|
Post by trojanusc on Nov 30, 2019 11:56:52 GMT -5
I assume you're talking about the same $20,000 that Condon saved Lindbergh by bargaining in the cemetery with CJ, who then through his capitulation to Condon's request, basically demonstrated loud and clear here that he was the head guy pulling the strings? Am I missing something here as the facts present themselves or do I need to adopt one of the many alternate universe approaches this discussion board seems to commonly delight in? Yes, the $20K the extortionists said they needed because they took on another person. Also the same $20K Condon managed to magically save Lindbergh, likely once he found out the baby was dead. Also the same $20K that was comprised of the most identifiable bank notes, the exclusion of which upset nearly all law enforcement because it made those who used the notes much harder to track.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 3, 2019 11:30:52 GMT -5
Yes, the $20K the extortionists said they needed because they took on another person. Also the same $20K Condon managed to magically save Lindbergh, likely once he found out the baby was dead. Also the same $20K that was comprised of the most identifiable bank notes, the exclusion of which upset nearly all law enforcement because it made those who used the notes much harder to track. Not to mention its unbelievable. A group of kidnappers who supposedly murdered a child, then continued to lie about that fact in order to extort 70K ... This is the group somehow talked out of an additional 20K because Condon appealed to their emotions concerning their care and concern for Lindbergh's financial well being? Nonsense. Condon warned them that these bills would have led to their eventual demise and/or refused his share as explained in the form of this quick and dimwitted "negotiation" .... Probably both. Condon kept his ear to the ground concerning everything he heard and observed from LE during the course of his involvement. This is clearly evidenced by all of the fantastic stories he told when he incorporated them all into his stories, here and there, in order to make them appear more believable.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Dec 6, 2019 10:03:27 GMT -5
New Idea: The Lindbergh baby was kidnapped on the evening of Tuesday, March 1 at approximately 9 p.m. Everyone knows that the family remained at Hopewell because the baby had a cold. Initially, however, they would have returned on Monday, which would have been Feb. 29, so the family stayed two extra days at Hopewell, not just one. John Douglas reports that on Monday Feb. 29, Anne Lindbergh called Betty Gow "after lunch" and said that the family "would stay at Hopewell until the baby was feeling better." No definite plans to return to Englewood had been made at that point.
So the contact in the Morrow house (whoever that was) could have notified the kidnappers on Monday afternoon that the family was staying in Hopewell, which gives them a day to make tentative plans to snatch the child on Tuesday evening. The plan could have been developed on Monday and not hastily all done on Tuesday afternoon. The opportunity was there, and quite suddenly, but the extra time would help to complete some of the work that needed to be done:
1. The ladder might need to be completed. This could have been done on Monday afternoon.
2. The ransom note needed to be written. This also could have been done on Monday.
3. A New Jersey license plate could have been provided for Hauptmann' car.
4. The women who had agreed to take care of the baby could be notified and make preparations. Arrangements to transport the women to their assigned place could be made along with arrangements to transport the baby there also.
5. Those connected to the plot but not present at the actual kidnapping would have time to make plans to be with other persons on Tuesday night and so have an alibi.
