Post by bookrefuge on Nov 7, 2011 17:02:13 GMT -5
Michael, thank you for your previous kind comments. I should probably explain how I got interested in the LKC, and a theory I am tentatively arriving at. Sorry, but this will be a very long post, and I really want to apologize for this in advance. I consider the length unfortunately necessary to explain my conclusion about the LKC. It will initially address some details about certain political-financial forces in America. This will lead directly into the LKC, but if anyone suspects I am writing it simply as a political rant, they are free to completely ignore the post.
To lay my cards on the table, I have published some books, one of which is The Shadows of Power (12 printings since 1988), which deals with hidden influences on American foreign policy. It views modern history not as a series of chance events, but mostly as a continuum with a deliberate pattern. To wit, look at the wars we have been involved with over the last century plus.
The Discovery Channel has scientifically shown that the sinking of the Maine, which got us into the Spanish-American War of 1898, was actually caused by an internal explosion, not a mine or torpedo as originally claimed. www.amazon.com/Unsolved-History-Death-USS-Maine/dp/B000MWR7BQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1319593130&sr=8-1
We got into World War I partly because public opinion was enflamed after the Germans torpedoed the Lusitania, a British ocean liner with Americans on board. But the US public was not told the true reason the Germans sank Lusitania—she was loaded with munitions. Furthermore, the ship was deliberately sent into the path of a U-boat. This is well documented by James Simpson in his book The Lusitania and former British Naval Intelligence officer Patrick Beesly in his book Room 40. The TV Series In Search of, which did a nice piece on Scaduto’s findings on the LKC, also confirmed this in its segment “In Search of the Lusitania.” www.youtube.com/watch?v=SR9V2ryCUls (If interested, there’s two parts.)
I was amused to find a thread on this board called “Who Is Dudley Field Malone?” Malone (an early figure in the LKC) was Collector of the Port of New York who certified the Lusitania was carrying no armament. For example, I just pulled this up: query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30F10F8395B17738DDDA90994DD405B858DF1D3
Also, Malone, though an attorney (he assisted Clarence Darrow in that other “Trial of the Century”—the 1925 Scopes Trial, which I have also written on)—went on to become an actor. He appeared in what might be deemed the most pro-Communist film Hollywood ever produced: Mission to Moscow, viewable in full on Youtube. The film calls the Soviet Union the world’s greatest economic achievement, and even justifies Stalin’s show trials and invasion of Finland. In that film, Winston Churchill is played by Dudley Field Malone (so harking back to the Lusitania affair, it might not be unreasonable to call him a “British asset.”)
Bringing it up to World War II, most Americans still don’t know that controversy has raged for decades over Washington’s foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack—well-documented in such books as Infamy by Pulitzer-winner John Toland, Robert Stinnett’s Day of Deceit, and (over 50 years ago) Rear Admiral Robert Theobald’s The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor. Here is a link to Part 1 of the BBC production “Sacrifice at Pearl Harbor.“ www.youtube.com/watch?v=viW7JkASxoY&feature=related And here are links to my own articles on Pearl Harbor, originally published in 2001:
www.thenewamerican.com/history/american/574
www.thenewamerican.com/history/american/575
www.thenewamerican.com/history/american/576
On to the Korean War. Why was there a Communist regime in North Korea after World War II? Because it was decided the Soviet Union should be given trusteeship of the northern part of Korea (which had previously been a colony of Japan). Stalin kept a nonaggression pact with Japan all during the war. We bribed him with 600 shiploads of Lend-Lease to break the pact—which he did, five days before Japan surrendered. In essence, Stalin was given North Korea as a reward for “helping win the Pacific war”—even though he didn’t. The result was the Korean War that cost over 50,000 GIs and over a million Koreans their lives.
So much could be said about the Vietnam War. But suffice here to say, the Tonkin Gulf Resolution (which gave President Johnson the authority to escalate the conflict) was based on an alleged attack on US destroyers on the night of August 4, 1964. That attack never took place according to Admiral James Stockdale, a Congressional Medal of Honor recipient, who was a pilot in the Tonkin Gulf and overflew the scene of the alleged attack for 90 minutes. See his memoirs, In Love and War.
Then bring it up to speed with the Iraq War. No Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) ever found, even though President Bush told the American people in 2003 that WMDs were the reason we were going to war.
The point of my writings (and Powerpoints I give) is that these incidents are not a disjointed mélange, but a pattern. And that pattern is there because the United States has a continuing “power behind the throne” that chooses the two major Presidential candidates before the nominating conventions even take place. This “power behind the throne” I will call “the Establishment” (to be polite) and is interlocked with mega-banks, the Federal Reserve, multinational corporations, large tax-free foundations, and major media—and it works with some counterparts in other countries. Its goal is a world government, and it was very demonstrably the force behind the creation of the League of Nations, UN, World Bank, EU, and NAFTA.
I grew interested in the LKC because, after a recent Powerpoint talk I gave in New York, a member of the audience asked me if the LKC tied into this. I told him I suspected it might, since Charles Lindbergh’s Congressmen father had led the fight against both the Federal Reserve and our entry into World War I. However, I had been previously turned off by the reading website www.lindytruth.org.
Nevertheless, I decided to reexamine the case. Scaduto’s book persuaded me there had been a coverup, and I looked deeper. However, I did not want to do so in a prejudicial manner (to “make facts fit a preconceived theory.”) Over 20 years ago, a magazine asked me to write a cover story on the Kennedy assassination. Given the dozens of conspiracy theories being floated, I myself was curious if the assassination was ordered by this same “Establishment” I have been mentioning here. After reading huge volumes of material, including nearly every Kennedy conspiracy book then under the sun, I concluded that the Establishment had nothing to do with assassinating Kennedy, to my own surprise and to the slight disappointment of my editor. I mention this because I want you to know I am willing to let the facts alone guide me.
One thing that immediately struck me about the LKC: It wasn’t about $50,000. Granted, that was a lot of money in those days—but you don’t get it by kidnapping the son of America’s favorite hero. If your motive was simply $50,000, there were plenty of other wealthy (and wealthier) families, ones who the public never heard of. To go after Lindy’s kid just for the money, you would have to be stupid, because you would spend the rest of your life looking over your shoulder—the FBI, the nation’s police, and the whole country would be after you. Doing it for $50,000 would almost be like some thug today trying to make a bundle by kidnapping President Obama’s daughters for ransom.
It seemed more logical to me that the $50,000 was a “cover story”—a false motive. If indeed the ransom demand was a cover, then the notes themselves would be phony leads. In that regard, I was curious about some suspicious “giveaways” in the ransom notes. The first note substituted the German “gut” for “good.” I have only studied a couple of foreign languages, French and Chinese, but I can tell you that one of the first things you learn in studying any foreign language is basic phrases like “hello” and “good-bye,” “good” and “bad.” Was it likely that Richard Hauptmann, after nine years in America, still hadn’t learned how to spell the word “good”?
Another “first word” language students commonly learn is “house.” A later ransom note substituted the German word “haus” for “house.” Hauptmann had helped build houses; he and his wife had taken out two mortgages. Was it really possibly he still didn’t know how to spell “house”? If Hauptmann was a mastermind who single-handedly pulled off “the crime of the century,” then why would he be so foolish as to leave obvious clues about his identity?
This was affirmed by what I read in Scaduto’s book (pp. 377-8). Long after the kidnapping, Theo Bernsen, an LKC investigator, brought sentences drawn from the ransom notes to the German embassy in London, to the man in charge of German-English translations, a respected authority on German writing. The selected sentences did not relate directly to kidnapping or ransom, so that the translator would not guess they were from the LKC. Bernsen asked if the sentences were written by a German-speaking person. Giving several illustrations (wrong syntax and other indicators), the translator showed Bernsen that the sentences were clearly not written by a German, but by an English-speaking person trying to sound like a German. This squared with my own observation as a layman.
Of course, if ransom money was not the motive, what was? Even if you were not after $50,000, you would still be facing relentless pursuit by the police, FBI and millions of diligent citizens. Which brings us to the issue of the law-and-order system that sent Hauptmann to the electric chair. Several strange things may be noted (which may be tedious to review for regulars of this board):
--the New Jersey State Police refused the assistance of the FBI, even though the latter had superior criminology resources. This has been attributed to rivalry/jealousy.
