kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 11, 2006 11:15:03 GMT -5
Do you have a dog Rick? My two could drag that bag for half a day, especially if it contained something they wanted.
Why without challenge? What about prior to the ransom drop?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 11, 2006 16:56:55 GMT -5
Kevin....maybe you have a trick dog? Most carnivores would choose to play and gnaw on the "bones and flesh" rather than entertain the troops by draging a B urlap B ag out to the B oad for no apparent reason? You should feed your dog! eg Doesnt hold water. I suppose the dog dumps out Charlie into a small depression not unlike a shallow grave too? And protects his facial fetures with black mud?
II. I presume you are alluding to the wildly remote possibility that anyone came all the way back from the Bronx to retrieve the Sleeping Suite for Jafsie? Wow, thats a huge stretch....and leave the "corpus delicti" lying around near a B oad for a murder rap and a subsequent death sentence. Well, maybe if you are a close family member....but not if you are CJ. You wouldn't make the same mistake twice! One of these times Charlies going into the Hudson tied to a cinder block. Unless you are 1) bootleggers or; 2) CAL. 3) Shippell.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 11, 2006 17:19:34 GMT -5
So I guess you don't have a dog. They really don't need much of a reason to do anything, at least my two tricksters. And let us not forget the plethora of non-canine species out there.
Why is is so wildly remote? Bootleggers had the most reason , after the Lindberghs, to rue the day this kidnapping occurred ( not too good for business)
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 11, 2006 21:19:00 GMT -5
Good point Kevin...sorry I went for the head fake. It could go down this way:
Motive/Theory: Bootleggers Revenge
Wendel, Ellerson or Red grabs Charlie--takes to New Haven. Bootleggers/Purple Gang grab Charlie in New Haven. Charlie dies or is killed by accident. Sleeping suite mailed from Stamford. Fisch negotiates with Condon for the baby. Purple Gang brings baby back to Hopewell. Babys body found 12 May/still has bluethread shirt.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 12, 2006 5:28:52 GMT -5
Kevin,
From the actions of my dog I know this to be true... However, I think we should look at the conditions of the situation here for a minute.
Firstly, I believe this corpse, while showing proof of animal invasion, doesn't show the devastation we would expect if it had been laying there since March 1st. The white animal hair is probably from a fox, yet, we see vital organs still exist in this corpse AND the corpse is out of the bag. Are we to assume these animals preferred the toe so they wrestled with the bag and left the corpse? Not only that, crossing a stream, and bringing the bag towards the road - closer to people?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on May 12, 2006 6:49:51 GMT -5
I think my main point regarding this whole affair is that there are far too many factors and variables present for us to make any type of reasonable conclusion. I wouldn't rule anything out nor would I make any claim with certainty. I know I have seen some pretty weird and unbelievable things happen in regard to Mother Nature. This is why I still firmly believe that a proper archaeological investigation at the Mt Rose site could potentially provide more information as to the disposition of the body.
|
|
|
Post by pzb63 on Jun 6, 2006 23:52:11 GMT -5
Does anyone know what became of the Henkels?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 7, 2006 18:40:26 GMT -5
Great question Pam...
I'll have to do a little searching but I don't think there is much after the trial. Now the question would be why there isn't. Anyway - I'll take a look and see what I might have.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 9, 2006 5:11:32 GMT -5
I got in touch with Mark Falzini who told me that the Henkels moved to CT and ultimately died there. I am still checking for more info in the reports....
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on Jun 9, 2006 16:52:29 GMT -5
It seems like we go round and round the mulberry bush on these issues, but the central question pertains to the existence of a "conspiracy." It is quite true that the larger the number of people involved, the more dangerous the situation for each -- if, in fact they knew each other. I think that Kevin has made the point firmly and finally that there was more than one person down at Hopewell. But was it necessary to have those people know everyone else? The problem of pie slices does not seem to me to be an insuperable one, as this assumes that the only motive was monetary. Remember that even the good Dr. Shoenfeld the resident expert on motives at first thought it was Freudian. Michael adds to this the point that money may have been paid on in advance. What if that long conversation at Woodlawn concerned the question of who was going to take the fall? Condon knew he was not guilty of the kidnapping, but he had been given inside information about how to behave, and exudes "trust" in CJ -- why, what made him think so, unless CJ had told him something about others that he believed. Walsh hit him on that question, and so did Reilly at the trial. It was an odd thing to say about CJ -- trust -- and later in Massachusetts Condon went through that weird exercise of an appeal to CJ to come out of hiding and turn himself in and tell everyone the truth. IOW, suppose Condon was convinced by this conversation that there was a conspiracy, in large part because he was willy-nilly now part of it. He was stuck with his role -- a role that had been designed for a flaky guy who could not retreat from the situation. His trips down to Fla after the trial were hints were they not, and his statement that BRH would be convicted of extortion, but probably not murder. Putting someone like Condon in as the interlocuter may well have been based on the idea that he could be trusted -- after being drawn in -- not to rat on CJ, and to give him plenty of room to get away. After all, if someone is setting this up they need to make a credible case that the participants are not going to be zapped.