the tentative plans would be drawn up, and it remained only that the word (It's a go) would be sent out and all would proceed accordingly. Hauptmann did not have a telephone, so (if involved) he would check in somewhere to get the message and would know what to do. The "mistake" he made about starting the new job on Tuesday March 1, may have been a part of the ruse
So my suggestion is that activities of all possible suspects (Hauptmann, Sharp, Gow, Fisch, etc. etc.) on the afternoon of Monday, Feb. 29 be studied to determine if they appear to be augmenting the kidnapping plot. Does anyone know if this has been done? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Dec 6, 2019 13:34:24 GMT -5
That timeline works fine, but how did these people know where the nursery was? I don't think it was through outside surveillance, since the house was in the middle of open country back then, for acres around, so where would the kidnappers have hidden to watch the house? Anyway, even if you can get close enough, watching a house will only tell you whether anyone's home; it's pretty useless in determining the interior layout or which room is which.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2019 15:19:18 GMT -5
That timeline works fine, but how did these people know where the nursery was? I don't think it was through outside surveillance, since the house was in the middle of open country back then, for acres around, so where would the kidnappers have hidden to watch the house? Anyway, even if you can get close enough, watching a house will only tell you whether anyone's home; it's pretty useless in determining the interior layout or which room is which. Knowing where the nursery was located was one of the key "must know" things about doing this kidnapping if you are an outsider with no inside help. When you look at overhead pictures of the High Field property, it would have been difficult to get close enough to get any details you would need to be successful without being observed doing it. The U.S. Army did offer their input on possible long distance surveillance locations. Here is a report I found on this. imgur.com/NmHaXE5
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Dec 6, 2019 20:52:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Dec 7, 2019 0:46:18 GMT -5
That timeline works fine, but how did these people know where the nursery was? I don't think it was through outside surveillance, since the house was in the middle of open country back then, for acres around, so where would the kidnappers have hidden to watch the house? Anyway, even if you can get close enough, watching a house will only tell you whether anyone's home; it's pretty useless in determining the interior layout or which room is which. Knowing where the nursery was located was one of the key "must know" things about doing this kidnapping if you are an outsider with no inside help. When you look at overhead pictures of the High Field property, it would have been difficult to get close enough to get any details you would need to be successful without being observed doing it. The U.S. Army did offer their input on possible long distance surveillance locations. Here is a report I found on this. imgur.com/NmHaXE5Exactly, also there's no line of sight from the boardwalk (the way in which we know they approached) into the nursery. Someone would have to step off the boardwalk about 10' to see into the nursery at all and the evidence makes it clear this didn't happen. Kidnapper(s) would have to scale a ladder not knowing whether the room was empty or full of Anne & Lindbergh himself.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 7, 2019 11:05:40 GMT -5
Exactly, also there's no line of sight from the boardwalk (the way in which we know they approached) into the nursery. Someone would have to step off the boardwalk about 10' to see into the nursery at all and the evidence makes it clear this didn't happen. Kidnapper(s) would have to scale a ladder not knowing whether the room was empty or full of Anne & Lindbergh himself. Here is that catch-22 again. It comes back to Lindbergh's rule doesn't it? So the excuse is the culprit surveilled the house in order to know such a rule existed. It can't be from insider information because that upsets this specific narrative. And yet, that rule wasn't observed on the Saturday night preceding the crime so that must absolutely mean they weren't watching on Saturday. So for that theory to work it all just boils down to "luck" regardless of the excuse used to make sense of it. Then we have Lindbergh testifying differently than the rest of the household concerning rules and customs despite words to the contrary in other sources, reports, and documentation. The bottom line is this: If Lindbergh wanted them to stay over at Highfields they were going to regardless. So he was not bound by any timing of events up and until that point where they actually left. So if this is true here, it is true everywhere. So my suggestion is that activities of all possible suspects (Hauptmann, Sharp, Gow, Fisch, etc. etc.)on the afternoon of Monday, Feb. 29 be studied to determine if they appear to be augmenting the kidnapping plot. Does anyone know if this has been done? Thanks. Your interest in wanting to know the what's, where's, and when's about all of the primaries here is a smart position to take. It's Investigation 101. Police generated material about this concerning everyone you mentioned. What the real issue becomes is whether or not these sources can be absolutely trusted. And that isn't a slight toward the investigator(s) .... although it could be one consideration. We have to step back and evaluate the sources then cross reference. Hauptmann, for example, was supposed to be playing soccer on Hunter Island on February 27, 28, and 29th with Emil Mueller. So now the shift needs to be focused on Mueller. Is he trustworthy? Could he be lying? Could he be mistaken? Or was he correct? While police tried to trip him up (although they seemed to believe him), he had a great reputation, wasn't at work on those days, and the guy who he said was also with him backed him up without being sure of the dates. Mueller claimed this was because he didn't want any "trouble" and that makes perfect sense too. But was it true? So you see, nothing is easy. There are conclusions and then there are personal conclusions. But the only way to get there is to ask the exact questions that you are and to keep an open mind where several real possibilities exist. imgur.com/wu1K6HC
