|
Post by Michael on Jun 1, 2019 11:04:05 GMT -5
Condon clearly dropped off the ransom money on East Tremont? Why? So it would give the kidnappers a head start? Are you suggesting Condon was a confederate of the kidnappers operating secretively behind Lindbergh's back, or that he was just ensuring that no kidnapper would "be injured," thereby enacting Lindbergh's wishes, as long as he got his son back? I thought you read V2 Joe. Or I know there's a lot to process.... Yes. That "detour" that Condon gave 4 or 5 different explanations for was for the purposes of handing off the ransom money. He left Lindbergh's sight, then returned and went back down Whittemore with an empty box under his arm. Once there he wasn't really handing anything over and instead was stashing the empty box across the street in that boxwood bush. Since he said he handed it over to John who "disappeared" among the tombstones he couldn't return with it, and its why those men came back to retrieve it out of the bush before someone found it. What was Condon's role? That's up to everyone to decide for themselves. Certainly there are various degrees of guilt that can be applied to any explanation with one of the best for him being in your post above.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Jun 1, 2019 13:54:56 GMT -5
Condon clearly dropped off the ransom money on East Tremont? Why? So it would give the kidnappers a head start? Are you suggesting Condon was a confederate of the kidnappers operating secretively behind Lindbergh's back, or that he was just ensuring that no kidnapper would "be injured," thereby enacting Lindbergh's wishes, as long as he got his son back? I thought you read V2 Joe. Or I know there's a lot to process.... Yes. That "detour" that Condon gave 4 or 5 different explanations for was for the purposes of handing off the ransom money. He left Lindbergh's sight, then returned and went back down Whittemore with an empty box under his arm. Once there he wasn't really handing anything over and instead was stashing the empty box across the street in that boxwood bush. Since he said he handed it over to John who "disappeared" among the tombstones he couldn't return with it, and its why those men came back to retrieve it out of the bush before someone found it. What was Condon's role? That's up to everyone to decide for themselves. Certainly there are various degrees of guilt that can be applied to any explanation with one of the best for him being in your post above. I have read both of your books Michael, but at times find it difficult to follow what you're presenting as researched fact and personal speculation. Clearly through your portrayal of the documentation, you've come to the personal conclusion that Condon handed off the money earlier than he claimed, and it would appear you're now telling people this was fact. Ditto for him stashing the ransom box in the boxwood bush. I do not see your evidence as conclusive. You've also stated Condon was a "confederate of the kidnappers" and again I ask, to what extent do you feel he was a confederate? Was he simply allowing the kidnappers to have the benefit of added getaway time, or was he working in close connection with them, at the same time deceiving and working against Lindbergh? There's a big difference between those two potential scenarios. You may be on to something here, but I'm having difficulty trying to understand why Gregory Coleman would have been such an integral part of the accounts provided by Bernard Uebel. Condon seems to have no issues within the inclusion of local newspaper editor within what I believe is a much more innocent agenda than you've asserted.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 1, 2019 14:47:51 GMT -5
I have read both of your books Michael, but at times find it difficult to follow what you're presenting as researched fact and personal speculation. Clearly through your portrayal of the documentation, you've come to the personal conclusion that Condon handed off the money earlier than he claimed, and it would appear you're now telling people this was fact. Ditto for him stashing the ransom box in the boxwood bush. I do not see your evidence as conclusive. You've also stated Condon was a "confederate of the kidnappers" and again I ask, to what extent do you feel he was a confederate? Was he simply allowing the kidnappers to have the benefit of added getaway time, or was he working in close connection with them, at the same time deceiving and working against Lindbergh? There's a big difference between those two potential scenarios. You may be on to something here, but I'm having difficulty trying to understand why Gregory Coleman would have been such an integral part of the accounts provided by Bernard Uebel. Condon seems to have no issues within the inclusion of local newspaper editor within what I believe is a much more innocent agenda than you've asserted. I present the actual facts as found within the documentation. From there I sometimes offer up what it shows. For example, the police sketch at the bottom of Lamb's memo. No doubt this was a map of where Condon went. Uebel saw two men return and pull a box of the same dimensions of the Ransom Box out of that bush. Those who don't like this could say Uebel made up his account but the fact Condon took a detour then lied about why he did seems to back it up. Furthermore, the fact the print that Condon said CJ made did not match Hauptmann either harms his identification or again - it shows he was lying about the hand off. While I know there are certain people who believe the Kidnapping and Extortion were two separate crimes there is