|
Post by Michael on Feb 13, 2006 8:01:26 GMT -5
I think if you believe the "Lindy did it" theory then you can't accept that he did it singlehandedly. He didn't write those notes, and certainly didn't build the ladder.
The other issue is that no matter how you look at it, Hauptmann has involvement but at what level? So you have to consider, as it pertains to BRH - how, when, where, why, and especially how much?
I think if Lindy is behind the whole matter, that is, he initiated the process and got the ball rolling by and through a trustworthy contact - then he has to know exactly what has happened and what is going on - which was precisely his nature. So if Elyssa is correct, then CAL is probably thinking just as she supposes.
However, this quickly turns into a monster does it not? Balking at certain situations would appear suspicious so now CAL must follow down a path of what he would know were hoaxes.
Take Curtis for example.
Why wasn't Condon given the same treatment after the body was found? After reading Dryan's awesome post above - we are reminded that Condon told some wild tales, or at least we are trained to believe they were because they don't even come close to what history records as the truth.
Curtis gets locked up and taken prisoner in Lindy's basement, but Condon, aside from the Bronx Grand Jury Investigation - seems to walk away somewhat unscathed. You would think it was Curtis who gave away Lindy's $50,000 and not the other way around.
Rita has touched on Schippel. I find him to be an interesting character. I am not sure if people know this or not but he claimed the child had been buried somewhere, dug up, and placed where it was ultimately found. Koehler checked the lumber at Skillman and at Schippel's place before BRH and no connection was made so I think we can erase this lead. Now as to a refrigerator at Skillman...its an interesting thought, however, one must realize that during the period of time the NJSP were using Highfileds as their Headquarters (!!!!) that some of the Troopers were quartered there to sleep off shift.
I do think that if we put everything Condon ever said on the table the entire mystery concerning this crime can be solved if we put it together. It's in there somewhere but the problem is so much BS is in there too.
When Hauptmann said that Condon had the key to his cell I don't think he was just saying it for publicity.
And the return of this corpse to be found when it was saves Lindy from being extorted for the rest of his life.
|
|
|
Post by rick for michael on Feb 13, 2006 8:18:27 GMT -5
Michael, if I read you correctly then you agree somewhat with William Norris...ie: Jon Condon was a known and loyal commodity in all this? He received a free pass from day 1 to his trip to visit Al Copones wife and Panama. Although the police suspected him over and over, CAL never doubted him and did not have him arrested for handing over $50K for nothing except appearances. It also appeared that Condon chose himself as the go-between but maybe he was picked by CAL ahead of time? Condon is pivital because he knows Sharpe, Whateley, Fisch, Cerrita and Biritella at the Harlem mystical church.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 13, 2006 11:00:39 GMT -5
Rick,
There are definitely things Condon knows but isn't telling the Police. By the same token, he seems to be saying more then he should at times considering this....almost to posture a future defense for himself by pointing to truths in order to neutralize his lies.
He also seems to pick up on things the police are saying and discussing and then says repeats them back to them knowing they would probably accept it since it was already on their minds.
Walsh never believed him and the FBI didn't trust him either. They decided to "play along" and noticed when they did Condon let more "slip out." Lindbergh and Breckenridge were both on record as saying they trusted Condon. Lindbergh even testified, under oath, that he trusted him.
However, Lindbergh told Agent Larimer that he did not fully trust him, and Breckenridge would also make similar comments to someone else. One account even has Breck sending "fake" notes and mailing them to Condon to see if he would turn them over. He didn't which made Breck think Condon had prior knowledge concerning what notes were real and what weren't. Was this the start and/or an attempt to distance themselves from him?
As for the Spiritual Church connection....
