|
Post by Michael on Aug 10, 2006 17:59:56 GMT -5
Do we really know this to be true? Additionally, may they have benefited if the course of action by the Police were different? Do you see my point?
I think it was a little less then 6 months.
Late July until CAL and Anne returned from their trip.
Approx. 3 miles.
There's absolutely no evidence they gave tours. All people who entered the house were there by invite or to perform a job. Any strangers were thrown off the property.
As first noted in Dr. Gardner's book, the Contractor told the NJSP the shutter was not warped.
This is nonsense Rick. There is no evidence Hauptmann rented an apartment anywhere. If Joe has a source other then Allen then I am all ears.
Just know that I have every confiscation form and chain of custody form involving every scrap of property taken from Hauptmann, his home, his locker at Dixon's Boat House, and his property found buried on Hunter's Island. It's not there and even if it were somehow omitted from these reports - the Police would have been all over it. They investigated everything he had with phone numbers, names, and places. They visited and interrogated with full reports attached... sometimes numerous overlapping investigations were conducted.
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Aug 10, 2006 19:27:58 GMT -5
I thought Cal and Anne returned from their trip in Oct when Dwight sr died?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Aug 12, 2006 18:14:02 GMT -5
The question may not be whether Hauptmann actually rented the apartment, but what his intentions for it were, if in fact he did plan to do so. Before I go too far down some dark road here, have you positively concluded there was no application for an apartment in Hauptmann's possessions?
From what I recall, an application was found, one made out by a "Mr. Lynch" and "Mr. Jones."
Given the ultimate desire of authorities to prosecute Hauptmann as a lone perpetrator, can we afford to simply dismiss the possibility an apartment had been applied for because no catalogued reference exists?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 13, 2006 11:44:35 GMT -5
According to Gow's statement Mrs. Morrow brought her back to Englewood in October.
I trust and appreciate your instincts Joe. Its for that reason I have consulted the absolute best person in the world as it relates to addresses, dates, people, and places concerning this case.
But in the meantime....
Its my experience something like this would have been inventoried and investigated. Items such as the Fisch letter and ledgers were seized but with-held from the defense. The "Lone-Wolf" wasn't developed or planned for until it was obvious Hauptmann was going down with the ship.
As late as November the Police were conducting an exhaustive investigation into the possibility Hauptmann & Sharp knew each other.
Now this application...where was it found? Who found it?
I have found several items here and there in folders and files that, to a novice or untrained researcher, would be misconstrued. (And its a category we all start out in). For example, I found an item in Mueller's file which obviously wasn't his, however, if I am new at this then I might be shouting at the roof-tops I found something important.
That's not to say it isn't, but I know enough, despite finding it where I did, not to say its attributable to him.
Anyway, I will share what I learn when I hear back...and you better believe if I am somehow wrong then I won't hesitate to declare it.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 skeptic4 on Aug 13, 2006 12:22:38 GMT -5
Hi Michael: thanks for searching your files.........
1. Where did the rumor start that BRH had phlebitis anyways? Maybe it was to support the limp he acquired falling off the ladder and jumping off the pillars at Woodlawn?
2. Are you answering Bob's question? Are you answering No--that CAL and Anne returned when Betty demanded and not when Dwight kicked it?
3. Please dispel the image I hold that someone hid Charlie over at the rented farmhouse on Mt. Rose Hill and later Jr. was moved to Hopewell-Princeton Road? What kind of homicidal maniac would dump a babys body out of a burlap sack and then leave the bag along the road as a marker? Not too many sane ones I presume?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 13, 2006 17:07:20 GMT -5
Dr. Otto H. Meyers diagnosed Hauptmann as having Varizen leitchte Phlebitis, Fuesse schwell manchmal an (Vericose Veins). He was treated several times. Ella Achenback did she him limp only it was in '33. The idea was to associate the limp, not vericose veins, but with a bad leg injury from a fall off of the ladder.
