|
Post by Michael on Jul 11, 2018 6:32:40 GMT -5
About V-2, here is my 2 cents worth. Last night at CONDON's (2 April 1932) , WHO RANG THE BELL? If Condon, Lindbergh, and Brickinridge were in the back room and Reich was in the front room, and no TAXI WAS SEEN ARRIVING, than WHO RANG THE DOOR BELL? Did Reich get-up at a pre-arrange time, open the front door, ring the bell, and go back to his location and than give Condon the note? The biggest issue is: Who can we trust for legitimate information? Everyone in that house has proven themselves to be untrustworthy at times so who do we rely on to give the actual scenario? Myra? She wasn't even there and yet everyone goes along with her story AFTER she injects herself into it - but certainly not before because their earlier versions do not include her. So we have Lindbergh testify that Condon was with them in the back, the door bell rang and he left then immediately came back with the note. The Surveillance saw no one pull or walk up to the house yet Condon lied and said a Taxi Driver delivered the note with his car running in front of the house. One of the first things I was taught in Glynco was whenever a report is written to be sure to include the "whos," "whats," "wheres," and if possible the "whys". So here we are asking ourselves the most basic questions but the Police never bothered to. It's maddening. So yes - why was Reich alone in the front while everyone else was in the back? But here is what we do know... Lindbergh became suspicious - and as a result of that suspicion - replaced Reich for the drop off. page 41 - The Dodge - Apparently in 1932 Condon and Reich each claimed there was a car watching Condon pick up the note at the frankfurter stand on Jerome Ave. I was never aware of this. I don't remember any book ever mentioning this 1932 claim. To make matters even more confusing when Condon is asked about this in 1933, he says he saw a Dodge sedan parked at the Jerome Ave. entrance to Woodlawn Cementery. In 1934 Condon would have this car morph into a touring car instead of a sedan. To top this off, in Sept 1934 when Reich was asked about this car he saw in 1932 that was supposedly at the Jerome Ave. entrance, he remembered it being a Coupe! When Condon's book, Jafsie Tells All, was published in 1936 there is no mention of a car being there and watching Condon and Reich. Poof, gone! So I am left wondering what to believe about this. Was there a car? Was there not a car? How can two men see this same car yet each remember it as a different model?? So many things I thought I understood have now been challenged. I feel like I am on shifting sand! Crazy right? And in court he's bringing up a 2nd car. And then there's the matter of how many people were in the original one. None? One? Two? Three? I remember when I found this information it being quickly dismissed once I brought it up. It didn't "fit." With what? Oh, the various versions that people "liked" found in books that were never properly researched. Start putting together all of those facts which exist in the very place where these Authors were "supposed" to be doing their research and we can see where those facts actually lead.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 11, 2018 7:31:14 GMT -5
I'm sorry I don't know how to pick a piece out to quote but wasn't Condon suppose to be at the frankfurter stand in 45 minutes after he received the note? Also, I would think if the doorbell rang and there were so many people in the house, why wouldn't any of them be peeking through curtains or looking through other windows? Or even down the hallway to view the person at the door? Why does it always seem like everyone is hiding in the back when something happens? Lastly, how does Condon get a note and is so excited he doesn't bother to notice what the guy looks like? Wouldn't you, if you were the main person involved in a ransom negotiation for a child notice EVERY single thing and study the person who brought a note?! It's too bad they didn't have phone records back then to know exactly when calls were. There seems to be just a bit of confusion here. It was the Bergen greenhouse (across from St. Raymond's Cemetery) to which the "second taxi driver's note" directed Condon et al on APRIL 2. The "frankfurter stand" was the location that they were directed to on MARCH 12 (near Woodlawn Cemetery) by the note carried by Perrone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2018 9:28:55 GMT -5
There seems to be just a bit of confusion here. It was the Bergen greenhouse (across from St. Raymond's Cemetery) to which the "second taxi driver's note" directed Condon et al on APRIL 2. The "frankfurter stand" was the location that they were directed to on MARCH 12 (near Woodlawn Cemetery) by the note carried by Perrone. Actually, Hurt, Wendy is correct about the 45 minute time limit to get to the frankfurter stand. The note Perrone brought to Condon the night of March 12th does say " after 3/4 of a hour be on the place. bring the mony with you".This same time frame of 45 minutes is again used in the April 2nd note as you say above. What still bothers me is if Reich is not at Condon's house when this note arrives, then when Condon does summon Al to come and take him and Al Reich is at home on City Island when Condon calls him, it is not likely that these two men will "be on the place" 45 minutes after the note arrives at Decatur Ave. However, if Al Reich happens to be sitting in the phone booth at Bickfords waiting for Condon to contact him, then Reich gets to Condon in less than 15 minutes. If this is so, then it really shows there is quite a bit of foreknowledge on Condon's part about this note coming that particular night, doesn't it. Michael makes this very point about Condon knowing about a note coming when he tells Rosenhain and Gaglio to be at his house that night (March 12th) to catch the action!! Could Condon have told Rosenhain and Gaglio to come to his place so that Reich could, indeed, be waiting in that phone booth for that call??
