|
Post by Wayne on Aug 1, 2022 10:10:23 GMT -5
Hi Michael,
After re-reading your 4 volumes, I'm just trying to connect some dots... it appears to me that there are 5 basic scenarios to the LKC:
1) BRH was completely innocent of the kidnapping & murder of Charlie and completely innocent of the extortion against CAL.
2) BRH was innocent of the kidnapping & murder of Charlie, but involved in the extortion against CAL.
3) BRH kidnapped & killed Charlie and extorted CAL all on his own.
4) BRH kidnapped & killed Charlie and extorted CAL with an accomplice or accomplices.
5) CAL was the mastermind behind the death of his son.
Addressing Scenario #5 only… if Lindbergh planned the kidnapping and either killed Charlie himself or had someone else do it, he somehow had to have contacted and recruited BRH to build and leave a ladder at his house as a ruse, to make it look like a kidnapping had occurred.
There would really be no other way around this.
The overwhelming data shows that BRH built the ladder and the ransom notes seem to have all been written by BRH. Since the Nursery Note and Ransom Note #2 were once part of the same piece of paper (torn in half), it only makes sense whoever wrote the Nursery Note continued to write the remaining 14 ransom notes.
So, if CAL was behind the death of Charlie, then CAL and BRH were working together.
Then why would BRH need to convince Condon to take part in his extortion plan?
Finally, CAL and Condon take the $70,000 to St. Raymond’s where both CAL and Condon know the man they’re giving the money to.
Is that correct?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 1, 2022 15:45:10 GMT -5
5) CAL was the mastermind behind the death of his son. Addressing Scenario #5 only… if Lindbergh planned the kidnapping and either killed Charlie himself or had someone else do it, he somehow had to have contacted and recruited BRH to build and leave a ladder at his house as a ruse, to make it look like a kidnapping had occurred. There would really be no other way around this. The overwhelming data shows that BRH built the ladder and the ransom notes seem to have all been written by BRH. Since the Nursery Note and Ransom Note #2 were once part of the same piece of paper (torn in half), it only makes sense whoever wrote the Nursery Note continued to write the remaining 14 ransom notes. So, if CAL was behind the death of Charlie, then CAL and BRH were working together. Then why would BRH need to convince Condon to take part in his extortion plan? Finally, CAL and Condon take the $70,000 to St. Raymond’s where both CAL and Condon know the man they’re giving the money to. Is that correct? A couple of points... I don't know if BRH wrote those notes. If he did, I am even more unsure that he came up with the actual wording. Now, I'm not exactly sure what you are asking to be honest and I certainly do not agree with your conclusion that there is " no way around this" as it concerns Lindbergh personally recruiting BRH. First and foremost, the reason I wrote the books was to provide the reader with all the information out there that has been omitted from previous (and as it turned out present and future) books for the reasons I've indicated within the books themselves. At times, I give my opinions about those facts and at other times I've kept my opinions out of it. It's been a little different on the message board except those times I've played "Devil's Advocate" which I did more frequently before I started writing. If you are coming up with these options as a result of my books then I've succeeded in my original mission. You are among those in a unique position to actually have many of the sources that I've included which were left out of the other books. And I say "omitted" or "left out" in the diplomatic sense. As a result, much of what's in my books tends to upset certain ideas people have at different stages by harming a personal position. As it relates to my personal beliefs, I stated very early on in V1 that I believed a group of people were hired to remove the child. This was done to assist with the staged kidnapping. I've also mentioned my belief that Lindbergh was never in person wheeling and dealing with anyone to assist. I've always believed a 3rd party was utilized to assemble and set that up for him. It insulated CAL so these men could never be traced back to him. He had an alibi and was never supposed to return home that night. His ego got the better of him and he returned to make sure everything happened that way he wanted it to. Under this scenario, did he personally interact with Hauptmann once back at Highfields? IDK. Hauptmann may not have even been to Highfields. I've also suggested that not all of the hired "crew" may have been known to each other. Under this possibility, multiple outside people were involved each with specific tasks to complete. The man with the ladder pulled over for Lupica thinking he was a confederate. One might argue he was thinking it was Lindbergh, who he was supposed to meet, but I don't personally believe so. Think of it this way... You want a house built. You hire a Contractor. The Contractor hires all the crews. Technically, they work for you, but you have no idea who Jimmy O'Brien of the plumbing crew is and may never lay eyes on him. Or if Jose Martinez came knocking, how in the hell would you know he worked on the roof at one time? Heck, you might not even know anyone other than the Contractor. Next, I've speculated that ransom was never meant to be collected. I believe money was paid some up front and the rest immediately after the "crime." At that point, some decided to go rogue and pursue the 50K mentioned in the note. Condon was brought in to assist in the extortion of the 50K. I've got nothing to indicate he's involved prior to this. Whether or not he had to be "convinced" is up to whoever is considering his motives. Whoever approached Condon with this proposition was obviously known to him - possibly before but definitely after. As far as 'who' he was dealing with at the Cemetery I couldn't say. Seems likely it involved someone he knew, but it's not out of the question that someone else was picking up the money. For example, I'd be lying if I said Condon "knew" who the Look-out was. It's possible, but it isn't necessary. In the end, my personal beliefs do not upset the facts and what those facts indicate. However, there's a place when we get to a point that leads us to several different paths to consider.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 2, 2022 2:02:22 GMT -5
Agreeing with Michael here that it makes the most sense that Lindbergh would use his own intermediary to help orchestrate the removal of the child. Dr. Gardner once told me his belief is that Alexis Carrel used a number of "seedy" types to obtain "materials" needed to experiment on and it is very possible Carrel helped Lindbergh in his quest to rid himself of his imperfect child by coordinating with same people for this job. Carrell, as most know, was extremely close with Lindbergh at the time and a massive proponent of eugenics, so the idea that he would help Lindbergh rid himself of such a "burden" isn't much of a stretch.
Hauptmann may have literally had no idea the ladder he was hired to build was used for a kidnapping. There's zero evidence he was at Highfields. On top of that, there's a version of the Fisch story that could be somewhere close to true. Lloyd Fisher was told a different version of the Fisch story, which he seemed to believe, but couldn't share the specifics as it was still covered by attorney-client privilege. Regardless, it was not uncommon for people to purchase "hot" money at the time and Hauptmann may have known the money was "hot" or stolen but again not been involved in the kidnapping or the extortion if Fisch had indeed left the money with him (we know he gave a shoebox to Hauptmann as claimed). I've also never seen any compelling evidence that he was the author of the ransom notes. Some of the handwriting experts at the time, like everyone else in this case, couldn't really identify him as the author until they heard the other evidence against him. Others had to see his exemplars with the misspellings included to "confirm" his writing, despite the fact the misspellings were given to him. It's all quite suspect.
