Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2015 11:02:57 GMT -5
From doing a quick review of Norris's book, the Rosalind Russell letter is what drives Bill's whole investigation. The search for this illegitimate son of Dwight Morrow Sr. ends up leading Norris to Dwight Jr. and his mental health issues. I do see how this line of inquiry during the early time of investigating the kidnapping and even when Gov. Hoffman was doing his reinvestigation would have not only offended the Lindberghs and Morrows but would have been highly resisted by them. There was still a right to family privacy back then for people of the caliber of the Lindberghs and Morrows and this was respected and even protected at times by law enforcement.
My copy of A Talent To Deceive has no footnotes. Needless to say, I won't be making any requests for reports! Thanks though for the offer to search and scan.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Feb 21, 2015 0:03:12 GMT -5
To Michael and All:
Regarding the letter from Wilentz to Hoffman which you posted, I couldn't help but notice the condescending tone used by Wilentz in the last paragraph in communicating with Hoffman. This was in January 1936, when Wilentz would be especially nervous about the possibility that Hoffman's reinvestigation might come up with an alternate theory of the crime. In other words, Wilentz seemed all too aware at that time, of the fact that his theory of the case as presented to the Flemington jury was far from solid.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 21, 2015 10:26:46 GMT -5
In other words, Wilentz seemed all too aware at that time, of the fact that his theory of the case as presented to the Flemington jury was far from solid. It was quite clear that Wilentz only ever went with that theory in order to make it a Capital Murder case. While he did make certain promises he never lived up to, another was one he didn't get the opportunity to go back on - that being if Hauptmann confessed, and told all he knew, Wilentz would go personally to Judge Trenchard to ask for his sentence to be commuted to Life instead of the Death Penalty. This proposal was a "win-win" for him regardless of what happened next because it places him in a position to explain away any thought or notion that he was not acting in good faith - even though he hadn't been. Fact is, he never believed Hauptmann would implicate the others involved which is exactly why he proceeded as he did - during the trial and making that deal for his confession.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 21, 2015 11:10:15 GMT -5
What made Wilentz so sure Hauptmann wouldn't implicate others?
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Feb 21, 2015 13:16:39 GMT -5
maybe there was nobody involved in the first place
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 21, 2015 20:01:00 GMT -5
What made Wilentz so sure Hauptmann wouldn't implicate others? No doubt this was impressed upon him by Fawcett, Large, and then Riley. maybe there was nobody involved in the first place If that were the case then several people were obstructing justice by providing false information and/or testimony.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Feb 22, 2015 8:18:13 GMT -5
well mike I never saw concrete evidence that he had help with the crime. dosnt mean he didn't its just that solid leads were never uncovered
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 22, 2015 9:19:11 GMT -5
well mike I never saw concrete evidence that he had help with the crime. dosnt mean he didn't its just that solid leads were never uncovered Lindbergh himself testified that he saw a Look-Out at St. Raymond's. If he wasn't telling the truth then I am all ears about why you'd think he'd do that.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Feb 22, 2015 10:47:34 GMT -5
well nobody ever came forward after hauptmans arrest, who knows who Lindbergh saw it never came to light. im only interested on connecting proof after the arrest
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 23, 2015 17:55:49 GMT -5
well nobody ever came forward after hauptmans arrest, who knows who Lindbergh saw it never came to light. im only interested on connecting proof after the arrest Lindbergh Trial Testimony, New Jersey vs. Curtis, page 140: Q: No more the John Hughes Curtis has?A: Dr. Condon furnished descriptions of a man whom I believe was one of the group, he furnished information as to conversations and circumstances surrounding his contact with this man and at one time when I was with Dr. Condon I saw a man who, without question, in my mind, was one of the group of kidnappers.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Feb 23, 2015 22:03:02 GMT -5
but can we prove he was at the crime, or just part of the ransom negotiations. two different scenerios
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2015 22:10:49 GMT -5
But wasn't John Hughes Curtis found guilty of Obstructing Justice because he never disclosed the whereabouts of the gang that had kidnapped Charlie? Doesn't the prosecuting of Curtis in this manner demonstrate that officials believed a gang was involved with this kidnapping?
