|
Post by rick3 on Jun 4, 2007 10:13:29 GMT -5
Following the leads of MM and the Jones letter I would like to pose the following question: Who HIRED Condon as the go-between to negotiate with CJ and the extortionists? - It is just impossible to believe or imagine that Condon got into this game by writing a letter to the Bronx Home News which was quickly answered by the kidnaps? Nearly every author worth his salt discounts this coincidence and suggests there must be a better explanation?
- Condon is an eccentric buffoon, never missing an opportunity to push himself into the limelight? Like a carnie on the midway of a circus?
- Condon knows Abe Samuelsohn "for many years" and then tries (lies) to deny that he not only knows his name but that he produced the ransom box and the ladder wood? Astonishing cheek?
- Essentially, Condon describes John Gorch (Paul Wendel) and Isador Fisch and Red Johnson as CJ--but lies and says Red and Betty are innocent and need to be "saved by him"? Absurd?
- on January 11th, akin to CAL, JFC heads for Panama for 90 days to avoid answering any embarrasing questions (and perjury) during Gov. Hoffmans inquiry?
- In the plane searching for lil Charlie Jr. in Marthas Vinyard and Gays Head Condon is reported by IREY to be spouting Shakespear and driving everyone crazy?
- So, who would hire this whack job? CAL? Capone? Rum runners? The Purple Gang? The kidnappers? The extortionists: Means and Nosovitsky?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jun 4, 2007 11:06:20 GMT -5
Rick, it's not surprising to me that Condon's letter was answered so quickly. He lived in the Bronx and so did Hauptmann. The mails seem to have been pretty expedient back then at least based on how quickly some of the ransom letters arrived. I'm not sure what authors you're talking about but there are very few if any, who have written an unbiased account of this case. I've never seen or heard of any credible evidence to suggest Condon came into this case with some deep dark ulterior motive. Lindbergh was this guy's hero and he was the type of personality who would do something like this, as evidenced by his past letter writings to the BHN. Sure he was eager to impress, vociferous, histrionic, opinionated, overly sentimental and patriotic. At the same time, I believe Condon was genuinely affronted by the crime and just acted according to what he thought was some higher purpose intent, a personal crowning achievement. www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/jafsie%20sisk.pdf
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jun 4, 2007 13:08:57 GMT -5
Hi Joe~But did Condon actually think the kidnappers would see his letter in that particular newspaper? Or was it just his usual grandstanding? What's your take on his knowing ahead of time that Nosovitsky was shopping for kidnappers of someone "in a prominent family"?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jun 4, 2007 13:46:47 GMT -5
Hi Joe/ sure I love all the P>A>Triotism as much as the next VVeteran, BUT, Jafsie's tall tales and misdirections are over the top" - He told way more lies and misleads than colde hard truth? Condon lied about the 3 safety pins and CJ?
- He knew too many of the insiders/ Mary Cerrita and Rev. Peter from the Temple of Divine Power acrossed the street from Fischs apartment? JFC lists as an attender and student of mysticism?
- In Norris' Talent to Decieve, Norris implies that Condon was a known guantity by the Morrow/Lindbergh family for services rendered prior to the kidnap? Could this be true?
- Al Reich, former boxer,/bodyguard is sure an interesting attachment to a Fordem University Professor. How and when did JFC acquire Al Reich and what had Al Reich been doing before his stint with Condon? Does Al own a light green Ford coupe?
- just Condons insights in the Nursery, safety pins, French leave, toys, prayers, blood, palm prints, location of ransom notes etc gives me the willies? Just like his chats with Cemetary John?
- In the summer of 1933 Condon was the prime suspect/ person of interest which is how the BOI found Abe Samuelsohn?
- Was Jafsie purposly missdirecting to keep the back-channel negotiations open? Years after Xharlie was found dead?
- Both Condon and Samuelsohn have alluded to death threats?
BUT.....from who? BRH? CJ? The Gangs?
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 4, 2007 15:42:31 GMT -5
Hi Joe,
So you think Anna knew all along? I don't know. Perhaps. Its just hard to perceive that she would extend herself publically of his innocense if she did believe in his guilt. Secondly what does that have to do with accomplices unless she did have an active role along with. Again hard for me to accept but who knows.