As far as Condon, I can easily see him being swayed by the extortionists with the chance of becoming a national hero by being able to reunite the child with his family. So at this stage, Condon's only "deceit" is that he is playing both sides - he generally believes he's helping to return a kidnapped child, but knows far more about the kidnappers than he admits. It's possible he only found out during the ransom payment that the child was dead. As Michael has pointed out so well Condon lied at every single turn, regarding just about every single subject. Its pretty clear he was obfuscating and obstructing to ensure the real extortionists were never found. On top of this, we know he's in deeper than he claims, as he pretty clearly hid the ransom box down Whittemore behind some bushes and had it retrieved a few days later when he thought nobody would be watching. Bernard Uebel's statements were an incredible find by Michael in unraveling what really happened.
The thing that seals the Condon angle for me, aside from the ransom box ruse mentioned above, is whole story about the $20K discount. Condon believes he's on the cusp of becoming a national hero by handing over the $70K. So what does he do? He starts to haggle, allegedly talking them down to $50K. This is ridiculous. Imagine if the kidnapper said "to hell with you" and leaves to have the baby killed because Condon didn't follow through with the agreement. Then Condon becomes the national embarrassment. No, it seems more likely to me that he found out at the second Cemetery meeting from his "confederates" that the baby was indeed dead, which caused him immediately return the $20K, the amount he was supposed to pocket, to Lindbergh, both out of guilt and as an insurance policy should the truth ever come out. On top of it, he chose the most easy to trace bills as the ones to return, then did his ransom payment ruse by pretending to pay the ransom on Whittemore when he'd already secretly paid it further down Tremont so as to give the kidnappers a head start, if needed. Just two in a very long series of steps taken to insulate the kidnappers from ever being found.
For what its worth, I know many people attribute Condon's lies to forgetfulness, which I think is actually impossible to believe given the amount, breadth and scope of the lies. However, I do think he briefly forgot that the $20K figure was mentioned in one of the ransom notes, or else he would not have handed over that exact amount back to Lindbergh. It's a little too on the nose that they admit to having to take on another person at the cost of $20K then here comes Condon, only to "save" Lindbergh $20K at the last second.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Aug 2, 2022 11:02:05 GMT -5
The thing that seals the Condon angle for me, aside from the ransom box ruse mentioned above, is whole story about the $20K discount. Condon believes he's on the cusp of becoming a national hero by handing over the $70K. So what does he do? He starts to haggle, allegedly talking them down to $50K. This is ridiculous. Imagine if the kidnapper said "to hell with you" and leaves to have the baby killed because Condon didn't follow through with the agreement. Then Condon becomes the national embarrassment. No, it seems more likely to me that he found out at the second Cemetery meeting from his "confederates" that the baby was indeed dead, which caused him immediately return the $20K, the amount he was supposed to pocket, to Lindbergh, both out of guilt and as an insurance policy should the truth ever come out. On top of it, he chose the most easy to trace bills as the ones to return, then did his ransom payment ruse by pretending to pay the ransom on Whittemore when he'd already secretly paid it further down Tremont so as to give the kidnappers a head start, if needed. Just two in a very long series of steps taken to insulate the kidnappers from ever being found. Trojanusc, Can you please send me documentation that Condon knew the serial numbers of the $20,000 were recorded? And remind me, whose ultimate decision was it not to give CJ the $20,000? Condon or CAL? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Aug 2, 2022 11:12:54 GMT -5
In the end, my personal beliefs do not upset the facts and what those facts indicate. However, there's a place when we get to a point that leads us to several different paths to consider. Michael, I’m not doubting or questioning your research at all, I’m just trying to understand it – granted I’m not the smartest guy on the planet. So, if Scenario #5 is the way the LKC took place, then there are 4 timelines that have to be addressed: 1) Charlie was killed prior to the weekend of February 28/29 at Englewood. In this timeline, most if not all of the 29+ people at Englewood would be aware that Charlie was gone. 2) Charlie was killed on the weekend of February 28/29. In this timeline, at least 8 people would be complicit – CAL, Anne, Henry and Aida Breckinridge, Alva and Oren Root, and Olly and Elsie Whateley. 3) Charlie was killed on Monday. At least 4 people would be complicit – CAL, Anne, Olly and Elsie Whateley. 4) Charlie was killed on Tuesday. At least 5 people would be complicit – CAL, Anne, Olly and Elsie Whateley, and Betty Gow. When you add the extortion gang, Condon, Reich, Coleman, BRH, and other possible accomplices, we’re talking a LOT of complicit people here. By the way, I met Henry Breckinridge’s daughter yesterday. She said that her father never hated anyone in his life. Except Lindbergh after 1940. Hated. All told, that's a boatload of people who never talked.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 2, 2022 11:48:57 GMT -5
The thing that seals the Condon angle for me, aside from the ransom box ruse mentioned above, is whole story about the $20K discount. Condon believes he's on the cusp of becoming a national hero by handing over the $70K. So what does he do? He starts to haggle, allegedly talking them down to $50K. This is ridiculous. Imagine if the kidnapper said "to hell with you" and leaves to have the baby killed because Condon didn't follow through with the agreement. Then Condon becomes the national embarrassment. No, it seems more likely to me that he found out at the second Cemetery meeting from his "confederates" that the baby was indeed dead, which caused him immediately return the $20K, the amount he was supposed to pocket, to Lindbergh, both out of guilt and as an insurance policy should the truth ever come out. On top of it, he chose the most easy to trace bills as the ones to return, then did his ransom payment ruse by pretending to pay the ransom on Whittemore when he'd already secretly paid it further down Tremont so as to give the kidnappers a head start, if needed. Just two in a very long series of steps taken to insulate the kidnappers from ever being found. Trojanusc, Can you please send me documentation that Condon knew the serial numbers of the $20,000 were recorded? And remind me, whose ultimate decision was it not to give CJ the $20,000? Condon or CAL? Thanks. Well I mean it's a little preposterous for Condon to return to the car saying "Guess what I saved you $20K and for Lindbergh to say 'no, go pay them the full amount!'" I'm traveling but I'm pretty sure Condon was aware. Literally everyone was furious about his decision to keep the most traceable bills. Michael might have some better insight on this as it's been a minute for me.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 2, 2022 11:51:07 GMT -5
In the end, my personal beliefs do not upset the facts and what those facts indicate. However, there's a place when we get to a point that leads us to several different paths to consider. Michael, I’m not doubting or questioning your research at all, I’m just trying to understand it – granted I’m not the smartest guy on the planet. So, if Scenario #5 is the way the LKC took place, then there are 4 timelines that have to be addressed: 1) Charlie was killed prior to the weekend of February 28/29 at Englewood. In this timeline, most if not all of the 29+ people at Englewood would be aware that Charlie was gone. 2) Charlie was killed on the weekend of February 28/29. In this timeline, at least 8 people would be complicit – CAL, Anne, Henry and Aida Breckinridge, Alva and Oren Root, and Olly and Elsie Whateley. 3) Charlie was killed on Monday. At least 4 people would be complicit – CAL, Anne, Olly and Elsie Whateley. 4) Charlie was killed on Tuesday. At least 5 people would be complicit – CAL, Anne, Olly and Elsie Whateley, and Betty Gow. When you add the extortion gang, Condon, Reich, Coleman, BRH, and other possible accomplices, we’re talking a LOT of complicit people here. By the way, I met Henry Breckinridge’s daughter yesterday. She said that her father never hated anyone in his life. Except Lindbergh after 1940. Hated. All told, that's a boatload of people who never talked. I'm not really sure why any of the above are necessary. Lindbergh works with a group of people to remove the child from its nursery for it to be "destroyed," which was the common parlance for eugenics folks. The child is alive until the night of the "kidnapping."