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Feb 24, 2015 23:55:15 GMT -5
Amy I think you are touching upon what certain officials believed but a stance would be committed to what was expedient for a conviction.
If I read correctly Lindbergh saw the lookout twice and the second time was kind of running around hiding his face with the handkerchief. At this point I can see how Lindbergh had no doubt this was a lookout.
My question is in the discussion of the person that talks with Condon at St Raymond's. Doesn't he claim there is another John? Is there a slip here that this person is different than at the previous cemetery meeting? Even though Condon finally believes its the same person doesn't he seem to conclude this with some uncertainty? Doesn't there seem to be some inference that at St Raymond's that he comes in and out of the accent?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2015 9:50:04 GMT -5
Are you referring to the prosecuting of Curtis or of Hauptmann with this statement?
I have read that same account by Condon. Condon claimed that the man he gave the $50,000 to in exchange for the Boad Nelly note asked him(Condon) if he would like to meet John, who obviously must have been present somewhere near that exchange. So, it leaves us wondering if CJ wasn't John then who was?
I, too, have wondered whether or not the man who met with Condon at St. Raymonds was the same man who sat on the bench with him at Woodlawn. When Condon talked about his St. Raymond conversation, he says at one point to CJ, "I never saw you before did I, where did I ever see you before?" Condon did not recognize this man he was talking to at St. Raymond's. How else is one supposed to take this?
That was Condon's claim. The voice seemed to change and his English changed. I don't recall Condon making this same type of claim about the Woodlawn Cemetery meeting on the park bench that lasted over an hour. It sounds like a different man having this exchange with Condon. If I am remembering correctly, the other time I recall this going in and out of the accent was during the verbal exchange between Perrone and the man who gave him the note to deliver to Condon's house. I believe it comes up then. Could this mean that the man who gave Perrone the note was the same man who showed up at St. Raymonds for the ransom payoff?
I have always felt that two men were involved with the Woodlawn Cemetary meeting. The man Perrone describes wore different clothing than the man who sat on the bench with Condon that night. Could the same two men have been at St. Raymonds also?
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Feb 25, 2015 10:21:06 GMT -5
Maybe both Amy. I am hoping to explore what you thought. We know for sure that in the prosecution of Hauptmann there would be no consideration of anyone else involved because it would seemingly hurt their ability to get a type of conviction they were hoping for. My thinking was the charge upon Curtis was more in tune to be successful rather than come to any truth. Its peculiar that Lindbergh's testimony leads the way for both convictions. First to say he didn't doubt Curtis was in touch with the gang. Then in the Hauptmann trial to say he believed Hauptmann was only one he could identify by voice Hey Doc(tor).
More and more I can not assume the first CJ is the same as the second. Who is to know that the first CJ was the one in the cemetery. Maybe he chased down a lookout. This is not far fetched because Condon would certainly make whoever he had on the bench as "the man." I know there are some that contribute here want to just look at the proof. I actually will agree to that once you want to draw a conclusion. However to come to that conclusion one has to consider "the questions." Its not blasphemous and immature to do this. its not meant to be arguable in a negative way.
