|
Post by Michael on Jan 26, 2015 16:26:23 GMT -5
I will check out TCTND for it. If you find it please let me know because I can't seem to... Your FBI report says the departurn time was 10 p.m. I thought that Lindbergh and Condon left between 8/8:30 p.m. to go to St. Raymonds. Could the 10 p.m. departure actually be after the ransom payment was made and Lindbergh, Condon and the government agents were leaving to go to the Morrow apartment in NYC? I believe that Irey was at the Morrow apartment when Lindbergh and Condon arrived there. I've considered this but think it has to do with Agent Lackey's account that Lindbergh first arrived at the house around 9:50PM. So it appears they are getting the time-line from him and the specific information about "who" from someone else. The intent of the cited Report is clearly to show who left to make the ransom drop. Next, I have other sources which say that (2) cars left Condon's house to make this drop. Add in what Lindbergh told Cowie and I think we can see there's more to what happened outside of typical history concerning it. But you're right about the time-line and even in the later Reports they questioned whether Lackey got the time wrong.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 26, 2015 16:54:40 GMT -5
Ever read about Agent Lackey other than TLC? That might tell you something.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2015 20:52:45 GMT -5
I will.
You do? Anything you can share on the board? Well, if two cars did leave to go to St. Raymond's then I wonder if one of them could have had Captain Oliver in it like Richard Cahill suggests in his book. Or maybe a private investigator working for Breckinridge. Lindbergh didn't trust Condon. I would think that he and Breckinridge would have wanted to be sure that ransom money went to CJ.
I absolutely agree.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2015 20:55:43 GMT -5
Ever read about Agent Lackey other than TLC? That might tell you something. Is Agent Lackey the man who followed Lindbergh and Condon to St. Raymond's but then decided not to stay?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 27, 2015 1:22:34 GMT -5
No, Lackey was the Agent in the apartment across the street from Condon's house who missed seeing them leaving the first time (to St. Raymonds) thus the Agents who (I'm guessing on this) would have been in a pursuit car wouldn't have known CAL & Jafsie had left to follow them.
In a big way the above is vhard to believe!
What you're talking about above sounds like the second time they left to Elizabeth Morrow's NY Apt.
Lackey was involved in a famous massacre which is interesting of itself.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 27, 2015 8:34:08 GMT -5
What you're talking about above sounds like the second time they left to Elizabeth Morrow's NY Apt. It does "sound" like that. What I've discovered is that just researching this case is a learning process about how to research it. Know what I mean? Although we must consider what we do have, there's no way to consider what we do not. So the key, in my opinion, is to accumulate every possible source on the subject in order to evaluate what one can - as best as possible. What I've noticed is that we all spend a considerable amount of time on things then something "pops up" later on which could potentially throw a wrench into one's theories or conclusions. We must also consider that someone is mistaken or untruthful for whatever reasons we might think exists. It's natural to resist such an occurrence because no one wants to feel like they've been spinning their wheels in the mud, finally break loose, only to get stuck again making all that work was for nothing. So what I personally do is try to leave room for error and the possibility of a new source being discovered so that it can be properly considered. It's absolutely necessary to make room for the unknown IF the goal is to get to the truth. What I've done (did) was to look at everything Lackey said then considered all the possibilities. After that I've cross referenced it with all the other material I have on that subject. There really is a lot of people saying a lot of things so it's not an easy endeavor to be sure. So in considering everything else, when Lackey reported that he saw Lindbergh's Franklin pull up the house at 9:50PM before they left, I think that's an important element to his account. I could be wrong and perhaps his whole account should be discarded. It could be he fell asleep then mixed in stuff to back fill what he missed. But again, these are the things which should be considered when evaluating the situation in it's totality. You do? Anything you can share on the board? Well, if two cars did leave to go to St. Raymond's then I wonder if one of them could have had Captain Oliver in it like Richard Cahill suggests in his book. Or maybe a private investigator working for Breckinridge. Lindbergh didn't trust Condon. I would think that he and Breckinridge would have wanted to be sure that ransom money went to CJ. There's one account that says Police were attempting to follow Lindbergh. There's (at least) two cars. There's another from the NYPD saying they saw two cars circling the block before leaving. They attributed the 2nd car to a specific Reporter. The investigation concerning the 2nd car proved it was not.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 27, 2015 10:17:38 GMT -5
Anybody could have been in a second car including J. Edgar (I always wished I could meet him - I'd say, "can I call you J?") with Clyde sitting on his lap, and possibly President Roosevelt. Everybody (though realistically not Roosevelt) wanted to get publicity off CAL.