|
|
|
Post by lightningjew on Aug 2, 2022 12:54:04 GMT -5
Either the above-mentioned people, outside of Lindbergh, didn't know anything, or they could've been told the child was "going away" that night, and that the only way to do this in a way that avoided embarrassment was for him to be "kidnapped" and smuggled into an institution. (When he turned up dead, the plan would've been to say something must've gone wrong, and now we have to move on.) For the kidnapping to be believable, actual outsiders had to come to the house and leave behind traces of their presence--a ladder, footprints that didn't match a household member's, etc. This may be a rather ludicrous story to tell one's wife or servants, but Lindbergh was Lindbergh; what he said went, he knew best in all things, and there was no point in questioning or arguing. Anyway, the Whateleys were both dead within a few years of the kidnapping and had nothing to gain but trouble by coming forward with anything they might've known (though it seems Ollie Whateley almost did, on his deathbed). Same with Gow, who left the country and kept an incredibly low profile until her death 60-odd years later.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 2, 2022 13:10:27 GMT -5
I’m not doubting or questioning your research at all, I’m just trying to understand it – granted I’m not the smartest guy on the planet. I happen to think you are pretty smart Wayne, so I certainly don't feel that way. 4) Charlie was killed on Tuesday. At least 5 people would be complicit – CAL, Anne, Olly and Elsie Whateley, and Betty Gow. When you add the extortion gang, Condon, Reich, Coleman, BRH, and other possible accomplices, we’re talking a LOT of complicit people here. By the way, I met Henry Breckinridge’s daughter yesterday. She said that her father never hated anyone in his life. Except Lindbergh after 1940. Hated. All told, that's a boatload of people who never talked. I agree with USC in that I don't necessarily accept all of these timelines exactly as you have laid them out. Sure, they could be possible options but not the only ones. Exactly when the child was killed it has been a matter of speculation by everyone - to include the State's theory at trial. Fact is, no one knows exactly when this occurred except the killer and those who were present when it happened. Next, if you ask me when I think he died it would be after he was removed from the house. I have always been of the opinion that the child was meant to be destroyed but of course there are many options to consider here too. Next, Whateley didn't keep quiet. He almost went to his grave with what he knew but said something just before he died. Considering all that we know, it means everyone in the house knew the child was being removed. I believe it was probably sold to Anne (and most likely the others too) that he was to be taken away and cared for in a home somewhere. As far as a boatload of people, look at how many cops believed Lindbergh was behind this and never came out publicly with that belief. Considering this, who among those with indirect involvement would be willing to do so? Think about Breckinridge since you've mentioned him above. He lied about the ransom money didn't he? So what we have are people willing to lie about certain things if need be for personal preservation. I'm not saying he knew, but trying to impress upon you the realities of other similar examples. Reading further in my books, we can pull out certain things that look very suspicious... like what Kelly supposedly overheard Lindbergh say to Gow. Right? Or look at how Lindbergh was so powerful that Garsson was pulled off the case by the President of the United States - or went head to head with JEH and won. But we also have to have the presence of mind to consider not everyone had the same level of knowledge or involvement. Like I've mentioned in the past, Coleman was probably trying to help Condon. They were friends. But that doesn't mean he knew the child was murdered or that Condon was actually in league with the Extortioners to the point he was. So yes, a boatload of people knew a lot of different things they kept to themselves, but considering all of those things involved direct knowledge of murder I don't agree with.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 2, 2022 13:30:17 GMT -5
Can you please send me documentation that Condon knew the serial numbers of the $20,000 were recorded? And remind me, whose ultimate decision was it not to give CJ the $20,000? Condon or CAL? Thanks. Well I mean it's a little preposterous for Condon to return to the car saying "Guess what I saved you $20K and for Lindbergh to say 'no, go pay them the full amount!'" I'm traveling but I'm pretty sure Condon was aware. Literally everyone was furious about his decision to keep the most traceable bills. Michael might have some better insight on this as it's been a minute for me. First thing is it was Condon's idea to "save" Lindbergh 20K. Cemetery John supposedly agreed. No one believed Condon's yarn about this. Condon was supposed to have told Lindbergh to remove that 20K because CJ was willing to take less, which he did. If Lindbergh said "no" I would bet everything I own that Condon would have returned with the 20K himself after the random drop hoax ended claiming CJ refused to take it with some other tall tale as to why. Most everything I have on the $20,000 is included in V2. There is no direct source that says Condon was privy that I remember but he was around the ransom and many who had knowledge of its assembly. There's no way I'd ever believe he didn't know, either by direct knowledge or overhearing about it from Breckinridge or one of the Troopers. He certainly knew that package had the $50s in it. Here again, it seems impossible he didn't know they'd be easier to locate and trace once spent based on who he was surrounded by and when. And so, once looking at everything this man did, this one thing would be huge if applied just by itself. But we have a mountain of more just like it to consider. Some of which being even worse in my opinion.
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Aug 2, 2022 13:44:33 GMT -5
The deadline for paying the ransom as given by the kidnappers was rapidly approaching. I suggest the following scenario: The money needed to be laundered immediately. No one wanted to be caught with it and probably feared that police would be on the lookout immediately following the transaction. Fisch was looking for loans from his friends, ostensibly for the "pie wagon" venture but was really involved in the laundering. Check the statement of Henry Uhlig who believed this and so stated in the cliip shown on this board. Fisch and his front man could come up with enough to launder the $50,000. The deal had to be made, however. The second "taxi driver" --the one described as stout, about 5' 6" tall and with Jewish side-curls--brought this information to Condon, perhaps through Myra--before they started out to the cemetery. Condon then had to find an excuse for not submitting the additional $20,000, so to make himself look good, he represented that he "saved" Lindbergh that amount of money. He informed the kidnapper(s) of the problem, and they agreed to take the $50,000. The deadline was approaching, and they wanted to vanish and not risk getting caught.
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Aug 2, 2022 14:16:14 GMT -5
By "deadline" I refer to Ransom Note #8: "Dear Sir: Have the money ready by Saturday evening we will inform you where and how to deliver it." Also, note that the description of the second "taxi-driver" matches the description of Fisch's front man referred to as "Fritz" --stout, about 5'6" with side curls. Color of hair is not mentioned though Fritz was described as "blond."
