|
Post by Michael on Feb 23, 2006 21:59:19 GMT -5
Kathy,
I am beginning to think I need to withold this stuff until I have it in front of me. I recently saw this reference (just this past weekend) and can't seem to locate it at the moment. When I come across it again I will definitely post it. It really was just as I posted above and your post simply made me think of it.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 25, 2006 3:07:48 GMT -5
In trying to assemble all the disjointed pieces of this puzzle it seems we often end up with a staged kidnapping followed by a staged extortion? Condon was the Master of Misdirection and Stalling for Time. There was no urgency on the part of CAL/JFC/BRK in spite of Breckenridge's plea to Mary Cerrita that we cant wait one week for an answer from the kidnappers? Essentially, Mary agrees and an answer is posted to Breckenbridges Office the next day? March 7th or 8th? At this juncture Charlie is still assumed alive. As for Condon, well, eventually every person in the Bronx becomes CJ? Tall ones, short ones, fat ones, olde ones? How convenient...the first person arrested becomes Cemetary John? Maybe CJ was Condon, John all along? Its quite clear that C,J? does not have Charlie at all ever. Its a bluff, like in poker or bridge.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 25, 2006 7:59:00 GMT -5
Then why does Condon give away 30% of the ransom? Why is the child's body moved and found minus certain clothing? How does the nursery note match all the others? And why is Condon not more eager to id BRH if he is the designated "fall guy". You know a lot of attorneys would have served up Condon on a silver plate under cross examination.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Feb 25, 2006 10:22:01 GMT -5
In this case, I think Condon got so wrapped up in his role as intermediary, he just failed to recognize the significance of not handing over the extra $20,000 and that the $50 gold certificates would be easier to spot in circulation. His first duty seems unequivocally to have been in serving Lindbergh any way he felt he could.
Condon's reaction at being told he had potentially compromised the mission to me, seems consistent with total omission on his part. Irey later admitted the $50's would probably have been the last bills for the kidnappers to try and pass anyways, so their significance in not being handed over may be nil.
All of this does represent a potentially major turn of events, specifically if "Number 1" was not pleased by CJ accepting much less than the agreed upon amount. How would he have known CJ didn't just pocket the extra $20,000, without Condon giving him a note explaining the reduction?
The St. Raymond discounting exercise does seem to reveal there was no "number 1," not by April 2 at least. At the same time, it doesn't preclude the possibility there were others originally involved, who decided to step out of the plan because things got too hot to handle.
Joe
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 25, 2006 11:39:27 GMT -5
Joe do you have a source for this concerning Irey? I don't recall ever seeing this before.
I disagree with you assessment concerning Condon. What was his reason for lying and making things up?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 25, 2006 14:44:54 GMT -5
"I disagree with you assessment concerning Condon. What was his reason for lying and making things up?"
NOW THAT'S A TALL ORDER!!!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 25, 2006 18:41:15 GMT -5
Exactly my point. I think Joe makes a mistake trying to simplify things here.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Feb 25, 2006 19:36:36 GMT -5
The main point I was making here was that Condon seems to have tried to do Lindbergh a favour here. I see no indication of him holding back the $50 notes as part of some ulterior motive. What part of his account make you suspect otherwise, if that is the case?
As for Irey's observations, I believe this comes from his memoirs but I can't be positive. I don't know if these were ever published.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 25, 2006 21:53:25 GMT -5
Of course you could be right Joe but what I am saying is there is an abundance of proof that Condon was, multiple times, being anything but truthful - therefore - I am wondering why we should afford him a free pass here?
As far as Irey....if you happened to come across it - I am curious. If not don't worry about it.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Feb 26, 2006 8:51:54 GMT -5
I don't think it's a matter of a free pass here. Condon seemed almost eager to demonstrate to the others how he had saved Lindbergh $20,000. He seems genuinely pleased with himself and his decision, although I do question such a sudden departure from the previous plans to follow the kidnappers' demand inplicitly. It's as though Condon was continually playing devil's advocate, in good faith, and in order to continually improve his status in the eyes of Lindbergh and Breckinridge.
What do you mean by "What was his reason for lying and making things up" as it applies to this situation?
In any case, Lindbergh himself could have immediately vetoed Condon's incentive, when he returned to the car to get the money. Would you therefore view Lindbergh's actions with equal suspicion, or was he momentarily taken aback by the negotiated lower amount, and allow Condon to proceed?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 26, 2006 9:53:21 GMT -5
Of course he would try to present it as if he had done something good.... If that wasn't his intension what would you have him do? Motives dictate actions, and we have to decide if they were good or if they were bad. In his case there seem to be too many untruths for me to assume that he is acting like a normal person should.
