Michael For Richard
Re: Dark Cornres
Sun Jul 23, 2017 16:03

The whole idea was to reveal new facts and information so that one could apply them to whatever they already know then draw their own conclusions. I've sometimes given my opinion where I had to, but otherwise it wasn't meant to tell anyone how to apply these facts. I know some people like to hear what the Author thinks and for them to come out and say it. I think, for example, Steve might view the new facts one way and you might another. So each of you will apply them accordingly. For example, it's obvious the crime occurred at 8PM. That might "anger" some people who don't like this fact. It also might make others revisit their time-lines to restructure it. The idea that Lindbergh was "red-faced" in the nursery is now completely out the window because we now know he treated his son's corpse like a dead animal.

Aren't these facts worth revealing? I think so. But I'd rather everyone make their own decisions about what they mean.

The index is something I never wanted. Without one the entire book must be read and not cherry-picked which I do myself when reading other books.

The book was professionally edited. In fact, I paid over $1600 for that to be done. For whatever reason the final corrected proof wasn't what the Publisher used and a version of my uncorrected proof was printed instead. I didn't write it for the literary experience, yet, it is frustrating to pay for something and not get it. Here is a copy of page 2 of my bill which proves I haven't been making this up:


The reason there are mistakes was because I always knew the book would be edited, and the fact the source material mis-spells everything. For example, I know the difference between effect/affect, except/accept, then/than ... but when you read it wrong hour after hour then write it out you are thinking one thing but writing another. It's why I hired an editor. I know it can be a distraction, but the facts themselves are real and cannot be challenged.

The next book will have a different publisher and I am continuing with more new information about the very subjects everyone wants the answers to. What these books will do is provide the facts needed to answer these questions.

