|
Post by john on Jul 10, 2016 12:37:43 GMT -5
This is not a theory or hypothesis per se but a question regarding the LKC more generally, the case as we know it: if one were to remove Dr. Condon from the equation, what likely would or could have happened as a result? It's a broad question but what I'm trying to get at is the issue of whether CAL, Jr. was dead before Condon met with Cemetery John or was killed or allowed to die (illness, exposure) due to Condon's involvement. More specifically, was Condon's getting involved with whoever CJ and his "associates" literally a factor in the child's death or had that already happened? By this I mean a factor in the larger sense of the child perhaps having died during the period when Condon was dealing with CJ, in a way that might not have happened had Condon done nothing at all.
I raise these issues as part of a larger thought experiment (or experiments, if you will) as regards what effect Condon's involvement had on what transpired after CAL, Jr.'s abduction. Since the LKC is as we know it inconceivable without the "Jafsie piece" it's difficult to envision what might have happened if Condon had not been a factor at all. In other words, remove Condon from the equation...and what? Would the body of little Charlie Lindbergh still been found in the woods off the Hopewell-Princeton Road? Is it possible that there were in fact kidnappers Condon knew nothing about who, once they got wind (as to how is another matter) of his involvement decided to change their game plan. As things stand as we know them the LKC boils down to this: no Condon, no LKC as we know it. But what about no Condon, period?
What I'm attempting in raising these matters is to factor John F. Condon into a case in which, prior to the night of March 1, 1932, he played no part in. Yet everything that transpired as regards both CAL, Jr., the money paid to the alleged kidnappers/extortion gang, the discovery of CAL, Jr.'s body, occurred in the wake of (so to speak) Condon's leaping into the fray. Is it possible to construct a scenario of what might have happened had Condon not placed his piece in the Bronx Home News. Could there have been another Condon (so to speak) who managed to somehow contact people he thought were the kidnappers, who also got "taken", with a similar tragic outcome? No, I'm not making light of the LKC, nor attempting to write an entry into a late Star Trek episode, however I do have to wonder, question, how the case might have turned out with Condon removed from the equation, as in (as in "for instance"): could the child have been returned safely some other way?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 10, 2016 16:39:52 GMT -5
Personally, I think Condon was very carefully selected as a go-between by the kidnappers, ostensibly for the purpose of returning CAL Jr. to the Lindberghs. I think the kidnappers were Bronx-based, knew (or knew of) Condon, and approached him for his help. They came up with idea of "establishing" contact with each other through The Home News. What Condon didn't know at this point was that CAL Jr. was already dead (I can't imagine him getting involved otherwise), and that his sole purpose was to make sure the kidnappers got the ransom. I think, at Woodlawn, Condon was told the baby was dead. It was then very much in his interest to conceal the kidnappers' identity, to make sure they got their money, went away, and didn't reveal his actual involvement with them.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jul 10, 2016 21:38:38 GMT -5
Thanks so much for responding, LJ. A funny thing happened today. It's a work day for me (part-time gig) and it struck me mid-afternoon that I might have actually posted the questions thread before, elsewhere. Now that I'm home and on-line and went to another Lindbergh site and looked for it there I did find one that questioned Condon's role in the case and which was quite similar to this post but was more meandering about the kind of man Condon was and what the heck he was doing getting involved in the LKC in the first place. The questions I raised here were more specific, venturing somewhat into the realm of metaphysics, as I was essentially asking whether the LKC could exist at all, examining it as a "thing", as if it were a planet or an ancient city, and whether if one removed one piece,--the piece in question being John F. Condon--whether the "thing", the case, in other words, would still be intact, as we know it. Your response is probably as good as it's going to get without the aid of a time machine. As to where the child's body was found, we'll never know for sure, I imagine, whether the kidnappers were planning to put it there from the start or if there were factors that played into their decision, things we can't possibly know about, not for sure. I rather doubt the body had been there since early March,--would you agree?--given the risk of discovery. Once the ransom money was received, it really didn't matter, though I suppose a rogue gang member might have wanted to have some sadistic "fun" with Lindbergh by placing the body so near his place of residence.
