|
Post by Michael on Mar 30, 2014 7:56:17 GMT -5
Do you mean that Condon should have been granted immunity as soon as he had this first meeting? No, I meant forcing Condon to sit down and prepare a detailed and complete transcript concerning each event that involved dialogue. This exemplifies the major problems which existed between the Law Enforcement Agencies. Remember also that it was the FBI who were flabbergasted to learn the J. J. Faulkner ransom money was sitting around collecting dust without any real investigation being made of it. So they acted to have it fingerprinted and analyzed. Instead of being praised for good Police work all hell broke loose. 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. This should be used as a measuring stick for anyone using Condon's age as an excuse for his conflicting statements. Sisk does also go on to say his analysis of the conversations are based on the " supposition" that Dr. Condon was " telling the truth." Do you find any of the truths Condon put into this transcript to be applicable to Hauptmann as the man who committed this crime? Not for me. In my opinion it should be evaluated more towards looking to see where Condon "slipped up" during what he chose to represent as coming from John. Like where John claims Lindy was wasting his time "down soud." However, Sisk was both extremely intelligent & level headed, and from his evaluation seemed believed there were indications the "Lookout" from both Cemeteries was the same man, and an Accomplice who knew Condon by sight if not more intimately. He referred to him as the possible "finger man." I think that's important. Was this document ever shared with other law enforcement agencies working on the case? I can't give you a concrete answer to this one Amy. Ho-age doesn't use it in his evaluation of Condon's Statement or Reports involving him. That tells me it wasn't available to him so I suspect no. However, Hoffman wrote to Hoover which resulted in certain documents being sent to him. As a result of reading your question last night I went to my Hoffman Files to see if I could find a specific answer for you. What I found was a 5 page document that is more or less an abbreviated version of this transcript that looks much more like what Richard has quoted in his book. For that document to be with my files in this collection tells me it was probably forwarded to Hoffman from Hoover. The 15 page document comes from the FBI College Park Archives in Maryland. The great thing about Lloyd's book, The Case That Never Dies, is that he used so much new material that comes from that source. When I saw this document, I assumed it was the same as what I found in the Hoffman Collection. And so your question just, once again, taught me something new - not to mention that assuming these types of things is a bad habit when it comes to source material!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 30, 2014 8:05:02 GMT -5
WOW, This is some awsome police work! I think Andy and Barney would have done a better job! If this is what really happened, then I think its an example of how much weight Lindbergh's word meant. It's so absurd that can be the only explanation. When I read through the various Reports there's absolutely no way these men are this gullible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2014 10:02:36 GMT -5
That would have been great if it had been done that way. The events would have been fresh in Condon's mind. He wouldn't have been able to alter them so much without a good reason each time he decided to put a different spin on events and conversations.
That J J. Faulkner line of investigation still interests me. I have something I want to ask about along those lines. I will do so later today when I have all my thoughts together on it.
Condon was a "spin master" no doubt about it. That is why you are right that he should of had to give a detailed account each and every time he had contact with CJ. What I am not getting is why Lindbergh/Breckinridge didn't let this be done. It is things like this that cause people to be suspicious of Lindbergh in retrospect. Condon was kept away from LE. No details would be made available so Condon was free to communicate things as he chose. There was nothing on record to hold him to.
It is good to see that there was some cooperation between the federal level and Hoffman at least. It is sad that Hoffmann did not have sufficent time to investigate the kidnapping. It truly needed a new set of eyes looking into it the weren't bias.
His book is a treasure of solid information. It is the next best thing to a trip to the archives and sits right on my desk so I can refer to it.
After Charlie's body was recovered and LE was able to get a good shot at Condon, why didn't they offer him some kind of immunity deal? Walsh's questioning of Condon at Alpine made it clear to Condon that he was being looked at as a possible accomplice. He could have protected himself and aided in volving the kidnapping. Instead he just muddied the waters over and over.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2014 19:57:59 GMT -5
It would make sense that the lookout at Woodlawn would be the same man as the one at St. Raymonds. So then Sisk must think that this man is the one CJ talked about who knew Condon. Interesting idea. I have to ask you Michael, what is a "finger man"? You think this is important so I want to know what that means. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 31, 2014 15:52:28 GMT -5
I have to ask you Michael, what is a "finger man"? You think this is important so I want to know what that means. Thanks It's a term used for a person who's task is to point out someone - for someone else: dictionary.reference.com/browse/finger+man
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Apr 30, 2014 17:27:19 GMT -5
just wanted to say that i too have finished this book. i'm glad i read it, and have been following everyone's take on what Cahill has to say, especially with regards to source material and so on. i must say that i was a little disappointed in that there was nothing really new or revelatory in the book. obviously with Mr. Cahill's background, it's natural he would focus on an analysis of the trial strategies of both prosecution and defense. while that was very interesting, for me it's the driest part of the case. that is just a personal bias of mine, i guess i like all the high drama of the LE investigative stuff! but like with the other recent book, "The Sixteenth Rail", it's good to have books that focus on different aspects of the case.
