mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jul 30, 2006 21:26:11 GMT -5
Hi Michael~Yours of July 26. It wasn't shaken baby syndrome I had is mind. It was the Rickets I was thinking of-not to rule out unclosed fontanels in a 20 month old (average closure coming at 13.? months). Whether one goes with the 2-section ladder or the 3, in the process the child's head could have been banged against the house or for that matter banged against the side of the ladder. External bleeding or not it's evidence is not in the nursery.In some of the literature with Rickets there can "be fractures without cause". My "cards-on-the-table- theory" is that there was insider help (O. Whateley being my candidate, for now) who handed the child out of the window to the (two section ladder)kidnapper. I believe this transfer could have resulted in the baby's head being banged against something. In reading some on police profiling there was a description of "over-staging" (i.e.falsifying) a crime scene. My thoughts turned to the no fingerprints in the nursery. If Whateley did pass the baby out the window naturally he would have touched things such as opening window and shutters(which might also have served as the"coast is clear" signal). Since the nursery was not his territory and being an amateur he wiped away his fingerprints not thinking that he was also wiping away prints which should have been there. Am inclined to think something about the ladder did make a clatter and may have led to a panic situation which caused the kidnappers to hasten away and abandon the ladder. Or, with the breaks in the ladder perhaps it would no longer have nestled together. As to the sleeping suit being stripped off, the kidnappers may have realized there was something amiss about the child and paused long enough to check him and found him dead or unconscious. The thumbgaurd may have dropped off(unnoticed) when they removed the sleeping suit. Why take the suit? Maybe to prove evidence of possession of the (alive)child? --which worked as we know.~~~I don't believe Hauptman was either the kidnapper or the extortioist. I think he was everlastingly unlucky to end up (unknowingly) with ransom money. I agree with his statement that even with his death the book would never be closed on the case. I also believe Condon falsely identified him which is why Hauptman said Condon held the keys to his cell.
Thanx for bearing with my long post.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 31, 2006 6:23:50 GMT -5
Mairi, how do you see this hand-off occurring? How does one hand a live child out the window to am accomplice on a ladder? Is a bag used ? How do you keep the child silent and still? I have heard the idea of an insider handing out the child before, but you know this actually is a much harder operation then it might appear. With the deep sill and table/ suitcase at that window, it requires quite a bit of upper body strength to hand such a heavy "package" out to a climber. Wouldn't you think the other double hung window or the casement (french) would have been picked if the choice were up to the "insider". You see the dilemma here, that particular window makes sense to pick from an outsider's position given the lock situation, but an insider unconstrained by that condition would naturally pick the window with the least interior obstruction.
Why the "free pass" to Mr Hauptmann? I take it you completely disagree with all of the wood evidence. Can you offer an explanation?
It is always interesting to see how others view these events and thanks to those like you for "putting it on the table". It is really the only way to learn and re-evaluate our positions.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jul 31, 2006 6:27:37 GMT -5
Hi Mairi/ I too have been thinking about the early stages of the kidnap. One thing that comes to mind immediately, often overlooked, is that Condon says at least twice that Charlie was "handed out the window to the person/carpenter on the ladder"? How does he know this? This brings up again the whole issue of insider help and assistance from the Morrow/Lindbergh servants. This is a big problem for us the solvers and the family itself. If in fact the families have insiders willing to aid and abet criminals to steal thier kids==then why bury your heads in the sand unless you know all this already. It was said that Violet Sharpe would have been fired for calling a news reporter if she hadnt committed suicide? Apparently, she was in contact with too many men, or too many men were in contact with her realizing she was the weakest link to gain information about Charlie/ BUT, CAL didnt want his own servants interviewed to find out who handed the baby out the window and scrubbed the nursery clean as a whistle? DYBT? 1 + 1 = 3.174
|
|
|
Post by EMM on Jul 31, 2006 8:28:16 GMT -5
I have been lurking here for months and sat quietly, but I'm sleep deprived and weak and wanted to throw this out there. We've discussed paregoric before on Ronelle's board. It was very commonly used for children to settle upset stomachs and quiet coughs (Charlie had had a cold?). It was an opiate and I can vouch for it's ability to render one almost unconscious (and that was just with the small dose that my pediatrician would prescribe). Not sure about the 30s, but I know it was very available in the 50s and maybe even into the 60s. I wish we had a way of knowing if Anne or Betty kept some available (not that it couldn't have been administered by the "insider" after Betty left the room and Anne was bathing). Not sure a bag would have been necessary in that case (I wouldn't have wanted one, so I could make sure where body parts were - wouldn't want his head clunking on the newel post or anything else to cause damage!). Sorry for jumping in here, but it's something to think about - no?!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 31, 2006 9:51:59 GMT -5
Even still Joe, I don't see how you can conclude from what Condon said to Turrou, despite when that he was 90% sure Hauptmann was John. When someone says it was not him, under any circumstances, its hard to assign any weight to a later identification made - especially after being placed under duress.
