|
Post by garyb215 on Jan 30, 2016 11:06:38 GMT -5
Hurtable I was struck the exact moment I read this too.
In review can someone refresh me on Cerrita announcing JFC during the seance. I understand that never happened. Right?
Secondly MC and PB were watched even by the mob and they pretty much eliminated them from higher degree of suspicion.
Other things hanging in the rumor and false assumptions was Sharp and Whately attended the church. Even Fisch mentioned had interest. The thing is these things if ever to be confirmed would be important yet we can label these as all false. Right?
The other mystical thing is Birratella's brother appears in Gardner's book in speculation as the potential 2nd taxi driver. In this same book Mary might have been the violin shopper at carnival Condon set up a table for.
It is no wonder there are so many theories.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2016 12:44:50 GMT -5
Dunninger's book was written to expose the fraudulent practices of psychic mediums. When Birritella and Cerrita went to Princeton to meet with Breck and Rosner, Mary did not claim the child was dead at that time. She said that the child was being held in a house not far from the Lindbergh home. When Charlie's body was found not far from the Lindbergh home, I think Cerrita's claim became combined with where the child was found and perhaps Peter and Mary tried to capitalize on that later.
I am by no means a believer in psychic readings. What I find difficult to ignore in all this is the fact that things said on March 6, 1932 were included in the ransom note written and mailed March 7. Even the misspelling of Breckinridge's name appears in that note. Mary had mispronounced Breck's name as "Breckinbridge". Can anyone explain to me how things that happened in Princeton NJ could end up in the very next ransom note written by the kidnapper(s)?
If you believe that Hauptmann, and Hauptmann alone, wrote all the notes, how does he include things from that Princeton meeting into the March 7 ransom note? How can he be working alone and then write a note that is connected with what took place in a hotel room in Princeton NJ?
I think that Peter and Mary were used much in the way Joseph Perrone was. They are just messengers delivering information under the guise of having been sent by the spirits to deliver a message to the Lindberghs. Peter and Mary have the protection of Cerrita's psychic powers to protect them. As long as they kept to that they could not be attached to anyone.
I don't think Violet or Whateley attended Birritella's church either. Fisch did not live on the same street as Birritella's church until after the ransom was paid. He moved to Selma Kohl's boarding house around April 14, 1932. Fisch would have been aware of the church, however, because he did visit Carl and Gerta Henkel at Kohl's rooming house. I suppose if you want to connect Fisch, then that would be a possible way to do it.
It is clear that SOMEONE used Peter and Mary as messengers and whoever that was had a connection to the author/writer of the ransom notes.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jan 30, 2016 13:28:55 GMT -5
Agreed. It couldn't be by coincidence that several points mentioned by those two in Princeton were repeated in the ransom note the following day, and that the note was mailed to Breckenridge the following day, just as "prophesized" by Cerrita. Furthermore, Birratella had said that someone bought them the railroad tickets to Princeton Junction for their meeting of March 6, 1932.
But the comparison between Peter and Mary, on the one hand, and Perrone on the other, isn't all that accurate. Based on history and lifestyles, I am far more suspicious of Peter and Mary as accessories in the crime than I am of Perrone, who just looks like an innocent dupe caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2016 14:50:03 GMT -5
But the comparison between Peter and Mary, on the one hand, and Perrone on the other, isn't all that accurate. Based on history and lifestyles, I am far more suspicious of Peter and Mary as accessories in the crime than I am of Perrone, who just looks like an innocent dupe caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. I should be clear that I don't consider Peter and Mary accessories. They were used for a specific purpose just as Perrone was. I don't believe that Peter and Mary had anything to do with the kidnapping of Charlie any more than Perrone did.
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Jan 30, 2016 15:26:00 GMT -5
Thank you Amy for your post. What specific purpose would Mary and Peter be used for by the kidnapper(s)?
