|
Post by Michael on Sept 12, 2012 21:05:39 GMT -5
Let me quickly say what's on my mind before I forget.... You have to remember the context in which these Investigations and Interviews were taking place. Anita, is trying her best to answer their questions to the best of her ability. She isn't describing a devastating injury (as evidenced by the photo), rather, she is remembering what she considered a limp. Two months ago, for example, I hurt my back and as a result limped for about a day or two. Ask someone who encountered me 2 years from now and they may remember it. Now insert that fact to insinuate I fell off a ladder and there you have it - something ordinary whipped up into something fantastic. Problem is there was no fall in the first place. Next, we absolutely know what the problem was and when it created this serious limp which the Police were able to learn about. But it doesn't equal what they would portray at Trial or what certain people were trying to deliver to the Police. According to Hoover, Dr. Meyer said Hauptmann began treatment for chronic phlebitis in both legs on 2/14/33 thru 4/17/33. Dr. Meyer suggested that the origin of this condition was an injury (either a fracture or severe sprain) and that this condition could come anytime after an accident but that he was inclined to think that the cause for this particular case did not occur a great while prior to the discovery of the infection. And so, would Hauptmann be playing Soccer with a severe sprain and/or fractured leg? Would he be collecting ransom by vaulting over a Cemetery Gate then sprinting away only a month later? Would he be playing around with friends by carrying a Women on his back merely for the sake of silly photos? Common Sense. That's all that is needed here and this whole entire matter answers itself. The man had Varicose Veins which gradually got worse then began to cause him pain in early 1933. That pain caused him to limp around for a period of time. The Police wanted him to be injured to fit into their theory the Perp had fallen off of the kidnap ladder. Early 1933 morphed into early 1932 for exactly that purpose. I look at it this way: Who is the Liar? Who had problems "remembering" things? Who at times seemed "confused" or baffled? Reihl or Condon? I believe the Neutral independent party as opposed to the person in league with the Kidnappers who had, time and time again and again, proven himself to be unreliable at best or a damned liar at worst. But your point about the speedy recovery is important for several reasons. Hoover noted it too, and in his letter to Sisk on 10-5-34: The Attorney General, in a memorandum addressed to the Division, points out that there is a possible conflict of testimony in this regard when Dr. Meyer's statements and conclusions are considered and compared with the statements of Dr. J. F. Condon that "John" was very fleet of foot and sufficiently athletic to vault a high wall surrounding a Bronx Cemetery.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2012 9:28:48 GMT -5
Michael, thanks for sharing what you could about the "alarm" system for Hauptmann's garage. I am inclined to agree with BR here that perhaps Hauptmann had run a temporary electrial line to the garage so he could work at night in there. I don't believe the line was there in 1934.
Funny thing about Reihl's statement. I think his description of CJ is closer to Fisch than Hauptmann as far as physical attributes go. What I find most troubling though is that the man outside the gate, who follows CJ into the park, does not fit Condon's physical description. Reihl says so plainly in his statement that the man outside the gate was not Condon. Reihl has no reason to lie about any of this. So who was the man outside the gate??
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 13, 2012 16:25:12 GMT -5
The discussions regarding the limp and the alarm kinda remind me of the the idea that the ladder broke gently and the story of Hauptmann going into the attic for a board.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Sept 14, 2012 10:32:45 GMT -5
Michael, can anyone really be written off a “Liar” here? I think you’re attempting to analyze one account from an unknown cemetery guard who by pure chance, happened upon one of the most critical exchanges between two of the key players in the “Crime of the Century.” And then you have someone who from the beginning, was basically serving his idol Lindbergh, who himself was operating outside of due law enforcement process and so we know Condon was continually torn between playing both sides of the fence over a much longer time frame. Who is inaccurate here in their description of the parties encountered on that night? Condon describes CJ right down to a muscular growth at the base of his thumb, while there is a major anomaly within Riehl’s testimony, particularly as it applies to Condon’s description. But I wouldn’t call him a liar and would say his very brief encounter with Condon and the visibility afforded, did not allow him to accurately describe him.
Your scenario only seems to assume the worst case here. I believe that despite what is floating out there in the ether these days, we have no way of knowing whether or not the kidnapper coming down the ladder sustained an injury, even if was only a very mild strain that healed within a few days.
