The Dark Corners of the Lindbergh Kidnapping: Volume Iii

By Michael Melsky

This book will follow the same path as volumes one and two by exploring the dark corners of the Lindbergh kidnapping. The topics that will be discussed in this volume are ones that have never before been properly examined, and new facts will be brought to light, which will, I believe, cause many to rethink their positions on these subjects. Readers should be prepared, though, for the unorthodox approach I take in not providing transitions between chapters, and they may also find that I repeat certain facts or bring up different interpretations of those facts that may not always accord with one another. I do this intentionally, so the reader can draw his or her own conclusions. Over the years, I have been fortunate to have access to number of sources that are little-known and privately held. They have greatly enhanced my knowledge of the case, and I have tried to communicate my essential findings from each in my books. In this regard, my books are unique and should offer new information to even the most seasoned researchers.

• Language: English
• Publisher: iUniverse
• Release date: Nov 27, 2019
• ISBN: 9781532087554

Michael Melsky

Michael Melsky studied Criminal Justice and Religion at Moravian College, where he received a Bachelor of Arts. He later graduated from the Federal Law Enforcement Academy and was employed for over 26 years with the Federal Bureau of Prisons. He has researched the Lindbergh kidnapping since January 2000, utilizing numerous archives. Mr. Melsky has been acknowledged in many case-related materials and was also a member of the team that produced the 2008 posthumous pardon application to President Bush for Ellis H. Parker. His first book, Volume I of The Dark Corners, was published August 2016 by Infinity Publishing. Volume II was published in June 2018 and Volume III in November 2019, both by iUniverse.

Book preview

Copyright © 2019 Michael Melsky.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or by any information storage retrieval system without the written permission of the author except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

iUniverse

1663 Liberty Drive

Bloomington, IN 47403

www.iuniverse.com

1-800-Authors (1-800-288-4677)

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Getty Images are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Getty Images.

ISBN: 978-1-5320-8756-1 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-5320-8755-4 (e)

iUniverse rev. date: 11/25/2019

Contents

Acknowledgments

Introduction

1. Additions & Errata

2. The Perfect Child

3. Schippell’s Shack

4. J. J. Faulkner

5. The Wood Evidence

6. Justice is Served

Acknowledgments

As always, I must start by mentioning all those who have assisted me in writing these books, with particular attention to those who have helped me most with this volume. To thank everyone would require an acknowledgement section longer than the book itself, so I apologize in advance for anyone I may have missed.

First, without Mark Falzini, archivist at the New Jersey State Police Archives, my books could never have been written. The opportunity to meet Mark is an added incentive for anyone contemplating a visit to the Archives. His two books, Their Fifteen Minutes: Biographical Sketches of the Lindbergh Case (iUniverse, 2010) and New Jersey’s Lindbergh Kidnapping and Trial (Arcadia, 2012), coauthored with James Davidson, are required reading for anyone interested in the Lindbergh kidnapping.

Another friend, Dr. Lloyd Gardner, is someone else I cannot thank enough. He has both inspired and assisted me over the years in immeasurable ways and is one of my many go-to people when I need to discuss ideas or get a different perspective. Both he and his wife Nancy are, quite simply, some of the finest people I know. Lloyd’s book, The Case That Never Dies (Rutgers, 2004), provides all the vital information and background on the Lindbergh kidnapping and is another book that should be read before picking up any of mine.

I rely entirely on Siglinde Rach’s steel-trap memory and her ability to see connections no one else ever would. As with my previous volumes, she has freely shared her research with me, and this volume is no exception. I also rely on Dolores Raisch for her rational, grounded, and common-sense approach. Without either Siglinde or Dolores, these books simply would not exist.

Margaret Sudhakar has had a major impact on my study of the case since my first volume. She has been extremely helpful through our communications, and by developing material unique to our discussions. Kurt Tolksdorf has provided invaluable assistance through the years and, without his input, I would have never been able to write Chapter 2 of this volume. Kevin Klein and Rab Purdy have been priceless to me over the years with their thoughts, ideas, insights, and skills, and continue to be. Without either of them, Chapter 5 could never have been written.¹ David Holwerda, is another I can always count on to unselfishly share his vast wealth of knowledge and unique experiences concerning this case. Also, my thanks to all the New Jersey State Police Troopers who worked the desk at the Museum and Recruiting Unit over the course of my research, from 2000 to 2019. Their courtesy and professionalism demonstrate why the New Jersey State Police is one of the finest law enforcement agencies in the country.

Thanks to Andy Sahol, who has unselfishly shared many of Ellis H. Parker’s unique materials with me, as well as family recollections. I have worked with him over the years in his attempts to get his grandfather Ellis the posthumous pardon he deserves. Andy has done everything in his power to see this happen and has vowed to never stop until it does.

Special thanks to Proboards contributor Nathan Weinberger, for his assistance in editing the final version of this volume, as well as the following for their invaluable help. Remove one of these people below and, without their interaction, I might never have been able to get to the point where I felt ready to write this third volume:

Michael Keaten, Lydia Keaten Bowen, Susan Candy-Luterman, Irvin Moran, Michael Beggs, Sam Bornstein, Ronelle Delmont, Joe Czulinski, Steve Romeo, Wayne McDaniel, Frederick Rick Green III, Richard Sloan, John Reisinger, Dr. Robert Knapp, Justin Berns, Rob O’Keefe, David Sims, Dick Anderson, John Sasser, Dr. Robert B. Simon, Mary Broadway, Pamela Bingham, Prof. Dr. Fritz Schweingruber, Kelvin Keraga, Harry Jeppe, and Liz Pagel.

