|
Post by Michael on Aug 25, 2015 19:09:42 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? I really can't say if Kurtz was behind Jung's Statement. It was handed over to NJ by Det. Max Leaf, NYPD. Also, it was witnessed by Jung's wife Erna and not by Kurtz. That might not mean anything, I don't know, but I can't prove his involvement at the time that Statement was made. I can't disprove it either. Here's what I can prove: Attachment Deleted
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2015 8:50:39 GMT -5
Thanks Michael for posting that letter. Although it doesn't prove Kurtz has direct involvement with how that whole Fisch alibi was constructed, I don't think it is a big leap to take to see the possibility that he could have helped to create the business documents the Jungs presented at the trial. This letter even brings up Mrs. Hoerber who was Fisch's alibi for April 2, 1932, the night of the ransom payment. From my perspective, Kurtz has his hands all over this. He was probably working with Charles Schlesser, who we know was a spy for the prosecution. The prosecution needed to break Fisch away from Hauptmann as a possible accomplice. Hence, the alibi stories are created for Fisch. And the people involved want to be paid for their work. Very disheartening to say the least. I appreciate you sharing this with me, Michael.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2015 9:49:01 GMT -5
Michael,
Who is Major Frank Pease? He wrote a book called "The Hole in the Hauptmann Case" back in 1936. I don't recognize his name from any of the books on the Lindbergh case. Did he have a role in the investigation? Wikipedia has very little on him. Have you seen his book? I have checked for it but it is out of print.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 17, 2015 17:52:01 GMT -5
Who is Major Frank Pease? He wrote a book called "The Hole in the Hauptmann Case" back in 1936. I don't recognize his name from any of the books on the Lindbergh case. Did he have a role in the investigation? Wikipedia has very little on him. Have you seen his book? I have checked for it but it is out of print. Frank Pease was an anti-communist who believed the crime was committed by the OGPU, and he believed Hauptmann was a Spartacist. His book is only 51 pages long so it's not a major publication or anything. He was someone fixated on a specific angle then hammered it over and over again to anyone who would listen. He didn't do any investigations or asked to do anything by the Governor but he sure wrote him a ton of letters. Here's one he wrote at the very beginning stages after the crime: Attachment Deleted
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2015 16:43:45 GMT -5
Wow! This guy is really serious! This is a whole aspect I was not aware of. I do find his reference to Ambassador Morrow and Mexico interesting, though. It seems like everybody thought they had an angle on this kidnapping. Did anyone (NJSP or FBI) ever look into any of the things Major Pease brought to their attention?
Thanks for posting that letter!
|
|
ron
Trooper
Posts: 29
|
Post by ron on Dec 18, 2015 17:59:21 GMT -5
Amy, I don't remember any international investigations except for looking at ransom bills found in Germany. The FBI mostly looked for gangster connections around the country. Interestingly, Hoover personally visited Gaston Means in prison to try to get a confession of "the real story." No dice.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 19, 2015 9:06:33 GMT -5
Did anyone (NJSP or FBI) ever look into any of the things Major Pease brought to their attention? One of the things that Governor Hoffman recognized is that while some ideas people had were wacky there were also sometimes interesting ideas found among them as well. That's why you'll see certain people/angles quickly dismissed at times because of one thing a Researcher might not like. But I'd say read everything, consider what might be worthwhile, and don't ignore a source because they said one of more things that isn't acceptable. Kimberling sat down with Pease and went over everything with him. I know that Hoover was referring any Kidnapping related letters Pease sent to the NJSP. I don't have any specific investigation by them into his claims - that doesn't mean there weren't any it just means I haven't seen them. Attachment Deleted Attachment Deleted
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2015 15:45:28 GMT -5
Amy, I don't remember any international investigations except for looking at ransom bills found in Germany. The FBI mostly looked for gangster connections around the country. Interestingly, Hoover personally visited Gaston Means in prison to try to get a confession of "the real story." No dice. Well, Ron. You have my attention. I was not aware that any ransom money was found in Germany. Are you able to comment any further on this???