Amy, Riehl’s description of the man on top of the stone column who jumped down and ran away is what first intrigued me about his testimony. Then there is Condon’s feeling that CJ was later looking into the distance for signs of his accomplice, which perhaps was the same man. No question though that Riehl is way off within his description of Condon.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 15, 2012 7:41:55 GMT -5
The entire story of an injured ladder climber, in this case Hauptmann, was created solely on the basis of finding the ladder with splits and the desire to explain the events that led to the child's death. It was never based on actual evidence. The ground around the ladder does not show any indication of accident. I have had the misfortune of suffering a sprained ankle from a ladder mishap and I can say from experience that you are on the ground in pain and a severe limp is the result. Were there any body impressions at the base of the ladder? Did the footprints leading away reveal a shuffle or dragging foot?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 15, 2012 8:42:27 GMT -5
No. This is a perfect example concerning how the State would "frame" certain evidence. They absolutely knew Achenbach's testimony implied something that was not true - but used it anyway.
I don't care how guilty they thought Hauptmann was - it is both unethical and illegal. It also gives rise to speculation, and rightfully so, to other similar occurrences. So you'll have certain people paint this picture of "Conspiracy Theorists" (GASP!) believing anything to the contrary concerning the evidence presented at Trial.
It's why you don't do those things. You play by the rules, and present legitimate evidence that you truly believe, otherwise, you risk calling everything into question and undermine your own creditability - as in this Case - forcing those who believe in the outcome to Demonize those who have REAL reasons to question certain things.
Now does that mean each and every piece is corrupted and/or tainted? No, but under the circumstances I think it necessary to take a closer look and scrutinize it ALL. That's not to say to take it to the level of a "Witch Hunt" but rather just not be a Lemming about the whole matter.
It's how we got to the bottom of the Rail 16 mystery. Which, by the way, neither side was right about.
Could you explain it to me then? Perhaps create a time-line as well as the "severity" of his injures. Include the need for a cane to get around, the need to convalesce in a secret apartment, and the limp while carrying a girl around on his back. Then factor in the soccer games, and those who saw no injury. I'd be interested to how you make sense of it all outside of my conclusions.
We've got (3) people who were present: Reihl, Condon, and Cemetery John.
CJ is both seen and heard but runs away. The other man stays behind and has a conversation with Reihl. Condon claims to have been that man and Reihl not only gives a description that doesn't match Condon he says in plain English that it was not him. Reihl would also say he heard no foreign accent from CJ which is also important because Reihl was German.
Who has a dog in this fight? Who has been untruthful and untrustworthy in the past? By default, Reihl is more believable. There is no way around this as far as I am concerned.
I will let you in on a little secret.... For years I have been trying to find something (anything actually) that would explain why Reihl was not called as a Defense Witness. We know, for example, that Curtis was hidden away, and Farrar issued subpoena by the State then never called. These are examples of "keeping" Witnesses from the Defense. Then we have Samuelsohn who neither side wanted because it hurt both sides, so I understand why he wasn't called. But you have a guy like Reihl who would have helped. I was able to find a reference to him in the Call-Logs from the NJSP which showed he was communicated with in October of '34. Also, from some other Reports I have located, it seems his Superior told him to "mind his own business" and to stay out of the matter.
It was surmised by PI Cashin that, although Reihl blamed the newspapers, the State had gotten to his Boss to threaten him with his job. I believe this to be true because another good Witness for the Defense would have been Squire Johnson, who would tell the Governor that was exactly why he stayed out of it.
I know Kevin is going (probably) say that Johnson was wrong, however, that should be for the Cross-Examination to bring out.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Sept 16, 2012 19:38:22 GMT -5
Achenbach, in her Flemington testimony stated that the Hauptmanns came to visit her at her house a few days after the kidnapping and she was clear on the timing. She also stated that during this visit, she observed Richard leaning on the wall as he was descending her stairs and that Anna claimed he had sprained his ankle “pretty bad” on the trip.
Now I fully realize she may have been honestly mistaken or even dishonestly referring to the Florida trip of early 1933. But let’s cross-reference a few things as confirmation. Is it known for certain where both Richard and Anna were, a day or two prior to the kidnapping and immediately afterwards? Common sense tells me they would not have gone to visit a neighbour right after kidnapping a child and further stating that one of them had sustained an injury during this time, but why not be certain here? And do we know if Richard perhaps did sprain his ankle during the Florida trip, (perhaps as a result of compensating for the discomfort of his varicose veins) which might further help to conclude it really was 1933 and not 1932.. I’m thinking out loud here.