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 14, 2018 9:13:01 GMT -5
I may be missing something here, but I don't see why Condon would be particularly concerned if that happened. If police questioned him about it, he would have a true ready-made story that would easily take any suspicion off him (at least with respect to the box). All he'd have to do was say he followed the extortionist's specific instructions, and show them the ransom note with the specifications for the box. So he had that box made and delivered the ransom money in that box. After that, he would have had no knowledge of what happened to the box, having had no further contact with "CJ". And he could say that Lindbergh provided the ransom money in good faith, knowing that the "receipt' would tell him how to find his son. In other words, Condon could claim that the ransom box was just part of his acting as an honest go-between.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 14, 2018 12:06:00 GMT -5
I may be missing something here, but I don't see why Condon would be particularly concerned if that happened. If police questioned him about it, he would have a true ready-made story that would easily take any suspicion off him (at least with respect to the box). All he'd have to do was say he followed the extortionist's specific instructions, and show them the ransom note with the specifications for the box. So he had that box made and delivered the ransom money in that box. After that, he would have had no knowledge of what happened to the box, having had no further contact with "CJ". And he could say that Lindbergh provided the ransom money in good faith, knowing that the "receipt' would tell him how to find his son. In other words, Condon could claim that the ransom box was just part of his acting as an honest go-between. It seems to me that it would be a hard thing to explain. What good reason would there be for why the money and the box would have become separated - at the site of the exchange and especially where it would have been found had they discovered the box where it had been hidden. It is my belief that whoever returned on April 3rd was probably there to retrieve it. Uebel stated they were walking around as if looking for someone. I say they were looking for something. Of course they did not find it - most likely because they weren't exactly sure where it was. The next day was the big walk through. Here its obvious (to me anyway) that someone was there during that time who wasn't "in the loop" so it wasn't retrieved. So they let the dust settle for some days then we have two of same guys who were there on the 3rd return, one goes straight for the bush, and they leave. Clearly during this trip they knew exactly where it was. Condon lied to Breckinridge about the material used in construction of the box, and he remained consistent about this by continuing to lie about that to the Cops, Agents, and anyone who was there to listen. And so, he did not want them to find Samuelsohn because then this lie would be discovered.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 14, 2018 13:10:58 GMT -5
Fascinating story about the "Jafsie No. 2" letters in 1934 to the Chicago Daily Times. (V.2, pp.379-385). I'm just wondering what the subject matter of these letters was, and why Condon would choose a Chicago newspaper to write them to. (Never knew he had any connection to Chicago or thereabouts.) Had the newspaper mentioned him as a possible suspect in the LKC? (Just guessing.)
Can someone post copies of the "Jafsie No. 2" letters perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 14, 2018 16:23:01 GMT -5
Condon DID have a connection to Montana at some time. If I'm not mistaken, either his son or daughter moved to Montana, and he visited for a while. But I'm not aware of any connection to Chicago.
Speaking of strange, as V. 2 (p. 350) points out, Investigator Harold C. Keyes reported to Gov. Hoffman in 1936 that "a reliable source told [Keyes ] that some time in June 1934, Condon's 'son' drew up an application to have him committed to an 'insane asylum.'"
