|
Post by rick3 on Jan 8, 2008 8:08:49 GMT -5
Mairi--here is a good quote from Joe Dunninger--Behind the Mediums Cabinet page 174:
"Everything that they (B and C) said came from the "spirits" could have been gained from persons that they knew. But they reserved enough--Birrittella said they could tell more--to cover the links that they might have had to any persons concerned. The facts concerning Violet Sharpe, for instance, were not discovered until long afterward. (eg Dec 1934)
"It would be preposterous to assume that anything psychic could be involved in Mary Cerritas famous predictions. She was right in this one isolated case. Nor can we allow that her prophecies were merely guess-work. They were too numerous; moreover, she proved herself a hapless guesser in the readings she gave to me."
"Once the names of Hauptmann, Fisch, and others were brought into the Lindbergh case, it became obvious that the Birritella-Cerrita combine had an ample source of information in their own neighborhood. There is a chance they could have cracked the case wide open had they talked in "mundane" terms instead of "spirit predictions"? " end quote
Michael--can you post Treasury Agent Frank J. Wilson's report on B and C dated November 11, 1933?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 9, 2008 6:59:49 GMT -5
Rick,
There are (5) solid pages of this in Wilson's report. What are you looking for specifically or would you like me to type out what I can during the time I have available? Just let me know.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jan 9, 2008 10:26:47 GMT -5
Hi Michael.....
Five pages total or 5 pages on B and C? Well, ideally you could just scan them onto Image Shack like the Keaton Report? I suppose what Mairi is searching for is any hint as to which "predictions" about Condon, the baby, or the ransom notes were made before the fact rather than after? Also, does Wilson give any indication whether he believes them to be involved or connected to the gang? Maybe Frank has an opinion about Rosner, Thayer, Madden, Spitale and Bitz? Wilson tried to place a spy in the Temple of Divine Power but the gangsters scared them away?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 9, 2008 16:31:16 GMT -5
Sorry Rick. There isn't a scanner here and if there were this report would never show up. The following are excerpts from Agent Frank Wilson's "Summary Report": ...that the baby was in a house four and an half miles northeast of the Lindbergh home, in unpainted house, that the baby was in a garret with a window high up looking out to the sun, that the occupants of the house were armed, that it would be a mistake to approach them as the baby would be killed and the occupants would resist. She stated that near the Lindbergh house was a tree which was broken off. ( SI-6336-M p. 25)[/blockquote] Serious consideration had not at that time been given t the visit of Berritella and Mary as this was only one of a very large number of cases where vague information was being volunteered by persons without any apparent basis for their assertions and because of the further fact that on Wednesday, March 10th, the kidnappers sent the letter to Dr. John F. Condon, 2974 Decatur Avenue, New York City (see exhibit No. 4). ( p. 27)[/blockquote] About the middle of April 1932, efforts were started in an attempt to learn the character and reputation of Berritella, his activities and his associates, as it was then suspected that he might have been sent to Princeton on March 6th by persons involved in the crime and it was desired that the real purpose of his visit be determined. The services of underworld characters, Ownie Madden, Salvatore Spitalle and Irving Bitz were used to get the low down on Berritella and Mary. These three characters cooperated in this case before this Unit was connected with the investigation, and at no time did we have any business with any of them concerning this case or any other case. They were unable to find any disreputable associations of Berritella or Mary and when Ownie madden talked to them the only satisfaction he secured was the statement that the spirits had prompted them to go to Hopewell. After Madden, Spitalle and Bitz had failed in their efforts, Colonel Breckenridge discussed the matter with Special Agent Madden and me and it was considered by us as a clue of importance. ( p. 27)[/blockquote] More to follow.....
