Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2020 9:39:15 GMT -5
In Michael's The Dark Corners, Volume III, Chapter Six, he discusses much about the Flemington Trial. This chapter is so revealing about how this case was handled by those in charge of administering justice. On page 479 of Chapter Six, Michael writes about the Eavesdropping that was engaged upon by the prosecution while Hauptmann was incarcerated at the Flemington Jail. As Michael points out, every meeting and conversation that was had with Hauptmann while he was confined there was listened to and then a written record was produced for the use of Wilentz and his team. There are records of all these conversations at the archives. On October 24, 1934, John F. Condon would visit Hauptmann's cell at Flemington. I want to share this conversation with everyone. I have read it numerous times and I am still trying to understand what Condon was trying to accomplish with this visit. If I am correct, at this point in time, Condon has still not positively identified Hauptmann as "John". When you read this conversation, it appears Condon is trying to inform Hauptmann about the negotiation process that went on between him (Condon) and "John". At first I wondered if this was some kind of code talk going on between two men who had been involved together. Then I wondered if Condon thought he was going to get some kind of "confession" from Hauptmann with the way he was talking to BRH. I also thought he was trying to get Hauptmann to help him out of the mess he (Condon) was in with authorities. Condon must have been under pressure to make that ID of Hauptmann and perhaps Condon was hoping Hauptmann would make things easy for him by confessing he was John and then Condon would not have to go on the stand and testify against him. I also found much of the text of this conversation to be odd where Condon is explaining to Hauptmann about how the negotiations proceeded. I was struck about how Condon explained the "middle" part was divided into four parts: The house, the meeting in the park, the kidnapping and the murder. Condon clearly says in this narrative that the meeting in the park had nothing to do with the case!!?? If this is not Woodlawn Cemetery, what meeting is this then?? It comes before the kidnapping and murder of Charlie!! There is a lot of questionable stuff going on here as far as Condon's statements go. Here is the printed record of this meeting: imgur.com/iWYGHXI Page 1 imgur.com/cTHLt2h Page 2
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 19, 2020 9:22:49 GMT -5
I've always considered there might be a code in there somewhere as well. He's definitely signaling that he's in trouble, and I've often wondered if he wasn't testing Hauptmann to see whether or not he was going to crack. In other words, if Hauptmann cracked before he did then he's toast. But if he's standing firm there's no way he (Condon) gets implicated in his role in the extortion from that side of it. If one thinks about it, Condon was in a catch-22 regardless - but frankly its of his own making and definitely deserved. What's not in these reports is Hauptmann's claim that Condon belted out "I will not testify against this man" as he left. Based on everything in V2, I personally believe that actually happened. And so I always wanted to ask Major Stockburger about this. Unfortunately, when I met him it was quite by accident. I was so blown away that someone I considered almost a myth-like figure was standing in front of me that I was basically speechless and nothing came to mind. I just felt lucky for the opportunity to meet him and my entire mind went blank. All I seemed capable of was to listen to whatever he chose to say. That was a missed opportunity for sure but was really cool nevetheless.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Jun 20, 2020 3:03:50 GMT -5
A copy of Captain Sisk's report on John Condon can be found on-line under "Captain Sisk's Report on Jafsie Oct 27, 1934"
The report mentions Condon's achievements, degrees, and positions, all included in Condon's two scrapbooks that he willingly showed the Captain.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Jun 20, 2020 10:42:33 GMT -5
Information regarding Harriet Chapman Faulkner, Jane Emily Faulkner Giessler's sister in law, can be found in two sources of family history: One is "Edmund Hawes and his American Descendents" and the second is "A Family History of Surnames (Gowdy)"
Harriet was Jane Giessler's sister-in-law who was mentioned as a possibility for the J.J.Faulkner deposit of ransom gold certificates.
