jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 20, 2018 22:31:17 GMT -5
Where is any evidence to bring the household staff in? There was just a missing child and no fingerprints, footprints, cig butts, whatever they look for - nada.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jul 20, 2018 23:54:04 GMT -5
Where is any evidence to bring the household staff in? There was just a missing child and no fingerprints, footprints, cig butts, whatever they look for - nada. Where's the evidence anybody would know the Lindberghs would be home that night? Where's the evidence they stepped off the boardwalk to survey the room to ensure CAL Sr or anybody else wasn't present in the room? Why's the nursery wiped clean? Why's CAL running around with a gun then willing to wait an unspecified amount of time to open a ransom note that may have urgent instructions (meet us in one hour)? This is a case of logic. Were this any other case, the family, as I said earlier, would have been hauled in for questioning.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jul 22, 2018 9:06:48 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. It's reasonable to believe the body could have been transported back to the scene at some point prior to it's discovery. Yet, how do we reconcile the fact the face turned from white to black after the body was turned over, thereby indicating it had been protected from the effects of oxidation for an extended period of time, with black putrefaction arrested until it was exposed to the air? And I don't believe the burlap bag, (containing the body) was simply dumped by the side of the road, rather the empty bag was probably dragged there by an animal from the location in the brush, where the body was dumped. No, the whole household wasn't "hauled in," but by association, they would all have been very much under suspicion, given the nature of the circumstantial physical evidence all around them, wouldn't they? I tend to believe, probably much more than you, that any one of them would quickly have unraveled in a situation where they felt the very least bit of complicity in a fake kidnapping. After all, look what happened to Violet Sharp in Englewood, who was guilty of nothing more than selling "secrets of the household."
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 22, 2018 10:49:04 GMT -5
In V.2, pp.402 et seq., there is the story of cabbie Maurice Silken, who claimed that on March 7, 1932, he drove a plump lady (approx. 5'2'', 150 lb.) with a foreign accent to Condon's house. Lloyd Gardner, in his "The Case That Never Dies", mentions the possibility that Condon's visitor was Mary Cerrita. Was Cerrita born in Italy? If so, depending upon what age she came over to the US, she could very well have had a foreign accent, and have matched Siliken's description. Gardner also suggests that Cerrita could have been the lady Condon later met at the bazaar, and therefore, maybe at Tuckahoe a few days later.
Condon later told authorities, among other things, that this lady was Swedish and was asking for support for a charity, but that can't be believed because it was Condon who said that.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 22, 2018 11:27:23 GMT -5
Was Cerrita born in Italy? Palermo, Italy
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 22, 2018 15:43:21 GMT -5
Was Cerrita born in Italy? Palermo, Italy Would you know Cerrita's approximate age, height, and weight in 1932? How close are they to Silken's description of his cab passenger?
|
|
geld
Trooper
Posts: 43
|
Post by geld on Jul 22, 2018 15:49:13 GMT -5
I was always had the understanding that the $20 GC that was found on BRH was in the archives in NJ. In V-2 you only refer to a photo that you saw. So where. it the original? The $20GC # A3551 7877A, V-2,page474- 483 FOLD $ CREASES.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2018 15:51:46 GMT -5
Gardner also suggests that Cerrita could have been the lady Condon later met at the bazaar, and therefore, maybe at Tuckahoe a few days later. I find Mary Cerrita to be a person of interest in this case. I don't know if she was the lady who spoke to Condon at the bazaar that day in March but I am certainly open to that possibility. Mary Cerrita's father was a contractor and he worked on the construction of the wall that was built around St. Raymond's cemetery. Mary's father died in 1929. He was laid to rest in Woodlawn Cemetery. Both were used in the ransom negotiations.