I think Breckenridge drove to Condon's so it could have been his car; Breckenridge was at the meeting in NYC.
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Jan 27, 2015 12:21:48 GMT -5
It keeps getting thrown out there ..Lindbergh didn't trust Condon. Maybe there words spoken for the moment to reflect that but I'm not sure I believe that. I haven't seen a concrete action of Lindbergh that showed any doubt of going along faithfully with Condon. I do know Breckinridge loved him.
If this second car took off with Lindbergh and Condon where did it eventaully park itself at the cemetery ?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 27, 2015 12:41:08 GMT -5
I don't think there's any evidence of two cars on the trip to the cemetery although there seem to be some unconfirmed claimants. There were two cars on the trip to the Morrow apartment - second trip.
|
|
|
Post by garyb215 on Jan 27, 2015 13:01:21 GMT -5
Thanks. That makes sense. As I might recall now I think I remember that trip.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 27, 2015 15:16:02 GMT -5
It keeps getting thrown out there ..Lindbergh didn't trust Condon. Maybe there words spoken for the moment to reflect that but I'm not sure I believe that. I haven't seen a concrete action of Lindbergh that showed any doubt of going along faithfully with Condon. Testimony recorded that Lindbergh trusted him. However, we see by what he told Cowie that he did not. Why the "flip-flop?" Of course Cowie's version can be challenged but I personally think it would be wrong to. That's because only a few months later Lindbergh winds up telling Special Agent Larimer essentially the same thing about doubting Condon's sincerity. I do know Breckinridge loved him. Well, in the end, he wrote letters to that effect. Put me down as not believing it. If this second car took off with Lindbergh and Condon where did it eventaully park itself at the cemetery ? I don't believe they were on the same street or in a place where they could be seen by the Look-Out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2015 21:09:21 GMT -5
Michael, What can you share about Louis Blitzer? I read a newspaper article from Jan 15, 1935 that this man claimed to be Isidor Fisch's attorney and that he was visited by Hauptmann and Uhlig after Fisch had died in Germany. Did LE talk to this man? How could Fisch afford an attorney if he was as poor as the prosecution and the Fisch family claimed he was? Here is a link to the article: news.google.com/newspapers?id=hCUiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=5qMFAAAAIBAJ&pg=935%2C1157440
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 30, 2015 19:04:48 GMT -5
What can you share about Louis Blitzer? I read a newspaper article from Jan 15, 1935 that this man claimed to be Isidor Fisch's attorney and that he was visited by Hauptmann and Uhlig after Fisch had died in Germany. Did LE talk to this man? How could Fisch afford an attorney if he was as poor as the prosecution and the Fisch family claimed he was? Lloyd best describes Blitzer (aka Blitzman) on page 261: ...attorney Louis Blitzer, a lodge brother and friend of Isidor Fisch for many years.
Blitzer knew Fisch from the Chrzanower Lodge for about 7 years. Blitzer had been under the impression that Fisch was penniless, and there was one instance where Fisch asked his advice concerning the Pie Baking Business Franchise Tax but it appears whatever Blitzer did for him on this end was done out of friendship. The reason Hauptmann and Uhlig had been to see him was that a Member of the Lodge referred them to him as possibly having some knowledge concerning Fisch's affairs. Yes he was interviewed by Law Enforcement. First by Special Agent Breed, then after that in Trenton by the NJSP after which he was issued a subpoena to testify at the trial in Flemington - but was never called. Later in October of 1935, Ellis Parker interviewed him as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2015 10:11:50 GMT -5
Thanks Michael. I should have checked Lloyd's book first. Lesson learned! Interesting that Ellis also interviewed Blitzer. I know that Parker was convinced about Paul Wendel being the kidnapper. What did Ellis think about Isidor Fisch?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 31, 2015 18:00:24 GMT -5
Thanks Michael. I should have checked Lloyd's book first. Lesson learned! Interesting that Ellis also interviewed Blitzer. I know that Parker was convinced about Paul Wendel being the kidnapper. What did Ellis think about Isidor Fisch? It's hard to nail down exactly his position because it changed. However, the jist was that Wendel knew Fisch making him the nexus between Wendel (the Kidnapper) and Hauptmann. Fisch was definitely involved in the "extortion" part of the crime from Parker's perspective.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2015 7:49:13 GMT -5
Michael,
Since we are talking about jurors and witnesses on another thread, I wanted to ask you about a man named Charles Galombus. I came across a picture of him. The caption said that Galombus was a witness called before the Hunterdon Grand Jury in Flemington NJ in October 1934. This was the Grand Jury indictment hearing of Hauptmann for the murder of the Lindbergh baby.
