|
Post by Michael on Nov 15, 2013 10:01:03 GMT -5
Hauptmann’s Ladder is a testament to the truth that counters the revisionist histories all too common in the true crime genre. Author Richard T. Cahill Jr. puts the “true” back in “true crime,” providing credible information and undistorted evidence that enables readers to form their own opinions and reach their own conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by rtcahilljr on Nov 19, 2013 15:03:29 GMT -5
Thank you for the very kind mention.
Rich
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 3, 2014 8:03:50 GMT -5
EVENT Richard will be giving a lecture on the Lindbergh Kidnapping followed by a book signing on March 15th at 3pm at the Falmouth Historical Society in Falmouth, Massachusetts. For Directions: thefhs.org/contact/
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 9, 2014 11:43:42 GMT -5
Rich Cahill Jr. explores the Lindbergh kidnapping in new book
Kingston Times
by CARRIE JONES ROSS on Mar 7, 2014
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 16, 2014 12:49:48 GMT -5
My copy is on its way, but if anyone wants to discuss feel free to do so. There isn't much I haven't seen over the years so if there is something I can compliment, or rebut I certainly will be able to. I will also be interested to see what he thinks of certain topics which can go either way and to see if he has "beaten me to the punch" with any of the new material I have found which upsets the historical record and has been misrepresented as a matter of fact. Maybe he found it all? I honestly hope so, that way he can spare me all the work it takes to get it out there so the truth of the story can (finally?) be told.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2014 14:11:59 GMT -5
I have recently completed reading Richard Cahill's book. It is a chronological look at the entire case from beginning to end. He also has an Epilogue which includes his personal opinions on the case and a "What Happened To....." on the major characters of the case.
For readers who embrace the historical account of the Lindbergh Kidnapping Case, this book will not disappoint! He reaffirms all the chronicled events in the case. For readers who question whether there is more to the case than what has been historically presented may find themselves disappointed. Mr. Cahill clearly approached this book from a "Hauptmann is a lone wolf perpetator" position so all challenges to that position are never really considered and are explained away through his personal theories.
I am still glad that I read the book. I did learn some things I did not know. It is well written and easy to read. I do recommend reading this book to all who are interested in the Lindbergh Kidnapping Case.
So, Michael, I have a question for you about somethng I read in Mr. Cahill's book. It concerns the beating that Hauptmann says he received at the hands of police at the Greenwich Police station. Cahill says that there is no evidence that supports a severe beating taking place on September 20. Cahill explains that Hauptmann was examined by a Dr.John Garlock(a physican employed by the police) on September 20th. Dr. Garlock's only negative finding was that Hauptmann was suffering from a loss of sleep. Cahill says that Dr. Garlock's position is supported by the fact that Hauptmann's booking photo was taken on September 21 and there is no physical sign of a beating about the head with a hammer that should have been evident if the beating happened as was being claimed by Hauptmann and his attorney.
Could you please comment on this. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by rtcahilljr on Mar 17, 2014 15:02:30 GMT -5
Amy,
Thanks for the kind words. I am glad you enjoyed the book.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 17, 2014 17:11:16 GMT -5
In a stroke of great luck, I got home from work today to discover both Robert Knapp's new book Mystery Man, and Richard's in my mailbox! (More on Robert's book soon). I started to peruse through Hauptmann's Ladder and I am really happy with its layout and presentation. Putting together a book of this nature in this way is impressive and I look forward to reading it. So, Michael, I have a question for you about something I read in Mr. Cahill's book. It concerns the beating that Hauptmann says he received at the hands at the Greenwich Police station. Cahill says that there is no evidence that supports a severe beating taking place on September 20. Cahill explains that Hauptmann was examined by a Dr. John Garlock(a physican employed by the police) on September 20th. Dr. Garlock's only negative finding was that Hauptmann was suffering from a loss of sleep. Cahill says that Dr. Garlock's position is supported by the fact that Hauptmann's booking photo was taken on September 21 and there is no physical sign of a beating about the head with a hammer that should have been evident if the beating happened as was being claimed by Hauptmann and his attorney. Could you please comment on this. Thanks! For reference see pages 173-4: Richard is right about Police Surgeons Thomas McGoldrick, and John H. Garlock's Report dated 9-22-34 indicating Hauptmann had not been beaten. (There's also an entry on 9-20-34 in the 2nd Precinct Police Blotter concerning this examination which says the same thing). I also see that Richard talks about Dr. Thruston H. Dexter's Report dated 9-25-34 then seems to use this to show the Police hadn't beaten Hauptmann over the head with his hammer. He also seems to use this to exemplify that Hauptmann wasn't telling the truth about being hit in the face or the head. My comments are as follows: There are several problems with this position. First, I wonder what Dr. Dexter's Report does to the Garlock/McGoldrick Report? We would expect a Criminal to be untruthful so why is there more weight assigned to what we would expect and absolutely none assigned to where we would not? Second, Dr. Dexter concludes Hauptmann had been subjected to a " severe beating, all or mostly with a blunt instrument." Dexter also writes that injuries resulting from this " are general and include the head, back, chest, abdomen and thighs." So for me, this Report is either true or it isn't. Next, Lloyd Fisher also backed up Hauptmann's claim that he was beaten because he claimed he had seen the injuries himself. I think the clincher for me comes from Special Agent Sisk who told Hugh Clegg (Asst Director at the time I believe) that Hauptmann had been given " a real going over" that included twisting his arms & legs, and being punched in the back - and " gave him hell." He was clear that none of them had been involved in the beating and that it was the " city police and the New Jersey police" who were " the ones who actually did the work..." I suppose it all boils down to perspective and interpretation of the source material. I personally don't believe there's any room for the word "probably" concerning whether or not they beat the hell out of him. Sisk said so himself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2014 19:34:19 GMT -5
Wow! This is very interesting. I had no idea Fisher was involved this early with Hauptmann. I thought Fisher was brought in by Reilly.
