|
Post by trojanusc on Jun 11, 2019 4:08:59 GMT -5
When Henry Ellerson left his job with the New York Telephone Company, he was not planning to use the reference for a specific purpose ten years later. Since he lived in New Jersey, he would not have been issued a New York phone directory, and he would have wanted the information in order to call individuals or businesses in N.Y. Since he had worked for the telephone company for three years in the wiring department, he would have known a good deal about the neighborhoods through the orders to repair or add telephone wires in Manhattan. It's possible that he was aware of the Plymouth apartments and was acquainted with some of the residents. There had to be a link between the Morrow/Lindbergh staff with the kidnapping gang. Someone on the inside gave out information concerning the whereabouts and activities of the Lindbergh family not only the week of the kidnapping but very likely had been doing so for some time. Twice there was a communication from the kidnappers that the plan had been worked on for about a year. At some point certain members of the staff were recruited by at least one member of the kidnapping gang with promises of rewards for participation. So the question arises how and by whom was this accomplished? In Michael's book on The Dark Side of the Lindbergh Kidnapping (Vol. II) there appears a sketch of one of the kidnapping gang as described by John Condon. It does not bear much resemblance to the sketch later depicted and usually intended to identify Richard Hauptmann. I inquired the NJSP archivist about the sketch that appeared in Michael's book. He indicated that this sketch is authentic. Yes, I know that Condon is not always consistent in his stories and details, but if we take a look at the motorcycle pictures in Violet Sharp's diary/scrapbook, we find that the "unidentified man" seated on the motorcycle behind Violet bears a striking resemblance to the Berryman sketch. The photo is not the best in focus, but I asked for and received clearer photos. Interesting that Violet did not choose to have the films developed in this country, but sent them to England to be developed, so there was some secrecy evidently needed in her judgment. There is a second woman in the pictures. She is "presumed to be Violet's sister," but she does not really resemble Edna/Emily Sharp. The second woman does resemble Betty Gow. A picture of Betty Gow appears on page 66 of Mark Falzini's book 'Their Fifteen Minutes" which would have been taken about ten months later, and the resemblance is clear even to the dress which has a v-neck but with a rounded collar. Two motorcycle photos can be found on another Lindbergh kidnapping board; they are listed under "Violet Sharp." The "unidentified man" in the motorcycle photo and the man in the Berryman sketch look very much like Henry Ellerson. I obtained a photo of Ellerson in which he is a few years older but found resemblance in the hairline and facial features. The motorcycle pictures would have had to be taken in late spring or early summer of 1931. Ellerson said that was the time of his employment with the Morrow family. He was hired as a gardener though he did not list any previous experience with gardening in his statement to the police and did not remain in that position; he was working as the second chauffeur at the time of the kidnapping. He had been unemployed for about a year previous to his employment with the Morrows, not surprising given the economic times. He had lived in Englewood at one time, but at the time of the kidnapping he, his wife, and two year old daughter were living in his mother's house in Norwood. It is entirely possible that Henry Ellerson is the connection between the kidnapping gang and the Morrow household and that recruiting key members of the staff was his assignment as the gang began to plan the snatch one year in advance. Henry would not have been the leader of the gang. He would have had the opportunity to make a phone call at the drug store where he and Betty Gow stopped before leaving Englewood on the day of the kidnapping. His activities after he left Hopewell at about 3 p.m. are not well documented. He shows up at a speakeasy about 8 p.m. and so has an alibi beginning at that time, but he had a few hours to make some connections and complete other assignments. Not so sure the connection is between the staff. Seems more likely, given who was likely coordinating this whole affair, that the connection to the kidnappers came via a third party Lindbergh was working with.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2019 8:02:21 GMT -5
