The Dark Corners of the Lindbergh Kidnapping: Volume Iv

By Michael Melsky

This volume of The Dark Corners is not unlike the previous three. As with the others, you will find information here not found anywhere else. This volume is slightly different though, with much attention given to what I consider leftovers and loose ends. I have also addressed some additional aspects of the Lindbergh kidnapping in which many have expressed interest. This includes a chapter on the “spy” Jacob Nosovitsky and one on Violet Sharp, a topic that I have avoided—until now.

• Language: English
• Publisher: iUniverse
• Release date: Sep 20, 2021
• ISBN: 9781663228819

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 © 2021 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

844-349-9409

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: 978-1-6632-2882-6 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-6632-2881-9 (e)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2021918888

iUniverse rev. date:  09/20/2021

Contents

Acknowledgments

Introduction

Chapter 1     Additions & Errata

Chapter 2     Miscellaneous Miscellany

Chapter 3     Center Pond

Chapter 4     The Woman In Green

Chapter 5     Rudolf Anton Schultz

Chapter 6     Reverend Vincent G. Burns

Chapter 7     Dr. Lieberman

Chapter 8     Jacob Nosovitsky

Chapter 9     All In The Family

Chapter 10   False Prophets

Chapter 11   The Suicide Solution

Acknowledgments

I begin 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.

As I write this, Mark Falzini, archivist at the New Jersey State Police Archives, has recently retired. He began his career 35 years ago and spent 29 of them at the Archives. When I first visited, I never imagined that I would be making a friend for life. While Mark’s retirement is a great milestone for him, I can’t help feeling sorry for myself—and for all other researchers who come after me. Mark is absolutely one of the best people I know and anyone who didn’t get the opportunity to meet, work with, or have his assistance with their research has truly missed out. He is so talented that it’s hard to know what he will do next, but whatever it is will certainly be a success. Over the years, Mark has written several books himself. Two of them, 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 of his books (my personal favorite), The Siege at Jutland (iUniverse, 2014), is an absolute must-read.

Another friend, Siglinde Rach, is someone I rely on entirely, probably more than I should. As I’ve said, she has a steel-trap memory and an uncanny ability to see connections no one else ever would. She has done all she could to help me in any way she can, and as with my previous volumes, she has freely shared her research with me, all of which is invaluable. There isn’t a day that goes by that I don’t reach out to her for an answer or opinion about a certain angle to the Lindbergh kidnapping.

Dr. Lloyd Gardner is someone else who I cannot thank enough. He remains a true inspiration, has 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, 2012), 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.

As always, I also rely on Dolores Raisch for her rational, grounded, and common-sense approach. Margaret Sudhakar has had a major impact on my study of the case since my first volume, and has been extremely helpful in developing material unique to our discussions. Kurt Tolksdorf has provided invaluable assistance through the years and continues to. Kevin Klein and Rab Purdy have been priceless to me with their thoughts, ideas, insights, skills, and their own research. David Holwerda is another great contributor who I can always count on to unselfishly share his vast wealth of knowledge and unique experiences concerning this case. I would also like to thank Mary Broadway for our discussions and her kindness in going out of her way to provide me with so much unique material to consider.

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, up to my most recent visits in 2021. 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 fourth volume of The Dark Corners:

Hunterdon County Historical Society Librarian Pam Robinson, John Neitzel, Del Wilber, Sue Campbell, Casimir Kaz Palmer, Paul Hilton, 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, Pamela Bingham, Kelvin Keraga, Liz Pagel, and Proboards contributors geld, hurtelable, and Amy35.

Beyond these few, I also want to extend my thanks to all contributors to my Proboards venue, The Lindbergh Kidnapping Discussion Board (lindberghkidnap.proboards.com). Without the members of this board, past and present, I would never have been challenged or had my ideas properly tested.

Introduction

Learn to realize what is right in front of you, and

that which is hidden will be revealed. For there is

nothing concealed that will not become obvious.

The Gospel of Thomas 5:1-2

This volume of The Dark Corners is not unlike the previous three. As with the others, you will find information here not found anywhere else. This volume is slightly different though, with much attention given to what I consider leftovers and loose ends. I have also addressed some additional aspects of the Lindbergh kidnapping in which many have expressed interest. This includes a chapter on the spy Jacob Nosovitsky and one on Violet Sharp, a topic that I have avoided—until now.