Just answering Bob. Betty was simply doing what any employee would do here. They said go to Maine and she went. They said come to Englewood and she did. It happened to be on those dates and seems to be more about when Anne was home.
A&M first made the point concerning the body being found and the location of the Mount Rose place. I don't know that anyone ever claimed it was hidden there though. Interesting enough, I don't recall seeing a report outlining a search of those premises.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Aug 14, 2006 7:52:04 GMT -5
Regarding the apartment rental application, I'm going to hold off on this for now, as there are some key points about its discovery which I had not realized. I'll add more to this subject as soon as I can.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 13, 2006 16:38:47 GMT -5
A while ago someone brought up that several items were found near Highfields as possibly relating to Charles Jr. and I promised if I found the report I would post it. It's been a while and I can't remember if it was MJR, Mairi, or Kathy.... Anyway, I found the report and wanted to honor my promise:
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 16, 2006 19:10:33 GMT -5
I ran across some of Harold Fisher's notes and thought it a very interesting position concerning the baby's death.... In case you don't know who Fisher was.... He was a special Attorney whose job it was to exploit "grey areas" of law and find his way "around" certain laws. Despite all of those Attorneys already on the books for the State, it was his work, bought and paid for by the people of NJ, to charge Hauptmann with common law Burglary and the death in the commission of. And so these notes appear to be in response the the Defense appeal - specifically involving the whereabouts of the child's death, therefore, the improper venue and improper sentence of death: The presumption arising from the finding of the dead body, a presumption is of no evidentially value, and once there is the slightest evidence to overcome such a presumption, it ceases to exist. The presumption might exist where nothing more then the finding of the body is in evidence; but where any act of violence or any proof inferring such violence is shown in Hunterdon County, then there is evidence which rebuts the presumption and thus from thereon the evidence is the sole basis for the determination of the fact in issue.
In our case we have the child last seen alive in Hunterdon County, taken therefrom without making apparently any noise, with the bed clothes hardly disturbed. Bearing in fact that the relative size of the infant and the defendant and the fact that the child was not permitted to make an outcry, in addition to the defendant's chisel found on the premises and in addition the broken ladder, these would well support the inference, that an injury occurred to the child at or about the nursery; and there is no evidence a all to indicate that any blow of any nature was struck to the child in Mercer County. This in addition to the fact that the child's thumb guard was found on the Lindbergh premises, which evidence not only indicates violence on the child right then and there, but indicates the process of disrobing the child for the purpose of securing its clothing, supports the view that the child was then dead or dying. If in fact the child was struck in Mercer County with a deadly blow, then one person and only one person could throw light on that and that is the defendant himself. Such a theory would require affirmative evidence by the defense and there is none such. The defendant speaks about the blow in Hunterdon County not having been felonious. It is not the strength of the blow that characterizes it, but the circumstances. ......we maintain that the blow occurred in Hunterdon County at or about the nursery and that was the final blow fracturing the skull of the child. When reading this justification it becomes obvious how important the State's case relied on the eyewitness accounts of Whited, Hockmuth, and Rossiter. It also becomes important to tie in this chisel with Hauptmann as well as the ladder. They also assert here, the child was disrobed causing the thumb-guard to fall to the ground on March 1st...etc. etc. Now I am not so sure they truly believe(d) this all to be true and valid, however, they must in order for the sentence to be carried out. These are items that have been debated ever since the trial and I don't think they can be relied on - yet - they all must be in order for Hauptmann to suffer Capital Punishment.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 17, 2006 6:51:56 GMT -5
Excellent observation Michael, you are right on the cusp of another Exhalt!
This document by Fischer shows how touchy, precise and legally complex the conviction of BRH was and the fine threads by which it was suspended. Both legal and emotional. After all, BRH is accused of "burglary of the sleeping suit" followed by Charlie's demise as an afterthought? And only in Hunterton County/ Only the brother of an attorney would appreciate these fine legal points. There can only be a few reasons why the LKC has to be so tightly guided into Hunterdon County.........whats wrong with Mercer County? Oh yes, CAL doesn't live there?
