Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2020 23:10:35 GMT -5
I have read several books more than once or twice on the case (just started Vol III again) and I've read posts here for several years but I'm certainly still a 'rookie.' From time to time I opened Google Earth and began placemarking important points to help me understand 'the layout' better. Maps have always fascinated me. I thought, wouldn't it be handy if CJ could leave the cemetery with the ransom without being seen carrying an odd box? At least not on Tremont. And certainly there were houses and streets where he could park around St Raymonds. Obviously anyone this deep into planning a ransom drop had to consider the getaway carefully. One thing I noticed was a drainage ditch or canal about 500 yards due west of the dropoff point. Hauptman had a canoe. Of course, without the Interstate there yet, as an escape plan, if he could get to the canal he would never have to set foot on a street to leave the cemetery. In the event things went wrong and he was being chased he only had to push himself off and glide to the other side. Cops could shoot him but ordinary citizens would not attempt to swim the 200 feet width and the boats docked there indicate it is too deep to wade across. It was winter, everyone would be wearing bulky clothes and it would be suicide for anyone to cross that canal without flotation. So, I think it's very possible he hid the canoe, got the ransom and rode the canoe down the canal, loaded it on his parked car on the other side and he was home free. Even if someone knew he was going downstream he would be long gone before they could drive around to the other bank. Also, the long, slender design of the box would be handy to place in the canoe bottom and cover up. I think there was a reason he took time to design it with specs in the ransom note. This could have been mentioned before and I missed it. If so, I apologize. If this theory holds water or not (npi) I want to thank all of you and Michael for letting amateurs like me know your thoughts and for sharing your knowledge and experience on this fascinating case.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 9, 2020 11:22:11 GMT -5
I have read several books more than once or twice on the case (just started Vol III again) and I've read posts here for several years but I'm certainly still a 'rookie.' I am so very glad you decided to post. I think our strength here is our diversity of thought, experience, and individual perspective. We have members that stretch from Canada (Joe), to the UK (Rab), throughout Europe, and down to Australia (Pam) and NZ. It's quite awesome if you think about it. I believe anyone who has read any of my books can see how much I've personally benefited from our discussions and continue to - just as I believe everyone else does too. Hopefully no one hesitates to express an opinion or give an idea about anything. Like I've said before, even something "known" being brought up again can lead to new and interesting information and discussions. From time to time I opened Google Earth and began placemarking important points to help me understand 'the layout' better. Maps have always fascinated me. I thought, wouldn't it be handy if CJ could leave the cemetery with the ransom without being seen carrying an odd box? At least not on Tremont. And certainly there were houses and streets where he could park around St Raymonds. Obviously anyone this deep into planning a ransom drop had to consider the getaway carefully. One thing I noticed was a drainage ditch or canal about 500 yards due west of the dropoff point. Hauptman had a canoe. Of course, without the Interstate there yet, as an escape plan, if he could get to the canal he would never have to set foot on a street to leave the cemetery. In the event things went wrong and he was being chased he only had to push himself off and glide to the other side. Cops could shoot him but ordinary citizens would not attempt to swim the 200 feet width and the boats docked there indicate it is too deep to wade across. It was winter, everyone would be wearing bulky clothes and it would be suicide for anyone to cross that canal without flotation. So, I think it's very possible he hid the canoe, got the ransom and rode the canoe down the canal, loaded it on his parked car on the other side and he was home free. Even if someone knew he was going downstream he would be long gone before they could drive around to the other bank. Also, the long, slender design of the box would be handy to place in the canoe bottom and cover up. I think there was a reason he took time to design it with specs in the ransom note. A smart approach and very worthwhile theory. First, I do not believe this has been mentioned here before. I could be wrong but I don't recall any discussion about it. This idea of a water-way like this being used, to the best of my knowledge, first came from Gaston Means. Since most people view that angle as a "hoax" they usually avoid it to save time or avoid the perceived "distraction." Means wrote, and wrote, and wrote so many different versions over time that gave a million different leads for police to follow. One such letter was written in June 1934 where he alleged the child was taken to a boat on the "Raritan Canal" the night of March 1st. Police investigated as shown in the report below: ibb.co/cTxcV3dOne would think this might have lit a fire under their ass to do the same as it related to your suggestion above. But it did not ... or at least I see no evidence that they ever did anything or took notice of a similar possibility. However, it was after Hauptmann's arrest that they finally did .... almost as if reading your mind MJS. ibb.co/s3tk0wjOf course this late in the game harms the potential outcome of their investigation so we really don't know if their recollections can be absolutely trusted. Thanks again for sharing and I know I'm not alone when I say I hope to see more of your thoughts!
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Feb 9, 2020 12:11:59 GMT -5
Jafsie, in JTA and elsewhere, had also contemplated the idea that CJ may have paddled away from St. Ray's in his canoe through Westchester Creek.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2020 12:28:30 GMT -5
Yes! I did read that in JTA. The problem with what Condon suggests is that Hauptmann didn't buy his canoe until May of 1932 I think it was. Condon did own a boat at the time the ransom was paid, however.