Yes, I know that Condon is not always consistent in his stories and details, but if we take a look at the motorcycle pictures in Violet Sharp's diary/scrapbook, we find that the "unidentified man" seated on the motorcycle behind Violet bears a striking resemblance to the Berryman sketch. The photo is not the best in focus, but I asked for and received clearer photos. Interesting that Violet did not choose to have the films developed in this country, but sent them to England to be developed, so there was some secrecy evidently needed in her judgment. There is a second woman in the pictures. She is "presumed to be Violet's sister," but she does not really resemble Edna/Emily Sharp. The second woman does resemble Betty Gow. A picture of Betty Gow appears on page 66 of Mark Falzini's book 'Their Fifteen Minutes" which would have been taken about ten months later, and the resemblance is clear even to the dress which has a v-neck but with a rounded collar. Two motorcycle photos can be found on another Lindbergh kidnapping board; they are listed under "Violet Sharp." Have you considered that the reason Violet's motorcycle pictures were developed in England is because the photos were taken in England before she came to America? The license number on the motorcycle plate is an English one. The bike was in England. I have looked at these pictures at the archives. Here is a link to the two Violet photos mentioned so others can see them. They are from Ronelle Delmont's web site on the Lindbergh case. www.lindberghkidnappinghoax.com/sharpe.htmlHere is one of the pictures of Henry Ellerson from the NJSP archives. This was taken at the Highfield House in 1932. imgur.com/wjOpxs7The theory you have woven is an interesting one for sure. I am not as certain as you seem to be that the kidnap connection is Henry Ellerson. I still believe that the use of the JJ Faulkner name is an important connection in this crime - not an accidental one.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 11, 2019 8:09:53 GMT -5
I am not aware if Henry Ellerson's handwriting was checked against anything. This is something that Michael may be able to comment on for you. I'm not aware of his handwriting being compared with the J. J. Faulkner slip either. I suspect it was but there's no documentation at the Archives that would back me up on it. I do know that T.J. Cooney asked Handwriting Expert Cassidy about Ellerson's handwriting as it concerned the Ransom Note(s) in 1933. I assume it was based on the posters and flyers of that handwriting. Cassidy told Cooney (at that time) Ellerson " could" have written them but he was inclined to believe maybe a relative or "Scandinavian" connection wrote them. (I mention Cooney in V1 at Footnotes 249, 268, and 365 AND V2 at Footnotes 38, and 1076 - he's also footnoted in V3 once).
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Nov 20, 2019 17:20:37 GMT -5
Hello once more: Henry Ellerson, the Morrow chauffeur, stated that he had a wife and two year old daughter. He and his family lived with his mother, Catherine Eilersen, in Norwood N.J. "Helen" was the name of Henry's wife. Does anyone know if she had any nicknames?
Thanks much, Aaron
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Nov 20, 2019 17:53:54 GMT -5
Hello once more: Henry Ellerson, the Morrow chauffeur, stated that he had a wife and two year old daughter. He and his family lived with his mother, Catherine Eilersen, in Norwood N.J. "Helen" was the name of Henry's wife. Does anyone know if she had any nicknames? Thanks much, Aaron I should add that in his statement Henry gave his address as Summit St. in Norwood but he later stated that he was living in Englewood Cliffs with his wife and daughter. There is no explanation for the discrepancy re: his place of residence. My interest regarded Henry's wife's nickname, not his address. Thanks, Aaron
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Nov 21, 2019 10:00:49 GMT -5
By way of explanation, the question is serious--not facetious. After the ransom was paid, the kidnapper wrote a note stating that the child was attended by two women, both innocent, on board a boat named "Nelly." Lindbergh searched for the boat but could not find one with that name. The little boy was 20 months old. The kidnappers may have thought that they would be taking care of him for only a few days. During that time he could be dressed (disguised) as a little girl. The two women had most likely were real persons and had already been engaged..
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Nov 21, 2019 10:27:10 GMT -5
By way of explanation, the question is serious--not facetious. After the ransom was paid, the kidnapper wrote a note stating that the child was attended by two women, both innocent, on board a boat named "Nelly." Lindbergh searched for the boat but could not find one with that name. The little boy was 20 months old. The kidnappers may have thought that they would be taking care of him for only a few days. During that time he could be dressed (disguised) as a little girl. The two women had most likely were real persons and had already been engaged.. So what would be the connection of Henry Ellerson to the "Boad Nelly" note? Are there any known Henry Ellerson handwriting specimens to compare to the ransom notes?
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Nov 21, 2019 17:15:32 GMT -5
No. Henry Ellerson's handwriting does not resemble that found on the ransom notes.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Nov 22, 2019 9:59:35 GMT -5
The only factor that would make Ellerson a possible suspect in the LKC was his knowledge of the layout at Highfields, which could possibly have been transmitted to the actual kidnapper(s). But there is nothing more specific to implicate him in the baby's disappearance. So why the interest in Ellerson?
