|
Post by rick on Mar 4, 2006 22:13:23 GMT -5
Michael...for my 2 cents? I think that the person that Condon knew best was Fisch? Why, because he kept describing to a Tee? Big ears/ hacking cough/ lumpy thumb? I realize that it looks like a huge Red Johnson, I mean herring, for Jafsie to keep describing Fisch. But it must have been some sort of...Freudian Slips...or that Fisch was conning Con-don and the latter never realized it? Condon had to make up someone for his mystical Cemetery John scripts, and for some reason Fisch became his model study? Even the guard at Woodlawn fingered fisch without ever knowing it? Of course, I could be missing a beat here?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 5, 2006 17:01:14 GMT -5
I agree it better suits Fisch, however, we do have to consider the Berryman Sketches. Here is a link to the real one: While its clear to me that's not Hauptmann it certainly isn't Fisch either.
|
|
|
Post by rick for michael on Mar 5, 2006 20:16:26 GMT -5
Which CJ is this...Colonel Breckenridge? There must have been an bakers dozen of CJs from JFCs point of view? PS the board is becoming a veritable maze of confusion? Its becoming the LKC>?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 8, 2006 5:41:02 GMT -5
Rick,
This is the original sketch. The one on the FBI web-site isn't.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Mar 8, 2006 7:59:35 GMT -5
What actual truths have ever been discovered in any of Condons accounts or identifications? Half-truths does not beging to describe Condons obfuscations? He is like Don Quixote chasing windmills. Nothing he ever says stands for very long, soon it changes to something else. Condon was so distrusted that Breckenridge lived in his house to watch him...who ever heard of such a thing? Its truly amazing that any of Condons descriptions match any single person: Fisch, Gorch, Wendel, BRH, Italian woman. Not only did JFC confound every aspect of the blackmail-extortion he was the biggest failure in terms of Charlies return in history. Zero for one? Noone in their right mind would let him negotiate the return of his oldest son? All of Condon's actions are the real Fischy Story. He pretty much gives away the Hoax. Gaston Means did real time for conning Evalyn Walsh McClean, Curtis got probation--but for his total abject failure to secure Charlies return Condon becomes a National Hero? What exactly does that say about our National gullibilty? "A sucker is borne every minute" As long as CAl vouched for him he was home free? "Mission Accomplished"
|
|
|
Post by kanneedwards on Mar 8, 2006 8:09:13 GMT -5
rick, i agree and the key words here are "CAL vouched for him" by this time in his history CAL certainly knew the powere he possessed. no one argues that it was his testimony that sealed the verdict. the only time that the symbol seeems to have meant anything to CAL is when he first let JFC into his home. of cours that might have been an oversight by thayer while cal was trying to get some sleep
|
|
|
Post by rita on Mar 21, 2006 22:46:00 GMT -5
To Rick, Kathy Doesn't it appear that CAL participated with a rogues gallery of criminal types in finding his son, until he found the only innocent appearing one of the bunch, his patsy Hauptman?
|
|
|
Post by ace on May 15, 2023 10:41:31 GMT -5
Sometimes I come across surprising tidbits that, upon reflection, may provide insight into aspects of the LKC. I discovered a book from 1996, "When I Was Your Age: Original Stories About Growing Up," in which the youngest (American) Lindbergh child, Reeve, contributes one chapter. It's called "Flying," and she describes how exhilarating it was for her and her older sister, Anne, to be flown around the vicinity of their home by their father. (I think she says this was a Saturday morning ritual.) Reeve says that the children knew that CAL's years of open-cockpit flying had damaged his hearing, and they did not want to experience the same fate, but it wasn't as simple as taking necessary precautions. According to Reeve, the girls had to surreptitiously stuff cotton in their ears after taking their seats behind their father, because CAL would not approve. Upon landing they would remove the cotton so as to keep their father from knowing what they had done. I post this because I have never felt CAL's trial testimony that he could identify a voice from two years earlier who had said two words was remotely plausible. After finding this account, I feel even more confident about it.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on May 16, 2023 7:32:00 GMT -5
Ace: this is a gem of background info on CAL confirming his total scorn and disregard for basic safety measures, and not only when flying. He saw these precautions as a sign of weakness which he abhorred. We can also imagine his trans continental flight: "We won't need oxygen Anne. Oxygen is for cissies." I also think he saw his son's frailties as a sign of personal weakness, hence the need to "toughen him up." There is a photo of Charles Lindbergh at some conference where he is leaning forward with one hand cupped around his ear in the classic posture of someone with impaired hearing. I too do not believe his ID of Hauptmann's voice as Cemetery John. Even for someone with perfect hearing, recalling two words, unexpectedly coming out of the darkness some distance away after two and a half years is impossible. Yet for some jury members it was this that sealed Hauptmann's fate.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on May 16, 2023 10:12:22 GMT -5
Ace: this is a gem of background info on CAL confirming his total scorn and disregard for basic safety measures, and not only when flying. He saw these precautions as a sign of weakness which he abhorred. We can also imagine his trans continental flight: "We won't need oxygen Anne. Oxygen is for cissies." I also think he saw his son's frailties as a sign of personal weakness, hence the need to "toughen him up." There is a photo of Charles Lindbergh at some conference where he is leaning forward with one hand cupped around his ear in the classic posture of someone with impaired hearing. I too do not believe his ID of Hauptmann's voice as Cemetery John. Even for someone with perfect hearing, recalling two words, unexpectedly coming out of the darkness some distance away after two and a half years is impossible. Yet for some jury members it was this that sealed Hauptmann's fate. I'd support the contention it would have been highly unlikely for any individual to hear and recall the sound of two random words spoken spontaneously in a public situation two and a half years earlier, unless there was good reason to recall their specifics. But that is clearly not what took place on the night of March 12, 1932, at a very specific location, date and time when the senses of both John Condon and Charles Lindbergh would have been on high alert and at full anticipation level. What other evidence within the conversational exchanges between Lindbergh and countless individuals at this time, do you believe supports that Lindbergh was hard enough of hearing and incapable of deciphering a man yelling from two hundred feet away?