The sources give the following information concerning Harriet: She was born Harriet Eunita Chapman in East Longmeadow MA in 1889. She married Harry William Faulkner (Jane's brother) in 1911 in New York. Harry was the son of James and Jane (Armstrong) Faulkner, who were also Jane Giessler's parents. Harry died in April of 1918. He was in the real estate business in New York. There were no children.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Jun 20, 2020 11:07:13 GMT -5
The obituary of Carl O. Giessler appears in the New York Times, August of 1935.
His survivors are given as his wife, Jane, his son Carl (called jr. in the notice) and a daughter, Mrs. Robert Shields. So Carl Giessler's only daughter Phyllis must have remarried following the death of her first husband Henry Leipold.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 20, 2020 16:16:45 GMT -5
I've always considered there might be a code in there somewhere as well. He's definitely signaling that he's in trouble, and I've often wondered if he wasn't testing Hauptmann to see whether or not he was going to crack. In other words, if Hauptmann cracked before he did then he's toast. But if he's standing firm there's no way he (Condon) gets implicated in his role in the extortion from that side of it. If one thinks about it, Condon was in a catch-22 regardless - but frankly its of his own making and definitely deserved. What's not in these reports is Hauptmann's claim that Condon belted out " I will not testify against this man" as he left. Based on everything in V2, I personally believe that actually happened. And so I always wanted to ask Major Stockburger about this. Unfortunately, when I met him it was quite by accident. I was so blown away that someone I considered almost a myth-like figure was standing in front of me that I was basically speechless and nothing came to mind. I just felt lucky for the opportunity to meet him and my entire mind went blank. All I seemed capable of was to listen to whatever he chose to say. That was a missed opportunity for sure but was really cool nevetheless. I suppose your awe of Major Stockburger was because his occupation and specific role an the LKC was similar to the work that you have done. Stockburger must have been very elderly at the time you met him, and may not have remembered the details of his eavesdropping and taking notes on the Condon-Hauptmann conversation at that time. Now are you suggesting that Condon actually told Hauptmann that he (Condon) could not testify against BRH? If this were so, why wouldn't Stockburger put that in his report? And if Stockberger didn't report this in writing, he may have told the prosecutors orally. We have to presume that this was the point in time after which Condon was "made an offer he couldn't refuse": either testify against Hauptmann or be char4ged as a co-conspitator in the extortion (and perhaps even in the murder.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2020 18:54:52 GMT -5
Information regarding Harriet Chapman Faulkner, Jane Emily Faulkner Giessler's sister in law, can be found in two sources of family history: One is "Edmund Hawes and his American Descendents" and the second is "A Family History of Surnames (Gowdy)" Harriet was Jane Giessler's sister-in-law who was mentioned as a possibility for the J.J.Faulkner deposit of ransom gold certificates. The sources give the following information concerning Harriet: She was born Harriet Eunita Chapman in East Longmeadow MA in 1889. She married Harry William Faulkner (Jane's brother) in 1911 in New York. Harry was the son of James and Jane (Armstrong) Faulkner, who were also Jane Giessler's parents. Harry died in April of 1918. He was in the real estate business in New York. There were no children. Nice post metje! When the Giesslers were being investigated, the authorities were running many checks on anyone who knew or worked with Carl O and/or Jane Faulkner Giessler. LE was interested in anyone who might have had issues with Jane who might have used her former address on that bank deposit slip. Harriet Chapman was one of those people looked at. Jane and Harriet did not get along. I am going to post this report. It mentions Harriet Chapman. imgur.com/kI87ugi Page One imgur.com/YQLLhGH Page Two
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,651
|
Post by Joe on Jun 20, 2020 20:11:42 GMT -5
A copy of Captain Sisk's report on John Condon can be found on-line under "Captain Sisk's Report on Jafsie Oct 27, 1934" The report mentions Condon's achievements, degrees, and positions, all included in Condon's two scrapbooks that he willingly showed the Captain. Oh, what you posted, metje! You'll soon come to realize that such information is anathema for some here, which is why in this case once again, it seems to have conveniently slipped under the rug. I'm just teasing, and of course I might be shrugging something off here, but looking at this guy John Condon, his list of community-oriented achievements, and given the fact about the only thing that isn't made abundantly clear, was his personal adoration of Charles Lindbergh, it's kind of tough to imagine him jumping into bed with a bunch of mentally-ill kidnapper/extortionist criminals, isn't it? Yet to some here, it would seem there is no other answer than that this action would have represented the crowning achievement of John Condon's life. Strange days indeed. www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/jafsie%20sisk.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 21, 2020 6:50:17 GMT -5
