|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 24, 2014 22:55:56 GMT -5
No, no third car. I think there were two cars with a total of three guys (matching descriptions by locals throughout that afternoon). I think they met on Featherbed Ln., then proceeded to Highfields. Rather than on the access road near the house, I think they parked at the driveway entrance (where there was also an abandoned house and chickencoop). I think all three men then transferred to one car with the ladder and headed up the driveway (no approach prints to the house). Two guys get out, assemble the ladder on the driveway, walk it to the house--staying on the construction catwalk--and lean it by the nursery window. One guy removes his shoes, slips in through the front door, up the stairs and into the nursery as the other waits outside on the ladder. CAL Jr. is handed off from the window and taken to the driver, who goes back down the driveway, to where the other, empty car is waiting. The kidnapper inside exits through the front door, meeting the other guy outside. They take the ladder down and dump it in the backyard (the stocking-footed kidnapper pausing to put his shoes back on) before continuing all the way down the access road on foot. This road connects up with the driveway near the entrance/abandoned house/coops, where the driver and the other car are waiting. They take off in their cars from there, CAL Jr. in tow.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2014 23:17:19 GMT -5
Ok. I am clear on this now. i think it sounds great but if I am understanding DeGaetano's report, I believe it is, Lindbergh, Keaton, DeGaetano, and Leon who follow a boot trail through the open field leading up to the abandoned house and the chicken coop. Is the access road part of the open field?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 24, 2014 23:33:04 GMT -5
Yes, I think the access road was in an open field. So when it's said the footprints were followed across an open field, I think that is synonymous with saying they were on the access road. I base this on an aerial photo of the property that Kevkon posted about two years ago, where you can see the access road (highlighted in yellow) running through an open field and connecting up with the drive near the entrance, where there was also a chickencoop and abandoned house (called the gatehouse in the photo). In the upper right corner of the picture, you can also see one end of Featherbed Ln. It becomes clear from this how the footprints could've been heading in that general direction across the backyard, while still having actually gone down the access road (which often got confused for Featherbed). Anyway, the link to all that is here: lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/thread/783/lindbergh-arrival-alter-kidnappingScroll about halfway down to get to the photo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2014 8:41:25 GMT -5
Thanks for the link to the picture. I hadn't looked at this in quite awhile so I didn't recall exactly how the access road crossed through the property. This all makes sense. Why do you think the kidnappers bothered to remove the ladder away from the house? Once they had Charlie, why not just leave the ladder right at the house and everyone gets in the one car and they drive down to the end of the driveway and retrieve the second car. The ladder being found under the window or just blown over onto the ground under the window would still communicate the same message that someone climbed in the window and stole Charlie. Why do the kidnappers point to their escape route by moving the ladder out near Featherbed Road and then leave a bootprint trail? I could see doing this if you are just staging a kidnapping that never really happened and you are providing officials with an escape route to find.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 25, 2014 9:57:29 GMT -5
You just said it. They were communicating a trail. They didn't want the thread of footprints to be lost, so rather than leave the ladder against the house, they removed it some distance away and dropped it alongside their footprints to reinforce the trail and more evenly space out (and therefore more clearly telegraph) the breadcrumbs or "dots" in this connect-the-dot map they were creating. Leaving the ladder where they did was part of the picture they were trying to paint. Why else would they leave it behind at all, and, leaving it behind, why else would they move it? Why not, as you say, just leave it against the house? Given this, I think it was part of a scene that was being staged to make the whole thing look like a kidnapping.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2014 10:18:35 GMT -5
