Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 31, 2021 9:12:14 GMT -5
I'd be really curious to hear Michael 's response to this, but I think you are giving the conversation that happened between them way more of a request/answer type of thing than what actually happened. I believe you are both correct. We have to remember that the whole reason Lindbergh was even there at the drop was because he didn't trust Jafsie. We know this due to the conversations he had with Agent Larimer and Asst. US Attorney Dan B. Cowie. Condon did not appear happy about this at all. He stalled and then offered up a concern that Lindbergh might start shooting if he went along. And so Lindbergh did go and the shenanigans he worried about if he didn't still happened anyway. Lindbergh also knew the Fifties were the most identifiable, was obviously suspicious of Condon, and still readily consented to the removal of those bills. On top of that, he was the man running the show which was why the Cops weren't involved in this drop in the first place. We should remember that Lindbergh never wanted the serial numbers recorded because he didn't want to break his "word" to the Kidnappers. But this idea that Condon was innocently out of nowhere HAGGLING with the criminals over the ransom amount, (supposedly holding the child and at the very moment a note was to be retrieved telling them where to locate him), to reduce the amount by the EXACT and specific bills which would almost immediately lead to their capture - is insane. Clearly, he would have prevented that amount from being circulated whether Lindbergh was there or not. ALL of his past and future actions at that point prove his motive was to protect them. Re your claim: "We have to remember that the whole reason Lindbergh was even there at the drop was because he didn't trust Jafsie." On cue Michael, you manage to jump in and extract the required and personalized thread from a veritable mountain of widely-available information to identify your singular side of the equation. I'll acknowledge that while he may not have had 100% faith in Condon at any given time due to some of his case-related behaviour and actions, Lindbergh did offer to be the driver that night because he acknowledged the expected dynamics within the ransom payment and that Condon would be placed in a much riskier situation than the Woodlawn meeting. Why don't you mention facts like this when you know they exist, are factual and part of the whole.. and not just your own take on things? The rest of your post is more of the same, just a bit more hyperbolic. Again, you sweep more reasonable and discussed possibilities as to why he would have offered to hold back the 20K, under that large rug of yours. You know, the one that just seems to get lumpier and lumpier all the time.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Oct 31, 2021 9:20:44 GMT -5
Yes, but Irey should have wanted to kill CAL! It was CAL's ultimate decision, not Condon's to take the $20,000 out! Condon merely suggested it, he had no say on whether or not CAL would accept his suggestion. This one is on CAL. Condon comes back to the car and advises Lindbergh that he saved him $20K (which happens to be the exact amount it cost to hire someone else into the gang). To build on what Joe just said, why do you put so much faith in that the kidnapper was telling the truth about adding another man for $20,000? The kidnapper lied all throughout his ransom notes. The boy was not in "gute care" was he? And again, if memory serves, the kidnapper said that Charlie was on the Boad Nelly with "two person" near Elizabeth Island. Maybe it's just me, but I think they were fibbing about that, too.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Oct 31, 2021 11:22:57 GMT -5
Re: Michael's information concerning John Condon and a family named Villiers. A slip of paper with the name of George Villiers written on it was found in the possession of Richard Hauptmann (time of finding not given). George Villiers had been a student at one of Condon's schools and was married to Margaret nee McManus, sister to Thomas McManus, a bank clerk who was in the company of John Condon on March 1, the night of the kidnapping. According to "The Railway Clerk" vols. 2 and 3 (page 43) George V. Villers jr. was president of the New York Railway Brothers which met at the Metropolic Theater Building on 142nd St. and Third Ave. Villiers' address is given as Parker Ave in Westchester Ny. The entire title of this publication is "The Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express, and Station Employees." It was a national publication issued in Illinois. George Villiers then would have some reputation and status to be president of the New York brotherhood organization. Perhaps he was trying to get in touch with Hauptmann in order to pass along some information about Condon that he knew would discredit him, whether through his (Villiers) brother-in-law or his wife. This evidence may well have been important to Hauptmann's case--if it had been investigated or followed up.
