Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2020 11:04:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Apr 23, 2020 11:48:25 GMT -5
Thanks Amy! I have to laugh because Fisher wrote something like .... that Reilly had two secretaries and that neither knew a typewriter from a drinking fountain. In other words, they really weren't secretaries. Might not be true and just Fisher taking a shot at Reilly who he clearly despised.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2020 13:33:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hedy on May 11, 2020 14:21:45 GMT -5
Attached is the 1st page listing of items found in Hauptmann's car by the NYPD. Look at the "used" item found in #2. Hello I am new to the group-thank you for having me! In the list of things found in Hauptman's car there were a lot of hair pins and bobby pins. Seems very odd-particularly in the rear seat cushions. Were these Anna's? I'm pretty sure I've never found that many hair pins in the back of my car!
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on May 11, 2020 15:47:39 GMT -5
For some criminals or witnesses, there is a difference between lying and telling only partial truth. For example, when Ollie Whateley (reputedly) said on his death bed that Betty Gow was involved in the kidnapping, she was said to exclaim, "I never killed that child." Perhaps she was involved in the kidnapping of the child but not his death. In his last letter to Gov. Hoffman, Hauptmann writes that he was not guilty "of this terrible crime" which again may have meant that the death, the action for which he was convicted, was not intentional and therefore he was innocent. When Anna Hauptmann claimed that her husband "did it only for the money," this sounds like another partial confession. She must mean the ransom money, and "did it" implies intention. Again the death of the child may well have been an accident, not part of the planning--at least on the part of some of the kidnapping gang. So in their eyes, they are "innocent," guilty only of stealing the child and extorting money from the parents. Anna's statement to Ms. Smit sounds very much like an admission. If she made the statement, then she knew of the snatching and the ransom, but believed her husband innocent of child's death.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2020 20:03:53 GMT -5
Hello I am new to the group-thank you for having me! In the list of things found in Hauptman's car there were a lot of hair pins and bobby pins. Seems very odd-particularly in the rear seat cushions. Were these Anna's? Hi hedy and welcome to the board! Yes! Those hairpins. My opinion is that they were not Anna's. Hauptmann had an eye for the ladies, especially when his wife would travel to Germany. I think some of those hairpins belonged to other women Hauptmann spent time with and "entertained" in his car!
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on May 11, 2020 20:51:50 GMT -5
Hello I am new to the group-thank you for having me! In the list of things found in Hauptman's car there were a lot of hair pins and bobby pins. Seems very odd-particularly in the rear seat cushions. Were these Anna's? Hi hedy and welcome to the board! Yes! Those hairpins. My opinion is that they were not Anna's. Hauptmann had an eye for the ladies, especially when his wife would travel to Germany. I think some of those hairpins belonged to other women Hauptmann spent time with and "entertained" in his car! Hi hedy and Amy, I'm re-reading NYPD Lt. James Finn's 7-part Liberty magazine series published in October and November 1935. Finn, the lead NYPD detective who tracked and arrested Hauptmann, wrote this in Part 3, page 37: Just wanted you to know that the lead detective agreed with you both!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2020 21:20:56 GMT -5
Hi Wayne,
Thanks for posting that excerpt! I have Finn's Liberty series. I have not read it in quite awhile. I think maybe I will take it out and read it again. Things that you don't notice the first time through a series will jump out at you the next time through.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2020 21:38:01 GMT -5
Since Wayne brought up the Finn Liberty Magazine series, I thought I would post the following article from February 1, 1936. A lawsuit was filed by Willie Krippendorf because of something Finn wrote in one of the chapters of his series. Willie was not happy about being connected to Ralph Hacker and John F. Condon!
