|
Post by Michael on Jul 2, 2018 12:30:34 GMT -5
to many to post. I never made it a point when somebody here post something that I know sue found years ago. That doesn't work Steve. You of all people know that when someone sees something they think is "new" chances are many before them already knew about it. For example, I saw a post by Sue about Salomon that she made in 2017. I found that information back in 2001 so she was 16 years too late. Now that's not to say she doesn't find new stuff of course but this constant blanket statement is somewhat reckless and it gets old. Researchers on both Boards ALL have access to Google. They find stuff each and every day but because they never post about doesn't mean they didn't find it. And if they do it does not mean they were the first to know. There's things I have right now which I have never shared that I have found over the years and if someone makes a post concerning it tomorrow that means what exactly? That I somehow never knew about it? Just my two cents. I personally will always give credit where credit is due - just look at my footnotes. Anyway, I've never seen anyone here fail to give anyone else the proper credit and if I did I would point it out. If you do please point it out specifically so we can address it.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jul 3, 2018 9:03:50 GMT -5
heres where your wrong, sue contacts historical societys and archives besides the google searches. we are going to new York city to try to get to the bottom of condons problems we might find something and we might not. 2 questions why isn't sue mentioned in your book, and why is she banned from your board
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 3, 2018 10:09:23 GMT -5
heres where your wrong, sue contacts historical societys and archives besides the google searches. we are going to new York city to try to get to the bottom of condons problems we might find something and we might not. 2 questions why isn't sue mentioned in your book, and why is she banned from your board Steve - who among us does not contact historical societies and archives? We ALL do. I am not saying she doesn't find new material, that isn't the point, but a constant declaration that she found material that somehow she does not get credit for is completely irrational. Either she's the most victimized person on the planet or there is something else going on. I find it interesting that its only her - nobody else. All of these people research and no other similar complaints. As far as "why" she's not mentioned in the book ... what could I mention? In regards to Condon I think that ship has sailed. However, finding that school board hearing where it was swept under the rug would still be interesting. The more information the better. I wish you both good luck in finding it. It is something I do not have, but I would not be so bold as to say nobody else does.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 3, 2018 19:18:36 GMT -5
Knowing the massive bureaucracy that is and always was the New York City Board of Education, the chances of finding a transcript of an internal hearing that occurred over 100 years ago are like finding the proverbial needle in the haystack. In other words, infinitesimal. You might ask the New York Public Library, but they - bureaucrats as well - might question your sanity if you did so.
|
|
|
Post by chrisyb65 on Jul 4, 2018 21:51:12 GMT -5
P was for Passaic county - county seat Patterson, NJ. PERHAPS THE COUNTY HAS THIS RECORD.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2018 10:20:40 GMT -5
Michael,
TDC Vol. II, Chapter One on page 9, The Whateleys section:
You mention that Gov. Hoffman questioned why Lindbergh ended up hitching his wagon to the Curtis matter. You also bring out in this section that Curtis implicated Whateley as the inside help for the kidnapping. I thought this was interesting considering Whateley was supposedly blaming Betty Gow for giving assistance to the kidnappers. Then you have Lindbergh who says the Whateleys are totally trustworthy and CAL was promising Betty Gow protection.
From what you have written in this segment, it appears that it is the pantry door key that turns Lindbergh in the direction of the Norfolk claims. Pantries and Butlers go together like horses and carriages. According to Lloyd Fisher's Liberty articles, when the Norfolk trio came calling on Lindbergh the first time (March 22?) these gentlemen waited in the front entry hallway for someone to guide them to where they would meet with Lindbergh. The pantry door entrance was right there. Isn't it possible that Curtis noticed the key in the pantry door at that time? Fisher also says that when Curtis ate a meal with Lindbergh on this visit that Whateley appeared uncomfortable with his presence at the house. Like the pantry door key, this awkwardness by Whateley was also quietly noted by Curtis and tucked away in his memory. It was during this first visit that Lindbergh asked that the people Curtis claimed he was dealing with provide proof that they had the child in their possession. Lindbergh suggested photographs of the child be taken and then the undeveloped film be sent to him so he could verify that they were holding his child. CAL would not agree to put up any money without that type of proof. So what is Curtis to do about this demand by Lindbergh?