Its my thought of the possibility that Condon knew of the accomplice by the fact Hauptmann was lead out to dry by this person. That perhaps important people knew that but would not seek justice against the accomplice they believed was involved either because it would complicate the case, or the person was not alive anymore, or perhaps even helped in the case. I am not sure if this would be an accurate guess but one I pondered after reading this event.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jun 4, 2007 20:16:33 GMT -5
Gary, I'm not convinced Anna Hauptmann extended herself publicly as you say, but more likely she responded very positively to widespread interest in her "plight." I don't know a lot of the detail behind her early association with NY investigator Julius Braun, but I believe he was originally hired as part of Team Hoffman to pursue leads into the involvement of others, after Hauptmann's execution.
In the intervening years and until Scaduto, Bryan and Kennedy took up the torch, I believe she was content to live quietly raising her son, working to survive and keeping to herself. With the public flurry created by Scaduto and New Jersey opening the case files, she seems to have been swept up by the real possibility of clearing her husband's name, despite the great odds. She had to be well aware of the sudden perceived advantage to her side that had been created by the real possibility the State of New Jersey did not always act in good faith in the way the investigation and trial were conducted.
Another thought that recently came to mind, and in light of Dave Holwerda's recent posts indicating Anita Lutzenburg was involved, is that Condon's conclusion that any man who could deceive his wife was a "wonderman" may have been on the mark. But if this is what he actually meant, I think he would be mistaken to believe Anna wouldn't have known what was going on.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 5, 2007 8:48:21 GMT -5
Thank you. I went over to Ronelle's board and breezed over the posts I missed. I didn't mean to dupicate a discussion from there. I took a breath away from the case for several months only popping in once in a while. This Anita Luxenburg: whats the story you know on her if I can ask? Is this information off grounds ? The only thing I have on her is friend at Hunter's Island.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jun 5, 2007 9:45:38 GMT -5
Gary, here are two links to articles which include references to Anita Lutzenberg. I don't know a whole lot about her and there doesn't seem to be much written on her in general circulation or in the case books. According to her friend John Braue, she was a bit of a free spirit when it came to the opposite sex. I've seen a couple of pictures of her including one which looks like a beach shot, Hauptmann and Kloppenburg alongside, I think. There's no question, she was a looker. (my personal favorite from the Hunter's Island gang) Michael mentioned in a previous post on Ronelle's board that he had some information on her so maybe he can provide a better picture. www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,770014,00.html speccoll.library.kent.edu/truecrime/lindbergh/lindbergh.htmlBTW - for the Time article you may have to manually copy the URL and paste it in your browser
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 5, 2007 14:24:09 GMT -5
Anita Lutzenberg
Info; NY Times 9/28/34 pg 3
Photo; NY Times 9/28/34 pg 3
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 5, 2007 18:33:41 GMT -5
Whether or not you want to call Condon a "Confederate" among those responsible is one thing, but I believe beyond all doubt that he not only knew more then he told but he had also lied sometimes to the Police.
He also told the truth too.
He tried to keep a fair mix so as to be able to defend himself if "push came to shove" which it did and sobered him up real quick. That's what lets you know he wasn't "losing it" or some other excuse for his conduct. Now if he got on the stand and was as incoherent & inconsistent as he was when the Police were asking him questions then I'd say ok...but he identified Hauptmann without hesitation, confusion, delay, or dimwittedness. They were worried he might, after all, that was his track record - but not this time.
Why?
Because his ass was on the line and he knew it. It's what Walsh knew all along, and if it weren't for Schwarzkopf's jealousy, Walsh would have broken Condon (and we probably wouldn't have anything to talk about right now).
Remember all the stories Jafsie told concerning women.... The one begging for his help concerning a wayward brother....the lady at Tuckahoe, and now this obvious reference to a woman concerning Hauptmann. Could they have been the same one or the same one in his mind when he was talking about them?
Another thing I've noticed him do is to use what was being said around him to later bolster or make a something he said have weight. Condon may have overheard the Police talking about Hauptmann cheating on his wife, or, he may have known Hauptmann was cheating by other means.