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on May 12, 2020 21:17:13 GMT -5
Hi Wayne, Thanks for posting that excerpt! I have Finn's Liberty series. I have not read it in quite awhile. I think maybe I will take it out and read it again. Things that you don't notice the first time through a series will jump out at you the next time through. Amy, I thought you might find this interesting in the Finn series. As we all know, Robert Thayer came into the case like a gangbuster -- he enlisted Rosner's help on March 2nd; he and Rosner actually interviewed Betty, Olly, and Elsie on March 3rd; and then Thayer stayed at Highfields for some time, answering the phone among other things - in fact, he was the one who answered Condon's call. Then... then he simply seemed to disappear. Apparently he took a job overseas with the U.S. State Department. He was not called as a witness in the 1935 trial. Here is what Finn has to say about Thayer in Part 1, Page 9: Anyone know anything about this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2020 10:56:26 GMT -5
Anyone know anything about this? I can only offer my own thoughts on that segment you posted. First, I am surprised that this would have happened to Thayer. This would fit better with Rosner being warned to stop pursuing an underworld connection to the Lindbergh baby kidnapping. If it was done to Thayer, then pressure was being applied to Thayer to shut down Rosner's pursuit of the underworld being responsible for the kidnapping. Could there have been some of Owney Madden's muscle behind this? I think Rosner was upsetting a lot of underworld figures in his zealous efforts to show some gang was responsible for the kidnapping. I really think he got on Madden's nerves. I also think that when Condon came on the seen, Lindbergh and Breck no longer wanted Rosner to keep pursuing the underworld angle. It would become all about "Jafsie" and the Bronx. Neither Rosner or Thayer mention in their statements being on the receiving end of the threat Finn writes about. Thayer stayed active at the Hopewell house until May 3rd when he returned to New York to work on other matters. Thayer would once again return to Hopewell on May 12th with the finding of the Lindbergh child's body. Interesting! Like you mentioned, they never called Thayer to testify at the Hauptmann Trial. I have always wondered why they didn't. Thayer and Rosner, together, interviewed Ollie and Elsie Whateley and also Betty Gow. The results of those interviews were taken down by Rosner's attorney in his office. I am not aware of those interviews ever surfacing. Gosh, I wonder if those interviews could have been included in that Rosner material that was auctioned in 2017?!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2020 11:27:47 GMT -5
So I checked Dr. Gardner's book, The Case That Never Dies and in Chapter Three, "Mickey Rosner's Game" on pages 49 and 50, he writes about things that came out of the interviews with Ollie, Elsie and Betty done by Thayer and Rosner. He references with footnote #6 page 49, Robert Thayer's untitled memorandum of March 3, 1932 from the Hoffman papers. So there is some record at the archives for these interviews.
Michael and Wayne. Do either of you have this document to post on the board? I don't have it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2020 12:01:53 GMT -5
Michael,
You mention this Thayer document in your first book of TDC series in Chapter 9, "The Whateleys". Is it possible to post this document or is it too large?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on May 13, 2020 12:22:08 GMT -5
So I checked Dr. Gardner's book, The Case That Never Dies and in Chapter Three, "Mickey Rosner's Game" on pages 49 and 50, he writes about things that came out of the interviews with Ollie, Elsie and Betty done by Thayer and Rosner. He references with footnote #6 page 49, Robert Thayer's untitled memorandum of March 3, 1932 from the Hoffman papers. So there is some record at the archives for these interviews. Michael and Wayne. Do either of you have this document to post on the board? I don't have it. Hi Amy, Here's Thayer's March 3rd report that Lloyd references. It's 21 pages. Lots of good stuff here -- ThayerReport.pdf (331.43 KB) Also, Thayer gave a statement to Buster Keaten on May 16, 1932. (Michael, if you have a better copy, please post ! ThayerStatement.pdf (574.76 KB)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2020 19:55:42 GMT -5
Hi Wayne,
Thanks so much for sharing those documents on the board. I am looking forward to reviewing them tonight.
Question - On page 3 of Thayer's May 16th statement, the name Paul Hennessey comes up. Do you know who he is and who exactly he is attached to, Rosner or Thayer?
I plan to do some comparing between Thayer's statement and Rosner's statement to see how closely these two men recall the same events talked about in their statements.
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on May 14, 2020 7:59:33 GMT -5
Amy and Wayne,
I'm taking the liberty to jump in here because I've read quite a bit about Hennessy. He fell completely under the radar.
Paul Kirby Hennessy (1906 - 1962) was a rich lawyer from Butte, Montana, living in NYC. He was at Highfields from the get-go, likely at Thayer's invitation. There is a lot of information about him on ancestry.com and newspapers.com . He was even involved in FDR's campaign for Gov. of NY.
Hennessy's father was a shareholder in the Anaconda Copper company and other mining and timber businesses. In addition, he opened a famous department store in Butte.
Paul Hennessy must have wielded considerable influence during the kidnap negotiations, and Jafsie must have known him as well. In his June 2, 1932, statement given at Alpine, NY, Jafsie says [regarding payment of the ransom]:
"Col. Lindbergh stated the better business heads of New York advised him to take a chance. For the safety of the baby and because of women in the house, who seemed to think it would be better, it was decided to pay it. I told them it was a foolish chance. Col. Breckinridge said that their men, there was one from this town in the West, after conference and going over the work, decided to pay."
It's odd that Hennessy isn't mentioned in any of the books written about the case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2020 12:28:22 GMT -5
Thanks Mbg for shedding light on Paul Hennessy. I marvel at how many business people were advising Lindbergh about paying the ransom. Apparently Condon was the only hold-out for a COD??
I agree it is odd that Paul Hennessy has not been mentioned in any of the books. I was not aware that he was at Highfields or even involved until I read the Thayer items posted on this board.