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jan 9, 2008 17:33:09 GMT -5
Michael--thanks for typing....here is another article: The Daily Gleaner Saturday May 2nd 1936 (London) April 12th: HAUPTMANN WAS NOT THE KIDNAPPER SAYS MEDIUM Woman Spiritualist Had Foretold Where the Lindbergh Baby Would Be Found Says Executed Man Knew the Money He Bought was Ransom Money; Information from the Spirits The execution of Bruno Richard Hauptmann merely ends one phase of the tragedy of the Lindbergh baby. writes a Speical Correspondent to the Sunday Dispatch. America is now asking: How did Mary Cerrita, the medium-wife of Rev. Peter Birritella "know that the baby would be found in the thicket as she accurately described, five miles from the Lindbergh home?" How did she know other matters--days before the police? The substance of the Birritella story: - BRH was not the kidnapper, but knew his money was ransom money.
- The kidnapper had brown hair, not sandy like BRHs.
- Four persons, one a woman--were in on the plot and she is now dead?
- "We wired Col Lindbergh and two years later that telegram costs us $200 and sent us to gaol"
- In Princeton Junction...Mary said "I see initials--they are JFC"
This was three days before Dr. Jafsie Condon entered the LKC.
- Mary and Peter never heard from Breckenbridge and lindbergh again--but they did hear again from Mickey Rosner.
- In the presence of Mickey and Madden they first saw the baby dead--or so they say?
- Birrittella told me how he had persuaded the police to act on this tip. I was through an Italian acquaintance of his on the New York police force.
- this time too, Mary was able to locate the spot--"I see the baby again " she said..."and it is still up on a high place." But this time it is not inside a house" It is on the side of a hill, outdoors and 5 miles from the house".
- "She also saw the man that was burying the baby--but this was not the same man that stole the baby".
- "I saw Lt. Finn and a shorter man arrested by him." he was the man with the brown hair and the cruel eyes I saw before". I said "this must be Hauptmann" but Mary said it was not.
- "The man burying the child had the dead baby in his arms and his hair fell over his face as he leaned down to bury the baby on the side hill.".
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 10, 2008 18:22:24 GMT -5
Con't....(remember these are choice selections that I have chosen to post): As Berritella had recently been contacted by Ownie madden and Morris Rosner with no results, thereby placing Berritella on his guard, we decided that Berritella should not again be interviewed until the matter had quieted down and we had an opportunity to investigate further to find some connection between Berritella and various suspects in the case. We also wished to look for a connection of Berritella with some gang or person who might be involved in such a case. I discussed the matter with Colonel Schwarzkopf and he agreed that it would be advisable to check up quietly on the activities of Berritella but that caution should be used and that no attempt should be made to bring this angle to a climax until we were well fortified with facts on which to base the interview. (p.27) I was about to start some intensive work on the Berritella angle when I learned that the New York Police Department had checked up on his activities, that he was informed regarding their suspicions, that he convinced them that he had no connection with the case and that he had been eliminated as a suspect. I was not fully satisfied that he should be cleared and felt that if involved he would be very much on his guard i the future because of the recent investigation by the new York Police Department. It was decided to divert our attentions to other promising clues for the time being but to keep a lookout over all developments in the case which might tend to show a connection with Berritella or his side, Mary. (p. 28)
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jan 10, 2008 19:49:04 GMT -5
Michael...thanks for typing again....Is it true that the New York City files on the Lindbergh case are still closed and never transferred to NJSP Archives?
Here are another two substantive news articles:
I. Lindbergh Clue..by Dorothy Dumas/ Indiana Evening Gazette, April 17, 1933.
"Mary opened the unknown chapter in the complex story of the crime of the century today by stating she told Col Breckenridge the baby was alive in a house four and 1/2 miles from the new Lindbergh Estate in Hopewell, NJ. Her vision put the kidnapper looking into a window of the house in shirtsleeves.
"Mary still insists the baby was not killed until 3-4 weeks before it was found".
II. Killed Intentionally--The Lethbridge Herald--September 29, 1934.
"Meantime, Dr. Charles H. Mitchell who performed the official NJ autopsy on the body of the Lindbergh child expressed his belief that the baby was killed intentionally by his abductors. Certain investigators have suggested the baby died in a fall off the ladder.
