|
Post by Michael on Jul 3, 2013 15:36:40 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2013 17:22:57 GMT -5
Enjoyed reading Kimberling's history. He was certainly well qualified when he became part of the NJSP. I was wondering if you could comment on how well Schwarzkopf and Kimberling got along. From reading the article you posted, Kimberling would have been qualified to do the job Schwarzkopf was doing. I have read where some people felt Norman S. was not as skilled as he needed to be. There was always the comment about his only experience being that of a floor walker at Bambergers, I believe it was. Was Schwarzkopf just a political appointment or was he truly qualified to do the job he was given?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 4, 2013 8:47:00 GMT -5
Enjoyed reading Kimberling's history. He was certainly well qualified when he became part of the NJSP. I was wondering if you could comment on how well Schwarzkopf and Kimberling got along. From reading the article you posted, Kimberling would have been qualified to do the job Schwarzkopf was doing. I have read where some people felt Norman S. was not as skilled as he needed to be. There was always the comment about his only experience being that of a floor walker at Bambergers, I believe it was. Was Schwarzkopf just a political appointment or was he truly qualified to do the job he was given? As far as Schwarzkopf.... He was a "Military" guy. He came home from the Military to help his Father with his jewelry business. I believe his Father had health problems or something like that so wanted to be close to home. Not sure why, but most Biographies omit that he went to work at Bamberger's Dept. Store in Newark where he was in charge of Security. I think the term "floor walker" was a demeaning tactic which originated from Gov. Hoffman's Office, or from him himself. I'd have to check. Schwarzkopf's appointment was political of course. Governor Edwards chose Schwarzkopf because he was a friend and former classmate at West Point with his son Irving. However to be fair, Gov. Edwards wanted the NJSP to be a disciplined para-military organization and he did have faith in Schwarzkopf's abilities in this regard. He was also one hell of a shot and actually won the NRA's Police Championship Pistol Match in 1928 with a score of 98.33%. His abilities should be tested against what happened during his Leadership. Obviously he was learning as the years of experience added up. There were several scandals, many of which involved a complete lack of discipline. As early as 1923 there were calls to remove him. In 1924 Gov. Silzer ordered AG Katzenbach to look into a complaint leveled by a former Trooper named Harley Hutchinson, and a couple of months later the rumors were flying that Schwarzkopf was considering "retirement." Then we have Hall-Mills, and the Battle at Jutland. Two HUGE issues that smeared the Organization. After studying the case as long as I have, its easy to be a "Monday Morning Quarterback," but I do believe he did some good things as well. As with anything in life though, the bad things seem to rise above any (and sometimes all) of the good. It's really hard to judge the ability of someone who lets an Aviator play him like a fiddle. It was that bad. Then he pretty much started a "war" with his Boss which proved was not the smartest thing in the world to do. Not only did he lose his job he lost his pension. That didn't have to happen. All he had to do was comply and work with the Governor, but instead, he played games and mocked him. I'll have to check to see if I can find something about Schwarzkopf and Kimberling "getting along." Off the top of my head I don't recall anything. But I do know Kimberling felt this case was mismanaged. After taking over he also over-saw an audit of NJSP Funds which did show discrepancies in the petty cash fund. Many bills were shown to have been padded. Certainly Kimberling was skilled, and I don't think I've read anything to doubt his skills. They did try to drag him into the Wendel matter but he was able to disprove the allegations Bleefeld leveled against him. He was considered an honest, very modest, and capable man. Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 7, 2013 9:28:44 GMT -5
Checking out Leo J. Coakley's Jersey Troopers, it specifically states that Kimberling's selection of Deputy Superintendent was Schwarzkopf's decision. As we see above he only left that position to take up the job as Head of the Rahway Reformatory. Coakley makes the mistake of jumping straight to Principal Keeper at the State Prison which as we can see didn't happen until later.