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Aug 2, 2022 14:36:12 GMT -5
The ransom note also stated that the money was to be "in one bundle." Condon deliberately kept the $20,000 separate from the rest.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Aug 2, 2022 15:10:31 GMT -5
The ransom note also stated that the money was to be "in one bundle." Condon deliberately kept the $20,000 separate from the rest. Hiram, With all due respect, please check your facts before posting them. Show me where "Condon deliberately kept the $20,000 separate from the rest." Spoiler Alert: You won't be able to because he didn't.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Aug 2, 2022 15:18:08 GMT -5
Michael, I’m not doubting or questioning your research at all, I’m just trying to understand it – granted I’m not the smartest guy on the planet. So, if Scenario #5 is the way the LKC took place, then there are 4 timelines that have to be addressed: 1) Charlie was killed prior to the weekend of February 28/29 at Englewood. In this timeline, most if not all of the 29+ people at Englewood would be aware that Charlie was gone. 2) Charlie was killed on the weekend of February 28/29. In this timeline, at least 8 people would be complicit – CAL, Anne, Henry and Aida Breckinridge, Alva and Oren Root, and Olly and Elsie Whateley. 3) Charlie was killed on Monday. At least 4 people would be complicit – CAL, Anne, Olly and Elsie Whateley. 4) Charlie was killed on Tuesday. At least 5 people would be complicit – CAL, Anne, Olly and Elsie Whateley, and Betty Gow. When you add the extortion gang, Condon, Reich, Coleman, BRH, and other possible accomplices, we’re talking a LOT of complicit people here. By the way, I met Henry Breckinridge’s daughter yesterday. She said that her father never hated anyone in his life. Except Lindbergh after 1940. Hated. All told, that's a boatload of people who never talked. I'm not really sure why any of the above are necessary. Lindbergh works with a group of people to remove the child from its nursery for it to be "destroyed," which was the common parlance for eugenics folks. The child is alive until the night of the "kidnapping." Wait. What? Really? What other scenarios are there? If we explore Scenario #5, the baby had to have disappeared either before the weekend of February 27/28, the weekend of February 27/28, Monday February 29, or Tuesday March 1. Please share the other possibilities. My point is this: Those 4 timelines define who would have possibly known that Charlie was missing. For instance, if CAL had him "destroyed" on the weekend, then CAL, Anne, Breck, Aida, Alva, Owen, Olly, and Elsie had to have been in on it. It's really that simple.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 2, 2022 21:40:34 GMT -5
I'm not really sure why any of the above are necessary. Lindbergh works with a group of people to remove the child from its nursery for it to be "destroyed," which was the common parlance for eugenics folks. The child is alive until the night of the "kidnapping." Wait. What? Really? What other scenarios are there? If we explore Scenario #5, the baby had to have disappeared either before the weekend of February 27/28, the weekend of February 27/28, Monday February 29, or Tuesday March 1. Please share the other possibilities. My point is this: Those 4 timelines define who would have possibly known that Charlie was missing. For instance, if CAL had him "destroyed" on the weekend, then CAL, Anne, Breck, Aida, Alva, Owen, Olly, and Elsie had to have been in on it. It's really that simple. Sorry maybe you misread. I think things were "normal" until the night of the kidnapping, in which this hired gang came to remove the child, who was still alive, with everyone in the house aware the child would be going "away," perhaps to a hospital or an asylum. This kind of thing was far more common than we realize. The literal first question asked by Scotland Yard was whether or not NJSP had properly investigated the health of the child to ensure that the baby hadn't destroyed due to its health and a fake kidnapping staged. This was somewhat common in Europe at the time.
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Aug 3, 2022 1:58:57 GMT -5
The ransom note also stated that the money was to be "in one bundle." Condon deliberately kept the $20,000 separate from the rest. Hiram, With all due respect, please check your facts before posting them. Show me where "Condon deliberately kept the $20,000 separate from the rest." Spoiler Alert: You won't be able to because he didn't. In the accounts I have read the box held $50,000. A separate package held the additional $20,000. Condon took the box with him when he made the transaction with the kidnapper but left the other package in the car with Lindbergh.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 3, 2022 10:22:12 GMT -5
In the accounts I have read the box held $50,000. A separate package held the additional $20,000. Condon took the box with him when he made the transaction with the kidnapper but left the other package in the car with Lindbergh. I figured I might get a little more specific about the money/box situation. The 50K was divided into three packages at Bartow's house and the 20K was a separate package. The three packages were put into (but not combined) one big package for transport to Condon's home. Once at the house, according to Reich, the men (himself, Condon, and Lindbergh) examined the money. Any doubts that Condon wasn't aware of the $50s and which package they were in can be put to rest if one trusts this source. Next, these same men attempted to fill the box but with the extra package of 20K it was too much and attempting to force the lid shut damaged the box. As a side note, Agent Sisk and Lt. Finn conducted an experiment while at the Federal Reserve Bank. They had with them a duplicate Ransom Box and discovered the three packages of 50K would have to be divided up into five separate ones in order to properly fit. In Peacocks pre-trial preparation document, " Statement of Facts Which Col. Charles A. Lindbergh Will Testify To," this can be found typed out within: He will then testify that Dr. Condon walked down Whittemore St. on the cemetery side, out of sight. This was approximately nine o'clock. He will tell that Condon in a few minutes returned and told him to take the $20,000.00 out of the box and that the men agreed to take $50,0000.00 instead of $70,000, that he removed the $20,000.00 from the box and gave Dr. Condon the box containing $50,000.00.
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Aug 3, 2022 12:54:44 GMT -5
In the accounts I have read the box held $50,000. A separate package held the additional $20,000. Condon took the box with him when he made the transaction with the kidnapper but left the other package in the car with Lindbergh. I figured I might get a little more specific about the money/box situation. The 50K was divided into three packages at Bartow's house and the 20K was a separate package. The three packages were put into (but not combined) one big package for transport to Condon's home. Once at the house, according to Reich, the men (himself, Condon, and Lindbergh) examined the money. Any doubts that Condon wasn't aware of the $50s and which package they were in can be put to rest if one trusts this source. Next, these same men attempted to fill the box but with the extra package of 20K it was too much and attempting to force the lid shut damaged the box. As a side note, Agent Sisk and Lt. Finn conducted an experiment while at the Federal Reserve Bank. They had with them a duplicate Ransom Box and discovered the three packages of 50K would have to be divided up into five separate ones in order to properly fit. In Peacocks pre-trial preparation document, " Statement of Facts Which Col. Charles A. Lindbergh Will Testify To," this can be found typed out within: He will then testify that Dr. Condon walked down Whittemore St. on the cemetery side, out of sight. This was approximately nine o'clock. He will tell that Condon in a few minutes returned and told him to take the $20,000.00 out of the box and that the men agreed to take $50,0000.00 instead of $70,000, that he removed the $20,000.00 from the box and gave Dr. Condon the box containing $50,000.00. If Al Reich told the truth about who handled the money, then Lindbergh lied to the Grand Jury on September 26, 1934, testifying as follows: "I took the package from downtown New York, I took a package of $50,000 to Dr. Condon’s house and I had that package in my possession the entire time. The package was originally wrapped up by the people at the Morgan firm, that package was not out of my possession up to the time I gave it to Dr. Condon, and while I didn’t open the wrapping paper to see the bills, it had every appearance of containing the bills, you could feel something similar to bills inside." JUROR: Q: I want to know if you actually saw bills in the packages? A: No sir, I didn’t open any of the packages.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 3, 2022 15:04:37 GMT -5
If Al Reich told the truth about who handled the money, then Lindbergh lied to the Grand Jury on September 26, 1934, testifying as follows: "I took the package from downtown New York, I took a package of $50,000 to Dr. Condon’s house and I had that package in my possession the entire time. The package was originally wrapped up by the people at the Morgan firm, that package was not out of my possession up to the time I gave it to Dr. Condon, and while I didn’t open the wrapping paper to see the bills, it had every appearance of containing the bills, you could feel something similar to bills inside." JUROR: Q: I want to know if you actually saw bills in the packages? A: No sir, I didn’t open any of the packages. I agree. It's always hard to pick and choose which person to believe especially when its two people who can be doubted elsewhere. Also, if one searches, there are probably other sources that both support and contradict both men. For me, the Sisk/Finn experiment proves they had to open those packages. Right? So by opening those packages it's impossible not to see the money. Here's exactly what Reich said: Q You tried to force the Twenty Thousand in? A Yes and we put a piece of paper around it.