no doubt in my mind that some involved in the supposed kidnapping were also involved in the Extortion. But its possible some assisted in one aspect but not the other. If or when I said Condon was a Confederate I mean to those collecting the ransom. I'll try to make sure I don't write "Kidnappers" in the future to avoid confusion. But make no mistake, all of his lies show he was working with those collecting that ransom. He absolutely handed this money off on East Tremont or there would have been no need for him to stash that box on Whittemore. None. And if CJ ran off in the other direction with that Box he would have had to double back, cross the street, then stash it there while still in possession of the money. So absolutely yes - it was a ruse to give one of the Extortionists a head start and and a clean getaway through misdirection. But if the purpose was an "innocent" one, I would expect Condon not to continue to lie about it after the child turns up dead. But he does. His lies never stop. They only way out here is that if one says Condon was in fear of being bumped off if he told the truth. He said as much to Agent Turrou didn't he? But all this does is create more questions about how involved he actually was. Looking back at all of his lies and misdirection it looks kind of deep to me because Condon being a "nice" guy doesn't explain all of this. Uebel saw two cars: A Maroon Car and a Green Ford. It's easy to assume the Maroon Car was always Coleman's and the Green Car was always Breckinridge's. Right? On one day the Maroon Car was identified. At some point we know Breckinridge was there, and so once we overlap the stories we can identify his car too. The only obstacle is Uebel crossing up his sightings with payday. But - when we absolutely know whose car is who's that is the only real place we can prove that. Could be everywhere and Uebel seemed to think so we kind of have little choice but to accept it. We can also see Uebel describing someone who sounds very much like Al Reich. This again is another factor in identifying the car. If someone wanted to argue that perhaps these weren't the same cars, or that was not Al Reich I'd be willing to listen. Coleman knew more about what really happened than the Cops did. The FBI believed that and both Vigil and his Grand Jury testimony seems to support that. So IF that was Coleman's car sent to retrieve the box first we have to assume he was the driver or passenger.
I think it's a "given" that Reich knew a lot too and he was back in NY in time to be there at 1:30PM on April 3rd which appears to be when Uebel made his first sighting despite mis-remembering the date as April 1st. The April 2nd account lines up with the visit Breckinridge testified to as occurring on April 4th. Everything he testified to matches up with Uebel's account for that day. Next, Uebel claimed the retrieval of the box occurred on the 11th but exactly what day that was is anyone's guess. It may have been the 11th, earlier or later. But there's no doubt that it occurred.
So you seem to be struggling with the possibility that Coleman may have done something to assist/protect Condon under any circumstance? I see above that you can come up with various reasons why what Condon did was innocent but you can't reach the same conclusion for Coleman? Coleman had the inside story about everything. He was also Condon's friend. In fact who went with Condon to Perth Amboy to speak with Wilentz in late October? Coleman. We have no record of what was said or by whom. These are the "gaps" we have to try to overcome. But it was the next day Condon went to Flemington for purposes of trying to ID Hauptmann - again.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Jun 2, 2019 8:55:31 GMT -5
I have read both of your books Michael, but at times find it difficult to follow what you're presenting as researched fact and personal speculation. Clearly through your portrayal of the documentation, you've come to the personal conclusion that Condon handed off the money earlier than he claimed, and it would appear you're now telling people this was fact. Ditto for him stashing the ransom box in the boxwood bush. I do not see your evidence as conclusive. You've also stated Condon was a "confederate of the kidnappers" and again I ask, to what extent do you feel he was a confederate? Was he simply allowing the kidnappers to have the benefit of added getaway time, or was he working in close connection with them, at the same time deceiving and working against Lindbergh? There's a big difference between those two potential scenarios. You may be on to something here, but I'm having difficulty trying to understand why Gregory Coleman would have been such an integral part of the accounts provided by Bernard Uebel. Condon seems to have no issues within the inclusion of local newspaper editor within what I believe is a much more innocent agenda than you've asserted. So you seem to be struggling with the possibility that Coleman may have done something to assist/protect Condon under any circumstance? I see above that you can come up with various reasons why what Condon did was innocent but you can't reach the same conclusion for Coleman? Coleman had the inside story about everything. He was also Condon's friend. In fact who went with Condon to Perth Amboy to speak with Wilentz in late October? Coleman. We have no record of what was said or by whom. These are the "gaps" we have to try to overcome. But it was the next day Condon went to Flemington for purposes of trying to ID Hauptmann - again. The major point I'm struggling with in your scenario is how adroitly you've managed to connect