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Feb 9, 2020 12:54:33 GMT -5
Excellent point, Amy!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2020 13:11:27 GMT -5
Amy, I have always held your comments in the highest regard. For me, you certainly have earned it. I thank you for your responses, and I concede this is likely a dead end but I don't think the time of his purchase completely rules out a simple watercraft. I had forgotten JTA mentioned it (and it's likely what put it in my subconscious) but I take that book with a box of salt like everyone else. I have since learned the "canal" I mentioned was actually Westchester Creek. Duh. It was not ID'd on GE, sorry. In Vol II, (End Notes Ref #721), Condon Statement to Bronx Grand Jury states that 'John walked off toward Westchester Creek in the darkness.' I think he knew he did not have time to walk in a misguiding direction since that would waste valuable time. If he got to a canoe on Westchester Creek, even with someone closely following, he was gone. An accomplice would have sped his getaway even more. It's amazing how you researchers and investigators can go right to a needle in the haystack. Michael, your last link referred to Bridge tenders at the Eastern Blvd Bridge. That is almost a half mile below the 'point of departure.' If paddling north, it was about a half mile with no bridges. So at any point north or south for almost a mile in total he could have parked his car without passing a bridge. Regardless of his smarts, I think he would have dismissed passing under a guarded bridge. But detectives were doing all they could do with the info they had. Where ever he parked, if he were followed on land he could just keep paddling and with the limited street at that time As I said, going to the trouble of drawing specifications for the box had to have had some significance such as between the bottom boards in a canoe or even a storage space. If we had the canoe or one like it we could determine immediately whether it was "made to fit." I've never had to plan anything like this but if I did, under these circumstances I would have chosen a nearby waterway with a small, fast, maneuverable craft that I could load on my parked car and leave immediately. He was known to have a canoe so it would not look unusual to his neighbors to be hauling it around on his car. Thank you all for honoring me with your responses and valuable info - and for your consideration in reading my comments.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2020 14:03:52 GMT -5
Amy, I have always held your comments in the highest regard. For me, you certainly have earned it. I thank you for your responses, and I concede this is likely a dead end but I don't think the time of his purchase completely rules out a simple watercraft. Thank you so much for saying such nice things! I thought you made an awesome first post. I can still remember mine and it was no where near as good as yours! I didn't know a heck of a lot when I started posting here but this board and those who post here have helped me to grow and they continue to do that. Even your first post does that for me. I am still learning and benefiting by being a member of this board. I completely agree that a watercraft of some type should be considered as an exit route. I have looked at maps also and Westchester Creek merges into the East River which would bring the watercraft into the Clausen Point area with its various boat yards. Since I think Hauptmann had at least one accomplice, this watercraft theory stays in play for me too. Condon developed this canoe theory and shared it in detail with the Editor of Liberty Magazine Fulton Oursler who related this conversation in his March 28. 1936 issue. The article was called "Jafsie in Panama Discusses New Evidence." It is a really interesting read. I cannot post the entire article but I will quote some points that the article made about a canoe get-away with the ransom money. 1. It would be the last means of escape that any one seeking to entrap him that night would expect. 2. It would, if detected, put a comparatively wide and deep body of water instantly between him and his pursuers. 3. It would enable him at any split second of his flight to dispose of the one bit of evidence then connecting him with the crime. The box of ransom money, heavily weighted, could immediately be dropped overboard, so that, if Hauptmann were caught, nothing could be proved except that he was indulging in an excursion by canoe on a comparatively cold April night. 4. It practically guaranteed him escape from any police circle which might have assembled in the network of streets in the Bronx surrounding the cemetery. 5. It gave him easy and comparatively quick access to Long Island Sound, a vast body of water on which not the shrewdest police in the world would expect to find him should an alarm be raised immediately. So you see mjs1, your post is a valuable one and full of potential. Thanks for adding it to the board! I hope you will continue to make more posts and share your insights and ideas with all of us.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2020 15:51:22 GMT -5
While I have my "commenting courage" up, after 8 years of reading his books and posts I would like thank Michael especially, not only for his books but this forum also which will serve generations to come with the most intelligent, well researched information available about the kidnapping. All forums should be moderated this well, using facts and dispelling misinformation, but as we all know, few are. Looking forward to Volume IV! Many thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Feb 9, 2020 20:53:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Feb 9, 2020 20:57:35 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2020 22:55:58 GMT -5
Thanks! I had no idea this was out there. That's why I come here. I'll have to sit down with this a little later but I can see by the map City Island was considered a possible destination via watercraft. Thanks again.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Feb 9, 2020 23:03:35 GMT -5
Thanks! I had no idea this was out there. That's why I come here. I'll have to sit down with this a little later but I can see by the map City Island was considered a possible destination via watercraft. Thanks again. My pleasure! Hope it helps. Let me know if you want the remaining pages.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2020 15:09:22 GMT -5
This is fascinating stuff! Please do send the remainder and anything else you have related to this theory. Sorry for the delay but I am taking notes and preparing a response as I read it. I am totally unfamiliar with the area and I must rely on maps and Google Earth a lot. Thank you so much! I look forward to getting the info
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Feb 10, 2020 17:08:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Feb 10, 2020 17:09:27 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2020 17:37:40 GMT -5
I really appreciate it. While I don't think he went to City Island, I do think this gives credence to escape by canoe theory.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2020 9:45:17 GMT -5
Many thanks Wayne. JIP page 5 implies that BRH did own a canoe at Dixon's boat house. But Condon went to inspect it long after the drop. Amy posted that he did not own it the date of the money drop. I would defer to Amy. Her info is time tested and this article was written when Condon was still alive. Maybe Condon knew this and it was a ruse.
