up.
But?
We’re told he’s got armed bombs inside that open bomb bay. Suppose you blow him up in midair with an air- to-air missile or cannon and machine-gun fire from the air? You’ve got live explosive falling on New York City. Are you prepared to risk that?
Go on, please.
Okay, next. Ground fire. Antiaircraft. SAM missile. Whatever. Same scenario, same risks, same objection.
You proposed more options than those two, didn’t you?
I probably proposed a dozen or more. I don’t know if I can remember them all. Some of them were pretty fanciful.
Such as?
There’s a drag that’s used sometimes in forest fire-fighting operations. Kind of a wide mesh-type fishnet, suspended from two or more airplanes. They use them to smother fires in certain conditions. Anyhow you could hang a mesh between two powerful jet aircraft and simply scoop the guy right up out of the sky and carry him off.
Very ingenious.
Sure. Eat where are you going to find gadgetry like that in New York City when you’ve got barely an hour before the deadline?
Continue, General.
This one wasn’t mine. I think it was the FBI man-Hazard?
Azzard.
Yeah. He suggested using a laser beam. Like James Bond. Cut the bomber in half or something. Same problem there, of course. Where are you going to get a laser gun on short notice? In any case I don’t even know if there’s such a weapon in existence, except on somebody’s drawing board. Well, anyhow. I said they could always just put a radar tail on him-from the air and from the ground-and just go ahead and pay the ransom, and then pick him up when he landed. Sooner or later he was going to land. What goes up must come down. Of course that was the obvious answer. It was too obvious.
Why?
Several things. One, nobody was sure at that point whether they were going to be able to raise the money in time. Two, it was easy enough to put a tail on the plane but it might not be that easy to put a tail on Ryterband and keep it there-and Ryterband was the one who was collecting the money. Three, the whole plan had been worked out in pretty good detail by Craycroft, and it was hard to believe he’d gone to all that trouble without figuring out a pretty good escape trick for himself. He might have anticipated radar surveillance. In fact, he almost certainly had. He was an airman, he wasn’t ignorant.
Nevertheless, he was quite bent, wasn’t he? He might have simply ignored that sort of thing in his plans.
I don’t believe that. There’s a big difference between crazy and stupid. Some of the looniest people I’ve ever known were brilliant. Superbly logical.
Go on with your analysis, General.
There was a Port Authority helicopter flier there, a man named Woods. He’d watched the bomber’s flght pattern. I don’t know if any of them had figured out what Craycroft was doing. So I told them what he was doing.
To wit?
He was confining his circle to a route that kept him constantly above heavily populated land surface.
In other words there was no point at which he could be shot down over water.
Exactly. He crossed the East River twice in his flight path, but he never did it quite the same twice in a row. And the East River’s a narrow channel. He was making it a point to cross it in the area of the three bridges-the Brooklyn, the Manhattan, and the Williamsburg Bridge. A few times he flew out above the Brooklyn-Manhattan bridges-they’re quite close together-and made his U-turn over Brooklyn and came back the same way. Other times he’d make his outward crossing above the Brooklyn Bridge and make the return pass over the Williamsburg Bridge, which is a little way upstream. But if we’d tried to shoot him down there, we faced a pretty good chance he’d crash into one of the bridges if he didn’t hit the populated areas. And those bridges are damned expensive to replace, not to mention the constant traffic on them.
Yes, quite.
You see, they’d called me in because they thought there had to be some simple way to neutralize that bomber. That’s what the Air Force is for-to solve aerial problems. There was one thing they forgot.
What’s that?
We weren’t at war. Look, in wartime you shoot the enemy down and you don’t give a damn where they fall. The Battle of Britain-I hate to think of the number of Luftwaffe Heinkels that got shot down over London by the RAF and crashed into somebody’s house-sometimes with armed bombs aboard. Some of the worst damage of the blitz was done by crashing planes. But in wartime you accept those casualties. You have to. Here, on the other hand, that risk was unacceptable. Because we weren’t at war. Peace is hell, isn’t it?
Ryterband (E. M.)
Mrs. Ryterband, could you give us your full name, please?
My name is Ellen Marie Ryterband.
And your maiden name was Craycroft, is that right?
Yes, that’s correct, sir.
You married Charles Ryterband in March, nineteen forty-four?
In Cincinnati, yes, sir.
Now, your brother, Harold, had been in partnership with Charles Ryterband for some years before your marriage, isn’t that correct?
Yes, sir.
Can you tell us how the two men first met and became partners?
Yes, sir. My husband-Charles, that is; he wasn’t rny husband then, of course-Charles had been working for the Ryan company in San Diego, and in nineteen thirty-eight he took a new job with the Ford company, and they moved him to Michigan, and that’s how he met my brother.
Your brother and Charles Ryterband were both employed by Ford in the manufacture of Trimotor aircraft at the plant in Dearborn, Michigan. Can you tell me the circumstances of the first partnership between Mr. Ryterband and Mr. Craycroft?
Well, Charles and Harold became very friendly right away. They had very similar ideas, you see, about airplanes and engines and that sort of thing. Charles had been working at the Ryan company previously-I think I mentioned that, didn’t I?
Yes, you did.
Ryan was the company that built Lindbergh’s plane, you know. They were a small company, but they were very advanced. Charles always regretted having left them, you know. He had accepted the job offer at Ford because he felt that a larger company would offer greater facilities and opportunities for him to develop his ideas, which were rather revolutionary at the time. But he had a sad reawakening in Dearborn. He found Ford to be very stuffy, not at all interested in experimentation.
And your brother felt the same way?
Oh, my, yes. I remember very vividly the first time I ever met Charles. My brother brought him down to Cincinnati-it was one of the long weekends, Easter weekend…
This was in nineteen thirty-eight?
Yes, sir, nineteen thirty-eight. My sister Alice and her husband were still living near us in Cincinnati then. And our mother was still alive-she died in December that year. I was looking after her. I was twenty-four years old, and
