|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 9, 2015 14:46:33 GMT -5
For what it's worth, I agree, Amy. I think Condon was contacted immediately after the kidnapping to serve as an unwitting shield, so the kidnappers could extort more money from Lindbergh. And given the amount of cash he had in his home, I think Hauptmann was one of these (at least three) kidnappers: Hauptmann, Fisch, and another man. There could've been others though, with more indirect knowledge and involvement, and Hauptmann could very conceivably have been one of them, rather than one of the core trio who went to Hopewell.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 9, 2015 16:17:58 GMT -5
Since you brought up Turrou I would like to ask you about him. I have read that Turrou thought Hauptmann guilty during the investigation. Then when Gov. Hoffman reopened the investigation he no longer thought that Hauptmann was guilty and assisted with Hoffman's investigation into the crime. Do you know why Turrou changed his mind about Hauptmann? Amy, Unless I've forgotten something, I have no knowledge of Turrou being involved after Hauptmann's arrest once the FBI withdrew from the case again. Do you remember where you read this?
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Mar 9, 2015 17:05:10 GMT -5
I've spent the last hour studying the Google Maps. I was surprised to find a Featherbed Lane off the Hopewell-Amwell Road. No wonder it's so confusing. The Featherbed Lane I'm thinking of dead ends off the Hopewell-Hertsville Road and is southwest of the Lindbergh property. Back in 1932, the area was almost open field. As the crow flies today, it ends about 4/5 of a mile from the house, maybe even closer. It looks like Kevkon's map is labeling this portion as the access road. Can you clear this up for me a bit? Also, the car seen by the Conovers was on the Featherbed Lane off Hopewell-Amwell, is that correct? Back in '32 it didn't "dead end" in the field this way, and it actually went straight across although it had been seriously neglected as evidenced by that car having trouble in the mud. Here it is now showing it south of Highfields which isn't on the map because it's located on the Hunterdon County side. The Access Road that Kevin has outlined on his map curls back toward and eventually runs into the Private Lane very near it's entrance off of Hopewell-Amwell Road. To make matters worse, many Reporters and Cops referred to that road as Hopewell-Wertzville Road so it's important to not only know the roads but to figure out if they are calling the road by it's right name. H-W Road runs on the West Side and H-A Road runs on the East. Featherbed Lane connected these two roads almost a mile south of the Private Lane. And the various access roads on the property zigged and zagged but on the Hunterdon County side of the property. Again, early on both Police and Reporters were referring to the Access Road near the house as "Featherbed Road" which is what caused all the confusion. www.hopewelltwp.org/tax-maps/sht-000.pdfHere is the historic version which shows Featherbed Lane running the distance and not dead-ending: www.historicmapworks.com/Map/US/20055/Hopewell+Township/Thank you for the maps, Michael. I never knew that the Lane went across with no dead end. If they were confused in 1932, no wonder it's hard to make any sense of it today. Kevkon's photos are the best I've seen of the area. That car (which car? LOL) could have been parked anywhere in the area. LJ's scenario makes a whole lot of sense, in that the "access" road was so close to the end of the driveway and that empty house where the construction workers stored their wares. The site where the ladder was found should be a clue, but somehow, it only adds to the confusion. I've suspected that it may have been left there for just that reason. Then there is the thumb guard. Maybe it WAS torn off that night, but how it remained in such pristine condition for a month makes no sense, either.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 9, 2015 17:32:39 GMT -5
My own theory about the thumbguard is that it would've been madness for a kidnapper to sneak back onto what had become a police barracks to drop that thumbguard as far up the drive as it was found. I think it's much easier for someone to have dropped it from a car on their way off the property though. And if we consider when and how it was found--newly dropped and in good condition, indicating it had not been outside for a month--I think, if we rule out an outsider being in possession of it and sneaking back to drop it there--I think an insider dropped it off on their way out, inventing a reason to pay the ransom and end the extortion, which was done the very next night after the thumbguard's discovery.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Mar 9, 2015 18:01:32 GMT -5
"I think the key to this is that drugstore pit-stop Betty made earlier that day, when she was driven to Hopewell. She said it was to buy candy, but that rings a bit false to me... " -- LJ
