|
Post by rick62 on Jun 7, 2006 10:11:01 GMT -5
One big Section or Phase of the LKC hoax/coverup was the continuing belief that Charlie was "alive and well". This is baloney. Should we start with Mary Cerrita on March 6th or take a careful look at AGWilintz many kill theories? Forwards or backwards?
1. The first seance with Mary "Magdalen" Ceritta and Rev. Peter Biratella is on Sunday 6 March 32, only 5 days post kidnap. At this time its not perfectly clear if Charlie was pronounced "dead" but he was said to be "in a farmhouse on a hill near Hopewell". Mary was uncanny at her LKC predictions--all other more global attemts failed. Mary did pronounce Charlie dead before he was found.
2. On March 12th JFC meets with Cemetary John at Woodlawn. "If the baby is dead will I burn?" asks CJ? Dont worry says JFC "the baby is alive and well"--parroting Mickey Rosners battle cry to the Press!
3. During all the bogus negotiations and purposeful stalling, CAL, BRK, JFC and the "brain trust" never and at no time ask or negotiate for REAL PROOF THAT CHARLIE IS ALIVE AND WELL! why is that--because he wasnt, they knew it and thus it would all collapse like a house of cards. No photos/ No fingerprints/ No birthmarks/ No telephone calls/ Not even suggested or requested. Strange?
4. Ulitmately when Charlie(?) is discovered on Mt. Rose Hill it is declared right off the bat that he died of a gunshot wound by Dr. Mitchell. This is retracted the next day for head trauma when the ladder broke. But the concensus is, or has to be, he died the night of the kidnap. Big surprise? Thus Charlie has been dead for all 72 days including all the phoney negotiations. Apparently, this possiblity NEVER OCCURS TO CAL/ANNE/JFC/BRECKENRIDGE OR The Press? Its just too horrible to consider? They want to pay CJ the $50K? Why--to catch the extortionist?
So over and above these huge misrepresentations--when did most reasonable persons assume Charlie was NOT alive and well? This might have been the longest kidnap in history to keep going--at some point CAL says to Condon--"we have stalled long enough"/ Often, kidnap victims dont get much past 48 hours.
|
|
mairi
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by mairi on Jun 7, 2006 20:16:02 GMT -5
Rick~ yours of today-paragraph #2. Do we know for sure when JFC reported CJ's words " will I burn?" Promptly or woven into a later version? Wouldn't too much pushing for proof the babe was alive delay things even longer? CAL's calling the shots on his end of things is one thing--but calling same with the kidnappers strikes me as powerfulevermore risky. RE: sleepin g suit. Somewhere I read that when it was returned Anne took it and hugged it to herself and, if memory serves, rather rejoices at the belief he's still alive and OK. CAL doesn't strike me as one who would know anything about the baby's PJs to begin with, so he relies on Anne's reaction--and, too, we have the proverbial "hope springs eternal"within hearts of frightened parents.--I 'm thinking we need to hammer out the Ceritta/ O. Whateley/Fisch-n-friends/ Sharpe(s), too. I DO agree Mary Mag knew TOO much of the case and I don't think "based on rumors"quite does it for me.
|
|
|
Post by rick62 skeptic5 on Jun 7, 2006 21:04:44 GMT -5
Mairi...all of Condons Tall Tales are half truths for sure/ which half. Well for one thing, its the snatchers job to prove that Charlie is "alive and well" and NOT, I repeat, NOT, the job of Condon and Rosner to be shouting it from the rooftops! How phoney do you get? Breckenridge is working the Press back at Highfields out at the Guardhouse--to send them scurrying with headlines/ and Jafsie has them chasing thier tales in the Bronx. Its all staged. All roles are reversed to lead the public away from the Truth. (Why do you think we are still quessing?)(eg whistling in the dark) Its the victims/parents role to demand proof that Charlie is still "alive and well" and clothes do not do it/ its absurd. Even an idiot can figure that out...the suite was a poor sub. Not believable at all/ Sure its a a heart wrencher--BUT we are only paying $50K to have Charlies body (and thumbquard) returned home/
|
|
|
Post by Rita Witt on Jun 7, 2006 22:36:05 GMT -5
The whole scenario can be turned around as well. What if they (gangsters) had no intention of returning Charley, but instead use him to either silence CAL's bootleg war, or to keep CAL and or Hoover from running against Roosevelt. The lame 50g's is not practical for a gang, and the very largely populated list of potential accomplices (small army) cancels out a loner theory.