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on May 15, 2020 7:19:59 GMT -5
Thanks Mbg for shedding light on Paul Hennessy. I marvel at how many business people were advising Lindbergh about paying the ransom. Apparently Condon was the only hold-out for a COD?? I agree it is odd that Paul Hennessy has not been mentioned in any of the books. I was not aware that he was at Highfields or even involved until I read the Thayer items posted on this board. It seems Jafsie wasn't the only one hesitating to pay the ransom. CAL himself wasn't too eager, either, although he didn't insist on a COD. In an (F)BI Report, Agent Frank Wilson wrote: "Colonel Lindbergh was unwilling to meet the demands of kidnappers for the payment of $70,000.00, unless the child was surrendered at the same time the payment was made and he delayed approximately a month in hopes that the payment under such conditions could be avoided." In the ransom note mailed on March 29, the kidnapper writes: “ But if Mr. Lindbergh likes to fool around another month we can [sic] help it.” Doesn't this sound as if the kidnapper(s) had inside information about the thinking at Highfields and Lindbergh's in particular? It does to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2020 9:30:32 GMT -5
It seems Jafsie wasn't the only one hesitating to pay the ransom. CAL himself wasn't too eager, either, although he didn't insist on a COD. I see different reasons for the hesitancy of these two men concerning the paying out of the ransom. I believe Condon was told at the Woodlawn meeting that the child was dead so he knew, privately, a COD was not possible, hence the need for the Boad Nelly note to be created. I see CAL being hesitate to pay the ransom because he wants to use unmarked, untraceable bills to pay it with. That is why he is fooling around for a month. Like Condon, CAL had vowed to protect the kidnappers from harm. That is why he drags his feet on using traceable money. It absolutely does and they DID!!
|
|
metje
Detective
Posts: 174
|
Post by metje on May 15, 2020 9:42:59 GMT -5
So who is the mole? A member of the household staff? A public official? A trusted colleague or professional advisor? Who would profit and in what way?
These questions are sincere and not intended to imply disbelief. I think you are right in your thinking but would like more information.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on May 15, 2020 20:56:03 GMT -5
So who is the mole? A member of the household staff? A public official? A trusted colleague or professional advisor? Who would profit and in what way? These questions are sincere and not intended to imply disbelief. I think you are right in your thinking but would like more information. It depends on who you ask but there is many on this board that it was Lindbergh himself who orchestrated it via an intermediary who hired a "kidnap gang" to remove the child and stage the event.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2020 22:59:17 GMT -5
So who is the mole? A member of the household staff? A public official? A trusted colleague or professional advisor? Who would profit and in what way? These questions are sincere and not intended to imply disbelief. I think you are right in your thinking but would like more information. It depends on who you ask but there is many on this board that it was Lindbergh himself who orchestrated it via an intermediary who hired a "kidnap gang" to remove the child and stage the event. I agree that there was an intermediary, Mr X, as he has been called on this board who handled the "kidnap gang." From reading a lot of reports, I personally think that there was phone contact between CAL and this intermediary at least once. CAL came down firmly about his private phone line, #303, not being listened in on. On March 4, 1932 Colonel Breckinridge sent Captain Galvin to the telephone exchange to make sure that no one listened in on telephone calls going over #303. On March 5, Captain Galvin was present again at the telephone exchange to make sure #303 was not being listened in on. These dates stand out for a reason. That reason is Peter Birritella and Mary Cerrito. Please recall my post "How Did Lindbergh Know" which deals with how Lindbergh knew in advance that Peter and Mary would be coming to Princeton New Jersey on March 6 before the telegram saying they were coming had ever arrived at the High Field house. Lindbergh sent Captain Galvin and Detective John Fogarty to Princeton in advance of the arrival of Peter and Mary. Lindbergh's advance knowledge that arrangements for Peter and Mary had been made and to expect them on Sunday, March 6 had to come from somewhere. I believe it came through a phone call to #303 from this intermediary to Lindbergh. I believe that call was the reason Galvin was sent by Breckinridge to guard CAL's private phone line.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 15, 2020 23:28:43 GMT -5
What are your thoughts on the Cerittos' involvement?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 16, 2020 10:28:18 GMT -5
So who is the mole? A member of the household staff? A public official? A trusted colleague or professional advisor? Who would profit and in what way? Could be "all of the above" honestly. The term could qualify for any number of people depending on the situation. Just look at the police for example. As I've shown, many were open to making money for providing information to the press. Anyone doubt information could be bought from this angle? They sold pictures and even a picture of the secret symbol. Rosner believed there was a mole. Spitale believed it was an inside job. Mulrooney, Hoover, Walsh, Keaten, Garsson, and many others believed it was an inside job. So whoever they were would all have an interest in keeping any Confederate safe. Condon was also clearly providing the "extortionists" with inside information he was able to glean, overhear, or told.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on May 16, 2020 15:30:59 GMT -5
It depends on who you ask but there is many on this board that it was Lindbergh himself who orchestrated it via an intermediary who hired a "kidnap gang" to remove the child and stage the event. I agree that there was an intermediary, Mr X, as he has been called on this board who handled the "kidnap gang." From reading a lot of reports, I personally think that there was phone contact between CAL and this intermediary at least once. CAL came down firmly about his private phone line, #303, not being listened in on. On March 4, 1932 Colonel Breckinridge sent Captain Galvin to the telephone exchange to make sure that no one listened in on telephone calls going over #303. On March 5, Captain Galvin was present again at the telephone exchange to make sure #303 was not being listened in on. Hi Amy, Interesting that you bring this up. Somewhere I've read an account that says CAL yelled at a NJSP Trooper for using his private phone, threatening him never to do it again. I've been looking for this source for days. Do you, or anyone here, know where that came from?
