mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Aug 17, 2012 19:22:19 GMT -5
There's a photo on this forum somewhere, of Fisch I think posed with a woman. If any of us can find it you'll see a whopper of a lumpy thumb. I can't recall if maybe it was Sue who posted it. Fisch being a fur cutter might account for a hypertrophied thumb. Some one posited that when BRH didn't have that, that maybe it had gotten well. Hey Joe, I don't know if Fisch was CJ. But it has always seemed to me he was closer to Condon's description (but who knows how to credit anything Condon said! ). There was also something said about the difference in the dress of the man who handed Perrone the note and how CJ was dressed i.e. overcoat vs thin coat. Somehow I think BRH would have had a warm coat. Oh well I guess I just ramble, here.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Aug 17, 2012 20:31:06 GMT -5
Mairi, that is no ramble. That is the first time I have heard the suggestion of a link between the lumpy thumb and the fur cutting trade. I have no idea how they used to cut furs, but just generically speaking, when I grip a knife handle, it lodges against my thumb. I can see how years of cutting furs might result in a thumb deformity, kind of analogous to typists getting carpal tunnel syndrome. In fact Fisch’s other “ID”—his chronic tubercular cough—also resulted from years in the industry.
Obviously, Fisch did not fit other parts of Condon’s description of CJ. But if Condon (as I now believe) was being deliberately evasive and hedgy in his description of CJ, I wonder if perhaps he was giving us bits and pieces drawn from several different gang members. That way if a gang member was caught, he would have elbow room to go either way—depending on conditions, he could incriminate the person (based on the attribute he DID have) or say “that’s not him” (based on the attributes he DIDN’T have).
The thumb with the fleshy lump was something Condon emphasized so strongly that my feeling is that he didn’t simply make it up. Interesting that BRH didn’t have this; if he did, they would have considered it highly incriminating. I realize it can be argued that the lump was temporary.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 17, 2012 20:56:36 GMT -5
Where have the detectives been for eighty years? Good job Mairi!
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Aug 17, 2012 22:47:10 GMT -5
Sorry, Jack, I got my J's mixed up. Joe did say it, yes, so my question should be directed to him.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Aug 18, 2012 0:57:52 GMT -5
Iz ok - I've watched your posts and you're an interesting commenter, jdanniel. Did you see what Mairi posted a little while ago? Stands everything on it's head! If I had less hair in my nose I could probably lose weght.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 18, 2012 7:13:43 GMT -5
Interesting. I heard a different version in which Kloppenberg lost the postcards to the Hauptmanns after and as a result of the arguement. I then saw this version supported in Mark's excellent book; Their Fifteen Minutes. I will say it seems difficult to believe that such animosity would be created by a postcard or two. I guess we may never know. Now, what does this say about Anna and is that consistent with the picture commonly painted of her?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 18, 2012 8:11:21 GMT -5
Unfortunately, I recall the conversation but not the picture. You have a great memory because this had to be at least 4 years ago. This is a good point, and shows why we need to be reminded of things like this.
I've noticed Condon listening to things he hears from others then incorporating them into his stories to sound more believable. There's no doubt in my mind he did this because there's evidence of it all over the place.
I've also suggested he's made things up so that he could quickly dismiss someone who was involved without getting them or himself into trouble.
Your theory here is one I hadn't considered, and inverts what I have suggested to consider he gives options to include anyone involved, if need be, with identifiers consistent with everyone in the mix.
We could both be right, both wrong, or one of us can be right while the other wrong. Even if just one of us is right it shows criminal intent. But if we're both right then I think Condon is a lot more savvy then we give him credit for.
He would be "covered" from ALL angles.
Good point Kevin.
