|
Post by Michael on Jun 29, 2020 9:44:09 GMT -5
Are we sure Lindbergh wasn't at the house earlier in the day before his stated arrival of 8:25 p.m.? Was it confirmed that Lindbergh was at his office that afternoon and early evening? Just to address this one point I've explored this it in several places: V1 pages 13-22. V2 pages 2-3.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 5, 2020 6:11:08 GMT -5
(This is starting to take on a life of its own but I don't think what I'm about to write needs its own thread. Sometimes this happens so I apologize for going off on a tangent) ... One of the reasons the workers were re-interviewed after Hauptmann's arrest was to see if he had been on the job somehow or was seen by workers around the site in any capacity. They didn't stop there, and interviewed most of the locals to see if Hauptmann could be identified as someone who may have been seen around Hopewell. One man they interviewed was Justice of the Peace Charles Palmatier. Once he saw Hauptmann's picture, he told Trooper Wolf that he remembered a car with three men in it and that he was "almost certain" it was Hauptmann was behind the wheel. imgur.com/vgIsB7PPalatier was brought in for an official Q&A. During this session he identified Hauptmann as the driver by one of the pictures the Trooper showed him. Considering they used dubious witnesses like Whited, and Hochmuth we must ask ourselves: Why didn't Palmatier testify? Because they didn't believe him? Was it because it was after the kidnapping? Or was it because he was with two other men?
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jul 5, 2020 17:48:41 GMT -5
I found your information on Charles Palmatier very interesting. I had not been aware of his alleged sighting of Hauptmann in the Hopewell area. Growing up in Hopewell, I knew the Palmatier family. They were well thought of by the community, and known to be a good Hopewell family. Charles Palmatier, Jr. served in the U.S. Army Signal Corps during World War II, and landed on Omaha Beach after D-Day. He served all through the European Campaign until the end of the war. If Charlie Palmatier said that he saw Hauptmann in the Hopewell area with two other men, I would certainly say that he totally believed that he observed Hauptmann. He was definitely not a Whited or Hochmuth.
I would have thought that Charlie Palmatier would have made a good prosecution witness, but as with everything else during this trial, Wilentz obviously did not want to "muddy the water" by presenting any evidence to the jury that would indicate this was not a "lone wolf" crime.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2020 11:03:26 GMT -5
I think Charles Palmatier was the type of person who would have made a good witness had this sighting occurred before the kidnapping and not after it. Would Wilentz have used him? Probably not because it would have gone against his "lone wolf" prosecution case. Wilentz would have wanted Palmaiter to be alone in the car or at least be willing to testify that way. From what lurp shared in his post about the Palmatier family, Judge Palmatier would have done no such thing!
Thanks lurp for the additional information about the Charles Palmaiter family! I always find this type of info interesting!
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Jul 7, 2020 1:57:09 GMT -5
True. There were some mud smudges (not many) that could have been part of the staging of this room to suggest to investigators that there was a window entry when there wasn't. The idea is to point away from the possibility there was inside help and steer the investigation to outsiders only. CAL himself does this, pointing out, when he takes investigators to the nursery and tells them they must have used the unlocked southeast window to enter the room. Why does he make this suggestion other than to influence the police interpretation of the crime? He wasn't asked. He offered this idea. I've always wondered why Anne Lindbergh thought the kidnapping took place ten minutes after her husband came home from who-knows-where. In her diary, she writes to E.L.L.L. [her mother-in-law] on March 2, 1932: "C. was late in coming home, not till 8:20. Then we went upstairs. He washed his hands in the bathroom next to the baby's -- we heard nothing -- perhaps because of the water. ...... No noise heard...... Evidently they got about one and a half hours' start." If nobody heard anything, how could she have pinpointed the snatch at 8:30 pm? Why couldn't Charlie have been kidnapped between 8:05 pm, right after Betty had checked on him, and 10 pm, when Betty found him missing? How did Anne know it happened at 8:30 pm, exactly when CAL was in that bathroom to wash his hands?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2020 9:32:19 GMT -5
True. There were some mud smudges (not many) that could have been part of the staging of this room to suggest to investigators that there was a window entry when there wasn't. The idea is to point away from the possibility there was inside help and steer the investigation to outsiders only. CAL himself does this, pointing out, when he takes investigators to the nursery and tells them they must have used the unlocked southeast window to enter the room. Why does he make this suggestion other than to influence the police interpretation of the crime? He wasn't asked. He offered this idea. I've always wondered why Anne Lindbergh thought the kidnapping took place ten minutes after her husband came home from who-knows-where. In her diary, she writes to E.L.L.L. [her mother-in-law] on March 2, 1932: "C. was late in coming home, not till 8:20. Then we went upstairs. He washed his hands in the bathroom next to the baby's -- we heard nothing -- perhaps because of the water. ...... No noise heard...... Evidently they got about one and a half hours' start." If nobody heard anything, how could she