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 15, 2018 7:00:40 GMT -5
Thanks Michael. What do you think of his home telephone comment? I think you did a good job in noticing then questioning this. As you can see from V2 nothing coming from him should be trusted. I wouldn't say "nothing" is true though so its important to evaluate anything with that possibility in mind. As you already know, he did like to use things that may have been true to back up events or actions as if it proved he was an honest guy. So we have to keep an eye out for that tactic as we read whatever it is he said. Fascinating story about the "Jafsie No. 2" letters in 1934 to the Chicago Daily Times. (V.2, pp.379-385). I'm just wondering what the subject matter of these letters was, and why Condon would choose a Chicago newspaper to write them to. (Never knew he had any connection to Chicago or thereabouts.) Had the newspaper mentioned him as a possible suspect in the LKC? (Just guessing.) Can someone post copies of the "Jafsie No. 2" letters perhaps? Actually, Condon wrote letters to many newspapers all over the country. I have a copy of a letter he wrote to Hoover explaining that he "advertised" in the Chicago papers using his own name. So letters started to come to him from Chicago as a result. I have never seen the actual "Jafsie No. 2" letters - only the various reports about them. I also cannot say Condon wrote them. Who could? I wanted to include this to exemplify a "behind the scenes" look about Handwriting and the Experts taking a look at it. Plus, as you point out, not too many people ever heard of this so I believed it would be a nice addition because it exists only in the dark corners of the case. Until I swept it out for V2.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jul 17, 2018 5:37:09 GMT -5
Here are some of my thoughts and hopefully others can jump in to add what they think.... And why would Condon want to keep the box in "friendly" hands? What would be incriminating as far as he's concerned if the box turned up in possession of someone else? It seems clear to me Condon was concerned the police might find it. I also believe that first trip which Uebel witnessed occurred on the 3rd. If the people he saw were Reich, Coleman, or both - that could work because BOTH were in NY at the time he said it occurred. Reich had driven the men up very early in the morning that day but came back to the City. So I think about Uebel's account and there's no way he could have known that - plus he's giving the wrong date so its not a planned out hoax of some sort. Of course it might not have been either of them but if you look at Reich's "jaw" that is certainly an identifying feature, and its the "maroon sedan" which he was able to later get the plate off which leads me to believe it was the same car he saw. It could be there were two different maroon sedans but I think that's unlikely. Furthermore, who other than these two could Condon have provided this information? It's always been my belief, ever since I found this material, that whoever they were went that day looking to retrieve that box. Sorry can you just clarify a bit on these trips. What would be the point of sending Reich to the cemetery to get the box without specific instructions for where to find it? You think it was just bad directions? Lastly, what is the inference (or your belief) as to what Condon is up to for that long walk down through the marsh etc?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jul 17, 2018 6:02:02 GMT -5
As for the Uebel sightings in Chapter 4 of V. 2, what's up with the sighting of the ransom box pick-up by one of Condon's "team" (Al Reich?) on the Monday following the supposed payoff to "John." The box, according to Uebel, was picked up in a bush behind a house on Tremont Ave. In fact, the address of that house was identical to the residence of the Superintendent of St. Raymond's Cemetery. I may be missing something here, but Condon's contact had instructed him carefully in how to prepare the box, so why would Condon not pass the ransom in the box to John as per the official story, but rather leave the box in a secret location to be picked up later? I can't figure out why Condon wouldn't give the box to John with the cash in it. So if we believe Uebel, the cash was given to John without the box, so what did John carry the cash in? Must have literally had big pockets to stuff all that cash into, or had his own receptacle for the cash. Now that doesn't seem to mesh with the particular specifications communicated in the earlier ransom note. And why would Condon want to keep the box in "friendly" hands? What would be incriminating as far as he's concerned if the box turned up in possession of someone else? If Condon is in cahoots with the extortionists, and their capture could possibly out him as a conspirator, it is in his best interest to ensure these people are never caught. This explains his constant lies, changing stories and overall unhelpfulness in this investigation. In this instance, the objective was to be as discreet as possible, while also giving the kidnappers a head start. By transferring the money into an item that is not as recognizable, it makes their getaway easier, while also creating a misdirection for Lindbergh. Additionally, by telling the police they received the item in this one-of-a-kind box, which Condon knows they know longer have, it makes the job harder for investigators were they to ever find a suspect.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 17, 2018 7:38:58 GMT -5
Sorry can you just clarify a bit on these trips. What would be the point of sending Reich to the cemetery to get the box without specific instructions for where to find it? You think it was just bad directions? Lastly, what is the inference (or your belief) as to what Condon is up to for that long walk down through the marsh etc? First thing is that I know its confusing and it would have been much easier if I just laid out Uebel's original account because that's obviously the freshest in his mind and would be the most accurate despite the possibility that he confused the actual dates. But that's what other people who write books do, and I never want to hold back with information I have in my possession because its up to the individual to decide - and not me. 1. My guess is bad directions. It seems that Condon would have little opportunity to fully explain everything to someone after the money was transferred. Reading about everything going on I would assume he was surrounded by people and even fell under heavy suspicion once it was revealed the $20,000 of $50s had been removed. So who but Reich could Condon try to reveal this information? Certainly none of us were there but given the facts we do have all we can do is consider the possibilities as they relate to them. Reich drove them to Bridgeport and dropped them off at 4:15AM. He returned to NY. Once the plane landed at "about" 7PM they called Reich "to bring the Franklin car from New York City" to take them back. So when considering the possibilities I see that Reich could have been the man seen there on this day by Uebel. What the cops should have done was bring him down for a line-up! But since Avon's actual interview with Uebel occurred in mid-April we must consider the child hadn't been found yet so they may have been "afraid" to by either "scaring" Condon off, or "angering" Lindbergh in some way. That's a hell of a way to investigate isn't it? But in answering your question I think it makes sense they are scouting around, probably for a bush, near the cemetery perimeter. For Uebel to state "as if looking for someone" tells me they were looking - and the eventual fact this same guy returned days later to specifically retrieve that box is telling (for me anyway).
