|
Post by rick3 on Dec 1, 2007 14:16:35 GMT -5
from page 4 of The Modesto Bee: August 29, 1940: "...the postcard carried a faint New Jersey postmark of March 2, 1932 and was addressed to Colonel Linberg, the name being spelled wrong. The card was mailed from Modesto on 4 March and bore a hidden drawing of a woman's head and bust underneath? Ho-Age is searching for the sender." On the reverse it read" Baby Safe, Instructions Later, Act Acordingly" Investigation by Ho-age showed that the postcard was constructed from two pieces of paper glued together--the paper being clipped from a newspaper? Advertising on the reverse side of the paper showed it had been clipped from the San Francisico Examiner of March 2 1932? Is this one of the famous "reverse J" postcards/? ""Of all the clues the day brought forth, however, the most promising of all was that provided by the scrawl on a penny postcard, dropped in a letter box in Newark. The card was addressed in pencil to "Chas. Linberg, Princeton, N.J." In crudely printed characters it bore this message: "Baby safe. Instructions later. Act accordingly."" See: www.charleslindbergh.com/ny/13.asp
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 1, 2020 10:59:34 GMT -5
Wanted to go into something I am seeing in the Ho-age material I mentioned earlier. There's one page dedicated to Harry Eberardt who's story I would always read but it seemed like it hadn't been investigated to any conclusion. Now I know why. Ho-age is mentioning a later report that I do not have. So there's only two possibilities that I can make. Either I "missed" it or its not at the NJSP Archives. I'd hate to think I missed it but once the Archives re-opens I'll be down there making sure. If it exists its either in the Hoffman Collection or the NJSP Hauptmann 1600 files. I am rooting against myself and hope that somehow its there. But if its not this is just further proof there are reasons that some "holes" exist within the investigations (outside of spelling as I've mentioned in other posts).
(BTW: Wish Rick was still posting!!!)
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Apr 1, 2020 16:27:23 GMT -5
Wanted to go into something I am seeing in the Ho-age material I mentioned earlier. There's one page dedicated to Harry Eberardt who's story I would always read but it seemed like it hadn't been investigated to any conclusion. Now I know why. Ho-age is mentioning a later report that I do not have. So there's only two possibilities that I can make. Either I "missed" it or its not at the NJSP Archives. I'd hate to think I missed it but once the Archives re-opens I'll be down there making sure. If it exists its either in the Hoffman Collection or the NJSP Hauptmann 1600 files. I am rooting against myself and hope that somehow its there. But if its not this is just further proof there are reasons that some "holes" exist within the investigations (outside of spelling as I've mentioned in other posts). (BTW: Wish Rick was still posting!!!) Did I miss something? Did you find new Ho-age material? He still has a big collection at UCLA that I'd like to review at some point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2020 18:56:10 GMT -5
There's one page dedicated to Harry Eberardt who's story I would always read but it seemed like it hadn't been investigated to any conclusion. So, Michael, since you have placed Harry Eberardt's name on the board, could you please tell me who he is? I am clueless. Me too! I have enjoyed and learned things from posts he made on this board in the past.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Apr 2, 2020 6:35:18 GMT -5
from page 4 of The Modesto Bee: August 29, 1940: "...the postcard carried a faint New Jersey postmark of March 2, 1932 and was addressed to Colonel Linberg, the name being spelled wrong. The card was mailed from Modesto on 4 March and bore a hidden drawing of a woman's head and bust underneath? Ho-Age is searching for the sender." On the reverse it read" Baby Safe, Instructions Later, Act Acordingly" Investigation by Ho-age showed that the postcard was constructed from two pieces of paper glued together--the paper being clipped from a newspaper? Advertising on the reverse side of the paper showed it had been clipped from the San Francisico Examiner of March 2 1932? Is this one of the famous "reverse J" postcards/? ""Of all the clues the day brought forth, however, the most promising of all was that provided by the scrawl on a penny postcard, dropped in a letter box in Newark. The card was addressed in pencil to "Chas. Linberg, Princeton, N.J." In crudely printed characters it bore this message: "Baby safe. Instructions later. Act accordingly."" See: www.charleslindbergh.com/ny/13.aspIf I understand rick3 correctly here, there were two different postcards mailed to CAL Sr. with the exact same message, one on March 2 from Newark, NJ and one on March 4 from Modesto, CA. Unlikely in that era for the same person to get from NJ to CA within 2 days. So the second postcard sender would have to have been a copycat, in all likelihood.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 2, 2020 11:04:36 GMT -5