Michael, did you say you were not going to finish reading "Hauptmann's Ladder"?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 1, 2014 20:07:59 GMT -5
Michael, did you say you were not going to finish reading "Hauptmann's Ladder"? Right. I didn't get far before I gave up on it. While I can certainly appreciate the time and effort it takes to put a book like his together, I didn't see much value in reading a book where I disagree with, let's say, about 3 out of 4 points he's asserting are true on each page. Plus, it's in my nature to point out things that are incorrect, but at the same time I don't want to shred his book knowing its been 20 years in the making. However, if anyone has a point, comment, or question about something at least I have it to reference so I can join in the conversation. Unfortunately, I will be at everyone's mercy when it comes to Zorn's book - there's no way in hell I'll buy that one.
|
|
sam
Recruit
Posts: 5
|
Post by sam on Aug 11, 2014 14:16:25 GMT -5
I am almost through Cahill's book and I have to say it's a really good read. I would put it up there with Waller as one of my favourite books on the case. I LOVE the way almost everything is footnoted and his repeated and successful efforts to discredit Scaduto among others.
A few specific comments on the negative side:
Cahill repeatedly reports what the jury and the "audience" at trial is feeling, without footnotes; this is pure conjecture;
I get the sense that Cahill has not read all of the books on the case but it's hard to tell as there is no separate bibliography;
On pages 4-5, Cahill says Lindbergh was to be the guest of honour at a banquet on the night of March 1; this is wrong as a review of the program for that night shows (the program is at the NJSP archives); Lindbergh was a guest of honour, among eight or so others.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Aug 11, 2014 20:50:50 GMT -5
hi sam, thanks to sue Campbell we have the program, and it looks like he wasn't going to speak
|
|
|
Post by rtcahilljr on Jan 31, 2015 14:43:47 GMT -5
Thanks to all who read my book and commented on same. Some of the statements offered are interesting while others are misciting or misquoting me. Regardless, I thought it might be interesting to offer a chance to "ask the author" if you will. I have a blog on the book. The site is www.Hauptmannsladder.com. Starting in about an hour or so, I am going to put an article up asking for questions on the case. Just post a comment to ask your question. I will offer answers as quickly as I can. Sound fair? All I ask is that our conversations be civil and interesting. Personal attacks and obscene language will be deleted.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 31, 2015 17:49:48 GMT -5
Some of the statements offered are interesting while others are misciting or misquoting me. Richard, thanks for the link I an encourage everyone to take advantage of this generous opportunity. I am curious though why you haven't countered or corrected any miscitings and/or misquotings here as you see them? That would drive me crazy to read it and not specifically point them out. Even if you haven't seen them here I welcome the corrections placed on this Board for the sake of clearing them up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2015 12:03:41 GMT -5
Michael,
I was just on Richard Cahill's book website this morning. I replied to his position about the position of the body found in the Mount Rose woods being on its side. I quoted his book where he talks about this on page 95, paragraph 4. The way the paragraph is written it sounds like William Allen and Orville Wilson observed that "The body was lying on its side and the portion of the face they could see was black and decomposed." I have asked him if Allen and/or Wilson ever made such a statement to the police on May 12, 1932. Richard has no footnote for this paragraph.
I told him I found his position troubling because what he is saying is not how Allen and Wilson testified at the Flemington trial, especially Allen who was very clear that he could not see the child's face at all; that the body was flat to the ground. I then asked him to check Allen's testimony on page 1442 of the trial transcript.
Wouldn't Allen have been perjuring himself if he gave a statement to the police that the child was on its side and he could see a portion of the face? I don't know if you can comment on this. I understand if you can't because of your book.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 1, 2015 13:15:10 GMT -5
The body was discovered face down. I see why he writes what he does but it's incorrect.