I am not so sure about it. It's something to keep in our mind but I personally wouldn't consider it a rock solid fact with the limited information that we presently have available at this point.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 13, 2006 11:23:42 GMT -5
The subject of Condon's involvement as a possible accomplice is interesting but I must admit that it is not an area of my expertise. My question regarding this theory is how do you connect Condon as participant in the kidnapping without also involving Breckinridge? After all isn't Breckinridge the one who makes the assessment from the rather cryptic note sent that an intermediary is required in the first place? I have read that note over and over and I don't come up with the conclusion that BRH is asking for a third party to be involved. However the notes prior bring up the demand for an extra $20000 due to taking on a new person. When you stand back from it all and think about it, isn't a strange thing in itself to involve a third party in a kidnapping ? Not to mention one as strange as Condon.
|
|
|
Post by dryan on Feb 13, 2006 11:56:10 GMT -5
Well, BRH (or whoever) does not go for the idea of an intermediary until Condon puts himself into the picture. What he says is that he will not deal with someone appointed by the Lindbergh side, yet, as you rightly point out, a note is delivered to Breck's office, and that would seem to satisfy him. Why not go for that? Too dangerous, maybe?
The kidnapper had no need to respond to Condon's letter after that note, as he had the contact through Breck. So why bring him in?
One reason could be is that he liked the idea of dealing with someone in the Bronx, someone he could keep an eye on, someone who lives not too far away, and whose activities he knew about from City Island. Remember, I argue that he is confident that the child's body will not be found. He may have been influenced by someone else who knew that Condon was an egomaniac, but was also gullible. The conversation on the phone is important. The caller turns and says to someone, perhaps a mythical person, "he says he sometimes writes articles." I think that does indicate that the caller knew him by reputation, and that he is reassuring either himself or someone else. Or Condon is making that up, too (one can never discount the man's self-delusions), in order to establish credentials with the Lindbergh side. Either way, Condon has been tagged for the negotiations. If the kidnapper(s) had information on the inside, they would know about Rosner's activities, and bringing in Condon relieves the possibility that the mob might indeed join in the play. It was absolutely essential to get someone in as a mediator who could be "controlled." Rosner was a wild card, even if the two "stooges" Bitz and Spitale were little better than idiots. Owney Madden was a different story -- he might find out something. And he was dangerous. Besides BRH, then, who else might have been watching Condon?
He loved to brag he was the best known man-about-the-Bronx for all kinds of reasons, and he held court night after night in that restaurant. He was a perfect patsy.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 13, 2006 13:50:56 GMT -5
It would be interesting to consider how the payoff might have proceeded without Condon. I can understand some of the advantages of using him from Hauptmann's point, however there are also obvious disadvantages as well. For one , given the limited circulation of the Bronx Home News, the kidnappers location was essentially revealed. Hauptmann undoubtedly read the papers regarding the kidnapping and must have been aware of the total lack of confusion regarding the identity and locale of the kidnappers by the police. The second disadvantage is the introduction of a third party that could make the whole ransom process more difficult. Also if Hauptmann did indeed know Condon's reputation as a Bronx bonviant, wouldn't he fear recognition from him at some point? Actually, what puzzles me more than anything is Breckinridge's assumption that a third party was required here. Obviously Hauptmann was contacting him directly and therefore knew his relationship with Lindbergh, so why could Breckinridge not act as the intermediary? I can see Lindbergh acting irrationally in regard to his son's ransom, but Breckinridge is in a position to act more rationally.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 13, 2006 14:35:25 GMT -5
Not very smoothly I presume. After all it took an hour and 40 minutes for Condon to convince CJ/Fisch to go ahead with the blackmail.....Charlie sight unseen and dead. What if BRH had called up the phone number in his closet and Condon said "what ransom payment"? That would have gummed up the works in progress. Statto citti!
|
|
|
Post by dryan on Feb 13, 2006 14:41:35 GMT -5
Indeed, there are disadvantages to using Condon - just as you say. Why was he needed at all? Why not Breck alone? Well, if the kidnapper had inside information he would know that Breck seldom acted alone, he had his own agents who were often around him. He brought them in at the beginning of the case, but they seemed to have been dropped once Condon was there. He was a very sophisticated man -- much more so than Col. Lindbergh, or Condon -- and yet does not impose his will. That is curious. I don't think he tried to influence Lindbergh away from Condon. Breckinridge relates in a discussion about the time of BRH's arrest that there were other things Condon seemed to know besides the signature, and this may refer back to Michael's point that there is evidence from at least one source, Larimer, that Lindbergh did not entirely trust Condon.