Kevin, I still believe some kind of mishap may have happened on that ladder during the descent, primarily due to its general instability and assuming the child was taken down the ladder, the cause of death being a fractured skull. I can understand that a catastrophic failure of the ladder did not take place, but I think very little can be accurately concluded from the evidence of footprints and impressions, or lack of them. There seems far too much inconsistency within the soil makeup, density and moisture content to draw steadfast conclusions here. More importantly, we know the evidence gathering techniques left much to be desired to be able to even determine the approach and retreat, any difficulties experienced or even how many kidnappers were present.
So Guard Riehl basically describes someone whom he is convinced is not Condon. Who then was Riehl talking to? Al Reich and Condon had just been seen off to meet the kidnapper by Breckinridge at Condon’s house where there were other witnesses as well. Are you suggesting Condon who with Reich, saw the kidnapper wave the white handkerchief through the fence, was not the man Riehl eventually spoke to at the front gate?
Riehl also describes another man without a jacket, much younger, shorter and slighter of build than Condon’s description of CJ that night, who leapt from the top of the stone column where he had been perched. Condon makes no mention of this man. What do we make of this other individual who Riehl claims he observed?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 17, 2012 6:58:20 GMT -5
I have to respectfully disagree here, Joe. The soil immediately around the house is pretty consistent and it's moisture content made for good impressions. Any action required for a fall or accident would show up pretty clearly. I must also admit that I have a bit of an edge on you here since I have learned several very important facts relating to the climb and the child's death from the Nova production. Without spoiling that for everyone, I can only say that the ladder is far more stable at Highfields than I even thought and the child's head injuries are not consistent with a fall.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Sept 17, 2012 7:47:59 GMT -5
Kevin, I guess I would have to do the same here. We have two impressions made by the ladder which given the actual surface area of the ladder ends, their shape and the weight of at least one person, is not surprising. Then we have but one footprint which Trooper De Gaetano estimated the dimensions of (and it's hard to agree on where that one actually is in any photos) as well as a few smaller prints, which could have been made by Anne Lindbergh earlier in the day. Aside from that, what additional conclusive evidence do we have at the base of the ladder and the immediate surrounding area? Certainly not as much as you would think to reflect the level of activity that would have been present there, by one or possibly even two kidnappers. BTW -- I'm very much looking forward to the Nova production!
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 17, 2012 9:30:56 GMT -5
Don't you think that in it self the lack of additional marks, areas of disturbance, etc pretty well indicates that nothing occurred beyond climbing up and down? The two ladder impressions alone show no sign of anything out of the ordinary. Factor out the myth of the child's head injury due to a fall and what would lead anyone to believe the climber had an accident? The ladder splits? If a fall occurred due to those splits, I guarantee that the last thing on the climber's mind would be removing the ladder to point 75ft away.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Sept 17, 2012 10:47:44 GMT -5
I think that the lack of clearly identifiable footprints at the base of the ladder indicates the ground in that area was not soft enough to identify what one would expect to be more telltale signs for positioning and setting up a ladder by one or more individuals. We have one much deeper print which strongly suggests to me that the ground in that specific location was soft enough or the descending kidnapper came down harder than expected to make such a distinctive impression.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Sept 17, 2012 18:59:29 GMT -5
when i went to highfields with kelvin kerga and his replica ladder, kevcons right, its stable, but not for a guy over 220 like me. as far as thinknig two people having to set up the ladder, kelvin did it himself. two sections dont need two people
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 18, 2012 20:37:27 GMT -5
From the Kloppenberg Questioning ( p41): Q: When did Hauptmann break his leg? A: I do not know anything about it.
Q: Did you ever know him to be sick? A: No.
Q: Did you ever see him when he was walking lame? A: No.