I've also posted there and Richard has been kind enough to give his perspective while taking into account what I've written. I want to explain that when I say that I stopped reading his book it certainly wasn't meant to dissuade others from reading it. I would never do that. I am going to ramble a little bit so if I don't make any sense then just disregard it....
The way my mind works is that if I see something I disagree with I have to point it out. And so I was stopping too often, and on top of that, I felt it would even be somewhat disrespectful. I did enjoy a couple of new angles before I stopped - the idea that Reporters made the footprints, and the Capt. Oliver = CJ - even despite the fact I do not believe he's correct I appreciated the original suggestions for consideration. I believe earlier in this thread I sang the praises concerning this.
To further explain my position about the crime scene it's all about timing. My philosophy has always been to accumulate as much source material you can, pile it up and don't stop until it hits the ceiling, then sift through it ALL, compare & contrast. Like I said on Richard's blog, if the source documents from the incident say one thing, and the trial testimony says something different, then I go with the source documents. Others may not like this philosophy so right from jump-street there is going to be differences of opinion just based on this alone. Next, Richard pointed out our time-lines are different and correctly points out it's due to the inconsistencies in the source material. What I can offer up about this is that I rely on what an individual person says about themselves rather then what someone else says about them. For example, if Wolf claims Cain got there later then he did, but Cain says he (himself) was there earlier then it seems to me Cain can account for himself better then Wolf can. I see it as Wolf "ball-parking" the time concerning the others. If there is a 3rd source then I take that into consideration too - especially if they agree with individual person in question - like Cain - then I know with certainty who is correct. Next, you not only have Reports, and Statements to consider, but trial testimony. There's also the Reporters' perspectives and I didn't even get into that. Take Samuel Blackman for example. He left from Trenton almost immediately after the Police alarm and didn't get near Highfields until Lindbergh and the Troopers were already out searching the neighborhood - and Blackman knew how to get there. Lindbergh's neighborhood search came after they followed those prints from the house. Furthermore, the Police were telling the Reporters to "scram" and it was Lindbergh himself who over-ruled them upon his return. Even after that, as more and more arrived, there are accounts of Police keeping them away from the yard. There's also the reports, memos, statements, and chains of custody concerning specific pieces of evidence. All of this needs to be considered, and once it's done it is very clear to me that they had already traced the prints before any possibility someone could have wandered onto that yard.
I do realize that most normal people don't spend at least 3 hours a day on this case. I also know they don't spend their vacations at the NJSP Archives or spend so much time there they become the subject of friendly jokes about a bed is being set up in the back for them. Even so it doesn't make me right 100% of the time, and this Board and our Members teach me that often. But on this subject, I am absolutely positive that Reporters did not make the prints the Police found and then followed that night.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 2, 2015 11:31:55 GMT -5
I don't want to seem as though I ignored your question with a general answer so let me give you a little more detail... When I explored this "event" I looked at the order in which everything happened. Who saw the corpse and when they saw it. After this, how many sources can I find to see if they matched up and if not what their difference were. See what I am saying? Concerning the discovery, Allen was 1st. and Wilson was 2nd. So what did they see? Next, Williamson and Wolfe were both 3rd and 4th, interchangeably their FIRST time because they arrived together. What did they see? After that Det. Fizgerald and Sgt. Zapolsky were 5th and 6th interchangeably - their FIRST time. What did they see? I could go on but I think you get the picture.
The reason I researched this to the point I did was to investigate the suspicious "hole" that had made by Inspector Walsh with stick. I never envisioned a discussion concerning whether or not the child was discovered in any position other then face down.
In his Statement, Allen claims he discovered the child 'apparently' laying face down. Wilson doesn't specify, but in describing the hair he says there was some long hair on the side of the face and there was some loose hair laying on the ground. He continues that neither Allan nor myself touched the body at all.
Wolfe: The body was badly decomposed, was laying face down and most of the flesh was gone and looked as if it had been eaten by animals.
Williamson: The body was badly decomposed, was face down and most of the flesh was gone, as thought[sic] it had been eaten by animals, and the bones were exposed.
Fitzgerald: Going in about sixty feet further, Chief Wolfe pointed out the body of the child covered with leaves, buried face down.
My Conclusion: The corpse was lying face down.
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Feb 2, 2015 12:30:38 GMT -5
I remember that discussion on the "hole" made by the stick. Do you maintain that belief? Do you believe there is proof Charley was shot? On the nova program it inferred it was sure thing he was.
