|
Post by Michael on Aug 3, 2007 4:59:31 GMT -5
I know that Ellis Parker was very critical of the fact the NJSP seemed to base its Headquarters at Highfields during this time. Good point about Madden. Another go-between, Dudley Field Malone, gave Madden high marks commenting that Madden was very sincere about his attempts to help and that he truly was doing everything in his power to assist. Dudley Field Malone Owen "Owney" Madden
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 8, 2007 6:18:20 GMT -5
I decided to "re-visit" Condon's son-in-law Ralph Hacker. It is known that early in the investigation the NYPD believed Hacker was the same Hacker who was friends with one Krippendorf. Krippendorf was connected to the Geisslers who were in the crosshairs of the Police concerning the J.J. Faulkner investigation. This is all in A&M's book. Unfortunately, this connection was a mistake due to the fact the Hacker in question, Rudolph Hacker, was NOT Ralph Hacker. (Apparently A&M didn't pursue this topic to its conclusion). It made me think along the same lines as I have pointed out in the past....that is.....suspects were made to write exemplars and if they weren't the same they were dismissed as suspects. This is a confusing proposition since there were more then one person involved and only one person wrote those notes (at least this is my position). And so (for me anyway) I can't understand why Hacker would be written off completely simply because he wasn't Rudolph - but that appears to be exactly what happened. Just as an FYI - I am not willing to let go any suspect simply because the Police were then. I am convinced there's involvement of (at least) one person the Police interviewed but dismissed of having any role in the crime.... It is known to certain members of the police department, both in the New Jersey State Police and the New York City Police, that during the time the ransom negotiations were being made by Dr. Condon, the son-in-law Hacker spent much of his time in the Condon household, and while there appeared to be very officious and unusually interested. Captain Richard Oliver of the New York City Police Department recently advised the writer that he has personal knowledge of Hacker's presence at the Condon household during the ransom negotiation period and that he also knows with a positive assurance that numerous phone calls during the ransom negotiation period were made from Hacker's phone, "Fort Lee 8-1607" to Mr. Hacker at Condon's residence in the Bronx. (Special Agent J.J. Manning 9-11-33)
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Nov 8, 2007 11:09:08 GMT -5
Michael--I have to agree that son-in-law Ralph holds a funny inter- connection to all of Condons tall tales and obfuscations. Was there really an antique ballot box on Condons study desk--or did Ralph infact design the not-ever-needed ransom box for St. Raymonds? Didnt Abe Samuelsohn say an architect picked up the famous ladder with a college pin on his shirt? As goes the ransom box--so goes the ladder as well?
There is one more name that seems to connect up with Ralph Hacker in Fort Lee:
*RODEL, LEO (aka Roden) —address: 353 Tome Hunter Road, Fort Lee, NJ; see Ralph Hacker: TW113-114 hooked up in Palasades Park……where Ellerson dumps the flaming car near to May 12th? Roden is another buddy of Willie Krippendorf who seems to be a spitting image of CJ? See Theon Wright 113-114.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Nov 8, 2007 19:12:08 GMT -5
Samuelsohn's shop: Am confused. I thought it was said two "rough" looking fellows came for the ladder parts . I thought the other men /college pin just came into the shop and a salesman picked up the ladder parts to demonstrate some sort of tool he was selling Please help straighten me out, here.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 8, 2007 19:14:24 GMT -5
Rodel was connected to Krippendorf. For what its worth, Dr. Condon was asked if Krippendorf looked like the man he paid the money to (Cemetery John) and he said he didn't.
The Geissler investigation is huge and it rivals the one the Police did concerning Hauptmann. I have all of Wilson's notes concerning his role in the Geissler investigation. Along with Keaton, Patterson, and Lt. Finn - Wilson did a lot of work on this angle.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Nov 9, 2007 10:04:50 GMT -5
For what little it was worth, I would not rely "at all" upon any identification or storey line by Jafsie Condon? If he wasnt totally blind, he was mental? His identifications range from Scandanavian, to Chinese, to Fisch and John Gorch. Maybe he was legally blind? He couldnt even finger BRH when the time came?
