|
Post by sue75 on Jun 30, 2012 20:18:06 GMT -5
blog.nj.com/lindbergh/2008/02/lindbergh_author_just_one_of_t.htmlSteve, did you attend this one? I seem to remember you did. Jim Fisher's chapter in Ghosts of Hopewell looks more and more appropos. -- "How Many Conspirators Does It Take to Steal a Baby?" There's a chapter on Father Kallok in Ghosts of Hopewell --"Father Kallok: The Forgotten Story"
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Jun 30, 2012 20:33:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 1, 2012 7:01:39 GMT -5
Remember what I said about my belief that whoever was involved would be found in the files? While he isn't a household name, there's quite a bit of material on Otto Steiner at the NJSP Archives that I know Champ went through. That alone makes the book one any Researcher will want to read.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2012 19:55:32 GMT -5
What a great find the article is Sue. Thanks so much for posting it. Would love to read Champ's book. It is not available on Amazon. Did he self-publish the book?
There is definitely a link between Otto Steiner and Richard Hauptmann. Perrone had identified Steiner as the man who gave him the note to deliver to Dr. Condon. I think this link is so important.
Michael, did the NJSP pursue Steiner on a serious level? On page 99 of Gardner's book he talks about Steiner but says the investigation didn't pan out. Is this just another dead end in the case? Did the investigators feel that because he didn't look like CJ it wasn't worth the time. Was Condon ever shown a picture of Steiner?
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 2, 2012 1:10:04 GMT -5
I was not familiar with this angle. Here’s a couple of newspaper articles from that time: news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1787&dat=19350408&id=iIQcAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RmQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2361,595307 news.google.com/newspapers?id=MlcaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=8QwEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6903,981177&hl=en The story is interesting, but I feel a little doubtful about aspects of it: Hauptmann accessing architect plans; BRH riding around the Sourland mountains a lot on horseback (which you'd think some of the locals might have remembered); the priest also implicates Gerta Henkel, saying she was down there more than BRH; and he implicates Elvert Carlstrom, who was a key defense witness to BRH being at the bakery on the evening of the crime. If Carlstrom was really one of the kidnappers, I’m doubtful he would have exposed himself by becoming a witness. Wilentz was working hard to discredit Carlstrom. Since the priest apparently did not come forward until the trial was in the news, I wonder if he might have been a publicity seeker, or even hired by “Jersey Justice” to help discredit defense witnesses. I’m just guessing, though. Michael do you have any more input on this “Willows” angle?
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Jul 2, 2012 6:19:05 GMT -5
yes sue i went to his talk. you can take any suspect from the fbi files and write a book on them. its getting real stupid
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 2, 2012 7:44:22 GMT -5
Absolutely. And this was before Rev. Kallok brought him back into the picture.
This was the NJSP's eventual position.
Actually, Perrone kept him in the picture because he said his picture bore a striking resemblance to the man who gave him the note to deliver. Later, he was brought to see him in person. During this visit he seems to contradict himself by saying, in essence, it wasn't him, it looked exactly like him, his actions were the same as the man who gave him the note, so he wasn't willing to eliminate him, and in fact remained very interested in him.
I searched for the Report where Condon took a look at him. I couldn't find it but if you trust my memory Condon said he didn't look like "John."
The Police didn't share your hypothesis. With their backs against the wall in terms of time, they conducted an investigation in an attempt to link Carlstrom and Hauptmann.
My input is this: Whether or not you finish the book believing Steiner was involved, you will be glad you read it. It brings a ton of new information into the arena to consider. If you ever go to the NJSP Archives and see the information down there, you would never feel comfortable ignoring any of it - most especially someone they spent a lot of time on.
|
|
|
Post by bookrefuge on Jul 2, 2012 9:54:25 GMT -5
OK, but countless suspects were investigated. Besides what the priest said, was any link between Carlstrom and Hauptmann ever established?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 3, 2012 20:14:49 GMT -5
I would rather wait to discuss his entire book until its out. It's almost like discussing a movie before any has watched it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2013 11:19:18 GMT -5
I reviewed this thread you mention Michael in your shoutout. Did Champ's book "The Willows" ever get published? I have not been able to locate it in the usual places I look for books.
I am not a fan of the whole Father Kallok story. I have several reasons for this:
1) My biggest reason is that Father Kallok did not come forward about the possible kidnapping threat to the Lindbergh child in 1931 when he first learned of it. This was not a confessional conversation he was listening to. He could have told the Lindberghs. He could have told the authorities of his concern. Why did he wait until 1935 when Anna Hauptmann comes to town in Milwaukee to tell his story?
2) Hauptmann and Gerta. Since this is all taking place in 1931 BRH and Gerta supposedly don't even know each other yet. If that is really true then this part of the story must be false.
3) Hauptmann on horseback? Yeah, right!
