|
Post by rmc1971 on May 7, 2007 5:40:09 GMT -5
Has anyone got any strong opinions on Peter and Mary? Were they just nutjobs? Were they trying to run a con of their own? Or were they in contact or cahoots with the kidnappers?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on May 7, 2007 10:52:26 GMT -5
Seems to me they knew too much. For instance the "JFC "initials. They seemed to know that a ransom note had been sent. Then Breck receiving the note with (I think) singnature. It's a wonder the police weren't all over them, yet they seemed not to be. Even though Rosner had a hand-drawn copy of the 1st ransom note-it doesn't seem to me Cerrita/Berritella could have had that symbol. If memory serves the 2nd note was postmarked on the 4th. There's that article on Ronnel's board, but I can't get it to open--can you.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on May 7, 2007 12:59:21 GMT -5
rmc P.S. The Fisch/Fisch look-alike who went to Breck's office interests me as well. I don't have the ref in front of me, but he said something to the effect "you'll have to deal with us". This seems to me reminiscent of something also said in one of the ransom notes "you have to come to us" (along those lines). This visit didn't seem to get much attention. Messes up the "Lone-Wolf" farce?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 7, 2007 20:23:40 GMT -5
Funny thing about this subject is there were actually more "mystics" and "psychics" then just the Berritellas. The reason they seem to get so much attention is that alot of what they said seemed to be true or eventually comes true.
Breckenridge's trick (which he also did elsewhere) is probably the one thing that tells me they might have been an Emissary of the Kidnapping Gang. That is, people hired to convey a message and scope out the situation from within then provide intel.
The problem then becomes that a lot of that seems to have been going on so exactly how can all of these Emissaries continue to hold their tongues? The woman at Tuckahoe, Needle Salesman, Scissors Grinder, the 2nd supposed Taxi Driver, and yes - Condon. But considering this, then indeed Perrone talked (or tried to) and eventually Condon would talk too even though he initially resisted and attempted to protect Hauptmann.
In terms of the Berritellas, the Police did investigate but I am just not sure they did it the right way. Sending Owney Madden over there to threaten them created the opposite then the desired effect. In fact, he scared the hell out of them which seemed to cause them to deny and re-affirm their information as coming from the "Spirits" with even more conviction then before.
The information in Agent Wilson's report shows investigation in April '32. In fact, they tapped their phones but it appears it wasn't done until April 18th because that has been the earliest date on these taps that I could find (so far). It seems the investigation begins to slow considerably then kick-starts up again in September of '32 lasting well into the Winter months of '33. Again the investigation seems to slow but, as before, seems to re-ignite in September of '33 and lasted well into '34.
|
|
|
Post by rmc1971 on May 7, 2007 23:08:54 GMT -5
Mairi - Thanks for the input. It seems they got a bit right. As Michael posted they weren't the only psychics involved in the case. But they get the most notoriety, either b/c they were known conmen or the fact they got more right. Either they had some info, or they just got lucky. I'd imagine it'd be a psychic's job to throw some stuff out there and hope it sticks. But they seemed to nail a little more down than by random guessing. Without ever researching them, my gut always was they were trying to run their own con until Madden scared them off. But I don't think they could be ruled out entirely. And it seems few involved with this case can.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on May 8, 2007 10:37:43 GMT -5
One other thing I've wondered about. As we all know, Condon was very taken with himself. He seems to have talked to his Doyle kin about sending a letter to the newspaper. Did someone early on throw out some hint to write the letter(?) Did he talk about the letter to others before he mailed it in(?) (Wouldn't surprise me) Is this how Cerrita knew to say "JFC" so early (?)We know he showed his first missive from the kidnappers, to others. Show-off that he was, for all one knows he may have sat in a gathering place to pen that letter .
