kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 3, 2006 7:05:10 GMT -5
Does this sound familiar?
True Tales of Kidnapings (excerpt)
By Patterson Smith
From AB Bookmans' Weekly, April 23, 1990. Copyright 1990 AB Bookman's Weekly
It is generally agreed that the first American kidnaping for ransom took place on July 1, 1874 in the Germantown section of Philadelphia. Charley Ross, the son of a merchant of comfortable but not wealthy means was walking with his older brother Walter when they were enticed into a buggy by two men who offered them candy. Walter was released many blocks away but not Charley. Not certain that his son was the victim of a crime, the distraught father placed an advertisement in a Philadelphia paper: "Lost—a small boy, about four years of age, light complexion, and light curly hair."
When no result followed, Ross placed another ad offering a $300 reward. An unsigned letter arrived advising him that his son was being held for ransom, that "no powers on earth" could free him, and that his life was forfeit if detectives were put on his trail. The letter was replete with misspellings so frequent and systematic that they seemed purposeful. It was the beginning of a series of 23 letters from the abductors and a remarkable correspondence in the annals of crime.
A few days later Ross received the second letter, which set the ransom at the then enormous sum of $20,000 and again threatened the life of the boy if detectives were put on the case. Ross was directed to respond through the personal columns of a city newspaper, a medium in wide use before the age of the telephone. The police discounted the kidnapers’ threats and advised the father against paying ransom lest further abductions be encouraged. Several weeks went by while Ross, at the bidding of the police, made equivocating replies to the kidnapers’ letters, which grew longer and more insistent but never left any clues which the police could seize on.
Despite massive searches for the buggy and its occupants, the Philadelphia police could make no headway. The authorities made offers of reward for information leading to the boy and called on the Pinkerton Detective Agency for assistance. On August 22 Pinkertons issued a three-page circular on which was pasted a copy of the only known photograph of the boy, taken at age two-and-one-half. The circular offered a reward of $20,000 and listed identifying questions to be put to any child thought to be Charley. ("Question: Who is your uncle on Washington Lane? Answer: Uncle Joe. Question: What horse does mama drive? Answer: Polly.")
On September 1 Pinkertons made a much broader distribution of a single-sheet reward flyer. It contained a lithograph of a painting that had been derived from the photograph by an artist working with the Ross family to provide an up-to-date likeness. This flyer generated thousands of false leads from around the Eastern seaboard, including a youngster named Charley Loss, who, when asked his name, was thought to be the missing child talking with a lisp. The entire nation became caught up in the Ross tragedy and a song entitled "Bring Back Our Darling" was published in sheet-music form. Its last verse began: "O Father in Heaven, please hear Thou our pray’r! / Pray soften the hearts of those men / Who robbed us of one who is dearer than all / To bring back our darling again."
Unknown to the general public, the first break in the case had come the previous month in New York City, where Police Superintendent George Walling was approached by a man with underworld connections. The informer told Walling that his brother, a burglar named William Mosher, had once proposed that he join him in a kidnaping plot similar to what transpired in Philadelphia. The informer, who had turned down the offer, added that his brother had also written a novel with a kidnaping plot. Mosher was said to be accompanied by a younger burglar named Joseph Douglas (or Douglass).
The informer also told the superintendent about a discharged policeman named William Westervelt, whose sister was married to Mosher. Walling got in touch with Westervelt and brought him into the investigation on an informal and confidential basis, while keeping his own detectives on the case. Westervelt was to attempt to locate the burglars through his sister.
Day after day passed while Westervelt supposedly sought out Mosher and Douglas, whose whereabouts always seemed to elude him.
Walling began to wonder whether Westervelt was dutifully tracing the suspects or warning them about the policemen’s own efforts. In the meantime Ross continued to hear from the kidnapers, whose letters were growing more impatient. The letters were now arriving from various post offices outside of New York City and Ross was replying to his correspondents through the personal columns of newspapers published in that city.
After several weeks had passed with Ross, at police behest, stringing the kidnapers along, the desperate father decided to meet the kidnapers’ terms. "The public were clamorous for the arrest and punishment of the kidnappers at any cost, yet were ignorant of the risk to the life of my child and consequent terror to which I was subjected," Ross wrote later. "It is comparatively easy to sacrifice another man’s child for the public good." But Ross’s change in policy had come too late. When various arrangements to deliver the ransom misfired, communications from the holders of his son ceased.
