|
Post by Nat W on Dec 1, 2018 17:05:22 GMT -5
Sorry for the delay. Other things happening.
I could try and find the link on Allen's board, but for now I'll describe the experiment.
Circa 2001, I went to the point at St. Raymond's where the ransom was exchanged. My wife's son was in the car, parked at the exact point where Lindbergh waited.
I whispered "hey Doktor." He heard nothing. Said it a little louder. Nothing. I screamed it, and only then did he hear it.
I am convinced that Lindbergh either perjured himself or told himself he heard it.
Nat
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Dec 2, 2018 9:42:59 GMT -5
Thanks Nat W!
Interesting. I'm sure you know that the general consensus is that the 32 day trial was effectively over on Day 2 when CAL testified on the witness stand that the voice he heard at St. Raymond's was that of BRH.
For people who had nothing to lie about, CAL and his entourage seemed to have lied a lot.
Did you know that Breckinridge told Lamphier that he (Breck) met with the kidnappers on March 30th?
What are these guys doing?
Thanks again for sharing your experiment!
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 2, 2018 14:19:03 GMT -5
What is your source for that? How many "kidnappers" and what was discussed on March 30th? Where did this meeting take place? Was Condon involved in this meeting?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Dec 2, 2018 15:17:10 GMT -5
Hi Hurt, Breckinridge claimed he personally met with the kidnappers on March 30, 1932. It's in BI Keith's April 9, 1932 report on page 4 -- Keith BI report April 9 1932.pdf (277.77 KB) Also on page 3, Breckinridge told BI Agent Connelley that two meetings had been arranged with the kidnappers...the first on March 16th and the second on March 24th (not even close to Condon's 2 actual meetings). Perhaps most telling is Breck's 1934 Grand Jury testimony (page 6) stating he would be willing to go to jail or be disbarred to protect CAL:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2018 16:24:27 GMT -5
Breckinridge claimed he personally met with the kidnappers on March 30, 1932. It's in BI Keith's April 9, 1932 report on page 4 -- Also on page 3, Breckinridge told BI Agent Connelley that two meetings had been arranged with the kidnappers...the first on March 16th and the second on March 24th (not even close to Condon's 2 actual meetings). Thanks for posting the BOI report for Hurt! I look forward to reading it. You know what's weird about the dates you mention above and meeting with the kidnappers on those dates, they all relate to something else going on in the case: March 16th, a Wednesday - The day the sleeping suit arrived at Condon's. CAL, Breck and Condon get together there. March 24th, a Thursday - The story breaks in the newspapers about the Norfolk angle of the case. This date is also the day after Condon claims he met a woman at Tuckahoe Station. March 30th, a Wednesday - According to Vigil, pages 41 and 42, a ransom note arrives on March 29 and on Wednesday the 30th CAL, Breck and Lindbergh get together at Condon's house and discuss ransom paying plans. So is Breck confusing ransom notes with people, since its Condon and Cal he is hanging with on two of those dates??
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Dec 2, 2018 21:16:17 GMT -5
So is Breck confusing ransom notes with people, since its Condon and Cal he is hanging with on two of those dates?? Hi Amy, Good observations and a good question. Breck often seems as confused as Condon when it comes to simple things like facts, dates, and events. I just don't get it. It's like confusing where you were on 9/11. It's an event whose details you don't forget. Also if Breck was such the honorable lawyer, why was he then advising CAL to break the law? He’s CAL’s lawyer and advisor. Why is he allowing CAL to: • Order the NJSP around • Obstruct the investigation by sending false information to the NJSP and BI. • Pay the ransom (which is illegal) • Communicate with the kidnappers without letting the police know? This has been brought up here before, but I think it's worth repeating. In a letter dated March 22, 1932, Col. Schwarzkopf asked the NJ Attorney General what possible legal actions he could take against Breckinridge, Mrs. Breckinridge, Rosner, Thayer, Fogarty, and others:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2018 8:22:52 GMT -5
Another great post Wayne and a very important one. People need to know how Schwarzkopf was looking at and interpreting the actions of Breck and others who were involved in this case as "aids".
Can I ask you why it would be illegal for Breck to advise Lindbergh to pay the ransom for his son? Parents have often done so with the hope of recovering their child. I would think that encouraging Lindbergh to keep the police and other investigative sources away from the negotiation process until the ransom was paid could be looked at as obstruction. Sort of what the police claimed Curtis did.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 3, 2018 17:23:46 GMT -5
Can I ask you why it would be illegal for Breck to advise Lindbergh to pay the ransom for his son? I am going to jump in here with my 2 cents but by no means am I answering this for Wayne. He may agree or have a different answer... If you look at the document he posted it says for " compounding a felony." I've seen that a lot in many places and I believe even Breck mentioned it during his testimony. I think it was an actual charge back then.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Dec 3, 2018 19:56:59 GMT -5
Thanks Michael.
That is a big part of it and I'm trying to find my notes on this, but so far no luck. It was legal, of course, to pay ransom with law enforcement's knowledge (like the Morrow's attempting to pay Constance Morrow's ransom a few years earlier), but, I think, illegal to pay a ransom without law enforcement's knowledge (as was done by CAL and Condon at St. Raymonds).
I'm not sure if a lot of these details have been lost to history, but according to Berg in Lindbergh (page 279), "...it was not illegal to report false information to the police."
Of course, Berg does not footnote this claim.
Does anyone know if this was true, circa 1930s?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 4, 2018 6:59:42 GMT -5
Where did you find the information on Breckenridge esp. w/term "kidnappers?"
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 4, 2018 7:26:04 GMT -5
That is a big part of it and I'm trying to find my notes on this, but so far no luck. It was legal, of course, to pay ransom with law enforcement's knowledge (like the Morrow's attempting to pay Constance Morrow's ransom a few years earlier), but, I think, illegal to pay a ransom without law enforcement's knowledge (as was done by CAL and Condon at St. Raymonds). I'm not sure if a lot of these details have been lost to history, but according to Berg in Lindbergh (page 279), "...it was not illegal to report false information to the police." Of course, Berg does not footnote this claim. Does anyone know if this was true, circa 1930s? At one time I took a serious look at this charge and remember how confusing it was. It sounds like making a felony "worse" or "furthering" it. But it turned out to be some kind of English Common Law having to do with making "settlement" with a criminal who committed a felony or was in the process of committing. So I've always considered that anyone who aided in any way as it pertained to the Ransom (outside of LE) that they could be charged. It's confusing and I could be all wrong. Something like this is probably best answered by Feathers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2018 8:32:12 GMT -5
You know what is really ironic in all this? Those of us who believe that there were others involved get called "conspiracy theorists". Yet there is Schwarzkopf, in black and white, saying the following:
"I inquired as to who should be held on charges of conspiracy, compounding a felony or anything else of this kind in case the payment of the ransom was negotiated and the child returned." (bolding is mine)
Schwarzkopf was perceiving that some type of conspiracy existed, in some form, that was at work in this case right from its earliest days.
Michael, keep writing your books!!!
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Dec 4, 2018 9:38:35 GMT -5
well amy in the beginning they did but as the case unfolded it looked like hauptmann was alone. I never saw any credible evidence that he had help. but of course it dosnt mean he didnt
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Dec 4, 2018 9:46:44 GMT -5
Where did you find the information on Breckenridge esp. w/term "kidnappers?" Jack, Breckinridge claimed he personally met with the kidnappers on March 30th. It's in BI Keith's April 9, 1932 report on page 4 -- Attachment Deleted
|
|