I also remember the face was ghastly white which would make sense face down.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2015 12:49:16 GMT -5
When you gave me that brief answer, I wasn't put off by it. When you say firmly it was face down, my mind tells me that your documentation confirms this or you would not have said it the way you did. Its all cool, Michael.
Thanks, though, for explaining the process you use when researching, laying out and evaluating documents to come to a conclusion. I can assure you that I value these types of posts.
I went back to Cahill because I didn't like the way he worded the paragraph about Allen and Wilson viewing the body. He made it sound like Allen and Wilson said they saw the body on its side. I asked him if that appeared in the statements given by Allen and Wilson on May 12, 1932. He answered me that it did not and then launched into the decomp of the one side of the face being greater because that side was facing up causing it to decompose faster than the side that was in the mud. He then recommended I review the photos of the body which are at the NJSP archives to see this decomposition myself.
I replied back to him. I agreed that I needed to see those photos but how does that prove that Allen and Wilson saw a body laying on its side? I told him that Sergeant Zapolsky had manipulated the body in order to make a tentative ID of the corpse so after that it would not have been in the original position that Allen and Wilson found it in. I asked him if he knew whether the police photographer took the pictures of the body before Zapolsky had turned it over or after the body had been manipulated by Zapolsky? I asked him to please post it if he knew because timing is important when it comes to this case.
The answer he gave me was to check page 96 of his book. I did and it says that by 3:45 p.m. Keaton, Walsh, Frank Kelly and Det. Robert Coar had joined Zapolsky and Fitzgerald at the site where the corpse was. After Kelly took photos, Zapolsky turned the corpse over to examine the remainder of the face.
I have not gone back to him yet because I am now confused. I read the Trial Testimony of Zapolsky(starting on page 1453) and it sounds like he and Fitzgerald were present when he turned the corpse over to make that tentative ID but that Keaton, Walsh and others (photographer ?) came after he had done this. I certainly could be misunderstanding his testimony.
If you can offer anything to help clarify if the body was photographed before Zapolsky ever turned it over to ID it or if it was turned after the photos were taken, I would be really grateful.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 2, 2015 13:39:08 GMT -5
I remember that discussion on the "hole" made by the stick. Do you maintain that belief? Do you believe there is proof Charley was shot? On the nova program it inferred it was sure thing he was. Yes, I believe Walsh did poke a hole in his skull, and it's another piece of evidence that he was not well. It shouldn't be possible, and certainly isn't concerning a healthy skull - but that's what happened. The answer he gave me was to check page 96 of his book. I did and it says that by 3:45 p.m. Keaton, Walsh, Frank Kelly and Det. Robert Coar had joined Zapolsky and Fitzgerald at the site where the corpse was. After Kelly took photos, Zapolsky turned the corpse over to examine the remainder of the face. I have not gone back to him yet because I am now confused. I read the Trial Testimony of Zapolsky(starting on page 1453) and it sounds like he and Fitzgerald were present when he turned the corpse over to make that tentative ID but that Keaton, Walsh and others (photographer ?) came after he had done this. I certainly could be misunderstanding his testimony. If you can offer anything to help clarify if the body was photographed before Zapolsky ever turned it over to ID it or if it was turned after the photos were taken, I would be really grateful. Det. Fitzgerald turned the body over during his first trip to the "grave-site." They both make claim to doing this because Zapolsky assisted Fitzgerald but it was the Detective who actually "flipped" the body over. Keaton, Walsh, Moffat, and Coar hadn't been there yet.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 2, 2015 13:46:22 GMT -5
Though I've been looking for this photo, I can't seem to find it. But I remember seeing it on that NOVA special on the LKC--a photo which seems to show the body in the woods, lying facedown, and pretty well embedded in the surrounding leaves and grass. I would think then, given that embedded look in this facedown photo, that this was how the body was initially found (i.e. facedown), and that the more well-known photos that we see in books, of the body lying on its side and back etc. on top of the ground--I would think these would've been taken after the body was extracted from the leaves and dirt so it could be examined more closely. I would like to actually find that facedown photo though...