The idea that a simple kidnap could enlist that many inside and outside people means to me that it was arranged by someone powerful, and accomplices fell in place from what might be expected from some patriotic endeavor.
|
|
|
Post by Mouse for anyone on Jun 7, 2006 23:09:56 GMT -5
Rick said,
I'm sure this has been answered before, but does anyone know what $50,000 would be worth today? It sounds like a paltry figure in these times, especially for the life of a child, but something tells me it was worth a lot more back then.
|
|
|
Post by Rita Witt on Jun 8, 2006 1:04:57 GMT -5
I've heard that argument put out by die hard VD'rs, and their argument was based on the lowest average income for that period that falsely put the figure around 600 thousand today. But even if you consider an actual six hundred thousand today that only purchases a house a car and an upper class status if you have prudently invested the remainder. It still is not a figure to live high on as the VD'r claims.
This is the stuff that creates the mystery around this case as there are too many people involved in recovery, as there is a similar large number involved in the kidnap, and without any indication of willingness to return the child. For that very reason the dead child version does not work, because the impasse was meant to hold both the child and Lindbergh silence at the same time.
|
|
kathy
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by kathy on Jun 8, 2006 7:19:33 GMT -5
rita, VDer's dont take into consideration what RBH was going to tell his wife about his sudden wealth. i think everyone agrees anna was innocent so where does she figure in? why didn't he divorce her when he collected the ransom? all weve heard from the prosecution was what a drag she was to "bruno" and of his various affairs. why did this cunning killer instead make furniture for his baby son? its so interesting to me that none of bruno's many friends ever suspected his involvement and anyone of them could have been enormously wealthy according to our other friends
|
|
|
Post by Mouse for Kathy on Jun 8, 2006 7:55:08 GMT -5
YES! Great point. I only asked about the "worth" because Rick always makes $50,000 seem like a paltry sum (in his attempt to make CAL look bad), which it wasn't back then! Don't you think an amount "worth" $600,000 wouldn't seem like a windfall to someone like Fisch (who, along with a Morrow insider, has always been my man for the crime) Another reason why I don't think Richard did it! That and Anna's unfailing conviction that he didn't do it. I'm sorry - you just don't go to your grave denying something that you know was true! Well, to me, it's because he wasn't a killer! And it's for similar reasons why I don't believe CAL was involved. And here we are getting off the track again. I'm going to be in trouble now!
|
|
kathy
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by kathy on Jun 8, 2006 9:42:51 GMT -5
thanks mouse, sometimes we cant see the forest for the trees. dont stop "brainstorming "here, i dont think rita minds and thats where the best insights are noted!
|
|
|
Post by Mouse for Kathy on Jun 8, 2006 10:13:49 GMT -5
thanks mouse, sometimes we cant see the forest for the trees. dont stop "brainstorming "here, i dont think rita minds and thats where the best insights are noted! Cool! Thanks, Kathy. OK, so here's what I've discovered. The first link goes to a page that describes all of the categories. Check the description for "unskilled wage rate". Put in the proper numbers (don't use any commas for the money amount) to see what $50,000 was worth to an unskilled laborer (I'm thinking Fisch had some skills but none that would be too ethical or usefull in a regular job!). eh.net/hmit/compare/I was amazed - over $2 million!!!! Doesn't sound like such a small amount to me. I have a really hard time remembering how different things were back then, and I know that the Morrows were worth a huge amount of money. But I don't think the kidnappers were looking to get TOO rich. That would have made them stand out too much.
|
|
kathy
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by kathy on Jun 8, 2006 11:41:00 GMT -5
you are right about the amount and the fact that in the depression that wealth would have stood out. to an insider, most of whom were european servants it would have been enough to return homw comfortably. i can still see red saying to betty, "we'll just have him for a few days and his family leaves him for months at a time. no one will be hurt and we can go back to europe and live comfortably when this blows over. would you rather spend the rest of your life in rural new jersey with the whately's?"