|
|
|
Post by gismo on Jun 9, 2006 21:12:46 GMT -5
Regarding Condon being trusted not to rat....Someone made an interesting point earlier here that Condon didn't identify Hauptmann as CJ until AFTER Lindbergh did. They (the person posting) said that once Lindbergh made his identification, how could Condon dare to refute it? Besides the gall of contradicting "LINDBERGH", did he fear that Wilentz then go after him? He was backed into a corner.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 9, 2006 21:47:06 GMT -5
I think the sequence of events are important because its fairly obvious Condon was trying to pull his "usual" in not identifying Hauptmann and completely trying to confuse and/or muddy the situation.
It looks more and more to me that he was doing this to protect Hauptmann. If so, it could be he was protecting him merely because he wasn't CJ....a fact that doesn't mean Hauptmann isn't involved simply that he wasn't CJ. Heck, Reihl pretty much proves this for me. Or it could be Condon was doing exactly what he was brought in this case to do. If he wasn't brought in for this purpose - then what for? As WC has pointed out in the past, they had already begun working with Breckenridge priorthereto Condon's "appointment" ... who in their right mind would appoint someone who was a legitimate "nit-wit" - something I know he really wasn't because his memory and demeanor would suddenly sober up when threats were made towards him.
Now MJR's suggestion, in essence, that Lindbergh may have testified to identifying Hauptmann's voice in order bring Condon into line is interesting, however, there is no way I can believe Wilentz wouldn't have known that Condon was about to identify Hauptmann before putting him on that stand. In fact, I believe if there was ever a doubt nearer to the trial then Condon would have been hidden away just as Curtis was.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 Dectective4 on Jun 9, 2006 21:59:37 GMT -5
I fully agree/ if Condon wasnt brought on board to create chaos and wild goose chases all over the Bronx then what possible purpose did he serve? Well, to help the Bronx Blackmailers grab the unmarked cash reward for no return at all for thier money. The perfect go-between is a co-conspirator. Keeps the ransom money headed in the right direction and the cops in the opposite direction?
II. What COLOR is the stolen 1930 Broughham abandoned on 149th Street on the morning of 2 March 1932 by maybe Duane Charles Bacon/Baker? Inside are milk bottles/diapers etc. Its left out in front of Plymouth Apts? Does this car with both NJ/NY tags match any IDs around Highfields on 1 March 32? eg is it GREEN?
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Aug 9, 2006 10:10:34 GMT -5
Hope this is the right place to post but i came across this quote that i think was made by ryan ross, not sure though; here goes for what its worth, "Preciitating a cover-up and creating a kidnapper/intruder scenerio, however, would have avoided having to make disclosures that called into question their fitness as parents, without much additional risk. Its not hard to envision any parent facing those circumstances deciding-in the panic of night- to take a gamble." He is discussing the JonBenet Ramsey case but it seemed to resonate here.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Aug 9, 2006 13:04:16 GMT -5
I think it's hard to compare the JBRKC, given the circumstances relating to the elements of planning and preparation we see in the LKC. Within the ladder / attic wood and ransom note evidence are the distinct, indelible marks of Hauptmann's investment of time and participation. So when and how would he have been contacted and under what conditions would he have entered the case?
Certainly this was no "spur of the moment" commissioning of a shady character to help cover up a sudden mishap in Hopewell. Can we accept the possibility the baby was dead for a longer period of time, say a couple of days, given the number of eyewitnesses including notable public figures with esteemed reputations with required ironclad accounts and alibis, who would have to be brought into such a major conspiracy?
Michael seems to have implied consistently that Lindbergh was behind the kidnapping. I don't agree at all with that theory, but I empathize with any notion there is a huge pregnant bubble of this degree of magnitude, hovering just out of sight in this case, ready to burst. The players are basically there, most of the relevant facts known for years, but the key discovery that will break the tension and suddenly align the pieces into the most intelligible telltale, but thoroughly shocking form, is just waiting to happen.
