|
Post by Michael on Mar 13, 2015 17:53:24 GMT -5
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. Probably the best argument against Fisch being involved comes from the worst position. There are generally three "Schools of Thought" concerning Hauptmann: - He was a "Lone-Wolf" who lied about everything.
- He was 100% innocent who was framed every step of the way.
- He was involved but there were others in the mix that were never caught.
So what I've seen over the years is the argument that Hauptmann told the truth when he said he didn't know Fisch until the Summer of 1932, but it's those who believe Hauptmann was a complete liar who rely on this explanation! For me, if Hauptmann was involved then he'd want to distance himself from Fisch during this time since he's claiming Fisch gave him the Ransom Money. He's attempting to make it look like he only had this money after the fact, and if it's coming from Fisch then what else can he do but claim he hadn't known him then? Of course it doesn't prove Fisch was involved, only that any explanation against it falls flat. Another extremely weak attempt at explaining this falls on the Henkel's who claimed to know "when" Hauptmann met Fisch. That assumes Fisch wasn't a private person concerning such things when it's common knowledge he absolutely was. Next, consider a Husband who is cheating on his Spouse when they are at a party and he's being introduced to his Mistress - might everyone there get the impression they don't know each other? Finally, Hauptmann let slip they did know each other prior to the Kidnapping, but for some reason, those who find he's being truthful in one place let him morph back into a complete liar again everywhere else they need him to be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2015 20:39:23 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. So then the money Fisch gave to Hauptmann to hold was actually Fisch's portion of the ransom money? I am assuming that they split the money if they are both in on this extortion. Fisch wants Hauptmann to hold his money for him until he gets back from Germany. Fisch had a bank safety deposit box. I wonder why he just didn't put that money in there while he was away instead of having Hauptmann hold it for him? He really leaves Hauptmann 'holding the bag' so to speak for this whole kidnapping by doing that!
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Mar 13, 2015 21:13:18 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. So then the money Fisch gave to Hauptmann to hold was actually Fisch's portion of the ransom money? I am assuming that they split the money if they are both in on this extortion. Fisch wants Hauptmann to hold his money for him until he gets back from Germany. Fisch had a bank safety deposit box. I wonder why he just didn't put that money in there while he was away instead of having Hauptmann hold it for him? He really leaves Hauptmann 'holding the bag' so to speak for this whole kidnapping by doing that! Well its possible Hauptmann was already paid for his portion, no? His finances seem to indicate he came into some money in 1931. Regarding the safe deposit box, maybe he didn't want to leave it in a place that was so easily attached with him if he was ever implicated?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2015 21:46:06 GMT -5
Well its possible Hauptmann was already paid for his portion, no? His finances seem to indicate he came into some money in 1931. Regarding the safe deposit box, maybe he didn't want to leave it in a place that was so easily attached with him if he was ever implicated? Are you saying that Hauptmann was paid in full upfront for his part in the kidnapping before it happened? He doesn't receive any of the $50,000 after it is paid on April 2nd? Wow! That is an interesting theory. Can you elaborate on this? About the safe deposit box, I can see that being the reason he wouldn't put it in there. I believe Fisch did buy a round trip ticket so he must have been planning to return to America. Do you think that Hauptmann knew the money in the box Fisch gave him was ransom money?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Mar 14, 2015 1:09:55 GMT -5