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Dec 7, 2019 12:47:18 GMT -5
Thank you so much for your response and your advice. I will work on this approach for a while and see what emerges.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2019 9:24:08 GMT -5
So my suggestion is that activities of all possible suspects (Hauptmann, Sharp, Gow, Fisch, etc. etc.)on the afternoon of Monday, Feb. 29 be studied to determine if they appear to be augmenting the kidnapping plot. Does anyone know if this has been done? Thanks. Your interest in wanting to know the what's, where's, and when's about all of the primaries here is a smart position to take. It's Investigation 101. Police generated material about this concerning everyone you mentioned. What the real issue becomes is whether or not these sources can be absolutely trusted. And that isn't a slight toward the investigator(s) .... although it could be one consideration. We have to step back and evaluate the sources then cross reference. Hauptmann, for example, was supposed to be playing soccer on Hunter Island on February 27, 28, and 29th with Emil Mueller. So now the shift needs to be focused on Mueller. Is he trustworthy? Could he be lying? Could he be mistaken? Or was he correct? While police tried to trip him up (although they seemed to believe him), he had a great reputation, wasn't at work on those days, and the guy who he said was also with him backed him up without being sure of the dates. Mueller claimed this was because he didn't want any "trouble" and that makes perfect sense too. But was it true? So you see, nothing is easy. There are conclusions and then there are personal conclusions. But the only way to get there is to ask the exact questions that you are and to keep an open mind where several real possibilities exist. imgur.com/wu1K6HCI am so glad that you linked Emil Mueller's letter to Gov. Hoffman here on your board. My first "dive" into the Hoffman Collection (which is huge!!) brought this to my attention. I remember feeling shocked and angry when I read this. How was this man not called by Reilly to testify in Flemington to counter Whited's lying testimony. Reilly puts the likes of Phillip Moses with his Will Rogers impersonation on the stand and never calls a good witness like Emil Mueller?!!! This is another example of Reilly helping to convict his own client!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 9, 2019 20:07:50 GMT -5
I am so glad that you linked Emil Mueller's letter to Gov. Hoffman here on your board. My first "dive" into the Hoffman Collection (which is huge!!) brought this to my attention. I remember feeling shocked and angry when I read this. How was this man not called by Reilly to testify in Flemington to counter Whited's lying testimony. Reilly puts the likes of Phillip Moses with his Will Rogers impersonation on the stand and never calls a good witness like Emil Mueller?!!! This is another example of Reilly helping to convict his own client! Someone recently asked me if Emil was related to Hans. My answer is "no" based upon everything there is to consult. It merely appears they met on Hunter's Island and played or watched the soccer games that were going on. Amy, if you think this is upsetting just wait until you get to the last chapter of V3. I always wanted to write up something on each and every "witness" who never testified. Unfortunately, I don't feel that I could do it in good conscience since I don't have access to the Fawcett material. Despite that, there is no doubt in my mind there are names contained in that collection that I've never seen before. But there are some I do know about. Like for example there was a woman who also claimed to have seen Hauptmann in the bakery on March 1st but was too scared to testify. So perhaps I'll bring up what I do know in here, in V4, or something in the future. I'd like to hope one day I will see that collection but at this point - it don't look good. But stranger things have happened so you never know. Speaking of which ... I should be getting some new material soon, so there's definitely new stuff out there to be found!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2019 20:54:59 GMT -5
But there are some I do know about. Like for example there was a woman who also claimed to have seen Hauptmann in the bakery on March 1st but was too scared to testify. So perhaps I'll bring up what I do know in here, in V4, or something in the future. I'd like to hope one day I will see that collection but at this point - it don't look good. But stranger things have happened so you never know. Speaking of which ... I should be getting some new material soon, so there's definitely new stuff out there to be found! In a jail conversation I read between Anna and Richard, Anna mentions receiving a letter from a woman who told her (Anna) that she saw Richard in the bakery. Is this the woman you are talking about? If you want to save that for a future volume, that would be awesome. I am certainly in favor of a Volume 4!!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 9, 2019 21:51:27 GMT -5
The woman’s last name was “Williams.” I’ve always wondered if she was who Anna was talking about but I have no way to know. We can discuss anything so please don’t hold anything back!