Perrone was randomly chosen I'm sure. If Mary and Peter were chosen it would be more specific.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2016 17:19:43 GMT -5
Thank you Amy for your post. What specific purpose would Mary and Peter be used for by the kidnapper(s)? Perrone was randomly chosen I'm sure. If Mary and Peter were chosen it would be more specific. Hey Gary, I will do my best to share a bit of my thinking on this. I just hope I can communicate clearly how I see Mary and Peter's purpose. I will need to utilize the ransom notes for this. The nursery note says the kidnapper(s) want $50,000 for the return of the child and will be in touch in 2 to 4 days about where to deliver the money. They also warn Lindbergh not to call the police or make anything public. Lindbergh does call the police. Once doing that it is impossible to keep the kidnapping from going public. The first mailed ransom note reaches Lindbergh at his Hopewell home on March 5. The tone is angry. It is now extremely dangerous and complicated to acquire the ransom money. This note informs Lindbergh that the ransom amount is now changed to $70,000. They will have to involve another person. They will inform Lindbergh later where to deliver the money. On March 6, Peter's telegram arrives at Hopewell addressed to Mrs. Anne Lindbergh. Peter is requesting to be called at once about Charlie's whereabouts. That call is made and Breckinridge and Rosner meet with Peter and Mary in Princeton. During this meeting Mary asks Breckinridge if he "has seen the light." Peter and Mary are checking to make sure that Lindbergh has received the ransom note (March 4) that communicates the increase in the ransom demand. The kidnapper(s) wants to be sure Lindbergh has read this note and will have $70,000 ready instead of $50,000. Breckinridge denies receiving the March 4 note. Mary tells Breckinbridge to be in his office and expect a note there. Breckinridge does receive the note written March 7 at his office. This note asks Lindbergh about the note written March 4 and states that they know Police interfere with your private mail. They believe police captured the letter and did not forward it. This belief comes out of the conversation in Princeton because Breck denied receiving any note. The note then goes on repeating things that were in the March 4 note about the increase to $70,000 etc. This note asks for the first newspaper response in the negotiations, which is done. So I see Peter and Mary being used to make sure that Lindbergh received the note that was communicating the change in the ransom amount. When Peter and Mary went back with the negative response their purpose ended. There would be another person chosen to be the intermediary (Condon's March 8 letter to the Bronx Home News) and the newspapers would be utilized as the source of communications between Lindbergh, the intermediary and the kidnapper(s). This is just my thinking on how Peter and Mary were used. I am sure open to any other ideas people may have.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 30, 2016 18:13:22 GMT -5
I should be clear that I don't consider Peter and Mary accessories. They were used for a specific purpose just as Perrone was. I don't believe that Peter and Mary had anything to do with the kidnapping of Charlie any more than Perrone did. I consider them "accessories after the fact" whereas Perrone was an innocent dupe. Whether or not they believed whoever it was that sent them was the real kidnapper(s) or not I don't know. I suppose it could be argued they actually believed they were assisting person(s) attempting to "hustle" the family in order to swindle them out of money but were unknowingly involved with the actual Criminals. After all, they themselves were a Hoax so it seems furthering one wouldn't be outside of their comfort zone, and they probably saw the benefit of being credited with being in touch with the Spirits which would cause their business (church) to grow. I used the example of Kristen Huggins once some years ago. The accomplice in that horrific crime, Gloria Dunn, led Police to her body which was buried under the Southard Street Bridge. Dunn saw that there was $25K reward offered by Ms. Huggins's parents and decided to pretend to have knowledge of her whereabouts through the benefit of psychic abilities. This case is a perfect example why the Death Penalty should never be abolished.