I have another question for you. This involves St. Raymond's cemetery. On page 79 of Richard Cahill's book, Lindbergh and Condon have arrived at St. Raymond's cemetery and are parked in front of Bergen's greenhouse. Condon has read the note that was retrieved from the table outside the flower shop. While Condon was standing outside of the car Lindbergh sees a man walk by the car with a handkerchief covering the lower part of his face. The man glances at Lindbergh and Condon while he continues to walk down the road. This is not the man who blows his nose. That man comes by later.
If you go to page 85, Richard Cahill says that a Captain Richard Oliver of the New York Police Department had followed Lindbergh and Condon to the cemetery that night and watched Condon leave Lindbergh's car. He was about to follow Condon into St. Raymonds when he stopped. Although he thought the baby was dead and he could catch the kidnapper and be a hero, he also considered that if the child were actually still alive, he could cause the kidnapper to panic and he might kill the child immediately so Captain Oliver went no further. He returned to his car and left the scene.
Could the man Lindbergh saw walk past with a handkerchief covering half his face have been Captain Oliver as Richard Cahill suggests in his footnotes?
Also, since this is not the man who blows his nose, who was seen by Lindbergh later while Condon is actually exchanging the money for the Boad Nelly note, would this mean that there were actually two different men observing Lindbergh and Condon that night?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 18, 2014 18:31:10 GMT -5
Okay, so I've got to admit that the very first thing I've done is scour the footnotes to see if there might be sources I haven't seen. It's cheating, I know, but I could not help myself. Immediately after that I read the introduction. I am impressed. What I first noticed was that Richard points out that Fisher makes things up then takes a baseball bat to that conduct. Bravo! This clearly shows he's no apologist or lap-dog for or to anyone. Next, if you read what he says in his intro its so very informative. Where his head is at, and how speculation is impossible to avoid. It's both sincere, and refreshing. That's not to say I 100% agree with his example concerning Cassidy. He is right that Cassidy did not write it there though - so we agree on that point specifically. Disagreement is not a slight - its a key element of the learning process. There is just so much to learn about this crime that its importance can sometimes get lost in the emotional aspect behind someone saying you're wrong. Know what I mean? While I am admitting things I will share that when I first saw the cost of this book I was like "Holy Smokes!" (well not holy smokes but something similar) But when considering how much time and work that must occur over the years for a finished product like this I can see it is, in reality, only a drop in the bucket. I will say that already it was worth every penny - most especially when I see his new and unique theory concerning the man Lindbergh saw at St. Raymond's. It shows he's chosen to examine this outside of the one or two "black & white" explanations. Wow! This is very interesting. I had no idea Fisher was involved this early with Hauptmann. I thought Fisher was brought in by Reilly. I have read several sources which make this claim. As I recall he saw the injuries healing. Of course one could make the point that he was on Hauptmann's side, but again, Sisk's eyewitness account seems to doom that position. I have another question for you. This involves St. Raymond's cemetery. On page 79 of Richard Cahill's book, Lindbergh and Condon have arrived at St. Raymond's cemetery and are parked in front of Bergen's greenhouse. Condon has read the note that was retrieved from the table outside the flower shop. While Condon was standing outside of the car Lindbergh sees a man walk by the car with a handkerchief covering the lower part of his face. The man glances at Lindbergh and Condon while he continues to walk down the road. This is not the man who blows his nose. That man comes by later. Before I go any further let me say that Lindbergh claimed it was the same man. Can I ask why your position is it wasn't? If you go to page 85, Richard Cahill says that a Captain Richard Oliver of the New York Police Department had followed Lindbergh and Condon to the cemetery that night and watched Condon leave Lindbergh's car. He was about to follow Condon into St. Raymonds when he stopped. Although he thought the baby was dead and he could catch the kidnapper and be a hero, he also considered that if the child were actually still alive, he could cause the kidnapper to panic and he might kill the child immediately so Captain Oliver went no further. He returned to his car and left the scene. Could the man Lindbergh saw walk past with a handkerchief covering half his face have been Captain Oliver as Richard Cahill suggests in his footnotes? Something else real quick.... We're all in the best position in the world when it comes to taking a closer look at the facts presented in this book from the position of a "Monday Morning Quarterback." There's no way any Author could ever know what all of our questions would be, and even if they did - it would be impossible to answer them all. Because if they did, you'd have a book about a million pages thick. To answer your question: Again, like I said above, this new theory alone paid for the book as far as I am concerned. However, I do not believe this was Captain Oliver. Are you surprised? It seems to be my best attribute disagreeing with everyone all of the time. I have a myriad of reasons why but first let me discuss a couple of things I've wrestled with over the years which concerns the Shoenfeld account... It's the only place I've ever seen it. Sure, its in Waller, but clearly Shoenfeld is Waller's source - so he doesn't count. Next, while Shoenfeld did have this type of relationship with the NYPD, I've always been curious why his "partner" during this event, Leigh Matteson, had no idea about this at all. He knew about everything else Shoenfeld knew - why not this? So I've been conflicted as to whether or not Oliver really ever did as Shoenfeld writes. And even if he did, I could never accept there isn't some embellishment to enhance this version. Anyway, let's consider Oliver did follow Condon, does this story not say he dressed like a "derelict?" ( Cahill - footnote#20 p354) How does this compare to Lindbergh's accounts? It doesn't. Lindbergh said the man was " averagely well dressed." Was he attempting to keep a low profile? Again, how do the accounts of this man's actions compare with this? Once again it does not. Several people had walked by previous his first appearance virtually unnoticed. So why is the guy who is drawing attention to himself Capt. Oliver? Next, and this will be my last point because I don't want to beat a dead horse, Richard's footnote cites Lindbergh's May 20th Statement. On page 79 he says that Lindbergh " could give no further description other then noting that the man was less then fifty years old." What the Statement really says is this: I formed the impression, however, that this man was not over 30 years of age and that his complexion was dark.The negative copy of this Statement makes it look like a "5" but I have several other regular copies that clearly show, beyond all doubt, that its a "3."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2014 21:11:40 GMT -5
Very simple answer. I was not aware that he saw any other man but the one who blows his nose loudly. When I read about Captain Oliver being there and that he passed by Lindbergh and Condon with a handkerchief across his face, I thought this was a different man from the one who passes by later after Condon leaves Lindbergh's car with the ransom money. The man who blows his nose passes by Lindbergh before Condon gets back to the car after the ransom is handed over. I thought it sounded like two different people. Now that I think about it perhaps they are the same man making two trips by Lindbergh's car.