Last but not least, my thanks to all the contributors to my Proboards venue, The Lindbergh Kidnapping Discussion Board (lindberghkidnap.proboards.com), especially Amy35. Amy has not only assisted with her ideas both on and off the board, but has kindly provided me with source documentation that I had never before seen. Without her and other members of the board, I would never have been challenged or had my ideas properly tested.

Introduction

This book will follow the same path as both V1 & V2, by exploring the dark corners of the Lindbergh kidnapping. The topics that will be discussed in this volume are ones that have never before been properly examined, and new facts will be brought to light, which will, I believe, cause many to rethink their positions on these subjects. Readers should be prepared, though, for the unorthodox approach I take in not providing transitions between chapters, and they may also find that I repeat certain facts or bring up different interpretations of those facts that may not always accord with one another. I do this intentionally, so the reader can draw his or her own conclusions.

Over the years, I have been fortunate to have access to number of sources that are little-known and privately held. They have greatly enhanced my knowledge of the case, and I have tried to communicate my essential findings from each in my books. In this regard, my books are unique and should offer new information to even the most seasoned researchers.

As with the two previous volumes of The Dark Corners, there is no index. I know many like to index surf, to quickly find information about specific topics—something I’ve done myself. However, these books aren’t meant to be read that way, as jumping around would cause readers to miss valuable information that ties certain points together, completely undermining the value of the topic one is seeking to learn about. This is especially true in those instances where I may not explicitly point out certain connections, which I allow the reader to discover for themselves. Additionally, there are many complex subjects in this volume and it may be helpful for readers to take notes as they make their way through the material.

I have received a great deal of feedback concerning my two previous volumes, much of it extremely positive, while others apparently do not like the information I have assembled. Unfortunately, I did not invent the sources nor write the reports at the NJSP Archives and elsewhere, and, having only spent a fraction of the necessary time at the Archives, self-styled experts on the case have not seen 95% of what is included in my citations.² As such, these types of emotional (as opposed to logical) objections can never be fully put down. I have found that facts, no matter how undeniable, almost always take a backseat to beliefs, and while I do understand that certain beliefs are hard to part with, if one is honest, it is difficult not to rethink and replace certain information from previous authors on the case after referring to my footnotes.

In the end, I hope what I’ve written will inspire future researchers to learn the truth behind the so-called Crime of the Century, perhaps uncovering something I’ve missed or may see something different from their perspective.

To this end, I’ve included a section on rail 16 of the kidnap ladder—the greatest of the many mysteries of this case, which I believe I have, with the help of many others, finally solved.

1

Additions & Errata

As in V1 and V2 of The Dark Corners of the Lindbergh Kidnapping, I begin with a chapter not unlike New Jersey Governor Harold G. Hoffman’s Liberty Magazine article, More Things I Forgot to Tell,³ where I correct any mistakes or misunderstandings while adding to, complementing, and supplementing information in previous volumes with new material.

Footnotes

*The cited documents are usually recorded as they exist in the sources, but I’ve noticed they often contain misspellings or typographical errors. Other documents use the language of the day, for example, clew for clue, machine for car, or words like forenoon which are no longer in use. Whenever possible, I will cite the document as written.

*The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) changed its name several times during its investigation of the Lindbergh kidnapping. They were known as the Bureau of Investigation until June 30, 1932, the United States Bureau of Investigation from July 1, 1932 through June 30, 1933, the Division of Investigation from July 1, 1933 through 1935, and finally the Federal Bureau of Investigation from March 22, 1935 to present. To save money, after each name change, the FBI continued to use their pre-printed blank reports, memos, and letterhead which contained their previous designation until those supplies were exhausted. This creates significant problems for anyone trying to accurately document their research, and I do my best to exemplify this situation within the footnotes. Throughout this volume I will use FBI in most places to remain consistent and avoid confusion.

Volume I

Chapter 9 – The Whateleys

*Part of the necessity for multiple volumes on the Lindbergh kidnapping concerns the massive number of sources there are to consult. Nearly every day I recall information that I’ve read within my collection of documents, but cannot recall where I filed that document, or even which document the information was in. Even if I know it exists, I cannot include information if I cannot properly cite it, but since I never stop reviewing my material, it can happen, mostly at random, that I later stumble on the source. Other times someone familiar with the subject will save me the frustration of the search by telling me where it is, as with the following information:

Prior to the temporary telephone lines being laid to Highfields, which funneled case-related calls directly to the residence, all New Jersey State Police (NJSP) locations were flooded with various tips, information, suspicions, and accusations. One such call was taken by a trooper at the NJSP Training School on March 4, 1932, resulting in the following log entry:

Picked up the antecedents of the Wheatly [sic] Couple – When we first came to country as Ollie Wately [sic] – correct name Alalyousis [sic] About 2 weeks after he arrived in country about April – 1930 – he & his wife took a job – utility service with a family Mendham N. J. by name of Potter – worked thru 5 months than went they were discharged because of Stupidity in Duty – they then went to live at a boarding house 71 Franklin Ave – New Rochelle N.Y. had been living at that place prior to taking job with Porter – At New Rochelle they got a job in a womans Corset shop – before he came to this country from England he had conducted a Jewelry shop in Burmingham [sic] England and business failed – A family they went with in this country name of Teresa Morgan – 758 East 138 St – N.Y.C.