|
|
|
Post by xjd on Jul 10, 2016 22:20:04 GMT -5
fascinating question John, i like it! not that i have any concrete ideas, but i think it's fun to experiment this way. certainly CAL did not do what the first ransom note asked (not to make anyding public or for notify the police). that's exactly what CAL did, so in theory were it NOT for Jafsie, his chances of getting Charlie back back by acquiescing to the kidnappers demands went out the window (pardon the pun) when he called the cops.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 10, 2016 23:28:59 GMT -5
Hey John! Yeah, I wasn't sure what other response there could be to your question other than to illustrate the actual part I think Condon did play. But take that out of the equation, and I don't think things would've worked out at all the way that they did. I think Condon was what you'd call an accessory after the fact: Brought in unknowingly, as a pawn, but then found himself in way over his head (hence all his subsequent BS-ing and obfuscation). I think he was used by the kidnappers as leverage, as someone Lindbergh would have no choice but to give the ransom money to, to then pass on to the kidnappers. They needed someone for this purpose, having, I think, double-crossed Lindbergh in what I think was a blackmail attempt against him. As for the body in the woods, I think you're right on; I don't think the body was there the whole time either. Had that been the case, it would've been found much sooner--if not by anyone else, then almost certainly by the workers who strung phone lines through that area. My belief is that CAL Jr. was killed in the nursery on March 1, and was buried somewhere nearby (I'm guessing at Terhune Orchard, adjoining the Lindberghs' temporary farmhouse a few miles from Highfields, though that's pure speculation). When the time was right, the body was to be exhumed and dumped at the roadside turnout on Mt. Rose for a quick discovery and closure to the case. Once the ransom was handed over on April 2, I think this is what was done, but there was a hitch: Animals got a hold of the body and dragged it back into the woods, so it wasn't found for another month-and-a-half (May 12).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2016 23:43:25 GMT -5
What I'm attempting in raising these matters is to factor John F. Condon into a case in which, prior to the night of March 1, 1932, he played no part in. Yet everything that transpired as regards both CAL, Jr., the money paid to the alleged kidnappers/extortion gang, the discovery of CAL, Jr.'s body, occurred in the wake of (so to speak) Condon's leaping into the fray. Is it possible to construct a scenario of what might have happened had Condon not placed his piece in the Bronx Home News. Could there have been another Condon (so to speak) who managed to somehow contact people he thought were the kidnappers, who also got "taken", with a similar tragic outcome? No, I'm not making light of the LKC, nor attempting to write an entry into a late Star Trek episode, however I do have to wonder, question, how the case might have turned out with Condon removed from the equation, as in (as in "for instance"): could the child have been returned safely some other way? Great post John! You always bring up interesting points. As xjd posted, when CAL called the police instead of reading that ransom note, he made a direct negotiation impossible. There would have to be an intermediary to channel the ransom money through. LJ is right that Condon was selected to be the intermediary by the kidnappers (the ransom notes make this clear), Condon did not go fishing for them. Condon agreed to place his letter of appeal in The Bronx Home News as the instrument the kidnappers would use by responding to it so negotiations could actively begin. If Condon were removed from the equation, the kidnappers would have needed to find someone else. I don't see the ransom money ending up with the kidnappers/extortion gang without an intermediary. Lindbergh bringing the police and press into this kidnapping cut off any other possibilities such as a direct exchange of money for child, or an arranged place to deposit the money and the child dropped off at a church or left at a certain location. I do believe that Charlie was dead before an intermediary was arranged to negotiate that ransom demand. Condon, nor anyone else, ever had a real chance of returning the boy to the family alive.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jul 11, 2016 1:19:04 GMT -5
Thanks, guys, all of you, for helping keep the discussion alive as to what for many might seem like the arcana of the LKC,--all that pre-Hauptmann arrest stuff--while in fact there's still much to discuss independent of Hauptmann, Fisch, all those ransom bills found in the former's garage, and the issue of the miscarriage of justice. These are all important topics, too, but in strange ways they muddy the water as to specifically what the heck was going on in the winter and spring of 1932 that led to the abduction and subsequent death of CAL, Jr.; who conspired with whom (if conspiracy is what it was); and what Lindbergh perhaps knew even prior to the event of the kidnapping about the possibility of such an event, as his response to his son's not being in the crib has always vibed "fatalistic" with me, at an intuitive level, as if he knew more than what he let on.