|
|
|
Post by Sue on May 16, 2020 15:49:17 GMT -5
Wayne,
That incident is on page 112 (Chapter 11) in Noel Behn's book.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on May 16, 2020 19:47:53 GMT -5
Wayne, That incident is on page 112 (Chapter 11) in Noel Behn's book. Thanks Sue! That's exactly what I was looking for! What took you so long Everyone here is such a big help.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2020 19:57:23 GMT -5
I agree that there was an intermediary, Mr X, as he has been called on this board who handled the "kidnap gang." From reading a lot of reports, I personally think that there was phone contact between CAL and this intermediary at least once. CAL came down firmly about his private phone line, #303, not being listened in on. On March 4, 1932 Colonel Breckinridge sent Captain Galvin to the telephone exchange to make sure that no one listened in on telephone calls going over #303. On March 5, Captain Galvin was present again at the telephone exchange to make sure #303 was not being listened in on. Hi Amy, Interesting that you bring this up. Somewhere I've read an account that says CAL yelled at a NJSP Trooper for using his private phone, threatening him never to do it again. I've been looking for this source for days. Do you, or anyone here, know where that came from? Sorry Wayne for not getting on the board sooner. Had I, I would have given you the same answer Sue gave to you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2020 21:18:26 GMT -5
What are your thoughts on the Cerittos' involvement? I have been interested in Peter Birritella and Mary Cerrito for a long time. There is no doubt in my mind that these two individuals were utilized, however briefly, by the kidnappers/extortionists. The third ransom note that was mailed to Col. Breckinridge's office on March 7 is a direct result of the Princeton meeting that occurred on March 6th. What transpired in Princeton on March 6 had to have been related back to the perps in order for that ransom note to be written. So there was some form of contact that took place so this transfer of information could bring about that March 7 note. I have and still am reviewing the many investigative reports that were done on Peter and Mary. What I have noticed so far is that Peter seems to have been investigated more heavily than Mary. Peter had a brother who was a taxi driver and this was focused on heavily. It was thought that he might have been the unidentified taxi driver who gave Condon the direction note to Bergens Greenhouse on the night of April 2. There was a background check run on Mary Cerrito also. All her family members and past marriages are mentioned in this report. I was disappointed in that report. A principal/student connection to Dr.Condon was looked for among the family names mentioned in her report and since one was not found that is where the checking basically ended. I don't agree with the way they concluded the investigation of Mary's background. Italian involvement with this crime seems evident since two Italian people (Peter and Mary) were the first ones sent by the kidnappers/extortionists to make contact with Lindbergh. Condon definitely believed Italians were involved having heard one in the background of the first telephone call he had from the kidnappers. Condon also claimed that the look out at Woodlawn Cemetery was an Italian. He also said that the lady who talked to him at the bazaar where he was selling violins and asked Condon to meet her at the Tuckahoe Train station was an Italian lady. So I think Mary Cerrito's background is just as important as Peter Birritella's. I am currently working on a theory that involves a past family member of Mary Cerrito and this connection could be what led to Peter and Mary being used in the limited way they were. This is still in development so I can't really post much on it at this time.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on May 16, 2020 22:03:20 GMT -5
Hi Amy, Interesting that you bring this up. Somewhere I've read an account that says CAL yelled at a NJSP Trooper for using his private phone, threatening him never to do it again. I've been looking for this source for days. Do you, or anyone here, know where that came from? Sorry Wayne for not getting on the board sooner. Had I, I would have given you the same answer Sue gave to you. I know you would have Amy! You guys are great!
|
|