|
Post by aaron on May 7, 2019 5:44:30 GMT -5
Thank you for your analysis and response to my earlier post. I just checked Henry Ellerson's statement to the police on March 11, 1932. He does claim that he was 28 at that time, and I did not see any reason to doubt his claim. So there is a discrepancy of three years, and that is curious. I'll have to have time to think about this one.
My intention was to suggest that one of the kidnapping gang members followed events in the boxing world. He read or was made aware of John Condon's letter published in the Bronx newspaper and recommended that the gang choose Condon as their go-between. Now I have no real evidence for what follows, but it occurred to me that once Condon had agreed to act as intermediary, he became aware that he knew or had ties to one of the gang members. This would place him in an awkward position though he might not have immediately recognized it. For reasons of personal loyalty he could not reveal everything he knew. He may have felt himself justified by believing that this person played only a minor role in the kidnapping or that he had been duped or used by the gang, that he was in a sense also a victim. So once again Condon would save a child from drowning, only on a larger stage. This was not his original motive. He did want to place the stolen child back into his mother's arms, but the dynamics of the gang members became obvious to him only after he agreed to act as their intermediary. So he protected one gang member to save him from a terrible fate, one undeserved, or so he thought. This meant that some details had to be omitted from his story, other details had to be emphasized, and other details had to be "created." Successful liars know that they must follow two principles: one, that they should lie only when they need to; and second, that their story has to be consistent. Condon's trouble was that, while he knew many of the kidnapping details, he did not know all of them. As a result, as new evidence was uncovered , he had to alter his stories or invent new ones. The inconsistencies trouble us, and we seek an explanation looking for answers in a disordered personality or advancing senility. Condon was walking a tightrope because he was protecting someone, did not want to cause harm to other members of the gang, and needed to protect himself. The problem for us is that we are aware of the discrepancies in Condon's stories and do not know which to believe. The answer is, of course, that we cannot fully believe in any of them. I did not start out with this theory in mind, by the way, so was not looking for information to prove anything at all. In my research, however, I have found a number of details (like the boxing interests of Charles Eilersen) that have been overlooked (really). There are others I could point to, but this discussion board is concerned with John Condon, so the other details I have found may not be appropriate for this board. if you are interested though, please let me know. I have no pet theory to advocate.
Thank you very much.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 7, 2019 10:27:32 GMT -5
The different boards are designed to "try" to keep things together in a certain way but it doesn't always work out. Honestly its impossible to keep things in perfect order at all times so please feel free to continue your discussion here. Frank Eilerson: imgur.com/cO8IkZ4
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2019 22:10:15 GMT -5
My intention was to suggest that one of the kidnapping gang members followed events in the boxing world. He read or was made aware of John Condon's letter published in the Bronx newspaper and recommended that the gang choose Condon as their go-between. I think your suggestion that one of the kidnap gang followed the boxing world is a feasible one as a link to Condon. Cemetery John did tell Condon that one of the gang would be recognizable to him. Have you ever considered the possibility that Condon was selected to be their go-between before Condon ever put his letter into the Bronx Home News? Remember, Ransom note #2 tells us that the gang plans to take in another person. I am not inclined to think that the kidnappers were waiting around hoping for someone to put a letter in a newspaper offering to help them. Condon was anything but consistent with many of his stories as we all know! Condon's actions, as set forth by you, seem extreme when they are done for this one gang member unless that member was family related to Condon or Condon is actually protecting himself by protecting the gang. Condon is a major player in the Lindbergh case and so he is discussed heavily. However, this board is a great place to share your research and theories. I am really glad that you shared your Charles Eilersen research. I had not yet looked into Henry Ellersen's family history but because you shared what you did, I am now interested in finding out more. I am very interested in whatever research you have to share, both with me and the other board members. Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on May 7, 2019 22:19:51 GMT -5
In the first note (nursery note), I think the kidnappers thought that there would be a rather quick (2-4 days) exchange of child for money. I believe the kidnappers thought that Lindbergh would open the nursery note upon finding it and then comply with the instruction not to involve the police. As we all know, Lindbergh did not open the note right away and proceeded to bring in the police. When you read note #2 (March 4th), you clearly see the plan change when the kidnappers say they will hold the baby longer and they will have to bring another person in to help them. Because they must add this other person, the ransom amount is raised from $50,000 to $70,000. Enter Dr. John F. Condon. So you think there was a real intention for the child to be returned by the kidnappers?
|
|
|
Post by aaron on May 8, 2019 5:28:31 GMT -5
The kidnappers probably had made some arrangement to have the child cared for in the short time they had anticipated, perhaps a few days. The extra person mentioned was very likely intended to be another nurse to look after the child since the time had lengthened. The child had died, of course, but the longer time period gives the gang an excuse to increase the ransom amount.