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 8, 2007 20:20:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 10, 2007 17:57:10 GMT -5
Well I found phone monitoring reports that date to April 11th.... I'll keep checking. Here is an example of one of the sheets: Oh, and here's the little dog who played Wahgoosh in the Japanese Film about the case:
|
|
|
Post by rmc1971 on May 15, 2007 13:43:29 GMT -5
It would be interesting to know if there was any evidence that supports the theory that Birratella's brother was the cab driver who delivered the ransom note the night the money was exchanged.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on May 15, 2007 16:02:28 GMT -5
rmc~~Terrific thought about that 2nd cabbie!! I don't recall reading how well the 2nd cab driver was searched for. Or the needle or scissors fellows who came to Condon's house. Liked your singnature post, Rick. Especially the masculine/feminine analysis. I'd had some "bewonderin" about feminine being behind those "polite" ransom notes. As to the hole punches. You'll probably think me "dottled", but I recall somewhere about Fisch working furs in his room/apt. If he were cutting furs wouldn't he need some implement to hold the pelts steady(?) Perhaps a clamp of some sort maybe with (three) prongs(?) Also in googling about I read about a fur rake/comb. Haven't found a picture of one yet, except the assembly-line machine types. <(am probably deserving of a smite on this notion )
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 15, 2007 18:10:33 GMT -5
This is an interesting question and I like the way you think. The main problem here is the insertion of a 2nd Taxi Driver was made by Condon. I am convinced there was no 2nd Taxi Driver and it was, yet again, another of his tall tales. falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus This basically means that someone who purposely lies about one matter is not credible on any other matter. Ask any Attorney the best way to impeach a witness and they'll tell you to "catch them in a lie." This will discredit the rest of whatever else they have to testify to because you won't be able to trust them. Condon lied more then any other Principal in this case, therefore, I believe we must assume everything he said was a lie unless we can prove it wasn't. Despite the fact the house was being watched by Law Enforcement and they said there was no 2nd Taxi Driver - Sgt. Zapolsky, NJSP AND Det. Fitzgerald, Jersey City PD conducted one of the most intense and thorough investigations I have ever seen connected to this case. They came up "craps." Later, Agent Sisk, Lt. Keaton, Horn, and others conducted similar investigations and they too came up empty handed (as far as the 2nd Taxi Driver was concerned). Now perhaps the Police were thinking along the same lines as RMC is because they had him in December of '33 look over photos of John Baretela, "alleged brother of Peter." The result? The above subject's photograph was shown to Dr. Condon who stated that the above subject did not in any way resemble the man with whom he had contact during the Lindbergh Case. Now I know what everyone is thinking..... Can we trust Condon when he says this? After all, he did say Hauptmann was not John even after seeing him in person. The answer (for me) is - "no way."
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on May 16, 2007 15:26:50 GMT -5
Michael: I fully agree. It may have been Ellis Parker who coined the phrase: "a lie is as good as a confession"? - Im pretty certain that more than just JFC lied?
- My additional nominees would be:
- Red Johnson--he had 3 lies for his whereabouts the evening of March 1st? Margarite Junge also lied then recanted? Did Red visit Betty? Why not just say so?
- Violet Sharpe--she said she knew Ernie Brinkert by his photo and a dozen or more lies about her and Edna before and after March 1st? Including where she was on the evening of March 1st? Edna was staying right at Next Day right after the kidnap but never interviewed. Maybe she was blackmailing CAL?
- Ernie Brinkert and his wife Mary said they were going to the woods of Penna when they quit jobs March 1st--later said they went to Bridgeport CT? Pretty far outta the way? Ernie is a chauffeur and taxi cab driver too. Did Ernie work for B and M taxi?
- All the lies of all these persons were just excused? Precisely like Condons.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 16, 2007 16:19:35 GMT -5
I want to stay on the topic of the thread but it looks like I am responsible for opening the door so I'll answer your points....
1. Of course. Just about everyone did in one form or another. But when and to whom should qualify for consideration.
2. There is something "fishy" here but that's about it. It wasn't pursued like I think it should have been. We do know that Mr. Jung was threatened by the Police. And while the Jung's professed their belief that Hauptmann was innocent, they never revealed any real secrets in the Morrow household we all know they were privy to. Being fired provided the perfect opportunity for this so why didn't they?
3. My personal opinion is this is unlikely.
4. I see no real connection other then his card in Violet's possession and her lie that she was with him. If he's connected, and Violet knew it, why on earth tell a lie in order to connect him? It doesn't make sense to me.
5. See my answer to point #1.
|
|
|
Post by wahgooshdidit on May 21, 2007 18:14:01 GMT -5
Sorry for jumping in late on this thread.
While Birritella & Cerrita have been among my favorite suspects from the get-go, I feel I ought to point out that there is a major problem with the accuracy of her predictions.
Col. Breckinridge's statements recounting the meeting with Birritella & Cirrito make no reference to the initials JFC or to her 'prediction' that he would receive a letter at his office. He may have omitted that info, but for what purpose? In fact, his statement recounts that she described the house in which the baby was being kept and no house answering that description could be found. Of course, we all know that the baby was already dead.