Lindbergh did not trust Condon. This we all know. It would make sense to me if Lindbergh privately arranged someone to follow Condon to make sure that he meets with CJ at the cemetery and then observes Condon hand over the money to CJ. This one man could have passed Lindbergh the first time to let Lindbergh know he was there as arranged. After seeing Condon hand over the money he could have passed Lindbergh's car again blowing his nose loudly as a signal that the money had switched hands. So why not someone like Captain Oliver. He would have been skilled enough to do such a thing. Lindbergh would also know that Condon did what he was supposed to do and didn't ditch the money himself somewhere in the cemetary just to go back and retrieve it later on.
Not really Michael. You have so much documentation available to you to check and then double check everything that you are asked. I still like the connection Richard makes between the first man and Captain Oliver though. It really made me think about the look-out thing. How do we know that Lindbergh and Breckinridge didn't arrange to have Condon followed and watched at the cemetery meetings? They had no way to be sure that Condon wasn't running a scam of his own. Have you ever considered this type of idea?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2014 7:55:30 GMT -5
It seems to be the approach you use to answering questions. Were you on the Debate Team in college? You would have done quite well.
Next question about Richard's book:
Page 5 of Chapter One. Betty's controversial statement - "Colonel Lindbergh, have you got the baby? PLEASE DON'T FOOL ME."
Richard's footnote for this statement(#19 p.348) makes the point that there is no factual support that Lindbergh ever hid his son, even one time, as a joke. There is nothing to support this allegation. He says that it has been stated as a fact by some authors but is actually false.
I have always found Betty's statement as supportive of Lindbergh's habit of not so funny practical jokes. I also feel that Anne's diary supports this. In Hour of Gold, Hour of Lead, Anne's diary entry for March 2, 1932 in her letter to her mother-in-law, Mrs. Lindbergh she state "At ten Betty went in to the baby, shut the window first, then lit the electric stove, then turned to the bed. It was empty and the sides still up. No blankets taken. She thought C.(Charles) had taken him for a joke. I did, until I saw his face."
If both Betty and Anne thought it might be a joke that was the reason for the empty crib, then it stands to reason that they must have encountered just such a joke by Lindbergh before. Otherwise there would be no reason to suspect him of doing such a thing to begin with.
What can you share about this? I consider this an important detail that needs clarification.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 19, 2014 17:07:56 GMT -5
Very simple answer. I was not aware that he saw any other man but the one who blows his nose loudly. When I read about Captain Oliver being there and that he passed by Lindbergh and Condon with a handkerchief across his face, I thought this was a different man from the one who passes by later after Condon leaves Lindbergh's car with the ransom money. The man who blows his nose passes by Lindbergh before Condon gets back to the car after the ransom is handed over. I thought it sounded like two different people. Now that I think about it perhaps they are the same man making two trips by Lindbergh's car. Okay....I have to ask because you have a knack for seeing things I've missed! Just wanted to make sure. Lindbergh did not trust Condon. This we all know. It would make sense to me if Lindbergh privately arranged someone to follow Condon to make sure that he meets with CJ at the cemetery and then observes Condon hand over the money to CJ. This one man could have passed Lindbergh the first time to let Lindbergh know he was there as arranged. After seeing Condon hand over the money he could have passed Lindbergh's car again blowing his nose loudly as a signal that the money had switched hands. So why not someone like Captain Oliver. He would have been skilled enough to do such a thing. Lindbergh would also know that Condon did what he was supposed to do and didn't ditch the money himself somewhere in the cemetary just to go back and retrieve it later on. I would have to answer by saying Lindbergh went along with Condon for this purpose. Remember, it was supposed to be Big Al. It was also Lindbergh who forbid the Cops from following in the first place. That is why Mulrooney ordered his men to stay away that night. They still had a (2) secretly watching Condon's house anyway, but my point is that Lindbergh was behind this restriction. Does it makes sense, for example, for him to do this then point out the very guy he sent to observe? Not really Michael. You have so much documentation available to you to check and then double check everything that you are asked. I still like the connection Richard makes between the first man and Captain Oliver though. It really made me think about the look-out thing. How do we know that Lindbergh and Breckinridge didn't arrange to have Condon followed and watched at the cemetery meetings? They had no way to be sure that Condon wasn't running a scam of his own. Have you ever considered this type of idea? One can never have enough documentation when dealing with this case. It's my main tactic to solving this thing....find everything I can about each situation then compare and contrast. If one stops short they could wind up facing the wrong direction and that can be counterproductive. To be truthful Amy I thought I had considered everything. That is until Richard's theory which is why (even though I disagree) I am so happy about it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 19, 2014 17:32:47 GMT -5