Q Did you see the money while you were in the house? A Yeah.
Q Who examined the money in the house? A Colonel Lindbergh, Dr. Condon, and myself.
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Aug 3, 2022 18:20:28 GMT -5
If Al Reich told the truth about who handled the money, then Lindbergh lied to the Grand Jury on September 26, 1934, testifying as follows: "I took the package from downtown New York, I took a package of $50,000 to Dr. Condon’s house and I had that package in my possession the entire time. The package was originally wrapped up by the people at the Morgan firm, that package was not out of my possession up to the time I gave it to Dr. Condon, and while I didn’t open the wrapping paper to see the bills, it had every appearance of containing the bills, you could feel something similar to bills inside." JUROR: Q: I want to know if you actually saw bills in the packages? A: No sir, I didn’t open any of the packages. I agree. It's always hard to pick and choose which person to believe especially when its two people who can be doubted elsewhere. Also, if one searches, there are probably other sources that both support and contradict both men. For me, the Sisk/Finn experiment proves they had to open those packages. Right? So by opening those packages it's impossible not to see the money. Here's exactly what Reich said: Q You tried to force the Twenty Thousand in? A Yes and we put a piece of paper around it.
Q Did you see the money while you were in the house? A Yeah.
Q Who examined the money in the house? A Colonel Lindbergh, Dr. Condon, and myself. The Sisk/Finn experiment does show that the three denominations of bills (fives, tens, twenties) originally wrapped and tied as one package had to have been unwrapped to fit into the box. Lindbergh was present when that was necessary to be done, which means he had to have seen the money. Not only that, in JTA, Jafsie recalls: "I leaned over the hedge and watched John as he opened the box, pressed his left hand down on one of the bundles of bills and examined it. …. He put one of the bundles of bills in his left-hand coat pocket, rose holding the box." This confirms that the money was visible to CJ immediately when he lifted the lid of the box. Not only did he not have to cut or rip any string, he also didn't have to tear open any brown wrapping paper to get his hands on the loot. Jafsie's recollection further confirms that the money was wrapped in individual bundles, with CJ stuffing one of them into his coat pocket. Twelve of those originally wrapped bundles were found, almost intact, in the shellac can in Hauptmann's garage. The ransom money found its way from St. Ray's to BRH's garage in a beeline, it seems. Why did CAL say he never saw the bills themselves in the ransom box? What were the legal implications? I dunno!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,651
|
Post by Joe on Aug 3, 2022 20:01:18 GMT -5
5) CAL was the mastermind behind the death of his son. Addressing Scenario #5 only… if Lindbergh planned the kidnapping and either killed Charlie himself or had someone else do it, he somehow had to have contacted and recruited BRH to build and leave a ladder at his house as a ruse, to make it look like a kidnapping had occurred. There would really be no other way around this. The overwhelming data shows that BRH built the ladder and the ransom notes seem to have all been written by BRH. Since the Nursery Note and Ransom Note #2 were once part of the same piece of paper (torn in half), it only makes sense whoever wrote the Nursery Note continued to write the remaining 14 ransom notes. So, if CAL was behind the death of Charlie, then CAL and BRH were working together. Then why would BRH need to convince Condon to take part in his extortion plan? Finally, CAL and Condon take the $70,000 to St. Raymond’s where both CAL and Condon know the man they’re giving the money to. Is that correct? A couple of points... I don't know if BRH wrote those notes. If he did, I am even more unsure that he came up with the actual wording. Now, I'm not exactly sure what you are asking to be honest and I certainly do not agree with your conclusion that there is " no way around this" as it concerns Lindbergh personally recruiting BRH. First and foremost, the reason I wrote the books was to provide the reader with all the information out there that has been omitted from previous (and as it turned out present and future) books for the reasons I've indicated within the books themselves. At times, I give my opinions about those facts and at other times I've kept my opinions out of it. It's been a little different on the message board except those times I've played "Devil's Advocate" which I did more frequently before I started writing. If you are coming up with these options as a result of my books then I've succeeded in my original mission. You are among those in a unique position to actually have many of the sources that I've included which were left out of the other books. And I say "omitted" or "left out" in the diplomatic sense. As a result, much of what's in my books tends to upset certain ideas people have at different stages by harming a personal position. As it relates to my personal beliefs, I stated very early on in V1 that I believed a group of people were hired to remove the child. This was done to assist with the staged kidnapping. I've also mentioned my belief that Lindbergh was never in person wheeling and dealing with anyone to assist. I've always believed a 3rd party was utilized to assemble and set that up for him. It insulated CAL so these men could never be traced back to him. He had an alibi and was never supposed to return home that night. His ego got the better of him and he returned to make sure everything happened that way he wanted it to. Under this scenario, did he personally interact with Hauptmann once back at Highfields? IDK. Hauptmann may not have even been to Highfields. I've also suggested that not all of the hired "crew" may have been known to each other. Under this possibility, multiple outside people were involved each with specific tasks to complete. The man with the ladder pulled over for Lupica thinking he was a confederate. One might argue he was thinking it was Lindbergh, who he was supposed to meet, but I don't personally believe so. Think of it this way... You want a house built. You hire a Contractor. The Contractor hires all the crews. Technically, they work for you, but you have no idea who Jimmy O'Brien of the plumbing crew is and may never lay eyes on him. Or if Jose Martinez came knocking, how in the hell would you know he worked on the roof at one time? Heck, you might not even know anyone other than the Contractor. Next, I've speculated that ransom was never meant to be collected. I believe money was paid some up front and the rest immediately after the "crime." At that point, some decided to go rogue and pursue the 50K mentioned in the note. Condon was brought in to assist in the extortion of the 50K. I've got nothing to indicate he's involved prior to this. Whether or not he had to be "convinced" is up to whoever is considering his motives. Whoever approached Condon with this proposition was obviously known to him - possibly before but definitely after. As far as 'who' he was dealing with at the Cemetery I couldn't say. Seems likely it involved someone he knew, but it's not out of the question that someone else was picking up the money. For example, I'd be lying if I said Condon "knew" who the Look-out was. It's possible, but it isn't necessary. In the end, my personal beliefs do not upset the facts and what those facts indicate. However, there's a place when we get to a point that leads us to several different paths to consider. Michael, I’m confused by one of the essential linchpins of what you consider was the plan engineered by those who executed a faked kidnapping. I gather you believe that the original plan was for ‘The Gang’ to have collected a fee for doing the job, ie. removing and “destroying” Charlie. Part of it to be paid up front, ostensibly as a means of demonstrating good faith, with the balance to be paid immediately upon completion of the job. To complicate things though, one of the gang decides unilaterally, to ‘go rogue’ by demanding an extra $50,000. Perhaps a bit of, “Look, I know it’s the Depression, but what the hey.. if I can scrounge a bit more..” going on here. It would therefore appear that the 'boots on the ground' in the nursery, is the treacherous one here, based on the fact that you believe everyone in the plan to be conveniently insulated from one another. So 'Rogue’ not only steals Charlie, but also leaves a ransom note for $50,000 and his self-interest, on the window sill, thereby solidifying his greed well beyond that of the ‘fauxnapping’ plan he was originally part of. Here’s my main question, which I’m pretty certain will lead to more: How would, or could, any competent single criminal, or criminal group, have planned a faked kidnapping without first establishing a firm indication that they had taken the victim for the purpose of financial compensation and provide details of that specific intention? Are you telling this board that because 'The Gang" simply knew they were going to be compensated before and after the job, it was left up to 'Rogue’ to actually think of this rather significant detail, in the form of the nursery note left on the window sill?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 3, 2022 21:56:31 GMT -5
