|
Post by Michael on Feb 3, 2006 20:53:32 GMT -5
It was just a matter of time before the old board went down. There was no one running the server and if there is - they never answered emails or fixed problems in the past.
So I have decided to permanently move here. Better archives and search engine which can look for individual words in our posts.
If the other board ever does come up I will make it "read-only" so we will be able to get back some of our lost information and I can post the new link here...
I've made the board accessible to everyone so you don't have to register or create a profile to post. You can do so under the "guest" status. However, by registering you gain special benefits.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 4, 2006 8:05:07 GMT -5
I am momentarily speechless?/ rick We may need to hold a funeral for our olde friend?
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 4, 2006 8:16:06 GMT -5
My moment of speechlessness has passed/ maybe the 6-8 of us posters should just regroup on Ronelles Hoax Board. She has a great search engine which is worth its weight in gold? Rick/
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 4, 2006 9:02:17 GMT -5
As you can see it's a "work in progress" Rick although I think eventually we will be in a much better situation in the near future. Thanks to Rab's advice, I've just set up specific thread topics which I think will also aid in our discussions.
I have always liked the fact there are several boards because they invite diversity. I post on Ronelle's board too and I notice some people post there but never on my board and vice-versa. I don't want to eliminate discussion and thought by scattering our board to the winds.
Please post or email me any ideas to help make this a better board. There are a lot of functions that I am just discovering myself.
|
|
|
Post by Kit on Feb 4, 2006 14:38:15 GMT -5
Phew! I panicked for a second there when I couldn't find where the board had gone. I'm sorry to hear about the demise of the old one as it has been my daily reading (yes, I am mostly a lurker) for a couple of years. I wish you every success with this new arrangement.
Kit
|
|
|
Post by Gary For Kit on Feb 4, 2006 17:39:34 GMT -5
Hey Kit,
What do you think happened concerning the case? Do you think anything is overlooked in the case regarding evidence or suspects?
|
|
|
Post by kit on Feb 4, 2006 20:20:34 GMT -5
Gary, Frankly, I'm baffled. There are so many strange links between characters, some real and some tenuous, in this story that my thoughts on how it all happened vary from month to month. From what I've read on the old board I don't think anything has been overlooked, quite far from it actually. I don't have access to source material and I have not done any research so you must understand that I'm only speculating on what I've read here (which is all most of us can do, I suppose). However, here are some thoughts that pop up for me from time to time. I wish things were so simple as to have Hauptmann be the sole perpetrator but I'm afraid I'll probably never see it that way. I do think he was involved, however, probably even unknowingly. I don't think the ladder was used at all but he may have been duped into repairing it (with his own wood because it was ordered on the spur of the moment) and delivering it to Hopewell completely unaware that the LB had been snatched, or rather removed, from the premises the previous day. (I'm 50/50 on the wood evidence and I'm not convinced Herr wrote the ransom notes - they could just as easily been written by a number of my now elderly Scandinavian relatives Lindbergh must have had enemies. Perhaps the bootleggers and the people who were bribed by them (IE. police and on up) bore a grudge against him for his fly-overs and finking and would have loved to have a chance to knock the hero down a peg. Even just building such a huge house in that quiet area would have to have offended someone. The wealthy are an unfortunately easy target for not only hatred, but all sorts of shady monetary schemes and blackmail. Another vague thought: Lindbergh controlled the investigation, of course but why? Was he being blackmailed or had he done something wrong for which this "kidnapping" was done in retribution? Condon: who was he in debt to that he would involve himself the case to such a degree. Definitely a perplexing character. Well, I'm rambling now...I wish I could refer to some old posts. There are so many bizarre aspects of the case that leave me pulling my hair out. I've been unable to get Dr. Gardner's book locally so I guess I'll order it on-line. I sense Michael has plenty under his hat that he has yet been able to share. I respect him for his hard work and unflagging attention to ethical procedure. What a wealth of information he has shared with us already. I've followed the the whole Allen business, looked into Michael's claims, and been greatly dismayed by Allen's occasionally misleading approach. Who is he working for? Okay, enough of my fence sitting for now Dinner time and I smell a pie baking.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 4, 2006 22:31:25 GMT -5
For Kit. Your make good observations on the case, as Hopewell Historicly a place where poor landowners were robed of their land by English Royalty. Lindbergh was hated by Pesidential contender Roosevelt, and his backers, that felt his fame could rob them of presidency, and lastly Lindbergh had worked with Forrestal in founding the OSS, but there was a major covert fiasco that caused more alienation with Roosevelt and backers.
|
|
|
Post by dryan on Feb 4, 2006 23:13:07 GMT -5
Perhaps we could start with the question - why was the child placed where it was found?