Jumping ahead to the next time Curtis is in the Hopewell house (April 18th?), and Curtis is once again in the front door entryway and he once again sees the key in the pantry door, his play is clear. Since Lindbergh has already paid out $50,000 dollars through Condon to Cemetery John and the child was never returned (all over the newspapers that Curtis would have read previous to this visit), it is at this meeting that Curtis suggests that Whateley was the inside contact who assisted the kidnappers according to "John" who was now part of the kidnapers that Curtis was negotiating with. Does Lindbergh take up with Curtis because only people who have been in the house would know about the key that was kept in the door of the pantry? Did Lindbergh now find Curtis' story to be more credible because of this even though no proof about the child has been provided as was originally requested? Did Curtis gamble that Lindbergh would now be more vulnerable at this time because the other negotiations failed to produce his son? So Curtis weaves this story about the gang and Whateley and the key in the door and the front hall stairway for the exit point? Curtis reminds me of Paul Wendel, Gaston Means and even Condon. They use information that they learn or things they notice to their advantage to enhance the credibility of the stories they offer about negotiations with the kidnappers. Isn't this how a good hoax works?
Also in this same section of Chapter One, on page 11, you reveal that Gov. Hoffman wanted to check the hospital records surrounding Whateley's death, even having those records subpoenaed if needed. Did Gov. Hoffman has reasons to suspect the possibility of foal play being involved in Whateley's death?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 6, 2018 10:43:43 GMT -5
TDC Vol. II, Chapter One on page 9, The Whateleys section: .... Also in this same section of Chapter One, on page 11, you reveal that Gov. Hoffman wanted to check the hospital records surrounding Whateley's death, even having those records subpoenaed if needed. Did Gov. Hoffman has reasons to suspect the possibility of foal play being involved in Whateley's death? Amy - these are great observations and ideas that you've made and frankly exactly the type I hoped would get generated by both books. I've always suspected a fact "not in evidence." That would be the pantry door was actually locked that night. Pure speculation on my part because there's nothing about it anywhere I could find. Lindbergh was a skeptical guy by nature and after this whole thing began he was literally under siege by people claiming "contact." It seems he'd be aware of Curtis seeing that door right? In the end though, you could be right and it may have been less about the door and more about Whateley. He certainly knew more, and the mention of his name may have forced Lindbergh to play along. Obviously, while with Curtis, its clear he's not concerned so much about the child as he is with rest, jokes, and entertainment. I really wish I knew what he supposedly "confided" to Curtis which he refused to reveal. I think that would have been very telling. On your 2nd point this is also interesting and one I've never considered. What I believed it meant was the Hoffman heard about him saying something and was looking for witnesses concerning it. This is why our Board is great because we all have different perspectives. Ones we haven't considered could help hone, mold, or combine ideas that lead us closer to the actual truth!