Here's the problem: The very first mention we can find of Cerrita's predictions re: JFC and the note is in Dunninger's Inside the Medium's Cabinet, where he describes his meeting with them, in the company of Theon Wright. Wright, in In Search of the Lindbergh Baby, dates that meeting as Dec. 30, 1934 --- roughly two and a half years after Jafsie went public with his role in the case. I don't recall exactly when the information about the ransom notes & dates were made public, but I think it is safe to say that both Jafsie's initials and the note sent to Breck's office were common knowledge by Dec. of '34. Needless to say, Birritella & Cerrita did have something to gain by her claims - publicity!
That doesn't mean they aren't still suspects, just that we can't put much weight on the accuracy of 'predictions' claimed at such a late date.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on May 21, 2007 21:21:36 GMT -5
Hi Wagoosh~Like you, I've hung onto Cerrita/B, too. I just rec'd the Dunninger book and found it to be a let-down. Have been confused about what was said when. I thought sure the "JFC" was "spake" in the 6 March event, but maybe not. What do you make of the Breckenbridge she called Breck and then the same error in the ransom note he rec'd?
|
|
|
Post by rmc1971 on May 22, 2007 14:10:50 GMT -5
It may or may not be interesting to note that at one point, Isidor Fisch lived across the street from Birritella's church.
Whether or not they have any bearing on the case, it's amazing the coincidences that can tie in any number of people involved in this case.
|
|
|
Post by wahgooshdidit on May 22, 2007 17:20:06 GMT -5
Again, the first mention of 'Breckenbridge' is noted in Inside the Medium's Cabinet. Whether she called him Mr. 'Breckenbridge' at the meeting isn't mentioned in Breck's statements, but then one wouldn't expect him to mention something like that --- since they had just met and it wouldn't have seemed all that important at the time. However, if she did, I would think there would have been ALOT more interest in them after the note was received --- but that's merely conjecture.
Let me toss something out for you that adds to the suspicion against B & C: Spl. Agt. F.J. Wilson described Birritella as about 5'8" in height and about 160 lbs. Spl. Agt. T.H. Sisk stated that "Peter Birrittella and his wife are so small that they could almost be classed as freaks. Neither of them is over 4 feet 10 or 11 inches in height." Sounds like we have one too many people purporting to be Peter J. Birritella, doesn't it?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on May 22, 2007 19:55:31 GMT -5
wahgoosh & rmc~~~Well, hmm-m Does that leave anything about C and B, other than Fisch, Sharpe and O. Whateley? Seems as if we are shucking them clean like two ears of corn-( short corn at that )
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 22, 2007 20:18:20 GMT -5
These are good observations Wahgoosh and I am glad you did 'jump in' on the discussion.... In Dr. Gardner's book he cites the Liberty Magazine Article which basically says the same as what's in the Dunninger piece. I don't know which came first but it seems the Birrittella's were telling Reporters those additional details. When something like this occurs I believe it is 100% necessary to find all the sources and then compare by cross-referencing them. We know Breckenridge & Rosner were both there. Additionally, either Fogarty, or Galvin (or both) were there as well although I do not believe either made a report since Breckenridge was there. Anyway, I haven't been able to find anything from them on this. Rosner says something interesting: She proceeded to give us a description of the house where these people and the babe were located, and warned us how to approach this house without any danger to ourselves, and told us an incident that we at that time knew about, which I came to the conclusion was only a good guess on their part, and because of this incident the Col. became very much interested in what they had to say and he proceeded to question the lady who was in a trance. I say this is interesting because I can't find the reference to this in anything Breckenridge described. However, Rosner does not mention the reference to JFC and even though he was originally introduced to Condon being told his name was "Dr. Stice" he would eventually come to know all about him and (I think) would have mentioned this important bit of information if it had come from the seance. (Of course this is just my opinion). Wow! You weren't kidding when you said you were going to try and read every book you could get your hands on. What's next on your list? As always this could be, yet another, coincidence. I do believe in coincidences, however, the problem is there are just too many in this case to dismiss outright. The law of averages says some of these types of things aren't just coincidences. It's a weird thing. John was 5'7-1/2" and 165 lbs according his Driver's License.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 23, 2007 16:19:14 GMT -5
Yes about the JFC (and Brecken bridge) but I do not agree about the prediction of the coming note... Breckenridge: At one point in the seance I was told I was wasting my time being in Hopewell and was told I should be in my office at 9 o'clock every morning. I replied that was too early. They stated I had better be there. On the following Monday, March 7th, a letter was written from New York to me in the same handwriting.... Rosner: After a few minutes of "silent communication" he again assured us that without question by the very next morning we would receive some sort of communication.
|
|
|
Post by wahgooshdidit on May 23, 2007 19:11:20 GMT -5
You are absolutely right, Michael. I think I was thinking about the Breckinbridge thing, but that was obviously not what I wrote. Sorry.