4) Father Kallok knowing Hauptmann by the name of Bruno. Since BRH did not use his first name and was known as Richard (Dick to his friends so I have learned), Father Kallock claiming this is how he knew him in 1931 just doesn't ring true for me. I felt the same way after reading Zorn's book. Unless BRH had some kind of split personality, the Bruno criminal/sociopath/babykiller person and the Richard carpenter/husband/loving father/man with many friends person, I don't think Father Kallock is correct in who he is claiming he met at The Willows.
I am not saying that I feel Hauptmann is innocent of the Lindbergh crime. I believe he was involved. I just don't think Father Kallok is correct in his identification of him.
The only thing about this story that I find intriging is the person he calls Otto, who is, I have come to understand Otto Steiner. Perrone had indentified Otto as possibly being the man who gave him the ransom note to deliver to Condon's home on the evening of March 12. Of course, I know that Perrone went on to make multiple identifications. I am just not sure that Perrone really got a good enough look at the man who gave him the note to deliver so this resulted in his confusion.
If I am remembering right, Perrone had testified at the Bronx Grand jury hearing that he would not know the man who gave him the note if he were to see him again. If this is so why then did he go on to identify Hauptmann as the man who gave him the note?
When and why did the NJSP discontinue their investigation into Otto Steiner? Did he have rock solid alibis for all the key dates like March 1, March 12 and April 2?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 5, 2013 12:48:33 GMT -5
Hi Amy.
That shout was in response to conkal49's shout asking for information about this subject. You've got a lot of good questions and points to consider, however, I'd like to wait for Champ's book to come out before "I" open the door to this. Of course anyone else is welcome to, but knowing the book is coming out I don't feel comfortable getting into a full blown discussion just yet. That's not to say I won't provide some specific information if asked though...for example, I've posted Steiner's picture in the past - but I know he's been working on this since at least 2006 when I first met him so I don't want to start "proving" or "disproving" things before we all get a chance to see what he has to say first.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2013 15:36:58 GMT -5
Hey Michael,
Sorry about posting. I have been busy and must have missed conkal49's shoutout to you. I only saw yours.
Totally understand about holding off on commenting. I am looking forward to the book coming out and will certainly buy it.
Depending on what is revealed by this book, I may just have to print out my post of questions and points and eat it. Yikes!!!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 8, 2013 16:26:16 GMT -5
No - don't be sorry! Great questions! Here is the photo of Steiner I mentioned above. One of our Members was asking to see it:
|
|
|
Post by conkal49 on Oct 8, 2013 21:12:47 GMT -5
Two years ago while researching my family's geneology, I was surprised to see my great uncle's name (Rev. Michael J. Kallok) linked to the Lindbergh case. I always knew of him as my father's uncle and the priest who baptized me. He also was my go-to babysitter when my parents helped out around St. Joseph's parish and rectory in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Since I discovered this connection to the LKC, I have been doing a lot of research on the subject beginning with Jim Fisher's book, "The Ghosts of Hopewell". One reason why Mr. Fisher feels that there are problems with the priest's story is that Father Kallok recalled that there was a fire at "The Willows" in 1930 but Detective Horn reported that the fire occurred in 1931. Actually, there were two fires at "The Willows" one on 7/11/30 and a second one on 1/28/31. This information is documented in news articles appearing in the Trenton Evening Times. Interestingly, according to the newspaper articles, Otto Steiner operated the riding academy and owned the 14 horses that were killed in the first fire. Father Kallok mentions a man by the name of Otto in his account of the activities at "The Willows"
Needless to say, I am anxious to read Champ Atlee's book (although I have been unable to locate it anywhere online). I have collected a lot of information regarding Rev. Kallok and am curious to see what information Mr. Atlee has regarding this little known aspect of the case.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 9, 2013 18:34:08 GMT -5
I am pretty sure that Fisher's book was the 1st place he was mentioned. As you found out, his books on this case aren't the most reliable. You're right - It doesn't appear Champ's book has been published yet. Once it is I will absolutely let everyone know about it. Is there something specific you are looking for? I've been hesitant to discuss this because I don't want to spoil anything that might come out in that (pending) book but I don't want to keep something from you that I think you should know. Feel free to PM me if you'd like.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2014 17:24:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by conkal49 on Sept 9, 2014 19:05:57 GMT -5
Amy, Thank you for your quick response to my question and also for the link.
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Sept 9, 2014 19:10:31 GMT -5
I think I went to his lecture years ago in Hopewell about father kallok and he was in the process in writing the book. he didn't convince me that this guy was involved, jim fisher was right
|
|
|
Post by conkal49 on Sept 9, 2014 19:18:34 GMT -5
I'm not sure I follow...Jim Fisher was right about what?
|
|
|
Post by romeo12 on Sept 9, 2014 19:27:49 GMT -5
its not convincing that kallok was involved. the author didn't convince me
|
|