Well its possible Hauptmann was already paid for his portion, no? His finances seem to indicate he came into some money in 1931. Regarding the safe deposit box, maybe he didn't want to leave it in a place that was so easily attached with him if he was ever implicated? Are you saying that Hauptmann was paid in full upfront for his part in the kidnapping before it happened? He doesn't receive any of the $50,000 after it is paid on April 2nd? Wow! That is an interesting theory. Can you elaborate on this? About the safe deposit box, I can see that being the reason he wouldn't put it in there. I believe Fisch did buy a round trip ticket so he must have been planning to return to America. Do you think that Hauptmann knew the money in the box Fisch gave him was ransom money? Sorry I don't think I was quite clear. It seems Hauptmann was paid for his portion in advance then, assuming he was involved in the ransom negotiations, probably had his cut of that shortly thereafter. The "Fisch" story seems somewhat legit to me, in that he was probably given a box for safekeeping. From that point, Hauptmann felt entitled to some of these funds, either because of the fur business and/or the fact he felt slighted with his cut of the Lindbergh payment(s). Assuming the Fisch story is somewhat true, is there any evidence to show that Hauptmann was at all involved in the ransom negotiations? None of the CJ descriptions seem to match up with him and he had a pretty good alibi for at least one of the nights in question.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2015 9:08:39 GMT -5
]Sorry I don't think I was quite clear. It seems Hauptmann was paid for his portion in advance then, assuming he was involved in the ransom negotiations, probably had his cut of that shortly thereafter. The "Fisch" story seems somewhat legit to me, in that he was probably given a box for safekeeping. From that point, Hauptmann felt entitled to some of these funds, either because of the fur business and/or the fact he felt slighted with his cut of the Lindbergh payment(s). Assuming the Fisch story is somewhat true, is there any evidence to show that Hauptmann was at all involved in the ransom negotiations? None of the CJ descriptions seem to match up with him and he had a pretty good alibi for at least one of the nights in question. Thanks for setting me straight on what you were suggesting. Like you, I can see Hauptmann receiving an advance in 1931 for the services he would provide with this kidnapping. I believe it was in March or April 1931 that Hauptmann had Hans Mueller acquire that .25 caliber Liliput for him. This suggests to me that Hauptmann was getting into an activity where he would need some up close and personal protection. I am not sold on the idea that this purchase was purely for the California trip to see his sister. I do think that the advance payment he received enabled that California trip in July 1931. Both he and Anna quit there jobs, put their furniture in storage and left the Bronx with Hans Kloppenburg to do a 3 month tour. This is when the Depression was hitting hard. It would seem that Hauptmann is not worried about his financial future at all. He knew that there would be more money coming his way in the future, even if he didn't know yet when exactly that would be. The Fisch story might be true in some respects. Fisch had given Hauptmann other items to store for him before this Bon Voyage party. Perhaps Fisch did bring with him a package of paperwork he had removed from his safe deposit box for Hauptmann to hold for him. Did this package also include ransom money? There is no way to really know this. Kloppenburg testified he saw Fisch bring in this package. However, he doesn't know what is in it. So it really depends on what side of the fence we sit on when we evaluate this whole aspect, doesn't it. Was it money or just papers? Or is Kloppenburg helping a friend and saying he saw Fisch bring in something when he really didn't? Assuming there was ransom money in the box, when Fisch died in Germany and Hauptmann began checking into Fisch's financial holdings for Pinkus, he no doubt realized that Fisch had been scamming him about the supposed fur purchases he was making for their partnership. And here is where the rub is for me; if Fisch had received a portion of the ransom money himself, why is Hauptmann giving Fisch money to buy furs? Isn't Fisch using his share of the ransom to do this? Isn't Fisch supposed to be handling the fur business end? It seems like all the money to fund both sides of this 'partnership' is coming from Hauptmann. How do you see this? I think it is hard to prove that Hauptmann was the one doing all the negotiations with Condon. I just don't see it myself if you go by what Condon says about CJ. I am not aware of what Hauptmann's alibi was for the night of the Woodlawn Cemetery/Van Cordlandt Park meeting (March 12). Was he even asked about that night? Which night do you think he had a pretty good alibi for: March 1, March 12 or April 2?