Anyway thanks for your input. I really like your contributions as I am trying to catch on many of the threads in the last couple of years.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 25, 2015 17:47:09 GMT -5
But wasn't John Hughes Curtis found guilty of Obstructing Justice because he never disclosed the whereabouts of the gang that had kidnapped Charlie? Doesn't the prosecuting of Curtis in this manner demonstrate that officials believed a gang was involved with this kidnapping? Yes and no. Most importantly, no one ever believed this was a "Lone-Wolf" crime until the point in time it became "necessary" for a Capital Murder conviction again Hauptmann. What's happened over the years is like what happens when someone lies so much they actually start to believe it's true. Next, when it came to Curtis - Gary is absolutely correct. Similar to the Hauptmann case, they acted accordingly to get a conviction. They even pulled the exact same unethical stunt by enticing a Defense Attorney to defect to the Prosecution. In Curtis's case the Lawyer was a man named Stout. Once he switched sides he gave them Curtis's entire defense strategy, a portion of which included Witnesses seeing him with a strange man on the day he claimed to have met with one of the Kidnappers. The Defense had been confident they could create reasonable doubt in the minds of a jury for any "hoax" charge. Armed with this information the Prosecution obviously believed it too - so they went in a completely different direction totally surprising and blind-siding the Defense. This move gave the Prosecution the best opportunity to win the trial. Whether or not they actually believed Curtis was in touch with the real Kidnappers made no difference to them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2015 18:57:27 GMT -5
So, is this what Jersey Justice was about in the 1930's. Cases were prosecuted on "what works" instead of what they believed to be true?
I did some reading on the Curtis case. I really didn't know that much about it so I wasn't sure how to answer Gary's question if he was asking me about John Hughes Curtis and his trial. I am so glad I took some time to do this. I came across a lot of interesting things.
I read about Stout going from the defense to the prosecution just like what happened to Hauptmann's defense. I believe this caused Fisher to rest his case without putting anyone on the stand. I also read that Curtis made a confession but that he repudiated it before the trial. This reminded me of Wendel who ended up doing the same thing. Curtis also claimed that the confession was made because of being placed under heavy pressure from authorities at the Hopewell house. Walsh testified that he was playing checkers with Curtis and urged Curtis to tell Lindbergh the truth and this is how the confession came about. Did Curtis ever make any claims that he was handled roughly before he made a confession?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 26, 2015 20:17:43 GMT -5
I believe this caused Fisher to rest his case without putting anyone on the stand. I also read that Curtis made a confession but that he repudiated it before the trial. This reminded me of Wendel who ended up doing the same thing. Curtis also claimed that the confession was made because of being placed under heavy pressure from authorities at the Hopewell house. Walsh testified that he was playing checkers with Curtis and urged Curtis to tell Lindbergh the truth and this is how the confession came about. Did Curtis ever make any claims that he was handled roughly before he made a confession? It's funny you mention Wendel. One of the things Lloyd Fisher brought up was the fact Curtis was held against his will at Highfields while the NJSP were claiming he wasn't under arrest. According to Curtis he was a prisoner the whole time Schwarzkopf was telling the Press he was there of his own free will. Furthermore, he claimed that force was threatened - like when he protested to having to sleep in the basement - he claimed he was told he " will go down there or be thrown down there." Also said he was cussed at and threatened to be "ruined" constantly. He told Fisher he would be woken up by the Police to find them waving the baby's clothing or toys in his face telling him he was was personally to blame for the Kidnappers evading capture. In the end, he claimed he was haggard, hungry, worn out, and just wanting to go home when the offer came for him to sign a confession which would end everything and he'd be free to leave. Anyway, this is just a snap-shot of Curtis's side of the story as it relates to his treatment after the child was found dead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2015 22:01:34 GMT -5