have pinpointed the snatch at 8:30 pm? Why couldn't Charlie have been kidnapped between 8:05 pm, right after Betty had checked on him, and 10 pm, when Betty found him missing? How did Anne know it happened at 8:30 pm, exactly when CAL was in that bathroom to wash his hands? You raise an interesting point here. I think Anne's suggesting the 8:30 abduction time actually does just the opposite. Because nothing was heard by her (she was upstairs with CAL) or Charles, the child must have been taken shortly before they went upstairs which would allow for the hour and a half lead time but still cover everyone being accounted for during the time the child went missing. Anne wants Mrs. Lindbergh to see this as an outside snatch and that it had nothing to do with anyone inside the house such as the Whateleys or Betty Gow. I find it interesting that Anne tells Mrs. Lindbergh that Charles was late in coming home that evening. That would mean that CAL normally would get home earlier in the evening! Perhaps more like 7:10-7:15 at night which was the time Milliard Whited saw that large brown car that looked like Lindberghs pulling into the private lane. Could be Lindbergh was home on time, but not "officially" home until an hour later. What was CAL doing between 7:15 and 8:20 the night of March 1, 1932?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 10, 2020 11:41:17 GMT -5
I would have thought that Charlie Palmatier would have made a good prosecution witness, but as with everything else during this trial, Wilentz obviously did not want to "muddy the water" by presenting any evidence to the jury that would indicate this was not a "lone wolf" crime. I've got a file put together on Palmatier and I just printed your information out to add to it. It wasn't the first time he offered information to the NJSP and, in fact, there's a mention of him in Fisher's " Ghosts of Hopewell" although it doesn't specifically name him nor does Fisher footnote the information (see page 89). Since I've read everything at the NJSP Archives, I have the unenviable ability to demonstrate what the truth of this matter actually is. No "African American" was ever "caught" and the source for this information was Palmatier. Here is the original report: In a later report, the NJSP make the mistake of referring to this individual as a "negro." As we can see, they have no idea who this individual was, and since they had no photo of him there was no way it was ever shown to Hammond. imgur.com/5czi9tkSince most of the criticism that comes against ANY book written on this case originates from the Fisher book perspectives I think its important to take note of this stuff. It's hard for me to be really super critical anymore because I know how hard it is to do this research and write books on the subject. However, I just read a scathing review toward Mark's book that just followed this routine which is similar to the "march of the lemmings" so it needs to be mentioned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2020 15:35:56 GMT -5
Michael, When I read your post above about Judge Palmatier and the man in the tree, it reminded me about something I had in my Mount Rose folder that I wondered might relate to what you bring up in your post. In the March 9, 1932 House canvas report for Section #7, Judge Palmatier's home was in the report. He talks about someone, possibly a negro, who was sitting in a tree looking in the direction of the Lindbergh house. This tree was located on the property of a house that had been rented by a negro family. Here is the clip of Judge Palmatier from that report. imgur.com/l7CZX5xI had this piece of information with a report that was done May 18, 1932. It was about a property that was known as the Burd Farm. This farm had been rented by a negro and was occupied by him up until the kidnapping occurred. I have wondered if this man might have been the man Judge Palmatier mentions as sitting in a tree. Here is that report. Let me know what you think about a possible connection. imgur.com/706ufnT
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 11, 2020 10:14:57 GMT -5
When I read your post above about Judge Palmatier and the man in the tree, it reminded me about something I had in my Mount Rose folder that I wondered might relate to what you bring up in your post. In the March 9, 1932 House canvas report for Section #7, Judge Palmatier's home was in the report. He talks about someone, possibly a negro, who was sitting in a tree looking in the direction of the Lindbergh house. This tree was located on the property of a house that had been rented by a negro family. This was the first account. As you can see, he's not sure of the man's race but tries to connect it to the African American family he believed lived there. I had this piece of information with a report that was done May 18, 1932. It was about a property that was known as the Burd Farm. This farm had been rented by a negro and was occupied by him up until the kidnapping occurred. I have wondered if this man might have been the man Judge Palmatier mentions as sitting in a tree. Here is that report. Let me know what you think about a possible connection. Good observation. It could be this investigation was motivated by Palmatier's account but absent something specific I'm not sure. Here's what I know about Hubert... Although the report you posted claimed no effort was made at that time they eventually did interview Hubert about 2 years later. What they found out was that he acted as caretaker for the Pembleton family since 1923. He lived on the Burd farm with his wife Catherine, son, and daughter. Dr. Pembleton died in 1930 and the family moved to a new farm owned by Mrs. Pembleton on Hopewell-Blawenburg Road " during Christmas week in 1930." He continued to the day of the interview working as caretaker for that farm. His son Earl was a violin teacher at Hopewell school and his daughter Leona was a student in Pennington High School. Detective Bornmann ended the report by stating that Mr. Hubert and his family bore "excellent reputations" and were "in no way connected with the case" then requested this line of investigation closed. The name "Hubert" has set off bells in my head so there could be another report out there. Perhaps they interviewed Earl, or maybe I am remembering the reports that are sitting in front of me. There was also a "Howard" family so it could be that I am confusing them. Unfortunately, my filing system is what it is. At times it works but most of the time I must rely on my memory. Sometimes its good but sometimes not so much I'll think on it and see if I can figure it out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2020 12:51:59 GMT -5