OK, the trail leading from under the window to the access road and then down to the driveway entrance is made on purpose to show that a kidnapping took place and this is the way they left with Charlie. If they are staging this then why not also create a trail of footprints showing the approach to the house and window in order to kidnap Charlie. This would be expected but yet it is missing. Why are they so careful to conceal the approach aspect? Why not just use the access road for everything?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 25, 2014 11:49:41 GMT -5
For one thing, there's a risk of their cars getting stuck on the access road, since these roads were very rough, made for trucks and heavy equipment. And it would be pretty awkward to carry the ladder up these roads on foot, all the way to the house. On the other hand, driving up the driveway with the ladder is not only quicker, but, if you look at the aerial photo, it's also much more efficient: A) you don't have to carry the ladder any significant distance and B) utilizing the driveway by car is the first half of a circuit, the second half being the hike down the access road. Also, I think a simple, clear footprint trail leading in one direction, away from the house--as opposed to confusing trails that overlap and backtrack on each other up and down the access road and across the backyard--creates a much clearer, easy-to-follow trail for observers. So I think an approach trail was sacrificed not only for efficiency but also for clarity: "Well, there are no footprints leading TO the house, but whatever; the perps obviously got there somehow. But with these footprints leading FROM the house, we can clearly that this was a kidnapping, that the baby was taken away." After all, it's harder to focus on something that's not there when you have something else to focus on which very much IS present. In those cases, the former tends to fade away in favor of the latter. I believe this is exactly what the person behind this whole thing was banking on, at least as far as the crime scene was concerned. Interesting though, how there's this almost symbolic, unconscious attempt to direct attention away from the house--virtually nothing indicating approach-to, plenty to show leaving-from. Maybe I'm being a little too Freudian here, but to me this smacks of overcompensation--someone on the inside trying to misdirect attention to anything and everything away from the house and therefore from the idea that there was anyone inside with any involvement. For me, this gives away that there indeed was an insider. I would guess others at the time drew similar conclusions based on this, but, this being the Lindbergh family, they were either told or knew to keep their mouths shut.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2014 12:32:37 GMT -5
I am in agreement with you about the use of the driveway and the catwalk. I was just questioning why they only did a half job of creating an exterior kidnap scene. The person behind this wants LE to believe that outsiders came to the house, climbed the ladder, entered the nursery, stole Charlie from his bed, then left through the window. Why not have tracks leading up to the house and then leading away from the house to make that clear. With no approach trail to the house, I would be concerned that LE might consider this lack of prints an indicator of insider help. LE must have wondered why there were no prints leading to the southeast window area.
It is strange that the concern (consciously) was to draw attention going away from the scene and not to it. They really trusted that this would be sufficent enough evidence to prove a kidnapping by outsiders had occurred and it ends up they were right.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 25, 2014 13:17:01 GMT -5
I definitely see your point about suspicions being raised by the creation of only half a crime scene, by forgoing an approach footprint trail, but, again, I think this was sacrificed for clarity and efficiency. But whatever questions could be raised by the absence of approach prints (and there were some), the person running this scam from the inside would, as you say, have to be pretty confident in their ability to control and deflect a certain amount of suspicion along these lines. Yeah, very confident indeed; pretty audacious, calculating and controlling...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2014 13:37:13 GMT -5
Yeah, very confident indeed; pretty audacious, calculating and controlling...(LJ)
Sure is! It matches with the boldness of the kidnappers too. They came close enough to the house that Anne actually heard a car on gravel. They didn't seem to mind taking such a chance. Makes you wonder what assurances they had that it would be safe for them to use this frontal approach.
