|
Post by Sue on Jan 7, 2020 19:15:09 GMT -5
CLIFTON SPRINGS CLUB
HEARS TALK ON FAMOUS
KIDNAPPING CASE
"Some High Lights Pertaining to the Lindbergh Kidnapping Case" was the topic discussed by Attorney Lloyd Fischer of Flemington, N. J., at the Clifton Springs Club luncheon, last Thursday. There was an unusually large attendance at the luncheon, which was served in the Sanitarium porch dining room.
Mr. Fischer, a guest at the Sanitarium, was counsel for John Hughes Curtis, who, it will be remembered, was convicted of hoaxing the public and the authorities by pretending to be in contact with the kidnappers. Mr. Fischer apologized to his hearers by saying he would very much have preferred to talk on banking, the Pitcher bill, or any of the numerous problems which face the American people, but as the topic on which he was to talk had been assigned to him, he had no other course to pursue.
If Mr. Fischer is as clever an attorney as he is an after-dinner speaker, it is not surprising that his client, Mr. Curtis, got off comparatively easy. Mr. Fischer reviewed several of the outstanding incidents of the kidnapping case, showing it to be as great a mystery as ever. He said, that practically all of the detectives employed on the case formed the opinion that the kidnappers had inside assistance. In fact, the mud left from their shoes, stopped at the window which they had entered, indicating that some one had handed them the unfortunate baby from its crib. It is believed that the baby lost its life by a fall when being taken down the ladder. He said that the spot where the body of the child was found was the only place on the road which commanded a view of the Lindbergh house, pointing to the possible fact that the kidnappers were familiar with the topography of the region. Mr. Fischer paid his "respects" to the New Jersey State police by saying they hindered the pursuit of the kidnappers by trying to take all the honors to themselves. Though Col. Lindbergh had notified the police of the loss of the child at 10:30 at night, it was not until 3 o'clock in the morning that the police started to patrol the roads. The speaker said that if a check up of all auto traffic had been made at once, the history of the case might have turned out differently.
Mr. Fischer closed his talk by saying, rather ambiguously, that if the mystery is ever solved it may create as great a sensation as the actual kidnapping.
The Clifton Springs Press Clifton Springs, N.Y. April 13, 1933
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jan 8, 2020 9:57:32 GMT -5
As Michael's Volume 3 convincingly demonstrates, although ultimately unsuccessful, Lloyd Fisher was a staunch champion of justice for his clients (in particular, Hauptmann). He wrote voluminous memos and notes exposing the trickery and sinister tactics employed by the prosecution and law enforcement during the Hauptmann trial and subsequent appeals process and investigation. Little doubt that Hauptmann's conviction would be overturned if (hypothetically) the same legal scenario were to unfold today. That's because constitutional law has greatly evolved since the 1930s to give criminal case defendants a better shot at counteracting unfair tactics by overzealous prosecutors like David Wilentz and the army of henchmen that work in their behalf.
Separately, I am surprised that Fisher would have given a talk in 1933 in a remote place like Clifton Springs, NY, which is located hundreds of miles from Flemington, NJ. Perhaps business for small-town criminal defense attorneys was so bad during the Great Depression that he had to supplement his income with a speaking tour. (Just an educated guess.)
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jan 11, 2020 15:24:59 GMT -5
I'm not sure of Lloyd Fisher's exact connection to Clifton Springs, New York, but he seems to have been going to that upstate New York village for years as a place for rest and recuperation.
Various articles state that he would go there to get away from the pressures of his law office in Flemington, New Jersey.
In 1937, he gave a talk on the press in criminal trials at the rotary club in Clifton Springs.
In 1944, he was a guest speaker at that same rotary club, but he gave a talk about the country Greece, and did not discuss the Lindbergh case.
Fisher was a patient at the Clifton Springs Sanitarium right after the Flemington trial, according to an author named Henry W. Clune.
In 1956, Clune said that Fisher took Hauptmann's conviction personally.
In fact, Fisher died at the Clifton Springs Sanitarium in 1960.