2. I don't know. It's as simple as that. History records he was there to "look over the situation." It could be he was there to simply give Coleman his scoop, or to blow smoke at Breckinridge. But knowing that box was sitting in that bush MUST have been driving him crazy. We also have to consider that while Uebel did not know Condon was "Jafsie" at the time, he did know the man since he was a kid. Once Condon passed they acknowledged each other. That tells me Condon was aware that this whole episode was being witnessed. The next thing to consider was the white envelope. Although Uebel doesn't remember it in his later accounts, it seems odd Condon would hand this over at the location when it could have been done anywhere. There could have been absolutely nothing to it and could have been two tickets to Brooklyn Dodgers opening day for all we know. But considering what Condon had just pulled with the Ransom delivery - its hard to grasp the idea that it was.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2018 9:53:02 GMT -5
I am trying to work my way through all the things Michael discloses about the St Raymond ransom exchange. I have a couple of questions.
1. After reading the note found at the greenhouse, a man with a handkerchief walks by both Condon and Lindbergh. After that Condon acts on the notes instructions and walks to the entrance area of St. Raymonds. Here Condon says he sees and speaks with a man and girl/woman. Since this whole encounter with this man and girl/woman undergoes changes when Condon talks about it at various times during the investigation, how can we be sure this man and female were actually on this corner? Did Lindbergh ever state that he saw this couple that night? It would be shortly after this that Lindbergh supposedly heard the "Hey Doctor" shout by "John". This whole exchange between this couple Condon claims took place sounds so unbelievable. How can these people and Condon be almost at the corner of Tremont and Whittemore Avenue and not know where Whittemore Ave. is?
If the ransom money exchange actually took place on Tremont Avenue and not in the cemetery, Condon just walking on to Whittemore Ave for the second time just to stash the ransom box, doesn't this then nullify the whole story Condon gave about the transfer of the money and the entire conversation of John telling Condon "his work was perfect" and Condon's "I know no other way" as being nothing more than Condon hyperbole?
If Condon didn't go to the hedge inside St. Raymond's cemetery to hand over the ransom money, where does this leave the footprint evidence (plaster cast) made of what was supposed to be the kidnaper's footprint in the fresh dirt at the time of the ransom transfer?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 17, 2018 23:16:37 GMT -5
Obviously someone perpetrating the Woodlawn situation is smarter than the police. That would seem to be beyond Condon and Reich though they were probably the handy patsies. Thought really goes to the table clue and the probable fact that the true instigator of TLC was the German government. Look at who won after the crime! Germany did and Hauptmann to a $50k extent. I think looking at Donovan closely and his German dealings would shed light on what really happened. Many things about the crime seem to be professionally upgoofed. There were probably ten professional police watching that house and they saw nothing! Come on - how crazy are we supposed to believe? There were lots of German agents in the USA in the thirties because of WWI. They wanted to keep us out of it, but were free agents to do what they wanted. Someone told them to go after CAL to turn him pro-German and they did it. Probably many more threats against his family than we'll ever know about - wife, mother next, CAL himself. They showed that they could easily do it, and they did.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 18, 2018 6:32:06 GMT -5
Obviously someone perpetrating the Woodlawn situation is smarter than the police. That would seem to be beyond Condon and Reich though they were probably the handy patsies. I agree wholeheartedly with what you write above. This whole scenario was a well thought out and designed situation. I don't know about the intent to make either Condon or Reich "patsies" however, Condon was certain a key element to all of this deception. If we consider what history tells us it seems nutty to involve a guy like Condon but if we apply what really happened they appear to be brilliant in doing so. At least until the point where he flips on Hauptmann. But clearly he did everything in his power up to that point to protect him. It came down to a situation where it was either "him or me" and Condon thinking they were about to both go down chose "him." Clearly others were involved as well, so in the end they were protected and it was Hauptmann, regardless of any involvement, who took the "fall" for everyone else involved. After that Condon acts on the notes instructions and walks to the entrance area of St. Raymonds. Here Condon says he sees and speaks with a man and girl/woman. Since this whole encounter with this man and girl/woman undergoes changes when Condon talks about it at various times during the investigation, how can we be sure this man and female were actually on this corner? Did Lindbergh ever state that he saw this couple that night? According to Lindbergh it was a " man" and a " little girl" who turned "quickly" after the voice called " Ay Doctor" watched Condon wander down Whittemore - then "rapidly" walked out of sight (down Tremont Ave). (See TDC V2 p207) Since Lindbergh himself is untrustworthy in many places we must consider that also. How can these people and Condon be almost at the corner of Tremont and Whittemore Avenue and not know where Whittemore Ave. is? All nonsense. And Condon contradicted himself on the point concerning why he asked. If the ransom money exchange actually took place on Tremont Avenue and not in the cemetery, Condon just walking on to Whittemore Ave for the