When thinking about the property, how familiar do you think these kidnappers were of the grounds and how to utilize them especially when leaving the property by the access road?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 25, 2014 16:48:26 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? Although the article seems to insinuate he actually had been on that trail the actual Reports seemed to show he was not because he was guarding the yard at the time. I believe the "we" meaning the "Police" as a whole. Of course I could be mistaken, because Troopers were also guarding the yard as well, but I have never found anything other then this to support it. My point is, regardless, he doesn't have a problem with prints being there. That isn't suggestive of someone not seeing prints then being told that prints had appeared there. Also notice how Featherbed Lane is described. This exemplifies yet another obstacle to researching this crime. The Police themselves are referring to the Access Road as "Featherbed Lane," as "Featherbed Road," and the "Old Abandoned Road." The Press, other Law Enforcement, as well as countless Researchers have all believed they were referring to the Road actually named "Featherbed Lane" when they were not. Another one is that most Cops were referring to Hopewell-Amwell Road as "Wertsville-Hopewell Road." I don't know why but they did. Since there is the "Hopewell-Wertzville Road" which runs west of Highfields its easy to see why some, myself included when I first started to research, believed this was the road they were referring to - when they were not. The key, again, is to find ALL reports about this subject then cross-reference them. Now another obstacle is that you cannot walk into the Archives then open a specific folder and expect to find everything there. I have found several different reports written by the same Troopers about this exact same event which say different things! It takes a crazy amount of time to locate and/or find this material - I used to skip reports in other files thinking they were the same I had found in other locations when I first started going down there. These reports and statements are general, sketchy, jump around, miss time, confusing, and contradictory in places. It's why the entire situation must be looked at in a way that allows one to see the big picture. That's clouded by the mistakes of previous Researchers/Authors so it can be taken for granted causing those same mistakes to constantly be repeated over and over. 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. In one report DeGaetano mentions seeing the print facing the house, the indentations of the ladder, and a print made by a woman's shoe that Wolfe told him was Mrs. Lindbergh's. In this report he make absolutely no mention of seeing prints in the yard leading to the ladder. His March 9th report says he saw footprints made by a "stocking foot." This sounds like only "one" foot doesn't it? In yet another report he says he noticed footprints made by "stocking feet." So I look at all three, consider how each and every other report/statement is written then ask myself if these contradict Cpl. Wolf's "Major Initial Report." You see, there is even another report written by Cpl. Wolf which is extremely brief and lacking. The other thing I wasn't going to mention but I decided to now is that these men were waiting for Major Shoeffel to show up for further instructions. It's why no one ventured out of the yard until he showed up, and it was only then they were "detailed" to do so.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Mar 25, 2014 20:15:10 GMT -5
Since you have two feet, the reference to "stocking feet" may refer to just one set of prints. The library in Pennington apparently has a good collection of old Hopewell maps. I would like to see what some of the roads were called back then to help clear up some of the confusion. If they allow me to make some photocopies I will post them here.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Mar 25, 2014 23:02:40 GMT -5
Amy, I think a dry run of some sort would've been helpful, sure. They could've driven around the Hopewell roads to get an idea how long it would take to get from one point to the next, etc. I think there was an increase in sightings of strange cars in the area leading up to the kidnapping--and most of all, on the day of the event itself, when people started seeing cars with ladders or ladder sections across the backseats. But that being said, I think it would've been wise for the kidnappers to keep this sort of reconaissance to a bare minimum and stay out of the area as much as possible until they absolutely had to be there (that is, until the day of the event). But even if they had been to the area before 3/1/32, how did they know the grounds around Highfields and the layout inside? Since Olly giving guided tours to passersby has been debunked, once again we come back to an insider. I think this person told the kidnappers where to find the entrance to the access road (that it was across the backyard and to just follow this road back to their cars); that the nursery was at the