|
Post by Michael on May 20, 2017 10:08:01 GMT -5
The biggest issue that faced Lindbergh, after his son was kidnapped, was himself. Realizing what had just taken place, he immediately wanted to take full responsibility in having his son returned in a single-minded mission, something he felt was his specialty. Of course, this didn't involve flying the Pacific or Great Circle or building something new and amazing. He now had to count almost entirely on his abilities to deal with many different people and personalities interactively and somehow he must have felt he was capable of marshaling their collective force to a successful conclusion. And even when he knowingly kept these relationships so highly compartmentalized. I think the first thing to consider was that Lindbergh wasn't a stupid man. Even Lawyers charged with a crime hire other Lawyers to represent them. Here we have an Aviator taking over the role as lead cop. That in and of itself is a red-flag. Many kidnappings are perpetrated by a family member and nowadays they are the first to get looked at. So this idea that it shouldn't be at least considered is silly if you ask me. Someone.. Anne was not strong enough at the time, perhaps Breckinridge, Mrs. Morrow or a trusted friend, needed to reason logically and emotionally with him in a quiet room and allow the investigation to proceed with only his assistance. Would he have listened? Maybe, but we'll never really know. There would still have been challenges between the competing law enforcement agencies, but perhaps one of them would have been able to rise up and guide the investigation to a successful conclusion, long before now. I think you are offering an "excuse" for his behavior. Could it be right? Who knows - so it should be considered. But so should everything else. I personally think this narrative about Lindbergh that you have constructed is false, but I can't tell you how to feel. As for Mrs. Morrow sitting him down - if you turn to page 130 of my book they weren't even on speaking terms. Jack, I understand what you're saying about the issue of libel and slander. Can anyone really imagine what would be worse? Losing your first-born son to a mind, or minds, quite literally bordering on the demonic, or as a family, having to endure over 85 years of having this unfortunate child picked apart for potential, "infanticide-inducing illnesses" and the resulting level of innuendo and accusations towards his father? This case needs to get back on the right track and in the right direction. There are always victims when a crime occurs. In this case it was never solved. So we must go where the evidence leads us. If one doesn't like a specific path it points to then they can always malign someone... like Robert Reihl by calling him "drunk" because his eyewitness account doesn't jibe with what "Windy" Condon told cops. You see, there's no way around doing this - by anyone.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 20, 2017 12:53:50 GMT -5
Especially to take the Lindbergh and Morrow families who still have many living relatives and drag their names through the dirt pretty severely is probably, or at least close to criminal. I think if I was a Lindbergh or Morrow I'd start a few lawsuits in hopes of shutting some loudmouths or loud keyboards up. Mmm, point taken. After all, Ahlgren and Monier and Noel Behn got sued back to the Stone Age for their less-than-flattering theories on the kidnapping--oh, wait; no they didn't, because there's no case for that. No one's accusing living Lindberghs or Morrows of involvement in (or even knowledge of) something that happened 85 freaking years ago. It's about where the evidence and (actual) facts lead, and I, for one, am not really interested in how uncomfortable that may be, for anyone.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on May 20, 2017 15:38:23 GMT -5
There are a couple of other considerations that may have contributed to Condon's choice of the Bronx Home News. One might be his level of comfort from personal connection to the newspaper and friendships with its staff from being a frequent contributor in the past. He might also have thought, as turned out to be the case, that other papers would pick up on his Home News article and his request to fill the go-between role.
As for the NYT, it was primarily a newspaper for the more upscale and educated segment of the reading public, not the criminal element that would be doing a kidnapping.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 20, 2017 17:42:39 GMT -5
Absolutely agree that Condon chose The Bronx Home News because it was in his comfort zone; he knew the editor-publisher and knew he could get something in there quickly and easily. But I still think the odds of the kidnappers just happening to see Condon's offer as fast as they did AND taking it seriously enough to respond are really slim. I think this indicates prearrangement.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 20, 2017 23:21:12 GMT -5
Riehl's identification/description of Condon was incorrect, why do you expect his I.D. of CJ would be accurate?
What evidence is there that Charles was an eugenecist? I've seen in the Doctor's writings that he was so inclined (scholastically at least) but where did Lindbergh ever show those inclinations. Lindbergh was not a NAZI. Even if he were, normal NAZIs may have thought they were a superior race, but they didn't believe in euthanizing the rest of the planet.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on May 21, 2017 6:11:20 GMT -5
What do think his point was of having children with four different women? Two of whom were sisters?
