|
Post by Wayne on May 19, 2020 13:18:15 GMT -5
There are both film & audio clips of Condon and BRH testifying at the trial. Is anyone here aware of both film & audio clips of Anne, CAL, and Betty giving their testimony? As you can see in this clip, Anne is in the witness chair @8:52, CAL @8:57, and Betty @9:01, but there is no audio: www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpbi_LQIlzE&t=116sIf anyone is aware of Anne, CAL, and Betty testifying at the trial with audio, please post. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 19, 2020 14:00:54 GMT -5
Great post. I've been searching high and low for sound footage of the testimony you describe for years...
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on May 19, 2020 14:32:15 GMT -5
Great post. I've been searching high and low for sound footage of the testimony you describe for years... Hi Lightning, Do you think they forgot to turn the microphone on?! What's the earliest audio recording that you've found? Condon?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 19, 2020 15:07:44 GMT -5
I think the earliest footage having anything to do with LKC is what I've seen of Condon, yes--those films of him c. 1928, teaching stick fencing and boxing to students. I've heard a snippet of him on the stand in Flemington too, identifying Hauptmann as CJ.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2020 15:19:32 GMT -5
Here is my favorite piece of Condon footage. The man is full of himself, of course. It is interesting how he transitions from when he knows he is broadcasting and when he is not. mirc.sc.edu/islandora/object/usc%3A28198
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 19, 2020 17:45:24 GMT -5
Oh wow, Amy. Thank you so much for this. I remember Michael once mentioning footage of Condon in Florida, with some very strange shifts in on-camera vs. off-camera tone. This must be it, and I always wanted to see it. I don't know that the shifts are that strange--I think there was a certain "Mr. Speaka'!" performance style he thought was appropriate for the camera, but getting to see him this up close and personal is fascinating. Pompous ass, to be sure. Do you have any Flemington testimony footage? I only ask because you're basically a gold mine for this sort of stuff. Wouldn't surprise me if you could dig up footage of them carrying out the crime itself, lol.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on May 19, 2020 21:00:54 GMT -5
Here is my favorite piece of Condon footage. The man is full of himself, of course. It is interesting how he transitions from when he knows he is broadcasting and when he is not. mirc.sc.edu/islandora/object/usc%3A28198Amy, The clip you posted and the one of Condon stick-fighting are my favorites as well. "Chief." I'm guessing you know why Condon disliked Walter Weasel, I mean, Winchell, so much.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2020 22:34:54 GMT -5
Do you have any Flemington testimony footage? I only ask because you're basically a gold mine for this sort of stuff. Wouldn't surprise me if you could dig up footage of them carrying out the crime itself, lol. LOL, LJ!!! You are so nice to say so and I really wish I was a gold mine of video footage of the trial. I went through my older video links on the trial. Some of them are no longer available. Very disappointing. I was looking for Flemington footage that would have sound. There is not a lot of court room video with sound recording included. When there is, it never seems to include the audio of people like CAL, Anne, Betty Gow, and Condon speaking while they are testifying. I think that has been purposely done. There is some with sound of the extradition hearing, however. It features Wilentz (of course) and Millard Whited. I will keep looking for trial footage though. Hopefully there are others who might know of some and will post it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2020 22:40:57 GMT -5
I'm guessing you know why Condon disliked Walter Weasel, I mean, Winchell, so much. I know that Winchell was critical of Condon and the Bronx Homes News in some of his columns. Is there more to the story?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on May 20, 2020 10:39:15 GMT -5