I agree with this. I think the baby was drugged to keep him silent. I don't think he was dead when he was taken from the nursery. Also, there's the "I was promised I wouldn't be touched." -- Betty Gow -- Who promised? When was this promise made? Before the fact? It's strange that she never married.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 9, 2015 18:03:30 GMT -5
do we know how tall Isadore Fisch was? Both Lloyd Gardner and Ludovic Kennedy say in their books that Fisch was 5 ft 5 inches tall. Not sure if it makes any difference but I checked a couple documents to see if I could get his exact height: Citizenship Papers: 5' 6" Passport: 5' 5-1/2"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2015 18:10:42 GMT -5
Since you brought up Turrou I would like to ask you about him. I have read that Turrou thought Hauptmann guilty during the investigation. Then when Gov. Hoffman reopened the investigation he no longer thought that Hauptmann was guilty and assisted with Hoffman's investigation into the crime. Do you know why Turrou changed his mind about Hauptmann? Amy, Unless I've forgotten something, I have no knowledge of Turrou being involved after Hauptmann's arrest once the FBI withdrew from the case again. Do you remember where you read this? You are quite correct, Michael. It took me sometime to find where I remembered reading about Turrou and Hoffman. It has been awhile since I read it. Here is what happened. In Wayne Jones book, Murder of Justice, Jones in Chapter 66 titled, Doubts of the FBI, Jones talks about Gov. Hoffman receiving information from Hoover in March of 1936. Jones then goes on to sight some of the FBI memorandums. Jones mentions two of them as being reports of Turrou. At the time I was reading this chapter, I must have linked this to Turrou helping Gov. Hoffman. When I reread this chapter today, I realized my mistake. Turrou, himself, did not offer this information to Gov. Hoffman as part of his reinvestigation effort. My mistake Michael. Sorry and also glad you brought this to my attention. I know that Turrou was present at the Hauptmann garage when the money was found hidden there. I believe he was present for some of the handwriting samples Hauptmann was providing, and I believe he was responsible for bringing Condon to the police station to identify Hauptmann in the line up. Did Turrou believe Hauptmann was guilty at the time the FBI was withdrawn from the case?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2015 18:36:20 GMT -5
My own theory about the thumbguard is that it would've been madness for a kidnapper to sneak back onto what had become a police barracks to drop that thumbguard as far up the drive as it was found. I think it's much easier for someone to have dropped it from a car on their way off the property though. And if we consider when and how it was found--newly dropped and in good condition, indicating it had not been outside for a month--I think, if we rule out an outsider being in possession of it and sneaking back to drop it there--I think an insider dropped it off on their way out, inventing a reason to pay the ransom and end the extortion, which was done the very next night after the thumbguard's discovery. I really don't believe the thumbguard was lying on the driveway from the night of March 1 until found by Betty Gow. The whole theory that it came off in the driveway when the kidnapper was checking "where the blood" was coming from just doesn't work for me because: 1) I have trouble believing that a kidnapper fleeing the scene would take the time to check for anything while still on the property. 2) If the bag found near the road where Charlie's body was found was the same bag he was placed in the night of the kidnapping, there was no blood found on that bag when it was examined by Squibb Laboratory. Betty said that she found the thumbguard on the way back up the driveway. She didn't see it there on the way down the driveway. Do you think that Betty and Else could have missed seeing it on the way down?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 9, 2015 18:41:06 GMT -5
Also when did Hauptmann become R. F. Hauptmann? Have you ever encountered Hauptmann using that middle initial before? I never have, and since everything else is correct it can't be that he was trying to hide his identity. Also, I see there was a report by Det. Monahan attached to Zapolsky's report. Was Det. Monahan able to find the salesman J. H. Rhodes in Lakeland Florida and interview him? I would like to know if Rhodes remembered making the sale to Hauptmann and if he identified Hauptmann from a picture, just to be sure Hauptmann actually made that purchase himself. Thanks for this. Interesting that they think Hauptmann transferred the money from one can to another. Not sure why he would do that. Lambertsen says that the can was to be analyzed by a Chemist. Would you know if that was ever done? I don't have the report of the analysis but I do believe it had been performed. If you read Lt. Finn's Liberty Articles you can see where NY did an analysis of some of the ransom money too. While I have the FBI analysis of ransom bills, the NJSP Archives do not have Dr. Gettler's Report yet we can clearly see one had to have existed in New York at one time. Of course without seeing such reports myself this position can be challenged but, for me, I have no doubt.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 9, 2015 19:21:29 GMT -5
