|
|
|
||||||||
|
The Crime of the Century
The Lindbergh Kidnapping
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From The Research Department:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Questions & Answers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Q: Was Charles Lindbergh Jr. killed from a fall caused by being dropped while the Kidnapper(s) descended from the nursery by way of the "kidnap" ladder?
A: My research indicates that he was not killed during this "historically accepted" scenerio. In fact, there was absolutely no evidence of a fall beneath the nursery window. VDer's (Verdict Defenders) have absolutely no viable explanation for why only a single footprint existed there. A fall resulting from a break in that ladder would have sent both Kidnapper(s) and infant to the ground leaving impressions in the slick, soft mud below. One VDer is so desperate to hang onto this accepted fact that he constantly attempts to explain away the evidence listed above by saying when BOTH THE KIDNAPPERS AND INFANT fell, they landed squarely on the thin strip of boardwalk which existed below that window and therefore left no evidence of a fall! Get used to seeing these types of ridiculous, and purposefully misguided explanations. After studying and investigating the crime scene, both Col. Schwarzkopf and Commissioner Mulrooney believed the ladder was a "prop" and the infant was never taken out of that window.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Q: Did Bruno Richard Hauptmann have a leg injury consistent with a fall from that ladder immediately after the Kidnapping?
A: "Busch-League" investigators will have you believe that Ella Achenback's trial testimony proved that he did. Unfortunately, it takes more then reading an author's regurgitation of trial testimony to get to the truth of the matter. I have gone to the source police documentation which proves Achenback's recollections are flawed. Achenback originally told Investigators that Hauptmann had a leg injury immediately following the trip to Miami, which any novice researching this case will tell you occurred in January thru February 1933. So her recollection of Hauptmann's injury was true, but a year later in March 1933 NOT 1932. And this is supported by Hauptmann seeking medical attention from Dr. Otto H. Meyers for Varizen leitchte Phlebitis, Fuesse schwell manchmal an (Vericose Veins) on January 3, 1933, just before that Miami trip. None of this matters anyway since I've already proven there was no fall off of that ladder, but of course the VDer's will always try to twist the facts. The worst part of Achenback's testimony is that Attorney General Wilentz knew she was mistaken about the date and used her testimony anyway...with specific instructions not to mention "Miami" but just to say it was "a trip." One has to wonder why this underhandedness would occur if the evidence against Hauptmann was so overwhelming.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Q: Did Dr. John F. Condon ("Jafsie"), identify Hauptmann as ("Cemetery John") the
emissary for the Kidnappers whom he met on two occasions in both Woodlawn and
St. Raymond's Cemeteries?
A: Dr. Condon's dramatic identification of Bruno Richard Hauptmann during the Flemington trial occurred because he was threatened to be named an accomplice by the New Jersey "authorities" after having earlier refused to identify Hauptmann. In fact, Condon told Special Agent Turrou that Hauptmann WAS NOT "Cemetery John" because he appeared to be much hearvier, had different eyes, different hair, etc., and that the 'real' John was already dead having been killed by his Confederates. Further investigation also reveals that the good Doctor had earlier, prior to Hauptmann's arrest, positively identified someone as being "Cemetery John" who looked absolutely nothing like Hauptmann. Additionally, a Security Guard at Woodlawn Cemetery, Robert Reihl, made an eyewitness account of "Cemetery John" specifically said he was NOT Hauptmann. Furthermore, neither Reihl nor Condon saw any hint of a leg injury that may have plagued "Cemetery John"- quite the contrary.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Q: Did taxi driver Joe Perrone identify Hauptmann as the emissary for the Kidnappers who gave him the note to deliver to John Condon ("Jafsie")?
A: Joesph A. Perrone was a hard working man who was simply trying to provide for his wife and three children during the depression. He reported for work at his hack stand on 3-12-32. Of course, as history would record, his taxi was hailed by a man on Gun Hill Road and Knox Place. This man did not want a ride but asked Perrone to deliver a note to Dr. Condon. Perrone agreed and acted accordingly. Oddly, upon delivery of the note, Milton Gaglio came running down Dr. Condon's steps and asked if the note had been given to him at Gun Hill Road and Bainbridge Avenue. Sometime later, Perrone was tracked down by Milton Gaglio, who then quizzed Perrone and told him if Inspector Bruckman were to come looking to interview him that he was to GET OUT OF TOWN for a couple of days. Bewildered by this request, Perrone when contacted by Authorities reported this conversation to which Gaglio flatly denied it ever occurred. At the Bronx Grand Jury testimony, Perrone told District Attorney Breslin that he would not know the man who gave him the note if he saw him again. Shortly after this testimony however, Perrone saw Dr. Condon on City Island talking to a man he felt certain was the person who gave him the note to deliver. Perrone reported this sighting to the Police. Detective Grafenecker later told Perrone that they "were on to" Condon and were going to "put the screws to him." What follows from that point on up until the time Hauptmann is arrested are multiple "identifications" concerning men Perrone believes looks like the fellow who gave him the note - which include but are not limited to the following: Hognell, Gawelczyk, Buck, Chetel, Steiner, Kuchan, Swadba, Kaltenbrunner, Mogel, and Panas - none of which look anything like Hauptmann. Once Hauptmann is arrested, Perrone was transported to the Greenwich Street Police station by Corp. Leon and Det. Coar who converse amongst themselves (loud enough for Perrone to hear) saying that Hauptmann was guilty, had confessed to the crime, and that those responsible for identification would receive the reward. Once in the Police Station, Perrone was shown a picture of Hauptmann and told by Inspector Lyons that "he was the man". Soon Perrone was brought to Capt. Bennett's office where a line-up consisting of (3) men - Ptl. McNamara, Bruno Richard Hauptmann, and Det. Croak was formed. Perrone was asked who the man was that gave him the note to deliver to Dr. Condon which prompted him to put his hand on Hauptmann's shoulder and identify him. Agent Sisk was a witness to this, and even Perrone himself would later admit to these conditions being brought upon him by the Police. Was this a legitimate identification? The VDer's would have certainly have you believe it was. Again, why were these tactics necessary if Hauptmann was so overwhelmingly guilty?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| page created with Easy Designer |