A couple of points... I don't know if BRH wrote those notes. If he did, I am even more unsure that he came up with the actual wording. Now, I'm not exactly sure what you are asking to be honest and I certainly do not agree with your conclusion that there is " no way around this" as it concerns Lindbergh personally recruiting BRH. First and foremost, the reason I wrote the books was to provide the reader with all the information out there that has been omitted from previous (and as it turned out present and future) books for the reasons I've indicated within the books themselves. At times, I give my opinions about those facts and at other times I've kept my opinions out of it. It's been a little different on the message board except those times I've played "Devil's Advocate" which I did more frequently before I started writing. If you are coming up with these options as a result of my books then I've succeeded in my original mission. You are among those in a unique position to actually have many of the sources that I've included which were left out of the other books. And I say "omitted" or "left out" in the diplomatic sense. As a result, much of what's in my books tends to upset certain ideas people have at different stages by harming a personal position. As it relates to my personal beliefs, I stated very early on in V1 that I believed a group of people were hired to remove the child. This was done to assist with the staged kidnapping. I've also mentioned my belief that Lindbergh was never in person wheeling and dealing with anyone to assist. I've always believed a 3rd party was utilized to assemble and set that up for him. It insulated CAL so these men could never be traced back to him. He had an alibi and was never supposed to return home that night. His ego got the better of him and he returned to make sure everything happened that way he wanted it to. Under this scenario, did he personally interact with Hauptmann once back at Highfields? IDK. Hauptmann may not have even been to Highfields. I've also suggested that not all of the hired "crew" may have been known to each other. Under this possibility, multiple outside people were involved each with specific tasks to complete. The man with the ladder pulled over for Lupica thinking he was a confederate. One might argue he was thinking it was Lindbergh, who he was supposed to meet, but I don't personally believe so. Think of it this way... You want a house built. You hire a Contractor. The Contractor hires all the crews. Technically, they work for you, but you have no idea who Jimmy O'Brien of the plumbing crew is and may never lay eyes on him. Or if Jose Martinez came knocking, how in the hell would you know he worked on the roof at one time? Heck, you might not even know anyone other than the Contractor. Next, I've speculated that ransom was never meant to be collected. I believe money was paid some up front and the rest immediately after the "crime." At that point, some decided to go rogue and pursue the 50K mentioned in the note. Condon was brought in to assist in the extortion of the 50K. I've got nothing to indicate he's involved prior to this. Whether or not he had to be "convinced" is up to whoever is considering his motives. Whoever approached Condon with this proposition was obviously known to him - possibly before but definitely after. As far as 'who' he was dealing with at the Cemetery I couldn't say. Seems likely it involved someone he knew, but it's not out of the question that someone else was picking up the money. For example, I'd be lying if I said Condon "knew" who the Look-out was. It's possible, but it isn't necessary. In the end, my personal beliefs do not upset the facts and what those facts indicate. However, there's a place when we get to a point that leads us to several different paths to consider. Michael, I’m confused by one of the essential linchpins of what you consider was the plan engineered by those who executed a faked kidnapping. I gather you believe that the original plan was for ‘The Gang’ to have collected a fee for doing the job, ie. removing and “destroying” Charlie. Part of it to be paid up front, ostensibly as a means of demonstrating good faith, with the balance to be paid immediately upon completion of the job. To complicate things though, one of the gang decides unilaterally, to ‘go rogue’ by demanding an extra $50,000. Perhaps a bit of, “Look, I know it’s the Depression, but what the hey.. if I can scrounge a bit more..” going on here. It would therefore appear that the 'boots on the ground' in the nursery, is the treacherous one here, based on the fact that you believe everyone in the plan to be conveniently insulated from one another. So 'Rogue’ not only steals Charlie, but also leaves a ransom note for $50,000 and his self-interest, on the window sill, thereby solidifying his greed well beyond that of the ‘fauxnapping’ plan he was originally part of. Here’s my main question, which I’m pretty certain will lead to more: How would, or could, any competent single criminal, or criminal group, have planned a faked kidnapping without first establishing a firm indication that they had taken the victim for the purpose of financial compensation and provide details of that specific intention? Are you telling this board that because 'The Gang" simply knew they were going to be compensated before and after the job, it was left up to 'Rogue’ to actually think of this rather significant detail, in the form of the nursery note left on the window sill? Genuinely don't understand this. It's like you often overlook the obvious deliberately in objection to any theory that you don't jive with, even when the evidence, reviewed without the past historical bias, pretty clearly points to most of the "heroes" in this case being anything but. The point was to remove the child and stage a fake kidnapping. The ransom note was always intended to be left. From there Lindbergh did everything he could to misdirect the investigation from finding the truth, eschewing police and working with underworld figures and soothsayers. At some point, part or all of the gang went rogue and actually decided to extort Lindbergh for the ransom. It was never intended to be collected but Lindbergh had no choice.
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Aug 4, 2022 6:22:42 GMT -5
If Al Reich told the truth about who handled the money, then Lindbergh lied to the Grand Jury on September 26, 1934, testifying as follows: "I took the package from downtown New York, I took a package of $50,000 to Dr. Condon’s house and I had that package in my possession the entire time. The package was originally wrapped up by the people at the Morgan firm, that package was not out of my possession up to the time I gave it to Dr. Condon, and while I didn’t open the wrapping paper to see the bills, it had every appearance of containing the bills, you could feel something similar to bills inside." JUROR: Q: I want to know if you actually saw bills in the packages? A: No sir, I didn’t open any of the packages. I agree. It's always hard to pick and choose which person to believe especially when its two people who can be doubted elsewhere. Also, if one searches, there are probably other sources that both support and contradict both men. For me, the Sisk/Finn experiment proves they had to open those packages. Right? So by opening those packages it's impossible not to see the money. Here's exactly what Reich said: Q You tried to force the Twenty Thousand in? A Yes and we put a piece of paper around it.