I think you're right on, Rebekah. "I was promised I wouldn't be touched..." I mean, without actually being there--and taken out of context--words can be heard to mean all kinds of things. But based on what we have in front of us (while conceding there could be alternative explanations), I think Betty knew something. That CAL Jr. was going to be murdered? No. I think she was lied to and told he was going away and needed to be smuggled out of the house--that is, "kidnapped"--rather than voluntarily sent off, because sending him away would beg the question of why. I think it was Betty's job to clear a path for the kidnappers--making sure the front door was unlocked, maybe that another interior door was shut and locked from a certain side so the route upstairs was closed off, and to make sure CAL Jr. was knocked out (hence her drugstore pit-stop). Volunteering to whip up some kind of special shirt for him may have also been part of the plan or her own improvised addition. In any case, making him a special shirt out of flannel, as opposed to just pulling something out of his drawer (either way, how many layers did the kid need if he was staying inside?), this too could easily be construed as Betty having some kind of foreknowledge that CAL Jr. was... going somewhere that night. So taken altogether, I think she knew something. Where we differ is in whether or not CAL Jr. was dead on leaving the house. Personally, I think he was. And I think he was drugged too, so he would fall asleep as quickly as he did and wouldn't wake up when the "kidnapper" entered the nursery. And Amy, this is interesting: I didn't realize that Betty and Elsie discovered the thumbguard on the way BACK from their walk. That being the case, and going off everything else I've mentioned, I think it's very conceivable that Betty had the thumbguard on her, slipped it out of her pocket so Elsie wouldn't see and dropped it on the ground as they passed along. They continued to the end of the driveway, turned back and <gasp> "Is that one of the baby's thumbguards??" I mean to say, if they saw it on the return trip, there's no reason not to have seen it on the first pass down the drive, especially given the thumbguard's dead-center placement. So if they only noticed it on the return trip, it must not have been there during the first pass. And if we eliminate Elsie's involvement in the whole thing (a pretty safe bet, since there was no evasiveness on her part and nothing suspicious ever turned up on her)--so discounting Elsie, who else was present...? I mean, I suppose Hauptmann or Fisch or J.J. Nosovitsky could've been lurking in some scrub and lobbed the thumbguard onto the drive after Betty and Elsie passed by, but I kinda doubt it...
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Mar 9, 2015 19:29:28 GMT -5
Great picture of your grandfather, Michael. And thanks for the maps, funny I've looked at the 1875 map a lot of times because my husband's family, the Hills, was from Hopewell Township near Marshall's Corner and had a large peach farm there. But, I've never studied other parts of the map and never would have realized that was Featherbed La.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Mar 9, 2015 19:46:57 GMT -5
lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/attachment/download/572Too bad he had no recollection of how this was paid. Likely it had to be ransom money as $109.00 in 1932 is equal to about $1750.00 today. An awful lot of money to spend on during the depression on something that was not a necessity for an out of work carpenter from the Bronx.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2015 19:53:51 GMT -5
Anne testified that she did not see Betty put the thumbguards on Charlie the night of the kidnapping. Anne had left the room before that. Do you think that Betty never put them on? If Charlie had been drugged he would not have needed them on anyway. He wasn't going to wake up and make a fuss and try to suck his thumb. Plus, maybe Betty wanted Charlie to have the comfort of being able to suck his thumb once he did wake up. Could Betty have kept them in her possession?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 9, 2015 20:17:41 GMT -5
I don't see why not...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2015 20:22:10 GMT -5
Michael,
Thanks for posting Monahan's report. I see that he gets the B. R. Hauptmann right in his report. I think the R.F. Hauptmann might have just been a simple mistake on the other page. It is too bad they were never able to locate J. H. Rhodes. He might have remembered the purchase since it was done in cash.
