kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Dec 22, 2012 6:52:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 8, 2013 9:22:00 GMT -5
PBS Pressroom - Who Killed Lindbergh’s Baby? Wednesday, January 30, 2013, 9:00-10:00 p.m. ET
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 8, 2013 16:32:00 GMT -5
You Tube Preview: Who Killed Lindbergh's Baby? | NOVA
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Jan 13, 2013 8:29:07 GMT -5
www.raritanlibrary.org/news/.htmlAuthor Lecture on the Lindbergh Kidnapping Thursday, February 28 @ 6:30pm Join Author Robert Zorn as he discloses new information on “Cemetery John”: the Undiscovered Mastermind of the Baby Lindbergh Kidnapping. Mr. Zorn’s father had a personal connection with two other men who might have been involved in the plot to abduct Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr. from the Hopewell, NJ home on March 1st 1932. Through meticulous research and interviews with crime and forensic specialists, the Author will give a “new” perspective on the “Crime of the Century.” Lecture followed by a question and answer period. Register for this fascinating program. Watch on PBS – NOVA: Who Killed Lindbergh’s Baby? as expert investigators re-examine one of the greatest murder cases of all time. NOVA developed this documentary based on Robert Zorn's book and findings! Airing: January 30th 2013 @ 9:00 pm on PBS.
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Jan 13, 2013 8:46:52 GMT -5
www.raritanlibrary.org/news.htmlRobert Zorn's book is a great piece of scholarship. Read the last sentence in the last post. NOVA is presenting this documentary based on Zorn's research. NOVA is not basing the program on ANY OTHER BOOK on the Lindbergh kidnapping. What does THAT tell you? People were ready to embarrass and pounce on Zorn when his book first came out. Zorn is from Texas and a true Southern gentleman.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 14, 2013 6:12:02 GMT -5
Actually, that is not the case. You might say Zorn's book started off a series of events that led to the Nova production.
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Jan 16, 2013 8:10:54 GMT -5
Staffers were looking for images from Palisades Amusement Park for their program. So they must have taken the Zorn angle seriously. There are letters online.
Always give proper credit.
Why do people steal?
Because they can.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 16, 2013 10:04:33 GMT -5
The veracity of Zorn's story hasn't really been tested and I wonder how many other German immigrants of the time shared a similar degree of coincidental happenstance that puts John Knoll so squarely in his sights. There is no question that Zorn is getting lots of mileage from his efforts so far.
I would hope that Zorn will attempt to identify the date of the Palisades Amusement Park trip in light of the Hauptmann's cross-country trip to California and back during the summer and fall of 1931. Zorn's insistence that Cemetery John had a congenital deformity is not supported by Condon's description of the condition on CJ's left hand as being "an unusually large muscular or fleshy development on inside thumb of left hand." (FBI Report, Part 1) This description speaks more of a muscular development, not a congenital deformity, the latter of which John Knoll clearly had. And how does Zorn account for the claim of his father that Hauptmann would have been referred to as "Bruno" when he was known to everyone in America as "Richard?"
Back in the 1970's Anthony Scaduto cut a pretty wide swath across a field of readers who knew very little about this case. His self-indulging book "Scapegoat" skewed and distorted many of the founded truths within this case. Kennedy blindly followed with "Airman and the Carpenter" and as a result, most of the damage is only now being reversed by true analysis and deduction.
I read "Cemetery John" with a very open mind and agree that it is well researched and written. Regardless of Zorn's personality, I don't at all discount the possibility his argument is seriously flawed through a kind of misguided passion and hinges on some very tenuous points he seems reluctant to pursue.
Time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Jan 16, 2013 13:03:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 16, 2013 18:41:00 GMT -5
I think its all in the eye of the beholder.
I've stated before I am not even going to read it. I see what some of his major points appear to be and they are based upon things I have no confidence in.
1. Overhearing something by a child who connects it with the crime once he gets older.
(So, so many letters written to Wilentz, Schwarzkopf, Moore, and Hoffman all claimed the exact same thing (as adults) but from a myriad of other people. This was a common thing back then and there is nothing unique about it).
2. The picture of Knoll next to the 2nd sketch of Cemetery John.
(Put it next to the original - it doesn't match).
3. The fleshy lump.
(This was Condon's invention so that he could NOT identify John if the Cops found him then brought him in).
Finally, Knoll's name isn't located anywhere in any of the Kidnapping Files. The closest name to his I've found is Knox. I believe anyone involved is mentioned somewhere in the files.
Anyway, like I've said again and again - I am not the end all so by all means read this book then formulate your own opinion.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 17, 2013 20:14:44 GMT -5
Hi Sue, I really wish PBS all the luck in the world in their search for meaningful photographs of the alleged Palisades Amusement Park encounter.. talk about finding a needle in all of the haystacks of the world!