What you say about the BHN is very relevant. But how much did Lindbergh tell the police about the letters? And Condon? It would not reveal the kidnapper(s)' s location if the information was not put out. As for revealing his identity, one must read Condon's constant repetition that CJ had promised him -- and him alone -- the privilege of putting the child's arms around its mother's neck. If he said he knew who he was, the immediate question would arise: "What, you knew, and you never told us before the ransom was paid? My God, what kind of person are you!" Note also that the only way Wilentz got Condon to identify Hauptmann was to threaten him not with prison, but with the loss of his standing with Lindbergh. Only one thing in the narrative did Condon object to -- the idea that BRH had his phone # and wrote it in a closet. That's too close for comfort. It suggests a closer relationship than Condon wished to acknowledge. His strange behavior on the bus in 1934, shouting out, "Stop, there goes the man." But then receding quickly into silence, "It was none of my business." There you have the man --- an almost pathetic lonely old man who was in so deep he could no longer reason a way out for himself.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 13, 2006 15:49:20 GMT -5
" Well, if the kidnapper had inside information he would know that Breck seldom acted alone, he had his own agents who were often around him. "
Well that requires a big assumption that there was an inside man. I know this board tends to lean that way but I think, in all honesty, that point can be argued from both points of view. For example, an "insider" would know that Lindbergh is keeping the police at bay. An "insider" would also know that the $70000 is available and at the drop off, so why accept only $50k? As for Breckinridge not acting alone, Condon also has hos "gang" so in using him that factor would seem moot.
"What you say about the BHN is very relevant. But how much did Lindbergh tell the police about the letters? And Condon? It would not reveal the kidnapper(s)' s location if the information was not put out. "
But we know all eyes were eventually on Jafsie. It would have been a fairly easy task to have trailed him to the meetings, so what was gained here?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 14, 2006 6:40:23 GMT -5
For example, an "insider" would know that Lindbergh is keeping the police at bay. An "insider" would also know that the $70000 is available and at the drop off, so why accept only $50k? (Kevin)
***Agreed. But to what degree is Lindbergh keeping anyone at bay? Does anyone, to include Lindbergh, believe he can control every Cop in the Country?
Lindbergh had Schwarzkopf 100% and he was supposed to be in charge of the joint efforts, however, Schwarzkopf was ignored on some occasions by Authorities outside of the NJSP. For example, when they left for the ransom drop off Lindbergh had to be extra careful he wasn't followed. In fact, they were followed - direct disobeyance of Lindbergh's orders. Unfortunately the Police who were following him broke down. Also, what about the Reporters? No one could control them.
As for accepting the $50K. In my opinion there could be several explanations. Someone could be telling them the extra $20K money would have been easily traced. Remember the Authorities were irate when Condon told them he saved Lindbergh $20K....That's when they really started to think he was "in on it."
Or, in the alternative, Walsh was right and that extra amount was for Condon. It's so very hard to say exactly what happened because, as Dryan points out above, we can't trust what he says.
We also have to wonder about how communication was passed to points of contact and exactly when something might have been passed along. Could information have been passed as easily and along the same lines as the information which was passed originally before the heist?
Condon at one point did tell the Police John conferred with other people in the Cemetery. Additionally, Condon was none too happy when Lindbergh told Reich he was replacing him. Condon kept talking about how, in essence, Lindy was armed and that it was a bad idea for him to go....