Also, I have read that Fisher's mom was a reporter at the Flemington trial in 1935, and that she was staunchly against the death penalty.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jan 11, 2020 16:25:51 GMT -5
I'm not sure of Lloyd Fisher's exact connection to Clifton Springs, New York, but he seems to have been going to that upstate New York village for years as a place for rest and recuperation. Various articles state that he would go there to get away from the pressures of his law office in Flemington, New Jersey. In 1937, he gave a talk on the press in criminal trials at the rotary club in Clifton Springs. In 1944, he was a guest speaker at that same rotary club, but he gave a talk about the country Greece, and did not discuss the Lindbergh case. Fisher was a patient at the Clifton Springs Sanitarium right after the Flemington trial, according to an author named Henry W. Clune. In 1956, Clune said that Fisher took Hauptmann's conviction personally. In fact, Fisher died at the Clifton Springs Sanitarium in 1960. Also, I have read that Fisher's mom was a reporter at the Flemington trial in 1935, and that she was staunchly against the death penalty. Thanks for the info, Sue. My strong guess, now knowing that he was a sanitarium patient, would be that Fisher sadly suffered from tuberculosis.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jan 11, 2020 17:56:19 GMT -5
As Michael's Volume 3 convincingly demonstrates, although ultimately unsuccessful, Lloyd Fisher was a staunch champion of justice for his clients (in particular, Hauptmann). He wrote voluminous memos and notes exposing the trickery and sinister tactics employed by the prosecution and law enforcement during the Hauptmann trial and subsequent appeals process and investigation. Little doubt that Hauptmann's conviction would be overturned if (hypothetically) the same legal scenario were to unfold today. That's because constitutional law has greatly evolved since the 1930s to give criminal case defendants a better shot at counteracting unfair tactics by overzealous prosecutors like David Wilentz and the army of henchmen that work in their behalf. Separately, I am surprised that Fisher would have given a talk in 1933 in a remote place like Clifton Springs, NY, which is located hundreds of miles from Flemington, NJ. Perhaps business for small-town criminal defense attorneys was so bad during the Great Depression that he had to supplement his income with a speaking tour. (Just an educated guess.) I'm sure Fisher would have been a much happier defense attorney if Hauptmann had just come clean. Defending someone who you know is guilty must not a comforting thing be.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 11, 2020 20:26:56 GMT -5
As Michael's Volume 3 convincingly demonstrates, although ultimately unsuccessful, Lloyd Fisher was a staunch champion of justice for his clients (in particular, Hauptmann). He wrote voluminous memos and notes exposing the trickery and sinister tactics employed by the prosecution and law enforcement during the Hauptmann trial and subsequent appeals process and investigation. Little doubt that Hauptmann's conviction would be overturned if (hypothetically) the same legal scenario were to unfold today. That's because constitutional law has greatly evolved since the 1930s to give criminal case defendants a better shot at counteracting unfair tactics by overzealous prosecutors like David Wilentz and the army of henchmen that work in their behalf. Separately, I am surprised that Fisher would have given a talk in 1933 in a remote place like Clifton Springs, NY, which is located hundreds of miles from Flemington, NJ. Perhaps business for small-town criminal defense attorneys was so bad during the Great Depression that he had to supplement his income with a speaking tour. (Just an educated guess.) I'm sure Fisher would have been a much happier defense attorney if Hauptmann had just come clean. Defending someone who you know is guilty must not a comforting thing be. Except by all accounts Fisher went to his grave thinking Hauptmann was innocent of the kidnapping (though knew more than he told on the extortion). Read Michael's VIII.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jan 13, 2020 11:01:10 GMT -5
he also told people that Hauptman was guilty
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jan 13, 2020 11:42:42 GMT -5
I'm sure Fisher would have been a much happier defense attorney if Hauptmann had just come clean. Defending someone who you know is guilty must not a comforting thing be. Except by all accounts Fisher went to his grave thinking Hauptmann was innocent of the kidnapping (though knew more than he told on the extortion). Read Michael's VIII. Lloyd Fisher was intelligent enough to process and understand the damning nature of the base circumstantial physical ladder/wood and handwriting evidence that connected Hauptmann directly to the kidnapping itself. Whether he essentially chose to disregard it in favour of the privilege within the lawyer and client relationship is open to discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 13, 2020 13:13:37 GMT -5