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 2, 2015 13:51:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Feb 2, 2015 13:56:12 GMT -5
And there's also a photo shown at 11:30 in the documentary (also seen in Falzini's fantastic Arcadia/Images of America book on the case), which shows a burlap bag or bundle lying in the woods. I would assume this is supposed to be the body in the bag, but, at the same time, the body and the bag were discovered separately, yards apart. That being the case, Michael, what is that a picture of...?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 2, 2015 15:40:51 GMT -5
And there's also a photo shown at 11:30 in the documentary (also seen in Falzini's fantastic Arcadia/Images of America book on the case), which shows a burlap bag or bundle lying in the woods. I would assume this is supposed be the body in the bag, but, at the same time, the body and the bag were discovered separately, yards apart. That being the case, Michael, what is that a picture of...? That's a great question LJ. I've always believed it to be a picture of the burlap bag but I have no proof of that. I've consulted the report which claims (15) pictures were taken of the "dead baby" and (17) of the clothes. I've even gone to the Report concerning all of the official photographic evidence taken by the NJSP and nothing listing a burlap bag is among those. The only way to find out would be to consult the photograph binder at the NJSP and find the picture. Not all but most pictures are accompanied by a sheet of paper listing the photographer and the subject. An email or call to Mark might also reveal the answer. Since he was probably the source of the picture, he would likely know right off the top of his head.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2015 20:51:22 GMT -5
Thank you so much for this Michael!
Since the hole made in Charlie's skull by Walsh was brought up on this thread, it brings me to something I read in Cahill's book I wanted to ask you about. On page 97 Richard talks about Walsh and how he made the hole in the skull with a stick when trying to lift the body to assist with the removal of the clothing on the body. This created a small pencil sized hole in the soft and decaying skull when the stick slipped. Cahill has a footnote for this. (see footnote #7,page 356) This footnote tells the reader to see the written reports of Walsh and Schwarzkopf dated May 12, 1932.
I know that you have seen these reports. Do they confirm that Walsh made this hole with a stick? If so, then why has this topic been the center of so much debate? Wouldn't these reports validate it was a stick hole and not a bullet hole or a hole caused by something else, such as a nail sticking out of a board or a hammer impacting Charlie's head?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2015 21:00:26 GMT -5
LJ, thanks so much for posting this link. I did look at the video and those images. Tough to look at. I intend to view those images again though before drawing any conclusions. I am glad you posted this.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 2, 2015 22:53:17 GMT -5
(see footnote #7,page 356) This footnote tells the reader to see the written reports of Walsh and Schwarzkopf dated May 12, 1932. I know that you have seen these reports. Do they confirm that Walsh made this hole with a stick? I have never seen a May 12th Report written by Schwarzkopf concerning this matter. He did issue Press Bulletins during this time, and I've re-checked them to make sure I haven't missed anything. Richard is either mistaken or I don't have it. Walsh wrote several reports on that date but none say anything about poking a hole in the skull with a stick that I have. And so here too he's either mistaken or has a report I haven't seen. My May 12th sources made by these men state clothes were removed but do not go into detail concerning how they were removed.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 30, 2015 19:47:53 GMT -5
There is a much information in just about every book that is accepted as historical fact when it never even happened. And then we have these same people telling us who's right or wrong about this or that. What's "silly" or what's "real" when the actual facts reveal they don't have a clue. I guess my point is to keep in mind what you may have read could be incorrect in some way. And if it is you could be basing your position on something that isn't accurate. I am replying to myself in this thread because I wanted to exemplify my point using something in Richard's new book. I usually go after Fisher but that is too easy and I don't think anyone even bothers to consult his books anymore. So here is one from an Author I respect: Charles had been scheduled to appear at the Waldof-Astoria Hotel as the guest of honor for a dinner held by New York University. Due to a scheduling error, Lindbergh failed to attend the dinner and came home instead. This innocent error has been used by authors of a tabloid-style book to support a theory that Lindbergh actually killed his own son and then fabricated the kidnapping story. (Cahill, Hauptmann's Ladder, pages 4-5). When we go to his footnote we see he is talking about A&M and uses the adjectives "ridiculous" and "baseless." ( see page 347 at footnote #14) Now, this issue was partly discussed above when Sam correctly points out that Lindbergh was not the "guest of honor." For me, that isn't such a big deal. Maybe it should be, but I can see how someone would describe him in this way considering his popularity at the time. Although I could be wrong, it was probably a safe bet more people had attended to see Lindbergh, and if so, with all things considered he was probably regarded that way. But the point of my post is that while I do not believe any book is off-limits to criticism, I think when the idea goes beyond disproving something into the realm of labeling it ridiculous or baseless - then the argument should be bullet-proof. In my opinion we see Richard do that here - but his explanation is incorrect. Not questionable but completely false. So he's using a fictional reason to disprove an idea he doesn't like. Too often people will read something then never bother to look into it themselves and/or fear some sort of label for asking questions.
|
|