Yes I do view CAL's actions with suspicion as well. He should have been alarmed by this move for more then one reason.
|
|
|
Post by kanneedwards on Feb 26, 2006 10:01:31 GMT -5
I wondered about Lindbergh allowing condon to go ahead with leaving the $50 bills, too, especially when he (CAL) had been super careful about following directions. On one hand he might have thought the kidnappers would become suspious about the bills if they were pressed upon them and question condon's honesty. on the other hand it seems there was time to switch bills in the car while wsiting CJ's note. in that case i would questions lindbergh's motives. he ws reluctant to use the marked bills from the beginning. what it comes down to is that there would have been no arrest and no case without those marked bills. I quess we can blame all this on Irey if he was the one who insisted on the bills.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Feb 26, 2006 10:36:55 GMT -5
Michael, what are the untruths by Condon relating to this situation, that you refer to? Do you eliminate the possibility that Condon was trying to help Lindbergh and look better in his eyes? His reaction back at the Morrow townhouse are consistent with one who suddenly realized they had possibly compromised the mission. I just don't see much to suggest anything deeper than a major tactical omission on his part.
Kathy, I agree this move by Lindbergh in allowing the reduction seems out of place in his previous and following actions to deal with the kidnappers in good faith. I don't believe though he did this with the intention of "cutting his losses" within some perceived framework of collusion. I believe there would have been too much tension in the air that night to guarantee an unbroken chain of totally predictable human actions and reactions.
|
|
|
Post by Condon knows Fisch on Feb 26, 2006 12:43:41 GMT -5
There is some fascinating reading on Pages 170-171 of Gardner about John Condon!!
Right after Condon "fails to ID Bruno at the police station" he starts babbling about Fisch to a police detective. The gist of his comments are that Fisch was part of the kidnap gang of 4 and it included one woman? Wow--Condon knows way too much about Fisch? How can this be? Good stuff/
rick
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 26, 2006 14:48:15 GMT -5
My two cents worth. I still think that to get anywhere with this case you must pull back from it and look at it with a certain distance. Sort of like learning to walk before you run. Maybe that is the mechanic in me speaking, who knows? When you do this and look at the whole ransom situation you can't but help asking why? Why is there so much needless communication involved here? Why does a third party need to be involved? Why would any kidnapper in his right mind willingly meet face to face with an opposing number? You plan and execute a successful kidnapping, make your demands known and designate a drop off site. So whats with all of this extra nonsense? Lindbergh was prepared to pay and Lindbergh did pay sight unseen. He certainly would have had the money dropped off wherever the kidnappers demanded.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 26, 2006 20:33:18 GMT -5
I am following what you are saying Kevin. Still, we really don't know what contact occured. All we know is what Reich, Condon and Lindbergh said.
Minus Condon what do we really know?
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 26, 2006 22:34:09 GMT -5
I think everone has come to same conclusion, that both kidnap scene and cemetary scene look like staged events, but we still don't know for what purpose. In each case there still can be several reasons that can cover different reasons and outcomes for the elaborate circumstances, and this is questionable in itself, as who but govenments have planners able to produce a case where every lead goes ten different directions.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 27, 2006 6:00:43 GMT -5
I'm not sure I can go so far as to say "stagged" but I am willing to say that things just didn't go down exactly the way everyone "accepts" they did.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 27, 2006 7:45:55 GMT -5
Well what purpose did the meetings serve? Would you, as a kidnapper, want a personal meeting with a local resident? Why not stick to the plan as defined in note #9 ( "put it in a sertain place") ? The notes have specified an amount, ($70k), a"packet" with dimensions (14"x6"x7") and conditions, (money with child unseen). So what is the necessity that brings a third party (Condon and his group) into this deal and now requires two personal meetings to occur? What has occurred that causes this kidnap/extortion caper to change tracks like this?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Feb 27, 2006 9:14:36 GMT -5
I don't think we can minimize the impact of Lindbergh having reached out to organized crime in the immediate aftermath of the kidnapping. I'm sure this would have been very unsettling for anyone who had taken part in this kidnapping, knowing or at least perceiving that someone could easily "get to you."
If the baby had died close to the night of the kidnapping, even by accident, might this unexpected underworld inolvement also have been a deciding factor for some of the real group to opt out and choose to forfeit any future ransom share?
