were a vital clue, and Lloyd proved they casted one at Hopewell just like the one at St. Raymonds. Would have been great evidence at trial, only that they weren't offered as evidence, and the Defense only found out about them via the Newspapers.
|
|