Michael 5260 for Richard E Sloan
Re: Bruno's responses
Tue May 21, 2019 09:39

In order for a person to write the correct 1932 telephone number, 3-7154, a person would either have to have the number memorized or carrying it with them at the time Hauptmann's apartment was being searched two and a half years after the ransom negotiations.

A person could not run off to a telephone booth and look into a telephone directory in September of 1934 and find the 3-7154 number. Dr. Condon's 3-7154 number would not be found in a 1934 directory. Dr. Condon's new telephone number was unlisted so there would be no telephone number to find at all in a 1934 telephone book.

I don't think a jury would ever believe that a news reporter memorized the 3-7154 telephone number in 1932 in the anticipation of using the number to fabricate evidence against Hauptmann or as a scoop news story to be written in 1934. Then the news story itself is written by a different reporter other than the reporter that was supposed to have written the telephone number and he was the only person that knew that he wrote the telephone number. Absolutely amazing.

I also don't think a jury would believe a person was carrying around a piece of paper for two and a half years with the telephone number on it so they are ready to write the number down somewhere, when and if, a suspect is apprehended in the future.

  • Bruno's responsesRichard E Sloan, Mon May 20 21:27
    I dont go along with your reasoning at all.
    • Re: Bruno's responses — Michael 5260 for Richard E Sloan, Tue May 21 09:39
      • Re: Bruno's responsesMichael , Tue May 21 13:53
        Your position is very flawed. Every Reporter knew Condon's phone number ... and they called it often before his wife changed the number.
        • Re: Bruno's responsesJoe, Tue May 21 14:49
          Hauptmann admitted to Samuel Foley it was his handwriting, but still creatively adept enough after being caught red-handed to come up with an explanation, which he felt would suffice. If he knew it... more
          • denied itRichard E Sloan, Wed May 22 09:34
            That's right, Joe; he simply would have denied it altogether. Guilty or not, he would have denied it. That's what's so perplexing.
            • Re: denied itMichael For Richard, Wed May 22 09:49
              The Reporter wrote the phone number there. He admitted it to several people but the one who counts for me is Lloyd Fisher. Since I am familiar with Fisher's material he wasn't the type to make... more
              • Re: denied itsteve for mike, Wed May 22 12:53
                that reporter was in gov hoffmans back pocket. I never believed that story, Hauptman admitted writing it his reason is so stupid a little bit interested in the case
                • Re: denied itMichael, Thu May 23 09:32
                  Wrong Reporter Steve.
                  • Re: denied itsteve for mike, Thu May 23 10:55
                    I didn't think there was more liars
          • Re: Bruno's responsesMichael For Joe, Tue May 21 15:27
            Wow Joe. That took you a couple just a couple of sentences to explain! Meanwhile, it took me 60 pages and 200 footnotes. Don't like it? Well call it from the hand of an "apologist." Make it "appear"... more
            • Re: Bruno's responsesJoe, Thu May 23 10:28
              Michael, if it takes you 60 pages and 200 pages of research writing to conclude that a reporter wrote Condon's phone number on the closet trim, based on what Lloyd Fisher claims he was told by the... more
              • Re: Bruno's responsesMichael For Joe, Mon May 27 08:37
                Unfortunately Joe it is in the source documentation - and as I demonstrated - it is anything but clear. And so it appears, in an attempt to mock the amount of research I've done, that you actually... more
                • Re: Bruno's responsesJoe for Michael, Mon May 27 12:26
                  Michael, I'm not mocking the amount of research you've done, but I disagree that more is necessarily more, as you seem to believe. That would entirely depend on the irrefutable veracity and relevance ... more
                  • Re: Bruno's responsesMichael , Tue May 28 07:58
                    And so, by your very own position, you can determine that relevance and veracity without ever seeing or knowing what that is? Look Joe, I wrote what I did to reveal everything available that is... more
Click here to receive daily updates