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2015 16:50:02 GMT -5
Thanks, Michael, for posting Gov. Hoffman's letter about Major Pease and his theories. Gov. Hoffman clearly checked out everything that came to him about the Lindbergh Case that might possibly lead somewhere. I think the absolute worst thing you can do is wear blinders when researching this case. You will miss things you need to know if you do that. I am glad that Kimberling sat down with Pease and checked out what he had to offer. Nosovitsky's name had come up during this investigation as a possible suspect. He had involved with intelligence work for the government regarding communist activities in America. I am glad Pease wasn't ignored. You just never know what you might learn. Thinking about Russian involvement reminded me about the discussion we had about the 3X murders. The final note written by 3X said he was leaving in his speedy monoplane and making a non-stop flight for the Russian Headquarters of the Red Diamond Society of which he was the avenging hand. I wonder if Major Pease knew about the Red Diamond Society!
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 19, 2015 16:59:57 GMT -5
If there was indeed ransom money found in Germany, it would surely be possible that whoever passed the loot there had some ties to Hauptmann. Aside from Fisch, did other Hauptmann relatives, friends, or acquaintances in the US travel to Germany in the time frame between the ransom payment and Hauptmann's arrest? (I seem to vaguely recall Mrs. Hauptmann taking a trip to Germany during that period, but I'm not sure. Also, I seem to recall an American investigator with ties to the NJSP (?) sending a report back from Germany.)
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 23, 2015 16:02:51 GMT -5
I hope there might be some sports trivia buff or member of the respective families who may be able to help me with this question:
It would seem like John Francis Condon ("Jafsie") was probably related to a younger sports celebrity with almost the same name: John Francis Xavier Condon (1914-1979). John F. X. Condon was well known as a boxing promoter and basketball public address announcer at Madison Square Garden in New York. (He got an extensive obit in the New York Times when he passed away.) Aside from the names, the two both lived almost their entire lives in and around NYC and shared a common connection to sports, especially boxing. Just wondering if anyone knows what their blood relationship was, if any.
BTW, Al Reich, the man who drove Jafsie to Woodlawn Cemetery and later assisted Lindbergh in his mission to search for Charlie, was a well-known professional boxer in his time. He was a participant in several headline fights, though he never was a champion in his weight class. He retired from boxing in the early 1920s, about ten years before the LKC. His complete pro boxing record and some biographical data are available on the Net.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 24, 2015 16:42:30 GMT -5
Who Was: Arthur Barry? Attachment DeletedSo he was eliminated from consideration. Pretty convincing stuff. What caused them to eliminate him?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2015 20:29:33 GMT -5
I read the FBI summary report on Barry and he really sounds like a great suspect. The report mentions that Otto Reuter, who Barry resided with in Newark N. J. claimed Arthur Barry was with him at home the entire evening and night of March 1, 1932. So I would suspect this helped to eliminate Barry. The report also says that they were going to compare Barry's feet with the footprints found under the Lindbergh baby nursery. Do you know if this was done? If they could not match his feet to those, this, too would have caused his elimination.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 24, 2015 21:24:14 GMT -5
The report also says that they were going to compare Barry's feet with the footprints found under the Lindbergh baby nursery. Do you know if this was done? If they could not match his feet to those, this, too would have caused his elimination. I do not believe that was done. What was done concerned Condon. It was decided to bring Condon to the Newark Police Headquarters to view a line-up consisting of Barry, Police Officers, and Reporters in order to see if Berry was "Cemetery John." He picked out Barry and stated that he knew him from seeing his picture in the newspaper. Dr. Condon then asked Barry several questions and asked him to pronounce several words such as: perfect, will smack you out, and other words that was used by "John." Condon looked at his hands to determine he didn't have the unique identifying "lump." Noticing his hands weren't the same seems to have been a major point in not identifying him. The fact he didn't look like Cemetery John appears (to me) secondary to this. He then looked over Ann Blake and stated that neither Barry nor Ann Blake were the people whom he was in contact with in regards to the paying of the ransom money. Some observations to consider: 1. They always seem to be relying on Condon's identification. If Condon says "no" then the investigation dies. For me that's very important because someone who had involvement may have been prematurely written off. Consider that Hauptmann had no such lump, AND Condon said he wasn't Cemetery John. So basing anything on Condon in the past shows conclusions like this one are seriously flawed. 2. These Line-Ups are unfair. Condon knew immediately who he was supposed to pick out as the men came walking into the room. If it happened here then it supports any accusation it happened involving Hauptmann with either Perrone or Condon. 3. Next, why is Condon even bothering to look over Barry's wife Ann? Is this because of Tuckahoe, or possibly the 2nd person in the Cemetery at St. Raymond's? This too supports the position they believed that multiple people were involved.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 24, 2015 22:22:05 GMT -5
And the cosmic joke goes on . . .