Was he expecting this to happen? I wouldn't be in the least surprised if Lindbergh already had his share of dirty linen, that there were blackmailers who had the goods on him for something,--no need to speculate at the moment--and that Lindy either called their bluff or got someone to pull strings to stop them in their tracks. All that work for nuthin'. It could have been going on for two or three years, maybe more; and so "they" did the next best thing and kidnapped Lindbergh's son. If Lindbergh had called their bluff, or got professionals to take care of whoever was leaning on him, a "retaliation" would not have come as a surprise. Lindbergh's "bad behavior" the night of his son's kidnapping (if that's what it was) suggest a degree of apathy on the part of a father for the welfare of his son that's puzzling, to say the least. Yet this kind of thinking takes us invariably into Ahlgren & Monier territory, and they've already come to their conclusion. I don't think it's unreasonable to suspect,--yet more loose working hypothesizing here--that Lindbergh perhaps knew, sensed in his gut, again, due to threats to his well being of a more blackmailing sort, that all that effort, all the phone calls, meetings, whatever venue was used to contact him and for him to respond, over a long period, had to end badly; and as no sooner had Lindy dodged one bullet did another come his way. He saw the damage in the empty crib. For all we know Lindbergh's missing the N.Y.U. centennial dinner may well have had something to do with his attempt to forestall the inevitable. As to exactly that it was "they" had on Lindbergh, it may well have been something akin to what happened much later,--a secret wife, another family; or worse, a mistress and a bastard child or two--which at the time would have ruined his reputation, his standing as a national hero.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 11, 2016 9:21:33 GMT -5
I think what would've ruined Lindbergh's standing as a national hero, at least in his mind, was having a child that was somehow deficient. And if we factor in all the little things we know about CAL Jr.'s health: The unclosed fontanel, the oversized head, the rickets, the inability to stand up straight, the hair nodes and overlapping digits, all of which were noted in the doctor's report at his last physical; plus the fact that the bones were so soft after death that a stick could poke through the skull, which came apart "like an orange peel", according to trial testimony--if we factor all this in, I don't think it's too much of a leap to say that CAL Jr. was not healthy, that there was something very wrong with him. And given the fact that there are no pictures of CAL Jr. in the months leading up to the kidnapping, I think the problems were starting to manifest, and Lindbergh, to maintain his superman image, could not afford to have this child around. To his eugenicist mind, putting him out of his misery was the only humane thing to do anyway--so I think we're definitely in Ahlgren & Monier territory here, except, unlike their theory, CAL Jr.'s death wasn't accidental. I think Lindbergh arranged it under the guise of it being a kidnapping gone wrong. I think a handful of guys were hired and paid up front (probably no more than three, matching eyewitness descriptions of three men in two cars seen around Highfields that day) to go to Hopewell, kill/euthanize CAL Jr., leave a phony ransom note in the nursery, and bury his body in the countryside until the time came to disinter and dump it for a quick discovery. But there was a problem: The "kidnappers" got greedy and decided they wanted that $50K mentioned in the nursery note, so they started treating this like a real kidnapping, by sending more ransom notes and setting up a go-between. This is where Condon comes in. These guys probably knew or knew of Condon, and also knew that, narcissistic jackass that he was, he'd readily involve himself in the case if it meant being the one to place the precious little baby back in Anne Lindbergh's arms when the time came. So they contacted him for this purpose, only telling him once he was in that CAL Jr. was actually dead. At that point, it was vital that Condon make sure the kidnappers got their money and didn't reveal his actual involvement with them. Anyway, once the "ransom" had been paid, the rest of Lindbergh's original plan was carried out: The body was disinterred and dumped on the Mt. Rose roadside, for a quick discovery. But animals got a hold of it, so it wasn't found until later.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2016 9:31:12 GMT -5
As for the body in the woods, I think you're right on; I don't think the body was there the whole time either. Had that been the case, it would've been found much sooner--if not by anyone else, then almost certainly by the workers who strung phone lines through that area. My belief is that CAL Jr. was killed in the nursery on March 1, and was buried somewhere nearby (I'm guessing at Terhune Orchard, adjoining the Lindberghs' temporary farmhouse a few miles from Highfields, though that's pure speculation). When the time was right, the body was to be exhumed and dumped at the roadside turnout on Mt. Rose for a quick discovery and closure to the case. Once the ransom was handed over on April 2, I think this is what was done, but there was a hitch: Animals got a hold of the body and dragged it back into the woods, so it wasn't found for another month-and-a-half (May 12). Hey LJ, I know how hard you have worked on building a working theory on this crime. Like you, I don't believe the body was at the gravesite from March 1, 1932. I also think it was dumped there from another nearby location after the ransom was paid. I really wish the police would have paid more attention to the Lindbergh's temporary home in Princeton and that peach orchard also during the early days of the investigation but once the first mailed ransom note arrived in Hopewell with the New York postmark, I guess all eyes shifted that direction. I haven't been able to find anything about a physical search being conducted that far out from the Hopewell house. I did find a reference to the Coil Soil Farm and the kidnapping in the newspapers but it didn't appear until after the body of Charlie was found. This picture article appeared May 13, 1932.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 11, 2016 12:07:41 GMT -5
Yep, that house in the top photo is the rented farmhouse (today White Cloud Farm on Cold Soil Rd.); looks pretty much the same today. But I don't know for sure that that house figured in the crime in any way. It's pure speculation on my part, based on the burlap strips (orchard materials, with Terhune Orchard adjoining the farmhouse property) found near the dump site, and given the fact that it would have been an area Lindbergh would've been familiar with; a place where he might've known it was safe to hide something. Now, on double-crossing him, why would the kidnappers have buried the body in the place Lindbergh told them to? Because there would've been no reason for Lindbergh to assume, on being double-crossed, that the kidnappers would've followed through with that or any other part of his plan. And even if he did assume the body was somewhere on the White Cloud/Terhune property, it's not like he could go out there and just start digging holes to get the body back and remove the kidnappers' leverage. I know the police scoured every "farmhouse, henhouse, doghouse, outhouse, etc." around Hopewell and Highfields, but I've never heard of them going to the White Cloud house, either. I wonder if they did...