top of the stairs, with the upper SE corner window being the nursery window, etc. Assuming they hadn't been to Highfields before, how else could the kidnappers have known any or all of this without an insider of some sort telling them? The only alternative to this that I can come up with is that they were snooping around the property and watching the house from the outside. But never mind how fragmented and unreliable the intel is which that kind of observation provides, how could they have done even this? The area around the house was open country back then, so there was no where to hide and observe. So they would've had to be out in the open watching the house--but for how many days or weeks to get any sort of real idea of the routines and layout inside, without ever being noticed? I don't buy it. So an insider makes more sense to me and answers all these questions, including the point you make about the kidnappers pulling up to the house. I mean, I think they did, since Lindbergh didn't get home for another half-hour after Anne heard a car. Who else but the kidnappers could it have been that she heard then, and, once again, how did they know it was safe to get that close to the house if they weren't told so beforehand?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 26, 2014 19:11:08 GMT -5
Since you have two feet, the reference to "stocking feet" may refer to just one set of prints. The library in Pennington apparently has a good collection of old Hopewell maps. I would like to see what some of the roads were called back then to help clear up some of the confusion. If they allow me to make some photocopies I will post them here. That's partly my point. Three reports and three different things, so one report could mean this - or maybe not. I have the maps but they are huge so I cannot scan them. Hopefully you'll have some luck and will be able to share what you find.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2014 0:30:27 GMT -5
So are you saying that no one had a chance to observe the boot prints leading away from the ladder until Major Schoeffel arrived? They were not seen before that? What time did Major Schoeffel arrive at the scene to give this order? Who actually reported seeing the bootprints first? Cahill's book has Major Schoeffel arriving around midnight.(Chapter 2 p. 11)
Cpl Wolf secured the scene by telling Chief Wolfe to stay on the driveway and guard the area. You mention other troopers were also available to help. Do you know if they were there before Major Schoeffel arrived? The reason I am asking is because after Major Schoeffel arrives with Trooper Kelly they go up the nursery. Trooper Kelly processes the envelope and nursery note for fingerprints and then present the nursery note unread to Major Schoeffel. Major Schoeffel then asks Colonel Lindbergh if he wishes to see the note while looking directly at Chief Wolfe who picks up on the not so subtle hint and he and Officer Williamson leave the nursery. (Chapter 2 p.12) When I read this it meant that Chief Wolfe was no longer outside keeping the grounds secure. He was up in the nursery.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2014 0:41:31 GMT -5
That would be great if you are able to do this. The road names have been confusing. I think I am getting better at it but still need more clarity in this area. Thanks!
I see what you are saying. It is true that the people around that area took notice of strangers and strange cars. It does make a case for an insider providing knowledge to the kidnappers. They needed to know alot of things to pull this off.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2014 12:04:49 GMT -5
I wanted to bring up something that Richard Cahill brings up about the FBI. In Chapter 17 p. 146 he writes about the capture of Bruno Richard Hauptmann. On page 147 he mentions about the three LE agencies involved, the New York Police Dept., the New Jersey State Police, and the FBI. As you continue to read this page he talks about the subterfuge among the three agencies with each department wanting the glory for apprehending Hauptmann. He then talks about the various reports written by these agencies and how they tried to humiliate each other. He then goes on to say that some Lindbergh researchers use these reports to support their conclusions of Hauptmann being innocent. He also says that these researchers sometimes do this ignorantly and there are other reseachers that do this maliciously and without regard for truth and accuracy.
On page 148 he then warns the reader (and I guess researchers) to be careful about accepting anything written about the kidnapping case by the FBI from the time of Bruno Richard Hauptmann's arrest and thereafter. Cahill does say the the FBI's information about the backgrounds of various individuals involved in the case is fine and not distorted. It is the FBI records offering commentary on the evidence against Hauptmann that should be read with a skeptical eye and should be accepted only if it can be corroborated.
I now find myself wondering if I should pay much attention at all to the FBI Summary report. It can't be that bad can it??