This actually gives us a valid reason for the red herring of the thumb guard so late in the kidnap. Ellis Parker always claimed that the actual perpetrators of any crime would in his words "over think it to death" Trying to confuse the cops. Thus various things would stand out as unnatural due to cleverness? Thus pointing the way to the solution. It is for this same reason that perps have iron clad alibis for the time of any crime. Maybe this is how the ransom note got misplaced, left on the window ledge for 2 hours and the nursery got scrubbed clean too?
I heard something (earwitness?) interesting on Court TV last nite. Authorities often try to keep the "cause of death" confidential in order to verify or trap the actual murderer. This strategy may have been employed in Charlies death too the day following the babys discovery and autopsy?
Two unrelated JFC questions in the interest of space: Condon is accused by some reporters like Dooley of making a mystery trip to Massachusettes in June of 1932 to meet with the Purple Gang? Also, Condon is accused of making some sort of speech in Mass. which includes descriptions of the symbol (p334 Bern)? Are these two incidents connected? thanks
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 17, 2006 9:55:39 GMT -5
Well said Rick. They were playing a most dangerous game of blind man's bluff and had no idea what really happened. Basically, they threw everything at the wall to see what would stick and then justify it after the fact in any way they could - regardless.
I believe your reference to Condon was the Beckett trip. No connection with the Purples that I ever found. I'll look up the other reference and see what I find out....after the Eagles game of course.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 17, 2006 11:38:24 GMT -5
Good one Michael....
1. Didn't Wilintz later tell the boys....connect everything to BRH? Connect the wood to the house? But this is so early in the game that AGW is not in play yet? Hes not around to say...connect the thumb guard to Highfields? After BRH was arrested one account in the NY Times (9-28-34) claimed that one of the thumb guards was found near the ladder. I'm pretty certain this is not true? Too bad the 2nd thumb guard was not found? It too would have been an excellent "token" to ask the gangs for--just like the blue thread t-shirt.
2. Condon must have made multiple trips to Massachusetts. Didn't Gov. Hoffmans 4th Question about the $250,000 bribe also include Mass? Maybe when we all thought JFC was headed for Conn. he was just passing thru on his way. Didn't Gorch get arrested there too? Its getting awfully busy in Boston?
Was this considered a "speech"?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 18, 2006 7:48:24 GMT -5
Joe & Michael: I think further pursuit of these "dead body issues" might prove rather fruitful: What presumption above could easily be put to question? The fact that ITS dead? Or the presumption of murder? Which carefully or more precisely means "cause of death"! or where the cause of death occurred? 1. DHReilly has been drawn and quartered for conceding that the body found on Mt. Rose Hill was Xharlie Jr. But....in his defense, Reilly in no way conceded "cause of death" or the presumption of a botched or sloppy autopsy. He grilled Mitchell intensly about the autopsy step by step and shrewdly got him to testify that " there was no external laceration on the left side fracture... but there was a 1/2" hole on the opposite side posterior to the right ear" [page 450 Jones]. Reilly even asked Mitchell about carefully searching the soupy brains for "something not found"? AT the time of course, Reilly did not know that it was Swayze doing the searching and not Mitchell? No photos were taken maybe for that reason? 2. Quoting from the The Forensic Casebook by Genge (page 173] the following is the purpose of the autopsy: - Determining the identity of the decedent
- Determining the cause of death (often kept confidential)
- Determining the manner of death
- Determining the mechanism or mode of death
- Determining the time of death
3. A synopsis of the findings of Mitchel/Swayze would be "death by skull fracture caused by external violence" Also, some remote references have been made to some unknown " instrument" causing the hole? An unsophisticated, Hunterdon County Jury, out in the sticks might be led to conclude from this....a fall off a ladder? 4. No evidence of external laceration over the left fracture implies internal laceration evidenced by the blood clot while the person still lives. A good candidate would be the hole on the right side. Can an ice pick, ball peen hammer, garden stake, screwdriver, etc poke the hole on the right side behind the ear and cause the internal blood clot and fracture on the left side? Probably NOT a 3/4" chisel? 5. The two skull fractures plus the hole suggest strongly that Charlies death was intentional--fully intentional.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 18, 2006 19:47:59 GMT -5
There's no such instruction on record that I can see but clearly he was very selective in what he presented in Court, therefore, this can be inferred by what he chose to omit as well as what his Witnesses chose to omit as well.