I also wanted to take the opportunity here to expose certain tactics that attempt to discredit opinions, research, and even new facts in this case. One such method is labeling, with terms like revisionist and conspiracy theorist. These terms are meant to imply someone is crazy, a nut, or is tearing down an accepted historical narrative simply for the sake of doing so. I have had these terms applied to me, despite the fact that I have personally supervised countless federal prisoners over the years, incarcerated for being part of a criminal conspiracy. There are also innumerable and provable examples of criminal conspiracies outside my own personal experience—the Pizza Bomber, Rabbi Fred Neulander, Ken Rex McElroy, Loeb & Leopold, and on and on. Simply put, conspiracies can and do occur.

Others, while they may accept the reality of conspiracies, take a different approach, claiming all conspiracies are eventually and inevitably exposed. This is absurd. One method prosecutors use to prove conspiracies is offering a deal, such as sentence reduction or even entrance into the Witness Protection Program (WITSEC). However, not all these offers are accepted. It takes a uniquely hardened individual to decline such offers, knowing they will most likely serve decades in prison, but such people do exist. Those inexperienced in such matters might point to this as proof the person is a lone wolf who acted alone, when, in reality, nothing could be further from the truth.

In the final analysis, with regards to the Lindbergh kidnapping or any other case, if one doesn’t like a particular piece of information, instead of resorting to name-calling or buzzword tactics, I suggest simply letting their own research speak for them. Unfortunately, one of the things I’ve also observed over the years is the art of dissuading people from doing their own research. For example, in one book on the Lindbergh kidnapping, the author seems to take issue with those who have "too much time on their hands" when they share documents, information, thoughts, and ideas about this case online.¹ It’s my experience that when someone holds this kind of position, it usually means they do not have enough time on theirs, so a veiled suggestion is made that implies it’s a negative thing to engage in research. Are we to believe that the more one researches and communicates, the less they are supposed to know? I obviously hold the opposite position. If one wants to acquire expertise on any subject or in any field, they must be willing to put in the work to get there. Denigrating research, in my opinion, is similar to criticizing an actor for rehearsing or an athlete for practicing. As my father said: "If you want to sit on the bench then don’t try out for the team." But if you have an interest and want to pursue it then absolutely do so. No matter what anyone tells you, especially as it concerns this case, there is still much to be learned and discovered.

1

ADDITIONS & ERRATA

As in V2 and V3 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,² 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, though 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. 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.

*Similarly, the Lindbergh home was commonly referred to as the "Hopewell House"³ or simply the "Farm before it was officially named High Fields in June 1933.⁴ To remain consistent, I’ve referred to the home throughout all volumes as it is currently known: Highfields."

Volume I

Chapter 1 – Strange Vehicles

A strange vehicle sighting I left out of V1 concerns the Tindall family of Blawenburg. The sources for this were confusing so I put it in a dark corner to relieve myself of it. But not long ago, I decided to spend the time to finally figure it out.

The story begins in October 1936, when New Jersey State Police (NJSP) Col. Kimberling instructed Det. Bill Lewis⁵ to investigate information concerning Flemington trial witness William Bolmer. Bolmer, it should be recalled, testified that he saw a Ford Model A, dark green in color, with a ladder tied to its side, occupied by a man and a woman who pulled into his service station on March 1, 1932, at 1:15 a.m.⁶ He testified the man in this car was "positively not Hauptmann,⁷ and the ladder he saw was the same one in court (the kidnap ladder).⁸ William Clarke, a baseball instructor at Princeton University, gave this information to the NJSP.⁹ Det. Lewis met with Clarke, who told him that Bolmer was a Princeton University graduate, intelligent, trustworthy, and was in possession of valuable information.¹⁰ Det. Lewis interviewed Bolmer, who said the man in this car told him the ladder was for working on a nursery job, to which his female companion gave a startled look.¹¹ Bolmer further told Lewis that the Tindle boys, who reside nearby on the Rocky Hill-Blawenburg Road," also had information he thought Lewis should follow up on.¹² Lewis wrote:

Briefly, their story is as follows – on the night of the kidnapping their mother, who is foreign-born and speaks very poor English, looked from her window and saw a small closed car parked in the Tindle lane, the Tindle home being in darkness as they had only moved in that day; this car remained in the Tindle lane for several hours and then another large car pulled into the lane for a moment and then both cars departed. The next day the car tracks were examined and the Tindle boys state that the tire marks were the same as those on Colonel Lindbergh’s car; that John Colt, of Princeton, former State Administrator of Relief, etc., had looked at the tracks in the Tindle lane and declared they were similar to the tire marks made by Colonel Lindbergh’s car and that Mr. Colt had gone to the Lindbergh residence and asked to examine the Lindbergh car and had been refused.¹³