I suppose your awe of Major Stockburger was because his occupation and specific role an the LKC was similar to the work that you have done. Stockburger must have been very elderly at the time you met him, and may not have remembered the details of his eavesdropping and taking notes on the Condon-Hauptmann conversation at that time. When I met him he hadn't reached 100 yet. That was one of the things I remember him saying about wanting to "make it" to 100. But he was sharp as a tack recalling to me about the time he went to one of the German Meetings "undercover" to hear what they were saying about Hauptmann. There's reports about that too. Physically he was in great shape for someone that age. In fact once he was ready to leave the Archives, his son asked if he wanted to get the car, and Stockburger said " no, I'll walk." Now are you suggesting that Condon actually told Hauptmann that he (Condon) could not testify against BRH? If this were so, why wouldn't Stockburger put that in his report? And if Stockburger didn't report this in writing, he may have told the prosecutors orally. We have to presume that this was the point in time after which Condon was "made an offer he couldn't refuse": either testify against Hauptmann or be char4ged as a co-conspitator in the extortion (and perhaps even in the murder.) According to Hauptmann, it was after their conversation and as Condon was leaving that he told someone he could not testify against him. It could have been because of this that it wasn't added or recorded. Unless Stockburger spoke to someone else about this event then we'll probably never know.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 21, 2020 7:01:31 GMT -5
Nice post metje! When the Giesslers were being investigated, the authorities were running many checks on anyone who knew or worked with Carl O and/or Jane Faulkner Giessler. LE was interested in anyone who might have had issues with Jane who might have used her former address on that bank deposit slip. Harriet Chapman was one of those people looked at. Jane and Harriet did not get along. I am going to post this report. It mentions Harriet Chapman. I agree. I wrote about Chapman in V3 (pages 165, 184-5). What bothers me the most is that they never tracked her down. Once Souder claimed her handwriting didn't match that seemed to end their interest. Another character they avoided was Julius Forstman Jr (V3 pages 176-80). They stopped looking at him because he was from a wealthy and reputable family. Even if he wasn't involved I'd want to know more about him but this wasn't the first time the authorities investigating this case gave someone like this a pass.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 21, 2020 7:09:13 GMT -5
Oh, what you posted, metje! You'll soon come to realize that such information is anathema for some here, which is why in this case once again, it seems to have conveniently slipped under the rug. I'm just teasing, and of course I might be shrugging something off here, but looking at this guy John Condon, his list of community-oriented achievements, and given the fact about the only thing that isn't made abundantly clear, was his personal adoration of Charles Lindbergh, it's kind of tough to imagine him jumping into bed with a bunch of mentally-ill kidnapper/extortionist criminals, isn't it? Yet to some here, it would seem there is no other answer than that this action would have represented the crowning achievement of John Condon's life. Strange days indeed. Yikes! So if there are hundreds of reports that tend to show one thing, we should instead forget them and simply read the one or two we "like?" Could you imagine if that happened today? Heck, by that philosophy we'd have to admit Dennis Rader wasn't really BTK. " No, no, it can't be him, he's a great guy!" Fortunately, we know he was a crazed and sick murderer because of some great investigative work by people who didn't care who would be implicated and simply used their skills to bring him to justice. My advice: Accumulate everything THEN consider the totality of what you find.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2020 7:24:20 GMT -5