the dots of your choice to arrive at your beliefs. Okay, you would seemingly have Condon working for the extortionists/kidnappers in some capacity, handing off the money earlier than when he testified, in order to give them a head start to ensure their safety. That possibility I can entertain, as it's consistent with Lindbergh's stated wishes that no one be "injured." But then for some reason, unknown to me but hopefully to you, you also have Condon stashing the empty ransom box in a boxwood bush that same night. Here is my $50K question to you. If this is all part of some grand scheme of deception, why does Condon not return to the car with the empty ransom box? After all, he's just helped the receiver of the ransom money get away, right? Wasn't that the purpose? Who's he trying to fool here by stashing the box, at the same time now risking someone else finding it? Is Lindbergh not up to speed here in your scheme? If he was, he'd have had no problem with Condon just walking back to the car with the empty ransom box. Next, you have the the Uebel statements, however you may want to perceive them for their veracity, which would seem to indicate everyone else in the Lindbergh camp, including Condon, Breckinridge, Reich as well as the Bronx Home News Editor and possibly some other unidentified people, were party to what you've claimed was a "brilliant" deception. Are you saying Lindbergh knew nothing about this grand scheme you've laid out? That notion would seem ludicrous. I do agree with you that more information, subject to substantiation or refutation, can be helpful in pursuing the truth but when it seems to have been force fit into place as it does here, it will always raise the above kinds of valid questions and doubts. I believe if you take the time to pull some of the strings away from this tangled ball, you may see what you've done is simply inject some kind of a staged re-enactment here with a duplicate box, or possibly Condon's own 1830's ballot box, for what actually took place on the evening of April 2. Would it not make sense to pursue such an avenue as enthusiastically as your conclusion in V2 and if not, why?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 2, 2019 10:50:03 GMT -5
The major point I'm struggling with in your scenario is how adroitly you've managed to connect the dots of your choice to arrive at your beliefs. Okay, you would seemingly have Condon working for the extortionists/kidnappers in some capacity, handing off the money earlier than when he testified, in order to give them a head start to ensure their safety. That possibility I can entertain, as it's consistent with Lindbergh's stated wishes that no one be "injured." But then for some reason, unknown to me but hopefully to you, you also have Condon stashing the empty ransom box in a boxwood bush that same night. Here is my $50K question to you. If this is all part of some grand scheme of deception, why does Condon not return to the car with the empty ransom box? After all, he's just helped the receiver of the ransom money get away, right? Wasn't that the purpose? Who's he trying to fool here by stashing the box, at the same time now risking someone else finding it? Is Lindbergh not up to speed here in your scheme? If he was, he'd have had no problem with Condon just walking back to the car with the empty ransom box. Next, you have the the Uebel statements, however you may want to perceive them for their veracity, which would seem to indicate everyone else in the Lindbergh camp, including Condon, Breckinridge, Reich as well as the Bronx Home News Editor and possibly some other unidentified people, were party to what you've claimed was a "brilliant" deception. Are you saying Lindbergh knew nothing about this grand scheme you've laid out? That notion would seem ludicrous. I do agree with you that more information, subject to substantiation or refutation, can be helpful in pursuing the truth but when it seems to have been force fit into place as it does here, it will always raise the above kinds of valid questions and doubts. I believe if you take the time to pull some of the strings away from this tangled ball, you may see what you've done is simply inject some kind of a staged re-enactment here with a duplicate box, or possibly Condon's own 1830's ballot box, for what actually took place on the evening of April 2. Would it not make sense to pursue such an avenue as enthusiastically as your conclusion in V2 and if not, why? I'm not so sure I connected those dots Joe. It quite clearly appeared to me that the NJSP did that before I ever did. The sketch, the memo, and the reports ... its all right there for anyone to see and/or find. I just happened to be the first guy to spend the amount of time needed to find it all. ALL being the key word. That includes each and every example of Condon's shenanigans which indicate obvious attempts (mostly successful) at obstructing the investigation and protecting the "Extortionists." Remember how lies work? They create problems for the teller who sometimes can't always remember the exact version once told, and they cause even more lies to be told because of the other lies. Now what I notice is that you are "willing to accept" any explanation that keeps Condon in an honest role. That's fine and can certainly be one of many various stances. But why MUST it be ONLY under those circumstances? (You don't have to answer it's just something for you to think about). I personally believe its because you have an emotional connection to the perceived character he was supposed to represent. Because of that you will not consider any negative possibility.