The problem with Zorn's book is that he basically offers up serving after serving of warmed up leftovers, basically a generic rehash of facts we have all known for years. Then he salts in the John Knoll connection based on two very highly questionable circumstances, some eye-opening pseudo-science through a bogus handwriting analysis, and tops things off with little more than a rubber stamp acknowledgement from former FBI profiler John Douglas, who basically says, Yeah Knoll has the personality of someone who could have been Cemetery John. Voila, by the end of his book, Zorn is basically announcing to the world he has now solved the mystery of who helped Hauptmann. If only the dead could speak!
Zorn has to do a lot better than simply working overtime on the speaking circuit to keep his house of cards intact. He needs to present some actual hard proof of his claims. Who know, maybe he is on to something here.. but from what he's put in print so far, it's sure not showing.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 17, 2013 20:19:36 GMT -5
I'm not sure how you have concluded this Michael and I don't understand why he would have invented something so specific. Please explain in more detail.
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Jan 17, 2013 22:41:29 GMT -5
Needle in the haystack thinking is more of what's needed in this case.
Then maybe you wouldn't be reading so much warmed up leftover books and getting disappointed, Joe.
I ask again. Have you or anyone among the seasoned researchers ever heard of Ann Moore's book called A Shred of Jetsam?
Joe, this book was suppose to be a "monumental work of investigative reporting." According to the write up, Ms. Moore spent 10 years researching the Lindbergh kidnapping case. It was to be a biography on Richard Hauptmann.
Up until I reported the existence of this book, did anyone here know about it?
Needle in the haystack thinking.
I should translate my gift into money like I see so many people doing.
I'm just too nice.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 18, 2013 6:43:42 GMT -5
Look, as someone involved in this production from the beginning let me say once again, this is not strictly based on Bob Zorn's book.
In any case, watch. You will see some things never before seen.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jan 18, 2013 8:28:12 GMT -5
Sue, I've always appreciated the fact that you're able to bring out so many of the lesser known and more interesting connections within this case through your great research. I wasn't aware of Ann Moore's book A Shred of Jetsam (1976) until you mentioned it a while ago. I do remember checking for it on Amazon but it appeared to be out of print. Anything relating to a closer look at the life and times of Richard Hauptmann intrigues me greatly. Was it ever released and do you have a copy? Kevin, re: the PBS Show and the Zorn book input.. that's understood, but like so many threads on this board, they do tend to stray from time to time.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 18, 2013 17:40:13 GMT -5
I will keep this brief and I have to be careful what I say because there is a lot to this.....
A unique identifier works in both ways. It can either confirm someone or disprove them. It's one or the other when it comes to it. Now either you believe Condon or you don't. If you study him, and his actions to the best possible extent - he starts to show tendencies.
Being truthful isn't one of them.
I truly think Condon was brought in by the Group, not only to collect the 50k, but to protect them from capture. This fictitious lump was "classic" Condon, and he used it to try to eliminate Hauptmann. The Police, who knew it was all BS, weren't having any of it so they threatened Condon - and he caved in by identifying him.
Let me throw out an example: Condon also had the Police believe that John was in the Nursery. Why? Because CJ identified the safety pins Condon stole from the crib. Believe that and it proves CJ was the one who took the child. But you also have to accept that he would have to see them under the conditions which existed in that room - total darkness - AND the fact whoever took the child didn't unpin him, rather, they simply yanked him by his feet and pulled him from under the covers. Sound like someone stopping to take notice of what pinned the blankets, what kind they were, or what they looked like?
So again, you either believe Condon or you do not. He says and does things to bolster and/or support his position. And if that position is to protect someone then what better way to do it?
It's why if Knoll had such a lump it immediately eliminates him.
Anyway Joe, you or others may not agree with me, but please keep it in the back of your mind because you will have an "ah-ha moment" sometime in the future if you do.
I never have and I've seen so many unpublished manuscripts at the NJSP Archives that I am probably the only person now alive who has read them. I even tried to track one down I saw referenced in a letter only to find out it did exist but that his Son threw it away after the Author died! So my point is that as time goes by there will be less and less. So your find is important - now if we can only get our hands on a copy..... I'd also like to get the book Clement Wood wrote too. He sent it to Hoffman to read but the Governor returned it and no copy exists at the Archives (ugh!)
Don't worry Sue, I am well into the red myself!
I can't wait!
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 19, 2013 16:16:39 GMT -5
Michael, I have a question about those safety pins, since they seem to be one of those unique identifiers you're talking about. Since they're a pretty generic item and would've been hard to see or remember in the dark nursery (as you say), I never thought CJ identifying those pins had to be proof of anything--not if CJ and Condon were in some form of cahoots and agreed on the pins as an identifier ahead of time, as "proof" contact had been made with the right people. That's what I tend to lean towards now, but, conversely, might it be possible that CJ identified the pins, having been in the nursery but never met Condon before, and said to himself, "The blanket was fastened to the mattress, so those must be the pins that held it down." He certainly would've realized and remembered the blanket being pinned, so do you think he could've made that kind of assumption? Just trying to look at things from all possible angles.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 19, 2013 16:52:59 GMT -5
Where you been LJ?
I am sorry - I didn't mean to suggest these pins were an example of a unique identifier. I was trying to exemplify Condon's lies in order to bolster his position. What I am demonstrating is that you either believe him or you don't. For me, the only thing it proves (to me) is that Condon is lying to the Police.