It sure sounds like it took more than a game of checkers to get that confession from Curtis. I have to say Michael that I am starting to wonder if Curtis was really in touch with someone at sometime who either was connected to the kidnapping or was giving Curtis information. Curtis was not hanging around Highfields to glean information that way and I doubt that Schwarzkopf was telling him anything. I know that Curtis had made some kind of deal to sell his story to a newspaper after the child was returned. I am going to post a newspaper article of an interview that took place after Curtis was arrested and was in jail waiting to go to trial. What got my attention in this story is that Curtis claimed the code name the kidnappers used for Lindbergh was 'Alex'. This code name for Lindbergh was just being discussed recently on another thread. It was on the note you posted that was in one of Schwarzkopf's files which said "Alex only suspects". How the heck would Curtis know about this code name for Lindbergh unless he really was in touch with someone who was connected with the kidnapping? news.google.com/newspapers?id=v88_AAAAIBAJ&sjid=MA4EAAAAIBAJ&pg=3941%2C4389592
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 27, 2015 6:23:23 GMT -5
It sure sounds like it took more than a game of checkers to get that confession from Curtis. It was probably that both strategies were employed. A lot of what Curtis says sounds like what I know went on based upon other research. For example, when he talks about Lamb cussing and screaming - there's no doubt in my mind that actually happened. Regardless, I think it's important for me to say what's in that confession I believe for the most part. They told him it would be kept secret, as part of the effort to get him to confess, then stabbed him in the back by breaking that promise. I have to say Michael that I am starting to wonder if Curtis was really in touch with someone at sometime who either was connected to the kidnapping or was giving Curtis information. Curtis was not hanging around Highfields to glean information that way and I doubt that Schwarzkopf was telling him anything. I've always believed someone was feeding him information. However, it was most likely someone there in an official capacity and not a person connected to the actual crime itself. I know that Curtis had made some kind of deal to sell his story to a newspaper after the child was returned. I am going to post a newspaper article of an interview that took place after Curtis was arrested and was in jail waiting to go to trial. What got my attention in this story is that Curtis claimed the code name the kidnappers used for Lindbergh was 'Alex'. This code name for Lindbergh was just being discussed recently on another thread. It was on the note you posted that was in one of Schwarzkopf's files which said "Alex only suspects". How the heck would Curtis know about this code name for Lindbergh unless he really was in touch with someone who was connected with the kidnapping? news.google.com/newspapers?id=v88_AAAAIBAJ&sjid=MA4EAAAAIBAJ&pg=3941%2C4389592Amy - these code names were known to Curtis because they were shared with him by the Police. When they were out on the boat these various code names were used via the "wireless" or phone calls on shore in order to properly get messages through without alerting eavesdroppers - particularly the press.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2015 10:07:30 GMT -5
I will keep this in mind when I bring up the other things in this post I am making. Did John Hughes Curtis and John F. Condon ever have any type of contact with each other, especially before the body of Charlie was found? This is great Michael. Makes perfect sense to me that Curtis would have learned about the name 'Alex' in this manner. Thank you. Now, I hope that you will be able to offer a simple explanation for some of Lindbergh's testimony at the Curtis Trial. Lindbergh testified that Curtis had told him the following two things (among others) during the first stages of the hunt for the boat that Charlie was supposed to be on: 1) The gang had split into two factions -- one led by a guy called 'Dynamite' and the other led by a man called 'John'. 2) John wanted to sell the baby to the highest bidder among the gangs. About #1, On this board we have discussed this possibility of a split having occurred in the original group and that the extortion of the $50,000 was done by some of the these members. About #2, This one is why I asked you about Condon and Curtis having any kind of contact. During the Bronx negotiations, Condon was receiving notes beyond the ransom notes we are all familiar with. He had received what is called the 'Rice Paper Notes'. Condon kept these notes to himself and didn't reveal them until after the body of CALJr. was found and Condon was going to go before the Bronx Grand Jury in May of 1932. One of these Rice Paper Notes to Condon says: "Dr. Condon I cannot come in. I stated that in last note, as there are other deals for the child which are easier then returning child."So Condon is learning here that there are others (gang?) interested in obtaining Charlie. This is essentially what Curtis is telling Lindbergh in point number two. Condon now knows this from the Rice Paper note and so, somehow, does Curtis. Again, how does Curtis know about this if the letter was written to Condon and not him? How can two men in two widely separated areas (Bronx NY and Norfolk VA)know there are other deals for the child, unless there is a common source shared by these two men? Is there an official who is sourcing both Condon and Curtis? news.google.com/newspapers?id=DeRPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2FQDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3268%2C3741270
