|
Post by rick on Feb 19, 2006 13:08:50 GMT -5
Condons first meeting with CJ was quite extraordinary. It lasted more than one hour and upwards to two hours? I think at one point CJ even cried--according to Jafsie's heartful accounts. One other amazing part is where CJ insists that Red Johnson is innocent and Violet Sharpe too>? Whats with this? Its just too much to believe. Try to imagine CJ, either BRH, or Fisch, or Wendel/Gorch giving a free alibi of innocence to other suspects. This is weird? Unless you really want to burn, so to speak, you would always want to cast as wide a net of guilt as possiible "to avoid capture yourself"? Does this odd statement actually serve to throw suspicion onto Red and Violet in the plot?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 19, 2006 13:48:17 GMT -5
It's my opinion this was done to avoid the belief there was an inside connection. Red Johnson = Betty Gow.
If there is an inside connection it benefits those guilty parties to have the Police avoid thinking along these lines - especially if Johnson is innocent because the next step would be to look elsewhere for that connection. If CJ, who is supposed to be a Perpetrator, is clearing Johnson then this seems to be an attempt to erase that connection or the thought of it by laying out and breaking down the Conspiracy to Jafsie who reports back the Intel to the Police.
Now the real question is if CJ is saying this or if Jafsie is but claiming it came from CJ.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 19, 2006 13:56:55 GMT -5
Yes, Condon is in a very enviable position to be able to tell both sides of the story favorable to mainly himself. If Red Johnson could possibly lead to Condon it would be in his own best interest to grant him a pardon. This reflects in a way on Mary Cerrita giving Fisch the same free pass--"Oh no, she said, Fisch is not involved"/
Wouldnt it have freaked Jafsie out IF Bruno WAS Cemetary John? Seems as if Condon just went along with Wilintz "half-heartedly" to get the Trial overwith and bring it to a conclusion. If Bruno would have been CJ, then he could have confirmed or denied all of Condons wild stories. Very little chance of that happening under the circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 19, 2006 14:33:54 GMT -5
A couple of things I wanted to comment on.... 1. Your question on the old board. I read the answer somewhere but can't find it at the moment. Condon switched cars at a gas station to lose the Reporters...that much I have found. I am avoiding that board because it is very unstable. There is no one at the helm including me (hint). It's just a matter of time before the Spammers catch on and start to bombard it. I could weakly defend it but I'd rather not waste my time. 2. Refresh my memory as to where the Berritellas exonerate Fisch. 3. BRH was confident Condon would not identify him. For me this represents two options: - A. He wasn't CJ
- B. He was CJ and Condon was working with him
|
|
|
Post by rick for michael on Feb 19, 2006 18:40:57 GMT -5
Michael....Sue will remember about her post about jafsies sneaky run to Connecticut....I found her on Ronelles Board. She posted a link in December. 2. When Dunninger and Wright interviewed Cerrita and Biritella on Dec 30th 1934 they axe them: "How many were involved" Biritella holds up 4 fingers....and Mary says "one is dead"> "Is it Isador Fisch" "no no no" says Mary "it was a woman" "Do you mean Violet Sharpe" "Well, says Mary, do innocent persons commit suicide?" 3. Both choices perjurize somebody? Or both imaginary CJ and Condon? 4. Do you recognize the name Robert Conroy. he and wife commmitted suicide?
|
|
|
Post by carol on Feb 19, 2006 19:46:29 GMT -5
I think there has to be a third choice.
C. He wasn't CJ, but he and Condon (and Fisch) were working together.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 19, 2006 23:23:13 GMT -5
Great detective work, and it puts another deception weight on the scale to outweigh factual evidence, and seems that they wrote a script with loose ends that required tweaking. I cannot undertand why lengthy conversations were held with CJ, especialy when CAL is letting Condon barter for his child? If CAL believed CJ had his child I would think he would deal direct, and have made arrangements to communicate in some way to prove the child was alive as a condition of payment? He could have given a military wakie taky to CJ to communicate that proof, or for that matter asked for a phone call conversation to the child. For this very reason I don't believe they were debating in ernest the return of the child.