|
|
geld
Trooper
Posts: 43
|
Post by geld on Jul 22, 2018 17:29:47 GMT -5
V-2 RANSOM BOX pages 284-293, anyone make note of the letter from Anna Hauptmann to David Wilentz , the AG, requesting "certain personal property" be returned to her. There is one item listed as "one fancy wooden box- inlay wood" . Letter dated 26 September 1935. Has this subject been covered before?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2018 18:08:59 GMT -5
V-2 RANSOM BOX pages 284-293, anyone make note of the letter from Anna Hauptmann to David Wilentz , the AG, requesting "certain personal property" be returned to her. There is one item listed as "one fancy wooden box- inlay wood" . Letter dated 26 September 1935. Has this subject been covered before? Hi geld, I asked Michael about this box back in 2014. Here is a link to the page that discussion is on plus a picture of Anna's box. lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/thread/33/condon-conundrum?page=15
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 22, 2018 18:29:51 GMT -5
Would you know Cerrita's approximate age, height, and weight in 1932? How close are they to Silken's description of his cab passenger? Mary was 39 years old in 1932 according to her marriage certificate. According to Agent Sisk, she was freakishly short standing only about 4' 10" or 11". I know there are a couple of sources for these things so they might say something different but this is what these say. I was always had the understanding that the $20 GC that was found on BRH was in the archives in NJ. In V-2 you only refer to a photo that you saw. So where. it the original? The $20GC # A3551 7877A, V-2,page474- 483 FOLD $ CREASES. First a little history.... After the trial many things "walked away." Whether by "French Leave" or by permission over time things simply went home with or were not returned by the various investigators or officials. For example, Leon Ho-age was given nails from Hauptmann's attic by Gov. Hoffman during the time he was assisting him. Although I cannot prove it, there's no doubt in my mind Hoffman told him to keep them once everything "died" after his term expired. One could say he didn't have the right to do that but it was going on all over the place. Some things became lost. For example, Troopers were moving Schwarzkopf's old desk and accidentally discovered one of Osborn's original handwriting reports jammed behind the middle drawer. Some things were actually returned! During the 1977-1980 review former Troopers who had something they believed might assist were bringing these items back. What is at the Archives could be behind the display, in the actual files, or locked away in the safe (e.g. Original Ransom Notes). Anyway now that I bored you, I can say with 100% certainty that bill found on Hauptmann during his arrest is no longer at the NJSP Archives. There are only two pictures that I have ever seen - one being a normal copy and the other a negative one. I am not sure if the negative is the negative of the actual normal. Most likely yes, but I am not absolutely certain.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jul 23, 2018 9:48:23 GMT -5
The temptation for investigators to walk off with pieces of evidence after the verdict, especially those they were close to, must have been huge. I know Dave Holwerda ended up with "souvenirs" via Lew Bornmann, who had obviously "appropriated" quite a few things.
About eight years ago, I noticed an eBay ad claiming to be one of Hauptmann's 1934 NY 4U-13-41 license plates up for auction. (I believe the other one was cut up for pocket-sized souvenirs) The more I looked at the photos, the more I became convinced it was real. I ended up being high bidder but lost out as it didn't meet the seller's reserve price. After the auction, I got in touch with the seller, a guy named Willie, in Florida, and tried to work out a deal, but we ended up being too far apart. As I thought about it more, I realized it was much more than an LKC souvenir, and that it really belonged in the NJSP Museum. I talked to Mark about it and discovered later, a deal was made and so that's where it now resides. Definitely a happy ending!
On a side note, it would be interesting to know which detective ended up with the intact plate after the trial. I'm guessing Bornmann, Keaten or maybe Schwarzkopf?
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jul 23, 2018 10:44:13 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 wolfman666 on Jul 23, 2018 10:46:38 GMT -5
well, being aound since 1992 on this case I have a great idea on who found what and who can research.
|
|
geld
Trooper
Posts: 43
|
Post by geld on Jul 23, 2018 11:11:22 GMT -5
Thanks AMY35, it clear-up all.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 23, 2018 17:52:19 GMT -5
To me there is a high probability (maybe 75%) that the lady passenger in Maurice Silken's cab who was dropped off in front of Condon's house on March 7, 1932 WAS Mary Cerrita. Would anyone care to speculate on this probability? (Remember that when Condon was interviewed by law enforcement about this lady with Silken also present, Condon made up bogus descriptors of her, likely in an attempt to protect her.)
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 23, 2018 23:03:26 GMT -5
What could she and her husband be guilty of regarding the crime. They had a little sex ring going on, but weren't found with any ransom bills. Also there's no passer with her statistics found in the FBI analysis of the bills that were passed. All these loose ends add up to zero. There was an instigator behind the crime, but he's not in the USA, and it would take some new digging to find him.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 24, 2018 6:52:34 GMT -5
To me there is a high probability (maybe 75%) that the lady passenger in Maurice Silken's cab who was dropped off in front of Condon's house on March 7, 1932 WAS Mary Cerrita. Would anyone care to speculate on this probability? (Remember that when Condon was interviewed by law enforcement about this lady with Silken also present, Condon made up bogus descriptors of her, likely in an attempt to protect her.) As it relates to the woman Silken drove I'd have to agree with Jack and say it wasn't her. I don't think she fits the description AND Silken was still in contact with authorities almost into 1937. Since Mary was known to the public way before this I can't see why Silken wouldn't have jumped all over this - if it had been her. Next, I do believe the next two trips driven to his home by other Taxis was Myra which was done for the purposes of protecting her father. But here again, I cannot prove it but only point to what she did do which I've outlined in my book. It seems consistent with that behavior. well, being aound since 1992 on this case I have a great idea on who found what and who can research. Although I came onto the scene in 2000, I can tell about "who-found-what" by the footnotes. For me I document everything. My manuscripts were saved & dated each and every step of the way. My letters written to the various Archives are on hand and dated. There were plenty of things I kept to myself before writing and I can prove all of them. Now as it relates to the books.... "I" am not changing anything because I did not make any of this up. I know its hard for some to accept what the documentation actually reveals but that's not my cross to bear.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jul 25, 2018 9:59:38 GMT -5
first off I wasn't talking to you and it isn't childish, I can comment on your garbage but I dont
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2018 10:27:08 GMT -5
well, being aound since 1992 on this case I have a great idea on who found what and who can research. So Steve, this comment was actually for me. I am well aware that you have an extensive history with this case and I truly respect that. I guess I am not clear on what you mean with this comment. My question to you was about the footprint Condon said was made by the kidnapper the night of the ransom payment at St. Raymond cemetery. Do you believe it was made by the kidnapper? What research can you share about this footprint that I can consider?