The caption went on to say that Galombus picked Hauptmann out of a police lineup as the man he saw who parked his car not far from the Lindbergh home just prior to the kidnapping. So, is this all true? I never heard of this man before.
If this is accurate and Galombus testimony was good enough to help indict Hauptmann for murder, where was this eye witness when the trial took place in 1935? Why didn't they have him testify along with Whited, Hochmuth, and Rossiter? Or maybe in place of one of them?
Would you know if the evidence level to indict someone is different from the level needed to convict someone during a trial?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 24, 2015 17:43:09 GMT -5
If this is accurate and Galombus testimony was good enough to help indict Hauptmann for murder, where was this eye witness when the trial took place in 1935? Why didn't they have him testify along with Whited, Hochmuth, and Rossiter? Or maybe in place of one of them? What happened is this.... Either previous Authors didn't do enough research to stumble upon this guy OR they saw him for what he was. Those who wrote books to defend everything the State did would omit him because this guy completely ruins their position and those who wrote Hauptmann was innocent omitted it simply because it's obvious he was lying. So while Galambos did make this claim, it was refuted by just about everyone else involved excepting his wife Helen. Even the Investigators didn't believe him. It's just another example to what lengths the State was willing go in order to achieve their ultimate goal. Attachment DeletedAttachment DeletedWould you know if the evidence level to indict someone is different from the level needed to convict someone during a trial? "Probable cause" to believe a crime had been committed - far less then "beyond a reasonable doubt."
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Mar 24, 2015 20:11:51 GMT -5
Would you know if the evidence level to indict someone is different from the level needed to convict someone during a trial? There's a famous expression that a good prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich, which is generally pretty true. All it takes is a sliver of evidence that a jury could possibly find someone guilty to get an indictment. In Hauptmann's case, they could have brought a drunk blind person up there who claimed his now deceased son saw Richard at Hopewell and they would have handed down an indictment. At a trial, the jury is really supposed to get past any reasonable doubt of guilt. In Hauptmann's case there was tons of reasonable doubt but the jury never focused on it due to the Reilly's inept handling of the case and the prosecution essentially avoiding disclosing exculpatory evidence. In this case, a good defense could have really hit home all of the coincidences (and leaps of logic) that must have happened for this to work out as well as it did, while highlighting Hauptmann's fingerprints were nowhere on the crime scene or on the ladder, even in places where someone who built the ladder had to have touched. There's your reasonable doubt.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2015 14:47:11 GMT -5
So while Galambos did make this claim, it was refuted by just about everyone else involved excepting his wife Helen. Even the Investigators didn't believe him. It's just another example to what lengths the State was willing go in order to achieve their ultimate goal. That is quite a report! It reveals that Galambos is lying for money. I noticed that the date of the report is October 12, 1934. The report mentions that Galambos was brought in on Oct. 9, 1934 for further questioning. Sadly the Hunterdon Grand Jury formally indicted Hauptmann on Oct. 9th. When did the NJSP start checking out this man's claims? After he testified??? Regardless, it is obvious it didn't matter if the District Attorney had all the facts about this man and what he saw. Galambos was willing to testify he saw Hauptmann and that was all that mattered. Thanks for posting that report.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2015 15:53:00 GMT -5
At a trial, the jury is really supposed to get past any reasonable doubt of guilt. In Hauptmann's case there was tons of reasonable doubt but the jury never focused on it due to the Reilly's inept handling of the case and the prosecution essentially avoiding disclosing exculpatory evidence. In this case, a good defense could have really hit home all of the coincidences (and leaps of logic) that must have happened for this to work out as well as it did, while highlighting Hauptmann's fingerprints were nowhere on the crime scene or on the ladder, even in places where someone who built the ladder had to have touched. There's your reasonable doubt. Reilly did not organize or execute the type of agressive defense that was needed to get past all those 'expert witnesses' that Wilentz put on the stand. The defense didn't have the money to secure enough experts either, so that hurt Hauptmann also. Like you mentioned, the defense could not get their hands on any of the exculpatory evidence that we, today, know exists. It is so much easier for us to see the reasonable doubt that could have been created by the defense if they had that evidence to share with the jury but they didn't. I read an article in an old newspaper. It was an interview with the Hauptmann jurors a year after the trial. Liscom Case had died before this article was done so only 11 jurors are mentioned. In February 1936 the Hauptmann jurors still: 1) Believed Hauptmann guilty of the Lindbergh baby murder. 