|
Post by Michael on Jun 15, 2006 5:32:57 GMT -5
Smyder's account doesn't say it was Condon or Reich. It's important to note that Smyder was able to prove he was in that area by his books and that Lewis didn't call him a nut, rather, he was impressed with him.
That's important since I have read stacks of reports where Lewis told the Governor people he was asking him to interview were either nuts or unreliable. Very old school and told it like it was.
Here I see an independent account that seems to support Samuelsohn's position that he filled this order. Smyder's position that a man in the shop resembled his father who resembled Condon is no basis (for me) to dismiss his account.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 15, 2006 6:49:11 GMT -5
What order???
What ladder are we talking about here???
If this account is not more hoaxing and huckstering then Samuelsohn is a very guilty man and there are multiple ladders. There seems to be too much selective culling of information regarding the whole Samuelsohn affair.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 skeptic5 on Jun 15, 2006 7:41:08 GMT -5
Kevin/ I share your skepticism. But it gets more complex....
Gov. Hoffman agrees to meet with Samuelsohn in the New York Hotel in January of 1936. It seems AS is tracked down by Elizabeth Guthrie who believes AS to be truthful/
It looks to me that maybe Condon(?) is on the receiving end of this deal and AS is the cabinet maker? Wouldnt that scare the Behesuses' outta you?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 15, 2006 8:44:48 GMT -5
The only one I know of which Samuelsohn was involved.
I don't see how you can come to this conclusion based upon anything other then emotion. I see absolutely nothing which supports this position. However, I see plenty of facts to support that Samuelsohn was requested of and did fill an order concerning those pieces he told Authorities about.
Rick was the first person ever to bring up Smyder. Of course I've known all about about him but chose not to post because I thought Susan may be putting some of that information in her story.
Having said this, what Rick posted is HIS opinions and/or observations concerning Smyder. We have to be careful not to dismiss a topic or subject based upon someone else's observations which we don't agree with. There are some things Rick posted that I personally do not agree with but no way does it make Smyder a liar or Samuelsohn a Conspirator.
It appears Smyder was in Samuelsohn's shop. It appears he did demonstrate his clamps on the order in question on the day it was picked up. There are many variables to consider. We have to understand that people were rec'ing a steady dose of Jafsie, Lindbergh, and Hauptmann in the papers. It's something I always consider when I see people 'identifying' other people late in the game especially when Investigators are shoving pictures in their faces suggesting and encouraging identifications.
And so it could be a mistake but in no way erases everything they have to say. Therefore, there may indeed have been a man who looked like Smyder's father in Samuelsohn's shop that day. It may not have been Condon. It may have Condon - but having been there on something unrelated.
I see the exact inverse occurring. When it comes to Samuelsohn its simply not 'all or nothing' as far as I am concerned. I understand that some may feel this way and that's cool with me but to blast the notion that its not doesn't make sense as far as I am concerned. Anyone who has done 6 months of research into Bill Lewis I am quite sure would feel as I do about his abilities and temperament. For example, one report I read where the Governor wanted him to surveil a certain person. Lewis responded by saying, in essence, he was wasting his time but if the Governor didn't mind him doing so at least he could get a couple of beers because the subject hung out in bars all day. Of course the Governor got angry but this is how Lewis was.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jun 15, 2006 10:07:58 GMT -5
Kevin and Michael....well now, we have "discovered" at least two surprising revelations of late:
1. The Abraham Samuelsohn Affair and its broader implications
2. The Benjamin Lupica Testimony and its broader implications
Lloyd Gardner has to get the lion's share of the credit for his observation that the timeline of the kidnap may start much earlier than CAL suggests. I would call this deductive reasoning (aka Ellis Parker).
ASamuelsohn Affair comes to our attention primarily thru the efforts of susancandy although this angle is mentioned twice in the Case that Never Dies. I would call this revealing what's already existant in the files at the NJSP museum to be discovered.
One of these things is not like the other--eg "A Horse of a Different Coverup"
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 15, 2006 16:59:04 GMT -5
What emotion? I hear a story about a clamp salesman demonstrating his wares on "the kidnap ladder". That makes Samuelsohn aware that he is in fact( or has in fact) built THE LADDER. Not some pieces of assorted wood, mind you. How do you figure that his subsequent actions, or lack of, don't make him guilty of at least withholding information and obstruction?
How's that? When you selectively take parts of a story to make it fit a pre determined outcome you invariably will get it all wrong. If Samuelsohn's story has any credibility then all of it will stand up under scrutiny or it will sink like a rock. It must, however be consistent with the facts and times.