Q Did you see the money while you were in the house? A Yeah.
Q Who examined the money in the house? A Colonel Lindbergh, Dr. Condon, and myself. I appreciate the discussion but have a technical question at this point. A juror is quoted as asking a witness a question concerning the ransom money. I have not seen a trial in which a juror was permitted to engage in the questioning of any witness. The presecutor and defense attorneys carry on the examination of the wirness and the cross-examination. Were jurors actually allowed to engage in questioning witnesses at the Lindbergh trial? I have seen a number of transcripts re: this trial and was unaware of this practice. Source of this quotation as given above is a serious question.
|
|
hiram
Detective
Posts: 124
|
Post by hiram on Aug 4, 2022 6:54:53 GMT -5
Was the statement quoted from a grand jury trial and not the Lindbergh kidnap trial of BRH in New Jersey?
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Aug 4, 2022 7:19:24 GMT -5
Was the statement quoted from a grand jury trial and not the Lindbergh kidnap trial of BRH in New Jersey? The Hauptmann trial took place in January/February 1935. The quote is obviously from the September 1934 Grand Jury hearing. But even lying to a Grand Jury is a punishable offense.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,651
|
Post by Joe on Aug 4, 2022 9:23:17 GMT -5
Michael, I’m confused by one of the essential linchpins of what you consider was the plan engineered by those who executed a faked kidnapping. I gather you believe that the original plan was for ‘The Gang’ to have collected a fee for doing the job, ie. removing and “destroying” Charlie. Part of it to be paid up front, ostensibly as a means of demonstrating good faith, with the balance to be paid immediately upon completion of the job. To complicate things though, one of the gang decides unilaterally, to ‘go rogue’ by demanding an extra $50,000. Perhaps a bit of, “Look, I know it’s the Depression, but what the hey.. if I can scrounge a bit more..” going on here. It would therefore appear that the 'boots on the ground' in the nursery, is the treacherous one here, based on the fact that you believe everyone in the plan to be conveniently insulated from one another. So 'Rogue’ not only steals Charlie, but also leaves a ransom note for $50,000 and his self-interest, on the window sill, thereby solidifying his greed well beyond that of the ‘fauxnapping’ plan he was originally part of. Here’s my main question, which I’m pretty certain will lead to more: How would, or could, any competent single criminal, or criminal group, have planned a faked kidnapping without first establishing a firm indication that they had taken the victim for the purpose of financial compensation and provide details of that specific intention? Are you telling this board that because 'The Gang" simply knew they were going to be compensated before and after the job, it was left up to 'Rogue’ to actually think of this rather significant detail, in the form of the nursery note left on the window sill? Genuinely don't understand this. It's like you often overlook the obvious deliberately in objection to any theory that you don't jive with, even when the evidence, reviewed without the past historical bias, pretty clearly points to most of the "heroes" in this case being anything but. The point was to remove the child and stage a fake kidnapping. The ransom note was always intended to be left. From there Lindbergh did everything he could to misdirect the investigation from finding the truth, eschewing police and working with underworld figures and soothsayers. At some point, part or all of the gang went rogue and actually decided to extort Lindbergh for the ransom. It was never intended to be collected but Lindbergh had no choice. You may to consider who’s overlooking the obvious, and the not-so-obvious here. This is from Michael's post: “Next, I've speculated that ransom was never meant to be collected. I believe money was paid some up front and the rest immediately after the "crime." At that point, some decided to go rogue and pursue the 50K mentioned in the note.”
You’re missing the gist and follow-through of my argument here, and preferring to segue into Lindbergh ‘misdirecting’ of the investigation. Talk about misdirecting here. Perhaps we can keep within the subject matter here. Consider: If the kidnappers were to be paid up front and immediately after the crime as Michael suggests, and Lindbergh upon discovering his child was missing, immediately brings in the police, (as he did) who were given full disclosure of the nursery ransom note, then he has no choice but to pay any ransom amount that is certain to be found within the note. He’s now in the eyes of the police, press and public.. no more opportunity to not pay ‘Rogue’ so to speak. If Lindbergh believes, as you seem to think, that he’s not supposed to be paying anything beyond what was agreed upon before and immediately after the crime, why on earth does he immediately involve law enforcement, when otherwise by not calling them in right away, he would have had the most ideal of opportunities to conduct 'faux negotiations’ with his ‘fauxnappers’ in complete privacy, potentially saving himself the $50,000? Here’s something else to consider. If Lindbergh was truly part of a faked kidnapping and had to be in charge to the degree you believe, why didn’t he immediately open the sealed ransom note he would have been expecting? If he really was such a lowlife as to have other lowlifes come into his home to “destroy” his child, do you really believe his desire to 'control everything' would have allowed him to trust what would be found in that envelope by the NJSP? This connect-the-best-dots-available theory you defend so enthusiastically, falls flat on many fronts. The above are just a couple of examples.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 4, 2022 10:01:23 GMT -5
Michael, I’m confused by one of the essential linchpins of what you consider was the plan engineered by those who executed a faked kidnapping. I gather you believe that the original plan was for ‘The Gang’ to have collected a fee for doing the job, ie. removing and “destroying” Charlie. Part of it to be paid up front, ostensibly as a means of demonstrating good faith, with the balance to be paid immediately upon completion of the job. To complicate things though, one of the gang decides unilaterally, to ‘go rogue’ by demanding an extra $50,000. Perhaps a bit of, “Look, I know it’s the Depression, but what the hey.. if I can scrounge a bit more..” going on here. It would therefore appear that the 'boots on the ground' in the nursery, is the treacherous one here, based on the fact that you believe everyone in the plan to be conveniently insulated from one another. So 'Rogue’ not only steals Charlie, but also leaves a ransom note for $50,000 and his self-interest, on the window sill, thereby solidifying his greed well beyond that of the ‘fauxnapping’ plan he was originally part of. Here’s my main question, which I’m pretty certain will lead to more: How would, or could, any competent single criminal, or criminal group, have planned a faked kidnapping without first establishing a firm indication that they had taken the victim for the purpose of financial compensation and provide details of that specific intention? Are you telling this board that because 'The Gang" simply knew they were going to be compensated before and after the job, it was left up to 'Rogue’ to actually think of this rather significant detail, in the form of the nursery note left on the window sill? I don't blame you for shifting your strategy from attacking the facts to attacking a theory because you haven't been doing so well with the facts. So this idea is to poke holes in the theory as if that undermines those facts you are having so much trouble with. It's a back door tactic that can sometimes trick people. The problem is you don't understand the theory either, or if you do, you are pretending not to by adding in your own twists and turns. As USC pointed out, the original note was part of the ruse. I surmise that one or more decided they were in a position to also collect on the 50K because of the opportunity the ruse afforded them. It turns from a fake kidnapping into an extortion because they had the body. Hearing that something isn't "possible" or would "never occur" are main themes that have been hurled at me over the years on the discussion platforms. It's why I've given so many examples of the different but similar events in my books to exemplify certain occurrences do happen and to neutralize the idea that it never would. Anyway, its a pretty straight forward theory. One or more people of the original group got greedy and decided it was worth the risk to gain the additional amount which was no where near what I suspect was their original compensation.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,651