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Jan 30, 2016 23:38:26 GMT -5
Thank you Amy for your thoughts. I appreciate and enjoy the viewpoint on the coincidences. Just a note though according to Gardner I believe Mary said the note would arrive in about two weeks. Then Peter took Breck aside and said the next day.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2016 8:59:15 GMT -5
I consider them "accessories after the fact" whereas Perrone was an innocent dupe. Whether or not they believed whoever it was that sent them was the real kidnapper(s) or not I don't know. I suppose it could be argued they actually believed they were assisting person(s) attempting to "hustle" the family in order to swindle them out of money but were unknowingly involved with the actual Criminals. After all, they themselves were a Hoax so it seems furthering one wouldn't be outside of their comfort zone, and they probably saw the benefit of being credited with being in touch with the Spirits which would cause their business (church) to grow. I used the example of Kristen Huggins once some years ago. The accomplice in that horrific crime, Gloria Dunn, led Police to her body which was buried under the Southard Street Bridge. Dunn saw that there was $25K reward offered by Ms. Huggins's parents and decided to pretend to have knowledge of her whereabouts through the benefit of psychic abilities. This case is a perfect example why the Death Penalty should never be abolished. I see the distinction you are making between Peter and Mary and Joseph Perrone. What I need to be clear on is my understanding of what it means exactly to being "accessories after the fact". Does this mean that either one or both of them had learned something about the kidnapping that they were seeking to use for financial gain without having actually been involved in the kidnapping itself? The Kristen Huggins crime was, indeed, horrific. When using Gloria Dunn as an accessory example; if I am recalling the crime correctly she was there when Ambrose raped and murdered Kristen. Her level of knowledge comes from being present at the scene. Isn't that a different kind of an "accessory" than what Peter and Mary were? Sorry if this sounds dumb or something. I am just trying to understand how "accessory" can mean different things.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2016 9:12:32 GMT -5
Thank you Amy for your thoughts. I appreciate and enjoy the viewpoint on the coincidences. Just a note though according to Gardner I believe Mary said the note would arrive in about two weeks. Then Peter took Breck aside and said the next day. Thanks Gary for bringing up what Lloyd Gardner wrote about the séance. I went and read it and he does bring out the points you mention. Lloyd's book is wonderful and so inclusive of many details that have been ignored in this case. I am curious about your choice of wording about what I wrote on the purpose of Peter and Mary's visit. You used the word "coincidences". Do you see the visit by Peter and Mary as being accidental to what was happening and not of the kidnapper's desire to learn if Lindbergh received and read the ransom note mailed to his Hopewell home? I am interested in your perspective on this. You have been involved with researching this case far longer than I have.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 31, 2016 10:02:56 GMT -5
I see the distinction you are making between Peter and Mary and Joseph Perrone. What I need to be clear on is my understanding of what it means exactly to being "accessories after the fact". Does this mean that either one or both of them had learned something about the kidnapping that they were seeking to use for financial gain without having actually been involved in the kidnapping itself? I don't know. I think they were brought in, less like Perrone - but more like Condon. Whether or not it was known they were actually dealing with the real party is up for debate. However, they knew what they were doing was not only hoaxing the family but protecting and assisting those people who were trying to get the ransom. www.law.cornell.edu/wex/accessory_after_the_factIt's more of a legal question so I could be wrong in my interpretation of it. But I think you can see, even if I am, where my head is at on the matter. The Kristen Huggins crime was, indeed, horrific. When using Gloria Dunn as an accessory example; if I am recalling the crime correctly she was there when Ambrose raped and murdered Kristen. Her level of knowledge comes from being present at the scene. Isn't that a different kind of an "accessory" than what Peter and Mary were? Sorry if this sounds dumb or something. I am just trying to understand how "accessory" can mean different things. It was only meant to show someone using "psychic ability" in an attempt to gain financially in a high profile case. We can also see how quickly the Police moved on this fraud to solve the crime.
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Jan 31, 2016 18:44:13 GMT -5
I am not sure where to put Mary and Peter. I don't think I ever considered anything other than opportunist to advance attention to the church. When it comes down to how many I believe involved I believe most likely there were several involved all with roles and dwindled down once the baby did not survive. Then Hauptmann and at least one other stuck with it to get the money.
It appears $35.00 was placed in the church's account. Gardner seems suspicious of this because its a month's worth of income. I know for sure the hope of the plan was a quick payment. Perhaps the $35 was paid to them to try to get as close as they could to Lindbergh and to get things straight. I Have a problem with it because if this is so then they probably met the the kidnapper and coached what to say and not to say. This would make them involved not messengers. What is the purpose of Mary saying the baby was 5 miles from the home? Who would it benefit if the baby was found dead? Isn't it counter productive of securing the ransom if it appears thats where he was. I know maybe the baby wasn't there at that time. Then where?