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Nov 23, 2019 10:03:11 GMT -5
Thank you for your observations. I'lll try to navigate this post properly. The kidnapping crime could hardly have been accomplished by one person. Several individuals must have participated, each selected for his/her skills, position, and knowledge. One member knew, or knew of, John Condon. The members would be given assignments accordingly. Here are a few examples:
1. If Hauptmann was involved in the kidnapping, someone had to send him the message to put his ladders in his auto and drive to Hopewell that day. He had no phone, however. So a call was made to someone who knew how to contact him, someone who had access to a phone at work or worked out of his/her home. Hauptmann would then need to check with that individual on a daily basis, probably about noon-time or 1 p.m. most likely about lunch time since he would need to go home, put the ladders in the car and drive from the Bronx to Englewood. The car was seen there about 5 p.m. So who could have transmitted the message to Hauptmann?
2. If the car seen near the Lindbergh home was Hauptmann's, then someone would have obtained a New Jersey license plate. This would have been done before the date and then lent to Hauptmann for this occasion. Who could have done this easily?
3. The supposed location of the child was given in a note written in about ten minutes at the cemetery at the time the ransom money was handed over. In the note reference is made to Gay Head, Elizabeth Island, and Martha's Vineyard. Someone knew of these sites and knew boats were harbored there. This information was familiar to him--or he carried a map of Massachusetts around with him. Who would have this information?
4. Who would leave a window open in a baby's bedroom on a cold March night with a strong wind blowing? No other windows were open in the house, so one could infer there was no circulation problem. The open window might well be a signal--the baby is asleep, the coast is clear, OK to proceed.
One ransom note implies that there was a kidnapping gang. After the blabbermouthed one met with John Condon, the next note wrote that "we will permit our man. . ." The members of the group must have seethed in the darkness as they listened to "Cemetery John" give out information, just as happened during the phone call from "Westchester" (New Rochelle?) when the caller was actually responding to questions Condon was asking.
All members of the gang may not have known one another before the planning of the kidnapping. Some may well have been deliberately recruited, and they may have been differently motivated. This is a real crime, however, and not an Agatha Christie novel. There must be real answers to the many unanswered questions, and with the historical distance now, searching for clues becomes more and more difficult.
(I'll try to find the right buttons for this post but am not sure about which they are."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2019 11:09:34 GMT -5
Thank you for your observations. I'lll try to navigate this post properly. 1. If Hauptmann was involved in the kidnapping, someone had to send him the message to put his ladders in his auto and drive to Hopewell that day. He had no phone, however. So a call was made to someone who knew how to contact him, someone who had access to a phone at work or worked out of his/her home. This is an important point when considering Hauptmann as a single perpetrator. If CAL and Anne are to be believed, the decision to stay overnight on Tuesday, March 1, 1932 wasn't made until that morning. Hauptmann wasn't even home Tuesday morning. He dropped Anna at the bakery, put his car in the garage and headed to the Majestic apartments by train because he thought he was going to start working that day. He didn't. Did Hauptmann actually head home and find a note tucked in his garage door to summon him and the ladder to Hopewell that night? Was he ever really in Hopewell that night? My personal belief is that the Boad Nelly note was written before the St. Raymond's cemetery meeting. Agree that someone was familiar with that area or its significance. This area has personal implications for CAL and Anne. CAL flew the 28 foot Spirit of St. Louis up this coastline on his Paris flight in 1927. CAL and Anne also sailed through this area on their honeymoon in 1929. According to statements, leaving a window open was part of the bedtime routine! The crib was shielded by the folding screen but still... Charlie was supposed to be sick. Too sick to travel back to Englewood to sleep in his warm nursery at Next Day Hill. I, personally find this whole scenario questionable. Blabbermouth! You got that right. He has a lot in common with Condon who talked and talked and talked... You are just fine. When I logged on I could see where the new posts were that I had not read yet. I am sure it is the same for everyone who logs in.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Nov 23, 2019 17:25:57 GMT -5
Thank you for your comments! Regarding the conversation between John Condon and Cemetery John (whom I called Blabbermouth), the scene is hysterically funny, or would be if the crime had not been so horrible. It reminds one of the Drunken Porter scene in Shakespeare's "Macbeth" which follows the murder of the king. With the exception perhaps of "Number One" (who might well be a professional criminal), the members appear to be amateurs or common criminal types. They should have been caught and probably would have been except for the bungled investigations.
I have concentrated on clues that might lead to their identities, not on hard evidence that would convict them in a formal court. Cemetery John said that the gang consisted of four men and two women, which might be true, given the simplicity of his mind. A professional criminal knows when and how to lie. It is no wonder the other members of the gang were upset after this conversation. The note actually read "We will Not permit our man. . ." so there was unhappiness with this exchange on their side, so perhaps too much real information was provided.