It seems to be the approach you use to answering questions. Were you on the Debate Team in college? You would have done quite well. I was always taught that you must pick a side then argue it to its logical conclusion. I've done that and it helped. I also play Devil's Advocate a lot too because that helps me see what the best arguments against a position I currently hold might be. Sometimes I am straightforward and other times I am wrong. Nobody is perfect and everyone can and will make mistakes. However, its all necessary and definitely will lead to the truth. Next question about Richard's book: Page 5 of Chapter One. Betty's controversial statement - "Colonel Lindbergh, have you got the baby? PLEASE DON'T FOOL ME." Richard's footnote for this statement (#19 p.348) makes the point that there is no factual support that Lindbergh ever hid his son, even one time, as a joke. There is nothing to support this allegation. He says that it has been stated as a fact by some authors but is actually false. Thanks for this. If you continue on in this footnote he attempts to explain what you've noticed in Anne's diary. Then it gets even worse in his criticism of: " those who used secondhand and poorly researched information." An Author making such a hard-lined assertion like this is quite risky. I am not saying it shouldn't be done, but they had better be convinced beyond all doubt. Otherwise my advice would be to explain it in a more measured way. For example: " I don't believe this is correct because I have never been able to find anything to support it, therefore I believe it is actually false." What can you share about this? I consider this an important detail that needs clarification. There are several sources for this. One comes from Betty herself: I discovered the baby was missing. I told Mrs. Lindbergh first - She said no. I went to the library and asked him if he had the baby. (Colonel Lindbergh used to hide the baby for a scare before I came to work here). They searched the house and found the baby, either Mrs. L. or Miss Cummings. I never made this statement before. The nurse was Miss Cummings. She is working in New York City. Needless to say I disagree with Richard based upon just this source alone. Hopefully your next question is something I agree with him about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2014 20:07:36 GMT -5
This is classic Lindbergh in control if you ask me. Lindbergh decides he will be the one to go along with Condon to St. Raymonds. Lindbergh makes sure that the order is given through Mulrooney that all officers are to stand down. This will allow Lindbergh to have his own man there (if not Capt. Oliver then a PI chosen by himself or Breckenridge) to observe Condon's behavior and make sure that the ransom is paid over. Lindbergh did not trust Condon and would need to be sure that the money exchanged hands. I can't imagine him not wanting to be sure on this. When you ask me why would Lindbergh point out this guy he sent to observe, I don't see this endangering the man at all. The physical description offered by Lindbergh could fit a hundred men. This man's presence would have been interpreted just the way it was. He was thought to be a lookout for the kidnappers. Condon had also seen this man pass the car shortly after they had arrived at St. Raymond's so Lindbergh saying that he saw a lookout compromises no one. After all, Condon and Reich both said they saw a lookout at Woodlawn Cemetery so I don't see this posing a problem for Lindbergh or the man who did the observing.
I so agree about having as much documentation as you possibly can. Each point of this case needs to be thoroughly explored. Richard's theory has certainly caused me to examine closer the possibilities concerning the lookout at St. Raymonds. Thank you Richard!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2014 21:57:31 GMT -5
In Chapter 10 of his book, Richard talks about the finding of the body of Charlie. He states in paragraph 4 on page 95 that when the body was found by Allen and Wilson it was lying on its side and not face down like it has always been reported. He uses as documentation for this an interview done with Dr. Walter Swayze on December 19, 1977. His footnote for this is #3 p.356.
I had never read this anywhere before. The body was always reported as face down when found. Can you comment on this?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 20, 2014 15:54:21 GMT -5
In Chapter 10 of his book, Richard talks about the finding of the body of Charlie. He states in paragraph 4 on page 95 that when the body was found by Allen and Wilson it was lying on its side and not face down like it has always been reported. He uses as documentation for this an interview done with Dr. Walter Swayze on December 19, 1977. His footnote for this is #3 p.356.I had never read this anywhere before. The body was always reported as face down when found. Can you comment on this? It was first reported that he had been found face down and that one side of his face had been "preserved" while the other side was not. The child had been flipped over then flipped back before Swayze arrived. This interview was the result of the persistent claims of both Kerwin and Olson. While it has some value, if you get the chance to listen to it you can hear there's much uncertainty throughout - as one would expect after all of the time that had gone by. And so one can choose to believe Swayze's recollection in '77, or the source material from May of '32 - but I would reserve judgement until such time the actual interview can be heard. My guess is you'll go with the source material. I've gone on into this chapter a ways and see some stuff I strongly disagree with. However, I won't invite more criticism - I just wanted to say that now so that I can at least say I did (if you know what I mean).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2014 14:53:00 GMT -5
Yes I will. Those first on the scene would have reported it as it actually was. They reported the body as being face down.
Chapter 14 (page 122) of Richard Cahill's book starts out with the June 16,1932 questioning of Dr. Condon by Walsh at the Alpine New Jersey station. It describes the behavior of both Walsh and Condon during this interview. It shows Condon as not being intimidated in the lease by Walsh and even at one point pushing Walsh away and yelling at him. This continues through page 123 and halfway down page 124. Cahill does use the terms egotistical and arrogant in his narrative when describing Condon's behavior. I am not trying to be critical of Richard here. In his footnotes for this (p. 359 and p. 360 #2 through 21) Richard uses mostly Jafsie Tells All to write what transpired during this interview. This must be why Condon looks like he is the one who is strongest in this confrontation. What I am looking for is a more balanced representation of how this interview actually went down. There must be police reports on this Alpine interview to draw on so it is not so one-sided. I am not a big fan of Condon's book.
