jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 22, 2017 18:48:21 GMT -5
Sure Stella, but we're we're looking one day before a horrible event. Now is Charles or Betty or Anne or whomever acting unusuallyatvent? Isw there aomething I shpould know abourt Stellsd>
55
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jul 22, 2017 19:10:55 GMT -5
Hi Michael,
I just wanted to say I completely agree with you regarding Amy. Like you and others here, I find her both intelligent and a free thinker, as well as, a diligent and thorough researcher looking for the truth. Kudos to her!
And, Michael, as for Jack's disregarding Charlie's "toaster head" appearance, am I allowed to post the photo of Charlie in the morgue here?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 22, 2017 19:49:02 GMT -5
And, Michael, as for Jack's disregarding Charlie's "toaster head" appearance, am I allowed to post the photo of Charlie in the morgue here? Hi Wayne. From what I understand, anything at the NJSP Archives is public domain. Aside from that, any post along those lines is for educational purposes only so I don't see why you couldn't.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jul 22, 2017 20:33:25 GMT -5
Thanks Michael. Jack, please feel free to take this photo to any pediatrician and/or pediatric neurosurgeon and ask if this is the normal shape for a 20-month-old. (This is the photo of Charlie at the morgue and, I believe, the origin of the "toaster head" label.) Also, Jack, I'm curious if you have an explanation why CAL delivered a photo of Charlie to the New York Times on either March 2 or 3, 1932 claiming it was "2 or 3 weeks old" when in fact CAL new it was taken 8 months before? How do you explain that?
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Jul 22, 2017 21:04:42 GMT -5
I'm surprised that so many normally sound researchers appear to be buying into this "holocaust at home" solution. Just looking at the basics, do you realize what these people whose names are just tossed about would be risking? Can you imagine CAL approaching Breckenridge with the notion, "hey Henry I want to get rid of my formerly cute kid, now known as 'toaster head' - I know you're rich and famous, but will you and your also rich and famous wife help me?" So would Henry Breckenridge and his famous wife (did you know she was the first woman to fly a machine solo?) risk their nice and socially beneficial lives to help a buddy with an unusual problem? I'd think Henry would give him some good advice to keep it under your hat and Aida would get outta Dodge and on to her next philanthropy. Perhaps whoever's behind all this should realize that they are too big of an influence an these thinkers(?) and maybe in the interest of new people looking on this site and wanting to present everyone as sane, should temper the crowd a bit. I proved a while back that Lindbergh had nothing to do with the inception and progression of the crime, so let his spirit and his famous friends spirits rest in peace. My understanding is that Breckenridge was CAL's personal attorney - as such, they could have had conversations about anything, including do-it-yourself-home-holocausts and it would have been protected under attorney/client privilege. I'm not sure what the personal wealth of an attorney has to do with them being available for their client - it's their job. If attorneys are worried about protecting their net worth, they wouldn't take on clients in the first place. Their are plenty of wealthy attorneys who represent controversial clients... in most cases it's how they get wealthy in the first place. It would seem that one of the primary reasons why this board exists is to provide a forum for people to express their opinions about this case. Whether people are new or familiar frequenters of the site, if someone is "influenced" by the posts they read on this board that is their own experience. When people do respond to posts with viewpoints or theories contrary to their own, they do so with respect and usually a well-reasoned rebuttal, not personal attacks. If that fails they may even choose to ignore such posts or restate their own position. It is this usually positive environment on the board that I personally appreciate relative to other boards I have been a part of Yet you seem to feel that, as you put it, you "proved Lindbergh had nothing to do with the inception and progression of the crime" but that is merely your own opinion, and that opinion is yours to hold. However, just because other people here, new or otherwise, don't choose to accept it doesn't give you the right to disparage the opinions or comments of anyone else. Frankly, if anything were to deter or negatively "influence" new visitors to the board, it would be the often incoherent ramblings and bullying comments made by someone who self-appointed himself as "Der Fuhrer." You may think of yourself as "the leader" but who do you lead if no one wants to follow?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 23, 2017 1:52:18 GMT -5