Unless we want to say Lindbergh was lying, and that's something to consider, then we KNOW the Look-out went down East Tremont. We also KNOW Condon followed that same course. We KNOW that Condon gave several explanations, all absurd, as to why he did that. So once he returned, with that box under his arm, we still don't know that the money wasn't in it. It seems reasonable to suspect it wasn't but we do not know it. But once that Box is found in close proximity of the supposed hand-off on Whittemore - but on the side of the street outside of the cemetery that only Condon had access - then its a conclusion that I do not believe most sincere people would reject. Your point seems to be that since Condon did not return with the empty box then he either did not put it there or that was some other box someone had stashed there for some other reason AND the match of the actual size and shape matching the Ransom Box was some kind of coincidence. My quick answer is to re-read my book. Everything ties together and its one of the reasons why I wrote it. All lies show a pattern. The section on the Ransom Box. The Ransom Note asked for it. Condon continuously lied about both its make-up and construction. The big tale about it was that it was made up of different material so it could later be identified. So we got the guy pulling out the $50s AND coming back with the box too? Both the box and those $50s were LE tactics designed to aid and/or would lead to the Kidnappers arrest. Condon's explanation for the 20K was weak ... so could you imagine what he'd have to come up with to explain the empty box? Seems to me you stash it, tell Reich where it is, and have him pick it up when the Cops are none the wiser. Seems obvious to me, but then again, I've dealt with the Criminal element for 26+ years so I can sometimes think a little differently than most.
So this strategy primarily was designed to "fool" Lindbergh (or any Cops possibly in the bushes that the Look-Out was so worried about) then the Cops (generally) then everyone else. All the while giving the Extortionists their money without the possibility of arrest at the scene. It was a brilliant bait and switch move. Common but smart nevertheless.
On Lindbergh. Who ever said that I believed he was extorting himself? I personally believe this extortion was never supposed to happen. But if he was extorting himself (that makes no sense to me) then you would be right. Like I said above, if he's lying all bets are off and there's no way we'd ever know anything about what really happened. The only real fact to consider would be the box being in that bush, Uebel's account, and Breckinridge's first hand accounts although he pulled a couple of questionable things too as it involved transporting that money (he did not want to be disbarred) and not speaking up once Myra falsely inserted herself into scenarios she was no part of. I don't know why he didn't but clearly he knew because he was there. So either his story wasn't true or Myra's wasn't. It cannot be both.
What I've done is follow what's contained in the documentation as a whole. Individually it means much less. Everyone did do something they shouldn't have. Everyone. It's undeniable. The Police selling photos, or leaking other information. Like I've always said - the degree of which had to do with their own personal moral compass. Reich was working with Condon concerning the negotiations. Coleman was working with Condon during the negotiations on a book. It could be they were both innocent dupes. I wouldn't call you that but since you believe everything he did was honest I can see you going back to St. Raymond's to pick up that box for whatever reason Condon laid out for you. To keep him from being arrested? *Sure, he's doing the right thing but the Cops can't know or the baby will be killed. To keep him from getting whacked? *Sure, how can I help? So first try to use those excuses you use for Condon then apply them to those friends/associates who surrounded him. Next, look at your other options as well. This alternative that a re-enactment where the box was stashed in the bush might seem reasonable to you. It doesn't to me. If that was the case it gets mentioned doesn't it? And why in the hell would they hide the box if it was a "re-enactment." Re-enact the box being stashed in the bush? I missed that part of Condon's story - right because he claimed CJ took the box and disappeared in the back of the Cemetery. So I personally can only consider what I believe is possible. I like that you are searching for other possibilities, I absolutely do, but this one isn't something that makes sense to me.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 3, 2019 12:19:28 GMT -5
You're probably not familiar with the ways homosexuals meet, I'm not a homosexual, but I know of two ways (as explained to me by police officials.) One way is stamping of feet while sitting in a restroom stall - public restroom. The other I'm aware of is dropping of a handkerchief while walking. The target then says, "you dropped your handkerchief", And so on.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jun 3, 2019 13:45:32 GMT -5
You're probably not familiar with the ways homosexuals meet, I'm not a homosexual, but I know of two ways (as explained to me by police officials.) One way is stamping of feet while sitting in a restroom stall - public restroom. The other I'm aware of is dropping of a handkerchief while walking. The target then says, "you dropped your handkerchief", And so on. This is both offensively homophobic and wrong. Are these current day "police officials" telling you about people dropping their handkerchief? It's ridiculous.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 5, 2019 10:49:48 GMT -5
Well homosexuality is really just men that are afraid of women, so there are a lot of them running around with problems, both physical and mental.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 5, 2019 11:05:33 GMT -5