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Aug 9, 2006 16:00:19 GMT -5
i've wondered about that too Joe, whether the baby could have died at englewood but body was taken to hopewell to stage whatever. it was so remote and the players involved many fewer. in my mind i feel its very clear as to what went down in the JBR case but this one, well I cant figure it out.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jan 16, 2007 15:17:27 GMT -5
Michael~ Where's Pat Doyle? I was re-reading her interview last night where she mentions Uncle Dinny's written recollections being at Mark's museum. Do you know if there is any way that can be read other than at the museum? Have you read it?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 16, 2007 22:28:07 GMT -5
I last saw her on Ronelle's board and I've been told she has recently posted on Allen's - so she's still around... Here is her personal material posted in our Archive Section which I know you have read: lindberghkidnap.proboards56.com/index.cgi?board=acondon&action=display&thread=1164683280Additionally, I think she might be referring to reports such as the one I posted in our Member's Section. There's also discussion in this thread authored by Patricia which I think is both interesting and important. lindberghkidnap.proboards56.com/index.cgi?board=source&action=display&thread=1158359675And of course there's always another option and that is there is something she is aware of that's at the NJSP Archives that I am not. If so it would have to be something added there very recently. If you go to the Archive link there is also a link to her profile...if you click on that I believe it lists her email address. Speaking of Allen's board I had been emailed a couple of these posts from some members there. Just to make quick comment on a couple of things concerning what's written there for the benefit of our Readers: Allen seems to be claiming that Noso approached Mrs. McLean...this is not true. McLean tracked down and located him on the West Coast. She convinced him to turn himself in and paid his expenses. He was quickly cleared (anyone besides Hauptmann would have been) and then he began to work for McLean. I can't say for sure but my gut tells me it was her idea and not the other way around.... Noso wrote an 8 page document which he signed explaining his relationship with the FBI, etc. What's also interesting is that Noso suspected Wallace Stroh and James Brady of involvement in the kidnapping. It should be remembered that Stroh was one of the men who implicated Noso in the first place. Now concerning Doyle... He wrote a paper which he sent to McLean entitled: My experiences with the Lindbergh case, by a close relation of Dr. Condon. This was unsigned but definitely originated from Doyle.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jan 17, 2007 19:19:46 GMT -5
Thank you Michael~ The write up to McLean may be the Dinny Doyle recollections I saw referred to. I read that there was a JJ Faulkner interviewed and cleared in NY. He had been a carpenter. Oh, I see that was in Joe's post 24 Nov/Ronnel's board (the NY ref) I've been looking at Joe's Jimmy Faulkner's Canada capers to try to compare things I can find on Nosovitsky. Somewhere I read that Noso had been over into Canada. Also that he seems to drop out of sight in '37. Nosovitsky strikes me as rather a slithery character. He keeps touching in and out of the edges of the LKC.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jan 21, 2007 20:35:12 GMT -5
Michael~ You had pointed out in a previous post that prisoners may point the finger at another prisoner for doing something illegal as cover for something they themselves are doing. It made me wonder if the same might apply to O. Whateley saying he thought there was insider help(?) Is he saying that to point away from himself(?) I also wonder if his saying this was after Violet had committed suicide.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 22, 2007 6:38:55 GMT -5
It's a good observation and I have considered it but personally find there was too much distraction effort to prevent this idea from rising to the top. Of course since Whateley was in the house he may have overheard (or told outright) they suspected an 'insider' so its possible.... I just think that would be one hell of a gamble all things considering.
I read this in the Hunterdon County Democrat and I believe it was in the March 3rd paper... I'll check if you're interested in listing the exact details. As I remember he was quickly hushed up and his main point for making this remark was the dog having not barked.
If one thinks about it who can he possibly be implicating? Certainly not his wife.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jan 22, 2007 6:59:06 GMT -5
Thanks Michael~ If Ollie said that in relation to the dog not barking, it would rather change the complexion of it. Had wondered it he may have been pointing in the direction of Next Day Hill. I guess I'm not overly impressed with the dog not barking. He was downstairs in the far end of the house on a loud windy night. If he was all that keen of hearing, I should think he would have surely picked up on the neighbors dogs chasing and barking over that way, that night.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 22, 2007 17:23:13 GMT -5
Well, I have a terrier and this dog hears noises even if she is sound asleep. Where exactly was this dog and if in the other part of the house why wouldn't Whateley take this into consideration? I would bet this dog should have been barking his head off at the various noises caused by the wind but we only know he didn't during whatever time this child was supposed to have been taken.
I believe if this dog truly did not bark then he was drugged just like the Anderson family's Great Dane had been before the attempted abduction of their child.