|
|
luf12
Trooper II
Posts: 70
|
Post by luf12 on Jul 6, 2018 11:21:44 GMT -5
I have read parts of the book and it is a well written book. The book raises many serious questions about some of the people's honesty about what had really happened in the case.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Jul 6, 2018 17:03:02 GMT -5
Well, okay. Here's what happened. I ordered my book from the number at he beginning of this thread, and imagine my surprise when they told me they didn't have any. What?? I told the lady that several people had already received their copy, so what was up with that? Anyway. I am a patience soul and will wait quietly for the 2 to 3 weeks it will take them to print my very own private copy. LOL. I will order V3 from wherever all y'all are getting yours. I WILL be slightly behind everyone, so have patience with me.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 7, 2018 10:28:40 GMT -5
To All:
I'm almost to the middle of V. 2, but I had to interrupt the reading and get in contact with the board immediately when I read about the astonishing revelation that Jafsie Condon, in addition to all his other bizarre activity in the whole case, wrote a letter to J. Edgar Hoover in October 1933 offering up his (Condon's) "personal deduction" that the leader of the kidnap gang stole the materials needed to make the "singature" symbol and had left the gang without the capability of making the symbol by the time the "Boad Nelly" note was written to him; therefore, in Condon's way of thinking, although the "Boad Nelly" note lacked the "singature", it was still legit in that it was written by the "real" kidnappers, not an interloper. Condon also claimed in his "transcript" of the Woodlawn Cemetery conversation that "Cemetery John" had told him that the leader had indeed absconded with the materials used to make the "singature." (pp.231-232)
Can you please refresh my memory as to which was the last ransom note written with the "singature" on it? The only way Condon's story can fit is that extra otherwise blank papers had been prepared in advance with the "singature" on it. But given Condon's propensity for fabricating stories and outright lying, one would have to be very skeptical about this whole leader "absconding with the symbol" business. And the fact that he would write to Hoover about this, at time when he's a suspect in the minds of law enforcement, indicates either incredible foolishness, senility, and/or egotistism, depending on how you consider it.
Bottom line is that the fortuitous discovery of Hauptmann in possession of ransom money saved Condon's skin. Condon was darn lucky that he was presented with the opportunity to complete his most significant lie of all: to falsely identify Hauptmann as Cemetery John in dramatic fashion at the Flemington trial. This effectively condemned Hauptmann to death and allowed Condon to live out his life as a free man.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 7, 2018 13:25:42 GMT -5
Can you please refresh my memory as to which was the last ransom note written with the "singature" on it? Check out page 206 at footnote #656. That was the note before the "Boad Nelly" note.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2018 19:36:57 GMT -5
CHAPTER TWO - THE WOODLAWN EXPERIENCE
Section One - Phone Calls - Page 30
As we begin exploring the role and character of John F. (Jafsie) Condon, I have a few thoughts on how I see Condon and his involvement. These are based on Condon's written words in the Bronx Home News and the responding ransom notes to Condon's appeal.
1. No matter what or who initiated Condon's letter to the Bronx Home News of March 8th, 1932, Condon was offering his assistance to the kidnappers not Lindbergh.
2. The kidnappers responded by giving Condon a letter saying he can act for them. There was also a letter Condon was to give to Lindbergh telling CAL that Condon is the man they want him to give the ransom money to. These letters carried by Condon and given to Lindbergh are Condon's credentials from the kidnappers.
3. Condon is an emissary for these kidnappers. He was sent to Lindbergh by them and not the other way around.
Michael,
Regarding the phone calls, you say in the beginning of this section that "we will never know exactly the dates and times they were made".
The first time Condon's home was contacted by phone was supposedly March 11, 1932. This is the day the first notice by Condon/Breckinridge of "Money is Ready" appeared in the papers.
Mrs. Condon took two calls during that day from the kidnappers because Condon was not home until the evening hours. Did Mrs. Condon ever give a statement about these calls and what day she took them?
That evening Condon did answer the call that came around 7 p.m. came when Breckinridge was in the house. Isn't Breck on record (not trial transcript) saying this call came on March 11? This was an important call which would be followed up with Perrone delivering a note on the night of March 12.