|
|
|
Post by elyssa on Feb 20, 2006 22:54:55 GMT -5
I don't know who you are referring to when you say CJ. I've always wondered if cal defended violet and the other staff members because he trusted them all or was it so no one would be suspicious if he defended only the one (s) who helped him stage everything. you keep my secret and I'll keep yours type thing.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 20, 2006 23:19:09 GMT -5
To elyssa These are just initials of the characters CJ is Cemetary John, BRH is Hauptman, and so on. The keep the secret idea is most likely, as it would have been impossible to clean the nursery after the kidnap, that is if there was a kidnap? I find it hard to believe there was a kidnap, but a lot of people get mad at a person for implying that.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 21, 2006 7:00:05 GMT -5
Lindbergh did a ton of strange things. #1 was his assertion that it was insulting to have the Staff considered suspects. Huh? Anointed 1st in command, he had veto power over just about every aspect of the investigations. There were a lot of things the Police wanted to look into only to have Lindy answer them before they did which in essence erased the need to do so or risk "embarrassing" CAL.
And of course even CAL "flips" concerning his position on the Staff and Condon as we see in his interview with Agent Larimer.....but of course "flops" back to his original positions during his testimony.
As an alternative suggestion....It could very well have had to do with other family secrets. Maybe the thoughts of the Staff being pressed could have brought out other dirty laundry neither Lindbergh nor the Morrow's wanted aired out.
|
|
|
Post by carol on Feb 21, 2006 13:56:08 GMT -5
I've often wondered why Lindbergh didn't ask for proof that the child was alive. The sleeping suit certainly wasn't enough proof , especially since CAL wasn't there on the night of March 1 and would have had no idea which sleeping suit Charlie was wearing when he was put to bed. Why didn't CAL ask to speak to the child on the phone? Unless... That's another post. I agree with Rita and wonder if Lindbergh already knew that child was never coming home.
|
|
|
Post by rick for carol on Feb 21, 2006 15:08:32 GMT -5
Carol--one clear and present possiblity is you are correct. Since we still dont have a final theory or motive for the kidnapping, all are equal. I keep wondering why any insiders would help with Charlies disappearance unless they thought CAL or Anne wanted them to help. It would certainly answer the question: Why did CAL and JFC require such a low level of proof that CJ even had Charlie? Dead or alive? Ive seen a number of reasonable suggestions for better proof, including a new photo, hair, fingerprints, or some decsriptive birth mark location. Because they accepted the Dr. Denton known to everyone, it fuels the suspicion that they knew they did have Charlie and were only paying to buy time to look elsewhere? After 30 days the extortion gang insisted: Pay up or shut up/
|
|
|
Post by rick for elyssa on Feb 21, 2006 15:18:30 GMT -5
Elyssa....it has occur to me that possibly Violet Sharpe may have ween something or overheard something about Charlies disappearance. If she did then someone contacted her by note or phone and said: "You need to lie about the nite of the kidnapping" or "You cant tell the whole truth about Charlies disappearing:!
then Violet, being a simple girl, interpreted this threat to mean "Lie about everything you did on March 1st" which ended up making her look quilty? So....she lies about going to a beer garden or movie and with whom and then the world crumbles around her. the big question is: Who warned her to keep quiet?
|
|
|
Post by carol on Feb 21, 2006 18:20:17 GMT -5
The fact that no one -- not Lindbergh or Condon ever asked for proof that the child was still alive is very significant. Not to the verdict defenders, of course, they'd just rather blather on about Hauptmann and drawings of ice boxes and how he was a psychotic nut. I think if Lindbergh asked one of the servants to help they would have maybe because they feared losing their jobs, or maybe just because CAL was who he was. I don't think Anne had anything to do with it. A picture would have been no good as ID because it could have been taken and the child killed after wards.
|
|
|
Post by kanneedwards on Feb 21, 2006 18:33:39 GMT -5
michael, i've wonder about the possibility of CAL's wanting the staff to keep quiet about other secrets too especially in light of the secrets we now know he kept from Anne. Even when the extra room was needed at highfields Betty was kept close by although she really lived at next day hill. Regardless of the magnitude of the secret, a child's life, their child's life was at stake. their actions don't ring true.
|
|
|
Post by kanneedwards on Feb 21, 2006 18:42:04 GMT -5
carol, i tend to agree with you that Anne didn't have anything to do with this. Her diaries and later biographical books do seem to indicate she had doubts about the offical story. maybe as time went on she realized what CAL was and what he might have been capable of doing. can you imagine being an intelligent and extremely wealthy girl and having someone propose to you on your second date? Could you also imagine that you were a god like CAL and married good genetic stock only to find out you haD A DEFECTIVE CHILD? someone would be very upset. Nobody crossed this guy.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Feb 21, 2006 20:03:42 GMT -5
With all of this nonsensical innuendo about Lindbergh murdering his own son, where does Anne's account and sworn testimony about seeing CALjr at his nursery window and waving to him late on the afternoon of March 1, fit into all of this. Does she now become part of the grand scheme?