--the help of Ellis Parker, chief of detectives of Burlington County, New Jersey, was refused, even though he was renowned as perhaps America’s greatest detective, having successfully solved over 200 murders. This has been attributed to Ellis being “out of his jurisdiction,” or resentment by State Police Captain John Lamb, whom Parker had embarrassed by exposing him for using a perjured witness in the Hall-Mills murder case. But in a matter like the Lindbergh kidnap, wouldn’t you want the best resources and minds available?
--in order to place Richard Hauptmann near Hopewell at the time of the kidnapping, the prosecution produced three witnesses who perjured themselves: Hochmuth (who was legally blind and admitted pre-trial that he could not identify Hauptmann); Whited, a chronic liar who had denied to police seeing anything the day after the kidnapping—but came forward two years later, smelling reward money; and Rossiter, a man with a history of stealing from employers, and who gave an inaccurate description of Hauptmann’s car.
--Other witnesses strangely changed their testimony. The Osborns (handwriting experts) initially said Hauptmann’s handwriting did not match the ransom notes, but at the trial they said it positively did. In New York, Dr. John Condon would not identify Hauptmann as “Cemetery John,” but at the trial he did emphatically. Joseph Furcht, Hauptmann’s supervisor at the Majestic Apartments, swore in an affidavit that Hauptmann was working for him until 5PM on the day of the kidnapping—then backed off after a visit to the DA’s office. And those are just a few examples.
The prosecution’s greatest difficulty was in matching the kidnap ladder to Hauptmann. Fingerprint expert Dr. Erasmus Hudson lifted about 500 prints from the ladder—but not one belonged to Hauptmann. Captain John Lamb then asked Hudson a stunning question: Would it be possible to counterfeit fingerprints? Frustrated by his answer, “rail 16” then became the magic evidence that would link the ladder to Hauptmann. The New Jersey State Police took over the Hauptmann’s apartment. Detective Lewis Bornhmann—whose superior was Lamb--actually lived there. Suddenly he reported discovering a partially missing floor board in the attic of the Hauptmann home—even though this had not been noticed in at least 9 documented previous searches of the attic by at least 37 law enforcement agents.
The prosecution’s “wood expert” Arthur Koehler than claimed to the jury that rail 16 of the kidnap ladder was exclusively matched to the remaining partial-board in Hauptmann’s attic, even though it was of different width and depth than that board, and it would have been absurd for Hauptmann, a professional carpenter, to use a board from his attic as part of a ladder, when he had plenty of spare lumber in his garage—lumber that would not have been incriminating.
Then there was the infamous matter of Dr. John Condon’s contact information being scrawled in a closet of Hauptmann’s—used by the prosecution as evidence, though reporter Tom Cassidy of the New York Daily News had written it there to get a “scoop.”
And finally came Judge Trenchard’s extraordinary 1-hour 10-minute charge to the jury in which he essentially argued on behalf of the prosecution’s case and repeatedly cast doubt on the defense—in effect directing the jury to find Hauptmann guilty.
In light of all available evidence, I believe Richard Hauptmann was framed for the Lindbergh kidnapping. Many reasons are given—I have mentioned the explanation of inter-agency rivalry. It has also been said that the police were embarrassed by their failure to resolve the kidnapping, and thus hastily falsified evidenced and coerced witnesses. And it has been said that Attorney General Wilentz wanted a quick conviction out of political ambition to run for governor.
Actually, I don’t buy those explanations. If the New Jersey State Police wanted to make amends for their failure in the Lindbergh kidnapping, then why not bring in the FBI and Ellis Parker, and really solve the crime? If David Wilentz had political ambitions, wouldn’t they have been best served by convicting the right people?
I believe that the manipulation of evidence in this case—which included the police of two states, the New Jersey Attorney General’s office, and probably the judge himself—demonstrates an orchestrated plan, and not just an unfortunate random mix of personalities and ambitions.
Who was powerful enough to order such a coordinated effort? I know some people will say “Lindbergh—people thought he was a god!” I do not wish consume much space debating this right here, but I personally do not believe Lindbergh invented the kidnapping and paid a $50,000 ransom after killing his own son in a prank gone wrong (nobody, for a prank, goes up a rickety ladder with a gale blowing and no one holding the ladder, endangering his own life let alone his son’s—especially when he owned a much sturdier ladder). Nor do I believed he murdered his son out of malicious eugenics—CAL Jr. was an attractive boy who could talk and run—and even a eugenicist would not murder his own child over perceived deficits that were apparently rather minor. Nor do I believe Charles covered up a murder by a jealous sister-in-law—which would have required all family members and servants in the Lindergh and Morrow households to perfectly coordinate their stories for the police—and to stick to those stories for the rest of their lives.
Massive influence over the justice system could only be arranged by someone with enormous financial and political power—neither of which Lindbergh possessed on that scale, hero or not. People say “Money talks” and “Follow the money.” Let’s see if we can find money to follow.
There is a post in this board, Michael, which did not gather much attention—but I am grateful you put it up. I noticed it about two weeks ago. I’ll paste it in:
Scoopy's Notebook
Lindy sleuth: Stop the presses! Alan Marlis Ph.D. of Mulberry St. recently ran into our office to announce that he has solved the 1932 Lindbergh baby kidnapping case. After 21 years and 1,200 pages of investigative research, Marlis has concluded that, “the pieces came together pointing to James P. Warburg.” Among other findings, Marlis said Warburg, a banker and F.D.R. advisor, had motive since “Lindbergh’s congressman father Jew-baited his father, Paul Warburg, at the 1913 Federal Reserve Bank chairmanship hearings.” Futhermore, Marlis posits, “George Gershwin is having an affair with Warburg’s wife, Kay Swift, at their Greenwich estate at the time of the crime, adding to his psychological fragility.” What can we say? You read it here first.
www.thevillager.com/villager_323/scoopysnotebook.html
I have not been able to find Marlis’ manuscript, which is apparently unpublished, but here are remarks he made at www.blogonbooks.com/?p=8924
Alan Marlis Ph.D. on August 18th, 2010 4:22 pm
Last year I told Niall Ferguson of my 21 yr. 580pp ms. showing James Warburg kidnapped the Lindbergh baby. He said: ”I’m on that. Give me your card.” His book distances himself from James calling him a “Harvard half-wit” etc. The FBI File shows there is a REAL Warburg story out there. It links James to the prime suspect – the Morrow’s dressmaker, her sister is James’s governess. He brought them over from Hamburg, his birthplace. The motive is ALL Warburg – Lindbergh’s father Jew-baited Paul Warburg at 1913 Fed. Reserve Chairman Hearings. Paul dies 32 days before kidnapping. James has weekly poker game with mobsters & a life-long history of Lindbergh opposition culminating in a debate with him at Madison Square Garden. The 1st marked ransom bill turns up in Greenwich, Conn. James hometown. So Siegmund’s “halfwit” cousin is the REAL story waiting to be told. Alan Marlis CUNY Professor
At the mention of James Warburg, shock waves went through me. To understand, we must set the historical context. In 1913, America stood on the threshold of several momentous events—creation of the Federal Reserve, creation of income tax, and World War I.
I wrote an article on the Fed for The New American magazine in 2009. You can find the full text at www.thenewamerican.com/history/american/946
The Fed is the main cause of debt and inflation in the United States. It generates rising prices by creating money from nothing to finance federal spending. This enables the government to fight wars, like the one in Iraq, without raising taxes. The Fed simply creates the money to pay for the war. But by increasing the money supply, the value of money goes down, and prices soar. We simply pay for the war through higher prices instead of higher taxes, and politicians know we’ll blame the local retail store instead of the government. I encourage you to read the full article, but for the purposes of this discussion board, I quote some relevant excerpts:
The Fed was established when Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. But the original legislation, containing the essential points of that act, was introduced by Senator Nelson Aldrich, front man for the banking community. Few today have heard of Aldrich, but many are familiar with billionaire Nelson Rockefeller, who was Gerald Ford's vice president, long New York's governor, and one of America's richest men. His full name: Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller — named for his grandfather, Nelson Aldrich. Aldrich's daughter married John D. Rockefeller, Jr., and his son Winthrop served as chairman of the Rockefellers' Chase National Bank. Long associated with America's richest family, when Nelson Aldrich spoke on Capitol Hill, insiders knew he was acting for the Rockefellers and their allies in high finance.