"The Mercer County coroner in a prepared statement to the Associated Press has reconstructed the crime:
"The child was kidnapped and removed to a house near to Hopewell NJ. , kept for a few days with all intentions of a quick reward payment of the ransom. But police activity became too great for the kidnappers and fearing detection, killed the child either with a bullet or a blow to the head, hurredly removed the child to the woods near to Hopewell, did not take the time to bury it or even take it too far into the woods they made a speedy retreat and finding that the child was not soon discovered, opened up negotiations with the family and endeavored to collect a ransom before the body was discovered" end quote
III. There are more than one dozen references to Mary Cerrita in The Case that Never Dies! Find them by Googling the title of the book, then clicking on Books.Google.com and typing Cerrita into the Search box.....good hunting!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 11, 2008 6:58:45 GMT -5
Because of the joint investigations most of everything had several reports written by both NJSP and NYPD. There are many files at the NJSP which contain both reports which were essentially the same. However, there were some investigations which were run down by the NYPD (etc.) solo. Some of these made their way down to the NJSP but some did not, or attachments to the reports did not. In my opinion there wasn't many that didn't but to say all did wouldn't be true. There's also the fact brought out by Lloyd's book, The Case That Never Dies, that when Captain Oliver was in charge many investigations conducted never even made it to paper (and I suspect were never done in the first place but claimed to have been).
All the Archives on the subject are technically "open" but each one has their own set of rules to review them. There's no doubt the NJSP Archives are the best as even more documentation continues to find its way there just about every other month.
I will continue to post the Wilson report as soon as I get some more time.....
I have been slammed by numerous questions concerning the recent posts on the Lindy Truth Board. I won't waste my time. Realize as they "stumble" upon information they are so damned stupid to think its something no one else has ever seen before then try to explain it with their imagination or something else unrelated. Research, research, research. If you want to be like Dr. Gardner then you have to do the work to get where he's been.
And yes I said stupid.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 12, 2008 8:59:25 GMT -5
con't.... I located a savings bank account of Berritella which was opened on March 7, 1932 the day after he visited Hopewell, witha deposit of $35.00. He made a few later deposits averaging $25.00 but the largest balance found was about $250.00. (p29) However, Waldenmaier could give us little of value except that Berritella, or his wife, had recently made some small investments in stocks through Wertheim and Company and that Berritella has a brother who is a taxi driver. The stock transactions had not been investigated hen I was withdrawn from this case, Berritella receives his income from patrons who visit his church for readings and also by practicing as a divine power healer. (p29) It is my opinion that serious consideration should be given to the Berritella angle of this case, not only as to the various steps to be taken in investigating it, but also as tothe best method of handling Mr. and Mrs. Berritellla when it is decided to again question them concerning their motive in visiting Princeton on March 6, 1932. One possible course that has occurred to me, if it is felt that they were merely pawns in the case and not seriously involved, would be to quietly approach Berritella, convincing him that the Government has certain definite information in its possession which places him and Mary in a very bad position; that it is not the desire to embarrass them if they cooperate and that if they will disclose all the facts relating to the persons sending them to Princeton, together with all the circumstances surrounding the visit, in that event, if their testimony is not necessary in a prosecution, effort would be made to have their cooperation kept confidential, so that the guilty persons could not retaliate and also that in the event a successful prosecution results through information furnished by them, consideration might be given by the Governor of New Jersey to the payment to them of a part of the $25,0000 reward. Of course, if further investigation indicates that they are seriously involved, this above procedure would not be proper or practicable and future developments should determine the best procedure to be used. From the information now in our possession, it is not indicated tat they were seriously involved and if they were persuaded to got to Princeton by any of the persons involved, it is likely that this was their only connection with the case and that they knew nothing about the murder of the child. The guilty persons may have threatened their lives if they disclosed anything to Ownie Madden, Spitalle or Bitz and they may have considered it dangerous to disclose facts about the case to such underworld characters. I am not satisfied with their explanation that the spirits prompted their visit and prompted their statements to Colonel Breckenridge and I was making further plans with Lt. Keaton to pursue this angle of the investigation until a more satisfactory conclusion could be arrived at in explanation of their activity in the case. ( p.29-30) [/blockquote]
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jan 13, 2008 12:25:43 GMT -5
Michael--thanks for typing! I am reminded of an excellent article published in 1964 by John Platt, entitled Strong Inference (Science 146:347–353). Platt made a convincing argument that some hypothesis are moving forward more rapidly than others because of methodology and better thinking. While some persons have to know everything, eg the number of angels on the head of a pin, or the weight of dust in every nook and cranny, to move forward. But in the case of Peter and Mary I think the mass density of coincidences tips well past chance. It also might be called :"triangulation" or connecting the dots in an ever tightening circle: - We dont as yet know the true motive for B and C visit to Princeton. They do seem to have gotten a 3rd note to Breckenbridge withing 48 hours? And forshadowed JFC in 72 hours? Thats not exactly chopped liver?