|
|
|
Post by john on Jul 11, 2016 12:26:12 GMT -5
Amy: we (you, me, LJ) seem to be moving in a similar direction regarding CAL, Sr. and the "disappearance" of his son. Maybe he wasn't being literally blackmailed, as I suggested, was involved in something else, something more sinister, hinted at by Ahlgren & Monier but not nailed properly by them, which is that indeed he was "playing games" with his son, but there was no accident in this. The bungling, such as there was any, was on the part of LE, not the "kidnappers" and certainly not Lindbergh. Why read the ransom note and follow its instructions when he knew the drill already? No, he didn't put the note there, but he, or rather his maneuverings, were instrumental in the series of events that we now called the LKC.
As to having a "defective son", there seem to be different perspectives on this; and we must also take into account the very different state of the field of medicine, even first rate American medicine, of eighty-five years ago. If CAL, Jr. was slightly retarded or impaired in some way mentally, and if there were some physical imperfections that would have hampered his ability to grow into a normal child, then a normal adult, this may not have been something even a skilled pediatrician could have known so early as would be the case today. Still, it could have been sensed, felt, yet due to who the child's father was, not written down.
Then there was the issue of hope (or "hope") that the child would change,--and indeed there may well have been--but this too would have been wishful thinking by 1931-32 standards. As to the apparent absence of much in the way of concrete evidence to the contrary, this may be due to medical records, or some of them anyway, being destroyed once the child's body was found. If there had been doubts at to CAL, Jr.'s health, concerns over his development, this could easily have been hushed up at the time. This was not an era of celebrities going public over every little thing. The child's cold just prior to his "abduction" may well have been a kind of "last straw" for his perfectionist father. If he didn't kidnap the child himself he could have greenlighted the faux kidnapping in various ways.
Whether Lindbergh literally instructed the abductors of his son to kill the child is another matter. Neglect would have been sufficient for a small and fragile boy such as CAL, Jr. That he was already ill, albeit slightly, was the,--from any decent human being's perspective--an ugly, downright evil window of opportunity that his father couldn't resist. Nor was Lindy himself risk averse. If he was he wouldn't have become the "intrepid aviator" he was. He may well have, if not instructed those who took the child, understood that at that time of year, indeed on the dark and stormy night the boy was taken from his crib, his already fragile health would have worsened quickly. Take, literally, one false step and the child was doomed. If these speculations, wild as they may seem, are true or even half-true, and CAL wanted to rid himself of his "defective child" it was worth paying 50K for it.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 11, 2016 15:29:36 GMT -5
I do think there was something Lindbergh felt or sensed about his child that was not "quite right", and that he relied on his own judgment in this (as he did with everything else). But he couldn't take CAL Jr. to a doctor or hospital to confirm this, because the information would leak. Here, I think, is where Carrel comes in. Once he had confirmed what Lindbergh believed about CAL Jr., Lindbergh decided the child had to go. Given the head injury, I think this was done very quickly, neatly, and quietly in the nursery. I don't see the need for drawing out his death with exposure or untreated illness, and I don't think that it would've been some sort of household "accident" either, as I don't think Lindbergh would ever allow himself to be seen as some sort of negligent parent. Anyway, CAL Jr. would not only have had to die, but also to disappear entirely, to hide the physical problems. And a child disappearing, apparently against his or her parents' will, what does this add up to but a kidnapping? So I think staging a kidnapping gone wrong was the plan, and any phoniness or anomalies in it (and people had their suspicions even at the time) could be covered up by Lindbergh using his celebrity and clout to misdirect the investigation.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jul 12, 2016 1:39:40 GMT -5
Was Lindbergh working with Alexis Carrel that early on, LJ? I thought it was later. If so, given's Carrel's (and Lindbergh's own) eugenicist views this could have added further to what doubts CAL already had. I agree that Lindbergh's fondness for secrecy would have kept him from having his young son "officially" diagnosed as even slightly retarded or, more euphemistically, developmentally impaired, which may in fact have not ended in little Charlie being "slow" as in, for instance, schoolwork. Maybe early on, but I can remember kids who were quite slow and peculiar in many respects, including physically, in early grades, turning out quite nicely, even amazingly well, much later on, in high school, but I digress.