What you are doing is called observational selection, something we all do at times, but in this spot it doesn't work. You have to address that he said it was not him but you don't seem to be doing that here. If you say he was 90% sure then he is lying when he tells Turrou this. And of course if he's lying - why? And under what other circumstances is he willing to lie?
If you'd like I could give you a run-down of the dates and comments Condon made in order but I personally don't think its important based upon what I've written above.
Naturally I disagree with this notion. A lie or a misrepresentation of facts is an understanding that extends well beyond the 19th Century. A Bronx-Grand Juror (May '32) said Condon was evasive and lying because he was worried about incriminating himself. Schwarzkopf himself made the same observations.
It was "spin" now the only alternative explanation I can see is (besides being somehow involved) is to protect himself from being killed by the Kidnappers and/or crossing over one of the imaginary "legal lines" in doing so.
I am curious to know why he tops your list of suspects. I think there is a book which names him but I don't have it - which ever one it is...
I think I speak for everyone here when I say we welcome the thoughts and ideas....for me - that's the whole idea behind the message board concept and/or round-table discussions. Thanks for posting!
The idea of a paregoric is an interesting one. Of course if this happened the child would have had to take it willingly... this would mean someone in the house did it but didn't tell the Police.
Along similar lines, a kidnapping case in Jersey which happened very shortly after this crime mentioned their watch-dog acting as if it had been "doped." I think our watch-dog here, Wahgoosh, is out of the picture either accidentally or by design. But if it were an "accident" how does one suppose these "Kidnappers" were willing to deal with this major problem?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jul 31, 2006 11:04:17 GMT -5
Hi again~ Yes, I think the burlap bag was probably used to pass the child out the window. To keep the child from crying out a simple solution is to put a gag in the child's mouth. Paregoric is a possible, though that would take some longer to take effect (if the insider help used it) and I'm guessing haste was very much at play. I'm not sure I see great difficulty in leaning over a suitcase to pass the child out the window. I can't tell you why, but I find myself visualizing something of a swinging motion in the transfer- perhaps because of where I go with the ladder being placed. I have no impressions of why the other window wasn't used or what possible obstacles may have been at play, there. In the earlier years of reading about the case, I did think BRH was involved. but as time went on, I changed my thinking. This had alot to do with the wrongful actions of the police and prosecution, the tampering with evidence. I also believed BRH's witnesses and the threats they were subjected to , the lying of the prosecution witnesses. The fact that the newspaper published about the serial numbers of the ransom money makes it hard for me to believe BRH knew he had ransom money and then passed the bills. I also have the strong feeling that the attic board/ladder rail was later rigged. The police had custody of it as well as Hauptman's tools. Bornman's activities in that attic are highly suspect to me. Hauptman had no one to defend him--Reilly thinking he was "guilty as hell". The prosecution hiding evidence, blocking the defense from proper or any access to vital evidence. And as earlier mentioned, I strongly believe Condon falsely identified BRH. I'm not as well read on the LKC as many of you are and some day I may find I am wrong as can be in my beliefs, but this is where I am on it, for now.~~~~~Thanx for your replies. P.S. Michael~I think O. Whateley comes to mind, in part, becase of the 5 adults there, I don't see his whereabouts being as clearly defined. There is also something about his association with that odd Cerrita church that nags at me. Though I must say I find it hard to sift fact from rumour, with that.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 skeptic5 on Jul 31, 2006 11:18:36 GMT -5