  • Dark CornresRichard E Sloan, Sun Jul 23 09:36
    I learned an awful lot about every single element about the case from Mr. Melsky's book. I learned that everything and everyone is suspect. So it hasn't solved a darn thing for me -- yet. To quote... more
    • Re: Dark Cornressteve for rich, Mon Jul 24 10:02
      I don't believe Lindbergh had any involvement in the case. its so silly in a live debate these hauptmann was a great guy books don't cut it for me
    • Re: Dark Cornres — Michael For Richard, Sun Jul 23 16:03
      • overpriced editorsbob mills for michael, Fri Jul 28 04:59
        Michael, if you haven't hired an editor yet for Volume II, I'm a former freelance editor for Reader's Digest Illustrated Trade Books. Since moving to Florida I've handled projects for local retirees, ... more
        • Lost your contact infoRonelle to Bob mills, Wed Aug 2 15:44
          Bob (Or anyone else) My email address is rdelmont@comcast.net
        • Re: overpriced editorsMichael For Bob, Mon Jul 31 20:46
          Thanks Bob. I will keep the offer in mind. Once the book came out I got a slew of offers from a lot of people who thought I didn't have the book edited. So it looks like I have someone already, and I ... more
        • overpriced editorsSam for Michael, Fri Jul 28 14:34
      • Re: Dark CornersJoe for Michael, Wed Jul 26 11:22
        Michael, by who's estimation does it become obvious that the crime took place at 8:00 pm? I would hope that no one will be "angered" if you were to present an excellent reason to demonstrate this,... more
        • Re: Dark CornersMichael For Joe, Wed Jul 26 17:59
          It's in the book. I suppose one could disregard the Conovers and the Moores eyewitness accounts. I suppose one could disregard Parker's conclusion based upon his investigative skill which, up to this ... more
          • Re: Dark CornersJoe for Michael, Thu Jul 27 08:01
            What's in your book is anything but conclusive as it relates to this account. Both Moore (at about 8:25 pm) and the Conover's (6:30 - 6:45 pm) saw a non-descript car in the dark, presumably both... more
            • Re: Dark CornersMichael For Joe, Thu Jul 27 18:06
              "Conclusive" is a strong word. How about what "common sense" suggests? What I think you are doing is ignoring what I wrote on page 1. Consider that people noticed cars and for what reasons they did.... more
              • dialogueRichard E Sloan, Wed Aug 2 00:16
                Please keep this dialogue going, Joe and Michael. It is thought provoking. You both have interesting views and suspicions. Thanx for starting this. I sue hope you will want to continue it and remain... more
              • Re: Dark CornersJoe for Michael, Sun Jul 30 10:40
                I'm not ignoring anything that you've written in your book, that I've tried to understand and process. And that in itself can be anything but straightforward, given the nature of your style of... more
                • Re: Dark CornersMichael For Joe, Mon Jul 31 20:09
                  My style of presentation is to list the facts then let the Reader decide what those facts represent. As far as spelling mistakes or "then/than" types of mistakes - I don't see how something like that ... more
          • Re: Dark CornersMichael For Joe con't, Wed Jul 26 19:26
            You're curious about my interpretation in the morgue? I've rec'd email from people accusing me of lying about this FACT. That's how insane what he did there was. I know you like the guy but nothing... more
            • Re: Dark CornersAnonymous, Thu Jul 27 08:37
              Yes, I am curious about your interpretation of his actions within the morgue, with respect to your belief that he participated in the disappearance of his son, and you didn't answer the question. No... more
              • Re: Dark CornersMichael For Joe, Thu Jul 27 18:13
                There is no rational explanation for how Lindbergh treated his son's corpse. None. He wasn't even needed for that identification and insisted on going - which was the only reason he was there.... more
                • Re: Dark CornersJoe for Michael, Sun Jul 30 10:55
                  What's not real life, but is unfortunately practiced far too often in this world, is when someone attempts to impose his or her own personal code of fundamentalist morals and behavioral standards as... more
                  • Re: Dark CornersMichael For Joe, Mon Jul 31 20:16
                    This response proves my exact point. Nothing is out of bounds for you as it relates to Lindbergh or his actions. Absolutely nothing.
              • Re: Dark CornersJoe for Michael, Thu Jul 27 08:39
                My apologies, as I meant to address this Joe for Michael.
      • Dark CornersRichard E Sloan, Sun Jul 23 21:22
        I get the distinct impression that you are indicating that there are enough "facts" to suspect that Lindy was involved in his son's death. Can we believe those people you show were liars and... more
        • Re: Dark CornersMichael, Mon Jul 24 06:44
          What I think is that once the totality of the real circumstances are presented we must take notice. Of course Whited is a dubious witness. Over the years no one but those who believe Hauptmann 100%... more
          • millard whitedbob mills for michael and forum, Mon Jul 24 11:55
            A liar whose own family couldn't trust him denies having seen anything suspicious on the day of the kidnapping. Two-and-a-half years later, having been offered a share of the reward money, he... more
            • the caseRichard E Sloan, Tue Jul 25 09:32
              Whether guilty or innocent of kidnapping, murder, or extortion, Wilentz's witnesses included liars, charlatans, and unethical handwriting experts who have to be entirely stricken from OUR record... more
              • Re: the casesteve for rich, Wed Jul 26 12:53
                how can you ever say the handwriting experts were unethical. they wernt witnesses. what about hauptmanns witnesses? talk about jokes
                • "experts"Richard E Sloan, Thu Jul 27 09:32
                  handwriting experts are notorious for testifying for whoever pays them. SOme of Reilly's experts were jokes, and PUBLICLY the Osborns were NOT in agreement at first. ANd you do know whose "expertise" ... more
                  • Re: "experts"steve for rich, Fri Jul 28 11:24
                    your forgetting other 8 or 9 other experts who testified also, and some of the current ones said he wrote them
                  • Re: "experts"Joe for Richard, Thu Jul 27 13:09
                    Richard, do you actually view the connection between the ransom note writing and Hauptmann's writing as something requiring a QDE to tell you? Those experts at the trial were not the only ones who... more
                    • "dem notes"Richard E Sloan, Fri Jul 28 11:44
                      Despite the charlatans, I do strongly believe Bruno wrote all the notes (but Im still puzzled over the first one; it doesnt seem to look at all like his writing to me. Could that not also be the... more
              • witnesses to a railroadingbob mills for richard and forum, Tue Jul 25 12:56
                Don't know if Lindy can be blamed for Wilentz' use of Hochmuth and Whited. Schwarzkopf let Lindy run the investigation in the early stages, but by the time of the trial the ball was in Wilentz'... more
                • Lindy on BrunoRichard E Sloan, Wed Jul 26 08:36
                  Hi, Bob. Sorry you couldnt make it to our BX reunion back in May. We had a blast. You last stated that Lindy reversed himself on his ID of Bruno. Please tell me to what you are specifically... more
                  • lindy's solitary lifebob mills for richard, Wed Jul 26 15:49
                    Richard, at the time of the St. Raymond's ransom exchange Lindy said he couldn't identify (Cemetery John's) voice from the distance involved. If you recall, during one of your Bronx tours we visited... more
                    • HEY DOKTOR OVER HERE!Richard E Sloan, Thu Jul 27 09:49
                      Bob, I think you'll say I'm splittng hairs here, but I don't think I am. When the Grand Jury asked CAL if he could ID that voice he had just testified about, he said he didnt think so, bec. it was so ... more
          • Re: Dark Cornerssteve for mike, Mon Jul 24 10:05
            you know mike when he was questioned by the police about certain things he told stupid alibis that were corny so why the police would believe that crap like the board in the closet and some of his... more
Click here to receive daily updates