It might have been of more value to take Krippendorf for Abe Samuelsohn to look at? One of Hoffmans investigators thought Abe might have just been mistaken when he thought BRH paid for the ladder?
One account suggested that Rodel went to HS with Ralph Hacker. And one of the Geissler family, maybe a son, lived near Condon on Decatur Avenue in the Bronx. just one big happy family?
|
|
|
Post by gary on Nov 9, 2007 12:40:04 GMT -5
I believe there is at least some truth to the abe Samuelsohn story. This witness is completely different than the usual doubtful witnesses. This is someone who does not want to come forward. He is scared to death. These are hints to me his story is defintely one to consider. How does Condon run into him before anyone else ? Actually has the money box made from same person.
A Susan Candy mentioned abe identified the two other men. I could not find who that is.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Nov 9, 2007 18:19:35 GMT -5
Samuelsohn + Condon= "packet" Samuelsohn + kidnap ladder=0
The part of this story that may be of interest is why Samuelsohn fabricated it. Could he and Condon have been working some angle or was it just an innocent error in memory? Other than that , it's a horse with no legs.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 10, 2007 9:36:46 GMT -5
I don't believe this is true. What's the source? I may be able to disprove this if need be. This is true: In my opinion he was doing this on purpose. I tend to agree. But I also have to agree with Kevin too. I've done a ton of homework on this. It appears Samuelsohn did make what he claimed he made, however, it could not have been the kidnap ladder. His ladder was made completely with pine. And so one has to try and understand exactly what was going on and how it may fit into the scheme of things. We know he made the box and that Condon tried to mislead Investigators into thinking someone else had made it. In my opinion, I don't think he was fabricating it. After speaking with his grand-daughter Susan, and reading all of the source material - it is quite clear he was afraid for his life by coming forward with his information. And of course he had information that no side wanted to hear so he had placed himself on an island with no support from anyone. Susan has never revealed the names. I believe her family is putting something together so hopefully one day that will be made available to us. BTW.... The Authorities were taking a very close look at Krippendorf's wife, Therese, who they believed had some interesting looking handwriting in comparison with the Ransom Notes.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Nov 10, 2007 9:44:52 GMT -5
Michae
Second source or second hand source?l
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 10, 2007 11:54:41 GMT -5
Not sure I understand the question.... Do you want me to post some of what I am referring to?
I believe there's a lot that goes on which (typically) most people try to assign "belief" or "disbelief" to, when in fact, the truth could lie somewhere in the middle. I believe the Samuelsohn situation fits that mold. For example, it could be that someone did order these pieces but it had nothing to do with the crime.
These are the types of things, and the possibilities thereof, that we all need to consider. I have disqualified Samuelsohn as lying about this situation because it does exactly the opposite of what motivation one would lie in the first place for. Furthermore, he had his publicity concerning the ransom box AND Condon seemed to fear the Police would find out his identity. Additionally, I would think he'd come up with a better lie if he were to purposely invent something.