Q: In 1932, was he walking lame, just before his wife sailed? A: I do not know. Although Condon claimed to have spoken to the Cemetery Guard, Reihl said he spoke to a man that was not Condon. Condon has proven himself to be, at the very least, untrustworthy. Therefore, I believe the guy who hasn't. This would mean Condon was lying (again). Reihl saw a meeting between two parties. Condon was obviously aware of this meeting and claimed he was one of these two people Reihl saw. Whatever Reihl claimed he saw is much more reliable then any tale Condon spins to Police. Condon has proven himself, time and time, again and again, that he cannot be trusted. He gets no waiver here from me. If he was the only source then he'd have me over a barrel. Fortunately we have a neutral 3rd party with no axe to grind.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Sept 19, 2012 21:15:33 GMT -5
Interesting about Riehl possibly seeing someone other than Condon. If true, I wonder if it might explain something else about this case. Then again, we have Al Reich’s testimony that he saw, from a distance, Condon talking to CJ. Admittedly, as Condon’s friend he was probably less neutral than Reihl. I wonder if Joe is right, and Riehl initially saw CJ talking to an accomplice. Perhaps this was the “handkerchief man” and they were discussing how they were going to signal each other regarding whether or not Condon’s arrival looked safe (unpoliced). I believe I read somewhere that CJ, upon seeing Riehl approach, said that a “cop” was coming. Perhaps he said this for the benefit of the accomplice?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2012 12:02:05 GMT -5
The thought that CJ was talking to an accomplice occurred to me also. Could CJ have been talking to the man who gave Perrone the note to deliver? Perrone had originally selected Otto Steiner from mug shots shown to him by the police as possibly being the man who gave him the note. Might Steiner resemble the description given by Riehl in his statement? I believe Michael posted a picture of him a while back on another link but I can't remember which one. UGH!!
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Sept 20, 2012 20:24:40 GMT -5
I hadn't seen before that Riehl said it wasn't Condon he saw. That's interesting. How's the chance that Reich went there first. Having been a boxer, was he sizing up the situation(?) That may be a reach on my part.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 21, 2012 7:38:10 GMT -5
I think its a good suggestion and I've considered that myself when first confronted with this problem. However, since both Condon and Reihl seem to be describing the exact same scenario (excepting those engaged in it are different) I personally believe it is the same event. While its possible Reihl could be wrong about Cemetery John, based upon his distance from him at the time, I do not find it possible he's "mistaken" about Condon. Since Condon wasn't trustworthy, then I have no choice but to believe Reihl who did not at that time (and never) benefit from what he saw. He could have easily "remembered" who he saw was Hauptmann and shared in the reward. Instead his Boss threatened him - then he faded into the backround of this Case. Here is the picture I believe I posted: Attachments:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2012 9:50:13 GMT -5
Thanks Michael. That is the picture. I have printed it out this time. Doesn't look like he is the man. Riehl mentions that the man he spoke with was an American and spoke like a real American. Steiner was German, so more than likely had an accent.
Ditto on Condon not being trustworthy. Still trying to understand the relationship between Condon and Reich. Reich stuck like glue to Condon during the whole negotiation process and the trial in Flemington. Was Al Reich ever investigated as a possible accomplice in the kidnapping/extortion? Reich and Hauptmann could have known each other. Hauptmann was interested in professional boxing when he came to America. Reich and Hauptmann could have met at a gym used for training boxers. Since Condon also frequented these places, it is possible that all three could have encountered each other this way.
So Reihl was threatened by his boss. Wow! I wonder how many other people who knew anything truthful about events in this kidnapping/extortion were threatened into keeping silent.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Sept 22, 2012 10:41:25 GMT -5
Steve, I cannot see the kidnapper accomplishing a nursery window entrance using two sections of that ladder. The only way to prove it would be to actually enter and exit the window, and as far as I know this has never been accurately re-enacted. Three sections make far more sense to me and while I’m not convinced three sections couldn’t be raised by one individual, it would be much easier with two people manning the ladder under the conditions of that night.
It’s hard to make sense of this situation. On one hand, Fred Hahn may have had the years wrong although it’s difficult for me to imagine how, based upon the time frame of his relationship to Hauptmann. On the other hand you have classic Kloppenburg here, decidedly non-committal. Kloppenburg’s categorical denial of Hauptmann’s injury is very interesting and suggests to me some kind of collusion.
Michael, I cannot agree at all that Condon entered this case with the intention of any deceit, a point you continue to press. Certainly when he injected himself into the case, he would also have been looking for gratitude from the Lindberghs and another feather in his cap of longstanding public service. I also wasn’t aware that Condon had any axe to grind at this early stage of the ransom negotiations other than to try and return the baby to the Lindberghs. If your response relates to the belief that Condon was part of a Lindbergh-inspired conspiracy though, sorry you have pretty much lost my attention; I’ve entertained that one long and hard over the years and it holds no water for me.