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jul 26, 2018 12:29:42 GMT -5
amy I don't think much of that, the fbi said the footprints condon got were not good either way. we know Hauptman was very involved with what they found in his garage, and his interogations. they didn't have the good forensic ways back then. now we have experts on footwear and tire threads they can reproduce with the right stuff. as far as saying about the research that I know people who did great research but aren't around anymore they moved on just like we all will do some day. some moron on here said I was childish but they never explained that
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jul 26, 2018 12:32:17 GMT -5
but mike I wasn't talking about you I was telling amy I know people who researched the case that aren't around anymore they moved on to other cases or just got old like we will do some day. I still havnt decided what im going to do with all my crap
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 26, 2018 13:52:41 GMT -5
amy I don't think much of that, the fbi said the footprints condon got were not good either way. we know Hauptman was very involved with what they found in his garage, and his interogations. they didn't have the good forensic ways back then. now we have experts on footwear and tire threads they can reproduce with the right stuff. I am guessing you haven't read my book? I list each and every source to show the true situation. First and foremost there was no FBI representative there that night. The person most enthusiastic about the cast was Breckinridge. The most skeptical about the cast was T-Man A.P. Madden. Despite that, it was Madden who believed the measurements taken were good evidence. Since I found those actual measurements and put the actual scan of them in my book ( see V2 page 283) - its proof it did not match Hauptmann's size. So we are faced with only two choices: Either Condon was lying about this print being made by CJ, or CJ wasn't Hauptmann. Pick your poison. The argument that the cast was no good does not apply. So yes, there were a lot of Researchers who came before I did. But how did all of these people who came before me miss all of this information that I found and continue to find? I'll tell you why ... they did not spend enough time at the NJSP Archives. It's all right there but one has to be willing to spend the time necessary to find it all. but mike I wasn't talking about you I was telling amy I know people who researched the case that aren't around anymore they moved on to other cases or just got old like we will do some day. I still havnt decided what im going to do with all my crap Donate it to the NJSP Archives!
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 26, 2018 14:37:02 GMT -5
Since I proved that Lindbergh had nothing to do with the crime there's been nothing new on here. There is a description of Fisch very closely resembling him - a man with a bunch of five dollar bills wanting to pass them that hasn't been discussed since I brought it up a while back. So lets discuss that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2018 15:30:30 GMT -5
amy I don't think much of that, the fbi said the footprints condon got were not good either way. we know Hauptman was very involved with what they found in his garage, and his interogations. they didn't have the good forensic ways back then. now we have experts on footwear and tire threads they can reproduce with the right stuff. as far as saying about the research that I know people who did great research but aren't around anymore they moved on just like we all will do some day. some moron on here said I was childish but they never explained that Thanks Steve for answering my question and explaining your previous comment. If I was not clear on it maybe others were not either. Crime scene investigating has certainly come a long, long way since 1932. You have always been a consistent participant in examining and discussing the LKC. I hope you will hang in here longer and share more of your thoughts about the case. I am sure you have an extensive collection of material about this crime. I do hope when you finally feel the time has come for you to move away from this case , you will contribute it to the NJSP archives where others can benefit from all your years of research!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 27, 2018 6:34:26 GMT -5
Since I proved that Lindbergh had nothing to do with the crime there's been nothing new on here. There is a description of Fisch very closely resembling him - a man with a bunch of five dollar bills wanting to pass them that hasn't been discussed since I brought it up a while back. So lets discuss that. While I've never seen you prove or disprove that I think discussing anything that you've brought up is a good idea. Refresh my memory about it and I'll see if I have anything I can add...
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 27, 2018 7:35:26 GMT -5
Here is the actual photo taken of one of the footprints found at St. Raymond's that night: imgur.com/6sS5ZjSI was originally going to place it in the book but I didn't think it was going to turn out. The other thing I wanted to mention is that from the actual measurement displayed in the scan I put on page 283 you can see 4ft. 4" written at the toe area. This figure represented the distance from the wall to the footprint. That wall was where Condon said CJ jumped off of ( see page 270).
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jul 27, 2018 11:22:21 GMT -5
mike, then why did the fbi say in there files that they wernt conclusive that's all im asking
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jul 27, 2018 11:23:27 GMT -5
no some of it is worth money, im money hungry
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jul 27, 2018 11:27:41 GMT -5
thanks for the kind words but some of the stuff I have the museum already has. I havnt seen another liberty magazine place card yet I bought it a long time ago havnt seen another one since. they put it the window of a store to advertise whats in the next issue. its about 10 by 14 inches and mine says in this issue jafsie talks about the ransom money
|
|