|
|
|
Post by Mouse on Jun 8, 2006 11:56:53 GMT -5
Or Ollie saying something similar to what you said to his wife - "No more waiting hand and foot on the rich and famous here in the boonies..." Or Fisch thinking he could spend what little time he had left in his homeland - oh, wait! Didn't he do just that? ?
|
|
|
Post by rick62 on Jun 8, 2006 13:09:54 GMT -5
Lots of comments/ good/ thats what we are all here for? The $50K plus inflation in 2006 dollars argument is a tired and worn out Red Herring. If it was a real kidnap and a real extortion CJs/gang would turn Charlie over to the highest bidder: - The widow Morrow was worth over $9 million
- Evalyn Walsh McClean paid out $104,000 bucks to Gaston Means
- JP Morgan Bank and/or WR Hearst New offered $250,000!
But since Charlie was obviously already D_E_A_D_; CAL and JFC paid out to the lowest bidder....$50K and withheld the extra $20K at the risk of life-threatening injury to Charlie Jr. The low-ball ransom proves the Hoax of the Century in $pade$.
|
|
|
Post by Mouse for Rick on Jun 8, 2006 15:24:30 GMT -5
The low-ball ransom proves the Hoax of the Century in $pade$. That's what makes this a great country, Rick. We can all voice our opinions and theories! I don't particularly care what EW MacLean paid. Just because she paid a higher amount has nothing to do with this case. And like I said before, I don't believe the kidnappers cared what Mrs. Morrow was worth either. I think they just wanted enough to better their plights, but not so much as to call attention to themselves. Besides, if CAL had orchestrated the whole thing, I think he himself would have made the ransom a lot higher, seeing as he seemed to have a high opinion of himself! Again, we have to agree to disagree, because no matter how many times you throw your theory out there it's not going to change my mind. I need more solid proof to turn me around.
|
|
|
Post by Mouse for Rick on Jun 8, 2006 16:47:45 GMT -5
Rick, I'm really trying to understand where you're coming from (and I have a theory about why we see things so differently, but I'll get to that later!), so can you answer these questions, point by point, pretty, pretty please? They never approached the Morrows, though, did they? And didn't CAL refuse their money? But what would that mean to the kidnappers if they weren't in touch with Means? And do you know how (or if) that was advertised?? Was that as a reward for the baby being turned in? If so, I would say the kidnappers might have though it looked tempting, but - if you'd kidnapped Charlie, how would you explain having him to turn in for the money? Why do you always put that on CAL? Everything I've ever read has said that was Condon and only Condon!!! Well perhaps it proves it to you, but I still see it differently. Can I ask you a question?? (And it goes along with my "difference of opinion" theory.) What was the first publication that you ever read about the kidnapping? And did you know anything about CAL and Anne before that? The reason I ask is I've been trying to figure out how we see things so differently and I have a theory: The first things I ever read were Anne's diaries (and the first of that was HoL,HoG), so I went into this whole thing with a sympathetic edge. I've always seen CAL and Anne as victims of a horrible, tragic crime. (Mind you, even though I originally saw CAL as a hero, my opinion of him as a man has changed drastically!) The first actual book that delved into the crime itself was Scaduto's, hence, I guress, my symathetic feeling towards Richard. So, what was your first? ??
|
|
|
Post by Rita Witt on Jun 8, 2006 20:32:15 GMT -5
There was a great point made above by Rick for the kidnapper turning the kid in for the highest bid. Think about it why didn't they work with the 200G offer from the newspaper? If even an extortion plot they could have worked their scheme directly with the newspaper, and any paper would have jumped at the opportunity to retrieve the child.
This is why I say the kidnap was a professional job, with deliberate planted evidence pointing at CAL. This is why Hauptmann had been selected as a patsy for a go between to the ladder wood purchases, as the professional element had all basses covered.