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 4, 2006 23:13:39 GMT -5
Rita for Michael I like the new format, and wish good luck with it.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 4, 2006 23:24:17 GMT -5
Riasier to userd is eta for Rick Thanks for information, and I think the new boa
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 4, 2006 23:50:45 GMT -5
rita for dryan Good question, and there is more than one possibility. If there is a kidnap of live child and extortion is going to imposter, real kidnapper would possibly dump either a random body as a warning, or the real body if giving up? Other possibilities are no kidnap, and child is hidden for safty, here a body would discourage future kidnap attempts. There also are other complicated reasons too numerous to mention.
|
|
|
Post by Joe on Feb 5, 2006 9:44:01 GMT -5
Michael,
I think that setting up individual thread topics as a framework for discussion on developing thoughts is a good idea. In some cases it will become a bit like the physical filing of information which as you are well aware is challenging at times, and there will be sidetracking, but this will help.
I would also suggest the dark font (black or navy blue) on a light background (lighter grey or cream) for best contrast and minimal eye strain.
Personally, I would cut out the smilies and minimize the number of font options to bold and underline and allow file, image, copy, link and e-mail inserts.
Of course, if it were my own board, I would start with a presumption of Hauptmann's complicity from beginning to end. Kind of a base camp approach I guess you could call it with the mountain top much closer... oh to dream..
Joe
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 5, 2006 11:43:40 GMT -5
I wanted to thank everyone for their kind words and input. Please pass on our new location to those who may not have been informed. Our old board appears to be frozen so I can't give a "heads-up" there.
The individual thread options idea was Rab's and I agree it makes for a better discussion.
The Smiley's, fonts, etc. I believe you have the ability to disable these yourself. Again, I am still feeling my way around and I am sure I will learn what abilities I have as the "Moderator" soon enough...but as of now I'm a little lost.
The colors were a nightmare. I agree they still need to be tweaked and will do my best to make them better in the near future. I am a little burned out at the moment but it should happen soon.
This is your board Joe so post anything you choose to about anything you want to.
Enjoy the Superbowl everybody!
|
|
|
Post by bobmills on Feb 6, 2006 6:40:15 GMT -5
Michael e-mailed me about his new site and invited me to participate. Full disclosure: I'm author of "The Lindbergh Syndrome," so other posters should consider that I might be "trying to sell a book" here.
My view is that the actual kidnapper was Duane Baker (real name Bacon), working in cahoots with Charles Henry Ellerson, Morrow chauffeur who drove Betty Gow to Hopewell and thus was one of the few people who knew the Lindberghs were not returning to Englewood, as was their weekday custom. Baker and Ellerson are linked by their common patronage of a speakeasy in Fort Lee, "Sha-Toe," and by the fact that Baker had succeeded Ellerson as a driver for Armour Meat Packing.
Baker had a long criminal record. At the time of the kidnapping he was superintendent of Plymouth Apartments in Upper Manhattan. Tenants' names were listed on a dumbwaiter roster for the superintendent's benefit; among those names were "J./J. Faulkner," which stood for "Jane and Jane Faulkner," a mother and daughter who had previously lived at Plymouth (before Baker became superintendent). This is significant, of course, because "J. J. Faulkner" was the name on the deposit slip that accompanied $2,980 of Lindbergh ransom money, the first large chunk of the $50,000 paid by Condon at Raymond Cemetery. This was in 1933; Baker had left Plymouth in a rush on Apr. 15, 1932 (two weeks after the ransom exchange) with the latest rent receipts still in his pocket.
I believe Baker laundered that money, using Faulkner as an alias. Unlike most students of the case, I do not believe there was any such person as "J. J. Faulkner." By remarkable coincidence, however, the actual Jane Faulkner (daughter) who had once lived at Plymouth Apartments did marry a man named Carl Geissler, who worked for the same company as Ralph Hacker, John F. Condon's son-in-law.
I believe Baker was head of a gang (possibly including Hauptmann and Isidor Fisch) that had been hired by the mob with the goal of extricating Al Capone from prison. The $50,000 ransom was a red herring, designed to make it look like a routine kidnapping. Capone's offer to "find the baby" in exchange for his freedom was predicated on his belief that his hired gang was holding the Eaglet (he didn't know things had gone wrong, which is also why Baker skipped town...he'd have been a mob target for having "screwed up"). I further believe Baker's gang was the same one John Hughes Curtis claimed to have seen negotiating in Newark, headed by a man he knew as "Sam" (probably Baker), and which according to Curtis' belief was holding a living child.
Lindbergh turned Capone down, after which the Eaglet's body was taken to Mt. Rose Heights and William Allen was bribed to "find it accidentally." I believe the body was transferred from its original site in Charles Henry Ellerson's car; on the day before the discovery, Ellerson's car burst into flames and tumbled off the Palisades, with Ellerson "escaping" at the last second. It burned beyond recognition in what I believe was an effort to destroy microscopic evidence.