- Agent Frank Wilson tried to put a snitch into the Temple of Divine Power, but this was overshadowed by Madden, Rosner, Spitz and Bitale--the gangster contingent. No great wonder that the Police Chiefs of Amaerica thought the LKC was bungled? (RE: Who Bungled the LKC--Al Dunlap--Startling Detective)
- Dunninger and Wright did a good job of asking the wright questions in December of 1934. As it would happen, Violet Sharpe was an attender of the Divine Temple. The odds of this being soley due to chance are astronomical! And then when a body is found 4.5 miles from Highfields...Violet is found dead of arsenic and olde lace only 30 days later. Neither Charlie Jr. nor Violet deserve a coroners inquest?
- Robert L. Hector (aka Victor), a spiritualist from Harlem is asked about attenders to The Divine Temple....page 90 In Search of the Lindbergh Baby....and he mentions a maid and a butler from Englewood? this would be Violet Sharpe and Septimus Banks, the latter frequenting a speakeasy right on 127th street, Harlem on Thursday nites.
- And last but not least we have Selma Kohl's rooming house right acrossed the street and 3 doors down! Here lives Fisch, Gerta and Carl Henkel, and BRHs travelling companion from summer 1931--Hans Kloppenburg! Who woulda thumk that? Noone?
- Oddly enough, even Red Johnson and JJ Faulkner (aka Falconi) are mentioned in the interviews about B and C?
[/u][/li][/ul] What could be more coincidental? Oh yes, and both Gerta and Carl confirm that it is Fisch, not BRH, that attends the Temple of or for Divine Power? [/li][li] If all this doesnt connect Violet to Fisch, well then....I will eat my shorts.
|
|
dena
Detective
Posts: 129
|
Post by dena on Mar 13, 2008 21:00:36 GMT -5
Has there ever been a consensus reached among researchers (haha) about exactly WHO this Mary Cerrita was? From where she came from? I have found a couple Mary Cerrita's who would fit the age description as well as Italian heritage. One I found MAY possibly have lived with Ernie Brinkert at the orphange he lived in from the age of 3, but the writing is very shaky. Still, I have stared at it & it does appear to be Cerrito. Incidentally, I have not found any Cerrita's, but only Cerrito's.
I am going to order the Lindbergh FBI files book tonight. Maybe that has more info on her too.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 21, 2014 20:58:20 GMT -5
After going through "The Case that Never Dies" for the second time, it occurred to me much more than previously that Peter Birritella and Mary Cerrita were more than just tangential figures in the Lindbergh ransom extortion plot, and that the "séance" they conducted with Messrs. Breckenridge and Rosner in the Princeton hotel on Sunday, March 6, 1932, was much more than one might take it to mean superficially.
Unless you believe that these two had extraordinary clairvoyant powers, it is reasonable to think that they were in communication with the ransom note writer (other than the writer of the first nursery note, which is believed to be someone distinct from the same writer of all the subsequent notes). One has to be impressed by (1) their advice to Breckinridge to be in his office the next morning when in fact another ransom note arrived; (2) their talk of getting police out of the case, which mirrored the ransom notes; (3) the addressing of Breckinridge's concern about the baby's health in that next ransom note; (4) their mention of "next Saturday" as a possible day by which they might be in contact with the kidnappers/extortionists, when it came to pass that on that date Condon would have his first meeting with CJ; and (5) their mention of someone else who had paid their rail fare to Princeton for the meeting.