Sorry if I am making you read ahead to answer my question.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 21, 2014 16:10:41 GMT -5
I've gone on into this chapter a ways and see some stuff I strongly disagree with. However, I won't invite more criticism - I just wanted to say that now so that I can at least say I did (if you know what I mean). Before I get to anything else, it's been bugging me all day so I've changed my mind about this.... While there's much in this chapter which reminds me of what I have written in my own unpublished manuscript, there's some stuff that is troubling me a bit. I think when we research there are certain things we "like" more then we do others. And so we search for what may support this. If its not found those, like Fisher, take a leap of faith by inventing stuff then actually used it as proof of something. When I saw Waller being used as a source in this book, I wondered why the actual Police Statements and Reports weren't in place of his version. Waller here seems to take some liberty with what really happened, adding a little "flavor" where one would imagine it existed - or should have. Then what I see is Waller being cited as the source for something even he didn't write. Betty "wailed?" ( see page 97). Actually, no, she did not. Not in Waller, and not in real life either.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 21, 2014 16:27:53 GMT -5
The other thing that is bothering me is the Swayze '77 interview being used to the extent is has been. Take the part about Van Ingen. Maybe I am wrong, but my notes quote Swayze as saying: " Van Ingen was more positive then I was, or at least he seemed to be." Maybe that's not a big difference to some, but to me it is. Remember this is interview is in 1977. Next, take the part on page 100 which states that in Swayze's interview he reported that he saw a small portion of scrotal tissue. Sounds like something new. However, the truth is he never saw any such thing ( from my notes): 7 minutes 15 seconds: A [Swayze]: .... I determined it was male.
Q [Plebani]: Can you explain to me how you came to this determination Sir?
(long pause)
A: No I can't. My notes then say Plebani suggests to him that he saw, or told him that he saw "scrotal tissue." 8 minutes 22 seconds A [Swayze]: I think I saw some genitals or I'm not sure about that.
I wouldn't want to, I wouldn't want to testify at the time of having proof it was male or female ... I wouldn't want to do that. Remember, this is from my notes so I may be omitting a few things. But even so, this type of stuff can't be left on the cutting room floor. Not in my opinion anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 21, 2014 18:49:59 GMT -5
Chapter 14 (page 122) of Richard Cahill's book starts out with the June 16,1932 questioning of Dr. Condon by Walsh at the Alpine New Jersey station. It describes the behavior of both Walsh and Condon during this interview. It shows Condon as not being intimidated in the lease by Walsh and even at one point pushing Walsh away and yelling at him. This continues through page 123 and halfway down page 124. Cahill does use the terms egotistical and arrogant in his narrative when describing Condon's behavior. I am not trying to be critical of Richard here. In his footnotes for this (p. 359 and p. 360 #2 through 21) Richard uses mostly Jafsie Tells All to write what transpired during this interview. This must be why Condon looks like he is the one who is strongest in this confrontation. What I am looking for is a more balanced representation of how this interview actually went down. There must be police reports on this Alpine interview to draw on so it is not so one-sided. I am not a big fan of Condon's book. I've searched the NJSP Archives from top to bottom looking for this "June 16th" questioning, and I have never found one. If you go to Lloyd's book, The Case That Never Dies, on page 429, footnote #20, he explains it in detail. I differ with Lloyd only where he suggests Condon most likely confused the dates. I don't believe Condon was confused at all. He morphed the two events on purpose in my opinion. Sorry if I am making you read ahead to answer my question. Don't apologize. I've decided not to read it, but I will fact check, give my two-cents, or debate what's in the book by looking up any references that are asked about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2014 19:09:21 GMT -5
I went and pulled out my 1961 copy (I bought it used) of Waller's Kidnap book and Betty "wailed" is not in there. This is another thing I was not sure about but didn't check. I am glad you did.
I, too, have wondered why more police documentation wasn't used by Richard in his book. He spent time at the archives. I know by his footnotes that he was checking police reports but it seems more so on the controversial points that have surfaced over the years about fingerprints, footprints and other challenged findings of this crime. He seems to have relied on the work of other authors as sources about the major events of this case and not documentation.
When I read all this information about the scrotal tissue having been found at the time of the autopsy but just revealed in 1977 I had reservations about this immediately. If they could have identified satisfactorily that the corpse was a male child why the heck wouldn't they have put that in the report in 1932? That is a very important finding. Instead this is kept quiet for over 40 years???!! When you posted about the claims being made by Kerwin and Olson and probably others in the 70's then I understood why this interview was done. From what you posted about this oral interview it sounds like they were trying to coax him into saying he saw something he didn't. I have not listened to this tape but based on your notes it appears that way. Thanks for offering this information.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 21, 2014 19:40:00 GMT -5
I, too, have wondered why more police documentation wasn't used by Richard in his book. He spent time at the archives. I know by his footnotes that he was checking police reports but it seems more so on the controversial points that have surfaced over the years about fingerprints, footprints and other challenged findings of this crime. He seems to have relied on the work of other authors as sources about the major events of this case and not documentation. That I cannot honestly say because I haven't read it cover to cover like you have. My comment about Waller concerned that specific event. Perhaps he might like to jump in? When I read all this information about the scrotal tissue having been found at the time of the autopsy but just revealed in 1977 I had reservations about this immediately. If they could have identified satisfactorily that the corpse was a male child why the heck wouldn't they have put that in the report in 1932? That is a very important finding. Instead this is kept quiet for over 40 years???!! When you posted about the claims being made by Kerwin and Olson and probably others in the 70's then I understood why this interview was done. From what you posted about this oral interview it sounds like they were trying to coax him into saying he saw something he didn't. I have not listened to this tape but based on your notes it appears that way. Thanks for offering this information. It could be that before the tape was rolling they had a conversation in which Swayze mentioned it. Then once he's asked on tape throws Plebani a curve ball so its brought back up? Benefit of the doubt... But even then, Swayze is uncertain. I do agree with Richard that both Swayze and Mitchell (the only people present during the autopsy) believed the corpse was male then. It had nothing to do with genitals or scrotum tissue though, and it's documented in a place I don't think many people would look for it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2014 16:14:16 GMT -5
Well, Michael, I am going to take advantage of this offer you made in your post!
I am going to ask you about something in Richard's book that, in a way, is personal to me. It is about the footprints found the evening of March 1, 1932 at Highfields. This is the topic that started me posting on this board almost two years ago. It seems I am coming full circle back to what I originally asked you about in my very first post.