From the back benches I think Condons CJ descriptions bordered on the absurd. Dont forget the Scandanavian seamen? Heres just another laughable Jafsieism: New York Times Dec 19,1932. Headline.....Queried and Freed in Lindbergh Case! Akron Ohio Police had told New Jersey Officials "He" Looked like Man Described by Condon? William Leonard Stoltz, an unemployed laborer of Sheboygan WI spent all day at police Hqtrs. anwering questions about his whereabouts on the nite of the snatch. In the evening he was released. (no age/no weight/ no complexion/ national origin etc) Ricks query: "which description did Lenny fit" ....when Det. Bornmann arrived he brought with him samples of the handwriting in several of the notes believed to have been written by the kidnapperS of the Child. lennys did not match? SO, IN SUMMARY: its not the physical descriptiln that gets Lenny offen the hook, its his handwriting? DYBT?This is so reminescent of the Sleeping Suite Saga....why isnt the complex symbol good enought to win the ransom??? These boneheads are giving the Keystone Cops a bad name?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Jul 31, 2006 11:39:05 GMT -5
By attempting to establish exactly what Condon told Turrou at their Sept. 20 meeting immediately following the failed identification, selective observation is exactly what I'm trying to avoid. And I'm also trying to avoid any subsequent selective interpretation of what was said.
In my opinion, there is a key potential red flag raised by Condon's purported remark, which indicates to me he may well have been saying one thing, while being plagued with some other agenda, whether unscrupulous or not, at a deeper level. When I think of this as a possibility, it brings to mind CJ's question to Condon about whether or not he would burn if the baby is dead and then doing an immediate about face and reassuring Condon the baby was well.
Please understand I'm not harping here, it's just that when the information is available, I prefer to work with the straight facts before proceeding any further. Dissecting Condon's motivations and actions is a far more complex situation, involving one very mercurial personality, than establishing straight ownership of a piece of physical evidence like Rail 16 or the ransom notes.
What I would like to know is and Michael, I'm hoping you or someone else knows the answer, did Condon at the Sept. 20 meeting, express concern to Turrou that his life was in danger from Hauptmann's accomplices?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jul 31, 2006 22:50:56 GMT -5
Kevkon~ You asked why not the other window in the nursery. Your question has set me to pondering . Was the "other" window locked? If so then wouldn't the accompanying outside ladder evidence then have made it clear that there had to be someone inside to have unlocked that window? I don't know if it was locked. Maybe you can help me there. Thanx
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 1, 2006 5:58:01 GMT -5
Joe, I'll try to map out what Condon said when. Obviously my main problem was the assertion of 90% certainty. Condon even went so far as to say Hauptmann had different eyes etc. And that's not to mention Condon previously identifying, or, with about 90% certainty identifying - others who didn't look a thing like him.
Also, I have read and been on a quest to support the post I wrote from my notes concerning the 15" offset concerning the ladder. I am still working on finding the sources for it.
Mairi, its a good observation that Whateley was off on his own during the time-frame in question. I think its a good of reason as any to suspect someone if you believe there was insider help. The other question you ask Kevin is about the windows.... According to Bornmann's trial testimony the French Windows were closed but not locked, however, the shutters were closed and were locked.
Now its important to note that trial testimony of the Police (and others) is sometimes at variance with their reports and other documentation which leads me to the irresistible conclusion they weren't always being 100% truthful on the stand. Not all did this, but it seems they were all prepped to gear their testimony to reflect a "one-man job" so as not to "confuse" the jury.
Its one of those things I say is important to note, and to cross-reference so that we simply don't accept one thing and disregard another. Then afterwards we try to determine what the true situation really was. Personally I don't see the point in saying the window wasn't locked but the shutter was - the point being there was a lock obstructing the entrance of a "Kidnapper(s)" and as Kevin has correctly pointed out - neither of which would have been an easy task to get past.