Yet if your hypothesis is correct then indeed the fake kidnapping went very wrong indeed. This does raise issues as to how the ransom note got written; and here is where Lindbergh, likely through intermediaries, was able to contrive a kidnap scenario when there wasn't one. Ahlgren & Monier came up with what struck me as a too wild take on how CAL wrote the nursery note. More likely, it was done "for hire"; and on account of this the scheme backfired when some underworld figures associated with those who helped Lindbergh with his kidnap plan learned what had happened. As to the ladder, the chisel, the kidnap plot that wasn't, this may well be where Hauptmann enters the picture. He perhaps made the ladder, felt he deserved more money than he got, then went into business for himself, with maybe one or two others on board who knew of the "Lindbergh hoax".
It's no wonder he didn't spill the beans. He probably didn't have access to the whole story anyway, having been a relatively minor player to begin with. My sense is that he did know that the disappearance of little Charlie Lindbergh was not a kidnapping, not in the true sense, but he couldn't come out and say it. Besides, who'd believe him anyway? As to his refusal to name what accomplices he had, this is where Bob Mills' Capone theory kicks in nicely: Big Al may not have had anything to do with the disappearance of CAL, Jr. but CAL, Sr. probably did work with people with Mob connections so set up his kidnap scheme, and indeed if Hauptmann had named names the lives of his wife and,--the irony of it all--young son, could be in jeopardy. The hapless Hauptmann was damned if he did and damned if he didn't (tell the truth, that is), and he chose death over bringing even more grief to his loved ones.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 12, 2016 12:46:55 GMT -5
I think Carrel and Lindbergh met in November 1930, yeah, and, at the time of the kidnapping, were working together at the Rockefeller Institute in NYC, designing a perfusion organ pump (Lindbergh was of course not a medical man like Carrel, but he was certainly mechanically oriented; an engineer and designer of machines). Anyway, they were birds of an ideological feather, and a real kindred spirit relationship was struck up between them apparently. They even envisioned turning Highfields into a kind of training facility or special school for the intellectual elite. I think Carrel reinforced a lot of Lindbergh's eugenicist beliefs and may have even heightened Lindbergh's perceptions that there was something "wrong" with his son. And I agree that Hauptmann didn't have the whole story. I don't think any of the "kidnappers" did, so the odds would be reduced that they couldn't be traced to each other or to the crime. But, yes, he would've known that this wasn't a simple kidnapping gone wrong, but, as you say, who'd have believed him and what would've happened to his family if he talked?
|
|
|
Post by john on Jul 12, 2016 14:47:52 GMT -5
Thanks, LJ, for clearing the Lindbergh-Carrel relationship up as to timeline. I wonder if Carrel himself had ever taken a look, clinically, I mean, at CAL, Jr. I wouldn't be surprised. Just a few words from Carrel about the child's not seeming quite up to par for his age would have planted seeds of doubt in CAL's mind. Interesting about Highfields as a potential school for the elite.
If we're on the right trail here, LJ, then Hauptmann's odd behavior makes more and more sense, as he literally didn't know how to respond to the police once he was found with the ransom bills. This still doesn't explain his apparent stupidity in passing them about so freely, but maybe he'd set a date in his mind, had some notion that after a certain point he'd be safe to spend the money he'd kept hidden for so long.
Still, he had a good deal of money squirreled away, which can't help but make me wonder how small the extortionist group was. It may well have been no more than three people. I'm guessing that Isador Fisch was among them. Do you think it's possible that someone found CAL, Jr.'s body, and then began the extortion scheme? That's pretty early, but it also suggests that at least someone,--probably not Hauptmann--had, correctly, guessed or already knew the truth.