Did I miss something? Did you find new Ho-age material? He still has a big collection at UCLA that I'd like to review at some point. That's it. I haven't seen all of it. One thing I'm especially interested in is the 300+ page report he wrote to Kimberling. I have a report he wrote to him but the one at UCLA is much bigger and must be a different one. There's something else there titled " Under the Lens of Truth: The Concealed Facts of the Lindbergh Case Laid Bare" and I haven't seen that either. So there's a combination of material there. Since he was a "work for hire" by Gov. Hoffman, any material written for him should be at the NJSP Archives but as I can see it isn't. The manuscripts he wrote for publication are more of an original work that was trying to publish. I knew he did a ton of work on the case but he did even more than I had originally believed. So, Michael, since you have placed Harry Eberardt's name on the board, could you please tell me who he is? I am clueless. I think you remember that I've always been interested to track down the witnesses that were never called to testify. I've considered that Eberhardt "may" have been among them. Or it could be they never believed him or that thought he was (or labeled him) crazy or something - from either side of it. Then there's also the possibility that it was a missed opportunity or that the State or Defense did not want that testimony brought out. What I've found is, like in many other places, there isn't enough here to know how any of this might apply to him. So I bring it up since Ho-age mentioned it and I believe he had a document I haven't been able to find. Of course it doesn't mean there's anything to this, only that it supports that material is missing from the collections at the Archives. It's just one of those things where I'd like to have everything so I can figure it all out. Wilentz met with Eberhadt then wrote the NJSP which prompted their investigation (copy of the letter): imgur.com/wVe4r5q
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Apr 2, 2020 14:16:18 GMT -5
Two things don't quite mesh here:
(1) If the letter that you linked to, Michael, was written by Wilentz to NJSP, shouldn't it have Wilentz's letterhead on it and/or be signed by Wilentz? Yes, the imaged page could have been neither the first nor last page of a multi-page letter, but in that event, it would have a page number, at least one might think.
(2) The letter implied that Hauptmann had told his landlady, Mrs. Rauch, that he'd be in New Jersey on March 1, 1932. In view of the less than friendly relationship between tenant and landlady, I would find it hard to believe than Hauptmann, if he were in New Jersey on the day of the kidnapping, would have been dumb enough to tell Mr.s Rauch in advance of that location.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 2, 2020 19:11:58 GMT -5
1. The files “work” this way at times. Sometimes it’s just the original letter. Sometimes the letter and a typed copy. Sometimes a carbon that has no signature or letterhead. And sometimes just a typed version. What I posted was attached to Sgt. Zapolsky’s 11/28/34 report which states under the subject:
Investigation of attached communication from Attorney General Wilentz, re: Harry Eberhardt, 465 E. Tremont Avenue, Bronx, N.Y., re: Lindbergh Case.
On your second point, all I can say is this was Wilentz’s belief after the interview. Maybe it wasn’t her. Perhaps it was Anna. Maybe Pauline overhead a conversation. Or maybe Eberhardt made it up.
|
|
|
Post by leeforman2 on Apr 3, 2020 0:11:43 GMT -5
Hi all - just thought I would toss these into the mix. Clearly the word 'Return' appears on the reverse of this 'act accordingly' postcard. There is also the 'look for instructions Saturday' card, the 'Baby will die / baby is dead' and then the letter to the Oregonian. Maybe you have seen all of them - the letter to the Oregonian was very interesting. Fisher and Douglas [cases that haunt us] both make the claim in their books that an investigation into the 'Act accordingly' postcard led them to a mentally disturbed boy. Fisher goes on to include a postcard I have not seen - 'Obey instructions or suffer consequences' which he ascribes to a 17 year old boy. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by leeforman2 on Apr 3, 2020 0:12:33 GMT -5
Attachment 2 Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by leeforman2 on Apr 3, 2020 0:13:11 GMT -5
And the letter to the Oregonian...