You have no doubt that the Seacraft Oil can had ransom money in it at one time? It would make sense that it would have because it was cut the same way as the shellac can. On this board I have read some of your posts about what was found on the ransom bills that were being found. Things like animal and vegetable fats(Zorn used this finding in his book to link the money to John Knoll who worked in a Deli), glycerin esters of the saturated fatty acids. Also lipstick and mascara, inks, crayon and brass particles.
You also mentioned the FBI LAB report on the money which mentions blood stains on fifteen of the ransom bills. I also liked how the FBI called attention to the fact that the ransom money had been out in circulation previous to its being given to the kidnappes. I thought this important. How could authorities possibly use these findings as an indicator of who the kidnapper might be? They had been well circulated bills.
There was also the musty smell of some of the money as if it had been wet at one time. This would lend itself to the Fisch story possibly.
If the Seacraft can had been used there would have been traces of motor oil on some of the bills. Too bad that report is not available!
Did the police ever have any of the money recovered from Hauptmann's garage tested? If they thought he transfered it from one can to the other it seems to me they would have wanted to confirm that through testing.
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Mar 9, 2015 21:32:11 GMT -5
amy35, i think it was marguerite jung's diary, didn't it have some photos too? if i recall, in the photo Isidore is on a canoe, or maybe just near a canoe, wearing swimming clothes. unless i am totally misremembering. i will continue to search, it's going to keep me up at night racking my brain as to where i saw it! thebabyinthecrib site has the album, but only viewable with premium membership...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2015 22:12:20 GMT -5
amy35, i think it was marguerite jung's diary, didn't it have some photos too? if i recall, in the photo Isidore is on a canoe, or maybe just near a canoe, wearing swimming clothes. unless i am totally misremembering. i will continue to search, it's going to keep me up at night racking my brain as to where i saw it! Please don't stay up! When you mentioned the canoe, I remembered seeing Fisch sitting in a canoe rowing. Went through my books and found in it Scaduto's Scapegoat book. I can't post the picture from the book because of copyright laws plus the caption says the picture is from Scaduto's collection. He is in swimming clothes. He looks very thin though. There are two women and a small child in the boat with Fisch. The photo dates to the summer of 1933, Hunters Island. Do you think Fisch and Hauptmann were both involved in the kidnapping/extortion or just the extortion? Fisch was a scammer and Hauptmann had a robbery record in Germany. Do you think Fisch and Hauptmann knew each other before March of 1932?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2015 22:21:05 GMT -5
lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/attachment/download/572Too bad he had no recollection of how this was paid. Likely it had to be ransom money as $109.00 in 1932 is equal to about $1750.00 today. An awful lot of money to spend on during the depression on something that was not a necessity for an out of work carpenter from the Bronx. I am looking at a picture of Hauptmann's canoe that is in Scaduto's book. You are right. That is a very nice canoe! There are 3 adults and one child sitting in it and you could still put someone else in there and not be crowded. Hauptmann sure liked spending money on himself! I am going to try and find a picture of that canoe that I can post.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Mar 9, 2015 22:36:23 GMT -5
Do you think Fisch and Hauptmann were both involved in the kidnapping/extortion or just the extortion? Fisch was a scammer and Hauptmann had a robbery record in Germany. Those in the "lone wolf" camp love to cite Hauptmann's robbery record as evidence of his criminal nature. This is highly prejudicial to me. By all accounts, he stole only because he was starving and desperately needed food or a few dollars to live on. This was after a devastating war in Germany and many, many otherwise law abiding people turned to the same type of thing. Further, he was never violent. We see the same type of thing after disasters in this country. After moving to the US he led a pretty normal life. Having said that, I think it's somewhat naive to think BRH factually innocent as it relates to the kidnapping. Though, I tend to think he was more involved on the periphery of it all. It would make the most