Another character they avoided was Julius Forstman Jr (V3 pages 176-80). They stopped looking at him because he was from a wealthy and reputable family. Even if he wasn't involved I'd want to know more about him but this wasn't the first time the authorities investigating this case gave someone like this a pass. Julius George Forstmann was from one of the wealthiest families in America. It could be authorities didn't look hard at Julius because the family, including Julius, Jr. were vacationing at the time of the kidnapping and didn't return to the United States until April 3, 1932. Still, I agree that if young Julius had any connection with the Giesslers or extended family members or friends, they should have, at the minimum, did a handwriting check against the Faulkner deposit slip. How are you seeing Julius possibly connecting to this exactly? The Forstmann family resided at 22 East 71st Street in NYC. This 25 room mansion was built in 1922 so I am surprised that William Moeller said that Forstmann's business was not doing well. That doesn't seem to fit with the history of Forstmann and Huffmann Mills. Its origins are in Germany. They would become one of the biggest textile (woolen) mills in this country while maintaining overseas connections. To make a long story short, Julius George would marry in 1936 to Dorothy A Mercadante and live in Greenwhich Connecticut; he would eventually oversee the family business, seeing it through some changes. Julius would have 6 children, one of the sons, Theodore, would become a Wall Street magnate. Julius died in 1962 at the age of 52. A look at the Julius Forstmann home in NYC: daytoninmanhattan.blogspot.com/2011/08/1923-julius-forstmann-mansion-no-22.html
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Jun 23, 2020 19:12:58 GMT -5
Thank you to all those who responded to my earlier posts. My intention was not to defend any individual or point any fingers but rather to make board members aware of materials that appear to be relevant and which you might find interesting and can make some connections. Currently I have no theory but am simply doing research and will post information that seems to have some validity and which might help our search for a solution.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Jun 23, 2020 19:20:37 GMT -5
The two scrapbooks of John Condon that Agent Sisk examined would be of interest, naturally. Condon made the collection himself and so would not include anything but praiseworthy items. So it does present a one-sided view of the man although the news items included would most likely be legitimate. I do not know of anyone who collects news stories about themselves or makes scrapbooks of their achievements. Sisk seemed to have been impressed though, and it does point to the need of Condon to be considered heroic since he includes several stories about saving lives of those about to drown. In the Middle Ages he would be a knight errant. Perhaps that was the portrait he was trying to present to the world in the 1900s.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 24, 2020 11:44:35 GMT -5
How are you seeing Julius possibly connecting to this exactly? In short: I don't know what I don't know. And so, of course, I want to know everything in order to see where it leads. While I don't think Leipold was directly involved with the Lindbergh Kidnapping, he was involved in something and Leipold's paranoia seems to be based on whatever it was. I am suspicious that Forstman was involved in that as once indicated by Leipold claiming, in essence, a woman being involved and that it was his job to "clean it up." Furthermore, when it came to the DaVinci painting, it seems likely someone was connected who had quite a bit of money. Next, so many interesting things seem to develop from "other" investigations. My books are filled with information that I discovered in documentation that other authors choose to skip or ignore because they didn't "believe" it was relevant or they didn't have the time to look into. For example, just yesterday I was studying my file that I assembled on a declared "hoaxer." Sure enough, I found something in that file that I've seen no where else that's important and I plan on putting it in V4. It's not coming from the "hoaxer"/subject but comes from other information added to the report by its source. It proves that everything needs to be looked at for this reason. It's hard to do knowing that one might invest in a whole bunch of time only to find nothing - but it needs to be done nevertheless.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2020 14:06:54 GMT -5