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Mar 14, 2015 9:54:31 GMT -5
Can anyone speculate on who they believe was negotiating on Lindbergh's behalf a year before CJr was kidnapped? That's the part of this theory that I have the most trouble with.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 14, 2015 13:11:45 GMT -5
Assuming the Fisch story is somewhat true, is there any evidence to show that Hauptmann was at all involved in the ransom negotiations? Many point to the direct evidence of Condon's identification of Hauptmann as CJ, and Lindbergh's ear-witness identification. They also point the the indirect evidence of Hauptmann's resignation at Majestic Apartments on April 2nd (despite the time-card's reflection he was off that day and resigned on the 4th), and the fact the Ransom Money was found in his possession. Can anyone speculate on who they believe was negotiating on Lindbergh's behalf a year before CJr was kidnapped? That's the part of this theory that I have the most trouble with. Are you having trouble accepting the theory because of it or simply having trouble with a someone who would fit this role? I look at this like the search for the "Missing Link." Look at human evolution as an example. Based on the molecular clock, because one hasn't been found doesn't upset the fact that one existed. So the question really becomes, as it relates to this particular Lindbergh Kidnapping theory, whether or not there is a basis to think it's possible. If so, this person was most likely selected for the very reason we will probably never discover who it was. Condon once said it was a "high government official" which may have either been true, or a ruse to throw investigators into the wrong direction. I've also considered it may have been someone easily dismissed or dis-associated with Lindbergh if they were to get caught.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 14, 2015 13:33:55 GMT -5
Though Condon has been shown time and again to be a consummate BS artist, liars tend to mix in at least some truth with their fabrications. So when he claimed CJ said a high government official was involved--assuming that much is true, I look at that in conjunction with the facts that Lindbergh's father had been a congressman, his father-in-law an ambassador and senator, and that Lindbergh himself was the most famous man in the world in his own right. Given this, I think it's safe to assume he knew people in high places in government--someone who knew how to handle problems that needed handling, how to apply layers of insulation and separation, how to find the right men to carry things out, pay them off, keep them quiet. Micheal, though I'm sure you quite reasonably don't want to say--that is, give a name(s)--have you ever come across any likely suspects? Like, maybe someone at Treasury or Justice...?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2015 15:13:46 GMT -5
Many point to the direct evidence of Condon's identification of Hauptmann as CJ, and Lindbergh's ear-witness identification. They also point the the indirect evidence of Hauptmann's resignation at Majestic Apartments on April 2nd (despite the time-card's reflection he was off that day and resigned on the 4th), and the fact the Ransom Money was found in his possession. This is true but we now know that Condon did not identify Hauptmann and did so because he was threatened with charges. Lindbergh's earwitness ID was not made immediately either. He was influenced by Schwarzkopf that Hauptmann must have been the man he heard call out to Condon at St. Raymonds. Couldn't Hauptmann have been at both cemeteries but was in the background each time? Condon felt that there was someone present but unseen by him at each of the cemeteries. Just take the Woodlawn Cemetery/Van Cordlandt Park meeting for instance. This is where the identity of 'John' is drawn from. Condon creates CJ's identification with the following characteristics: 1) the name John 2) he is Scandinavian 3) he is a sailor 4) he is from the Boston area 5) he has a serious cough 6) he has a fleshy lump at the base of the palm side of his left hand 7) he has large ears 8) he has an athletic build 9) he is between 5'8" and 5'10" 10) he is around 158 to 165 lbs 11) he has dark blonde hair and grayish blue eyes This is supposed to be CJ. One single individual. Well, some of this fits Hauptmann generally, some of it fits Fisch generally and some of this fits neither of these men. So what is someone supposed to draw from this? Do you just use the points that fit Hauptmann and forget the rest of the description given for CJ? Are the other points that don't fit Hauptmann or Fisch just made up by Condon to mislead or could Condon be describing several different people who comprise this gang and puts them under the umbrella of one single man who Condon calls John?
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Mar 14, 2015 21:22:21 GMT -5
Thanks LJ and Michael, I'm definitely keeping an open mind about Lindbergh's involvement but haven't quite decided if that's what I see. One thing that doesn't fit the theory for me is all of the photos and video that we see of CJr, a year before the kidnapping, shows a normal and inquisitive toddler. Of course we don't know everything, but why would his kidnapping be planned and perhaps paid for a year in advance if his condition had yet to present itself, assuming that is why Lindbergh would want to be rid of him.