It doesn't happen on this board, but beware of those who make unsupported claims and apply labels to those whose opinions differ. I have seen some few say this about something they haven't even seen to evaluate. I have seen people take source pieces of material, and are so desperate to be "right" actually say it says something it clearly does not - even go so far as to quote someone in it who didn't even say what's quoted. Its a sad state of affairs to bear witness to this.
One individual who often attempts to use the "The Preacher's 'We'" technique - can't even get that right and perverts it into his own little weird style that is quite dysfunctional. Watch out for the ugly labels such as "innuendo" ... the implication is that if you disagree you are simply relying on imaginary evidence... of course don't ask if they've researched the point themselves to the logical conclusion because your question will be evaded - of course.
Moving along in this rant to Keraga's report. Again, its a good piece of work with many sections. Some sections are simply more solid then others, in my opinion, and they all seem to rely upon each other in order for Keraga to draw his conclusion. It's my position that concluding what he does is based upon innuendo and certain mistakes, lack of further research, and/or dismissal of further evidence. Thankfully, there is a group of us that is willing to continue on and search for what fits in with all of the evidence and not just what we like it to fit.
Now I think, if not dismissing the Electrician cutting that board away - its pretty damned obvious that if Rail 16 did come from that attic Hauptmann didn't remove if from there. We can thank both Kevin and Rab for having the drive to bring this to light.
My point being - never let anyone intimidate you from resolving a question and/or problem you see with something involving this case. Never sell yourself short based upon what someone else is trying to insinuate about you - It just might be they are the ones who it applies to the most.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 1, 2006 6:41:14 GMT -5
Mairi, from one of Kelly's NJSP photos the Northeast DH window is unlocked and partially open. As for the French window, I don't know as it depends on which version you listen to. In any case it is easy enough to re-lock a window or shutter. Bottom line for me is that I would bet the farm that anyone inside that room who wanted to pass an " object" out to a person on a ladder would choose the Southeast window last. As I said before, maneuvering over the table, suitcase, and radiator cover in order to pass a heavy and bulky object to someone waiting on a ladder is no easy task. I am a big fan of re-enactment and I hope you try this with some props to see for yourself. I wish more people with "theories " (including some authors) would try out their ideas personally when possible. In addition to learning, it gives you a freedom from the type of misinformation that Michael refered to. Personally I feel that the child was dead before leaving that room as a result of a gag- hold or improper chloroform dosing, but can you imagine trying to hand out a live 1 yr old this way? Dead or alive, the kidnappers with a man (or woman) on the "inside" would have an easier and safer experience by dropping the child out the window to a confederate below rather than all of the aerial ladder/window acrobatics.
As for the wood evidence against Hauptmann, I agree that a fair bit of deceit was involved. I don't think that is completely uncommon in criminal prosecutions. But that really doesn't negate the reality of it. There is just too much to dismiss there.
|
|
|
Post by Perched Perch on Aug 1, 2006 12:45:49 GMT -5
Joe, I hate to harp on this point, but I'm not sure you actually read all of Riehl's statement. You wrote: "From Riehl's vantage point coming up to the gate, I theorize the figure he saw on top of the stone column was not CJ, but an accomplice, quite possibly Fisch. There is a front and back to the top portion of the stone column, and I believe Condon, on the outside, may not have even noticed this figure, who would have been partially concealed to him. Riehl, approaching from inside the cemetery and who was obviously focussed on this figure on high, may not have even seen CJ period, who at the same time, was talking to Condon through the bars of the fence some distance away, at ground level." Riehl stated: "I left the Main entrance gate to arrive at Van Cortlandt gate I observed a man sitting on top of the stone column of the gate, talking to the other fellow who was on the outside of the gate, and the man sitting on the column seen me I was then about 75 feet away from him. He hollered to the other man who was on the outside of the gate (There's the Cop coming) the other man did not answer at all, the fellow on the top of the column then jumped down and I thought he had broke his leg, when he got up, he ran across 233rd Str., into the Park and disappeared..." So, Riehl's complete statement of July 19th, 1932 doesn't support your theory. You said Condon didn't see the man on the column and Riehl states that Condon (or whomever it was standing outside the gate) was talking to the guy on the column. Besides, how could Condon miss the guy jumping down and running across the street? Sorry...