The sites mentioned in the ransom note given to Condon are identified as Martha's Vineyard, Elizabeth Island, and Gay Head. So the writer knew these places. They are real enough, but Boat Nelly is fictional. Why would anyone call a fictional boat "Nelly"? Perhaps a man who would call a real boat "Nelly" if he owned one.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Nov 23, 2019 19:21:02 GMT -5
Thank you for your comments! Regarding the conversation between John Condon and Cemetery John (whom I called Blabbermouth), the scene is hysterically funny, or would be if the crime had not been so horrible. It reminds one of the Drunken Porter scene in Shakespeare's "Macbeth" which follows the murder of the king. With the exception perhaps of "Number One" (who might well be a professional criminal), the members appear to be amateurs or common criminal types. They should have been caught and probably would have been except for the bungled investigations. I have concentrated on clues that might lead to their identities, not on hard evidence that would convict them in a formal court. Cemetery John said that the gang consisted of four men and two women, which might be true, given the simplicity of his mind. A professional criminal knows when and how to lie. It is no wonder the other members of the gang were upset after this conversation. The note actually read "We will Not permit our man. . ." so there was unhappiness with this exchange on their side, so perhaps too much real information was provided. The sites mentioned in the ransom note given to Condon are identified as Martha's Vineyard, Elizabeth Island, and Gay Head. So the writer knew these places. They are real enough, but Boat Nelly is fictional. Why would anyone call a fictional boat "Nelly"? Perhaps a man who would call a real boat "Nelly" if he owned one. I'm not sure "blabbermouth" fits Condon. He spoke a lot but I think what he did was much more sinister. He just lied, a lot and would sprinkle in some facts, along with information he gleaned from police to give things a credible aura. Calling him blabbermouth kind of excuses it and makes him sound like a careless old man. He might have been old, but I think there was a more nefarious angle to him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2019 8:09:11 GMT -5
Thank you for your comments! Regarding the conversation between John Condon and Cemetery John (whom I called Blabbermouth), the scene is hysterically funny, or would be if the crime had not been so horrible. I realized you were talking about CJ being a blabbermouth and that it put him in hot water with the other kidnappers involved with this crime. However, I think it shows the level of trust that existed as far as Condon went so CJ thought he could talk freely with Condon about the crime, even bringing up the death of the child. He knows that Condon was brought in as a person who could be trusted. Still, he did say too much. Condon hung in there, though, didn't he. It was Condon who had the obligation to keep the identities of those involved protected. He is brought into this extortion because they could trust him to do what he promised, not ever say who they were and get them the money. He fulfilled his obligation to them. CJ mentioned the child being dead and then backtracked on it. So, yes, I can see the others being upset about that. Condon was brought into this thinking he was going to get to return a living child to the Lindberghs in exchange for protecting the perps and getting them the money. Condon stayed true to his promise to them anyway. There was no Nelly boat to be found. I have my own theory as to why the name "Nelly" was used in the note. I don't think it had anything to do with a boat. The extortioners could not hand over a dead Charlie but had to provide Condon with something in return for the money. So the note was created for that purpose. There was no Charlie to be found on the waters of Martha's Vineyard or Buzzard's Bay.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2019 8:28:01 GMT -5
I'm not sure "blabbermouth" fits Condon. He spoke a lot but I think what he did was much more sinister. He just lied, a lot and would sprinkle in some facts, along with information he gleaned from police to give things a credible aura. Calling him blabbermouth kind of excuses it and makes him sound like a careless old man. He might have been old, but I think there was a more nefarious angle to him. I agree that Condon's actions through this whole negotiating process were not on the level. Condon was brought into this crime by design and not by that Bronx Home News letter he wrote. I believe he was approached earlier and that letter is a result of his commitment to help them. Condon did talk a lot. A bit of it during the negotiation process and tons more after the ransom payment was made. He was a master at mixing some truth with lies and used this well in keeping the waters muddied (while protecting himself) and not really helping the investigators (Condon is all they had as a source) at all during the two years following the crime. Nothing he did or said helped to apprehend anyone. He was a great self-promoter and used his involvement to do just that. I don't see Condon's actions as careless or those of an old man who has no clue what he is doing. He had a role and he stuck to it and then selfishly used it to promote himself in the public eye. "Jafsie" was his alter-ego, even using it when he would sign autographs!