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Dec 10, 2019 0:27:24 GMT -5
Also, look how crowded with furniture the nursery was (I may have to post more than once since there are three photos). Someone in the dark, in the country, isolated house, doubt there was much moon light if it was raining, could navigate through a small room (10 X 14) and around all of the furniture, heater, screen, toys, etc.) without bumping into anything, knocking anything over, MAKING NO NOISE??? Look at the bottom right corner of the last photo - you can see the corner of the table in front of the crib and screen. Hardly any room to move toward the crib right there without knocking the screen over. Exactly. It's insane. Then, upon exiting, the kidnapper decides to scale that chest with a suitcase and tinker toys on it, rather than simply pushing it out of the way for a quieter, swifter escape. It, again, makes zero sense... unless you start to realize that things were not as they appeared.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Dec 10, 2019 7:40:37 GMT -5
Emil Mueller would have given Hauptmann an alibi for the dates of Feb. 27, 28, and 29 by stating that he (Mueller), Hauptmann, and one other man were on Hunter Island playing soccer on those days. Soccer is a game played in the late spring and summer, not usually in winter time, especially in the cold temperatures the Bronx and Hunter Island usually experience. Some youth soccer leagues do play in winter, but these are conducted in indoor facilities with a considerably shortened field. Unlike the player of American football, the soccer player wears light clothing and no padding except for shin guards to protect the legs. An additional shirt could be worn, but the player needs to move rapidly, and additional clothing only hamper his movements. It is also dangerous for the soccer player to be playing out in the cold weather for any length of time.
So it is not likely that any official soccer league would plan a tournament in late February in the out of doors. We then need to ask the question whether three men will spend three days kicking the ball around among themselves in a cold field. Not likely. Perhaps a group of men would unofficially do so, but in that case others would have seen Hauptmann on Hunter Island at that time and could also have been able to give Hauptmann an alibi for those days. The players would need an indoor facility at least to warm up frequently. Hunter Island was a place used for summer vacations and not a place for tourists in winter.
Soccer players also need to have two good legs, for running, kicking, dribbling, etc. Some sources indicate that Hauptmann was having problems with one leg at this time. One says phlebitis, another thrombosis. if this is true, then no matter how eager his love for the game, he would not be able to play for any length of time, and he would not have been able to play well. It would be even dangerous for him to participate.
I am not questioning Mueller's intentions, but he may have not remembered the dates correctly. After all, four years had passed, and the third man stated that he could not verify the dates. It's possible also that the three men did take a three day vacation about that time but the soccer story was manufactured so the wives would not know what they were really doing. A hunting expedition at that time would seem to be more credible though.