To carry the aforementioned to its logical conclusion, Lindbergh was being blackmailed by those who had helped him make the murder look like a kidnap. This lends considerable urgency to CAL's "control freak" handling of the case, keeping many government agencies, including the then nascent FBI, at a distance. If Lindbergh had literally killed his own child then he had to have found a place to keep the body hidden. I don't think it's a stretch to say that once Lindbergh learned that the body wasn't where he thought it would be safe from discovery he knew he'd have to pay. Someone had talked.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 12, 2016 16:50:04 GMT -5
I think Lindbergh took CAL Jr. to Carrel, who confirmed his suspicions by officially diagnosing the child as "not right". And I'm with you that the extortionist group was no more than three--matching witness descriptions of three men seen in two strange cars around Hopewell over the course of the afternoon of March 1. One of these men could very conceivably have been Hauptmann. Or Hauptmann could've been approached by one of these three to build a ladder that could fold down to fit in a car, no questions asked. This kidnapper could've then dumped his share of the $50K ransom with Hauptmann for some reason and then either died or been arrested on other charges or something. As to Fisch: I don't know. His connection to the whole thing could've been as one of the three who went to Hopewell, or that he just laundered some of the ransom money at some point--or it could be that he was nothing more than an acquaintance's handy name that Hauptmann pulled out of a hat under police questioning: "Being both shady and dead, he'd be a perfect fall-guy, so I'll just give them Fisch's name..." And my idea is not that the body was accidentally discovered: More that the kidnappers were hanging onto it until they got that extra $50K. Once that had been paid, they disinterred the body and dumped it, as per Lindbergh's original instructions. Condon and the ransom negotiations were nothing more than a detour to that point, in my view.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jul 12, 2016 18:40:12 GMT -5
That sounds about right, LJ, re Carrel and CAL, Jr. I'm at the public library as I write, am pressed for time here, but briefly: I had, depending on the point of view, either an epiphany or a brain fart about an hour ago regarding Cemetery John. No, I'm not trying to guess who he was but unravel a crucial thing he said to Condon: when asked if he was German, his denial, then his mention of being Scandanavian, may well have been a code intended not for Condon but for Lindbergh, specifically his Swedish ancestry. In other words: we know who you are. YOU killed the Lindbergh baby. This Jafsie guy won't get it, but you will. Act according to plan and we'll play fair with you. Your secret will be safe. Obviously, Condon could not himself have been let in on this but Lindbergh ought to have picked up on it. It's a guess on my part but worth considering as a kind of signal to the man then known as the Lone Eagle.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jul 12, 2016 19:27:41 GMT -5
Interesting John, perhaps the Boad Nelly note was also an "I'm on to you" signal as they mentioned a spot(the Elizabeth Islands) where the Lindberghs honeymooned.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jul 12, 2016 21:32:56 GMT -5
True, Stella? Seriously, the Elizabeth Islands? It sounds like someone was yanking Lindbergh's chain. Also, whoever wrote the ransom notes, was working that end of things, had done his homework on the life of the man whose son he was (presumably) abducting. I wonder if there are more hints in notes, communications with CAL. It would make for interesting reading. If LJ's and my take on Lindbergh is correct then it was poor old Condon who was being jerked around the most, and by both sides. It's my sense that Condon was basically honest, that he got in over his head in the LKC, and once he got in he couldn't get out: both Lindbergh and the extortionists were using him. I can't help but wonder whether if it ever occurred to the old man that he was being used by CAL and LE, not just the "bad guys".
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 12, 2016 23:52:01 GMT -5
Exactly. I think Condon was being used by the kidnappers. Like the rest of the public, he thought CAL Jr. had just been kidnapped, and if he was the one to return him to his parents, he'd be a national hero. I think he had a genuine and honest desire to see CAL Jr. restored to the Lindberghs, especially if he was the one to facilitate this. But at Woodlawn, this is where he found out CAL Jr. was actually dead. At that point, he was in way over his head. I also think the $20K that the ransom was jacked up by was to be his cut for his services. But on finding out that CAL Jr. was dead, this became blood money which he obviously couldn't accept. This is why, when the time came to pay the ransom at St. Raymond's, he removed the $20K addition and returned it to Lindbergh, the portion which happened to contain the largest and most traceable bills. Condon came up with some BS excuse about talking the kidnappers down to the original amount in order to save Lindbergh money, while simultaneously reducing the kidnappers' chance of being caught by removing that highly traceable cash.