(Posted earlier: an account of the graves of George Villiers, Margaret Villiers, and Thomas McManus found in the Long Island Cemetery for Veterans giving the dates of their birth and death.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 31, 2021 16:37:25 GMT -5
I'd be really curious to hear Michael 's response to this, but I think you are giving the conversation that happened between them way more of a request/answer type of thing than what actually happened. 1) Condon was the one who requested the reduction in ransom. If you truly believe Condon was doing this out of the goodness of his heart, I have a bill of goods to sell you. 2) Condon never "asked" Lindbergh for anything. He simply said it would only take $50K. "Thanks, Doctor Condon," Lindbergh supposedly said. "Saving that amount helps a lot." Let's assume for a moment that Condon is guilty as sin (I know you clearly disagree, but let's assume). Condon comes back to the car and advises Lindbergh that he saved him $20K (which happens to be the exact amount it cost to hire someone else into the gang). What did you expect Lindbergh to say? "No, please Doctor, pay them the full amount I am being extorted." That is ridiculous. I'd suggest that your attempt to explain the motivation and math sequence here is what's ridiculous. So Condon essentially initiates and then negotiates a 20K savings for Lindbergh, even though as you seem to believe that same 20K was supposedly earmarked for him in the first place, by way of your devout acceptance of the extortionist's word. So what does Condon do? He leaves the 20K with Lindbergh when, within the surrealism of your own movie reel, he would have had a priceless opportunity to then pocket it during his walk down E. Tremont or in the cemetery. Keep working at those pluses and minuses. Personally, I think it's possible he found out the baby was dead at this juncture and this was his way to extricate himself as much as possible. Lindbergh, for his part, was all too happy to save the $20K. They were both happy to remove the $20K of most traceable bills.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 31, 2021 16:38:24 GMT -5
Condon comes back to the car and advises Lindbergh that he saved him $20K (which happens to be the exact amount it cost to hire someone else into the gang). To build on what Joe just said, why do you put so much faith in that the kidnapper was telling the truth about adding another man for $20,000? The kidnapper lied all throughout his ransom notes. The boy was not in "gute care" was he? And again, if memory serves, the kidnapper said that Charlie was on the Boad Nelly with "two person" near Elizabeth Island. Maybe it's just me, but I think they were fibbing about that, too. I wouldn't believe it, except that's the same number Condon supposedly pulled out of THIN AIR and happened to return to Lindbergh.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 31, 2021 17:28:05 GMT -5
To build on what Joe just said, why do you put so much faith in that the kidnapper was telling the truth about adding another man for $20,000? The kidnapper lied all throughout his ransom notes. The boy was not in "gute care" was he? And again, if memory serves, the kidnapper said that Charlie was on the Boad Nelly with "two person" near Elizabeth Island. Maybe it's just me, but I think they were fibbing about that, too. I wouldn't believe it, except that's the same number Condon supposedly pulled out of THIN AIR and happened to return to Lindbergh. No thin air involved here at all. It was the same amount the extortionist had demanded as extra payment to satisfy his sense of greed, and which Condon believed was a grossly unfair action against Lindbergh. So Condon did something about it. Nothing more complicated than that.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Oct 31, 2021 17:33:28 GMT -5
I wouldn't believe it, except that's the same number Condon supposedly pulled out of THIN AIR and happened to return to Lindbergh. No thin air involved here at all. It was the same amount the extortionist had demanded as extra payment to satisfy his sense of greed, and which Condon believed was a grossly unfair action against Lindbergh. So Condon did something about it. Nothing more complicated than that. Please his job was not to haggle with the kidnappers - the most famous child in the world's life was supposedly riding on this.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Oct 31, 2021 18:13:34 GMT -5
No thin air involved here at all. It was the same amount the extortionist had demanded as extra payment to satisfy his sense of greed, and which Condon believed was a grossly unfair action against Lindbergh. So Condon did something about it. Nothing more complicated than that. Please his job was not to haggle with the kidnappers - the most famous child in the world's life was supposedly riding on this. Of course Condon's job was to deliver the payment and I'm not arguing with you on that point. But it was Condon's initiative solely to assist his hero Lindbergh in any way he could, and based on the kidnapper having originally demanded only $50,000. Lindbergh could just as easily have vetoed the gesture, but he obviously agreed with Condon and I don't believe either one even considered any potential repercussions involved within the removal of the 400 X $50's. Clearly CJ didn't have an opportunity to really think this through either, or he would have ensured the removed $20K was in the $50 gold notes and not the smaller denomination and easier-to-pass bills. You're overthinking this essentially spur-of-the-moment action of basic good intentions and ascribing much more weight to it than is deserved.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Oct 31, 2021 20:10:57 GMT -5
I wouldn't believe it, except that's the same number Condon supposedly pulled out of THIN AIR and happened to return to Lindbergh. Trojanusc, Do you know how the $70,000 was sent to Condon's house on the afternoon of April 2, 1932? It came in 2 wrapped bundles from F.D. Bartow. Al Reich picked up one of the bundles ($50,000) from Bartow and drove it to Condon's house. Breckinridge picked up the second bundle ($20,000) from Battow and drove it to Condon's house. One way or another, both bundles were crammed into the box. Condon watched all of this -- as did CAL, Breckinridge, Reich and Coleman -- as both bundles were delivered and both crammed into the box. So Condon didn't arbitrarily pull out the figure $20,000. It was clearly there in one of the bundles. If you don't have a timeline for the money trail, let me know and I will send it to you.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 31, 2021 20:19:11 GMT -5