|
Post by Joe on Aug 4, 2022 11:56:50 GMT -5
Michael, I’m confused by one of the essential linchpins of what you consider was the plan engineered by those who executed a faked kidnapping. I gather you believe that the original plan was for ‘The Gang’ to have collected a fee for doing the job, ie. removing and “destroying” Charlie. Part of it to be paid up front, ostensibly as a means of demonstrating good faith, with the balance to be paid immediately upon completion of the job. To complicate things though, one of the gang decides unilaterally, to ‘go rogue’ by demanding an extra $50,000. Perhaps a bit of, “Look, I know it’s the Depression, but what the hey.. if I can scrounge a bit more..” going on here. It would therefore appear that the 'boots on the ground' in the nursery, is the treacherous one here, based on the fact that you believe everyone in the plan to be conveniently insulated from one another. So 'Rogue’ not only steals Charlie, but also leaves a ransom note for $50,000 and his self-interest, on the window sill, thereby solidifying his greed well beyond that of the ‘fauxnapping’ plan he was originally part of. Here’s my main question, which I’m pretty certain will lead to more: How would, or could, any competent single criminal, or criminal group, have planned a faked kidnapping without first establishing a firm indication that they had taken the victim for the purpose of financial compensation and provide details of that specific intention? Are you telling this board that because 'The Gang" simply knew they were going to be compensated before and after the job, it was left up to 'Rogue’ to actually think of this rather significant detail, in the form of the nursery note left on the window sill? I don't blame you for shifting your strategy from attacking the facts to attacking a theory because you haven't been doing so well with the facts. So this idea is to poke holes in the theory as if that undermines those facts you are having so much trouble with. It's a back door tactic that can sometimes trick people. The problem is you don't understand the theory either, or if you do, you are pretending not to by adding in your own twists and turns. As USC pointed out, the original note was part of the ruse. I surmise that one or more decided they were in a position to also collect on the 50K because of the opportunity the ruse afforded them. It turns from a fake kidnapping into an extortion because they had the body. Hearing that something isn't "possible" or would "never occur" are main themes that have been hurled at me over the years on the discussion platforms. It's why I've given so many examples of the different but similar events in my books to exemplify certain occurrences do happen and to neutralize the idea that it never would. Anyway, its a pretty straight forward theory. One or more people of the original group got greedy and decided it was worth the risk to gain the additional amount which was no where near what I suspect was their original compensation. I’ll give you this much. You can most certainly bet that nursery ransom note would have had to have been part of any ‘ruse.’ But let’s try taking this a step further. Lindbergh, after immediately calling in the police and now standing among members of the NJSP, reads for the first time from the nursery note that the kidnapper(s) are demanding $50,000 ransom for the safe return of his son. If by being part of the ruse, he originally would have had no intention of paying anything further than a previous and much larger amount as you suspect, why does he now essentially choose to commit himself to also having to come up with whatever amount he’d certainly be expecting to see in that nursery note, by failing to open the envelope at the first opportunity in privacy? Would the ‘ever-logical, all-controlling’ Lindbergh really be this shortsighted? I don’t think so. You accuse me of having difficulty with case facts when this is the best theory you’ve got, based upon your supposedly superior understanding and interpretation of them? Perhaps you might want to consider just why this theory of yours, which I might also add is not new, has been the subject of such careful examination by myself and others over the past 90 years. Should a long-term relationship really have to be this difficult?
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Aug 4, 2022 16:40:15 GMT -5
Genuinely don't understand this. It's like you often overlook the obvious deliberately in objection to any theory that you don't jive with, even when the evidence, reviewed without the past historical bias, pretty clearly points to most of the "heroes" in this case being anything but. The point was to remove the child and stage a fake kidnapping. The ransom note was always intended to be left. From there Lindbergh did everything he could to misdirect the investigation from finding the truth, eschewing police and working with underworld figures and soothsayers. At some point, part or all of the gang went rogue and actually decided to extort Lindbergh for the ransom. It was never intended to be collected but Lindbergh had no choice. You may to consider who’s overlooking the obvious, and the not-so-obvious here. This is from Michael's post: “Next, I've speculated that ransom was never meant to be collected. I believe money was paid some up front and the rest immediately after the "crime." At that point, some decided to go rogue and pursue the 50K mentioned in the note.”
You’re missing the gist and follow-through of my argument here, and preferring to segue into Lindbergh ‘misdirecting’ of the investigation. Talk about misdirecting here. Perhaps we can keep within the subject matter here. Consider: If the kidnappers were to be paid up front and immediately after the crime as Michael suggests, and Lindbergh upon discovering his child was missing, immediately brings in the police, (as he did) who were given full disclosure of the nursery ransom note, then he has no choice but to pay any ransom amount that is certain to be found within the note. He’s now in the eyes of the police, press and public.. no more opportunity to not pay ‘Rogue’ so to speak. If Lindbergh believes, as you seem to think, that he’s not supposed to be paying anything beyond what was agreed upon before and immediately after the crime, why on earth does he immediately involve law enforcement, when otherwise by not calling them in right away, he would have had the most ideal of opportunities to conduct 'faux negotiations’ with his ‘fauxnappers’ in complete privacy, potentially saving himself the $50,000? Here’s something else to consider. If Lindbergh was truly part of a faked kidnapping and had to be in charge to the degree you believe, why didn’t he immediately open the sealed ransom note he would have been expecting? If he really was such a lowlife as to have other lowlifes come into his home to “destroy” his child, do you really believe his desire to 'control everything' would have allowed him to trust what would be found in that envelope by the NJSP? This connect-the-best-dots-available theory you defend so enthusiastically, falls flat on many fronts. The above are just a couple of examples. Lindbergh calls the cops because it legitimizes the kidnapping. Why would you need a gang to come in and make things look real if you're not going to call the cops? That makes zero sense. It makes national headlines and makes Lindbergh into a very sympathetic figure. However, does he cooperate with the police in every possible way? Of course not. He won't let them interrogate the staff, he obstructs the investigation in lieu of working with mobsters and shady figures. Everything is done outside of official channels. Think about it like this: Lindbergh, through a trusted third party, hires a gang to stage a "real looking" kidnapping and remove the child. They are hired for, let's say, $10K ($5K to be paid before, $5K after the body is returned). The note says $50K is to be collected, but that is just a ruse. However, part or all of the gang go rogue and decide to collect the full $50K or else they won't return the body. What is Lindbergh's recourse here? To say call the cops and say he's being extorted by the people who he hired to kidnap his kid? He has no choice but to pay the $50K and be done with it.
|
|