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Aug 1, 2006 14:08:17 GMT -5
Just found Gow's statement that all the shutters were locked , except the warped one. I may not have been clear on the point I was previously trying to make. Say the "other" window was used, there will be ladder evidence outside it, i.e. indentations on the ground and perhaps marks on the wall. Having to unlock those shutters (whether afterward being relocked or not) would that not be indicative of insider help? And wouldn't the "insider" have known that? Now the glitch in my thinking is if the traditionally "assigned" kidnap window was locked(?) Will have to do some more searching! Kevkon~I don't have any real problem with the possibility that the child may have been dropped (accidentally, in my view) from the window hand off. I often see reports of the ground underneath being undisturbed, but I wonder if that was actually the case. I think of the prompt arrival of the great numbers of people trampling around the crime scene. Also what's to say the child didn't hit the boardwalk described as being under the window? I see that you and Michael feel that the child was dead before being removed from the nursery. I'm wondering why the kidnapper would inflict (multiple head ) injuries to the child (and to use the time to do so) while still inside? Would you mind elaborating? Thanx
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 1, 2006 16:38:02 GMT -5
Mairi, sorry but I am not sure I understand your point regarding the windows. If there was any evidence of a different ladder position I am unaware of it. And it is hard to believe that the ladder could be positioned without leaving some trace on the ground. My point is simply that an insider would have chosen the SE window last as it poses the most obstruction. Remember the two East side windows are double hung type, so the clear opening is about half of the window size. I would still strongly encourage you to try out part of your theory with a weighted bag. You may find something everyone has missed or be able to refine your theory. Anyway you will know first hand and not have to rely on what others tell you ( including me ) I can't speak for Michael but I feel it would be pretty difficult to take a live 1 yr old out of that room without a lot of noise and clamor. Just seeing my 1 yr old nephew the other week reinforced that view ( and then some !). Then ( depending on one's view) the descent down the ladder would be a real trip. As for the skull fractures, I don't know. Could they have been caused later? I mean the autopsy wasn't exactly a model of great forensic pathology. Perhaps Michael has a more informed opinion on the nature of the child's death, I just stongly doubt a living 1 yr old was carried out of that room.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Aug 1, 2006 18:30:25 GMT -5
Thanx for your reply~Choosing the unlocked, warped shutter window is the one which wouldn't reveal "insider" help. 'Twould seem as if only an outside kidnapper had done it all by himself. Wish I could reenact lifting a 30lb burlap sack. Being disabled, my best reenactments come with lifting my morning cuppa coffee and carrying a can of food to the porch for my kitty cat. . Haven't climbed a ladder in a long time . Happily I think I can soon come by several LKC books . I really look forward to seeing what answers I can dig out. 'Tis an almost addictive subject, huh?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 skeptic5 on Aug 1, 2006 20:54:48 GMT -5
Staying within the confines of Dave Wilintzs closing arguments with regards to Charlies accident at this point is ludicrous. The final outcome wont resemble that fairy tale in any way shape or form.
1. The multiple head injury gambit surely favors Auntie Elizabeth cracking Charlies skull in the yard. But all the blood evidence was wash away by the imaginary inside cleaners.
2. Smootherd w/ the ransom note? Nope, it was on the window sill.
3. Stabbed with the chisel in the Nursery? Nope...it was outside on the lawn.
4. Fell off the ladder and bumbed his head? No evidence for a fall or blood in the burlap.
5. Shot in Mercer County with the Lilliput revolver causeing skull bruses as per Dr. Mitchell? Still fully in play since the gun was discovered with the ransom. Joyce Milton reports BRH shot some kid?
6. Fell out of Paul Wendels bed and cracked his ricketed skull? Still in play until I finish Master Detective.
7. Add to that any childhood skull fractures involveing soft fontanelles youve every heard of...I once pulled a telephone off a high shelf requiring numerous stiches. Havent been right since/
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Aug 1, 2006 21:23:38 GMT -5
Rick~ good point on Weasel Wilenze's version of things!! Good point, indeed!!