Lewis added the following to his report, which seems to imply skepticism of the account:

The Tindle family said nothing of this matter until after the trial of Hauptmann, although they consider it strangely significant.¹⁴

This is the last date for which I found any more information about the Tindall sighting. Unfortunately, Lewis was incorrect: The Tindalls had indeed shared this information prior to Hauptmann’s trial, in March 1932.

In January 1935, one of the Tindall boys wrote a letter to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover:

Just a few lines to say Hello! So here’s what I have to say. You remember a few years ago you were here on the Lindbergh case and was out to our house (Martin Tindall) you came out with Mr. Colt of Princeton. Well there was a little question asked me which I would like to know if possible. The car tracks out front and in the drive way was not let looked into [sic] by Mr. Colt and Elmer Rocheller as they took markings of them and were not left into Lindbergh’s to see the cars up there and also at Franklin Park.¹⁵

Hoover was perplexed. He had never been to the Tindall home and had no idea what Tindall was referring to, stating that the "Division has no record of any interview or prior correspondence with Mr. Tindall."¹⁶ Also included in Tindall’s letter were questions about Lindbergh employee Olly Whateley. Tindall also added: "I think I recall you told my mother that you may be back to see her some day."¹⁷

Knowing what I do about Department of Labor investigator Murray Garsson and his team’s involvement in the Lindbergh case, it seems highly likely that Tindall was confusing Garsson for Hoover. As I said in V1, many people thought all government investigators were with the FBI, and considering that Garsson was based in Princeton, it made sense that this is what occurred here. To test this theory, I consulted the Department of Labor Summary of their Lindbergh case investigations, and sure enough, under the section "Kingston-Rocky Hill Road," there was a notation that investigators had been to the Tindall home.¹⁸ Unfortunately, a specific report about this visit is not at the NJSP Archives, but it seems extremely likely, given the information and theories he developed during his investigations, that either Garsson or one of his investigators intended to return to the Tindall home, but did not because they were recalled to Washington, D.C.¹⁹

Mrs. Tindall later contacted Ellis Parker, through a letter written on her behalf. She asked several questions about the case, many of which concerned Olly Whateley. She mentioned a sighting of a car on the night of March 1:

…[A] large car & a small car either a coupe or a roadster stopped in the front of our garden. The coupe turned around stopped along the side of large car. Whether or not the occupants of Coupe gave bundle to a company of large car is not known but coupe sped toward Hopewell and large car went (very fast) or at high speed toward Rocky Hill. Could there be anything in the two cars stopping and then each car on its way.²⁰

Is this sighting significant? It’s hard to say, and if not for Garsson’s quick removal from the case, we may have actually found out. I believe it depends on exactly when this sighting took place. Was it before police were called to Highfields, as police arrived, or afterwards, when police were searching the grounds and reporters started to appear on the scene? Each of these options is significant in any attempt at evaluating the possibilities with regards to this sighting.

Chapter 9 – The Whateleys

*Concerning the Whateley confession discussed in V1,²¹ I’ve discovered a new source which mentions it. According to Hoffman’s close friend, Capt. George Maines,²² Governor Hoffman had evidence in his files concerning a confession made by "Bank[s] who died in the hospital.²³ Furthermore, Maines claimed that Hauptmann attorney Lloyd Fisher told him that Banks had given him the complete story after he became ill and was in the hospital.²⁴ This confession, Maines alleged, gave details concerning the role he and others played in removing the child down the back stairs" and to a waiting car.²⁵ Maines also claimed that Fisher attempted to get a stenographer to take an official statement but Whateley died before this could happen.²⁶ Unfortunately, by this time, Maines seems to be confusing certain angles by adding them into this event. For example, he brings up Anne Lindbergh’s siblings, Elisabeth and Dwight Morrow, Jr. But what does exist within the Hoffman Collection at the NJSP Archives shows Dwight Morrow, Jr. was a person of interest. The documentation also shows that Maines had nothing to directly support the claim that Dwight Morrow, Jr. was involved in the kidnapping. There’s also mention of Elisabeth Morrow. While there’s only a minimal amount of information in the Hoffman Collection about her now,²⁷ according to author Noel Behn, there had, at one time, been an affidavit there which concerned her and was entrusted to Harry Green.²⁸ Harry Green was Hoffman’s attorney, as well as a trusted friend who sometimes spent his own time and money assisting the governor in any way he could. Others may suggest otherwise, but the documentation at the NJSP Archives proves this beyond all doubt.

