|
Post by Sue on Mar 5, 2022 14:39:34 GMT -5
Did Harry F. Reutlinger, of the Chicago Evening American, catch Lindbergh off-guard when he telephoned him soon after the kidnapping?
In various sources, I have read about the famous call that Reutlinger put into Hopewell, but did he actually get through to Lindbergh?
Do the telephone records reflect that this call took place?
It's an understatement to say that so much was taking place that night.
So many people have purportedly been "the first" person to do this or to do that in the Lindbergh case.
Reutlinger has been touted as the first person to interview Lindbergh after the kidnapping.
The books More Interesting People by Robert Casey and Chicago Journalism: A History by Wayne Klatt go into some detail about that phone call.
Even if the phone call did in fact take place, perhaps there is not much significance attached to it. However, I don't know when this call fits into the time line of events beginning on March 1, 1932.
Lindbergh allegedly acknowledged to Reutlinger that the baby was taken, and that a ransom note was left.
Did Lindbergh inadvertently divulge information to Reutlinger due to the element of surprise?
I don't think this call has been routinely included in the series of events that began to unfold that night.
Reutlinger may have claimed to be someone he was not in order to get Lindbergh to talk.
And according to the accounts, Lindbergh began to talk to Reutlinger.
The Casey book says that Lindbergh was on the telephone for a long time.
Reutlinger was from the Hearst newspapers, and was instrumental in uncovering the 1919 "Black Sox" scandal.
He was legendary for using all kinds of trickery to get someone to talk.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Mar 5, 2022 21:53:26 GMT -5
Did Harry F. Reutlinger, of the Chicago Evening American, catch Lindbergh off-guard when he telephoned him soon after the kidnapping? In various sources, I have read about the famous call that Reutlinger put into Hopewell, but did he actually get through to Lindbergh? Do the telephone records reflect that this call took place? It's an understatement to say that so much was taking place that night. So many people have purportedly been "the first" person to do this or to do that in the Lindbergh case. Reutlinger has been touted as the first person to interview Lindbergh after the kidnapping. The books More Interesting People by Robert Casey and Chicago Journalism: A History by Wayne Klatt go into some detail about that phone call. Even if the phone call did in fact take place, perhaps there is not much significance attached to it. However, I don't know when this call fits into the time line of events beginning on March 1, 1932. Lindbergh allegedly acknowledged to Reutlinger that the baby was taken, and that a ransom note was left. Did Lindbergh inadvertently divulge information to Reutlinger due to the element of surprise? I don't think this call has been routinely included in the series of events that began to unfold that night. Reutlinger may have claimed to be someone he was not in order to get Lindbergh to talk. And according to the accounts, Lindbergh began to talk to Reutlinger. The Casey book says that Lindbergh was on the telephone for a long time. Reutlinger was from the Hearst newspapers, and was instrumental in uncovering the 1919 "Black Sox" scandal. He was legendary for using all kinds of trickery to get someone to talk. Sue, You always make the most interesting finds! Did you read page 65 of More Interesting People? What's wrong with this picture?
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Mar 5, 2022 22:46:38 GMT -5
Thanks for the compliment, Wayne.
Dwight Morrow had passed away in October 1931.
Perhaps the writer meant to convey that assurances were given to the representatives of the Morrow family in Englewood that the Lindbergh/Reutlinger conversation would not be discussed in the newspapers.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Mar 6, 2022 11:31:41 GMT -5
Hi Sue and Wayne, A great posting about the Reutlinger phone call Sue and a very interesting clipping from Wayne. Together, these have joined a few dots for me along the following lines: “None of our newspapers will divulge any information which may hamper the search for the child….” W R Hearst was not the most ethical of newspaper tycoons; he should at least have checked that Senator Dwight Morrow was alive before giving this undertaking to him. However, the sentiments expressed here, if sincere, reflect corporate responsibility and a realisation that a wrong word published at this delicate time could indeed hamper the search for the Lindbergh child. Any responsible newsman would agree.
Gregory Coleman, editor of the Bronx Home News, receives a letter from the Bronx blowhard, Condon, in which $1,000 of Condon’s savings is offered to supplement the ransom. Also implied is Condon’s availability as intermediary with the kidnappers. Coleman, we are told, goes ahead, prints the letter, Condon gets a reply in the mail, and only then is contact made with Lindbergh.
But did it happen like that? Coleman would not wish to mess up the investigation or any negotiations with the kidnappers which might be underway already, as implied in the Hearst note. If the kidnappers called off any pending arrangement after reading Condon's BHN letter, Coleman’s name and that of the BHN would be mud.