Kathy and Mouse have pointed to questions of the possibility of some unknown element because other theory's don't fit. I think the unknown was political as which gang could have cultivated a patsy plus alternative extortions to confuse even the best investigators?
|
|
|
Post by Mouse on Jun 8, 2006 22:04:30 GMT -5
I did think about it - and that's why I asked the question I did about it. Was that in addition to whatever CAL was putting up or was that offered as a reward for the return of the baby? I think dealing with the newspaper people might have been too risky in their eyes; turning in the baby would have been an admission of guilt. I don't know that I would have trusted them myself! And I still don't think the kidnappers were looking to get "rich", just get "enough".
Sorry, despite your experiences, I don't accept the political twist on the case any more than I do CAL being responsible. And I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, just trying to state my beliefs and opinions.
|
|
|
Post by Rita Witt on Jun 8, 2006 22:54:53 GMT -5
A gang of greedy kidnappers would have plowed into the newspaper reward, and you said yourself, person afraid of identification would only apply to someone like a political figure or other easily identifiable person like Gemstone Theory's-Roosevelt, Kennedy, or Onassis. The fact they used a patsy points to someone well known, as the lowly patsy is usualy framed beyond help or doubt.
Condon was the buffer between the real kidnapper sent in by and enamored with his political hero and cohorts, and his ridiculous escapades blocked any real investigation regarding possible others involved. What Condon didn't realize is that as the political figures buffer he would take the blame instead if the case against Hauptmann failed.
|
|
|
Post by Mouse on Jun 9, 2006 8:22:57 GMT -5
Oh, please don't put words in my mouth!!! I NEVER said that! I just got done saying I didn't buy into the political involvement that you do. I don't see why it would have had to have been a political person to be wary of taking up the Hearst offer. Do you know this to be fact?
|
|
|
Post by Rita Witt on Jun 9, 2006 17:39:08 GMT -5
8-)You said a few posts ago you thought the kidnappers just wanted enough to help their plight, and this was posted to negate Rick's question of why kidnappers refused 200g's . I Don't think criminals go around rating their standard of living with compassion toward their victims. You ask me to prove my points, but I think you would hit a blank wall on researching that one. 8-)My Father was a distributer for National Police Gazette, and we were threatened by Jewish Purple Gang Members to either donate our Gazette proceeds money to Bonds for Israel, or they would forcefully shut us down. 8-)The reason for this threat is that this magazine had intended to support Lindbergh against Roosevelt in 1932, and the kidnap cut those political stories from publication, but where again listed in coming issues with new evidence in 1971-72 when we were threatened. ;)People who come to these forums without personnel knowledge of the true events surrounding the case po po others without even sensible po's, but it is thankful we have intelligent members who see through professional instigators. We accept these these normal forum challenges as humorous, and even sometimes as even being educational and to have fun with. ;D
|
|
|
Post by rick62 on Jun 9, 2006 21:34:52 GMT -5
For all interested, a few words about "books" on LKC:
I have no idea about the first I ever read, just the last: Loss of Eden by Joyce Milton recommended by Robert Aldinger for its coverage of Fred "Fritz" Aldinger/ BRH/ and Lena, Freds mom. Also mentions how CAL changes his name to Charlie Jr. to drain the Morrow Trust. I like this the only book from a womans perspective and also has some areas not even covered by other authors. LIke Duane Charles Baker or Bacon/ from Boston, has the bulging eyes, maybe leaves the stolen 1930 Brougham out in front of JJane Faulkners olde Plymouth Apts on 149th street on March 2 1932. Joyce has some good slams on CAL, mostly quotes from others like "I am glad hes dead so Anne can live in peace?"/"Anne is the loneliest woman in the World"? (1993) Joyce opts for one or more accomplices for BRH and some insider help by Morrow staff maybe Ellerson?
1976 Scaduto/Scapegoat...Names Fisch and Wendel as masterminds/ includes connections to Geissler family and Ralph Hacker.
1981 Wright/Search for Lindbergh Baby. A cheap paperback and good read. Gives lots of facts on Mary Cerrita and Edgar Cayce and HRO. thinks Fisch Wendel and Sharpe are involved.
1997 Jones/Murder of Justice/ Indicts Fisch, Wendel, Sharpe and Whately plus two Italians, one man one woman. Has some good segs about Charlies health and admissions to John Hopkins for deaf and dumb.