The legislation he introduced in the Senate, which became the basis of the Federal Reserve System, was not written by him. It was crafted by several of the world's richest bankers, at a secret nine-day meeting in 1910, at a private club on Jekyll Island off the Georgia coast…
‘ Attending this meeting were agents from the world's three greatest banking houses: those of John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, and the Rothschilds. Together they represented an estimated 25 percent of the world's wealth. Acting for the Rockefellers were Senator Aldrich and Frank Vanderlip. Representing the Morgan interests were: Benjamin Strong, head of J.P. Morgan's Bankers Trust Company; Henry Davison, senior partner in J.P. Morgan & Co.; and Charles Norton, head of Morgan's First National Bank of New York. But the most important figure, credited with running the meeting, was Paul Warburg, who belonged to a prominent German banking family associated with the Rothschilds. The latter, the world's most powerful banking dynasty, had grown rich by establishing central banks that loaned money to European countries…
The axis of Warburg/Rothschild, Morgan and Rockefeller, and their Wall Street confederates, became known as the "Money Trust."…
Why did the bankers want the Fed? Whom do you suppose President Woodrow Wilson named first vice chairman of the Federal Reserve Board (a position from which national interest rates would be set)? Paul Warburg. Who was first head of New York Fed, the system's nucleus? Benjamin Strong. Thus the very men who had secretly planned the bank now controlled it. The foxes were running the henhouse. At the time, neither Congress nor the public had any inkling of the Jekyll Island meeting.
Paul Warburg's annual salary at Kuhn, Loeb, & Co. had been $500,000, the equivalent of well over $10 million in today's dollars. He relinquished that for a Federal Reserve Board position that paid only $12,000. Was it altruistic patriotism that tempted Warburg to make this transition? Or was it because $500,000 paled in comparison to the countless millions he could make, for himself and his associates, by controlling American interest rates, and thus making the stock market rise or fall at will?
Charles Lindbergh, Sr., father of the famous aviator, was a distinguished member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Congressman Lindbergh helped lead the fight against the Federal Reserve Act. In December 1913, he declared on the floor of the House:
"This act establishes the most gigantic trust on Earth. When the President signs this act the invisible government by the money power [Lindbergh here refers to the Rothschild-Rockefeller-Morgan alliance], proven to exist by the money trust investigation, will be legalized. The money power overawes the legislative and executive forces of the nation. I have seen these forces exerted during the different stages of this bill. From now on depressions will be scientifically created. The new law will create inflation whenever the trust wants inflation. If the trust can get a period of inflation, they figure they can unload stocks on the people at high prices during the excitement and then bring on a panic and buy them back at low prices. The people may not know it immediately, but the day of reckoning is only a few years removed."
Lindbergh's words were prophetic. Did inflation follow the Fed's establishment? Yes; Figure 1 graphically proves the impact on price levels. Were stocks unloaded on the people at high prices, then bought back at low prices after a panic? Yes. The "day of reckoning" Lindbergh predicted came with "Black Thursday" and the Great Crash of 1929.
(End of Excerpts)
Although Paul Warburg stayed out of the limelight, he was arguably the most powerful man in America. He was the prototype for “Daddy Warbucks,” “the richest man in the world.” When Woodrow Wilson went to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 (which settled the aftermath of World War I), who did he appoint to head the American delegation? Paul Warburg. Out of that conference came the League of Nations, which was the first attempt at establishing world government--goal of Warburg and “the Establishment.”
Paul Warburg’s son James, also a prominent banker, is probably best remembered for telling a Senate subcommittee in 1950 that we would have world government “by conquest or consent.” Here is the link to his subcommittee testimony: en.wikisource.org/wiki/James_Warburg_before_the_Subcommittee_on_Revision_of_the_United_Nations_Charter#We_shall_have_world_government
The man who stood most in the way of Paul Warburg was Congressman Charles Lindbergh, who even tried to have Warburg and his confederates impeached from the Federal Reserve Board in 1917. Here is a link to relevant passage in the Congressional record: www.scribd.com/doc/21176029/Charles-Lindbergh-Sr-Congressional-record-Feb-12-1917
Lindbergh attempted to keep us out of World War I and wrote the book Why Is Your Country at War? (1917).
It would probably not be going overboard to say that Charles Lindbergh Sr. was Paul Warburg’s greatest enemy. But Lindbergh could not overmatch the power of Warburg and the “Money Trust.” He was defeated in a run for the Senate, and when he died in 1924, I’d be willing to bet that a few cigars were lit on Wall Street.
Then the amazing happened. Seemingly from out of nowhere, Lindbergh’s only child, Charles Jr., made his historic flight, becoming the nation’s most celebrated hero. I don’t know if Paul and James Warburg smoked cigars, but if they did, they might have swallowed them at that moment. The son of their greatest enemy was now the center of national attention. What if Lindy used that microphone—like his father before him—to denounce the Federal Reserve and the “Money Trust”?
At that moment, I speculate there were probably a few people who would have dearly loved to see Lindbergh assassinated. Indeed, it was reported that two attempts were made on the life of Congressman Louis McFadden, chairman of House Committee on Banking and Currency from 1920 to 1931, who bitterly denounced the Fed before dying suddenly and unexpectedly during a trip to New York City in 1936. However, assassinating the young Lindbergh when he was in the nation’s spotlight would probably have been deemed too risky.
Nevertheless, Lindbergh did not speak out against the banking interests—perhaps one reason being a fortuitous invitation to make a “good will” flight to Mexico by Ambassador Dwight Morrow, who had been a partner in J. P. Morgan & Co. Lindbergh met, courted and married Morrow’s daughter Anne—which meant that if he spoke out against the Money Trust, he’d be speaking out against his in-laws. I have wondered if the Money Trust didn’t decide of Lindbergh--—“If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em—to us.” But that is, again, pure speculation on my part.
The statement by Alan Marlis, that James Warburg was behind the kidnapping, intrigued me. Congressman Charles Lindbergh and Fed founder Paul Warburg were arch-enemies. Who, then, more fitting to attack the son of Lindbergh than the son of Warburg?
Aptness, however, in no way makes it a fact. Two questions need to be asked and answered: (1) Is there evidence that the animosity begun between the fathers continued between the sons; and (2) Can James Warburg be linked to the kidnapping? The answers to both questions is “Yes.”
Most people know that Charles Lindbergh formed the America First Committee. Doing a little research, one discovers that James Warburg helped found and finance the Fight for Freedom Committee, as a counter to Lindbergh’s organization. One 1941 quote from James Warburg we have is: “Jew or Gentile, an American can say only this to Charles Lindbergh: Your second non-stop flight has taken you to a strange destination." news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1946&dat=19410425&id=k30tAAAAIBAJ&sjid=xZgFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6835,4377523
Indeed, as Marlis points out, in 1941 Lindbergh and Warburg squared off in a debate at Madison Square Garden—ideologically battling each other, just as their own fathers had done nearly three decades earlier. How I’d like to see a transcript of that debate! Perhaps we could say that the Lindbergh and Warburg clans were a sort of white-collar version of the Hatfields and McCoys.
Of course, many would argue that if Warburg opposed Lindbergh and the America First Committee, Warburg must have been the “good guy” in this adversarial relationship. Lindbergh has been severely criticized for opposing entry into the war, and I expect this has boosted the popularity of theories that Lindy killed his own son.
My own studies have persuaded me (though I am half-Jewish) that the war was less idealistic than portrayed, and that Lindbergh’s stand was not as reprehensible as has been said. This board is no place to debate World War II’s merits, but just so I don’t leave that statement totally unsupported, I suggest people check the citations on Pearl Harbor above, and ask if good men really let thousands of their own soldiers die because “the ends justifies the means.” I believe anyone who deeply examines World War II will find many contradictions—such as the war allegedly being started over concern for Poland’s sovereignty after Germany invaded in September 1939, yet the Allies looking the other way when Stalin invaded Poland that same month—and again when he crushed it in 1945. Indeed, in 1943, after Roosevelt and Churchill told Stalin he could have postwar eastern Poland (a classic example of appeasement), Poland’s President-In-Exile, Wladyslaw Sikorski, vociferously and publicly protested—until he died in a convenient “accident.” Do some digging into the strange deaths of TE Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia), the Duke of Kent, Rudolph Hess and others, and you will find some dirt under the Allied carpet, belying the good guy-bad guy simplicity of theatrically wonderful films like Casablanca.