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 25, 2015 8:45:42 GMT -5
And the cosmic joke goes on . . . For now, but not for much longer from where I am standing.... Once what I've written comes out, unless no one else sees what I am seeing, I do believe I will turn this whole case upside down. All the fiction will be smashed, and the art of writing history by playing "whisper down the alley" should end. I do not get my sources from other (and previously mistaken) books written on the case so a lot should change. However, people tend to resist what they "like" to believe so I guess I'll find out soon enough.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 25, 2015 9:55:10 GMT -5
He then looked over Ann Blake and stated that neither Barry nor Ann Blake were the people whom he was in contact with in regards to the paying of the ransom money. Some observations to consider: 1. They always seem to be relying on Condon's identification. If Condon says "no" then the investigation dies. For me that's very important because someone who had involvement may have been prematurely written off. Consider that Hauptmann had no such lump, AND Condon said he wasn't Cemetery John. So basing anything on Condon in the past shows conclusions like this one are seriously flawed. 2. These Line-Ups are unfair. Condon knew immediately who he was supposed to pick out as the men came walking into the room. If it happened here then it supports any accusation it happened involving Hauptmann with either Perrone or Condon. 3. Next, why is Condon even bothering to look over Barry's wife Ann? Is this because of Tuckahoe, or possibly the 2nd person in the Cemetery at St. Raymond's? This too supports the position they believed that multiple people were involved. I will consider your observations! 1) Because Condon is the only one to have physically seen CJ, he is the only source they have for an ID. Condon had promised never to identify the people involved right from the start of this whole negotiation process. This was known by the authorities, I am sure. I really think that lump on the hand was something Condon used to help him not identify someone. If it was that important of a clue to who CJ was, why doesn't that carry through for Hauptmann? He had no lump on his hand. 2) Agree. The lineups I have read about should not even be considered line-ups. Even the line up they used for Perrone to make his ID of Hauptmann was terrible. They assured the selection of the person the authorities wanted identified. 3) I have no knowledge about Barry's wife being looked at. It certainly does indicate that authorities believed more than one person was involved. It also shows that they were considering the possibility that a woman was involved with the kidnapping. I think I read somewhere (not sure where) that Barry's handwriting was very similar to the kidnapping notes. Did they actually check Barry's handwriting against the kidnap notes?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 25, 2015 10:41:22 GMT -5
Hope it all comes together for you soon Michael. You've worked harder than anyone at this, including the authors we're using as resources! The information you just casually come up with is amazing.