-He is a very stupid sort & any one could get a lot of information from him easy -⁴

In researching this case, it’s been my experience that such information would sooner or later have been investigated. Unfortunately, I have never found a follow-up or further inquiry concerning Teresa Morgan within the NJSP report collections. However, she was mentioned again in a letter from private investigator Fred Munroe. Munroe was deputy chief of the State Secret Service of New Jersey, at their Bergen County headquarters in Hackensack.⁵ Munroe submitted three separate reports, one of which included the following:

A friend of Betty Gow, supposedly by the name of Treasa [sic] Morgan, of Scotland, about the same age as Betty Gow, of rather full face, marred by pimples, medium height was employed at the Potters estate in Mendham, N. J., near Morristown. Treasa [sic] Morgan was employed at this estate the same time Mr. & Mrs. Watley [sic] were employed there. The Watleys [sic] are now employed in the Lindbergh home in Hopewell. Watley [sic] was fired by Potter and after that went to work for Lindbergh.

This Treasa [sic] Morgan, the day after the kidnapping, entered the office of the Hackensack Employment Agency and asked for a position in New York. She was wild-eyed and kept pulling her handkerchief very nervously. She was told that they only gave positions in New Jersey. Still acting very nervous, she left. The following day she returned and told them not to bother about getting her a position because she had made connections. She said she couldn’t take a job because the doctor said she had to take a complete rest for thirty days. She stated that she had got a job in a roadhouse or inn near Hopewell. This inn or roadhouse is in the Sourland Mountains, not so very far from the Lindbergh estate. Of course, how close cannot be determined until investigation is made. This place is known to a certain party I know and is of ill repute.⁶

Munroe followed up the submission of these reports with a letter written to Col. Schwarzkopf, in which he stressed:

The most important one was regarding Betty Gow and the Whatley’s [sic] and Treasa [sic] Morgan, whom [my] report identifies. I have not heard anything from you regarding these reports but nevertheless, I know that you realize that I have tried to cooperate in this very sad affair and I know that I will hear from you at your first opportunity.⁷

Once again, I never located any follow-up to this communication.⁸

Volume II

Chapter 2 – The Woodlawn Experience

*Any grand jury testimony in either the Bronx or Flemington concerning Hauptmann obviously occurred in 1934. In several places within the footnotes, I misstated Coleman’s grand jury testimony as taking place in 1932.⁹

Chapter 3 – Suspicious Events and Strange Encounters

Section – How Many Notes?

*In this section, I wanted to share some brilliant research by my very good friend Siglinde Rach. She had the great idea to go to the NJSP Museum and examine all the ransom notes to look for fold patterns and what, if anything, those patterns might reveal. She was able to discover that all notes with creases indicating a specific fold had each been inside an envelope – except one.

I reread your chapter on the enclosures with the sleeping suit. It is wonderfully detailed! Despite the overall confusion surrounding the issue, it seems there were indeed two notes, just like Jafsie had stated at the trial. It is my belief that the Our man fail to collect… note that allegedly came with the suit was written and perhaps even mailed to Jafsie right after the Woodlawn meeting. Its folding creases clearly indicate that it had been inside an envelope, and its wording in some instances is in the future tense, as in: Now we will send you the sleeping suit from the baby besides it means 3 $ extra expenses becauce (sic) we have to pay another one. If the note came with the suit, why didn’t it say: Here is the sleeping suit… and … we had to pay…? The note seems to have been held back for a couple days, either by the mailer of the package or by Jafsie. If it was mailed separately, i.e. ahead of the suit, the envelope could not be placed inside the package because there would have been stamps on it. And we’d have to ask why Jafsie, obviously with Breck’s permission as he was present when the package was delivered, would have placed the note inside the package. The most plausible explanation would be to authenticate the sleeping suit as the real thing, not just a replica. And if there were indeed two notes in the package – Jafsie even quoted from the second one – each would have been in its own envelope addressed to the respective recipient: one to Condon, one to CAL. Either way, the content(s) of the package other than the sleeping suit seem(s) to have been intentionally withheld or tampered with.

In JTA (page 137) Jafsie does another strange thing. He recounts the content of the note sent to him in the mail on April 1, yet what he recounts is not what that note actually said. And contrary to his claim in JTA, that note did not have an enclosure. He cobbles together text from two other ransom notes: the note sent to Breck on March 7 and the note brought to Jafsie’s home on April 2 by the invisible cabbie. By the time Jafsie wrote JTA, the contents of the ransom notes had all been published in the press. Jafsie could have kept newspaper clippings and copied those text fragments from them. But why didn’t he quote from the correct note? And why quote from a note written and sent to Breck before he even got into the case? With anything involving Jafsie there are always more questions than answers.¹⁰

Chapter 4 – The Ransom Drop Ruse

Section – Cemetery John’s Strange Thumb(s)

*In this section I believe I make a strong case that the supposed lump attributed to Cemetery John’s thumb was an invention by Condon – a strange and imaginary attribute meant to rule out and safeguard any of those involved in the case if they were ever apprehended.¹¹ After reading V1, it was Siglinde Rach who again pointed out something Condon wrote in his own book, Jafsie Tells All!: Condon had the same lump. This was the supposed exchange between Condon and Lindbergh:

Look at my hand, I told him. Here, on the back, between and below the base of thumb and forefinger. See that round lump of muscle that protrudes there? Yes. What caused that? It’s a school-teacher’s trade-mark. Fifty years of pushing chalk.¹²

Did Condon have such a lump? Who knows? But if he did, I believe it complements and supports my position.