Just my 2-cents for what its worth.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Nov 10, 2007 12:25:45 GMT -5
Michael--as memory would have it, it turns out that its Liepold that is thought to be a friend, if not a HS friend, of Ralph Hacker: LIEPOLD, Henry Carl. (see Jones)—150; J210-211; G474; landscape architect FBI-357; connects to Ernie Brinkert; marries Phyllis Helen Geissler; Mamaroneck, NY. Suicide Oct 20th 1933; went to HS(?) with Ralph Hacker TW117…..connect the dots. Married to Gerhardts daughter….nurse/ Ernie Brinkert workes in Mamaroneck NY, Westcherster County Is he the landscape gardner that met with Vincent Burns? Did Henry picked up the Ladder at Samuelsohns? Why not just say so? Suprizingly it was Perrone that claimed that Liepold knows Hacker--see Theon Wright pp 149-150. - ALSO, Joyce Milton page 288 writes..."Carl Donald Giessler had gone to high school with Dr. Condon's son-in-law, Ralph Hacker"//[Carl Oswin Geisslers son by first marriage]
I think its pretty clear that Abe Samuelsohn is telling the truth about something....but what is it? After BRH is caught Abe has no fear(?) of implicating him, if it was him? After all Abe sat at the Trial day after day so he had a good look at BRH? But maybe Condon convinced him he had been dealing with BRH too? Just like Jafise convinced himself after threats of arrest? What bugs me is that both Samuelsohn and Condon "withhold peoples/persons names"? and both withhold a womans name? How do they get away with that in a capital murder-kidnap case?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 11, 2007 10:51:10 GMT -5
Not really. Perrone never said Liepold knew Hacker. Again - its not the same Hacker anyway these men were two totally different people. What Perrone did was say someone looked like the man who gave him the note and he did this concerning numerous people. Problem is that most of these guys looked completely different from one another.
You'll notice there's no footnote to this revelation. I think this is based upon the wrong Hacker again but I'd have to re-read everything I have to make sure.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Nov 11, 2007 12:26:58 GMT -5
Michael--this line of inquiry seems to spring from Unknown Suspect #5 or the writer of the JJ Faulkner bank draft. Even if Ralph Hacker did go to HS with any of the Geissler-Liepold extended family.....it wouldnt get us much closer to the Truth? It does serve to remind us how weird it was for Condon to attach Ralph to the case indirectly thru the ransom box? Didnt you say one time that Perrones eyewitness accounts were as faulty and misleading as Jafsies? - it always was a pretty weak link to connect the stolen Buick sedan to the names on the dumb waiter at the Plymouth Apts? That alone may have been the false lead?
- Do you have an opinion pro or con on Bob Mills theory that Duane Baker/Bacon drove the stolen car from Lakewood NJ to Highfields on March 1st?
- Isnt it more logical and productive to assume that John Jacob Nosovitsky wrote the ransom notes and the JJ Faulkner notes as apparently confirmed by Behn & JEHoover later on after the fact?
|
|
|
Post by gary on Nov 12, 2007 0:07:48 GMT -5
I don't understand the tie of Baker to Capone. I don't understand because his wife is German she becomes a suspect of authorship of the Mersman table. What would cause us to believe Baker was the kidnapper? What evidence is there that Allen was bribed to find the baby?
Concerning Samuelsohn I agree wholeheartedly with Michael. The specifics I don't know. Perhaps the order that was submitted to him had little or no direct connection to the ladder used. Regardless in my mind I take very serious he is a respectable man and believes he saw Hauptmann under very suspicious means. It seems the box Samuelsohn made was the money box used. There seems to be no "packet." As I understand according to Gardner a packet was asked for but a box was made and used. Unless of course several of the books I have read are wrong.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Nov 12, 2007 8:20:52 GMT -5
GaryHey Gary, I guess you haven't heard that Michael is a liar. ;D (Well at least we have absolute irrefutable proof that there is no shortage of fruitcakes in this case!) Regarding Samuelsohn, believe what you like and for whatever reason, but the bottom line for me is that he lied and that is a fact. It could have been ( and I would like to believe so) for a totally innocent reason, but in the end a lie is a lie ( I think I just heard that somewhere else ) As for the "packet", I really don't see this as a suspicious act. The note gave exact dimensions and the writer was obviously not completely fluent in English. I would have interpreted "packet" as a box. Add to that Condon's ego and sense of theater and it seems completely believable to me that he would seize the opportunity to grandstand this request.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 12, 2007 10:21:42 GMT -5
Baker is an interesting subject tied into the case from the J.J. Faulkner investigation. The Police did alot of checking up on him, and as I remember, Joe focused in on him doing a lot of personal research on this subject. I haven't seen anything the ties him into the case directly. That's not to say I write him off but there just isn't anything that jumps out at me yet. The dumbwaiter story seems unique to Milton. I haven't seen this report or any which says this but I do know the FBI material is quite vast and contains so much stuff that its possible there is one with this information in it.