I'm guessing you know why Condon disliked Walter Weasel, I mean, Winchell, so much. I know that Winchell was critical of Condon and the Bronx Homes News in some of his columns. Is there more to the story? Amy, Apparently Condon's animosity toward Winchell began when Winchell first broke the news to the entire the nation that Condon had checked out Koch's Book of Signs, implying that's where he (Condon) got the inspiration for the "singnature" symbol in the ransom notes. Here's what Condon says about Winchell's fine reporting on page 228 of Jafsie Tells All -- As you and Michael have previously posted, Winchell's fact-checking was non-existent; everything about the news story was inaccurate -- lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/search/results?captcha_id=captcha_search&what_at_least_one=condax&who_only_made_by=0&display_as=0&search=Search
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2020 19:38:38 GMT -5
As you and Michael have previously posted, Winchell's fact-checking was non-existent; everything about the news story was inaccurate -- I thought that Winchell's column was more like a gossip column. You hear stuff and run with it before you check the facts. A lot of people prefer that type of reporting unless you are on the receiving end of what he is writing/talking about. When the Bronx Home News came out with the Vigil articles, Winchell was very critical about them. He didn't think much of the BHN. They were just a smaller newspaper. The Bronx Home News had the exclusive on the whole Jafsie story. I think he really hated that. There was a back and worth battle between Winchell and the BHN. Thanks for posting the Jafsie Tells All piece. I had forgotten about that being in his book.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on May 20, 2020 23:33:20 GMT -5
Hi Amy,
The thread that was started about the defective postage stamps being on the ransom envelopes -- I found that information from Walter Winchell's newspaper column from 1952. Winchell was the only person that I know of that said those stamps were flawed.
Also, Winchell's 1975 autobiography has provided other interesting information about the Lindbergh case.
I don't believe Winchell should be written off because he was viewed solely as a gossip columnist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2020 9:52:05 GMT -5
Hi Amy, The thread that was started about the defective postage stamps being on the ransom envelopes -- I found that information from Walter Winchell's newspaper column from 1952. Winchell was the only person that I know of that said those stamps were flawed. Also, Winchell's 1975 autobiography has provided other interesting information about the Lindbergh case. I don't believe Winchell should be written off because he was viewed solely as a gossip columnist. This is your post from the defective stamp thread. I copied it here so readers can follow my response. Post by Sue on Mar 15, 2020 at 4:44pm Is there a place on the Internet that shows pictures of ALL of the ENVELOPES that held the ransom letters?
I'd like to see these envelopes, but particularly the postage that was affixed to these envelopes.
Apparently, blemished US postage was recalled in early 1932.
According to Walter Winchell, some of the stamps that were affixed to the ransom envelopes had this flawed postage. The postage was sold at a drug store (Raabe's?) up the street from Hauptmann's house. That drug store sold about two dozen of these stamps.
Winchell brings up the topic of the stamps in his column called "On Broadway with Walter Winchell." One place that the column appeared was The Times-Union from Albany on October 22, 1952.
Winchell writes:
"One of the bits of evidence never used by the New Jersey
prosecutor was this . . . stamps distributed in the Bronx had flaws . . . They were ordered recalled . . .All of the ransom notes were mailed with
some of this blemished postage . . . The sleuths traced them to
a Bronx drug store which had sold two-dozen .. . It was located on Hauptmann's street ."
Winchell's column appeared in 1952, but apparently Winchell was informing the public about the stamps on the ransom envelopes as early as the time of Hauptmann's trial.