You had inquired about the Eilersen family. Charles Henry Eilersen had three children with his wife, Catherine Bird Eilersen whom he married in 1899. Their first child was a daughter, Anna, born in 1900. She passed away in 1918, perhaps from the flu. The second daughter was named Edna Louise who worked for the railroad company as a clerk until she married. She had a son born about 1924 and then separated from her husband. She was also living with her widowed mother following her separation from her husband. Son Charles Henry Ellerson used the name Henry and changed the spelling of the last name. In his statement to the police he names his former employers. He was unemployed for about a year and received unemployment compensation for the year previous to his being hired by the Morrows as a gardener.
While he does claim that he liked to work outdoors, he does not list any experience as a gardener previous to his hiring by the Morrows. A few months later he was assigned the job as second chauffeur, and he indicates on his statement that he had worked as a chauffeur at one time, among other occupations. He and his wife Helen (who was Polish) lived with Catherine, his widowed mother in Norwood. He paid his mother rent for the rooms. Henry and Helen had a two-year old daughter at that time. Catherine worked as a manager for a woman's clothing store (or woman's hat store) in Englewood. Henry was a drinker and a gambler, known to be spending time in speakeasies. One well-known speakeasy at the time (the Sha-toe) was located in Fort Lee. Henry stated that he was hired by the Morrows in 1931 probably in early June.
That's all for now, but there is more which I will try to send in a day or two.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2019 7:46:37 GMT -5
So you think there was a real intention for the child to be returned by the kidnappers? No, I do not. I think the kidnappers wanted the extra $50,000 before they would complete the agreed upon dump of the body to be found.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on May 8, 2019 10:10:58 GMT -5
in a newspaper article I have al reichs wife was a school teacher she was complaining in the papers about how she was harrassed
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2019 12:47:01 GMT -5
in a newspaper article I have al reichs wife was a school teacher she was complaining in the papers about how she was harrassed Is this what your post is referring to? This article appeared in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle on January 14, 1935 which was during the Hauptmann Trial!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2019 13:01:09 GMT -5
The second daughter was named Edna Louise who worked for the railroad company as a clerk until she married. She had a son born about 1924 and then separated from her husband. I saw that Catherine was living with her daughter and son-in-law in Norwood NJ according to the 1930 census. Catherine was the manager of a Milliner Store. It seems that several Eilersens came to live in Norwood. The letter Michael posted about Frank Eilersen was interesting. I did a quick check on Frank and it appears he was the brother of Charles Henry Eilersen Senior, which would make Frank, Henry Ellerson's Uncle. I am looking forward to it!
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on May 8, 2019 14:33:54 GMT -5
I was just a bit curious about the location of Norwood, NJ, having never heard of it. It happens to be only about 3-4 miles north of Englewood, about a mile west of the Hudson River. So it is just about in the northeast corner of the state and is not close to Highfields.
Another observation: Henry Ellerson was one of the relatively few Morrow servants who were American born.
And speaking of the Morrows, there was a student brawl at Dwight Morrow HS in Englewood last week. No deaths, but apparently some injuries.
|
|
|
Post by Margjkw on May 8, 2019 16:33:20 GMT -5
Here is the picture Isidorsch with Anna Hauptmann and two members of the Eilersen family. imgur.com/GQk8Aww
|
|
|
Post by Margjkw on May 8, 2019 16:34:01 GMT -5
The picture for kidnapping
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on May 8, 2019 16:51:55 GMT -5
What you have there is two different pictures with different people in each. I don't know who can identify all the people in each.