I don't understand why Condon would try to cloud this issue since there are other people involved the day this call was received at the house. Surely he is not having trouble remembering something that happened barely two months before!! Is it not possible to verify the date for this one call?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 8, 2018 20:11:12 GMT -5
Apparently, given the description in V2, Scoutmaster Condon exited Lindbergh's car, parked at the curb by the greenhouse, and crossed Tremont, where someone emerged from behind a headstone facing the street and called "Hey Doctor". Condon returned to the car, got the money box, then walked down Tremont into the dark and came back up the street with the box, turned left onto Whittemore, and then returned to the car, now without the box. So what was he doing? It would seem he actually gave the money to Cemetery John somewhere on Tremont, then took the empty box down Whittemore and stashed it in some brush (at a point across the road from where he said the ransom exchange occurred, and where Uebel later saw the box retrieved). Now, why would he do this? He was giving CJ getaway time--i.e., he was, as you say, working with them somehow.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 8, 2018 20:33:50 GMT -5
To All:
With respect to Chapter 4 of V2:
Unfortunately, there were no adequate maps of St. Raymond's Cemetery and environs in the book, so in order to understand all the information about just where individuals involved in the ransom payoff (and events in that time frame) were alleged to have been at certain times, I consulted a current day NYC street map. I'm mot 100% sure that there haven't been any changes in the streets since 1932, but I can clearly see the streets of importance in this discussion and their relationships. It isn't that easy because there is no rectangular street grid patterm in that area and the streets of importance - like E. Tremont Ave., Whittemore Ave., and Balcom Ave. - are not east-west or north-south, but run at angles to these directions. In fact, E. Tremont Ave, which serves as a crooked northeast border of the cemetery, has a "hump" in its course just as it intersects with Whittemore Ave. Perhaps someone can post a current-day map of the cemetery with the standard North facing up orientation and the important streets labeled.
BTW, today there are actually two non-contiguous parts of St. Raymond's Cemetery with the northern section as the one where all the action took place in 1932. I'm wondering whether the current southern part of the cemetery was there in 1932 and was contiguous with the current northern part back then, and has since been divided up into two parts by highway construction. Of perhaps the southern part was added later to increase the area available for grave sites?
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 8, 2018 21:50:49 GMT -5
North facing up. Still kind of confusing, but maybe this helps...?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jul 8, 2018 22:06:58 GMT -5
Lightning & Hurt -- Does this help? In the top photo, A is where CAL parked and B is where Condon said he handed the ransom money to CJ. The bottom photo shows the present day St. Raymond's overlaid with the path that Condon took after he got the box of money from CAL and made his serpentine way back to CJ.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jul 8, 2018 22:12:31 GMT -5
Lightning --
You beat me to the draw(ing)! Nice work!
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jul 8, 2018 22:21:29 GMT -5
That evening Condon did answer the call that came around 7 p.m. came when Breckinridge was in the house. Isn't Breck on record (not trial transcript) saying this call came on March 11? This was an important call which would be followed up with Perrone delivering a note on the night of March 12. Hi Amy, For what it's worth, I find Breckinridge coming in second only to Condon as being the person most confused on dates. Breck really had trouble remembering key dates and times. Someone needed to give these guys a pencil and notebook. Which brings us to something that I don't understand along the lines you are asking. When someone writes a book, in this case Jafsie Tells All, the information is there in black and white. No gray areas. I've always wondered why someone like Keaten or Walsh, if they read JTA, didn't come right out and say, "Hey, that didn't happen like that! Condon is full of it!" Kind of like the thing you see now in the Amazon book review section But not one contemporary figure ever did (to my knowledge).