Perhaps whoever's behind all this should realize that they are too big of an influence an these thinkers(?) and maybe in the interest of new people looking on this site and wanting to present everyone as sane, should temper the crowd a bit. I proved a while back that Lindbergh had nothing to do with the inception and progression of the crime, so let his spirit and his famous friends spirits rest in peace.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 23, 2017 8:22:27 GMT -5
I never started 'toaster head' but he probably was.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jul 23, 2017 20:17:28 GMT -5
I'm surprised that so many normally sound researchers appear to be buying into this "holocaust at home" solution. Just looking at the basics, do you realize what these people whose names are just tossed about would be risking? Can you imagine CAL approaching Breckenridge with the notion, "hey Henry I want to get rid of my formerly cute kid, now known as 'toaster head' - I know you're rich and famous, but will you and your also rich and famous wife help me?" So would Henry Breckenridge and his famous wife (did you know she was the first woman to fly a machine solo?) risk their nice and socially beneficial lives to help a buddy with an unusual problem? I'd think Henry would give him some good advice to keep it under your hat and Aida would get outta Dodge and on to her next philanthropy. Perhaps whoever's behind all this should realize that they are too big of an influence an these thinkers(?) and maybe in the interest of new people looking on this site and wanting to present everyone as sane, should temper the crowd a bit. I proved a while back that Lindbergh had nothing to do with the inception and progression of the crime, so let his spirit and his famous friends spirits rest in peace. My understanding is that Breckenridge was CAL's personal attorney - as such, they could have had conversations about anything, including do-it-yourself-home-holocausts and it would have been protected under attorney/client privilege. I'm not sure what the personal wealth of an attorney has to do with them being available for their client - it's their job. If attorneys are worried about protecting their net worth, they wouldn't take on clients in the first place. Their are plenty of wealthy attorneys who represent controversial clients... in most cases it's how they get wealthy in the first place. It would seem that one of the primary reasons why this board exists is to provide a forum for people to express their opinions about this case. Whether people are new or familiar frequenters of the site, if someone is "influenced" by the posts they read on this board that is their own experience. When people do respond to posts with viewpoints or theories contrary to their own, they do so with respect and usually a well-reasoned rebuttal, not personal attacks. If that fails they may even choose to ignore such posts or restate their own position. It is this usually positive environment on the board that I personally appreciate relative to other boards I have been a part of Yet you seem to feel that, as you put it, you "proved Lindbergh had nothing to do with the inception and progression of the crime" but that is merely your own opinion, and that opinion is yours to hold. However, just because other people here, new or otherwise, don't choose to accept it doesn't give you the right to disparage the opinions or comments of anyone else. Frankly, if anything were to deter or negatively "influence" new visitors to the board, it would be the often incoherent ramblings and bullying comments made by someone who self-appointed himself as "Der Fuhrer." You may think of yourself as "the leader" but who do you lead if no one wants to follow? There is an exception to attorney client privelege if the client is in the process of committing a crime or fraud. While it's possible Breck know about Lindbergh's plans, it is also possible he could have gone to law enforcement with that knowledge. Imagine if you told your attorney that you were about to go murder someone, he could not sit idly by.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Jul 24, 2017 9:05:49 GMT -5
How about after the fact? as in "I dropped the kid while I was tossing him in the air to get him used to flying, Breck and I didn't want to face the scandal of an accidental death in the house. I took him to see Carrel but the head trauma was too severe and there was nothing he could do. He died at the institute. What should I do?" If your friend was in such a bind, wouldn't you try to help him, not turn him in?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 24, 2017 10:36:20 GMT -5
How about after the fact? as in "I dropped the kid while I was tossing him in the air to get him used to flying, Breck and I didn't want to face the scandal of an accidental death in the house. I took him to see Carrel but the head trauma was too severe and there was nothing he could do. He died at the institute. What should I do?" If your friend was in such a bind, wouldn't you try to help him, not turn him in?