I've always felt that the most incredible thing about the Lindbergh crime was that it actually happened.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 25, 2015 10:51:52 GMT -5
If an investigator were even thinking that Barry wrote the ransom notes, it would be logical as a preliminary step to determine if Barry had any German language skills. Merely at first glance, the surnames "Barry" or "Berry" are NOT German. There remains the possibility, though, that the suspect or the family may have changed the name to Anglicize it, as some immigrant families did.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 25, 2015 10:57:45 GMT -5
"Suddenly I was famous." Odell Beckham
Hauptmann probably felt the same.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 25, 2015 15:41:58 GMT -5
I've always felt that the most incredible thing about the Lindbergh crime was that it actually happened. I think that, all by itself, is a very important observation. Hope it all comes together for you soon Michael. You've worked harder than anyone at this, including the authors we're using as resources! The information you just casually come up with is amazing. I appreciate that. It's being edited now and once that's finished then it's onto the whole publishing process. Since I'm new at all of this I can only assume how long but I am hoping it all wraps up shortly. 1) Because Condon is the only one to have physically seen CJ, he is the only source they have for an ID. Condon had promised never to identify the people involved right from the start of this whole negotiation process. This was known by the authorities, I am sure. I really think that lump on the hand was something Condon used to help him not identify someone. If it was that important of a clue to who CJ was, why doesn't that carry through for Hauptmann? He had no lump on his hand. This is exactly right, and I know we've discussed this before but I have to mention again how this "lump" seems like the exact opposite to the holes in the note. One is meant to identify someone while the other is meant to use NOT to identify someone. For me it shows a level of intelligence designing these types of safeguards and disproves any idea of someone ad-libbing their way through all of this. That's not to imply that it was Condon who came up with these ideas because I don't believe that. He was a master of mis-direction and used that skill as often as he could. In the end, the Police realized what was going on and gave him an ultimatum. This was why Condon reversed course on Hauptmann and the imaginary "lump" that was designed to protect this group was forgotten about. I think I read somewhere (not sure where) that Barry's handwriting was very similar to the kidnapping notes. Did they actually check Barry's handwriting against the kidnap notes? I know both Barry's and Otto Reuter's handwriting was examined. Here is Barry's exemplar: Attachment Deleted
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Dec 25, 2015 23:40:27 GMT -5
1) Because Condon is the only one to have physically seen CJ, he is the only source they have for an ID. Condon had promised never to identify the people involved right from the start of this whole negotiation process. This was known by the authorities, I am sure. I really think that lump on the hand was something Condon used to help him not identify someone. If it was that important of a clue to who CJ was, why doesn't that carry through for Hauptmann? He had no lump on his hand. Amy, there seems to be a very common misconception about the "fleshy lump" that Condon claimed to be looking for when he met with CJ at Woodlawn Cemetery. And it's developed a life of its own over the years, most recently thanks to Robert Zorn, in his ridiculous book, Cemetery John, The Undiscovered Mastermind of the Lindbergh Kidnapping. Zorn points to what appears to be some kind of congenital defect on the outside of John Knoll's left thumb as seen in the photo on pg. 121. This is clearly not the kind of peculiarity Condon was talking about and Zorn really misses the boat here. And it's beyond me how former FBI profiler John Douglas seems to allow himself to get taken in by this and a full range of Zorn fantasies.. Back to Condon, and why did he later state he was looking for this feature at Woodlawn? Because he claimed to recognize within the smudged hand-print presumably left by the kidnapper in the Lindbergh nursery, a sign of muscular over-development at the ball of the thumb. Whether he actually did recognize this feature in the nursery I think is pretty debatable. We do know for a fact that within the FBI Report, Part 1 (pg. 258) which was issued before Hauptmann's arrest, Condon states that Cemetery John, "Had unusually large muscular or fleshy development on inside thumb of left hand." So clearly, he's not talking about a congenital defect at all, but rather a sign of muscular development of the type seen in the hands of labourers, such as metal workers and carpenters, or athletes. In his book, Jafside Tells All, Condon says on page 93, "I held out my hand - not entirely a gesture of friendship. I was still thinking of that smudged hand-print in the nursery - the handprint, valueless for any practical purposes of fingerprint comparison but exhibiting plainly definite signs of muscular over-development at the ball of