Coincidences is not a negative . It meant you tied it in well for consideration.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2016 23:07:17 GMT -5
I think they were brought in, less like Perrone - but more like Condon. Whether or not it was known they were actually dealing with the real party is up for debate. However, they knew what they were doing was not only hoaxing the family but protecting and assisting those people who were trying to get the ransom. Figuring out the level of involvement of Peter and Mary is difficult. It is hard to look away from the fact that what took place at that Princeton meeting turns up in the next ransom note. There is a connection there somewhere. Thanks for the link to the definition of an "accessary after the fact". Very helpful. Sorry. I was too focused on the accessory aspect and not the psychic one. It is a good comparison with what Peter and Mary were doing. Thanks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2016 0:23:27 GMT -5
I am not sure where to put Mary and Peter. I don't think I ever considered anything other than opportunist to advance attention to the church. I think you are right about them seeing an opportunity to call attention to their church. It would also be an opportunity to build up Mary Cerrita's reputation as a medium. Perhaps this was part of the appeal to them for getting involved, especially if Charlie ended up being returned alive and well. I did read that $35 was used by Peter to open a bank account on March 7, 1932. This comes from Agent Frank Wilson's Summary Report. That is the day after the Princeton visit. Could it be that Peter and Mary were anticipating doing other things for whoever it was that approached them and sent them to Princeton? I agree with you that it seems to raise the level of their involvement. I think Gardner makes a good point in his book when he talks about Breckinridge becoming upset that there would be a two week wait to hear something. On page 51 of Chapter 3, Lloyd talks about how Peter tried to calm Breckinridge down by promising him that he would receive word the next day. It made me wonder just how much influence Peter had if he could make such a promise and then it really does happen that way. It reminds me of Condon being able to negotiate the ransom amount back down to $50,000. According to Agent Wilson's report, the claim was that Charlie was in a house four and a half miles northeast of the Lindbergh home. My understanding is that Mary was not claiming the child was dead when the séance took place in Princeton. Breckinridge was afraid that if it took two more weeks to get Charlie back the child might die. It sounds like Charlie was very sick at the time he went missing; sick enough that he might die before he can be returned. Sounds like Charlie had more than just a cold. Thanks Gary for sharing your thoughts with me.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Feb 1, 2016 2:47:18 GMT -5
Of interest regarding this séance episode, Birritella twice said to Breckenridge "THEY bought us round trip tickets , , ," (speaking of whomever commissioned his and Mary's trip to Princeton). Even though he was believed to be a top-notch lawyer, Breckenridge failed both times to ask Peter who "They" were.
Note the plural "they," Michael.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2016 11:56:40 GMT -5
There is something else I wanted to post from Agent Wilson's summary report about Peter and Mary.
"One possible course that has occurred to me, if it is felt that they were merely pawns in the case and not seriously involved, would be to quietly approach Berritella, convincing him that the Government has certain definite information in its possession which places him and Mary in a very bad possession; that it is not the desire to embarrass them if they cooperate and that if they will disclose all the facts relating to the persons sending them to Princeton, together with all the circumstances surrounding the visit, in that event, if their testimony is not necessary in a prosecution, effort would be made to have their cooperation kept confidential, so that the guilty persons could not retaliate and also that in the event a successful prosecution results through information furnished by them, consideration might be given by the Governor of New Jersey to the payment to them of a part of the $25,000 reward."
It seems clear to me that authorities were taking Peter and Mary seriously as possibly having had contact with the persons who kidnapped Charlie. This plan being suggested to offer Peter and Mary protection plus the possibility of some of the reward money if what they shared with authorities led to successful prosecution of the kidnappers shows the seriousness that Peter and Mary were viewed with. This report also makes it clear that if upon investigating Peter and Mary further, evidence is found implicating them, the above plan would not be proper or practicable.
