Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2017 22:47:54 GMT -5
Soiled handkerchiefs in his pocket! Sounds like the St. Raymond's cemetery look out man that passed Lindbergh sitting in his car the night the ransom was paid!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 28, 2017 5:48:38 GMT -5
I think Rosner might have confirmed both meetings in his unpublished manuscript. Unless I have missed it, there's nothing in the Rosner manuscript.
|
|
|
Post by scathma on Jul 28, 2017 8:33:28 GMT -5
Soiled handkerchiefs in his pocket! Sounds like the St. Raymond's cemetery look out man that passed Lindbergh sitting in his car the night the ransom was paid! ... and someone suffering from tuberculosis.
Breckrenridge met him twice; the first time he actually sat through a meal with the guy. Compare that interval with people like Perrone, Barr and Hochmuth and their alleged interactions with BRH. Breck's encounters with this guy may have even totaled as much time together as JFC spent with CJ. Of course unlike BRH and the "witnesses" I listed, Breck would never see Fisch again...
The phrasing of the letter ("strongly resembling") makes it seem he felt there was more than passing similarity in appearance between his visitor and Fisch. As a lawyer, he is careful not to say they were the same individual because he cannot prove it, but his statement is about as compelling as he can offer absent such proof.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jul 29, 2017 1:53:37 GMT -5
I can't make sense of the info. sheets, but if, as Amy says, the Fisch look-alike had soiled handkerchiefs in his pockets it would certainly make him an excellent candidate for CJ2 (lookout). And, since as far as we know, Fisch didn't drive, but there were at least two suspect vehicles in the Lindbergh area on 3/1/32 evening, it would mean another person involved being Fisch's driver.
The ladder has always seemed as far as light duty construction goes, made for someone of Fisch's size. It would seem anyone involved in the crime would be involved in all facets of it including actual commission of the kidnapping, ransom negotiations, etc. Also it was brought up - actually suggested much earlier and in some books, that an exact copy or one of the ransom notes was distributed among unsavory characters in NYC. That should be offset by what I believe is an accepted fact that the first and second notes came from the same long sheet of paper which was separated. Making the first writer the writer of all the notes - and it should be added that all of the notes show indications of BRH's authorship.
So that comes down to at least three kidnappers, one of them possibly Hauptmann, and another possibly Fisch.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 29, 2017 7:42:47 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. No "excuses" here Michael, and it depends on how you define "mix-up." To be clear, my point here is that a simple mistake by Chancellor Brown possibly presented the opportunity for Lindbergh to sidestep an engagement really didn't want to attend. When Lindbergh originally accepted the invitation from Chancellor Brown, he knew the invitation stated the date of the dinner as March 1. No questions until this point. But when Chancellor Brown acknowledged receipt of Lindbergh's acceptance, he made the mistake of advising Lindbergh the dinner was on March 4. I believe that mistake then opened the door. Do I view Lindbergh's actions as suspicious? Not really. Let me ask you a purely hypothetical question: Do you believe Lindbergh knew for certain that the dinner was on March 1, but for some reason, he was now going to blow it off?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 29, 2017 8:04:47 GMT -5
All in all, this is a great find by Gardner. Breckinridge's account is pretty detailed and does suggest it might well have been Fisch. And the soiled handkerchiefs really jump out as a possible connection to the St. Raymond's "lookout." I may have seen a previous photo of Fisch with glasses, possibly from one of the Hauptmann parties, but not certain. Breckinridge seems sincere in his statement that he was in effect temporarily "harbouring" any parties that might have been involved, in the interests of having CALjr safely returned. I'm not yet sure what to make of the "needs of science" angle, but I have a feeling that will be pretty clear to a few folks here.