According to the documentation neither Fisher nor Pope believed the wood testimony. Hoover felt the FBI had either been lied to or that same testimony wasn’t reliable. It’s in my books, and in fact, I’ve come into even more source material recently that backs this up. Of course I was able to show exactly “why” they held these views but pretending they somehow knew otherwise is incorrect. As far as the handwriting ... I’ve never seen anything to back up your claim. What exactly is your source for this belief? imgur.com/lWwgkFYWhat Lamb is credited as saying in the above memo has been proven by the Koehler letters I quoted in V3.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 13, 2020 13:23:27 GMT -5
I have a mountain of source documentation that proves beyond all doubt that what I’ve written in V3 is 100% accurate. But of course people are going to believe whatever they like regardless. In fact, I could have a million sources and it wouldnt make a difference or matter at all to them. There’s always that one thing they “heard” or “read” that they did not research but accept as the absolute truth because it’s the version they “like.” It’s part of the reason I why I feel as though I’m spinning my wheels in the mud and why a V4 appears unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jan 14, 2020 10:34:35 GMT -5
mike I have a interview with him saying he thought he was guilty as hell but it dosnt mean nothing to me either way
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 14, 2020 12:14:55 GMT -5
I know Steve. It’s the source the Lone-Wolf people always bring up. It was discussed on Ronelle’s site a couple of years ago and it was debunked.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jan 14, 2020 14:56:32 GMT -5
im a lonewolf person i dont think its important
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jan 17, 2020 20:21:23 GMT -5
I know Steve. It’s the source the Lone-Wolf people always bring up. It was discussed on Ronelle’s site a couple of years ago and it was debunked. Debunked? Up to the hour before his execution, Hauptmann told Lloyd Fisher he was totally innocent of the crime and knew NOTHING about it, otherwise he would have told him.. even after Fisher pleaded with him to confess what he knew, so he could do whatever he could to have his client's life spared. Do you really believe Lloyd believed his client was guilt-free?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jan 17, 2020 21:35:46 GMT -5
I know Steve. It’s the source the Lone-Wolf people always bring up. It was discussed on Ronelle’s site a couple of years ago and it was debunked. Debunked? Up to the hour before his execution, Hauptmann told Lloyd Fisher he was totally innocent of the crime and knew NOTHING about it, otherwise he would have told him.. even after Fisher pleaded with him to confess what he knew, so he could do whatever he could to have his client's life spared. Do you really believe Lloyd believed his client was guilt-free? Have you read Michael's book? It is clear that Fisher believed Hauptmann knew more than he was saying, at least about the extortion but that he was innocent of the crime in which he was convicted.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 18, 2020 11:19:34 GMT -5
Have you read Michael's book? It is clear that Fisher believed Hauptmann knew more than he was saying, at least about the extortion but that he was innocent of the crime in which he was convicted. I think this underscores my earlier point. The whole reason I wrote what I did was to finally set the record straight based upon legitimate sources. Not to pick on Joe, but I am using his post because he just gave it to me. He either did not read the book OR simply chose to ignore it and ride with whatever he likes better. I believe the motivation is the "fear" that the true situation may lead others to believe or take the position that Hauptmann was "innocent." Of course, that is something that motivates staunch resistance. I wrote about this in my book as well. Even those who accept a middle ground resist anything they view as supporting someone at either extreme they reject. So this is an example of the "push-back" to defeat that "extreme" position. In this case that Hauptmann was completely "innocent." It happens on the other side as well, and honestly no one is immune from it at times. In the end, anyone could say that Fisher said this, that, or the third. If anything, I've neutralized what some might allege based upon other interviews where he supports everything I wrote. Then there's what he wrote himself which is indisputable because its undeniably straight from the horses mouth. Not only that, his very own actions as Prosecutor, and otherwise, speak volumes and support what he wrote and promised Hauptmann. But anyway, what I wrote is the truth. Take it into consideration or don't. File it under Fisher was "wrong" or "right" that's up to you. However, one cannot consider something if it isn't known OR can't consider because it's being misrepresented.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jan 18, 2020 12:10:01 GMT -5