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 27, 2014 19:47:56 GMT -5
So are you saying that no one had a chance to observe the boot prints leading away from the ladder until Major Schoeffel arrived? They were not seen before that? What time did Major Schoeffel arrive at the scene to give this order? Who actually reported seeing the bootprints first? Cahill's book has Major Schoeffel arriving around midnight .(Chapter 2 p. 11)My point is that this is among the mistakes Richard makes concerning this issue. It appears (to me at least) that he is saying no one went further because they did not see prints. Leon and Kelly arrived together. Leon said he arrived " around 12 o'clock," and that Schoeffel, Keaton, and Zapolsky arrived " about 10 minutes" later. Cpl Wolf secured the scene by telling Chief Wolfe to stay on the driveway and guard the area. You mention other troopers were also available to help. Do you know if they were there before Major Schoeffel arrived? Of course - Trooper Cain and Trooper Sullivan were dispatched at 10:53 and the report says they arrived 20 minutes later. Cain's Report specifically says only Lindbergh, Wolf, Wolfe, Williamson, the Butler, his Wife, the baby's nurse, and Mrs. Lindbergh were there when they arrived. Cain says " I was detailed to keep any one away from the side of the house, or going into same, until arrival of Capt. Lamb." Since Wolf testified in Flemington that Bornmann and DeGaetano were the next to arrive ( see trial transcripts p.346) I think many just take this as a "given." It shouldn't be because they were absolutely not the next to arrive. The reason I am asking is because after Major Schoeffel arrives with Trooper Kelly they go up the nursery. Trooper Kelly processes the envelope and nursery note for fingerprints and then present the nursery note unread to Major Schoeffel. Major Schoeffel then asks Colonel Lindbergh if he wishes to see the note while looking directly at Chief Wolfe who picks up on the not so subtle hint and he and Officer Williamson leave the nursery. (Chapter 2 p.12) When I read this it meant that Chief Wolfe was no longer outside keeping the grounds secure. He was up in the nursery. Kelly did not arrive with Schoeffel. Let's look at this: The letter was presented unread to Major Schoeffel. He examined the letter and asked Colonel Lindbergh if he wished to see the note while looking directly at Chief Wolfe, who, picking up on the not-too-subtle hint, left the room with Officer Williamson. (Cahill p. 12 - no source provided). He extracted and unfolded a single sheet of paper, and after a quick look, asked Colonel Lindbergh, "now who do you want to see this note?" As he spoke, Schoeffel looked at the inner circles of the investigation. Before Colonel Lindbergh could answer, Chief Wolfe and his patrolman, Charles Williamson, walked out of the room. (Fisher p. 18 - no source provided). He drew out a note scrawled in pencil and studied it briefly. Then, with a look at Harry Wolfe, the Hopewell police chief, he said to Lindbergh, pointedly, "Now, who do you want to see this note Colonel?" Wolfe interpreted the words as a hint that his services were no longer required and, with Constable Williamson, he left. (Waller p.13 - no source provided). Williamson testified at trial that he saw Kelly powder the note checking for fingerprints ( start at trial transcript p.421). He also testified that Lindbergh was not in the room when Kelly went into the Nursery. Bornmann also testified he witnessed this note being tested ( see trial transcript 363). Yet, Kelly wrote specifically in his March 16th Report that Wolf, Williamson, Wolfe, and Lindbergh witnessed this whole process. Bornmann is only mentioned as having been met in the downstairs hallway along with DeGaetano, and Wolf before being shown to the Nursery. This Report also says Kelly had already opened and read the note, noticing the secret symbol and the ransom demands. It goes on to say Schoeffel, and Keaton came in during the course of this investigation and read the letter. Now, speaking of Testimony, what's also interesting is that Lindbergh testified ( see trial transcript p. 88), that : "....Trooper Wolf of the New Jersey State Police arrived. He moved the note from the window sill to the mantle over the fire place with a penknife." He repeats this claim again in later testimony ( See TT p.168). With this in mind, check out Richard's footnote #16 on page 349. Is Lindbergh a "secondary source?" Finally, Bornmann both reported and testified when he arrived that he saw the note on the windowsill ( see TT p. 262 AND March 9th Report).