Section – Bernard Uebel

*Since it was so vitally important to the case, here I tried to provide all the information I could find concerning what Bernard Uebel, a cemetery guard at St. Raymond’s Cemetery, told authorities. This included three incidents, the first being everything included in Detective Avon’s report, where I believe Uebel was most accurate. I think the only issue is that he mistook the actual dates concerning what he saw. What we see, and he was consistent throughout, is that everything concerning the dates revolved around his payday. Unfortunately, by revealing everything I had on this subject, I seemed to have created more confusion. I do know that most authors would have simply left out the other sources, but my goal is to always reveal everything so the reader has all information from which to draw their own conclusions.¹³

I want to share my personal beliefs on Uebel’s account. It’s not something I like to do, however, since I’ve received so many questions about this subject, coupled with my doubts that anyone will ever invest the proper amount of time to research this matter themselves, I’ve decided to share my conclusions here:

First, the April 2 ransom drop at St. Raymond’s Cemetery, in which Lindbergh and Condon participated, was an obvious bait-and-switch tactic, designed to ensure the money was delivered and the extortionists had a clean getaway. Given the actions of the lookout at St. Raymond’s, it was clear that those present to collect the money were worried about being observed, followed, and arrested. What we know is that once Condon had the money, he walked down East Tremont Avenue, out of Lindbergh’s sight. Once there, I believe Condon met one of the extortionists, and the money in the box was emptied and handed over at that location. That individual left the area with the cash as Condon walked back toward Bergen’s florist shop within Lindbergh’s view, making sure Lindbergh would see him with the ransom box, clearly visible under his arm. Condon then turned left down Whittemore Avenue, which was supposed to have been his original destination. But instead of meeting Cemetery John at the hedge, as Condon later claimed, he walked down the dark street and hid the box in a boxwood bush on the other side of the road and further down Whittemore from the hedge where Condon said he exchanged the ransom money for the Boad Nelly note. On returning to Lindbergh, parked in front of Bergen’s, Condon claimed the exchange took place at the hedge on Whittemore, which he would later show police. This gave way to the various stories Condon told about this event, which would be cemented into history as fact.

Uebel later recounted to Detective Avon that, on April 1, the day before the ransom drop, he saw men at St. Raymond’s who seemed to be "looking for someone." But I believe what Uebel saw actually occurred on April 3, the day after the ransom drop, and that these men were not looking for someone but rather something. Specifically, they were there to retrieve the ransom box, while Condon was with Lindbergh and others searching for the Boad Nelly over Martha’s Vineyard by air. Most likely, these individuals couldn’t find the box and left empty-handed. That would push Uebel’s next account to April 4. We know what he described on this date did occur because his account lines up almost perfectly with Condon’s walk-through mentioned in both Vigil and Henry Breckinridge’s grand jury testimony. I believe this can be used as the control for all dates of the events Uebel witnessed. It also proves Uebel was not inventing information. He said the actual date of the box retrieval occurred on April 11, but considering he was off by two days concerning the other two previous events he saw, I think it is reasonable to consider he may have been off on this date as well. But when Uebel’s observations occurred makes little difference. It is more important to consider what he saw, and Uebel’s observations tell us the ransom box was concealed at St. Raymond’s, and individuals went there to later retrieve it. Next, we must consider what Condon said about the box, for what purpose, and that its unique properties and characteristics was a complete fabrication. Additionally, the fact that Uebel had no way of knowing the money and the box became separated – in addition to Condon arbitrarily suggesting it had been – is something I think is key. People who don’t like this will shrug it off, of that I am certain, but I do not think any reasonable person will.

One point of speculation that I did make in V2 was the possibility that the man described by Uebel as having a prominent jawline could have been Al Reich, a friend and business associate of Condon’s. If Uebel’s first account occurred during the search for the Nelly, Uebel could indeed have seen Reich, despite other events that day. According to Reich:

…at two o’clock in the morning a fellow name Irey, Breckinridge, Condon, and myself left there two o’clock, Colonel Lindbergh driving for Stratford, four miles outside of Bridgeport, that’s where Lindbergh was to go to get the hydroplane to look for his child. We had to wait there a half an hour, — to wait until it came. it was kind of getting daybreak up there and we had to wait until the hydroplane come down. It was a four seated plane. Colonel Lindbergh, Breckinridge, Condon and Irey got into the plane and started up to Martha’s Vineyard in search of the baby and I brought Colonel Lindbergh’s Franklin to Dr. Condon’s house. About eight o’clock at night they come down in Hicksville Aviation Country Club. They called the house and I took the Franklin to Hicksville and Colonel Lindbergh drove us up to New York City and Doctor Condon and I got out at 59th Street and Third Avenue and took the L together to Condon’s and Lindbergh continued out to Hopewell.¹⁴

This timetable left Reich ample time to return to the Bronx and be available as one of the three or four men Uebel saw "looking for someone" at St. Raymond’s. Of course, none of this proves he was either the man referenced by Uebel or among those who were, but since the opportunity did exist there’s room to consider it. Uebel examined mugshots and picked out a few who most resembled the men he had seen, but there is no mention of what or who these men looked like. Furthermore, there isn’t anything more to consult in order to find out. Was Uebel ever asked about Reich or anyone else connected to this case? Strange as it seems, despite identifying Condon, there is nothing to suggest he ever was.

After examining exactly what took place here, the use of a look-out, and also considering Condon’s involvement in the process, it is important to ask oneself if the level of planning, to include the St. Raymond’s bait-and-switch, lines up with the belief that an illegal alien carpenter like Bruno Richard Hauptmann single-handedly adlibbed his way through this entire crime.