I've always said there was evidence Hauptmann had cheated on his wife. I am convinced he did so with more then one woman. I've suspected Lutzenberg and believe Gerta Henkel was one of those even more so then Anita. Even if both are correct I still think there were more... Hauptmann had a big fight with Anna at one point and from that time on she had refused to go to Hunter's Island. When Anna was in Germany, Hauptmann was spotted walking in Manhattan with (2) women. Yet at another time, Hauptmann had gone to a neighbor's house, along with Shussler, to ask the wife to accompany them to the Beer Garden, etc.
This was something one doesn't do today but really didn't do back then. A husband might actually kill someone for that and get away with it simply on principal.
Dave's suggestion that Anita was involved is interesting. Of course we don't know what he is basing this on. We assume it has to do with the diary and without it we can't make any rational decisions. It could simply be a reference to another woman and Dave is relying on his personal research to fill in the unknown...
I remember seeing a picture of her but I don't think I have a copy of one myself. I'll take a look...
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 6, 2007 5:52:20 GMT -5
I just rec'd an email reminding me that in Scaduto's book, just after page 160, there is a picture of Anita and Han's. Also that there is one in Kennedy's book.
In the material, John Braue is referred to as Anita's "boyfriend" and they lived in the same house together. She did admit there were times she had gone to the island w/o him but stressed she had no interest in Hauptmann or anyone else there. She seemed to cast suspicion on Kloppenburg calling him "mysterious."
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 6, 2007 19:32:58 GMT -5
BTW - Kevin's post is right on the money. I have those articles but they are clearly copyrighted so unfortunately I cannot post them or the picture in question.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jun 8, 2007 7:57:06 GMT -5
Mairi, sorry I missed your post of a few days ago and have also been out of town. I don't think Condon, when he wrote his letter to the Bronx Home News, was really hoping for a direct response from the kidnappers, at the very least not right away. Perhaps he had hoped his appeal might eventually reach a larger audience through his letter being picked up by the major daily newspapers (?)
What is your source of information that Condon was aware of Nosovitsky's intention to kidnap someone from a prominent family? According to Behn, initial interest in Nosovitsky was stirred up by Anna Sloane, who wrote the NJSP complaining that he had kidnapped and killed the Lindbergh baby. Breckinridge was also informed by Wally Stroh and Arthur Graham they believe Nosovitsky had motive through an unpaid debt on the part of the Morgan Bank.
This all happened in around June, 1932, so are you saying Condon knew before this or was possibly advised by Breckinridge of the potential connection?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jun 8, 2007 12:29:08 GMT -5
Hi Joe~ The Noso source I was using was from ACondon/Patty Doyle's family memories and some documentation. See Member's section and possibly still on "Jeff Rense Program". From this i thought there may be a tie to why he used that particular newspaper. Whether Noso was the mastermind or Condon only thought him involved has been of interest to me to measure against Condon's many contradiction/tall tales and initial reluctance to ID Hauptmann.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 8, 2007 18:52:46 GMT -5
It has always been my deepest suspicion that there was a mastermind behind the kidnapping besides Hauptmann. Could someone like Nosovitsky be that person and yet be conspicious? Why not? I think his track record speaks well that he could direct something like this and not come back to him if it failed.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jun 9, 2007 13:41:44 GMT -5
Hi again Joe~ Am sorry I misdirected you to Patty Doyle's posts. Those are in Archives instead of Members section. I trust you found it in spite of my poor directions.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 7, 2007 19:32:49 GMT -5
Gary, As I mention above I believe Condon knew more. I think Inspector Walsh got it right when he said Condon was the additional man brought in referred to in the ransom note. So I don't believe he was someone originally involved rather he was brought in to be the eyes & ears and to ensure the ransom was paid w/o arrest. What I see Condon doing is something I experience just about everyday at work. Without getting into specifics, when I conduct disciplinary hearings (for example) a common tactic is to lie but with omissions, qualifiers, and inclusion of certain truths. It's basically the best way to lie because it can cause hesitation or pause concerning whether or not the version of events actually happened that way or if its possible it did. Condon was a master at it, and he obviously "kept his ear to the wall" in order to discover new information which in turn he would add or subtract to his older version of events. He was purposely misleading and often feigned some sort of disorder that would cause Police to think he wasn't responsible for his lack of memory and/or evasions. If someone is disordered in this way a threat would not cause moments of clarity as was the case with Condon. And so when I hear Condon say something interesting such as: - John was "dead."