But what about Warburg’s connection to the Lindbergh household? In FBI Files on the Lindbergh Baby Kidnapping (pp. 135-36) we read, amidst a summary of the various servants in the Morrow household:
“Mrs. Johannes Junge (see Margaret Jantzen) is of German descent, and has been employed by the Morrows for several years as a dressmaker and seamstress…she has the following known relatives…Virginia Juntzen [sic], sister, employed as governess by Mrs. James Warburg, of 36 East 70th Street, New York City…
“Miss Margaret Jantzen married to George Johannes Junge in Hamburg, Germany, in the year 1923. The Junge family of Hamburg is reputed to be very wealthy and Johannes Junge is said to be well educated and to have served in the Germany army. He entered the United States through New York Harbor on December 3, 1931 as a non-quota alien and took up his residence with his wife at 96 Engle St., Englewood, N. J. at which address there also resided for a time Henry ‘Red’ Johnson and Charles Henry Ellerson, second chauffeur for the Morrow family.
“According to an informant of the New York office, the fact that Margaret Jantzen was married did not come out until after the kidnapping. The investigation also developed that ‘Red’ Johnson and Mr. and Mrs. Junge claimed to be out for an automobile ride on the night of the kidnapping. All of these parties were subsequently cleared of suspicion by the New Jersey State Police…”
We are used to looking at the more obvious servants, such as Violet Sharp and Betty Gow, but Marguerite Junge (Jantzen) is involved at several key points:
--She lives at the same address as Red Johnson, Betty Gow’s unemployed boyfriend, and Ellerson, who drove Betty to Hopewell on the day of the kidnapping;
--She is the person Betty Gow asked to tell Red Johnson she would be going to Hopewell;
--She and her husband Johannes went out riding with Red Johnson on the night of the kidnapping, providing mutual alibis all around;
--She was the person who brought an aspirin to Violet Sharp the night before her suicide—which a handful of people have questioned as possibly a murder instead.
Jantzen’s husband arrived from Germany just three months before kidnapping. As Marlis points out, James Warburg’s father Paul died only 32 days before the kidnapping, and James was gradually heading toward a divorce. I might add that the US Senate’s Pecora hearings—an investigation into the causes of the crash of ’29—began just three days after the kidnapping. It was probable that these hearings would bring the Warburgs unflattering scrutiny.
I totally speculate here, but might it just be that in early 1932, James Warburg considered his family at its lowest point—and possibly viewed, with rage, newsreels of the baby son of the man he hated as his greatest enemy, now basking in the glow of public adoration? Did he then abuse his financial and political power by ordering the kidnap-murder?
In Jafsie Tells All, Dr. Condon summarized “Cemetery John’s” description of various members of the purported gang. Here is how the leader was described:
“Number one was the boss, he told me, a smart man who worked for the government and was, in private life, a very high official.”
A fascinating statement—one that could be construed as a veiled reference to Warburg.
I have noticed some other connections. “Red” Johnson met Betty Gow when he was employed by Thomas Lamont. The Lamonts and Warburgs were strong allies. Both Thomas Lamont and Paul Warburg served on the American delegation to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, and both were founding members of the Council on Foreign Relations (subject of my book The Shadows of Power). In 1940, Lamont helped found the Committee to Defend America—which, like James Warburg’s Fight for Freedom Committee, was set up to counteract Lindbergh’s America First Committee.
Now it might be objected that since both Lamont and Dwight Morrow were partners in J. P. Morgan & Co., Lamont would have been Lindbergh’s ally as well. My own feeling is that no one would have touched the baby while Morrow was alive. But after Dwight Morrow died in October 1931, perhaps the child was no longer perceived as “Morrow’s grandson,” but simply as “Lindbergh’s son,” and thus, in the eyes of someone like Warburg, fair game.
There are also connections between James Warburg and “Wild Bill” Donovan, one of the “three colonels” assisting Lindbergh after the kidnapping. Donovan, of course, is most famous for forming the OSS—forerunner of the CIA. Wikipedia’s article on James Warburg notes that Warburg “reentered government service in 1941 as Special Assistant to the Coordinator of Information, William Joseph Donovan.” Donovan and Warburg were also both speakers for the anti-Lindbergh Fight for Freedom Committee. Donovan’s associate Thayer helped steer Lindbergh to Rosner--and I wonder if it wasn’t a “bum steer.” I also just wonder if Donovan, professional spymaster-to-be, might have even served as Warburg’s “eyes and ears” on the Lindbergh household, keeping Warburg apprised of the response to the kidnapping.
We have had posts on this board about the very first Lindbergh gold certificate being identified at a bakery in Greenwich, Conn.—passed by an attractive, well-dressed woman who grabbed the certificate back and ran outside into a green chauffered sedan. Was this just possibly Warbug’s wife, Kay Swift? The Warburgs’ country home was in Greenwich, Conn.
Whoever this woman was, to me her reaction reflected guilt. I know we don’t all react to situations the same way. But personally, if I had accidentally come into possession of a Lindbergh ransom certificate, and a cashier told me, “Hey, this is Lindbergh ransom money,” I would have said something like, “Say, what? Are you kidding? Are you sure about that?” And when they showed me it matched the list, I’d say, “Wow! That’s amazing. Now, let’s see, where did I get that note? We better notify the cops.” To SEIZE THE BILL AND RUN, that really seems suspect—more than just a case of general nerves. I think some people have written this woman off as unassociated with the kidnapping, simply because she appeared to be so wealthy—but the Warburg thesis casts the incident in new light.
As followers of this board know, one of the mysteries of the LKC is the identity of “J. J. Faulkner,” who cashed in nearly $3,000 in gold certs. I know this subject has probably been beaten to death, but here we go (sigh) with another one of those tantalizing little coincidences. Kay Swift’s middle name was Faulkner, and the bills were exchanged at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York--and who would know how to work the Fed’s system better than the son of its founder?
But let me just counterbalance the foregoing by mentioning that (1) the Warburgs certainly didn’t need money; and (2) looking at Kay Swift’s bio—she was a delightful musical figure on Broadway—I cannot conceive of her being a conscious participant in the kidnapping scheme.
,
Michael, you said you enjoyed my post called “Hollywood Musings,” in which I observed some eery parallels between the LKC and the two film versions of Hitchcock’s The Man Who Knew Too Much. I had never seen the 1934 version in its entirety, so a few days ago I watched it on Youtube. In the 1955 version, the church where the criminals hide the child seems quasi-Christian. But in the original it is totally occult, with secretive initiation rites and people put into trances—much more reminiscent of Mary Cerrita and the Temple of Divine Power.
Moreover, the child is kidnapped in St. Moritz. I almost swallowed my popcorn on that one—Moritz was Paul Warburg’s middle name, and the first name of James Warburg’s grandfather. Did the victimized “Lawrences” of The Man Who Knew Too Much represent the “Lindberghs”? As a matter of fact, the Warburg interests did finance films, but I haven’t found anything linking them to this one. Furthermore, doing a little cinema research, I found that Hitchcock explained that he and his wife had honeymooned in St. Moritz, and he thought it would make a good venue for a movie scene. So it’s probably just another coincidence—I guess.
I certainly do NOT have nearly enough evidence to say, with conviction, that James Warburg ordered the Lindbergh kidnap-murder. But apparently Alan Marlis believes he does. I have written to Professor Marlis, asking if his manuscript is scheduled for publication, and asking him a few key questions (such as who he believes Warburg hired to carry out the crime). I have also ordered a copy of Warburg’s 1964 autobiography The Long Road Home, to see if anything relevant might be gleaned. When I viewed the book’s image on Amazon, I was momentarily curious about the symbol on the cover, which includes a circle within a circle—but the symbol clearly represents a compass, which fits with the title. Again, some coincidences are meaningful—and quite a few don’t mean a thing!