Then there are the speculations by Gardner that Cerrita possibly visited Condon on the day before the latter placed his famous letter in the Bronx Home News and also met him at a bazaar a few days later.
Then, too, it was revealed by further investigations that the two were selling their purported "psychic powers" at relatively steep prices for some form of faith healing.
It's a shame that the two were never considered as serious suspects in the extortion, it would seem. Were they ever interviewed at all by any law enforcement agencies in connection with a possible role in the case?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 22, 2014 8:53:14 GMT -5
It's a shame that the two were never considered as serious suspects in the extortion, it would seem. Were they ever interviewed at all by any law enforcement agencies in connection with a possible role in the case. ....that we are convinced that Berretelli and this woman, who is now his wife, actually know more about this crime than they would lead on to believe....[ Lt. Arthur T. Keaten, 9-14-32] They were considered suspects and investigations concerning them extended into 1934. They were interviewed more then once, and police employed just about every investigation technique imaginable. They had the Postal Inspector take down the addresses from people sending them mail. They tapped their phone. The Treasury Dept. had an Agent work under cover posing as a member of the church. Owney Madden went over to threaten them. Once Condon failed to identify a picture of Pietro (Peter) their focus seemed to shift toward his brother John who had a chauffeur's license causing the Police to suspect he might be the unidentified "2nd Taxi Driver" who delivered the note. Condon quickly shot that idea down as soon as John's photo was shown to him.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Dec 22, 2014 12:56:52 GMT -5
Michael, can you possibly display any summaries of law enforcement interviews with Peter and/or Mary or statements made by them to law enforcement? So far, I don't recall any citations from such interviews or statements in any of the materials I've seen.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Dec 22, 2014 14:02:43 GMT -5
Michael, can you possibly display any summaries of law enforcement interviews with Peter and/or Mary or statements made by them to law enforcement? So far, I don't recall any citations from such interviews or statements in any of the materials I've seen. From Agent Sisk's Report written in October 1934 (the reference to Agent Manning speaking to Captain Oliver occurred on 12-11-33): Within the past several months, Inspector John J. Lyons, Main Office Division, New York City Police Department, it is stated, questioned Peter J. Berritella and possibly his present wife, Mary. The details of the information elicited from Berritella and Mary at that time are unknown at this writing, although it has been stated by Captain Richard Oliver, New York City Police Department, to Agent Manning that Peter and Mary insisted that they had gone to Princeton on their own initiative; that they had not been sent there by anyone else and the information divulged by them at the Princeton Inn was purely the results of responses which had come to them out of their spiritualistic gesticulations. There's also several references to Lt. Finn interviewing them in other sources. I do not know the dates of those interviews. Furthermore, the Berritella's themselves claim that Madden and Rosner picked them up and brought them back to Hopewell and questioned them shortly after they returned back to NY. The FBI would also eventually interview them.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Jan 7, 2015 22:21:39 GMT -5
From Agent Sisk's Report written in October 1934 (the reference to Agent Manning speaking to Captain Oliver occurred on 12-11-33):
[Within the past several months, Inspector John J. Lyons, Main Office Division, New York City Police Department, it is stated, questioned Peter J. Berritella and possibly his present wife, Mary. The details of the information elicited from Berritella and Mary at that time are unknown at this writing, although it has been stated by Captain Richard Oliver, New York City Police Department, to Agent Manning that Peter and Mary insisted that they had gone to Princeton on their own initiative; that they had not been sent there by anyone else and the information divulged by them at the Princeton Inn was purely the results of responses which had come to them out of their spiritualistic gesticulations.]
Thank you for posting this, Michael. Sisk wrote this report in October, 1934. Apparently, Oliver reported to Manning in December of 1933, that the "psychics" from the Temple had insisted that they had gone to the Princeton seance on their own initiative. The investigation by Lyons "within the past several months" and the information obtained was unknown to Sisk at the writing of this report.