Regardless of the confusion, especially in confusing Morrow butler Septimus Banks for Olly Whateley, considering everything I’ve written about this, Maines’ account rings true. First, he was close enough to Governor Hoffman to be privy to this information. Next, there can be no doubt that the NJSP Archives Hoffman Collection is incomplete. Finally, Lloyd Fisher represented John Hughes Curtis, entering a "Not Guilty" plea on June 4, 1932,²⁹ in the same Flemington, NJ, courthouse that would later be the scene of Hauptmann’s conviction. Fisher also represented J.J. Devine in relation to this matter in October of that same year.³⁰ Olly Whateley died on May 23, 1933,³¹ so it’s reasonable to believe Fisher had an interest in obtaining this information. The lack of an official record of this account is probably part of the reason why it was lost to history. Unfortunately, all that remains of anything related to Fisher can now only be found at the NJSP Archives. Fisher’s complete files, documents, and other materials relating to his involvement in the Lindbergh case were destroyed by his former partner, Ryman Herr, in the early 1970s.³²

Chapter 12 – The Crime Scene

Section – Police Actions

Section – Erastus Mead Hudson, MD

*The fingerprint evidence was first addressed throughout V1. It was further mentioned, supplemented, and addressed in V2 and V3.

One of the very first, if not the first, researchers to tackle this subject was Thomas J. Kelly. Very little is mentioned of him, and in fact, I’ve only ever found one book on the case that includes his name.³³ Kelly began researching the kidnapping in 1946,³⁴ beginning with visits to various sites related to the case, which allowed him to track down and interview people with connections to the Lindbergh kidnapping, such as Charles Williamson, Millard Whited, and William Allen, to name just a few.³⁵ Kelly was joined by his nephew James sometime in "the early 1960s, and the two worked as a team from then on.³⁶ It was through their research that they ultimately became friends with Anna Hauptmann. According to Dolores Raisch, Anna spoke of the Kellys in very endearing terms, always referring to James as Jimmy."³⁷

The Kellys visited the FBI’s Headquarters in late 1979 and told "Agent Smith of their desire to receive photographs of fingerprint evidence on three" ransom bills from the initial investigation.³⁸ The Kellys received these photos. Based on a separate request, they also received a "photograph containing latent fingerprings [sic] from the letter in this case, as well as additional photographs of letters with latent fingerprints."³⁹

Here is an interesting exchange in an FBI memo on this subject:

Late on 2/11/80, the requester telephonically advised SA [censored] that he was making available to the press in the Philadelphia area, information which he has received in his FOIA request. This will include documents from FBI files wherein it was discussed that latent fingerprints were developed in the Lindbergh case and that the New Jersey authorities stated there were no latents developed. The requester has received photographs made from the photographs in the Bureau file on which latent fingerprints are clearly visible. He also has documents which show the FBI compared the latents with the fingerprints of Bruno Richard Hauptmann and they were not identical. He further advised that he is releasing excerpts of the trial transcript which he contends will show that New Jersey officers committed perjury by testifying that there were no latents in this case.⁴⁰

This memo went on to say:

The requester further concedes that evidence which shows the latents were not identical to Hauptmann does not prove him innocent, but he contends that this exculpatory evidence should have been admitted in the trial.

The photographs which the requester was furnished, clearly show the latent fingerprints on some of the ransom money as well as on two envelopes and letters from the kidnapper.⁴¹

In a memo to Ed Mack, general manager of the Hunterdon County Democrat, the Kellys wrote that they sent the Flemington testimony of Trooper Frank Kelly to FBI Headquarters, and during a later phone conversation, "the Agent said he read Kelly’s testimony and he agreed that it was perjury."⁴²

Chapter 15 – In the Shadow of Death

Section – Of Graves and Ghouls

*Here is another of my attempts to create a learning experience as it relates to various sources. Ronelle Delmont, a friend and fellow researcher, once brought up something that troubled her. She recently read in a book about "one investigator who had used dead babies to test the bullet theory" as the cause of the Lindbergh child’s death.⁴³ I didn’t recall ever hearing such a thing, but once she provided me the source, I not only knew I had it, I’d also read it several times before. Still, it wasn’t until I retrieved it from my collection that I had any idea what Ronelle was referring to. This source claimed:

To prove that the child had been shot, he had procured the bodies of eight babies. He had laid them in a row, more or less. Of course the babies were dead.⁴⁴

After reading through this section, I immediately knew the investigator referred to by Courtney Ryley Cooper, in his 1937 book Here’s To Crime, was Lt. Robert Hicks.