The "what-if" scenarios you just fling out here on this board, appear to be in almost limitless supply. Do you have anything in the way of an ever-so-remote connection between Charles Lindbergh and Richard Hauptmann, the latter being the guy we know for certain was in this thing up to his neck, as opposed to simply assailing everything Lindbergh in a relative vacuum? Perhaps you could posit a timeline of your own, ie. following the original theme of this thread, so that we all have a chance to comment in the event that some of your hip-fired comments, laid out with a bit of structure and substance, might even begin to sound somewhat believable. Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 24, 2017 11:40:02 GMT -5
The what-if scenarios on this board are in no more limitless supply than the straw men rebuttals. There, of course, didn't have to be a direct connection between Lindbergh and Hauptmann for both to have been involved in different capacities. The phrase "cut out" is used a lot these days, and Hauptmann could very conceivably have been that. Just a thought. Now, what's my evidence for this? Well, if you're looking for a smoking gun, I really can't provide that, except to point out what I've already said: The staged crime scene and the insider knowledge needed to pull something like this off, with only one insider/household member having the organizational skills and clout to arrange something like this and subsequently control the investigation--and who, just by sheer coincidence I'm sure, wound up doing just that. Throw in that person's generally strange, deceptive behavior and persona, alongside his staunch eugenicist beliefs, and then look at the condition of CAL Jr.'s body when it was found (and I'm not talking about the mere fact that it was decomposed, but rather the kind of decomposition), plus the strange anomalies mentioned in the doctor's report at his last physical. No, the suspicions are more than valid and warranted, and existed from the very beginning, regardless of what may have been forgotten and buried in time.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Jul 24, 2017 12:35:01 GMT -5
How about after the fact? as in "I dropped the kid while I was tossing him in the air to get him used to flying, Breck and I didn't want to face the scandal of an accidental death in the house. I took him to see Carrel but the head trauma was too severe and there was nothing he could do. He died at the institute. What should I do?" If your friend was in such a bind, wouldn't you try to help him, not turn him in?
The "what-if" scenarios you just fling out here on this board, appear to be in almost limitless supply. Do you have anything in the way of an ever-so-remote connection between Charles Lindbergh and Richard Hauptmann, the latter being the guy we know for certain was in this thing up to his neck, as opposed to simply assailing everything Lindbergh in a relative vacuum? Perhaps you could posit a timeline of your own, ie. following the original theme of this thread, so that we all have a chance to comment in the event that some of your hip-fired comments, laid out with a bit of structure and substance, might even begin to sound somewhat believable. Just a thought. Isn't any postulate other than the official narrative of what happened a "what if" scenario? If I did have an "ever-so-remote connection between Charles Lindbergh and Richard Hauptmann" I would've written a book on it by now. CAL -> Gow/Johnson ->Baker -> BRH? My last comment was actually intended as a continuation of the attorney-client privilege reply that trojanusc posted. As for the timeline theme of this thread, you haven't objected to how far off topic the thread has veered until now, nor has there been much in the way of additional entries. Your proposed timeline doesn't account for CAL's whereabouts or actions until 8:30pm on March 1st - what he may have been up to on February 29 and until that time on the 1st is anybody's guess because law enforcement couldn't follow SOP and create a detailed and substantiated timeline of their own for the parents. It doesn't take a timeline from me to give someone the chance to comment on any of my hip-fired comments either...
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jul 24, 2017 13:17:12 GMT -5
How about after the fact? as in "I dropped the kid while I was tossing him in the air to get him used to flying, Breck and I didn't want to face the scandal of an accidental death in the house. I took him to see Carrel but the head trauma was too severe and there was nothing he could do. He died at the institute. What should I do?" If your friend was in such a bind, wouldn't you try to help him, not turn him in?