Michael, was this plan ever acted upon or did the apprehension of Richard Hauptmann shut down any efforts to connect Peter and Mary to the kidnappers in any capacity?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 1, 2016 19:07:22 GMT -5
Michael, was this plan ever acted upon or did the apprehension of Richard Hauptmann shut down any efforts to connect Peter and Mary to the kidnappers in any capacity? I don't believe this method was ever employed. However, there is a caveat to this.... Anything that came out of NY was supposed to be investigated by NY, and this angle was no exception. Inspector Lyons interviewed them in 1932 and according to Lt. Finn "cleared" them. The problem is that there are no NY Reports concerning this interview at the NJSP Archives. This could be because none were made. Also, it could be they just never shared it or it had destroyed or taken later on. Finally, it could have been a complete lie to keep the other Agencies away from an angle they were interested in. Regardless, since Wilson's Report was written in November it's clear that he did not share the idea they had been cleared by anyone. Keaten and Wilson continued to investigate them into October of 1933. Unfortunately, the rift between the FBI and the NJSP created a situation where Wilson became a casualty of that feud, and he was pulled from the case in that same month. This seems to have put that particular investigation in flux where Keaten was sending others out to look into them where before both he and Wilson were directly investigating. Further, once the FBI was in possession of the Summary Report they forced Wilson to write, they immediately saw what you did Amy and rushed out to learn more. NY told them they were cleared, and Keaten boldly lied to them by saying they were never suspected and just one of many "Spiritualists" who tried to inject themselves into the case. Fortunately we have the NJSP Reports showing they continue to investigate them well into March of 1934 which proves this was absolutely untrue. This is why everything needs to be looked at in it's entirety - know what I mean? There could be an Author who says they were "cleared" without seeing what the true story was. In August of 1934 the FBI interviewed them and there's nothing in that Report to indicate they "cleared" them of any suspicion they had at the time either. Here again, if there was a coherent investigation with all Agencies working together I do believe Wilson's idea would have been employed - and in my opinion it would have yielded the desired results. But because they were (most of the time) working against one another important clues and evidence fell through the cracks or certain avenues were wasted and squandered.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2016 0:47:19 GMT -5
Regardless, since Wilson's Report was written in November it's clear that he did not share the idea they had been cleared by anyone. Keaten and Wilson continued to investigate them into October of 1933. Unfortunately, the rift between the FBI and the NJSP created a situation where Wilson became a casualty of that feud, and he was pulled from the case in that same month. This seems to have put that particular investigation in flux where Keaten was sending others out to look into them where before both he and Wilson were directly investigating. Further, once the FBI was in possession of the Summary Report they forced Wilson to write, they immediately saw what you did Amy and rushed out to learn more. NY told them they were cleared, and Keaten boldly lied to them by saying they were never suspected and just one of many "Spiritualists" who tried to inject themselves into the case. Fortunately we have the NJSP Reports showing they continue to investigate them well into March of 1934 which proves this was absolutely untrue. This is why everything needs to be looked at in it's entirety - know what I mean? There could be an Author who says they were "cleared" without seeing what the true story was. In August of 1934 the FBI interviewed them and there's nothing in that Report to indicate they "cleared" them of any suspicion they had at the time either. Here again, if there was a coherent investigation with all Agencies working together I do believe Wilson's idea would have been employed - and in my opinion it would have yielded the desired results. But because they were (most of the time) working against one another important clues and evidence fell through the cracks or certain avenues were wasted and squandered. Wow, Michael! This is a sad reflection of how fragmented and competitive these law enforcement agencies were with each other. I thought that report Wilson wrote was a good piece of work. I liked his idea too and I agree with your opinion that it would have yielded results. So what it really adds up to is that Peter and Mary were never officially cleared. Another promising avenue to investigate ends up going nowhere. Thanks Michael for sharing so much and for posting that letter about Agent Wilson. I thought his investigation yielded a lot of good information about this angle. It is a shame he got caught in the cross hairs of the FBI and the NJSP.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Feb 2, 2016 6:18:56 GMT -5
Are there reports on how the police even knew about them?
If they were cleared it looks like either incompetence or a whitewash. Why would anyone - save perhaps Wilentz - care enough about them to leave 'em alone? They sound like a two person mystical prostitution ring that somehow got involved in TLC.
The quote above is probably why Fisher disregarded them.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 2, 2016 19:29:51 GMT -5
Are there reports on how the police even knew about them? There were (3) people directly involved with this encounter: Fogarty, Breckenridge, and Rosner. The State Police were made aware by at least one if not all of these men. Breckenridge definitely told them because he believed they knew more then they were letting on. "When" they were told is up for debate but I believe Breck was informing them almost immediately.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Mar 3, 2016 8:12:42 GMT -5
The prediction of a ransom note to be received by Breckenridge on Tuesday March 8 which was made by John and Mary on March 7 has led to lots of speculation. This includes Fisch living across from their "Temple," Violet's suspected church membership, and the famous gas station nearby, probably more.
On March 5, Owney Madden made the same prediction to Rosner of a message to be received on the same Tuesday with little or no current fanfare. The prediction was verbally witnessed by Thayer and related by him to Lindbergh, Breckenridge, Galvin, and Fogarty.
There has been an implication that the seers were somehow involved in the crime because of that prediction.
