Michael For Joe
Re: The Henry Paynter Story
Sat Jun 1, 2019 11:13
2001:558:6027:18:896:1ed3:8a12:cafd

Again, if you look at just the few examples I gave in V2 your claim about being an "idiot" would apply to those instances too. And yet it occurred ... again, and again, and again. So on the surface I would agree, but once you start to look into it that completely changes the narrative.

I'm not backpedaling at all Joe. Are you under this impression because of what I've written in my book or something else? I try to state the facts with as little of my own personal speculation as possible most times where it allows. On the Boards I can sometimes give a little more of my personal beliefs in response to the discussions. If you remember there was some talk that Inspector Bruckman seemed to go right up and into that closet as if he "knew" everything was written there. Also remember that Bruckman was accusing Special Agent Wright of leaking to the Press when Wright said Bruckman was the guy leaking! So this is just "me" looking at everything and considering possibilities. Paynter worked with Cops before - like his ruse which involved Trooper Bornmann. Also, as unfortunate as it was ... Police did sell access to evidence to the Reporters. It sux but its a fact nevertheless. It's for this reason I cringe once I see written that someone "would or would not" do something.

On Oehler... Upon my first discoveries on this subject I found a document written by Hoffman who called him an "expert." We both know my feelings on the subject of "experts" but back then I went with it. But for the book I didn't make this claim because I never found Oehler himself calling himself one. So that doesn't mean he had no expertise its just that I didn't feel comfortable absent of more proof. Like I wrote on my site ... Many of the top experts at the time testified in Flemington so its understandable that "our" belief would be that one was either an expert or they were not. But that's a false assumption. A person could be a Farmer and still hold those credentials - or claim to - and there's really no way short of being qualified in court to dispute it. I've come across many PIs who padded their resume by studying the various sciences to make their employment more attractive. Jesse Pelletreau, for example, studied handwriting analysis as an apprentice under August Hartkorn. It cannot be denied that Hartkorn was an "expert" because he was qualified as one by the courts and testified many times as one. Peletreau also had firearms expertise. Rudolph Thelien also was a PI with Handwriting Analysis skills. Lt. Hicks too. He's known as a "Criminologist" but he was also an "expert" in document examination as well as ballistics.

Now I personally embrace Oehler's findings because I see what he saw based upon the old pictures and his chart. When I looked at the piece at the NJSP Archives I saw some of it but its not in the same condition now. Like I wrote earlier the molding is now much worse for the wear. So those who saw it back then had a better look at what was actually on it - whether by picture or in person. (But again, I'm no "expert" and its possible under a specific light or high magnification something could be noticed). Next, his observations are merely ONE piece of the puzzle. Paynter's admission to Fisher (and others) is another. So for me it's the totality of everything.

Like I said - there's room for debate of course, but when I arguments that are contradicted by previous actions as a way to exclude something I have a hard time with that.

On Fisher. You may believe that and I cannot change your mind but there's a million more important things he could have said someone admitted to him. Obviously by the 1950s he changed the story to include the address but his earliest recollections mention only the phone number. For me I see this as Hawke probably jumping to the natural conclusion most everyone made up and until V2. I don't even believe Fisher "mis-remembered" by including the address by that time. Fisher made no bones about his belief Hauptmann was possibly involved in the extortion. It even came out that he would have had him plead guilty to it. So why lie about Paynter's admission?

That leaves Paynter. And so if he wouldn't actually do something because of the negative repercussions, why would he lie about it? To me it makes no sense especially once considering everything else.

Again, I know nobody "likes" this because with Hauptmann writing the address but not the phone number it appeals to virtually no one. But this is what looks like actually happened so that's my position. Obviously I am not trying to make Hauptmann look innocent, rather, calling it as the available evidence indicates. Perhaps Paynter's relatives have a notepad that completely explains it and one day I'll be proven wrong - or right.

In the end I would welcome such a source because MORE information is always better. It's what motivates me. I'm not looking to end the conversation I am looking to expand it. I will always resist people trying to shut down mysteries with LESS information. I've seen in some cases none at all.


  • Re: The Henry Paynter StoryJoe for Michael, Sat Jun 1 09:59
    You think I'M taking a leap of faith here? No Michael, I've just presented a very valid reason why Henry Paynter would have been an idiot for doing what was claimed by Lloyd Fisher and Governor... more
    • Re: The Henry Paynter Story — Michael For Joe, Sat Jun 1 11:13
      • Re: The Henry Paynter StoryJoe for Michael, Tue Jun 4 11:24
        I don't know why Paynter would lie to Fisher, but then again, I'm a bit more objective than to conclude that Paynter actually did tell him this without something more substantial, especially in the... more
        • Re: The Henry Paynter StoryMichael For Joe, Tue Jun 4 12:15
          Fisher was a defense lawyer then later the Hunterdon County Prosecutor. He made these statements about Paynter admitting this to him across both positions over a span of two decades. Nothing about it ... more
Click here to receive daily updates