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on May 21, 2017 6:14:21 GMT -5
Eugenics doesn't mean he was a murderer but I see evidence he was an eugenicist. Seems this was an evolving theory in the 1920's and 30's.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 21, 2017 6:19:27 GMT -5
Riehl's identification/description of Condon was incorrect, why do you expect his I.D. of CJ would be accurate? Well Jack you are making my point aren't you? It's really not about who is right and who is wrong but it could be that too. We have Condon's description, something that varies each and every time - to the fact his identification of people who are wildly different from those descriptions AND the fact the man couldn't keep a story straight about anything compared to a "control" witness account description coming from a disinterested neutral 3rd person. And you pick Condon? What evidence is there that Charles was an eugenecist? I've seen in the Doctor's writings that he was so inclined (scholastically at least) but where did Lindbergh ever show those inclinations. I think the question should be what evidence is there he wasn't? Good Lord it's everywhere! How about that he was the Director of the American Eugenics Society from 1955 thru 1959?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on May 22, 2017 2:41:49 GMT -5
I'm talking about Riehl. You say above that his description of CJ didn't match Hauptmann, and according to Gardner Riehl's description of Condon didn't match Condon, so why do you expect any accuracy about what he says about CJ?
I think Condon couldn't remember some of the things he'd said. He wasn't trying to be evasive except in a few cases, just kinda' forgetful.
Direct observations about anybody and by anyone but a trained observer (police or similar occupation) are usually way off. Our journalism instructor did a personal experiment of a guy coming into the classroom and yelling and banging around a few chairs. Afterward the class was to write down a description of the intruder. From the descriptions it wouldn't seem that everyone was describing the same person. One woman wrote he was a black guy - he was white. So in that class, not very good as evidence.
I guess Charles was, if he could be, a eugenicist, but I'll further look it up. I was never particularly interested in Charles Lindbergh. Especially since they painted his name off the water tower - anyone know if it's back on? I havn't been there in a long time.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 22, 2017 16:37:23 GMT -5
I'm talking about Riehl. You say above that his description of CJ didn't match Hauptmann, and according to Gardner Riehl's description of Condon didn't match Condon, so why do you expect any accuracy about what he says about CJ? I think Condon couldn't remember some of the things he'd said. He wasn't trying to be evasive except in a few cases, just kinda' forgetful. Condon constantly lied and was unreliable. Nothing he said could be trusted. So I am skeptical of anything he says. And so here comes along (unexpectedly) the Cemetery Guard who believes he's caught two men trying to rob the cemetery. The short 22 year old yells " here comes a cop!" which, by any explanation isn't an accusatory phrase of betrayal, rather, one of warning to a co-conspirator. Reihl, who is German, detected no foreign accent from the little guy he saw jump off the column then run away. The man on the other side was clean shaven and between 50 to 55 years old. When asked if it was Condon, who he had seen pictures of in the paper, he said no it wasn't him. Asked if he could identify that man he said "yes" if and only if he met him face to face. Reihl has been shrugged off by history because his account doesn't help either the "Hauptmann did it alone" crowd or the "Hauptmann is innocent" crew. But since I belong to neither of these groups I have looked at it with an open mind - as it always should have been.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on May 22, 2017 19:31:11 GMT -5
Cemetery guard Riehl saw something, and someone, very much different than Condon, and much of this has to do with their individual lines of sight. In a nutshell, I don't believe Riehl ever saw CJ, the man Condon was talking to, but saw an accomplice on the side closest to him and on top of one of the large stone columns at the Woodlawn front gates. During the excitement and confusion created by Riehls's sudden appearance, CJ, who was standing on the ground, clambered over the iron fence directly in front of Condon and took off. Condon's interest was now focused on the fleeing CJ, but he waited long enough to shout to Riehl that everything was alright. As Condon turned to take chase after CJ, Riehl never saw Condon well enough to take in his features, and so as Condon hurried after CJ, Riehl confused him for a younger, and clean-shaven man. In the meantime, the accomplice who was dressed in lighter coloured clothing, whom Condon had never even noticed due to his intentionally camouflaged position on the white stone column, the same man originally seen by Riehl, took off in a different direction. Later, while talking with CJ at the tennis shack, Condon sensed CJ was aware of, or on the lookout for his younger accomplice, who could well have returned and was somewhere nearby.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on May 23, 2017 4:45:28 GMT -5