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 8, 2018 23:09:32 GMT -5
That’s a fair point and I’ve often wondered about it myself, but then again, what good would it have done to call out Condon’s BS, especially when his book was released and it was all over anyway? It would be opening a whole can of worms. It seems to me that everyone knew Condon was full of it from the start, so if they didn’t call him out and expose him then, they probably didn’t see any point in doing it later.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 9, 2018 6:59:44 GMT -5
The first time Condon's home was contacted by phone was supposedly March 11, 1932. This is the day the first notice by Condon/Breckinridge of "Money is Ready" appeared in the papers. Mrs. Condon took two calls during that day from the kidnappers because Condon was not home until the evening hours. Did Mrs. Condon ever give a statement about these calls and what day she took them? That evening Condon did answer the call that came around 7 p.m. came when Breckinridge was in the house. Isn't Breck on record (not trial transcript) saying this call came on March 11? This was an important call which would be followed up with Perrone delivering a note on the night of March 12. I don't understand why Condon would try to cloud this issue since there are other people involved the day this call was received at the house. Surely he is not having trouble remembering something that happened barely two months before!! Is it not possible to verify the date for this one call? All great points you've made Amy and I hate to even get involved because I don't want to disrupt the discussion but I did want to try to answer you here. There are certain dates that we absolutely do know. My point was a general one concerning all calls about dates and times based upon all sources. During the Bronx Grand Jury hearing Breckinridge was at times referring to a calendar where he had obviously marked down certain events in a way to refresh his memory. I probably should have mentioned that in the book. This supports what Wayne wrote above, and it indicated (to me at least) that he needed something like this or he wouldn't exactly remember. So if it wasn't written there you could rightly assume he wasn't 100% sure. It's something that we should all pay close attention to because, as we can see, sometimes a person would refer to a date as occurring on the wrong day of the week and vice-versa. As far as Mrs. Condon... I think one of the things my book demonstrates was the fact there were countless sources to consult. I tried to find all of them then kind of "report back" what I found. Unless I missed something I put everything I had on Mrs. Condon out there. When referring to the various lies Condon told in his book - we can see Governor Hoffman had come out against it (Book and Liberty) in his own Liberty Series. Keaten obviously could not come out against him publicly at that time or risk ruining his own reputation despite the fact he never believed the guy was on the level. I think public figures and LE had to be very careful what they said because they represented their organization and if involved in sending Hauptmann to the chair could have placed themselves into a sticky situation. It's like what I wrote - one of the biggest fears were people seeing information then concluding Hauptmann was "innocent." So it was preferable that he be viewed as a Lone-Wolf as opposed to people believing he was "framed" or completely free of any guilt.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 9, 2018 13:42:47 GMT -5
Hi Michael - I really enjoyed Volume II. Will Volume III have more about the Lindberghs, Morrows, and the staff at each? I still lean in that direction. Thank you so much! As far as V3 goes... I am writing in order to get anything "new" out there. Unfortunately, there are those who think that if they post items "first" that gives them ownership of them somehow so I don't not want to say too much about what I have. If I do it will just lead to a hodge-podge of things being hurriedly posted as a way to eventually claim I have stolen their "material," "ideas," or "whatever" (I feel like I'm back in Elementary School) once V3 comes out. I've even seen what appears to be a search via the "way back machine" of some of my older posts as a way to learn what I might know in order to then try to quickly research those things to "beat me to the punch." With this in mind I kind of have to keep quiet about it all unfortunately. I think you can see the "need" for the books because so much becomes clear when combined with other material. Most especially because most of the other books got so much wrong. I will say, since I've made it known previously, that I expect to write about the new material concerning J.J. Faulkner and the fact that a Juror was bribed. I say "new" because I do not believe anyone else knows about it although there certainly could be some who do. And if it comes out after this post still know there's no way on God's Green Earth that they have everything I already do. What I can say is that if there is a particular angle you'd like to see more of, I can try to come up with new material concerning it. But if there isn't anything there isn't anything. That's not to say it doesn't exist - just that I don't have it - YET. So... How does everyone think so many people before me "missed" the fact that Condon pulled the most famous trick in the book - the old " bait and switch?" Anyone still think he was "slipping" due to age?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 9, 2018 17:59:53 GMT -5
As for the Uebel sightings in Chapter 4 of V. 2, what's up with the sighting of the ransom box pick-up by one of Condon's "team" (Al Reich?) on the Monday following the supposed payoff to "John." The box, according to Uebel, was picked up in a bush behind a house on Tremont Ave. In fact, the address of that house was identical to the residence of the Superintendent of St. Raymond's Cemetery.
I may be missing something here, but Condon's contact had instructed him carefully in how to prepare the box, so why would Condon not pass the ransom in the box to John as per the official story, but rather leave the box in a secret location to be picked up later? I can't figure out why Condon wouldn't give the box to John with the cash in it. So if we believe Uebel, the cash was given to John without the box, so what did John carry the cash in? Must have literally had big pockets to stuff all that cash into, or had his own receptacle for the cash. Now that doesn't seem to mesh with the particular specifications communicated in the earlier ransom note.