On that information from the police, at the Minneapolis Airport the police were watching for homosexual activity there, and caught a Minnesota State Representative giving signals to attract other homosexuals and arrested him. Was quite a scandal a while back and the rep probably good lawer-ed up and got off, as usually happens. The signals were foot signals, shuffling and light stomping of feet in a rest room stall, then they have a hole in the stall wall and you can imagine what grizzly happens next.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jun 5, 2019 15:26:44 GMT -5
Well homosexuality is really just men that are afraid of women Wow... that is truly offensive.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 5, 2019 19:20:17 GMT -5
Well homosexuality is really just men that are afraid of women, so there are a lot of them running around with problems, both physical and mental. This is not the appropriate forum to discuss the root causes of male homosexuality. It's a lot more complex than men being afraid of women. In fact, there are many straight men who are afraid of women. Be that as it may, yes, homosexual men do statistically have a much higher incidence of physical and mental problems than heterosexual men. BTW, the incident you refer to at Minneapolis Airport involved a US senator from Idaho, NOT a state rep. It made for quite a bit of gossip in the media for a few days. IIRC, the Senator was forced to resign from his office. But I don't see any connection to the LKC.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 5, 2019 19:35:43 GMT -5
Michael, if I'm missing something here, please let me know. I don't see much difference between Condon giving the ransom loot to CJ on East Tremont Ave, as compared to his giving the loot to him on Whittmore Ave. You are saying that passing the ransom on E. Tremont would allow CJ more of a "head start." But does it really make much difference in either case, when you have (partly by design) no law enforcement presence in the area, and both Condon and Lindbergh - possibly for different reasons - unwilling to do anything to help law enforcement to apprehend CJ and/or associates?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jun 5, 2019 21:18:51 GMT -5
Well homosexuality is really just men that are afraid of women, so there are a lot of them running around with problems, both physical and mental. This is not the appropriate forum to discuss the root causes of male homosexuality. It's a lot more complex than men being afraid of women. In fact, there are many straight men who are afraid of women. Be that as it may, yes, homosexual men do statistically have a much higher incidence of physical and mental problems than heterosexual men. BTW, the incident you refer to at Minneapolis Airport involved a US senator from Idaho, NOT a state rep. It made for quite a bit of gossip in the media for a few days. IIRC, the Senator was forced to resign from his office. But I don't see any connection to the LKC. This really isn’t the setting for this discussion but to say LGBT persons often suffer higher rates of “physical and mental problems” is not necessarily borne out by the evidence. The only aspect that is true is there is often a higher incidence of depression amongst many LGBT persons by having to hide who they are from family, etc. Given that homosexuality occurs with relative frequency in the animal kingdom, to suggest that the root cause is as simple as a “fear of women,” is preposterous. One only need look at the complete failure of so-called “conversion camps” to rule out such simple curable causes. While it is true gay men (and women) would often meet eachother in discreet settings given the fear of law enforcement or “outing” at the time, to say that the two sightings here are anything other than what the witnesses reported them as being is a bit ridiculous and just misdirects from finding a possible solution. It is clear both men were serving in the capacity as a lookout or else both Lindbergh and Reich both lied.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 6, 2019 7:58:14 GMT -5
Michael, if I'm missing something here, please let me know. I don't see much difference between Condon giving the ransom loot to CJ on East Tremont Ave, as compared to his giving the loot to him on Whittmore Ave. You are saying that passing the ransom on E. Tremont would allow CJ more of a "head start." But does it really make much difference in either case, when you have (partly by design) no law enforcement presence in the area, and both Condon and Lindbergh - possibly for different reasons - unwilling to do anything to help law enforcement to apprehend CJ and/or associates? I see it as a bait & switch tactic. LE was NOT supposed to be there - that we can all agree. But if YOU were there to extort 50K from Lindbergh would you assume none were and take absolutely no precautions? Now consider we are talking about criminals, who had a very specific agenda undoubtedly supplemented thru intel and careful planning. Next, consider the evidence, despite Lindbergh forbidding it, that LE HAD attempted to follow them - right? So while on site, we have a Look-Out for just this purpose. His actions support the notion that there was a belief this was a possibility. So we have Condon going down Whittemore initially, coming back to the car to pick up the box but goes down East Tremont instead before walking back down Whittemore with the Box under his arm like the money is still in that box. Beautiful plan and execution. This is something else to consider when you have people who believe a Lone-Wolf (Hauptmann) was accidentally lucky in pulling off the "Kidnapping" at Highfields mainly by ad-libbing his way through the crime.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Jun 6, 2019 15:23:04 GMT -5
Well, I'm sure you're right about that gay politician - been a long time and I wasn't interested in it when it happened, but thought it was pretty funny all the whining about it.
|
|