Starting with Chapter 2, page 7 in Richard's book he brings up several different things. One of them is the footprints found at Highfields the night of the kidnapping. Beginning on page 9 Richard relates that Lindbergh takes Hopewell officers Harry Wolfe and Charles Williamson outside to examine the area around the southeast nursery window. They observe the cloth over shoes footprints leading away from the window area(footnote 9 p. 349). They notice a two piece wooden ladder lying about 75 feet from the house. They also notice the third piece of ladder, a wooden dowel pin and a chisel (footnote 10 p. 349). Richard then goes on to say they did not see any other footprints at the time (footnote 11 p. 349).
On page 10, Cpl. Joseph A. Wolfe is the first NJSP official to arrive at the scene. Cpl. Wolfe views the nursery with Lindbergh and then is taken to view what was found outside the nursery window and to also view the ladder. Cpl. Wolfe does not report seeing any footprints leading away from the ladder. Cahill points out that this is the second time the area around the ladder has been examined and no one notices any additional footprints.
Moving on to page 11, Cahill goes on to say that when Trooper DeGaetano arrives on the scene he goes outside for the first time to view the ladder and grounds. He does not see any other footprints but the stocking foot impressions leading to the ladder (footnote 14 p. 349)and the footprints left by Anne Lindbergh earlier in the afternoon (footnote 15 p. 349). Cahill claims in this footnote that it is Anne's footprints that lead newspapers to report that Charlie was kidnapped by two people, a man and a woman.
Picking up on page 14, while Trooper Kelly is processing the nursery for fingerprints, Col. Lindbergh, Corporal Leon, Lieutenant Keaton, and Troopers DeGaetano (he had returned to the nursery from his earlier trip)and Bornmann go out to look again at the ladder, chisel and footprints. At this time Bornmann notices all the reporters that had arrived at the scene and were near the ladder.(footnote 25 p. 350)
Moving to page 15 we find that after Trooper Bornmann left the area with the ladder to bring it into Lindbergh's house and this is when Trooper DeGaetano discovers additional footprints leading away from the ladder area in a southeasterly direction. Lindbergh, Keaton, Leon, and DeGaetano follow the prints across the property, past an old chicken coop and abandoned house. The prints continued until they disappeared on a road where tire tracks were found leading away from this area. (footnote 28 p.350)
Cahill goes on in this chapter to explain that the sockprints that led to the ladder made by the kidnapper cannot be related to the prints that lead away from the ladder all the way to the tire tracks because those prints were made by someone wearing boots or overshoes. (footnote 30 p. 350)
Cahill also brings up the dog paw prints found near the boot or overshoe prints. He says it is highly unlikely that the kidnapper brought a dog along with him to help steal the baby so these overshoe prints could not have been made by the kidnapper. He also shares with the reader his point that the area where the ladder was found had been examined at least five times before any new prints were discovered. These new prints weren't seen until after midnight. They should have been noticed by Lindbergh and the others officers if they had been there earlier since there were not reporters on the grounds and near the ladder at that time.
Page 16 of Richard Cahill's book gives the reader his theory on these additional prints. He theorizes that the "rubber boot or overshoe" prints were made by either a reporter or by one of the state troopers. The presence of the dog paw prints point to a state trooper as more likely making the rubber boot trail.(HUH?) He then says this could just be coincidental and the prints were actually made by a reporter. Regardless, Cahill says these prints were not made by the kidnapper.
When you can, I would appreciate any comments you can make on Cahill's findings and his theory. Thanks!!
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 23, 2014 17:49:20 GMT -5
This footprint issue is probably the most confusing aspect of the case for me, since there are no accurate maps showing the various trails, etc. But if the cloth-over-shoe print was actually just a trooper's bootprint, I don't know why it would've stood out or have been noticeable among all the other trooper bootprints which must've been on the property. And what about the bare-foot-in-a-sock or stocking print? I've seen shots of that in a newsreel, filmed the morning after, so we know that one existed--and where did those prints come from? It would seem that someone removed their shoes, presumably to quiet their footsteps in the house, and then, anxious to get away, didn't stop to put their shoes back on until they were outside. So (and I'm basing this on the earliest and therefore freshest and probably most accurate reports), it would seem there were two sets of prints--one stocking, one cloth-over-shoe--that led away from the SE nursery window. The broken ladder and chisel were found along this trail, which headed in the general direction of Featherbed Ln., about a half-mile away, but actually went down a construction access road, the entrance to which was in the backyard. This road curved around and connected up with the driveway near the entrance, where there was an abandoned house and chickencoop. There, the footprints were replaced by tire tracks. This, at any rate, is what I've been able to piece together. And since there were no prints leading to the house, it would seem the kidnappers made their way up the driveway, either on foot or by car. I would guess by car since that would not only save time, but carrying the ladder all the way up the driveway seems like more work than necessary. So we have a driver, plus two footprint trails, indicating a total of three individuals. It would seem, too, that there were dog prints at some point along the footprint trails, so a neighbor's dog was probably tracking them, and there were also tire tracks from two cars on Featherbed Ln., about a half-mile away. These were either unrelated to the crime or Featherbed Ln. could've been a final rendezvous point before the kidnappers headed to Highfields (locals having previously seen two strange cars over the course of that afternoon). As to timing, I think it all happened around 8pm. It was around this time that Anne heard tires on gravel, and since Lindbergh didn't get home for another half-hour, I think what she heard was the driver either dropping off the other two kidnappers or leaving with CAL Jr. Now, if the sound Anne heard was the driver, why didn't the other two just go with him, as opposed to leaving the house on foot...? Either way, it's just a theory and if I'm wrong about the footprint trails (how many and whose they were) then that would of course negate the theory. But Michael, what, in your view, is the best way to get the most accurate possible picture of the footprint trails?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 23, 2014 21:59:07 GMT -5