Anyway, what do we still have on B & C?
We have the note sent to Breck at his office.
We have a fairly definite connection with Fisch.
We have a reported connection with Whateley & Sharp.
We have, in Mary, a small, middle-aged Italianate woman who tells Breck on March 6 that there was "too much police and too much publicity in the case".
We have Birrittella's statements (2) to Breck, when he took them to the Princeton train station, that "they bought us round trip tickets from Princeton Junction". Keyword: They. Breck offered to pay the small difference in fare and asked who 'they' were? St which point, PJB spouts off that material things mean nothing to him and that the spirit meant everything. Were 'they' the kidnappers or just some of his church members? Who knows? But, it is reasonable to assume by his statement that he discussed his trip to Princeton with someone who thought it important enough to shell out the fare.
We have a second Birritella who is a close match in height and weight to the lookout at Woodlawn and St. Ray's. And, apparently, a close match to PJB's brother. While Lindbergh described the look-out as a 'young man', how could he tell with a handkerchief over the guy's face? Obviously, height and weight alone cannot be used to identify anyone, but we can't rule him out on the basis of one inch +/- or ten pounds +/- difference. Any cop can tell you that eyewitnesses are notorious inaccurate in giving height and weight of a suspect. Plus, the lookout was seen at night.
As for the inaccuracies imparted by Mary at the March 6 meeting: I believe that if B & C were sent to Hopewell/Princeton for the purpose of gaining info on police activity at the Lindbergh residence or for the purpose of getting a message directly to Lindy himself (a distinct possibility since the kidnappers seem to have believed that their messages were being intercepted by police), and having failed to reach the Lindbergh home, their best bet was to put on a little dog and pony show, toss Breck some bogus info that wouldn't lead police to their doorstep later, and boogie their little butts back to East Harlem - which appears to be exactly what they did. They certainly weren't going to give the real location of the baby, even if they knew it.
BTW, has anyone a photocopy of the Breckinridge note envelope? Or know which Brooklyn post office it was mailed through? It might be interesting to see how close it was to John B's address at 239 Schole St. or 166 Manhattan Ave. (not sure which one is correct for March, 1932). Or Patsy B's address at 130 Leonard St..
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on May 23, 2007 22:13:45 GMT -5
Great posts! Something about "the spirit means everything" is reminiscent of the man--Fisch/Fisch-look-alike who showed up in Breck's office. (Breck said later he did look like Fisch(?)I can't recall exactly what he said--maybe something along the lines of "science" meaning the most. Would like to remember that date, too. Somebody please help.
Speaking of help: There's no thread for this, but I just had a scary experience. I live alone and I'm out in the country. I went out to feed my outside cat. Poured out the food,sat down watching him eat. Something streaked between my feet jumped my cat and went for the food. I saw that it was a raccoon. I went inside and got my (plastic) broom, aiming to knock it's brains out. After I swung the broom (which broke off) that rotten thing came for me! After stepping back in the screen door I picked up the broom handle thinking if I could hit it right smart it would at least go off. Well, the devil came for me again! Does anyone know if that's unusual for it to have come for me? In between the war strikes it hastily went right back to eating the food, so guess it wasn't rabid.
|
|
|
Post by wahgooshdidit on May 23, 2007 22:54:22 GMT -5
That is unusual. I've only had them growl at me --- of course, I never whacked 'em with a broom ;-)
I played a lengthy game of 'who's got who cornered?' with a rat in a bathroom once (in DC). Only one of us survived. Heh heh heh.
Is your cat okay?