.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2015 23:02:51 GMT -5
One thing that doesn't fit the theory for me is all of the photos and video that we see of CJr, a year before the kidnapping, shows a normal and inquisitive toddler. Of course we don't know everything, but why would his kidnapping be planned and perhaps paid for a year in advance if his condition had yet to present itself, assuming that is why Lindbergh would want to be rid of him. I agree it is difficult to reconcile those videos and photos with a child who had become, by age 20 months, unhealthy enough that it would warrant his removal permanently from the family. I think one needs to keep in mind that those images we see, especially in those videos, do not go past the summer season of 1931. Exactly when Charlie started receiving the sunlamp treatments is unknown to us but it does suggest that more agressive treatment was being added for a reason. In those summer images, Charlie might only have been on the standard cod liver oil treatment for rickets. Perhaps when Charlie started loosing ground physically, that is when a plan started to be developed.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Mar 15, 2015 4:45:36 GMT -5
I do think it is a possibility his health deteriorated after his first birthday but we're seeing a healthy seeming baby around the same time that Hauptmann has quit his job for 3 months and is taking his wife to California, the summer of 1931.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2015 8:26:10 GMT -5
I do think it is a possibility his health deteriorated after his first birthday but we're seeing a healthy seeming baby around the same time that Hauptmann has quit his job for 3 months and is taking his wife to California, the summer of 1931. I see what you are saying. If it was all about Charlie's health why is a kidnapping being planned when Charlie looks so healthy. How does that go together with what was going on with Hauptmann in 1931. Was he approached that early to be involved with a future kidnapping? Possibly but then it becomes what the motivation was for the kidnapping. If we take Charlie's health off the table then what do we have left? A kidnapping for money. Hauptmann's desire to be a Wall Street investor but he needs a large sum of money to jump start his career change. He can invest this money into the stock market and into the fur business through Fisch. I have the same questions you have Stella. Finding answers that make sense and link up is really hard.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 15, 2015 8:44:33 GMT -5
Micheal, though I'm sure you quite reasonably don't want to say--that is, give a name(s)--have you ever come across any likely suspects? Like, maybe someone at Treasury or Justice...? I've got some ideas swirling around in my head. The person is connected to a certain place that has come up in a couple of forgotten angles which I think is important in this whole mess. Since Richard's book came out I am now almost certain no one else has any idea what I am talking about. But as for Breckenridge, active DOJ Agents, active Treasury Agents, active Dept. of Labor Agents, etc. - no. This is true but we now know that Condon did not identify Hauptmann and did so because he was threatened with charges. Lindbergh's earwitness ID was not made immediately either. Agreed. Condon did everything he could not to identify him. Frankly, I don't believe the fleshy lump was his idea because it seems in line with the holes in the ransom note. So one is how to identify them for reward and the other is how not to as protection from punishment. It's an intelligent course from both ends and further information that clearly demonstrates Hauptmann is not the "Brains" behind all of this. Furthermore, Condon tips his hand on numerous occasions, especially when stealing a line from the Police concerning Simek's identification then applying it to Hauptmann's circumstances. Then once Condon "flips" we see a change in earlier identifiers concerning CJ. The "cough" is one that jumps out at me. CJ's condition was such that Condon was supposedly worried about his health. Hacking cough, coughing continually, his face shown the inroads of disease, etc. By the time of the trial CJ only coughed "once." Then to support this testimony he repeats it in his Liberty Article. I do think it is a possibility his health deteriorated after his first birthday but we're seeing a healthy seeming baby around the same time that Hauptmann has quit his job for 3 months and is taking his wife to California, the summer of 1931. I've seen a 1 year old with Down's Syndrom act exactly what I would consider as "normal" in every way for a 1 year old the only difference being the facial features. But in this case we know CALjr. was "declining in health" under his first nurse, she leaves and the new nurse comes in and he improves. Lindbergh doesn't like the new nurse and the old nurse returns before the new and permanent nurse is hired. Then we see the film. He is outside and despite what I believe is an over-sized head, doesn't appear to be afflicted with "Rickets" either. So what caused the Rickets? Poor diet? Lack of sun? We cannot forget that Lindy was of the belief he was superior stock. The question becomes how he would react to news that his 1st born may never be "normal." What was normal to him? Would he accept his name-sake to be deficient in some way - in any way? Would he accept him as an "inferior" - the exact type of person he loathed? We're talking about a guy who wouldn't even let William Allen into his home or thank for bringing this whole matter to a close for finding his dead child. Of course it doesn't mean he was involved in some way, but I do think it's impossible to shut the door on the idea - most especially if there is more to develop on it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2015 11:20:57 GMT -5