Question: Would Breckinridge have reported this encounter to police if he himself had been part of a Lindbergh-directed plan to eliminate CALjr on March 1?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2017 9:22:35 GMT -5
Question: Would Breckinridge have reported this encounter to police if he himself had been part of a Lindbergh-directed plan to eliminate CALjr on March 1? Since its 1934 and after the arrest of Hauptmann who was the "hot" suspect, and add to that the fact that Fisch is dead and buried and absolutely useless as a viable suspect in any way, shape or form, there is really no risk for Breckinridge coming forth about this encounter over two years later. Lindbergh and Breck were handling the investigation together. I have no doubt that Breck made Lindbergh aware of this man's visits. They could very well have agreed to say nothing about it. Having said the above, and not wanting to be misunderstood, I looked at the possibility of Breck being involved with a cover-up effort about what really happened with Charlie. I am currently of the opinion that Breckinridge was not involved and was shocked about the kidnapping when he received the phone call from CAL. When Lindbergh called Breckinridge to come to the house the kidnap evening of March 1st, Breck responded immediately, coming down on his own. Breckinridge had to stop at Princeton University and wake up his step son, Oren Root, a student at the university, to give him directions so he could get to the Hopewell house! He did not know how to find it on his own. When I learned this, I moved Breckinridge aside as having involvement. I find it interesting that not only is Breckinridge pointing a finger of suspicion at Fisch, we know that Hauptmann was claiming Fisch gave him the money found in his garage. Then Condon got on the Fisch train. He wanted Fisch to be disinterred and autopsied as having been murdered because of possible involvement in the kidnapping. What is going on here? Are they trying to help Hauptmann? Are they promoting the possibility that there are others besides Hauptmann involved with the kidnapping?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 29, 2017 10:08:32 GMT -5
But when Chancellor Brown acknowledged receipt of Lindbergh's acceptance, he made the mistake of advising Lindbergh the dinner was on March 4. I believe that mistake then opened the door. Do I view Lindbergh's actions as suspicious? Not really. A couple of things... Chancellor Brown never advised Lindbergh of any change. So Lindbergh always believed the dinner was on March 1st (see TDC pages 23-4). Next, "open the door" for what? Yes, it was suspicious because it wasn't in Lindbergh's nature to forget or blow off an event invite he accepted. Making up an excuse, the kind I see you allude to above, is both baseless and out of character. Let me ask you a purely hypothetical question: Do you believe Lindbergh knew for certain that the dinner was on March 1, but for some reason, he was now going to blow it off? Yes, and he said so himself. I believe he intended to attend when he accepted. However, something of greater importance occurred so he blew it off then pretended he had forgotten about it as an excuse for his lack of attendance. It's not a "stand alone" event once reading my entire book is it? Individually we can try to explain them away but all happening surrounding this event is a damn near impossibility. It could be his being at the NYU Dinner was part of it, but that he couldn't help himself and had to be home. Or, like I've mentioned before, there could be different reasons to consider for why he needed this to occur...
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Sept 9, 2017 17:43:37 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. I totally agree, Amy. Could there also be a link between Carrel and Condon? It seems to me that I read something somewhere, sometime that Condon made some statements about being in a lab that belonged to Carrel. Or maybe I dreamed it. Regardless, I' ve always wondered about that creepy little Dr. Carrel.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2017 20:14:26 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. I totally agree, Amy. Could there also be a link between Carrel and Condon? It seems to me that I read something somewhere, sometime that Condon made some statements about being in a lab that belonged to Carrel. Or maybe I dreamed it. Regardless, I' ve always wondered about that creepy little Dr. Carrel. Hi Rebekah. Nice to see you posting again! Great question about a Condon/Carrel connection! I really wish I had an answer for you but I have never looked for such a link. I think it is something I need to do though. If you should be able to remember anything about where you might have read this about Carrel and Condon, please be sure to post it. I will do the same if I find anything!
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Sept 12, 2017 10:00:50 GMT -5
I totally agree, Amy. Could there also be a link between Carrel and Condon? It seems to me that I read something somewhere, sometime that Condon made some statements about being in a lab that belonged to Carrel. Or maybe I dreamed it. Regardless, I' ve always wondered about that creepy little Dr. Carrel. Hi Rebekah. Nice to see you posting again! Great question about a Condon/Carrel connection! I really wish I had an answer for you but I have never looked for such a link. I think it is something I need to do though. If you should be able to remember anything about where you might have read this about Carrel and Condon, please be sure to post it. I will do the same if I find anything! Hi, Amy. It's nice to be back! I''ve been searching for anything I could find on Carrel and Condon, but, so far, no luck. I did find this site article on Carrel which may show some of his stranger beliefs. www.evidencebasedcryonics.org/2008/11/20/the-black-operating-room-of-alexis-carrel/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2017 7:50:29 GMT -5
I did find this site article on Carrel which may show some of his stranger beliefs. Thanks for sharing the link on Carrel. Carrel was a man of very strong beliefs. The way Carrel wove his beliefs in God and humanism together give both a fascinating and disturbing look at his character. In the book, The Immortalists, by David M. Friedman, he explains the first time that Lindbergh and Carrel meet. Lindbergh approached Carrel's desk in Carrel's Rockefeller Center office and extended his hand. Carrel rose from his desk and took Lindbergh's hand to shake it but continued to embrace it while he closely studied Lindbergh's face. As Friedman explains it, Carrel was a believer in physiognomy which is judging character by facial characteristic, so he studied Lindbergh's face and approved of what he "saw" and then welcomed Lindbergh and would speak with him. I can't help but wonder how such a meeting would have gone between Carrel and Condon. How would Carrel have judged Condon's character based on his physiognomy beliefs? Carrel was a Roman Catholic so he and Condon would have had that in common. I will continue looking for a connection between these men.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Sept 13, 2017 20:38:40 GMT -5