Why not phone Lindbergh, advise him of Condon’s letter and get the go-ahead to print it? This absolves Coleman of responsibility in the unlikely event of the letter being read by the kidnappers. Lindbergh may have demanded secrecy about the call in order to preserve the illusion of Condon’s sponteneity and independence. Didn’t the kidnappers say they would not “accept an intermediary from your (Lindbergh’s) side?” Best avoid any hint of a Coleman/Lindbergh collusion.
There is no evidence that such a call took place which of course doesn’t mean it didn’t. Those favouring Lindbergh’s involvement in the child’s abduction would point out that it neatly explains away the improbability of the kidnappers reading the Bronx Home News; they (he) had been tipped off that Condon’s letter would appear and plans for a response could start. An alternative is that the kidnappers already had Condon as their man and urged him to write the letter giving him a chance to show what a great guy he was. Its unlikely Coleman would know of this and, worried about possible consequences, would call Lindbergh to get his approval.
Best regards,
Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Mar 6, 2022 12:05:42 GMT -5
Hi, Sherlock: As usual you make some very good observations. It's quite likely that the kidnappers had already chosen Condon and made contact with him prior to the appearance of the letter in the Bronx News. This had been already carefully planned and set up. Coleman would not have known though his car did appear in the cemetery on April 2 in the afternoon prior to the ransom transaction.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Mar 6, 2022 12:24:17 GMT -5
Hi bernardt, Thanks for your encouragement. You raise a good point about Coleman's car on the afternoon of ransom payment. That would be, if my memory serves, even before Condon had received his instructions as to where the hand-over would take place that evening. If that is the case Coleman's presence at the cemetery that afternoon must be coincidence. Of course if Condon already knew where the ransom would be paid Coleman's afternoon trip becomes more suspicious as you indicate. Best regards, Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Mar 6, 2022 13:24:04 GMT -5
Excellent point. The guard (Uebel) as I recall, saw Condon at St. Raymond's, that afternoon, spoke to him, and called him by name. Condon was said to have responded. At Woodlawn, Cemetery John was supposed to have said that "Number 2" knew Condon. How much Condon knew beforehand is a question to be asked, but his arrangement as an intermediary must have been arranged earlier than his letter to the paper. It was all set up. Coleman was friendly with Condon but probably did not know the whole story. He and his paper were being used. Someone on the kidnapping gang was clever enough to have this figured out ahead of time. Hauptmann does not strike me as being clever though he has other attributes. "Number One" or "Number Two" had to be.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Mar 6, 2022 16:38:22 GMT -5
Hi bernardt, The kidnappers' choices of Condon as their man, the Bronx Home News as his communication medium, and two Bronx cemeteries as initial meeting / ransom handover sites firmly place the centre of gravity of the Lindbergh ransom payment in the Bronx. Linking the actual kidnap to the Bronx is, for me, less certain. I agree that Coleman, who did not know of Condon's existing arrangement with the kidnappers, was most probably used by Condon. He may in good faith have phoned Lindbergh to get the O.K. to print Condon's offer. It seems too good to be true that Condon would phone Lindbergh out of the blue from the restaurant and immediately get the green light to hurry with the kidnappers' letter to Hopewell. This at a time when Lindbergh was inundated with letters and calls from every nut who claimed to have special insights into the case. Yet just on the strength of a phone call he invites this particular guy to his home at dead of night without any check on his bona fides! Condon's letter in the BHN was as you say, a set-up. Lindbergh already knew about Condon from Coleman who vouched for his friend. Its the only thing that makes sense. Sherlock.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Mar 6, 2022 19:33:38 GMT -5
Hi, Sherlock: As usual you make some very good observations. It's quite likely that the kidnappers had already chosen Condon and made contact with him prior to the appearance of the letter in the Bronx News. This had been already carefully planned and set up. Coleman would not have known though his car did appear in the cemetery on April 2 in the afternoon prior to the ransom transaction. Coleman's car was also spotted in the cemetery after the ransom negotiation by Uebel, when someone looking like Al Reich got out of the car and retrieved what appeared to be the ransom box from the nearby bushes. This obviously directly contrasts with Condon's narrative and seems to indicate the ransom was not handed of in the manner which he described, likely perhaps handing over the cash itself further down Tremont and then returning to Whittemore to stash the box, as a way to further "insulate" the extortionists and give them a head start. As to why Coleman was involved with this seemingly nefarious going on is anyone's guess, but it's clear that Condon was a serial liar who told different things to everyone he spoke to about the case. Perhaps Condon gave specific "reasons" to Coleman, which seemed genuine enough and allowed him to get a potential "scoop."