Section – Ransom Box

*Another source for Condon’s lies about the ransom box which I left out of V2 is in his Liberty Magazine article, where he wrote "we’ll use different types of wood in its construction. Maple, pine, tulipwood will be good – spruce might warp – and a couple of other varieties of wood. Breckinridge replied, that box later could be positively identified. And Condon further emphasized this by saying: I’ll have that box made so it could be identified one hundred years from now."¹⁵

*Knowing what we do about the bait-and-switch situation surrounding the ransom box, something else Condon wrote about in Liberty is very interesting:

I do not know what happened to the box. But I do know this: If Hauptmann destroyed it, then he did the one really clever thing in in a case in which he had shown very few signs of genuine cleverness. For the destruction of that uniquely designed box would mean the destruction of evidence against him more damaging than anything with which he was confronted during the entire case…¹⁶

In my opinion, there is much of value here. First, in showing that he is still lying about the box being unique, and what he said about the destruction of that box. This strikes me as a form of projection on Condon’s part and tells me beyond any doubt that it was destroyed after being retrieved from the boxwood bush at St. Raymond’s Cemetery.

Section – The Condon Investigation

*While Harold C. Keyes was working for Hauptmann defense attorney Lloyd Fisher as an investigator, Keyes discovered a man named Joseph Marrone. Marrone was a Bronx painter and part-time taxi driver who had known Condon for at least 25 years.¹⁷ Marrone had been a regular at the Bickford Lunchroom for the "past few years" and recounted the following:

During the year 1932, and particularly subsequent to May 2, 1932, while patronizing the said Bickford Lunch, I remember on at least ten occasions, observing Richard Bruno Hauptmann in the said Bickford Lunch, accompanied by a lady. I remember distinctly on four different occasions at least being in the said Bickford Lunch when Richard Bruno Hauptmann and Dr. John F. Condon were present, and both of them were in a position to have seen one another.

On one occasion, in or around this time, the lady that accompanied Hauptmann dropped an umbrella, and Dr. Condon asked me to pick up the umbrella and give it to the lady which I did.

Dr. Condon could not but help see Hauptmann on these four occasions and should have recognized Hauptmann as the man John whom it is alleged he turned over the ransom money to in St. Raymond’s Cemetery, but Dr. Condon showed no signs of recognizing the said Bruno Richard Hauptmann as John.

I also remember seeing on two or three occasions the Dodge automobile of the said Bruno Richard Hauptmann, parked in the vicinity of the Bickford Lunch Room. On one occasion, particularly, Hauptmann’s car was parked directly in front of the Bickford Lunch Room, on the Webster Avenue side.¹⁸

*The slip of paper which belonged to Condon’s former pupil George V. Villiers and was discovered among Hauptmann’s possessions is a clue that should never get past any interested researcher. Here was an extremely valuable piece of evidence that indirectly linked Hauptmann to Condon. When did Hauptmann get it? And why did he have it? Could this be just another coincidence or something more sinister? Regardless, I don’t believe it unreasonable to think that Condon, Villiers, and Hauptmann should have all received more attention concerning it, especially when one considers yet another connection hiding in plain sight: Whitey McManus.¹⁹ Once again, my good friend Siglinde Rach unselfishly shared her research with me:

Whitey was the bank clerk who dreamed of becoming a stationary engineer and who allegedly sat in discussion with Jafsie and others on the night of March 1, 1932. I just found out that Whitey, whose real name was Thomas Francis McManus (born 1889), was George Villiers’s brother-in-law. Whitey’s sister Margaret was married to George Villiers. Here we have another close link to Jafsie and a connection to Hauptmann. These links couldn’t all have been mere coincidences.²⁰

*Despite Hauptmann’s denials after his arrest, throughout the trial and beyond, in March 1936, Lloyd Fisher revealed that Hauptmann had finally admitted he had seen Condon on City Island, both before and after the kidnapping.²¹ Although Hauptmann still did not admit any personal interaction, the issue was that if Hauptmann had seen him, then undoubtedly Condon saw Hauptmann as well.²² Fisher also revealed to the press that he had a new witness who had seen Hauptmann and Condon both at Frederick Hahn’s restaurant before the kidnapping. According to Fisher, this informant claimed that Hauptmann had often been there playing cards and that Condon had come in on some of those occasions.²³ Although I have never been able to find the name of this witness, and while this account does not show interaction between Condon and Hauptmann, it does place them together in the same venue before the kidnapping.

Section – Samuel Garelick

*It was during one of my numerous searches in the closet at the NJSP Archives that I found a Please Destroy copy of the Mercer County grand jury testimony. This grand jury concerned Paul Wendel’s confession about the kidnapping. All sources concerning any aspect of this crime are important, as exemplified by use of this testimony in V1.²⁴ Here, after testifying that he believed Richard Hauptmann "couldn’t have committed the crime as charged," Governor Hoffman responded to a question which concerned John Condon:

Doctor Condon had gone all about the country here picturing himself in March, exhibiting himself in furniture store windows – here is one of his circulars, Doctor John Jafsie Condon, now he can talk freely, answers all questions, advertising engagements.

When I wanted to talk with him it was then the only way he could talk to me was at his own home over a cup of coffee, he insisted in having present the Attorney General, and the Prosecutor of Hunterdon County, to act as his personal Counsel, and submit all questions, to be submitted to him in writing before the interview.

Under those conditions I knew very well I couldn’t obtain the thing I wanted, which was really an explanation of the discrepancy that existed in statements he gave the State Police, the Department of Justice, the New York Police, and a Bronx Grand Jury and the testimony he gave at the Flemington Trial, which was entirely different in many respects.²⁵

There is more valuable testimony here:

[Freeman]: Do you think it would be helpful to have Jafsie Condon interview Wendel and see if he might or might not be the John they talk about?

[Hoffman]: I don’t think at this time, under the conditions with which Doctor Condon is surrounded, it would do any good to have him interview or see anyone because he is undoubtedly acting under very definite instructions. These precautions weren’t taken prior to the Flemington trial.