The photos of Hunter Island available show Hauptmann to be on a beach, enjoying a picnic with friend, all of them in summer. Pictures of Hauptmann and his male friends show them to be what we once called "tight buddies." Almost as if they were members of some fraternal society. I mention this here only because there is one rather strange picture of what appears to be an initiation ceremony held at Hunter Island. Anita Lutzenberg is being initialed into the group. She is holding a shovel and has some contraption circling her head (womb to tomb, birth to death) while Hauptmann and Kloppenburg are holding upright wands. There is something strange in the associations of these individuals, perhaps of an occult or pagan nature, or even sexual.Hunter Island was a gathering place for summer tourists, not really a place for winter sports. it's also quite possible that Hauptmann and friends were not entirely innocent in their use of the place.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 10, 2019 11:02:21 GMT -5
Also, look how crowded with furniture the nursery was (I may have to post more than once since there are three photos). Someone in the dark, in the country, isolated house, doubt there was much moon light if it was raining, could navigate through a small room (10 X 14) and around all of the furniture, heater, screen, toys, etc.) without bumping into anything, knocking anything over, MAKING NO NOISE??? Look at the bottom right corner of the last photo - you can see the corner of the table in front of the crib and screen. Hardly any room to move toward the crib right there without knocking the screen over. Exactly. It's insane. Then, upon exiting, the kidnapper decides to scale that chest with a suitcase and tinker toys on it, rather than simply pushing it out of the way for a quieter, swifter escape. It, again, makes zero sense... unless you start to realize that things were not as they appeared. Both you and Mary make great points. I look at the possible explanation of "surveillance" as explaining "how" they knew where the nursery was and maybe even the possible obstacles to navigate but think that excuse disproves itself. Let's say for arguments sake that Hauptmann bought a high powered telescope like in the report Amy posted about what the Army suggested. (Or maybe he built it himself in the garage LOL). So what does he see? He sees the family never stays over to Tuesday. He sees shutters. He sees Skean in the nursery. So we're supposed to believe that all the intel he gathers gets ignored?
Look, since the beginning of time, crooks hate dealing with dogs. How did "Hauptmann" plan to deal with Skean? Wahgoosh? Dogs bark. Dogs bite. What was the plan? So I look to other examples for the answer: Inside help or drugging the dog. One attempted kidnapping around that time included both an insider and drugging the dog. But to climb the ladder and believing, as previous surveillance would have proven, the dog is laying next to the crib? One might say that he surveilled that night. However, just because he doesn't see the dog at any specific moment does not mean he's not there. Besides, he can't see through the closed shutters. And what's he doing there that night in the first place since that very same surveillance would prove his target should not even be there? Maybe he went to kidnap Whateley? No - because the note proves otherwise. It ALL ties together. The shutters. Again, what was the plan to defeat them without making noise? Alerting Skean? Alerting the child who cried out when anyone except Betty tried to pick him up? Hauptmann, a carpenter, would expect them to be bolted so you tell me. Next, these shutters were closed to stop them from blowing in the wind. Betty said that herself. So once "Hauptmann" gained entrance, did he immediately close them or did he leave them open to bang around? Anyone in the house feel a draft from the window being open? I suppose if they heard no noises from the nursery we can't expect that either.