The last link posted to me by Michael indicates there was a bridge 'sentry' about 1/3 mile south from the cemetery. He claims to have seen nothing. I'm not sure that he observed water traffic closely since his job was watching the bridge and not so much the creek. Irregardless, I don't think BRH would have chanced a guard seeing him since the could go north or south from the cemetery, well over half a mile in total where he could park his car on the opposite bank without passing under a bridge. I think 6 hrs going and coming back to City Island by canoe is out. A known sportsman would not be unusual coming home before midnight from 'fishing' with a canoe strapped to the top of the car. He didn't need to take a chance going that far into the Sound. A BOLO alert would have dispersed boats everywhere. Hauptman could have been home before LE could be organized to search watercraft even with motor boats. I see the Sound is huge but a BOGO for the child's kidnapper/extortionist would have resulted in launching hundreds of boats, private and LE. And BRH knew that. My problem with the Condon canoe theory is that I just don't see him trapped in the get-away canoe for three hours coming back. Reading the article was almost as if I copied this canoe theory word for word - except the part about going to City Island. I concede it is more than likely that I read of this escape account - not this publication but in the several books I have read on the subject and it stayed in my subconscious. It's strange. Or I might be afflicted with the same senility as Condon in his last days. I know that's not funny. I honestly wish I were as educated and smart as he was earlier in his life. I would add that if Hauptman used a canoe perhaps it was not his own or one he purchased and sold for cash. Amy's point that he didn't own 'the infamous canoe' on City Island the night of the ransom drop doesn't rule out that he could have used another one. He could have purchased one just for the money drop. Why would he use a canoe he owned and could be identified as his in the event he was forced to ditch it? I would add that if Hauptman used a canoe perhaps it was not his own or one he purchased and sold for cash anonymously. He went there that night knowing he would leave with $70k or in handcuffs. Considering that, the cost of a fast, get-away canoe would be negligible and he could have simply pulled it onshore and it could be stolen or sold as abandoned since it could not be ID'd. It was all or nothing for BRH - or whoever it was. My response rambles I know, but the more I study this the more I believe BRH left St Raymonds by water. After that, I don't know, but it was the smartest move, I think. Thank you for the opportunity to post "my theory" that I know now was actually posted 90 years ago in Liberty magazine. Thank you Michael, Amy and Wayne for your input! Like so many other plausible theories here I can now file this under; "We'll likely never know"
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Feb 11, 2020 11:01:22 GMT -5
You are making a big assumption here, that CJ and BRH were one and the same. Remember that Condon took a darn long time in "identifying" CJ as Hauptmann, and by then only under severe LE pressure. And Lindbergh only identified him by voice: only two words heard from afar. By this conflating of CJ with BRH, you over overlooking the reasonable possibility that Hauptmann was NOT at St. Raymonds, but rather obtained the ransom currency he was found with in the "secondary market."