Debunked? Up to the hour before his execution, Hauptmann told Lloyd Fisher he was totally innocent of the crime and knew NOTHING about it, otherwise he would have told him.. even after Fisher pleaded with him to confess what he knew, so he could do whatever he could to have his client's life spared. Do you really believe Lloyd believed his client was guilt-free? Have you read Michael's book? It is clear that Fisher believed Hauptmann knew more than he was saying, at least about the extortion but that he was innocent of the crime in which he was convicted. Try to put yourself in Lloyd Fisher's shoes for a moment. He's defended Hauptmann against all odds, hearing not only his repeated protestations of innocence towards the crime he's been charged with and convicted for, but also his insistent claims of total non-involvement. Remember, that includes the extortion of $50,000 for a corpse. As Lloyd Fisher came to learn and understand more and more about the circumstantial physical evidence of both the kidnapping and extortion through his obvious interest in the case well after its time, how do you feel he might have reacted in a casual and perhaps unguarded moment, through his ultimate realization that Hauptmann had simply lied to him? In the 1977 Newsweek article, Don Shuman who was one of Lloyd Fisher's clients, and the founder of the Flemington real estate firm that bears his name, was very clear about Fisher's reply of "Guilty as hell" to his question. I'm not a Lone-Wolfer nor am I a Hauptmann Apologist, and I don't believe this account should simply be discarded based on Lloyd Fisher's public statements and interviews alone.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jan 18, 2020 12:33:04 GMT -5
Have you read Michael's book? It is clear that Fisher believed Hauptmann knew more than he was saying, at least about the extortion but that he was innocent of the crime in which he was convicted. I think this underscores my earlier point. The whole reason I wrote what I did was to finally set the record straight based upon legitimate sources. Not to pick on Joe, but I am using his post because he just gave it to me. He either did not read the book OR simply chose to ignore it and ride with whatever he likes better. I believe the motivation is the "fear" that the true situation may lead others to believe or take the position that Hauptmann was "innocent." Of course, that is something that motivates staunch resistance. I wrote about this in my book as well. Even those who accept a middle ground resist anything they view as supporting someone at either extreme they reject. So this is an example of the "push-back" to defeat that "extreme" position. In this case that Hauptmann was completely "innocent." It happens on the other side as well, and honestly no one is immune from it at times. In the end, anyone could say that Fisher said this, that, or the third. If anything, I've neutralized what some might allege based upon other interviews where he supports everything I wrote. Then there's what he wrote himself which is indisputable because its undeniably straight from the horses mouth. Not only that, his very own actions as Prosecutor, and otherwise, speak volumes and support what he wrote and promised Hauptmann. But anyway, what I wrote is the truth. Take it into consideration or don't. File it under Fisher was "wrong" or "right" that's up to you. However, one cannot consider something if it isn't known OR can't consider because it's being misrepresented. Michael, I understand what you wrote about Lloyd Fisher's public observations on Hauptmann. I'm curious though as to why you don't seem to consider Don Shuman's account as having any merit at all. Wouldn't you for example, seek to further your own understanding of this specific account, as opposed to a process of simply trying to marshal all forces against it, before categorically declaring it as "debunked?" I don't by any means consider it a slam dunk and 100% accurate, but I also know that Lloyd Fisher was not only an astute and intelligent listener and observer, but also someone who wasn't afraid to speak his mind. Remember, Hauptmann lied to Fisher when he insisted he knew NOTHING about the case at all. Therefore, by Fisher's own reflection process over the years, the scenario does not strike me at all as being a stretch.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 18, 2020 12:59:57 GMT -5
Try to put yourself in Lloyd Fisher's shoes for a moment. He's defended Hauptmann against all odds, hearing not only his repeated protestations of innocence towards the crime he's been charged with and convicted for, but also his insistent claims of total non-involvement. Remember, that includes the extortion of $50,000 for a corpse. As Lloyd Fisher came to learn and understand more and more about the circumstantial physical evidence of both the kidnapping and extortion through his obvious interest in the case well after its time, how do you feel he might have reacted in a casual and perhaps unguarded moment, through his ultimate realization that Hauptmann had simply lied to him? In the 1977 Newsweek article, Don Shuman who was one of Lloyd Fisher's clients, and the founder of