I'd suggest that your attempt to explain the motivation and math sequence here is what's ridiculous. So Condon essentially initiates and then negotiates a 20K savings for Lindbergh, even though as you seem to believe that same 20K was supposedly earmarked for him in the first place, by way of your devout acceptance of the extortionist's word. So what does Condon do? He leaves the 20K with Lindbergh when, within the surrealism of your own movie reel, he would have had a priceless opportunity to then pocket it during his walk down E. Tremont or in the cemetery. Keep working at those pluses and minuses. You might want to take your own advice here Joe. What you suggest is that whoever wrote the ransom note knew the extra 20K was going to be in fifties, which was decided upon because they were the most identifiable. A recorded fifty that was spent was expected to almost immediately trace back. So - how in the world would they know that? Answer: They wouldn't have and did not. Since Jafsie was their eyes and ears, he obviously let them know this amount could never be safely spent. This resulted in the return of the that sum. Not because Lindbergh was anyone's "hero" . Good Lord! Heck, why not ask to save more? I mean, if they were so willing to give back 20K maybe they might have given back another five or ten thousand. But no, Jafsie didn't ask. What in the hell was he asking for the 20K in the first place? Who does that in this situation? NO ONE! No, he targeted the one big weapon Irey was convinced would lead to a quick arrest. Since this sum was meant for the new person they had to bring in, (exactly when Jafsie appeared and injected himself into the case) I'm quite sure they let him do whatever he wanted with it since it equaled that amount (which was most likely his cut). What were is options? Burn it for one. But this genius probably decided to kill two birds with one stone by returning it thinking this act would be like a "feather in his cap." Problem for him (and you it seems) is the authorities saw right through this yarn - as they should have. It's such an unbelievable story that even a child could see through it. No kidding. Just look at what Lt. Hicks wrote about it after hearing the testimony in Flemington. He used adjectives like " imaginative" and " preposterous." (V4 page 25). And Hicks was in Court to hear it because he was working for the Prosecution at the time. But you believe Condon and have the temerity to accuse others of surrealism?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Oct 31, 2021 20:20:57 GMT -5
Here's part of Reich's trial testimony. Everyone -- CAL, Breckinridge, Condon, and Reich -- knew the amount of each bundle. $50,000 and $20,000. Nothing "thin air" about it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 31, 2021 20:30:50 GMT -5
On cue Michael, you manage to jump in and extract the required and personalized thread from a veritable mountain of widely-available information to identify your singular side of the equation. I'll acknowledge that while he may not have had 100% faith in Condon at any given time due to some of his case-related behaviour and actions, Lindbergh did offer to be the driver that night because he acknowledged the expected dynamics within the ransom payment and that Condon would be placed in a much riskier situation than the Woodlawn meeting. Why don't you mention facts like this when you know they exist, are factual and part of the whole.. and not just your own take on things? I mentioned what LINDBERGH told Larimer and Cowie. You're acting like I made it up. Sorry that's what HE indicated. Not me. If its something you don't like that's your cross to bear. How about evaluating even the facts you do not like? The rest of your post is more of the same, just a bit more hyperbolic. Again, you sweep more reasonable and discussed possibilities as to why he would have offered to hold back the 20K, under that large rug of yours. You know, the one that just seems to get lumpier and lumpier all the time. Gee whiz Joe you really know how to hurt a guy. Well now thanks to you I'm going to turn in, curl up in a ball, and cry myself to sleep.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Oct 31, 2021 20:55:30 GMT -5
Something just occurred to me. It seems that all of Condon's supposedly clandestine activities at St. Raymonds are based solely on the testimony of one man. Bernard Uebel. Why do we believe Uebel if his account is not substantiated by anyone else? Is his word alone enough to make Condon complicit in extortion? The only thing I can think of to support Uebel's claim was that he did write down Coleman's license plate while Coleman was at St. Raymond, so many point to that as proof that Coleman was secretly up to no good. But it was no secret. Coleman did visit St. Raymonds after the ransom drop. In fact, he wrote an article for the BHN called The Story of Jafsie and he even had photos taken there. One of these photos made it into the article -- How do we know that this isn't what Uebel saw? Condon just showing Coleman where he passed the ransom money?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Nov 1, 2021 7:39:06 GMT -5