She also pulled something similar concerning Hunter's Island and refusing to go.... Anyone remember what that was all about?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 18, 2012 10:53:21 GMT -5
Testing the attachment feature: Attachments:
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 18, 2012 11:29:00 GMT -5
I'd like to hear about that.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 18, 2012 12:13:59 GMT -5
We're having a little technical difficulty at the moment so as a result I am posting this for Joe lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=viewprofile&user=joeHere is a part of FBI Agent Sisk's Summary Report, dated Feb. 16, 1934. These three pages provide some detail of the individual(s) encountered by Dr. Condon and Joseph Perrone the taxi driver, on the night of March 12, 1932. I'm not sure of the source of this information and it may have been compiled from a number of them, as the report was being generated over a time frame of approximately two years. It is probably the most comprehensive and detailed accounting of CJ's physical description as provided by Condon.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 18, 2012 12:14:35 GMT -5
#2:
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 18, 2012 12:14:57 GMT -5
#3:
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 18, 2012 12:15:36 GMT -5
Last part of Joe's post: In Robert Zorn's book Cemetery John, he describes the anomoly at the base of CJ's left thumb as a fleshy lump, implying some kind of deformity, which he then attributes to his suspect, John Knoll. From the time I began studying this case, I've most often heard it characterized as a highly developed muscular feature at the base of the thumb, (thenar muscle) which one might expect to see on the hands of someone who performed regular manual labour. In the FBI Report, Condon is attributed to saying CJ "had (an) unusually large muscular or fleshy development on inside thumb of left hand." Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by jdanniel on Aug 18, 2012 13:09:49 GMT -5
I'm not a doctor or an expert on physiology (except when it comes to blondes).
With that said, I'm wondering if the so-called "fleshy lump" in question would be more likely to occur on someone's writing hand. In other words, since the fleshy lump was supposedly on CJ's left hand, would it mean CJ was left-handed?
If so, then which of the main suspects--if any--were southpaws?
Hauptmann? Fisch? Novositsky? Wendel? Knoll?
Jd
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 18, 2012 13:25:07 GMT -5
Well if anyone wants to attribute the lump to a condition from work, I can offer one tool that does aggravate the left thumb on a right handed person. That tool is a joining plane used by carpenters for straightening boards. It has an awkward front handle ( you use two hands with most planes) which really can irritate the thumb. So you should not limit suspects to those who are left handed.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Aug 18, 2012 19:37:35 GMT -5
Thanx Michael, for those attachments. That's a lot of coverage, isn't it. And others, for the lumpy thumb ideas. jd Somewhere on here I think we know BRH was right-handed. Do you remember that there were those who felt the ladder perp may have been left-handed? BR, there was one other thing I forgot to mention. Someone had posted that Condon came up with the thumb thing from a smudge on the nursery window.One might wonder if this was a later Condon "add-on", (after the cem meeting/cj lumpy thumb).
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Aug 19, 2012 10:02:07 GMT -5
I'm not exactly sure where to place this post as we have fleshy lumps happening in a few places now.. I think there's a bit of speculation going on here, which of course in the LKC, is about as good as it gets at times. What I feel is most important is to try and identify exactly what Condon was referring to when he identified this a physical characterisitic of CJ. It really comes down to whether it was some kind of congenital or acquired deformity, or a feature characteristic of a certain form of physical activity. For whatever reason, Robert Zorn has fully embraced this as a deformity and my instincts tell me this is incorrect. Does anyone, and I guess I'm addressing this one mainly to you Michael, have information from the first debriefing Condon had with LE after his March 12, 1932 meeting with CJ at Woodlawn?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 19, 2012 10:29:37 GMT -5
No offense at those interested in Condon's tales and fleshy lumps but personally, I think we have much more to gain by looking more at the cross country trip and the period between it and the kidnapping. I'd also like to hear more about the incident with Anna and Hunter's Island.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 19, 2012 15:30:56 GMT -5
There really isn't anything in writing immediately after this meeting. In fact, most of what we learn comes out after the child is found dead.
The first place (outside of the Summary Report) I have been able to find reference to the "fleshy" lump at the base of the thumb comes from a letter Condon wrote to Agent Sisk on 7-16-34. It says the NY office had been "previously" informed of this condition on CJ's left hand.