|
|
|
Post by john on Jul 13, 2016 2:04:40 GMT -5
Yes, but how,--LJ, Amy, Stella, xjd, anyone--do we convince others of the conclusions we are coming to, each in a somewhat different fashion? It makes so much sense. So many people who've studied this case have come so close, yet something always held them back. Ahlgren & Monier relied too much on Lindbergh's prankish side, though they came awfully close in identifying his sadistic-sociopathic qualities (noted by earlier students of the case as well, including Ludovic Kennedy); and Lindbergh's eugenicism, which hardened this already hard man even more, gave him what amounted to a scientific excuse for cold-blooded murder. Anthony Scaduto did a good job with the "Hauptmann perplex", named the wrong man as perp. Noel Behn came much closer IMO in getting to the murder as a family affair, so close; and then he fumbled when he pointed the finger at Elisabeth. Yet Behn laid some impressive groundwork, especially in his delving into the background of the Morrows, what appears to be a family history of mental illness which even Dwight, Sr. seemed to suffer from now and again. The Nosovitsky involvement is tantalizing, especially as Noso is such a colorful and elusive character; and he may well have played a role in the case.
What's proved elusive from the outset is the why of the Lindbergh kidnapping, so much as to obscure issues that might help explain why the child was deliberately killed. Words like "accident", "fall", "illness" and others have been put forth as to explain the death of CAL, Jr., yet such words are near morally neutral. It's easier to say "the child fell from Hauptmann's hands and the subsequent head injury caused near instant death" than to look at the LKC from a broader perspective. We've spent so much time on Hauptmann,--as in "did he do this?" or "did he do that?"--that we make him more of a player in the LKC than he probably was. In 1932, I mean. But if we view the Lindbergh kidnapping as a murder case and ask the larger question of why was little Charlie Lindbergh killed, it takes on a different coloration. We've learned from later accounts of Lindbergh, Sr.'s life of his gift for concealment; of his desire to keep huge aspects of his private life secret, such as his second family in Germany. He was always tight-lipped and guarded about his personal feelings. His huge disappointment in his apparently "impaired" son was something he likely kept to himself, shared with Alexis Carrel and nobody else. Whether he did the deed himself or hired someone else to do it, he doubtless saw the killing of his son as a kind of euthanasia; good for all concerned: family, society, little Charlie himself, in the long run.
Yet so long as the LKC remains "Hauptmann focused"; so long as we look criminals from the lower classes as likely accomplices, we're stuck in a rut that takes attention away from those who were from the top cut of society, and yet who were capable of enlisting the aid from those at the bottom for the right price. Even then, money and money trails take on a major significance that while relevant to the LKC are not what it was about. Lindbergh was apparently wise to not enlist members of his household staff in his plans. I used to think otherwise, but no more. Violet Sharpe, unstable to begin with, if she did kill herself out of some kind of remorse over the death of CAL, Jr. it was likely something that had to do with her catching wind, so to speak, of a plot of some kind but not knowing who was behind it. In this she was like a younger, uneducated, less emotionally stable Condon, who also "caught wind of something", and like Violet, was coming to all kinds of wrong conclusions. At least Condon kept a steady head about him and stayed clear of the sort of trouble that might incriminate him; and of course he did fold under police pressure when he identified Hauptmann. My guess is that whoever orchestrated the kidnap part of the case may well have chosen two people who bore a vague resemblance to one another,--thus the real CJ may well have fleetingly looked a bit like BRH--but this was a part of the plan.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 13, 2016 13:40:17 GMT -5
My feeling is that Michael's book will go a long way to setting the record straight. And I agree with everything you say, except for the involvement of household staff. Personally, I think Betty Gow was involved. I think Lindbergh told her something along the lines of CAL Jr., what with his health issues, would be better off in an institution, where his needs could be better seen to. But Anne Lindbergh would never allow this, and, additionally, the only way to do this so the family could save face was to have him "kidnapped" and smuggled out of the house. Lindbergh would make Anne see this was all for the best after the fact, and, in any case, Betty was going to assist with this: Leaving the front door unlocked, mixing something into CAL Jr.'s food so he'd fall asleep (her drugstore pit-stop on the way to Hopewell that afternoon), making him a flannel overshirt on top of all the other layers he was already wearing that night (this was probably her own idea, because she knew he'd be outside, traveling in raw weather). I don't think she knew he was going to die; she wouldn't have participated (or made him an extra layer of clothing) had she known that. Lindbergh told her that he would steer the police away from her ("I was promised [by Col. Lindbergh] I wouldn't be touched!"), but once CAL Jr. turned up dead, she realized she'd been caught up and had unknowingly participated in something awful. She left the country, never to return (except for Hauptmann's trial), never married or had kids of her own. And as for Violet: I don't think she knew anything. She did, however, freely share information about the Lindberghs from time to time (having leaked CAL Jr.'s gender to the press when he was born). Once he turned up missing, I think she feared that she may've said something to the wrong person, something that inadvertently facilitated what she and everything else thought was the kidnapping. She got scared and, in a panic, started lying to police, which made her a person of interest who they were not going to let go of. At that point, while she may not have known what she'd said or done (in reality, nothing), she then thought it was only a matter of time before the police figured it out. At that point, she'd lose her job, her reputation, everything. So she killed herself. She was collateral damage, I think.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2016 14:40:18 GMT -5
My feeling is that Michael's book will go a long way to setting the record straight. Agree 100% with this!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2016 14:44:15 GMT -5
So, John and LJ,
Who do you think Dr. Condon was working for and what are your reasons in support of your selection?