1985 Kennedy/ Airman and Carpenter. Declares BRH inosent. On page 7 accuses Fisch and his tall Austrian companion/ suspicious of DeGrassi and Schleser/ also 2 Italians. Taps Nosovitsky as JJ Faulkner.
1994...Noel Behn/ Lindbergh.....says there was no kidnapping, that Dwight Jr....killed or injured Charlie Jr/ its all one big hoax/ and Nosovitsky is in over his head writing the ransom notes and is JJ Faulkner...very credible.
1993 A & M/ The Lindbergh Hoax/ the first to accuse CAL of staged coverup. Indicts the entire household of protecting somebody like Elizabeth M.
2001 Gardner/ Case that Never Dies/ see pg 409. Accuses Fisch/Sharpe/ Whately and Knickerbocker Pie Company. The best footnotes and index by a real historian! Absolute necessity. Like Wright brings out Mary Ceritta and Rev. Peter and the seances.
2006 Norris/ A Talent to Deceive. follows along with A&M...says Dwight Jr kidnaps and kills Charlie then big coverup....Dwight of course is crazy as a loon and a dumpy looser. Spends alot of time in mental institutions even over Violet Sharpes death? Easy target--banned from Anne/CAls wedding. Seems to suggest that the massive coverup continues. Recently said "BRH innocent".
Almost every book accuses someone new. Up and coming are 2006: Ellis Parker Story and maybe in 2008: Abraham Samuelsohn Story....will it ever end?
|
|
|
Post by Mouse for Rick on Jun 9, 2006 22:08:43 GMT -5
Too bad about that - I was really curious if it was one that was anti-CAL. Shoot - I thought I was on to something!! I can't remember if I read Milton. If I did it was years ago. Does she footnote well? And quote giving names? I feel a trip to the library coming on!! Ain't that the truth! Will it ever end? I guess unless someone discovers some hidden confession that can be validated, then probably not! And since we both seem to be "negating" each other's theories all the time, I hope you don't take it personally! I just disagree (like you disagree with me) and I was encouraged to voice my opinions!!!!. But once again, whenever I do I get pounded!
|
|
|
Post by Rita Witt on Jun 9, 2006 23:46:23 GMT -5
Didn't mean to pound anyone, as this should be a fun place to post theory and opinions. Pounding depends on an individuals ability to interpret others information, and if a person takes offense to comments similar what they hand out they are not playing a fair forum. Please understand that you may not offend Rick by disagreement with him, but if others read such extremes of negativity, and they are forum shopping they will go elsewhere.
Have fun and try not to disagree with every post, but simply participate with what you can agree with which can be more fun.
|
|
kathy
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by kathy on Jun 10, 2006 7:49:50 GMT -5
Mouse, for what its worth, I first read Kidnap from my high school library and it treats CAL as a god. My first "adult movie" was the one about CAL's flight, I grew up thinking him a hero. I read Scaduto when I worked in a library in Mich and someone else had requested the book through interloan. i was shocked that there was any questioned about the "crime" Of course then came Kennedy and i was hooked. some magazines like the Yankee have had articles over the years but then I got a computer!!! here i am. i think of all the people here i probably agree most with rick and least with steve but they both seem to be great people and thank heavens for rita, i dont post on michaels b. anymore because of critical "experts" there. michael has terrrific research and is extremely fair and helpful. kathy
|
|
|
Post by Mouse for Rita on Jun 10, 2006 8:18:00 GMT -5
Back at'cha! I had a long response to you written when the toilet overflowed - and put this all in perspective! So, here's what I hear - disagreement=negativity And nothing you post would put any forum jumpers off. I don't get it. And I probably never will. Sorry you feel the way you do.
|
|
|
Post by Mouse for Kathy on Jun 10, 2006 10:12:27 GMT -5
It's worth a lot, Kathy - even tho' it shoots my theory all to Hell!!! Thanks for responding to that! Steve??? He's a cutie and seems to be a really nice guy, but so misguided! (I hope he knows I'm pulling his leg if he sees this!) Rick? Do you agree with all he presents? You think CAL was involved? Or was that just on the ransom issue? Haven't had time to view your question about the three gangs (don't you love cleaning up after a toilet overflow? ). Wouldn't that be a kicker if they were all involved to some degree?
|
|
|
Post by rick62 on Jun 10, 2006 13:11:35 GMT -5
Its easy to see that Kathy is on the right path to wisdom/ ha!