;DIt's probably the telephone that broke, huh ;D?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Aug 2, 2006 6:27:45 GMT -5
Hi Perch, yes I have a copy of the Zaposlky report containing Riehl's account. There are a number of details here that don't mesh in terms of the descriptions of people and actions that I assume would have been more in synch with Condon's account of the event, if he truly had been alone with CJ. Of course, I don't believe CJ and Condon were alone during this initial encounter.
For what it's worth, here's what I think are the basic underpinnings that explain some of the discrepancies in this situation and my own read on what actually happened.
Riehl approaches the Van Cortlandt Gate from inside the cemetery and from about 75 feet away, his attention is drawn to the figure on top of the 14' high entranceway stone column. At this point, he does not notice anyone else.
I think it's important here to recognize Condon makes no reference to seeing anyone on a stone column. His attention is first drawn to and then held by the handkerchief-waving figure standing on the ground behind the iron fence, ie. CJ.
Condon describes CJ as being in his early 30's, about 5' 9" in height, weight about 160 lbs, good build, grey pants, dark spring overcoat worn loose, dark greyish-brown fedora hat.
Riehl describes the man on top of the stone column as being about 23 or 24 yrs. old, 130 to 135 lbs., 5" 6" or 7" in height, wearing dark pants, a white shirt, and a cap.
Riehl believes it's the man on the stone column who yells "There's the cop coming." but it is CJ who has now been alerted by the approaching Riehl, who actually yells this. Condon is surprised by CJ's sudden outburst, watches him clamber over the iron fence and take off towards Van Cortlandt Park. Condon then turns his attention back to the approaching Riehl.
In the meantime, the man (Cap) on top of the stone column jumps down to the left of the main entranceway, the only direction he can go which lands him outside the cemetery. This leap is seen by Riehl, but unnoticed by Condon who is not in direct line of sight to see Cap.
When Riehl asks Condon what's going and who Cap was, Condon believes he's talking about CJ and placates Riehl by telling him he'll try to find out. Condon of course has no intention of returning to Riehl and takes off in pursuit of CJ. The other figure, Cap, unseen by Condon, disappears into the night and "hangs around" in the background.
I may be wrong but I think what we have here is a very unusual case of "mistaken identity," involving two separate individuals. The two descriptions afforded by Condon and Riehl just couldn't be farther apart.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 2, 2006 6:40:21 GMT -5
Sorry to hear of your disability Mairi. Perhaps you can press a friend into action here.
As for the "insider theory" and the warped shutter, it is one of those things that depends upon one's point of view. I happen to be of the opinion that there was no active inside participation in the kidnapping. I simply see no compelling evidence to suggest such aid. I suppose that puts me in the minority here. But what ever your position on the subject of an inside accomplice, I think you can look at the same evidence and come to a very different conclusion. For example, had there not been a "warped shutter" and all three pairs been bolted we would expect a visible sign of forced entry, IE; broken shutter or latch at one of the windows, However would that prove to everyone's satisfaction that a forced entry did in fact occur? I think not as there would still be a possibility that the damage was created to make it look like an unassisted entry. Such is the nature of this case. The same holds true for the child's death. Accidental drop? Possibly. Murderous blow to the head? Possibly. I guess it depends on the prejudice we all carry around . All I know is that the ladder is climbable and if properly deployed it is capable of providing entry and egress to the Nursery via the SE window. And there was no apparent damage found to the house, ground, or ladder that indicates a fall.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 skeptic 5 on Aug 2, 2006 7:49:17 GMT -5
Hi Mairi, someone said that Agatha Christies Murder on the Orient Express was based upon the LKC. There 10-12 persons kill the unlucky victim.