Supposedly, the Berritellas were investigated every which way, but how much information was documented? They didn't go down to Princeton independently to talk to "Breckinbridge." There are coincidences around this meeting that still make no sense. Who were the "they" that Peter Berritella insisted paid their train fare? Breckinridge deliberately kept the fact that the second note had been received a secret from this couple. When the third note arrived at his office the following day (wow! Mary is good), some of his voiced concerns from the day before were in that note. Something right from the inside is hanging around this couple and their psychic abilities.
Does anyone have an address for the ice cream parlor of Gustave and Sophie Mancke?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jan 8, 2015 6:25:31 GMT -5
Supposedly, the Berritellas were investigated every which way, but how much information was documented? They didn't go down to Princeton independently to talk to "Breckinbridge." There are coincidences around this meeting that still make no sense. Who were the "they" that Peter Berritella insisted paid their train fare? Breckinridge deliberately kept the fact that the second note had been received a secret from this couple. When the third note arrived at his office the following day (wow! Mary is good), some of his voiced concerns from the day before were in that note. Something right from the inside is hanging around this couple and their psychic abilities. Both Rosner and Breckenridge were at the seance, and both were highly skeptical. Yet, despite this odd couple of completely different perspectives and walks of life - they were both extremely suspicious these two were emissaries for the Kidnappers. There's a lot from NY at the NJSP Archives but often I see references to information that I have never been able to find. I do know that in one of the FBI Reports it says that Capt. Oliver kept a lot of information "in his head" rather then in reports so that might have something to do with it too. Does anyone have an address for the ice cream parlor of Gustave and Sophie Mancke? Home: 2474 Tiebout Avenue The Bronx, New York City, New YorkIce Cream Parlor: 583 Main Street New Rochelle, New York
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jan 8, 2015 10:31:06 GMT -5
Please explain briefly who Gustave and Sophie Mancke were.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Jan 9, 2015 21:30:56 GMT -5
"Oliver kept a lot of information "in his head" rather then in reports so that might have something to do with it too." -- Michael
What a shame. We'll never know what they really had on these people. In my opinion (FYIW), there is a close connection to The Temple of Divine Power and someone inside the households in Englewood and Hopewell.
The fact that this church was across the street from the home of the Henkels and Fisch and Kloppenburg is a huge red flag. Fisch may have been playing his game of keeping his friends in the dark about what he was doing with other friends, but it looks like he was sitting in the middle. I wonder where Uhlig was.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Jan 9, 2015 21:50:26 GMT -5
Please explain briefly who Gustave and Sophie Mancke were. Apparently, this couple owned an ice cream parlor frequented by two men and a woman in the weeks before March, 1932. They came in four or five times on the Sunday evenings prior to the kidnapping. Gustave identified these people (from photos, I believe) as Oliver Whateley, Violet Sharpe, and Isidor Fisch. I have no references for this. When I first read about the ice cream parlor, I thought it was just down the street from the Temple of Divine Power, and that maybe these three dropped in after "services." Wrong. According to the address Michael posted (thank you, Michael), this place was 14 miles from the church. Little too far to be convenient for a snack after services.
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Sept 29, 2015 18:15:56 GMT -5
Does anyone read Italian? Here is an article from an Italian newspaper about the Birritellas' arrest (I think). I see it makes reference to Kathryn Kalish, whose statement is referred to in Lloyd Gardner's footnotes. I haven't seen this statement yet, but hope to soon! (planning a trip to the archives...) Birritella.pdf (373.44 KB)
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Sept 29, 2015 20:13:17 GMT -5
No, I don't read Italian. What you have posted here I'm quite sure is an Italian language newspaper published in the US intended primarily for Italian-American immigrants.
The Birratellas' arrest, IIRC from Gardner's book, was for some minor cons and scams perpetrated on unsuspecting customers. Note that the word "Lindbergh" does not appear in the posted article, so undoubtedly it has no direct connection to their role in the Lindbergh case, other than to hint that, because of their line of "business," they were likely looking to fleece someone back in March 1932 when they got in touch with Lindbergh and then met with Breckenridge and Rosner in Princeton.
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Sept 29, 2015 20:46:48 GMT -5
Yes, you are quite right - it is an Italian language newspaper from Syracuse, New York. I didn't pay sufficient attention to what I was typing. Sorry about that.