sense if the "head guy" told those working for him the least amount possible. Each person knew their piece of the puzzle and not much more. That way, upon questioning, nobody would know all the details and be able to squeal on the others. It would make even more sense, to me, to use relatively unskilled and largely uneducated workers for these tasks, which might explain why these random people from the Bronx found themselves involved in the disappearance of the most famous toddler in America. Succeeding, mind you, against all possible odds and leaving behind a crime scene that looks like it was staged by the world's most amateur criminals. Hauptmann was still doing odd carpentry work here and there, even after the kidnapping (building chairs for a friend I think), so perhaps he helped an unique collapsable ladder to certain specs and was paid a nice sum for it. Soil samples prove that it was not tested anywhere near where Hauptmann lived or worked, but rather nearer to Fisch's.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 10, 2015 10:45:18 GMT -5
You have no doubt that the Seacraft Oil can had ransom money in it at one time? No, I meant that I had no doubt the can had been examined by the NYPD Chemist - sorry for the misunderstanding. However, there's no doubt in my mind the Seacraft Oil can was setup to conceal something. And in my judgement, it was discovered after it had been used and not before.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 10, 2015 11:42:35 GMT -5
Too many people look at Hauptmann and try to fit him into all the pieces in this puzzle. This might be the easy way out but one that is certain to lead to failure. For me, it's way better to take a step back from the "official narrative" and look at the case for what it actually is, then the whole thing becomes even more suspicious. Well said. Condon probably figured that he could add enough other random details (Scandinavian, fleshy lump, etc) in which would eventually exclude Fisch, if ever caught. This is an interesting observation. I've always believed this lump was fictional, and definitely a way to clear anyone associated with being identified as Cemetery John as evidenced by Condon attempting to clear Hauptmann by feeling his hand for the lump (among other things). However, I thought he added the hacking cough brought on by "inroads of disease" as a means to protect himself if Fisch had ever been arrested. From your point of view it gives just enough to explain why a mis-identification could occur. After reading your post, it occurred to me that Condon may have actually combined certain identifiers from all that he knew were involved into one person for just this purpose. I have never thought of this possibility before. Am I over-reaching to suggest this?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Mar 10, 2015 12:42:59 GMT -5
Too many people look at Hauptmann and try to fit him into all the pieces in this puzzle. This might be the easy way out but one that is certain to lead to failure. For me, it's way better to take a step back from the "official narrative" and look at the case for what it actually is, then the whole thing becomes even more suspicious. Well said. Condon probably figured that he could add enough other random details (Scandinavian, fleshy lump, etc) in which would eventually exclude Fisch, if ever caught. This is an interesting observation. I've always believed this lump was fictional, and definitely a way to clear anyone associated with being identified as Cemetery John as evidenced by Condon attempting to clear Hauptmann by feeling his hand for the lump (among other things). However, I thought he added the hacking cough brought on by "inroads of disease" as a means to protect himself if Fisch had ever been arrested. From your point of view it gives just enough to explain why a mis-identification could occur. After reading your post, it occurred to me that Condon may have actually combined certain identifiers from all that he knew were involved into one person for just this purpose. I have never thought of this possibility before. Am I over-reaching to suggest this? I don't think you're over-reaching at all. Also, I don't think CJ existed in the way Condon said he did. Perhaps it was just a meeting between two perpetrators. It seems there was definitely someone in the cemetery Condon talked to though, no?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 10, 2015 18:14:55 GMT -5