In a Report written by the FBI shortly after this letter was received, it says they went over the description with Condon and its mentioned here too. This description appears to have been included from something earlier but its the first time I have any record of this. In Lt. Finn's Liberty articles, he lists this very same description "straight from the files" then immediately below this passage quotes his report of 7-11-34 where Condon only mentions calloused hands.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 19, 2012 15:42:03 GMT -5
I know its mentioned in several places, but here is Anna's version from here Statement of September 21, 1934: A: ...I told my husband that I did not like the idea they were in my house when I was away. He said it was just fun. He said she was just like a kid. He said, "Hello Greta". That struck me again and I told him later. In Germany we don't say you right away. He said, "Nothing to it". We started to play cards in my house and we went to their house and I found out later they were nice people, and I could see she was very kiddish and always went to Hunter Island. He always wanted to go there and I did not like it, always Hinkle, Hinkle; he said they are nice and we have fun. Last summer he always went on Sunday and I stayed home, and he would go in the morning many times. I thought it was just as well. (p.7) Q: Did you ever had any words or trouble with Mrs. Hinkle?
A: Not exactly trouble. I did stop for a long time going to their house. I told my husband I was not going there anymore. (p.8)
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 19, 2012 16:12:25 GMT -5
Anna seems less and less clueless.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 19, 2012 19:16:39 GMT -5
Yes and no. To be fair I guess I should post a little more from that statement....
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 19, 2012 20:10:03 GMT -5
Q: You knew he was going out with Mrs. Hinkle?
A: No, I don't believe that.
Q: Did you ever know his car was down in front of her house two or three mornings a week?
A: That I don't know.
Q: Did he have any business down there at that time in the morning - several mornings a week?
A: No. (p.9)
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 20, 2012 8:00:42 GMT -5
Richard & Anna (Source: Public Domain): Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 20, 2012 8:02:12 GMT -5
Richard & Gerta (Source: Steve Romeo Collection): Attachments:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2012 8:23:44 GMT -5
It seems that Anna is in denial about the true nature of the relationship between her husband and Gerta. She did not want to believe that he was having an affair so she rejected it as not happening.
Could be she applied the same way of reasoning to BRH's involvement with the kidnapping. She would not accept as possible what she did not want to acknowledge about her husband's behavior.
Thanks for posting the photos Michael.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Aug 20, 2012 8:42:57 GMT -5
Good point, Amy and I think you're on the money. I'm not sure what Hauptmann's involvement with Gerta was during the time Anna was pregnant with Mannfried or if this was ever determined by investigators. What does seem clear is that Richard appeared to have become a changed man when his son was born and from all accounts, devoted himself fully to family life and the responsibilities of being a new father. At the same time, I've often considered the possibility that within that period, Anna and Richard had reached a deep trust agreement in the form of an oath, his devotion to her and their child, for her complete understanding about his past. And that they would not only love, but protect each other until death, no matter what the cost.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 20, 2012 9:21:50 GMT -5
And they say Denial is a river in Egypt I'm not as interested in what Anna believed or didn't. What I am interested in is her ability to observe and manage. Now, imagine what Anna observed during March and April of 1932. Keep in mind that they had little money and Richard has stopped working steadily as a carpenter. Any thoughts?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Aug 20, 2012 10:53:50 GMT -5
No question here Kevin, that Anna would have felt she had walked into another dimension. I'd have to believe there would be a period of significant tension and uncertainty in the house during the month of March as the ransom negotiations dragged on, followed by a period of general but guarded euphoria on the part of her husband following the payoff and then a settling period of great optimism, where money investing and spending plans were being drawn up. All of this of course, would be subject to what she already knew about the true source of their sudden upsurge in living standard.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Aug 20, 2012 11:10:49 GMT -5
Joe, I think you are correct. It must have been a very tension filled atmosphere. Assuming Anna knew nothing of the crime, she must have been quite concerned over Richard's behavior and lack of income. I have to admit, I still have a hard time believing Anna never had any suspicions given that they lived at ground zero for the ransom activities and the day to day realities concerning her husband and his activities. Not to mention that he suddenly found success at something which previously had been quite costly to the both of them.
|
|