First, we know the bullet theory actually originated with Dr. Charles H. Mitchell, who performed the autopsy on the body of Charles Lindbergh, Jr.⁴⁵ Despite this, Cooper also wrote:

Able medical examiners refuted this by insisting that what he called a bullet wound was in truth a common fracture, but the investigator knew better.⁴⁶

Here, Cooper was obviously relying on Dr. Mitchell’s testimony, something that differed from his earlier position which I believe was altered to assist the State’s case.⁴⁷ In fact, what Cooper wrote next fully supports this position. He claimed this investigator was able to prove a gun was used and said that he approached the prosecution with his findings but…

…they told me that if this information were given to a jury, it would blow up the whole case for the prosecution. So, of course, I kept quiet.⁴⁸

Unfortunately, it’s hard to know for sure if we can trust the Cooper source. While it fits with what I have written about Dr. Mitchell, it doesn’t mesh with what I know about Hicks’ actual ballistics report (much to Ronelle’s relief):

In proceeding with the actual experiment the brain tissue and bony structures were from a histological point of view duplicated as nearly as possible.

The substance used to simulate brain tissue was a gum solution which on drying had a consistency similar to that of human brain tissue.

The creation of the skull was by the use of plaster paris and cement. This was mixed in such a proportion as to imitate the bony structure of a well developed child of about two years of age.⁴⁹

What this proves is that Cooper either misremembered, embellished, or even invented what he wrote about dead infants being experimented on in his book.

What’s important about Hicks’ ballistic report is that it also shows that it was written before the trial and relied on Dr. Mitchell’s statements prior to his testimony:

Dr. Charles H. Mitchell, official physician of Mercer County and distinguished practitioner, indicated that he believed the baby had been shot to death, and died from hemorrhage and shock caused by the wound.⁵⁰

Hicks concluded the "¼ inch diameter hole in the skull corresponded to the bullet of a .25 caliber automatic."⁵¹

The hole in the skull was fairly clean cut and somewhat perfect in shape, indicating that it was made, without doubt, by a bullet, that snuffed out the baby’s life. If, as it was attempted to be explained, the child’s body had fallen when being taken from the shallow grave and had struck a sharp stick there would have been a jagged hole and a depression in the skull, and too one might be justified in saying the skull would not have weakened by decomposition during the short period it was in its grave. In fact, any other object than a bullet would have been obvious as such by the distinct difference in shape and condition of the hole in the skull. The most peculiar feature of the fracture was the absence of any depression on the skull or curving at the point of fracture.⁵²

While I have found no evidence that Hicks ever examined the body personally, there is clear evidence that he was among those to possess Dr. Mitchell’s May 13, 1932, report.⁵³ Furthermore, in a letter to Col. Calvin Goddard, Hicks quotes Dr. Mitchell as saying:

The peculiar feature of this fracture was the fact that it was not depressed or the skull was not curved in at the point of fracture.⁵⁴

Of course, I have covered this injury in my previous volumes, as well as the reasons for the belief that a bullet killed Charles Lindbergh, Jr., so there’s no need to go into it any further.

Image01.jpg

Robert Hicks (NJSP)

Volume II

Chapter 3 – Suspicious Events and Strange Encounters

Section – Bizarre Bazaar

*Something that gets lost in the Lindbergh case is John F. Condon’s ability to be alone. Most seem to believe that he was accounted for during every moment of his involvement in the case. But clearly he was not. This bazaar gave him ample opportunity to engage in a private meeting if he so desired. I wanted to give a few more examples (of which there are many) that include some interesting information:

*A New York City Police report records the curious observations of Elizabeth Dearborn. On March 10, 1932, she was on the "down town platform subway station on 116th Street and Lenox Avenue, where she saw Jafsie," who she positively identified from pictures published in the Daily Mirror.⁵⁵ She noticed that he had a "Hopewell Newspaper and was displaying pictures of the Lindy Baby while in conversation with two other unknown men for about fifteen minutes.⁵⁶ Once the train arrived, the two men told Condon that they would meet him uptown."