On cue Michael, you manage to jump in and extract the required and personalized thread from a veritable mountain of widely-available information to identify your singular side of the equation. I'll acknowledge that while he may not have had 100% faith in Condon at any given time due to some of his case-related behaviour and actions, Lindbergh did offer to be the driver that night because he acknowledged the expected dynamics within the ransom payment and that Condon would be placed in a much riskier situation than the Woodlawn meeting. Why don't you mention facts like this when you know they exist, are factual and part of the whole.. and not just your own take on things? I mentioned what LINDBERGH told Larimer and Cowie. You're acting like I made it up. Sorry that's what HE indicated. Not me. If its something you don't like that's your cross to bear. How about evaluating even the facts you do not like? The rest of your post is more of the same, just a bit more hyperbolic. Again, you sweep more reasonable and discussed possibilities as to why he would have offered to hold back the 20K, under that large rug of yours. You know, the one that just seems to get lumpier and lumpier all the time. Gee whiz Joe you really know how to hurt a guy. Well now thanks to you I'm going to turn in, curl up in a ball, and cry myself to sleep. 1. No, I wasn't doing that. But what I see you doing here is overplaying a couple of low cards while you're leaving an important face card up your sleeve. 2. There there now.. I thought you'd be singing yourself to sleep after our Eagles (my adopted team from the 1980's) laid that ass whooping on the Lions.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 1, 2021 8:12:14 GMT -5
Something just occurred to me. It seems that all of Condon's supposedly clandestine activities at St. Raymonds are based solely on the testimony of one man. Bernard Uebel. Why do we believe Uebel if his account is not substantiated by anyone else? Is his word alone enough to make Condon complicit in extortion? The only thing I can think of to support Uebel's claim was that he did write down Coleman's license plate while Coleman was at St. Raymond, so many point to that as proof that Coleman was secretly up to no good. But it was no secret. Coleman did visit St. Raymonds after the ransom drop. In fact, he wrote an article for the BHN called The Story of Jafsie and he even had photos taken there. One of these photos made it into the article -- How do we know that this isn't what Uebel saw? Condon just showing Coleman where he passed the ransom money? Wayne, I addressed all of this in V2 thru V4. Uebel's accounts are substantiated, in fact, it was the documented walk about to which you refer that proves he wasn't making any of it up. The only flaw in any of it was the mix up over the exact days his eyewitness accounts occurred. Because he confused his days, I believe the people he first saw "looking for someone" in the area which Condon was supposed to have turned over the box to CJ, occurred while Condon was off with the crew searching for the Nelly - not before the drop. His next account describes the walk-thru which now gives us a date to work with. And his final account describes a man retrieving a box exactly like Ransom Box hidden in a bush diagonally across from that spot. That's not all. Condon lied about that box claiming it was made out of several different types of wood, etc., supposedly so it could be identified if ever 'discovered.' This is important because it shows where his head was at. Why? Because that box was merely made out of 5-ply maple. This brings us to his lies about who built the box. Finally, by Jafsie's very own account, he claimed CJ departed the area with both the money and box leaving nothing to suggest he left that box behind. And yet, more than once he indicated the box and the money had become separated - even testifying that he personally returned to search for it. Fact is, there's no legitimate way he'd know the box was hidden in the area of St. Raymond's or anywhere else for that matter. So its a puzzle. Each piece is bad but once they're all snapped together its devastating. And this is just ONE of the many deceptions and untruths this guy was involved in.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Nov 1, 2021 9:16:39 GMT -5
I'd suggest that your attempt to explain the motivation and math sequence here is what's ridiculous. So Condon essentially initiates and then negotiates a 20K savings for Lindbergh, even though as you seem to believe that same 20K was supposedly earmarked for him in the first place, by way of your devout acceptance of the extortionist's word. So what does Condon do? He leaves the 20K with Lindbergh when, within the surrealism of your own movie reel, he would have had a priceless opportunity to then pocket it during his walk down E. Tremont or in the cemetery. Keep working at those pluses and minuses. You might want to take your own advice here Joe. What you suggest is that whoever wrote the ransom note knew the extra 20K was going to be in fifties, which was decided upon because they were the most identifiable. A recorded fifty that was spent was expected to almost immediately trace back. So - how in the world would they know that? Answer: They wouldn't have and did not. Since Jafsie was their eyes and ears, he obviously let them know this amount could never be safely spent. This resulted in the return of the that sum. Not because Lindbergh was anyone's "hero" . Good Lord! Heck, why not ask to save more? I mean, if they were so willing to give back 20K maybe they might have given back another five or ten thousand. But no, Jafsie didn't ask. What in the hell was he asking for the 20K in the first place? Who does that in this situation? NO ONE! No, he targeted the one big weapon Irey was convinced would lead to a quick arrest. Since this sum was meant for the new person they had to bring in, (exactly when Jafsie appeared and injected himself into the case) I'm quite sure they let him do whatever he wanted with it since it equaled that amount (which was most likely his cut). What were is options? Burn it for one. But this genius probably decided to kill two birds with one stone by returning it thinking this act would be like a "feather in his cap." Problem for him (and you it seems) is the authorities saw right through this yarn - as they should have. It's such an unbelievable story that even a child could see through it. No kidding. Just look at what Lt. Hicks wrote about it after hearing the testimony in Flemington. He used adjectives like " imaginative" and " preposterous." (V4 page 25). And Hicks was in Court to hear it because he was working for the Prosecution at the time. But you believe Condon and have the temerity to accuse others of surrealism? I'd invite you to have a look at the reverse side of the second ransom note in which the extortionist specifically requests the added $20,000 be comprised of $50 bills. So yes, the ransom note writer knew that amount would be coming to him in $50 bills. Why did he request $50's? Who knows? Obviously