Cemetery guard Riehl saw something, and someone, very much different than Condon, and much of this has to do with their individual lines of sight. In a nutshell, I don't believe Riehl ever saw CJ, the man Condon was talking to, but saw an accomplice on the side closest to him and on top of one of the large stone columns at the Woodlawn front gates. During the excitement and confusion created by Riehls's sudden appearance, CJ, who was standing on the ground, clambered over the iron fence directly in front of Condon and took off. Condon's interest was now focused on the fleeing CJ, but he waited long enough to shout to Riehl that everything was alright. As Condon turned to take chase after CJ, Riehl never saw Condon well enough to take in his features, and so as Condon hurried after CJ, Riehl confused him for a younger, and clean-shaven man. In the meantime, the accomplice who was dressed in lighter coloured clothing, whom Condon had never even noticed due to his intentionally camouflaged position on the white stone column, the same man originally seen by Riehl, took off in a different direction. Later, while talking with CJ at the tennis shack, Condon sensed CJ was aware of, or on the lookout for his younger accomplice, who could well have returned and was somewhere nearby.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on May 23, 2017 4:49:44 GMT -5
Interesting thought! It would make sense to me that someone else would be there in case CJ was arrested. That could so easily have happened. Too bad these things weren't investigated before the trial.o
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2017 11:36:32 GMT -5
Cemetery guard Riehl saw something, and someone, very much different than Condon, and much of this has to do with their individual lines of sight. In a nutshell, I don't believe Riehl ever saw CJ, the man Condon was talking to, but saw an accomplice on the side closest to him and on top of one of the large stone columns at the Woodlawn front gates. During the excitement and confusion created by Riehls's sudden appearance, CJ, who was standing on the ground, clambered over the iron fence directly in front of Condon and took off. Condon's interest was now focused on the fleeing CJ, but he waited long enough to shout to Riehl that everything was alright. As Condon turned to take chase after CJ, Riehl never saw Condon well enough to take in his features, and so as Condon hurried after CJ, Riehl confused him for a younger, and clean-shaven man. In the meantime, the accomplice who was dressed in lighter coloured clothing, whom Condon had never even noticed due to his intentionally camouflaged position on the white stone column, the same man originally seen by Riehl, took off in a different direction. Later, while talking with CJ at the tennis shack, Condon sensed CJ was aware of, or on the lookout for his younger accomplice, who could well have returned and was somewhere nearby. Interesting theory! I am all for CJ having a partner with him the night he met with Condon. I am going to quote from Robert Riehl's July 19, 1932 statement and see if we can work your theory out. "At 9:45 PM March the 12th, 1932 I left the Main entrance gate to arrive at Van Courtland gate where I was to make the ring at 10:00 PM. Upon my arrival at Van Courtland gate I observed a man sitting on top of the stone column of the gate, talking to the other fellow who was on the outside of the gate and the man sitting on the column seen me I was then about 75 feet away from him. He hollered to the other man who was on the outside of the gate (There's the Cop coming) the other man did not answer at all, the fellow on the top of the column then jumped down and I thought he had broke his leg, when he got up, he ran across 233rd Str., into the Park and disappeared. As I went near the gate and questioned the other man who was on the outside, as to what the young fellow was doing on the top of the column, and his reply was (I don't know, I have no idea and if you wait a minute I'll go over and ask him) I made my ring at this gate and waited about 5 or 6 minutes and no one came back, so I continued on my patrol and I had no idea what it was all about."The underscoring in the quote is mine so we can be clear about the persons Riehl is saying he saw. So according to what Riehl is stating, he only saw two persons; the man sitting on top of the column (CJ or accomplice) and the man on the outside of the gate (Condon). Condon claimed he conversed with a man who was on the inside of the gate who had waved a handkerchief through the gate to get his attention. Condon also says that this man was on the ground inside the gate and climbed the gate and jumped down and ran away when he heard Riehl approaching. So