second time just to stash the ransom box, doesn't this then nullify the whole story Condon gave about the transfer of the money and the entire conversation of John telling Condon "his work was perfect" and Condon's "I know no other way" as being nothing more than Condon hyperbole? It proves it was all made up. Honestly, the various and evolving versions does that already, but what we now know proves it. Of course we cannot say exactly that Condon wasn't conversing with someone else down there but its pretty clear his main function at that point was to pretend the exchange was happening while he hid the box. If Condon didn't go to the hedge inside St. Raymond's cemetery to hand over the ransom money, where does this leave the footprint evidence (plaster cast) made of what was supposed to be the kidnaper's footprint in the fresh dirt at the time of the ransom transfer? It relies on Condon. Condon's version about what he witnessed concerning John changed as it related to the footprint. When he talks about the money delivery there's nothing about the running and jumping. When he talks about the footprint it becomes necessary for someone to have done those things. My guess is these prints were either unrelated or created for this purpose. Breckinridge spoke of Condon making a trip there before he went "back" with him. There's also the previous visit (April 3rd) without him to consider as well. No way I'd ever believe Condon was actually showing them a real footprint of CJ. In fact, look at the picture of the print in my book (p283). Even if the cast wasn't "good" they had the exact measurements and it did not match Hauptmann. Look at what Madden wrote in that chapter (p280-1). Again, that print didn't match Hauptmann's size. So IF one believes CJ WAS Hauptmann then Condon was lying. Otherwise, CJ was NOT Hauptmann. It cannot be both.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 18, 2018 9:32:10 GMT -5
I still don't quite see why Condon would be at such an advantage by not delivering the ransom money in the ransom box. What would get the recipient of the ransom money - and anyone else that it might have been passed down to - in trouble would much more likely be possession of the ransom money or the passing of it. Condon had to know that the serial numbers of the bills he gave "John" had been recorded by the Treasury Agents. So being in possession in of those bills or being caught in the act of passing them would the main problem for the plotters. Compared to that, a chance of John or another conspirator being caught with the ransom box would be miniscule; they could have easily burned the wooden random box and that would have solved that problem
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jul 18, 2018 9:33:56 GMT -5
hi amy, the problem with michaels books he tries to change the case to much, you cant hide the basic facts. nothing in his books clears Hauptman. that's what interests me
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2018 12:53:05 GMT -5
Since Lindbergh himself is untrustworthy in many places we must consider that also. Indeed, he has proven himself to be at odds with the facts in this case numerous times. Since your footnotes about the "man and the girl" show these statements come from the Bronx Grand Jury hearing in May of 1932, I was wondering the following: 1) Were witnesses prepped for this hearing like was done for the Hauptmann Trial? 2) Who testified at this Bronx Grand jury hearing first about this point - Lindbergh or Condon? 3) Did Gregory Coleman testify at this 1932 Bronx Grand Jury hearing? In his Vigil manuscript, referenced by you, Coleman claims Condon told him in 1932 (April?) that it was a man and a woman Condon saw on that night. I know Coleman testified in 1934 at another Bronx Grand Jury (your footnote #749, page 242) and said then, too, that it was a man and a woman Condon encountered at St. Raymond cemetery. For the record, I think Coleman is being honest about what Condon originally told him about this man/woman encounter. It is Condon, who, for some reason changes it and Lindbergh apparently goes along with this change. So I am wondering if Lindbergh really did see these two people that night or if he is just supporting Condon's position about this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2018 13:01:48 GMT -5
hi amy, the problem with michaels books he tries to change the case to much, you cant hide the basic facts. nothing in his books clears Hauptman. that's what interests me Steve, Michael's books are revealing what the police investigations uncovered about this case. It is those documents that tell a different story. Michael is sharing all of this so those of us who are interested in this case have all of these facts to consider. So far, I haven't gotten the impression that the objective of Michael's books are to clear Hauptmann of guilt. What I am seeing is that Hauptmann is not a lone-wolf in this crime because of all this documentation. What are your thoughts on that footprint found in the St. Raymond's cemetery that Condon claims was made by the kidnapper? Do you believe this footprint was made by the kidnapper of the Lindbergh baby?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 18, 2018 14:12:04 GMT -5