he wasn't thinking about their visibility in circulation. Maybe he was too lazy to recalculate the "packet" dimensions and just figured it would all go in. With this 20K having been an entirely separate entity and package from the originally-assembled 50K, and Condon's stance that the extra demand from the extortionist was onerous and unfair, pulling this 20K package of $50's was a simple and straightforward move. Neither Lindbergh or Condon discussed any perceived importance of the $50 bills in terms of their increased visibility in circulation. Regarding the $50's in the ransom payment. Did Irey discuss his "one big weapon" (according to you) with anyone prior to the ransom payment? You make it sound like he was just licking his chops ready to scoop up whoever it was who was dumb enough to immediately start tossing around $50's in preference to the smaller denomination bills. Irey knew full well they would have been the last ones out there if they had made it into the ransom payment. Which is why he later consoled Condon who had been virtually broadsided by Irey's initial rant towards him.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Nov 1, 2021 9:20:31 GMT -5
Something just occurred to me. It seems that all of Condon's supposedly clandestine activities at St. Raymonds are based solely on the testimony of one man. Bernard Uebel. Why do we believe Uebel if his account is not substantiated by anyone else? Is his word alone enough to make Condon complicit in extortion? The only thing I can think of to support Uebel's claim was that he did write down Coleman's license plate while Coleman was at St. Raymond, so many point to that as proof that Coleman was secretly up to no good. But it was no secret. Coleman did visit St. Raymonds after the ransom drop. In fact, he wrote an article for the BHN called The Story of Jafsie and he even had photos taken there. One of these photos made it into the article -- How do we know that this isn't what Uebel saw? Condon just showing Coleman where he passed the ransom money? Wayne, I addressed all of this in V2 thru V4. Uebel's accounts are substantiated, in fact, it was the documented walk about to which you refer that proves he wasn't making any of it up. The only flaw in any of it was the mix up over the exact days his eyewitness accounts occurred. Because he confused his days, I believe the people he first saw "looking for someone" in the area which Condon was supposed to have turned over the box to CJ, occurred while Condon was off with the crew searching for the Nelly - not before the drop. His next account describes the walk-thru which now gives us a date to work with. And his final account describes a man retrieving a box exactly like Ransom Box hidden in a bush diagonally across from that spot. That's not all. Condon lied about that box claiming it was made out of several different types of wood, etc., supposedly so it could be identified if ever 'discovered.' This is important because it shows where his head was at. Why? Because that box was merely made out of 5-ply maple. This brings us to his lies about who built the box. Finally, by Jafsie's very own account, he claimed CJ departed the area with both the money and box leaving nothing to suggest he left that box behind. And yet, more than once he indicated the box and the money had become separated - even testifying that he personally returned to search for it. Fact is, there's no legitimate way he'd know the box was hidden in the area of St. Raymond's or anywhere else for that matter. So its a puzzle. Each piece is bad but once they're all snapped together its devastating. And this is just ONE of the many deceptions and untruths this guy was involved in. Thanks Michael, I'm not trying to be augmentative here, I'm just trying to understand this. I'm going through Vol 2 to Vol 4 and unless I missed something, only Uebel witnessed Condon at St. Raymonds on 3 occasions, right? No other witnesses? Clarence Schultz, the Superintendent at St. Raymonds, saw nothing during these 3 events, right? And Uebel got the dates of these 3 sightings wrong, right? So it's just one unreliable witness to these 3 events, right? Seems kind of like Millard Whited and Amandus Hochmuch as to who and what we believe.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Nov 1, 2021 10:11:38 GMT -5
Wayne, I addressed all of this in V2 thru V4. Uebel's accounts are substantiated, in fact, it was the documented walk about to which you refer that proves he wasn't making any of it up. The only flaw in any of it was the mix up over the exact days his eyewitness accounts occurred. Because he confused his days, I believe the people he first saw "looking for someone" in the area which Condon was supposed to have turned over the box to CJ, occurred while Condon was off with the crew searching for the Nelly - not before the drop. His next account describes the walk-thru which now gives us a date to work with. And his final account describes a man retrieving a box exactly like Ransom Box hidden in a bush diagonally across from that spot. That's not all. Condon lied about that box claiming it was made out of several different types of wood, etc., supposedly so it could be identified if ever 'discovered.' This is important because it shows where his head was at. Why? Because that box was merely made out of 5-ply maple. This brings us to his lies about who built the box. Finally, by Jafsie's very own account, he claimed CJ departed the area with both the money and box leaving nothing to suggest he left that box behind. And yet, more than once he indicated the box and the money had become separated - even testifying that he personally returned to search for it. Fact is, there's no legitimate way he'd know the box was hidden in the area of St. Raymond's or anywhere else for that matter. So its a puzzle. Each piece is bad but once they're all snapped together its devastating. And this is just ONE of the many deceptions and untruths this guy was involved in. Thanks Michael, I'm not trying to be augmentative here, I'm just trying to understand this. I'm going through Vol 2 to Vol 4 and unless I missed something, only Uebel witnessed Condon at St. Raymonds on 3 occasions, right? No other witnesses? Clarence Schultz, the Superintendent at St. Raymonds, saw nothing during these 3 events, right? And Uebel got the dates of these 3 sightings wrong, right? So it's just one unreliable witness to these 3 events, right? Seems kind of like Millard Whited and Amandus Hochmuch as to who and what we believe. Michael can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he only got one of the dates wrong. However, it's nothing like Whited and Hochmuch. Whited, for one, saw clearly Lindbergh's car before changing his story to inculpate Hauptmann at the trial. Hochmuch was blind as a bat. With Uebel he did not seem to fully understand the significance of his sightings or of their importance. His story also never changed over time. He clearly saw some very specific people and actions going on, in addition to being able to describe a vehicle that exactly matched Coleman's. I see no reason to disregard his statements whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 1, 2021 10:18:26 GMT -5