I see no revelations as of yet, only resurrection. Sometimes the dead are better left undisturbed.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 15, 2006 17:59:22 GMT -5
Kevin, You seem to be letting the reference to the word "ladder" sway your opinion. Samuelsohn himself said he didn't know at the time what it was to become but later refers to it as a "ladder" when again, by his own statements he did not put it together. His reference to it as a ladder is based upon what was found at Highfields and the inferences and beliefs thereafter. Now in Smyder's statements he talks about what has been in the papers concerning the "ladder." When we read his statement though - its so plainly obvious that what he sees in Samuelsohn's shop isn't put together. Why? Because of this: I demonstrated my clamps on various articles in the store, and near the wall I saw laying there a ladder of more then one piece, and I took my clamp and demonstrated it on this ladder, and the store-owner said, "For such cheap kind of work, we don't use clamp, this is a nail job." This tells me the "ladder" hadn't been nailed together, therefore, it wasn't a "ladder" then but is being referred to it as such in hind-sight. It also supports Samuelsohn's story of only cutting the pieces.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 15, 2006 19:15:54 GMT -5
A ladder by any other name is still a ladder.
Isn't this pushing the envelope a bit? If you have the ladder unassembled (not nailed) you still have the ladder. That makes anyone who participated in it's construction or witnessed it nailed or not , guilty. To conclude any different is like saying a gun dealer is less culpable of supplying a weapon to a criminal if the gun is supplied broken down. We now have a cabinetmaker and a clamp salesman who witnessed and participated in supplying a major element used in the commission of a capitol crime and did nothing about it. It's not a pretty picture.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 15, 2006 19:48:05 GMT -5
I disagree. It's being referred to as a ladder in hind-site only.
Guilty of what? Samuelsohn himself didn't know it was to be a ladder. We've already determined it wasn't THE ladder found at Highfields but (I at least) still see some worth in this story.
To conclude what? I don't understand your line of thought here. You seem to be saying Smyder had been aware of certain things both before and during as opposed to afterwards. That's a huge difference. Smyder came forward after reading Samuelsohn's claim in the paper. The only thing he is guilty of is coming forward.
Now Samuelsohn claims he knew but was afraid. In the context of the lawlessness of the 1930's I don't see a problem with this but I know you do. I see no requirement for Samuelsohn to risk his own life to come forward with this story. It's the same with J.J. Faulkner. If it was someone who knew what they were doing - that's one thing - but if it was someone who was somehow duped - then I see no obligation to come forward knowing they might be killed for doing so.
In short - I believe both parties told the Police what they believed to be true and that neither are guilty of any crime. I say this from reading and then re-reading all the material associated with this matter numerous times. Does it make me right? Nope. But if I hadn't done the same thing with the Sleeping Suit information Rab would have never proven it was mailed from Stamford instead of New York. I am a big fan of say....if there are (10) chapters in a book - to read all (10) before saying the book sucks.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jun 15, 2006 21:10:13 GMT -5
Kevin/ I dont get it? whats the beef? 2006-1932=74 years....they are all dead. D_E_A_D_dead! We cant dig them up and kill them again.
None of this is "officially" our fault. We are just trying to make good sense of what was and has been for 74 years essentially "nonsence"? eg a pack of lies. From start to finish.
There is no blame or indictments. Just a search for the truth. Its nonpartisan. Its just what happened.
So far to date, we have discovered very few honest persons? Why is that? Because we have yet to discover the Theory or Motive of the LKC. Obviously, one honest person stands out and far above all those creating tall tales....Hudson, Lupica, DeBisschop, Samuelsohn? We dont who know for sure yet?
John "JFC" Condon has lied about everding from day one. He may have had noble reasons, but lied nevertheless. His mountain of untrutths is coming home to roost and will bring down others in the unveiling process/
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 15, 2006 21:35:39 GMT -5
If those sticks of wood could be identified as ladder components ( or a ladder) after the fact then I think it reasonable to conclude that they were identifiable as such in the first instance.
What for example?
Afraid of what ? Afraid of the NJSP? Afraid of the law in this most publicized case? Afraid of living in the same neighborhood as a killer? Afraid of doing more work for a man he knows is dangerous?
Really? And what if these lawless killers decide to act again? You know someone has committed a heinous crime and do nothing about it while they are free to inflict more pain and suffering on others.
I look for consistency in a story, that is a form of honesty. If it is not to be found in the first chapter it is unlikely to appear in the next nine.