IF this theory is true—and I still underscore “if”--I am going to guess that Warburg intended to murder the child and leave its savaged corpse as a “present” for Lindbergh, but that most of the kidnappers themselves did not know this in advance. This would explain why Violet started to crack up after the body’s discovery, and why Fisch applied for a passport the day the body was discovered—they suddenly realized they were parties to a murder. I am awaiting Professor Marlis’s response.
To lay my cards on the table, I have published some books, one of which is The Shadows of Power (12 printings since 1988), which deals with hidden influences on American foreign policy. It views modern history not as a series of chance events, but mostly as a continuum with a deliberate pattern. To wit, look at the wars we have been involved with over the last century plus.
The Discovery Channel has scientifically shown that the sinking of the Maine, which got us into the Spanish-American War of 1898, was actually caused by an internal explosion, not a mine or torpedo as originally claimed. www.amazon.com/Unsolved-History-Death-USS-Maine/dp/B000MWR7BQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1319593130&sr=8-1
We got into World War I partly because public opinion was enflamed after the Germans torpedoed the Lusitania, a British ocean liner with Americans on board. But the US public was not told the true reason the Germans sank Lusitania—she was loaded with munitions. Furthermore, the ship was deliberately sent into the path of a U-boat. This is well documented by James Simpson in his book The Lusitania and former British Naval Intelligence officer Patrick Beesly in his book Room 40. The TV Series In Search of, which did a nice piece on Scaduto’s findings on the LKC, also confirmed this in its segment “In Search of the Lusitania.” www.youtube.com/watch?v=SR9V2ryCUls (If interested, there’s two parts.)
I was amused to find a thread on this board called “Who Is Dudley Field Malone?” Malone (an early figure in the LKC) was Collector of the Port of New York who certified the Lusitania was carrying no armament. For example, I just pulled this up: query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30F10F8395B17738DDDA90994DD405B858DF1D3
Also, Malone, though an attorney (he assisted Clarence Darrow in that other “Trial of the Century”—the 1925 Scopes Trial, which I have also written on)—went on to become an actor. He appeared in what might be deemed the most pro-Communist film Hollywood ever produced: Mission to Moscow, viewable in full on Youtube. The film calls the Soviet Union the world’s greatest economic achievement, and even justifies Stalin’s show trials and invasion of Finland. In that film, Winston Churchill is played by Dudley Field Malone (so harking back to the Lusitania affair, it might not be unreasonable to call him a “British asset.”)
Bringing it up to World War II, most Americans still don’t know that controversy has raged for decades over Washington’s foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack—well-documented in such books as Infamy by Pulitzer-winner John Toland, Robert Stinnett’s Day of Deceit, and (over 50 years ago) Rear Admiral Robert Theobald’s The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor. Here is a link to Part 1 of the BBC production “Sacrifice at Pearl Harbor.“ www.youtube.com/watch?v=viW7JkASxoY&feature=related And here are links to my own articles on Pearl Harbor, originally published in 2001:
www.thenewamerican.com/history/american/574
www.thenewamerican.com/history/american/575
www.thenewamerican.com/history/american/576
On to the Korean War. Why was there a Communist regime in North Korea after World War II? Because it was decided the Soviet Union should be given trusteeship of the northern part of Korea (which had previously been a colony of Japan). Stalin kept a nonaggression pact with Japan all during the war. We bribed him with 600 shiploads of Lend-Lease to break the pact—which he did, five days before Japan surrendered. In essence, Stalin was given North Korea as a reward for “helping win the Pacific war”—even though he didn’t. The result was the Korean War that cost over 50,000 GIs and over a million Koreans their lives.
So much could be said about the Vietnam War. But suffice here to say, the Tonkin Gulf Resolution (which gave President Johnson the authority to escalate the conflict) was based on an alleged attack on US destroyers on the night of August 4, 1964. That attack never took place according to Admiral James Stockdale, a Congressional Medal of Honor recipient, who was a pilot in the Tonkin Gulf and overflew the scene of the alleged attack for 90 minutes. See his memoirs, In Love and War.
Then bring it up to speed with the Iraq War. No Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) ever found, even though President Bush told the American people in 2003 that WMDs were the reason we were going to war.
The point of my writings (and Powerpoints I give) is that these incidents are not a disjointed mélange, but a pattern. And that pattern is there because the United States has a continuing “power behind the throne” that chooses the two major Presidential candidates before the nominating conventions even take place. This “power behind the throne” I will call “the Establishment” (to be polite) and is interlocked with mega-banks, the Federal Reserve, multinational corporations, large tax-free foundations, and major media—and it works with some counterparts in other countries. Its goal is a world government, and it was very demonstrably the force behind the creation of the League of Nations, UN, World Bank, EU, and NAFTA.
I grew interested in the LKC because, after a recent Powerpoint talk I gave in New York, a member of the audience asked me if the LKC tied into this. I told him I suspected it might, since Charles Lindbergh’s Congressmen father had led the fight against both the Federal Reserve and our entry into World War I. However, I had been previously turned off by the reading website www.lindytruth.org.
Nevertheless, I decided to reexamine the case. Scaduto’s book persuaded me there had been a coverup, and I looked deeper. However, I did not want to do so in a prejudicial manner (to “make facts fit a preconceived theory.”) Over 20 years ago, a magazine asked me to write a cover story on the Kennedy assassination. Given the dozens of conspiracy theories being floated, I myself was curious if the assassination was ordered by this same “Establishment” I have been mentioning here. After reading huge volumes of material, including nearly every Kennedy conspiracy book then under the sun, I concluded that the Establishment had nothing to do with assassinating Kennedy, to my own surprise and to the slight disappointment of my editor. I mention this because I want you to know I am willing to let the facts alone guide me.
One thing that immediately struck me about the LKC: It wasn’t about $50,000. Granted, that was a lot of money in those days—but you don’t get it by kidnapping the son of America’s favorite hero. If your motive was simply $50,000, there were plenty of other wealthy (and wealthier) families, ones who the public never heard of. To go after Lindy’s kid just for the money, you would have to be stupid, because you would spend the rest of your life looking over your shoulder—the FBI, the nation’s police, and the whole country would be after you. Doing it for $50,000 would almost be like some thug today trying to make a bundle by kidnapping President Obama’s daughters for ransom.
It seemed more logical to me that the $50,000 was a “cover story”—a false motive. If indeed the ransom demand was a cover, then the notes themselves would be phony leads. In that regard, I was curious about some suspicious “giveaways” in the ransom notes. The first note substituted the German “gut” for “good.” I have only studied a couple of foreign languages, French and Chinese, but I can tell you that one of the first things you learn in studying any foreign language is basic phrases like “hello” and “good-bye,” “good” and “bad.” Was it likely that Richard Hauptmann, after nine years in America, still hadn’t learned how to spell the word “good”?
Another “first word” language students commonly learn is “house.” A later ransom note substituted the German word “haus” for “house.” Hauptmann had helped build houses; he and his wife had taken out two mortgages. Was it really possibly he still didn’t know how to spell “house”? If Hauptmann was a mastermind who single-handedly pulled off “the crime of the century,” then why would he be so foolish as to leave obvious clues about his identity?
This was affirmed by what I read in Scaduto’s book (pp. 377-8). Long after the kidnapping, Theo Bernsen, an LKC investigator, brought sentences drawn from the ransom notes to the German embassy in London, to the man in charge of German-English translations, a respected authority on German writing. The selected sentences did not relate directly to kidnapping or ransom, so that the translator would not guess they were from the LKC. Bernsen asked if the sentences were written by a German-speaking person. Giving several illustrations (wrong syntax and other indicators), the translator showed Bernsen that the sentences were clearly not written by a German, but by an English-speaking person trying to sound like a German. This squared with my own observation as a layman.
Of course, if ransom money was not the motive, what was? Even if you were not after $50,000, you would still be facing relentless pursuit by the police, FBI and millions of diligent citizens. Which brings us to the issue of the law-and-order system that sent Hauptmann to the electric chair. Several strange things may be noted (which may be tedious to review for regulars of this board):
--the New Jersey State Police refused the assistance of the FBI, even though the latter had superior criminology resources. This has been attributed to rivalry/jealousy.