|
|
|
Post by bernardt on Mar 6, 2022 21:45:37 GMT -5
Yes, good observation here. Someone on another thread, as I recall, wrote that the person riding in Coleman's car picked up the box on the date before Condon's identity was publicly revealed as Jafsie. Coleman may have been told to grab the evidence before someone came looking. The box was near the graves of Condon's father and older brother, according to another contributor, not a coincidence, and a fact someone else may have been aware of.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Mar 6, 2022 22:51:43 GMT -5
Thank you to Sherlock.
Shouldn't it be easy enough to find out whether or not Reutlinger placed the call?
The version from the Wayne Klatt book says that Reutlinger called the NJ State Police pretending to be an FBI aide, and asked for details on the ransom note punctuation. The officer, according to this account, went to get the note in the safe. I can only see part of the text from that book, Chicago Journalism: A History. I guess I'll have to buy the book!
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Mar 7, 2022 8:28:56 GMT -5
Hi trojanusc, I like your point about Condon stashing the box in order to further insulate the extortionists. Otherwise why wouldn't Condon return to Lindbergh saying "The guy's crazy. After all the trouble we took over the box, he says he doesn't need it. Here it is." It seems Condon didn't want the empty box back with the good guys. Could it be that CJ handled the box during the cash handover further down Tremont and Condon, aware that it may now bear CJ's fingerprints, made sure it would disappear by hiding it but telling everyone that CJ took it away with him? Regards, Sherlock
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Mar 7, 2022 8:43:54 GMT -5
W.R. Hearst would have certainly known that Dwight Morrow was deceased. There must be another explanation. Possibility #1: The whole story is bogus. Possibility #2: A story was invented to prevent the newspaper from publishing further information. If the latter was true, then we need to question why the request was made. Were other newspapers publishing reports? Where they also asked to cease doing so? Why would anyone want to put Hearst out of the picture? The letter may well have been sent, but its author had an intent, and ignorant of Morrow's death (which really does imply ignorance) used his name to fake a message to get Hearst out of the picture.
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Mar 7, 2022 9:37:06 GMT -5
The death of Dwight Morrow which occurred on Oct.5, 1931, was no secret. It made the front page headlines in the New York Times "Dwight Morrow Dies. . ." appearing on Oct.6. President Herbert Hoover made a public statement on Oct.5. Morrow's picture was featured on the cover of TIME magazine shortly thereafter. Anne and Charles Lindbergh were on their trip in the Orient and came back early because of Morrow's death. Unless some medium spoke with Morrow's spirit from the grave, there was no way he could have given instructions to the Hearst newspapers. Somebody in the press would have caught this one before the "message" was delivered. Did this really happen, or was there some fraudulent intent?
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Mar 7, 2022 9:59:59 GMT -5
I wonder if his notes survived and are in archives.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Mar 7, 2022 10:09:56 GMT -5
Hi hiram, Its interesting that Hearst says his word has been given to Senator Dwight Morrow. I would have expected it to have been given to Lindbergh. How Hearst was unaware of Morrow's death is, as you say, a mystery. As a newspaperman he would have known but as a tycoon insulated from the real world at San Simeon with much on his mind.....who knows? I doubt that this was a device to squeeze the Hearst papers out of the Lindbergh story. Its veracity, origin and authenticity would be double checked before the Hearst papers would take the major step of withdrawing from the biggest story around. In a free society newspapers can print anything within the law based on information received. It was up to the Police and the Lindbergh family/servants to keep a beady eye on what was released to the press. There were still leaks and scandalous behaviour by some reporters/photographers however. Regards, Sherlock
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Mar 7, 2022 16:04:37 GMT -5
Regardless of Hearst's location, he could not have spoken with Dwight Morrow. There must be some mixup here whether it was intended or not. The source of the call may have said he was Morrow, but there must have been a reason for the request. Who might have made this call? Was it just a spoof? Who would have the advantage if information was delayed?
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Mar 7, 2022 18:35:29 GMT -5
jeanne?