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Oct 28, 2015 22:25:26 GMT -5
I have a question about the timing of Fisch and the Temple of Divine Power on East 167th Street.
Some authors have suggested that Fisch may have been in cahoots with Berritella and Cerrita. Dunninger and Wright in particular point to the coincidence of Fisch living across the street from the Temple. Or it is suggested that Berritella and Cerrita picked up neighbourhood gossip given the proximity of Fisch. But I don't think the timing works out neatly.
It seems like the Temple of Divine Power was located on East 167th Street from 1931 to about June 1932.
But it appears that Fisch moved into the Kohl house in the spring of 1932 (March or April). In other words after the kidnapping and likely after the psychics visited Princeton Junction.
Even then, if Fisch did attend the Temple after moving to East 167th Street (as Henkel told Wright) then it was only for a short while before Berritella relocated the Temple.
It is possible I suppose that Fisch was aware of the Temple prior to the kidnapping from merely visiting the Henkels. But Karl Henkel seemed to indicate that it was Fisch who was primarily interested in the Temple, not Henkel.
I am not saying it is impossible that Fisch was working with / manipulating Berritella and Cerrito, but I think one cannot rely simply on their proximity on East 167th Street.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 29, 2015 9:04:06 GMT -5
I have a question about the timing of Fisch and the Temple of Divine Power on East 167th Street. The only legitimate source that I have ever found which places Fisch visiting their "open meetings" on Thursdays was Henkel. I think it boils down to whether or not he's to be believed. It's hard to evade Breckenridge's account of the man who came to his office who " strongly resembled" Fisch ( Gardner p408 - note: quote is in the document Lloyd cites) without coming up with a motive for him "to make it up." So clearly, if that account is to be accepted then it becomes harder and harder to eliminate him from involvement in at least the collection of the ransom when also considering Steinweg's account of him giving him gold notes, as well as the others where he's trying to launder them. And if he's involved in the collection of the ransom it certainly makes it more likely he may have employed these two "Hustlers" to assist in the way in which they did. Of course it doesn't mean he did but it's hard to ignore the possibility at least.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2016 8:56:19 GMT -5
In the current book I am reading, The Lindbergh Case by Jim Fisher, the whole segment involving Peter Birritella, Mary Cerrita, Henry Breckinridge, and Morris Rosner meeting in Princeton on March 6th for a séance is skipped over entirely. I have no idea why he left this out of his book. I think this meeting was important and was an effort by the kidnappers to make contact by using these individuals. Its significance is proven by the fact that things discussed during this exchange in a Princeton hotel room appeared in the March 7th, 1932 ransom note that was delivered to the office of Henry Breckinridge on March 8. This note bore the symbol and was recognized as a genuine communication by the kidnappers. I found the book "Inside the Medium's Closet" by Joseph Dunninger online. Dunninger did a chapter on the Birritella/Cerrita connection with the Lindbergh Kidnapping case. After you open the link, you will see at the top of the page the word "Jump" with a block next to it. Type 165 into the block. Click Go and it will take you right to the chapter that talks about the kidnapping. babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b4029714;view=1up;seq=5
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jan 28, 2016 11:11:09 GMT -5
Good job, Amy!
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jan 28, 2016 19:11:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Jan 29, 2016 20:36:29 GMT -5
fascinating find Amy35! for such a rather large book, it's strange that Fisher ignored the incident.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jan 29, 2016 21:40:39 GMT -5
To amy35 and All:
Reading the chapter from the Lindbergh case in Dunninger's book to which you linked, I was struck by this passage:
Claiming psychic influence, Mary Cerrita told authorities that the Lindbergh child was dead; that the body would be found upon a certain height near Hopewell. Two months later the body was found in almost the exact location that she had predicted.
I was under the impression that during the séance involving Cirrita, Birratella, Breckinridge, and Rosner in the Princeton Hotel on March 6, 1932, Cirrita gave no hint or clue that the baby was dead. So when did she supposedly tell authorities (if so, which authorities) that the baby was dead? Are there any police or FBI records indicating any such statement made by Cerrita?
|
|