You definitely don't show in any way that either Fisch or Mrs. Hauptmann had any connection to the Eilersen family. Furthermore, Fish and the Hauptmanns, as German immigrants, socialized almost exclusively with other German immigrants. They wouldn't generally bother with Danes, who spoke a different language and had a different culture.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on May 8, 2019 17:26:00 GMT -5
Catherine Eilersen was not Danish. She was born in England. Thanks to the guest who posted the pictures! The Eilersen family is shown in the upper picture which can be found on Ancestry.com. Daughter Edna is next to her mother. The woman sitting on Isidor's right resembles Catherine with Edna on Isidor's left. The Hauptmanns had taken a trip to California for three months, returning on Oct. 3. Their vacation corresponds almost exactly with the Lindbergh's trip to the Orient. The car does not seem to be Hauptmann's, however. It looks more like a Ford than a Dodge. There is a man inside the car, but he does not appear to be Henry Ellerson. The owner of Mancke's Deli stated that he Henry Ellerson, Violet Sharp, and Isidor Fisch together several time in his deli in New Rochelle N.Y. Actually he was introduced to Fisch by name, or so he said, so this is not the first time that anyone pointed out the association.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on May 9, 2019 0:34:20 GMT -5
So you think there was a real intention for the child to be returned by the kidnappers? No, I do not. I think the kidnappers wanted the extra $50,000 before they would complete the agreed upon dump of the body to be found. This makes more sense.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on May 9, 2019 5:14:02 GMT -5
The kidnappers requested an additional $20,000 (not $50,000). They probably increased the amount because they were annoyed with the delay in getting the money and wanted to let the Lindberghs know that with every delay the price would go up.
Henry Ellerson was chauffeur to the Morrows who lived in Englewood, not to the Lindberghs who were moving to their new house in Hopewell. Henry did drive members of the family from Englewood to Hopewell several times though. The trip at that time would have taken nearly two hours.
In his statement to the police, Henry said that he and his wife were living with his mother in Norwood and that he paid her rent, so one would assume that the house was hers whether by ownership or rent. Edna divorced her husband at some point. She was living with her mother in Norwood. There was at least one attempt to effect reconciliation, but they did divorce after that.
'Millinery" refers to women's hats.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,652
|
Post by Joe on May 9, 2019 7:01:52 GMT -5
The kidnappers requested an additional $20,000 (not $50,000). They probably increased the amount because they were annoyed with the delay in getting the money and wanted to let the Lindberghs know that with every delay the price would go up. Henry Ellerson was chauffeur to the Morrows who lived in Englewood, not to the Lindberghs who were moving to their new house in Hopewell. Henry did drive members of the family from Englewood to Hopewell several times though. The trip at that time would have taken nearly two hours. In his statement to the police, Henry said that he and his wife were living with his mother in Norwood and that he paid her rent, so one would assume that the house was hers whether by ownership or rent. Edna divorced her husband at some point. She was living with her mother in Norwood. There was at least one attempt to effect reconciliation, but they did divorce after that. 'Millinery" refers to women's hats.
Great research and posts Aaron, and I don't just say that because I agree with most of what you've opined. I also believe the kidnappers may have made temporary arrangements for what I would call a quick "snatch and return" of the child, whether dead or alive, but that things got complicated when Lindbergh called the police in. An oversight on the part of the kidnappers for not putting clear instructions on the envelope of the ransom note. And yes, the extra $20,000 for delays and perhaps a little angst on the part of whoever decided on the initial amount of $50,000, now believing they may have lowballed themselves in light of newspaper reports of higher amounts being demanded. I believe Condon had nothing to do with the added $20,000 other than being the one to push for pulling it from the eventual ransom payment.