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Nov 24, 2019 10:24:58 GMT -5
Thank you again for your helpful comments. Your characterization of Condon seems very accurate. A member of the gang must have known him or knew of his reputation. So he spoke with CJ, but CJ was not likely the head of the kidnappers. CJ was their chosen communicator and may have written the ransom notes at another's dictation. It was a poor choice; he does not seem to be very bright but understands what the consequences of the child's death could be for him. Condon seems to have a narcissistic personality, envisioning himself a hero and welcoming excessive attention because of his perception of himself. When he did not get the attention he first intended (placing the child in his mother's arms), he contrived to get it in another way. Perhaps he feared harm to himself if he exposed CJ or others connected to the crime. He probably had some knowledge of whom he was dealing with. They knew him, so it's likely he had some idea of who they were.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Nov 24, 2019 10:48:16 GMT -5
John Condon initially said that he did not recognize B.R.H. in the police line but was willing to identify him at his trial in court. Perhaps the gang was willing to sacrifice Hauptmann in the face of the evidence and the public feelings against him. It was not very smart of him to handle the ransom money in the way he did. The gang may have told Condon that it was OK to identify B.R.H. as long as he did did not implicate anyone else. I am obviously just speculating here, but it is one explanation that agrees with your previous comments.
The name "Nelly" or "Nellie" must have meant something to the kidnappers. Would you be willing to share your ideas about the selection of this name for the fictitious boat?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Nov 24, 2019 17:13:20 GMT -5
IIRC, Michael stated in "The Dark Corners" that there was a ship named "Nelly" not too far from the area described in the ransom note. This "Nelly" was significantly larger than the "Boad Nelly" described in the ransom note an turned out to be in port on April 3, 1932, when CAL Sr., Condon, et al searched the area using the last ransom note to guide them. This "Nelly" was later subject to an investigation by federal law enforcement and nothing suspicious about it or its crew or cargo was found.
So perhaps the ransom note writer knew of this real ship called "Nelly" and used that name in the note for the fictitious infamous "Boad Nelly." to deceive Lindbergh et al.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2019 17:23:39 GMT -5
Thank you again for your helpful comments. Your characterization of Condon seems very accurate. Thank you so much for saying this! This very well could have been a concern for him. I believe he said somewhere (not recalling where at the moment) that his life wouldn't be worth a nickel if he talked. Condon said he believed "John" had been killed already. So why does he testify against Hauptmann at the trial if this is true? From an October 24, 1933 newspaper: imgur.com/dQKVoz0 Perfectly said!! Ultimately, for Condon, it was always about the fame and attention he would get by participating in this extortion. All the rescues of drowning boys, all the parades he marched in, etc. wouldn't give him what his heart desired most - world fame. When that opportunity came knocking at his door in 1932, he welcomed it. There are many, many news stories about Condon from the time his identity became known in April 1932 right through the trial of Hauptmann. I am going to post just two articles that reveal how "Jafsie" made sure he promoted himself for public consumption. The first one from January 10, 1935. Please note the article says "another". He did this more than once. Condon took great pleasure basking in his fame. imgur.com/PJCvdVIThis next article is truly classic as it reveals the magnitude of how this man viewed himself. This appeared in newspapers on January 15, 1935. imgur.com/o1pq28A
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2019 17:46:19 GMT -5
The name "Nelly" or "Nellie" must have meant something to the kidnappers. Would you be willing to share your ideas about the selection of this name for the fictitious boat? It has to do with the way I view the Boad Nelly note. It was the last note of the negotiations and was supposed to be the most valuable. I see that note as being more revealing about what the author/writer knew about CAL's life: The name Nelly/Nellie - When the U.S. Government began awarding Contract Air Mail routes in 1925 Robertson Aircraft Corporation won the CAM-2, Chicago to St. Louis run. They readied 5 mail planes for this run. Lindbergh was taken on as the chief pilot for this contract. Lindbergh was given the task of selecting the two pilots who would be sharing the route with him. Lindbergh chose two of his friends from his days with the Amy Air Service. He chose Philip R. "Red" Love and he also chose Thomas P. "Nellie" Nelson. That is just my own theory for the name Nelly appearing in that note. Joe, who also posts on this board has a good theory revolving around Nellie Bly being the source for the use of Nelly. Certainly worth consideration. I think the finding of Charlie's corpse proves he was never on a boat named Nelly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2019 17:51:59 GMT -5
Michael stated in "The Dark Corners" that there was a ship named "Nelly" not too far from the area described in the ransom note. This "Nelly" was significantly larger than the "Boad Nelly" described in the ransom note an turned out to be in port on April 3, 1932, when CAL Sr., Condon, et al searched the area using the last ransom note to guide them. This "Nelly" was later subject to an investigation by federal law enforcement and nothing suspicious about it or its crew or cargo was found. So perhaps the ransom note writer know of this real ship called "Nelly" and used that name in the note for the fictitious infamous "Boad Nelly." to deceive Lindbergh et al. Michael's research is excellent and I think he provides another possibility for the source of the name Nelly. I do believe that the boat mentioned in the ransom note, however, is not real.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Nov 25, 2019 8:16:27 GMT -5
Amy's information regarding the name "Nelly" is very interesting! The Thomas P. Nelson mentioned died December 29, 1929, in a plane crash near Chagrin Falls, Ohio, while delivering mail in bad weather. Lindbergh was one of those who actively searched for the wreckage of the plane and Nelson's body. So there could be a parallel here: Lindbergh will now search for a boat, not a plane, but the missing baby in a sense has joined Nelson (Nellie) in death.