After the fact is a totally different story. All attorneys ask that you be candid and honest with them regarding your actions, as its the only way they can create a competent defense strategy. The exemption applies only when you have reason to believe the client is about to commit a crime.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jul 24, 2017 13:59:39 GMT -5
The what-if scenarios on this board are in no more limitless supply than the straw men rebuttals. There, of course, didn't have to be a direct connection between Lindbergh and Hauptmann for both to have been involved in different capacities. The phrase "cut out" is used a lot these days, and Hauptmann could very conceivably have been that. Just a thought. Now, what's my evidence for this? Well, if you're looking for a smoking gun, I really can't provide that, except to point out what I've already said: The staged crime scene and the insider knowledge needed to pull something like this off, with only one insider/household member having the organizational skills and clout to arrange something like this and subsequently control the investigation--and who, just by sheer coincidence I'm sure, wound up doing just that. Throw in that person's generally strange, deceptive behavior and persona, alongside his staunch eugenicist beliefs, and then look at the condition of CAL Jr.'s body when it was found (and I'm not talking about the mere fact that it was decomposed, but rather the kind of decomposition), plus the strange anomalies mentioned in the doctor's report at his last physical. No, the suspicions are more than valid and warranted, and existed from the very beginning, regardless of what may have been forgotten and buried in time. Exactly. Like medical schools at the turn of the century, Doctors were sometimes required to deal with "questionable" characters who brought them needed "materials." It's possible Carrel knew Fisch or acquaintance of his for this purpose.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 24, 2017 14:25:14 GMT -5
As far as Carrel's involvement, I think it was just to confirm Lindbergh's suspicions that CAL Jr. wasn't "right". He and Lindbergh were working together at the time of the kidnapping, fed off one another, reinforcing each other's views, and Lindbergh trusted and respected Carrel as he did very few others. My idea for Hauptmann being a "cut out" would have come later: Lindbergh, I think, went to someone (I don't know who), and this person, in turn, recruited Hauptmann and others to actually carry out the "kidnapping". But these guys got greedy and started extorting Lindbergh by treating this like a real kidnapping (they dug up Condon for this purpose, as someone Lindbergh would have no choice but to give the "ransom" to, to then pass on to them). Maybe some of these extortionists were somehow eliminated, and, if so, Hauptmann may've been spared because it looked like he was keeping his head down, and was completely ancillary anyway (having only built the ladder or something). Not wanting to leave too much of a body trail, the organizers just let him be.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jul 24, 2017 14:32:46 GMT -5
As far as Carrel's involvement, I think it was just to confirm Lindbergh's suspicions that CAL Jr. wasn't "right". He and Lindbergh were working together at the time of the kidnapping, fed off one another, reinforcing each other's views, and Lindbergh trusted and respected Carrel as he did very few others. My idea for Hauptmann being a "cut out" would have come later: Lindbergh, I think, went to someone (I don't know who), and this person, in turn, recruited Hauptmann and others to actually carry out the "kidnapping". But these guys got greedy and started extorting Lindbergh by treating this like a real kidnapping (they dug up Condon for this purpose, as someone Lindbergh would have no choice but to give the "ransom" to, to then pass on to them). Maybe some of these extortionists were somehow eliminated, and, if so, Hauptmann may've been spared because it looked like he was keeping his head down, and was completely ancillary anyway (having only built the ladder or something). Not wanting to leave too much of a body trail, the organizers just let him be. My sense, as I sort of indicated above, is Carrel and Lindbergh were very close. It is likely Carrel knew some "shady" figures who could be hired to execute this or at the very least, knew someone who was in the business of recruiting these shady characters. Carrel himself probably needed some of these people to bring him various "materials" to experiment on as well. Given Carrel's occupation and keen interest in eugenics, it is likely Lindbergh consulted with Carrel on possible "treatments" for CALjr, whether that me traditional medicine or more extreme action.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 24, 2017 15:33:08 GMT -5
Oh okay, I see what you're saying. Carrel as the go-to guy, the recruiter. Could be. Lindbergh certainly would've trusted him enough, but I always imagined Carrel so ensconced in his lab that his involvement would've only extended to initial diagnosis. You could very well be right, though...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2017 21:13:31 GMT -5
When it comes to a Fisch and Carrel link, I think we should keep in mind the incident that Breckinridge recalled in September 1934 after Fisch's picture appeared in the papers. Breck recalled an incident that occurred about the same time he received the ransom note at his office March 7. A man who looked like Fisch but wore glasses came to his office. The man burst in and said to Breck the the Lindbergh must deal with us. They then discussed the case. He told Breck that the needs of science must be served over and above human life.