In December events took a critical turn when a night alarm signaled a break-in at the summer home of a Long Island resident. Neighbors surprised two intruders and mortally wounded them when gunfire erupted between the two groups. One burglar identified himself as Douglas and his partner as Mosher. As Douglas lay dying he said: "It’s no use lying now. Mosher and I stole Charley Ross from Germantown." Asked where the boy was, Douglas replied, "I don’t know where he is. Mosher knows." But Mosher now lay dead. Just before he himself expired, Douglas said, "The child will be returned safe and sound in a few days." That indeed is what everyone expected, but it was not to be. Charley was never seen again.
Mosher and Douglas were identified in the morgue by young Walter Ross as the men who had driven away with his brother and him in the buggy. In January of the next year the mayor of Philadelphia issued a circular to law-enforcement agencies. It bore the outdated photograph of Charley and carried a printed description of the child, his deceased abductors, their horse and buggy, a boat which they had used to approach their Long Island target, and other facts of possible use to investigators. The circular was headed "Confidential" and recipients were asked to "disseminate judiciously the facts set forth." Like earlier efforts, it produced no useful leads.
With the supposed kidnapers dead and no sign of Charley, the frustrated police now turned on Westervelt as their only target within reach. His many prevarications in his dealings with the authorities had convinced them of his complicity in the crime—if not in its actual commission, at least in shielding the kidnapers afterwards. The ex-policeman was brought to trial in Philadelphia in August, 1875, convicted on several counts of conspiracy in the kidnaping, and sentenced to the penitentiary.
Immediately upon completion of the trial, Barclay, the prolific Philadelphia publisher of factual and fictional crime pamphlets, issued the Life, Trial, and Conviction of William H. Westervelt for the Abduction of Little Charley Ross (1875) in printed wrappers. At the head of the title are the words "American versus Italian Brigandage," which bespeaks the feeling at the time that child-stealing was a peculiarly Sicilian practice (the homes of Italian immigrants had been among the first searched by the Philadelphia police). As in most Barclay publications, page numbering begins with page 19 in order to suggest a longer work.
The Westervelt pamphlet follows another Barclay practice in providing each illustration with legends in both English and German. As the Germantown locale of the kidnaping suggests, the Philadelphia area contained a large German-speaking population and Barclay issued many pamphlets in separate English and German versions. As an economy they would prepare a single plate for each illustration which would serve both editions. In the case of the Westervelt pamphlet, however, no German-language edition is known.
For Christian Ross, Charley’s father, the case did not end with the death of Mosher and Douglas or the imprisonment of Westervelt. Two years after the kidnaping he wrote The Father’s Story of Charley Ross, the Kidnapped Child, published by John E. Potter in 1876. It is the foundation work on the case and the cornerstone of a kidnaping collection. I have seen an 1878 printing as well, with a slightly altered title page and the imprint "published for the author." Its list of illustrations adds two items to that of the first printing but the newly listed illustrations themselves are omitted. An added page in the later printing dedicates the work to the parents "in the old world as well as in the new, who have shown so deep an interest in the story of the loss of my little son." This printing and an English edition issued by Hodder & Stoughton are much scarcer than the first printing.
Although The Father’s Story sold well and is often seen today, its profits were consumed by Ross’s search for his son, the publicizing of which had been one of its aims. A related publicizing effort consisted of a Charley Ross bottle which bore the boy’s name and image in clear glass. These campaigns engendered many alleged sightings of the child across the nation and even overseas but upon investigation all were proven false. Numerous claimants to Charley’s identity stepped forward on their own behalf. First they were young boys; as the years marched by they were adolescents, then grown men. Each believed—or claimed to believe—that he was the missing Charley. None was.
A good history of the case by Norman Zierold appeared in 1967 under the title Little Charley Ross, published by Little, Brown (who should be spanked for not providing an index). Zierold drew heavily on The Father’s Story, which still remains the best source for events up to the time of its publication. As I pick up my copy of that early work, a newspaper clipping from 1939 falls out. It is datelined Phoenix, Arizona, and begins, "A 69-year-old man walked into Superior Court today and astonished the clerk by filing suit to establish his identity as Charley Ross, whose kidnaping 65 years ago shocked the nation and was never solved."