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 14, 2006 8:38:19 GMT -5
So are you saying that there was an insider at work? Why would anyone in their right mind want to become involved with Condon? He is the ultimate "loose canon". Not trying to be a heretic here, I am just trying to understand the mechanics of this very critical point when the "third party" enters the scene. Offhand it seems to be such an unnecessary and potentially dangerous move for all involved. I was reading up on some notable kidnappings prior to the Lindbergh case to find a precedent for this action. It seems that typically a "snatch" occurs, ransom is demanded, and a ransom exchange takes place without the need for any third entity. At what point in the Lindbergh kidnapping did the need for a third party or intermediary become evident and who was the primary proponent?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Feb 14, 2006 10:05:56 GMT -5
I agree Kevin, that bringing in Condon to act as intermediary for a staged kidnapping would have been suicidal to the success of such a scheme. Much the same for Lindbergh immediately calling the police when the ransom letter declared he must deal with the kidnappers in strict privacy. If it had have been staged, Lindbergh would have been well aware of the ransom letter content.
The decision to bring in Condon was made over a week after the abduction, at a point in the proceedings where things for some reason or other, had stalled. Lindbergh and Breckinridge had already entertained Mickey Rosner's offering and their belief in an underworld connection had gone cold.
In my opinion, had this crime occurred the way it was intended, and the baby quickly and safely returned for the ransom, I very much doubt the world would have ever heard of John Condon, or the mixed bag of con artists, publicity seekers and their ilk. The unexpected death of the baby was the ultimate fly in the ointment for the kidnappers and together with the publicized appointment of mob members, no doubt have caused them enough concern to lie relatively low for the time.
In suddenly finding the services of a go-between who literally dropped into their laps, far more palatable to their revised plan, they were now in a position to avoid directly dealing with Lindbergh or heaven forbid, the mob. The kidnappers mistakenly believed that Condon represented the kind of potentially non-confrontational buffer from whom they would secure the money while giving nothing in return.
Joe
|
|
|
Post by Elyssa on Feb 14, 2006 10:19:58 GMT -5
Does anyone have record of the weather in Hopewell from March 1 to May 12 ? I've tried to find it on the internet and haven't been able to. I'd love to see a weather time line for that area and time period. If someone has this information and would post it I'd be grateful.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 14, 2006 10:57:00 GMT -5
I think to get an accurate fix on the weather in the Hopewell are durring that period the best bet would be the archives of local papers such as the Hunterdon Democrat , Hopewell News and Trenton Times. Weather patterns in that area can be quite localized.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 14, 2006 21:25:41 GMT -5
I am running behind and want to add comment on all the new posts but it doesn't look like I have time right now. I did want to quickly tell Elyssa that I believe Rab did research this. Hopefully he will read this thread and post what he found out, or you might want to register and utilize the "private message" feature available to all Members and send him one with your question.
I have a copy of James Walsh's report on this matter. He was one of the Investigators who worked for Fawcett. Walsh claimed to have checked up on all of the weather reports for the 72 days from the abduction to discovery of his body. He said the average temperature for March was 37 degrees, for April was 49 degrees, and for May 55 degrees. He adds that 20 days in April never broke above the 30's, and reminds the reader that the body had been found partly buried and in a shady section under brush and trees and points out the temperature would be even a few degrees lower in that spot as a result.
Now Walsh's contention is this corpse was far too decomposed under the circumstances. I will try to list some of his points made within his report (not word for word unless quoted)....
1. External conditions affect the decomposition which are air, moisture, and temperature. Air modifies putrefaction according to the amount of moisture it contains.
2. The temperature most favorable to the process of steady decomposition is 70 degrees. He says it is arrested at 32 where most microorganisms are killed. He claims the lower the temperature is below 70 the slower the decomposition until "it gets to 50 degrees where the decomposition slows down and ceases altogether at 32."
Walsh mentions 50 degrees as the bench-mark for "active" decomposition and 70 as the bench-mark for "steady" decomposition.
3. Body found terribly decomposed and it was "impossible" for it to be in this state of decay if subjected to the weather as indicated.