Did Turrou believe Hauptmann was guilty at the time the FBI was withdrawn from the case? Yes. In his book he said he knew he was connected and believed his punishment was appropriate. From the Reports I've read they back this up but they also seem to indicate, in my opinion, that he was suspicious of Condon's actions. Once Scaduto's book came out Turrou took the gloves off calling it " scandalous" and that he was " completely wrong in his allegations that Hauptmann was innocent of the crime for which he was executed." He even says in one letter: " I am convinced beyond any doubt that Hauptmann was guilty as hell." In another source I have he indicates that he was told NJSP investigated Fisch and had proven he hadn't been involved, and based on this information Fisch was not involved. I really wish someone had sat down with him to ask him specific questions but unfortunately it doesn't appear this ever happened, and if someone did - I certainly haven't been able to find anything of the sort. Did the police ever have any of the money recovered from Hauptmann's garage tested? If they thought he transfered it from one can to the other it seems to me they would have wanted to confirm that through testing. Yes NYPD did. It's in the Finn Liberty Articles I mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 10, 2015 18:35:21 GMT -5
I don't think you're over-reaching at all. Also, I don't think CJ existed in the way Condon said he did. Perhaps it was just a meeting between two perpetrators. It seems there was definitely someone in the cemetery Condon talked to though, no? Condon was playing both ends of the stick. Of that I have no doubt - so we agree here too. At Woodlawn I think it's safe to say a meeting took place there. At St. Raymond's I think it more of a hand-off and less talking involved despite Condon's bluster about what was said.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2015 19:35:01 GMT -5
Let me say upfront that I am not a "Lone wolf" theorist!! Never have been, never will be. I brought up Hauptmann's criminal activity in Germany because I think it shows that when Hauptmann needed something he was willing to take something of value from someone else so he could get what he needed. I don't think it makes him a hardened criminal. However, I do see him as an opportunist, who, if approached by someone who offered him a chance to make a nice sum of money by assisting in a "robbery", he would have taken advantage of it.
It certainly appears that way. He was never arrested and charged with any criminal activity. So does that mean he never did anything or he just never got caught doing anything? I am very willing to give him the benefit of a doubt but I also know what he has done in the past, so I have to tread carefully here.
Totally agree. This has been my position for quite a while.
I have read Liz Pagel's soil report also and I agree the closest match is nearest to where Fisch lived before he was at Selma Kohl's apartment building. For me, it is another item that links Isidor Fisch to this crime.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2015 20:10:27 GMT -5
) I think this is just what he did. It is something that I have been considering myself so I am glad that you said it. Wow! I didn't know he felt that strongly. I thought too because of 1) Condon's wanting Turrou to describe the suspect he was going to ID before seeing him, 2) Condon not identifying Hauptmann at the police station, and 3) Condon actually saying to him that "Hauptmann is not the man" should have caused Turrou to have serious concerns about Hauptmann's guilt. Then there are the Hauptmann writing exemplers. Turrou reported that Hauptmann had to 1) add curlicues to 'y's, 2) cross 't's in different ways, 3) to write a passage without dotting his 'i's, etc. How did this not give Turrou a reason to at least doubt the level of Hauptmann's true guilt? Then, to top it off, Turrou also claimed that Condon told him that on the night of March 12, 1932 at Woodlawn Cementery Condo saw a party who strongly resembled Isidor Fisch pass the car in which he and Al Reich were sitting. Here again we encounter what could be another link to Fisch and this crime. Did Turrou ever offer an opinion about Dr. Condon and whether he might have been more than just a go-between?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 11, 2015 16:27:18 GMT -5