We know that Fisch and Hauptmann are linked. Maybe we should be searching for a link between Fisch and Carrel. If we can find that, we have a chain right to CAL.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 24, 2017 21:40:50 GMT -5
I remember Breckinridge saying something about someone who looked like Fisch bursting into his office one day, but that this guy said something about "the needs of science over human life"... That's new to me. Creepy. Is there anything more to that discussion? Also, was Carrel ever investigated? If he was, I would think that any connection between him and Fisch would've been exposed long ago. Or maybe Carrel wasn't checked out at all? I mean, please don't tell me that the cops wanted to question Carrel, but Lindbergh threatened to personally shoot anyone who dared disturb the great man, because that would just be so unbelievable--oh wait, no it wouldn't. Anyway, yeah, if there's any material on Carrel with relation to the case, and there's any link between him and Fisch, that would be... intriguing, to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jul 24, 2017 22:45:14 GMT -5
I remember Breckinridge saying something about someone who looked like Fisch bursting into his office one day, but that this guy said something about "the needs of science over human life"... That's new to me. Creepy. Is there anything more to that discussion? Also, was Carrel ever investigated? If he was, I would think that any connection between him and Fisch would've been exposed long ago. Or maybe Carrel wasn't checked out at all? I mean, please don't tell me that the cops wanted to question Carrel, but Lindbergh threatened to personally shoot anyone who dared disturb the great man, because that would just be so unbelievable--oh wait, no it wouldn't. Anyway, yeah, if there's any material on Carrel with relation to the case, and there's any link between him and Fisch, that would be... intriguing, to say the least. The people at the crime scene itself couldn't even be really questioned or investigated and they were Lindbergh's inferiors. One can only imagine the barricade Lindbergh would have put up if the idea of investigating Carrel came up.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 25, 2017 8:27:12 GMT -5
Actually I have previously commented about how this thread has gone totally off-topic. I'm not bemoaning that fact as I've become quite used to it happening here on this discussion board, and on the odd occasion it can lead to something interesting. At the end of the day, if you ever want to look up any thread on this site as a reference, it generally means checking out the first couple of pages before the original intent of the thread itself just kind of peters out, quite often in the form of something entirely different that could support it's own thread. There's already well over 350 individual threads within General Discussion. It might be an idea to have a look there first, as a suggestion.
I have no firm information about where CAL was during the morning and afternoon of March 1, but I believe he was probably involved in some level of research that may even have included the health of his son, and that he probably used the initial mix up of dates for his attendance at the NYU University alumni dinner as an excuse to skip it and head home. Based on my own read of CAL's personality, I can understand any hesitancy he may have had about revealing his whereabouts and agenda during that day, based upon what happened later that evening, not to mention how the tabloids would soak it up.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 26, 2017 1:52:51 GMT -5
I didn't come up with the term "toaster head." Dr Van Ingen in describing Charlie said that he had an unusually large, square head. I think I first saw the term in Gardner, but possibly in Fisher or Behn - at any rate it's in one of the books.
Going off-topic on here happens so often that it's hardly worth mentioning, but it seems to me that off-topic stuff often develops into discussions that are very interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 26, 2017 5:31:27 GMT -5
I have no firm information about where CAL was during the morning and afternoon of March 1, but I believe he was probably involved in some level of research that may even have included the health of his son, and that he probably used the initial mix up of dates for his attendance at the NYU University alumni dinner as an excuse to skip it and head home. Based on my own read of CAL's personality, I can understand any hesitancy he may have had about revealing his whereabouts and agenda during that day, based upon what happened later that evening, not to mention how the tabloids would soak it up. You don't have firm information about CAL's whereabouts because the police didn't, and CAL testified that couldn't remember. So you're not alone. But by making up an "excuse" you aren't any closer to the truth. Next, Lindbergh was never under the impression there was a mix-up concerning the dates (See Chapter 20 of the TDC). There are numerous sources that quote Lindbergh saying he simply forgot. But that doesn't "work" for many who have both studied his personality and like to defend his actions - so they go with something else. See how that works? Don't like what the source material reveals then invent something to neutralize it. Imagine if there was nothing to point to which gives rise to suspicion against Lindy so I invented reasons to create it. We have to go where the facts lead us. BTW: A quick shout-out to Feathers for creating the Rue archive! This is a perfect example of information "turning up" out of the blue. None of these articles he is posting is at the NJSP Archives so I never thought I'd ever get the chance to see them all. Wow are we lucky he is a member here! I can't wait to start reading through these.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 26, 2017 13:10:18 GMT -5
The same as when you don't know what somebody is doing who is sitting in a car on a road, so you say (make-up that) he is waiting for somebody. You don't really know, it just fits your theory of the crime so you use it as likely.