|
|
|
Post by john on Jul 13, 2016 15:22:17 GMT -5
Amy, I am for once at a loss for words . Truly, I haven't even got an opinion re Condon and who contacted him, whether he was tipped off, and if so by whom. My sense is that he didn't do it for money. His motivation for getting involved was genuine and altruistic, allowing for his sizable ego. If, for instance, he'd known about the child's death beforehand he'd never have jumped into the case so as to aid in capturing the kidnappers/extortionists. The poor man didn't know what he was getting into early on, and by the time he found out the truth he couldn't walk away.
|
|
|
Questions
Jul 13, 2016 17:51:12 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by lightningjew on Jul 13, 2016 17:51:12 GMT -5
Despite being at an apparent loss for words, I think John's got it as far as Condon was concerned; couldn't have put it better. As to who he was working for or who contacted him: Based on the fact that the Bronx was the closest, largest, most straight-shot population center to Hopewell--a place where it's easy to disappear and remain anonymous--I think the kidnapper-extortionists were selected from the Bronx. Being Bronx-based, they knew (or knew of) Condon, a local fixture in the community. They also knew, what with his ego, he'd be eager to participate in the case. So they approached him because they needed a go-between--someone who Lindbergh would have no choice but to give the $50K to, to then pass on to the kidnappers. Condon fit this bill, once he was in possession of a note that had the same symbol as seen in the nursery note. If the symbols matched, Condon must be in touch with the right parties and Lindbergh would have no choice but to accept him as a go-between and ultimately pay the "ransom". I think this was the kidnappers' thinking. Once Condon was in, he was told CAL Jr. was dead, and, at that point, it became imperative that he do his best to make sure they got away, so his actual dealings with them wouldn't come to light.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2016 19:29:00 GMT -5
My sense is that he didn't do it for money. His motivation for getting involved was genuine and altruistic, allowing for his sizable ego. I appreciate your response John! For me, Condon is a very difficult person to understand. You mention that Condon became involved because he genuinely cared and he was not motivated in a selfish way. What do think his motivation was then? Was he trying to help Lindbergh or the kidnappers? Looking at all the things he said and did, it is not that clear which side of the fence he sat on.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jul 13, 2016 19:45:54 GMT -5
I don't understand Condon's motivation either although I have always been very suspicious that he advertized his offer to help in a local newspaper and voila the kidnappers just happened to read it! That has always been beyond coincidence for me. Can't wait for Michael's book!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2016 19:47:33 GMT -5
Once Condon was in, he was told CAL Jr. was dead, and, at that point, it became imperative that he do his best to make sure they got away, so his actual dealings with them wouldn't come to light. Thanks for your response and all the reasoning you shared. We both know that the kidnappers upped the ransom amount because they needed to bring in an additional person to help them acquire the ransom money. They asked Lindbergh for an additional $20,000 dollars to cover this expense. Are we in agreement that Condon was approached to help before he ever put his letter to the kidnappers in the Bronx Home News? At this initial contact, besides the appeal to his ego that if he helped them (kidnappers) he would become famous as the man who brought the Eaglet back to his parents, do you think that he was offered money at this point for his services? Why do you believe that when Condon learned that Charlie was actually dead he could not have backed out. Why couldn't he have reported this to Lindbergh and Breckinridge? He hadn't taken any money yet. He was not involved with the actual kidnapping and death of the child, right? What are the "dealings" he feared might come to light?
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Jul 13, 2016 20:06:25 GMT -5
How did Condon avoid being jailed when Means and Curtis did not?
|
|