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 3, 2006 19:58:07 GMT -5
Here is a little clip of a post I made in regard to the Ross Case: lindberghkidnap.proboards56.com/index.cgi?board=evidence&action=display&thread=1139950423&page=1The main difference is that Charley Ross's body was never found. The Kidnapper said he would be returned before he died, therefore, it is logical to conclude he was alive and being cared for. So when others would later step forward and claim to be him I wonder how anyone would really know they weren't Charley - especially back then. I have some information on one of the people who believed he was Charley. He had been in touch with the Grannan Detective Bureau in 1902 and later with the Pinkerton National Detective Agency trying to establish his identity. He also tried to see Walter but had the door slammed in his face.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 4, 2006 9:12:02 GMT -5
Thanks Michael. I started this thread in the hope that we can all contribute some examples of other kidnappings and look for similarities and differences. I don't think the LKC was responsible for inventing the wheel, so evolution and refinement are what I hope we can find.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 4, 2006 10:37:38 GMT -5
There are so many cases to look at prior to the Lindbergh "snatch" including Constance Morrow's extortion plot. I think you can find a similarity or two in just about every one if you look hard enough - the problem is determining whether or not there's a connection or that one of those involved got the ideas we are trying to connect from that event..... Here's one: www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/living/special_packages/starmagazine/14474517.htmRescued by the mob
One episode not dramatized in the radio story was the 1931 kidnapping.
Donnelly and her chauffeur George Blair were overpowered outside Donnelly’s home near 52nd and Oak streets. From there they were taken to a cottage near Bonner Springs. Donnelly, as directed, wrote a note explaining the threats to them: to blind her and to kill Blair.
O’Malley has reconstructed what happened next from news clippings as well as accounts in period magazines like Startling Detective.
Upon hearing the news, James A. Reed called Johnny Lazia, Kansas City’s gangster chief, ordering him to have Donnelly released. Lazia apparently was confused, insisting to Reed that he had no motivation to kidnap Donnelly, with all the heat that would bring on his organization.
Reed nevertheless repeated his demand, adding that if Lazia didn’t comply, he would purchase national network radio time and denounce the arrangement Lazia had with other Kansas City powerbrokers, most notably machine boss Tom Pendergast.
Lazia delivered, with his own men following clues that led them to the cottage.
Ultimately two of the kidnappers received life sentences; another received 35 years. I see some similarities here and see the word Nelly in "Nell Donnelly" which of course could mean absolutely nothing. Another good source is The Snatch Racket by Edward Dean Sullivan. The Nell Donnelly case is mentioned in this book as well as many others.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 4, 2006 12:45:56 GMT -5
Michael, I have a few out of print books about early American kidnappings on the way. Who knows I might find one that even you don't know about. ;D NOT
I think that it may be important to look at these more publicized cases to see if they influenced the Lindbergh kidnapping. I am particularly intrigued by use the "signature".
|
|
|
Post by pzb63 on Jul 4, 2006 23:39:39 GMT -5
Hi Kevkon. Although there's no 'signature' (that I know of) here is a report of the Coughlin kidnapping, some aspects of which are similar to the LKC.
The Clearfield Progress - June 3 1920 Kidnappers of Thirteen Months Old Norristown Child Make Getaway Finger prints and footprints were investigated by the police as clews to the kidnappers of Blakely Coughlin, 13 months old baby who was taken from his parents home Wednesday night. Foot prints indicate that the abductors were a man and a women who used an automobile in their escape, the police said.
Scores of detectives and school boys of Norristown aided by police dogs are searching the country around the Coughlin home for the boy. Experts examined the finger prints on the second floor window by which access was gained by means of a ladder. A reward of $1500 has been offered for the apprehension of the kidnapper.