2) Would vote to send him to the chair again. 3) All but one juror would sentence Hauptmann to death again even if it were proved that the state's identification witnesses had lied on the stand. 4) Almost every one of the jurors believed Hauptmann had an accomplice in this crime. 5) The compelling evidence proving Hauptmann's guilt was the ransom money, the handwriting, and the ladder. I find #3 very disturbing. Even if these jurors thought (maybe even knew) someone like Millard Whited lied about seeing Hauptmann near the Lindbergh home, it didn't matter. It was all about the physical evidence and those expert witnesses. This news article appeared right when Gov. Hoffman was vigorously reinvestigating the Lindbergh Kidnapping case. I can't help but think that a certain attorney general wanted to counter some of that by having the convicting jury, essentially, convict and sentence Hauptmann again in the public eye. Here is a link to the article: news.google.com/newspapers?id=0rIhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=npsFAAAAIBAJ&dq=joseph%20perrone&pg=4206%2C6110857
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 25, 2015 16:35:52 GMT -5
I don't know all that much about each juror individually, but a major key to Hauptmann's conviction was the ignorance, poor educational and socioeconomic level, and pre-existing prejudices of this rural small town bunch. From the posts on the other thread, one can conclude these demographics of the jury were designed by the prosecution intentionally to maximize its chances for a conviction. This jury was like a bunch of herded sheep, with no one capable of seeing or willing to see the large holes in the prosecution's murder case and dissenting from the group. In addition, they were aware of and intimidated by police investigation of themselves individually before the trial. Yet the media made these jurors out to be heroes and some of them made some money from their brief excursion into the public limelight.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 25, 2015 17:35:46 GMT -5
That is quite a report! It reveals that Galambos is lying for money. I noticed that the date of the report is October 12, 1934. The report mentions that Galambos was brought in on Oct. 9, 1934 for further questioning. Sadly the Hunterdon Grand Jury formally indicted Hauptmann on Oct. 9th. When did the NJSP start checking out this man's claims? After he testified??? Regardless, it is obvious it didn't matter if the District Attorney had all the facts about this man and what he saw. Galambos was willing to testify he saw Hauptmann and that was all that mattered. They started investigation concerning this on October 6th and didn't believe him then. In fact, they concluded Galambos had come forward with this story only after the reward was in the press column. I suppose the State saw this as "throw away" testimony knowing that it would get shredded by rebuttal witnesses during the real trial.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Mar 26, 2015 15:57:37 GMT -5
At a trial, the jury is really supposed to get past any reasonable doubt of guilt. In Hauptmann's case there was tons of reasonable doubt but the jury never focused on it due to the Reilly's inept handling of the case and the prosecution essentially avoiding disclosing exculpatory evidence. In this case, a good defense could have really hit home all of the coincidences (and leaps of logic) that must have happened for this to work out as well as it did, while highlighting Hauptmann's fingerprints were nowhere on the crime scene or on the ladder, even in places where someone who built the ladder had to have touched. There's your reasonable doubt. The defense didn't have the money to secure enough experts either, so that hurt Hauptmann also. The fact they couldn't get their own experts was also one of the biggest nails in his coffin. You can hire experts for just about anything and I'm certain had they the resources, they could have gotten just as many handwriting "experts" to come in and say it wasn't Hauptmann who wrote those notes at all. Eliminating the request samples would only add to this. Those should have never been included in any valid comparison.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2015 9:05:21 GMT -5