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 27, 2014 20:03:32 GMT -5
I wanted to bring up something that Richard Cahill brings up about the FBI. In Chapter 17 p. 146 he writes about the capture of Bruno Richard Hauptmann. On page 147 he mentions about the three LE agencies involved, the New York Police Dept., the New Jersey State Police, and the FBI. As you continue to read this page he talks about the subterfuge among the three agencies with each department wanting the glory for apprehending Hauptmann. He then talks about the various reports written by these agencies and how they tried to humiliate each other. He then goes on to say that some Lindbergh researchers use these reports to support their conclusions of Hauptmann being innocent. He also says that these researchers sometimes do this ignorantly and there are other reseachers that do this maliciously and without regard for truth and accuracy. On page 148 he then warns the reader (and I guess researchers) to be careful about accepting anything written about the kidnapping case by the FBI from the time of Bruno Richard Hauptmann's arrest and thereafter. Cahill does say the the FBI's information about the backgrounds of various individuals involved in the case is fine and not distorted. It is the FBI records offering commentary on the evidence against Hauptmann that should be read with a skeptical eye and should be accepted only if it can be corroborated. I now find myself wondering if I should pay much attention at all to the FBI Summary report. It can't be that bad can it?? He is editorializing. Anyone who researches is certainly allowed to do this and just about everyone has. But keep in mind why its done. I have always said the FBI Summary Report needs additional sources to back up what's in it. Why? Because the NJSP was not only withholding certain information from the FBI, they were giving them bad intel about certain things as well. As a result, they relied on everything they had at the time in order to draw it up. Frankly, the FBI Reports themselves are what I consider the "best" when it comes to the actual investigations. They were the Best Investigators, and the Most Honest of everyone who was involved. A good example was when Hauptmann was getting the hell beat out of him by both NYPD and the NJSP, but the FBI had no part in it, and would have no part in it. I also believe the the Flemington Trial Testimony is probably the least trustworthy. That's why this crime is so hard to keep track of and figure out. There's so many circumstances and variables to consider. But the bottom line is that it should be up to the individual to decide AFTER having enough information under their belt. I think its wrong to tell people what to and what not to believe before that happens.
|
|
kdwv8
Trooper II
Posts: 95
|
Post by kdwv8 on Mar 28, 2014 7:08:32 GMT -5
Michael, Do you know if LE checked CAL, Whateley and the rest of the people in the house for shoe/foot sizes to see if they match the footprints outside?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2014 17:05:29 GMT -5
Thanks Michael for all the details you are sharing about the footprints and officers present at the scene. They really did make an effort to keep the grounds secure therefore preserving the evidence as much as possible from compromise. This is such an important point. You get an entirely different picture when you read most books. They don't mention all the addtional officers on the scene. Most times it sound like about 10 max and everybody is in and out of the house! You are right, of course. Thanks for the reassurance about the FBI. I will still use the book and then check for other sources if necessary to confirm. And if I am still not sure then I will just ask you.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 29, 2014 10:02:51 GMT -5
Michael, Do you know if LE checked CAL, Whateley and the rest of the people in the house for shoe/foot sizes to see if they match the footprints outside? It's a tricky question because common sense tells us this would be done. And so without any reference I think it would be safe to assume it had been. However, as we see from Lloyd's book, The Case That Never Dies p. 319, a footprint cast had been made of one of those prints, yet, its existence had been completely denied. With this in mind there is considerable guess-work that must occur for any Researcher who begins looking at this situation from battlesight zero. Here is an interesting exchange from the Flemington Trial: p382 Q [Reilly]: To a cetain extent. And you found a foot print didn't you? A [Bornmann]: I did.
Q: And you knew it wasn't the Colonel's foot print, didn't you? A: And I knew it wasn't the bulter's foot print.
Q: Did you take him out and measure it? A: I questioned him.
Q: Never mind about questioning him. Did you take his shoe off and try to fit it in there? Did you? A: No, I did not.
Q: Because you asked a man what size shoe he wore you came to teh conclusion that was not his foot print, is that it? A: I knew he hadn't been out there.
Q: Did you see this house before you were sent for? A: No.
Q: How did you know he wasn't out there? A: I had his word for it.
Q: Oh, you took his word for it? You took the word of that man who has since died that he hadn't gone outside the house, is that it? A: That is correct.
Q: When you saw the woman's footprints, did you take anybody's word for it as to who was outside? A: Yes.
Q: Who? A: Mrs. Lindbergh.
Q: Did you take Betty Gow's word? A: She hadn't been out.
Q: You don't mean to say you asked Mrs. Lindbergh whether she was outside the house in the mud? A: I did.