About Charles Ellerson, have you discovered any personal connection between him and Duane (Bacon) Baker, superintendent of the Plymouth Apartments at 537 West 149th St., until he skipped his duties with the mid-April 1932 rent receipts? Both were reported to have worked for the Armour Meat Packing Company, albeit a few years apart. I say that a bit hesitantly, as some reports conclude that and others don't. I believe though that both Ellerson and Baker made statement references to their previous employment there. Anyway, I look forward to your reply.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on May 9, 2019 9:48:05 GMT -5
Thank you for your posts. In his statement to the police, Charles Henry Ellerson did not make any reference to employment at the Armour Meat Packing Company. The company researched its records and found no evidence that either Ellerson or Duane (Baker) Bacon had been employed by the company. Bacon was thoroughly investigated. At one time he had been superintendent of the Plymouth Apartments which had been once the residence and J. and J. Faulkner, mother and daughter both named Jane. So your post suggests another avenue to be investigated. Both Henry Ellerson and Duane Bacon were gamblers and heavy drinkers. I will check to see what I have on this idea, develop a time-line for Henry Ellerson's employment and get back to you on this one.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on May 9, 2019 11:59:36 GMT -5
In his statement to the police on March 11, 1932, Charles Henry Ellerson lists his employment history. He was born and lived 20 years in Jersey City, n.J. He first worked as a bookkeeper for the Bergen National Bank for 1 and 1/2 years. Then he worked for Graydon Battery Service for 2 weeks. He worked for the New York Telephone Company on Walker St. in New York for 3 years. During this time his father died (1924) and then he moved to Norwood N.J. Then he worked for 2 years for Edward Levy in building and contracting. Levy's business was located on Livingston St. in Norwood. The Henry worked as a chauffeur for William H. Irving in Leonia N.J.. for 1 and 1/2 years. He was then unemployed for one year, after which he was hired bythe Morrows in Englewood about one year before the kidnapping. (He was first hied as a gardener before becoming the chauffeur.) The total number of years he worked adds up to nine, ignoring the two weeks at the Battery Service). I am not counting the year of unemployment. So if he was 28 in March of 1932, he would have begun to work at age of 18. If he was really 25, then he would have started to work at age 15. He is not consistent with his place of residence. At one point he states that he was living in Englewood, but in another he states that he, his wife, and two-year old daughter were living with his mother in Norwood. She owns the house, he reports, and he pays her rent. He does not state anywhere that he worked for the Armour Meat Packaging Company.
That's all so far. I will work on Duane (Baker) Bacon next, but his investigation is very lengthy, so it may take a while.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on May 10, 2019 2:00:27 GMT -5
The kidnappers requested an additional $20,000 (not $50,000). They probably increased the amount because they were annoyed with the delay in getting the money and wanted to let the Lindberghs know that with every delay the price would go up. The extra $20k was probably because they brought Condon on, nothing more.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on May 10, 2019 9:57:51 GMT -5
I think mine mentions she was a school teacher but the same story
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on May 10, 2019 10:01:52 GMT -5
hi joe, I don't why people waste there time with duane baker I have all the fbi files on him they cleared him
|
|
|
Post by Michael on May 10, 2019 10:20:35 GMT -5
hi joe, I don't why people waste there time with duane baker I have all the fbi files on him they cleared him It's a mistake not to look into everything despite what other sources may or may not conclude. First and foremost because certain information can be found in relation to the investigations into Baker at the Archives that may not be found anywhere else. The FBI investigated him but so did NJ and NY. Also, Baker's investigations "cross-over" in the Faulkner investigations. Furthermore, if I had a dollar for every investigation I've read where someone was "cleared" only to find a later report which contradicts that exoneration I'd be a wealthy man. And so my biggest complaint against those who claim to know certain things is definitely this. Cutting corners in places where it looks reasonable to do so in order to save time has led to many mistakes throughout history concerning what really happened here. Of course in the absence of anything else one must look at and consider what they actually do have but if there's a lot of material out there and one does not possess it - that doesn't somehow mean it does not exist. So yes, the FBI Summary, Waller, and Trial Transcripts are a good place to start - but to stop there and declare FULL knowledge about any subject is just plain silly.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on May 10, 2019 12:50:32 GMT -5