The Clearfield Progress - June 4 1920 Two Arrested in Kidnapping Case Evidenence Against Them is Secret The authorities refused to reveal what evidence they had in conneting Mrs Katherine Dandon, a maid, with the kidnapping of the 13 months old son of Mr and Mrs George H Coughlin, of Norristown. Mrs Dandon, formerly a servant in the Coughlin home for a short time, was taken into custody by private detectives. The parents have received a letter demanding a reward. It is beleived to be the work of a crank. The parents have inserted an ad offering a reward of $6,000 for the arrest of the kidnapper. James Malone, aged 27, has also been taken into custody and will be questioned in connection with the kidnapping.
The Daily Courier - June 4 1920 Second Arrest Made A second arrest in connection with the kidnapping of Blakeley Coughlin was made today in Philadelphia. The prisoner James Malone 27 years was taken into custody at his home and locked up for a hearing. No specific charge was made against him.
Malone, accroding to the authorities, is a friend of Catherine Dunden, a former cook in the family of George H Coughlin father of the stolen child who was arrested at her home at Conshohocken last night on charges of suspicion of having been implicated in the kidnapping. The woman declared she is innocent of any connection with the case.
Can't quite remember who was eventually charged with the kidnapping - think it was something Pascal.
To me, this is a similar case - ladder, kidnap second floor, foorprints of a man and women leading to a car, a maid suspected (and perhaps others as inside help). As mentioned I can't quite recall the outcome, but if Pascal is the correct name of the person charged, then the other similarity is that the police began with at least 2 suspected perpetrators and ended up arresting a lone kidnapper.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 5, 2006 5:46:43 GMT -5
This is a great one to bring up Pam! I have been looking at this case for both reasons.... The similarities and those circumstances that occurred in this crime that we would have expected to find in the Lindbergh situation - but didn't. A man by the name of August Pascal, age 48 at the time, was eventually arrested for the crime. According to the record, Pascal confessed to the crime claiming he had killed the child immediately after kidnapping it, had burned its clothes, and had then thrown the weighted body into the river. The Police searched for the burned clothes, the river for the body, and other evidence to support his confession but found absolutely nothing to bear this out. According to what I have, this is why Pascal wasn't given the chair and instead life in prison. Some points I found interesting: - The ladder in this crime was left by the window.
- The crime occurred when everyone went to sleep.
- The Baby cried out.
How Pascal got caught: The Kidnapper wrote a letter asking for $12,000 which he rec'd. Afterwards, the child wasn't returned and another letter came to the family asking for another (under the pretext of not rec'ing the first $12,000). The family then notified Police who went to the 2nd drop, surrounded Pascal and arrested him. What I find most interesting is that Pascal would later say he lied about the baby being killed. He would claim his associates "double-crossed" him and left him holding the bag. Pascal, in a letter written to a woman in Summit, NJ, claimed one "associate" was a nursemaid (female) from Plainfield, NJ who he originally met in Atlantic City, NJ. Pascal was interviewed by Police concerning this woman and the report is quite clear they found his statements creditable.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 5, 2006 9:22:49 GMT -5
Interesting. Was this case well publicized at the time?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 6, 2006 5:45:13 GMT -5
I am not sure what would qualify it was well publicized when comparing it to the LK, however, there was quite a bit of newspaper reporting on the crime. The NYT had an article on it every couple of days or so. Here is a top shot of the Charley Ross "Wanted Poster".... I believe this photo came from Ebay (although my memory is hazy when it comes to all of the photos I have in my collection):
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 6, 2006 17:58:02 GMT -5
I was just reading about the Coughlin kidnapping and found it interesting that so many false ransom letters were sent. It does seem that the case was well publicized, so it may possibly have influenced the LKC in some way.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 17, 2006 21:02:31 GMT -5
I have been reading quite a bit regarding pre- LKC kidnappings and I must say it can be quite beneficial in terms of putting the LKC into perspective. The more I read, the more I find that many aspects of this case are not quite as unique or odd as I had thought them to be. One thing that has me interested is the kidnap activity in the midwest in 1931. I wonder if there is some special relevance here as that would have been publicized while the LKC was still being planned (" a year already"). The Lindbergh kidnapping has always seemed, to me anyway, to incorporate both a knowledge and proficiency of the crime of kidnapping and yet at the same time, some very amateurish elements. Is the knowledge first hand or could it have been gleaned from other cases?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 18, 2006 5:34:44 GMT -5
I am very interested to hear about your observations about this Kevin. I have been looking at this too (thanks to your starting this thread) specifically by trying to see what the Police were looking at as it relates to this Case concerning those past ones.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 18, 2006 7:26:07 GMT -5