Q: You wouldn't accuse Mrs. Lindbergh of anything?(Objection Wilentz) p384Q: You knew it wasn't the Colonel's, didn't you? A: I knew it was none of the men that was found there that night.
Q: But you didn't measure the butler's footprint, did you? A: I had his and the Colonel's word that he hadn't been outside.
Q: Why, did you know that the butler was alone in that house on the ground floor for two hours while his wife and Betty Gow were upstairs? Did you know that?(Objection Wilentz) Q: Did you know that night that this child was for two hours from eight o'clock until ten, as far as any servants were concerned, absolutely alone; did you know that? A: As to the question of servants, yes.
Q: Well my goodness, you don't believe everybody that you question when you are sent out to investigate a crime, do you? A: I take a statement from them then investigate.
Q: And if you like the statement, you believe it, is that it? A: No.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2014 10:32:34 GMT -5
Since we have been on the topic of the FBI activities in this case, I have a question about Condon and an FBI report. In Cahill's book, Chapter 6 p. 55, Richard brings up Condon's Woodlawn Cemetery meeting with CJ. Cahill states that the earliest recorded version of the conversation between Condon and CJ is a "transcript" maintained by the FBI. Cahill then gives the reader the conversation that took place at Woodlawn. It is too long for me to put in this post. There is no footnote for this whole section, so I don't know when this transcript was put together.
Is this FBI document a compilation of all the various statements made by Condon to police officials and others during the course of the investigation? It is longer than most of the portions of the Condon/CJ Woodlawn conversation I have seen in print. Did the FBI ever meet personally with Dr. Condon?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 29, 2014 12:30:12 GMT -5
Since we have been on the topic of the FBI activities in this case, I have a question about Condon and an FBI report. In Cahill's book, Chapter 6 p. 55, Richard brings up Condon's Woodlawn Cemetery meeting with CJ. Cahill states that the earliest recorded version of the conversation between Condon and CJ is a "transcript" maintained by the FBI. Cahill then gives the reader the conversation that took place at Woodlawn. It is too long for me to put in this post. There is no footnote for this whole section, so I don't know when this transcript was put together. Is this FBI document a compilation of all the various statements made by Condon to police officials and others during the course of the investigation? It is longer than most of the portions of the Condon/CJ Woodlawn conversation I have seen in print. Did the FBI ever meet personally with Dr. Condon? In Special Agent Sisk's June 4, 1934 Memo to Hoover he writes: "Dr. John F. Condon, at the request of this office, has for some time been engaged in the preparation of a detailed and complete transcript of the conversation had by him at the Woodlawn and St. Raymond's Cemeteries with the individual "John."" He continues on that it will be forwarded to the Division within a couple of days while some corrections were being made. It's 15 pages long and unless Richard has something different then I do it seems that he omits in places, changes in parts, and shuffles up the order of what's being said as its written in the document. For example, here is how the document I have ends: Man: "You can't get - what do you call it - immunity? We have prepared this a long time and nobody will catch us. Would I burn if the baby is dead?"
Condon: "I do not know the facts."
Man: "Would I burn if I did not kill it?" (This said in a guarded manner).
Condon: "Is the baby all right?"
Man: "The baby is happy and well. I must go. I have stayed already too long. I will send the sleeping suit by 10:00 o'clock Monday morning. I will get in touch with you after 6:00 A. M. on Sunday if my friends let me. You put an ad in the Home News, Sunday, like this: 'Baby is alive and well, money is ready', to show my friends I saw you, and you are willing to pay the money. Well, good night, I must go." (Disappears in woods).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2014 17:33:11 GMT -5
15 pages, Michael???!!!! Well, I guess Richard used out of it what he felt worked best in his chapter. Interesting that CJ brings up immunity. Since CJ is so sure that he won't be caught, it must be Condon who is going to need immunity. Charlie is dead and Condon is going to have to hand over $50,000 dollars for a sleeping suit and Boad Nelly note. I am sure at some point Condon must have regretted getting involved. Thanks for that sample.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 29, 2014 18:12:14 GMT -5
15 pages, Michael???!!!! Well, I guess Richard used out of it what he felt worked best in his chapter. Interesting that CJ brings up immunity. Since CJ is so sure that he won't be caught, it must be Condon who is going to need immunity. Charlie is dead and Condon is going to have to hand over $50,000 dollars for a sleeping suit and Boad Nelly note. I am sure at some point Condon must have regretted getting involved. Thanks for that sample. It was Condon who brought up immunity according to the transcript: Condon: "Well, you should be protected with this fellow high up in position with you. Get your men together in a decent way and have the work done on a cash and delivery basis. you can't expect us to pay the money without seeing the baby and knowing it is alive. Come now, John, I will give you cash and you give me the baby. Not only will it be all over but maybe the Colonel will grant you immunity."
