|
Post by johno on Aug 7, 2014 11:41:47 GMT -5
Here is a question. Has anyone had the opportunity to look into the four boxes of Hoage's files at the UCLA library. Or copies...
there seems to be some intriguing stuff there going by the index, part of which is:
Under the Lens of Truth: The Concealed Facts of the Lindbergh Case Laid Bare, analysis of Lindbergh case undated.
Physical Description: Annotated typescript draft, 174 pages. Box 4, Folder 2 Brief Partial Analysis of the Lindbergh Case, Part I undated.
Physical Description: Annotated typescript draft, 79 pages. Box 4, Folder 3 Copy of second installment "sent to Ken" 1938.
Scope and Content Note
Analysis of Hauptmann attic and nails, typescript draft, 22 pages. Box 4, Folder 4 What 50 Million Americans Failed to See, Part I: Analysis of Evidence existing March 1932 undated.
Scope and Content Note
Notes and research material, two annotated typescript drafts. Box 4, Folder 5 What 50 Million Americans Failed to See, Part II: The Hauptmann Angle ca. 1944.
Physical Description: Two annotated typescript drafts. . I'm out that way from time to time, and would have some inclination to read Under The Lens of Truth, but I'm guessing that someone here might already have a copy of it.
|
|
|
Post by johno on Aug 7, 2014 12:13:40 GMT -5
Now see that you are all over this in the pawn stars thread. Michael summarizes by saying he doubts there is anything new at Ucla.
However, the long manuscript Under the Lens of Truth looks very much like it is Hoage's attempt at a definitive statement. (Going of the statement of contents in all four boxes.) That is why I'm looking for it.
I believe there is a lot of plausibility to his original take on the crime. Less confident about where to go from there, though!
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Aug 7, 2014 15:18:54 GMT -5
the only thing good in peoples collections is pictures you havnt seen. that's my experience in seeing collections
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 7, 2014 16:07:27 GMT -5
Now see that you are all over this in the pawn stars thread. Michael summarizes by saying he doubts there is anything new at Ucla. I would never talk anyone out of visiting an Archive. I think my doubts are rooted in the fact that I believe he's aware of everything he needed to know before he left for California. Of course there may be new stuff in these documents - and there's only one way to find out.
|
|
|
Post by johno on Aug 8, 2014 12:12:50 GMT -5
Does Hoage offer a total overview of the crime before he leaves for California?
I ask because the 174 page Lens of Truth looks like. It might be that.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 9, 2014 11:30:49 GMT -5
Does Hoage offer a total overview of the crime before he leaves for California? I ask because the 174 page Lens of Truth looks like. It might be that. In my opinion yes. However, like I said before, its possible he did develop new ideas after leaving for California. The "overview" he gave to Kimberling was 36 pages long but contains stories of his past experiences to back up and complement his observations regarding the evidence. It's my impression that he was writing then attempting to sell a story to one of the magazines. Nothing wrong with that. I would normally say once he's not attached to the Governor he might be less diplomatic in his evaluations, however, he was never diplomatic and always went straight to whatever was on is mind.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Dec 23, 2014 22:57:48 GMT -5
Is that report to Kimberling available anywhere online?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 24, 2014 6:37:49 GMT -5
Is that report to Kimberling available anywhere online? Not that I am aware of. I am quite sure if it is then it came from his UCLA Collection - if it does exist in that collection. A couple of the pictures from that collection are posted here, but two out of the three aren't what the captions say they are: blogs.library.ucla.edu/special/tag/charles-lindbergh/
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Dec 24, 2014 11:53:24 GMT -5
sue campbell found that years ago, when I visit my brother in California, but never get the time to go to ucla
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 24, 2014 13:00:40 GMT -5
Yes, it's pretty obvious that the boy pictured on the tricycle is much older than 20 months. A child of 20 months wouldn't yet have achieved the neurological development to ride a tricycle.
I don't know who wrote the caption, but it's a foolish error that could reflect negatively on the credibility of the Hoage collection.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 24, 2014 17:38:44 GMT -5
I don't know who wrote the caption, but it's a foolish error that could reflect negatively on the credibility of the Hoage collection. It's a picture sent by someone to the Governor thinking it might be the Lindbergh Child. You see the idea the child lived started right after the corpse was found. Also, that is not a picture of Sharp. But think about who would know this stuff if they hadn't read up on it like we all have. That collection seems to be everything Ho-age had in his personal possession by the time of his passing. So there's definitely value in it.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 25, 2014 19:02:26 GMT -5
Interesting! Was Hoage one of those people who thought that the Lindbergh child had survived and that the corpse found in the woods was misidentified as Charlie? If he thought that the Lindbergh baby was definitely dead, why would he keep such a bogus photo in his collection?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 26, 2014 6:23:19 GMT -5
Interesting! Was Hoage one of those people who thought that the Lindbergh child had survived and that the corpse found in the woods was misidentified as Charlie? If he thought that the Lindbergh baby was definitely dead, why would he keep such a bogus photo in his collection? No he wasn't. I have the same picture of that child in my files, excepting that it's a cropped down copy - it's for that reason I know the story behind it. In fact, I've got a file on just about every child (mentioned at the NJSP Archives) who was suggested to be "him" - and I've never believed he was alive. I've often wondered why he kept everything he was loaned by the Governor in the first place. Anything he had, like the nails from the ladder, weren't gifts but given to him for the purposes of investigation. Hicks kept items too, and I suppose once the Governor and Kimberling were "out" no one really cared much about what they had. But I certainly understand why anyone interested, or investigating would keep related material (even that which was disproven) in a file for future reference.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Dec 26, 2014 9:42:22 GMT -5
that's why the chisel is missing probably
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 26, 2014 10:05:57 GMT -5
Was some of the information about the body withheld from the public? It would seem the finding of the shirt with thread Betty remembered would cool anyone claiming to be Jr.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Dec 26, 2014 10:12:23 GMT -5
I cant believe anyone would claim they are the baby with all this evidence that in fact it was Charlie jr in the woods
|
|