I wouldn't bet on that. I have seen too many characters from the LKC saga exhumed and crucified. Now, I am afraid Samuelsohn will shorty be joining the cast.
That is the only reason I am responding to this story
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 16, 2006 5:44:57 GMT -5
I just want to make one thing clear regarding the Samuelsohn saga. If you feel it has merit then by all means pursue it to whatever end. Personally I see an old story with too many holes so I will waste my time in other pursuits. I will certainly keep an open mind if something new turns up but at this point the only elements of it that seem certain to me are ;
*Samuelsohn did not make the kidnap ladder
* No wood supplied by Samuelsohn was part of the kidnap ladder
* Samuelsohn made the box for Condon
* Samuelsohn does not contact the authorities with any suspicions regarding the ladder until long after the crime
As for the alleged purchase/order by Hauptman in 2/32 there are some fundamental problems which need explanation ( like the price for one). Unfortunately without the original receipts and job order it seems unlikely that further information will be forthcoming. So if this story still intrigues you, go for it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 16, 2006 6:05:31 GMT -5
I don't think this is what's going on rather just a clash over the style on how we look at this particular angle. It's a 'twist' within a 'twist' found inside the enigma we call the LKC. We're lucky we're all still sane honestly. A reasonable position, however, if Samuelsohn said he didn't know, and this ladder was such a unique design then I suppose it may have been something else - or guessed at to be something else. What is important for me is the design and that if it were the same or damn near and one of the Principals (or more) are in the shop of the guy building the ransom box (who Condon tried to hide them Police) then I say its possible, at the time - he hadn't put 2 + 2 together then. Again I say there is something here to be found. Even if he's wrong about Hauptmann and believe it or not - I am once again 50/50 on this point at this moment. I have something else I found and will be searching for another piece to see what that tells me. Yes. Most people were afraid of the Cops because some of them were on the 'take' and/or criminals themselves. Call the Cops and you risk those people who came for the order to return and kill you and your family. Remember, he asked the FBI if they offered protection and they said "no." His first obligation at the time was his family and I don't blame him for that. Yes. Even today many people chose life because if they 'snitch' then they get killed. The illegal immigrant gangs such as "MS-13" are now taking over and will be all we talk about in 5-10 short years from now maybe even quicker if the proposed amnesty bill passes: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7244879/site/newsweek/This girl referenced in the article got sick of all the murders and went to the Police. She was pregnant and they cut her throat. I do see both consistency and integrity from both parties. Samuelsohn was asked to say it was Hauptmann alone but declined. Smyder was asked to say it was Condon but declined. Samuelsohn in having a potential ally agrees Smyder was in his shop but tells Ho-age he didn't think the order was where Smyder demonstrated his clamps. Time and time again Samuelsohn had an opportunity to lie but refused.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 16, 2006 7:59:44 GMT -5
As I said, everyone is certainly free to pursue this story for what it is worth. I just honestly don't see it going anywhere. I really can't buy the fear of the police factor. It didn't stop others from coming forward and obviously Samuelsohn didn't fear any gang reprisals since he was willing and able to come forward when Hauptmann was in jail. I think your analogy to our modern gang situation is not relevant to the situation of Samuelsohn and Hauptmann. There have always been gangs and there have always been crooked cops on the payroll. Certainly that was the case during prohibition. But what impact would that have regarding the Lindbergh kidnapping? Basically I think that this story has far too many inconsistencies in it for it to be taken at face value. Now, perhaps these inconsistencies are the result of the telling of the tale and not the tale itself. I don't know. But the very idea of a carpenter going to a cabinetmaker to purchase at an extremely excessive price that which he could easily produce himself ( or at Tolkdorf's shop) is simply beyond reason. Add to that the fact that this order is for a crude ladder to be used in a major crime about to be committed and it's downright absurd. And the icing on the cake is that the cabinetmaker can recognize his work somehow, but goes on his merry way with the knowledge that he can id a murderer. It all makes alien abductions seem quite reasonable.
|
|
Beware of Greeks Bearing Gifts
Guest
|
Post by Beware of Greeks Bearing Gifts on Jun 16, 2006 8:23:31 GMT -5
ATTN: Kevcon--I agree 100%!
The Pied Piper of The Bronx has been leading the lemmings off the cliffs for 75 years....now he too is up for sacrifice. The mother hen always leads away from the nest.