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on Feb 11, 2020 14:48:43 GMT -5
You are making a big assumption here, that CJ and BRH were one and the same. Remember that Condon took a darn long time in "identifying" CJ as Hauptmann, and by then only under severe LE pressure. And Lindbergh only identified him by voice: only two words heard from afar. By this conflating of CJ with BRH, you over overlooking the reasonable possibility that Hauptmann was NOT at St. Raymonds, but rather obtained the ransom currency he was found with in the "secondary market." Do you have any potential candidates for CJ other than Hauptmann (?) who not only closely matched the descriptions given by Perrone and Condon, but benefited almost entirely from the ransom payment's $50,000 amount, personally provided the Boad Nelly note the handwriting of which, was a match for Hauptmann's handwriting, used the same expression from one of the ransom notes "planned for a year alreddy," that he used in Flemington, in addition to all of the other circumstantial physical evidence (wood, complete handwriting) that directly connects him to the crime. I get that others were clearly involved or knew what was going on to some capacity, but all of the above is a pretty damning indictment about who the manager / main player was. Who other than Hauptmann at Woodlawn and St. Raymond's?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Feb 11, 2020 16:34:56 GMT -5
You are making a big assumption here, that CJ and BRH were one and the same. Remember that Condon took a darn long time in "identifying" CJ as Hauptmann, and by then only under severe LE pressure. And Lindbergh only identified him by voice: only two words heard from afar. By this conflating of CJ with BRH, you over overlooking the reasonable possibility that Hauptmann was NOT at St. Raymonds, but rather obtained the ransom currency he was found with in the "secondary market." Do you have any potential candidates for CJ other than Hauptmann (?) who not only closely matched the descriptions given by Perrone and Condon, but benefited almost entirely from the ransom payment's $50,000 amount, personally provided the Boad Nelly note the handwriting of which, was a match for Hauptmann's handwriting, used the same expression from one of the ransom notes "planned for a year alreddy," that he used in Flemington, in addition to all of the other circumstantial physical evidence (wood, complete handwriting) that directly connects him to the crime. I get that others were clearly involved or knew what was going on to some capacity, but all of the above is a pretty damning indictment about who the manager / main player was. Who other than Hauptmann at Woodlawn and St. Raymond's? Joe, So are we to assume that you are a handwriting expert? Or did you see BRH write the ransom notes? Please tell us why not one of the 100+ "t"s in any of the ransom letters is crossed? (BRH crossed 99% of his "t"s.) Please tell us why not one of the 100+ "i"s in the ransom letters is not dotted? (BRH dotted his "i"s.) And tell us why none of the distinctive "k"s (61 in total) don't resemble any of BRH's "k"s? Not one. And there's Dr. Srihari, a leading handwriting expert, who used a software program for the Nova special on the Lindbergh kidnapping. This was his conclusion, regarding the ransom notes: SARGUR SRIHARI: ...For instance, the letter, the letter pair AM or A-M has a fairly high negative score, indicating that they don't seem to be written by the same individual. There are some positives, as well. So, what matters is the sum total of all of these things. And that total turns out to be negative, indicating that it is unlikely that Hauptmann wrote the ransom notes. I've spoken at length with Dr. Srihari and he stands by his findings.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 11, 2020 19:05:28 GMT -5
Do you have any potential candidates for CJ other than Hauptmann (?) who not only closely matched the descriptions given by Perrone and Condon, but benefited almost entirely from the ransom payment's $50,000 amount, personally provided the Boad Nelly note the handwriting of which, was a match for Hauptmann's handwriting, used the same expression from one of the ransom notes "planned for a year alreddy," that he used in Flemington, in addition to all of the other circumstantial physical evidence (wood, complete handwriting) that directly connects him to the crime. I get that others were clearly involved or knew what was going on to some capacity, but all of the above is a pretty damning indictment about who the manager / main player was. Who other than Hauptmann at Woodlawn and St. Raymond's? No, most of the 50K was never proven to have benefited Hauptmann "almost entirely." While Agent Frank's report suggests this, it also offers other possibilities. Despite the testimony, authorities were aware of this and its proven by the fact they were asking Hauptmann who got the rest of the money (even asking AFTER his conviction) AS WELL AS passings made after his arrest that could not have come from him. Next, some people get involved in certain crimes for benefits "other" than money as well. Sometimes for no benefit at all. I had a young guy in my office once and I asked him why he did what he did. His answer? " My Boss told me to and I just did it." His PSI revealed he gained nothing from the crime. Not making that up. Some guys do stuff for "street cred." Not making that up either. Another example is that sometimes "random" people get punched blind-sided for absolutely no reason at all, or rather, just for the thrill of it. Isn't there a psychological theory floating around out there that Hauptmann never really did this for money? Another thing that never gets brought up are other sources of income. Was Hauptmann gambling? Was he involved in any other crime or crimes prior to the kidnapping - or even after? Did he have money that wasn't in his books? Agent Frank considered it - but we shouldn't? So anyway Joe, who is your candidate? The reason I ask is that you believe Condon was honest. If he was then CJ had a lump on one of his thumbs. Hauptmann did not. If he was then CJ's foot was a size nine. Hauptmann's was not. If he was he told police that