I agree Rick. Its really a "grey area" type of grasping at straws. I think their response opens up a can of worms for rebuttal purposes because this type of logic applies to them as well.
I don't think we will ever know what the cause of death was. For all we know the injury was survived and the cause of death could have been anything from exposure to asphyxiation.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 19, 2006 10:44:41 GMT -5
Michael--sorry but I disagree! I think we are light years closer to determining Charlie's cause of death than most of the expert authors? Why smothere a baby with a skull fracture? You cannot live very long with a skull fracture and brain damage this severe. Ten days tops--Ellis Parker? Especially if we combine this together with the extensive decomposition exceeding the time and temperatures at Mt. Rose Hill...(Ellis Parker again). This implies but does not prove that Charlie was killed intentionally, possibly by a gun shot or other "instrument" capable of penetrating hard bone with a "look alike gunshot hole"? Simultaneously, we are light years removed from AGWilinz's summation as to how Charlie met his tragic demise. .....or in what County?
Note added in proof--Joyce Milton/Loss of Eden page 250. ..Walter Swayze said "we searched for a bullet but none was found. We considered it may have fallen out when the body was moved?" (footnote NJSP Archived interview 1977) Now both Swayze and Mitchell considered this a gunshot wound? Where there is smoke there is often "fire"/
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on Sept 19, 2006 13:23:51 GMT -5
Well, obviously Rick has a point here. Wilentz's summary listed several possibilities. Lawyers I have talked to disagree about whether these "variances" should have been a solid grounds for appeal. BRH's lawyers did cite the Wilentz summary, but were refused (I am not sure but I think Trenchard sat on that appeal?). I think that they were banking on a simple issue of death in the course of a felony, and that Wilentz provided jurors with a way of reconciling doubts they had (or may have had -- perhaps an imaginary fear) or that he had, even after describing BRH as the vilest creature on earth. Years afterward he hedged a bit saying that he prosecuted with the evidence he had. He also, I believe, remarked as an aside that if the trial had been later in the decade, CAL's pro-Nazi views would have created a different courtroom atmosphere. Also in his summation he noted that it did no good for BRH to haul Fisch's grave into court - because no matter who else might or might not have been guilty, he sure as hell was. Some of this sounds like post facto rationalization, doesn't it?
Now, as to the cause of death, your assumption about the possible bullet hole or a sharp instrument (I assume sharp as opposed to the usual blunt) as the cause of death does seem to neglect the location of that hole, and the pencil supposedly used casually to turn the body over. Also, the autopsy was hardly worth the name, was it? Given these problems, I think what Wilentz did (for whatever reasons) was about the only way he could go.
There were no marks of a struggle, simpy a yanking out of the child. The blankets were still mounded, almost tentlike. That does not suggest a blow to the back of the head in the crib, since the perp could not reach there with an initial silencing blow. It does suggest smothering or at least a dose of ether. But no one noticed the smell of ether in the room. So we are down to strangulation or smothering. This would be a tough job, too. Imagine if you will a dark room, the need for quickness, a stealthy approach, and a sudden grasp of the throat. No matter what you did, would there not be flailing around of the feet for at least a few seconds? Yet the blankets, I repeat, were still almost in molded form. Hardly any distress to the sheets, etc. (Only Gow notices mud on the sheets -but if there was mud there, why was it there and no where else in the nursery? It couldn't have come from the perp's feet, now could it, so how did it get there? If there was mud on the gloves, why not any mud on a rail of the crib, a brush against the chest, why? But that is for another posting.)