--the help of Ellis Parker, chief of detectives of Burlington County, New Jersey, was refused, even though he was renowned as perhaps America’s greatest detective, having successfully solved over 200 murders. This has been attributed to Ellis being “out of his jurisdiction,” or resentment by State Police Captain John Lamb, whom Parker had embarrassed by exposing him for using a perjured witness in the Hall-Mills murder case. But in a matter like the Lindbergh kidnap, wouldn’t you want the best resources and minds available?
--in order to place Richard Hauptmann near Hopewell at the time of the kidnapping, the prosecution produced three witnesses who perjured themselves: Hochmuth (who was legally blind and admitted pre-trial that he could not identify Hauptmann); Whited, a chronic liar who had denied to police seeing anything the day after the kidnapping—but came forward two years later, smelling reward money; and Rossiter, a man with a history of stealing from employers, and who gave an inaccurate description of Hauptmann’s car.
--Other witnesses strangely changed their testimony. The Osborns (handwriting experts) initially said Hauptmann’s handwriting did not match the ransom notes, but at the trial they said it positively did. In New York, Dr. John Condon would not identify Hauptmann as “Cemetery John,” but at the trial he did emphatically. Joseph Furcht, Hauptmann’s supervisor at the Majestic Apartments, swore in an affidavit that Hauptmann was working for him until 5PM on the day of the kidnapping—then backed off after a visit to the DA’s office. And those are just a few examples.
The prosecution’s greatest difficulty was in matching the kidnap ladder to Hauptmann. Fingerprint expert Dr. Erasmus Hudson lifted about 500 prints from the ladder—but not one belonged to Hauptmann. Captain John Lamb then asked Hudson a stunning question: Would it be possible to counterfeit fingerprints? Frustrated by his answer, “rail 16” then became the magic evidence that would link the ladder to Hauptmann. The New Jersey State Police took over the Hauptmann’s apartment. Detective Lewis Bornhmann—whose superior was Lamb--actually lived there. Suddenly he reported discovering a partially missing floor board in the attic of the Hauptmann home—even though this had not been noticed in at least 9 documented previous searches of the attic by at least 37 law enforcement agents.
The prosecution’s “wood expert” Arthur Koehler than claimed to the jury that rail 16 of the kidnap ladder was exclusively matched to the remaining partial-board in Hauptmann’s attic, even though it was of different width and depth than that board, and it would have been absurd for Hauptmann, a professional carpenter, to use a board from his attic as part of a ladder, when he had plenty of spare lumber in his garage—lumber that would not have been incriminating.
Then there was the infamous matter of Dr. John Condon’s contact information being scrawled in a closet of Hauptmann’s—used by the prosecution as evidence, though reporter Tom Cassidy of the New York Daily News had written it there to get a “scoop.”
And finally came Judge Trenchard’s extraordinary 1-hour 10-minute charge to the jury in which he essentially argued on behalf of the prosecution’s case and repeatedly cast doubt on the defense—in effect directing the jury to find Hauptmann guilty.
In light of all available evidence, I believe Richard Hauptmann was framed for the Lindbergh kidnapping. Many reasons are given—I have mentioned the explanation of inter-agency rivalry. It has also been said that the police were embarrassed by their failure to resolve the kidnapping, and thus hastily falsified evidenced and coerced witnesses. And it has been said that Attorney General Wilentz wanted a quick conviction out of political ambition to run for governor.
Actually, I don’t buy those explanations. If the New Jersey State Police wanted to make amends for their failure in the Lindbergh kidnapping, then why not bring in the FBI and Ellis Parker, and really solve the crime? If David Wilentz had political ambitions, wouldn’t they have been best served by convicting the right people?
I believe that the manipulation of evidence in this case—which included the police of two states, the New Jersey Attorney General’s office, and probably the judge himself—demonstrates an orchestrated plan, and not just an unfortunate random mix of personalities and ambitions.
Who was powerful enough to order such a coordinated effort? I know some people will say “Lindbergh—people thought he was a god!” I do not wish consume much space debating this right here, but I personally do not believe Lindbergh invented the kidnapping and paid a $50,000 ransom after killing his own son in a prank gone wrong (nobody, for a prank, goes up a rickety ladder with a gale blowing and no one holding the ladder, endangering his own life let alone his son’s—especially when he owned a much sturdier ladder). Nor do I believed he murdered his son out of malicious eugenics—CAL Jr. was an attractive boy who could talk and run—and even a eugenicist would not murder his own child over perceived deficits that were apparently rather minor. Nor do I believe Charles covered up a murder by a jealous sister-in-law—which would have required all family members and servants in the Lindergh and Morrow households to perfectly coordinate their stories for the police—and to stick to those stories for the rest of their lives.
Massive influence over the justice system could only be arranged by someone with enormous financial and political power—neither of which Lindbergh possessed on that scale, hero or not. People say “Money talks” and “Follow the money.” Let’s see if we can find money to follow.
There is a post in this board, Michael, which did not gather much attention—but I am grateful you put it up. I noticed it about two weeks ago. I’ll paste it in:
Scoopy's Notebook
Lindy sleuth: Stop the presses! Alan Marlis Ph.D. of Mulberry St. recently ran into our office to announce that he has solved the 1932 Lindbergh baby kidnapping case. After 21 years and 1,200 pages of investigative research, Marlis has concluded that, “the pieces came together pointing to James P. Warburg.” Among other findings, Marlis said Warburg, a banker and F.D.R. advisor, had motive since “Lindbergh’s congressman father Jew-baited his father, Paul Warburg, at the 1913 Federal Reserve Bank chairmanship hearings.” Futhermore, Marlis posits, “George Gershwin is having an affair with Warburg’s wife, Kay Swift, at their Greenwich estate at the time of the crime, adding to his psychological fragility.” What can we say? You read it here first.
www.thevillager.com/villager_323/scoopysnotebook.html
I have not been able to find Marlis’ manuscript, which is apparently unpublished, but here are remarks he made at www.blogonbooks.com/?p=8924
Alan Marlis Ph.D. on August 18th, 2010 4:22 pm
Last year I told Niall Ferguson of my 21 yr. 580pp ms. showing James Warburg kidnapped the Lindbergh baby. He said: ”I’m on that. Give me your card.” His book distances himself from James calling him a “Harvard half-wit” etc. The FBI File shows there is a REAL Warburg story out there. It links James to the prime suspect – the Morrow’s dressmaker, her sister is James’s governess. He brought them over from Hamburg, his birthplace. The motive is ALL Warburg – Lindbergh’s father Jew-baited Paul Warburg at 1913 Fed. Reserve Chairman Hearings. Paul dies 32 days before kidnapping. James has weekly poker game with mobsters & a life-long history of Lindbergh opposition culminating in a debate with him at Madison Square Garden. The 1st marked ransom bill turns up in Greenwich, Conn. James hometown. So Siegmund’s “halfwit” cousin is the REAL story waiting to be told. Alan Marlis CUNY Professor
At the mention of James Warburg, shock waves went through me. To understand, we must set the historical context. In 1913, America stood on the threshold of several momentous events—creation of the Federal Reserve, creation of income tax, and World War I.
I wrote an article on the Fed for The New American magazine in 2009. You can find the full text at www.thenewamerican.com/history/american/946
The Fed is the main cause of debt and inflation in the United States. It generates rising prices by creating money from nothing to finance federal spending. This enables the government to fight wars, like the one in Iraq, without raising taxes. The Fed simply creates the money to pay for the war. But by increasing the money supply, the value of money goes down, and prices soar. We simply pay for the war through higher prices instead of higher taxes, and politicians know we’ll blame the local retail store instead of the government. I encourage you to read the full article, but for the purposes of this discussion board, I quote some relevant excerpts:
The Fed was established when Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. But the original legislation, containing the essential points of that act, was introduced by Senator Nelson Aldrich, front man for the banking community. Few today have heard of Aldrich, but many are familiar with billionaire Nelson Rockefeller, who was Gerald Ford's vice president, long New York's governor, and one of America's richest men. His full name: Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller — named for his grandfather, Nelson Aldrich. Aldrich's daughter married John D. Rockefeller, Jr., and his son Winthrop served as chairman of the Rockefellers' Chase National Bank. Long associated with America's richest family, when Nelson Aldrich spoke on Capitol Hill, insiders knew he was acting for the Rockefellers and their allies in high finance.