the Flemington real estate firm that bears his name, was very clear about Fisher's reply of "Guilty as hell" to his question. I'm not a Lone-Wolfer nor am I a Hauptmann Apologist, and I don't believe this account should simply be discarded based on Lloyd Fisher's public statements and interviews alone. Again, this position ignores each and everything I've written - to include the footnotes which back it all up. And what do you counter with? Old reliable - the Don Shuman quote again. Why I am not surprised? Is it because it's the only thing you can cite that makes this claim? A source that is disputed by everything else. I've got an idea, apply your inability to "simply discard" something in one place to every other place. Next, imagine if Shuman said just the opposite? How fast would you have discarded it? My book does cite sources that are public statements, and interviews. So in your mind Fisher lied to the public, and to reporters like Blackman. Next, I cite interviews with Hawke, and a private conversation with Wagner. Lies again? Then I also cite sources that are NOT public statements or interviews - like his unpublished manucripts, and a letter from the Hunterdon County Prosecutor's office. The fact he directed former Trooper Bastedo to investigate all new leads was known to whom before I revealed it? And this idea that he didn't know enough in 1951 but later discovered information to change his mind is absurd Joe. " As Fisher came to learn..." where the hell are you getting this from? Exactly when did that transition occur? Give me a year. Do you really feel comfortable pushing a false narrative? Anyway, in the end I expect everyone will believe whatever they decide to. But at least I've set the historical record straight from which to draw from. That's all that really matters to me. Like I said - believe what you want just make sure you are drawing from real information and facts in order to do so. Michael, I understand what you wrote about Lloyd Fisher's public observations on Hauptmann. I'm curious though as to why you don't seem to consider Don Shuman's account as having any merit at all. Wouldn't you for example, seek to further your own understanding of this specific account, as opposed to a process of simply trying to marshal all forces against it, before categorically declaring it as "debunked?" I don't by any means consider it a slam dunk and 100% accurate, but I also know that Lloyd Fisher was not only an astute and intelligent listener and observer, but also someone who wasn't afraid to speak his mind. Remember, Hauptmann lied to Fisher when he insisted he knew NOTHING about the case at all. Therefore, by Fisher's own reflection process over the years, the scenario does not strike me at all as being a stretch. I do consider it Joe. See what I've written above. I believe Fisher told him what he was telling everyone else. It's consistent if you look at it from a neutral perspective. He's telling everyone, from even before the trial, that Hauptmann was involved with the money but not of the murder. Except for the Shuman source its bar none. Got another one? My guess is no or you'd be shouting it from the rooftops. So in my mind he probably told him the same thing. I'm not calling him a liar - it could just be how he took it or later remembered it. You also have to understand these were the days of the Lindbergh claimants and Scaduto. People were rushing to assist the NJSP and the Lindbergh family in any way they could. Of course the opposite occurred as well too so that has to be considered when it comes to all sources from the 70s and 80s.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jan 19, 2020 9:43:21 GMT -5
Michael, any thoughts on how Lloyd Fisher could have come to such a clear distinction that Hauptmann was involved in the extortion and not the kidnapping and murder? After all, the the seamless trail of signature-specific ransom notes starts in the nursery with the kidnapping, covers the period of CALjr's death and ends with the extortion, or have I missed something here? Where exactly would Hauptmann have so adroitly stepped in to pick up on the money grab? I'll bet Lloyd must have given that one a lot of thought. I'm not expecting you to look any further into the validity of the 1977 Business Week article in the same way you've gone over the top investigating each and every news clipping avenue that might lend even a smidgeon of support towards your pet theory. I have my own theory about this case, but unlike yourself, I'm just not invested nor do I have the personal desire or need to "lead anyone to water." No worries.. I'll look into it further myself, and maybe there'll be something for you to consider for a future Volume.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 19, 2020 10:17:58 GMT -5
I haven’t been able to find anything more specific in nature other than what I’ve added to V3. And I’ve looked because I always wanted to know the specifics myself. I’ve always believed it possible Hauptmann gave him the real story about his involvement but that’s just speculation. But if Hauptmann was going to “talk” that’s the guy he would have told.