There is only one thing that "works." An "Inside Connection" explains everything. That the child would be there. That the shutter was warped. That Skean was left behind. etc. etc. etc. And we all know there are a TON of "etcs" to get around as we previously discussed the mud and footprints outside that window - among many other things.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2019 19:32:04 GMT -5
Emil Mueller would have given Hauptmann an alibi for the dates of Feb. 27, 28, and 29 by stating that he (Mueller), Hauptmann, and one other man were on Hunter Island playing soccer on those days. Soccer is a game played in the late spring and summer, not usually in winter time, especially in the cold temperatures the Bronx and Hunter Island usually experience. Some youth soccer leagues do play in winter, but these are conducted in indoor facilities with a considerably shortened field. Unlike the player of American football, the soccer player wears light clothing and no padding except for shin guards to protect the legs. An additional shirt could be worn, but the player needs to move rapidly, and additional clothing only hamper his movements. It is also dangerous for the soccer player to be playing out in the cold weather for any length of time. So it is not likely that any official soccer league would plan a tournament in late February in the out of doors. We then need to ask the question whether three men will spend three days kicking the ball around among themselves in a cold field. Not likely. Perhaps a group of men would unofficially do so, but in that case others would have seen Hauptmann on Hunter Island at that time and could also have been able to give Hauptmann an alibi for those days. The players would need an indoor facility at least to warm up frequently. Hunter Island was a place used for summer vacations and not a place for tourists in winter. Soccer players also need to have two good legs, for running, kicking, dribbling, etc. Some sources indicate that Hauptmann was having problems with one leg at this time. One says phlebitis, another thrombosis. if this is true, then no matter how eager his love for the game, he would not be able to play for any length of time, and he would not have been able to play well. It would be even dangerous for him to participate. I am not questioning Mueller's intentions, but he may have not remembered the dates correctly. After all, four years had passed, and the third man stated that he could not verify the dates. It's possible also that the three men did take a three day vacation about that time but the soccer story was manufactured so the wives would not know what they were really doing. A hunting expedition at that time would seem to be more credible though. The photos of Hunter Island available show Hauptmann to be on a beach, enjoying a picnic with friend, all of them in summer. Pictures of Hauptmann and his male friends show them to be what we once called "tight buddies." Almost as if they were members of some fraternal society. I mention this here only because there is one rather strange picture of what appears to be an initiation ceremony held at Hunter Island. Anita Lutzenberg is being initialed into the group. She is holding a shovel and has some contraption circling her head (womb to tomb, birth to death) while Hauptmann and Kloppenburg are holding upright wands. There is something strange in the associations of these individuals, perhaps of an occult or pagan nature, or even sexual.Hunter Island was a gathering place for summer tourists, not really a place for winter sports. it's also quite possible that Hauptmann and friends were not entirely innocent in their use of the place. So where are you going exactly with this post? Hauptmann and his friends were not playing competitive soccer. They played for enjoyment and friendly competition. Hauptmann did have some health issues with his leg circulation but he was functional. The pictures of him during the summer of 1932 show a physically active Hauptmann. It is possible to kick a soccer ball around in the winter for fun. I think it is very likely that Hauptmann was on Hunter Island in February of 1932. He was only working part time and would have had time to be with his friends. Millard Whited lied about seeing Hauptmann during the month of Feb. 1932 on the Lindbergh property. Mueller should have been called to counter Whited's lies. So, Aaron, I have not seen this strange picture you bring up concerning Anita Lutzenberg with a shovel and Hauptmann and Kloppenburg holding wands. Where did you see this picture? Is it possible for you to post it or link it here?
|
|
ziki
Trooper
Posts: 44
|
Post by ziki on Dec 11, 2019 1:46:48 GMT -5
So where are you going exactly with this post? Hauptmann and his friends were not playing competitive soccer. They played for enjoyment and friendly competition. Hauptmann did have some health issues with his leg circulation but he was functional. The pictures of him during the summer of 1932 show a physically active Hauptmann. It is possible to kick a soccer ball around in the winter for fun. I think it is very likely that Hauptmann was on Hunter Island in February of 1932. He was only working part time and would have had time to be with his friends. Millard Whited lied about seeing Hauptmann during the month of Feb. 1932 on the Lindbergh property. Mueller should have been called to counter Whited's lies. So, Aaron, I have not seen this strange picture you bring up concerning Anita Lutzenberg with a shovel and Hauptmann and Kloppenburg holding wands. Where did you see this picture? Is it possible for you to post it or link it here? Hello Amy, via Google through Anita Lutzenberg I probably found the "strange" photo here murderpedia.org/male.H/h/hauptmann-bruno-photos-1.htm ... I think the wands are just a ring toss game or something like this. :-) And I can also see many quite normal uses for a shovel when being outside to spend the whole day there, maybe narrow the spot for the small burner (primitive BBQ?) or to lie down... I totally agree with your words about soccer. I can add that when playing for fun sometimes even persons with broken leg in cast make goalkeepers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2019 6:52:53 GMT -5
Hello Amy, via Google through Anita Lutzenberg I probably found the "strange" photo here murderpedia.org/male.H/h/hauptmann-bruno-photos-1.htm ... I think the wands are just a ring toss game or something like this. :-) And I can also see many quite normal uses for a shovel when being outside to spend the whole day there, maybe narrow the spot for the small burner (primitive BBQ?) or to lie down... I totally agree with your words about soccer. I can add that when playing for fun sometimes even persons with broken leg in cast make goalkeepers. Awesome post, ziki!! Thank you for finding that picture. I think your interpretation of what it depicts is spot on. Hopefully this will help aaron understand this picture better!