This could be in play here too? CAL has been popping IT with pillows. And Anne has been throwing pepples up against Charlies windows, rather coincidentally from the ladder base sidewalk. Isnt that dangerous too? How can a 2 year olde see his Mom down there without leaning too far out the window? Whoops!
|
|
|
Post by Perch on Aug 2, 2006 8:46:57 GMT -5
Joe, I take back what I said about his statement not supporting your theory. Now that you've explained it further it could be that you're on to something! Thanks for the clarification.
|
|
|
Post by mjrichmond on Aug 2, 2006 11:32:44 GMT -5
<<<My "cards-on-the-table- theory" is that there was insider help (O. Whateley being my candidate, for now)>>> Mairi
Why Whateley?
Mjr
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Aug 2, 2006 17:13:27 GMT -5
Rick~ You are making the pebble tossing event much harder than it really has to be. It doesn't matter where she stood to take aim. (she probably "threw like a girl" anyway!) So she steps back to where she can wave at the baby. And the child doesn't have to be HANGING out the window! Rest easy about the pebble
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Aug 2, 2006 18:13:55 GMT -5
OK folks/ reality check/ in your entire lives who: gave a buddy kerosene to drink? Pours water on his wives satin dress at a cocktail party and calls his first borne son "IT"?
Three questions:
1. Jafsie Condon contacts CAL at the very same time Paul Wendel contacts Ellis Parker? (within the first week after the kidnap) Just another coincidence or do they both know the Mastermind?
2. The symbol/ I have only seen a few representations of the ransom note symbol: NYTimes May 14th 1932; Jersey Journal by Walsh November 15th 1932; and the cover of Kidnap by Waller (1961). All three are drawn wrong in showing the outer holes "inside the circles"? Whos misleading whom? This is pretty dumb/ any ulterior motive at play here?
3. Walsh writes..."The Colonel told us he had been out for a time that afternoon and he returned by auto about 8pm"? Out from where? {sounds like Jafsie-speak}
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 2, 2006 19:31:17 GMT -5
Line-Up in the Office of the Second Deputy Police Commissioner 156 Greenwich Street, NYC - 5:30PM September 20, 1934.
Page 195:
Inspector Lyons: Would you say this was the man? Condon: I would not say he was the man.
L: You are not positive? C: I am not positive.
L: Do you recognize the voice? C: The voice was husky. I'd like him to say this quick. When it is a man's life gentlemen, I want to be careful. May I write something?
Page 199:
Inspector Lyons: Is that the man? Condon: He is the one who would come nearer to answering the description then anybody I saw. You gave me no hint and I picked him out. He is a little heavier. Can I go over and talk to him? -- I couldn't say he is not the man.
L: It looks like him? C: Yes.
L: But you cannot identify him? C: No, I have to be very careful. The man's life is in Jeopardy.
Turrou's book has a different version to tell.... One that involves Condon acting like a nut and Lyons getting angry about it and telling him to quit stalling (WMSF p124). On this same page Condon proclaims he won't identify an innocent man and claims Hauptmann is not the man.....
Although it does not appear that way to me (from either source), according to Special Agent Turrou this was supposed to have represented a "tentative identification" of Hauptmann as he notes in his report concerning what Condon said to him after this line-up until midnight as they sat together. According to the report Condon attempts to gain information about Hauptmann....how much money was found, and other things relative to Hauptmann's arrest - etc.. Turrou claims he would give Condon no information.
As the report goes on....Condon tells Turrou that he "could never forget the features and the accent of the man to whom he had talked at Woodlawn Cemetery on several occasions." He said that certain words Hauptmann was asked to say "were pronounced" by him "in the same way as he had heard John say them when he talked to him at the cemetery." Condon "several times boasted to me of the remarkable memory he possessed and that he could never make an error in identification."
As the evening went on....(9:30PM) Condon tells Turrou "his life now wasn't worth five cents; that 'They' are going to kill him." He added that he was glad, however, that the case was finally solved. He said he was aware of the fact that numerous insinuation were cast to the effect that he, Dr. Condon, received a part of the Lindbergh ransom money, and that he was further accused of withholding the real truth from the authorities investigating the case." From the tone of this Turrou took it to mean that Condon "had picked Hauptmann out of the line-up as the man he knew as John." "In a subsequent conversation, however, he indicated that he was not going to identify the man because he was doubtful whether Hauptmann was John."