The Havilland DH-4 Nelson flew was about 30 feet long. In the ransom note, the "Boad Nellie" was said to be 28 feet long, sizes approximate. The mail planes had been used as fighter planes by the U.K. in World War I.
The writer (or dictator) of the ransom notes followed the events in Lindbergh's life closely, mentioning Gay Head, Martha's Vineyard, Elizabeth Islands, so the kidnapper knew the area and Lindbergh's experiences with these sites. If "Nellie" is Thomas P. Nelson, then the kidnapper also was following Lindbergh's career following his solo flight, perhaps obsessively.
This possible scenario goes far beyond any desire for ransom. Perhaps someone envied Lindbergh's successes and popularity and contrived to "get him" where he would be most vulnerable. If this is true, the the kidnapper had a very sick mind indeed.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Nov 25, 2019 10:09:31 GMT -5
Amy's information regarding the name "Nelly" is very interesting! The Thomas P. Nelson mentioned died December 29, 1929, in a plane crash near Chagrin Falls, Ohio, while delivering mail in bad weather. Lindbergh was one of those who actively searched for the wreckage of the plane and Nelson's body. So there could be a parallel here: Lindbergh will now search for a boat, not a plane, but the missing baby in a sense has joined Nelson (Nellie) in death. The Havilland DH-4 Nelson flew was about 30 feet long. In the ransom note, the "Boad Nellie" was said to be 28 feet long, sizes approximate. The mail planes had been used as fighter planes by the U.K. in World War I. The writer (or dictator) of the ransom notes followed the events in Lindbergh's life closely, mentioning Gay Head, Martha's Vineyard, Elizabeth Islands, so the kidnapper knew the area and Lindbergh's experiences with these sites. If "Nellie" is Thomas P. Nelson, then the kidnapper also was following Lindbergh's career following his solo flight, perhaps obsessively. This possible scenario goes far beyond any desire for ransom. Perhaps someone envied Lindbergh's successes and popularity and contrived to "get him" where he would be most vulnerable. If this is true, the the kidnapper had a very sick mind indeed. Very interesting facts and theory about the LKC, aaron. It should be noted, though, that many ordinary Americans became interested in aviation (mostly as a hobby of sorts) in the years following Lindbergh's historic flight on the "Spirit of St. Louis." It did not go unnoticed that Hauptmann himself was an amateur aviation buff and admired the exploits of the famous German WWI pilot "The Red Baron." Lindbergh, BTW, had spent time working as a private air mail delivery pilot in the years prior to his famous transatlantic flight, which (as an educated guess) is probably how he came to know Nelson. All kinds of air transport in the 1920s and early 1930s carried much higher risk of tragic death than many today appreciate.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 26, 2019 11:32:56 GMT -5
IIRC, Michael stated in "The Dark Corners" that there was a ship named "Nelly" not too far from the area described in the ransom note. This "Nelly" was significantly larger than the "Boad Nelly" described in the ransom note an turned out to be in port on April 3, 1932, when CAL Sr., Condon, et al searched the area using the last ransom note to guide them. This "Nelly" was later subject to an investigation by federal law enforcement and nothing suspicious about it or its crew or cargo was found. So perhaps the ransom note writer knew of this real ship called "Nelly" and used that name in the note for the fictitious infamous "Boad Nelly." to deceive Lindbergh et al. That's the beauty of the case isn't it? Where we can pick a "subject" (just about any) and there will be many different thoughts, opinions, or theories. That's what is so great about this venue. We get the opportunity to come to one place to share and consider just about all of them. Joe, Amy, Aarron, and I all have different positions. One cannot consider something they've never heard about. It could be that someone reads through them and instead formulates something new as a result as well. In the end, we all benefit in some way. As to what I wrote ... I am convinced of my position presently, although it certainly doesn't make me "right." I just can't get over the fact that as Condon returned to the car with this note, just hours earlier there was a boat named "Nellie" known to have been " off Cuttyhunk Island East toward Woodshole or Vineyard Haven." The difference being this boat was 45 feet instead of 28. Of course the child wasn't on it but since we know he was never on any boat I don't believe it undermines my position any.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Nov 27, 2019 1:23:17 GMT -5
Perfectly said!! Ultimately, for Condon, it was always about the fame and attention he would get by participating in this extortion. All the rescues of drowning boys, all the parades he marched in, etc. wouldn't give him what his heart desired most - world fame. When that opportunity came knocking at his door in 1932, he welcomed it. $20k didn't hurt either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2019 9:24:37 GMT -5