Good observation. It could be this investigation was motivated by Palmatier's account but absent something specific I'm not sure. Here's what I know about Hubert... Although the report you posted claimed no effort was made at that time they eventually did interview Hubert about 2 years later. What they found out was that he acted as caretaker for the Pembleton family since 1923. He lived on the Burd farm with his wife Catherine, son, and daughter. Dr. Pembleton died in 1930 and the family moved to a new farm owned by Mrs. Pembleton on Hopewell-Blawenburg Road " during Christmas week in 1930." He continued to the day of the interview working as caretaker for that farm. His son Earl was a violin teacher at Hopewell school and his daughter Leona was a student in Pennington High School. Detective Bornmann ended the report by stating that Mr. Hubert and his family bore "excellent reputations" and were "in no way connected with the case" then requested this line of investigation closed. The name "Hubert" has set off bells in my head so there could be another report out there. Perhaps they interviewed Earl, or maybe I am remembering the reports that are sitting in front of me. There was also a "Howard" family so it could be that I am confusing them. Unfortunately, my filing system is what it is. At times it works but most of the time I must rely on my memory. Sometimes its good but sometimes not so much I'll think on it and see if I can figure it out. Thanks so much for checking on this for me. What you shared is very helpful. So many reports and so many names when you are working with the archive documents, so your many years of archival research (plus your books) are a valuable asset for anyone who is researching about this case or just has a desire to know more. LOL! I totally understand about filing material and then needing to find it. I am often challenged by this but have gotten better with it more recently.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 16, 2020 19:32:45 GMT -5
The name "Hubert" has set off bells in my head so there could be another report out there. Perhaps they interviewed Earl, or maybe I am remembering the reports that are sitting in front of me. There was also a "Howard" family so it could be that I am confusing them. Unfortunately, my filing system is what it is. At times it works but most of the time I must rely on my memory. Sometimes its good but sometimes not so much I'll think on it and see if I can figure it out. I haven't found anything. I did find something on "Herbert" but it was someone completely different (I made sure). That could have been what's "ringing the bell" in my head. Getting back to my original point, I believe the whole idea was to discredit Hammond. I know I've mentioned this before but on page 90 of Ghosts he even says " the files of the New Jersey State Police show no contact with Hammond after May 1933." Unfortunately that's not true, and the Detective DeGaetano of the NJSP took his official statement on September 28, 1934. This tells me he never went through the Statement Files, or at least forgot to check for Hammonds name on the index cards for that collection. What I did was simply sit down and start from the beginning and didn't stop until I got to the end. So I read everything and that's time consuming so I get how that can happen. Of course this doesn't mean Hammond did see Fisch, but we should be armed with all of the facts before making that call. Unfortunately, its typical for some to simply believe information because its in the book then use that as a basis to shame other authors who actually did the research. Anyway, for those who haven't been, if you get a chance to visit/research at the NJSP Archives you'll see what I'm talking about. There's so much its almost irresistible to cut corners.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2020 6:45:56 GMT -5
I haven't found anything. I did find something on "Herbert" but it was someone completely different (I made sure). That could have been what's "ringing the bell" in my head. I appreciate you taking the time to check through your files. I know that this is not an easy task and is quite time consuming. What has interested me most in that Burd Farm report was the farm itself. Princeton University bought it. I don't know if any checking was done with the University about the farm, like what they were using it for and whether anyone was living in it at the time of the kidnapping. All the properties in this area interest me because of where the body of the Lindbergh baby was found. If the archives are able to once again have visitors, I will have this on my list of items to look into. I have also used the index card system at the archives to help me find information about someone. I don't think Hammond's sighting should be overlooked or discarded from consideration by any researcher. One never knows what might turn up when going through those reports that can bring something new to a topic. Thanks, Michael, for taking the time to look for additional information.
|
|