Is it at all possible the child had been drugged? I have wrestled -- as Wilentz obviously did -- with these factors, and can't come up with anything beyond a feeling Dr. Henry Lee would express.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 19, 2006 13:48:43 GMT -5
wc....well from my own point of view its a stretch to take as gospel and verse all of Betty Gows testimony....for me it either doesn't add up or is sorely lacking? Especially the mound of covers....all nice and neat.....as though Charlie Jr. just vanished into thin air without a peep? or was yanked out by the feet? Why yank Charlie and wake him up? Not/
To put it more succinctly, the entire crime scene appears "staged" to create the illusion of a kidnap? The wipe down and cleanup with a touch of mud here and there, which could have come in on Anne's shoes in the afternoon, is the coup de grace. And the ransom note on the window ledge? DYBT?
And lastly, one of the all time best "excuses, but without reason" of the LKC are the skull fractures. We are all led to believe that Charlie was supposed to be "alive and well" but in the words of Theon Wright....there is not one scintilla of evidence that Charlie Jr. was alive beyond 1 March 32? Exactly what kind of "accident" unfortunate or not, causes the "massive" skull fractures seen on both sides of the head? eg a smothering or drugging accident? It would make better logic if the skull fractures were at least distantly related to the 1/2" hole behind the ear?
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on Sept 19, 2006 14:11:18 GMT -5
I confess to being puzzled here. You say there is no evidence that Charlie was alive after March 1, 1932. I certainly am not arguing he was. But are you saying he was dead before that time? The question mark in your sentence leaves me uncertain as to your meaning.
The kidnap was staged? Well, of course that is open to several interpretations. You suggest the mud here and there on the floor came from Anne's shoes. Why wasn't it cleaned up earlier? You seem to be saying it was left there on purpose. So let's see where that leads. Anne is called upon to leave mud so that it will look like a kidnap scene, to make it more realistic. Hence she was involved in this staging? It seems there is no other avenue if one takes your position.
I did not say death by drugging "accident." Instead, I offered that as a possible reason there was no signs of a struggle.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 skeptic4 on Sept 19, 2006 16:58:10 GMT -5
Well, wc, very few actual person saw Charlie alive on Tuesday March 1st 1932....and CAL wasnt one of them? He hadnt been home since Sunday...although it is reported that he stayed over Monday nite at Next Day and stopped there on his way home from NYC to forget the other dog...Scion? Therefore, he hadnt seen his first borne since Sunday?
That leaves a rather small group of insiders to wipe down the nursery and stage the props? Four to be exact? No one is automatically exempted.
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on Sept 20, 2006 8:46:26 GMT -5
Well, you have suggested here that everyone in the house was in on it -- but also the chauffeur must have known the child was dead, because, as I remember he came in with Betty Gow at least for a few minutes.
So that means Anne, Betty, the Whateleys and the chauffeur -- at the least. And since other people had visited the house in the days before March 1, including Breckinridge, his wife, and daughter, we really are getting to quite a number.
Do you think Col. Breckinridge would lend himself to this cruel deception? Obviously you think he might. But we could keep on asking this question about the others.
Frankly, it borders on the Twilight Zone.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Oct 20, 2006 10:30:09 GMT -5
Well Bill, as I have suggested before, adding more and more persons to some conspiracy is in and of itself a "red herring" and begs the question: What really happened? I can see a situation, similar to what happened to Constance in 1929, where CAL and family mobilized to protect a child from the threat of kidnap or extortion? Constance was wisked off to North Haven Island for her own protection and the $50,000 drop watch by the cops/ noone showed up for the baite? But thats not my question: When and where was the sleeping suite removed from the skeleton found on Mt. Rose Road? {Assuming for the moment that it really is Charlie Jr.?} Its now patently absured to conjecture that BRH took Charlie from his nursery and then threw him in the woods 4 miles from home, but was slick enough to remove the Sleeping Suite on the way? There is no ways this will ever add up: - Noone could ever imagine that the Bronx Gang could get away with sending Condon the sleeping suite to "prove beyond any shadow of doubt" that Charlie is alive and well?