the thumb." His right hand came from the coat pocket, reached out, clasped mine. The hard lump of muscle I had expected to find at the base of the thumb was there." Specifically, Condon is referring to the muscle group known as the Thenar Eminence, at the base of the thumb on the inside of the hand, as seen in this diagram showing the inside of the left hand. What I find a bit confusing here is that he mentions the left hand in the FBI Report and the right hand in his book. I suppose the FBI Report could be wrong as there seems little reason why Condon would have had occasion to feel CJ's left hand. In any case, he was aware of this feature and when looking for it two and a half years later in September of 1934, clearly it didn't seem to be there or was then not as pronounced. Personally, I don't find this surprising at all, considering Hauptmann had essentially given up the profession of carpentry for the relatively leisurely pursuit of stock market trading, following the ransom payment in April of 1932. Attachment Deleted
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 26, 2015 5:30:19 GMT -5
Problem is though, that no one except Condon is ever aware of the "fleshy lump." It's never mentioned by any of the investigators and perhaps was just Condon's attempt at being the ace detective. In a pretty simple crime that there's not much unusual about this little side bit has gotten way too much attention. Especially considering that it probably never even existed. Has anyone ever come up with factual evidence of the lump?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Dec 26, 2015 8:03:36 GMT -5
Jack, it is an important consideration in identification but only when it applies at the time of the encounter, ie. March of 1932. The real problem here is twofold: it's trotted out whenever someone is intent on eliminating Hauptmann as a suspect, because he didn't have the "fleshy lump" in September of 1934 and secondly because they don't understand the type of feature Condon was originally describing in evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 26, 2015 9:01:59 GMT -5
Amy, there seems to be a very common misconception about the "fleshy lump" that Condon claimed to be looking for when he met with CJ at Woodlawn Cemetery. And it's developed a life of its own over the years, most recently thanks to Robert Zorn, in his ridiculous book, Cemetery John, The Undiscovered Mastermind of the Lindbergh Kidnapping. Zorn points to what appears to be some kind of congenital defect on the outside of John Knoll's left thumb as seen in the photo on pg. 121. This is clearly not the kind of peculiarity Condon was talking about and Zorn really misses the boat here. And it's beyond me how former FBI profiler John Douglas seems to allow himself to get taken in by this and a full range of Zorn fantasies.. I know this was addressed to Amy but I've got to throw in my two cents worth... While I really can't comment on Zorn's book (because I refuse to waste money) I do give him credit for going to the Archives. Next, it's my opinion this "lump" has taken the course and direction in which it was given. One could formulate any theory they'd like to about it because the information Condon gave to Authorities opens the door to it. Since I believe the whole thing was a farce from jump-street I do not labor over the possible diagnosis. Back to Condon, and why did he later state he was looking for this feature at Woodlawn? Because he claimed to recognize within the smudged hand-print presumably left by the kidnapper in the Lindbergh nursery, a sign of muscular over-development at the ball of the thumb. Whether he actually did recognize this feature in the nursery I think is pretty debatable. We do know for a fact that within the FBI Report, Part 1 (pg. 258) which was issued before Hauptmann's arrest, Condon states that Cemetery John, "Had unusually large muscular or fleshy development on inside thumb of left hand." So clearly, he's not talking about a congenital defect at all, but rather a sign of muscular development of the type seen in the hands of labourers, such as metal workers and carpenters, or athletes. There are about a "million" sources for what Condon said or did not say. The Agencies were competing for his attention so they could solve the case. This was because they all knew he was aware of more then what he was telling them. And while the reasons for that are (and were debatable) the fact he told NJ and NY something different then what he told the FBI is a huge reason for the jealousies between the forces which caused the multiple break(s) at various times among them. It's important to note that Condon was providing information to the FBI and so they had first hand dealings with him. I say this because in many other cases they had to rely on (sometimes purposely bad) intel from NY, NJ, or the Press for information they were blind to. With that said I think it is possible, once all sources are put together then compared, to come up with a theory. Certainly some theories may be better then others but I don't think it possible to say who's is absolutely correct - or who's is not. In his book, Jafside Tells All, Condon says on page 93, "I held out my hand - not entirely a gesture of friendship. I was still thinking of that smudged hand-print in the nursery - the handprint, valueless