some questions: 1) The man on the column who Riehl saw as he approached, when could he have gotten in that position? Condon had been at that gate earlier and didn't see anyone on the column. He saw no one at all. Could the column man have climbed up onto the column after Condon left the gate area the first time he had approached it and returned to Al Reich's car? 2) The man with the handkerchief that passed Condon and Reich. Do you think this man is the person who ended up on the inside of the gate area and motioned to Condon with the handkerchief to have him approach the gate. Wouldn't the column man have been in place by this time? 3) Do you recall if Condon ever mentioned a man on the column in any of his numerous statements about this encounter? Otherwise, Riehl puts only Condon and the column man at the gate area and Condon only has one man at the gate area with him, the man standing on the inside of the gate. 4) Both Condon and Riehl mention a jumper, just from different positions; Riehl's man from the column and Condon's man from the gate. Riehl's jumper takes the leap before he gets there which means that Condon must be standing right there when it happens. Are both Condon and Riehl not seeing one of the jumpers? (gate and column) 5) Do you know if Al Reich saw more than one man leaving the scene that night or just the one who ran across 233rd Street?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on May 24, 2017 11:12:20 GMT -5
My thoughts: - I think it was CJ's plan to direct Condon to a point near the front gate, as he did. The accomplice on top of the stone column would have been there to support or distract as required, well before CJ waved the white handkerchief to attract Condon's attention. The lighter coloured clothing would have been intentionally worn to blend in well with the stone columns. I've seen those columns up close and they would have made a great hiding spot at night, with lots of nooks and crannies. I believe they're gone now, but they were about 14 feet high at their peak. And if you are looking to hide from someone and especially at night, most people don't think to look up.
- Yes, I think the passerby on the sidewalk could have been CJ scoping out the situation, and that the accomplice would have been in place on the stone column by this time.
- I don't believe Condon ever claimed to have seen the man Riehl claimed to have observed jumping from the stone column. He did notice a Dodge sedan parked nearby though.
- It depends which one of the multiple stone columns Riehl was talking about. Between the locations where Condon engaged CJ at the fence and the "jumper location," I estimate, could have been up to 50 or 60 feet from each other. As the iron fence angled away somewhat from the main entrance gates, I think Condon would possibly have had challenges seeing what Riehl saw coming from inside the cemetery.
- Al Reich claimed to having only seen CJ running from the scene, with Condon in pursuit.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 24, 2017 12:19:28 GMT -5
It's funny you should mention the Woodlawn columns. I was just doing a Google Map search of Woodlawn yesterday, and took it down to street view. The gates at Jerome and 233rd are no longer there, but one of the columns is--I think the one which CJ (or his lookout) was perched on.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on May 24, 2017 12:46:34 GMT -5
I don't think I've ever seen an account of exactly which stone column it was. Have you seen any references? I seem to recall there is a hand-drawn map drawn from the time, which showed the locations of the players involved.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on May 24, 2017 13:36:45 GMT -5
Can someone please refresh my memory as to how Riehl wound up giving a statement regarding the March 12, 1932 doings at Woodlawn Cemetery months after it actually happened? Did Riehl decide on his own to go to law enforcement or did law enforcement somehow find Riehl and question him?
If I am not mistaken, Condon didn't mention the presence of any night watchman in his account of that first encounter with CJ.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 24, 2017 14:35:44 GMT -5
Here's what I think is the column today: www.google.com/maps/@40.8948107,-73.8800732,3a,75y,61.92h,73.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXuokJrBnt3fDSmDwHBzRTw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1 I base that on this photo: And here is that hand drawn layout of the cemetery that I think you're talking about (the column being the one furthest down Jerome Ave.):
|
|
|
Post by scathma on May 24, 2017 15:18:16 GMT -5
If you street view down 233rd St. you'll see an identical column. Note the fencing as it appears in the drawing and how it diagonally cuts the corner of Jerome/233rd I think they leveled the section that was historically relevant to the LKC to build that ugly cubist mausoleum/crematory All that are left are those "mini columns" and not the imposing columns described in the CJ encounter from back in the day...