None at all. I believe this is simply based on Bob's personal position of the odds concerning the discovery. I believe it was an accidental discovery on Allen's part.
I brought this upon myself. Like David used to say: It's like wrestling with a pig...no one wins....you both get dirty....and the pig likes it.
I am finally convinced he's lost it. I used to defend him because I could see at least a basis for his belief but he's so illogical there's no cure for him at this point.
I can understand this position but I don't agree. I just don't see any motive to lie. Samuelsohn does not benefit, quite the opposite is true, and he still continues to insist and stick to his guns even after all the negative comes crashing down on him for sharing those events. No one wanted to hear what he had to say about this. AND we know he was telling the truth about the box - but Condon was lying because apparently he didn't want the Police anywhere near Samuelsohn.
I think what we do know is that the kidnap ladder could not have been Samuelsohn's. I thought at one time Rails 12 & 13 could have been but I think that is very unlikely at this point.
The term is "packet" but the drawing sure as hell looks like a box to me.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Nov 12, 2007 13:19:39 GMT -5
Well, I won't labor the point as I see little point in it. It's all rabbit trails to me. But I do think it more often the point that lies and deception occur for many reasons and they are often impossible for others to understand, let alone make any sense out of. Logic, as you have so recently witnessed, is sometimes relative and it's not uncommon for it to be altogether missing. I know one thing for certain, in this case I rarely take anyones account as truth unless there is corroborating evidence. I think we all ignore this advice at times and there is usually a bit of prejudice involved when we do.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 12, 2007 16:27:49 GMT -5
Good advice. This can be done both consciously and unconsciously so its important to try to be aware that it can happen.
For me, I weigh Samuelsohn's story based upon the totality of the circumstances. I just don't see any indication of him being a "liar" although it could be an option that he is mistaken. We also have Smyder claiming to have witnessed this project. Condon definitely lied about who built the box attempting to keep the Authorities from finding out who Samuelsohn was. I also know Condon did his best to protect Hauptmann originally. It may mean nothing but I would be remiss not to consider the possibilities.
The other thing is if Samuelsohn was correct about Hauptmann - how then does that make sense in the scheme of things? I can't come up with anything yet.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Nov 12, 2007 19:00:32 GMT -5
Well, we cant really have it both ways with Abe Samuelsohn? - Abe says "he saw the Lindbergh Ladder" in the paper?
- Abe says "BRH or his double ordered the ladder with a $5 dollar down payment like one week before the snatch"? With a woman in tow to boot?
- Abe says that two or three men, who he knows, with a dame in the car came and picked up the ladder, after alterations, and paid the remailing bill"? Not BRH?
- Abe should at least be able to recognize the ladder he cut?
- If he is lying it creates even bigger problems? Who could force Abe to lie? Sounds more like he is scared?
- Ed Smyder the clamp saleman is his confirmation as he saw the ladder too? Right there on the floor?
- Maybe Smyder saw Jafsie and Al ordering the ransom box? Abe forgot to tell us why they were seen there too within a week of the snatch?
- Maybe we can connect this incident to Thomas F. Rice and Gaston B. Means over at the Imperial Hotel discussing the snatch? The timing feels about right--last week in February?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Nov 12, 2007 20:00:41 GMT -5
Rick
Exactly, it's a false story. In fact it's one of the few fish stories in this case which can be proven so.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 13, 2007 6:03:40 GMT -5
How so? Means doesn't seem the type to be confused with Hauptmann or any other Germanic-type. Isn't it odd though, that even after labeling him a liar, the NJSP him build replicas? (The FBI had him build one too but to my knowledge never called him a liar, etc.) Along comes Samuelsohn and says he made the ladder. If the State uses him it will blast a hole in one section of the State's contentions. It will resolve itself into the fact that Samuelsohn made the ladder and then joins the battery of persons who have identified Hauptmann. These identifications, at best, are questionable.