Was Owney involved in the crime and with John and Mary too?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Mar 3, 2016 9:59:44 GMT -5
Oops - not John, Peter and Mary.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 3, 2016 18:27:11 GMT -5
On March 5, Owney Madden made the same prediction to Rosner of a message to be received on the same Tuesday with little or no current fanfare. The prediction was verbally witnessed by Thayer and related by him to Lindbergh, Breckenridge, Galvin, and Fogarty. There has been an implication that the seers were somehow involved in the crime because of that prediction. Was Owney involved in the crime and with John and Mary too? I think this is an apples and oranges comparison for several reasons: 1. Madden never said he was in touch with the kidnappers but said he'd do everything in his power to find out. 2. Madden made it clear after he exhausted all of his efforts that he did not know who the Kidnappers were. 3. Thayer originally said he heard Madden say (March 6th) that he thought Lindbergh would " probably" hear from the Kidnappers " in a few days." 4. Another source made almost a year later has Thayer asserting Madden said he " thought" they'd hear from the Kidnappers again on Tuesday - but that he could tell Madden didn't have the " slightest clew as to who the kidnappers were." 5. Madden kept giving them good advice - some of which was about how not to be taken by those involved. He told them to stop showing people the secret symbol. To stop showing him, to stop showing Rosner, and to stop showing anyone else no matter how much they were trusted.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Mar 4, 2016 4:55:29 GMT -5
I had a real disbelief on this from the beginning (didn't even remember the preacher's name) but when you brought out the unusual details (mispronounced Breckenridge, and same day delivery of course) I thought there might be something to it.
Then I ran across the Owney (roughly same prediction) information which I'd again mostly passed over, and thought it might be germane that the prediction obviously wasn't that difficult because there had been two of them in about a week.
Turns out to be not a lot of course - if Peter & Mary were involved it didn't do them much good.
If the "they" who bought the pair train tickets had ever been found it might lead somewhere but as the story goes Breckenridge (grand attorney that he was) never even asked them who "they" were, though P mentioned "they" several times, and though P & M's phone was tapped (NYPD?) it was never that I saw that they found out anything about TLC.
I think if Owney told me not to look at something I'd listen pretty closely.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 5, 2016 14:45:25 GMT -5
To all:
Would anyone happen to know any basic biographical data on both Peter Birratella and Mary Cerrita? How old were they at the time of the infamous seance? Where were they living at the time? Were they immigrants from Italy, and, if so, when did they come over to the US?
Couldn't find them in the 1930 US Census, but you have to be aware that it wasn't unusual for people not to participate in the census then, especially people in shady lines of work like these two.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2016 16:53:10 GMT -5
To all: Would anyone happen to know any basic biographical data on both Peter Birratella and Mary Cerrita? How old were they at the time of the infamous seance? Where were they living at the time? Were they immigrants from Italy, and, if so, when did they come over to the US. Couldn't find them in the 1930 US Census, but you have to be aware that it wasn't unusual for people not to participate in the census then, especially people in shady lines of work like these two. Hi Hurtelable, I could not locate them in the 1930 US Census either. Peter and Mary can be found in the 1940 US Census. In 1932 Peter would have been 48 and Mary 39. In 1932 Peter would have lived where the Temple of Divine Power was located. This would be at 164 E. 127th Street NY. Mary was living at 335 Willis Ave. Bronx NY. Peter and Mary would marry on June 9, 1932. Peter's name on the marriage certificate is Pietro Birrittella. Mary's name on the marriage certificate is Marietta Cannestracci. They were both born in Italy. The Temple of Divine Power would relocate by 1935 to 324 East 114th Street, NY. This is where they also live in 1940. Of interest is that Mary is listed as a naturalized citizen. Peter's info does not show him as being a naturalized citizen. If you have access to all the US Census records look for them in 1940. Peter's last name is spelled Birrittella. Use that when you do your search.
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Mar 5, 2016 23:59:16 GMT -5
Hi hurtelable - sorry for not replying sooner.
Here is everything I know about Peter (Pietro) Birritella.
I was unable to find Birritella in the 1930 census. I do know he was not listed at the 164 East 127th Street address, with accords with the FBI report that he only moved there in 1931. Also I note that Hummell, the previous resident, was not there in the 1930 census either. Pietro was born in August 3, 1883 in Corleone, Palermo, Sicily to Bernardo Birrittella and Josephine Carastia.