Indeed, he has proven himself to be at odds with the facts in this case numerous times. Since your footnotes about the "man and the girl" show these statements come from the Bronx Grand Jury hearing in May of 1932, I was wondering the following: The footnotes concerning Lindbergh's account is from 657 thru 659. These should be his May 20th statement to Inspector Walsh. 1) Were witnesses prepped for this hearing like was done for the Hauptmann Trial? I have seen no evidence of it. Also, Grand Jury testimony was supposed to be secret. That's not to say Lindbergh wasn't aware of what was said because I personally believe he was. 2) Who testified at this Bronx Grand jury hearing first about this point - Lindbergh or Condon? Condon's GJ testimony was in 1932. Lindbergh's was in 1934. Anything that mentions Hauptmann was in 1934. 3) Did Gregory Coleman testify at this 1932 Bronx Grand Jury hearing? In his Vigil manuscript, referenced by you, Coleman claims Condon told him in 1932 (April?) that it was a man and a woman Condon saw on that night. I know Coleman testified in 1934 at another Bronx Grand Jury (your footnote #749, page 242) and said then, too, that it was a man and a woman Condon encountered at St. Raymond cemetery. The only GJ testimony I have from Coleman is from September 24, 1934. I see now for the first time that footnote says 1932 and its clearly a mistake because its the People vs. Hauptmann Grand Jury. If he testified in the Bronx in 1932 I don't have it. There's reference to a statement in the reports, but I don't have that either - so they may not have made a record of it or its not at the NJSP Archives.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jul 19, 2018 5:41:08 GMT -5
Michael - this book has been fantastic. In reading the section on Breck's office visit from "Fisch," who was ranting about "the needs of science":
Have you considered or do you put any stock in the fact that these "kidnappers" were lured in by the third party by money, but also the that such an act (perhaps delivering the child or his remains for research) would be a noble deed? This might explain the seemingly non-sequitur remarks by Fisch, assuming it was him.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 19, 2018 7:53:58 GMT -5
Michael - this book has been fantastic. In reading the section on Breck's office visit from "Fisch," who was ranting about "the needs of science": Have you considered or do you put any stock in the fact that these "kidnappers" were lured in by the third party by money, but also the that such an act (perhaps delivering the child or his remains for research) would be a noble deed? This might explain the seemingly non-sequitur remarks by Fisch, assuming it was him. Thank you, and that is good to hear. I am staring down the prospects of writing V3 and the enormity of it all - and wondering if its worth it so I needed to hear that. A recent communication to me was made by someone who read V2 where they claimed being " in a state of disbelief." Not sure how to take that. It could be a good thing or bad. What I can say is its why Archives exist. We can revisit the items that were supposedly used to shape history. In this case there are many places where history was shaped by playing "whisper down the alley" or "narratives" designed for a specific purpose and not always the truth. If not for Gov. Byrne's E.O. we'd still be completely in the dark about a lot of this. Breckinridge's statement is interesting on so many levels. First, think about the Zorn book for a minute. While I've never read it myself, I have read that its based upon a child overhearing a couple of words like "Bruno" and "Englewood." A child. Here we have Breckinridge, and he's seeing and hearing a lot more. Rate these accounts then compare them to one another. Absurd right? The other thing is that, as it involved Fisch, he is a unique looking character. For me, unless it's Condon lying by using something he thinks cops will believe, then we should pay careful attention where he is concerned. Who saw him? Were they creditable? What did he say? So what I suggest is careful consideration and not the usual shrugging off what one dislikes but embracing what they do. In considering this account, my mind immediately went to the Eugenics aspect of the case. I can't lie about that. But another thing that has always bothered me were the accounts, here and there, by those who saw the body or those who were told by those who did, describing the possibility that it was "embalmed." I go into this in V1 on page 301 where Kirkham saw the body and believed there was a foreign substance on it. Kirkham was LE and not a medical professional, so while I am sure he saw a lot of dead bodies in his career, he's not someone we can absolutely rely on about it. But if what Foster told reporters was true, that Fawcett was going to call VanIngen to testify to that - its something I wish had actually happened so we'd know more. But in the end, we do have the Dr. Mitchell, Swayze, and VanIngen material to consult and there's nothing about that. I've seen it in a couple of other places but not from any of these three men. The Fawcett material is NOT at the NJSP Archives. I remember back in say, 2001 maybe, someone who had his material was trying to sell it on ebay and no one met his reserve - so its still out there. My guess is there is more to be learned from that material. So for me, if "Fisch" meant experimentation then I'd have to see evidence of it which I could actually point to. There's the heart and liver still present which I find especially suspicious, but there's evidence of animals eating different parts of the body. I really don't know but I'd be interested to listen to anyone attempting to make a case for it based upon what we do know. As far as being "lured" into involvement with money by a 3rd party - yes. I've always believed that and if you go to the Intro on page x in V1 you will see where I express that opinion. I think you can also see a case can be made for that in V2 as well.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 19, 2018 11:14:58 GMT -5
This is Mark Falzini's blog entry. His sources are written at the bottom. Is there something specific you question? I'm not exactly sure what you are asking. What I can tell you is that everything he wrote is supported by that cited material. BTW: For anyone who thinks they are too far away from the Archives to visit, Mark is still happy to assist anyone who may call him. He's very helpful and you'd think after all of these years he'd get sick of me. What's crazy is I was just there again on Tuesday looking for information I may have missed about a certain topic I plan to write about in V3. For as many times as I've been through everything I did find more material I did not have!