The fact they couldn't get their own experts was also one of the biggest nails in his coffin. You can hire experts for just about anything and I'm certain had they the resources, they could have gotten just as many handwriting "experts" to come in and say it wasn't Hauptmann who wrote those notes at all. Eliminating the request samples would only add to this. Those should have never been included in any valid comparison. I agree that had the Hauptmann defense team the funds to hire numerous handwriting experts to counter the prosecution ones, they would have had a better chance at creating reasonable doubt. The way those request samples were done according to Agent Turrou) should have made them inadmissible. Of course, the defense team was unaware of all this. If Reilly had known about how these request writing were done, do you think he would have used that knowledge to defend Hauptmann? My position on Reilly is that he believed his client guilty, was there because he was guaranteed $25,000 by Heart Publications, was not interested in winning his client's freedom, and had substance abuse issues that affected his competency in leading this defense. I think so much is obvious about him when you read the trial transcript. Edward Reilly and his 'defense' of Hauptmann are worthy of a thread of their own.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2015 0:36:38 GMT -5
Michael,
Who were Nugent Dodds and Neil Burkinshaw? I read about them in a newspaper article that they joined Hauptmann's defense team late in the process. Did they ever do anything that helped Hauptmann?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 21, 2015 8:08:12 GMT -5
Who were Nugent Dodds and Neil Burkinshaw? I read about them in a newspaper article that they joined Hauptmann's defense team late in the process. Did they ever do anything that helped Hauptmann? This was the Defense Team's "Hail Mary." They were Attorneys from D.C. both with experience in Federal Law. They submitted a Federal Writ of Habeas Corpus to the Circuit Court in Trenton. Judge J. Warren Davis denied it. I have this legal action somewhere in my files, but from what I recall the Judge was saying if he ruled in favor it would have over-ruled both the State Courts and the U.S. Supreme Court and he wasn't willing to do that. They would appeal this decision but the U.S. Supreme Court quickly denied it. For whatever reason, I am thinking McLean paid their bills but I'd have to find proof of it before I tell anyone to accept this idea.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2015 12:45:21 GMT -5
So the efforts to save Hauptmann from execution went to the highest level possible. All possibilities were exhausted by the defense and others who believed he should have been saved from the chair. I know that McLean did her own private investigation but I am not sure she ever uncovered anything of substance. Thanks Michael for sharing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2015 22:53:36 GMT -5
Michael, who was Albert Kurtz? I read a newspaper article that said Wilentz was going to use this man to show that Hauptmann and Fisch were not together the night of March 1, 1932. Albert Kurtz had a diary and in it he says that Fisch was with him that night. I thought that the Jungs were Fisch's alibi for March 1. Kurtz was not called to testify and his diary was never brought up at the trial. Can you share anything about Albert Kurtz? bklyn.newspapers.com/image/52768292/?terms=Albert++Kurtz
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 23, 2015 9:35:16 GMT -5
Michael, who was Albert Kurtz? I read a newspaper article that said Wilentz was going to use this man to show that Hauptmann and Fisch were not together the night of March 1, 1932. Albert Kurtz had a diary and in it he says that Fisch was with him that night. I thought that the Jungs were Fisch's alibi for March 1. Kurtz was not called to testify and his diary was never brought up at the trial. Can you share anything about Albert Kurtz? bklyn.newspapers.com/image/52768292/?terms=Albert++KurtzKurtz was a Lawyer involved with the "shyster" crowd - among them Fisch and Schleser. Actually tried to set up the Solux Sign Company out of his office. And so once he called N.J. claiming that Fisch had been with him on March 1st from 10:00AM to 4:30PM and could "prove it" because he had a diary entry made on March 2nd to that effect, the State told him he was wanted to testify then showered him with all types of promises and benefits. It's just more proof of the "shenanigans" the State was willing to engage in. He worked for the Prosecution to develop certain State Witnesses then bring them along. Some of these Witnesses were his "clients." For example, he was able to get Mrs. Hoff's husband William prepared to testify in order to contradict her testimony. The biggest bombshell (at least for me) was that all the while during the trial he was under the impression he was a member of the State's Legal Team - and probably was told that based upon the correspondence I have. Of course after he was used for whatever purposes the State needed him for, they stalled and " ?" marked everything but I know that he at least got the $500.00 he was asking for. There's other entries in Wilentz's expense log for higher amounts but I cannot say if he rec'd additional sums beyond that. Attachment Deleted
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2015 20:13:27 GMT -5
Thanks Michael, for sharing this. The State certainly wasn't picky when they decided to use this crooked lawyer to cover the "Fisch" angle of the case. The State needed alibis for Fisch for important dates. Perhaps one of the services he was billing for was the March 1 alibi for Fisch. Could Kurtz have been instrumental in putting together the legal documents that the Jungs presented at the trial?
|
|