I have absolutely evidence that on December 15, 1934, which was nearly three months after Hauptmann had been arrested and twice interviewed by Hauck, Doctor Condon was still looking for the man he paid the $50,000. He went on one occasion to the Dade County Jail, Florida, where he attempted to identify a New Jersey man held there on kidnapping trial, a little fellow 5’3", and attempted to identify him as the man to whom he paid the $50,000 in St. Raymond’s Cemetery.

They talk about force and improper methods, it might be well for some investigating authority to go very deeply into the methods under which Doctor Condon finally was induced to finally identify Hauptmann as the man to whom he paid the money.²⁶

Section – The Return Home

*Important observations made by Hauptmann defense attorney Lloyd Fisher can be found throughout his many notes, letters, memos, and written observations. I find these to be particularly interesting:

Since the trial Condon’s statements have been issued almost daily and always contradictory. I personally heard Condon say in Dempsey’s Restaurant in New York that he had never said Hauptmann was the kidnapper – only the man that got the money. He issued statements to the press that Hauptmann had sent for him three times from the death house to make a confession, which he later had to admit was untrue.²⁷

Chapter 7 – Vacations, Finances, and Ransom Money

Section – The Florida Trip

*On page 448 of V2, I mentioned the attempt at passing a possible $20 ransom bill in Newtown, Pennsylvania. I also mentioned the tag was recorded and the car’s occupants were later picked up in Philadelphia. One thing I did not mention was the tag read "6-X-8501" and…

It was ascertained through the State Police at Albany, N. Y. that this registration was listed under the name of Thomas Marsh, Ithaca Hotel, Ithaca, N. Y. That it was a 1929 Nash Sedan, Motor number 371755, Serial #-488544, Operator’s license #-1574950. The address given at the time was the Chesterfield Hotel New York City and that he was formerly of Binghamton, N. Y.²⁸

Section – Hauptmann’s Arrest

*I wanted to use this section as a springboard for a teachable moment as it involved the discovery of ransom money in Hauptmann’s garage by police. The story is well known, but it was author Jim Fisher who first revealed a new twist. He wrote that after Detective Petrosino discovered the packages of ransom money concealed in the garage, Sergeant Wallace drove to a pay phone to report this find to Colonel H. Norman Schwarzkopf.²⁹ Fisher wrote that after this discussion, it was decided to "put it back like it was then bring in Anna Hauptmann and pretend to find the money to get her reaction.³⁰ Once something new is presented, it is always important to ask certain questions. First, would police have engaged in such a dirty trick? The answer is a firm yes. Next, what is the source for this information? Fisher credited a June 1981 taped interview between Plebani³¹ and Wallace.³² It was in his footnotes that he made sure to write the fact that the discovery of the ransom money in Hauptmann’s garage was staged for Mrs. Hauptmann was never made part of the official case record."³³ However, it was Richard Cahill who asserted in his recent book, Hauptmann’s Ladder, that Fisher’s source "should be rejected as totally unreliable because Wallace was asked leading questions and that, on the whole, the incident sounds truly staged."³⁴ Cahill therefore believes that Mrs. Hauptmann was present during the original search and watched the whole thing unfold as it happened.³⁵

So what’s the truth of the matter? First, I fully understand why Cahill is skeptical about the interview and why he would view it as suspect. However, Wallace had previously written several times to the NJSP and each time submitted notes to them outlining his recollections of the various events. As an example:

We were only in the garage a few minutes when Det. Petrosino felt behind the workbench & pulled out a newspaper and uncovering the wrapping was a quantity of ransom certificates. Wallace had been checking the blade of a wood planer & a nick was in the blade as described by Arthur Koehler during our conversation at meals at West Trenton in 1932. Wallace advised Petrosino neither one of us knew each other [sic], we would return the evidence and have Mrs. Hauptmann present when we discover the evidence.³⁶

It was because of these communications and detailed recollections that the NJSP brought Wallace in to record his interview. On considering that Wallace was almost 80 at the time, there is no doubt that Plebani was guiding him through the questioning along the lines of the information, contained in his very own notes, which he previously provided the NJSP. Next, while it seems reasonable to believe that if one finds Wallace’s report on the subject and this ruse isn’t mentioned there, then this would be a major factor in determining the truth. However, on many occasions a certain event would be recorded several different times throughout the course of the Lindbergh investigation. Sometimes the same officer would write about it in many places and this event was no different because Wallace authored at least four separate reports mentioning it. The first two prove that while Fisher was correct about this ruse, he was very wrong about it not being part of the official record. This is from Wallace’s earliest report:

Detailed by Col. Schwarzkopf to continue to Hauptmann’s home & make a complete search & was accompanied by Det. Jas Petrosino, N.Y. City Police & Agent Leon G. Turrou of Dept. of Justice & after they advised that they had searched the house while I questioned Mrs. A. Hauptmann, I suggested we search the Garage & after locating two packages of Gold Certificates they were replaced until Mrs. Hauptmann was present & then the two packages were pulled out & counted in Mrs. Hauptmann’s presence.³⁷

By reading all reports, from earliest to latest, one can see Wallace’s move to gradually scrub this ruse from the event.