So much to read , I will post some items of interest as soon as I can.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 18, 2006 14:03:58 GMT -5
One thing I am wondering about is the possible effect of the Cochran bill pending in congress in Feb 32 on the timing of the LKC and not transporting the child/body across state lines. Does any feel it is possible that the pending legislation pertaining to kidnapping/ extortion gave cause for the timing of the kidnapping? And is it possible that the decision to leave the first note was based on a perception that prosecution would be avoided by not sending it via the mail?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 19, 2006 5:18:32 GMT -5
I feel your pain. Representative Hatton W. Sumners of Texas, chairman of the Committee on Judiciary, called his committee into executive session this afternoon to consider the Patterson- Cochran bill, which would make kidnapping, under the interstate laws, an offense punishable by death or long terms in prison. The bill also is pending before the Senate Committee on Judiciary and, if enacted, would make "the transportation of any person or persons, in interstate or foreign commerce, kidnapped, or otherwise unlawfully detained, a felony, punishable by death or imprisonment in the penitentiary for such term of years as the court, in his discretion, shall determine." (3-3-32 NYT)[/blockquote] I feel the possibility exists, especially if you buy into any of my theory that the ransom was never supposed to be collected and the following correspondence were not supposed to happen. I also say, if your theory holds true, that it is so very unlikely that Hauptmann or any other such folk would be following these bills in the Senate and/or any other legislation with such pending legal ramifications. This sounds more like the person CJ described as a high government official who would be aware of such a thing...
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 19, 2006 15:47:56 GMT -5
I thought Hauptmann was an avid news reader.
Wasn't there also some provision in the Cochran bill (or another) regarding the use of the US mail for extortion/ kidnapping?
Interesting quote from Fukunaga, the kidnap/ murderer of Gill Jamieson the ten year old son of a Honolulu banker in 1928 (?) When asked why he killed the boy he replied " because kidnapping never works unless you do".
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 19, 2006 17:31:27 GMT -5
Was he?
And if we establish he was, which I am not so sure of, was the Cochran bill widely publicized prior to March 1st and if so when?
I'll see what I can find.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 24, 2006 21:22:00 GMT -5
Kevin,
I did a search on the Cochran Bill in the New York Times archival resources and found no reference to it prior to March 1, 1932. It could be my search methods but I don't think it got much press prior to this event.
The Military Law Review claims Cochran's Bill was in the throes "of death" until the Lindbergh Kidnapping occurred. Apparently the main opposition was due to the weakening of State's rights and saw the constant increasing number of Federal Offenses as a way of the Federal Government encroaching onto the State's ability to govern.
Cochran's Bill seems to have originated based upon targeting mailed threats. It appears an effort to take this tool away and therefore prevent a negotiation tactic needed to effectuate the crime and therefore a Federal Crime to demand ransom through the US Mail. Patterson's Bill involved transporting a Kidnapped person across state lines making this not only a Federal Offense but a Capitol one.
Now its very hard to follow but the Bills seem to merge into one, are constantly being approved by one branch but sent back for amendments by the other and vice-versa until finally it mutates into the Lindbergh Law.
So I think if someone was aware of Cochrans Bill while in the "embryonic" stage and believed it would pass then it may have been a factor..... but of course this raises even more questions if this is the case.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 25, 2006 5:38:40 GMT -5
Great research Michael!
I was more or less thinking that Hauptmann and Co. may have had some exposure to this issue during the trip to and from California as the kidnapping situation in the Midwest was a pretty hot subject, or so I have been reading. The Cochran bill proviso on mail extortion caused me to wonder if that inspired the the idea of leaving the "nursery note".
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 25, 2006 18:26:16 GMT -5
I see the possibility of someone like a Lawyer more likely being aware of the Bill. I can't get what CJ told Condon out of my head when I think of your point here.... That is IF CJ DID tell Condon that - but even so - I think Condon let bits and pieces of truth come out by attributing them to someone else. And so, with this point in mind, its possible CJ did not say this but it still may have been true. Anyway, skipping past who may have heard of it where for now... can I ask how you think those planned... "after 2-4 days we will inform you were to deliver the mony" ....on communicating with Lindbergh if not by the mail? Lindbergh's phone number was private. Also, I am not sure what your position is on the child but I believe he was dead before he was removed from the Nursery. I suppose maybe they thought this fact couldn't be proven - as it can't be now.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jul 25, 2006 19:43:13 GMT -5
Michael~May I ask why you think the baby was dead before it was removed from the nursery? And with multiple skull fractures?