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jul 19, 2018 21:16:04 GMT -5
Michael - this book has been fantastic. In reading the section on Breck's office visit from "Fisch," who was ranting about "the needs of science": Have you considered or do you put any stock in the fact that these "kidnappers" were lured in by the third party by money, but also the that such an act (perhaps delivering the child or his remains for research) would be a noble deed? This might explain the seemingly non-sequitur remarks by Fisch, assuming it was him. Thank you, and that is good to hear. I am staring down the prospects of writing V3 and the enormity of it all - and wondering if its worth it so I needed to hear that. A recent communication to me was made by someone who read V2 where they claimed being " in a state of disbelief." Not sure how to take that. It could be a good thing or bad. What I can say is its why Archives exist. We can revisit the items that were supposedly used to shape history. In this case there are many places where history was shaped by playing "whisper down the alley" or "narratives" designed for a specific purpose and not always the truth. If not for Gov. Byrne's E.O. we'd still be completely in the dark about a lot of this. Breckinridge's statement is interesting on so many levels. First, think about the Zorn book for a minute. While I've never read it myself, I have read that its based upon a child overhearing a couple of words like "Bruno" and "Englewood." A child. Here we have Breckinridge, and he's seeing and hearing a lot more. Rate these accounts then compare them to one another. Absurd right? The other thing is that, as it involved Fisch, he is a unique looking character. For me, unless it's Condon lying by using something he thinks cops will believe, then we should pay careful attention where he is concerned. Who saw him? Were they creditable? What did he say? So what I suggest is careful consideration and not the usual shrugging off what one dislikes but embracing what they do. In considering this account, my mind immediately went to the Eugenics aspect of the case. I can't lie about that. But another thing that has always bothered me were the accounts, here and there, by those who saw the body or those who were told by those who did, describing the possibility that it was "embalmed." I go into this in V1 on page 301 where Kirkham saw the body and believed there was a foreign substance on it. Kirkham was LE and not a medical professional, so while I am sure he saw a lot of dead bodies in his career, he's not someone we can absolutely rely on about it. But if what Foster told reporters was true, that Fawcett was going to call VanIngen to testify to that - its something I wish had actually happened so we'd know more. But in the end, we do have the Dr. Mitchell, Swayze, and VanIngen material to consult and there's nothing about that. I've seen it in a couple of other places but not from any of these three men. The Fawcett material is NOT at the NJSP Archives. I remember back in say, 2001 maybe, someone who had his material was trying to sell it on ebay and no one met his reserve - so its still out there. My guess is there is more to be learned from that material. So for me, if "Fisch" meant experimentation then I'd have to see evidence of it which I could actually point to. There's the heart and liver still present which I find especially suspicious, but there's evidence of animals eating different parts of the body. I really don't know but I'd be interested to listen to anyone attempting to make a case for it based upon what we do know. As far as being "lured" into involvement with money by a 3rd party - yes. I've always believed that and if you go to the Intro on page x in V1 you will see where I express that opinion. I think you can also see a case can be made for that in V2 as well. One of the things that really stood out to me was from a TV special a few years back. They interviewed a pediatric surgeon who found the removal of the organs odd. Were it wildlife, she said, they would have eaten the heart and more “surface” organs first. Instead the removed organs were deeper and indicated somebody in the medical field had done this. It does make sense to me. Animals, it seems, would tear out the organs then disgard them if not fit for eating. Instead they seemed to be in tact and removed with some precision. Correct me if I’m wrong? (I also know there was some wildlife presence but I don’t think that excludes the body having been examined for research and embalmed before it got to the woods)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2018 21:28:31 GMT -5
There's the heart and liver still present which I find especially suspicious, but there's evidence of animals eating different parts of the body. The heart and the liver being present is indeed odd. I also find the presence of the eyeballs as very unusual. During decomp the softest tissues usually break down first and the eyeballs should have decomposed already when you take into consideration that so much of this corpse is skeletal. What evidence is there of animals eating different parts of the body?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 20, 2018 6:25:27 GMT -5