Hauptmann was NOT CJ. It was only after they threatened him that he changed his mind. As to the description.... what does it matter when he was identifying others who looked nothing like Hauptmann? So Condon was really Hauptmann's best witness ... if only the Defense had known what we do now. Problem is, after reading the facts in V2 most people now suspect he was in league with the Extortionists. So that would mean he wasn't honest. You cannot have it both ways. Speaking of which let's talk what's in V2 about Perrone. The man told police he saw the guy who handed him the note talking to Condon on City Island. So you believe he was trustworthy so why ignore this? Or if you like you can say he wasn't reliable. Why? Because he identified Robert Mogel, George Panas, Walter Addison, David L. Morse, and Joseph Palu (I could add more but I think you get the point). Have you seen pictures of these men? If you did how could you even mention Perrone as a factor since none of them look a damn thing like Hauptmann? No description matters if he's actually identifying people. Now once it came to Hauptmann, Perrone was given a "pep talk" by Inspector Lyons who told him they had the "right man," that "there isn't a man in this room who isn't convinced...," "we found ransom money in his home," and "now we're depending on you, Joe." Sisk suggested a line-up with "at least half a dozen men" but they refused. I don't want to beat a dead horse and write another book here so I'll just end it with this last point: CJ could have been any number of people. The Look-outs could have been any number of people too. There's no doubt there were multiple participants.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2020 0:19:00 GMT -5
Having not commented before this thread, I thought I should give you a simple background of my interests in the case. I joined this board in 2012. Thanks to Google Books I can read and research from my tablet almost anywhere. Books in my online library I have read at least once include Behn, Gardner, Fensch (FBI files), Falzini, Fisher and Michael's Vols 2 and 3 (I guess I have to buy a hardcopy of Vol 1 since it doesn't seem to be on Google Books - but just so I get it) I should have prefaced my remarks with; Assuming BRH was Cemetery John, which I believe either he or Fisch were. I do not think BRH kidnapped CAL Jr. Fisch could have been in on it but I'm not even certain there even was a kidnapping. But we have to take each possibility and suspect and chase it to the end, whether we prove it true or false - or in this case, somewhere in between. I believe ir entirely possible that CAL poisoned Violet Sharp. She slyly smiled and winked at two Morrow secretaries while pretending to be upset immediately before she died. I recall that CAL gave a fellow pilot kerosene to drink and almost killed him. He never apologized and even joked about it while the poor man was still in the hospital. I can imagine him telling an upset Violet, "here drink this down quickly, it will help you." I wish fingerprints had been taken of the bottle. With his prints on it - or the glass the case would likely have ended soon after. I think CAL might have been afraid she was about to break. CAL directing the investigation from the start is a huge indication something suspicious is going on. Who said it was an inside job? Hoover and Mrs Morrow among other notables in the case. Cirrito and Birritella are dirty as mud. They knew something, though probably not everything. I'm not certain BRH even knew the money was from the kidnapping. Why would he pass a bill and brag about having "a hundred more" at a gas station in a neighborhood where he was known and had visited several friends friends - next door. Surely he bought gas there before. Condon was a mess and in it as far as "they" (whoever "they" are) would trust him. I'm surprised he lived as long afterward as he did. I have always suspected CAL and he could be in cahoots due to their fraternal connection. I think a John Condon was listed in a CT temple publication as the "doorkeeper" or something. Lindbergh joined at a much younger age than usually allowed and seemed an enthusiastic member. Not that the organization had anything to do with it, they just had unusual faith in each other due to the requirements for membership. Condon potentially walking away with $70,000? What was that, like a million today? And "saving" Lindbergh $20,000? And that happened to be the exact amount bundled with large bills to corner the crooks? The total of those larger bills just happened to be the exact amount CJ discounted the ransom and Condon took out? Busted. Solely due to the fact CJ 'cleared' Red and Betty makes them suspicious but I just feel Red is clean. Elsie is clean but Ollie, I find suspicious. Strange he died of peritonitis so soon after and while his wife was out of the country. CAL had something on Betty such as being her lover. He was certainly a cunningly, adulterous and oversexed b*st*rd. I read that Betty, Ollie and Elsie went to bed around 4 am. A baby was kidnapped 6 hours earlier and they just go to bed? I think Anne was clean. I think about as much of "expert handwriting analysis" as I do in the psychiatrist that old me I was gay as a teen because my hair was growing over my ears and I was "trying to look like a girl." I think Wayne's analysis is as good as any Osborne? conclusions. It's suspicious how quickly they verified BRH as the note writer after he was arrested. I know it's more of a science today but back then...well, it just wasn't as scientific or accurate, I think. I don't believe the "rail evidence." Just a wanna be G-man trying to be relevant with "wood science." And I believe the ladder was an extendable, lightweight, easily stored platform tied under the plane and used by CAL in the muddy fields where he was forced to land since airstrips were almost nonexistent. If the whole truth is ever known I think it might well come from one of the Morrow servants. I understand rumors and suspicions among them were rampant. Again, I should have begun my posts by clearly saying "if it really happened as Condon and CAL said......" And to be fair we must honestly consider that. Innocent until.... Thank you for letting me clarify my stance on these issues. Thank you all for your contributions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2020 9:18:22 GMT -5