Starting with Chapter 2, page 7 in Richard's book he brings up several different things. One of them is the footprints found at Highfields the night of the kidnapping. Beginning on page 9 Richard relates that Lindbergh takes Hopewell officers Harry Wolfe and Charles Williamson outside to examine the area around the southeast nursery window. They observe the cloth over shoes footprints leading away from the window area (footnote 9 p. 349). They notice a two piece wooden ladder lying about 75 feet from the house. They also notice the third piece of ladder, a wooden dowel pin and a chisel (footnote 10 p. 349). Richard then goes on to say they did not see any other footprints at the time (footnote 11 p. 349).Between Richard and I we have a total of 34 years of research. Strange how we can see some of the same things so differently. I've done so much research on this and the fingerprints that I would rather not give it away simply to correct what I consider omissions, and/or mistakes. However, I will do my best to reveal what I can so that everyone can at least see where I am coming from. But Michael, what, in your view, is the best way to get the most accurate possible picture of the footprint trails? The key is as I've said earlier - one must gather as much material concerning the event as possible. Consider the material in its totality regardless of whether or not one personally "likes" where that leads you. See what I mean? Someone not mentioning something means what exactly? If that truly means something does not exist then as a rule this must apply everywhere. If so, now we have a ton of information that doesn't really exist - based upon this rule. So how does one explain then, once they begin to follow the prints, exactly why no one exclaims they hadn't seen them earlier? Where is the revelation that they were "missed?" Next, Williamson is quoted in a March 2, 1932 New York Evening Journal as follows: While we were outside we followed footsteps for a distance and decided that the kidnap car must have been parked on Featherbed Lane (the road leading to the Lindbergh estate.). Williamson only went outside once to look at the ladder and footprints. Furthermore, Chief Harry Wolf's own Statement of March 16, 1932 states: We stayed outside; more troopers were coming and I was stationed in the driveway. My instructions were from the Colonel not to touch anything nor to let anyone go around or destroy the footprints. There's nothing in this Statement that says people were intruding on the crime scene. He left from this post at 3AM claiming, at that time, there had been a big crowd of photographers, reporters, and troopers. But nothing about anyone causing him to act officially as instructed. On page 10, Cpl. Joseph A. Wolfe is the first NJSP official to arrive at the scene. Cpl. Wolfe views the nursery with Lindbergh and then is taken to view what was found outside the nursery window and to also view the ladder. Cpl. Wolfe does not report seeing any footprints leading away from the ladder. Cahill points out that this is the second time the area around the ladder has been examined and no one notices any additional footprints. What Wolf did was scout the scene up to the ladder. He obviously wasn't going to abandon the crime scene. Several people did this. They went to the ladder then returned. This does not mean he did not see any prints beyond this point. In his Major Initial Report he writes: For a distance of about 90 feet on the east and south the grounds have been levelled off with fresh dirt which was wet at time of crime and showed footprints etc. This is important because in the exact same report he writes: The ground on the east side of the house was muddy and showed the imprints of the base of the ladder when placed against the wall also apparently two sets of fresh foot prints leading off in a southeast direction. The three sections of the ladder were lying about 75 feet from the house, parallel with the foot prints a carpenters wood chisel was also found nearby the ladder.Interesting because we see him associating footprints with 90 feet when specifically saying the ladder was only 75 feet away. Next, the double set of footprints do not include the smaller set which did not lead easterly but due south. So he sees 2 sets of footprints all leading away from the house. Those prints they eventually follow also lead away from the house. Moving on to page 11, Cahill goes on to say that when Trooper DeGaetano arrives on the scene he goes outside for the first time to view the ladder and grounds. He does not see any other footprints but the stocking foot impressions leading to the ladder (footnote 14 p. 349)and the footprints left by Anne Lindbergh earlier in the afternoon (footnote 15 p. 349). Cahill claims in this footnote that it is Anne's footprints that lead newspapers to report that Charlie was kidnapped by two people, a man and a woman. They were told the smaller set belonged to Anne. That is true. Did they? I don't know, but the situation called for not embarrassing the Lindbergh's by questioning this. Next, again, because its not in the statement does it mean they were not there? Picking up on page 14, while Trooper Kelly is processing the nursery for fingerprints, Col. Lindbergh, Corporal Leon, Lieutenant Keaton, and Troopers DeGaetano (he had returned to the nursery from his earlier trip)and Bornmann go out to look again at the ladder, chisel and footprints. At this time Bornmann notices all the reporters that had arrived at the scene and were near the ladder.( footnote 25 p. 350) Here's what Bornman's Statement says: I saw sock prints leading from the house direct to a point about seventy-five (75) or one hundred (100) feet where the three sections of ladder were laying and instructed a Trooper to guard foot prints, ladder, etc. I went back into the house and questioned the Lindbergh family and servants and upon the arrival of Major Schoeffel and Captain Lamb went out into the yard again and due to the number of strangers around the ground we decided it best to remove the ladders into the house. Cahill goes on in this chapter to explain that the sockprints that led to the ladder made by the kidnapper cannot be related to the prints that lead away from the ladder all the way to the tire tracks because those prints were made by someone wearing boots or overshoes. (footnote 30 p. 350)The double set of footprints LEADING AWAY from the house to the ladder were all said to be covered with cloth or socks. Those leading from the ladder were made with overshoe or boot. This is true. Why this means they couldn't have been made by those involved seems irrational to me. This area had been guarded by Troopers and Hopewell Cops since their arrival. For this reason, they could not have been made by Reporters or Troopers without being seen by those specifically guarding this area.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 24, 2014 16:45:41 GMT -5