I did find this site article on Carrel which may show some of his stranger beliefs. Thanks for sharing the link on Carrel. Carrel was a man of very strong beliefs. The way Carrel wove his beliefs in God and humanism together give both a fascinating and disturbing look at his character. In the book, The Immortalists, by David M. Friedman, he explains the first time that Lindbergh and Carrel meet. Lindbergh approached Carrel's desk in Carrel's Rockefeller Center office and extended his hand. Carrel rose from his desk and took Lindbergh's hand to shake it but continued to embrace it while he closely studied Lindbergh's face. As Friedman explains it, Carrel was a believer in physiognomy which is judging character by facial characteristic, so he studied Lindbergh's face and approved of what he "saw" and then welcomed Lindbergh and would speak with him. I can't help but wonder how such a meeting would have gone between Carrel and Condon. How would Carrel have judged Condon's character based on his physiognomy beliefs? Carrel was a Roman Catholic so he and Condon would have had that in common. I will continue looking for a connection between these men. I understand he (Carrel) had some kind of religious experience in 1912 on the train to Lourdes. These bits of insight lead me back to my on again/off again speculation that he may have been the originator of the esoteric 'singnature.' If Lindbergh needed help to accomplish his "Jersey business," I think he might very well have confided in Carrel. We know he trusted him more than anyone else. I don't think he would have even entertained Breckinridge as someone he would have approached with such a plan. I know this is a seriously out-there theory, but when I try to come up with someone Lindbergh would have trusted with such an idea, I always end up back at Carrel.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Sept 13, 2017 22:32:45 GMT -5
Thanks for sharing the link on Carrel. Carrel was a man of very strong beliefs. The way Carrel wove his beliefs in God and humanism together give both a fascinating and disturbing look at his character. In the book, The Immortalists, by David M. Friedman, he explains the first time that Lindbergh and Carrel meet. Lindbergh approached Carrel's desk in Carrel's Rockefeller Center office and extended his hand. Carrel rose from his desk and took Lindbergh's hand to shake it but continued to embrace it while he closely studied Lindbergh's face. As Friedman explains it, Carrel was a believer in physiognomy which is judging character by facial characteristic, so he studied Lindbergh's face and approved of what he "saw" and then welcomed Lindbergh and would speak with him. I can't help but wonder how such a meeting would have gone between Carrel and Condon. How would Carrel have judged Condon's character based on his physiognomy beliefs? Carrel was a Roman Catholic so he and Condon would have had that in common. I will continue looking for a connection between these men. I understand he (Carrel) had some kind of religious experience in 1912 on the train to Lourdes. These bits of insight lead me back to my on again/off again speculation that he may have been the originator of the esoteric 'singnature.' If Lindbergh needed help to accomplish his "Jersey business," I think he might very well have confided in Carrel. We know he trusted him more than anyone else. I don't think he would have even entertained Breckinridge as someone he would have approached with such a plan. I know this is a seriously out-there theory, but when I try to come up with someone Lindbergh would have trusted with such an idea, I always end up back at Carrel. I've mentioned this elsewhere, but medical schools at the time used somewhat shady characters to acquire needed "materials," and it is very possible this is the route he came to know Fisch or others involved in Lindbergh's "Jersey business."
|
|
The Stones Unturned Podcast
Guest
|
Post by The Stones Unturned Podcast on Sept 29, 2023 11:33:49 GMT -5
I didn't remember that the address was exactly the same, thought it was around the corner, but I'll take your word for it. In that case, hindsight here, it's too bad that with Baker, the police had a true criminal suspect which they didn't really go after. It's funny he would put his true, or recent correct address on the exchange slip. Is Baker thumbing his nose at the world? More must be known about Baker - maybe even on here in is it millions of pages yet> - than I remember coming across. He's the favorite suspect of a researcher on another site, and no matter what's been learned (new stuff implicating Hauptmann) he sticks by his Baker did it guns. Is that investigation report about Baker on here somewhere? He has always sounded like the kind of guy who could come up with that horrible crime. Baker was the superintendent of the Plymouth Apartments, owned by Payne Kretzmer, at that very address. I don't think it was Baker who cashed in the $2990 in Lindbergh gold notes on May 1, 1933, but someone else (like Jacob Nosovitsky) who had had occasion to be in the basement of 537 West 149th St., during a card game and what became a kidnapping plan. When pressed for a name for the slip, I believe the depositor came up with an alias based on his recollection of the name Faulkner on the basement dumbwaiter and that same address. BTW, Baker absconded with the mid-month rent on April 15, 1932, just a couple of weeks after the ransom payout and I have to think he either got none of it, or just "disappeared" with all of the heat, keeping himself fed while he waited for a share. Also, a guy by the name of Jimmy Faulkner, about 40 years of age was a big spender in Montreal and Ottawa in the summer and winter of 1932, before leaving town flat broke and racking up a string of IOU's. Clarence Honey, the manager of the Ottawa hotel saw him as late as November of 1935 outside a Broadway night club, and had previously heard he was looking for work in Montreal, Toronto and Ottawa. Nosovitsky was also know to frequent those Canadian locations looking for work.