I should have prefaced my remarks with; Assuming BRH was Cemetery John, which I believe either he or Fisch were. Are you basing this on Condon's description of "John"? I see elements of both men in what Condon shared about cemetery John. I also see elements that do not fit either of these men. The thing is about CJ's description is that it could fit thousands of men in the New York City/Bronx area. Michael makes an excellent point about how both Condon and Perrone, when picture picking people as possible CJ's, selected men who looked nothing like either BRH or Fisch. I know this from my own research at the archives so I know that Michael is right on with this. And what is even more revealing is that pictures Condon and Perrone had selected as possibly being CJ don't resemble each other either. How does something like that happen if they were both supposed to be seeing the same man? I support this because there is no proof that BRH was in Hopewell the night of March 1, 1932. His being placed there was based on 3 lying witnesses at the Flemington Trial. I have definitely considered that Violet's death could have been the result of foul play. This would depend on what you think she might have known about what happened to Charles Jr. that it became necessary to eliminate her from the picture. I am actively looking at these two persons. From where I stand right now, they are bit players who never had the kind of connection that they would ever be able to implicate anyone who was directly involved with what happened to Charlie. I think Peter and Mary envisioned a bigger role for themselves but that was not in the plan. That role would go to John F. Condon. Could you please explain what organization you are talking about in this statement? Condon belonged to a number of organizations but I am not recognizing this one. Thanks, mjs1 for making that great post and opening up so completely about all the people in this case. It shows you have spent a lot of time and done a lot of thinking on this case. Great job!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on Feb 12, 2020 10:06:12 GMT -5
Do you have any potential candidates for CJ other than Hauptmann (?) who not only closely matched the descriptions given by Perrone and Condon, but benefited almost entirely from the ransom payment's $50,000 amount, personally provided the Boad Nelly note the handwriting of which, was a match for Hauptmann's handwriting, used the same expression from one of the ransom notes "planned for a year alreddy," that he used in Flemington, in addition to all of the other circumstantial physical evidence (wood, complete handwriting) that directly connects him to the crime. I get that others were clearly involved or knew what was going on to some capacity, but all of the above is a pretty damning indictment about who the manager / main player was. Who other than Hauptmann at Woodlawn and St. Raymond's? Joe, So are we to assume that you are a handwriting expert? Or did you see BRH write the ransom notes? Please tell us why not one of the 100+ "t"s in any of the ransom letters is crossed? (BRH crossed 99% of his "t"s.) Please tell us why not one of the 100+ "i"s in the ransom letters is not dotted? (BRH dotted his "i"s.) And tell us why none of the distinctive "k"s (61 in total) don't resemble any of BRH's "k"s? Not one. And there's Dr. Srihari, a leading handwriting expert, who used a software program for the Nova special on the Lindbergh kidnapping. This was his conclusion, regarding the ransom notes: SARGUR SRIHARI: ...For instance, the letter, the letter pair AM or A-M has a fairly high negative score, indicating that they don't seem to be written by the same individual. There are some positives, as well. So, what matters is the sum total of all of these things. And that total turns out to be negative, indicating that it is unlikely that Hauptmann wrote the ransom notes. I've spoken at length with Dr. Srihari and he stands by his findings. No Wayne, I’m not a handwriting expert, but I do know enough to recognize similarities and differences within the work I do in nuclear quality inspection, notably the obvious concern over Counterfeit, Fraudulent and Suspect Items (CFSI) getting into the works. Speaking of QDE’s though, are you aware that the vast majority of QDE’s over the years right up to the present who have analyzed the handwriting evidence, are in clear agreement that Hauptmann wrote the ransom notes? In a statistical sense, what does that mean to you, perhaps enough to consider there may be some relevance to their findings? Or would you prefer to seek out an odd dissenting voice in the crowd who offers the kind of spin that most appeals to you? Why don’t you ask Mr. Srihari what his thoughts are on Hauptmann himself, having lamented to his wife, “Anny, if I didn’t know better, I would have to say this is my handwriting”? BRH crossed all of his “t’s” and dotted all of his “I’s?” I’m not going to argue with you Wayne, because you’re enormously wrong here. Have you seen much of Hauptmann’s personally-acknowledged handwriting, most notably the “mini-autobiography” he penned for his lawyer James Fawcett? Or was he perhaps “instructed” here to reproduce the ransom note handwriting style to a tee and also leave the “t’s” uncrossed, and “i’s” undotted? Seriously, if you’re perhaps limiting yourself to the “mercy letters” he wrote to Governor Hoffman, then I can understand your position. Clearly, when Hauptmann’s life was in the balance, he was very careful to use the correct punctuation, wasn’t he? Unfortunately, he gave himself away (again) because in his normal handwriting, he did NOT cross all of his “t’s” and dot all of his “i’s.” Regarding the “special k,” I feel it may have something to do with the right-side double loop within the Germanic letter form Sharfe S, ẞß, Eszett: /ɛsˈt͡sɛt/ scharfes S: /ˈʃaʁfəs ɛs/Eszett. I’m not sure why the ransom note writer would have chosen to adapt such a feature similar to the above form, in addition to the more standard form of the letter “k” that he would have been educated in. My personal thoughts are that it had something to do with his inflated ego and feelings of superiority (specialness) over Lindbergh at a time when the latter was in the most vulnerable position, as well as the fact that Hauptmann was an atrocious speller who routinely mixed up letters, due to his transition from German to English spelling. He also may have subconsciously identified the "special k" as being another unique identifier that would set him apart from anyone attempting to horn in on the extortion, similar to his use of the ransom note "singnature." What I can offer conclusively is that Hauptmann didn’t stop his pen whenever the need for a “k” came up, so that someone else could step in and insert their own personal strange form of this letter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2020 11:04:20 GMT -5