Indeed!! An added incentive that should not be overlooked in this equation. Michael makes it clear in TDC Volume II Chapter Two, page 84, that Condon's financial picture was not solid at the time of the kidnapping. Some ransom money would have been tempting no doubt! Of course, Condon would not have wanted it to look that way. Things would start to back-fire on Condon for sure by 1936. He wanted to start a tour of engagements and was attacked about this with protests, newspaper stories and editorials. Rightly so! Condon would leave for Panama not long after this all blew up in his face. From the Reading Eagle, January 5, 1936: imgur.com/BxbvU4O
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Nov 27, 2019 9:41:00 GMT -5
Perfectly said!! Ultimately, for Condon, it was always about the fame and attention he would get by participating in this extortion. All the rescues of drowning boys, all the parades he marched in, etc. wouldn't give him what his heart desired most - world fame. When that opportunity came knocking at his door in 1932, he welcomed it. $20k didn't hurt either. I assume you're talking about the same $20,000 that Condon saved Lindbergh by bargaining in the cemetery with CJ, who then through his capitulation to Condon's request, basically demonstrated loud and clear here that he was the head guy pulling the strings? Am I missing something here as the facts present themselves or do I need to adopt one of the many alternate universe approaches this discussion board seems to commonly delight in?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 27, 2019 12:19:16 GMT -5
I assume you're talking about the same $20,000 that Condon saved Lindbergh by bargaining in the cemetery with CJ, who then through his capitulation to Condon's request, basically demonstrated loud and clear here that he was the head guy pulling the strings? Am I missing something here as the facts present themselves or do I need to adopt one of the many alternate universe approaches this discussion board seems to commonly delight in? The "head guy?" I must be missing something. I'd like to suggest to everyone that they attempt to look at this from a criminal's perspective. Since most people aren't criminals they have to do so by imagining what its like to be one but indulge me for a second. Let's look at the facts:
1. The child was taken from Highfields and a Ransom Note was left behind.2. The child died on or about the night he disappeared. 3. There's a group of two or more trying to collect 70K. 4. This group does not want to get caught. 5. This group does significant planning/preparation concerning the ransom drop. So put yourself in their shoes. Who do you bring in to help facilitate? Someone working for whom exactly? Someone who you can't trust? Someone who will squeal? Someone who's reputation among neighbors, mailmen, and the casual observers is "Windy Jack," a "faker," and "gas bag" by constantly blowing smoke, and has a past concerning sexual abuse of one or more small children OR a "Patriot" who loves Lindbergh? So if one wants to give Condon a pass here they absolutely have to give it to the criminals as well. How many passes must be given for this "idea" that Condon was legit to occur? Too many.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Nov 27, 2019 13:32:03 GMT -5
I assume you're talking about the same $20,000 that Condon saved Lindbergh by bargaining in the cemetery with CJ, who then through his capitulation to Condon's request, basically demonstrated loud and clear here that he was the head guy pulling the strings? Am I missing something here as the facts present themselves or do I need to adopt one of the many alternate universe approaches this discussion board seems to commonly delight in? The "head guy?" I must be missing something. I'd like to suggest to everyone that they attempt to look at this from a criminal's perspective. Since most people aren't criminals they have to do so by imagining what its like to be one but indulge me for a second. Let's look at the facts:
1. The child was taken from Highfields and a Ransom Note was left behind.2. The child died on or about the night he disappeared. 3. There's a group of two or more trying to collect 70K. 4. This group does not want to get caught. 5. This group does significant planning/preparation concerning the ransom drop. So put yourself in their shoes. Who do you bring in to help facilitate? Someone working for whom exactly? Someone who you can't trust? Someone who will squeal? Someone who's reputation among neighbors, mailmen, and the casual observers is "Windy Jack," a "faker," and "gas bag" by constantly blowing smoke, and has a past concerning sexual abuse of one or more small children OR a "Patriot" who loves Lindbergh? So if one wants to give Condon a pass here they absolutely have to give it to the criminals as well. How many passes must be given for this "idea" that Condon was legit to occur? Too many.