After the officers had advised that they had searched the home, Detective Petrosino, Agent Turrou, Mrs. Hauptmann and the undersigned, were accompanied to the Hauptmann garage by Detectives Frank Dunn and Edward Murphy of New York City Police before entering the garage the undersigned questioned Mrs. Hauptmann about what person had use of the garage other than her and her husband. Mrs. Hauptmann advised that the garage was included in their rent and that no one else other than her and her husband had access to the garage.³⁸ A search was started at the garage about 11:40 A. M. and at 11:50 A. M. Detective Petrosino pulled out from a compartment on the south side of the garage between the second and third upright located above the work bench, two packages of gold certificates (10 dollar) containing 183 gold bills certificates and these certificates were wrapped in a New York Daily Mirror newspaper and New York Daily News of the dates June 25, 1934 and September 6, 1934. All the gold certificates were initialed by the officers present in Mrs. Hauptmann’s presence.³⁹

Section – Hauptmann’s Behavior

*I’ve always found Hauptmann’s actions throughout the case particularly interesting. For example, I examined the manner in which various ransom bills were passed, to see if he could have been the only person so engaged. I view his lack of skill baffling as it concerned the last group of bills, so carelessly spent and easily leading police directly to his door. I therefore don’t believe that he could have been doing this from the outset, and, if it had been him the entire time, what caused him to change all of his previous (and successful) methods? Hauptmann himself wrote the following:

Altogether I took about twelve or fifteen bills which I used. When I passed these bills, I never tried to hide my identity because I saw no reason for doing so. As we lived on the outskirts of the City, I had made all the purchases since our baby came. I usually got most of these between 86th[?] and 89th Street and Third Avenue. I am quite sure that business people there knew me. Indeed I left my car standing in front of these stores for hours after I had put my purchases in it. I went with my wife and her niece to buy shoes. I had previously been in this gas station where I gave one of these bills because it was only two houses away from the house in which the Henkel family and Fisch lived.⁴⁰

Hauptmann asked how any "clear-thinking person" could consider that he was passing Lindbergh ransom money, but, for me, he was asking the wrong question. He should have asked why he wouldn’t start laundering the ransom that was obviously left to others previously.

Chapter 9 – The Writing on the Wall

*Another source which backs up the position that only Condon’s phone number had been written on the closet trim by someone other than Hauptmann is included in one of Lloyd Fisher’s unpublished documents. This document outlined various points that Hauptmann had supposedly complained about to Fisher. I say supposedly because I suspect that documents such as these, attributed to Hauptmann, instead originated with Fisher himself. Under the subsection "points in the evidence which impressed him as indicating the weakness of the State’s case" this is the very first point:

1. The telephone number on the inside panel of the closet door, the number of John Condon.⁴¹

One must ask themselves why the address in not included in this complaint. On considering that the man who wrote the phone number on Hauptmann’s closet trim admitted this to Fisher, however, it is easy to see why.⁴²

Chapter 10 – Isidor Fisch

⁴³

Section – George Steinweg

*On page 574 of V2, there’s an unfortunate typo I need to correct. In evaluating the Steinweg account, I wrote that Fisch and Uhlig reserved their tickets to Germany on "August 18, 1934." This of course should have been August 18, 1933.

*An acquaintance of both Richard Hauptmann and Isidor Fisch was a man by the name of John Chizacky. Chizacky lived in Garfield, New Jersey, and he and his wife Sophie were friends with the Henkels and visited them often. It was at the Henkel apartment that Chizacky met Hauptmann and Fisch.⁴⁴ Chizacky revealed that Henkel and Hauptmann had come to New Jersey, stayed overnight with him, then went hunting with him the next day "sometime during the month of November of 1932." He described Hauptmann as…

…a dull cool German individual who was a poor mixer and did not make himself conspicuous.⁴⁵

Chizacky also added that he was told Hauptmann was making "big money in stock market investments." Police noted in their report that he further informed them:

Hauptmann impressed Chizacky as being dull and stupid and he had requested Henkel not to bring him to his home again.⁴⁶

Once it came to his experiences with Fisch, he had some interesting things to say:

He stated that Fisch was a very talkative man, boastful and always thought that he knew most about everything. From Fisch’s appearance and his very bad cough, he believed that he was suffering from consumption.⁴⁷

Sergeant Albrecht later returned to Chizacky, inquiring about Hauptmann’s license and their hunting trip. Chizacky told Albrecht that he believed Henkel and Hauptmann purchased their licenses at Passaic Sporting Goods, adding that the three of them went to Oakland and the vicinity of Ramsey to hunt. Albrecht wrote in his report that this trip placed Hauptmann "in New Jersey on both November 9th and 10th and also on October 10th" the day they went to the sporting goods store.⁴⁸ Chizacky made sure to impress upon the investigator that…

…Hauptmann was a stupid German who would not enter into conversation until broached by another.⁴⁹

During the Hoffman investigation, among the many people who assisted was former NJSP Detective William Codd. Codd had worked on the Lindbergh case prior to his departure from the force.⁵⁰ In V2, I included Hauptmann’s assertion that Fisch’s trip to Germany was rooted in the fur business. Hauptmann claimed Fisch was intending to start an import-export trade through his brother Pinkus, then return to America.⁵¹ Among other things, Codd’s interview with Chizacky proved to be another source for this:

He also stated that Fisch went to Germany with the intention of returning with his brother to start some business. Fisch did not flash any money or appear richer after the paying of the ransom, but Chizacky explains that Fisch always tried to give an opinion that he was making lots of money and always had money making schemes.⁵²

Codd believed Chizacky wasn’t telling him all that he knew, apparently because he wasn’t familiar with him. However, he did let him know what he thought of Fisch:

Knowing the scheming and conniving attitude of Fisch he believes that Hauptmann was gullible and would fall for any easy money which Fisch may suggest to him.⁵³

As we can see, Chizacky’s account puts the many sides of Isidor Fisch on full display.

2

The Perfect Child

We have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood we hid ourselves.