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Mar 8, 2022 7:54:46 GMT -5
Hi hiram, You're right, there is some kind of mixup in this tale, essential facts are missing. Hearst says "My word has been given" which may indicate a letter or telegram to the Morrow home rather than an (impossible) phone conversation with Dwight Morrow. Hearst seems to indicate that he's not responding to a "request"but spontaneously offering not to print sensitive information in his newspapers unless it had already appeared in other publications. It would be the investigators who had the advantage if sensitive information was suppressed or delayed before making it public. Incidentally, Charles Lindbergh bore a particular grudge against the Hearst newspapers dating from well before the kidnap. They had invented stories about him (girlfriends etc.) and mis-quoted him regularly. It was Hearst newspapers who referred rail passengers arriving in San Francisco as "survivors." And if there wasn't any news Hearst wasn't above inventing it. He was a pioneer of "Fake News." So it is surprising to see him clad in the cloak of virtue making this self-sacrificing offer. As you imply, pieces of this jigsaw are missing..... Regards, Sherlock
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Mar 8, 2022 9:33:08 GMT -5
Thank you for your insights, Sherlock. They seem right to the point. I was wondering if the kidnappers themselves had made the request to Hearst using the Morrow name. Their purpose would have been to limit the publicity prior to the ransom payment, desperate to complete the business since the child was deceased and they wanted to get out of the investigation without being detected. This does, I admit, sound strange, but the kidnappers were clearly working behind the scenes to keep as many as possible unaware and to manipulate the action accordingly. Condon's actions suggest that this did happen and that he behaved according to their instructions.
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Mar 8, 2022 9:41:51 GMT -5
Quoting from the ransom note: "Is it necessary to make a world affair out of all this?" Is there a date given for the conversation between WR Hearst and the so-called Dwight Morrow? It would have to have occurred before the payment of the ransom and the discovery of the child's body.
Your reactions would be appreciated, Sherlock.
|
|
|
Post by Sherlock on Mar 8, 2022 11:15:53 GMT -5
Hi hiram, The newspaper business was very competitive with many players. The kidnappers would need to reach agreement with all these rival bosses to ensure watertight suppression of information. And any agreement reached with a bogus Morrow would quickly be revealed as such. But yes, the kidnappers wanted everything done and dusted quickly with minimum fuss. Once again we don't have all the pieces but from the tone of Hearst's offer it would seem to be very soon after the news of the child's abduction broke. Hearst mentioned "Senator" Dwight Morrow which removes the possibility of him dealing with Dwight Morrow junior, the senator's troubled son. Regards, Sherlock
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Mar 21, 2022 9:15:19 GMT -5
Hi Wayne,
I haven't seen the Larimer report, but I wonder if Lindbergh divulged more than he intended to in the call that Harry Reutlinger placed to Lindbergh at Hopewell?
Some information that came out of that call:
According to page 63 in Robert Casey's More Interesting People:
"[Lindbergh] listed the people of his household and accounted for every minute of their lives..."
"Someone in his household had seen a loiterer near the estate..."
"American artists were able to reproduce [the ransom note] virtually in duplicate..."
Some of the Chicago Evening American newspapers had already gone to press and were delivered to newsstands before they were recalled.
So, I wonder if any of them were sold.
Maybe even ONE survived?!
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Mar 21, 2022 19:54:20 GMT -5
Hi Wayne, I haven't seen the Larimer report, but I wonder if Lindbergh divulged more than he intended to in the call that Harry Reutlinger placed to Lindbergh at Hopewell? Some information that came out of that call: According to page 63 in Robert Casey's More Interesting People: "[Lindbergh] listed the people of his household and accounted for every minute of their lives..." "Someone in his household had seen a loiterer near the estate..." "American artists were able to reproduce [the ransom note] virtually in duplicate..." Some of the Chicago Evening American newspapers had already gone to press and were delivered to newsstands before they were recalled. So, I wonder if any of them were sold. Maybe even ONE survived?! Sue, If you can PM me and give me your email address, I'll send you the Larimer report. By the way, I do have a lot of the phone records going in and out of Highfields after March 1, 1932. I'm sure Michael does to. We should double-check to see if we can find whether or not Harry Reutlinger called Lindbergh's house. I'll go back and read his article, but does he mention a date for this call?
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Mar 22, 2022 1:25:29 GMT -5
Wayne,
Thanks for offering to send the Larimer report!
And that would be great if you can go through the phone records to find out if Reutlinger made a call to Hopewell. I think one source said it was a "long distance" telephone call. I don't know exactly what that could mean, but Reutlinger was known to use trickery to get what he wanted.
No specific date for the call is given, but maybe another source has that information?
I'll keep looking.
|
|