I've got some ideas swirling around in my head. The person is connected to a certain place that has come up in a couple of forgotten angles which I think is important in this whole mess. Since Richard's book came out I am now almost certain no one else has any idea what I am talking about. But as for Breckenridge, active DOJ Agents, active Treasury Agents, active Dept. of Labor Agents, etc. - no. Michael, When I started looking at CJ's description as relating to multiple people who could comprise this gang of kidnappers, I started looking for things that might relate to these characteristics. When looking into Condon's claim that CJ was from the Boston area, this brought me back to the Constance Morrow Blackmail/Death Threat case of 1929. Involved with that extortion attempt was the use of General Clarence Ransom Edwards estate in Westwood Massachusetts as the drop point for the blackmail payment. Westwood is not far from Boston. I am not pointing a finger at General Edwards having anything to do with the extortion attempt against Dwight Morrow Sr. through his daughter Constance. Edwards died in Feb. of 1931. I am looking more at who might have been the motivator of this attempt. I believe someone in the U.S. customs department became a suspect as the writer of the notes. Was he ever charged and prosecuted for this? How much of a background check did they do on this custom worker as far as associates are concerned? My feeling is that Dwight Morrow Sr. was the target in 1929. He was still Ambassador to Mexico at this time and very much involved with negotiating with President Callas over various matters. At this time, the Roman Catholic Church was battling with President Callas over the right to be independant of government control of the church. I know that Morrow spent time on this aspect of controversy. Morrow arrived in Mexico at the end of October 1927. In November 1927 there was a bomb thrown at a Mexican General and this was blamed on Father Pro Juarez and two others. When Juarez and the two men were executed, the catholics felt Morrow was condoning this execution by not speaking out against it and President Callas. Could the threat against Constance have been rooted in a hatred that had developed against Morrow Sr? Anyway, when looking at General Edwards, I found that he was involved with Fordham University and had received an Honorary Degree from there. When you check out General Edwards association with Fordham Univesity, he comes up under the Jesuit division of Fordham. No doubt Condon, who was a devout Catholic, knew about Edwards which left me wondering if whoever was behind the Constance Morrow attempt might have known Condon and utilized him for the Lindbergh kidnapping. Is there a common denominator (person) between the blackmail attempt in 1929 and the kidnapping of Charlie? Could this be the person who is from the Boston area mentioned by Condon as part of CJ's description?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Mar 15, 2015 14:15:55 GMT -5
Assuming the Fisch story is somewhat true, is there any evidence to show that Hauptmann was at all involved in the ransom negotiations? Many point to the direct evidence of Condon's identification of Hauptmann as CJ, and Lindbergh's ear-witness identification. They also point the the indirect evidence of Hauptmann's resignation at Majestic Apartments on April 2nd (despite the time-card's reflection he was off that day and resigned on the 4th), and the fact the Ransom Money was found in his possession. This kind proves my point. Are you of the belief that Hauptmann was directly involved in the ransom negotiations?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 15, 2015 18:18:02 GMT -5
Edwards died in Feb. of 1931. I am looking more at who might have been the motivator of this attempt. I believe someone in the U.S. customs department became a suspect as the writer of the notes. Was he ever charged and prosecuted for this? How much of a background check did they do on this custom worker as far as associates are concerned? They knew exactly who the Writer was - George E. Long - and he was not prosecuted at the request of General Edwards. There was something wrong with the guy, and he had done this numerous times before. As an example when he was working for the Insular Bureau in Washington as a Cipher Clerk, he wrote two seperate but similar letters to a Mrs. Townsend, and Madame Hauga, demanding they leave a sum of money in the poor box in a Catholic Church. Could the threat against Constance have been rooted in a hatred that had developed against Morrow Sr? I like your approach to this whole thing, and it's something I did myself which is why I can appreciate it even more. From my perspective we're just dealing with someone who was suffering from