Believing as you do all of the above Michael, or at least speculating that all of the above is fact, why is it so difficult to show a clear criminal connection between somebody we know was intimately involved, ie. Richard Hauptmann, and the guy who has become your poster boy for All-American Lindbergh-idolizing patriots gone astray, ie. John Condon? Before you hold up that worn-out card with my picture on it and placing it in the pile of those you believe have some kind of ridiculous emotional attachment to this case's participants, and seeing as you're jumping in here for damage control, why not first try addressing the point of my post, which basically boils down to this: Your brilliant kidnapper-confederate Condon suddenly doesn't look so brilliant by saving Lindbergh the 20G's does he, especially if you actually believe that amount was intended for him when the "group" raised the ransom amount from 50K to 70K? Could it be perhaps, that Condon actually had no prior or criminally intended connection with the kidnapper(s)/extortionist(s)?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 30, 2019 10:38:30 GMT -5
Believing as you do all of the above Michael, or at least speculating that all of the above is fact, why is it so difficult to show a clear criminal connection between somebody we know was intimately involved, ie. Richard Hauptmann, and the guy who has become your poster boy for All-American Lindbergh-idolizing patriots gone astray, ie. John Condon?
So which is it Joe? Am I "speculating" or do the facts contained within the source documentation back me up? If not, which is incorrect, and what sources do you rely on to counter my position? Are you really going to argue those involved actually wanted to be captured? Or is it Condon's denial about his "indiscretions" that you consider reliable? For example, he could not remember Samuelsohn built the ransom box, or that it was not made from the different wood he claimed it was, but his memory was pinpoint accurate once confronted by Inspector Walsh about the accusation against him? Or what about the Needle Salesman? As I detailed in V2, which I proved via the FBI reports, Condon not only originally told Special Agent Seykora that he was present, he gave a detailed account to include a description of the man. This was in March of '34. So he's recalling this event which occurred only two years prior. But then in April of '34, only a month later, he's telling Special Agents Sisk and O’Leary that he wasn't even home when the Needle Salesman came to the house. And yet - this is the man with whom you throw your full weight and support? Do you seriously expect me or anyone else to believe he was an honest person? Next, are you injecting Hauptmann as a means of distraction? If not, I'm certainly not against any discussion which directly involves anything about him. By all means start another thread and I'll join in when I can.
Before you hold up that worn-out card with my picture on it and placing it in the pile of those you believe have some kind of ridiculous emotional attachment to this case's participants, and seeing as you're jumping in here for damage control, why not first try addressing the point of my post, which basically boils down to this: Your brilliant kidnapper-confederate Condon suddenly doesn't look so brilliant by saving Lindbergh the 20G's does he, especially if you actually believe that amount was intended for him when the "group" raised the ransom amount from 50K to 70K? Could it be perhaps, that Condon actually had no prior or criminally intended connection with the kidnapper(s)/extortionist(s)? You are overstating. There is no "pile" so far as I can tell, and from my perspective you are the only one who qualifies. As far as "damage control" I'm not sure what you are referring to. I was merely posting my thoughts. Concerning the extra $20K that matter was addressed in my book. If you think that act makes him look innocent in any way, there's really nothing I can say that will ever change your mind.
Condon was protecting and insulating the Ransom Collectors. He was clearly obstructing justice. One "might" argue that he only did that to protect himself and/or his family from harm. Even if that was true, it doesn't neutralize what he was obviously doing. One also has to consider that anyone within a group of people committing a crime indeed would be worried if they betrayed the others involved. So in that regard it's not something I wrestle with.
|
|