See Chapter 11 called "The Little Package" in Robert Zorn's Cemetery John where Zorn quotes Winchell as saying:
"To the Daily Mirror and all Hearst newspapers the other day I wired a new clue that the State has. It is a certain type of penny postage stamps, which the post office department recalled in 1932. They intended to testify--that the ransom notes contained these stamps-- and that only two in the vicinity of Hauptmann's home were late in returning those stamps to Washington. I am now informed, however, that the State will not risk using that as evidence--as it did to temporarily keep the kidnap ladder out of the record." 1
1 See chapter note in Cemetery John
(The above passage may be an audio recording from Winchell's radio program."I think you made an interesting post and it certainly caught my attention and so I did spend some research time on it. Having said that, I think the above is a good example of Winchell being told something but not having verified the information being shared with him. We don't know who Winchell's source was for this "blemish" or for the recall of stamps from the Bronx. I suppose Winchell just trusted this person who shared this info with him. I cannot find any report of any investigation done by authorities that the stamps were checked and there was discussion of any type of possible use of or rejection of this "stamp clue" by the prosecution. We really need a source for this in order for it to be fact and not just someone saying this happened. (gossip) The only official postage stamp recall by the US Postal service that happened in 1932 involved an 18 cent picture stamp. That stamp had nothing to do with the ransom envelopes. Again, who told this Bronx only recall to Winchell? I can't find anything to verify any such recall in order to make this claim more than gossip. If you can find something, please share it. This involves Hauptmann's location. The only printing error I have learned about concerning the 1 cent Franklin stamps has to do with the perforations - how many on the top and how many on the bottom. This "blemish", if you want to call it that, caused no recall of any stamps whatsoever. The perforation counts do, however, affect the value of those 1 cent Franklin stamps. I have not written Winchell off because he was a gossip columnist. He wrote many interesting things. This stamp issue, however, needs some factual verification behind it to elevate it beyond gossip. If you can find anything, Sue, that helps with this, please post it. I would be interested in reading it for sure.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 21, 2020 10:14:30 GMT -5
Oh wow, Amy. Thank you so much for this. I remember Michael once mentioning footage of Condon in Florida, with some very strange shifts in on-camera vs. off-camera tone. This must be it, and I always wanted to see it. I don't know that the shifts are that strange--I think there was a certain "Mr. Speaka'!" performance style he thought was appropriate for the camera, but getting to see him this up close and personal is fascinating. Pompous ass, to be sure. Do you have any Flemington testimony footage? I only ask because you're basically a gold mine for this sort of stuff. Wouldn't surprise me if you could dig up footage of them carrying out the crime itself, lol. I was referring to an interview with Condon that I saw at the Archives. I'm not sure if this was the one but I seem to recall, whatever I saw, was a little more exaggerated. But this is similar. Maybe it was from the same interview but more from that footage? Hard for me to remember because its been so long.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2020 11:24:00 GMT -5
I was referring to an interview with Condon that I saw at the Archives. I'm not sure if this was the one but I seem to recall, whatever I saw, was a little more exaggerated. But this is similar. Maybe it was from the same interview but more from that footage? Hard for me to remember because its been so long. I found that Condon clip when I did a google search on Condon a couple years ago. It is the first lengthy clip of Condon I found that had sound. So exciting! I have not looked at any video clips at the archives as of yet. It is something I plan to do at some point during my research time. Thanks for mentioning this!
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on May 21, 2020 19:12:32 GMT -5
There are both film & audio clips of Condon and BRH testifying at the trial. Is anyone here aware of both film & audio clips of Anne, CAL, and Betty giving their testimony? As you can see in this clip, Anne is in the witness chair @8:52, CAL @8:57, and Betty @9:01, but there is no audio: www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpbi_LQIlzE&t=116sIf anyone is aware of Anne, CAL, and Betty testifying at the trial with audio, please post. Thanks! I'm switching the subject here from the YouTube video which Wayne links to at the beginning of this thread to the one which automatically starts immediately thereafter, titled "The Lindbergh Kidnapping - Reel 1 (1930-1939)." There are handwriting samples, allegedly of Hauptmann, comparing the writing of his name on his auto registration application (in all manuscript upper-case letters) to a strange note in mostly manuscript upper-case letters, allegedly written to "Chas. Linberg" (sic) ending with "Yours B. H." This starts at 3:42 and runs to 3:50 of the film. I'm befuddled as to where this supposed note to Lindbergh ever came from. Was it completely manufactured by LE and faked as a ransom note? I thought I was familiar with all the ransom notes as well as other communications to CAL Sr., but this note shown in this film appears to come from out of nowhere. What is going on with this?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on May 21, 2020 21:08:31 GMT -5