Amy, while I have not mastered the "quote" thing yet (and no, I don't know a better way) I would like to respond to you in order of your last comments. I just hope this ends up in the right place in the thread;
I was commenting on BRH being CJ because so many experts in the case will have it no other way. I can put myself in that camp mentally to speculate but not necessarily be a convert. If Lindbergh did take Condon to St Raymonds and Condon did hand over the money, someone was there to haul it off. (Strange that Lindy never saw Bergens lights come on and Bergen never saw his car) Of course, some, or all of that cash ended up in BRH's hands and I think Fisch spent some of that money. (on the side, it was very interesting to read recently of Fisch's father admitting Fisch was flush with money at times and sent money home if I remember correctly - Fisch was one weird dud - even among these characters), I think Condon and Perrone's arms were twisted by Wilentz and they, along with others were threatened with jail time if they did not finger BRH. That "bump on the hand" either clears BRH or proves Condon made it up. It cannot be both ways. I have a similar calcium "pencil bump" on my middle finger since childhood from using wooden pencils and it's still there, though I have rarely used wooden pencils since Jr high. I don't think BRH or Fisch would have done this alone. Reich, the guard at Woodlawn saw Condon with someone. Someone who was sick. The witnesses claiming BRH (or his car) was near the estate on March 1 is purely for a reward. Except Lupica. I can't quite get my head around him and his testimony. Regarding Violet, it's just hard to believe she would smile and wink at someone then commit suicide. Someone knew she was about to break. Again, consider CAL's almost identical experience poisoning a fellow flyer as a joke. He was a real jackass whether he was in the plot or not. The mystics did it to themselves. "Did you get the letter?" "You will receive a letter tomorrow." And using "Breckenbridge" in conversation, then on the letter pretty well seals it for them. Two more who were lucky to have lived. I was referring to the Masons. I know several Masons, practically every one of impeccable character. I also had an uncle that left the Masons suddenly when he converted fully to Christianity. He never explained why or even discussed it. I know they do extensive vetting but as one told me confidentially, "every organization has a few bad apples slip through." Again, thank you all for your comments and consideration.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Feb 12, 2020 11:25:26 GMT -5
Joe, So are we to assume that you are a handwriting expert? Or did you see BRH write the ransom notes? Please tell us why not one of the 100+ "t"s in any of the ransom letters is crossed? (BRH crossed 99% of his "t"s.) Please tell us why not one of the 100+ "i"s in the ransom letters is not dotted? (BRH dotted his "i"s.) And tell us why none of the distinctive "k"s (61 in total) don't resemble any of BRH's "k"s? Not one. And there's Dr. Srihari, a leading handwriting expert, who used a software program for the Nova special on the Lindbergh kidnapping. This was his conclusion, regarding the ransom notes: SARGUR SRIHARI: ...For instance, the letter, the letter pair AM or A-M has a fairly high negative score, indicating that they don't seem to be written by the same individual. There are some positives, as well. So, what matters is the sum total of all of these things. And that total turns out to be negative, indicating that it is unlikely that Hauptmann wrote the ransom notes. I've spoken at length with Dr. Srihari and he stands by his findings. No Wayne, I’m not a handwriting expert, but I do know enough to recognize similarities and differences within the work I do in nuclear quality inspection, notably the obvious concern over Counterfeit, Fraudulent and Suspect Items (CFSI) getting into the works. Speaking of QDE’s though, are you aware that the vast majority of QDE’s over the years right up to the present who have analyzed the handwriting evidence, are in clear agreement that Hauptmann wrote the ransom notes? In a statistical sense, what does that mean to you, perhaps enough to consider there may be some relevance to their findings? Or would you prefer to seek out an odd dissenting voice in the crowd who offers the kind of spin that most appeals to you? Why don’t you ask Mr. Srihari what his thoughts are on Hauptmann himself, having lamented to his wife, “Anny, if I didn’t know better, I would have to say this is my handwriting”? BRH crossed all of his “t’s” and dotted all of his “I’s?” I’m not going to argue with you Wayne, because you’re enormously wrong here. Have you seen much of Hauptmann’s personally-acknowledged handwriting, most notably the “mini-autobiography” he penned for his lawyer James Fawcett? Or was he perhaps “instructed” here to reproduce the ransom note handwriting style to a tee and also leave the “t’s” uncrossed, and “i’s” undotted? Seriously, if you’re perhaps limiting yourself to the “mercy letters” he wrote to Governor Hoffman, then I can understand your position. Clearly, when Hauptmann’s life was in the balance, he was very careful to use the correct punctuation, wasn’t he? Unfortunately, he gave himself away (again) because in his normal handwriting, he did NOT cross all of his “t’s” and dot all