And why would Condon want to keep the box in "friendly" hands? What would be incriminating as far as he's concerned if the box turned up in possession of someone else?
This brings up yet another issue: why was Condon continually denying knowledge to authorities of the woods with which the box was made and where the box was made. If he told the truth on these simple questions, what would he have to lose? In fact, he lied about these simple, almost irrelevant facts even in his testimony in Flemington.
BTW, I'm not sure that the "dark complected" man seen by Uebel would be Al Reich. Judging from black and white photos of Reich on the internet, I wouldn't think that he was particularly "dark-complected." Uebel described the man getting out of the car as 38 years old, 6'0" and 190 lbs. Reich was 42 at the time and his boxing records indicate that he was 6' 2 1/2" and weighed between 202 and 220 pounds as a boxer. Taking into account that most boxers would be presumed to gain weight after their professional careers are over, there is somewhat of a discrepancy here between the Uebel description and the real Al Reich.
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Jul 9, 2018 19:25:00 GMT -5
My guess is that CJ, or whoever received the cash, had a car waiting on Tremont, as well as his own receptacle--a (burlap?) bag or briefcase or something. The money would've been transferred from the box into this. The box, with its unique make, was ostensibly supposed to identify the kidnappers later, so the fact that Condon kept and hid the box on Whittemore lends credence to the idea that he didn't want the kidnappers to get caught and was covering their tracks. He kept denying that he knew what woods the box was made of as part of this, as another layer of obfuscation. Also, Condon had designated Whittemore as the drop-off point, as a decoy spot to give CJ (actually on Tremont) getaway time. But even though the ransom was handed over on Tremont, Condon still had to be seen going down Whittemore and returning to the car from there, as if the drop-off occurred on Whittemore. That being the case, he really had no choice but to hide the empty box somewhere along that road before going back to the car empty-handed: Lindbergh sees Condon without the box, so the ransom must've been handed over, and with CJ in possession of the box, it's only a matter of time before he's found. The box was later retrieved (Uebel saw this) and presumably destroyed.
|
|
|
Post by wendyrite on Jul 9, 2018 23:48:39 GMT -5
I just finished Volume 2 and couldn't put it down. Well done Michael! I made some notes as I was going, a few questions and thoughts.
1) Wasn't it Lindbergh who was ok with only seeing the baby's sleeping suit as proof and Condon wanted more proof by seeing the baby? I always thought Condon insisted on seeing the actual baby and Lindbergh was convinced only seeing the sleeping suit. Why would anyone be confident that Charlie was alive by only seeing a piece of clothing? That doesn't make sense to me.
2) This is just an observation but all of these characters know there is a kidnapping negotiation in the works and no one seems to remember anything ever! No one can remember an exact date something happened, who was in the room, what was said, etc. I mean, these people are ridiculous! "Maybe it was the 14th or 15th. Maybe it was 8pm or 10pm." Did no one take notes or try to commit these things to memory? Across the board, no one seems to have any concrete knowledge of anything that happened to them. Especially Condon.
3) Did the "Boad Nelly" note with the directions for retrieving Charlie match any of the other ransom notes in handwriting?
4) Did anyone at the time ever try to find a direct connection between Condon and Fisch?
5) Were Condon's address and phone number ever printed in the papers, because if not, how would Hauptmann have gotten them to write on his closet wall? And why the heck did he say he wrote them when he didn't?! Was he not a very bright guy?