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 27, 2015 22:40:19 GMT -5
Did John Hughes Curtis and John F. Condon ever have any type of contact with each other, especially before the body of Charlie was found? Not that I am aware of. Condon was trying to get them away from Curtis while Curtis was attempting to explain away Condon: At that time I asked Murray about the ransom and who Dr. Condon was, he told me that this part of the arrangement was made by John and it was a prearranged plan to chisel Col. Lindbergh from both ends and that was the only reason that they had agreed to accept the $25,000. that the boss would give me the full information when I was to see him the next night. So Condon is learning here that there are others (gang?) interested in obtaining Charlie. This is essentially what Curtis is telling Lindbergh in point number two. Condon now knows this from the Rice Paper note and so, somehow, does Curtis. Again, how does Curtis know about this if the letter was written to Condon and not him? How can two men in two widely separated areas (Bronx NY and Norfolk VA)know there are other deals for the child, unless there is a common source shared by these two men? Is there an official who is sourcing both Condon and Curtis? Actually, Condon was continuing to claim he was still in touch with the Kidnappers after the ransom was paid. It's my position he's talking about the Rice Paper Note communications. When Curtis first represented to Lindbergh that he was in touch with the Kidnappers, Lindy's response was that he would need proof he was actually dealing with the right party and not one of the many hundreds of imposters. When I studied the Curtis angle, he seemed to be guided by what was going on around him as well as the pieces of information he was gaining from a source close to the investigation. That's simply my belief about it - He's got a connection who's feeding him just enough to hopefully wind up with some money to split in the end. And I'm not talking actual ransom, but perhaps money from a story or book he writes as a result of his connection. We saw an example of this conduct concerning Lewis and Kelly selling crime scene photos to the press, and this is another example of that type of situation if you ask me. It didn't even have to be a direct connection because members of the Press were paying for information all the time, so it could be that information was being relayed to Curtis from a Reporter.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 28, 2015 11:18:22 GMT -5
Assuming for the moment that Condon knew early on, finding out at Woodlawn that CAL Jr. was dead, what would have been the purpose of staying in touch with the kidnappers? What would they have had to further negotiate? Also, do think Curtis actually did know something, or would that just have been information he was fed by a reporter?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 28, 2015 11:54:15 GMT -5
Assuming for the moment that Condon knew early on, finding out at Woodlawn, that CAL Jr. was dead, what would have been the purpose of staying in touch with the kidnappers? What would they have had to further negotiate? Also, do think Curtis actually did know something, or would that just have been information he was fed by a reporter? Obviously, if he knew the child was dead at Woodlawn then he knew also he was dead at St. Raymond's. I suppose the plan was to appear to be the Family's representative in all of this as a way to evade anything outside of an innocent connection. But as you recall he was immediately suspected by Authorities once they learned he removed the extra 20K of the larger and more easily traced bills. From that exact point suspicions against him mounted and grew. So it just seems a way to extend himself a life-line by claiming to be in continued communication which creates hope the child could still be returned. There have been rumors and certain theories that have Condon in a position of authority within the ranks of the Kidnappers. The fact the child is eventually found shows he stood more to gain if the child hadn't ever been found as opposed to Lindbergh, who had the most to gain by it. This proves to me Condon was never anything more then an Emissary and an "after the fact" Confederate brought in by the Kidnappers to insulate them while at the same time getting them the ransom. I do not think Curtis knew anything about the crime. Like I said, he's getting a little bit of what the Investigators knew and/or believed which he was using to assist in his hoax. But the fact Lindbergh was biting on whatever he was saying shows what he (himself) believed, or was willing to believe, at that time. Know what I mean? That's the real prize from this angle.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2015 12:35:13 GMT -5
So are you saying that when Curtis told Lindbergh that the kidnap gang had split into two groups he learned this from investigators? Investigators also said that John, who appears to be the controlling agent, was considering other deals for the child and this was shared with Curtis by investigators?