The FBI also produced a report on Henry Ellersen. It claims that Ellerseon did work for the Armour Meat company after he left work at the Bergen National Bank. This may have been on omission on Henry's part, or it may have been an error on the part of the FBI. Henry at this point was linked to Duane Baker Bacon in the report according to Bacon's own testimony. However the New York Armour office officially denied that Bacon's name did not appear on their list of employees ever, and employees were asked if they knew or remembered him. No one did. Friends of Ellerson are mentioned here. They were not the friends who were identified as visitors to Bacon's four-room apartment when he was superintendent at the Plymouth apartments. Visitors there played cards, shot crap, or rolled dice there. Frank Eilersen appears on the FBI report; Elizabeth was his wife, but she is mistakenly identified as Henry's mother. One interesting comment on the FBI report concerning Henry: he was a "frequenter" of a speakeasy (name not given) in Fort Lee--a speakeasy operated by a well-known sports promoter and a member on the State Boxing Commission.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on May 10, 2019 14:06:05 GMT -5
Clarification needed for earlier post! Duane Baker Bacon said that he had been a driver for the Armour Meat co. He did not mention Henry Ellerson.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on May 10, 2019 16:19:30 GMT -5
Also, the New York office of the Armour Mean Co. denied that Baker Bacon had ever been employed by that company although he claimed that he worked for them as a driver
|
|
|
Post by aaron on May 10, 2019 17:44:04 GMT -5
The FBI reports says that Charles Henry Ellerson was said to be a "frequenter" of a speakeasy in Fort Lee which was operated by
(a name if given, but it is garbled), a well-known sports promoter which is on the State Boxing Commission. This could be the Sha-toe speakeasy, but again we have a boxing connection to the kidnapping. Also CJ tole Condon that the leader of the gang was a "high-ranking government employee." Condon and Al Reich would certainly know this individual.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on May 11, 2019 9:02:06 GMT -5
The FBI reports says that Charles Henry Ellerson was said to be a "frequenter" of a speakeasy in Fort Lee which was operated by (a name if given, but it is garbled), a well-known sports promoter which is on the State Boxing Commission. This could be the Sha-toe speakeasy, but again we have a boxing connection to the kidnapping. Also CJ tole Condon that the leader of the gang was a "high-ranking government employee." Condon and Al Reich would certainly know this individual. When you mention boxing and speakeasies in the same breath during this era, you have to think about organized crime again, because organized crime in some fashion or another was heavily influential in both areas. Yes, I know that Al Capone was seemingly the "good guy" with respect to the Lindbergh case, but even he didn't know about everything going on in the underworld all around the country. In my reading and discussions about the LKC, I've come to think that John F. Condon very possibly had mob connections of some sort or another. There are his love of boxing, his use of Al Reich as a personal bodyguard (why would Condon need a bodyguard, even well before the LKC took place?), and his personal wealth seemingly well beyond what one might expect of a teacher/principal/college professor. Then you have the mob-style beating of Jacob Nosovitsky c. 1938 (reported in a newspaper) at the time when Noso was suing Condon for defamation. After that, Noso dropped his case.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on May 11, 2019 11:06:27 GMT -5
I do have some problems about the story of the Novo involvement. First, Dwight Morrow was a multimillionaire, and he would not have regarded a $50,000 debt as any great sum. He could have forked over that amount easily, so there must have been some problem between Novo and Dwight---if the story is true. Second, Dwight Morrow died in October of 1931, so Novo would have been taking his revenge on a dead man who was not around to suffer. Third, if he hired two men from New Jersey to help him with the "snatch," then he would need to share the ransom money with them, so he would not have received the whole $50,000 anyway. Men in prison tend to do a lot of bragging to gain some attention from the other inmates.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on May 11, 2019 15:32:06 GMT -5
I do have some problems about the story of the Novo involvement. First, Dwight Morrow was a multimillionaire, and he would not have regarded a $50,000 debt as any great sum. He could have forked over that amount easily, so there must have been some problem between Novo and Dwight---if the story is true. Second, Dwight Morrow died in October of 1931, so Novo would have been taking his revenge on a dead man who was not around to suffer. Third, if he hired two men from New Jersey to help him with the "snatch," then he would need to share the ransom money with them, so he would not have received the whole $50,000 anyway. Men in prison tend to do a lot of bragging to gain some attention from the other inmates. Speaking of Nosovitsky, that guy was one hell of a character. Wouldn't be surprised if he was "J. J. Faulkner," "Cemetery John," or both. I wasn't trying to get to the substance of Noso's suit against Condon, just pointing out that Nosovitsky suffering a beat-down at the time that suit was pending could very be indicative of Condon's mob connections. BTW, since you are obviously a good researcher, maybe you or someone else on these boards could find the date and place of Nosovitsky's death. Seems as if we last found him about 1940 living in Los Angeles at about age 50.
|
|