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on May 16, 2023 11:15:13 GMT -5
"Having a good reason to recall ..specifics" or being on "high alert" don't come into it if in fact Lindbergh's hearing was impaired. It is possible that Lindbergh heard a human voice utter the two words (still in doubt) which were spoken. Two and a half years later, on oath, in a court of law, having previously said he could not identify the voice, and not having heard it in the interim, he testifies that the voice belonged to Hauptmann beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of all other men. I don't believe it.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on May 16, 2023 11:58:21 GMT -5
"Having a good reason to recall ..specifics" or being on "high alert" don't come into it if in fact Lindbergh's hearing was impaired. It is possible that Lindbergh heard a human voice utter the two words (still in doubt) which were spoken. Two and a half years later, on oath, in a court of law, having previously said he could not identify the voice, and not having heard it in the interim, he testifies that the voice belonged to Hauptmann beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of all other men. I don't believe it. I don't know how much Lindbergh's hearing would have lessened from the time of his semi-annual flying examination in early 1930 to the time of the kidnapping two years later, but it seems to have been quite normal then. His hearing in one ear apparently became worse from his daughter Reeve's recollections, as she claimed he eventually went deaf in one ear. Perhaps this was an accumulative degenerative effect as he aged over the years. Of course, this would have been well after the kidnapping. I've seen no evidence that Lindbergh was hearing impaired in March of 1932. Do you believe he was, and if so, why?
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on May 16, 2023 15:10:22 GMT -5
We can see from the Reeve Lindbergh reminiscences quote by Ace above that CAL had a casual attitude to ear protection against engine noise. This even extended to him not approving of his growing children (and his wife?) protecting their hearing. In 1932 he had been flying regularly for about 10 years and it is reasonable to assume this had always been his attitude. Although there is no proof his hearing was damaged by 1932 it may well have been. He may have used a hearing aid to pass his semi-annual flying examinations in much the same way as men with prosthetic legs were allowed to fly. We don't know for sure.
My main point is, hearing-impaired or not, it is one thing to hear a human voice utter two words some distance away and quite another to claim on oath 30 months later in a capital murder trial that those two words were spoken by Richard Hauptmann and nobody else.
Imagine this test: Lindbergh is in his car and ten German immigrants with or without Hauptmann, one by one, at irregular intervals, and without warning shout the words "Hey doc" from the dark cemetery. Thirty months later Lindbergh is asked "Which one was Hauptmann?" The correct answer may well be "None of them" of course. Would you bet the ranch on Lindbergh getting it right? I wouldn't.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 16, 2023 15:48:18 GMT -5
But that is clearly not what took place on the night of March 12, 1932, at a very specific location, date and time when the senses of both John Condon and Charles Lindbergh would have been on high alert and at full anticipation level. I think you mean April 2 (St. Raymond's) vs. March 12 (Woodlawn). Lindbergh testified at the Grand Jury that it would be "difficult" to identify the voice he heard (V4 pages 20-1). He also says all that he heard was " hey doc." Aside from that, Condon was at the intersection, and we are led to believe CJ was all the way down the hill in the area where the ransom money was supposed to have been paid. Next, at Condon's grand jury testimony, he claimed after he returned with the money, CJ's " voice changed" as well as his " English" (V2, page 226). Finally, as I sit here I can remember several different versions concerning what Condon claimed CJ called out (I could probably find more if I decided to go through everything): 1. Ay, Doc2. Hey Doc3. Hey, Doctor 4. Hey Doc-tor, over hereSo if Condon was on "high alert" and remembers that CJ's voice changed, what value was CJ's earlier voice when it can be presumed it was disguised? Or if he's on "high alert," why can't he even remember what the guy actually said? Or, if he's on "high alert," why did he refuse to identify Hauptmann and it wasn't until he was threatened that he changed his mind? My point is this "high alert" theory doesn't quite, as we used to say as kids, "cut the mustard." I pose these from the position of Condon actually telling the truth, which I personally do not believe because he does this same sort of thing everywhere throughout the case.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on May 17, 2023 6:05:51 GMT -5
Yes, the written record has quite a list of permutations for the "Hey, Doc" shouted (or whispered in an appropriately low voice) by CJ. About the only one missing is Bugs Bunny's catchphrase "What's up Doc?" Joking apart, I used to work with German PhD's in a European Research Centre. They always addressed each other as "Herr Doktor!" (sic). This respectful form of address is ingrained in native Germans when speaking to a man with a PhD but, correct me if I'm wrong, it is nowhere to be found among the many alternatives in the literature. If CJ was Hauptmann this would be the way he would address Dr Condon. Granted, it can easily be mis-heard as "Hey, Doctor" but I thought it was worth a mention. Bearing in mind Condon's devious ways I cannot rule out that the words were said by Condon himself to add verisimilitude to his tale of meeting CJ face to face at the handover. We have only Condon's word that he met CJ in St Raymond's cemetery; nobody else saw CJ. And this fits with the instruction in the ransom note to leave the box/money at a designated spot for later collection thereby avoiding a trap at the crucial handover moment. "Don't be afraid that someone else will get it; we are watching" (I paraphrase). I know its far fetched but with Condon involved anything is possible.
|
|