They then entered the same coach with the informant, when one looked at said informant and then said to the other unknown man, lets get out she is in the same car and when the said train stopped at 110th Street these two men left said train and ran.⁵⁷

Dearborn described these men as having a "dark complexion, being about 35 years old, between 5'3 and 5'4 tall, and weighing between 140 and 150 pounds. Dearborn also described one as being apparently Jewish."⁵⁸ She told Det. Winterhalter that she shared this with August S. Drenchman, an attorney, who accompanied her to police headquarters, where she gave this information, although Winterhalter had no knowledge of her previous interaction with police. Winterhalter interviewed Drenchman, who "also explained the facts as given, but was unable to recall the name of the detective who initially took Dearborn’s statement. Det. Winterhalter concluded that this matter should be closed pending any further developments."⁵⁹

I’ve found nothing to indicate that Condon was ever interviewed or asked about Elizabeth Dearborn’s observations of him on March 10, 1932.

*Another event is something I refer to as the Al Reach Letter. This strange, handwritten, two-page letter was given to police by Hopewell’s postmaster, forwarded from Amsterdam, NY.⁶⁰ After reading its contents, and believing it may have been intended for Al Reich, on April 25, 1932, police went to Condon’s home at 11:00 p.m. to interview Reich.⁶¹ Lindbergh advisor Col. Henry Breckinridge admitted them, but neither Reich nor Condon were there.⁶² Police waited, and at about midnight, Reich and Condon returned.⁶³ This proves that even when Breckinridge was present, Condon could come and go without anyone knowing where he was or when he was coming home.

*Another interesting story exemplifying this came from Fred Neitzel:

To refresh your memory about our conversation on the phone I told you how another kid (Johnnie Tay) and myself went with Jafsie a weekend or so before he passed the money, up to his shack in Pleasentville (Westchester Co.) where as his buddy Al Reich came up later that afternoon in a big black car, and whereas Condon asked us to leave, as he had to speak to Al! Couldn’t help notice in his story he makes no mention whatsoever of this secret meeting in the woods.⁶⁴

In trying to make sense of the omission, Neitzel "figured it was because Condon was afraid someone might accuse him later of putting us in jeopardy."⁶⁵ Clearly, as all the evidence suggests, there may have been a more simple explanation: The meeting was secret for a reason, and Neitzel and Tay were merely cover for it.

Another interesting point was that Neitzel was writing a story about everything he knew about the Lindbergh kidnapping, entitled Lindbergh’s Man – Jafsie. Naturally, I wanted to get my hands on a copy, which led to an email exchange with Neitzel’s son John. He wrote:

Here’s the bad news. My dad was killed in a car accident in 94 in Florida. Unfortunately when I was cleaning out his house and moving my mom to stay with me I came across boxes of files on the Lindbergh kidnapping. Since I was paying to ship all Mom’s things I decided to discard these files.⁶⁶

Chapter 4 – Ransom Drop Ruse

Section – Saint Raymond’s Cemetery

Lindbergh’s Version

*Much of what I discussed in this section involved Lindbergh’s account of the lookout at St. Raymond’s Cemetery.⁶⁷ So many authors seem to think that Lindbergh is to be unquestioningly believed about everything, yet they somehow dismiss his account here because it obviously proves multiple parties were involved in the kidnapping, despite Reich and Condon’s similar accounts of a lookout at Woodlawn Cemetery.⁶⁸ I wanted to add to Lindbergh’s eyewitness account:

Shortly after we first stopped the car out opposite the florist shop, a man walked by who I feel sure was one of the actual group of kidnappers or connected with them, he again came back on the opposite side of the street just before Dr. Condon returned after having paid the money. I also heard a voice from the cemetery calling Dr. Condon’s name. The first time that he left the car he left the car first without the money, he made contact and he returned to get the money and then went again down Wittemore [sic] Street so that I saw one man twice and I heard the voice of one man at a distance.⁶⁹

I didn’t mention Lindbergh’s voice identification of Hauptmann as being the one of the individuals mentioned above because it has been covered, ad nauseam, in so many books.⁷⁰ My goal is never to repeat old information unless it somehow compliments anything I believe is new. However, since my last volume, I’ve found a few things that I think qualify, since I do not recall reading them anywhere else. Here, for example, is part of Lindbergh’s grand jury testimony:

Q [Juror]: Will you please ask the witness Mr. Foley, will you ask the Colonel could he recognize that man’s voice if he heard it again?