I find myself wondering how Lindbergh could have been taken in by any of this, especially if you consider Lindbergh being an insider to this whole kidnapping.
Could the Rice Paper Notes have been the work of an investigator also? Were they actually written to help Condon look innocent? Something he could use if and when it was necessary to show he was not part of the kidnap/extortion gang but a victim just like Lindbergh?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 28, 2015 13:26:52 GMT -5
So are you saying that when Curtis told Lindbergh that the kidnap gang had split into two groups he learned this from investigators? Investigators also said that John, who appears to be the controlling agent, was considering other deals for the child and this was shared with Curtis by investigators? Well this was most likely being shared directly or indirectly from a source close to the investigation. Maybe I haven't been clear concerning where I am on this... You see, none of these you mention above were definite but were being considered as possibilities by Police. Enter Curtis - who then is giving them items of consideration as matters of fact. And some were facts. I find myself wondering how Lindbergh could have been taken in by any of this, especially if you consider Lindbergh being an insider to this whole kidnapping. Consider Lindbergh agreed with those who believed the front door was used, then along comes Curtis who says the front door was used. Next we have him defending his Staff by saying they were, in essence, above suspicion, yet Curtis implicates one of them and this doesn't push Lindbergh away, rather, it draws him in. Why, with all of those "Imposters" out there, does he accept this? Clearly he at least suspects that Curtis is in touch with someone involved. Could the Rice Paper Notes have been the work of an investigator also? Were they actually written to help Condon look innocent? Something he could use if and when it was necessary to show he was not part of the kidnap/extortion gang but a victim just like Lindbergh? I have a specific position about those notes, but I think all possibilities are worthy of consideration. Fact is, they could even have been made by a member of the gang attempting to get more money.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 28, 2015 15:51:39 GMT -5
Gotcha, Michael. I think we're on basically the same wavelength here. I too think Condon was brought in after the fact, so the kidnappers could get more money and be well insulated. And I don't think Curtis knew anything either, but the interesting thing, as you say, is why would Lindbergh buy into his story? Since much of their respective stories were incompatible, Condon and Curtis cancel each other out. They couldn't both be right--so what, then, is Lindbergh doing here, taking both of them as seriously as he did?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 1, 2015 11:49:36 GMT -5
Since seeing Amy's link mentioning the Curtis testimony of W. E. Haskell, I've been hoping to compliment her post by posting a letter he wrote to Schwarzkopf. I have just now found it this morning and I think it highlights the attitude toward Curtis and the efforts of those who were dealing with him previous to his arrest in an effort to distance themselves from him. Attachment Deleted
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2015 16:32:04 GMT -5
Enjoyed reading that letter!! Thanks for posting it. I am sure there were a number of people who felt just like this; I am thinking The Rev. Dobson-Peacock and Admiral Burrage. Curtis fooled many people with his story. Here is a link to another article concerning Curtis and the vessel used to search for the Mary B. Moss. Stout, the attorney who switched sides is claiming after the trial that Curtis really was in touch with the real kidnappers. He seems to be basing this on authorities not being able to search the vessel used by Curtis and Lindbergh. I really don't understand this too clearly. Can you help? news.google.com/newspapers?id=G-RPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2FQDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2412%2C5036888
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2015 16:42:27 GMT -5
The following is from a post you made back in February 2006:
"However, Lindbergh told Agent Larimer that he did not fully trust him, and Breckenridge would also make similar comments to someone else. One account even has Breck sending "fake" notes and mailing them to Condon to see if he would turn them over. He didn't which made Breck think Condon had prior knowledge concerning what notes were real and what weren't."
Is it possible that these notes Breck sent are the Rice Paper Notes?
|
|