Why doesn't the defense use Samuelsohn? Because even though he were to absolve Hauptmann from the actual construction of the ladder the evidence would, nevertheless, put Hauptmann squarely in the picture.
That's why Samuelsohn is the forgotten man in the Hauptmann case. (Tyrrell Krum interview of Samuel Leibowitz) Back to Hacker for a minute. During the Hoffman investigations, there was active pursuit by Investigators looking for a Fisch/Hacker business deal. According to Conklin, the Governor had a good source that such a relationship occurred on one time. However, from all the reports I have been able to find scattered throughout the files - it appears nothing concrete was ever turned up.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Nov 13, 2007 8:31:44 GMT -5
Michael
Perhaps not. There were probably so many dynamics at work during this period that I think it is very difficult to understand individual motivations, particularly for us looking back at all of this today. Like I said, the Samuelsohn ladder story is false and can be proven so, however that is not to say that it was the product of bad intent. It could have been an honest mistake or a wish to be helpful. If the police recognized that he was honestly mistaken then it would be understandable that his services would still be utilized. If I were to give the police even more credit, there may have been an additional incentive to compare his ladder with the original for investigative reasons. Anyway, as I see it this story leads nowhere. The issue that could lead us to new discovery is that "packet". Why those particular dimensions? I started a replica for Mark and the museum and completed the basic box. I think Joe has done some work on the dimensions as well. Here is what I find interesting; how did Hauptmann know that the dimensions would accommodate that much money? Not having a substantial pile of cash on hand, I used a micrometer to determine the thickness of several bills and then used multiplication for the actual ransom amount. Hauptmann didn't have a micrometer so he would have to have a fair amount of bills on hand. Either that or he had access to large amounts of cash. If any of you think this is a simple task then give it a try, I think you will see what I mean. Then one has to ask why these particular dimensions? The big question is , where the dimensions based primarily on just what they would contain or did this "packet" have to fit into something, perhaps for concealment? I still believe the latter is the case but just what it was meant to fit into I don't know. Perhaps a niche in the cemetery? Finding out might be very revealing.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Nov 13, 2007 11:05:03 GMT -5
Michael--I am intrigued by how much activity and hubbub is going on in the weeks immediately prior to the mysterious disappearance of Charlie Jr: - Samuelsohn states that BRH came in with a woman companion and paid for the ladder to be built?
- Maybe there are two or more ladders? One for show and one for go--modeled after each other. Or one altered?
- Thomas F. Rice, also a respectable citizen and witness claims he overheard Gaston Means and two associates discussing (or planning) the kidnap at the Imperial Hotel in NYC. Rice pens a letter to CAL, and an affidavit in the form of a book. Its the time frame thats so interesting--at the same time as Abe's story above? Prior knowledge is assumed on someones part in Feb 1932?
- Both of these stories "appear to be" at least partially true? if Gaston Means was mistaken for Condon at Abe's shoppe......well?
- Its just too much of a coincidence to let go? Maybe if we knew that the other guys at the Imperial Hotel were Max Hassel and Big Maxie Greenberg things might fall into place.
- Essentially, prime suspects later on have clear and prior knowledge of whatever it is thats going to happen to Charlie?
- Didnt Abe find "his marks" on the ladder at Wilburtha? Why would he lie about that once hes admits knowledge? Apparently, if he was rewarded it was for not testifying to anyding?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Nov 13, 2007 17:18:30 GMT -5
Why does any part of a story proven false, have to be true???