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 27, 2017 7:15:25 GMT -5
Thinking about timelines, reading over a report Carol posted years ago, it just dawned on me that CAL received nine letters from the "kidnappers" before his financial advisors told him he could not control the situation; they have the baby. He agreed to pay the ransom and wanted it done quickly because if he was going to be "double crossed" he wanted to find out where he stood. Doesn't sound to me like a father who was frantic about the well being of his 20 month old baby. His financial advisors had to tell him this!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2017 14:55:28 GMT -5
Thinking about timelines, reading over a report Carol posted years ago, it just dawned on me that CAL received nine letters from the "kidnappers" before his financial advisors told him he could not control the situation; they have the baby. He agreed to pay the ransom and wanted it done quickly because if he was going to be "double crossed" he wanted to find out where he stood. Doesn't sound to me like a father who was frantic about the well being of his 20 month old baby. His financial advisors had to tell him this! It is just incredible how long the negotiations went on before the ransom got paid. I think part of the problem with moving ahead with the payment was because of the dispute over the recording of the serial numbers of the ransom bills. The Treasury Department did not want the money paid without the recording being done. According to Frank Wilson, one of the Treasury Agents on the case, the idea of recording the serial numbers met with much resistance from Lindbergh, Breckinridge, and CAL's J.P. Morgan friends Frank Bartow and Henry Davison. I think these men put their heads together privately, decided on a plan of action that pleased them and then Lindbergh agreed to the recording of the serial numbers. Lindbergh had promised he would not endanger the kidnappers in any way. I guess he was keeping his promise.
|
|
|
Post by julie0709 on Jul 27, 2017 15:46:37 GMT -5
When it comes to a Fisch and Carrel link, I think we should keep in mind the incident that Breckinridge recalled in September 1934 after Fisch's picture appeared in the papers. Breck recalled an incident that occurred about the same time he received the ransom note at his office March 7. A man who looked like Fisch but wore glasses came to his office. The man burst in and said to Breck the the Lindbergh must deal with us. They then discussed the case. He told Breck that the needs of science must be served over and above human life. We know that Fisch and Hauptmann are linked. Maybe we should be searching for a link between Fisch and Carrel. If we can find that, we have a chain right to CAL. From what I've been reading lately Isidor Fisch may be an overused suspect in what his involvement was. The man in Breckenridge's office wore glasses Did IF wear glasses? And he was supposedly talking in circles, not coming to the point. Could it have been someone else who was short/slight and a con? Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by kate1 on Jul 27, 2017 18:47:52 GMT -5
Thinking about timelines, reading over a report Carol posted years ago, it just dawned on me that CAL received nine letters from the "kidnappers" before his financial advisors told him he could not control the situation; they have the baby. He agreed to pay the ransom and wanted it done quickly because if he was going to be "double crossed" he wanted to find out where he stood. Doesn't sound to me like a father who was frantic about the well being of his 20 month old baby. His financial advisors had to tell him this! It is just incredible how long the negotiations went on before the ransom got paid. I think part of the problem with moving ahead with the payment was because of the dispute over the recording of the serial numbers of the ransom bills. The Treasury Department did not want the money paid without the recording being done. According to Frank Wilson, one of the Treasury Agents on the case, the idea of recording the serial numbers met with much resistance from Lindbergh, Breckinridge, and CAL's J.P. Morgan friends Frank Bartow and Henry Davison. I think these men put their heads together privately, decided on a plan of action that pleased them and then Lindbergh agreed to the recording of the serial numbers. Lindbergh had promised he would not endanger the kidnappers in any way. I guess he was keeping his promise. It's almost as if he was protecting someone!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 27, 2017 19:21:03 GMT -5
From what I've been reading lately Isidor Fisch may be an overused suspect in what his involvement was. The man in Breckenridge's office wore glasses Did IF wear glasses? And he was supposedly talking in circles, not coming to the point. Could it have been someone else who was short/slight and a con? Thanks! This report is the only source. I've searched for more but there's nothing else. What makes it important (to me) is that it's coming from Breckenridge. But without anything thing else to support it and/or take away from it, it's more or less up to the individual to decide. If one thinks Fisch was somehow involved this is a nice bit of information to consider. But if one does not, then it's quite easy to dismiss as a case of "mistaken identity."
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jul 27, 2017 20:51:11 GMT -5
Michael, according to Breckinridge himself, he actually met with this man twice. The second time was "a day or two" after the first meeting. I think Rosner might have confirmed both meetings in his unpublished manuscript. Here is Breck's statement on the two meetings complete with the man's description. I apologize for the poor quality, it's the best I have:
|
|