- The Gang "split up."
- There would be no more symbol because the Leader "took it away."
I consider this coming from someone "in the know" who may not be making it up. As far as the other ransom notes and negotiations.... there were some going on and one man in question sent Condon a birthday card thanking him for his help in attempting to have the baby returned and offering to return his letters in order for him to have proof of "good faith" negotiations. This was obviously a response to the Bronx Grand Jury inquiry in which Condon was grilled....so what we have is this Other Ransom Note Writer attempting to assist Condon.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jul 8, 2007 6:32:42 GMT -5
Gary and Michael--I would like to focus in on one of Condon's Mystery trips.....the one to Bennington VT or Beckett, Mass? (its the same trip 1 June 1932?) James W. Dooley (New York Daily Mirror) writes Gov. Hoffman a letter claiming this was to negotiate with the Purple Gang (in two cars) for the release of the Collingswood Murderers in Michigan? Dooley claims that even then Gov. FDR (NY) knows all about this and sends some troopers acrossed State lines? JFC claims that he is merely taking a vacation to the camp of his neighbor in the Bronx? Isn't this the trip where JFC says he is still negotiating for the release of Charlie Jr. and tells reporters that the ransom is now up to $250,000??? Is there any truth wedded to this tall tale?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 8, 2007 19:00:55 GMT -5
I don't think Dooley had any connection to Condon or one of his stories. Beckett is a different story. Did we discuss this in the past and if so where is the thread I'd like to re-read it. If not I have some information I can share.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jul 8, 2007 19:54:29 GMT -5
Ok Michael. I have many questions here but I want to start it with two and in some sequence. I did want to add other monumental things Condon said: Condon's account that CJ mentioned "MY FATHER would not approve."This was the account Condon wanting to be taken to the see the baby. Why isn't this mentioned more by the authors boggles me. Why investigators didn't pursue this more baffles me. Secondly the account of an early visit of a woman who was starting a school and her request for help regarding the kidnapping and Condon's promise to not mention her name. Is it here that Condon got the inside look at the nucleus of the crime? Anyway I wanted to add these to your list.
Now here is my first question. The note writer requests $70,000 because they have added one more person in the gang. This is the note prior to the one sent to Condon. Now if Condon is this added person then he has joined the gang before he even met Lindbergh. So Michael if you say he is this added person and his cut is the $20,000 Condon is involved really early here . So early that he would have to be a primary participate to the extortion rather than just the go-between that would try to allow both parties get what they wanted. I studied some newspaper articles immediately after the kidnapping. A while ago I noticed, if I am not incorrect there was mention of questioning why the ransom was so low and might be a sign of an amateur. I always thought the possibility to ask more came from something like this.
My second point is about his personality coming into the kidnapping. We know Condon is a self a proclaimed patriot and put himself publically for all to see and to be impressed. But the effort here is well documented decades before the kidnapping. We know this not only by his articles but at parades he organized and participated in. Taking the front, waving the flag, and all that. So my interpretation is this desire to become involved with the case is typical and consistent of his personality. Condon hated the mafia and felt it blasphemed America. It is so easy to see why he gave many references to the mafia early in the case because they were a public enemy equal to a kidnapper of an American hero's baby and in the forefron of his mind. So many ask why he wanted involvement in the case. It fits perfectly for me that he wanted to be a hero yes but the kidnapper stood for everything that he wanted to fight and become a hero to overcome.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jul 8, 2007 20:10:32 GMT -5
So my questions are:
What point do you think he would become involved reflecting that the $70,000 was asked for before Condon's first note.