With all the red herrings the LKC should be retried in Fulton's Fisch Market: Condon, Means, Curtis, Dyno, Samuelsohn, Smedly. Is there a pattern here?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 16, 2006 9:02:50 GMT -5
From the research I have done I do buy it. It was much different back then and my analogy lacks only in that it was worse then. Some Police Officers then had criminal records either before or after becoming Cops. That's quite unlikely to happen today unless its due to a mix-up or mistake. Think about it....Micky Rosner would later become a Police Chief and the whole reason he was brought into the case was due to his ties with the Mob. Samuelsohn later came out with the information after being convinced he should do so by someone he trusted to talk over the situation. Just do a little digging on crime back then. Bodies in alley-ways every day with wallets and money still in their pockets....
So for what reason does Samuelsohn come out with this story in your opinion. If he wasn't in danger then he certainly was afterwards. Next, you are thinking as if Hauptmann was flying solo when (I think) you may not believe so. Samuelsohn has multiple people connected to this order. Excessive price didn't seem to bother anyone then although there's no doubt it was. Again, for what purpose would Samuelsohn say it was this much if it weren't?
Additionally, if Hauptmann is involved he wouldn't get someone involved by doing work at someone's place who wasn't involved.
The whole case is absurd and a complete house of cards - yet it occurred. Again, I don't believe in Aliens yet I understand why Samuelsohn didn't come forward based upon his fear. There were many who did the same thing but its hard to measure when we don't know who they were. Additionally, people would tell the Police that 'someone' told them. When pressed they would tell them who it was and when that person was interviewed would deny it. It is clearly written in the conclusions of their reports concerning some of these interviews that the person in question was lying by saying they "didn't know" or "didn't say" what was alleged due to them "not wanting to get involved" or "being afraid."
Its my backround in doing this research that leads me to the conclusions I make. Six solid years of reading and re-reading these reports.
Now it could be concluded Samuelsohn was using this as an excuse because it was believable but to say its not something someone would do is very short of what the true situation was back then.
I have no idea what this means. Samuelsohn wasn't "playing ball" and didn't say anything that anyone (at the time) wanted to hear. Many people didn't even know who he was until recently.
To me, generalizing and grouping all of these very complex subjects and issues into one category exemplifies the need for you to look a little deeper into them instead of ignoring then trying to persuade people there's nothing there without doing the research required to make such a statement. Your post, in my opinion, is absurd. You see - you'll still get an honest assessment whether you use your name or not.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jun 16, 2006 11:39:28 GMT -5
Well, lets take it from the top: (Aside: this thread has been read 100 times since yesterday): 1. Samuelsohn never really "comes forward"? He is uncovered by some BOI gumshoes, maybe Special Agent Sisk, maybe Manning, maybe X, in the process of investigating John Condon's long drawn out story about the wooden box that was never asked for in the first place. (Maybe the $20K was withheld because it wouldnt fit into a $50K box?). 2. At this particular point in the timeline.... lets say September 1933, Samuelsohn begins to reveal his side of the story. It all starts with the ransom box, but quickly expands to include the ladder....or does it? Maybe only his knowing Condon and makeing the box, and a copy for Condon. Does AS say then that Ralph Hacker designed the box or that he knows Ralph Hacker? How much is withheld at this juncture? ~50% or 75%? 3. Moving ahead to 1934....BRH is arrested and then maybe AS comes forward to say after-the-fact that BRH came into his store in February 1932 with a mystery woman (described) and then two days later or so "two young men" come back to pick up the ladder wood? Samuelsohn describes Hauptmann 3 times. But again, how much is witheld at this juncture about the identities of the 1) the woman 2) the two mystery men. Does AS know them and their names .....all 3? Two NYTimes aritcles in January 1935 say..... Cabinet Maker ASamuelsohn not called to testify. How much is withheld? Who knows what and when do they know it? [primarily Wilintz and Reilly] 4. Later on during the Harold Hoffman investigation in 1936 we discover Fred Smyder the clamp salesman who says that "a man who looks like his father" was in AS's shop on or about 25 Feb 1932....looking at the ladder laying there on the floor...either nailed or unnailed? But the description of his fathers seems to nail John F. Condon dead to rights? DYBT? How can this be......neither AS or Condon have ever mentionied all this before. How much is withheld? 