Michael
Re: Bruno's responses
Tue May 28, 2019 07:58
2001:558:6027:18:4191:f004:8100:3c47

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 currently at the NJSP Archives so that it can ALL be considered. There's room for debate, hell, that's why I wrote the books in the first place hoping it would lead to even MORE research. I know that what I've found doesn't appeal to many because it doesn't "fit" with the two distinct separate sides of the debate - so I expect resistance. It helps neither side by the way but it is what it is. I cannot omit what I've discovered or try to change facts to satisfy certain people.

My "issue" is this idea that people "know" people without doing any research into them OR ignoring things they do not "like" without any legitimate reason as a way to "get around" certain facts. For example, Reporters DID do these types of things (Paynter included) and I've given just a few examples in the book to prove it. And yet here comes the response that Paynter would "never" do such a thing. But for that same argument to "work" he had to be lying that he did do it.

We have pictures of that molding in the newspapers and magazines. How'd the Reporters get those? In many cases Authorities sold access to evidence. I only know this because of my research. I could sit home and make up my own narrative without doing it but that gets us closer to the truth how exactly?

To quote you:
"Frankly, I don't even think it takes that level of accredited scrutiny to see the obvious connection between Hauptmann's handwriting and the ransom notes."

This is an important position. And in some cases I would tend to agree that specific "expertise" isn't always needed if we see what we see. So if you believe that you see Hauptmann's hand in what I firmly believe was Paynter's attempt to mimic whatever he had in hand - I can't argue with what you personally see. I see the exact opposite and it was never something I "wanted" to see. But that is hugely different then saying someone would or would not do something when all evidence points to the fact that he's done similar things and most importantly told people he actually did.

Oehler's observation is just but one piece of the larger puzzle. If I didn't see what he demonstrated I still couldn't ignore the other evidence available to consider at the Archives. I understand the passion, but I caution against Script's approach of concluding first - then evaluating later.


  • 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 responses — Michael , Tue May 28 07:58
Click here to receive daily updates