4. Walsh concludes this corpse was in an area of intense heat for most of the time he was missing or that he had been dead much longer minus this intense heat.
I don't know what his qualifications are other then a Private Investigator although I can tell he is consulting Experts for advice and opinions. For example, he contacts Fischer's Laboratories in Chicago concerning the child's unclosed fontanel and they told him this should have been closed much earlier...etc. However, no source is listed for the above information.
Remember, this is coming from Walsh and not me so I suppose this can be easily checked by emailing and asking a forensic pathologist for their advice concerning what he has written.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 14, 2006 21:37:45 GMT -5
Interesting, now we have two divergent points of view. One that the body was too well preseved to have been at Mt Rose from the start. The other that the body was far too decomposed to have been there from the beginning. ?? Maybe I will just stick with the wood evidence.
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 14, 2006 23:50:55 GMT -5
To Kevkon Yeah I heard that woodpecker markings have proven more reliable.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 15, 2006 8:59:00 GMT -5
Yes Rita, probably much more so than some of the other birds that seem to flock to this case.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 15, 2006 12:36:43 GMT -5
I dont see any conflict in Walshes findings, in fact it is quite simple to interpret:
1. The advanced decomposition of the body could NOT occur outside on Mt. Rose Hill between the dates of 1 March- 12 May 1932. It was too colde. 2. Thus, the body was not dumped there on the nite of the alleged kidnapping--but days or weeks later. 3. Thus, with the brain all soupy and stuff the body must have been kept elsewhere in a warm or hot place until after payment of the ransom money. 4. Maybe this helps explain the nature of the blackened skeleton? And the coal dust on the burlap? 5. It does not fully explain where the body was kept or why. 6. But it does raise the possibility of Charlie living for some period after the snatch? That would immediately confound all the Wilintz's halfbaked theories. 7. It does not account for the refusal of Dr. Van Ingen to confirm Charlies identity? He would have been the Gold Standard of ids since he had just seen him in February? 8. Van Ingen said Charlie had " a square head and mild rickets"?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 15, 2006 13:44:37 GMT -5
I thought you felt the body was less decomposed than it should have been had it been there all the time. How does Walsh's theory raise the possibility of the baby living for some time after the kidnapping if Walsh believes the decay indicates a longer period of death? Why, if this body was in such an advanced state of decay , was there no indication of such on the bag? Would you not expect that bag, by your own assertion, to be soiled with the remnents of a decomposed body. And what about the odor?
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 15, 2006 14:27:30 GMT -5
Kevkon....apparently you are totally confused about this whole issue? What you thought I felt bears no relevance to the issue. Right from the get-go I actually thought the body was too decomposed to have spent the 72 days in the colde and dark of Mt. Rose Hill. In order to be in this advanced state of decomposition, "not possible on Mt Rose Hill outside", then it must have been INSIDE near some source of heat....maybe 70F and above. Since that "is NOT out side in the colde" maybe Charlie was still alive for a while prior to exposure to death and high temperatures--which would result in more rapid decomposition. Burlap is a clothe fibre, it doesnt know what the temp is and the body could have been placed "in the bag" anytime later for disposal, even the last day it was dumped on Princeton-hopewell Road.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 15, 2006 14:54:41 GMT -5
Well it's pretty easy to become confused when people are flip-flopping around. So you believe that this decomposing body would leave no trace in the bag? I thought you found that unbelievable several posts ago? And what exactly is the point to all this body shuffling? Let me guess, the mob wants to send a message to the Boy Scouts. Is this the official anti-VD'rs method of discovery, start with the answer and make the circumstances fit?