I think this is just what he did. It is something that I have been considering myself so I am glad that you said it. After all of these years of research you would think this notion would have occurred to me sometime along the way... But no, it hadn't and if it weren't for USC's post I would have had to wait to hear it from you Amy or I'd still be without that possibility to at least consider. It's another example why the Board is such an important part of researching the case. Not that it means it's correct, it might not be, but at least it's out there now to mull over. That's important because it can't happen if it isn't at least suggested in the first place. Wow! I didn't know he felt that strongly. I thought too because of 1) Condon's wanting Turrou to describe the suspect he was going to ID before seeing him, 2) Condon not identifying Hauptmann at the police station, and 3) Condon actually saying to him that "Hauptmann is not the man" should have caused Turrou to have serious concerns about Hauptmann's guilt. Then there are the Hauptmann writing exemplers. Turrou reported that Hauptmann had to 1) add curlicues to 'y's, 2) cross 't's in different ways, 3) to write a passage without dotting his 'i's, etc. How did this not give Turrou a reason to at least doubt the level of Hauptmann's true guilt? Then, to top it off, Turrou also claimed that Condon told him that on the night of March 12, 1932 at Woodlawn Cementery Condo saw a party who strongly resembled Isidor Fisch pass the car in which he and Al Reich were sitting. Here again we encounter what could be another link to Fisch and this crime. All true. In one of his reports he gives the impression he's waiting to see what Condon says concerning the identification, but I do believe he was always of the opinion Hauptmann was involved. It seems to me that Scaduto set him off and it was his intention to get that point across in a way where he hadn't been so severe during the actual situation. If you think about it, Scaduto was casting a wide net which, if true, would have fallen on just about every Law Enforcement Officer involved in one way or another. When you force people to pick sides there is very rarely anyone left standing in the middle. Did Turrou ever offer an opinion about Dr. Condon and whether he might have been more than just a go-between? Not that I've ever seen or read. I don't like saying "no" because there's always a possibility something could be out there I haven't seen, or maybe even forgotten about.
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Mar 11, 2015 20:05:48 GMT -5
Do you think Fisch and Hauptmann were both involved in the kidnapping/extortion or just the extortion? Fisch was a scammer and Hauptmann had a robbery record in Germany. Do you think Fisch and Hauptmann knew each other before March of 1932? thanks for finding the picture in Scapgoat, that's a book i don't own but read ages ago. i really think there's another photo (maybe taken at same outing) around somewhere. i am really coming around to thinking Fisch and Hauptmann were both involved in the kidnap and the extortion, but at least 1 more person (maybe the mastermind/instigator) had to be involved. and i believe that additional person was the insider at Highfields or Englewood. now, my opinion on who THAT person was is something i go back and forth about
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2015 19:45:52 GMT -5
Do you think Fisch and Hauptmann were both involved in the kidnapping/extortion or just the extortion? Fisch was a scammer and Hauptmann had a robbery record in Germany. Do you think Fisch and Hauptmann knew each other before March of 1932? thanks for finding the picture in Scapgoat, that's a book i don't own but read ages ago. i really think there's another photo (maybe taken at same outing) around somewhere. i am really coming around to thinking Fisch and Hauptmann were both involved in the kidnap and the extortion, but at least 1 more person (maybe the mastermind/instigator) had to be involved. and i believe that additional person was the insider at Highfields or Englewood. now, my opinion on who THAT person was is something i go back and forth about I can see Fisch and Hauptmann involved too. Especially when you consider the way Condon describes some of CJ's characteristics, the cough, the fleshy lump, and the large ears he had said John had. Of course there are other things Condon said that don't suggest Fisch like the name 'John', being Scandinavian, a sailor, from the Boston area and having an athletic build. These suggest someone else or possibly others who might be involved. Its like a 'composite' sketch of the gang. None of the things mentioned totally fit Fisch or Hauptmann, so perhaps Condon's ID of CJ is really about the group of people involved and not just one person. What do you think of the 'Fisch Story'?
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Mar 13, 2015 9:33:01 GMT -5
Condon always manages to muddle the case even further, doesn't he?
personally, i think the Fisch Story is a blend of truth & lie (usually the easiest kind of lie to maintain). i think Fisch did give him a package to hold while he was in Germany, and it could have gotten wet in the closet as claimed, but i think Hauptmann knew very well what was in the package to begin with. and when Isidore died, he just kept the money.
|
|