5. Somewhere in 1936......give or take a few months or weeks...Condon takes Fulton Oursler from Liberty Magazine over to meet Samuelsohn AND confirm that he (Condon) knew all along that BRH came into Samuelsohns Shop and ordered the ladder? Holy Ballarinas Batman....DYBT? Now how much is withheld? 6. Then Condon and Myra Hacker head out for Panama with the blessing of Wilintz, and Fulton Oursler tracks them down and Myra says "Agent Sisk checked out the Sameuelsohn story and its all a fake" so "don't quote us on any Samuelsohn story" and dont even publish his name? DYBT? 7. So, John Condon testified against BRH as Cemetary John, but failed to remember that ASamuelsohn built the ransom box using Ralph Hacker for architech and design? Jafsie also forgot that BRH ordered the ladder and that maybe, possibly, he actually saw Fred Smyder and the ladder in AS's Shop "on pickup day" 25 Feb 1932? But who asks Condon in Court "who built the box"? Death House Reilly.... ....didnt he read the NYTimes? Samuelsohn was at the Trial of the Century...sitting there. Doesnt Condon see him? 8. And lastly, Elizabeth Guthrie, the woman investigator that found and interviewed Samuelson for Hoffman "believed in his honesty and truthfulness"BUT thought there might be a chance that his ID of BRH was an honest mistake? Hoffman met face to face wth AS at the New York Hotel in january 1936/ no report of what they chatted about/
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 16, 2006 17:39:26 GMT -5
Michael, I know that you keep an open mind regarding much of this case, so I understand your feelings about the Samuelsohn affair. I don't want to cast any aspersions upon his character as I believe him to be an honest cabinetmaker. However, my basic feeling regarding this issue is that it probably a bit of confusion on Samuelsohn's part. Now maybe I am wrong, but I do think that since his story became known and if it was in any way verifiable and accurate there is no doubt that Wilentz, Reilly, and Hoffman would have used it in one way or another. I think they all realized that he was mixing up dates and people.
Rick, who are the Greeks and who is getting the gifts? Could Samuelsohn's order from Hauptman be part of a wooden horse? Perhaps the ladder was all that remained at Highfields after the kidnappers descended from that horse.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jun 16, 2006 19:06:34 GMT -5
Kevin...of course I dont know--i took Latin? But an awful lot of water just went over the damn in a very short period of time? Like a flash flood?
1. I dont have any reason whatsever to doubt the perceptions of either Abraham Samuelsohn (aka susancandy) or Fred Smyder. The untimely or piecemeal unfolding of these revelations is disturbing to say the least. Especially when you consider that the so called AS file has been sitting around the Archives for...well 75 years. These documents didnt just fall down like manna from heaven in May 2006? Whats that all about? Saving up for a rainy day/
2. Apparently, each time some piece of information is disclosed--at the very same moment some addtional piece of the puzzle is withheld? (Not going to tell you) Whats that all about? Like slow-release cold / We'll clue you in when we are ready or when we think you are ready. So whats still missing.
3. As I said, this is guite different from the inductive reasoning we were employing to discover "voila" that CAL came home minutes after Charlie left towne? This is connecting the dots left behind by Ben Lupica, the Cononvers and the Moores. This is logical sleuthing/ bit by bit/ piece by piece.
4. However, there is a certain frustration that begins as usual with Condon. Some mystery woman comes to him about the one bad family with the one good person, blah blah blah, but then....hes never telling who it is?
5. Then up jumps his olde friend master cabinet maker AS....who right in the NYTimes says..."sold BRH the Lindbergh Ladder". (Jan 14-15th 1935). But two (or three) different "young men" come to pick it up 5 days later. And then, like you say...."noone on either the Prosecution or the Defense wants to make use of him as a withness? Either to hang BRH or save him from the gallows? DYBT? Not even BRH?
6. But then and only then, onto the Stage comes.....Mr. Fred Smyder:
MEADE DETECTIVE AGENCY ZOBEL BUILDING, RED BANK, NJ MARCH 4TH 1936
"In his statement, Mr. Smyder identifies a caller at the carpenter shop on February 25th, 1932 as Dr. Condon and the accompanying person as Al Reich".
signed, William Lewis, Investigator/ Now I could be wrong cause Im just guessing that BRH was executed one month later on April 4th as the Lone Kidnapper? So according to Michael....AS is the one that seals BRHs fate and not JFC? In spite of the observation by Elizabeth Guthrie that AS might have been mistaken/ too little, too late?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 16, 2006 19:28:06 GMT -5
What I see occurring in this thread is the development of (3) different opinions - each representing a different perspective. What I am trying to do is simply explain 'why' I am at where I am. I certainly don't mind the criticism, and when I mention my research it is not to imply anything other then what I am drawing my inferences from and nothing more. I've already admitted that I am not above being wrong but I can't ignore what I see until I have what appears to be something to neutralize it.