Sometimes people left jobs for more money. Perhaps even they considered it a "better" position and/or job. Sometimes there was a conflict and they were forced out behind the scenes. At this point I do not know for sure. It just looks to me like Kimberling had no axe to grind and that none had any issue with him either. But one thing is for sure and that is he seemed to be blessed with Hoffman's trust concerning what he wanted with the State Police. Before Kimberling was appointed, the Governor tried to push out Major Schoeffel. However, soon after taking the job, Kimberling quickly returned Schoeffel to his Deputy Superintendent job. But the clear influence of the Governor can be seen when he threw Captain Lamb out of the Command post for the Detective Bureau, demoted Lt. Keaten to Sgt., and re-instated Trooper Lewis.
|
|
kdwv8
Trooper II
Posts: 95
|
Post by kdwv8 on Jul 7, 2013 17:18:35 GMT -5
Michael, In the letter from Kimberling to Hoffman, What did he mean by "....might develop something very interesting. I think you understand just what I mean in this connection."?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 7, 2013 21:29:43 GMT -5
Michael, In the letter from Kimberling to Hoffman, What did he mean by "....might develop something very interesting. I think you understand just what I mean in this connection."? While most everyone believed Bornmann was hiding something, I think Kimberling is specifically referring to Kelly here. I will try my best to explain: He was an early target for the Governor because of an event that occurred with Dr. Hudson's Secretary. Hudson flipped to the Defense for several reasons. One that I have repeatedly mentioned on this Board is when Kelly was with Mary, had too much to drink, and started bragging about framing evidence. I believe Mrs. Hudson heard this too but I'd have to check. Anyway, the Governor thought it was best for someone Kelly trusted to reach out to him in order to discover exactly what he meant. So Hoffman asked Lewis to do it. Lewis was the former Trooper who was let go for selling Nursery photos to the press. At the time this happened, they knew he had to have gotten them from someone else but Lewis refused to divulge who it was. It turned out it was Kelly who asked Lewis to sell them and split the profits. So Hoffman believed Kelly would absolutely trust Lewis since he took it under the chin for him in the past. Once Lewis approached Kelly he became extremely nervous and asked for time to think it over before, in essence, spilling his guts. Kimberling's letter is only a day or two after this happened.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2013 23:15:16 GMT -5
This is good to know. Schwarzkopf obviously recognized Kimberling's qualifications and placed him well in the organization. When the Lindbergh kidnapping case broke what position was Kimberling serving in? There is no mention of him during the investigation portion of this case that I am aware of.
The letter Kimberling wrote to Gov.Hoffman is interesting! It is quite clear that they are both on the same page about the kidnapping case. I have a couple of questions:
1) Did Gov. Hoffman call Schwarzkopf in for questioning? If so, when?
2) Did Ellis Parker ever get to question Schwarzkopf about how the case was handled?
3) Can you post the partial list of questions Kimberling enclosed with his letter? I could make out a few of them in the background of the posted letter. They are about the ransom note. Would love to see the entire list, if you can.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 9, 2013 5:31:16 GMT -5
This is good to know. Schwarzkopf obviously recognized Kimberling's qualifications and placed him well in the organization. When the Lindbergh kidnapping case broke what position was Kimberling serving in? There is no mention of him during the investigation portion of this case that I am aware of. He was at Rahway at the time. I have a letter or two from him to Schwarzkopf concerning, I believe, certain Inmates. Either about their handwriting or looking into whoever may have been deemed "suspicious" for whatever reason. This happened all across the country in respect to the various jails/prisons. 1) Did Gov. Hoffman call Schwarzkopf in for questioning? If so, when? Never did. And if he did I have no record or reference of it. Bornmann had been and there's a lengthy Statement as a result. Believe it or not Wilentz did a lot of the behind the scenes here to prevent this from happening. He went so far as to ask Condon the questions the Governor wanted to ask then provided the Governor with those answers without seeing Condon. He was pretending to be the middle-man and it was absurd. I have no doubt he was advising Schwarzkopf. 2) Did Ellis Parker ever get to question Schwarzkopf about how the case was handled? Not to my knowledge. And if he was approached, I am quite certain he would have told him to go to hell. 3) Can you post the partial list of questions Kimberling enclosed with his letter? I could make out a few of them in the background of the posted letter. They are about the ransom note. Would love to see the entire list, if you can. Yes. I will scan it soon.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 9, 2013 19:30:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mkeaten on Jul 10, 2013 7:47:19 GMT -5
Wow Michael. You found this fast. Now I know Buster wasn't full of it. Was there any "offical" reason why Buster was demoted? Or was it all swept under the rug?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2013 9:22:46 GMT -5
Michael,
Thanks so much for posting this list of questions. These are all excellent questions that should have been answered by the man whose shoulders this investigation rested upon. Giving a clear picture of how this investigation was conducted and why things were or weren't done was Scharwzkopf's responsibility. Sadly, he was never really required to do this.