Q [Foley]: Do you think you would recognize that man’s voice if you heard it again?

A [Lindbergh]: I can’t say positively, I remember the voice very clearly I would recognize the voice to be identical with the one that I heard, it would be very difficult for me to sit here and say that I could pick a man by that voice.

Q [Foley]: Did you receive any impression as to whether or not the voice you heard was a voice of a foreigner or a man of foreign extraction?

A [Lindbergh]: It undoubtedly was it was a very distinct foreign accent, the voice simply called to Dr. Condon, saying, hey doc but there was a very distinct accent.⁷¹

Dr. Lloyd Gardner provided the best analysis of this situation in his book, The Case That Never Dies, by demonstrating the FBI’s doubt of this account.⁷² But the FBI’s attitude towards it was more negative than most realize. They not only found wood expert Arthur Koehler’s grand jury testimony "phoney,"⁷³ but also seriously doubted Lindbergh’s account. These sentiments are clearly expressed by J. Edgar Hoover:

I asked Mr. Clegg to discuss this matter with the squad in New York to get the reaction of these Agents and particularly to obtain Mr. Sisk’s views. I stated that if we continue the investigation I do not see how we can avoid entering into the situation at New Jersey; that I am somewhat skeptical of some of the evidence now being produced in New Jersey, particularly some of the identifications and the testimony of Lindbergh relative to recognizing the voice, etc.; that while there is no doubt that Hauptmann is guilty, I want to have confidence in the evidence.⁷⁴

Even more interesting information within this memo is mentioned here:

Mr. Clegg stated that a Mr. Gordon (who was an Agent in this service until 1911) a reporter for the New York Times, has expressed the opinion that Lindbergh has become involved in this matter himself. I remarked that this seems to be rumored quite generally, though I do not know whether it has any foundation.⁷⁵

During the State’s preparation of their case against Hauptmann, Special Agent Sisk of the FBI found himself in the company of Assistant State Attorney General Joseph Lanigan. Sisk meticulously recorded his conversations and interactions, and as to Lindbergh’s voice identification, the following was even more proof for Sisk that something was not right:

Mr. Lanigan stated that Colonel Lindbergh positively identified Hauptmann’s voice as that of the man who had contacted Dr. Condon at St. Raymond’s Cemetery; however, that he could not make a physical identification of the man. He then stated that Colonel Lindbergh only heard the man say Hey Doctor twice, but that the Colonel was positive it was Hauptmann’s voice. Mr. Lanigan then smiled, and nothing more was said on the subject.⁷⁶

What’s recorded in this next memo is very enlightening:

Agent Sisk was in to see me this afternoon and stated that he had talked to you today about the trial of the Lindbergh case and that you had advised him that the Division Agents called upon to testify in this case were to testify truthfully and without bias concerning any facts which were within their knowledge. Mr. Sisk stated that the questionable tactics of all of the other Governmental agencies would probably come to light in a new trial but that the Division had absolutely no skeletons in its closet, and consequently, nothing to fear concerning any testimony that might be given. Mr. Sisk desired to be advised as to the answers which the Agents should make to specific questions which might be asked them and I instructed him that regardless of the questions which might be asked the Agent should testify truthfully concerning the facts if they were within his knowledge. Mr. Sisk stated that defense attorney might ask questions which would bring out information concerning the failure of the State Police, the New York City Police and other agencies to cooperate with the Division, and I stated that it was the responsibility of the Prosecuting Attorney to protest against the admission of any evidence which was not pertinent to the case.⁷⁷

Strangely enough, during a 1976 interview, Wilentz claimed that of all the Flemington trial testimony, he was "most surprised at Col. Charles A. Lindbergh’s insistent identification of Hauptmann’s voice" as the one he heard at St. Raymond’s Cemetery.⁷⁸ Wilentz continued that he "never for a moment doubted that Hauptmann was guilty, and that he was consumed with the conviction of his [Hauptmann’s] guilt."⁷⁹

Section – Cemetery John

*In this section I wrote about Condon’s unlikely discussion with Cemetery John, concerning the reduction of ransom from $70,000 to the original $50,000.⁸⁰ Lt. Hicks was in the Flemington courtroom and heard Condon testify as follows:

Q. Now, with reference to the amount of money, did you discuss that there?

A. At that place? I did.

Q. What was it?

A. I said to him, You want that money. Colonel Lindbergh is not- Shall I go on?

Q. Yes, certainly.

A. Colonel Lindbergh is not so rich. These are times of depression. Why don’t you be decent to him? And he said, Well, I suppose if we can’t get seventy we take fifty. ⁸¹

Lt. Hicks’s reaction is important:

I must admit that the story that Dr. Condon told about talking the kidnapper out of $20,000 is the most preposterous yarn ever heard in any court room. It will undoubtedly go down in legal history as the weirdest bit of imaginative narrative ever concocted.⁸²

Section – Bernard Uebel

*To supplement this topic,⁸³ I wanted to add to it by including Condon’s testimony, which also implies that he knew the box and money had become separated.

Q [Reilly]. Did you see the kidnapper stuffing the money in his pocket?

A [Condon]. I did.

Q. Did you ask him to give you the box back?

A. I did not. The money was in the box when he left me.

Q. Did he leave first?

A. I think we both left together.

Q. Did you ever go back there and look for the box?

A. I did.

Q. When?

A. On several occasions.

Q. The first is all I want.

A. Yes Wait, now - Saturday night I gave him - the following Monday I went over there and I had heard from someone in that section-

Mr. Reilly: I object to this; it is not responsive.

A. (Continued) - that a grave was disarranged.

The Court: Not what you heard.

The Witness: Thank you. What I saw.

By Mr. Reilly:

Q. Monday you went over?

A. Yes.

Q. What time?

A. Around noon.

Mr. Wilentz: Would your Honor object to a slight recess at this time, to get some air in the room?

The Court: We will take a recess of - how long?

Mr. Wilentz: About five minutes.

The Court: We will take a recess of about five minutes.

(At 11:20 A. M. a recess was taken.) ⁸⁴

Again, why was Condon looking for that box? Let’s look at the facts: Both the box and the money became separated. We know this from Uebel’s eyewitness account and the fact that Condon told Special Agent Seykora of the FBI about it possibly being buried in a grave at St. Raymond’s Cemetery. His testimony above is that Cemetery John had the money, which was in the box, and still had possession of the box when they parted. As I wrote in V2, Hauptmann hadn’t been arrested yet, so there is no innocent way to know he would not be in possession of that box. This testimony is another warped attempt at damage control on Condon’s part and is yet another piece of incriminating evidence against him concerning his involvement in the extortion.

Section – The Condon Investigation

*In this section I documented the investigation into Hauptmann and Condon’s possible acquaintanceship.⁸⁵ This took police to Dixon’s Boat House on City Island, where Hauptmann stored his canoe. Prior to this, Condon had maintained property on City Island for 40 years and Reich had lived there for twelve. When police interviewed Condon, he denied knowing Dixon’s sons, though he admitted knowing "old man Dixon, but said he hadn’t spoken to him in 15 years.⁸⁶ While John Dixon did not exactly corroborate this, he did claim Condon never comes down to their end of the island."⁸⁷

Hauptmann purchased his canoe on July 7, 1932, at Macy’s Department Store, for $109.00 in cash.⁸⁸ He first inquired at Dixon’s about purchasing a canoe, where it was suggested he visit Macy’s. Hauptmann arranged for delivery at Dixon’s and arrived there about two days later, paying for the storage rental and locker by check.⁸⁹

That same month, the NYPD began investigating Condon’s phone records. Notecards on file at the NJSP Archives include one containing information on a July 15, 1932, call, in which someone named "Helen called Condon’s home from the number Jerome 7-2352, registered to Joseph J. McCadden, 1060 Anderson Av. The officer listening to this call merely wrote: Daughter told Mother to call this number."⁹⁰ Condon’s daughter-in-law Katherine called on July 20, from "Pelham 0984.⁹¹ Condon himself called City Island resident Luciana Ipaliano on July 27, to have note translated."⁹² Among these records is this:

Boat House — Beach Street — City Island ⁹³

If Condon, as he claimed, hadn’t spoken to Dixon for 15 years—a very big if—then who called him from Dixon’s Boat House during the same month Hauptmann began storing his canoe there? Was it Dixon? A City Island resident? Hauptmann? The lack of detail on the card is frustrating, but this call should nevertheless be considered. Unfortunately, it appears to have been