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 14, 2007 6:21:24 GMT -5
Samuelsohn represents yet another enigma. A microcosm of sorts just as is everything else.... Pencil mark "X"s which I believe Kevin has said most people with wood experience would make. I agree with him that it would be hard to identify such an "X" as one's own. It seems here Samuelsohn may have believed this but was wrong. I personally see no connection between Means and the Samuelsohn story. There's no way I'll ever believe Means was mistaken for Condon. There were a ton of people said to have been overheard talking about this "snatch" before it happened. Obviously it really happened, we have the Hoaxers, and we have the nut-jobs making up accounts they claimed to have heard. For me, I think we should take what we know to be a fact and work from there. We know Samuelsohn built the ransom box. Next, it damn sure appears (and the FBI believed so too) that Condon lied about this and wanted to keep Samuelsohn from them. This should be our first dilemma to tackle - why? Here is something someone I found in the Hoffman Collection:
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Nov 14, 2007 8:02:22 GMT -5
It's why I say stick to the "packet". There is as much to learn from that as any other bit of evidence including the ladder. The smallest detail can reveal a thousand times more than all of the erroneous claims. Attempt to understand why Condon lied about Samuelsohn? Good luck. You could spend your lifetime in this pursuit and still be no further ahead IMHO. - Why the specific dimensions for the "packet"?
- What is a "packet"?
- Do the dimensions relate to the interior or the exterior?
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Nov 14, 2007 18:13:43 GMT -5
Good "packet" questions, Kevkon~~I've always had the impression of packet meaning paper-wrapped. But those specific dimensions don't especially match with that, huh? As to making a box replica of an antique ballot box, I thought that was Condon's notion of future identification of it(?) Maybe, maybe not
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 15, 2007 6:33:41 GMT -5
I agree this is important and felt you were on to something the last time we discussed it. It seems to me this "idea" was an afterthought...which of course may play into your other theory about Nursery Note. These dimensions are specific for a reason - especially since the entire $70,000 didn't fit. It could means the box may have been more important then the extra cash... However, it appears from the facts the box may have been used for a very short amount of time.... Condon claimed it was made with different woods so that he could later easily identify it. This was a complete fabrication which would later be revealed once Samuelsohn was found. Washington Post 1-14-35: Kept Matter Secret Meanwhile Dr. Condon, whom I knew, came in to have a box made. It was the box that he used to place the ransom money in though I didn't know its purpose then. I have made a duplicate for the New Jersey Authorities.
For a whole year I kept the matter secret even from my own family. I was so afraid of a gang that I let the windows of my shop get dirty so that I couldn't be seen from the street.
I seldom slept well, I trembled at every noise. The strain was so intense and my actions were so nervous that I finally told my wife.
Finally, I went to my lawyer, Koota, and he took me to Capt. John Lamb, of the New Jersey State Police. They took me to Trenton to look at the ladder.
Some parts have been changed but I found the carpenter's symbols I had placed on it. +++++++ As everyone knows I am sent posts from "other" boards from time to time via email which I usually make private comments about. Sometimes I turn them into posts to show the "errors" of the people making silly claims. (I've done this to "Script" so many times that I have started to feel sorry for him - now I usually ignore him since he's wrong all the time). Its been a while since but I just wanted to make comment on the most recent.... You'll notice a black & white question was posed to which there is a yes or no answer. However, no such answers are found just "whys" and "what do you expect to gain" etc. etc. The bottom line is research. If someone hasn't done research but tells you that you are wrong then attempts to evade a question used to validate and/or qualify their response - then recognize this for what it really is - ignorance. My experiences have taught me that people who have something to hide never answer simple questions they fear will reveal certain truths they do not want known. It's a tactic common to both Criminals and Lawyers alike. Everyone wants to be an Expert but you cannot be one without doing the research required to make that claim. All the logic in the world cannot excuse someone from pretending to know what's in documentation they have never seen.
|
|
|
Post by uscg on Feb 8, 2008 23:12:12 GMT -5
(Deleted by request)
|
|