Maybe if you put this link in your browser it will show both mini columns and depict the diagonal as in the drawing www.google.com/maps/@40.8952287,-73.8800653,3a,75y,140.06h,77.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9cSItNSanwoy5iFMaqW_5Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 24, 2017 15:47:21 GMT -5
In the photo I posted (the black and white one), you'll see the same fence as there today extending to the right of the column, as it still does in the Google Maps link I posted. If there are people there and someone took a photo--this is what makes me think that it was "the spot", which could also correspond to the layout in that drawing. Could be wrong though... Either way, you're right: Those two columns in your Google Maps link are all that remain of the gate area where Condon met CJ.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on May 24, 2017 16:01:28 GMT -5
Just found this: pellegrinlowend.com/woodlawn.html
"The beautiful Jerome Avenue North Gate has been recently demolished to make way for large community mausoleums—what I call the Corpse Condo's . I don't believe anyone would call it an aesthetic improvement, but space is dwindling and the price of a genuine grave site continues to grow…"
I don't know what "recently" means as far as demolition. Pity another LKC site is lost to the march of time...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2017 16:25:04 GMT -5
It's funny you should mention the Woodlawn columns. I was just doing a Google Map search of Woodlawn yesterday, and took it down to street view. The gates at Jerome and 233rd are no longer there, but one of the columns is--I think the one which CJ (or his lookout) was perched on. As has been mentioned here, the north gate for Woodlawn Cemetery was removed to build that large mausoleum that is now there. Because there was historical significance to this entry, part of it was relocated to the Jerome Avenue entrance that is near the elevated subway. I am going to put a link here to the google maps location so you can see it. When you click on this link, you will be on google maps. If you rotate to look to the left you will see the old gate entrance as it appears today. tinyurl.com/lk4mw8kThis area of Jerome Ave is also significant because the Hot Dog stand where Condon picked up the directional note was located on this portion of the road. The stand is no longer there either.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 24, 2017 16:29:40 GMT -5
Yep, that's another entrance, farther up Jerome. Across from there, as you say, was the hot dog stand.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2017 16:30:33 GMT -5
Can someone please refresh my memory as to how Riehl wound up giving a statement regarding the March 12, 1932 doings at Woodlawn Cemetery months after it actually happened? Did Riehl decide on his own to go to law enforcement or did law enforcement somehow find Riehl and question him? If I am not mistaken, Condon didn't mention the presence of any night watchman in his account of that first encounter with CJ. Please check Lloyd Gardner's book The Case That Never Dies, page 66. Condon claims he talked to Riehl. Riehl's physical description of the man he spoke to does not align with Condon so I am doubtful about the whole exchange Condon is claiming he made with Riehl.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on May 24, 2017 18:17:13 GMT -5
Because there was historical significance to this entry, part of it was relocated to the Jerome Avenue entrance that is near the elevated subway. Thanks for the link and explanation. Nice that they kept the entrance relatively intact and relocated the fixtures...
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on May 24, 2017 19:12:42 GMT -5
My bad, amy35. Michael apparently had Riehl's name misspelled, so I looked it up in Gardner's index and couldn't find it. But after your post, I found that Riehl is in Gardner's index, and checked out p. 66 as you said.
I still don't know how Riehl came to make a statement to police. Did Riehl go directly to the police after he left his night shift to report the incident, or did Condon testify to the Bronx grand jury in May, mentioned the presence of a night watchman at the cemetery, whereupon police found out from the cemetery that the night watchman on that shift was Riehl and therefore decided to interview Riehl?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 24, 2017 19:18:44 GMT -5
Cemetery guard Riehl saw something, and someone, very much different than Condon, and much of this has to do with their individual lines of sight. In a nutshell, I don't believe Riehl ever saw CJ, the man Condon was talking to, but saw an accomplice on the side closest to him and on top of one of the large stone columns at the Woodlawn front gates. During the excitement and confusion created by Riehls's sudden appearance, CJ, who was standing on the ground, clambered over the iron fence directly in front of Condon and took off. Condon's interest was now focused on the fleeing CJ, but he waited long enough to shout to Riehl that everything was alright. As Condon turned to take chase after CJ, Riehl never saw Condon well enough to take in his features, and so as Condon hurried after CJ, Riehl confused him for a younger, and clean-shaven man. In the meantime, the accomplice who was dressed in lighter coloured clothing, whom Condon had never even noticed due to his intentionally camouflaged position on the white stone column, the same man originally seen by Riehl, took off in a different direction. Later, while talking with CJ at the tennis shack, Condon sensed CJ was aware of, or on the lookout for his younger accomplice, who could well have returned and was somewhere nearby. You are doing something I like and that is thinking "outside the box." I hate the expression but like the approach. However, if true, I can't believe Condon doesn't see the 3rd person. Next, while all accounts have CJ running into the Park, Riehl recalls