I think that writing off whatever Condon has to say at any given time is a slippery slope, especially if a non-traditional view of the case is pursued. Condon was a consummate master of the agenda, particularly in public as it pertained to his allegiance to Lindbergh and the FBI, but I don’t see any real evidence of that prior to the time of the baby’s discovery.
BR, Riehl actually testified that the first person he observed while approaching the cemetery’s main gate, was a “young fellow” sitting on top of the 14 ft. high stone column. When Riehl heard the exclamation “There’s the Cop coming!” he assumed it was shouted out by this man, when according to Condon, it was actually CJ.
The man whom Riehl described as about 5’ 6”, 130 to 135 lbs., and dressed with dark pants, white shirt, no coat and wearing a cap, then jumped down off the top of the stone column and ran into Van Cortland Park. Riehl does not describe anyone else other than the man (assumed to be Condon) he met at the gate and questioned about what was going on.
I guess what I’m saying here is that Riehl did not appear to have seen the man on the ground that Condon was actually talking to, (CJ) rather he saw CJ’s accomplice on the cemetery side of the stone column. By the time he got to the gate, CJ had slipped away and his view of Condon did not allow Riehl to accurately identify Condon.
As far as the accomplice being the “handkerchief man,” I believe Condon followed his path from the point where he first saw the white handkerchief waving through the fence, so I would think this would have been CJ. If there was another man on the top of the stone column as Riehl stated, I would think he would have probably been stationed there in anticipation of CJ eventually meeting Condon at the front gate.
Mairi, Riehl’s description of the man he met at the front gate does not match that of Al Reich, as Reich was a heavyweight in stature and Riehl states that the man was about 5’ 6” or 5’ 7” and about 170 lbs. Of course, he could have been mistaken on this account as his description does not match Condon either, which concludes for me that his view of the man at the gate and the very brief time he spent conversing with him, did not allow for an accurate identification.
Amy, I think the temptation here is to view this kind of scenario as one in which the innocent participant is threatened to keep quiet or else within the scope of conspiracy of some kind. Many more people within this case were threatened with the loss of their jobs if they testified to any acknowledgement of their intended or accidental participation. While many wanted to be involved for the public recognition, few employers would have been willing to risk an association of any kind within this case, towards their business in Depression times.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Sept 22, 2012 12:58:04 GMT -5
yes joe with two sections of the ladder you can enter the window. coming out with a dead baby and with rungs far apart, i could see it being difficult, thats why hauptmann fell
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2012 14:15:09 GMT -5
"As far as the accomplice being the “handkerchief man,” I believe Condon followed his path from the point where he first saw the white handkerchief waving through the fence, so I would think this would have been CJ." (Joe) Joe, Were there two handkerchief men at the cemetery that night? There was an Italian guy who covered his face with a handkerchief that both Condon and Reich saw. Then when Condon went back to the cemetery plaza he saw a man waving a handkerchief through the bars of the gate. This man is supposed to be CJ. As Condon tells it, he and CJ continued to talk through the gate until they became aware of the approaching guard. Then Condon says CJ climbed up and over the gate, landing on the ground and ran off into the park. Condon then speaks to Riehl and then follows after CJ. Riehl tells it a bit differently. He says the man is sitting on top of the gate talking to Condon and when they became aware of him approaching the man jumped down and ran into the park, He then spoke with the man who was outside the gate. I guess my question is: Are the man behind the gate and the man who was sitting on the gate the same man or two different men? ? Both are described as running away from the scene. R
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 22, 2012 14:51:11 GMT -5
Think about what Hahn said then compare it to what Kloppenberg said. What do we know about when Hautpmann and Koppenberg had a falling out and when the next time was they saw each other?
Try to allow yourself room for the possibility that Condon was not 100% on the level. There could be many degrees of this for a multitude of reasons. If you do, then I think things begin to make much more sense concerning what he both says and does.