for any practical purposes of fingerprint comparison but exhibiting plainly definite signs of muscular over-development at the ball of the thumb." His right hand came from the coat pocket, reached out, clasped mine. The hard lump of muscle I had expected to find at the base of the thumb was there." But the reports tell a different story. Hauptmann did not have it. So looking at it through this lens, we must realize his book is a weak ex post facto source attempting to explain away his suspicious actions. There is some value in reading it, however, I'd say it ranks a 2 out of 10 in that regard and we don't have enough "Pinocchios" to rank all the lies he placed within it's pages. Specifically, Condon is referring to the muscle group known as the Thenar Eminence, at the base of the thumb on the inside of the hand, as seen in this diagram showing the inside of the left hand. What I find a bit confusing here is that he mentions the left hand in the FBI Report and the right hand in his book. If he's going back and forth from left to right what does that tell you? Forgetting which hand it was is a sign of a lie in my opinion. I suppose the FBI Report could be wrong as there seems little reason why Condon would have had occasion to feel CJ's left hand. In any case, he was aware of this feature and when looking for it two and a half years later in September of 1934, clearly it didn't seem to be there or was then not as pronounced. Personally, I don't find this surprising at all, considering Hauptmann had essentially given up the profession of carpentry for the relatively leisurely pursuit of stock market trading, following the ransom payment in April of 1932. If that were the case Joe, why on earth would the Police allow this to be a factor when Condon was brought out to look over a Suspect? Why did they place any weight to this feature? Jack, it is an important consideration in identification but only when it applies at the time of the encounter, ie. March of 1932. The real problem here is twofold: it's trotted out whenever someone is intent on eliminating Hauptmann as a suspect, because he didn't have the "fleshy lump" in September of 1934 and secondly because they don't understand the type of feature Condon was originally describing in evidence. This implies that Condon himself didn't understand it. Next (for me), the answer lies within everything Condon said. Not just this "lump" but the other features he's announcing exist to the Police. Like the " inroads of disease" comment. He said that on multiple occasions, and I would submit just as those who bring up the "lump" not attaching itself to Hauptmann neither did this. Try explaining that one away.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2015 21:30:32 GMT -5
Amy, there seems to be a very common misconception about the "fleshy lump" that Condon claimed to be looking for when he met with CJ at Woodlawn Cemetery. And it's developed a life of its own over the years, most recently thanks to Robert Zorn, in his ridiculous book, Cemetery John, The Undiscovered Mastermind of the Lindbergh Kidnapping. Zorn points to what appears to be some kind of congenital defect on the outside of John Knoll's left thumb as seen in the photo on pg. 121. This is clearly not the kind of peculiarity Condon was talking about and Zorn really misses the boat here. And it's beyond me how former FBI profiler John Douglas seems to allow himself to get taken in by this and a full range of Zorn fantasies.. I am totally in agreement with you about Zorn's book and how he incorrectly interpreted that "fleshy lump". I have read (somewhere) that Condon made a drawing of that fleshy lump during the investigation. I wonder if this drawing was mentioned in any reports at the archives. It would have been helpful for Zorn to have read such reports. Condon was in that nursery after the window area had been dusted for prints. Then the troopers were climbing in and out of that window also. They would have placed their hands in the dusted areas. IF (and this is a big if)Condon really did see a hand print around that window area, do you think it might have been a print left by one of the officers who had climbed in or out of that nursery window? I was going to mention the same thing Michael said in his post. Condon claims the lump is on the left hand and he also claims it is on the right hand. If that lump existed at all, he should not be confused about it. Condon noted this lump when he shook hands with CJ, didn't he. Isn't it customary to shake with the right hands? Condon says "His right hand came from the coat pocket". I think Condon is being misleading about a lump being present on the hand of CJ. I see that you also noticed this inconsistency of right verses left by Condon. Condon did promised the kidnappers that he would not reveal who they were. Isn't it possible that he was doing all he could to keep that promise by creating a lump where there really wasn't one?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,656
|
Post by Joe on Dec 26, 2015 21:31:00 GMT -5
In Zorn's case, going to the Archives obviously didn't help the man much in liberating himself from the harebrained notion he took with him through the front door. And the point of my post was that he and many others have missed entirely what Condon was actually talking about.