Thanks Michael, I'm not trying to be augmentative here, I'm just trying to understand this. I'm going through Vol 2 to Vol 4 and unless I missed something, only Uebel witnessed Condon at St. Raymonds on 3 occasions, right? No other witnesses? Clarence Schultz, the Superintendent at St. Raymonds, saw nothing during these 3 events, right? And Uebel got the dates of these 3 sightings wrong, right? So it's just one unreliable witness to these 3 events, right? Seems kind of like Millard Whited and Amandus Hochmuch as to who and what we believe. No problem Wayne, it's just a discussion on a discussion board. I do think what's going on here is that you do not want to believe it, so you are trying to get around this account as best you can. I'd have to say you are missing something. Of the three sightings Uebel only saw Condon once. What he described during the occasion he did see him lined up with the documented walk-thru. It's in this documentation that other people saw him there as well. So this gives us an accurate date of his 2nd account and proves beyond all doubt he was not making it up. So it stands to reason that Uebel had no way to know if police could verify any of his sightings, which of course begs the question why he would tell them about three separate sightings with only two of them being a lie. Schultz never claimed to see anything - that includes the walk-thru we all know occurred. Suggesting that since he didn't see anything Uebel did somehow means Uebel didn't either is a stretch beyond anything rooted in common sense. The police did the right thing by asking him though. It's all part of doing a proper investigation. It's only casting doubt on Uebel for someone who is grasping at straws while searching for doubt. Uebel's accounts are totally reliable - its only the dates that were not. So whether the man who retrieved the Ransom Box out of the bush was made on the 9th, 10th, or 12th makes little difference. And when it comes to Whited and Hochmuth, I tend to believe their original and earliest stories. One saw Lindbergh's car, not Hauptmann's, and the other saw nothing. They both later amended their stories looking for reward, to testify, or both. Uebel was as consistent as anyone being truthful could be, and didn't seek to testify or receive a reward. His own granddaughter never even knew he had any connection to the case and was surprised to hear about it when I contacted her. Next, the police also believed there had been a bait & switch with the ransom that night independent of Uebel's account. This was based on what Lindbergh saw Condon do - coupled with his various, inconsistent, and sometimes absurd explanations given as the reason for his "detour." More puzzle pieces that continue to be snapped in for anyone taking an honest look at this.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 1, 2021 10:30:51 GMT -5
Michael can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he only got one of the dates wrong. It's up to the reader to decide what the dates might be. I tried to put it all out there then offered up what I believed happened. One might argue that his first account actually did occur on April 1st. But I happen to believe since we can date what he believed occurred on the 2nd actually occurred on the 4th, that his first account most likely happened on the 3rd. So for me, what he saw and thought occurred on the 1st and 2nd, actually occurred on the 3rd and 4th. This means, to me anyway, that he most likely got the April 11 date for the box retrieval wrong too. Perhaps not since it was nearer to the first interview, but again, its up to whatever someone armed with the information chooses to believe.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Nov 1, 2021 12:19:20 GMT -5
Thanks Michael, I'm not trying to be augmentative here, I'm just trying to understand this. I'm going through Vol 2 to Vol 4 and unless I missed something, only Uebel witnessed Condon at St. Raymonds on 3 occasions, right? No other witnesses? Clarence Schultz, the Superintendent at St. Raymonds, saw nothing during these 3 events, right? And Uebel got the dates of these 3 sightings wrong, right? So it's just one unreliable witness to these 3 events, right? Seems kind of like Millard Whited and Amandus Hochmuch as to who and what we believe. No problem Wayne, it's just a discussion on a discussion board. I do think what's going on here is that you do not want to believe it, so you are trying to get around this account as best you can. Hi Michael, Quite the opposite, I haven't made my mind up at all. I'm trying to be convinced. You have to agree that it's a fact the Coleman went to St. Raymonds for his "The Story of Jafsie" article, right? Even had photos taken there. How do you know with 100% certainty that what Uebel saw was Condon simply giving Coleman a step-by-step walk through of what he claimed happened on the night of April 2nd for the article? Nothing nefarious at all. I've discussed this at length with Mark Falzini and he doesn't yet see Condon as complicit in the extortion plan either.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Nov 1, 2021 12:31:57 GMT -5