Baker's wife was German. I believe she wrote the Mersman table confession in an effort to save Hauptmann's life. She might or might not have authored the ransom notes. The symbol holes on the table surface that match the ransom-note symbol precisely show that the table was used as a template for the ransom notes. The possibility of the German poem being a hoax can be dismissed out of hand, because it made no reference to the holes on the top, which is the only way a hoax could have been made believeable (and even then, how would a hoaxer have gotten hold of the ransom notes?).
The strongest evidence that organized crime was behind the Lindbergh kidnapping is the behavior of Condon himself. When first summoned to identify him, he wouldn't do so. At that time he told an F.B.I. agent named Turrou that "My life won't be worth five cents (if he identified Hauptmann). They would kill me." The key word is "they." Condon can only have been talking about the mob here. But once Condon realized that Hauptmann was being tried in court as a lone kidnapper and that all talk of a gang had evanesced, he felt secure about testifying at the trial that "John is Bruno Richard Hauptmann!"
Common sense also dictates that Hauptmann wasn't a lone kidnapper. If he had been, how would Capone ever have been able to return the baby to the Lindberghs? Capone wouldn't have known Hauptmann, and if the kidnapping had been the work of anyone acting alone, there's no way Capone, from prison, would have known who it was.
There are other problems with Hauptmann as a lone kidnapper. If the Eaglet had died during the abduction, why would Hauptmann have driven 4-1/2 miles in the opposite direction from the Bronx to dispose of the body along a main road where the risk of being seen was greater than anywhere else in the area? How would he have avoided the roadblock at the Hudson River, where cars were being stopped from 11 p.m. on and the drivers questioned? No witness came forward at his trial to say, "A man with a German accent crossed from New Jersey to New York at about midnight, and that's the guy I remember (pointing at Hauptmann)." Certainly if this had happened (and if it didn't where did Hauptmann spend the night?), such a witness would have testified. Instead the prosecution relied on Hochmuth and Whited, two of the worst witnesses to ever send a man to his death, ever.
|
|
|
Post by dryan on Feb 6, 2006 9:25:56 GMT -5
How close do you think that Lindbergh came to using Capone? There were emissaries sent to talk over that possibility, were there not?
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 6, 2006 21:59:56 GMT -5
Rita for Bobmills It is a good explanation for the body dump that the prosecution ignored in order to frame Hauptman. There are details short of explanation in that the person giving autopsy could not identify the body as CAL Jr.a and there was a shull bullet wound. I also y was believe the body was dumped, and it was not believable that a truck driver just happend onto the body. Beside a questionable body, it has to be assumed that Roosevelt would actualy aid his hated enemy by releasing Capone for the child. I think your story matches a more likly explanation of events, but does your version account for the unused nursery room and kidnap date?
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 6, 2006 22:30:34 GMT -5
If Capone was involved he would have been useing others for his benefit. There was some speculation that Capone had CAL Jr. kidnapped to pressure his release, but that idea would not work, because Lindbergh and even his senator father were opposed to Roosevelt and his backers, and he would be necessary to work that deal.
|
|
|
Post by dryan on Feb 6, 2006 23:43:15 GMT -5
There is much here to ponder. Duane Baker is an intriguing "usual suspect," just like several others. Condon may well have been afraid for his life -- or it might have been another one of his many pantomines for special occasions. Why does Al Reich seem to fade from view?
The problem with the organized crime scenario is that the kidnapping creates more problems in terms of lost cagoes of bootleg, etc., than it solves for crime. Owney Madden thought not, and he was well connected. So, too, I believe did other figures high up in the crime world. Warden Lawes reported that not of his "charges" upstate NY thought that gangsters would risk it.
There is something diabolical about this kidnapping. In general it has the feel of something plotted out for a reason that goes beyond immediate rewards. People smart enough to think of the signature, to figure out the exact moment to act, etc., must surely have known that spending the money would not be easy in a crime this big. Organized crime would back off in the face of such dangers. Dr. Shoenfeld's theories ought not to be discarded (at least not entirely) for the human mind has many strange caves and forests one crosses late at night when sleep will not come to the rescue.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 7, 2006 20:23:11 GMT -5
Bravo! That's one very insightful and thought provoking post Dryan....
Baker is indeed an interesting character. I know Joe has been looking at him under a microscope for a while now....
One thing I'm not so sure of however...did Reich fade away, or rather did the Police simply not pay the attention to him they probably should have?
I know they made occasional questioning of him off and on during the investigation and used him quite a bit in the trial preparations. He was in Court during the trial and paid expense money by the State.
Reich saw and handled every note that Condon did...why weren't the Police putting the screws to him?