As far as the other dogs are concerned... I am not sure the time was etched in stone and the fact this was a good distance away and the dogs were supposedly running towards Highfields means what exactly? How close did they get? These houses weren't on top of each other.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jan 22, 2007 18:40:04 GMT -5
You may be correct, Michael. Maybe the neighbors' barking dogs weren't engraved in stone. I had read where there were 2(i think) speaking of those dogs barking around that time and that there had been paw prints found in amongst those presumed to be the tracks of the kidnappers. Could be that is iffy. Guess I'm still not convinced of the reliability of the Yip-Yapping of the LB dog, or that he was necessarily attuned to outside sounds. I had a Dachshund once that was very barky at us inside, but never gave a thought to outside sounds, not even someone knocking on the door Wagoosh's reputation as a total yap-head may have grown some over the years in the retelling(?) Seems to me that drugging him would be something too much extra to do during the tight timeframe, but won't rule out that possibility.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 23, 2007 6:24:03 GMT -5
This is one of those things that has always been a topic of discussion going as far back as the day the crime was committed. And I know we've gone over this before but its important to try and work some things out so I have no problem going over it again and again until some sense can be made of it.
In Anne's book, HGHL p.227, she claims the dog, in essence, would have barked but was in the other side of the house and couldn't hear a noise because of the wind....but has been "barking ever since."
I know Joe and I disagree but I believe the 'snatch' occurred right around 8PM so I want to know where the dog was then, in fact, I want to know where he was at all times during this night. Other problems I have is CAL's testimony that he wouldn't expect the dog to bark - especially when everyone else in the household said differently.
Now Anne says in her letter to E that she heard no noise and that a ladder couldn't have been along side the house between 930 and 1000 because CAL was in his study.
Does anyone expect that Wahgoosh didn't hear the supposed noise in the kitchen that CAL supposedly heard? I don't care where he was at the time.
My dog, a Jack Russell Terrier, hears everything. On a windy night she will run back and forth like she is on a race track investigating every bump and sound. She also has incredible eye site and can notice even the slightest movement from places that seem impossible. From all accounts Fox Terriers are even more temperamental.
I think Kevin and I are in agreement concerning the fact this crime was a well planned out event (correct me if I'm wrong Kevin). If this is the case then these guys HAD to have planned for this dog.
No way in the world would they gamble on this aspect.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jan 23, 2007 7:52:51 GMT -5
Michael, I would agree and add that a dog's strongest sense is smell, Even when we think our dogs are responding to sound, often it is their incredible ability to detect odors which is at work. So in explaining the lack of response by Wagoosh we might think about what was present in that nursery ( or applied to Charles Jr) that would disguise odors. Also, I personally think it was the missing Scottie that would have posed the most danger here to the kidnappers. As Mark knows, those Scotties are tenacious and have incredible bite strength. So know we can add this to the window/shutter locks as issues seemingly left un-addressed by the kidnappers. Or was it?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 23, 2007 19:49:55 GMT -5
Good point about the sense of smell too - you are absolutely right about that. You really have me curious about the theory you are developing.... Here is a little something which represents the types of communications the Police were getting concerning Wahgoosh: You're right about Scotties - plus when they're puppies they have razor sharp teeth (ouch!).
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on May 27, 2007 13:37:49 GMT -5
Michael~ Thanks for the source of Breck's visitor. Don't know how I lost the edges of that---bouncing around into too many books, maybe. It strikes me more than strange that here we have a newly kidnapped baby and Breck doesn't think it important enough to alert the police. And this being about the same time as the ransom note he(Breck) rec'd??? What is it with these Cols? Something in the drinking water?? Met with him twice, took him to lunch! Then seems to recall it after he sees a picture of Fisch??? I wonder who it was he finally related it to(?)
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 27, 2007 18:11:24 GMT -5
We have to remember the secrecy which surrounded the ransom money exchange and that CAL wouldn't let the Police in on that. Breck was reporting to CAL and not the Police. I have evidence of a meeting between Breck and Condon even after the ransom exchange where the Police were not allowed in. As far as forgetting where you may have read something.... I do it all the time.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on May 28, 2007 21:10:18 GMT -5
Didn't know where to put this Was just thinking about Alex Carrell. It seems to me he could have known about the Tues night at Hopewell. Did he hire a kidnapper(s), even without CAL's knowledge, (and maybe via a cut-out(?). If the child was more seriously ill than just a case of Rickets, could he have done this as a "service" to his pal, Lindbergh(?) (He seemed alright with "science" being important "over and above human life") Then the kidnappers got greedy and demanded ransom(?) I don't know how to follow through with this--maybe there's nothing there to follow through Just thought I would mention it.
|
|