Isaiah 28:15

The Flight

After Charles Lindbergh’s legendary solo flight across the Atlantic in 1927, another famous flight took place on April 20, 1930, in a new low-wing monoplane Lockheed Sirius that Lindbergh planned to fly at altitudes of "20,000 feet."⁵⁴ As reported by The New York Times, Lindbergh, accompanied by his wife and copilot Anne, set the transcontinental record at "14 ¾ hours by flying 180 miles an hour at 14,000 feet⁵⁵ – the couple sometimes reaching altitudes higher than 15,000 feet to take advantage of the thin air," according to The Washington Post.⁵⁶ For Lindbergh, the purpose of this flight was to use both his wife and himself as test subjects for the "speed and efficiency of their Sirius plane above storm areas, in rare atmosphere.⁵⁷ Lindbergh believed that high altitudes mean high speeds and this flight was meant to prove it.⁵⁸ Ultimately, the speed record was broken by over three hours with Lindbergh hailed as a genius after proving himself correct about high altitude travel.⁵⁹ But it was not without a cost. The Lindberghs flew so high and so fast that their barograph broke due to the excessive vibrations" inflight.⁶⁰ Gasoline fumes also leaked into the cockpit, adding to the suffering that Anne, seven months pregnant with her first child, had to endure:

I was about to have a baby, and I was just terribly seasick, but I knew I couldn’t complain, because that would spoil the record, and it would also prove I was a weak woman, which I didn’t want, either. So, we got there and it was all right.⁶¹

It’s interesting to see, in Anne’s own words, that one of her biggest fears was being labeled weak. But was it all right, or rather, was she all right? In his book Lindbergh: A Biography, Leonard Moseley writes that Anne was "tempted to plead" with Lindbergh to land the plane due to her unbearable discomfort.⁶² My conclusion is that had she done so, this would have created a scenario where Lindbergh himself would have looked weak, which he wouldn’t have stood for in any circumstance. Therefore, he would have most certainly ignored Anne’s pleas.

Francesca Carey, daughter of entrepreneur William F. Carey, who revitalized New York’s Sanitation Department as well as Madison Square Garden, gave an interesting account of what happened when the Lindberghs finally landed. Sometime in April 1930, Carey spoke to John William Larner, who, at the time, worked at North Beach Airport, which was under the development of the Madison Square Garden Corporation. Francesca claimed she was friends with one of Anne Lindbergh’s sisters, who "called her in the night" to provide her with the details of the Lindberghs’ flight. Larner couldn’t recall which of Anne’s sisters Carey spoke to, but wrote in his letter to Governor Hoffman that either Constance or Elisabeth Morrow told her:

The day before Lindbergh & his wife had flown from Burbank Cal. to Roosevelt Field – in 18 hours & some minutes under very adverse weather conditions in the Eastern part of the country. They stopped but once at Kansas City or Wichita for fuel. Anne being several months pregnant was in a highly hysterical condition when the ship landed at Tel. [sic] – This Ship was taxied directly into a hangar and the doors closed. Lindbergh lifted Anne out of the cockpit and lowered her to the Morrow Chauffeur – they carried her out the side door to the Morrow car. The curtains were drawn. The car proceeded out the corner gate and the gate was locked some time [illegible] before the press cars could get out. By that time the Morrow Car had disappeared. It proceeded to Stapleton Staten Island.⁶³

This story concluded with Anne supposedly giving a "premature birth in a nursing home or private Sanitarium."⁶⁴ This is consistent with other similar rumors at the time, but was this rumor started by one of Anne’s sisters, an invented tale or embellishment from Francesca Carey, or possibly even from Larner, who represented it as coming from her? Another piece of information provided in this report is that Anne’s father, Dwight Morrow, Sr., sent a cablegram to Lindbergh in California "expressly forbidding him to allow Anne to accompany him East in the plane, Lindbergh replying that Anne was no longer a Morrow but now a Lindbergh."⁶⁵ Both the landing and the rumor of premature birth are discussed in Scott Berg’s laudatory biography, Lindbergh. Although there are some differences, Carey’s version sounds close enough to Berg’s to be believable, yet Berg dismisses the account as merely a "canard.⁶⁶ But Anne herself made mention of it in a May 12, 1930 letter, in which she describes a phone call from a reporter who asked if her child had been born that April, further inquiring if something had happened to it."⁶⁷ While history records this premature birth as untrue, how and why did this rumor start? Was it because of an assumption made by those who witnessed her condition upon exiting that plane? Or was it something coming from a trusted source, as Carey’s account asserted? This flight was on the minds of the entire country even well after Hauptmann’s execution, Governor Hoffman receiving letter after letter with inquiries such as this:

Was curious as to the mental and physical condition of the baby; a defective baby would be a serious handicap to famous parents from whom the World would expect a prodigy, and the father might be tempted to simulate a kidnapping to remove the baby from the public eye and have it cared for in seclusion. The mother continued to fly during pregnancy, and according to old-fashioned midwives, this would be liable to impair the off-spring both mentally and physically.⁶⁸

Those afraid of this possibility flatly reject it as nonsense. But a situation in which an expectant mother flying higher than 15,000 feet in an unpressurized cockpit filled with gas fumes is one that should, at the very least, give rise to serious questions about the subsequent health of her child. Furthermore, if one studies the social beliefs widely held at the time regarding problematic children, they would not see the above scenario as far-fetched.⁶⁹ The scenario becomes even more believable when one considers Lindbergh’s personal attitudes on the subject.⁷⁰ However, given Charles Lindbergh’s stature as national hero and American icon, it is, for some, practically seditious to ask these kinds of questions, and people who do usually draw some form of personal attack against