There are both film & audio clips of Condon and BRH testifying at the trial. Is anyone here aware of both film & audio clips of Anne, CAL, and Betty giving their testimony? As you can see in this clip, Anne is in the witness chair @8:52, CAL @8:57, and Betty @9:01, but there is no audio: www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpbi_LQIlzE&t=116sIf anyone is aware of Anne, CAL, and Betty testifying at the trial with audio, please post. Thanks! I'm switching the subject here from the YouTube video which Wayne links to at the beginning of this thread to the one which automatically starts immediately thereafter, titled "The Lindbergh Kidnapping - Reel 1 (1930-1939)." There are handwriting samples, allegedly of Hauptmann, comparing the writing of his name on his auto registration application (in all manuscript upper-case letters) to a strange note in mostly manuscript upper-case letters, allegedly written to "Chas. Linberg" (sic) ending with "Yours B. H." This starts at 3:42 and runs to 3:50 of the film. I'm befuddled as to where this supposed note to Lindbergh ever came from. Was it completely manufactured by LE and faked as a ransom note? I thought I was familiar with all the ransom notes as well as other communications to CAL Sr., but this note shown in this film appears to come from out of nowhere. What is going on with this? Good question hurtelable. Just so everyone knows, this is a screen shot of the "MR CHAS LINBERG" letter -- As hurtelable asks, what is this?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 21, 2020 21:23:20 GMT -5
Is it a writing sample Hauptmann gave?
|
|
|
Post by Sue on May 22, 2020 1:42:15 GMT -5
Hi Amy,
The stamps in question may be a research project for a philatelist.
Maybe Winchell was wrong, and there are no printing errors on the stamps? Maybe only an expert eye could see the mistake, and not the average person?
If there is an obvious mistake, I suppose someone can simply look at all the ransom envelopes to clear up this matter.
If I come across more information that says those stamps were imperfect, I will let you know.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 22, 2020 11:01:26 GMT -5
As hurtelable asks, what is this? The bottom part comes from an anonymous communication that was sent to Lindbergh very early in the case. What you see is an exhibit that a so called handwriting expert used to show Hauptmann had written it by taking letters from that communication to write out his name and compare it with the printing on his drivers license. The circled letters are the ones that were used for this. I can't remember which "expert" did this but if I remember or find reference I will post it. I also remember the communication in question was dismissed as coming from a crank.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2020 15:00:45 GMT -5
Hi Sue,
I agree with you that it would take an expert to evaluate those stamps. I appreciate that should you find something more on this that you will share it here on the board!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 22, 2020 15:06:43 GMT -5
I can’t seem to find my copy of this note/postcard. But if it’s the one that was mailed from Detroit on March 6, 1932, then handwriting expert Earl Stevens created this exhibit which he believed proved Hauptmann was the author.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2020 15:41:08 GMT -5
I can't be of any help with that postcard. I have not seen it at the archives and the only copy I have is the one Wayne has. This was never used at the trial as far as I know. I think it would have been interesting to compare the postcard printing with the ransom envelopes that contained printing.
|
|
|
Post by Guest on May 22, 2020 17:52:01 GMT -5
I can't be of any help with that postcard. I have not seen it at the archives and the only copy I have is the one Wayne has. This was never used at the trial as far as I know. I think it would have been interesting to compare the postcard printing with the ransom envelopes that contained printing. The postcard was nothing more than a prank. Visually, there are no similarities between Hauptmann's known printed writing -- or the ransom note envelopes -- and that card. The prosecution knew that, and that's why they never tied that card to Hauptmann. They also knew that the signature B. H. meant Black Hand, the Sicilian branch of the Mob in those days. Some crank tried to make them responsible for the snatch. Besides, Hauptmann's name was Richard Hauptmann.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on May 22, 2020 20:25:49 GMT -5
From what I can see, I agree that Hauptmann did NOT write that postcard.