Kimberling touches on most every aspect of the investigation with his questions. What I don't see questioned is the discovery of Charlie's corpse and how that was handled. Would you happen to know what Kimberling's position was concerning this?
There are so many comments that could be made about this list! I really need to spend time on it before doing so.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 11, 2013 21:44:41 GMT -5
Kimberling touches on most every aspect of the investigation with his questions. What I don't see questioned is the discovery of Charlie's corpse and how that was handled. Would you happen to know what Kimberling's position was concerning this? I don't recall ever seeing anything connected to him concerning this. Nothing in the files anyway. Maybe the Dutch book, but I think I'd remember if it was.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 11, 2013 21:58:26 GMT -5
Wow Michael. You found this fast. Now I know Buster wasn't full of it. Was there any "offical" reason why Buster was demoted? Or was it all swept under the rug? I believe it was in a "Press Release" explaining what happened and why. If I come across it I promise I will share it with the Board.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2013 16:33:36 GMT -5
I have been looking over the questions that Kimberling posed concerning the nursery ransom note. We know that Lindbergh discovered the ransom note on the window sill. Anne and Betty both said that they did not see it when they were searching the nursery for Charlie. We also know that Lindbergh would not allow anyone to touch the note, that includes the first law officers on the scene from Hopewell. It was to remain untouched until the fingerprint official could dust it for prints(there were none found, just like the rest of the nursery). I believe it was closer to midnight before he arrived at Highfields. After the envelope and note were checked for prints and the note was finally read, is it known who took possession of this note? Did the NJSP keep it or was it left with Lindbergh and Breckinridge?
This was a vital piece of evidence. It had the signature symbol on it. Shouldn't it have been protected? Wasn't there concern that what Kimberling asks in question #34 might happen if this piece of evidence is not secured? Apparently somebody dropped the ball because if you read Robert Thayer's statement dated May 16, 1932 it says "While Rosner and I were standing downstairs in the hall between the kitchen and the garage, talking to Mrs. Breckinridge, Rosner made some remark about whether or not it would be possible for him to see the original note. Mrs. Breckinridge went and got the note from someone and brought it to us. Rosner gave it to me and told me to make an absolutely exact copy of it, imitating the handwriting as closely as possible and also the signature."
When Thayer says they were standing between the kitchen and the garage, he is talking about the Highfields house. That is the hallway in front of the back stairway that leads upstairs and also down to the basement. Do you know, Michael, if they were keeping the crime evidence in the basement the whole time they were investigating this case up until the child's corpse was found?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 12, 2013 19:36:19 GMT -5
mkeaten, are you related to Buster? Just curious.
|
|
|
Post by mkeaten on Jul 13, 2013 1:48:43 GMT -5
Yes, I am. He was my paternal grandfather. I came here in the hope of finding out more about Buster's career and and personal life when he was younger. With the help of Michael, (the administrator), and others that he introduced me to, I might be able to accomplish this. He has bent over backwards to help me, and this is a debt that I can never repay.