And so in demonstrating these lies, and his obvious motives, how then would one explain the lump? I think just as I have above.
If you can believe Cemetery John even discussed these pins with Condon then I suspect that is is possibility. I don't. I believe it was a discussion about what Condon knew and what he should do next. An information sharing type of event. Everything he brought back to the Police as having been said to him by CJ was all self serving in one way or another (in Condon's way of thinking).
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 19, 2013 17:35:01 GMT -5
My feeling as well is that Condon was lying to the police about pretty much everything that was said at that meeting. I think it was more of an updating, a discussion about how to proceed from there with regards to what to tell the police, etc. I was just raising a contrary possibility, since I don't know that EVERYTHING Condon said was a complete fabrication. Most liars tend to mix in some truth. How do you think Condon would've been chosen for his role in all this though, and why him? If it was me, I'd worry about such blabber mouthed person being involved.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 19, 2013 18:26:52 GMT -5
I agree that he did, from time to time, mix in some truths in order to sound more believable. He also paid close attention to what the Police were saying, behind the scenes, then used that information too.
An example would be an earlier tentative identification Condon made of Simek who, it was later determined, had a rock solid alibi since he was out of the country at the time. The Police mulled over the possibility that it could have been "his brother" since they looked alike.
Lo and behold when Condon was doing everything he could to eliminate Hauptmann he would say it wasn't him but, in essence, possibly his brother.
I submit that was no coincidence, and these are the types of things a clever individual does to mislead people.
Whoever chose Condon obviously didn't do so blindly. I also think it was an after the fact type of decision. This person must have trusted him, and it shows they did make a pretty good decision because he certainly went out of his way to confuse, mislead, and protect Hauptmann the best he could. It was only in the end, when it was either Hauptmann or Condon - that he finally gives in.
And honestly he had no choice.
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Jan 26, 2013 3:29:19 GMT -5
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 27, 2013 12:09:40 GMT -5
Just thought I would inform everyone that unfortunately due to production requirements some really interesting footage will not be present in the Nova show. Among the missing is an actual climb up the ladder ( unassisted) into the actual Nursery. The ladder was an exact duplicate with only a slight modification in length to compensate for the changed grade under the window. The climber made it in and out with a sack and did not disturb anything on the sill or below it. so for any naysayers or those who doubt the capability of the ladder, you might want to give it a re-think. I am hoping the footage of this will be made available at some point. That's show business for you!
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jan 27, 2013 14:32:38 GMT -5
I, for one, never doubted the capabilities of the ladder itself. What I doubted was someone's ability to climb in and out of the window, with a bundle, with the ladder in the position it was supposed to be, and all without disturbing anything on the sill. If it's possible after all, well, that seems pretty vital. I wonder why they cut something like that out?
|
|
|
Post by arthur45 on Jan 27, 2013 17:32:46 GMT -5
PBS's NOVA is a good example of modern day yellow (and really crappy) journalism. I saw and then read a discussion of their show about "killer subs at Pearl Harbor," which contained as many transparent falsehoods as any of the old Pravda articles about the U.S. Even when presented with irrefutable documented proof of their mistakes, it was ignored by NOVA's producer. NOVA has zero credibility amongst the professional historians. They are after ratings, as can be seen by yet another "startling discovery." And I thought Ancient Aliens was the epitome of hysterical junk speculation. NOVA goes that crappy show one better. Like the Hollywood movies, television has produced almost no documentaries that can withstand critical inspection. History Channel is one of the worst offenders, although they rarely even attempt history these days - they're into pawn shops, alligator hunting, searching for junk, stuff like that. Even their "true life" Pawn Shop episodes are scripted. Rick of Pawn Shop actually believes that the Lusitania sinking forced the U.S. to enter WWI !!!!!
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 27, 2013 19:26:22 GMT -5
Really? That must be why they chose me ( and John Douglas).
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Jan 29, 2013 23:01:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by drd99 on Jan 30, 2013 10:22:46 GMT -5
John Douglas is a very poor choice for any of this, he has long been compromised as a "Play for pay" expert. If there is $$$$ involved he up to the high bidder. Kevcon don't rely on him to give anyone any repectability.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 30, 2013 11:32:19 GMT -5
To suggest a man of his standing in the Law Enforcement Community would "sell out" to the highest bidder is a serious position to take. So let me go on the record as being in absolute disagreement with this.
There's no doubt in my mind he is calling it as he sees it.
|
|
|
Post by drd99 on Jan 30, 2013 14:15:57 GMT -5
Michael, Are you aware that his standing in the LEO community includes him being on the payroll of John and Patsy Ramsey ?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 30, 2013 14:52:07 GMT -5
I look at it this way: whatever he says - is what he believes. Certainly we can all debate his conclusions, but he is exactly one of the top Professionals I want taking a hard look at this crime.
There are certain things I am rock solid about, so if I hear tonight that he disagrees, I will try to see if I can answer why. But its important for me to hear what it is first.
|
|