He certainly didn't seem to in September of 1934 but are you also going to tell me he didn't have it in April of 1932, when it was potentially a more relevant point of identification?
Why would you conclude Condon is lying here when you know as well as I do that the FBI Report is far from being a perfect accounting of case facts? It seems reasonable to me that if Condon shook hands with CJ, he would be referring to the right hand, as he does in his book. Should we not also question the veracity of the FBI Report as opposed to simply writing this off as a Condon yarn?
I said it was a personal observation that he had not done any continuous manual labour in the intervening two and a half years. But I'm pretty sure the police in September of 1934 would have had some interest in seeing if this particular observation of Condon's from April 1932, might prove meaningful in some way.
I'm not sure what you're asking me to explain but I believe Condon knew enough about muscular development within the body through his work with boxers and other athletes. And it seems reasonable to me that he noted CJ had well developed musculature from the hand-to-hand contact he had with him, and that this might prove to be a relevant point of identification when a suspect was brought in.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2015 21:40:36 GMT -5
I know both Barry's and Otto Reuter's handwriting was examined. Thanks for posting that exemplar for Arthur Barry. It is quite obvious that Barry's handwriting looks nothing like the kidnap notes!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 26, 2015 22:18:05 GMT -5
In Zorn's case, going to the Archives obviously didn't help the man much in liberating himself from the harebrained notion he took with him through the front door. And the point of my post was that he and many others have missed entirely what Condon was actually talking about. I think writing a bad book and not going to the Archives go hand in hand. However, since he does go there I thought it important to point that out. He certainly didn't seem to in September of 1934 but are you also going to tell me he didn't have it in April of 1932, when it was potentially a more relevant point of identification? There's evidence of varicose veins all over the place but no such other issue. I've seen no evidence of it. Have you? Am I missing something? Why would you conclude Condon is lying here when you know as well as I do that the FBI Report is far from being a perfect accounting of case facts? It seems reasonable to me that if Condon shook hands with CJ, he would be referring to the right hand, as he does in his book. Should we not also question the veracity of the FBI Report as opposed to simply writing this off as a Condon yarn? The FBI Summary Report is faulty in several places for several reasons. However, they were dealing with Condon directly as I stated below. So they weren't "out of the loop" and very much in the loop to the point where the NJSP believed Condon was telling the FBI more then he was them - and he was right about that. So why would I believe Summary Report is flawed in this area - especially when I have the individual reports which prove they were correct? I'm not sure what you're asking me to explain but I believe Condon knew enough about muscular development within the body through his work with boxers and other athletes. And it seems reasonable to me that he noted CJ had well developed musculature from the hand-to-hand contact he had with him, and that this might prove to be a relevant point of identification when a suspect was brought in. Hauptmann never had a deformed face, or hands as a result of a disease did he? That's my point. If one is to accept one observation then how can we shrug off the other?
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Dec 27, 2015 3:32:21 GMT -5
Hauptmann didn't have the cough either.
Condon's initial descriptions should have more excluded Richard that included him. I think they got the right guy though, or at least the guy who knew enough about it to tell all, but he never did.
|
|