Pietro emigrated at age 15 with his father Bernardo on October 12, 1898, aboard the SS Burgundia.
On August 11, 1904, Pietro Birritella married Rosalia in Kings County, NYC.
In the 1905 NY Census, Peter Biretela (age 22) and his wife Rose (age 19) were living at 507 West 41st Street in Manhattan, NYC. Peter was a shoemaker and had been in the US for 7 years. Rose had been in the US for 1 year. They took up residence in NYC in 1905.
He was naturalized on February 8, 1906. He was a shoemaker, resident at 504 West 52nd Street, NYC. He was born on August 2, 1883, and arrived in the US on October 13, 1898. His witness was Gaspare Couigilio, a shoemaker living at 522 West 45th Street, NYC.
On January 4, 1907, Pietro Birrittella applied for a passport. He was a shoemaker, resident at 449 West 46th Street, NYC. He was born August 3, 1883 and arrived in the US on August 23, 1898. He had resided in NYC for 8 years. He was age 23, 5’2”, brown eyes, black hair, regular forehead, regular nose, regular chin, medium size mouth, dark complexion and full face. His witness was Joseph ?, 409 East 29th Street, NYC. He asked that the passport be sent to Pasquale Pati and Son at 240 Elizabeth Street, NYC.
On May 6, 1909, Pietro Birrittella applied for a passport. He was a shoemaker, resident at 262 West 37th Street, NYC. He was born August 23, 1883 and arrived in the US on October 13, 1898. He had resided in NYC for 11 years. He was age 26, 5’2”, brown eyes, black hair, regular forehead, regular nose, regular chin, medium mouth, dark complexion and full face. His witness was Peter Carmaliato at 522 West 40th Street, NYC.
On November 21, 1909, Pietro Birrittella (age 26) arrived in NYC on the San Giorgio from Palermo with his wife Rosalia Birrittella (age 24). Also with them was Antonio Cipriano, whose wife’s maiden name was Birrittella.
On July 27, 1912, Pietro Birrittella applied for a passport. He was born on August 3, 1883, in Palermo, Italy, emigrated 13 October 1898 on the Burgundia, was naturalized on February 8, 1906, and has lived in NY and NJ. His address was 515 John Street, Union, NJ. He was a shoemaker. He was age 29, 5’2”, broad forehead, brown eyes, broad nose, medium mouth, smooth chin, dark hair, dark complexion, full face. His witness was Charles Motta, of 392 Bergenline Avenue, Union Hill, NJ. Pietro asked his passport to be sent to 435 Bergenline Avenue, Union Hill, NJ.
On December 9, 1918, Peter Birrittella registered for the draft for World War One. His address was 510 Jane Street, West Hoboken, Hudson, NJ. At that time he was an insurance collector for Colonial Life, at 16 Bergenline Avenue, Union Hill, Hudson, NJ. His reference was to his wife Rose at the same address as him. He was described as short height, medium build, brown eyes, dark hair.
In the 1920 Federal Census, Peter Biretila (age 38) and his wife Rose (age 33) lived at 4344 Hudson Blvd, West Hoboken, Hudson NJ. Peter was a shoemaker, born in Italy, emigrated 1902 and naturalized in 1907.
According to Wilson’s report, prior to 1929, Berritella conducted a shoe repair shop at Union City, NJ, for several years. He bore a good reputation in Union City, according to discreet inquiries made at the Post Office and other points.
According to Wilson’s report, Berritella took up residence in NYC about 1929.
On March 21, 1929, Pietro Birritella had a passport issued to him.
On August 13, 1929, Pietro Birritella (age 46) arrived in NYC from Naples on board the Augustus. His address was 2789 Fairview Avenue, NYC.
According to Wilson’s report, Berritella took over 164 East 127th Street about 1931, establishing his church in a very small store in an old tenement building. He bought the furniture from J. Hummell who previously conducted the place for a few years.
Hummell died in Schuylkill Haven, Pennsylvannia, in 1932.
Berritella told the telephone company that he was ordained as a minister at Newark, NJ, in December 1931.
The exact nature of Birritella’s relationship with Cerrita on March 6, 1932, is unknown. She referred to them once in a later newspaper article as her boyfriend. However, my understanding is that they presented themselves to Breckinridge and Rosner as hypnotist and medium.