Joe
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 21, 2006 21:01:01 GMT -5
Carol,
I think your point about asking for proof the child was alive is a good one, but I disagree with your position concerning the sketches, etc.. I think these things should also be discussed because something may be developed from the brain-storming whether in agreement or disagreement. For me a discussion about any point is a win-win situation if we all act in good faith.
Joe,
I don't think one has to believe Lindbergh killed his son to question Anne's testimony. For example, do you believe absolutely she not only stepped off the board-walk under that window but traipsed through the mud from there continuing for several steps to the back of the house? Wouldn't the normal action be to step in the mud, realize it, and then step back onto the board-walk? After all, she was walking in the day-light and not in the dark like the Kidnappers were.
The Police never compared her shoe to those prints nor did they ever compare Lindbergh or Whatley's to the others.... Why? Well no need to "embarrass" Lindy - and for that reason everything he said had to be believed....
Lindbergh's ideologies coupled with his actions, the apparent inside assistance, and the facts concerning this kidnapping cry out for need to examine the possibility of his involvement. I see no issue in discussing this or any other possibility rather then pretending there's nothing "there" to discuss about it - when there is.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Feb 21, 2006 21:38:32 GMT -5
Michael, I don't know that Anne was that concerned about getting a little mud on her feet when her intent was to greet her child at the window as a kind of surprise for him. How do you define the normal actions of a devoted mother here?
Any discussion of the possibility of Lindbergh's involvment will always be better served by considering and weighing the impact of the unshaken physical evidence directly implicating Hauptmann. Yet this all important variable is often conveniently overlooked in what seems to be some kind of misguided reverence towards Hauptmann and equally misguided vilification of Lindbergh.
Joe
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 21, 2006 22:30:45 GMT -5
I wonder when the last non-family or employee sighting of CAL Jr. occured? There are onlly 12-13 month pictures, and only stories after that. Did Anne say she waved at her son in the window from the board walk, as this would be a difficult feat when window sills and Charlie were both around 30 inches.
|
|
|
Post by rick for rita on Feb 21, 2006 23:50:18 GMT -5
My feeling is that it was a colde blustery rainy day and Annes story is chocked full of holes. She has Betty Gow drive down from Next Day Hill because Anne claims to be exhausted. Charlie already has a worsening colde? Not a good time for a stroll in the rain and mud? Whose got the big foot print out in the mud (CAl?) and the little one? Charlie was never seen by anyone outside of the servants and the Breckenridges. but...there were reports that he attended the nursery school run by Annes sister in the Fall. Some bully punched Charlie in the nose? I think evidence is scant to none when Charlie was last seen by anyone? For all we know the snatch occured on Monday nite and it took 24 hours to set up the complex hoax/ why? Because only Anne and Whateleys were there Monday nite with CAL in two other places: Manhattan and Engelwood. Maybe Charlie was first missed Tuesday am? there has to be some good reason why CAL does not want the servants questioned carefully--what is it?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 22, 2006 6:46:10 GMT -5
Do you realize how muddy that yard was? Reporters described it as oozing up and over your shoe when stepped in. They claimed amazement at the ability of whoever walked across that yard, especially in the dark and carrying items, without evidence of slips and/or falls.
Who purposely walks through the mud if they can help it Joe? I also believe these prints were described as fresh by the Police....would they have been if made when claimed? I don't take anyone's word on anything in this case. It all needs to be cross-referenced against everything else.
Your position concerning evidence against Hauptmann - even if all true - does not give Lindbergh immunity from involvement. In fact who does it eliminate?