He has taken the time, of which he must be able to stretch a 24 hour day into a 26, out of his busy life to research and direct me to places and people who might be able to help me. I could never thank him enough.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 13, 2013 9:04:28 GMT -5
Yes, Michael has been an invaluable source of information on this board, and we are all indebted to him for that. I see that, among other things, your grandfather interrogated Ben Lupica and Jafsie, was there the day Violet Sharp committed suicide, and was one of the officers who arrested Hauptmann. I’m sure we’d appreciate hearing your insights into the case. As you may know, other family members have been on this board, including relatives of John Condon and Gaston Means.
|
|
|
Post by mkeaten on Jul 13, 2013 9:20:38 GMT -5
I have corresponded with Michael for some time now, and have related stories to him that Buster had told me. For the most part, I believe that it was almost all information that he already had. If there are any specific things you night want to know, please feel free to ask. I'm sure that if Michael has anything to share about what I told him, I'm sure that he will. I haven't been looking up anything about the Lindbergh case for the most part, Just trying to find out more about Buster. If you have any information about him that isn't related to the Lindbergh case, I would appreciate hearing about it enormously. However, I don't think that this is the forum in which to do it. Thank you so much.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2013 10:16:42 GMT -5
It is nice to have you posting on this board mkeaton. I am just starting to look into the law enforcement persons involved with this case. I do agree with Buster's view of Condon. Buster wasn't buying Schwarzkopf's postion on Condon. Buster did not buy into Condon being wacky or senile. Buster along with Walsh knew he was being evasive with his answers and knew more than he was telling. I believe they were right in their assessment of Condon. I hope you will be able to find the information you are looking for about your grandfather.
|
|
|
Post by mkeaten on Jul 13, 2013 10:48:14 GMT -5
Thank you Amy. That is very nice of you.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 13, 2013 11:01:02 GMT -5
Do you know, Michael, if they were keeping the crime evidence in the basement the whole time they were investigating this case up until the child's corpse was found? I wish we still had "karma" points Amy because this is a great post. I believe most evidence wound up in the Basement. I base this upon the fact the home-made shirt was hanging down there at the time Curtis was held prisoner at Highfields in the basement. Additionally, there are NJSP Reports concerning pictures being taken of the Ransom Notes - in the Basement. Your observation concerning Mrs. Breckenridge is a good one and seems to exemplify Lindbergh's control of the situation.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 13, 2013 11:05:09 GMT -5
I haven't been looking up anything about the Lindbergh case for the most part, Just trying to find out more about Buster. If you have any information about him that isn't related to the Lindbergh case, I would appreciate hearing about it enormously. However, I don't think that this is the forum in which to do it. We could always start a "Buster" thread where anything about him can be posted regardless if it has to do with the Lindbergh Kidnapping or not. Also, anyone could always simply send you a PM.
|
|
|
Post by mkeaten on Jul 13, 2013 11:20:41 GMT -5
Very true Michael. But as you know better than anyone else, my knowledge is somewhat limited. I'm willing to share what I do know, and if needbe, you can always answer for me. Again,thank you for everything.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2013 20:44:06 GMT -5
Michael,
Thanks for the compliment on my post. Just stating the obvious about Lindbergh. He really hindered the whole investigation and by the time LE was able to work on there own the trail was cold.