If I were you, I'd feed kitty during daylight hours and empty the food bowl afterward so the raccoon doesn't make a habit of dining at your house. And, it wouldn't hurt to replace or, at least, thoroughly disinfect the food and water bowls. And keep windows closed or blocked so they can only open a couple of inches. Squirrels can gnaw through screenwire to get at food - I'll bet raccoons can, too.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on May 23, 2007 23:09:04 GMT -5
Thanks, Wahgoosh. I will follow your good suggestions. My good old Kitty-Kat seems fine--he was just now sitting up on the window ledge washing his face. Guess I'll have to go buy a new broom (or maybe two)
|
|
|
Post by rmc1971 on May 24, 2007 4:27:04 GMT -5
Thanks for the info Wahgoosh. That's some good stuff on Peter and Mary. I always waver on the issue of who else could be involved. Because on the one hand, if anyone who coincidentally ties into the case were involved, everyone would have only gotten like $80 in ransom money. On the other hand, I think there are too many coincidences for them all to be coincidences. It's obvious Fisch was a shady character, and anything that ties someone to him does raise a red flag. At least for me.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 24, 2007 5:52:46 GMT -5
Never mind a broom Mairi, get yourself a shovel. It's nice to love animals (believe me I do) but when something comes after you don't fight the laws of nature.... In other words: All bets are off! When I was growing up we had a Tom Cat who would take on all that trespassed. I watched him take on a Raccoon and win. I also watched him take on a Ground Hog and lose unfortunately. You could always get someone to trap this Rogue and have him removed from your property.... that might work.
I believe it was Owney Madden who asked Peter about this and he denied it saying that Breckenridge was making things up in order to tie them in with the Kidnappers. I could find the exact reference if anyone is interested. Personally, I don't think he was making it up.
As for the "Whateley & Sharp" connect to B&C I find it weak at best, however, it is something to keep in the back of your mind.
I think what is so telling about their involvement is them taking in info from Breck that no note was rec'd, then the new note to him essentially saying the same as the previous one adding they knew the Polise were intercepting the mail. When combined with their prediction its hard to overlook.
I've got it somewhere. I'll try to find it and post it up if I can.
Me too. He may have been the one who was laundering the money while Hauptmann was on Wall Street every day.
Yes and no. This assumes all monies came from the Ransom. I am not so sure about that. Perrone is a perfect example. It didn't take much, I think an extra $1, for him to find himself right smack in the middle of this situation. A Pawn for sure.... were others involved in a like situation perhaps and just either never came forward or were identified?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on May 24, 2007 16:41:23 GMT -5
Thank You very much Michael~~~A shovel sounds like a good addition to the arsenal. I fear a trap would catch my sweet cat. i love animals too and am surrounded by both numerous wild and farm critters. That devil raccoon going after my cat and then turning on me throws a glitch into my live and let live habits. Am still mad >:(and really fancy an AK-47, right now. Re: the LKC books--yes, I have quite a collection now. Guess I'll let it rest until something new and worth reading comes out. Could you --or anyone--review us on the man who showed up in Breck's office? Or steer us to the source? (The Fisch look-alike) I really like the posts sorting out the B and C saga. Have been thinking about the "no-second-cabbie". Does anyone suppose that the needle man was recon for the scissors man to then pass Condon that note? Seems right odd that both just happened by and didn't seem to being going house to house.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 24, 2007 18:28:12 GMT -5
This new piece of information was published for the first time anywhere in Dr. Gardner's book, The Case That Never Dies, on page 480.
If you read this and have further questions I can dig up the original statement which I have in my files.
I agree this thread is a good one and I look forward to more of yours, and everyone else's thoughts. (I am still searching for the Breck envelope).
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 25, 2007 5:00:40 GMT -5
I've got the envelop somewhere but seem to be having trouble locating which folder I filed it in.... Anyway, here is the answer to your question found in Rab's awesome research: The third ransom note was received at Breckinridge's offices at 25 Broadway on March 8. But it was stamped Station D, 1pm on March 7 which means it was mailed close to that station sometime in the morning of March 7. But Station D was at 132 Fourth Ave, which is between 12 and 13 Streets in Greenwich Village. (Rab) lindberghkidnap.proboards56.com/index.cgi?board=rab&action=display&thread=1141561738I also have a breakdown of the rest on a document I found at the Archives so if anyone is interested in seeing where everything else was mailed just let me know....
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 16, 2009 10:36:41 GMT -5
....that we are convinced that Berretelli and this woman, who is now his wife, actually know more about this crime than they would lead on to believe.... [Lt. Arthur T. Keaten, 9-14-32]
|
|