a quick conversation with the man outside the fence and said he could identify him. Condon also claims a quick conversation with Riehl. Finally, while Riehl saw CJ run away, the man on the outside of the fence turned and walked into the park then disappeared. Riehl waited for him to return for a couple of minutes and when he did not then departed. So if Riehl is to be believed, and he has no motive not to be, then where did these two go, and if the one man was actually Condon, then CJ was waiting for him - there wasn't a foot pursuit with Condon winning then convincing CJ to speak with him. Just a couple of thoughts: 1. Condon was lying and Reich was backing him up. Reich's statement is mixed with observation but also he's retelling a story that he heard from Condon. CJ was sitting on top of the column so he would be able to spot someone coming (like a cop). I think Riehl got close because the guy was looking for an approach from outside the fence. 2. No. This man was supposed to be a "Calabrese Italian." Also, the graveyard was locked which would mean he was climbing the fence to get in right after walking by. Then again these men weren't exactly truthful so all of this only matters if they were being honest about this account of the man. My bad, amy35. Michael apparently had Riehl's name misspelled, so I looked it up in Gardner's index and couldn't find it. But after your post, I found that Riehl is in Gardner's index, and checked out p. 66 as you said. I still don't know how Riehl came to make a statement to police. Did Riehl go directly to the police after he left his night shift to report the incident, or did Condon testify to the Bronx grand jury in May, mentioned the presence of a night watchman at the cemetery, whereupon police found out from the cemetery that the night watchman on that shift was Riehl and therefore decided to interview Riehl? Riehl's name is spelled both ways in the various sources, but the correct spelling is "Riehl." The Police went to him. ***Just a quick comment to say I continue to find new material. I went to a "secret" location this weekend and found material I have been looking for that is not at the NJSP Archives. It's just amazing to me. Here it's almost 17 years and I am still finding new stuff!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on May 25, 2017 8:55:57 GMT -5
Thanks for the map, LJ. I have seen that one, but thought there was also one which detailed the movements of Riehl as he made his approach to the front gate. Perhaps someone else can confirm. As for the photo, I'm not sure what's being pointed out there, and I believe Condon met CJ face-to-face along a stretch of fencing, well to the right of the main entranceway stone columns and closer to Jerome Ave. It is important to note that the Barrow drawing is similar to, but not truly representative of the gate and fence configuration of the north-west corner of Woodlawn Cemetery. I have some photos from my Bronx Tour of 2001, as well as Highfields and Flemington and will try to get these scanned and posted soon. Riehl seems to get some things about Condon's description right, ie. round face, apparently American and spoke like one, dark suit, but he was clearly off regarding Condon's age and didn't see his moustache. I have difficulty discounting Condon's accounting of the event and sudden interruption by Riehl, and I tend to be more doubtful about Riehl's actual vantage point to have accurately described Condon, whose attention was now divided by a fleeing CJ and the approaching Riehl. Do you believe Riehl was describing someone other than Condon, and why are you doubtful of what Condon described? Here's how I believe this went down. Condon would not have been in a position to have even seen the man on top of the stone column, because of his location with CJ, along the fence line well to the right of the main entrance gates. At this point, the fence line angled away from the front gates in a slight south-west direction, so again line of sight comes into play here. As Riehl approached the main entrance from the south, he claimed to have heard the man on top of the stone column shout out, "There's the cop coming!", but I believe Riehl is mistaken hear and it was CJ, who was now also aware of the approaching Riehl, who actually shouted this. Riehl claimed to have seen the man on the stone column jump down and run across 233rd St. into the park, so this was not actually CJ as described by Condon. By the time Riehl reached Condon's location along the fence line, with Condon lagging behind to acknowledge Riehl's presence, both the man on the stone column first, and then CJ second, had taken off across 233rd St. Al Reich would not have seen the man on the stone column crossing 233rd St. because of is line of sight, he would have only seen CJ. Condon's attention was pre-occupied by CJ clambering over the 8 foot fence in front of him and the approaching Riehl, to whom he felt obligated to provide some explanation. Condon never saw the man on the stone column at all, and only sensed CJ was aware of his nearby presence when the two men met a few minutes later by the tennis shack. - How is Condon lying here and what reason would he have to lie? There are two vastly different descriptions here of individuals as encountered by both Condon and Riehl, but ultimately, were they actually observing the same individual? We know Condon was at Woodlawn with Reich and he describes CJ to investigators, a description that is much more fitting with Hauptmann, than the description Riehl gave of the shorter and younger man on the stone column, who might conceivably be Fisch. If Riehl was so intent on simply retelling Condon's story, why these totally disparate descriptions and why would he describe Condon's facial features so inaccurately? I believe Riehl was simply mistaken about Condon's facial features, given the hurried nature of their meeting, and that both CJ (met by Condon) and the man on the stone column (seen by Riehl) were there.