The "Greeks" post didn't come from Rick. I already ran a trace-route to satisfy my curiosity. I welcome anyone posting in good faith. I mean that. All they have to do is de-cock and holster their weapon - then step out of the closet to where we can see them....
Somehow I missed one of your posts Kevin when I posted last so I wanted to address your points and Rick's....
You have proven to me that none of the lumber found in the ladder which was left behind at Highfields could have been from those samples Samuelsohn brought with him with the exception of the dowels which were never compared as far as I know.
Agreed. Now this begs the question why Samuelsohn would even turn over these pieces knowing they wouldn't match and that the State had Koehler, an expert, who could easily tell. It's also consistent with Samuelsohn turning over pieces from the ransom box order. He had receipts for both orders and neither survived but are mentioned in the reports.
Here's my biggest problem. If you don't believe Samuelsohn concerning his "ladder" order then how can you believe him concerning his "ransom box" order? Condon was either trying to keep the Police away from him or Samuelsohn didn't make it. It's a "catch-22" that I am not willing to walk away from at the moment. The Box was also not the same wood Condon claimed it was.
He didn't contact them about the box either. He attempted to share the "ladder" order story at that time as well but kept quiet at the response the FBI gave him concerning protection.
But if you think Samuelsohn was honest, as I do as evidenced by his unwillingness to play ball with either the Prosecution or Defense. And then to cast doubt on a key part of Smyder's story which supported everything he was saying - then what do we make of this price? He turned over the slip to support it. The "honest but mistaken" theory doesn't answer this part concerning the price....especially when considering the Police were casting doubt on the slip due to the difference in ink or lead the order was written in. Now they are posturing a position of fabrication here, yet, how does jacking the price up help Samuelsohn if it is?
It doesn't. Nothing he does helps his story. Nothing. This again tells me he was being honest. All he had to do was say Hauptmann came in alone.....but no. So if he's lying its not for fame (he already attained that due to the ransom box), not for money, and certainly not to help Hauptmann. It does put him in danger though.
Again I ask - for what purpose would he do this?
It appears to me he received an order by someone who he indeed thought was Hauptmann. It was for lumber cut in a way that once he saw the ladder he believed it came out of this order. It was a unique design and included the unique dowel aspect. It occurred just before the crime. It happened that Condon himself came to him for the ransom box and tried to keep the Police away from him. Then we have, as Rick has pointed out, Condon admitting Samuelsohn was connected to the ladder but feigning forgetfulness - just as he had done during the investigation - as to the ransom box builder during trial.
To my knowledge AS never mentioned Ralph Hacker - ever.
He believes he does. Now exactly when he knew this is a mystery to me at this point because I do not have that information.
As I mentioned above - there had been a steady dose of Jafsie in the paper, therefore, it could have been a mistake or maybe it was him being there on an unrelated visit. Smyder, when asked by Ho-age, really doesn't nail Condon at all. BTW - What the hell does DYBT mean?
Condon would say this. See the reference to his letter I posted above in my other post.
Myra is obviously trying to protect her father. Apparently the same way he tried to protect her when he claimed she hadn't been in the house during the "2nd Taxi Driver's" visit.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 17, 2006 6:57:39 GMT -5
Sorry Rick, I thought you knew our Homeric friend. Who knows? It could be, as I believe, that he was simply confused about the dates and ladders. I know I am. I mean does anyone actually know for sure just how many ladders were built, when, and by whom? I have no problem with that one. The box was witnessed and we know from Perami Jr that Condon did in fact shop for it. It also fits accurately with the time frame and requirements. This so called ladder order, on the other hand , shares no such elements. It is the wrong wood, the wrong number of pieces, the wrong price, and requires a draftsman's plans. Now maybe Hauptmann, for some unknown and un fathomable reason did go to Samuelsohn for an order. That still doesn't show any relationship to the ladder. What is as Condon claimed? ? Personally I see Condon's hand at work in this whole Samuelsohn affair. I think Condon was still trying to be the big hero and was using Samuelsohn in some way. That seems very odd. And what did this first receipt have on it?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 17, 2006 7:50:41 GMT -5