some sort of thrill sending these types of letters to people - kind of like Firemen who set fires intentionally. Anyway, when looking at General Edwards, I found that he was involved with Fordham University and had received an Honorary Degree from there. When you check out General Edwards association with Fordham Univesity, he comes up under the Jesuit division of Fordham. No doubt Condon, who was a devout Catholic, knew about Edwards which left me wondering if whoever was behind the Constance Morrow attempt might have known Condon and utilized him for the Lindbergh kidnapping. Is there a common denominator (person) between the blackmail attempt in 1929 and the kidnapping of Charlie? Could this be the person who is from the Boston area mentioned by Condon as part of CJ's description? I think what's most interesting about this whole thing is something A&M alluded to.... That whoever wrote the notes to Lindbergh was aware of this situation, and it's also interesting that Lindbergh was directly involved in the plan to assist Constance by whisking her away to Maine in his plane. And, by the way, in a pinnacle of coincidence, when Lindbergh was younger and attending the Force School in Washington, he used to sit on General Edwards steps to eat his lunch throwing his scraps to the General's dog. This kind proves my point. Are you of the belief that Hauptmann was directly involved in the ransom negotiations? It does prove your point, and the greater weight of the evidence seems to indicate Hauptmann was not Cemetery John. However, taking into consideration everything I know to be true, what I know to be false, and even what I do not know, it's my opinion Hauptmann was involved in the extortion of this ransom because he's getting a cut.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2015 20:00:46 GMT -5
They knew exactly who the Writer was - George E. Long - and he was not prosecuted at the request of General Edwards. There was something wrong with the guy, and he had done this numerous times before. As an example when he was working for the Insular Bureau in Washington as a Cipher Clerk, he wrote two seperate but similar letters to a Mrs. Townsend, and Madame Hauga, demanding they leave a sum of money in the poor box in a Catholic Church. Thanks, Michael for posting that letter from General Edwards. It confirmed my suspicion that someone else was the author of those notes. I think we are looking at the same thing with the Lindbergh ransom notes. You mention that George Long did something similar while working in Washington D.C. Was this before the Constance Morrow notes? Was he prosecuted for these two cases? Was he working alone or with someone else? I wonder if Long saw himself as some kind of Robin Hood. He is extorting money from the rich to give it to the poor. General Edwards said in the letter that the man who authored the notes for the Constance Morrow extortion is affable and educated. Was this man apprehended? If Edwards knows there are two men involved then the authorities did too. Did George Long reveal who his partner was? A thrill seeker? General Edwards called the men in the Constance Morrow case harmless and he underlines it. I don't think what they did was exactly harmless. Looks to me like someone who is testing the waters for a future endeavor. Did Edwards intercede for both men or just George Long since Edwards knows who they both are? Edwards also mentions in the first paragraph that "we have been through the same scare now six different times". He then mentions Frances St John Smith who went missing from Smith College in January 1928. She was a friend of Anne Lindbergh's when Anne was attending Smith College. I believe there was a $50,000 dollar ransom note involved with her disappearance. No one was ever apprehended in that case. Is there a Morrow family stalker behind some of these crimes?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 17, 2015 21:04:03 GMT -5
Since she wasn't a Morrow family member, I don't think Frances St. John Smith's death and disappearance had anything to do with what later happened to CAL Jr. But as to the $50K ransom demand for Constance, I don't know that there was a Morrow family stalker involved with that. Since nothing came of the threat against Constance--no one showing up to collect the money--it was probably not a stalker, but rather someone with a mean streak, who enjoyed sadistic practical jokes and watching people scramble...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2015 21:54:07 GMT -5
Since she wasn't a Morrow family member, I don't think Frances St. John Smith had anything to do with what later happened to CAL Jr. But as to the $50K ransom demand for Constance, I don't know that there was a Morrow family stalker involved with that. Since nothing came of the threat against Constance--no one showing up to collect the money--it was probably not a stalker, but rather someone with a mean streak, who enjoyed sadistic practical jokes and watching people scramble... Hmmm. Might you be implying a certain aviator who flew across the Atlantic solo to Paris? This aviator met Anne Lindbergh in 1927. The Smith case with the $50,000 ransom note is in 1928 and Constance with the $50,000 extortion note is in 1929. Both of these people were attached to Anne. Charlie was Anne's first born in 1930. Charlie's kidnapping was being planned in 1931. Charlie goes missing in 1932. Maybe this is about Anne??? Frances St. John Smith and Anne were friends. In fact both Anne and Dwight Jr. spent Thanksgiving 1927 with the St. John Family. It was thought that the Smith girl might have committed suicide but they could never be sure. I shall have to check and see when the ransom note was received. That note could have been completely separate from what happened with Smith. Just a harmless prank by someone?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 17, 2015 22:41:18 GMT -5