Time for more math. If we accept that the ransom note writer was being truthful when he wrote that $20,000 was needed for another man and when CJ claimed at Woodlawn that the breakdown of the $50,000 was for "2 vimens and 4 men) as follows: $20,000 for Number One $10,000 for CJ $5,000 for Man #3 $5,000 for Man #4 $5,000 for Woman #1 $5,000 for Woman #2 Number One, the mastermind and brains behind the kindapping, gets the lion's share of $20,000. Okay, all well and good. Then why would a simple go-between get the same amount as Number One ($20,000), when he was basically a delivery boy? All he had to do was show up with someone else's money. And get would get $20,000 for that? I would think that CJ, Man #3, Man #4, Woman #1, and Woman #2 would be royally pissed at this math.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 1, 2021 12:50:47 GMT -5
Hi Michael, Quite the opposite, I haven't made my mind up at all. I'm trying to be convinced. You have to agree that it's a fact the Coleman went to St. Raymonds for his "The Story of Jafsie" article, right? Even had photos taken there. How do you know with 100% certainty that what Uebel saw was Condon simply giving Coleman a step-by-step walk through of what he claimed happened on the night of April 2nd for the article? Nothing nefarious at all. I've discussed this at length with Mark Falzini and he doesn't yet see Condon as complicit in the extortion plan either. Events on the 4th took place for reasons of "looking over the matter." Coleman was writing a piece and as you know, a book that was never published. This walk-thru is mentioned in that manuscript. Was there anything nefarious about it? Doubtful since so many people were there and involved, Condon walked by Uebel and said "hello" so he knew he was being observed as well. Do I believe he may have taken a peek over at the bush where he hid the box on this occasion? Absolutely. But all this does is back Uebel up and nothing more. I'll say it again, all it does is prove Uebel was being truthful because what he saw actually occurred. So your earlier position that we cannot rely on him because no one else saw what he did isn't true. Next, there doesn't have to be anything nefarious about the walk-thru. That is aside from lying to people who didn't already know by presenting a false scenario about the exchange. Saying there has to be something "nefarious" and pointing out there wasn't is a Straw Man argument because it distracts from the earlier account, which is suspicious, and the later where someone actually retrieved a hidden box stashed in a bush. And once again, the police had already suspected Condon had originally exchanged the ransom on East Tremont based on Lindbergh's account, later backed up by Jafsie himself, that he detoured down that street before returning to head down Whittimore and pretending to exchange it there. Once that occurred it makes complete sense that he had to hide an empty box. Then even later still, Condon betrays himself with all of this talk about the box as if he knew the money and the box had become separated when he couldn't have if he was being honest about what occurred. That's because it did, and he was the one who did it. When someone looks at Condon's actions in their totality, it is impossible to explain away what he was doing. Impossible. CVSA will never do this. To suggest he wasn't lying or didn't know he was when he was doing it is like a page torn from Alice in Wonderland. Again, I have voice analysis reports that claim Hauptmann was telling the truth. There's a reason why this stuff isn't admissible in court, and in fact the polygraph is more reliable and that isn't admissible either. Anyone who watches ID Discovery channel knows people can pass who are guilty and fail who are innocent. If you can read all of this stuff in all of my books and convince yourself you aren't actually seeing it then no amount of discussion or conversation will ever change that at this point. Again, he could have been doing everything because he was being coerced. In fear for his or his family's lives. But he's doing it. It's why I know Hauptmann was involved because Jafsie went to Florida to try to blame somebody else as a replacement. There's WAY too much here to shrug off or attempt to explain away. It's all there and right in front of everyone to see.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Nov 1, 2021 13:20:13 GMT -5
So, to get this straight, Gregory Coleman is complicit in the extortion plan?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 1, 2021 17:30:44 GMT -5
So, to get this straight, Gregory Coleman is complicit in the extortion plan? Are you posing this question to me? If so, I have to admit I'm getting a little frustrated that I put together four books so that everyone would have the information I do in order to draw their own conclusions about it. Unfortunately, what I am finding out is that many aren't reading them, or if they are, seem to miss things or forget what's in them. That's exactly what I hoped to avoid by omitting an index. To be fair, I do realize there's so much information its hard to keep track of it all. Even I have to go back to them to refresh my memory from time to time - but I do go back. Like I wrote in my book, I believe Coleman knew more about what actually happened at St. Raymond's than the Cops did. Does that mean he was "complicit" in the extortion plan? No. However, IF he was either the driver or the man retrieving the box on the "11th" or possibly one of the men searching for it on the "3rd" like I surmised, then he's assisting Condon after the fact and doing something he shouldn't. If a friend asks someone to do "X" in order to hide "Y" from the cops they're doing something wrong. Kinda sorta like when Breckinridge transported the ransom money then lied about it so he wouldn't be disbarred for "compounding a felony." He knew he shouldn't have done it but did it anyway to help out Lindbergh. Does that make him "complicit?" Regardless, this is what I think. Others may come to another conclusion. However, there's no way to side step what Condon did time after time after time after time. Whether Coleman did or did not do anything has nothing to do with what Jafsie obviously did do - countless times.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Nov 1, 2021 17:47:23 GMT -5