I know Bob Mills on Ronelle's board is also big on Baker, but I believe he somehow puts Capone at the helm of the kidnapping plot, which sounds like pure fancy to me. As far as Hauptmann goes, no question that he's dead to rights, but something about his protestation of his innocence of the crime for which he was convicted rings true for me and I believe he may have been saying in other words, "Okay, I built the ladder, wrote the notes, yada yada.. yeah I was in this thing up to my neck, but it wasn't me who took CALjr out of the nursery." FWIW, Joseph and Sophie Maran's son Charles Maran was working for the NYC Marshal's Office in the 1930s. They handled things like evictions and property seizures (on commission.) I'm sure a bunch of tenants at that building were facing eviction, if the super ran off with their rent payments. Maybe one of them was Mary G Wilson born 1898. She was a nurse who lived with her parents in the Bronx in 1930. Did she move into that apartment building? Was she facing eviction by Marshal Charles Maran? (After WWII he went to work as a tax auditor for the IRS. Same commission deal.) Did she lose her job because of the Depression? Was she so desperate for work that she took a job "caring" for a crazy woman living over a horse barn? Years later, Sophie's brother Morris married a woman named Mary. Same Mary?
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Oct 1, 2023 8:58:53 GMT -5
FWIW, Joseph and Sophie Maran's son Charles Maran was working for the NYC Marshal's Office in the 1930s. They handled things like evictions and property seizures (on commission.) I'm sure a bunch of tenants at that building were facing eviction, if the super ran off with their rent payments. Maybe one of them was Mary G Wilson born 1898. She was a nurse who lived with her parents in the Bronx in 1930. Did she move into that apartment building? Was she facing eviction by Marshal Charles Maran? (After WWII he went to work as a tax auditor for the IRS. Same commission deal.) Did she lose her job because of the Depression? Was she so desperate for work that she took a job "caring" for a crazy woman living over a horse barn? Years later, Sophie's brother Morris married a woman named Mary. Same Mary? FYI - According to police reports, Charles Maran's father's name was George Maran. From the police report dated, September 25, 1932, written by Lieut. Arthur F. Keaton, NJSP: "In company with Mr. Wilson proceeded to 235 West 34th Street where we located a Mr. George Maran. Informed Mr. MARAN that we were looking for his son Charles Maran. Mr. Maran was a little excited but he was informed by us that we were Government Men and that we wanted to locate his son Charles as he was needed as a witness in an income Tax Case. Finally George Maran consented to get in touch with Charles for us. After much questioning by Mr. Wilson and myself, Mr. Maran admitted that he had been divorced from his son's mother and that they had all been living apart for some time. That Mrs. Maran had since married an Italian. That his son Charles was taking care of his mother and that they lived at 585 Teaneck Road, Ridgefield Park, N.J. We promised Mr. Maran that this information would be kept confidential as were his wishes." The Mr. Wilson mentioned in above report, was Special Agent Frank. J. Wilson, of the U.S. Intelligence Service. Sophie and George Maran divorced in 1923. Sophie married Enrico Cerardi in January 1929. As to Mary G. Wilson, who you mention in your post, are you saying this Mary was the one who was with Cerardi as his "housekeeper"? The papers said her name was Mary Griffin. Please read Michael's Dark Corners Book, Volume 3, Chapter 4, pages 198-200. He talks about a Griffen connection at the Faulkner address. The tenant list provided to investigators for the period of 1930 through 1932 shows William L. Griffin resided there in Apartment #64 from November 1930 until January 1933. Could Mary Griffin have been the daughter of William L. Griffin?? The 1933 JJ Faulkner deposit slip of ransom money is still an unexplained piece of the Lindbergh kidnapping case. The handwriting doesn't match to Hauptmann so someone else had a large amount of ransom money in 1933.
|
|