RE: Lindbergh's tele# being private--Did Condon call on a # the police had by then installed? What is your feeling about how readily Condon "got through" on the phone that first time?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jul 25, 2006 23:09:08 GMT -5
Michael...I am loosing tract, so to speak, of which comment of Condon's was out of synch? Is it the one he mentioned later about finding blood evidence in the Nursery when he stayed overnite? Is this what gives you the insight that Charlie was already dead?
Are we then to surmise that the kidnap plot "accidentally or coincidentally" kidnapped a dead baby without knowing it? Or purposely kidnapped a dead baby so that it could be ransomed for $50,000 bucks?
This seems to most closely parallel the statement of Harry Green (no relation) "The killer was right in the Lindbergh household"....It was Elizabeth, Annes older sister, who died before the trial began. She did it out of jealousy>" page 376 Bern
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 26, 2006 5:25:58 GMT -5
The NJSP took over the phone lines and the bill on March 2nd. On March 3rd Schwarzkopf's press release asked people to call "Trenton 4212" and information that was taken there was being relayed to Hopewell. In the meantime, the garage at Highfields was being converted into the Headquarters for investigation into this case. By March 5th the NJSP had their own direct line to be used only by Police and according to Schwarzkopf (10) other "tip" lines. Rosner would claim the Hopewell Operators were told if someone called asking for him, Lindbergh, or Breckenridge they should be connected to "Hopewell 303," the private line, which he and Thayer were manning.
So by the time Condon called, a procedure had been worked out where the Caller didn't need to know the number and the Operators were simply connecting them. There may have been another press release about this as well because the flood of Callers became enormous.
My point behind my question is this only occurred because the Police had gotten involved - something the Kidnappers had forbidden. Under normal circumstances the caller would have had to tell the Operator the number they wanted.
Its the skull fractures and the absence of blood which lead me to believe the child's heart wasn't beating when removed from the Nursery.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jul 26, 2006 6:48:05 GMT -5
Probably by employing the same methods used in the negotiations ie; courier or third party, hand delivery, blind drops. Of course what I find more intriguing is the personal cemetery meetings and direct payment. That violates all good kidnapping sense. Why not use a tried and true method, such as a "train drop" and eliminate any possibility of entrapment? That seems even more important as we know the kidnapper could not complete his end of the exchange.
I agree 100%. No living child went down that ladder.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 skeptic5 on Jul 26, 2006 7:53:18 GMT -5
Kevin...your point is well taken. No kidnapper in thier right mind would permit himself to be run down by an olde man in a Cemetary, possibly surrounded by cops, and to have a park bench discussion of an hour or more about Mom, Pop, the Boss etc. So this encounter alone should have exposed the lies of Condon, his entrance into the LKC and the staged nature of the blackmail/extortion scheme in the Bronx. Therefore, we should assume that noone was supposed to get caught in the first place, but JFC's role was merely to stage an extended ransom negotiation just simply for the sake of publicity, obfuscation of the truth and killing time/
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jul 26, 2006 9:55:11 GMT -5
Rick, didn't CJ essentially dictate the terms of the Woodlawn meeting? I think it's fair to say that anyone involved in this kidnapping for starters, who then arranges to meet his handpicked intermediary at night in a cemetery, is the one way out of his right mind. The fact that a spooked CJ did not take off and scuttle the first meeting also shows resolve and determination not to be dissuaded from doing what he had planned.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Jul 26, 2006 16:34:53 GMT -5
Michael~Thanks for your reply. Appreciate the information on the kidnap telephones system. Not all skull fractures are characterized by external bleeding.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 skeptic5 on Jul 26, 2006 16:45:04 GMT -5
Well Joe--thats a pretty far out idea as to whose in charge...I'm not so sure?
