Lease this WebApp and get rid of the ads.
Re: Henry Paynter
Sun Sep 9, 2018 21:00

There isn't much you can teach me about this Script. I've spent months searching for material at the NJSP Archives about this very subject which led to that chapter in my book. You have to remember all the research I've done. Do you know how many pages are in the Parker trial? I do because I've read them...all. And all of the Kings County transcripts from the Grand Jury and the Trials. I've even read each and every page of Geoghan's removal hearing transcripts. I've read Curtis, and Gaston Means too. Why doesn't everyone?


People who write books CUT CORNERS because they are usually looking to make money - and time is money. So they can't possibly do what's required to get to the bottom of most things unless they are willing to spend years and years and years on it.

So here is a perfect example of "Whisper Down the Alley." One person (Cassidy) was mistaken for another and it got repeated over the years. So it WAS true but they got the wrong Reporter. ALL books contain these types of errors. One of my favorite examples that I use is where Prosecutor Marshall was cemented in history in 99% of all books as the man who asked Lindbergh if the corpse was his son. Problem is... Marshall wasn't even there when this happened. I've already been told I am 'wrong' about that. Can you believe it? I've read the Grand Jury testimony where Marshall was asked specifically about this and he testified, under oath, that he was not there. Yet, because some "dislike" it therefore I am 'wrong' and supposedly don't know what I am talking about.

So when you see Waller footnoted over and over, or even no citation at all ask yourself why. Then refer to my comment above. Things are repeated because its easier to do that than to actually drive to the Archives, roll up one's sleeves, then do the research. Anyone who does will see a lot of history IS wrong.

So when you say Fool's Parade that should be applied to every book on all mistakes that were made because of what I've written above.

As far as "hearsay" is concerned I could care less. The man admitted it to a Defense Attorney as well as others. I am not conducting a trial so all I care about is the truth. If something is factual then it should be considered. This crazy idea that, for example, a footprint cast shouldn't be considered because it wasn't entered as evidence makes zero sense to me. If the Defense didn't have evidence because it was withheld from them how in the hell could they offer it?

I am working on V3 now - specifically on Rail 16. I have information no one has so the key is to properly present it and trust me when I say its no easy task. I have so many sources to consult I am losing my mind. But getting new information out there is important to me because its obvious if I don't it will never be available to consider. How do I know no one has what I do? Rusty staples usually mean it hasn't been seen for a while. My guess is since 1934.

Anyway, I will try to check back but it's going to be tough at the moment.

  • Re: Henry PaynterMichael 5260, Sun Sep 9 10:57
    The story about Tom Cassidy writing Dr. Condon's address and telephone number in Hauptmann's closet first emanates from Murray Bleefeld. Bleefeld tells the story to Anthony Scaduto, which includes... more
    • Re: Henry Paynter — Michael, Sun Sep 9 21:00
      • Re: Henry PaynterMichael 5260, Mon Sep 10 10:19
        Just to be sure we are both going in the same direction. It was Henry Paynter "not" Tom Cassidy that was responsible for writing Condon's telephone number in Hauptmann's closet?
        • Re: Henry Payntersteve romeo, Tue Sep 11 10:32
          I don't think either one wrote on that board
Click here to receive daily updates