The legislation he introduced in the Senate, which became the basis of the Federal Reserve System, was not written by him. It was crafted by several of the world's richest bankers, at a secret nine-day meeting in 1910, at a private club on Jekyll Island off the Georgia coast…
‘ Attending this meeting were agents from the world's three greatest banking houses: those of John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, and the Rothschilds. Together they represented an estimated 25 percent of the world's wealth. Acting for the Rockefellers were Senator Aldrich and Frank Vanderlip. Representing the Morgan interests were: Benjamin Strong, head of J.P. Morgan's Bankers Trust Company; Henry Davison, senior partner in J.P. Morgan & Co.; and Charles Norton, head of Morgan's First National Bank of New York. But the most important figure, credited with running the meeting, was Paul Warburg, who belonged to a prominent German banking family associated with the Rothschilds. The latter, the world's most powerful banking dynasty, had grown rich by establishing central banks that loaned money to European countries…
The axis of Warburg/Rothschild, Morgan and Rockefeller, and their Wall Street confederates, became known as the "Money Trust."…
Why did the bankers want the Fed? Whom do you suppose President Woodrow Wilson named first vice chairman of the Federal Reserve Board (a position from which national interest rates would be set)? Paul Warburg. Who was first head of New York Fed, the system's nucleus? Benjamin Strong. Thus the very men who had secretly planned the bank now controlled it. The foxes were running the henhouse. At the time, neither Congress nor the public had any inkling of the Jekyll Island meeting.
Paul Warburg's annual salary at Kuhn, Loeb, & Co. had been $500,000, the equivalent of well over $10 million in today's dollars. He relinquished that for a Federal Reserve Board position that paid only $12,000. Was it altruistic patriotism that tempted Warburg to make this transition? Or was it because $500,000 paled in comparison to the countless millions he could make, for himself and his associates, by controlling American interest rates, and thus making the stock market rise or fall at will?
Charles Lindbergh, Sr., father of the famous aviator, was a distinguished member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Congressman Lindbergh helped lead the fight against the Federal Reserve Act. In December 1913, he declared on the floor of the House:
"This act establishes the most gigantic trust on Earth. When the President signs this act the invisible government by the money power [Lindbergh here refers to the Rothschild-Rockefeller-Morgan alliance], proven to exist by the money trust investigation, will be legalized. The money power overawes the legislative and executive forces of the nation. I have seen these forces exerted during the different stages of this bill. From now on depressions will be scientifically created. The new law will create inflation whenever the trust wants inflation. If the trust can get a period of inflation, they figure they can unload stocks on the people at high prices during the excitement and then bring on a panic and buy them back at low prices. The people may not know it immediately, but the day of reckoning is only a few years removed."
Lindbergh's words were prophetic. Did inflation follow the Fed's establishment? Yes; Figure 1 graphically proves the impact on price levels. Were stocks unloaded on the people at high prices, then bought back at low prices after a panic? Yes. The "day of reckoning" Lindbergh predicted came with "Black Thursday" and the Great Crash of 1929.
(End of Excerpts)
Although Paul Warburg stayed out of the limelight, he was arguably the most powerful man in America. He was the prototype for “Daddy Warbucks,” “the richest man in the world.” When Woodrow Wilson went to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 (which settled the aftermath of World War I), who did he appoint to head the American delegation? Paul Warburg. Out of that conference came the League of Nations, which was the first attempt at establishing world government--goal of Warburg and “the Establishment.”
Paul Warburg’s son James, also a prominent banker, is probably best remembered for telling a Senate subcommittee in 1950 that we would have world government “by conquest or consent.” Here is the link to his subcommittee testimony: en.wikisource.org/wiki/James_Warburg_before_the_Subcommittee_on_Revision_of_the_United_Nations_Charter#We_shall_have_world_government
The man who stood most in the way of Paul Warburg was Congressman Charles Lindbergh, who even tried to have Warburg and his confederates impeached from the Federal Reserve Board in 1917. Here is a link to relevant passage in the Congressional record: www.scribd.com/doc/21176029/Charles-Lindbergh-Sr-Congressional-record-Feb-12-1917
Lindbergh attempted to keep us out of World War I and wrote the book Why Is Your Country at War? (1917).
It would probably not be going overboard to say that Charles Lindbergh Sr. was Paul Warburg’s greatest enemy. But Lindbergh could not overmatch the power of Warburg and the “Money Trust.” He was defeated in a run for the Senate, and when he died in 1924, I’d be willing to bet that a few cigars were lit on Wall Street.
Then the amazing happened. Seemingly from out of nowhere, Lindbergh’s only child, Charles Jr., made his historic flight, becoming the nation’s most celebrated hero. I don’t know if Paul and James Warburg smoked cigars, but if they did, they might have swallowed them at that moment. The son of their greatest enemy was now the center of national attention. What if Lindy used that microphone—like his father before him—to denounce the Federal Reserve and the “Money Trust”?
At that moment, I speculate there were probably a few people who would have dearly loved to see Lindbergh assassinated. Indeed, it was reported that two attempts were made on the life of Congressman Louis McFadden, chairman of House Committee on Banking and Currency from 1920 to 1931, who bitterly denounced the Fed before dying suddenly and unexpectedly during a trip to New York City in 1936. However, assassinating the young Lindbergh when he was in the nation’s spotlight would probably have been deemed too risky.
Nevertheless, Lindbergh did not speak out against the banking interests—perhaps one reason being a fortuitous invitation to make a “good will” flight to Mexico by Ambassador Dwight Morrow, who had been a partner in J. P. Morgan & Co. Lindbergh met, courted and married Morrow’s daughter Anne—which meant that if he spoke out against the Money Trust, he’d be speaking out against his in-laws. I have wondered if the Money Trust didn’t decide of Lindbergh--—“If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em—to us.” But that is, again, pure speculation on my part.
The statement by Alan Marlis, that James Warburg was behind the kidnapping, intrigued me. Congressman Charles Lindbergh and Fed founder Paul Warburg were arch-enemies. Who, then, more fitting to attack the son of Lindbergh than the son of Warburg?
Aptness, however, in no way makes it a fact. Two questions need to be asked and answered: (1) Is there evidence that the animosity begun between the fathers continued between the sons; and (2) Can James Warburg be linked to the kidnapping? The answers to both questions is “Yes.”
Most people know that Charles Lindbergh formed the America First Committee. Doing a little research, one discovers that James Warburg helped found and finance the Fight for Freedom Committee, as a counter to Lindbergh’s organization. One 1941 quote from James Warburg we have is: “Jew or Gentile, an American can say only this to Charles Lindbergh: Your second non-stop flight has taken you to a strange destination." news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1946&dat=19410425&id=k30tAAAAIBAJ&sjid=xZgFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6835,4377523
Indeed, as Marlis points out, in 1941 Lindbergh and Warburg squared off in a debate at Madison Square Garden—ideologically battling each other, just as their own fathers had done nearly three decades earlier. How I’d like to see a transcript of that debate! Perhaps we could say that the Lindbergh and Warburg clans were a sort of white-collar version of the Hatfields and McCoys.
Of course, many would argue that if Warburg opposed Lindbergh and the America First Committee, Warburg must have been the “good guy” in this adversarial relationship. Lindbergh has been severely criticized for opposing entry into the war, and I expect this has boosted the popularity of theories that Lindy killed his own son.
My own studies have persuaded me (though I am half-Jewish) that the war was less idealistic than portrayed, and that Lindbergh’s stand was not as reprehensible as has been said. This board is no place to debate World War II’s merits, but just so I don’t leave that statement totally unsupported, I suggest people check the citations on Pearl Harbor above, and ask if good men really let thousands of their own soldiers die because “the ends justifies the means.” I believe anyone who deeply examines World War II will find many contradictions—such as the war allegedly being started over concern for Poland’s sovereignty after Germany invaded in September 1939, yet the Allies looking the other way when Stalin invaded Poland that same month—and again when he crushed it in 1945. Indeed, in 1943, after Roosevelt and Churchill told Stalin he could have postwar eastern Poland (a classic example of appeasement), Poland’s President-In-Exile, Wladyslaw Sikorski, vociferously and publicly protested—until he died in a convenient “accident.” Do some digging into the strange deaths of TE Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia), the Duke of Kent, Rudolph Hess and others, and you will find some dirt under the Allied carpet, belying the good guy-bad guy simplicity of theatrically wonderful films like Casablanca.