Another question is why does Condon need a Body Guard? Reich was his Body Guard before his entrance into this case and Al Mantera was before Reich. Why does an old fool need protection?
|
|
|
Post by laura51830 on Feb 7, 2006 22:29:41 GMT -5
Yes, I've often wondered why a school teacher needed a bodyguard especially one that was a former boxing champion. What could the old guy have been involved in that made him need a bodyguard. Also, there's the strange connection between Condon and Hauptmann and the New York Athletic Club.
|
|
|
Post by dryan on Feb 7, 2006 23:25:36 GMT -5
Michael and Carol point out yet another peculiar thing about Condon, his reliance on having a body guard around. For what purpose? The boxing world is often closely tied into crime. It also draws to it an odd assortment of people. Was Reich useful as a go-between? Condon seems to have a number of younger men as confidantes.
What connection, Carol, are we talking about? Did Condon and Hauptmann actually know one another at the NYAC? That would be stunning!
|
|
|
Post by laura51830 on Feb 8, 2006 13:06:10 GMT -5
First I want to say that I wasn't the one who found out about the NY Athletic Club, it was Siglinde Rach who's credited as a researcher in Lloyd Gardner's book. Condon and Reich frequented the place and I believe may have trained boxers there. When he came into this country Hauptmann tried out as a boxer there and was turned down. There's no evidence that Condon and Hauptmann ever met there, but who knows? It's the same thing with Hauptmann, Condon and City Island. It's a small place and the chance is that they did run into each other at some time.
|
|
|
Post by dryan on Feb 9, 2006 1:35:33 GMT -5
During the trial, there was testimony that Hauptmann was watching Condon at a train station. And indeed there seem to be several instances where they are in close proximity. I was just wondering if there was actual evidence about the NYAC.
When I look at Hauptmann, he seems very much like the sort of person Condon was interested in.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 9, 2006 12:05:07 GMT -5
Question for the group.....What if CAL hired Mickey Rosner/ Spitz/Bitalle and Owney Madden just to confirm that Al Capone did in fact "own Charlie"? Once they confirmed that a bunch of knuckleheads like Condon et al in the Bronx were only blackmailing for the money then these underlings would fade into the background to avoid wearing cement shoes? It was of great benefit to the Mob to let Condon and his merry band of blackmailers cover for Organized Crime until CAL decided whether or not to arrange the release of Big Al. Charlie may have just vanished before Tuesday nite 1 March 32?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 9, 2006 18:48:41 GMT -5
Dryan & Carol,
Dr. Gardner's book points out that Hauptmann did finally admit he had seen Dr. Condon before. It's another new piece of information that I had never before seen.
The surprise eyewitness was Alexander. An aspiring actress who came out of nowhere to testify.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 9, 2006 20:11:36 GMT -5
Rick,
You'll have to explain to me the basis for your position that these people were needed to confirm this. To my knowledge they didn't, in fact, the exact inverse is true in my opinion.
I know HRO did a lot of research into Capone, and I have some of it.
Longy Zwillman, big time gangster in NJ got involved as well to try and locate the child's kidnapper. Additionally, Waxey Gordon told George Clarke that a local "madman" had killed the baby before it was discovered oh so close to Schippel's shack.
A lot of small leads that seem to go nowhere.
|
|
|
Post by laura51830 on Feb 9, 2006 23:20:19 GMT -5
Michael,
What's your opinion on Alexander's testimony?
|
|
|
Post by dryan on Feb 9, 2006 23:46:38 GMT -5
If I could interject a comment. Alexander's testimony-- challenged as I remember -- by her own father. does suggest that Hauptmann was keeping an eye on Condon. After he was put in the State pen, Hauptmann, near time for his execution, came forward with the idea that he actually did know Condon from City Island. Lloyd Fisher used this as a last desperate way of breaking down Jafsie's testimony -- I think with the idea of showing that Condon's ID was based upon City Island contacts and nothing else.
People who defend Hauptmann as not being involved are not keen on such a possible connection from City Island, but certainly it is a lot more reasonable that they ran into each other out there, than he met Fisch before the crime -- if we confine ourselves to proximity.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 10, 2006 7:19:45 GMT -5
Alexander is one of those people I would like to quickly dismiss. There were many of sightings which involved Condon with other people but not Hauptmann so they were ignored. Alexander came forward at the last minute with this eyewitness account. The State snatched it up so quickly that she probably couldn't believe it herself. It was perfect for them and too late for the Defense to prepare for it.
I don't know. A one-time sighting of this nature would be hard to remember as it involved Hauptmann. There's nothing about him that stands out. Condon however is a different story altogether. Additionally, for what purpose would Hauptmann be "shadowing" Condon? Did he think he had the money on him- then?
Dryan makes a great point that seems to be shrugged off by all positions. That is this.... Condon and Hauptmann shared common haunts before, during, and after the crime.... I think if you take a step back and look at it through a neutral lens you come to an irresistible conclusion that they not only ran into each other but did so multiple times.
|
|