I should perhaps add here that in the 1920s-1930s, psychics did not operate as they do today. Psychic visions were usually described as taking place in a hypnotic trance. Therefore it was not common for a medium to provide visions without first being put into a hypnotic state by a hypnotist controller. Therefore Peter and Mary’s pairing was not unusual. What is unusual is Peter’s attempt to provide visions himself. He would have had to self-hypnotise in order to do so.
On June 9, 1932, Pietro Birrittella married Marietta Cannestracci in at City Hall, Manhattan, New York, New York. Pietro was age 48, born in Palermo, Italy, and was a widower. His wife was age 39 and had had been born in Palermo, Italy. She had been married twice and was a widow.
On April 17, 1933, Dorothy Duncan, a reporter for the INS, interviewed Peter and Mary Birritella. She visited the “uptown New York room” where they ran the “Divine Power Spiritual Temple”.
On January 29, 1934, a policewoman arrested the Birritellas for fortunetelling.
On February 1, 1934, the Birritellas claimed they were robbed including an address book of known clients.
According to Wright, Birrittella had kicked out a reporter in October 1934.
On December 30, 1934, Theon Wright, a United Press reporter, and Joseph Dunninger met with Peter and Mary. This meeting has been described in contemporary newspaper articles as well as books by Wright and Dunninger.
They claimed the truth would come out in two years, that Mary had predicted that the baby was dead and where it was buried, that Fisch was not involved, that there were four people in the crime, one of which was a woman that committed suicide. They claimed Hauptmann should be convicted and that Mary had envisioned Hauptmann outside the Lindbergh home when she was as Princeton Junction. They admitted talking to Agent Sisk.
On January 6, 1935, Wright reported that Mary had seen the letters JFC in Princeton.
On January 10, 1935, Professor Robert L. Hector, a psychic, told Wright that Sharpe was a member of Birratella’s congregation. Hector claimed that Mary told him that recently and that four persons were implicated in the case. Wright reported that other mediums stated off the record that Sharpe was a follower of Birratella.
Peter and Mary said they “knew of her” but that she was not a member of their church.
It was reported that the church’s open meetings were held on Thursdays, which was Sharpe’s day off usually.
On January 17, 1935, Wright spoke with Karl Henkel who stated that Fisch was a member of the cult. According to the 1940 census, in 1935, Peter and Mary Birrittella were living at 324 East 114th Street.
In the 1940 US census, Peter Birrittella (age 56) and Mary (age 47) were living at 324 East 114th street. They owned the house. Peter was a minister and had completed grade 5. Mary had completed one year of high school. Both were born in Italy.
In 1942, Pietro Birrittella completed a draft registration. He was living at 324 East 114th Street, NYC, and was owner and minister of the Temple of Divine Power at the same address. His wife was Mary and their phone number was Leh 4-4839. Pietro was born August 3, 1883, and was 58 years old.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Mar 6, 2016 3:51:09 GMT -5
I wonder if anybody - Breckenridge ever, Lindbergh {Breckenridge must have told him what happened}, NYPD, NJSP or FBI - ever asked Peter who bought him the railway tickets to Princeton Junction?
Nice timing for that clue. It appears to be the only solid lead in the case until the gas station and evidently wasn't even followed up.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Mar 6, 2016 3:59:39 GMT -5
Regarding Peter, pre-waterboarding there was an interrogation technique called "connect to lamp."
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 6, 2016 8:08:14 GMT -5
I should perhaps add here that in the 1920s-1930s, psychics did not operate as they do today. Psychic visions were usually described as taking place in a hypnotic trance. Therefore it was not common for a medium to provide visions without first being put into a hypnotic state by a hypnotist controller. Therefore Peter and Mary’s pairing was not unusual. What is unusual is Peter’s attempt to provide visions himself. He would have had to self-hypnotise in order to do so. Over the years I still continue to learn new things and this is one of them. I don't know how I missed it but thank you for mentioning it - a very interesting fact! I wonder if anybody - Breckenridge ever, Lindbergh {Breckenridge must have told him what happened}, NYPD, NJSP or FBI - ever asked Peter who bought him the railway tickets to Princeton Junction? They told both Inspector Lyons and Lt. Finn it wasn't true when they interviewed them in '32. Special Agent Sisk asked them about this in 1934 and they denied it again.
|
|