"Let it be who it is." (Julius Caesar; I, iii)
In any case, all these people are connected to Anne, as you rightly point out. And we do see that $50K figure cropping up multiple times after she meets and marries Lindbergh, don't we? Granted, about as circumstantial as it gets, but still... That being said, I don't know that this was all about Anne per se--more like she and her family provided fodder and opportunity for a certain individual's sociopathic tendencies. Now, I don't think a certain aviator had anything to do with whatever ultimately happened to St. John Smith, but the $50K ransom note in that case could've been unrelated to whatever happened to her--written by somebody as, as you say, a prank.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 17, 2015 22:57:02 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2015 9:15:24 GMT -5
Thanks for the newspaper link. I was going to post one this morning. I think you are right that these 'pranks' could have inspired those who planned and executed Charlie's kidnapping. When you read the police theories about this man Buinicaks you can see parallels with the Lindbergh case: 1) Child goes missing, is killed, is hidden and a ransom payment is demanded. 2) The ransom note writer is actually a tool of the kidnappers. 3) The kidnappers/extortionists take advantage of the kidnapping to collect a ransom that was not supposed to be collected. Michael, Do you know what happened with Buinicaks? Was he ever prosecuted for this extortion? Did he go to jail?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 18, 2015 18:25:41 GMT -5
General Edwards said in the letter that the man who authored the notes for the Constance Morrow extortion is affable and educated. Was this man apprehended? If Edwards knows there are two men involved then the authorities did too. Did George Long reveal who his partner was? I assume they were earlier because of the way the Reports were written. For example: It was learned that Long had been investigated by the Department of Justice in Washington for similar letters sent to Hon. Henry White, former ambassador to France; Mrs. Thomas F. Walsh; and Madame Christine Hauge, the wife of a Belgian attache. Undoubtedly, the files of the Department of Justice in Washington will contain much information relating to this man, further along these lines, as, in the opinion of the post office inspectors, Long is harmless except for the uncontrollable desire to write these letters. Long did not implicate himself or others concerning the Constance Morrow ransom demand.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 18, 2015 18:31:46 GMT -5
Do you know what happened with Buinicaks? Was he ever prosecuted for this extortion? Did he go to jail? I know that he went to trial on the charge of using the mails to defraud. After that I am not sure what happened to him. The NJSP went looking for him in March of '33 (so he obviously wasn't in jail at that time) but were unable to locate him. According to Special Treasury Agent Kelleher, there was a complete file on him " in Washington under number 26584-E" under the heading " Norhtampton, Mass. Alleged violation 1628 P. L. and R. 1924."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2015 17:30:45 GMT -5
General Edwards said in the letter that the man who authored the notes for the Constance Morrow extortion is affable and educated. Was this man apprehended? If Edwards knows there are two men involved then the authorities did too. Did George Long reveal who his partner was? I assume they were earlier because of the way the Reports were written. For example: It was learned that Long had been investigated by the Department of Justice in Washington for similar letters sent to Hon. Henry White, former ambassador to France; Mrs. Thomas F. Walsh; and Madame Christine Hauge, the wife of a Belgian attache. Undoubtedly, the files of the Department of Justice in Washington will contain much information relating to this man, further along these lines, as, in the opinion of the post office inspectors, Long is harmless except for the uncontrollable desire to write these letters. Long did not implicate himself or others concerning the Constance Morrow ransom demand. Michael, Back in March of this year, we were discussing the Constance Morrow Ransom demand. Recently, I came across an old news story from March 8, 1932 that I need to ask you about. The article states that Anne Lindbergh was in receipt of a threatening note that police believed was written by the same party that wrote the Constance Morrow ransom demand notes. The article goes into detail about Mrs. Lindbergh's note and the Constance Morrow note. The article also claims that the original Constance Morrow note had been kept in the safe of the JP Morgan Company in Manhattan. This note was retrieved from there and was compared to the note Mrs. Lindbergh received. Why would JP Morgan have the Constance Morrow ransom note instead of the police? Since this is a newspaper story, I was wondering if you could comment on the validity of this story. Did Anne really get such a note? Was it a match to the Constance Morrow note? Was there any police follow-up on this note and who might have written it? Here is a link to the news article titled "Threat Letter Is Received by Mrs. Lindbergh". The article appears under the picture of Tony Meslo. bklyn.newspapers.com/image/57400660