My working theory is still that something untoward happend over the long weekend at Highfields before the night of March 1st. Had it not happened, Charlie would be alive, Charlie and Anne would all be at Next Day Hill and CAL would be at the NYU dinner. Take your pick:
1. Veiled or direct threat against Charlie...hes packed off to North Haven Island.
2. Accident injures Charlie--a fall, a car, a siezure. Something quick and unexpected.
3. ProProhibition Lobby or forces threaten attack on CAL. "The Big Boys" at the top.
4. Pro Capone mob threatens attack on Charlie? They want him out of jail.
5. The Purple Gang treatens CAL/Charlie due to ProNazi/anti-semitic sentiments of CAL/Ford etc.
|
|
|
Post by Rita Witt on Jun 10, 2006 19:22:26 GMT -5
Watch the overflow up there!!! The overflow just landed!!! Rick has a good solution for each case, and is what makes a forum fun. I think each person has good elements of theory that may someday combine into what happened. I look for people to express different ideas, and as I pointed out with the case threats and coercive means were used by our government the BOI and later the FBI to silence people that had case information. I hope there are still people left that can bring some of the politically suppressed information that exposes the political use of gangsters, and that was often exposed by the National Police Gazette which was politically confiscated. To mouse, I am sorry for interrupting what is your style of communication with Rick, will not interrupt again.
|
|
|
Post by Rita Witt on Jun 11, 2006 15:42:51 GMT -5
There was a flurry of theory that went nowhere because of simple bickering. I don't like to leave what was otherwise a good post subject with loss of purpose, and to do that one must wipe all confusion aside or clean slate. There is no proof the child is dead by coroners exam, NJSP missing evidence, or the famous blue thread identification. The professional quality of the kidnap only achieved by large gang or government entity, as cleanup was a professional cleaner that left items to miss-direct guilt. The funny coded ransom note implied no real negotiation effort, and go betweens and extortionists with political connections miss- directed search efforts. NJSP politically pressured to let bone and fingerprint evidence be confiscated. During trial witnesses with real evidence were threatened or coerced into silence Lindbergh was politically barnstorming for the presidency, and had made more political speech trips prior to the kidnap than any other opponent. 1932 National Police Gazette was set to clean up our political bootleg establishment to pave way for Lindbergh's Election. During the 50's National Police Gazette sued by politicians named with gangster associates. 1971-72 Purple gang associates threaten my father over distribution of National Police Gazette in view of their scheduled future issues that included the canceled 1932 political bootleg connection with new evidence. Future issues were to have the withheld evidence of the Lindberghh Kidnap, and an issue showing Adolph Hitler's Jewish Heritage. These threats included ending our business if we did not comply by placing the extortion money in Bonds for Israel. All issues of the National Police Gazette from 1912 to 70's were confiscated by the guilty politicians with gangster associates. Purple Gang Lindbergh Kidnap Connection. www.judicial-inc.biz/Lindbergh.htmCharles Lindbergh Censored Political Speech to America First Dec 12, 1941. Speech describes Roosevelt's peace offer to Germany Lies, while American batleships were already shelling German Ports. www.charleslindbergh.com/pdf/dec121941.pdf#search=Lindbergh%20CensoredRoosevelt Tricked America into war with Japan. Li Fu-Jen, War Guilt in the Pacific. www.marxists.org/archive/glass/1945/10/warguilt.htmRoosevelt Saved America From Fascism with his election in 1932. Did the sniping, kidnaps, and war, that followed help eliminate one evil for another? www.schillerinstitute.org/conf-iclc/2005/Presidents_day/lar_keynote.htmld National Police Gazette sue by politicians with gangster associates for revealing political gangster partnerships. www.fastcase.com/Yahoo/Start.aspx?C=9fb6d359ee400430fcfc635c4bf671dca000
|
|