People hire people to commit crimes. Down here in the US it seems we have a problem..... People often get caught trying to hire a "hit-man" to kill their spouses for the insurance money. Problem is the "hit-man" usually turns out to be an undercover cop. These are the stories we hear about. Remember that even today, with all the forensic techniques available, some 25% or so murders go unsolved.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 22, 2006 12:36:43 GMT -5
I just wanted to add "for the record" that now it appears we have mud on Annes shoes and just as likely mud on CALs shoes when he comes home. There is now no way for us to tell if the mud on the floor of the nursery came in the front/back door on somebodys shoes or up the ladder on somebodys moccasins? Anne going outside in the mud to wave to Charlie out the window does not have a ring of truth to me on this particular blustery rainy day? Another one of those odd, yet reoccuring 20/20 hindsite coverups/ like Walsh poking a hole in the skull w/ a stick? Sorry.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 22, 2006 12:58:28 GMT -5
I don't know where this discussion on mud is going but I would say this. Given the conditions at that site with a combination of disturbed, semi-disturbed, and undisturbed terrain there is no way anyone can accurately judge just how muddy the locations mentioned actually were. I looked into this subject and examined many photos taken the next day when I was trying to estimate the potential ladder impressions for a given load. What I found with high image magnification of the ground and people's shoes was very inconsistent. Some areas, perhaps poorly drained did seem quite muddy while other spots, including the side of the house, did not appear to be that bad. In short I found no way to make any universal determination of the site conditions. If this subject is truly fascinating to anyone and you would like to see the results for yourself feel free to ask me and I gladly supply you with the info I have.
|
|
|
Post by elyssa on Feb 22, 2006 16:45:15 GMT -5
perhaps the reason the Lindberghs stayed at the house in Hopewell that night was to cover up something that happened the day before. Maybe while Anne was there with Charlie alone (without Betty) she placed Charlie in his crib next to the window (we've seen pictures of him standing in the crib there) , Anne was tired and needed a break, so she went for a walk and she did wave at Charlie, he was standing in the bed and tumbled out the window, (this kind of thing is top on the list of children deaths today )The accident injured him, Lindbergh wasn't home that night and Anne may not have gotten help for Charlie till she talked to CAL, by the next day cal wasn't sure if the child would live and started a cover up to protect his wife just in case. The child was placed with someone to take care of him (thats where the letter Mrs Morrow wrote comes in) and planned the kidnap story to buy time until the health of the child resolved itself one way or the other. That's why CAL missed his dinner that night he was busy all day. It took till May 12 or there abouts for the childs fate to present itself, so CAL had to be out looking for the child on a boat.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 22, 2006 18:04:22 GMT -5
Elyssa////the key to any family planned hoax required to wisk Charlie away for safety or medical care hinges on the ladder, the ransom notes and the timing. It must be planned in advance for the perfect opportunity. Candon, Fisch, Sharpe, Whately, JJ Falcone, Mary Cerrita and Peter Biratella were all hanging out together at the mystical occult Christian Temple in Harlem. They could form the core of an extortion gang and could easily come up with the signature with the 3 holes to insure positive identification.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 22, 2006 19:37:01 GMT -5
Elyssa,
Your theory seems in line with Behn's book somewhat. Have you read it yet?
Kevin,
Try to remind me from time to time if I have found any of the references to that yard by those who were there. I would like to post their first-hand accounts... Just last week I must have read 3 or 4 accounts that created a lasting impression in my mind. I do believe you are right that some places weren't as bad as others....
|
|
|
Post by elyssa on Feb 22, 2006 22:00:54 GMT -5
for about 25 years I read everything I could get my hands on, but due to the death of a sister who got me started on the Lindbergh kidnapping I sort of lost interest. I need to go back and read everything again, because now I'm going on memory and all the books are running together in my mind. I know I read Behns book, but don't remember which one it was. I can say that nothing I've read in the past has changed my opinion I still feel that Hauptman was innocent of the kidnapping and the murder of Charlie. I still believe CAL was responsible for all the lies surrounding the baby going missing (ha ha) and the lies around his death (?). He may not have been responsible for the reason the child was said to have been kidnapped but he took the ball and ran with it till the game was over. The past few years have proven how good he was at keeping secrets and to what lengths he went to to keep his private life private. Private was a word that drove Lindbergh, he wanted to be famous and in the public eye when it suited him, but keeping what he wanted to about his life private was a game to him. I think that particular game started the day he and Anne married.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 23, 2006 6:58:20 GMT -5
It's hard sometimes to remember everything. I sometimes even credit the wrong source because I have so much swirling in my head.
Something you just said rang a bell so I wanted to post it now before I forget....
CAL made that statement in either the Curtis Trial or Means Trial, that is, he said the baby was MISSED. Maybe its nothing but I everytime I re-read that if makes me wonder why he said that.
|
|
|
Post by kanneedwards on Feb 23, 2006 20:56:37 GMT -5
Michael, in what context did CAL say the baby was "missed?" I can't make any connection with that. thanks, kathy
|
|