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 3, 2015 20:35:22 GMT -5
The article goes into detail about Mrs. Lindbergh's note and the Constance Morrow note. The article also claims that the original Constance Morrow note had been kept in the safe of the JP Morgan Company in Manhattan. This note was retrieved from there and was compared to the note Mrs. Lindbergh received. Why would JP Morgan have the Constance Morrow ransom note instead of the police? Since this is a newspaper story, I was wondering if you could comment on the validity of this story. Did Anne really get such a note? Was it a match to the Constance Morrow note? Was there any police follow-up on this note and who might have written it? It's true that the original extortion notes were kept at JP Morgan until they were taken to Osborn S.'s office. They were compared to the Lindbergh Ransom Notes. Nothing saying they were compared to one of the many threatening letters written to Anne or anyone else. The Morrow's & Lindbergh's were getting "batches" of crazy letters after the crime - some were threatening. But I think what's going on here is a bit of mix-up on the Newspapers part because I have a New York Times article that is much like the one you've linked. What I believe happened was the Constance Letters were compared to a Ransom Note. But the Press confused that Ransom Note with one of the St. John Smith and/or Nettleton Neff letters which were written by the same person, and similar in nature. I say that because I see nothing in the Reports about a letter written to Anne that was compared with the Constance letter - and I believe it would have been all over them if that happened. As to "why" J.P. Morgan had these letters.... The Police were involved, however, the Morrows hired the W. J. Burns International Detective Agency and it appears they were in complete charge as a result. Once their role ended the originals went back to the Morrow Family who then had them secured at J.P. Morgan. What's interesting is that when the FBI approached the Burn Detective Agency in 1934 for their Reports on the matter, they refused to hand them over until they received permission from their "Client." Mrs. Morrow did give them that permission so copies of everything were eventually provided.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2015 8:33:39 GMT -5
But I think what's going on here is a bit of mix-up on the Newspapers part because I have a New York Times article that is much like the one you've linked. What I believe happened was the Constance Letters were compared to a Ransom Note. But the Press confused that Ransom Note with one of the St. John Smith and/or Nettleton Neff letters which were written by the same person, and similar in nature. I say that because I see nothing in the Reports about a letter written to Anne that was compared with the Constance letter - and I believe it would have been all over them if that happened. I think I understand what you are saying here. The press is erroneously reporting the comparison of the Constance ransom note with one of the St. John Smith ransom notes as being a comparison of an Anne Lindbergh threat letter with the Constance note, saying they are the same. That would make sense since they are claiming the wording is so similar in both. I do know that authorities thought the same person who wrote the St. John ransom note also wrote the Constance note. I can see the mix-up occurring as you suggest. You mention the Nettleton Neff notes. I am not familiar with those names. Can you explain who, what, and where on those notes?? Thanks for explaining why JP Morgan had the Constance Morrow ransom notes in their safe. I can understand why the notes ended up there when the authorities no longer needed them. They would be very secure at the JP Morgan building. Do you happen to know where these Constance Morrow notes ended up over time? Are they at the NJSP archives?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 6, 2015 9:50:49 GMT -5
You mention the Nettleton Neff notes. I am not familiar with those names. Can you explain who, what, and where on those notes?? Do you happen to know where these Constance Morrow notes ended up over time? Are they at the NJSP archives? William Wayne Neff (extortion letter written to his Father): news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1913&dat=19280626&id=o4EpAAAAIBAJ&sjid=0mYFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4129,7096523&hl=en (cut and paste entire link, or go to the next page of the paper after clicking what comes up) Constance Morrow: I believe all original letters and documents pertaining to it went back to the Morrow Family. There are copies of the Extortion Letters at the NJSP Archives.
|
|