Yet the narrator and producer of the newsreel are so overzealous in favor of Wilentz and the prosecution that they stuck that crank postcard in their film and fraudulently claimed that it was real evidence that doomed Hauptmann. BTW, the narrator sounds like an English-language-speaking Nazi, judging from the tone of his presentation.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 23, 2020 11:35:23 GMT -5
The postcard was nothing more than a prank. Visually, there are no similarities between Hauptmann's known printed writing -- or the ransom note envelopes -- and that card. The prosecution knew that, and that's why they never tied that card to Hauptmann. They also knew that the signature B. H. meant Black Hand, the Sicilian branch of the Mob in those days. Some crank tried to make them responsible for the snatch. Besides, Hauptmann's name was Richard Hauptmann. So we can all see why handwriting "expert" conclusions can all be judged on a slide rule. I've read that "B. H." was assumed to mean "Black Hand" too but I cannot recall the source. Might have been in a document or even a previous post I've read over the years. Do you remember it by any chance? And I agree too that Hauptmann didn't use "Bruno" (nor did anyone else) although that actually was his name. He was referred to as "Richard" and sometimes as "Dick" - but never "Bruno." From what I can see, I agree that Hauptmann did NOT write that postcard. Yet the narrator and producer of the newsreel are so overzealous in favor of Wilentz and the prosecution that they stuck that crank postcard in their film and fraudulently claimed that it was real evidence that doomed Hauptmann. It looked official and if I am right about its source then why would news hungry media refuse to use it? Once Hauptmann was arrested, it seemed like every Handwriting Expert in the country was trying to get a foot in the door on the "right" side of the case. That would be for the Hero Lindbergh and against Public Enemy #1. This one was similar to Murphy, who worked for the NYPD, except he worked for the Detroit PD. The NJSP Archives are full of this stuff. I tried to copy anything I felt relevant along these lines.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2020 20:59:22 GMT -5
So, I am still checking around for trial footage that has audio for CAL, Anne, and/or Betty Gow. I did find the following video. It is about Lindbergh and does go into the Hauptmann Trial. Court room footage begins @ 22:25 into the video. The sound footage opens with the extradition hearing in New York. There is sound of Wilentz and Millard Whited. It then shifts to footage about Hauptmann. The trial footage again does not include audio for CAL or Anne. There is a tiny bit of testimony from Dr. Condon. There is a couple minutes of Wilentz's cross examination of Hauptmann, some of which I had not seen before. As I watched Wilentz shouting at Hauptmann, I wondered why no one from the defense table stood up and objected that counsel was badgering the witness! youtu.be/L3cCY6nNtyU
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on May 24, 2020 21:25:28 GMT -5
Hey Amy. I'm actually familiar with this documentary. What's most interesting to me is Anne Lindbergh speaking, about 45 minutes in, when we get to the WWII era and she seems to be more or less advocating Lindbergh's America First position of the UK and Germany being equally at fault for whatever troubles were taking place (give me a break). Anyway, I found this documentary a few years ago, when it occurred to me I had no idea what she sounded like and was looking for footage of her. I also found an old episode of '60 Minutes' on YouTube from the early 80s where she was interviewed, but that seems to have been since taken down.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on May 25, 2020 7:52:23 GMT -5
I think I posted this before, but it's so crucial it's worth repeating. There is a general rule that criminal defense attorneys do NOT permit their defendants /clients to testify as witnesses in behalf of themselves. The Hauptmann case clearly illustrates why this unwritten rule has much merit as a principle of defense trial strategy!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2020 13:33:30 GMT -5
What's most interesting to me is Anne Lindbergh speaking, about 45 minutes in, when we get to the WWII era and she seems to be more or less advocating Lindbergh's America First position of the UK and Germany being equally at fault for whatever troubles were taking place (give me a break). What I think Anne is doing is blaming the conditions and effects of the first war upon Germany by other democracies, as giving birth to what was now going on in Europe. In 1940. Anne published a book called "The Wave of the Future" in which she expounded on things used in this speech. Anne did hate war. She did support Lindbergh in his America First activities. There were arguments between them though. She did not want CAL to make that 1941 Des Moines, Iowa speech the way he wrote it. He did it anyway. I have always had trouble seeing a distinction between where CAL ended and Anne began!
|
|