Secondly don't you think Condon's patriotic desires( as strangely unique as they are) are documented enough not to become a participant in the thread of this crime? Is it practical to believe he would scheme for $20.000?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jul 8, 2007 20:33:02 GMT -5
Michael--do you mean the Lynn Mass trip:
Is this the same time as the Beckett, MA trip late May 1932??
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 9, 2007 19:56:41 GMT -5
Definitely not. Gary, this is a well researched and very coherent post you've made. It's why our board is so important as a tool to explore the various possibilities and different perspectives.... It seems clear to me they were looking for someone they could trust to act as intermediary. Ransom Note #3 seems to be self-explanatory and coming on the heels of the information given to the Birretellas (planted in their minds by Breckenridge). It's postmarked March 7th so very near this date is when they possibly picked up Condon. Remember in Dr. Gardner's book Breckenridge's affidavit where he believed Fisch had come to visit him ( p.408) There were two meetings: Shortly after the last visit of this person Dr. Condon became intermediary. It may not have been something that entailed Condon to sit down and plot extortion money but rather a situation where he himself was being victimized or encouraged that his actions would be in some way a noble thing. Well we really don't know how patriotic he was. We have Priests who have been molesting children all their lives as an example. People who get caught stealing from their workplace rationalize they deserve it for being under paid as yet another example. Condon swore an oath that he would never testify against the Kidnappers. Once he broke that oath he claimed it had been voided once they murdered the child. However, IF Hauptmann was one of those men then why did Condon refuse to identify him originally? Why did it take threats from the Police to get him to ID Hauptmann? And so would Condon scheme for 20K or did 'they' scheme to give him 20K for his role? Didn't Condon give the 20K back? The same 20K that Irey and Wilson were so pissed off about that Condon had removed the most identifiable bills. So was it a move of not wanting his payment to distance himself from the crime or a move to protect the Kidnappers? Pick your poison. Next, see Dr. Gardner's book ( p.100) where he lets out with a new version concerning why he originally got involved. Not Red, not patriotism....rather a woman begging for protection.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jul 9, 2007 21:50:09 GMT -5
Gary, this is a well researched and very coherent post you've made.{Michael} (agree, agree!)
coming on the heels of the information given to the Birretellas (planted in their minds by Breckenridge). {Michael}(I don't understand what this means)
However, IF Hauptmann was one of those men then why did Condon refuse to identify him originally? Why did it take threats from the Police to get him to ID Hauptmann?{Michael} (I believe he falsely ID-ed Hauptmann)
a woman begging for protection. {Michael}(Any chance this was his cousin, Susan Condon Doyle, because she was afraid for her family, who knew about the Noso kidnapper shopping?)
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 10, 2007 20:48:24 GMT -5
Remembering back to the seance conducted on March 6th....(excerpts) - Mary asked "if the light had broken through", had I received any message. I said no.
- Though Colonel Lindbergh had received a letter mailed March 4th from Brooklyn, I denied the receipt of any message.
- At one point in the seance I was told I was wasting my time being in Hopewell and was told I should be in my office at 9 o'clock every morning. I replied that was too early. They stated I had better be there.
- On the following Monday, March 7th, a letter was written from New York to me in the same handwriting and with the same symbol signature as the first ransom note. This letter stated that a letter had been written to Colonel Lindbergh from Brooklyn, that the police were covering the Brooklyn mail boxes and doubtless had confiscated the second letter which was written Colonel Lindbergh.
Now as far as who the woman might have been I think is an important question that if answered could reveal much. There were several "mystery" woman involved with the Condon angle....
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jul 30, 2007 11:28:07 GMT -5
Harry Walsh/ The Jersey Journal/ #2 Hunt for the Kidnappers/ Wed Nov 13th 1932/ Curiosity Seekers:
"One instance that stands out in my memory was that of an ALERT YOUNG JEWISH FELLOW. He told the guards he had to see the Colonel, that he had information of vital importance, and that he would not deliver his message to anybody but Lindbergh. We ordered the troopers to bring him to the house (Highfields).
Again he refused to surrender his information to anyone but CAL. The dilemma we were in was that so many people were demanding to see CAL that it was physically impossible for him to see them all, and yet we did not want to turn down anyone who might have a real clue.