I very much agree that one has to gather all available information, looking for common denominators to get a complete picture. In the spirit of that--and based on my own research and what you just posted--just so I'm clear: We have two parallel sets of footprints, both with some sort of overshoe or boot or sock over the shoe, and both leading away from the nursery window. Along these trails are the ladder and chisel, 75-100 ft. away from the house. The footprint trails head in the general direction of Featherbed Ln. a half-mile away, but actually go down a construction access road (sometimes confused with Featherbed Ln. itself, "Featherbed" being a catch-all name for any rough country road). At any rate, the access road and the footprints on it lead to the driveway entrance, with an abandoned house and chickencoop nearby. There the footprints cease and are replaced by tire tracks. Also, for certain stretches of the footprint trails--stretches closer to the house--it would seem one of the individuals was just wearing socks. There was a set of smaller prints around the house too, heading in a slightly different direction from the others, but these were likely made by Anne Lindbergh earlier that day. Whatever it may ultimately mean, is this the general picture?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 24, 2014 17:47:09 GMT -5
Whatever it may ultimately mean, is this the general picture? There are conflicting "facts" concerning the footprints. We have the Reports, Statements, and then the Flemington Testimony. Since that testimony was molded to fit the "Lone-Wolf" theory, I trust the original documentation more. Sometimes it lines up. Whenever that happens we can take it to the bank, or at least that is my opinion. But there are many other sources too. My research does not tally with Richard's. The Hopewell Cops arrived sometime after 10:30PM, since they went together and Chief Wolfe said he was woken up by a call at that time. Williamson's time cannot be trusted, in my opinion, because he says Cpl. Wolf arrived at 11:30PM. Wolf said he arrived at Highfields at 10:55PM after driving there from the Mercer County Airport and that Wolfe and Williamson had preceded him to Highfields by 20 minutes. According to Chief Wolfe: Then Corporal Wolf, of the State Police, came in. He drove in and I met him here. We stayed outside; more troopers were coming and I was stationed in the driveway. My instructions were from the Colonel not to touch anything nor to let anyone go around or destroy the footprints. So upon the arrival of Cpl. Wolf, the integrity of the scene was secured. Next, if one explores more then the "usual" reports, they can see other Troopers are immediately posted to assist with guarding the scene. It is not as portrayed by this book. Next, one must consider exactly where the persons who created those prints leading to the ladder went to. If those prints leading away were not theirs, where did they go? The only prints leading to that ladder came from the side of that house. Unless of course, one set of prints were made by a Lone-Wolf walking backwards. It's my position that the prints made toward the ladder were different then those leading away because they probably weren't wearing shoes. Where the ladder was dropped, it can be assumed they put their shoes, boots, or whatever on so they wouldn't have to continue in their stocking feet. So what you have are prints leading to that ladder from one direction only - then prints leading away from that ladder in one direction only. Hopewell Cops sometime soon after the arrival of Cpl. Wolf guard the prints, yard, and driveway. Not long after that, a couple of other Troopers arrive and assist in guarding this area. These Troopers aren't mentioned at all in Richard's scenario.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 24, 2014 19:57:10 GMT -5
"It's my position that the prints made toward the ladder were different then those leading away because they probably weren't wearing shoes. Where the ladder was dropped, it can be assumed they put their shoes, boots, or whatever on so they wouldn't have to continue in their stocking feet. So what you have are prints leading to that ladder from one direction only - then prints leading away from that ladder in one direction only." --Michael
Thank you. This is my position as well. It would seem, then, that at least one of them took their shoes off to quiet their footsteps inside the house. I think the point of entry was the front door--not so much because it's completely impossible to get over to the window from the ladder, but because I think it'd be impossible not to knock over any of the objects that were below the window inside the nursery (chest, suitcase, tinkertoy), or to launch oneself over these things into a dark room without making a hell of a racket. So okay, one guy goes in through the front door, up into the nursery. He does whatever he does in there (including leaving faint mud smears on the carpet, crib, and the suitcase below the windowsill to make it look like that's where he came in). CAL Jr. is handed off from the window, to the other guy waiting outside at the top of the ladder. This guy climbs down and takes CAL Jr. to the driver, who heads down the driveway (Anne hearing him leave). Meanwhile, the guy in the nursery exits the way he came in (down the stairs, out the front door). He meets the other guy outside, and, doing their best to stay on the construction catwalk, they take the ladder down (the rails of one section splitting as it scissors onto the other two). They take the ladder across the backyard, dump it (along with the chisel), the stocking-footed kidnapper stopping here to put his shoes back on, before heading down the access road to meet up with the driver and pick up their other car. That's my scenario, and, while I fully acknowledge that I may not have all the information, I think that about covers all the bases...?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2014 21:49:04 GMT -5
I think this could be important. If Williamson and Harry Wolf (Hopewell Police) followed footsteps for a distance and then determined that Featherbed Lane was used by the kidnappers, wouldn't this mean that they would have been tracking prints beyond the ladder in order to determine this?
Here we are talking about Cpl. Joseph Wolf of the NJSP and he is mentioning footprints that go beyond the distance of the ladder. So this could be two different confirmations of footprints extending beyond the ladder.
Cpl. Wolf mentions the ladder indentations and then says there were two sets of fresh prints leading off in a southeast direction. Two sets leading to the abandoned ladder??? I thought there was only one set of stocking foot prints leading away from the house to the ladder. Then two sets of prints leading from the ladder to Featherbed and then one set of boot prints continues across the open field past the abandoned house and chicken coop to the car parked on Hopewell-Wertzville Road. I must be misunderstanding something here! Does this mean that Trooper DeGaetano saw two sets of stockinged foot prints and not one? I didn't get that impression when I read one of his reports.
This is really good to know since I think Bornmann arrived early enough before the crime scene could have been compromised by reporters.
OK. So there is a car parked near the front door that receives Charlie and leaves going down the private drive to Hopewell-Wertzville Road and then waits. The other two kidnappers go to their car that is parked on the access road and they drive down to Hopewell-Wertzville Road and both cars leave the scene. Then who leaves the boot prints that lead past the abandoned house and the chicken coop? Is there a third car somewhere that he gets into? Sorry for all the questions.
|
|