How would Samuelsohn confuse his order? Now the question of the various ladders (replicas) and who built them can produce confusion. I know who built replicas and when but I couldn't go to the Archives and pick out which is which unless they are stamped and/or a report is associated with them as is the case with Samuelsohn's "scraps" he turned over on 9/26. How far do we go with the confusion theory? Did Samuelsohn confuse the dowels as associated with this order? Did he confuse the design? A big part of the Police "ladder investigations" both notes and turns up the fact this item was unique. This is what led Samuelsohn to believing his order was utilized for this ladder in the first place after seeing pictures of it. I don't know what else I can say. Apparently my line of thought doesn't make sense to you. It could be that I am alone in this position - I don't know - but I can't get past it. I disagree. It does fit the timeframe, and is the same Species of wood as Rails 12, 13, and 16. The fact that it isn't the same lumber doesn't mean its not somehow connected to the crime....it means it didn't find its way into the ladder found at Hopewell. Let me ask you this..... Would you find it strange if Hauptmann walked into a store and purchase say - 36 chair seats - in early 1934 paying with a $5 on a $4.79 charge? I certainly do but yet it happened. He certainly wasn't laundering money. So again, we see some info to support Samuelsohn that Hauptmann returned to his shop. I am suspicious that Condon would try to keep the Police away from Samuelsohn originally. Who is Condon championing by doing this? When you say first which do you mean? As I said I don't have copies of the actual receipts only what's referenced in the reports and there are references that in both case receipts or log notations were made to support both orders. Let me know which and I'll look up the reports. BTW - To further support the Mob/Police/Criminal connections back in the '30's consider that Actor George Raft was married to NYC Police Commissioner Mulrooney's daughter Grace. Raft grew up & was great friends with Owney Madden. Madden was Raft's sponsor. Madden was the reason for Raft obtaining his first acting roles originally. Raft's connections and associates read like a "who's who" in NY Mobsters and Murderers. Lucky Luciano, Frank Costello, Bugsy Seigel (Murder Inc.), and Longie Zwillman (who by the way paid for Governor Hoffman's funeral) - just to name a few. Now if you believe anybody connected with the Mob is involved in this case do you go to the NYC Police?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 17, 2006 15:53:49 GMT -5
The same way that he confused the wood species. You seem to be trying very hard to make this "wood order" work. Yet there is no getting around the fact that the cost is too high, the quantity of wood is too much and the complexity of requiring plans is excessive. There also seems to be some confusion with regard to the clamp salesman who, if what I am reading is true, asserts that he actually saw a ladder in Samuelsohn's shop prior to the kidnapping. If that were the case then Samuelsohn knew exactly what he was making and would have no doubt of what it was used for.
It may fit the time frame, but that is where the train stops. The box, on the other hand has history and witnesses.
Not at all. especially if Hauptmann had no criminal connection with Samuelsohn. Meaning that Samuelsohn is either mistaken in his id of Hauptmann or the "wood order" was for an innocent project unrelated to the LKC. In fact this seat purchase only reinforces this contention.
The work order that Samuelsohn would have written up with the price, specs., job name, and cost.
What size shoe did George Raft wear? ;D
Honestly, I wish that the Samuelsohn story could get us somewhere, especially considering the time it has eaten up. But I just don't see it yielding anything.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 17, 2006 18:10:47 GMT -5
We are definitely seeing this differently. Samuelsohn didn't get the species confused he was simply wrong. He had the wood in hand and was saying it was something it wasn't.
I don't think I am trying. When you lay out everything and look at all sides its something I can't put to rest.
We're starting we are starting to repeat ourselves here. You raise an issue - I answer - then later you raise the issue again. I explained this above - Smyder did not see the completed ladder... He couldn't have because it wasn't nailed together yet. This item would be referred to as a "ladder" due to the claims it would become one ex post facto.
Who are the Witnesses? Condon said old man Peremi built it. Who saw Samuelsohn build it? All we have is his word, his scraps, and his receipt - sound familiar?
Really? Hauptmann wasn't supposed to be doing any manual labor. What did he do with these items? What were they for? Did he make any money from this purchase? What tools were used?
It could have been an "innocent" order and/or a misidentification. But it may not have been. Again, the unique design of this ladder is what created Samuelsohn to believe it was this project.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 18, 2006 15:25:15 GMT -5
Are we to assume then this wood purchase in '34 is an innocent one? This is exactly my point and then it also backs up Samuelsohn's assertion that Hauptmann returned to his shop. If he is then its less likely an identity mix-up.
I am still 50/50 on his identification. On the order I see a very real possibility that it is connected based upon the design. Of course the whole thing could be a mix-up.... in debating the possibilities I don't dismiss this and I hope anyone reading this realizes my position.
If there is no getting around it then how is it explained short of fabrication? He gave a receipt and/or log entry to support it. Their position relied on the fact the ink or pencil was different then other entries - that's it. So if you believe Samuelsohn is simply mistaken then the cost issue is irrelevant.