In the case of this persistent intruder we did not want to threaten him with arrest to get his information , fro fear we would frighten away others who might know something substantial bearing on the crime. Finally, we conferred w/ CAL.
"Tell him Mrs. Lindbergh is ill: tell him anything to get the information without disturbing us" he advised.
We did as CAL bid, but the young fellow was still adamant. He just had to see the colonel or he wouldn't talk?
We finally arranged for Mrs. Lindbergh to lie in bed feigning illness and for CAL to stand near the bed, planning to bring the message bearer into the bedroom to tell his story.
Then the intruder searches under neath the BED? Still he demurred. Now whats the trouble? "I must search under the bed and into the closets first?"
After he convinced himself that noone but he and CAL and Mrs. Lindbergh was in the bedroom, this "bearer of vital information" launched into quotations from Shakespear? He was still reciting 10 minutes later and we had to put him out of the house" end quote/
{This same incident is also recalled by DH Halacy Jr in "Encyclopedia of 1932" p. 115 but in this version its "a dignified gentleman quoting Hamlet"?}
Is it Fisch above? Is it Condon below? Such a coincidence?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 30, 2007 17:43:07 GMT -5
Good find Rick. But having said that I don't believe this is Fisch. Firstly a short Jewish guy is an awful general description. Second Inspector Walsh would have recognized him after his pictures came out once Hauptmann was arrested.
One could argue he wouldn't say but they would be wrong - he would have told Governor Hoffman.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jul 30, 2007 22:13:52 GMT -5
Hi Michael--actually this weird behavior is more characteristic of Condon than Fisch? But I wonder why it took Breckenridge over 30 months to recall that another young Jewish student came to his office one week after the kidnap and said "Lindbergh must deal with Us*" end quote/ page 408 in Gardner? Could this be the same person checking out Highfields just like Mary Cerrita and Peter Birrittella tried to pull? So Who is Us* anyways?
Maybe the more critical questions are: Why are the Lindberghs running this 3-ring circus at Highfields? Why does CAL suppose that massive publicity and interviewing buffoons "in their bedroom"and psychic mediums in towne will result in Charlie Jrs safe return? [Clearly it does not!] The ransom was ready by March 4th so why arn't the Lindberghs dealing directly with the kidnappers holding Charlie Jr. and paying only those showing the unique "SYMBOL"? Why go phishing for clews? What do they know that we dont know? Are they auditioning for Condon's role? Or trying to catch the gang themselves?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 31, 2007 20:48:20 GMT -5
Because at the time of the visit Breckenridge reported to Lindbergh not the NJSP.
One guess is due to the ransom note saying they would be in touch. Perhaps they believed it was in the form of a person delivering the message. I think they should have demanded to see the symbol first which is also in the note.
Or perhaps they were simply looking for a lead or even a snitch.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Aug 1, 2007 2:52:19 GMT -5
Mairi and Michael--yes I agree, the over all strategy during the first week was scattered and random--at least to public appearances? And this from a couple that shuns all Press and public attention, thus moving out in the middle of nowheres now invite nutbags into their bedroom? Doesn't add up?
But, there were contacts? Even though the Nursery Note was ignored? The First Ransom Note to the Lindberghs got through the mails just fine. But (Kevin) it is a scolding for ignoring the Rules and it ups the Ante to $70,000. Then the Second Ransom Note goes to Breckenbridge via Mary Magdalene Cerrita? It says in the future we will send notes to Col B. at 25 Broadway/? By now both CAL and the gang are getting confused how to communicate as CAL adds more and more go-betweens?
This confusion, obviously sets the Stage for Mickey Rosner to take the Nursery Note to Salvy Spitale, Irving Bitz and every other gangster in NYC. Enter stage left--Dr. Jafsie Condon? The first 7 days and the first 3 notes set the stage for Bungling the rest of the LKH! By CAL, by Anne, by NJSP, by everyone. The most sensible advice is ignored it is replaced by the likes of Owney "The Killer" Madden?
PS--Has anybody come acrossed Al Dunlaps article: Bungling the Lindbergh Case? Startling Detective Feb 1933/ thanks/p.420 in Gardner.
|
|