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 15, 2006 15:09:19 GMT -5
I dont see any conflict in Walshes findings, in fact it is quite simple to interpret:
1. The advanced decomposition of the body could NOT occur outside on Mt. Rose Hill between the dates of 1 March- 12 May 1932. It was too colde. 2. Thus, the body was not dumped there on the nite of the alleged kidnapping--but days or weeks later. 3. Thus, with the brain all soupy and stuff the body must have been kept elsewhere in a warm or hot place until after payment of the ransom money. 4. Maybe this helps explain the nature of the blackened skeleton? And the coal dust on the burlap? 5. It does not fully explain where the body was kept or why. 6. But it does raise the possibility of Charlie living for some period after the snatch? That would immediately confound all the Wilintz's halfbaked theories. 7. It does not account for the refusal of Dr. Van Ingen to confirm Charlies identity? He would have been the Gold Standard of ids since he had just seen him in February? 8. Van Ingen said Charlie had " a square head and mild rickets"?
to obfuscate \OB-fuh-skayt\, transitive verb; obfuscation: 1. To darken or render indistinct or dim. 2. To make obscure or difficult to understand or make sense of. 3. To confuse or bewilder.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 15, 2006 15:23:27 GMT -5
to obfuscate \OB-fuh-skayt\, transitive verb; obfuscation: 1. To darken or render indistinct or dim. 2. To make obscure or difficult to understand or make sense of. 3. To confuse or bewilder.
So that is your agenda? I would personally prefer to find the "truth" whatever it may be, if that's possible.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 15, 2006 17:49:24 GMT -5
I can't seem to find his post but I believe Joe said there was no evidence of insects infestation. If he did then I will have to disagree. In the morgue there was a terrible odor coming from the corpse. Also, I have seen reports mentioning maggots, and I've seen some that said they didn't see any Dr. Edel found, upon examination of the clothing, insect infestion. However, he claimed upon his next examination they had disappeared. Not sure what kind of insects...I could double-check if interested.
Anyway, I have in the past emailed some forensic pathologists about this but no one responded. Maybe if we continue to bark up this tree someone will throw an acorn down at us....
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 15, 2006 18:00:50 GMT -5
That would undoubtably be the best solution to this mystery. You never know there might be evidence long overlooked such as the photos that might reveal something to someone trained in this field. We might also get an education regarding the various factors which determine the extent of de-composition which could help to at least narrow down the possibilities.
|
|
|
Post by kathy on Feb 15, 2006 20:07:07 GMT -5
Ellis Parker said the body could not have decomposed in the time in that area. He was local and living there during that time. Maggots are flies and flies aren't around in the middle of winter and early spring. THe body would have been found if it had been placed there the night of the crime. Hundreds of people were out looking including boy scouts. It probably would have been found even if it had been buried!
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Feb 15, 2006 21:43:34 GMT -5
Michael, I just wanted to clarify something from a previous post. My comment about the lack of insect infestation, related to my belief the body may have been kept somewhere else prior to being dumped in Mt. Rose, perhaps even "on ice" in a closed container for a period. As far as insects on the body at the grave site, I agree there would have been plenty, and I'm sure it's stated in a few reports. I don't agree with the opinions that the body was far too decomposed. Here is a website reference for the time lapse decomposion of a pig, (relatively same rate as human) albeit at t temperature conditions. Not for the squeamish. www.deathonline.net/decomposition/decomposition/index.htmJoe
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on Feb 15, 2006 21:51:09 GMT -5
Regarding the possibility of the body being kept "on ice," I've just got a hunch about this because of what I interpret as the meaning behind one of Hauptmann's memo book diagrams. It's the one that I think is sometimes referred to as the "window" diagram. (upright rectangle, divided into 2 sections, with another diagram above it)
Michael, if you have this one on file, can you place it in the link section?
I've posted on this before and my belief it's the design for an icebox. The larger of the two diagrams is the icebox facing the viewer with a top compartment for ice, the larger bottom compartment for contents. The other diagram is the side view of the upper shelf holding the ice.
May be right off base here and may have nothing to do with the kidnapping, but I throw it out as a possibility and would love to hear any other thoughts on what it might be.
Joe
|
|
|
Post by gary on Feb 15, 2006 23:36:29 GMT -5
Joe this would not make sense. Why would Hauptmann want to put the baby on ice?
|
|