Did the NJSP have any rules or procedures concerning the handling of evidence in 1932? Things like chain of custody for evidence? I believe it was Pope who made this type of argument about the ladder during the Flemington trial in 1935.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2014 23:13:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Bob Higgins on Jan 25, 2014 17:57:58 GMT -5
I just finished the book "The Crime of the Century" by G. Ahlgren and S. Monier. I began to suspect Lindbergh after reading "The Aviator's Wife" an excellent novel about Anne Morrow's life with Lindbergh. I was perplexed throughout the former book that if Lindbergh did take his son out of the window, down the ladder, which of course broke, where did the ladder come from? There was a neighbor named Lupica who was on the road that led to Lindbergh's driveway, and he witnessed a car driving down this road with a wooden ladder sticking out of it the day before the kidnapping, but I can't make sense of who the driver was. The author's interviewed Lupica 60 years later and he was a credible man who remembered that incidence but could not identify the driver. Could it have been Lindbergh? Again, if Lindbergh placed the ladder against the house, where did it come from? Also, not enough was made of the fact that the families Boston Terrier, a notorious barker, did not bark that night.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 27, 2014 8:57:48 GMT -5
I just finished the book "The Crime of the Century" by G. Ahlgren and S. Monier. I began to suspect Lindbergh after reading "The Aviator's Wife" an excellent novel about Anne Morrow's life with Lindbergh. I was perplexed throughout the former book that if Lindbergh did take his son out of the window, down the ladder, which of course broke, where did the ladder come from? There was a neighbor named Lupica who was on the road that led to Lindbergh's driveway, and he witnessed a car driving down this road with a wooden ladder sticking out of it the day before the kidnapping, but I can't make sense of who the driver was. The author's interviewed Lupica 60 years later and he was a credible man who remembered that incidence but could not identify the driver. Could it have been Lindbergh? Again, if Lindbergh placed the ladder against the house, where did it come from? Also, not enough was made of the fact that the families Boston Terrier, a notorious barker, did not bark that night. Hi Bob. Like any theory book they get some stuff right, some wrong, and provide even more for us to think about then discuss. Because of their book, many angles of this case long since forgotten were swept back out from under the rug. I haven't read it for some time, but I seem to recall it was suggested the ladder had been one that was left on the premises from the Builders. I can say with certainty that was investigated thoroughly. The Lupica interview is important and backs up what he's always said despite the pressure to say otherwise - not the mention the reward money. He was an honest kid. The Fox Terrier, Wahgoosh, would have barked his head off, and Lindbergh's explanation was complete rubbish. I've racked my brain trying to explain why he perjured himself about this because, I've learned, sometimes the obvious answer isn't always the correct one. This Case is so interesting because its like a Rubix Cube. Millions of combinations but only (1) solution. In my mind, Hauptmann's arrest is like getting just one side out of the six necessary.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2014 16:06:25 GMT -5
Michael, On Ronelle's site she has a letter there (translated) that Hauptmann wrote to his mother in Germany while he was in Trenton State prison. It is dated December 27, 1935. He was assuring her of his innocence and talked about the trial and the evidence against him. I was troubled to read that after Kimberling read the translation of the letter he never sent Hauptmann's original letter on to Hauptmann's mother. Apparently he was afraid of an unfavorable reaction to it if the media were to become aware of it. Even more surprising was that Kimberling kept these letters in his personal papers until he died in 1964. Then his wife continued to keep them in her possession until her death in 1977. Is this letter authentic? If so who translated the letter for Kimberling? Was Kimberling told not to mail it by someone in authority above him? Wasn't it wrong not to send that letter? I guess I am having trouble understanding Kimberling's actions here. I will put a link to the letter here so it is clear which letter I am asking about. www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/kim.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 26, 2014 6:39:40 GMT -5
Is this letter authentic? If so who translated the letter for Kimberling? Was Kimberling told not to mail it by someone in authority above him? Wasn't it wrong not to send that letter? I guess I am having trouble understanding Kimberling's actions here. I've been looking for my source but haven't been able to find it as of yet so I'm going from what I remember... It's authentic, and from what I recall it wasn't just the media but the concern about the reaction of the public as well. There was someone at the prison who translated these letters but as of right now I do not have a name for you. It might be in my source but I am not 100% certain. I do know that Kimberling consulted Gov. Hoffman about his concerns and got the nod from him about his plan not to send it. Of course I believe it should have been sent, but its interesting to see that once this letter was discovered the media tried to lay the blame at the "State" for a "cover-up" which is attributed to Wilentz. Wilentz was alive at the time, and denied he ever knew of such a letter but didn't see the relevance, as it pertained to his guilt, even if one did. So its kind of ironic that there are a multitude of instances where blame can be laid at Wilentz's feet, but in this situation he absolutely had none. Since it was both Kimberling and Hoffman who are to blame, it's irrational to say it involved a conspiracy to hide his innocence.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Jul 26, 2014 6:47:51 GMT -5
didn't Kimberling get in trouble for letting ellis parkers secretary in the death house? I think it was off limits to woman at that time
|
|