Man: "You can't get - what do you call it - immunity? We have prepared this a long time and nobody will catch us. Would I burn if the baby is dead?"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2014 19:09:45 GMT -5
So this must be from the Woodlawn Cemetary planning session. What a shocker when Condon realizes the baby is dead. Immunity - no way that is happening. What is your opinion of the transcript? Did the FBI think it was of any value to the investigation?
|
|
kdwv8
Trooper II
Posts: 95
|
Post by kdwv8 on Mar 29, 2014 19:28:22 GMT -5
Q: And you knew it wasn't the Colonel's foot print, didn't you? A: And I knew it wasn't the bulter's foot print. Q: Did you take him out and measure it? A: I questioned him. Q: Never mind about questioning him. Did you take his shoe off and try to fit it in there? Did you? A: No, I did not. Q: How did you know he wasn't out there? A: I had his word for it. Q: You knew it wasn't the Colonel's, didn't you? A: I knew it was none of the men that was found there that night. Q: But you didn't measure the butler's footprint, did you? A: I had his and the Colonel's word that he hadn't been outside. WOW, This is some awesome police work! I think Andy and Barney would have done a better job!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 29, 2014 19:46:42 GMT -5
So this must be from the Woodlawn Cemetary planning session. What a shocker when Condon realizes the baby is dead. Immunity - no way that is happening. What is your opinion of the transcript? My opinion is this should have been done immediately. However, since Condon cannot be trusted its hard to say whether or not it would have mattered. Did the FBI think it was of any value to the investigation? I will quote Sisk: The conversations with the kidnapper are believed to be of considerable importance to the investigation of this case because of the distinct possibility that the kidnapper, during the rather lengthy discussion with Dr. Condon may have uttered certain truths which may materially aid the investigation and possibly furnish a clue which will aid in identifying him. Undoubtedly the kidnapper "John" falsified many of his statements and deliberately sought to mislead Dr. Condon. However, worried by fear of arrest and under a great nervous stain he may not have sufficient mental alertness to concoct misleading and untruthful replies to all of the many questions directed to him by Dr Condon. Some grains of truth are undoubtedly interspersed in these conversations.
It is believed that Dr. Condon may have magnified, imagined, and "dressed up" some of the statements attributed to the kidnapper and also his own remarks. However, it is also believed that the conversations are substantially correct. It is pointed out in this connection that Dr. Condon's account of his conversation with "John" before the Bronx County Grand Jury agrees quite well with his account of the conversations narrated to Colonel Breckinridge, Al Reich, Gregory Coleman, and the writer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2014 20:30:07 GMT -5
Do you mean that Condon should have been granted immunity as soon as he had this first meeting? Do you think that by doing that Condon would have rolled over on who the kidnappers/extortioners were?
Wow! The FBI was very serious about the importance of what Dr. Condon revealed in that transcript. They find his conversations to be substantially correct. I am totally surprised by this reaction to Condon's conversation account. It is so opposite to what I have felt regarding Condon's honesty when relating conversations and actions throughout the whole negotiation process.
Do you find any of the truths Condon put into this transcript to be applicable to Hauptmann as the man who committed this crime?
Was this document ever shared with other law enforcement agencies working on the case?
|
|