- However, this must have been part of the ruse that Condon was trying to convince CJohn "would be acceptable to the family" in Woodlawns one hour chat. Likely even CJ found it hard to believe. As would you or I?
- So Charlie is stashed away somewhere else, for safe-keeping until such time as the Sleeping Suite can be sent to JFC on Monday March 12th from Stamford CT?
- Was Charlie alive and well when the suite was removed? Seems pretty unlikely, since much better proof could have been easily offered that the washed Sleeping Suite"?
- And where did the other thumbquard go?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Oct 23, 2006 7:12:29 GMT -5
Voila! I think we have a winner! Was the sleeping suite removed to prove the burglary-murder charge? ''.... However, kidnaping was not a capital offense in New Jersey in 1932 (nor in New York). But felony murder was a capital offense. So far so good. But, causing a death in the course of committing a kidnaping was not a felony murder offense in New Jersey. So far so bad. But, causing a death in the course of committing a burglary was a felony murder offense. So far so good. But, unlawful entry with the intent to commit a kidnaping was not a burglary in New Jersey. So far so bad. But, unlawful entry with the intent to commit a larceny was a burglary and, if someone died in the course of the burglary–that would be felony murder, a capital offense. So far so good. But what was the larceny in the Lindbergh case? Why stealing the baby’s night suit! Well true, the baby happened to be in the night suit at the time, but that was legally irrelevant to the charge. Hauptmann would die based on the legal theory that he broke into the Lindbergh Estate to steal a pair of pajamas. That was the legal theory that supported the capital murder charge in the indictment. Of course, that small technicality got buried in the heat of the trial...'" see: PAGE 6 www.judicial-inc.biz/Lindbergh_supplement.htm#ruth%20pratt
|
|
|
Post by gary on Oct 23, 2006 9:52:34 GMT -5
There is no doubt the troublesome requirement to solve the case despite the truth blew the case to ever being solved. The unfortunate scope of eyewitness accounts reflect a joke with no punch line. We'll never know if Whitted, Hockmuth, and Barr really saw Hauptmann or not. The Reliance mngmt records clearly hint an abomination occurred. This same team wants one to accept this rail came from Hauptmann's attic. A new book should have been written " CONVICTION FOR DUMMIES."
More and more in my mind the case reaches outside the box. I take the mersman table very serious and I believe there is at least one involved we'll most likely never know. If I ever had to be asked who is cemetary John I still believe it was Fisch. Remember the thumb and the cough. Then the security guard says he is around 5'6. Rick , you and I saw the picture of Fisch's thumb. It's uncanny. I am thinking the extra $20,000 involves Fisch some how as well.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Oct 23, 2006 10:46:35 GMT -5
Gary and Rick~ OK boys--cough it up! WHERE is the picture of Fisch's thumb? Rick ~ good post- ge-e-reat article! Let me at the exalt button
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Oct 23, 2006 11:25:11 GMT -5
Gary~ I think we do know that whitted, Hockmuth and Barr lied-for the reward money. Barr claimed the ticket buyer was American. The other two denied having seen anything until much later when they were both shown photo of BRH and learned of the reward money. Wilentz and the police were desparate to place BRH in Hopewell. I'm convinced no one at all saw him in Hopewell. Do you think there's a chance that Fisch took some of the ransom money with him to Germany? I read someone had said it was worth more in Europe. Perrone (the taximan)later admitted to his son he'd been coached to ID BRH and indicated he'd been a fool to do so. Condon falsely ID-ed him, that seems clear. CAL's earwitness was a tale. How I wish Clarence Darrow had defended Hauptmann! There would have been nothing but a grease spot on the floor left of Wilentz--I believe it!
|
|
|
Post by gary on Oct 23, 2006 11:47:19 GMT -5
I believe Sue had one other photo I can not show you but the one I am looking at is in Gardner's book in the photo section after page 200 or so. Fisch is pictured with an unknown woman. Look at your own hand and then tell me this not an extreme looking thumb. There had been the confusion which thumb it was that Condon said it was but lets consider the source. If I am not correct Sue brought up another photo to look at.