"He remarked on one occasion that Hauptmann is not the man because he appears to be much heavier, has different eyes, different hair, etc., and that he must be a brother of John."
On October 4th, Turrou again spoke to Condon who told him that Inspector Bruckman was trying to arrange another meeting between he and Hauptmann to make another effort for him to identify Hauptmann as John. Condon told Turrou he wanted nothing to do with the Police because of the "insinuations reflecting upon his (Dr. Condon's) character, and particularly so since the time he failed to positively identify Hauptmann when confronted with him at the time of his arrest."
Then, Dr. Condon told Turrou that "in view of the many courtesies shown to him by this office during the entire course of the investigation he desires to give this office the credit of bringing about the identification of Hauptmann." Condon then advised Turrou that "he studied the photograph of Isidor Fisch which appeared in the newspapers and that it is his belief now that when on March 12, 1932 he went to meet "John" at the Woodlawn Cemetery he saw a party strongly resembling the features and description of Isidore Fisch pass the car in which he and Al Reich were sitting."
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Aug 2, 2006 19:51:37 GMT -5
Michael/ someone, maybe Harry Walsh opined that only two persons, Condon and Lupica, actually laid eyes on the putative kidnapper. Likely true/
Both had huge problems with the certainty of thier identification. Both were asked, "Well, if you cant say BRH is the man, can you say for certain he is NOT the man?" This serves best to highlight the weakness of eyewithness testimony.
Ben Lupica testified for the Defense--a 50/50 split.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 2, 2006 23:09:52 GMT -5
WHY WHATELY?
Besides the rumors and the undetermined sightings (Birratella's Church, Ice cream parlour with Eddie cantor, tours for strangers etc etc etc.) lets look at certain suspicious script on him. #1. Demerus writes Lindbergh suggested that Whately should secure all the windows because of the weather. #2. Gow and Else in the bedroom looking at this dress. Charles and Anne either in the library or living room. Only Whately can tell where he was when. #3. According to Behn, Olly went on this stroll that found the thumbguard with Betty and Else. #4. Curtis accounts that Whately seemed extremely nervous on his visit to see Lindbergh.
These are only reasons to be suspicious not proof of guilt. I've often wondered if his ulcer infection had something to do with the worry this case could put on someone if he kept secrets or guilt. The police and most of the investigators at the time felt strongly there was definite inside help. Sometimes the earliest perceptions can be important . If there was can you really believe the likes of Ellerson or Sharp to be able to give the intricate details IN the house?
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 2, 2006 23:29:40 GMT -5
Perched Perch,
Keep in mind the coughing of CJ and the enlarged thumb of CJ.
Someone brought up before, it doesn't take a sharp eye to see a very unusual thumb on Fisch in a photo in Gardner's book (photo titled Fisch and unknown woman).
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 3, 2006 16:20:37 GMT -5
Unfortunately I don't think my position would be any more informed then the next guy (or gal). I've read Dr. Baden's article, Anne's diaries, and studied the various aspects of the case like we all have. For me it just makes the most amount of sense.
I believe he was probably smothered. Possibly on purpose or to keep him from crying out as he would have unless Betty was the one to pick him up. In my opinion, the fractures were most likely created after death. I won't say they couldn't have been before-hand but I am convinced there would have been blood in that sack if in fact it occurred that night.
I am in total agreement with Kevin that a live kicking and screaming toddler confined within this bag did not occur.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 skeptic5 on Aug 3, 2006 16:55:55 GMT -5
kevin / the JonBenet Ramsey case remains a good study in crime for me:
1. Maybe the 10 year olde son bashes JB's head with golf club? 2. parents cover it up with ransom note and faked kidnapping? 3. Patsy is only one not absolved of writing the ransom note with pen and paper from kitchen> Mom is not "excluded"? 4. Garrott comes from Moms paint box? 5. the body is down in the basement behind the heater? 6. Family has gazillion bucks and special treatment? No interviews. 6. If an unemployed drifter like lenny Stoltz from Sheboygan WI gets fried......so what? 7. Mom dies of cancer.
|
|