I would agree with Joe, and do - but only on a case by case basis. In this case, Captain Doll (Reihl's Supervisor) was fine with the matter up until a/the Paper(s) were running article(s) saying Reihl saw Fisch at the Cemetery. After that Reihl was told to mind his own business -there's nothing in the files to indicate it happened before then. And so I do believe the Prosecution has something to do with this despite the fact Reihl said the Newspapers were printing lies - that it was not Fisch he saw - but that it wasn't Hautpmann either.
He blamed the Newspapers for his Supervisor's threats.
It would have to be. The story is too alike. Perhaps Reihl didn't spot CJ until he was on top of the fence. Or perhaps Condon couldn't remember the true story so he just told a version of what he remembered. He did that often. Just look at what he has CJ telling him about the note being left in the crib. There are examples of him ad-libbing all over the place.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2012 16:48:24 GMT -5
I agree about Condon ad-libbing here, there and pretty much everywhere. It really shows when you have the perspective of a second person talking about the same event.
I think CJ saying the note was left in the crib was an embelishment by Condon. If CJ were the man who took Charlie from the nursery he would have remembered where he placed the note. Condon on the other hand didn't know where the note was found in the nursery. He was going on his own logic here and thought that was where the kidnapper would have left it.
The police drawing of CJ per Condon's description shows Cemetery John wearing a hat. In Gardner's book on page 66, Condon says CJ is wearing a cap. Riehl's description of CJ also says he is wearing a cap. In the world of mens attire, would a hat like the one in the police sketch be considered a cap? I thought they were different items. Perrone states that the man who gave him the note to deliver to Condon was wearing a hat not a cap. Sorry if I seem to be nit- picking here. Everyone is supposed to be describing CJ on the same exact evening but the attire changes from one location to another!
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 23, 2012 8:18:31 GMT -5
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Sept 23, 2012 10:51:32 GMT -5
Michael, if you mean the California trip and the postcard incident, I believe they were out of touch for a few months afterwards, but I’m not sure what you mean here. On the other hand, Fred Hahn continually impresses me not only with his memory but the way his recollections coincide with those of his wife. They do not sound rehearsed to me other than through general conversation which they had obviously had over the course of their acquaintance with Hauptmann and which would have served to reinforce or discount a point. While it’s clear they were not fond of Hauptmann, I am sure there were others out there who felt much the same but did not have the courage to come forward with this same level of information.
I look at it this way. Condon either i) came into this case oblivious to what had occurred leading up to the kidnapping, or ii) had previous knowledge of at least one aspect of the crime through some party of either the kidnapper and/or Lindbergh, and was just waiting for the moment to inject himself as planned, into the case.
Based alone on what Condon stood for over a lifetime of recognized public service, I wouldn’t even consider the latter choice for openers, regardless of any expressed idolatry of Lindbergh. Now, add his extroverted personality with its penchant for extreme histrionics and theatrics and you suddenly have a character that appears devious and untrustworthy. And did he operate above the law at times? Yes. Did he feel justified in doing that? Absolutely. Was his expressed mission from the very beginning until the very end, his desire to return the baby to the Lindberghs? Yes. You may think I’m only looking at Condon through rose-coloured glasses here. I know the man was no saint but at the same time, I respect his initial motives in spite of how a destructive ego ultimately allowed himself to be led down a path far removed from the one his higher self would have gladly chosen. Based on Lindbergh’s relative control and LE basically operating at arms length for the first seventy-two days of the case, I am not at all surprised at what happened and how Condon was allowed to operate within the expanded borders that prevailed.
Very interesting and I hadn’t realized that the newspapers had made the connection to Fisch at Woodlawn through Riehl’s July 1932 deposition. It sounds very much as though the Prosecution had a hand in turning some screws here. And it also makes me wonder if Riehl might have opined at some point about the similarity of his description to Fisch and then backpedalled when it prompted a decidedly negative reaction.