To me the interesting thought is CJ mentioned that the #2 man (I believe) knew Condon. Could this have been Hauptmann? Could this explain much of the speculation about City Island being an obvious place they should have run into each other? Think for a moment what Condon is thinking at the first id of Hauptmann. He believes he saw Hauptmann before but can not place him necessarily as CJ. In Condon's unique way perhaps it would not benefit the situation to say Hauptmann is or is not CJ in thought he is in the midst of catching on that this might or is the #2 man.
I have no idea about the ransom notes found in Germany.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Oct 23, 2006 13:29:05 GMT -5
Gary....we lost a ton of good photos and posts when the Olde Board bit the dust? Including the clipping which read: Mitchell says Lindbergh Baby was shot!
2. In one of the many versions of St. Raymond's by Jafsie, didn't he say that CJ went over and actually conferred with 2 associates about the Boad Nelly note? What we are likely looking at here is the "extortion gang" and not necessarily the "kidnap gang", although they could be linked somehow together, maybe by Condon himself? Gaston Means knew somehow that Condon tossed the $50K over the hedge or fence to CJ so no close contact there?
3. Lloyd Gardner names Wendel or Fisch as the Masterminds, at least to the extortion. But Fisch and BRH have good reason to deny knowing each other in time to plan the kidnap? Or faked kidnap? Somehow, Charlie Schleser and Joe Digrasi from Knickebocker Pie get folded into the dough? Make excellent lookouts and NJ real estate references/
4. Condon is good buddies with Abe Samuelsohn and frequents his shoppe. Condon and Al Riech, prize fighter, stop by "during the making of the LLadder? DYBT? Anyways, Condon and BRH could have bumped into each other there too in Feb 32? BRH is as casual, if its him, as when he spends the gold certs?
5. But Condon says his life "wont be worth a wooden nickle" if he fingers Hauptmann? Or does CJ say this? Who is the PURPLE elephant in the room? Who is everyone afraid of, and if Condon fingers BRH then why doesnt BRH turn the tables on Condon, or his other associates as well? Did they all expect to get off scot free?
6. And lastly, my candidates for the Mersman Table are Margarite and Johannes Junge, from Englewood, who give Red Johnson a golden alibi for driving them around for a few hours the nite of the kidnap/ They are from Hamburg and head home before the smoke clears--just like Edna Sharpe. Red is given a free pass by CAL/Lamont or at least a warning to "go back home and keep his mouth shut"? Would Red know a sailors tune? Maybe not in German?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Oct 23, 2006 14:09:30 GMT -5
Gary~ I think I just failed to hit the submit button. Hope this won't end up a double post Right after my last post to you, I went to PO to check mail. There I found 3 more of the 5 LKC books I'd ordered. Came home and scanned the photos and what do you think!? There was the photo of Fisch with his spooky thumb!! As I said in my "iffy" post: it looks like the "smoking thumb" to me!! Thanx for your response.
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Oct 23, 2006 15:31:17 GMT -5
Hi,
See Scapegoat by Anthony Scaduto. First picture on upper right hand side after page 320. It's the picture of Fisch in the canoe. Check out his left hand.
Sue
|
|
|
Post by wcollins on Oct 23, 2006 15:37:59 GMT -5
I think we are too much into post facto here. There may have been anticipated benefits that did not work out because of the death of the child -- and that would put Betty and Red back in the mix. Suppose they had been told to expect certain sums? And it all went bad. We do have Red's strange phone call that night, which, to my mind remains unexplained.
Suppose also that there was a pay-off before the crime to known or unknown people. They benefited.
The question of premediated murder does not rule out deception within the conspiracy -- if there was one -- which seems to be the ruling conviction of the discussion.
Rick, Professor Gardner nowhere says Fisch or Wendel were in charge of the extortion end of things.
|
|