The injection of Condon into the mix, came at a time when Lindbergh and Breckinridge were becoming of the opinion there was nothing to be gained, aside from empty promises, by probing the underworld. The kidnappers had previously stated no intermediates and Condon's appearance on the scene, someone whose veracity they could easily confirm seems to have been for them, the most pleasant pill to swallow. I have to believe if the baby was dead or close to it by this time, they would also have been averse to dealing with or facing Lindbergh directly.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 27, 2006 9:54:01 GMT -5
I can see your point Joe, but I can't get over the "hump" of meeting face to face with Condon. Had CJ hidden himself behid a tombstone or talked through the fence I might see it. But how insane is it to sit and have a chat with him face to face. Especially when you consider the very real likelyhood of running into one another at some point later.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Feb 27, 2006 9:59:13 GMT -5
Kevin, your point remains a good one, ie. why wouldn't the kidnappers just stay with their original request to put the money in a"sertain place." One thought that comes to mind, in light of the underworld connection and selection of Condon as intermediary, is that possibly now there was increased decision making autonomy on the part of the those who remained in the group, ie. "This is how it's now going to be done."
We know CJ was a suspicious and calculating individual but most definitely, a risk taker. Perhaps he also believed Condon represented an opportunity to deal in "good faith" without fear of reprisal or being set up. His continued sense of trust and daring, even after the scare imposed by the appearance of the cemetery guard at Woodlawn, tells me he CJ would not be dissuaded in his mission towards a very rich payout.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Feb 27, 2006 11:22:07 GMT -5
Perhaps Joe, but would it also not be reasonable to expect that the kidnappers knew something about Condon? Even if their knowlege of him at the time was limited, afterwards when he became a public figure they would surely know for example of his City Island connection as well as his vow to bring the kidnappers to justice. Yet Hauptmann and freinds frequent the very locations Condon does.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 27, 2006 11:56:26 GMT -5
I agree with you....even with a live baby no kidnapper "in his right mind" is going to get within grappling distance of Condon, as even if he is olde he is huge. Gaston Means claimed the ransom was thrown over the fence to CJ? The entire production is just taking too long for some as yet unexplained reason. Everything possible extends the time out to 30 days until even the kidnappers run out of patience. My first thought is that JFC/CJ is a smokescreen to look for Charlie elsewhere but all the dates dont jibe. Why would CAL be buying time? Because of some other threat issued earlier, or some other lead to follow? The number of notes FROM the gang is also excessive...like they have forever to waite? I all appears "staged"?
|
|
|
Post by kathy for joe on Feb 27, 2006 12:31:42 GMT -5
In your last post you say that CJ was "suspcious and calculating" and then that he is "trusting and daring" those seem to contadict one another If he was suspcious why sit face-to-face with Condon? that would have implied trust not suspicion if he. calculating I would think he would be careful and cautious not daring.. If he knew of condon locally he must have been an idiot to trust such a flake. Maybe he sat doown with JFC simly because they knew each other!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 27, 2006 17:30:54 GMT -5
I think Inspector Walsh was right.....That is, they had to bring in someone else and that someone else was Condon.
|
|
|
Post by kathy for michael on Feb 27, 2006 18:30:26 GMT -5
To what degree was Condon incolved?
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 27, 2006 20:03:16 GMT -5
"Involved in what" is the big question. For my 2 cents it means involved in a coverup of the Truth. Why, primarily because all this fooling around ultimately ends in failure. The sleeping suite does not prove ownership at all...hardly the lowest form of ID? The ransom is only $50K so its a perfect match for the lowest bid. Essentially Condon adds drama and theater presumably to distance CAl from all but the final event. Does CAL have another more important duty while JFC toys with the extortion gang. "mony is ready" and "mony is ready"? And Condon wanted to meet with the gang a third time but they balked? Why did CAl need a 30 day hiatus before coughing up the $50K for a blackend skeleton? What was going on for 30 days that prevented a direct transfer of funds to the "gang" in one week or less? In fact the money was ready in 4-5 days? All that comes to my mind is Charlie in hospital? Or hidden by Al Capone?
|
|
|
Post by rita on Feb 28, 2006 2:41:45 GMT -5
It seems there are five routes for CAL Jr's dissapearance, an un-believable kidnapping, a threat that necessitates hideing the child, an accident that causes permanent institutional care, a defect the causes permanent institutional care, or CAL Jr. having a large trust fund which someone felt they could better spend.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Feb 28, 2006 22:57:21 GMT -5
To answer Kathy's question I personally feel Condon was known to at least one person involved here and he was doing everything he could to confuse the situation and protect these people. In the end it was either Hauptmann or Condon. And Condon chose Hauptmann....
But he tried not to didn't he?
|
|