How are you seeing Julius possibly connecting to this exactly? In short: I don't know what I don't know. And so, of course, I want to know everything in order to see where it leads. While I don't think Leipold was directly involved with the Lindbergh Kidnapping, he was involved in something and Leipold's paranoia seems to be based on whatever it was. I am suspicious that Forstman was involved in that as once indicated by Leipold claiming, in essence, a woman being involved and that it was his job to "clean it up." Furthermore, when it came to the DaVinci painting, it seems likely someone was connected who had quite a bit of money. I understand your need to know everything possible about every situation and person you look at that comes up in this case. You are correct that you are talking big money when it comes to a real DaVinci painting. They are not easy to come by, not then and not now. I am amazed that Leipold was involved in something of this level. On page 173 in your Volume 3 of the TDC, you write about a follow-up letter from Professor Michailow to Leipold that the painting has been thoroughly examined in Berlin and was authentic. Julius Forstmann, Sr. had 4 sons and one daughter. This family is certainly rich enough to have owned a DaVinci or perhaps have been interested in acquiring one. I will look at this more to see if I can link Leipold with any of the Forstmann family members or in-laws, etc. Looking forward to finding out what this is!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2020 22:14:34 GMT -5
Michael,
Could you post Sgt. Zapolsky's January 17, 1934 report that is Footnote #502 on page 177. This report is the one involving Rudolf Heidkamp. He tells about Forstmann and Leipold being very good friends who traveled together all over Europe. I find it very hard to believe this could be Julius George Forstmann that Leipold was doing this with. Julius Jr was only like 13 years old when Leipold arrived in America in 1923. If Leipold actually had any real contact with a Forstmann son, it must have been one of the oldest brothers. Leipold married in 1929 when Julius would have been 19. I just don't see Leipold's claims working with Julius, Jr.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 26, 2020 18:49:25 GMT -5
Michael,Could you post Sgt. Zapolsky's January 17, 1934 report that is Footnote #502 on page 177. This report is the one involving Rudolf Heidkamp. He tells about Forstmann and Leipold being very good friends who traveled together all over Europe. I find it very hard to believe this could be Julius George Forstmann that Leipold was doing this with. Julius Jr was only like 13 years old when Leipold arrived in America in 1923. If Leipold actually had any real contact with a Forstmann son, it must have been one of the oldest brothers. Leipold married in 1929 when Julius would have been 19. I just don't see Leipold's claims working with Julius, Jr. I know Amy is aware but for anyone who might be interested in researching the Giesslers there are three main sources at the NJSP Archives one must go through. The NJSP Collection, the Hoffman Collection, and the Binders. One report might be found in all three, two of the three, or only in one of three. This makes it impossible to take a short cut through the material if one is looking to accumulate everything. It's why certain authors have "missed" stuff. I don't blame them but I think what I've outlined above explains how it can happen. Additionally, there are always other places to find unique material where, as in this situation, one could find material in the correspondence files. Another example might be that I have some Connecticut State Police reports but the only place they exist is in the HRO collection. This collection is huge and spread out in a couple of places - frankly it is very time consuming to go through with very little gain when considering everything else that's available. And yet, there is material that HRO was able to collect that helps fill in some holes here and there. Anyway, its why I had to go through everything several times, and why I still have to return here and there to find or double check for things I may have missed. Amy, if it turns out they were looking at the wrong brother I think you can see exactly why these men should have done a thorough investigation from my perspective. And in the end it may have led absolutely no where but there's only one way to find out. Attachment Deleted Attachment Deleted
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Jun 27, 2020 8:57:18 GMT -5
One source connects Harriet Chapman Faulkner with Worcester, Mass. although she was born in East Longmeadow in 1889. According to the History of the Surname Gowdy, Harriet's mother was Grace Bell Gowdy who had married Harrison Samuel Chapman, Harriet's father. H.S. Chapman died in Springfield, MA in 1898. Grace (Harriet's mother) married her second husband, Theodore Nye in 1915. Theodore is listed as a graduate of Worcester Polytechnical Institute in 1895 with a degree in Mechanical Engineering. His address then was listed as 19 Beverly Road in Worcester, MA. He worked as an Assistant Chief Draftsman for the Morgan Construction Company which is located in Worcester. Harriet Chapman was Jane Faulkner Giessler's sister in law; she married Jane's brother Harry who died in 1918 (possibly from the flu virus although I have no evidence for that). She then was said to have returned to Massachusetts, and so instead of returning to East Longmeadow, where she was born, she chose to stay with her mother Grace who had been married for several years to Theodore Nye and lived in Worcester, MA.
|
|