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Dec 12, 2019 8:38:35 GMT -5
In the picture of Anita with group on Hunter Island, there is a strap encircling Anita's face, and the strap is carried down her left arm which is encased. The shovel is old with a jagged edge and probably of not much use. Kleppenburg is carrying a book as well as a wand. The men are casually dressed as for the beach while Anita is wearing a classy outfit and nice shoes that a woman would not wear at the usual beach party. So take another look at this photo! This is NOT your usual beach party. Something else is going on, something important to the parties involved.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Dec 12, 2019 13:01:56 GMT -5
The picture, along with others, can also be viewed here: archive.lib.msu.edu/DMC/tribune/trib09281934/trib09281934038.pdfInterestingly, the "strap" or shadow was removed with 1930s Photoshop in the version linked to above. A caption from another picture indicates the beach party pics were taken in June 1932. No apparent leg or mobility issues evident with BRH in these pics. According to the caption, Anna was in Europe at the time. Anita Lutzenberg was an attractive woman. One caption refers to her as BRH's "girl friend." Was that term the same as "girlfriend" back then?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Dec 12, 2019 17:08:40 GMT -5
In the picture of Anita with group on Hunter Island, there is a strap encircling Anita's face, and the strap is carried down her left arm which is encased. The shovel is old with a jagged edge and probably of not much use. Kleppenburg is carrying a book as well as a wand. The men are casually dressed as for the beach while Anita is wearing a classy outfit and nice shoes that a woman would not wear at the usual beach party. So take another look at this photo! This is NOT your usual beach party. Something else is going on, something important to the parties involved. What? This looks like normal beachwear for the period. Seems just like a group of friends having fun, maybe making a bonfire?
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Jan 1, 2020 6:28:40 GMT -5
New Question: Does anyone know if Hauptmann consulted with the mediums (Mary Cerrita) at the spiritual temple? He may have wanted to consult with the spirit of his hero, Manfred von Richthofen (Red Baron).
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 1, 2020 7:28:15 GMT -5
New Question: Does anyone know if Hauptmann consulted with the mediums (Mary Cerrita) at the spiritual temple? He may have wanted to consult with the spirit of his hero, Manfred von Richthofen (Red Baron). I've never found anything to suggest it.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Apr 19, 2020 13:02:31 GMT -5
I have a question regarding Carl D. Geissler, the son of Carl O. Geissler. Carl D. lived on Decatur Ave. in the Bronx, not far from Dr. John Condon. His father worked for the Max Schling florist company in a managerial position, and Carl D. was also employed there. So Carl D. would have been familiar with the Bronx area near Woodlawn and St. Raymond's cemeteries where Condon met with one of the kidnapping gang. Carl D.'s stepmother was Jane Emily Faulkner who lived at the Plymouth apartments before she married Carl O. Someone used the name of J.J. Faulkner used the Plymouth Apt. address when exchanging nearly $3000. of the Lindbergh ransom money in 1933. These details create some suspicion re: Carl D. I checked in Michael's book and found some information concerning Carl D. but would like to know more about him.
Does anyone know what year Carl D. was born? Where did he live after 1932? Did he get along with his stepmother? Does anyone have information re: his personality? Was he married?