To begin with, we only have Condon/Jafsie side of the story? Condon always plays himself the favorite with plenty of drama. Most of the tall tales he tells arnt at all the same the second time around? He plays himsellf as the Big Daddy, councilling the little son.....the whole trouble is....Condon was faked outta his shorts? A big 100% failure? All he got was a blackened skeleton?
Lets say that CJ is BRH, or Fisch, or Nosovitsky? If there really is a CJ at all, or more than one, it has to be somebody? All of the above would not see Condon as he sees hisself....Condon in charge...but as a big fool and buffoon, pretty easy to fool whenever needed? Thus, Condon is being played like a mandolin.
At one juncture, on the olde MMs Board, now defunct, we may have concluded that Condons role in the whole whoax was to provide CJ with information about the nursery, the ransom note, the safety pins and the kidnap.....so that CJ would know what it was he was claiming to have accomplished/ Its all upside down and backwards to me. And as phoney as a $3 bill? So nobody is in charge/ its fictional.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 26, 2006 19:08:23 GMT -5
I was hoping you would say this.... Interesting isn't it? I suppose you discount Birritella as being sent by them? What about Fisch visiting Breckenridge - what's your 'take' on that episode?
When CJ told Condon they "trusted" him I do believe they meant it - even if they really didn't say it - could have been said or another of Condon's "slips" (Freudian or otherwise).
Condon gets deliveries, phone calls, and meetings.
It's almost like they wanted to meet with Condon so they could speak to him face to face without fear of someone else listening. A verifiable "OC" guy told me the old time Mobsters "back in the day" liked the Subway Platforms and/or Cemeteries because no one could overhear plus no one could "sneak up on you."
I agree Mairi but most are. In this case the amount of damage to the skull causes me to believe it wasn't one of those "shaken baby syndrome" type cases where only internal bleeding would occur - and even these cases can be accompanied by blood coming from the nose, mouth, eyes, etc.... Plus the child never seems to leave the bag (until dumped) which is indicative of the Kidnappers knowing he was dead - therefore keeping him there. Under the circumstances lets just call it a "strong opinion" because I know that I can not prove it - yet.
Do we really know this Joe? Did CJ ever claim he wrote those notes? We assume he did. We assume Condon was telling the truth about his conversations with CJ and we assumed he was telling the truth about the 2nd Taxi Driver delivering the other note.....but he lied about that. So considering Condon's zeal for spinning tales I think considering Rick's point for a moment isn't such a bad idea.
But it worked didn't it? It shouldn't have but did.
He did take off but trusted that Condon hadn't set him up so he obviously waiting for him to make his way to where he was waiting. That's a degree of trust that's outlandish to say the least.... Why did CJ trust Condon with that extraordinary level of confidence?
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Jul 26, 2006 20:20:02 GMT -5
OK Michael, I know Ill be apologizing for something so lets get that out of the way first. (why do I have this sinking feeling...)
Ok, by no means, can I be an expert on kidnap of a dead baby? So here goes nothing:
1. Either you know the baby is already dead or you dont? I suppose it is possible that you have been "tricked" into thinking Charlie is alive and well? Maybe just "sedated"?
2. If you already know that Charlie is dead, then you are just a hearse-type UPS deliverer with nightmares later. But where exactly are you going? To hand Charlie over to the keepers during the ransom negotiations? Boy are they going to be angry when they find out? You better leave the USA?
3. But if you dont know Charlie is dead already, then you are in for the surprize of your "life"? Now you are handing Charlie off to Team B and boy are they going to be upset? I suppose you could say "I didnt know"? or "I thought he was asleep"? With a busted head?
4. Either way, both transporter A and extortion gang B is/are scared out of their minds and fearful: whos going to take the blame for this big screwup? I quess that depends on who it is? If its Red Johnson then he gets a free pass to Denmark or Norway.
5. Enter Jafsie Condon to smooth out the wrinkles? "If the babe is dead will we burn"? Nope, opines Jafsie, the baby is "alive and well" so dont you worry. Let jafsie take care of everything. Just send us, say, the sleeping suite. OK? And we will pay you the $50,000 bucks. "For a dead baby" says CJ? "Sure, no problem" says JFC, "noone will get caught!"
6. "Mony is redy" on 2 April 1932.
|
|