Amy, your point is very valid and the cap anomaly is not the only difference in the descriptions afforded by both Riehl and Condon. All of this makes me believe that there were possibly three men at the front gate of Woodlawn Cemetery – one on top of the stone column and one on the ground behind the iron fence, as well as Condon.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 23, 2012 11:20:57 GMT -5
From reading all of the Reports I have over the years, I've always found the terminology interesting. And not just hats. But for the sake of this thread I was pretty sure what the the difference was from reading them. For example, the "Newsboy" wore a "cap." The "hat" could be many different things but some were the Fedora. The hat was apparently a big deal back then and often it got a specific description such a whether or not it had a "snap-brim" etc. It was often pointed out, like it was a major thing - when Lindbergh was "hat-less." Anyway, here is a quick resource for the 1930's "Hat vs. Cap" description:
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Sept 23, 2012 18:46:22 GMT -5
" Joe Joe, you're a nicer person than I!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Sept 24, 2012 7:29:45 GMT -5
C'mon Mairi, you must have a little soft spot for the old guy! ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2012 10:39:01 GMT -5
Michael, thank you so much for the link you provided on hats and caps. It certainly clarified it for me. They were a definite fashion statement for men back then. I admit I went and looked at various pictures to see what kind of hats some of the principles in this case were wearing. Lots of Fedora hats. Condon and Curtis wore Derby hats!
Like Joe mentions, I think that there were probably three people at Woodlawn that night. The Italian look-out who approached Condon and Reich with a handkerchief covering his face and wearing a "cap" on his head. This could have been the man who sat on the gate cornerstone while CJ was behind the gate with his handkerchief and dark clothing probably wearing a hat. I guess it is possible that Riehl saw the lookout jump down from the cornerstone and didn't notice CJ come over the gate since CJ was in darker clothing.
I have to admit that I don't see Condon in a very positive light here. He changes his recollections of events and people too much. It leaves you wondering whose side he is really negotiating for.
I have a question about the lengthy meeting between Condon and CJ on the night of March 12 when they were talking in Van Cortland Park on the bench. Condon says CJ asks him if he would burn if the baby is dead. Of course, Condon then becomes suspicious that Charlie may no longer be alive.
So my question is: Is there any way to know whether Condon ever mentions this portion of the conversation to Breckinridge and the others who are at his house that night when he returns from this meeting or does he leave it out?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 26, 2012 19:24:26 GMT -5
Well there's a real good possibility of a "look-out." Since there was one at Woodlawn and Reich believed the person who passed by the car was one, then I think its a safe bet. It's been suggested that the "look-out" was CJ. If there were true then he'd have to climb the fence to get inside the Cemetery then circle back to signal Condon from where it is said he did. But I consider the "look-out" at St. Raymond's who was even less likely to be the contact man (CJ), so it shows more then one person working together here, suggesting this was their Method of Operation. I've read over Reich's statement and I will quote a bit of it below. However, I am not really sure if he is repeating what he was told or what he actually saw himself. Furthermore, he was Condon's trusted friend, so I do not see him contradicting Jafsie if he could help it. With that in mind (Reich Statement Dated 5-13-32): : ......Then a fellow came walking down what would be the sidewalk in our direction, and the doctor again when he saw him coming took his position in the triangle in front of the cemetery gate. This fellow continued walking down the sidewalk along the cemetery in a southerly direction. Pretty soon a man appeared inside the cemetery at the gate waving a handkerchief to attract the Doctor's attention and the Doctor went over and spoke to him through the gate (about 9:30 P. M.) After a little while the fellow climbed up and over the gate and landing on the doctor's side of the gate and started running north across the street into VanCortland Park. The Doctor followed him right into the woods and he stopped by a wooden shack. The doctor caught up to him at the shack and got him to sit down on a bench alongside of the shack, where they conversed for about an hour. During this time I was sitting in my car about 100 yards away waiting for the doctor to come back. This being a Saturday night the traffic was quite heavy on Jerome Avenue and 233rd Street. The doctor then returned to the car and we drove back to the doctor's home.
[Q]: Would it be possible for you to identify the man that Dr. Condon met to negotiate with for the return of the Lindbergh baby on the night that you drove him to Woodlawn Cemetery?
: No. It being nightime I did not get a good look at him.
[Q]: Did you overhear any of the conversation that took place between Dr. Condon and this man?
: No. I think the biggest problem I have with this Statement is the fact Reich doesn't mention Reihl at all. So Reihl says it wasn't Condon. Condon says it was him. And Reich doesn't see Reihl, or Dr. Condon's supposed discussion with him. I haven't checked his trial testimony yet to see how it compares. I know that Peacock's trial preparation notes inserts Reich will testify he tells Condon (on the approach of the man walking on the sidewalk) " You better get out, maybe this is your man coming." But these notes too, make no mention of Reich seeing Reihl or a Guard. (*Corrections to the Statement updated from earlier post.)
|
|