Anyway, I thoroughly enjoyed the book and hope there will be a volume 3, although I can't imagine what information there could possibly be left out there. These were my few questions if anyone can throw me a bone...thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 10, 2018 7:45:38 GMT -5
Here are some of my thoughts and hopefully others can jump in to add what they think.... And why would Condon want to keep the box in "friendly" hands? What would be incriminating as far as he's concerned if the box turned up in possession of someone else? It seems clear to me Condon was concerned the police might find it. I also believe that first trip which Uebel witnessed occurred on the 3rd. If the people he saw were Reich, Coleman, or both - that could work because BOTH were in NY at the time he said it occurred. Reich had driven the men up very early in the morning that day but came back to the City. So I think about Uebel's account and there's no way he could have known that - plus he's giving the wrong date so its not a planned out hoax of some sort. Of course it might not have been either of them but if you look at Reich's "jaw" that is certainly an identifying feature, and its the "maroon sedan" which he was able to later get the plate off which leads me to believe it was the same car he saw. It could be there were two different maroon sedans but I think that's unlikely. Furthermore, who other than these two could Condon have provided this information? It's always been my belief, ever since I found this material, that whoever they were went that day looking to retrieve that box. I just finished Volume 2 and couldn't put it down. Well done Michael! I made some notes as I was going, a few questions and thoughts. 1) Wasn't it Lindbergh who was ok with only seeing the baby's sleeping suit as proof and Condon wanted more proof by seeing the baby? I always thought Condon insisted on seeing the actual baby and Lindbergh was convinced only seeing the sleeping suit. Why would anyone be confident that Charlie was alive by only seeing a piece of clothing? That doesn't make sense to me. Thanks Wendy! You are right - it doesn't make sense. First of all we cannot trust anything attributable to Condon unless someone else was there. And even then I think we also have to be careful because we have other people backing up stories where they remember other people being there who later morph into completely different people. For example, I've shown where Reich morphed into Kay Condon, and Condon himself morphed into Myra. How the police ever allowed this to happened in beyond me. Regardless, in the end Lindbergh was running the show, and despite of his lack of certainty concerning that sleeping suit, he still authorized payment. Nothing exemplifies this more then when Bartow, despite being told by Breckinridge to hand over the money, would not until he verified it with Lindbergh prompting that phone call (see V2 page 179). 3) Did the "Boad Nelly" note with the directions for retrieving Charlie match any of the other ransom notes in handwriting? The note was definitely different, but I remember they believed it matched the writing on the envelopes. I would have to research this to be absolutely certain but that's what I recall at the moment. 4) Did anyone at the time ever try to find a direct connection between Condon and Fisch? Back in 01 or 02 I found information on a woman named Hermann (sp?) who made this connection. Hoffman's investigators swarmed and made several reports. In the end, since Uhlig was also mentioned I believe that if the person she said was actually Condon Uhlig would have verified this. Not only was Uhlig friendly to the Defense, he actually assisted some of Hoffman's people by translating and attempting to dig up information himself. Again though, this is "my" personal conclusion so if its something that interests you I would encourage researching it. 5) Were Condon's address and phone number ever printed in the papers, because if not, how would Hauptmann have gotten them to write on his closet wall? And why the heck did he say he wrote them when he didn't?! Was he not a very bright guy? The phone number was in the phone book which, back then, was located in any phone booth. Hauptmann did not have a phone in his apartment. The address was plastered all over the papers after the child turned up dead. It's possible it was also listed before that but I'd have to dive into the files to prove it. I absolutely know it was listed after May 12th.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jul 10, 2018 9:08:22 GMT -5
Here are some of my thoughts and hopefully others can jump in to add what they think.... 5) Were Condon's address and phone number ever printed in the papers, because if not, how would Hauptmann have gotten them to write on his closet wall? And why the heck did he say he wrote them when he didn't?! Was he not a very bright guy? The phone number was in the phone book which, back then, was located in any phone booth. Hauptmann did not have a phone in his apartment. The address was plastered all over the papers after the child turned up dead. It's possible it was also listed before that but I'd have to dive into the files to prove it. I absolutely know it was listed after May 12th. Just to add to this -- Condon's address was listed on March 8, 1932 in the Bronx Home News, the same day his "offer" to be a go-between was first published. Those days have changed, huh?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jul 10, 2018 11:34:42 GMT -5
I'm almost sure I recall reading that sometime in April 1932, after Condon's name had become known widely because of his well-publicized personna as "Jafsie," Condon changed his home phone number to an unlisted number because he became deluged with too many calls to handle. At the time his phone number was available in the phone book, his address likely was in that very same phone book, as most people with listed phone numbers also had their address on the same line next to their name. So, in all probability, anyone could probably get Condon's address from the phone book without having to see it in a newspaper.