So, to get this straight, Gregory Coleman is complicit in the extortion plan? Are you posing this question to me? If so, I have to admit I'm getting a little frustrated that I put together four books so that everyone would have the information I do in order to draw their own conclusions about it. Unfortunately, what I am finding out is that many aren't reading them, or if they are, seem to miss things or forget what's in them. That's exactly what I hoped to avoid by omitting an index. To be fair, I do realize there's so much information its hard to keep track of it all. Even I have to go back to them to refresh my memory from time to time - but I do go back. Like I wrote in my book, I believe Coleman knew more about what actually happened at St. Raymond's than the Cops did. Does that mean he was "complicit" in the extortion plan? No. However, IF he was either the driver or the man retrieving the box on the "11th" or possibly one of the men searching for it on the "3rd" like I surmised, then he's assisting Condon after the fact and doing something he shouldn't. If a friend asks someone to do "X" in order to hide "Y" from the cops they're doing something wrong. Kinda sorta like when Breckinridge transported the ransom money then lied about it so he wouldn't be disbarred for "compounding a felony." He knew he shouldn't have done it but did it anyway to help out Lindbergh. Does that make him "complicit?" Regardless, this is what I think. Others may come to another conclusion. However, there's no way to side step what Condon did time after time after time after time. Whether Coleman did or did not do anything has nothing to do with what Jafsie obviously did do - countless times. It's pretty clear to me based on Michael's book that Uebel saw Coleman's car. However, the era was quite different when reporters would go to great lengths to get "scoops," and in this case I believe he thought he could get some good inside information from Jafsie by being his confidant. Nothing he did equaled the level of criminality that JFC was likely committing, but it was questionable at best.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 1, 2021 18:22:47 GMT -5
It's pretty clear to me based on Michael's book that Uebel saw Coleman's car. However, the era was quite different when reporters would go to great lengths to get "scoops," and in this case I believe he thought he could get some good inside information from Jafsie by being his confidant. Nothing he did equaled the level of criminality that JFC was likely committing, but it was questionable at best. I agree on all points. Just look at what Reporters were willing to do, not just in this case, but others. One actually posed as the kidnapper in the Mattson case, calling the family then printing what they said. According to Hoover that call is what probably ended the child's life. During Hall-Mills one did something similar and come to find out there was a belief one may have written one or more 3X letters. In this instance, whoever was over there on what I believe was the 3rd, they shouldn't have been there. Who directed them there I wonder? Clearly, since they were in the area where Condon lied about handing over the ransom, they were in the middle of a crime scene. And the crew goes back days later to get a footprint casted in the area these men were, according to Uebel, " looking for someone?"
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Nov 3, 2021 11:55:26 GMT -5
No problem Wayne, it's just a discussion on a discussion board. I do think what's going on here is that you do not want to believe it, so you are trying to get around this account as best you can. Hi Michael, Quite the opposite, I haven't made my mind up at all. I'm trying to be convinced. You have to agree that it's a fact the Coleman went to St. Raymonds for his "The Story of Jafsie" article, right? Even had photos taken there. How do you know with 100% certainty that what Uebel saw was Condon simply giving Coleman a step-by-step walk through of what he claimed happened on the night of April 2nd for the article? Nothing nefarious at all. I've discussed this at length with Mark Falzini and he doesn't yet see Condon as complicit in the extortion plan either. These are all valid points, Wayne. And it's not only the accounting of claimed events by one eyewitness in Bernard Uebel that for me at least, provides good reason for caution here. The inference in V2 and beyond that Gregory Coleman and the man who could have been Al Reich, are engaged in some kind of subsequent retrieval action that involves the ORIGINAL ransom box up to a week-and-a-half after the ransom payment of April 2, 1932, should also raise a legitimate red flag for anyone who's even casually studied this case. There is a bottom line that needs to be squarely addressed here. Was Lindbergh aware of this action if it was in fact, the original Samuelsohn box? What I'm seeing in V2 and beyond for a multitude of totally-unfounded reasons, is sheer speculation that Condon has essentially gone rogue in collaboration with the extortionist(s) and is now deceiving his hero Lindbergh by giving the extortionist(s) a running head start through the alleged separating of the money from box during his walk down Tremont Avenue. And now Gregory Coleman and possibly Al Reich are basically playing Mr. Clean by mopping up on the “damning evidence scene" for Condon, all of this happening with Lindbergh in the dark, even while Henry Breckinridge has also been involved in the St. Raymond’s follow up visits to this point? Doesn't that make them all accessories to these imagined Condon shenanigans? Can someone who actually believes Condon went rogue on Lindbergh and was an actual confederate of the extortionist(s), just “spill it” very clearly, addressing legitimate red flag concerns that should be obvious to anyone and stop beating around this silly boxwood bush?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Nov 3, 2021 12:22:36 GMT -5
Exactly what I was asking Joe. This is becoming the case of Who"didn't"dunit.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Nov 3, 2021 12:31:07 GMT -5
...And now Gregory Coleman and possibly Al Reich are basically playing Mr. Clean by mopping up on the “damning evidence scene" for Condon, all of this happening with Lindbergh in the dark, even while Henry Breckinridge has also been involved in the St. Raymond’s follow up visits to this point? Doesn't that make them all accessories to these imagined Condon shenanigans? Above is what I was specifically referring to.
|
|