- You're right, and I recall now it was a similar description to the "handkerchief man" at St. Raymonds. I wonder if this same man, if he was actually involved, would have had time to enter the cemetery further south, double back, doff his coat and take a position on top of the stone column by the main entrance gate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2017 10:58:01 GMT -5
Riehl seems to get some things about Condon's description right, ie. round face, apparently American and spoke like one, dark suit, but he was clearly off regarding Condon's age and didn't see his moustache. I have difficulty discounting Condon's accounting of the event and sudden interruption by Riehl, and I tend to be more doubtful about Riehl's actual vantage point to have accurately described Condon, whose attention was now divided by a fleeing CJ and the approaching Riehl. Do you believe Riehl was describing someone other than Condon, and why are you doubtful of what Condon described? Riehl's physical description of the man on the outside of the gate that he talked to, given in his July 19. 1932 statement to Sgt. Zapolsky, NJSP and Det. James Fitzgerald of the Jersey City Police is what made me doubtful it was Condon he spoke to. The man Riehl describes in this statement is too young (50 to 55 yrs), too short (5'6"-5'7"), too light weight (170 lbs.), clean shaven which Condon was not, and had a round face which Condon did not have. All these attributes do not describe Condon who 71 years old in March of 1932, was at minimum, 6 feet tall, over 200 pounds, a very distinctive mustache on a face that was longer and had a more angled chin line. The clothing described is quite common for men to wear at that time so I don't see that as definitive in the description. I realize that there can be some variations when giving a physical description but there are just too many big ones in Riehl's description here. It just doesn't fit Condon. Having said all the above, I want to bring up another statement by Riehl. This one was given only a month after Riehl had the gate encounter. This statement was given to Officer James A. Avon, Bronx Police Department. Michael had posted this earlier statement on Ronelle's Hoax site years ago. I am posting it here for review. "At 11-45 P.M. April 13th, 1932, we visited Woodlawn Cemetery gate at 233rd Street and Jerome Avenue, and interviewed Special Patrolman Robert Reihl, badge 534, and he informed us that on March 12th, 1932, he was working the 4-00 P.M. to 12-00 mid. tour; that while walking up Park Avenue to make 10-00 P.M. ring on box 442, located at the gate of 233rd Street & Jerome Avenue, he observed a man, with following description, 22 years, 5'3", 135 lbs, slim build, sitting on top of iron gate, at above location in conversation with a man standing on ground on outside of gate (Description-about 50 years, 5'9", 200lbs., black overcoat and black soft hat.) Reihl further stated that man on gate saw him approach and stated: "Here comes a cop", whereupon he jumped to ground outside of cemetery, ran across Jerome Avenue and into Van Cortlandt Park. Riehl stated that he asked man on outside of gate whether man who had fled was trying to steal something, and man stated he did not know, but he would follow him and aske[sic] him, whereupon he walked across Jerome Avenue and vanished in the park. Riehl also stated that at 9-00 P.M. March 12th, 1932, he was at gate opposite refreshment stand, mentioned and pictured in the newspapers, but he did not observe anyone near same."I tend to think that the closer a statement is to the event that is being talked about, the more accurate the recounting is. In most cases, your recall is better because not much time has passed from the time something has happened to the time you are asked to give the details. There are some differences in this earlier statement. Most notably are: 1) The smaller man is not on the cement column when Riehl first observes him, he is on top of the iron gate. 2) The man who jumps from the gate runs across Jerome Ave. into Van Cortlandt Park instead of running across 233rd Street. 3) The man on the outside of the gate that Riehl converses with is still 50 yrs old but he is taller at 5'9" and heavier at 200 lbs. Here is a picture from Ronelle's Hoax site of the cemetery entrance before the area was changed. I would think that balancing yourself on the iron gate would not be easy to do for any length of time.
|
|