Thanks much for any help you can offer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2020 19:52:31 GMT -5
Welcome to the board metje. Let me go thorough my Geissler file. I think I can answer a few of your questions. I will get back to you unless Michael, or someone else, does so first.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Apr 20, 2020 10:07:40 GMT -5
Thank you for your quick response, Amy. Let me explain my interest in Carl D. Giessler. I just came across pictures of the florist shop where the Giesslers (father and son) worked. The pictures show a group of people, presumably connected to the shop, and one bears a striking resemblance to Charles Lindbergh. At first I though he was actually Charles. Dr. Dudley Schoenfeld, a psychiatrist in NY, was quoted by Jim Fisher in profiling the kidnapper: "The kidnapper would be physically similar to Lindbergh." This man would see Lindbergh as "someone to defeat, outsmart, and humiliate" because he was so successful while the kidnapper occupied a "low station in life" and was "angered and frustrated by his status." Obviously, this is not enough evidence to accuse anyone, but the similarity in appearance one indication. Carl D. lived near Dr. Condon, and one gang member knew Condon or knew of him. Since Carl D. lived near Condon for several years in the Bronx, he would know the area well, which included the two cemeteries used as a meeting point. Actually, the florist shop at which the Giesslers worked maintained one of the cemeteries and planted flowers and shrubs there. So that's the reason for the inquiry about Carl D's personality.
There is a piece missing in the kidnapping puzzle (or more than one), and this could be one of the missing pieces. Thanks much for any help you can find.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2020 10:25:28 GMT -5
Hi Metje,
Here is what I can help you with in regard to the questions you asked:
Carl D. was born December 20, 1905 in Palisade Park New Jersey
As Michael said in his Volume III of TDC, Carl D. lived on Decatur Ave. Bronx in 1929, 1930, and 1931. It appears that 1932 was a transition year for Carl D. According to the FBI, in 1933 Carl D was living in Mount Vernon. New York. The 1940's would see Carl D. and his family move to Painesville, Ohio. Carl D. would pass away there in 1984.
Carl D. was married to Ann E. Marcel on August 17, 1928.
As far as the relationship between Carl D and his step-mother, Jane Faulkner Giessler is concerned, I am not aware if any problems existing between them. Carl D was in his teens (15?) when his father married Jane in 1921.
I have not read all the reports on the Giessler investigation. It is quite an extensive investigation. This is a future archive research project for me. If anything exists in those reports about the personality of Carl D. you might want to ask Michael if the reports contain such information.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 20, 2020 11:55:19 GMT -5
I just came across pictures of the florist shop where the Giesslers (father and son) worked. The pictures show a group of people, presumably connected to the shop, and one bears a striking resemblance to Charles Lindbergh. This is very interesting. I don't believe I've ever seen a picture of him. It's possible and I just forgot but if he looks like Lindbergh I think I'd remember. I have not read all the reports on the Giessler investigation. It is quite an extensive investigation. This is a future archive research project for me. If anything exists in those reports about the personality of Carl D. you might want to ask Michael if the reports contain such information. I have over 10 separate folders filled with information about the Giessler family. That doesn't include information on them spread out among the Hoffman investigators who I have set up individual files on. Since this subject is still somewhat fresh in my mind I can say with a high degree of certainty that they got along fine. I remember when I was writing I thought about possible friction myself. I guess once you hear step-mother there's something that suggests the odds can be higher. Whether or not that's true I don't know but for what its worth it definitely came to my mind as well. Something interesting that I do remember is that Springer wrote Frederick Allis of Amherst College to see if Carl D. ever attended there. He did not.
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on Apr 20, 2020 13:14:35 GMT -5
Thank you, Amy and Michael, for all your information. I will study the data and get back to you if anything new emerges.
The two photos of the Geissler Florist Shop can be found on the internet (Google) using carl geissler lindbergh as the prompt.
These two photos show a man who looks very much like Charles Lindbergh.
|
|