It would? Aren't you assuming here? We do have a copy of an unrelated receipt that does not have all of that information on it.
I haven't been home but when I get there I will look into the reports and quote them if I can.
I realize this is the case... People with strong opinions and/or ideas are a very valuable asset when it includes good faith and honesty. That's why I like this board so much. When the smoke clears we may not have agreed but I guarantee everyone learns something from the exchange. And if there is agreement then you can usually "take it to the bank." Just like your Rail 16 theory which in my opinion destroys Keraga's biased conclusion he made within his summary report. If he just thought it through a little more and opened his mind to other possibilities he may have seen the light. Now he's reduced to quoting Rauch's false testimony in order to try and explain it away. It was sad to watch.
This subject seems to be the black-hole type. Just as those involved at the time experienced and grappled with.... They however had an agenda which didn't always have to include the truth.
Hey, Rick hasn't been around apparently so can anyone else tell me what DYBT means? It's driving me crazy...
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 18, 2006 15:40:40 GMT -5
Do You Believe That
Michael, part of the problem with this affair is that their are differing levels of knowledge and experience regarding this issue. I realize that there are probably certain facts of which I am not aware. At the same time it is often easy for me to forget that my experience as a cabinetmaker is not shared by others. I look at this supposed pre-kidnap order with a great deal of skepticism , simply because I find it is so at odds with my experience. If the ladder were comprised of unique wood components the story would make much more sense. If there was even the slightest reason a trained cabinetmaker would be employed by a trained carpenter to produce some simple sticks of wood available cut to size at any lumberyard , then the story might make some sense. I am still searching for an explanation here.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 18, 2006 15:56:04 GMT -5
Kevin,
The other thing I wanted to say is I assume sometimes you have certain things that I do. If it would help please ask me to share them with you ( and anyone else.)
The only reason I don't share everything is due to the fanatics on the other board who tell us what to think about our research based upon their opinions and not the review of the source material. It's one thing to offer an opinion but.... The idea of giving my hard work to someone who engages in this practice gets me pretty fired-up.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 18, 2006 16:59:21 GMT -5
Will do
I also share you sentiment about the fanatics. Personally I have no use or regard for these dogmatic types on both side of the fence. It is a shame that they take things out of context and use them with no regard to the facts. I don't think I am quite as open minded as you but I am willing to look at everything from different angles and listen to what is being said. If that were not true I wouldn't still be racking my brain over this Samuelsohn issue. BTW; When hauptmann claimed to retieve his tools which he said he left at the majestic, was this witnessed? The tools I mean. I am sure you see my reason for asking.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 18, 2006 19:53:59 GMT -5
It's funny....just recently a source document that I linked to my old message board was brought to my attention by someone who rec'd it from Member on the "truth" board. They asked me if it was real. Can you imagine how PO'd I was? Had the person who right clicked and saved my source given me the credit for my hard work - the question would have never been asked and I would be more open to disclosing more of my material. But no.
And these are the people who cry "foul" the loudest when I refuse to.... To them I simply say:
Get Bent
Its ashame the integrity level among us isn't matched elsewhere.
Sometimes even the most obvious is incorrect or means something completely different then what it appears to be. I've learned this directly from researching the case. That's why I like differing opinions because it opens up a line of sight that we may have been blind to.
To my knowledge no one ever asked. I can say with confidence that I have every report that is associated with the interviews and investigations concerning Majestic which exist at the NJSP Archives. It wasn't easy because they are all over the place. If you have obtained your copy of Mark's study guide you'll be able to better understand why.....
Now, I can tell you that when Hauptmann dropped off his tools and when he picked them up would have been recorded and witnessed by a particular Employee. However, there is no record of that Employee ever being interviewed.
Most people didn't remember much about Hauptmann except those who recalled when he quit. They explained they recalled he quit at noon and how strange it was. The reports indicate his Foreman tried to talk him into staying and/or find out what the problem was but to no avail - Hauptmann quit on April 2nd at noon and that seems to be what those who recalled working with him remembered the most.
|
|
|
Post by mjrichmond on Jun 19, 2006 7:28:55 GMT -5
<<<The only reason I don't share everything is due to the fanatics on the other board who tell us what to think about our research based upon their opinions and not the review of the source material. It's one thing to offer an opinion but.... The idea of giving my hard work to someone who engages in this practice gets me pretty fired-up.>>> Michael
Well said. I agree completely. It is the same reason that I do not share everything I know or believe about this case. The fanatics have been driving me crazy for years. It is too bad.
Mjr
|
|