As far as phone books in phone booths are concerned, you don't have to go back to 1932 to find that. I would say that was still common into the 1990s when personal computers and cell phones became popular, causing phone booths and phone books to gradually become almost extinct. ( I, for one, miss those days.)
|
|
geld
Trooper
Posts: 43
|
Post by geld on Jul 10, 2018 15:40:42 GMT -5
About V-2, here is my 2 cents worth. Last night at CONDON's (2 April 1932) , WHO RANG THE BELL? If Condon, Lindbergh, and Brickinridge were in the back room and Reich was in the front room, and no TAXI WAS SEEN ARRIVING, than WHO RANG THE DOOR BELL? Did Reich get-up at a pre-arrange time, open the front door, ring the bell, and go back to his location and than give Condon the note?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2018 20:34:21 GMT -5
For what it's worth, I find Breckinridge coming in second only to Condon as being the person most confused on dates. Breck really had trouble remembering key dates and times. Someone needed to give these guys a pencil and notebook. Which brings us to something that I don't understand along the lines you are asking. When someone writes a book, in this case Jafsie Tells All, the information is there in black and white. No gray areas. Hey Wayne, I tend to agree about Breckinridge. Here is a lawyer who knows the importance of keeping your facts straight and yet he also floats around events in this case. Everyone seems not to want to be too specific about anything. Remaining fluid and adaptable as things are being investigated and questions come up and things are found out that might need to be incorporated into someone's narrative of events appears to happen all over this kidnapping case. Volume II of Michael's series really brings this into focus. He covers all the events from the perspective of each of the major players and all the inconsistencies in statements by these people are laid bare and what we thought we knew as facts now appear to not necessarily be facts as we have always understood them. Just two examples from Chapter Two Woodlawn Experience: page 37 - Al Reich - Apparently Al Reich was not even in Condon's house the night (March 12) that Perrone brought the note to Condon's house! By Reich's statement, Condon contacted him after he had the letter and told Al he needed to be driven to the frankfurter stand on Jerome Ave. This means that Al would have needed to drive over from City Island to Condon's house that night in order to take him to Woodlawn Cemetery. This really messes up the timeline since Perrone was claiming he delivered that note to Condon around 8:30 p.m. page 41 - The Dodge - Apparently in 1932 Condon and Reich each claimed there was a car watching Condon pick up the note at the frankfurter stand on Jerome Ave. I was never aware of this. I don't remember any book ever mentioning this 1932 claim. To make matters even more confusing when Condon is asked about this in 1933, he says he saw a Dodge sedan parked at the Jerome Ave. entrance to Woodlawn Cementery. In 1934 Condon would have this car morph into a touring car instead of a sedan. To top this off, in Sept 1934 when Reich was asked about this car he saw in 1932 that was supposedly at the Jerome Ave. entrance, he remembered it being a Coupe! When Condon's book, Jafsie Tells All, was published in 1936 there is no mention of a car being there and watching Condon and Reich. Poof, gone! So I am left wondering what to believe about this. Was there a car? Was there not a car? How can two men see this same car yet each remember it as a different model?? So many things I thought I understood have now been challenged. I feel like I am on shifting sand!
|
|
|
Post by wendyrite on Jul 11, 2018 1:11:31 GMT -5
I'm sorry I don't know how to pick a piece out to quote but wasn't Condon suppose to be at the frankfurter stand in 45 minutes after he received the note? Also, I would think if the doorbell rang and there were so many people in the house, why wouldn't any of them be peeking through curtains or looking through other windows? Or even down the hallway to view the person at the door? Why does it always seem like everyone is hiding in the back when something happens? Lastly, how does Condon get a note and is so excited he doesn't bother to notice what the guy looks like? Wouldn't you, if you were the main person involved in a ransom negotiation for a child notice EVERY single thing and study the person who brought a note?! It's too bad they didn't have phone records back then to know exactly when calls were.
|
|