Joe, I think you would agree that I’ve presented sources outside of mere clippings and that I invested quite a bit of time on this. I also think it’s clear I’m not attempting to do anything other than to present what I’ve found. This topic has in no way anything to do with my “pet theory” and the fact you are framing it in this way reveals your true motivation to refute it. It’s exactly like I wrote earlier and we all have to let go of these types of attempts at neutralizing facts because we suspect they’ll be used in a way or toward an end we reject. It’s human nature but if we are seeking the truth we must take the “good” with the “bad” or we will never get to the bottom of it.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jan 19, 2020 12:17:58 GMT -5
I haven’t been able to find anything more specific in nature other than what I’ve added to V3. And I’ve looked because I always wanted to know the specifics myself. I’ve always believed it possible Hauptmann gave him the real story about his involvement but that’s just speculation. But if Hauptmann was going to “talk” that’s the guy he would have told. Joe, I think you would agree that I’ve presented sources outside of mere clippings and that I invested quite a bit of time on this. I also think it’s clear I’m not attempting to do anything other than to present what I’ve found. This topic has in no way anything to do with my “pet theory” and the fact you are framing it in this way reveals your true motivation to refute it. It’s exactly like I wrote earlier and we all have to let go of these types of attempts at neutralizing facts because we suspect they’ll be used in a way or toward an end we reject. It’s human nature but if we are seeking the truth we must take the “good” with the “bad” or we will never get to the bottom of it. Michael, I'd never suggest you limited your research and presented sources to mere newspaper clippings. And I'd never accept a newspaper clipping at face value. I am interested in exploring this one much more fully though as I feel it strongly suggests what might well have been a truly unguarded moment and resultant exchange between friends or acquaintances. We won't know that though unless it is more thoroughly looked, and so summarily declaring it as "debunked," even in light of everything you've presented on the subject, makes little sense to me. After all and within the background, there's a pretty big matzo ball hanging out there that will not go away. Namely that Hauptmann lied to Lloyd Fisher when he told him he knew nothing about the LKC other than what he had read in the newspapers, and the reason for that has been clear to me for almost as long as I've studied this case. Fisher then would have known he was being lied to in light of the understanding he had developed regarding the extent of Hauptmann's involvement. Not exactly the kind of thing that would have put his mind at ease after Hauptmann lost his chance to come clean, I'd venture.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 19, 2020 14:14:15 GMT -5
Yes I’d say it’s been debunked for certain. Fisher’s beliefs are accurately recorded in my book. You have chosen to assign greater weight to one mere recollection against the massive amounts of creditable sources which disprove it.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jan 19, 2020 15:06:37 GMT -5
Yes I’d say it’s been debunked for certain. Fisher’s beliefs are accurately recorded in my book. You have chosen to assign greater weight to one mere recollection against the massive amounts of creditable sources which disprove it. Nope, wrong again. I'm just not going to sweep it under the rug or "shrug it off" Michael, until it's been brought to ground in the way it should. Nothing more complicated or conspiratorial than that.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 19, 2020 15:20:01 GMT -5
Sounds like you’ve got a ton of re-thinking to do once applying this philosophy everywhere else. Can’t wait to see your new thoughts on such things as Condon hiding the ransom box, Riehl seeing someone other than Hauptmann, and Lindbergh’s action in the morgue .... just to name a few.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jan 19, 2020 18:15:53 GMT -5
Sounds like you’ve got a ton of re-thinking to do once applying this philosophy everywhere else. Can’t wait to see your new thoughts on such things as Condon hiding the ransom box, Riehl seeing someone other than Hauptmann, and Lindbergh’s action in the morgue .... just to name a few. I'll certainly post anything I feel is of further value towards advancing the truth in this case, and on any topic. I'll share my current thoughts on your lineup.. i) I don't believe Condon hid the original ransom box in the boxwood bush on the night of March 12, 1932, unless it was with Lindbergh's express agreement for the sake of providing a safer getaway for the extortionists. The presence of Condon, Coleman, Breckinridge and most likely Al Reich together at St. Raymond's in the days following the ransom and the purported retrieval of a wooden box from a boxwood bush, negates any possibility that Lindbergh was in the dark here or that Condon was a confederate of the kidnappers. Condon never broke ranks with Lindbergh's desire to have his son returned. ii) I've stated my theory on Riehl's observations many times now. I believe he never saw CJ (Hauptmann) at all, due to his line of sight from within Woodlawn Cemetery, which picked up the figure on the backside of the top of the stone column only. His description is much more in line with someone like Isidor Fisch. By the time he reached Condon at the front gates, CJ had already run off. iii) While Lindbergh's action in the morgue is unusual, it in no way implicates him for anything more than insensitivity and inappropriateness.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 19, 2020 18:30:13 GMT -5
Careful Joe.... your “shrug” is showing!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jan 19, 2020 18:47:39 GMT -5
Careful Joe.... your “shrug” is showing! No shrugs Michael.. just plenty of "hugs" for what makes the most sense and seems the most truthful!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 19, 2020 19:32:51 GMT -5
🤥
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jan 19, 2020 19:42:57 GMT -5
Goodnight Ollie..
|
|