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Apr 3, 2020 9:52:38 GMT -5
1. The files “work” this way at times. Sometimes it’s just the original letter. Sometimes the letter and a typed copy. Sometimes a carbon that has no signature or letterhead. And sometimes just a typed version. What I posted was attached to Sgt. Zapolsky’s 11/28/34 report which states under the subject: Investigation of attached communication from Attorney General Wilentz, re: Harry Eberhardt, 465 E. Tremont Avenue, Bronx, N.Y., re: Lindbergh Case.On your second point, all I can say is this was Wilentz’s belief after the interview. Maybe it wasn’t her. Perhaps it was Anna. Maybe Pauline overhead a conversation. Or maybe Eberhardt made it up. Michael, do you have Sgt. Zopolsky's report back to Wilentz regarding his investigation of Eberhardt?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 4, 2020 9:41:18 GMT -5
Hi all - just thought I would toss these into the mix. Clearly the word 'Return' appears on the reverse of this 'act accordingly' postcard. There is also the 'look for instructions Saturday' card, the 'Baby will die / baby is dead' and then the letter to the Oregonian. Maybe you have seen all of them - the letter to the Oregonian was very interesting. Fisher and Douglas [cases that haunt us] both make the claim in their books that an investigation into the 'Act accordingly' postcard led them to a mentally disturbed boy. Fisher goes on to include a postcard I have not seen - 'Obey instructions or suffer consequences' which he ascribes to a 17 year old boy. Is the Douglas account independent of Fisher or is Fisher his source? For anyone interested, there are entire files of letters and postcards just like this at the NJSP Archives. I am pretty sure the first and second that Lee just posted but I don't recall seeing the last one but that may have been forwarded as well. Lots of crazy people came out of the woodwork to write and call. Makes you wonder sometimes exactly why people would act this way. One favorite technique was to cut our words or pictures from the newspapers. For example, there was one of someone kicking Hoffman in the ass, and another of Wilentz with a black eye. Those were kind of funny. But others were threatening violence, and still others pretending to be the kidnappers. Some of those motivated, perhaps, by money but others were just trying to hurt, scare, or upset people.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 4, 2020 9:56:15 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2020 13:01:37 GMT -5
I think you remember that I've always been interested to track down the witnesses that were never called to testify. I've considered that Eberhardt "may" have been among them. Or it could be they never believed him or that thought he was (or labeled him) crazy or something - from either side of it. Then there's also the possibility that it was a missed opportunity or that the State or Defense did not want that testimony brought out. What I've found is, like in many other places, there isn't enough here to know how any of this might apply to him. So I bring it up since Ho-age mentioned it and I believe he had a document I haven't been able to find. Of course it doesn't mean there's anything to this, only that it supports that material is missing from the collections at the Archives. It's just one of those things where I'd like to have everything so I can figure it all out. Wilentz met with Eberhadt then wrote the NJSP which prompted their investigation (copy of the letter): Thanks for the letter and also for posting Sgt. Zapolsky's report. Like you, I am always interested in witnesses who never were called for one reason or another. I certainly admire the investigative skills of Ho-age. The man Eberhadt, however, I would not have considered a valuable asset to either side of the Hauptmann Trial. Wilentz would not have wanted him because he says he thought it was Fisch he saw at Hauptmann's garage. That's a no-no for the prosecution. Eberhadt, although the type of witness Reilly would have been interested in, would have been destroyed under cross-examination by Wilentz because he had Zapolsky's report. Eberhadt says he has a carpenter friend. Eberhadt needs a carpenter. So why doesn't this friend help Eberhadt out? This makes no sense to me that it would have been necessary to seek out Hauptmann for this help. I think Sgt. Zapolsky calls it right in point #11 of his report.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 7, 2020 10:05:14 GMT -5
That's a no-no for the prosecution. Eberhadt, although the type of witness Reilly would have been interested in, would have been destroyed under cross-examination by Wilentz because he had Zapolsky's report. Eberhadt says he has a carpenter friend. Eberhadt needs a carpenter. So why doesn't this friend help Eberhadt out? This makes no sense to me that it would have been necessary to seek out Hauptmann for this help. I think Sgt. Zapolsky calls it right in point #11 of his report. You're probably right. But it seems to me there's information left on the table plus I always want everything. So I want to see anything additional that exists then see whether or not the investigation ended prematurely. Without it all we can do it rely on what we have - or think we do. As far as court.... imagine if the Defense had Wilentz's letter prior to calling Eberhadt? This, I think, puts everything into proper context and exemplifies the scope of disadvantage the Defense truly was in. This in addition to all I've outlined in V3.
|
|