But what about Warburg’s connection to the Lindbergh household? In FBI Files on the Lindbergh Baby Kidnapping (pp. 135-36) we read, amidst a summary of the various servants in the Morrow household:
“Mrs. Johannes Junge (see Margaret Jantzen) is of German descent, and has been employed by the Morrows for several years as a dressmaker and seamstress…she has the following known relatives…Virginia Juntzen [sic], sister, employed as governess by Mrs. James Warburg, of 36 East 70th Street, New York City…
“Miss Margaret Jantzen married to George Johannes Junge in Hamburg, Germany, in the year 1923. The Junge family of Hamburg is reputed to be very wealthy and Johannes Junge is said to be well educated and to have served in the Germany army. He entered the United States through New York Harbor on December 3, 1931 as a non-quota alien and took up his residence with his wife at 96 Engle St., Englewood, N. J. at which address there also resided for a time Henry ‘Red’ Johnson and Charles Henry Ellerson, second chauffeur for the Morrow family.
“According to an informant of the New York office, the fact that Margaret Jantzen was married did not come out until after the kidnapping. The investigation also developed that ‘Red’ Johnson and Mr. and Mrs. Junge claimed to be out for an automobile ride on the night of the kidnapping. All of these parties were subsequently cleared of suspicion by the New Jersey State Police…”
We are used to looking at the more obvious servants, such as Violet Sharp and Betty Gow, but Marguerite Junge (Jantzen) is involved at several key points:
--She lives at the same address as Red Johnson, Betty Gow’s unemployed boyfriend, and Ellerson, who drove Betty to Hopewell on the day of the kidnapping;
--She is the person Betty Gow asked to tell Red Johnson she would be going to Hopewell;
--She and her husband Johannes went out riding with Red Johnson on the night of the kidnapping, providing mutual alibis all around;
--She was the person who brought an aspirin to Violet Sharp the night before her suicide—which a handful of people have questioned as possibly a murder instead.
Jantzen’s husband arrived from Germany just three months before kidnapping. As Marlis points out, James Warburg’s father Paul died only 32 days before the kidnapping, and James was gradually heading toward a divorce. I might add that the US Senate’s Pecora hearings—an investigation into the causes of the crash of ’29—began just three days after the kidnapping. It was probable that these hearings would bring the Warburgs unflattering scrutiny.
I totally speculate here, but might it just be that in early 1932, James Warburg considered his family at its lowest point—and possibly viewed, with rage, newsreels of the baby son of the man he hated as his greatest enemy, now basking in the glow of public adoration? Did he then abuse his financial and political power by ordering the kidnap-murder?
In Jafsie Tells All, Dr. Condon summarized “Cemetery John’s” description of various members of the purported gang. Here is how the leader was described:
“Number one was the boss, he told me, a smart man who worked for the government and was, in private life, a very high official.”
A fascinating statement—one that could be construed as a veiled reference to Warburg.
I have noticed some other connections. “Red” Johnson met Betty Gow when he was employed by Thomas Lamont. The Lamonts and Warburgs were strong allies. Both Thomas Lamont and Paul Warburg served on the American delegation to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, and both were founding members of the Council on Foreign Relations (subject of my book The Shadows of Power). In 1940, Lamont helped found the Committee to Defend America—which, like James Warburg’s Fight for Freedom Committee, was set up to counteract Lindbergh’s America First Committee.
Now it might be objected that since both Lamont and Dwight Morrow were partners in J. P. Morgan & Co., Lamont would have been Lindbergh’s ally as well. My own feeling is that no one would have touched the baby while Morrow was alive. But after Dwight Morrow died in October 1931, perhaps the child was no longer perceived as “Morrow’s grandson,” but simply as “Lindbergh’s son,” and thus, in the eyes of someone like Warburg, fair game.
There are also connections between James Warburg and “Wild Bill” Donovan, one of the “three colonels” assisting Lindbergh after the kidnapping. Donovan, of course, is most famous for forming the OSS—forerunner of the CIA. Wikipedia’s article on James Warburg notes that Warburg “reentered government service in 1941 as Special Assistant to the Coordinator of Information, William Joseph Donovan.” Donovan and Warburg were also both speakers for the anti-Lindbergh Fight for Freedom Committee. Donovan’s associate Thayer helped steer Lindbergh to Rosner--and I wonder if it wasn’t a “bum steer.” I also just wonder if Donovan, professional spymaster-to-be, might have even served as Warburg’s “eyes and ears” on the Lindbergh household, keeping Warburg apprised of the response to the kidnapping.
We have had posts on this board about the very first Lindbergh gold certificate being identified at a bakery in Greenwich, Conn.—passed by an attractive, well-dressed woman who grabbed the certificate back and ran outside into a green chauffered sedan. Was this just possibly Warbug’s wife, Kay Swift? The Warburgs’ country home was in Greenwich, Conn.
Whoever this woman was, to me her reaction reflected guilt. I know we don’t all react to situations the same way. But personally, if I had accidentally come into possession of a Lindbergh ransom certificate, and a cashier told me, “Hey, this is Lindbergh ransom money,” I would have said something like, “Say, what? Are you kidding? Are you sure about that?” And when they showed me it matched the list, I’d say, “Wow! That’s amazing. Now, let’s see, where did I get that note? We better notify the cops.” To SEIZE THE BILL AND RUN, that really seems suspect—more than just a case of general nerves. I think some people have written this woman off as unassociated with the kidnapping, simply because she appeared to be so wealthy—but the Warburg thesis casts the incident in new light.
As followers of this board know, one of the mysteries of the LKC is the identity of “J. J. Faulkner,” who cashed in nearly $3,000 in gold certs. I know this subject has probably been beaten to death, but here we go (sigh) with another one of those tantalizing little coincidences. Kay Swift’s middle name was Faulkner, and the bills were exchanged at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York--and who would know how to work the Fed’s system better than the son of its founder?
But let me just counterbalance the foregoing by mentioning that (1) the Warburgs certainly didn’t need money; and (2) looking at Kay Swift’s bio—she was a delightful musical figure on Broadway—I cannot conceive of her being a conscious participant in the kidnapping scheme.
,
Michael, you said you enjoyed my post called “Hollywood Musings,” in which I observed some eery parallels between the LKC and the two film versions of Hitchcock’s The Man Who Knew Too Much. I had never seen the 1934 version in its entirety, so a few days ago I watched it on Youtube. In the 1955 version, the church where the criminals hide the child seems quasi-Christian. But in the original it is totally occult, with secretive initiation rites and people put into trances—much more reminiscent of Mary Cerrita and the Temple of Divine Power.
Moreover, the child is kidnapped in St. Moritz. I almost swallowed my popcorn on that one—Moritz was Paul Warburg’s middle name, and the first name of James Warburg’s grandfather. Did the victimized “Lawrences” of The Man Who Knew Too Much represent the “Lindberghs”? As a matter of fact, the Warburg interests did finance films, but I haven’t found anything linking them to this one. Furthermore, doing a little cinema research, I found that Hitchcock explained that he and his wife had honeymooned in St. Moritz, and he thought it would make a good venue for a movie scene. So it’s probably just another coincidence—I guess.
I certainly do NOT have nearly enough evidence to say, with conviction, that James Warburg ordered the Lindbergh kidnap-murder. But apparently Alan Marlis believes he does. I have written to Professor Marlis, asking if his manuscript is scheduled for publication, and asking him a few key questions (such as who he believes Warburg hired to carry out the crime). I have also ordered a copy of Warburg’s 1964 autobiography The Long Road Home, to see if anything relevant might be gleaned. When I viewed the book’s image on Amazon, I was momentarily curious about the symbol on the cover, which includes a circle within a circle—but the symbol clearly represents a compass, which fits with the title. Again, some coincidences are meaningful—and quite a few don’t mean a thing!
IF this theory is true—and I still underscore “if”--I am going to guess that Warburg intended to murder the child and leave its savaged corpse as a “present” for Lindbergh, but that most of the kidnappers themselves did not know this in advance. This would explain why Violet started to crack up after the body’s discovery, and why Fisch applied for a passport the day the body was discovered—they suddenly realized they were parties to a murder. I am awaiting Professor Marlis’s response.