One of the things that really stood out to me was from a TV special a few years back. They interviewed a pediatric surgeon who found the removal of the organs odd. Were it wildlife, she said, they would have eaten the heart and more “surface” organs first. Instead the removed organs were deeper and indicated somebody in the medical field had done this. It does make sense to me. Animals, it seems, would tear out the organs then disgard them if not fit for eating. Instead they seemed to be in tact and removed with some precision. Correct me if I’m wrong? (I also know there was some wildlife presence but I don’t think that excludes the body having been examined for research and embalmed before it got to the woods) It's certainly an angle to explore. I've never seen it mentioned this way anywhere else, but I've been told animals would eat the heart and liver "unless" they were so full of toxins they were avoided. Dr. Baden reviewed this evidence at one time. I wish he would have made an observation concerning all of this. But I can say Dr. Mitchell and Swayze did not note the potential reasons. One would think they'd notice surgical cuts on the corpse. And at the time would there be a reason why they wouldn't? That's the other side of it. The heart and the liver being present is indeed odd. I also find the presence of the eyeballs as very unusual. During decomp the softest tissues usually break down first and the eyeballs should have decomposed already when you take into consideration that so much of this corpse is skeletal. What evidence is there of animals eating different parts of the body? Several sources mentioned "animal activity" and there was animal hair found inside the burlap bag.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Jul 20, 2018 8:35:28 GMT -5
The implication within this discussion, that some kind of secretive medical intervention took place on the body is pretty clear. Yet the corpse was essentially dumped by the side of a road near the house for someone to eventually find. Would this not be the last place in which the the body of the child of Charles Lindbergh, would have been disposed of if the real intent here had been some covert agenda of scientific evaluation? Why not have the child's body never found, a pretty easy thing to accomplish if you've actually managed to engage all of the resources to get this far, and you also don't want anyone to know what you were doing to the body?
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Jul 20, 2018 13:13:31 GMT -5
Producing a body served to effectively end the ransom negotiations that might have otherwise led to ever increasing dollar amounts demanded.
There would have been a fair amount of confidence that what insults the body had been subjected to could be blamed on animal predation.
The cursory autopsy and cremation of the body hours later left authorities with nothing substantive forensically to work with.
All in all, the risk in providing a body in the condition it was found in was minimal; the threat window from the time the body was found to when it was cremated was brief.
One wonders if the site where the body was dumped was chosen in part because of the meager resources and skills of the Mercer county coroner versus a more thorough, competent and well-documented examination that likely would have occurred had the body been dumped in a more urban location...
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jul 20, 2018 16:28:39 GMT -5
The implication within this discussion, that some kind of secretive medical intervention took place on the body is pretty clear. Yet the corpse was essentially dumped by the side of a road near the house for someone to eventually find. Would this not be the last place in which the the body of the child of Charles Lindbergh, would have been disposed of if the real intent here had been some covert agenda of scientific evaluation? Why not have the child's body never found, a pretty easy thing to accomplish if you've actually managed to engage all of the resources to get this far, and you also don't want anyone to know what you were doing to the body? As scathma said, no body = the possibility of endless ransom demands.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Jul 20, 2018 19:53:10 GMT -5
I have to give you guys a lot of credit for having the sheer tenacity to keep dreaming up these kinds of explanations in the face of such little circumstantial evidence to support your agenda.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jul 20, 2018 20:54:01 GMT -5
I have to give you guys a lot of credit for having the sheer tenacity to keep dreaming up these kinds of explanations in the face of such little circumstantial evidence to support your agenda. Are we, then, to believe the burlap bag the body was transported in sat on the side of the road for weeks, even when that area had previously been searched? Forget about inclement weather conditions that would have clearly moved it. Of course not, the body was placed there later for a reason. If this case happened today, every aspect of it would be major red flag that would have led to the entire household staff being hauled in for questioning and immediate suspicion on the family. Alas, that didn't happen here for obvious reasons.
|
|