of his “i’s.” Regarding the “special k,” I feel it may have something to do with the right-side double loop within the Germanic letter form Sharfe S, ẞß, Eszett: /ɛsˈt͡sɛt/ scharfes S: /ˈʃaʁfəs ɛs/Eszett. I’m not sure why the ransom note writer would have chosen to adapt such a feature similar to the above form, in addition to the more standard form of the letter “k” that he would have been educated in. My personal thoughts are that it had something to do with his inflated ego and feelings of superiority (specialness) over Lindbergh at a time when the latter was in the most vulnerable position, as well as the fact that Hauptmann was an atrocious speller who routinely mixed up letters, due to his transition from German to English spelling. He also may have subconsciously identified the "special k" as being another unique identifier that would set him apart from anyone attempting to horn in on the extortion, similar to his use of the ransom note "singnature." What I can offer conclusively is that Hauptmann didn’t stop his pen whenever the need for a “k” came up, so that someone else could step in and insert their own personal strange form of this letter. Joe, Okay, I concede -- nothing says handwriting expertise like nuclear quality inspection work. I mean, how can one argue with that? However, are you aware of what Osborn told Schwarzkopf after he first compared the ransom notes to BRH's exemplars ? After Osborn gave his findings to Schwarzkopf, Schwarzkopf told Agent Sisk, "It doesn't look so good... after examining them for a while he (Osborn) found a lot of dissimilarities... and he is convinced (Hauptmann) did not write the ransom notes." (This can be found in LLoyd Gardner's book, page 162.) This is a fact, Joe. Then when the ransom money was found soon after in BRH's garage, lo and behold, Osborn decided, that, yes, the ransom notes were written by BRH. I'm guessing in the between that time, Osborn must have brushed up on his nuclear quality inspection work, huh?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2020 12:27:20 GMT -5
I was commenting on BRH being CJ because so many experts in the case will have it no other way. I can put myself in that camp mentally to speculate but not necessarily be a convert. You are very correct to consider both of these men. I think the point I need to make about the picture IDing done by both Perrone and Condon is this: Perrone's interaction with the man who gave him the note to bring to Condon's home was rather short and under not good conditions. I think this led to him picking out pictures of people who varied from each other. Condon, on the other hand, was just doing what he promised to do, protect the identity of the kidnapper/extortioners by making random selections of possible perpetrators, none of which led anywhere.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on Feb 12, 2020 13:12:50 GMT -5
Nice try Wayne, in attempting to deflect attention away from your misread of Hauptmann's punctuation perils and self-admission about his handwriting. You asked me if I was a handwriting expert and I was basically telling you that I'm not, but that I do have the level of discernment required to understand what the vast majority of QDE's have reported about the ransom note writing over the years. And I agree with them.. it's nothing more complicated than that really. Believe what you want.. and you may want to think about having an independent examination of the veracity of that computer software program that lead to a very controversial conclusion you seem to have now accepted lock, stock and barrel over anything else. The junior Osborn's initial findings came following a very cursory evaluation when he was pressed into service under duress in the middle of the night. Why didn't all of the other QDE's line up behind these initial findings? Because Osborn was initially wrong. If you believe the garage ransom hoard was THE reason for both Osborns ultimately agreeing with each other, then I believe you should re-examine the handwriting evidence with your own eyes. You may also want to try to not to be too impressed with anecdotal and simple cause-and-effect logic out of the mouths of the very cops who often bear the brunt of criticism on this discussion board for their questionable actions and level of competence. Perhaps too, it would be helpful at times to maintain some focus and energy towards the content of the previous discussion, as opposed to just hopping along to the next fence post. Wasn't that something Gardner's noted in reference to Hauptmann's unique ability during questioning?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Feb 12, 2020 13:12:51 GMT -5
Oh man, I don't mind being wrong, but I hate it when I'm 'enormously wrong'. Joe, how much of BRH's handwriting do you have PRIOR to March 1, 1932? Here are just 3 samples from his address book (in his handwriting BEFORE the kidnapping): All "t"s are enormously crossed, all "i"s are enormously dotted, and there are no ransom-notes-style "k"s (all enormously absent). Facts Joe. So please, show me what handwriting exemplars you're talking about (prior to the kidnapping), because, you know, that would make me enormously happy.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,614
|
Post by Joe on Feb 12, 2020 13:20:28 GMT -5
I was commenting on BRH being CJ because so many experts in the case will have it no other way. I can put myself in that camp mentally to speculate but not necessarily be a convert. You are very correct to consider both of these men. I think the point I need to make about the picture IDing done by both Perrone and Condon is this: Perrone's interaction with the man who gave him the note to bring to Condon's home was rather short and under not good conditions. I think this led to him picking out pictures of people who varied from each other. Condon, on the other hand, was just doing what he promised to do, protect the identity of the kidnapper/extortioners by making random selections of possible perpetrators, none of which led anywhere. Amy, during what time frame are you implying that Condon was protecting the identity of the kidnappers/extortionists? Before or after the discovery of CALjr's body, or both?
|
|